The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[Denville]

So does anyone think Archie will get his HRH belatedly and the new baby will be made a princess on birth and given an HRH? Or has that ship sailed?

I think that teh queen is very conservative and doesn't change things unless she really has to.. and I doubt if she is inclined to give way to Harry now after his behaviour. Plus why woudl they want the kid ot be HRH?? He's now living in the US, they're happy there, they dont want to come back

 

[Alison H]

Probably the best opinion piece I have read for a while - read it before it is taken down.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...estion-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

Kazuo Ishiguro, the Anglo-Japanese novelist, recently spoke out about "cancel culture" and his fears that young authors are almost frightened to speak/write for fear that they'll be abused or "cancelled". The term he used was "climate of fear". Sharon Osbourne - who, as a woman with Jewish heritage, will be well aware herself of the dangers of prejudice - has spoken about how she "panicked, felt blindsided [and] got defensive" after being accused of racism when all she'd done was ask someone to give examples of when Piers Morgan was racist (which they were unable to do). I think that Douglas Murray makes some valid points.

Harry and Meghan made a big deal about Archie not being a public figure. They only gave him two forenames - OK, it might not sound like a big deal, but royal children normally have three or even four forenames. They didn't want him to be the Earl of Dumbarton. They didn't even want to release photos for the first few days after he was born. No problem with that, but it just doesn't tie in with them claiming that they were wanting and expecting him to be HRH Prince. And, if they were in discussions about leaving for 2 years before they did, all the claims about wanting Archie to be styled and titled equally to William's children make even less sense.

 

[Claire]

Was anyone sympathetic to Andrew when he insisted that his daughters remained working royals, with the future and security it entails? I don't remember many such people for sure. I, for one, wasn't, although I was sympathetic towards the girls. Having something and then having it taken from you didn't sit well with me. I've always been amused by Sarah's staunch attempts to not let her daughters be overshone but I'm starting to see even this in a different light. At least she didn't do it by casting aspersions and shades on everyone else.



I am not sympathetic to Harry and Meghan in this regard. I'm surprised that people refuse to see he's turning into Andrew... with far less grounds. It's been known for years that the monarchy is being slimmed down. It's something happening all over Europe. But no, it can't be about Harry, right? He is *this* special. The same for Meghan. She gets away with most outrageous misrepresentations because she "didn't understand", "was naive" and so on fairytales.


They are the new Andrew and Sarah, just worse in *this* respect. But people give them consideration refused to Andrew and Sarah who were generally seen as ridiculous.


As to the olive branch journalists see as having been extended by HM, I never saw one and even if there was, they happily broke it when they authorized Janina to retaliate in the rude way typical for Meghan (and now Harry) the very next day.


I believe she bullied staff. No one sends such an email about one of the most senior employers of theirs without having a reason. But let's the independant company do their investigation. BTW, Harry and Meghan managed to show how rude and self-conceited they are even about this. For people who incessantly talk about kindness and "their truth", they don't seem to acknowledge that other people's truth even exists. The possibility of even misunderstanding isn't a thing for them. Instead, they had to issue their rude statement that Meghan would continue to be "an example". Not even a word of regret that people felt this way. While the BP gave them this recognition.


Let's wait and see. I'm ready to eat my words but this far, I do think there's much truth in the bullying accusation against both of them.

People were never sympathetic to Andrew - instead to Ann or Edward either. They are not attractive and vibrant - nor are they the child of Diana. When the security and the titles were taken away it was great - get rid of the lay about, hung on's ect. But apply the same rules to the Sussex's and all hell breaks loose - everyone's a racist or a bully. People are fickle and easily persuaded by attractive manipulative woman, especially other women.

I tend to believe the bullying in that I know the type of people that work in the palace and they are not the people to make accusations and let pity incidences get to them - they are more agile and robust. But I am concerned that the victim mentality might be contagious - things people used to brush off, people are now traumatized over. Maybe I am getting old or I just have thick skin. I feel I belong to a different world now, I do not understand people that complain about tone in an email or that they were made to feel unwelcomed when they made no attempt to fit in.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I'd think if so they'd send Eugenie. For Beatrice is the stepmom of another POC (half-Asian Wolfie) and that could be seem as "racist" choice like the "two peas in one pot" - image.

