A thread to discuss the new royal titles for Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex
Rebecca English
@RE_DailyMail
The title is in line with the precedent created by letters patent issued by George V in 1917 which conferred Prince or Princess on male line Grandchildren of the Sovereign. They have been entitled to be used since The King's accession. The Sussexes have now chosen to do this.
Buckingham Palace website will be updated in due course
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 08, 2023, 01:01:34 PM
I thought that he was always unofficial as he didn't regard himself as relgious. so now Lili is going by the title of Princess
According to Rebecca English the RF website is going to be adjusted. Wannabie has just posted her Twitter.
And I reproduce it here.
Rebecca English
@RE_DailyMail
The title is in line with the precedent created by letters patent issued by George V in 1917 which conferred Prince or Princess on male line Grandchildren of the Sovereign. They have been entitled to be used since The King's accession. The Sussexes have now chosen to do this.
Buckingham Palace website will be updated in due course
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64890702
QuoteThe Duke and Duchess of Sussex's daughter has been christened at the couple's California home.
Princess Lilibet Diana, who was born to Prince Harry and Meghan in June 2021, was christened on Friday.
The announcement is the first time she has been publicly called a princess and confirms that Harry and Meghan will use the royal titles for their children.
The couple's spokesperson said members of the Royal Family were invited to the christening.
Although she was not a princess at birth, because she was not a granddaughter of the monarch, she gained the right to that title when King Charles acceded to the throne.
Buckingham Palace has said the royal website - which currently lists her and brother Archie with the titles miss and master - will "be updated in due course" to reflect the title.
Brilliant move by the palace. After Harry and Meghan accusing at the Oprah. Rules are rules, they have chosen to be associated with the monarchy.
Here is what basically is being written all over
Quote
"Harry and Meghan Markle's decision to refer to their children as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet is a 'predictable' move that shows their connection to the British royal family is 'priceless' despite the Sussexes' recent attacks on the monarchy"
The palace also confirmed that the children are styled "HRH" Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex
Major change as Prince Harry and King Charles agree on NEW titles for Archie & Lilibet before coronation | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21642105/prince-harry-and-king-charles-agree-new-titles/)
Inside Meghan Markle & Prince Harry's christening for daughter Lilibet including touching music choice & celeb godfather | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21641390/inside-meghan-harrys-christening-daughter-lilibet/)
yes. That was always the case.
The Line of Succession on the Royal website is updated with the children's titles.
Quote from: Yale on March 09, 2023, 11:49:32 AM
The Line of Succession on the Royal website is updated with the children's titles.
Here's the link to the Line of Succession from the British Monarchy website. The website does not list the names of all of the people who are currently in the Line of Succession ie: QEII's cousins, nephew and niece etc... It begins with The Prince of Wales (William) and ends with Master Lucas Tindall and includes the children of the late QEII and DoE, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The list on the site will be updated when the second child of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbanks is born and everyone after that newest member will shift down one place.
https://www.royal.uk/succession
QuoteThe line of Succession
SOVEREIGN
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince George of Wales
3. Princess Charlotte of Wales
4. Prince Louis of Wales
5. The Duke of Sussex
6. Prince Archie of Sussex
7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex
8. The Duke of York
The Sussex kids are titled now by their birthright as their grandfather is K of E. Nothing shocking there.
Harry and Meghan say Archie and Lilibet's prince and princess titles are 'birthright' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11838899/Harry-Meghan-say-Archie-Lilibets-prince-princess-titles-birthright.html)
Harry and Meghan's children officially recognised as prince and princess by Royal Family as couple say it's their 'birthright' | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghans-children-officially-recognised-as-prince-and-princess-by-royal-family-as-couple-say-its-their-birthright-12829353)
Harry and Meghan issue new statement defending children's titles: 'It's their birthright' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1744178/prince-harry-meghan-markle-statement-archie-lilibet-titles)
Meghan Markle and Harry say Lilibet's princess title is 'birthright' in new statement - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/breaking-meghan-markle-harry-say-29404263)
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle say Archie & Lilibet's prince and princess titles are their ?birthright? in new statement | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21644435/harry-meghan-archie-lilibet-titles-birthright/)
Yes, it's their birthright.
King Charles opted to grant his grandchildren royal titles - after Queen Margarethe faced backlash | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11843997/King-Charles-opted-grant-grandchildren-royal-titles-Queen-Margarethe-faced-backlash.html)
If late Queen Elizabeth would be here today from heaven cant give their great grandchildren have titles HRH but Queen Elizabeth said cant have HRH will know Sir or Lady if born out UK will know mrs during Queen Elizabeth?s reign years
Meghan Markle's children Archie and Lilibet have new surnames - will they use them? | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230310166435/meghan-markle-archie-lilibet-new-royal-surnames/)
Will know as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor and Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor but change to Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Windsor upgrade from Buckingham Palace line of succession
Quote from: Nightowl on March 11, 2023, 02:05:01 AM
As Harry and Meghan said about the way they titled their children.....*It is their birthright* so maybe Harry can finally accept that he was born 2nd and William was first as it is his birthright to be the heir and king someday......Now will Harry/Meghan walk back on what they said .....time will tell! Jealousy does not become anyone!
They have repeatedly gone back on what they said, sometimes contradicting themselves within a couple of days of soem statement.
Quote from: changemhysoul on March 11, 2023, 04:24:11 PM
Harry and Meghan never said they didn't want title for their kids, so there was nothing to walk back on. Meghan said, if it was their birthright, she wanted it for them and it wasn't her choice, it was theirs.
If it's true that the Spencer Aunts came, I'm happy to see that. They were at Archie's.
T
THey didn't use a title for Archie when he was born, so presumably they did not want him to have a title.
I'm sorry but I have to say this. Leave those children alone!! They are babies for goodness sake! The titles of prince and princess with the style of HRH is their birthright!! This mess is on social media and I am just sick of it!!! Prince Harry is their father and BLOOD royal. It was done the minute the Queen passed away. Their grandfather didn't need to approve anything.
Quote from: TLLK on March 10, 2023, 10:40:58 PM
@Yale-Here's the thread for the Sussex children's titles if that's the one you are referring to in you post. Let me know if you are able to join in. It's in the sub forum for the Sussex family-Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex
The new royal titles for Archie and Lilibet 2023 (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95414.msg1517900#msg1517900)
I still can't get in.
The parents are not leaving the children alone, they have already been sold to Netflix
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 11, 2023, 07:43:35 PM
THey didn't use a title for Archie when he was born, so presumably they did not want him to have a title.
I don?t think either of them wanted Archie to have the courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton. For better or for worse, SM had had a wonderful time making fun of that subsidiary title as soon as it had been announced. I remember defending it on SM at the time and some Yank saying ?DUMBarton! You just can?t make this up!?
No you can?t because Dmbartn (which is how it?s really pronounced) is a fine old Scottish town, but there was laughter all over the internet at the time Harry got it. If he and therefore Archie had been given something anodyne like Earl of Abbotsford or something, nobody would have blinked an eyelid. And his parents didn?t want their son subjected to it.
And they knew, or at least Harry did, that when Charles was King his grandchildren would automatically be Prince and Princess anyway, been that way since 1917. I think Meghan misunderstood and expected that Archie would be made a Prince by LPs in the way that William?s children had been, and so they decided that there was no way Archie would be made to bear the subsidiary title and they would wait.
A number of speculative posts regarding the Sussex children's possible future thoughts and feelings about their parents and various family members have been removed. Please keep the discussion to the Sussex children's tittles. Thank you.
