The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 -

[changemysoul]

i do occassionally wonder how the Spencer family feel about how H&M are publicly talking about Diana's other son and his family...

I can't imagine they are thrilled...

Well, seeing as they’d know much more about what is talking more than you or I, Earl Spencer defended Harry online around the release of Spare I believe and we know that his aunts were at Lili’s christening……I think they’re just fine and have removed themselves from it. It has nothing to with them and seemingly them seeing Harry, Meghan & the kids is more important than the rift.

 

[TLLK]

i do occassionally wonder how the Spencer family feel about how H&M are publicly talking about Diana's other son and his family...

I can't imagine they are thrilled...

No I cannot imagine that they are happy with the situation. The Wales have stayed silent on the matter, while the Sussexes choose to speak on the topic frequently.

 

[duchessrachel]

Interesting article in The Telegraph about the possible removal of the Sussex's titles in the wake of Omid Scobie's book. I truly don't think it will happen, but here is the archived article.
https://archive.is/HzlBm

 

[Somebody]

Interesting article in The Telegraph about the possible removal of the Sussex's titles in the wake of Omid Scobie's book. I truly don't think it will happen, but here is the archived article.
https://archive.is/HzlBm

It's important to note that it is a MP who plans to introduce a Titles Deprivation 1917 Amendment Bill to be able to remove H&M's Sussex title because of how they are damaging the institution of the monarchy.

 

[changemysoul]

I wish that they would just do it. Then we wouldn’t have to hear about it every time something happens. Just do it already.

 

[KristehH]

I don't think Meghan cares about the Westminster wedding on any personal level, and she would probably be happy to never set foot in the UK again. Though if the Sussexes had kept on better terms with the Royal Family and they had been invited, I expect she would have been pleased enough to buy a haute couture dress and be photographed attending a high society wedding. Harry may or may not care about the exclusion. But I doubt that either of them, or their public relations people, are thrilled about the article stating they were snubbed from it in favor of the royals.

I do not think Parliament will take away their title, and there are more immediate concerns, but I do think Harry and Meghan deserve to lose their title.

 

[Alison H]

I wish they'd do it, but, especially with a general election due next year, parliamentary time isn't going to be spent on it.

 

[FigTree]

Well, seeing as they’d know much more about what is talking more than you or I, Earl Spencer defended Harry online around the release of Spare I believe and we know that his aunts were at Lili’s christening……I think they’re just fine and have removed themselves from it. It has nothing to with them and seemingly them seeing Harry, Meghan & the kids is more important than the rift.

He defended him over the media case. Which in fairness is fair. Charles Spencer has his own complicated family dynamics to deal with. A number of daughters weddings he didn’t attend. Two ex wife’s who he doesn’t seem on good terms with. He has enough to be getting on with.

As for the Aunts. I am sure they are as supportive as any non invested family member who just wants to keep the peace.

 

[changemysoul]

He defended him over the media case. Which in fairness is fair. Charles Spencer has his own complicated family dynamics to deal with. A number of daughters weddings he didn’t attend. Two ex wife’s who he doesn’t seem on good terms with. He has enough to be getting on with.

As for the Aunts. I am sure they are as supportive as any non invested family member who just wants to keep the peace.

Fair points, which goes back to what I was quoted with. Seeing as if they have 0 issues with seeing the Sussex’s or defending them publicly, I doubt they think any bad or feel any bad about them. As some would assume.

 

[FigTree]

Fair points, which goes back to what I was quoted with. Seeing as if they have 0 issues with seeing the Sussex’s or defending them publicly, I doubt they think any bad or feel any bad about them. As some would assume.

Not defending them publicly. It was a message of support about the media case.

 

[duchessrachel]

It's important to note that it is a MP who plans to introduce a Titles Deprivation 1917 Amendment Bill to be able to remove H&M's Sussex title because of how they are damaging the institution of the monarchy.

Thank you. That makes better sense to me now.

 

[Asteria12]

The Spencer's seem to be following the lead of the Windsors by not discussing private family affairs publicly, which I personally think is the best way to handle the situation. They do have two nephew's to think of, after all.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

It's important to note that it is a MP who plans to introduce a Titles Deprivation 1917 Amendment Bill to be able to remove H&M's Sussex title because of how they are damaging the institution of the monarchy.

Thanks for the archived article to those who shared it! I’d be interested in what forum members who live in the UK think about this.