Harry is reportedly closet to Eugenie. But don't forget that Eugenie has a newborn and might even be nursing. The Sussex baby will be born this summer and( I assume) christened before the end of the year.

As a new mother with an infant, Eugenie might agree to be godmother but decide against travelling to the U.S. for the actual ceremony.

 

[Claire]

Meghan will want the baby christened with the royal font, dress and holy water. Possibly Chapel Royal. So I expect it will need to be boxed up to be taken to LA if she wants that. I suppose the ABC can accompany it for safe keeping - they are such good friends and all.

 

[Alison H]

It's an interesting comparison. Prince Andrew got no sympathy at all for wanting Beatrice and Eugenie to be working royals, and some very nasty comments were made - Beatrice and Eugenie were accused of wanting the taxpayer to pay for them to spend all their time going on holiday, and they were only teenagers at the time.


Nastiness aside, the vast majority of people felt that the monarchy should be slimmed down - as is happening in other countries too - and that it was neither expected nor desired that the York princesses would play the same sort of role as the Kents and Gloucesters, or Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, before them. And they're the same relation to the monarch as Archie will be in Prince Charles's reign.

 

[camelot23ca]

Was anyone sympathetic to Andrew when he insisted that his daughters remained working royals, with the future and security it entails? I don't remember many such people for sure. I, for one, wasn't, although I was sympathetic towards the girls. Having something and then having it taken from you didn't sit well with me. I've always been amused by Sarah's staunch attempts to not let her daughters be overshone but I'm starting to see even this in a different light. At least she didn't do it by casting aspersions and shades on everyone else.



I am not sympathetic to Harry and Meghan in this regard. I'm surprised that people refuse to see he's turning into Andrew... with far less grounds. It's been known for years that the monarchy is being slimmed down. It's something happening all over Europe. But no, it can't be about Harry, right? He is *this* special. The same for Meghan. She gets away with most outrageous misrepresentations because she "didn't understand", "was naive" and so on fairytales.


They are the new Andrew and Sarah, just worse in *this* respect. But people give them consideration refused to Andrew and Sarah who were generally seen as ridiculous.


As to the olive branch journalists see as having been extended by HM, I never saw one and even if there was, they happily broke it when they authorized Janina to retaliate in the rude way typical for Meghan (and now Harry) the very next day.


I believe she bullied staff. No one sends such an email about one of the most senior employers of theirs without having a reason. But let's the independant company do their investigation. BTW, Harry and Meghan managed to show how rude and self-conceited they are even about this. For people who incessantly talk about kindness and "their truth", they don't seem to acknowledge that other people's truth even exists. The possibility of even misunderstanding isn't a thing for them. Instead, they had to issue their rude statement that Meghan would continue to be "an example". Not even a word of regret that people felt this way. While the BP gave them this recognition.


Let's wait and see. I'm ready to eat my words but this far, I do think there's much truth in the bullying accusation against both of them.

I’m happy BP decided to go with an independent third party to conduct the investigation. It makes sense for everyone involved, especially if The Times is correct and serious and upsetting episodes occurred that the staff will now be asked to talk about. Because, at least from what we know so far, the employees already spoke to their supervisor about some incidents - hence the email - and things weren’t resolved in a way that would be expected from a modern professional workplace, likely because doing so would have involved clipping the wings of two of the so called principals, one of whom was the first high profile biracial member of The Royal Family, (and who has since shown that she’s more than willing to use that fact as a way to attempt to silence any opposition).

I think the senior staff were put in a difficult position. They wanted to keep the employees happy and do right by them but they suspected there would be a sh*t storm, to be be blunt, if word got out that they’d dared to take action against Meghan - and I think we can take it as a given word would have quickly gotten out! So I understand where they were coming from but they still picked the wrong side.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Meghan will want the baby christened with the royal font, dress and holy water. Possibly Chapel Royal. So I expect it will need to be boxed up to be taken to LA if she wants that. I suppose the ABC can accompany it for safe keeping - they are such good friends and all.