Quote from: Yale on March 11, 2023, 07:48:07 PM
I still can't get in.
Thank you for letting me know.
Quote from: Curryong on March 11, 2023, 11:28:08 PM
I don?t think either of them wanted Archie to have the courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton. For better or for worse, SM had had a wonderful time making fun of that subsidiary title as soon as it had been announced. I remember defending it on SM at the time and some Yank saying ?DUMBarton! You just can?t make this up!?
No you can?t because Dmbartn (which is how it?s really pronounced) is a fine old Scottish town, but there was laughter all over the internet at the time Harry got it. If he and therefore Archie had been given something anodyne like Earl of Abbotsford or something, nobody would have blinked an eyelid. And his parents didn?t want their son subjected to it.
And they knew, or at least Harry did, that when Charles was King his grandchildren would automatically be Prince and Princess anyway, been that way since 1917. I think Meghan misunderstood and expected that Archie would be made a Prince by LPs in the way that William?s children had been, and so they decided that there was no way Archie would be made to bear the subsidiary title and they would wait.
@Curryong - I've read that the word "dumb" has a different connotation in the UK than it does in the U.S. As you likely know by now that "dumb" not only means mute or unable to speak but in the U.S. it means "stupid." Which understandably would have given Meghan some concerns.
I have read that Dumbarton is a beautiful town in Scotland with historic significance so I can also understand why it was selected to be one of Prince Harry's subsidiary titles in 2018. Here's a video with the various pronunciations of the town's name starting with Scots. Dumbarton pronunciation: How to pronounce Dumbarton in Scots, English, Welsh (https://forvo.com/word/dumbarton/)
we know that dumb means stupid, if it bothered Harry he could have explained this to the queen and asked her to give him a different title
I'ts going to interesting when we'll see their new titles used. Harry and Meghan passed on using 'Lord' and 'Lady' but seem to have no issues with princely titles. Natch
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 12, 2023, 05:15:22 PM
I'ts going to interesting when we'll see their new titles used. Harry and Meghan passed on using 'Lord' and 'Lady' but seem to have no issues with princely titles. Natch
well I suppose not even they are going to say that the kids have to be addressed in playschool as YRH and Prince Archie etc. It will be reserved for when they are on TV. Reminds me of a not very good novel about Nell Gwnne I read once, where Nell keeps mentioning the titles of her *** children, because she is so thrilled ot have them haivng titles.....so she is saying THe Earl of Burford wants a drink of milk, or Lord X is crying
@TLLK Thank you for fixing the thread.
Quote from: Curryong on March 11, 2023, 11:28:08 PM
And they knew, or at least Harry did, that when Charles was King his grandchildren would automatically be Prince and Princess anyway, been that way since 1917. I think Meghan misunderstood and expected that Archie would be made a Prince by LPs in the way that William?s children had been, and so they decided that there was no way Archie would be made to bear the subsidiary title and they would wait.
They pretended to not know using the racist card with Archie at the Oprah show, then 5 minutes later they corrected themselves with the 1917, then 3 years later their People Magazine and Archewell announcement pretend that the Prince and Princess was just recently solved with Buckingham Palace.
The RR's (100% = all) are reporting that when the Queen passed away, Charles told the couple in a Q&A session with them and with witnesses (a interruption from the funeral several days proceedings for the pushy Sussexes, brashness of it all, using untimely day or days to find out their me me me) that the Prince and Princess title WAS solved 105 years ago (Sept. 2022), 106 years, 2023. And it was up to them to notify wanting it or as others wait until each child is of age. IOW, the ball was with the Sussexes. The couple decided to notify the world via People magazine all rushed up with no months of planning rather than do it elegantly via the British Monarchy. The second part of the rush, suggested by some, not all RR's is the couple found out that Edward was going to receive the DOE at his birthday with a formal announcement by the King, which it did happen.
The Sussexes are a mess. IOW, the RR's are suggesting that the contradictory couple love to collect 'royal' fake slights. Like notifying that the senior royals were invited to a Christening knowing they wouldn't be able to attend, professional victimhood.
Quote from: Curryong on March 11, 2023, 11:28:08 PM
I don?t think either of them wanted Archie to
And they knew, or at least Harry did, that when Charles was King his grandchildren would automatically be Prince and Princess anyway, been that way since 1917. I think Meghan misunderstood and expected that Archie would be made a Prince by LPs in the way that William?s children had been, and so they decided that there was no way Archie would be made to bear the subsidiary title and they would wait.
If this is true, it?s a little ridiculous that he didn?t explain this to her before she implied that Archie was being treated differently than everyone else on international television. Additionally, this interview was done in America, a place in which most people would have no idea about 1917 rule. And with a British prince there, he didn?t feel the need to correct anything? Instead he allowed people to believe it was Archie?s skin color that prevented it. A little hypocritical for a couple that complain about untrue coverage about them in the media.
I think the matter of Harry's children's titles should have been settled a long time ago, perhaps back in 2012, before he married and had children, and I hope if there are any plans to amend the 1917 Letters Patent, that Charles or William will do so before the next generation is born. In general, I don't like the idea of taking away a title retroactively--unless the person's behavior is so egregarious that he or she is deemed unworthy. And I know that taking titles away is a much more complicated procedure than granting them.
I hope everyone is satisfied with how this situation has turned out. I have a lot of sympathy for Charles, as the father of a difficult son and a grandfather who would, no doubt, hope to have a relationship with Archie and Lili. Perhaps this will ease a little bit of Harry and Meghan's angst and envy. Though once again, I think they have made themselves look a bit poorer. It's more obvious than ever that they are very conscious of their status and determined to cling to the privileges of royalty while shunning the responsibilities.
As Nightowl pointed out, hopefully, Harry can reflect on the fact that the crown is William's birthright and quit his whinging.
^^The couple like to ''collect'' fake slights racial or anything that they can look like victims of the BRF. Some will say the couple are mad as in crazy or plain stupid, others are saying they know exactly what they are doing, evil.
IMO, they fully know what they are doing. This media and social media 'frustrations' of questioning 'she was suicidal because of the BRF, he was blaming his family, the institution, etc. It's a waste of time discussing but they don't like the BRF Fill In The Blank. It's all a game for them.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 12, 2023, 06:07:28 PM
Though once again, I think they have made themselves look a bit poorer. It's more obvious than ever that they are very conscious of their status and determined to cling to the privileges of royalty while shunning the responsibilities.
I definitely agree that this is the overwhelming perception. It seemed a little desperate. Trying to remind everyone that even though they will no longer have a home in the UK, they are *still* royals.
I?d hope they?d move on from it after the Frogmore decision.
@wannable this is the vibe I get as well. I think at this point, it?s hard to believe they don?t know exactly what they?re doing.
Of course it is. Just check social media, the majority can't believe the couple made their own announcement all rushed up despite all their allleged misgivings with the BRF, from suicide to Harry hating the institution, trashing his father and by extension the late Queen of being bad parents, and the pressure of being and having a royal title, that HE wouldn't do that to his own children. :hehe:
^Definitely not the done thing to make the announcement yourself before the palace, but I think they needed a PR counteroffensive after Frogmore.
The palace did the right thing by accepting it and moving on, as usual.