 

[Hallo girl]

Thanks for the archived article to those who shared it! I’d be interested in what forum members who live in the UK think about this.

Personally I do not think the King would want this, I really do believe he wants to build bridges with his son, but it might be out of his hands.

There is a question of time and will they be able to push it through parliament before the Xmas recess.

In all honesty IMO the general public are not that bothered they just want Harry and Meghan to get on with the lives they said they wanted and let everybody else do the same.

It did appear recently that they were doing that, but Scobies book has put paid to that, they cannot rid themselves of the tag that they are involved, whether that is fair or not.

 

[shady lady]

Interesting article in The Telegraph about the possible removal of the Sussex's titles in the wake of Omid Scobie's book. I truly don't think it will happen, but here is the archived article.
https://archive.is/HzlBm

It's important to note that it is a MP who plans to introduce a Titles Deprivation 1917 Amendment Bill to be able to remove H&M's Sussex title because of how they are damaging the institution of the monarchy.

Thanks for the archived article to those who shared it! I’d be interested in what forum members who live in the UK think about this.

I'm all for it (no surprises there! ) Whether it will happen or not is another matter.

PH will always be Royal by birth of course, but apart from that I don't recognise or use their titles anyway; IMO they are now worth nothing, sadly (bearing in mind they were a gift from our beloved HLM The Queen)

If it did happen I assume they would be demoted on this site also.

I in turn would be interested to know TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales' views on it!

 

[Mbruno]

I wish that they would just do it. Then we wouldn’t have to hear about it every time something happens. Just do it already.

Removing their titles will not prevent them from continuing to attack the King, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and other members of the Royal Family. On the contrary, it will only feed into their victimization narrative.

It will not happen though. The current Parliament is in its final session as there will probably be a UK general election in the second half of 2024. And a new Labour government with a probably overwhelming majority in the House of Commons will be in office in the next Parliament. Given the crowded legislative agenda both of the current (outgoing) government and the probable new (incoming) government, I don't see a private members' bill on a relatively unimportant topic having much chance to succeed.

 

[changemysoul]

Not defending them publicly. It was a message of support about the media case.

We can agree to disagree on what it was. Even if it's about the case, it was a public defense to me. He could not have said anything. I don't agree with you but back and forth about the matter won't change anyone's minds.

Removing their titles will not prevent them from continuing to attack the King, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and other members of the Royal Family. On the contrary, it will only feed into their victimization narrative.

It will not happen though. The current Parliament is in its final session as there will probably be a UK general election in the second half of 2024. And a new Labour government with a probably overwhelming majority in the House of Commons will be in office in the next Parliament. Given the crowded legislative agenda both of the current (outgoing) government and the probable new (incoming) government, I don't see a private members' bill on a relatively unimportant topic having much chance to succeed.

Well, to be fair, I didn't say anything about the King, the Wales's or the BRF in this instant. I didn't mention at all what the removal of the titles meant for the Sussex's or what they will or won't do. I really don't care if they have them or not.

I want them removed so people, mainly the media, can stop crying about their titles every time something happens. Just take them and be done with it.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I'm all for it (no surprises there! ) Whether it will happen or not is another matter.

PH will always be Royal by birth of course, but apart from that I don't recognise or use their titles anyway; IMO they are now worth nothing, sadly (bearing in mind they were a gift from our beloved HLM The Queen)

If it did happen I assume they would be demoted on this site also.

I in turn would be interested to know TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales' views on it!

Thanks for all the comments from UK members! It sounds like this won’t happen but perhaps having it brought up as an actual bill by an MP might get the Sussexes attention.

One question: should they ever lose their Sussex titles would that mean Meghan could call herself Princess Harry a la Princess Michael?

I cannot remember why Princess Michael is identified that way…. Even though I think Meghan would be thrilled to have the “Princess” I can’t see her happy about being identified as the “feminine” so to speak, of her husband.

 

[Katymcwaity]

I cannot remember why Princess Michael is identified that way…. Even though I think Meghan would be thrilled to have the “Princess” I can’t see her happy about being identified as the “feminine” so to speak, of her husband.

It’s because Prince Michael is an HRH but as he is not a Duke or Earl, and his wife was not born royal so she can’t use Marie Christine so uses his. i am sure if this wrong, someone will be along in a minute to clarify!

 

[Ghost]

It’s because Prince Michael is an HRH but as he is not a Duke or Earl, and his wife was not born royal so she can’t use Marie Christine so uses his. i am sure if this wrong, someone will be along in a minute to clarify!