I disagree. I cannot see Meghan insisting on the Royal font and christening gown.

Harry is quite another story. Absolutely I can see him demanding those things. And if HM and the CoE refuse to take the huge risk( think of the insurance cost!) of putting these items on an airplane to be shipped thousands of miles away...well.

My prediction is that there will be hell to pay.

 

[Denville]

I disagree. I cannot see Meghan insisting on the Royal font and christening gown.

Harry is quite another story. Absolutely he will demand those things. And if HM and the CoE refuse to take the huge risk( think of the insurance risk) of putting these items on an airplane to be shipped thousands of miles away...well.

My prediction is that there will be hell to pay.

I can't see how he ca demand anything. Or rather he can demand, but that does not mean that the RF are going to let him have whatever he wants.

 

[Claire]

oddly I can see her wanting it just so that when it is refused she can comment about how unfair it is.
Also she will then make a large fuss about making a Christening gown to start her own family tradition, ala Victoria.
Surprised that she hasn't asked for her wedding dress yet from BP. Is it impinging on your human right to take away your wedding dress for historical purposes?


IN other news - I have been informed that odd about Harry and Meghan joining Scientology has been drastically cut. Did I miss a email?

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -

Probably the best opinion piece I have read for a while - read it before it is taken down.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...estion-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

This is excellent. And I agree with the points raised.

THE truth still matters.

The right to state one’s opinion is important.

“Most worryingly, we are now being encouraged to think that we must never question the ‘truth’ of someone who presents themselves as a victim. “ IA- this is a cause for concern.

 

[Moran]

I tend to believe the bullying in that I know the type of people that work in the palace and they are not the people to make accusations and let pity incidences get to them - they are more agile and robust. But I am concerned that the victim mentality might be contagious - things people used to brush off, people are now traumatized over. Maybe I am getting old or I just have thick skin. I feel I belong to a different world now, I do not understand people that complain about tone in an email or that they were made to feel unwelcomed when they made no attempt to fit in.

Yes to all of this. But I think you overlook an issue (that I would have overlooked just two weeks ago as well.) Bullying can take many shapes. Meghan's overzealousness, or her so admired "American work ethic" can come close to one.

As a freelancer, I work in a field where we constantly check each other's work for mistakes (it's part of the profession, the controlling role). It's recommended to have "controllers" from the same specialty, not just the field. And we get the work back to accept or refuse the corrections. Just ten days ago, I got back a work of mine checked by a monarch in our field... but not my specialty. They were so zealous, or as some would say, ethical, that they constantly offered corrections and suggestions based on incorrect understanding of the specialty and thus, the work. It took me five days (usually, it takes me just a few hours) to go through all their corrections and explain why they weren't acceptable.I don't think it constitutes bullying but it certainly wasn't acceptable to waste five work days for which I had planned to do other work and get paid for it, instead explaining things that we learn in our first year at school to someone who thought they didn't need to know them to know best.

Sounds like someone we know?

I pride myself on the fact that I didn't write a letter like Jason Knauf. It wasn't worth it. The situation wasn't this serious, just time-consuming and yes, frustrating. They literally condescended on me, not knowing what they didn't know, but this is no reason to whine. I suppose it took something much worse for a seasoned professional to write something so sharp.

 

[Heavs]

I can't see the Lily Font being loaded onto a plane for use in an Episcopal church in LA. It is part of the Royal Collection for one thing.

I don't know if Harry and Meghan would want or expect it to happen but I can see this as being blown up into yet another big "snub" to them thing if/when it doesn't happen.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

oddly I can see her wanting it just so that when it is refused she can comment about how unfair it is.
Also she will then make a large fuss about making a Christening gown to start her own family tradition, ala Victoria.
Surprised that she hasn't asked for her wedding dress yet from BP. Is it impinging on your human right to take away your wedding dress for historical purposes?