I know they contradict themselves and they don't care. They don't care, because the Gen Z ''was'' supportive of them, literally their ''last bastion'', not anymore since the latest polls in both USA and UK, that age group went negative, down, slumped badly. i.e. from about 50% late November 2022 to 30% and lower in that age group February 2023. This age group opened their eyes, one can see it without even taking a look at serious polls, just via social media, the shock of this latest shenanigan was that's it, after tweeting and giving likes gallor here and there supporting his/her claims of racism, suicide, and Harry's trashing ways about his family, then suddenly you're desperate for titles and going to a coronation with NO apology. It's actually quite funny and I'm glad nobody has been smug about 'I told you so'.
It has to do with....
It's all about making money. They knew about Frogmore 11th of January 2023, they put out a statement that they were Okay about it.
IMO, the moneys to make with a second season with Netflix is imperative for their future, their lifestyle depends on it. They've already had to merch their children in season one, their bosses plainly told them they have to give more, incoming Christening and filming it all including their own Prince and Princess announcement. That pressure plus I believe their mole told them about Edward. Does Charles and William know who the mole is, yes.
^ Yeah, it?s the contradictions for me. So strange.
This is an example of what I said yesterday in another thread about I'm understanding Charles now with direct and indirect operations. They already have a host of experience with the couple and related to the couple. Whatever announcement the BRF makes, the couple days, months or years later claim something different. They collect these items and review every sentence to be USED as victimhood card or a trashing towards Harry's family.
ie. The Queen's only statement in reference to Megxit was later said by Harry that he wasn't consulted nor had agreed with it. He continuous bashing the Queen after she passed away stating that she was some sort of old woman with her brains not functioning any longer sitting in the Sandringham noding here and there whilst Charles, William and the men in grey took the Megxit decisions.
This is just one of many. This is why 100% of the RR's knew that when the Queen died, Charles told the couple about 1917 and left it to the couple to decide, what they didn't do, but apparently was predictable, announce it themselves. Charles is not petty, Harry was allegedly pushing his father for an announcement, but what H didn't expect was that Pa via his senior courtiers was the written conditions (especially in light of the racist remarks about the family and tied to Archie!!!), this to make sure H and M do not use anything verbally discussed or in writing the 'we didn't know', we weren't consulted, we weren't whatever. They are cunning. The couple have found themselves in the same situation with the Coronation. When one repeats these evil actions but with different issues and situations, one needs to learn from it and make oneself air tight rather than more vulnerable to their games.
Can you imagine the scenario of Charles taking Harry's word of announce my children, then later Harry comes out with Megs front page news smashing Charles that they wanted their children to be private with no princly titles as they had stated years ago....the cunning contradictory pair is not to be trusted. They've done similar things in the past and probable present and future if you're caught with your pants down so to speak. :laugh:
It does become impossible to win at some point, so just better to leave them to playing their own game and move on without commenting.
What was done for William's children should be done for Harry's children as well, issuing letters of Patent so that they were all born with titles. Do for one grandson and not the other looks bad.
The salient point is that they are allowed to be given the titles by law. However, other royals (Edward and Sophie) sensibly refused the princely designation, because they did not expect their children to become working royals and would make their own way in the world. And Anne didn't even want any titles for her children. I am just wondering what possible use is there in giving American children royal titles when the parents have shunned royal life?
Excellent question and also living in the USA which does not acknowledge royal titles just what do the Sussex's expect this titles to do for their children? They are living in another country thousands of miles from the UK and the royal way of life also. Maybe with all their money they could buy a large island make themselves their own county with them in charge of everything. After all as Meghan said...*It is their Birthright* so maybe they need to take a good long look at Harry's Birthright as he is the *2nd* son of King Charles, and William comes first as he is the heir and future king.
Jealousy does not become you Harry!
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 13, 2023, 05:40:28 AM
The salient point is that they are allowed to be given the titles by law. However, other royals (Edward and Sophie) sensibly refused the princely designation, because they did not expect their children to become working royals and would make their own way in the world. And Anne didn't even want any titles for her children. I am just wondering what possible use is there in giving American children royal titles when the parents have shunned royal life?
No, Anne and Mark didn?t want titles for themselves. The Queen reportedly (and we don?t know this for sure) offered Mark a title (we don?t know at what rank, and when they married it was a very different time.) It certainly wouldn?t be accepted nowadays.
However Anne was in a very different position to her brothers. She was behind them in the line of succession. And as a female the LPs of 1917 didn?t apply to her children. And I think she knew that she was assured of getting the title Princess Royal somewhere down the line. I expect she felt that was enough as far as titles went. But don?t let?s forget. Anne accepted that honorific of Princess Royal when it was offered to her years later.
Quote from: Nightowl on March 13, 2023, 05:53:14 AM
Excellent question and also living in the USA which does not acknowledge royal titles just what do the Sussex's expect this titles to do for their children? They are living in another country thousands of miles from the UK and the royal way of life also. Maybe with all their money they could buy a large island make themselves their own county with them in charge of everything. After all as Meghan said...*It is their Birthright* so maybe they need to take a good long look at Harry's Birthright as he is the *2nd* son of King Charles, and William comes first as he is the heir and future king.
Jealousy does not become you Harry!
The birthright remark was not addressed to William or about jealousy or anything else. It was given in reference to all the children of a monarch and their children being automatically given the status of HRH Prince and Princess as per the LPs of 1917. It?s automatic (even if they all lived in Timbuktu) unless the sovereign issues LPs specifically barring them, and this Charles has not done.
Quote from: Yale on March 13, 2023, 02:20:41 AM
What was done for William's children should be done for Harry's children as well, issuing letters of Patent so that they were all born with titles. Do for one grandson and not the other looks bad.
That is not how titles work in royal families, And it is not a matter of who looks bad or not, it is a matter of *BIRTHRIGHT* as Meghan said about stating that for her children yet both Harry and Meghan need to take a long hard look at who the son's of King Charles are:::William was born FIRST (June 21, 1982, that is his birthright being the heir and future king after his dad passes away many decades from now and Harry will always be the ****2nd son****,(September 15, 1984), Not the heir or future king. Jealousy does not become anyone and seeing and hearing and reading about Harry it is sure eating him up inside.
Quote from: Nightowl on March 13, 2023, 06:03:31 AM
That is not how titles work in royal families, And it is not a matter of who looks bad or not, it is a matter of *BIRTHRIGHT* as Meghan said about stating that for her children yet both Harry and Meghan need to take a long hard look at who the son's of King Charles are:::William was born FIRST (June 21, 1982, that is his birthright being the heir and future king after his dad passes away many decades from now and Harry will always be the ****2nd son****,(September 15, 1984), Not the heir or future king. Jealousy does not become anyone and seeing and hearing and reading about Harry it is sure eating him up inside.
It?s not just the heirs who have a birthright. If it was then just Elizabeth would have been a Princess and Margaret not. Charles would have been POW and Andrew and Edward and Anne would have been without Dukedoms, HRHs and the honourific of Princess Royal.
How Elizabeth got to be in the position of being queen was through no fault of her own, it is called LIFE and things happen. What other people in families do in the way of making decisions can and does have an affect on all family members......Thank goodness for Edward making the decision to leave the monarchy for Wallis and let his brother take over....that was a damn good decision. And I bet Edward deep down inside had some regrets yet we will never know.
Edward was already nearly 32 and still unmarried when Elizabeth was born. Her father Bertie was his brother?s heir after their father died, so I think courtiers and others in the know, including King George V, were pretty sure that Edward wasn?t going to marry another royal or debutante and that eventually Bertie then Elizabeth would come to the Throne. Edward had a predilection for married ladies after the age of about 28.