He is “just” a HRH prince being the second son of a son of the King. His older brother got the title (duke of Kent), there wasn’t any title for Michael. And she, Marie Christine, takes his name, she’s not a princess in her own right.
Right now I think there are only three princesses in their own right: Anne, Charlotte and Lilibet. Catherine is The Princess of Wales but it’s not Princess Catherine (Diana wasn’t princess Diana either. She was Lady Diana, The Princess of Wales.)
LE There’s also Princess Alexandra, in her own right. I forgot about her, sorry!
Likewise, William, being the son of the King, is Prince William (so is Harry. - Prince Harry.) But William is Prince William, The prince of Wales, Harry is Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex.


All these princes and princesses have got their princely name (it’s not a title when it’s before the first name) because they are children of the monarch or grandchildren of the monarch from a male line. Then, after the given name, comes the title - prince of Wales, Princess Royal, duke of so and so. As Michael doesn’t have a title, Marie Christine cannot be a duchess or whatever, she just takes her husband’s name - Princess Michael. As if, if Michael was a doctor, she would have been Mrs dr Michael.

 

[shady lady]

Thanks for all the comments from UK members! It sounds like this won’t happen but perhaps having it brought up as an actual bill by an MP might get the Sussexes attention.

You're welcome

Nah, I don't think it will happen. It doesn't really matter. It's the people of Sussex I feel sorry for Thank goodness there is already a Duke of Devonshire! ?

One question: should they ever lose their Sussex titles would that mean Meghan could call herself Princess Harry a la Princess Michael?

I think so...so she would be known as Princess Henry; PH is a prince by birth. It's important to note that she will never be a princess however, as she was not born directly into the Royal family (a lot of people don't understand this).

I cannot remember why Princess Michael is identified that way….

I think it's because Prince Michael isn't an earl or a duke, i.e. he never got a peerage, ergo he's just Prince Michael. If he had, she'd be known as Countess Whatever or the Duchess of Whatever...

Even though I think Meghan would be thrilled to have the “Princess” I can’t see her happy about being identified as the “feminine” so to speak, of her husband.

"Princess Henry" is better than what I've seen other people call her elsewhere

I'm by no means an expert on titles or such, so if I've got any of the above wrong, someone who is feel free to put me right! ?

Edit: It took me so long to write this, it has already been explained. Thanks!

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

He is “just” a HRH prince being the second son of a son of the King. His older brother got the title (duke of Kent), there wasn’t any title for Michael. And she, Marie Christine, takes his name, she’s not a princess in her own right.
Right now I think there are only three princesses in their own right: Anne, Charlotte and Lilibet. Catherine is The Princess of Wales but it’s not Princess Catherine (Diana wasn’t princess Diana either. She was Lady Diana, The Princess of Wales.)
LE There’s also Princess Alexandra, in her own right. I forgot about her, sorry!
Likewise, William, being the son of the King, is Prince William (so is Harry. - Prince Harry.) But William is Prince William, The prince of Wales, Harry is Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex.


All these princes and princesses have got their princely name (it’s not a title when it’s before the first name) because they are children of the monarch or grandchildren of the monarch from a male line. Then, after the given name, comes the title - prince of Wales, Princess Royal, duke of so and so. As Michael doesn’t have a title, Marie Christine cannot be a duchess or whatever, she just takes her husband’s name - Princess Michael. As if, if Michael was a doctor, she would have been Mrs dr Michael.

Ok, thanks so much! Michael is a grandson of a monarch not a son - this makes sense now

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

You're welcome

Nah, I don't think it will happen. It doesn't really matter. It's the people of Sussex I feel sorry for Thank goodness there is already a Duke of Devonshire! ?



I think so...so she would be known as Princess Henry; PH is a prince by birth. It's important to note that she will never be a princess however, as she was not born directly into the Royal family (a lot of people don't understand this).



I think it's because Prince Michael isn't an earl or a duke, i.e. he never got a peerage, ergo he's just Prince Michael. If he had, she'd be known as Countess Whatever or the Duchess of Whatever...



"Princess Henry" is better than what I've seen other people call her elsewhere

I'm by no means an expert on titles or such, so if I've got any of the above wrong, someone who is feel free to put me right! ?

Edit: It took me so long to write this, it has already been explained. Thanks!

