Prince William and Prince George to be separated by ‘morbid rule' for monarchy's protection: experts
Royal protocol advises that George will no longer be allowed to fly with his father, Prince William. Heirs are required to fly separately to preserve the line of succession should an accident occur while they are traveling. William, 43, is heir to the throne.
"The Prince and Princess of Wales and their children are the future of the royal family," royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital. "Accidents do happen, and this seems like a sensible precaution which ought to be observed, as it was with King Charles and William during Queen Elizabeth's reign."
"There are reports that the king and William, who is a pilot, disagree over this," Fitzwilliams shared. "But it should be necessary to point out that Harry is fifth in line to the throne... and only four working royals are under 70… The need for Prince George as second in line to the throne to fly separately from his father surely makes sense."
Fox News Digital reached out to Kensington Palace for comment.
WATCH: PRINCE WILLIAM ADAMANT ABOUT GIVING HIS CHILDREN A NORMAL LIFE: AUTHOR
The king's former pilot, Graham Laurie, previously confirmed on "A Right Royal Podcast" that he initially flew Charles, William, Harry and Princess Diana together, but that changed when William turned 12, Us Weekly reported.
"After that, he had to have a separate aircraft, and we could only fly all four together when they were young with the written permission of Her Majesty," said Laurie, as quoted by the outlet. "When William became 12, he would fly normally in a 125 from Northolt, and we would fly the 146 out with the other three on."
British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard claimed to Fox News Digital that the king had made it known that he expected George to travel separately from his father. She noted that father and son will have to "adjust to the change."
"Traditional royal travel protocol expects a future heir to travel separately from their father, especially when 12 years old," Chard explained. "Direct heirs should not fly together. Previous generations left children at home with governesses when traveling. This, however, caused a lot of upset for the children. King Charles can vouch for this; he desperately missed his parents when they were away on tour."
Still, Chard said that it's likely George and William will ease into the change.
"This important matter is being debated as it could impact the future of the monarchy," she claimed. "Travel arrangements for the heir to the throne are important at any age. And the Wales family have always traveled together… There are many rules, expectations and traditions that the royal family is expected to follow."
British royals expert Hilary Fordwich pointed out to Fox News Digital that the rule isn't set in stone. However, she noted that it's a travel protocol that monarchs have taken seriously over the years.
"Rules, such as not traveling by plane or car together, now that Prince George is 12, are unwritten but a tradition," she explained. "This ensures that the next in line and heir are not lost. It has, on occasion, been relaxed or bent. Now, with the king's health issues, combined with his advanced age, it is considered extremely important to ensure Prince George's safety."
"Prince William and Princess Catherine are adhering to many rules, especially those protecting the succession," Fordwich shared. "But to a certain extent, they've reinterpreted other rules, relaxing or even disregarding others, in an admirable attempt to become a more relatable modern family. Every royal generation has likewise updated traditions, thereby remaining relevant."
"The restrictions on William and George flying together are a decades-long edict to ensure continuity should one die in a travel accident," added royal expert Ian Pelham Turner.
"Whether this will change or be challenged by William in the future and break decades of tradition is not known," he said. "But these days, with the royal family, that is not uncommon."
Royal author Robert Jobson previously wrote in his biography, "Catherine, the Princess of Wales," that the king "raised concerns" with William over his helicopter use with his wife, Kate Middleton, and their three children. William had expressed a strong desire to fly with his entire family.
Not only did this reportedly spark a tense disagreement, but the king presented William, an experienced pilot, with "a formal document acknowledging the risks involved and taking full responsibility for his actions."
A spokesperson for Kensington Palace, which handles the offices of the Prince and Princess of Wales, didn't immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
"There have been several royals who have perished in plane crashes," Fordwich previously explained to Fox News Digital. "As a result, Queen Elizabeth II was particularly sensitive regarding who could and would be permitted to fly together. Rules were put in place years ago regarding the prohibition of royal heirs from flying together."
"Much of the royal protocol was insisted upon by the late Queen Elizabeth II," Chard pointed out.