Quote from: Curryong on March 13, 2023, 06:49:27 AM
Edward was already nearly 32 and still unmarried when Elizabeth was born. Her father Bertie was his brother?s heir after their father died, so I think courtiers and others in the know, including King George V, were pretty sure that Edward wasn?t going to marry another royal or debutante and that eventually Bertie then Elizabeth would come to the Throne. Edward had a predilection for married ladies after the age of about 28.
he didn't have a predilection for married ladies per se. It was simply that it was still considered improper to have an affair with a single girl of the upper classes. TO have a lady friend who would fit in with his life, meant that she had to be married or possibly separated from her husband but still have the status of a married lady.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 13, 2023, 08:33:42 AM
he didn't have a predilection for married ladies per se. It was simply that it was still considered improper to have an affair with a single girl of the upper classes. TO have a lady friend who would fit in with his life, meant that she had to be married or possibly separated from her husband but still have the status of a married lady.
That is true. However, after his early 20s Edward had no interest whatsoever in getting married to a ?suitable? unmarried woman, settling down and having children (heirs to the Throne.) Yes, in contrast to that, he was primarily interested in having affairs and between the wars that meant married woman. Until he met Wallis, that is, and fell in love to the point of obsession.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 13, 2023, 05:40:28 AM
The salient point is that they are allowed to be given the titles by law. However, other royals (Edward and Sophie) sensibly refused the princely designation, because they did not expect their children to become working royals and would make their own way in the world. And Anne didn't even want any titles for her children. I am just wondering what possible use is there in giving American children royal titles when the parents have shunned royal life?
This is a good question. Like a lot of titles that come without land or specific duties, it?s about status. Socially they can come in handy, mostly among the wealthy. But, as with many things having to do with Meghan and Harry, I see a lot of insecurity. The people you mentioned had no need to prove to anyone what their connection to the RF was, so if their children weren?t titled or they didn?t have all of the titles accorded to them by ?birthright?, it really didn?t affect them.
I think Meghan and Harry are skirting the line of wanting to have the moral high ground, but also not losing the most important social and monetary cache they have: their connection to British royalty.
Quote from: Yale on March 13, 2023, 02:20:41 AM
What was done for William's children should be done for Harry's children as well, issuing letters of Patent so that they were all born with titles. Do for one grandson and not the other looks bad.
While this sounds good in theory (and I personally agree that no one person is inherently more important than another one), it?s just not how royalty works. Monarchies function on the idea that one person matters above others in terms of their relationship to the Crown.
It?s like saying Beatrice and Eugenie deserve everything William and Harry get because they?re all the grandchildren of the monarch. The latter are the sons of a reigning king and before that, the Prince of Wales. Now, William?s children are the children of the Prince of Wales and the Harry?s children as the son/daughter of the Duke of Sussex. They are being given the same treatment that others that are not directly in line to the throne receive: they are given what is accorded to them by law; in this case, the title of prince and princess. To have given them an HRH when they were born would have been given them more than they were afforded. As the children of the next king, the Wales? get to receive more. Unfair? Sure.
Now, after all that, I feel the need to state that I personally find it ridiculous to be quibbling over titles because all people are created equal, but it?s the nature of the beast. If you want to be a part of it, it comes with its own set of rules.
After Harry saying how much it affected him to have to deal with this very unfair and archaic system, I thought it would mean that he wouldn?t want his children involved with the institution in any capacity other than the familial one. But once again, that is not really the case. Further proof that it was not really the unfairness of the system that bothered him, it was the fact that he wasn?t higher in the ranks.
Quote from: Curryong on March 13, 2023, 09:25:53 AM
That is true. However, after his early 20s Edward had no interest whatsoever in getting married to a ?suitable? unmarried woman, settling down and having children (heirs to the Throne.) Yes, in contrast to that, he was primarily interested in having affairs and between the wars that meant married woman. Until he met Wallis, that is, and fell in love to the point of obsession.
True but not wanting to marry is not the same as having a predeliciton for married women. He clearly did not want to get married or felt that he would only marry if he fell deeply in love with a woman who was perfect for him, or perhaps he felt that getting married was basically taking on the role of future King and he was very ambivalent about that as he got older. I supsect that was a lot of it.. but then he fell in love with Wallis who was married and therefore avaialbe for a safe discreet affair, and her Americanness piqued him. BUt he fell desperately in love with her and made up his mind that she was the one and that if he could not marry her, he would not marry at all. Then he began to feel that he HAD to marry her or he wuold never be happy.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 13, 2023, 10:21:48 AM
nvolved with the institution in any capacity other than the familial one. But once again, that is not really the case. Further proof that it was not really the unfairness of the system that bothered him, it was the fact that he wasn?t higher in the ranks.
Of course that was his bugbear. Alhtough I dot think that anyone except perhaps a few in the RF and RH knew HOW angry he was about not being the heir. ALbeit if he had been born the heir, he would probably have worked up a grievance about that, perhaps felt that he shoudl be able to live in the US until he became king.....
^ Maybe so. And I have to admit, even though I?ve never had the highest opinion of him, I had no clue how angry he was/is. It really is such a shame though?to ruin a relationship with a sibling over such petty slights. But I think all members really need to make a concerted effort to not have it bother them. I think some jealousy is natural, but to let it eat away at you for decades is a bit much.
And the worst part? You can throw any tantrum or hurl any accusations you want, it?s not changing. I think he gambled that if he embarrassed them publicly, they?d cave and finally give them what they want: to exist on the same plane of importance as William and Kate. But they?ve found that the monarchy just closed its ranks and is treating them as outsiders. I?m sure they feel wronged, but there was really nothing else to be done. The accusations that were hurled were serious and damaging. And there?s few that stood up to scrutiny in the end.
well you kind of assume that someoe born into the RF knows the score and knows that he is in a particular place and will never have the same treatment exactly as someone who is a bit higher than him in the rankings. Harry knows that the oly way he could be king, would be if WIlliam had died or not had any legitimate children and surely he does not wish for his brother not to have kids, (assuming WIll wanted them) and SURELY he could not wish for his brother's premature death.
He can't have believed, either that by lashing out at the family, accusing them of racism, coldness etc etc was going to bring about any change. He would still be the second son and his brother's children will some day overtake him in the notice of hte public.
But a sensible second son would surely have realised that although he is probalby never going to be monarch he still has a very luxurious lifestyle and has the option, if he tried, of taking time out of Royal life or even giving it up completely. It seems that if he had wanted, Charles and hte queen were wiling to let him and MEg give up royal duties, altogehter, if he found something he wanted to do, and he coudl have lived a private life, running an estate, or staying in the army till retirement age. Mabye even working in Africa as he seemed to like to do. But As far as I can gather Harry did not really have any definite ideas of what he wanted to do, and what he really wanted was to make as much money as he could, but still keep his finger in the Royal duties pie.....
and business esp of the nebulous kind that H and Meg are doing, is something that would not be tolerated for a royal prince who was working. Edward tired it on a much smaller scale and it did not work out. It is too subject to arguments about dubious business practice, undue use of influence because of one's royal position and so on. Peter Phillips got in trouble a while ago for using his royal connection to make an advertisment, and he is not titled or a workig royal.
^ I thought the same. I?m still incredulous that he doesn?t seem to understand how it is. But maybe it?s not that he doesn?t understand, it?s that he won?t accept it. He?s always seemed lost to me, but he did have a role: supporting William. That would have been his role in the RF as a working royal, but you?re right, I think the family would have been a bit disappointed with his choice to leave, but they would have supported him in his choice and moved on.
