The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[Royalist.in.NC]

Thanks for the link, I usually do not look at their hp.
May I ask if this is a common thing in the US? To demand moeny on behalf of a two year old's birthday?
I've only seen this instead of flowers for a funeral or fundraising for sick people.
They use their son to make money, bad taste IMO and this is not because it's the Sussex couple, I simply feel uncomfortable, but maybe this is celeb style in the US?

Yes, celebrities do this and even”regular” people sometimes ask for charitable donations on Facebook. The funds are not going to Archewell, they are going to Glabal Citizen and will be matched by other foundations. This is about the VAX thing they are involved in. So it is a legitimate charity.

Someone said something about a picture of Archie . The only one I see of a child is sepia toned from the back with the child holding a lot of balloons. Is this it or am I missing something? Thanks!

 

[Betsypaige]

I think a lot of people may be under the impression that Harry has "lost" all his military titles which really isn't the case. Harry retains and always will have his rank in the military that he had when he left active duty.

The "titles" he's lost are those that are specifically honorary ones that are given to working royals for the "Firm". Harry was stripped of his three honorary military titles (Captain General of the Royal Marines, Honorary Air Commandant of RAF Honington and Commodore-in-Chief, Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command)

https://observer.com/2021/02/prince-harry-royal-exit-military-titles-review-queen-elizabeth/

Harry should be making a stink, then. He chose to leave “the life”, and with that choice comes consequences. He wants it all, and he can’t have it all.

 

[Betsypaige]

Yes, celebrities do this and even”regular” people sometimes ask for charitable donations on Facebook. The funds are not going to Archewell, they are going to Glabal Citizen and will be matched by other foundations. This is about the VAX thing they are involved in. So it is a legitimate charity.

Someone said something about a picture of Archie . The only one I see of a child is sepia toned from the back with the child holding a lot of balloons. Is this it or am I missing something? Thanks!

I believe that’s it....and, I’m not a fan of this constant hiding of his face.

 

[Erin9]

This doesn't sound like a children's book at all... More like a present for Father's day.

Yeah. That’s kind of been my take based on what we’ve seen so far.

 

[Queen Ester]

Harry and Meghan are urging people on their Archewell site to help support vaccine equity on Archie’s birthday with a donation of $5.

https://archewell.com/story/join-us-in-advocating-for-vaccine-equity-on-archies-birthday/

I don't think that the Archwell foundation is transparent enough for someone like myself to donate the money, I just don't know that the money will not go to the couple or the covid fund

 

[Durham]

I think a lot of people may be under the impression that Harry has "lost" all his military titles which really isn't the case. Harry retains and always will have his rank in the military that he had when he left active duty.

The "titles" he's lost are those that are specifically honorary ones that are given to working royals for the "Firm". Harry was stripped of his three honorary military titles (Captain General of the Royal Marines, Honorary Air Commandant of RAF Honington and Commodore-in-Chief, Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command)

https://observer.com/2021/02/prince-harry-royal-exit-military-titles-review-queen-elizabeth/

Good point. He served in the army & reached the rank of captain, which of course is an honourable record, but he was never in the Royal Marines, RAF or the RN. Those honoury positions obviously need someone who lives in the UK. I'm sure even Harry must understand that.

 

[sophie25]

She goes on Oprah and expresses nothing but disdain for the BRF and then puts the Duchess of Sussex on the title of that book. If she is so angry at Archie not getting a title she could always show some solidarity with him by calling herself Meghan Windsor or even Meghan Sussex. Harry and William used Wales as a surname when they were young so why not? I would respect H and M a lot more if they did that but they certainly are attached to those titles. I suppose being Harry and Meghan Sussex dosn't have quite the same ring as Duke and Duchess.

 

[Durham]

Debbo Cavendish used to publish under Deborah Devonshire so there's precedent for that. It's a common enough usage in the UK for dukes, other peers & their wives to combine Christian names & territorial designations.

 

[Denville]

Debbo Cavendish used to publish under Deborah Devonshire so there's precedent for that. It's a common enough usage in the UK for dukes & other peers & their wives.

yes but these other duchesses or what have you, didn't complain that they were so ill treated by the family from which the title sprung that they had to leave....

 

[Durham]

yes but these other duchesses or what have you, didn't complain that they were so ill treated by the family from which the title sprung that they had to leave....

