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

[sophie25]

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.

The York's would probably be in the same boat as Louise and James if they were being born into the family in 2021 ie Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie as opposed to princesses. The girls were born 30 odd years ago and a lot has changed since then.

 

[Hallo girl]

The part that really annoys me about all this is that Meghan inferred in the interview that Archie was not being made a prince like the other grand children because of his heritage.
That was incorrect. The way things stand at the moment as the majority of the posters on here know it happens automatically when his grandfather becomes king.
I do accept what was said further up the thread that if that is not going to happen then it should be made clear now, as they will need to remove the title after the event, which would be a bad look, although I am not sure how annoyed the general public would be. That is no reflection on his parents or heritage just a great deal of people would see it as a non event.
I also find it interesting that a modern independent woman is so bothered about titles.

 

[Roslyn]

They are not singling him out! You keep forgetting about Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. Not giving them the title would be consistent with the precedent set 2 decades ago.

I am not forgetting Louise and James. They are already grandchildren of a monarch and therefore under the 1917 LPs are currently entitled to be known as HRH Prince and Princess, but there was a decision taken that they would not use the royal style and title. Though there has been some debate about it, I understand they still have the option of using the style and title once they attain their majority. As he is at present only the great-grandchild of the monarch, Archie does not yet have that right.

But, yes, if Charles were to issue LPs providing that no grandchildren other than the heir's children were to enjoy the royal styles and titular dignities, and it were made retrospective, then not only would he be stripping his Sussex grandchildren of the right, but also Louise & James as well as Beatrice & Eugenie and any surviving Kent or Gloucester grandchildren of a monarch would lose their HRH and Prince/Princess status. If Elizabeth were to do it now and made it retrospective, it would affect all the others too, and she is hardly going to disentitle all her cousins who have given her such loyalty and assistance over the years. If she only made it prospective, she would only be affecting the Sussex grandchildren, which would really seem like discrimination against the Sussexes. Would she do that? I strongly doubt it. I think one of them should do it though, to affect future generations only.

 

[Curryong]

Harry and Meghan open letter to prominent vaccine manufacturers appealing for vaccine equity, featured in the Evening Standard.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/meghan-harry-sussex-duchess-archie-b933666.html

 

[Erin9]

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

If this is an example of Meghan's writing, then I don't think Anne of Green Gables has anything to worry about [emoji2]

I can’t say I disagree.

 

[Erin9]

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

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.

I thought so too. I thought they were interested in trying to normalize his life as much as possible. Less publicity and information surrounding his birth, no titles, etc.

But their words since then make it very clear how important titles are to them personally and for their son. They took something of a sledgehammer to their down to earth image with all that IMO.

 

[ACO]

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.

The opposite actually. People are saying letters of patents should (need) to be drawn up to change it to make sure he doesn't become HRH when the inevitable happens. I think they should do it and not after the fact.

 

[Curryong]

As it’s clearly a book for small children and ‘Anne of Green Gables’ was for older children up to young adults it obviously isn’t. I don’t believe Meghan wrote it for that purpose or to compete against any other sort of children’s literature.

Imo Meghan wrote it simply because she was inspired by the bond between two males she loved very much, her husband and her son. She quite obviously saw that bond repeated between other fathers with young sons and decided it would make a nice subject for a book, and that’s all.

 

[Somebody]

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.

Yes, and 'making clear' imho means more than just announcing what is to happen but ideally making it official by issuing new LPs that clarify the situation, so that there cannot be any doubt upon Charles' ascension to the throne.

 

[rominet09]

Am I the only one to notice that they take care of never showing Archie hair colour in the pictures ? Except for the drawing at Christmas time.

 

[Somebody]

I am not forgetting Louise and James. They are already grandchildren of a monarch and therefore under the 1917 LPs are currently entitled to be known as HRH Prince and Princess, but there was a decision taken that they would not use the royal style and title. Though there has been some debate about it, I understand they still have the option of using the style and title once they attain their majority. As he is at present only the great-grandchild of the monarch, Archie does not yet have that right.

But, yes, if Charles were to issue LPs providing that no grandchildren other than the heir's children were to enjoy the royal styles and titular dignities, and it were made retrospective, then not only would he be stripping his Sussex grandchildren of the right, but also Louise & James as well as Beatrice & Eugenie and any surviving Kent or Gloucester grandchildren of a monarch would lose their HRH and Prince/Princess status. If Elizabeth were to do it now and made it retrospective, it would affect all the others too, and she is hardly going to disentitle all her cousins who have given her such loyalty and assistance over the years. If she only made it prospective, she would only be affecting the Sussex grandchildren, which would really seem like discrimination against the Sussexes. Would she do that? I strongly doubt it. I think one of them should do it though, to affect future generations only.