IN other news - I have been informed that odd about Harry and Meghan joining Scientology has been drastically cut. Did I miss a email?

I assume your last statement is meant to be satire. At least I hope and pray.

 

[texankitcat]

So does anyone think Archie will get his HRH belatedly and the new baby will be made a princess on birth and given an HRH? Or has that ship sailed?

No and they shouldn’t. Harry and Meghan have made it clear they will not be returning to the UK. Harry may occasionally visit for various reasons but I seriously doubt Meghan will. Archie and his sister will be raised in the US far away from the Royal Family, the traditions, the history and the protocols. They will be raised as Americans with American friends, school mates and with American. “Woke” values. They will be taught US history and US Government in school as a requirement in US education. I don’t know if European History is still a requirement, although it was when I was in school. What ever they learn of their own Royal heritage will be through Harry and Meghan which is a rather dismal thought.

So....what possible benefit would there be to give them HRH status with Prince or Princess titles? None, except to appease Meghan’s ego and to make sure that their bi-racial children are considered equal to Williams’s.

 

[Osipi]

That's true, the Sovereign can change the LP's and the fact that it can happen is a valid point. The Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex are both sons of a future King. You can argue that under the LP's there was nothing untoward in not granting Master Archie an HRH, (I'm not convinced it was racism) and I accept that. However, you can also ask since all of The Duke of Cambridge and The Duke of Sussex's children would (under the current LP's) be granted HRH's, when the POW takes the throne, it can equally be asked why did the Cambridge's not have to wait while the Sussex's do?

There is a difference between not understanding the Titles and Styles, and the LP's and asking why the 'rules' are not altered. As I said I don't care if they are or not. I understand the 'rules' I neither agree nor disagree with them.

However, it isn't wrong for anyone to question them or to agree or to disagree with them. My point has always been the rational that the 'rules' cannot be changed is flawed.

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

But people should be allowed to question, agree, and disagree, as long as its done politely.

Since I notice that you're an American like I am, when it comes to LPs, one difference hasn't been pointed out in language an American would understand. LPs are the "Queen's will and pleasure". She deems the titles and styles and the order of precedence within the royal family at her will and pleasure. She had the power to declare that Edward's kids would be titled and styled as children of an Earl. She had the power to declare that *all* the Cambridge kids would have HRH and Prince/ss. It would be seen similar as a Presidential Executive Order that the US president issues.

Now, the kicker. The Act of Succession to the Crown. that isn't an LP. It's an act of parliament. It was drawn up to change male primogeniture to absolute primogeniture around 2011 when William (the heir to the heir to the throne) married. "is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that altered the laws of succession to the British throne in accordance with the 2011 Perth Agreement." The Queen didn't declare this as her "will and pleasure". It had to go through Parliament such as changing the US Constitution would have to go through the House and the Senate (all the states of the US having a say). This Act had to be ratified not only in the UK but also in the realms and territories where the Queen is the head of state.

The Act was amended such that William's first born child would be the heir apparent to the heir apparent to the heir apparent to the throne. (that's a lot of heirs. More than are on William's head. Its a situation that cropped up because of QEII's longevity). The existing LPs of George VI declared that only the first *male* great grandchild would have the HRH Prince. The Queen issues new LPs to be in accordance with the new amendment to the Act of Succession to the Crown 2013. She decided *all* the great grandchildren from an heir to the throne shall have that right and privilege of HRH Princ/ess going forward. Now, if Charles has the longevity genes and is on the throne when George marries and had kids, all this applies to him. But... not to Charlotte or Louis' kids. They're not heirs to the throne.

Hope this explains better. LPs are the Queen's will and pleasure. Acts are declarations of Parliament. ?

 

[Fem]

I never thought New Zealand was one of their destinations to live in, I thought it was Canada, Africa and USA. What I have heard is that Australia was not exactly on their plan.

In the interview with Oprah they mentioned New Zealand, Africa and Canada as potential destinations for their half-in, half-out life.

Good, as far as I’m concerned. So long as it is all fair and above board to Meghan as well as to her accusers, then let the cards fall where they may.