Still, the Prince and Princess of Wales aren't afraid to bend the rules on occasion, she said.
"[In the past], Prince George would have endured certain rites of passage," Chard explained. "However, the Prince and Princess of Wales do not agree with some of the old-fashioned traditions, such as the 'blooding ritual,' especially when these traditions are not etched in stone. This makes perfect sense as some expectations, especially trivial and old-fashioned etiquette, are no longer relevant in today's modern world."
"A few traditions that the Prince and Princess of Wales have broken tend to be fashion-related. I imagine not complying with some of the protocol is a much-welcomed shift."
"The royals are far more touchy-feely these days, selfies are occasionally permitted, especially by William," said Fitzwilliams. "The king is a hugger, and William and Catherine communicate by video. The succession to the throne is pivotal to the future of the monarchy, and the deep rift in the royal family underlines its importance. [Still], George should not fly in the same aircraft as his father."
Christopher Andersen, author of "The King," previously told Fox News Digital that once George turned 12, he and his father would mark the beginning of a lifestyle change after the "morbid rule" kicks in.
"Starting at age 12, heirs to the throne are required to take air trips separately to preserve the line of succession should an accident occur," said Andersen at the time.
"When William turned 12, he began flying in a separate royal jet apart from his father and brother Harry," he shared. "It's a morbid rule, but then again, when they turn 16, all senior royals are also asked to help plan their own funerals."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
24 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
British tourist ignores landslide signs, then needs rescue in Italy, officials say
A British hiker ignored warning signs after a landslide and then called for a dangerous rescue in the Italian Alps, officials say. A landslide in July on Croda Marcora closed the Berti Via Ferrata trail from both access points in northeastern Italy, and rocks continued to fall, according to a July 31 Facebook post from alpine rescue group Soccorso Alpino e Speleologico Veneto. The trail was closed after two Belgium hikers were rescued on July 19, officials said, and other hikers attempting the trail found it dangerous. Signs marked the closed trail, but on July 31, a 60-year-old tourist from the United Kingdom passed the signs and set out on the trail, according to the post. By that afternoon, the man called the rescue group and said rocks were falling from higher up on the mountain and that he needed rescue, officials said. He was told to shelter in place while the mountain was shrouded in clouds until rescuers could get a clear view from above, according to the post. The first helicopter, Falco 2, was able to get in the air and find his exact location before it was rerouted to another emergency, rescue officials said. A second helicopter, Leone, confirmed the hiker was in the middle of the landslide zone at about 7,900 feet and just two hours after the initial call, a rescue team pulled the hiker to safety, according to the post. The hiker's problems, however, didn't end there, Italian emergency services told The Telegraph. The man was fined 14,000 euros, or about $16,000, by the rescue services for ignoring what they said were clearly marked signs, both in Italian and English, according to The Telegraph. Photos of signage posted on Facebook show phrases like 'Warning!' and 'trail closed,' as well as 'stay safe, do not go beyond this warning.' The massive fine comes because the hiker was 'in a place where they shouldn't be' and they were 'unharmed with no health issue' when he needed the rescue, a national rescue service official told The Telegraph. The fee is also higher for the British national since the United Kingdom left the European Union, and would have been smaller for an Italian climber, according to the outlet. Officials said they added more signs, including additional signs in German, on the closed trail, The Telegraph reports. Chat GPT, an AI chatbot, was used to translate the Facebook post from the Soccorso Alpino e Speleologico Veneto.
