Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

The suggestion was that they could have voluntarily relinquished them on marriage. Not remove them.

Yes, you are right; but that would still result in their styles being removed instead of them never having those titles... The only difference would be the way of the removal: 'voluntarily' (which could mean: being pressured into it) relinquished or taken from them by an external source.

 

[Mbruno]

We aren't talking about 'making' them HRHs. This question is about REMOVING HRHs; and I would say that you would need a very good reason to do so. And removing it from Beatrice, who currently is an HRH, and might serve as a C of S, doesn't make sense to me.

Not awarding them for future generations (starting with Charles' grandchildren/the change of the line of succession), is a very different decision - and I am sympathetic to the view that the smartest solution - especially given the changed rules on the line of succession - could be to limit it to children of monarchs (and direct heirs).

Archie only turned 2 last week, so he won't know the difference either.


Not falling into the trap to me means doing EXACTLY what he planned to do, whether that means letting the grandchildren by his younger son be HRH or making sure that they aren't. He should NOT let himself be blackmailed by Meghan.

The only reason many of us propose that the announcement needs to be made in advance, is to avoid Archie and sibling to ever be HRH. Or do you think it doesn't matter whether he isn't awarded it at all versus the title and style being removed from him after he just got it upon his grandfather's ascension to the throne? I'd say it is much better for each and everyone that IF the decision has been made that they won't be HRH, that this is arranged before the fact than just after.

Trying to answer your question:


1) I don't think it is necessary to strip Archie or his sister of the HRH. Their being HRHs has no impact on Charles' proposed "slimming down" of the monarchy as one can be an HRH and, at the same time, not be a working royal, or have state funding or state security (see e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie). Any future changes can be easily delayed to apply first to Louis' children and then to subsequent grandchildren of George in collateral line, without raising any unnecessary controversy in Charles' reign.



2) The Queen herself probably doesn't believe in slimming down anyway. In her reign, the classes of persons eligible to the HRH have been increased, rather than being cut down, as she made Charlotte and Louis HRHs too. She also drafted Anne as a full-time working royal (unlike previous holders of the Princess Royal title) and kept her cousins (the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra) as working royals until today. I don't think it is reasonable to call upon the Queen to make a major change in royal titles rules at the end of her reign when that is something she herself never felt necessary. On the other hand, if she makes changes applying exclusively to Harry's children, Meghan's supporters will claim her insinuations to Oprah have been proven true. If Charles feels that taking the HRH from the Sussex kids when he is king is something that is necessary and important for the future of the British monarchy, he should own it and take responsibility as monarch for this act, rather than shifting that burden to his mother while she is still alive.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Princess Anne was not the first Princess Royal to be a working royal. The Queen's Aunt Mary most certainly was and was one of the busiest during the Queen's own reign. I am currently doing a full analysis of the CC from 1952 onwards and it is striking the number of years where Princess Mary is the first royal to undertake a duty each year.

 

[Mbruno]

Princess Anne was not the first Princess Royal to be a working royal. The Queen's Aunt Mary most certainly was and was one of the busiest during the Queen's own reign. I am currently doing a full analysis of the CC from 1952 onwards and it is striking the number of years where Princess Mary is the first royal to undertake a duty each year.

I said unlike previous Princesses Royal (in the plural), not necessarily Princess Mary specifically.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I said unlike previous Princesses Royal (in the plural), not necessarily Princess Mary specifically.

By stating that the Queen 'drafted Anne as a full-time working royal (unlike previous holders of the Princess Royal title)' you definitely implied that Anne was the first full-time working Princess Royal. That is incorrect.

 

[Somebody]

Trying to answer your question:


1) I don't think it is necessary to strip Archie or his sister of the HRH. Their being HRHs has no impact on Charles' proposed "slimming down" of the monarchy as one can be an HRH and, at the same time, not be a working royal, or have state funding or state security (see e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie). Any future changes can be easily delayed to apply first to Louis' children and then to subsequent grandchildren of George in collateral line, without raising any unnecessary controversy in Charles' reign.