Thanks so much - and you’re right it would be Princess Henry not Harry.

It makes me think about the Sussex title and whether that is supposed to pass to Archie. I’m sure William will take care of that when the time comes:

 

[Kaye1850]

He is “just” a HRH prince being the second son of a son of the King. His older brother got the title (duke of Kent), there wasn’t any title for Michael. And she, Marie Christine, takes his name, she’s not a princess in her own right.
Right now I think there are only three princesses in their own right: Anne, Charlotte and Lilibet. Catherine is The Princess of Wales but it’s not Princess Catherine (Diana wasn’t princess Diana either. She was Lady Diana, The Princess of Wales.)
LE There’s also Princess Alexandra, in her own right. I forgot about her, sorry!
Likewise, William, being the son of the King, is Prince William (so is Harry. - Prince Harry.) But William is Prince William, The prince of Wales, Harry is Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex.


All these princes and princesses have got their princely name (it’s not a title when it’s before the first name) because they are children of the monarch or grandchildren of the monarch from a male line. Then, after the given name, comes the title - prince of Wales, Princess Royal, duke of so and so. As Michael doesn’t have a title, Marie Christine cannot be a duchess or whatever, she just takes her husband’s name - Princess Michael. As if, if Michael was a doctor, she would have been Mrs dr Michael.

Let’s not forget Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie?
As Andrew likes to remind us, “Princesses of the Blood.”

 

[Ghost]

Let’s not forget Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie?
As Andrew likes to remind us, “Princesses of the Blood.”

Ouch, forgotten about the jetset princesses. In my defence, they’re not working as representatives of the royal family, bar a visit to Germany many years ago. HLM giving into her prefered son again.

 

[muriel]

One question: should they ever lose their Sussex titles would that mean Meghan could call herself Princess Harry a la Princess Michael?

I cannot remember why Princess Michael is identified that way…. Even though I think Meghan would be thrilled to have the “Princess” I can’t see her happy about being identified as the “feminine” so to speak, of her husband.

Unlikely as it may be, if Harry were to lose the Dukedom, I suspect Meghan will not bother with calling herself Princess Harry; she would just call herself Princess Meghan.

 

[doro]

Unlikely as it may be, if Harry were to lose the Dukedom, I suspect Meghan will not bother with calling herself Princess Harry; she would just call herself Princess Meghan.

How? According to the royal laws, any woman who marry an member of the Royal Family automatically not receive the title of Princess, but Duchess.

 

[duchessrachel]

Personally I do not think the King would want this, I really do believe he wants to build bridges with his son, but it might be out of his hands.

There is a question of time and will they be able to push it through parliament before the Xmas recess.

In all honesty IMO the general public are not that bothered they just want Harry and Meghan to get on with the lives they said they wanted and let everybody else do the same.

It did appear recently that they were doing that, but Scobies book has put paid to that, they cannot rid themselves of the tag that they are involved, whether that is fair or not.

How do people in the UK feel about the Harry being in the of succession? Is it a huge concern?

 

[Somebody]

Thanks so much - and you’re right it would be Princess Henry not Harry.

It makes me think about the Sussex title and whether that is supposed to pass to Archie. I’m sure William will take care of that when the time comes:

The Sussex title is with male heirs-remainder, so Archie is first (and the only one) in line to inherit this title. There is nothing William can do about it.

Ouch, forgotten about the jetset princesses. In my defence, they’re not working as representatives of the royal family, bar a visit to Germany many years ago. HLM giving into her prefered son again.

It has nothing to do with the queen giving into her son. All grandchildren of sons of the monarch are entitled to the style of royal highness and the title of prince(ss) according to the current LPs. So, she just applied the rules that were established by her grandfather.

How? According to the royal laws, any woman who marry an member of the Royal Family automatically not receive the title of Princess, but Duchess.

No. Woman in the UK may use their husband's title. If the husband has a peerage, they are known by the female version of their husband's peerage - this also applies in the royal family. For example, when the current duke and duchess of Gloucster married. Birgitte became 'HRH princess Richard of Gloucester' - as she was married to HRH prince Richard of Gloucester. Two years later when his father died (and his brother had died as well), her husband became the new Duke of Gloucester making her 'HRH The Duchess of Gloucester'.

You may one take any further questions about titles to the appropriate thread.

 

[Ghost]

When I said she gave into her son I was speaking about them representing the monarch, not about them being princesses. Sorry that it wasn’t clear!