Atlantic
a day ago
- Atlantic
Washington's Quiet Work
In August 1775, nothing particularly dramatic was happening among the roughly 14,000 soldiers of the Continental Army besieging the British army in Boston. Indeed, nothing particularly dramatic happened for the next six months. And then, in March 1776, the British suddenly evacuated Boston. Which is why the months of apparent calm deserve a close look. The semiquincentennial of American independence has begun: The anniversaries of the battles of Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill are behind us; the reenactment of Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys' storming Fort Ticonderoga was a smashing success. Other big moments await, culminating, no doubt, in a big party on July 4, 2026. One hopes and expects that there will be plenty of hoopla, because that is the American way. But 250 years ago today, the real and unspectacular work of American independence was under way. The Continental Army, created in June of 1775, had warily welcomed its new leader, George Washington, without much fuss. A slaveholding Virginia gentleman and loosely religious Anglican was going to lead an army that was mainly made up of New Englanders—including both psalm-singing, Bible-quoting descendants of the Puritans and dissenting freethinkers. For his part, Washington was appalled at what he saw: militia units that elected their own officers and called them by their first names, free Black men carrying weapons, money-grubbing Yankees (as opposed to land-grubbing Virginia gentry), and general squalor. 'They are an exceeding dirty and nasty people,' he told his cousin Lund Washington. Lindsay Chervinsky: The 'dirty and nasty people' who became Americans What happened that summer outside Boston was of monumental importance. If this was to be an American army and not just an assembly of colonial militias, then Washington would have to be the first American general, and not just a provincial. He would have to create a system out of chaos, and hold together a force against a dangerous enemy. Although slightly outnumbered and bottled up in Boston, which connected to the mainland by only the narrowest of peninsulas, the British army was tough, cohesive, professional, and eager to avenge its unexpected defeats and Pyrrhic victories. Washington did the work in many ways—by organizing the army in divisions and brigades, inspecting the troops, regularizing discipline, hammering home the importance of digging latrines, and quarantining soldiers who had smallpox. It helped that he looked the part of a military leader: tall, well turned out, graceful, and the best horseman in the colonies, by most accounts. No less important, he was able to transcend his aversion to those strange New Englanders. Two men utterly unlike his social set in Virginia quickly became his most trusted subordinates: Nathanael Greene of Rhode Island, a Quaker with a talent for organization, and a tubby Boston bookstore owner, Henry Knox, who became the chief of artillery. The former was eventually made quartermaster of the army and then commander of the southern army, where he displayed a flair for field command. The latter brought 59 heavy-artillery pieces from Crown Point and Fort Ticonderoga to the army outside of Boston in the dead of winter, before developing the artillery arm into the equal of its British opponent. Washington quickly realized that his most talented military leader was a third New Englander, the Connecticut merchant Benedict Arnold, who, until he committed treason, was the best field commander on either side of the conflict. In the autumn of 1775, Washington sent him off on a daring march through the Maine wilderness that very nearly wrested Quebec from British control. The commander in chief needed a headquarters guard—what we today call a personal security detail—and so in March 1776, the army created a unit known as the life guard. Washington selected men from each army unit, which meant that the life guard's personnel skewed in favor of New Englanders; as its first commander, he chose a Massachusetts man, Caleb Gibbs, who lasted until 1780. He chose southerners, too, for crucial positions, and not all of them gentlemen—Daniel Morgan of Virginia, for example, was a roughneck leader of riflemen who formed an elite corps. The point was clear: This was an American army, and talented men, no matter their background, could win their leader's trust and rise up the ranks. Washington remains in some ways the most remote of America's national heroes; he is more distant from us than Abraham Lincoln because of his greater austerity and reserve. He mastered his volcanic temper; prudently handled both his subordinates and his superiors; and knew the value of dignity and a certain distance in exercising command. He was brave but not particularly gifted as a tactical leader, and he was prone to devising overly aggressive and complicated plans, but these did not matter as much as the larger leadership qualities that he had brought with him to Boston. Small wonder that many years later, men who were his intellectual superiors—Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams—worked for him. His story shows why character and good judgment are far more important in a leader than mere intelligence. Despite wonderful writing about Washington in recent books, including Ron Chernow's 2010 biography and the first two volumes of Rick