Their generation is the first to be born after the change in the line of succession. In addition, Louise and James are already known as Lady and Viscount, so why have two children in-between them and William's grandchildren to have an HRH.

Even more so, when they are living in the States and their parents have been forbidden to use their HRH because they feared they would use it to make a profit instead of to serve the monarchy. There is no reason to give them that title while the children born in a similar position prior and after them don't receive that same treatment.

2) (...) On the other hand, if she makes changes applying exclusively to Harry's children, Meghan's supporters will claim her insinuations to Oprah have been proven true. If Charles feels that taking the HRH from the Sussex kids when he is king is something that is necessary and important for the future of the British monarchy, he should own it and take responsibility as monarch for this act, rather than shifting that burden to his mother while she is still alive.

It would indeed have been easier if William had more than one sibling; as 'proof' that it had nothing to do with their specific background. But I don't believe in giving in to blackmail. And as the couple praises the Queen at every possibility, it would be hard to suddenly attack her for making a decision that reflects the future of the monarchy.

And the queen's position is different than Charles's as she can act BEFORE the fact and Charles can only act AFTER the fact. If that wasn't the case, I would agree with you that it could wait until his reign.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Well, since we've been told that it wasn't HM or the DoE who made the racist comment that fueled so much of the recent controversy, I think that doing it now while the Queen is still alive actually provides a degree of protection from any further accusations of racism. If it happens during Charles' reign there's nothing that will convince those who already believe he's the one who said it that it was anyone but him.

Excellent point about HM doing it now and explaining why!

 

[Hallo girl]

Public opinion will IMO fall into three possible areas,
1. Those who do not care one way or another.
2. Those who follow royalty and would understand the historical reasons for Archie and his siblings not receiving HRH.
3. Followers of royalty because they follow Meghan , who might not appreciate the full picture.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the same applies in the next generation - the only affected persons would be Louis's children. What would your expectation be if Louis or his future wife held an interview resulting in a comparable degree of controversy over their children not having the status of princess or prince? Would the implementation of the changes need to be put back until a generation in which the younger sons and the mothers of their children are willing to cooperate with the change?

Louis is 3. By the time he is 30, William most likely will be king already. Chances are then that the new rules will be in place even before Louis gets married or has children of his own.

The rules directing that Archie will not be a prince during the present reign were in place for over a hundred years before Prince Harry got married or had children of his own, and that was insufficient to ward off the controversy over that fact. It was contended that Queen Elizabeth had a duty to change the 1917 rules in favor of the Sussex children, and the same argument could be utilized in regards to King William and Louis's children.

It is already unlikely that a Harry/Meghan type situation will repeat itself with Louis and, given my point above, I would say even more so.

With Prince Louis being (as you point out) only 3, and his future wife an unknown quantity, for the moment there is no indication whether the likelihood of similar interview statements will be lower or higher in the next generation. In the scenario you raise (i.e. if Prince Charles had plans to withdraw princely status from children of younger sons but the interview and resultant controversy spurs him to renege), it may be learned from by future younger sons and daughters-in-law who wish to retain princely status for their children.

1) I don't think it is necessary to strip Archie or his sister of the HRH. Their being HRHs has no impact on Charles' proposed "slimming down" of the monarchy as one can be an HRH and, at the same time, not be a working royal, or have state funding or state security (see e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie). Any future changes can be easily delayed to apply first to Louis' children and then to subsequent grandchildren of George in collateral line, without raising any unnecessary controversy in Charles' reign.

Adding to Somebody's reply, should it be deemed unnecessary to strip Prince Harry's children, I can't see why it should be deemed more necessary to strip Prince Louis's children (and that is all assuming there will not be another controversy in 30 years). The gender discrimination between Louis's children and the children of his sister could be cured by extending the HRH to Princess Charlotte's children.