Indeed not. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Denville]

She goes on Oprah and expresses nothing but disdain for the BRF and then puts the Duchess of Sussex on the title of that book. If she is so angry at Archie not getting a title she could always show some solidarity with him by calling herself Meghan Windsor or even Meghan Susses.

Archie has a title, at least he has the use of his father's second title, Earl of Dumbarton. If they wanted him to have a title so badly, why did they say that he would just be Master Archie.

 

[Alison H]

Someone said something about a picture of Archie . The only one I see of a child is sepia toned from the back with the child holding a lot of balloons. Is this it or am I missing something? Thanks!

Yes, that's it! I saw that they'd released a photo, was expecting a nice pic of the little one with a big happy smile on his face, and, instead, it was just a sepia picture of a child's back. I'm sure it is Archie, but it could be anyone! If they want to hide his face, then I suppose that's up to them, but why say they were releasing a photo and then just show that?

 

[Heavs]

I don't think that the Archwell foundation is transparent enough for someone like myself to donate the money, I just don't know that the money will not go to the couple or the covid fund

I think they need a new communications team because a lot of their announcements aren't done very clearly but Archewell isn't involved.

It's Global Citizen and the Sussexes have found 4 other organisations to match people wanting to pledge money for Archie's birthday, a very worthy cause.

It's not uncommon to see people do that on SM. "Instead of getting me a birthday present please donate to this local charity..."

I think it might come across better if they said "we're personally donating X amount of money in honour of our son's birthday and these orgs have offered to match it so join in, here's the link". But it certainly is for a good cause.

They will definitely need more clarity on the various commercial and non profit arms of Archewell though.

 

[sophie25]

Yes, that's it! I saw that they'd released a photo, was expecting a nice pic of the little one with a big happy smile on his face, and, instead, it was just a sepia picture of a child's back. I'm sure it is Archie, but it could be anyone! If they want to hide his face, then I suppose that's up to them, but why say they were releasing a photo and then just show that?

I agree. If they want to keep their child totally out of the limelight that's fine but it is rather pointless releasing a picture of his back.

 

[_Heather_]

I'm confused about this mass returning of books. How can so many people buy them and just automatically return them in their plastic covers? Is there an automatic right of return policy on books? Surely you can't just decide you don't want it and return it and get a refund. I would have thought you would have to have a valid reason such as a physical defect in the product not just the fact you have changed your mind.

In answer to your question, yes. There pretty much is an automatic right of return policy on books. I certainly see why many don't agree with it or feel it's a good way to "beat the system" but as a matter of a yes or no answer, yes, you can return books with no questions asked and no valid reason as long as you have the receipt and are within the allotted time frame for returns.

This doesn't sound like a children's book at all... More like a present for Father's day.

Agreed. And as for the lines you quoted....I've seen these lines quoted now around social media and I have to say, this doesn't sound like a well written book. Particularly the last stanza about this being "your bench, where life begins, our kin, etc." is a bit....cringey. And it's most definitely confusing. I believe an earlier poster shared that this book was shopped around and that insiders at the publishing house have stated that it's poorly written and if the quoted passages are indicative of the book as a whole, I believe it.

I may have missed this--are the proceeds of the book going to charity?

I believe I read that this book and it's proceeds are purely commercial and that she will be receiving all of the proceeds. There has, as of now anyway, been no announcement of any charity benefitting from the sale.

 

[Queen Ester]

I agree. If they want to keep their child totally out of the limelight that's fine but it is rather pointless releasing a picture of his back.

But wasn't Meghan just recently walking with Archie with his face completely shown to the photographer, very strange

 

[Betsypaige]

Yes, that's it! I saw that they'd released a photo, was expecting a nice pic of the little one with a big happy smile on his face, and, instead, it was just a sepia picture of a child's back. I'm sure it is Archie, but it could be anyone! If they want to hide his face, then I suppose that's up to them, but why say they were releasing a photo and then just show that?

If they want to hide him, why even bother posting his photo ? Either they want Archie to have complete privacy or they don’t...but if they do, then why write a book about him (in part) ? If they want to release a photo for their fans, it just seems odd that it (they, since they never show his face) is always with his back to the camera so no one can ever see him. If releasing a photo isn’t for their fans, why not just wish Archie a happy birthday with no photo ?