There is no need to make it retrospective. And if they are looking for a logical point other than the date of issue, they could use the date that also applies to the change in the line of succession (and discuss it with Louise and James to establish that they will continue to be known by their titles/styles as children of an earl (or duke)); because (the argument would be) from that date onwards it no longer makes sense to have the children of a prince (for example, Louis) be princes and princesses while children of their sibling (for example, Charlotte) that are higher in line to the throne aren't.

 

[Betsypaige]

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

This is brutally bad writing.......

 

[soapstar]

Comments speculating about how long the Queen may live, have been deleted.

 

[ACO]

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.

This is exactly what I meant. Archie and his baby sister are in the US now. While there are princes and princesses who live all over, I don't see issue in them removing their inherited HRH. I just think it should be done during HMQ's reign because Charles doing it as soon as he is King.... well. I think those optics won't be great.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Am I the only one to notice that they take care of never showing Archie hair colour in the pictures ? Except for the drawing at Christmas time.

Yes, I find it very strange! His hair is either some shade of brown, black, red, or blond - did I leave out any colors? Surely not grey like mine

What difference does it make? Most kids hair and hair color changes over the years. My very blonde, stick straight haired daughter (as a child) went through puberty and now has extremely curly light brown hair. She hated it for a year and then has loved it ever since!

 

[Curryong]

From Variety magazine

How do you get Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to sign on as campaign chairs of Global Citizen’s Vax Live: The Concert to Reunite the World? Just ask.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex immediately jumped on board when they were approached by Global Citizen CEO Hugh Evans. “We said we need [a] champion of this campaign. Quite frankly they were immediately on the same page. It wasn’t a convincing. It was a conversation,” Evans told Variety at the concert taping on Sunday night at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California. “They were so excited. They said, ‘We believe in the importance of vaccine equity.’ For them, it was an easy decision to do the right thing because they were so passionate already.
“When I spoke to Megan, she said we really should call on the private sector to rally and for American businesses to step up, so they convened a roundtable and they started getting to work, and they invited the private sector leaders to be part of the effort,” Evans continued. “They’ve approached it with such sincerity and such leadership. I’ve been extremely impressed with their amazing commitment to the cause.”
​

[FONT=&quot][From Variety][/FONT]

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

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 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?

I certainly agree with you that if there is going to be a change so that the Sussex kids don’t have HRH and prince/princess, it should certainly be done by HM. However, I just don’t see her doing that but I could be wrong. Would not that end with Archie and baby sister? The styles and titles?

Honestly, I am more concerned about order of succession. Should something absolutely horribly tragic happen, I can’t see the UK wanting Harry (and Meghan) on the throne nor Archie . Maybe this has been discussed before but is there something about having to live in the UK to be in line for the crown? I know there are tons of people who are 157 or whatever in line who don’t live in the UK but that is really different from being in the top 10.

 

[Sandy345]

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 ?

I think a photo will be issued of Archie and his new sister soon after her birth. And I think it will be more traditional.

 

[ACO]

I don't think they are hiding his hair. I think overall they just shielding his image as a whole as much as they can. Also they know how nasty people can be. All you have to do is read comments on any of the royal social media pages that posted birthday wishes to him today. Oy. I wouldn't be too thrilled to have his image dissected by the public either.

Anyways there have been private pictures of him seen. He has reddish brown hair. Not that it really matters.

 

[Sandy345]

Harry's cousins (some) do not issue many pictures of their children to the public. I think it's a matter of choice.

 

[Sunnystar]

I just want to comment that the correct word to use regarding any LP issued that would take effect at some date in the past is not "retrospective" but "retroactive".

It would make sense to word a new LP in such a way that "any person entitled to a specific HRH/style due to the 1917 LP at the time of passage of the 2013 Act of Succession shall remain entitled to the use of the HRH/style as the child of the monarch/male-line grandchild of the monarch/male-line great-grandchild of the monarch" and then specify a different HRH/style for future generations - ie basically Charles' kids/grandkids.

 

[Queen Ester]

I don't think they are hiding his hair. I think overall they just shielding his image as a whole as much as they can. Also they know how nasty people can be. All you have to do is read comments on any of the royal social media pages that posted birthday wishes to him today. Oy. I wouldn't be too thrilled to have his image dissected by the public either.

Anyways there have been private pictures of him seen. He has reddish brown hair. Not that it really matters.

Just last week, on Prince Louise's birthday, Meghan was seen walking with Archie and not not hiding his face at all, I think that she is playing silly games with her PR

 

[ACO]

Just last week, on Prince Louise's birthday, Meghan was seen walking with Archie and not not hiding his face at all, I think that she is playing silly games with her PR

Meghan was spotted by paparazzi and those images weren't used except for one paper (who spotted them). No other agency would touch them. As his parent, she can release whatever she feels comfortable. No one seems offended by it. Most happily posted the image they put on their website. Not like they sent it out via the press. What game is that, exactly?