Like they did originally. Of course, ?support? can mean different things to different people. I think from the RF?s perspective, support meant emotional good will. Harry felt it meant, still being allowed to keep his military honors, access to his charities, and security paid for by the family. When that didn?t happen, he saw it as them being ?unsupportive? and mean. But I don?t think there was anything personal in the decision. To the RF, out means out of all professional responsibilities *and goodies*.
I think for as much as he claims to just wanna be free and normal, it doesn?t seem to align with any of his actions. He?s clearly very attached to his title and the privileges that come with it. And he wants the same privileges for his children. That?s why the whole ?radical change? they claim to wanna create rings hollow to me. It?s still the same systemic inequality that is being perpetuated.
So many excellent posts here!
Quote from: Curryong on March 13, 2023, 06:01:11 AM
The birthright remark was not addressed to William or about jealousy or anything else. It was given in reference to all the children of a monarch and their children being automatically given the status of HRH Prince and Princess as per the LPs of 1917. It?s automatic (even if they all lived in Timbuktu) unless the sovereign issues LPs specifically barring them, and this Charles has not done.
Yes, the birthright comment wasn't referencing William in particular, but it still seems hypocritical when Harry is obviously so jealous of William's birthright.
I think he did not like the role of supporting William, In public he was jolly Jokey Harry, but in private he clearly had a bitter anger against his brother and their relationship wasnt good. I suspect that the 2 of them didnt even really bond over the loss of Diana, as they got older.
If he had been the older brother, I feel he would have been resentful that he was reminded, often, that he was the future king and could not just frolic around as he chose, and maybe that he should look for a nice girl and settle down. He would be resentful of hte fact that he would not be allowed a combat role, and that he would only maybe get a few years (as WIll did) to do an ordinary job like being a helicopter pilot.....
I wonder if he might have still made a fuss and said that he wanted to take time off being full time royal till he was actually close to being king.. that he should be able to buy a house in the US and hang out iwth movie stars and make money however it occurred to him to do so... after all he was n ot yet the King.
It does seem that in the couple of years before he left royal life, he was offered ways out of it. Im sure the queen and Charles were not happy, because they had counted on Harry being a working royal and having a role supporting Will, but they loved him and were prepared to break with tradition and give him an out from the royal duties, if he really wanted it. But it seems that H did not really have a clear idea of anything he wanted to do. He could have managed an estate, he could have stayed in the army, but he didn't want to do that, it might have been more difficult to arrange for him to go and work in conservation in Africa, but Im sure that they would have tried to arrange it, if H was really committed to it. Meg COULD have worked as an actress tho
I think that woudl have caused talk, or she could have taken some role in the acting world, or written books....but I have the feeling that what Meg wanted and Harry wants it too, was for them to be free to do what they liked but still come back to the Uk and do a bit of royal work.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 12, 2023, 06:07:28 PM
I think the matter of Harry's children's titles should have been settled a long time ago, perhaps back in 2012, before he married and had children, and I hope if there are any plans to amend the 1917 Letters Patent, that Charles or William will do so before the next generation is born. In general, I don't like the idea of taking away a title retroactively--unless the person's behavior is so egregarious that he or she is deemed unworthy. And I know that taking titles away is a much more complicated procedure than granting them.
I hope everyone is satisfied with how this situation has turned out. I have a lot of sympathy for Charles, as the father of a difficult son and a grandfather who would, no doubt, hope to have a relationship with Archie and Lili. Perhaps this will ease a little bit of Harry and Meghan's angst and envy. Though once again, I think they have made themselves look a bit poorer. It's more obvious than ever that they are very conscious of their status and determined to cling to the privileges of royalty while shunning the responsibilities.
As Nightowl pointed out, hopefully, Harry can reflect on the fact that the crown is William's birthright and quit his whinging.
@Kristeh-H -I agree. I hope with the couple's recent announcement in People magazine, that there will be a bit of peace coming from California. I have to admit though that personally I would have preferred that there had been a joint statement from the King and the Sussexes acknowledging that the parents have chosen to have their children use their royal titles of Prince and Princess. I wish that had been the scenario over reading about it in People and the later messages from the Sussexes' spokesperson justifying their statement and then one that the royal website would be updated. Sorry but I can't help but compare it to the announcement that Prince Edward was the new Duke of Edinburgh.
I'd like to see a copy of their baptismal certificates. It would be interesting to see how they arranged 'Princess Lillibet of Sussex' on a California State legal document.
why would they need to?
So she'd be Lilibet M-W?
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 13, 2023, 12:55:15 PM
So she'd be Lilibet M-W?
not sure what you mean, Are you talkinga bout birth certs or baptismal certs? When she was born, im sure it stated on her birth cert that she was Lilibet Diana MW, as is her legal name
I mean baptismal. The statement released said Princess Lilibet of Sussex was baptised by the Archbishop of Los Angeles.
Quote from: TLLK on March 13, 2023, 12:35:45 PM
@Kristeh-H -I agree. I hope with the couple's recent announcement in People magazine, that there will be a bit of peace coming from California. I have to admit though that personally I would have preferred that there had been a joint statement from the King and the Sussexes acknowledging that the parents have chosen to have their children use their royal titles of Prince and Princess. I wish that had been the scenario over reading about it in People and the later messages from the Sussexes' spokesperson justifying their statement and then one that the royal website would be updated. Sorry but I can't help but compare it to the announcement that Prince Edward was the new Duke of Edinburgh.
Thanks, TLLK. I'm not sure that the Palace and the Sussexes will ever speak in unison again.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 13, 2023, 12:32:45 PM
I think he did not like the role of supporting William, In public he was jolly Jokey Harry, but in private he clearly had a bitter anger against his brother and their relationship wasnt good. I suspect that the 2 of them didnt even really bond over the loss of Diana, as they got older.
If he had been the older brother, I feel he would have been resentful that he was reminded, often, that he was the future king and could not just frolic around as he chose, and maybe that he should look for a nice girl and settle down. He would be resentful of hte fact that he would not be allowed a combat role, and that he would only maybe get a few years (as WIll did) to do an ordinary job like being a helicopter pilot.....
I wonder if he might have still made a fuss and said that he wanted to take time off being full time royal till he was actually close to being king.. that he should be able to buy a house in the US and hang out iwth movie stars and make money however it occurred to him to do so... after all he was n ot yet the King.
It does seem that in the couple of years before he left royal life, he was offered ways out of it. Im sure the queen and Charles were not happy, because they had counted on Harry being a working royal and having a role supporting Will, but they loved him and were prepared to break with tradition and give him an out from the royal duties, if he really wanted it. But it seems that H did not really have a clear idea of anything he wanted to do. He could have managed an estate, he could have stayed in the army, but he didn't want to do that, it might have been more difficult to arrange for him to go and work in conservation in Africa, but Im sure that they would have tried to arrange it, if H was really committed to it. Meg COULD have worked as an actress tho
I think that woudl have caused talk, or she could have taken some role in the acting world, or written books....but I have the feeling that what Meg wanted and Harry wants it too, was for them to be free to do what they liked but still come back to the Uk and do a bit of royal work.
:goodpost: Yes and I've started to comment before that for all his whinging, I don't think Harry would be happy if he were the first in line. I don't think he actually wants the job of being king. He just doesn't want William to be ranked higher or get any privilege that he (Harry) doesn't get--at least it seems that way to me.