We still don’t know however, exactly what processes are being used however.

Is the Palace going to authorise a full blown attack on Meghan by publicising the results in an official statement to the media, or leave it in its annual reports? If it does the former it doesn’t say much for the olive branch extended to the Sussexes in the Queen’s last statement.


Or is this inquiry going to be more focused on processes going forward on any bullying by Palace staff in the future? If it is, then the British press baying for Meghan’s head on a platter aren’t going to be satisfied

Oh, Curryong, you never disappoint

First it was "no, the palace cannot do this investigation internally", when they hired an independent law firm "but what processes will be used" - we don't know anything yet. Let them work. These are serious accusations, not only for Meghan, but also for the PALACE - after all, if the bullying did happen, the KP and CH offices covered this up to protect her and did nothing for the employees.

Also, I can't imagine a situation in which the BRF will "authorise a full blown attack on Meghan"? What? I can't even imagine this, in no world a "full blown attack on Meghan" would be authorized by the BRF. In what reality they would do that? Not to mention that looking at what's happening now, I'd say it works the other way around...

Knowing what we now know, my sense is that sometime during the pregnancy H&M would have been told that special Letters Patent would not be issued to make Archie a Prince in the current reign, and given Charles' longer term plan of slimming the monarchy, Archie was not going to be a Prince in the next reign either.

Whilst this may seem sensible to those on the outside, especially given the difficult time BEa & Eugenie have had in the press, this did not work for Meghan. She probably convinced herself (and Harry) this was a personal affront to her, and I suspect that is why all the drama surrounding Archie's birth followed.

I would not be surprised if that was true. We have seen this play out with Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie. I'd say not only the titles didn't help them in any way, but also made their life harder. It makes sense to keep the HRH only for William's children going forward (and in the next generation only to George's children and so on...).

That would be smart thinking and learning on mistakes of the past. I do like Beatrice and Eugenie very much, but they should have never had the titles. Of course removing them now is not an option, but making sure the issue doesn't happen in the next generation of young royals is a smart thing to do. Why anyone would take that personally, I don't understand.

But the most interesting thing to me is the correlation (before someone yells, I'm talking hypothetically here!) between this theory and the very private birth/not giving Archie the curtesy title he has every right to, as Harry's son. Maybe the Sussexes were so offended about Archie not getting HRH, that they decided to go nuclear in the other direction - no title at all, no photos leaving hospital, no doctors' names, no godparents names, nothing at all, because they were said he won't be a Prince.

 

[Mbruno]

Meghan will want the baby christened with the royal font, dress and holy water. Possibly Chapel Royal. So I expect it will need to be boxed up to be taken to LA if she wants that. I suppose the ABC can accompany it for safe keeping - they are such good friends and all.

i don't see H&M's daughter being christened in the UK. The ongoing Covid situation will probably prevent or discourage intercontinental travel until the end of 2021 at least and I don't think they will wait longer than that to baptize the child.


Assuming that she will be baptized in the US, I suppose it will be done in the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which is the mainstream American affiliate of the Anglican communion.

 

[Osipi]

I’m happy BP decided to go with an independent third party to conduct the investigation. It makes sense for everyone involved, especially if The Times is correct and serious and upsetting episodes occurred that the staff will now be asked to talk about. Because, at least from what we know so far, the employees already spoke to their supervisor about some incidents - hence the email - and things weren’t resolved in a way that would be expected from a modern professional workplace, likely because doing so would have involved clipping the wings of two of the so called principals, one of whom was the first high profile biracial member of The Royal Family, (and who has since shown that she’s more than willing to use that fact as a way to attempt to silence any opposition).

I think the senior staff were put in a difficult position. They wanted to keep the employees happy and do right by them but they suspected there would be a sh*t storm, to be be blunt, if word got out that they’d dared to take action against Meghan - and I think we can take it as a given word would have quickly gotten out! So I understand where they were coming from but they still picked the wrong side.

To me, its unfortunate that this is an ongoing "topic of interest" that is being played out in the press. Meghan opened a can of worms and everyone is now going fishing and trying to land the "big one" aka the horrible things Meghan did. Meghan accused the "institution" of bullying and things are coming out right back at Meghan.