Atkinson's trilogy on the history of the Revolution, Americans do not value him as we once did. The fault lies across the political spectrum. For some (think of the 1619 Project), the fundamental sin of slavery overwhelms every aspect of biography. Washington controlled several hundred enslaved people on his Mount Vernon estate; he often treated them badly, and as of 1775, he felt no shame about that. Being a plantation owner was part of his identity, but not all of it, and more important: Like some of the other Founders, he became uneasy about reconciling the ideals of the Revolution with the practice of holding men and women as chattel—which is why he manumitted all of his slaves in his will. At a deeper level, this view of American history cannot help but crush patriotic pride in what remains, in retrospect, an astounding achievement. The Revolution culminated not in despotism but in a new political order based on liberty and self-government, built on ideals that, described with exceptional eloquence by another slaveholder, Jefferson, eventually blew up the evil institution on which their way of life rested. George Packer: A view of American history that leads to one conclusion A different form of relentless present-mindedness afflicts the current administration, which seeks to purge national parks and museums of references to the darker sides of American history, beginning with slavery but also including the slaughter and dispossession of American Indians, and various forms of discrimination and persecution thereafter. In everything from signage to artwork, the Trump administration reaches for pabulum and kitsch, a false and unidimensional depiction of the American past. As for academic historians, although some exemplary ones are at work—including Gordon Wood and David Hackett Fischer—the contemporary trend is to shun great individuals in favor of subaltern history. There is not much place for a commanding general in a pantheon composed of people overlooked by previous generations. That summer and fall in Cambridge and the other towns surrounding Boston, George Washington's work made a difference. It reminds us that American independence was won by dramatic deeds, to be sure, but also by mastering—slowly and painfully—the undramatic things, such as insisting on rank insignia and saluting, managing gunpowder production, and digging latrines properly. It reminds us that there is such a thing as individual greatness, and that it can make all the difference. And particularly in an age of self-righteous scorn, we would do well to recall how Washington's lifelong struggles with himself—his prejudices, his emotions, his upbringing and background—contributed to final victory. We can still profit by the example.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
A bid to undo a colonial-era wrong touches a people's old wounds
Their efforts to repatriate ancestral remains, which have been in a British museum for more than a century, have been 'a trigger for the Nagas,' said Dolly Kikon, a professor of anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who is Naga herself. Naga society has changed immensely since those remains were taken. To contemplate their return means reckoning with those changes, and with how many of them are the result of external forces and violence. Advertisement Members of Naga communities in northeastern India have worked for five years with the Pitt Rivers Museum at the University of Oxford, whose collection of Naga cultural objects is the largest in the world, toward the goal of repatriating the hundreds of human remains in the collection. In June, a delegation of 20 Naga leaders, elders and scholars visited the museum and saw those objects for the first time. 'I stood there beside them quietly, feeling a deep sorrow in my heart,' Kikon said. The human remains in the collection, which number more than 200, include a warrior's cranium, a woman's skull decorated with buffalo horns and a piece of skin with hair attached. Naga tradition holds that human remains are sacred, carrying life and spirit. 'They are restless, the spirits will not be in peace unless they find a resting place,' said K. Ongshong, a Naga elder from Longleng village in the Indian state of Nagaland. Advertisement Most of the remains were donated to the museum by J.P. Mills and J.H. Hutton, British colonial administrators in northeastern India. While some were given to the men as gifts, most were collected against Naga people's will during military expeditions into villages, according to experts. For years, the skulls were included in a Pitt Rivers exhibit titled 'Treatment of Dead Enemies,' under the label 'headhunting trophies' alongside remains from other Indigenous groups, including the well-known shrunken heads of the Shuar people of South America. That changed in 2020, when 120 of the human remains in the collection, including the shrunken heads and Naga remains, were removed from display and put in storage. In their place stand blue information boards explaining the contentious collection and the museum's decolonization efforts. 