I think the UK is very fortunate that William is the heir.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 13, 2023, 01:00:21 PM
I mean baptismal. The statement released said Princess Lilibet of Sussex was baptised by the Archbishop of Los Angeles.
that's not really a legal document is it? It is from the church. and there is no state church in the US. I can't see why one would put Princess on a baptismal cert as it is meant to be an announcement that the child has been received into a Christian church... Princess is not Lili's profession at her age.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 13, 2023, 01:02:03 PM
Thanks, TLLK. I'm not sure that the Palace and the Sussexes will ever speak in unison again.
I have to agree, and this was their choice, not the Palace?s. They have said before that BP and KP don?t have their best interest in mind and that all they do is lie. So, I?m sure if BP had released a statement, they would have found some fault with it; it wasn?t soon enough or they tried to outdo the People article. It?s always something.
So, I think BP has learned. Just let them do their own thing, let them speak for themselves the way they claim to want to, and just ignore the best they can.
It?s what all parents should do when children throw tantrums. You can?t get down to their level and start tossing insults. Behave like the adult and let them see that those tactics will do them no good.
Quote from: Kristeh-H on March 13, 2023, 01:02:03 PM
Thanks, TLLK. I'm not sure that the Palace and the Sussexes will ever speak in unison again.
I dotnt think so. I think that Charles waited to see what way they would jump and now that they have announced that the children are princess and prince, BP is willing to update the website. BUt if Charles had had anything done about this before, whichever way he swung he would probalby have been attacked by the Sussexes. If he had decided to issue letters patent to say that Arch and Lili were not to have HRH or Princely rank, he would be accused of being raicst and horrible to his grandchildren. If he had had them updated as HRH, they would have accused him of going against THEIR wishes, and dragging their darling children into a world of titles which they never wanted and genetic pain.
Quote from: Yale on March 11, 2023, 07:44:30 PM
I'm sorry but I have to say this. Leave those children alone!! They are babies for goodness sake! The titles of prince and princess with the style of HRH is their birthright!! This mess is on social media and I am just sick of it!!! Prince Harry is their father and BLOOD royal. It was done the minute the Queen passed away. Their grandfather didn't need to approve anything.
@Yale-I respectfully disagree that "Their grandfather didn't need to approve anything." The Sussexes wisely waited to make the announcement until they knew that King Charles would adhere to the Letters Patent of 1917 which would elevate their children to Prince and Princess as they are the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line. He could have issued new ones that would have his Sussex grandchildren not being known as Prince or Princess as LPs are the monarch's prerogative. Prior to the late Queen's death, Archie and Lilibet were the great-grandchildren of the monarch and thus their only titles would be related Prince Harry's subsidiary ones. Reportedly during the time period leading up the late QEII's funeral, the then the new King Charles had a conversation with his second son assuring him that Archie and Lilibet would be Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. The Sussexes then chose to wait until after Lilibet's christening to make the announcement regarding the elevation of their children's titles.
@Curryong is correct here with this post.
QuoteIt was given in reference to all the children of a monarch and their children being automatically given the status of HRH Prince and Princess as per the LPs of 1917. It?s automatic (even if they all lived in Timbuktu) unless the sovereign issues LPs specifically barring them, and this Charles has not done.
The Letters Patent of 1917 issued by King George V have been "tweaked" now and then over the decades. For example, children of then Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh were not to be styled and titled "HRH Prince and Princess" until her ascension to the throne. However the then reigning monarch, King George VI issued Letters Patent on Oct. 22, 1948 allowing their children to assume Princely titles and the style "HRH." Had the LP of 1917 been adhered to, then Charles and Anne would have been known by the titles of the children of a duke which would have been, the Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten respectively
Do you think that Charles had a chat with Harry about the vexed question of the children's titles? I am more inclined to think that he waited until they said somethng, ie telling the world that Princess Lilibet had been baptised and Charles then updated the website and went along with it. Its possible that Harry may have raised the question, and asked if the kids were definitely HRH and Charles wold have said that by the 1917 LP, yes they were...but I think he would be wary of saying anything much to his son on this issue.
I gather that BP has said that the children are not going to be addressed as HRH because their parents are not using HRH.
I don?t think Charles would have said no to this, to be honest. That would have been seen as rather spiteful because what reason would he have to say no?
well as I've said, legally, they are Prince/ss and HRH from the time Charles became king. ANd I dont think that Charles really wanted to take away those titles although he could do so if he did wnat to slim things down. He's conservaitve, but he is trying to do some slimming down for the sake of teh monarchy as a whole.
According to Meghan he was considering taking away the HRH from Hs children. I dont believe he was, but she said it.
I just feel that Charles was probably wary and tight lipped on the subject and I think it is more likely that Harry raised the issue, if anyone did. Charles coudl just then reply that according to the 1917 LP, yes they were princes, and leave it at that.
Exactly. I just don?t think he?d risk the bad PR just for what? To deny them something that grandchildren through the male line have enjoyed since 1917? I just can?t see it.
A statement about the titles would've never come from the Palace because they didn't want to give the titles.
As stated, Charles knew about the kids keeping their titles for a while. He had the chance to make it public when giving the address or when all of the titles were updated after the Queen passed. Instead, he waited 6 months and let his grandkids (Archie and Lili) be subjected to talk and gossip. Also, when the news from the Palace started coming out, it said that BP were waiting for the Sussex's to make an official announcement.
Their announcement would never compare with Edward's because they didn't want to do it, their hands were forced. If Charles cared about giving his grandkids their birthright, he wouldn't have othered them and would've had it updated along with his other grandkids.
What?s the reason behind Harry and Meghan calling Lilibet ?princess?? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/03/09/reason-behind-harry-meghan-calling-lilibet-princess/)
That being said, according to this piece, Meghan was correct in the Oprah interview when she said they were thinking about issuing a second LP to take Archie and any other kids titles away. Apparently, Charles/BP had been briefing the media about doing it...but are NOW saying that they never had any intention of doing that...after it had been made public what they planned on doing. They saw how it would look and had to change course.
And the now the media are ticked and have egg on their faces because they've been touting the line that they wouldn't get it. They were feed back information.
But it doesn't change the fact that Charles knew they were going to keep the titles for Archie and Lili and instead of being a straight forward King and Grandfather, he made sure they were subjected to rumors, speculation and etc by othering and not updating when the others were updated.
Bonus, the othering of Meghan and their kids. I'm sorry, May 6th is Archie's bday, it's just as much an excuse for Harry to opt-out. They keep pretending that these aren't Harry's kids as well.
Also, I would be bitter too if my family/palace kept forcing this image of being close and jokey for the public when my older brother really wanted nothing to do with me behind the scenes. If his family had actually addressed and cared about his trouble's as kid, didn't force him to continue on, cared about the little boy that lost his mother, showed some real interest and didn't throw him to the wolves for their benefit. We might not be here now. If they had cared about the the attacks against his wife and kids, we wouldn't be here. If they had actually shown as much care and closeness as they allowed to be shown for the cameras. We wouldn't have gotten here.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 14, 2023, 02:34:21 PM
Exactly. I just don?t think he?d risk the bad PR just for what? To deny them something that grandchildren through the male line have enjoyed since 1917? I just can?t see it.