If Microsoft or any huge corporation had internal problems among employess/management/board of directors/whatever, we'd never hear about it. It would all be dealt with internally.

Meghan no longer works for the "institution" and therefore, to me, has no right to be involved in the internal investigations as in requesting emails of interest. Even if she was once part of it all and responsible for it all. The object now is to make changes to benefit the people that still work for the "institution" going forward.

 

[Muhler]

Surely she can't get access to the e-mails? Not at present at least, I imagine.
That could be seen as intimidating, if she were, I'd say. (Whether she is guilty in bulling or nor is beside the point.)

 

[texankitcat]

I disagree. I cannot see Meghan insisting on the Royal font and christening gown.

Harry is quite another story. Absolutely I can see him demanding those things. And if HM and the CoE refuse to take the huge risk( think of the insurance cost!) of putting these items on an airplane to be shipped thousands of miles away...well.

My prediction is that there will be hell to pay.

I don’t know if there are any protocols in place for a US christening of a Royal baby since there has never been that scenario that I am aware of. If you were dealing with any other Royal couple, I would imagine the expectation would be that they would fly home to the UK to have the Traditional Royal christening in the Church of England. Clearly that isn’t going to happen. I don’t see any Royal attending a christening in the US and I am quite sure that even if Harry wanted it, Meghan would not. We all know what Meghan wants where Harry is concerned, Meghan gets.

 

[Moran]

I don't believe Netflix just handed them 150 million free dollars to do with whatever they please. I imagine the lawyers they have once again engaged to deal with the investigation of and by an institution they have loudly declared they no longer wish to belong to don't come cheap.


They'd better hope Charles opens the bank once again soon, for all they have made it a very bad optics on him if he ever does.

 

[tommy100]

Knowing what we now know, my sense is that sometime during the pregnancy H&M would have been told that special Letters Patent would not be issued to make Archie a Prince in the current reign, and given Charles' longer term plan of slimming the monarchy, Archie was not going to be a Prince in the next reign either.

Whilst this may seem sensible to those on the outside, especially given the difficult time BEa & Eugenie have had in the press, this did not work for Meghan. She probably convinced herself (and Harry) this was a personal affront to her, and I suspect that is why all the drama surrounding Archie's birth followed.

This is what I think probably happened - at some point someone will have asked or brought up titles and it was made clear HM would not be issuing special LPs to make Archie a Prince. While this should have been a pretty simple - continuing to follow rules that have been in place for 100 years moment it was turned into something bigger. I can honestly say I think everyone (apart from H&M) probably thought this was the best thing because:

-Archie would be getting the Prince title under Charles' reign anyway so it wasn't necessarily a never just a not now

-Apart from Andrew's girls (who have faced problems having HRH and Princess titles) none of the Queen's grandchildren bar those of her eldest & her heir have HRH Prince/Princess, even where Edward could have they chose not to use them. The Queen likely sees this as quite a good thing so thought, especially if H&M had been saying how unhappy they were, it was the best thing.

-Charles has talked about a 'slimmed down monarchy' so waiting and having further discussions about Archie's role within that probably seemed the best thing

-If there had been discussions about them moving somewhere else it would seem odd to change the rules for the child of couple struggling with being royal

- The Queen doesn't seem particularly fond of issuing LPs, she simply released a press release to say Edward's children would be known as Viscount Severn and Lady Louise. She had to issue LPs in regards to William's children as parliament and the government were in the middle of changing the law to make primogeniture equal regardless of sex - so the rules around titles had to change to reflect that as it was possible Charlotte had been born first and would become heir but her younger brother would be titled and her even younger brother not. The Queen acted because she had to.

I honestly see it at the Queen, Charles, RF and staff thinking this was the best thing for H&M and their unborn baby - a life free of set obligations and away from the pressures of being HRH Prince with the possibility of taking a title in a few years after further discussions. Seems very sensible to me.