2) The Queen herself probably doesn't believe in slimming down anyway. In her reign, the classes of persons eligible to the HRH have been increased, rather than being cut down, as she made Charlotte and Louis HRHs too. She also [...] kept her cousins (the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra) as working royals until today.

She also decreased the class of persons eligible to be HRH through her agreement that HRH would not be used by Prince Edward's children, and decreased the class of working royals by excluding the York princesses who were in the same position as the Duke of Kent or Princess Alexandra.

 

[EuroJpnJoRoyals]

May I ask, if a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one.

My question is inspired by The possibly change of succession to nobility, if it does happen, Lady Louise would be Duchess of Edinburgh in the future, what if her descendants want to change to X-Mountbatten-Windsor?

 

[Sister Morphine]

May I ask, if a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one.

My question is inspired by The possibly change of succession to nobility, if it does happen, Lady Louise would be Duchess of Edinburgh in the future, what if her descendants want to change to X-Mountbatten-Windsor?

Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.

 

[Iluvbertie]

We don't know who will inherit the Edinburgh title from Edward as we don't know what the 'remainder' will be. It is possible that Charles may actually created the Edinburgh title with a remainder that allows Louise to inherit the Edinburgh Dukedom and James the Wessex Earldom and Severn Viscountcy.

As there are also moves afoot to remove male primogeniture from the inheritance of titles it is possible that a law will change the 'remainders' anyway.

Charles/William don't have to create a new Dukedom for Louise to be the Duchess if James dies without issue. They can cover that possibility in the Letters Patent creating the Dukedom for Edward when it is done after Charles becomes King.

I know what the tradition has been but that doesn't mean that is the only way things will go moving forward.

 

[JR76]

Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.

Edward's future dukedom will be a new creation so it will be possible, but IMO rather unlikely, for King Charles to stipulate that it's passed on to the eldest child instead of the eldest son.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...]

My question is inspired by The possibly change of succession to nobility, if it does happen, Lady Louise would be Duchess of Edinburgh in the future, what if her descendants want to change to X-Mountbatten-Windsor?

Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.

EuroJpnJoRoyals referred to a possible change in the rules of succession to nobility. They are clearly aware that male primogeniture is the current rule for (most) hereditary peerages.

Regarding succession to the future dukedom of Edinburgh: In the most likely situation with male primogeniture rules being still in effect at the time when the dukedom of Edinburgh will be recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I expect that the King will create it with the normal remainder to heirs male only, although as Iluvbertie and JR76 stated, it will be his choice. Then, even if male primogeniture were later to be abolished by Parliament, I expect that at the least, adult eldest sons such as James would be permitted to keep their places ahead of their older sisters.

In the unlikely scenario that male-only succession has been abolished by Parliament by the time the dukedom of Edinburgh is recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I wouldn't expect the King to defy Parliament by creating the new peerage with a male-only remainder.

 

[EuroJpnJoRoyals]

Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.

I know that, I have “if”in my last paragraph as The Parliament is discussing about equal succession for nobility, so I said”if”, but thanks anyway.

 

[EuroJpnJoRoyals]

We don't know who will inherit the Edinburgh title from Edward as we don't know what the 'remainder' will be. It is possible that Charles may actually created the Edinburgh title with a remainder that allows Louise to inherit the Edinburgh Dukedom and James the Wessex Earldom and Severn Viscountcy.

As there are also moves afoot to remove male primogeniture from the inheritance of titles it is possible that a law will change the 'remainders' anyway.

Charles/William don't have to create a new Dukedom for Louise to be the Duchess if James dies without issue. They can cover that possibility in the Letters Patent creating the Dukedom for Edward when it is done after Charles becomes King.

I know what the tradition has been but that doesn't mean that is the only way things will go moving forward.

Thanks for that, so this comes my main question:
if a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one.