@HistoryGirl2 and
@Amabel2 - I doubt that Charles would have denied them the titles, but the option did remain. As to the announcement, I have read that the Sussexes have requested to not have the monarchy speak on their behalf, so" the ball was in their court" so to say as to when they wanted to shared the news. With all the publicity activity that the couple had going into November, December and January for the docuseries and Spare, I can see why they'd want to wait on the announcement of the children's titles. Waiting until the publicity died down and then they could share fresh news in the late winter and early spring seems logical to me.
Quote from: changemhysoul on March 14, 2023, 03:16:43 PM
A statement about the titles would've never come from the Palace because they didn't want to give the titles.
As stated, Charles knew about the kids keeping their titles for a while. He had the chance to make it public when giving the address or when all of the titles were updated after the Queen passed. Instead, he waited 6 months and let his grandkids (Archie and Lili) be subjected to talk and gossip. Also, when the news from the Palace started coming out, it said that BP were waiting for the Sussex's to make an official announcement.
Their announcement would never compare with Edward's because they didn't want to do it, their hands were forced. If Charles cared about giving his grandkids their birthright, he wouldn't have othered them and would've had it updated along with his other grandkids.
What?s the reason behind Harry and Meghan calling Lilibet ?princess?? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/03/09/reason-behind-harry-meghan-calling-lilibet-princess/)
That being said, according to this piece, Meghan was correct in the Oprah interview when she said they were thinking about issuing a second LP to take Archie and any other kids titles away. Apparently, Charles/BP had been briefing the media about doing it...but are NOW saying that they never had any intention of doing that...after it had been made public what they planned on doing. They saw how it would look and had to change course.
And the now the media are ticked and have egg on their faces because they've been touting the line that they wouldn't get it. They were feed back information.
But it doesn't change the fact that Charles knew they were going to keep the titles for Archie and Lili and instead of being a straight forward King and Grandfather, he made sure they were subjected to rumors, speculation and etc by othering and not updating when the others were updated.
Bonus, the othering of Meghan and their kids. I'm sorry, May 6th is Archie's bday, it's just as much an excuse for Harry to opt-out. They keep pretending that these aren't Harry's kids as well.
Also, I would be bitter too if my family/palace kept forcing this image of being close and jokey for the public when my older brother really wanted nothing to do with me behind the scenes. If his family had actually addressed and cared about his trouble's as kid, didn't force him to continue on, cared about the little boy that lost his mother, showed some real interest and didn't throw him to the wolves for their benefit. We might not be here now. If they had cared about the the attacks against his wife and kids, we wouldn't be here. If they had actually shown as much care and closeness as they allowed to be shown for the cameras. We wouldn't have gotten here.
Sorry, I?m too cheap to pay for a subscription to the Telegraph, could you please quote the part that says Charles was briefing the media about taking the titles away?
My recollection of the Oprah interview was that they were upset that Archie hadn?t been made a prince at birth, which Meghan claimed was against protocol?something that has since been proven to be false. When asked, why he hadn?t been made a prince by Oprah, Meghan then implied it was because of his skin color. A lie that was so ludicrous I can barely fathom was uttered.
Personally, I think the Queen?s decline and death took precedence over any announcement about titles. Even William?s title was not made official until recently. Things were also up in the air about Edward?s title as Duke of Edinburgh for a while, too. The Palace didn?t really make too much of a fuss, but the media was on a ?will they, won?t they? thing about that. And those are current, working members of the family. I?m not sure why after the Queen?s death, Charles should rush to announce that Meghan and Harry?s children are a prince and princess when when they live in America and didn?t wanna have anything to do with the family.
It?s now been said that after the Queen?s death, Charles assuaged Harry?s top concern: that there would be no problem with his children being called prince and princess. It?s also good to remember that this was *before* Harry decided to say and continue to talk on and on and on about how unthoughtful and mean his whole family is. So, I think the Palace was quite rightly concerned about making any announcement regarding their family.
Harry could have reached out and called his father to ask him to please put out the announcement through BP. But then again, after trashing the entirety of the family and everything they stand for, I can imagine why he wouldn?t really wanna pick up the phone to call Charles himself. So the Palace left it alone. Wise move.
The victimhood act never ceases to amaze me. Look if you wanna trash anyone, that?s your business. Tell ?your truth? and that?s all well and good. But what size cajones does it take to trash everyone the King cares for and then wonder why you and your children?s access to the privileges provided by that very family isn?t his number one priority? It?s truly amazing.
Quote from: TLLK on March 14, 2023, 03:21:59 PM
@HistoryGirl2 and @Amabel2 - I doubt that Charles would have denied them the titles, but the option did remain. As to the announcement, I have read that the Sussexes have requested to not have the monarchy speak on their behalf, so" the ball was in their court" so to say as to when they wanted to shared the news. With all the publicity activity that the couple had going into November, December and January for the docuseries and Spare, I can see why they'd want to wait on the announcement of the children's titles. Waiting until the publicity died down and then they could share fresh news in the late winter and early spring seems logical to me.
Gotcha. Yes, he could have denied them. But that would involve an entire library?s worth of books from Harry, so I think don?t think Charles was interested in hearing the complaints from now to eternity.
Catching up reading your posts
1. HRH Prince Archie and HRHPrincess Lillbet are their birthright titles since the day they were born. These are their birthright titles since before they were born. These are their birthright titles since 1917 ok., and even before that. There is nothing new or shocking that their grandfather formally did this as it was known and expected when he became K of E.
The Q of E was not Prince Archie and Princess Lillbets grandparent.
2. KC and TPTB handled it properly by not commenting. Do not comment on Sussex. Sussex speak for themselves. On everything, anything.
3. Yes Megan and Henry lied in Oprah , but that is Sussex way. Lie. Imply. Throw your hands up and let others run with racists stories against BRF ( #1 enemies Charles and William) and anything else ( Camilla and Catherine).
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 14, 2023, 09:23:45 PM
Catching up reading your posts
1. HRH Prince Archie and HRHPrincess Lillbet are their birthright titles since the day they were born. These are their birthright titles since before they were born. These are their birthright titles since 1917 ok., and even before that. There is nothing new or shocking that their grandfather formally did this as it was known and expected when he became K of E.
The Q of E was not Prince Archie and Princess Lillbets grandparent.
2. KC and TPTB handled it properly by not commenting. Do not comment on Sussex. Sussex speak for themselves. On everything, anything.
3. Yes Megan and Henry lied in Oprah , but that is Sussex way. Lie. Imply. Throw your hands up and let others run with racists stories against BRF ( #1 enemies Charles and William) and anything else ( Camilla and Catherine).
@FanDianaFancy -Thank you for pointing this fact out. Yes the late QEII was not the grandparent of young Archie and Lilibet. She was their great-grandmother.
The Sussex children were not meant to have the titles of Prince or Princess until their grandfather ascended to the throne.
I also agree with those who agree that the BRF should honor the alleged request from the Sussexes to not speak on their behalf.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 14, 2023, 09:23:45 PM
Catching up reading your posts
1. HRH Prince Archie and HRHPrincess Lillbet are their birthright titles since the day they were born. These are their birthright titles since before they were born. These are their birthright titles since 1917 ok., and even before that. There is nothing new or shocking that their grandfather formally did this as it was known and expected when he became K of E.
T
No, it was not Archie's title from the day he was born, only from the day his grandfather became King
Why Do Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Want to Use Royal Titles? (https://www.newsweek.com/why-prince-harry-meghan-markle-use-royal-titles-prince-archie-princess-lilibet-1786536)
Considering how the Sussexes appear to have negative feelings associated with royal titles, I've been curious as to why the couple have been eager for their children to have them and to declare that they will use them in a formal setting for their little ones, Archie and Lilibet.