 

[Sandy345]

At the risk of being shouted down, can I just respectfully raise a question and a humble opinion.

With regards to the opinion, I would agree that the Catherine/Meghan upsetting incident (whoever was the instigator!) needs to be put to bed. According to Meghan herself, this has been resolved satisfactorily. These differences happen, especially when people are stressed, i.e. wedding preparations. Most adults, having let off steam, will apologise, as appropriate and move on.

My question is around the alleged ‘racist’ conversation. Who was this question actually put to - Meghan & Harry together, Meghan alone or Harry alone? Do we know whether there were witnesses? Whilst I would NEVER condone racism in any form, to make any accusation one needs to be able to produce evidence to support it. I am happy to be corrected if I have missed something in the interview that answers this question.

Thank you.

From what I heard Harry conveyed the discussion to Meghan. He was the one who heard it from the unidentified person.

 

[Osipi]

More and more, I'm thinking one purpose that this interview served is that Harry and Meghan bit the hand that fed them. Did they honestly think there would be no repercussions and that everyone and their grandmother's pet cockatoo would just blindly accept whatever they've said as being gospel truth?

The fall out of all this though is just reaching the ears and eyes of people that could see the discrepancies. The majority of the people that have watched the interview probably have forgotten it by now. It was two hours of entertainment on one night. This interview hit out and hurt a lot of people that should matter to Harry and Meghan but effectively, it's going to alienate them even further from them.

On the subject of the christening. I think it will be a small, private affair that nobody will know about. Having a close family "royal" member as a godparent is as likely as Samantha Markle or Tom Markle, Jr. There's a lot of bridges that need to be totally constructed before there's any kind of familial relationship of worth built up again and that's besides the Covid restrictions that may still be in place at the time of birth.

 

[Sandy345]

If there is no travel allowed during Christening or severely restricted. Suppose they choose one of Sarah Spencer's children to be godparent or perhaps Eugenie, They could be there by "proxy" assuming the Christening takes place in the US. Is that correct?

 

[Hallo girl]

From what I heard Harry conveyed the discussion to Meghan. He was the one who heard it from the unidentified person.

It was a confused message, Meghan initially said there had been several conversations about Archie that had taken place with Harry although they didnt know he was a boy at that time , which to me would suggest during the pregnancy .
When Harry answered the question it was put as one conversation with one person much earlier, I think I am right in saying he said before the engagement. I am happy to be corrected on that but definitely an earlier single conversation.

 

[Heavs]

If there is no travel allowed during Christening or severely restricted. Suppose they choose one of Sarah Spencer's children to be godparent or perhaps Eugenie, They could be there by "proxy" assuming the Christening takes place in the US. Is that correct?

The CofE doesn't really allow "godparents by proxy" since you're already making promises on the baby's behalf although I know a couple that were present by Zoom recently due to the pandemic but I'm not sure how official that was. You have to sign the baptismal record for one thing.

https://churchofenglandchristenings.org/for-parents/is-it-possible-to-have-godparents-by-proxy/

I assume ECUSA are similar.

 

[Gawin]

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

Yes, you are correct, we can't know the reasons with certainty.

But I'm guessing the rules weren't changed for Archie and his siblings because they aren't the children of a future King/Queen, which explains why they were changed for Elizabeth's and George's.

I also wonder if a plan is afoot to limit the HRH to working royals only (a kind of job title), which Archie and his siblings probably won't be, a la Andrew and Edward's children.

As other posters have pointed out, Beatrice and Eugenie are styled HRH but aren't working royals, which sometimes places them in a nebulous position in the eyes of the public, half in and half out. Presumably that's why Edward's children don't use their HRHs, since the plan is for them to lead private lives as well.

When I stand back and look at all this, I see the current rules (George V's LP) slowly being phased out while the RF reconsiders them in an effort to pare the number of "nonworking" HRHs down.

But whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with race. After all, Meghan is biracial and she is styled HRH, although she and Harry agreed not to use their HRHs after stepping down.

 

[Hallo girl]

Plus according to Meghan and Harry they had already told the family they wanted to leave.