 

[Biset]

As it’s clearly a book for small children and ‘Anne of Green Gables’ was for older children up to young adults it obviously isn’t. I don’t believe Meghan wrote it for that purpose or to compete against any other sort of children’s literature.

Imo Meghan wrote it simply because she was inspired by the bond between two males she loved very much, her husband and her son. She quite obviously saw that bond repeated between other fathers with young sons and decided it would make a nice subject for a book, and that’s all.

And good money to make off of her title.

 

[Curryong]

And good money to make off of her title.

Meghan doesn’t have a title. Harry was given one by his grandmother the Queen on his wedding day. By custom all wives married in the British Isles take their husbands styling and rank (if they want, and most do.)


Therefore the Duchess of Sussex is her legal name. Meghan Markle isn’t. It was the professional name she used as an actress. She hasn’t used it since she married. Nor would Meghan Mountbatten Windsor be strictly correct for a Duchess.


Meghan has every right to use her styling. If the couple using their titles in any of their endeavours was unacceptable to the Queen then she would have asked them not to (as she did with the HRHs) or moved to remove Harry’s Dukedom, difficult though that might be. She hasn’t.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I just want to comment that the correct word to use regarding any LP issued that would take effect at some date in the past is not "retrospective" but "retroactive".

It would make sense to word a new LP in such a way that "any person entitled to a specific HRH/style due to the 1917 LP at the time of passage of the 2013 Act of Succession shall remain entitled to the use of the HRH/style as the child of the monarch/male-line grandchild of the monarch/male-line great-grandchild of the monarch" and then specify a different HRH/style for future generations - ie basically Charles' kids/grandkids.

There are times when "retrospective" is used synonymously with "retroactive", but you are of course correct that "retroactive" is the preferred term.

It is worth adding that there is a difference between retroactive law and a law which takes effect for existing persons. For instance, if at some point after the accession of King Charles, he were to issue Letters Patent specifying that from the date of the Letters Patent, Archie would no longer be entitled to use the HRH, there would be no retroactivity. On the other hand, if King Charles were to issue Letters Patent declaring that Archie had never been entitled to use the HRH at any point in the past, such Letters Patent would be retroactive.

Meghan doesn’t have a title. Harry was given one by his grandmother the Queen on his wedding day. By custom all wives married in the British Isles take their husbands styling and rank (if they want, and most do.)

By British common law all wives take their husbands' titles as well.

 

[JoanHarry]

A possible solution for the BRF regarding Archie’s future title of Prince would be new Letters Patent outlining rules use for the use of an HRH style when outside the UK (maybe include the Commonwealth?):

For example, perhaps they decide that an HRH may not be used outside of the UK/Commonwealth at all, except when officially representing HM; and

In addition, they could decide that if an HRH doesn’t live UK/Commonwealth for 3 years (5 years?), then they get removed from the line of succession. Perhaps they could rejoin the line of succession after 1 year residence back in the UK?

 

[Lee-Z]

As it’s clearly a book for small children and ‘Anne of Green Gables’ was for older children up to young adults it obviously isn’t. I don’t believe Meghan wrote it for that purpose or to compete against any other sort of children’s literature.

Imo Meghan wrote it simply because she was inspired by the bond between two males she loved very much, her husband and her son. She quite obviously saw that bond repeated between other fathers with young sons and decided it would make a nice subject for a book, and that’s all.

Agree, imo Meghan just found her inspiration and it's great that H&M seem to have a relationship they both thrive in (as much as some of us want to argue with it..it does seem to work for the two of them..)

By the snippet published earlier in the thread i doubt it is really a children's book though (even though she markets it as such), it seems more aimed at the mommies and daddies of small children, maybe to read to them when they are in their cot, but i doubt texts like this would interest small children..
(but maybe the mommies and daddies can also order 'the Hungry Caterpillar' or 'Miffy' )

 

[RandyDrx]

Meghan doesn’t have a title. Harry was given one by his grandmother the Queen on his wedding day. By custom all wives married in the British Isles take their husbands styling and rank (if they want, and most do.)


Therefore the Duchess of Sussex is her legal name. Meghan Markle isn’t. It was the professional name she used as an actress. She hasn’t used it since she married. Nor would Meghan Mountbatten Windsor be strictly correct for a Duchess.


Meghan has every right to use her styling. If the couple using their titles in any of their endeavours was unacceptable to the Queen then she would have asked them not to (as she did with the HRHs) or moved to remove Harry’s Dukedom, difficult though that might be. She hasn’t.

The point is, the reason why she is "The Duchess of Sussex" is because of who she was married to, if she was simply "Meghan Markle" or "Meghan Smith" would she got this kind of opportunity?

 

[Curryong]

If the publishers felt that Meghan was a rotten writer, the book had no potential and would not sell, then it wouldn’t matter what title she had; whether a Queen or Empress, the publishers wouldn’t have signed her up. No publisher is going to shell out money on a book they feel won’t sell. A ‘name’ can only carry a product so far.