'These displays didn't match with our values any more,' Laura Van Broekhoven, the museum's director, said in an interview. Headhunting was practiced among Naga warriors, who collected the heads of enemies they killed in raids or war. (Despite the labeling by the museum, experts said it was unlikely that all the Naga skulls were enemy trophy heads; some may have been taken from burial sites.) Because of the gruesome nature of the practice, and the way it helped to feed a persistent stereotype of the Nagas as violent and warlike, some Nagas are hesitant to bring the remains home. The repatriation discussions are also touching on deeper wounds for many of the Naga people, who number about 2.5 million. Advertisement That is clear from the difficulties raised, in this case, by one of the first questions in any repatriation process: Where should these objects go? Today, most Nagas live in the Indian state of Nagaland. But Naga communities can also be found in the states of Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh -- and in Myanmar. Before the British colonists drew their borders, the Nagas lived in a contiguous region loosely known as the Naga hills, now divided among those modern states. In 1928, Nagas began making formal demands for independence, not wanting to be a part of the British Raj or India. 'The Nagas shared no cultural similarities with India,' said Akum Longchari, a peace and conflict activist based in Nagaland. But when the British left the subcontinent in 1947, Nagas were brought under the control of the Indian state. Decades of political struggle and armed resistance followed, broadly known as the Naga National Movement. India saw it as a threat and suppressed the insurgency. The fighting killed thousands over the years. India implemented laws that gave sweeping powers to its security forces and protected them from prosecution, which experts say led to human rights violations. Although a ceasefire was reached in 1997, the state of Nagaland remains one of India's most militarized regions. For some Nagas, the truce feels precarious, and much suspicion and mistrust remain. Longchari said Naga society had been in a constant state of struggle since British colonization in the 1800s. 'Nagas have had no time for reflection,' he said, adding, 'One colonizer left and another took their place right after.' Another factor complicating the repatriation process is the enduring legacy of American Christian missionaries, who first arrived in the Naga hills in the 19th century. Advertisement If the remains are laid to rest, some Nagas wonder, what funeral rituals should they be accorded -- the rites of Christianity, since that is the religion most Nagas now follow, or traditional, animistic ones? Knowledge of those older rites may now be limited, since the missionaries changed the region's culture along with its religion, said Nepuni Piku, a human-rights activist. 'They did not just come with their Bible, but with their cultural baggage,' Piku said. Naga culture was painted as backward and outdated, Christianity as modern, which led to the abandonment of many Naga cultural practices and rituals, he said. Naga activists and scholars, along with the Forum for Naga Reconciliation in Nagaland, a civil society organization, have been trying to build consensus on these questions and more. Once there is agreement on a plan for repatriating the remains and artifacts, a claim will be made to the university. If the university accepts the claim, then the governments of both countries will get involved. Last fall, a two-day conference on the proposed repatriation brought together community elders, scholars and students in a nondenominational Christian church in Dimapur, the largest city in Nagaland. A college student at the conference asked what relevance the traditions of the past had for the urban world he inhabits. Loina Shohe, a sociologist, replied that Naga culture, like any other, is not static but evolves with time. 'Our ancestors were self-sustained, not primitive or savage,' she said. The Nagas' history has caused them immense intergenerational trauma, Dr. P. Ngully, a psychiatrist in Nagaland, said in an interview last year. He was part of the delegation that visited Oxford, one month before he died in July. Such trauma, which he called an 'invisible epidemic,' can exacerbate alcohol and substance abuse, he said, problems that Naga society is trying to address among its youth. Advertisement Some younger Nagas are looking for ways to reconcile with that traumatic history. Throngkiuba Yimchungru, 35, conducts art workshops that he calls DeConstructing Morung. Long ago, morungs were youth dormitories where Nagas came together to socialize -- one of the traditions lost to Christianity and time. Yimchungru said he wanted to adapt the concept to the present. 'Morungs can be anywhere -- in a school, office, within a big city,' he said. 'They needn't be within an architectural structure.' Nagas' discussions with the Pitt Rivers Museum have also been an attempt to reconcile with the past. But the return of the remains in the museum's collection could conceivably take decades. The fastest repatriation the museum has ever carried out took a year and a half, while the longest -- the repatriation of Tasmanian human remains -- took 45. The Naga delegation to the museum opened its June visit with an Indigenous chant that alludes to the original parting of the Naga ancestors from their creator. The chant concludes with the hope that the ancestor will be reunited with the creator and help to heal the wounds of the past. 'I don't know if the process of repatriation will do the healing for us,' Kikon said. 'But I do know there's a lot of trauma and we need the healing.' This article originally appeared in