 

[sophie25]

Archie has a title, at least he has the use of his father's second title, Earl of Dumbarton. If they wanted him to have a title so badly, why did they say that he would just be Master Archie.

It came across that they were angry he wouldn't be a Prince. Personally I think they decided he would be Master Archie in a fit of pique ie if he wasn't going to be a Prince then they didn't want him to have a title at all. Heaven help Charles if he issues new letters patent preventing Archie becoming a Prince when he becomes King. It would, of course, be ridiculous to have a Prince of the UK running around Hollywood having no relationship with the BRF but it's something I can see H and M going crazy about and using as another example of racism within the family.

 

[Roslyn]

It came across that they were angry he wouldn't be a Prince. Personally I think they decided he would be Master Archie in a fit of pique ie if he wasn't going to be a Prince then they didn't want him to have a title at all. Heaven help Charles if he issues new letters patent preventing Archie becoming a Prince when he becomes King. It would, of course, be ridiculous to have a Prince of the UK running around Hollywood having no relationship with the BRF but it's something I can see H and M going crazy about and using as another example of racism within the family.

Comes down to how one defines "relationship", I think. Even if he rarely sees them, Archie will always be closely related to the BRF in that his great-grandmother, then his grandfather, then his uncle - who is his father's only sibling, then his first cousin will be the monarch. There's no getting around that fact and whatever he is called he will still have that close family relationship, and I think some people would find it very odd that he is not a Prince. I doubt that Charles will take that step and formally deprive his grandson of the royal style and title.

 

[sophie25]

Comes down to how one defines "relationship", I think. Even if he rarely sees them, Archie will always be closely related to the BRF in that his great-grandmother, then his grandfather, then his uncle - who is his father's only sibling, then his first cousin will be the monarch. There's no getting around that fact and whatever he is called he will still have that close family relationship, and I think some people would find it very odd that he is not a Prince. I doubt that Charles will take that step and formally deprive his grandson of the royal style and title.

I don't mean family relationships I mean by being brought up and living as a private individual in a foreign country. They have opted out of the royal system and went to live abroad but part of me thinks they will go mad if Archie dosn't become an HRH when Charles is King even though there is no real point in him being one.

 

[ACO]

Well Meghan already said it was in discussion, so if it happens it won't be a real surprise. Honestly though they need to do it now...No reason to drag it out.... if that is the plan.

 

[EllieCat]

Looking out at My Love
and our beautiful boy
And here in the window
I'll have tears of great joy

This is your bench
Where life begins
For you and our son
our baby, our kin.

If this is an example of Meghan's writing, then I don't think Anne of Green Gables has anything to worry about ?

 

[Hallo girl]

Well Meghan already said it was in discussion, so if it happens it won't be a real surprise. Honestly though they need to do it now... No reason to drag it out.... if that is the plan.

I am not quite sure what you mean. I assume you are referring to Archie being made a prince now.
Why does it need to happen now, he is not entitled to be made a prince now.

His parents have also made it clear he is a private citizen.

 

[Somebody]

Comes down to how one defines "relationship", I think. Even if he rarely sees them, Archie will always be closely related to the BRF in that his great-grandmother, then his grandfather, then his uncle - who is his father's only sibling, then his first cousin will be the monarch. There's no getting around that fact and whatever he is called he will still have that close family relationship, and I think some people would find it very odd that he is not a Prince. I doubt that Charles will take that step and formally deprive his grandson of the royal style and title.

Do those people also consider it very odd that Lady Louise and Viscount Severn aren't prince and princess? Or are they only interested in/concerned about Archie? And what about their cousins Peter and Zara; have they been arguing that they should be prince and princess as well because they are discriminated against based on gender?

Given how Archie's parents are using their royal titles for their own (monetary) interest and not to serve their country, I could very well understand Charles following his mother's example and ensuring that Archie and his sister aren't royal highnesses and prince(ss) of the UK.

I am not quite sure what you mean. I assume you are referring to Archie being made a prince now.
Why does it need to happen now, he is not entitled to be made a prince now.

His parents have also made it clear he is a private citizen.

I think ACO is referring to not waiting to deprive Archie of his title after Charles becomes king as at that point it would truly deprive him of a title as he will become a prince the instant his great-grandmother dies. While if they make the changes now, he will just never have had a royal title...it is important to do it earlier rather than later if they want to be sure that it is done while the queen is still queen.

