The new royal titles for Archie and Lilibet 2023

[wannable]

@TLLK Thank you for fixing the thread.

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.

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[Kristeh-H]

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.

       

[wannable]

^^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. 

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[wannable]

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:

[HistoryGirl2]

^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.

[wannable]

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.

[HistoryGirl2]

^ Yeah, it?s the contradictions for me. So strange.

[wannable]

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:

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[Yale]

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.

[Princess Cassandra]

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?

[Nightowl]

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!

[Curryong]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[Nightowl]

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. 

[Curryong]

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.

[Nightowl]

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. 

[Curryong]

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.

[Amabel2]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[Amabel2]

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.