Like her husband, the Duchess of Sussex has stated that she believes that the royal titles have the potential to cause pain. Personally if I was in their place, I would have issued a joint statement with monarch that an agreement had been reached that the children do have them but that the titles would not be used during their childhood and adolescence. I would also clarify that the children could make their own decision when they reach adulthood. However that's my own opinion and it clearly doesn't align with the Sussexes' at this point in time.
QuoteMeghan expressed major doubts about the impact of having a title during their 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview: "It's not our decision to make, right? Even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad?and from my experience, a lot of pain. I, again, wouldn't wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about."
One possible reason:
QuoteHarry and Meghan?despite quitting royal life?continue to style themselves the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and will seemingly also now refer to their children as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet in formal contexts.
One reason for this may lie in a statement their spokesperson released on Thursday: "The children's titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became Monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace."
In other words, they may have mixed feelings about the impact of titles but are perhaps more certain about their desire to stop their children losing what they are rightfully owed by a hereditary monarchy.
However, the decision still comes with reputational risks as American public opinion has swung sharply away from believing the couple should have titles.
Are the couple sending mixed messages to the public when their previous statements regarding the monarchy and the BRF strongly implied that they believed that the titles were something negative? Yes I have to agree that their messages are mixed and a tad confusing.
QuoteAs recently as December 5, 43 percent of Americans wanted them to keep their titles, while 27 percent wanted the Sussexes stripped of them in polling by Redfield & Wilton for Newsweek, showing how fast the tide has turned.
Edward Coram James, chief executive of PR agency Go Up, told Newsweek: "On the one hand they are saying they don't know whether they are going to go to the coronation, and yet on the other hand they are styling their children prince and princess.
"Of course, they can do what they want with their children's titles but its just another example of inconsistent and slightly confusing messaging from the Sussexes.
"Confusing messages don't usually play well with the public and that is why we have seen their popularity tank.
"The implications are obvious, which is that they recognize that their only currency is being royal. Their optics are all over the place and it just shows such a lack of consistency in their messaging.
"Do they want to be royal or do they not want to be royal? Do they respect the royal family as an institution or do they think it's a relic of the past and a symbol of racism and colonialism?
"Essentially they need to work out what it is they actually believe and what it is they feel."
Meghan Markle at Queen's Funeral
Meghan Markle is seen at Queen Elizabeth II's funeral at Westminster Abbey in London on September 19, 2022. Marko Djurica - WPA Pool/Getty Images
There is another potential issue for Harry and Meghan in their messaging too. One criticism leveled at the couple after their Netflix docuseries was that their royal story can sometimes feel one-sided and relentlessly negative, giving too little time to the positive aspects and privileges of their royal lives.
In that respect, it is perhaps striking that the Sussexes would level such damaging allegations at the royal family over the issue of titles when speaking to Oprah Winfrey in March, 2021, and then leave it six months following Charles' accession before revealing that their children are in fact prince and princess after all.
The long silence was followed by a confusing announcement that forced both sides to clarify the situation, creating a tense public and media atmosphere.
Not the first time, Charles' monarchy appears to be offering an olive branch while Harry is seemingly unwilling to acknowledge it, nor to offer any positivity in return.
Did you honestly think that they would fail to use the titles for the children?
I believe that the couple will choose to use them. However I shared my own opinion as to how I would handle the situation if I was in their position.
A recent YouGov UK poll released on Monday 3/13/23 found that the majority of those polled didn't approve of the children having the royal titles even though they considered to be Prince and Princess through the Letters Patent of 1917.
Archie and Lilibet titles: poll shows most Britons don't approve (https://news.yahoo.com/archie-lilibet-titles-poll-most-britons-dont-approve-133352797.html)
QuoteA YouGov poll released on Monday showed that 51% of all respondents thought that the Sussex children shouldn't have the titles, compared with 25% who thought they should. 24% of those polled, didn't know.
Well i suppose most of the public who were polled feel that if they complained so much about genetic pain etc, why would they want thier kids to have titles from that family, esp when thye are living in the US.
You wanna know another word for confusing and inconsistent? Hypocritical. It doesn?t really matter to me whether their children have titles or not, but I think the majority of the public sees through their hypocrisy and doesn?t like it.
Harry: ?I?m so glad I?m finally free. Meghan saved me from the awful monarchy!!?
Also Harry: ?My children have a birthright to those titles. How dare the monarchy think they can deny them?!?!?!?
It?s the typical wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. How could whining about not having a the best and biggest royal property or not having the light hit perfectly in your palace apartment go down well in the middle of a recession?
well yes Im sure that whatever Charles might have said, if he had made a statement, he would have been attacked by the couple. If he had said in last September that the children were now HRH Prince and Pss Lilibet he would be accused of dragging the children into a world of pain..
and if he had, as he could have, issued LPs that the children were NOT now oging to be HRHs, well he'd be a monster and a racist.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 15, 2023, 01:16:52 PM
Did you honestly think that they would fail to use the titles for the children?
Honestly, I?d forgotten all about them and assumed that after Harry?s comments recent comments about the monarchy, it wouldn?t be that big of a deal. I continue to try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they?re not being self-serving and continue to be disappointed each and every time.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 15, 2023, 08:30:02 AM
No, it was not Archie's title from the day he was born, only from the day his grandfather became King
yes. And you are correct to be technical. I am not disputing you.
Ok. Then. It was his title waiting for him since the day he was born .
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 15, 2023, 03:30:43 PM
well yes Im sure that whatever Charles might have said, if he had made a statement, he would have been attacked by the couple. If he had said in last September that the children were now HRH Prince and Pss Lilibet he would be accused of dragging the children into a world of pain..
and if he had, as he could have, issued LPs that the children were NOT now oging to be HRHs, well he'd be a monster and a racist.
Exactly. Good move by KingCharles and TPTB. Say nothing on Sussex.
They ( Sussex) have a right to an attorney. Anything you( KC) say can and will be used against you in a court of woke , on line, social media law, lol.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on March 15, 2023, 04:07:29 PM
yes. And you are correct to be technical. I am not disputing you.
Ok. Then. It was his title waiting for him since the day he was born .
Only if his grandfather became king. It was pretty likely that Charles would become king, but at the time of his birth he was Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor, who had the right to the courtesy title of Lord Dumbarton.
Note: Let's try and keep the conversation on titles for Archie and Lilibet as best we can.
Comments, articles and quotes that provide context are fine but let's not go off on too many tangents or the thread will get off track.
Also there's to be no personal comments directed towards individual members questioning their motives. If anyone thinks a comment violates our rules and standards, you can report it to moderation.
Yes it?s their birthright. The thing is harry keeps going on about the toxic and racist royal family and how he escaped it so why does he want them to be associated and have titles especially when they live in @ country where they are meaningless
He is trying to get noticed because the Coronaton is coming up, and he wants to show that he and his kids are part of the family. If the Coronation came up and the kids weren't at it and were still being mentioned as non titled, it woudl be clear that he was being gradually cut loose from the family. So he had to emphasise his connextion by deciding to have Lili christened, and by using her title.
This thread has been cleaned up.
The discussion of Prince Harry's army career has been moved to the appropriate thread. [/url]
The discussion of Prince Harry's relationship with his family members has been moved to the Sussex general chat thread.
Prince Harry's army career (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=60665.0)
The Sussex Family General Chat Part 2 (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95404.msg1517488#msg1517488)