BTW, I agree with ACO that if they plan to do so, they better get it arranged during the queen's reign instead of waiting for Charles to do it as one of his first acts as king; that will not go over well with a part of the population. Especially not if at the same time he would make it known that Camilla will be known as queen.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

If this is an example of Meghan's writing, then I don't think Anne of Green Gables has anything to worry about ?

This gave me a really good laugh - thanks so much!

 

[Roslyn]

I don't mean family relationships I mean by being brought up and living as a private individual in a foreign country. They have opted out of the royal system and went to live abroad but part of me thinks they will go mad if Archie doesn't become an HRH when Charles is King even though there is no real point in him being one.

But the two types of relationship are so interconnected it can be difficult to separate them. What is the point of the York daughters being HRH? They are because of the 1917 Letters Patent, and in due course Archie and his sister will be too, for the same reason. Under the status quo, the royal title and style will not follow down to the next generation, so why single out Archie and deprive him? How does it really hurt to have him - and in due course his sister - bear the style and title? They might move back to the UK one day.

 

[Hallo girl]

It has been well documented over the years that a title can cause difficulties for the person as they drop down the position in line for the throne.
I really thought that was the point that Harry and Meghan were originally trying to make when they said they wanted to find a different route.

 

[Somebody]

But the two types of relationship are so interconnected it can be difficult to separate them. What is the point of the York daughters being HRH? They are because of the 1917 Letters Patent, and in due course Archie and his sister will be too, for the same reason. Under the status quo, the royal title and style will not follow down to the next generation, so why single out Archie and deprive him? How does it really hurt to have him - and in due course his sister - bear the style and title? They might move back to the UK one day.

They are not singling him out. It seems that you keep forgetting about Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. Not giving them the title would be consistent with the precedent set 2 decades ago. Giving them a title would single Lady Louise and Viscount Severn out... While formalizing this as a new rule (or making Louise and James TRH of Edinburgh when their father receives the dukedom - as they would want to find some kind or rationalization) would not.

 

[Hallo girl]

SOMEBODY
I didn't want to quote the whole post, so if I am now understanding what ACO meant was that it should be made clear now whether or not Archie is to receive the title of prince rather than when Charles becomes king when they might say he is not to get it.
I thought the post meant he should be made a prince now.
I see where you are coming from.

 

[Roslyn]

Do those people also consider it very odd that Lady Louise and Viscount Severn aren't prince and princess? Or are they only interested in/concerned about Archie? And what about their cousins Peter and Zara; have they been arguing that they should be prince and princess as well because they are discriminated against based on gender?

Given how Archie's parents are using their royal titles for their own (monetary) interest and not to serve their country, I could very well understand Charles following his mother's example and ensuring that Archie and his sister aren't royal highnesses and prince(ss) of the UK.

I don't know if those people do find the Wessex situation odd, but they could, and maybe should. The Phillips situation is easier to explain and due to different factors: historical gender discrimination that is so entrenched in the system that it is rarely questioned.

IMO Archie and later Sussex children should not be penalised for decisions made by their parents. The inheritance of the royal style and title ends with them as grandchildren of the monarch (as they will be in due course).

I think ACO is referring to not waiting to deprive Archie of his title after Charles becomes king as at that point it would truly deprive him of a title as he will become a prince the instant his great-grandmother dies. While if they make the changes now, he will just never have had a royal title...it is important to do it earlier rather than later if they want to be sure that it is done while the queen is still queen.

BTW, I agree with ACO that if they plan to do so, they better get it arranged during the queen's reign instead of waiting for Charles to do it as one of his first acts as king; that will not go over well with a part of the population. Especially not if at the same time he would make it known that Camilla will be known as queen.

I agree with the move being made to limit the HRH/prince/princess style and title to the actual heir's line, and that Elizabeth should do it during her lifetime, but I do not think it should apply to lives in being, to deprive them of rights they enjoy under previous LPs, only to future generations. This is not wartime so the factors that were relevant in 1917 do not apply. And if it were left to Charles it would really amount to depriving his grandchildren of a right they would by then enjoy the benefit of and that would surely put an end to any relationship between him and Harry. Would he really want to do that when, in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't really matter?