 

[EuroJpnJoRoyals]

EuroJapsJoRoyals referred to a possible change in the rules of succession to nobility. They are clearly aware that male primogeniture is the current rule for (most) hereditary peerages.

Regarding succession to the future dukedom of Edinburgh: In the most likely situation with male primogeniture rules being still in effect at the time when the dukedom of Edinburgh will be recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I expect that the King will create it with the normal remainder to heirs male only, although as Iluvbertie and JR76 stated, it will be his choice. Then, even if male primogeniture were later to be abolished by Parliament, I expect that at the least, adult eldest sons such as James would be permitted to keep their places ahead of their older sisters.

In the unlikely scenario that male-only succession has been abolished by Parliament by the time the dukedom of Edinburgh is recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I wouldn't expect the King to defy Parliament by creating the new peerage with a male-only remainder.

Thanks for your help for the clarification. So here comes my main question:
IF a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

IF a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

I'm not sure a definitive answer can be provided, because neither the interpretation of the 1917 and 1960 proclamations covering the royal family's surname, nor their validity as legal instruments, have ever been tested in court.

The proclamations are read by some royal watchers as implying that descendants of female members of the Royal Family are barred from using the names Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor. Other royal watchers read them as simply expressing no view on what surname those descendants should use.

Even if the first interpretation was the intended one, it is unclear if legal control over family members' surnames belongs to the sovereign. A segment of royal watchers assert that as statements of the monarch's will, the proclamations are law, but other royal watchers contend that the monarch's will cannot deprive members of the public of the right they enjoy under common law to choose their own names and their minor children's names.

For readers who did not follow the earlier discussions in this thread, informative sources were shared here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-268.html#post2344837

Of course, it is not strictly a legal matter. If Peter Phillips wished to change his surname to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor and Queen Elizabeth disapproved of the idea, I suspect each would try to bring the other around without resorting to a legal battle, or even a public debate.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one?

While X-Windsor would seem more logical to me for the reason you give, I can't think of any rule which would allow X-Windsor but not Windsor-X.

 

[Somebody]

Edward's future dukedom will be a new creation so it will be possible, but IMO rather unlikely, for King Charles to stipulate that it's passed on to the eldest child instead of the eldest son.

Even more so because Edward's current titles are with a 'male-remainder'; so James will inherit his current 3 titles. And the Earl of Forfar title was a very recent one; and also the latest Ducal title (Sussex) is only inheritable in male-line.

And it would be rather weird for Louise to inherit her father's title if Beatrice doesn't inherit the Duke of York title. So, the only realistic scenario in which I envision Louise to inherit is if all remainders are changed to 'eldest child' instead of 'eldest son' by law. However, as others pointed out; where does that leave all the current 'heirs' of those titles that have gone by the subsidiary title for their whole life; will that suddenly be stripped from them to be given to their elder sister?

 

[EuroJpnJoRoyals]

Thanks for that! It helps!

 

[EuroJpnJoRoyals]

EuroJapsJoRoyals

I have ask the administrator to Change my username as my username has offensive content, could you change it here to”EuroJpnJoRoyals”? Thanks.

 

[Sunnystar]

Even more so because Edward's current titles are with a 'male-remainder'; so James will inherit his current 3 titles. And the Earl of Forfar title was a very recent one; and also the latest Ducal title (Sussex) is only inheritable in male-line.

And it would be rather weird for Louise to inherit her father's title if Beatrice doesn't inherit the Duke of York title. So, the only realistic scenario in which I envision Louise to inherit is if all remainders are changed to 'eldest child' instead of 'eldest son' by law. However, as others pointed out; where does that leave all the current 'heirs' of those titles that have gone by the subsidiary title for their whole life; will that suddenly be stripped from them to be given to their elder sister?

I would imagine that any legislation enacted to change the remainders to 'eldest child' would include some sort of language stipulating that the current heir does not lose succession rights but that it only applies to heirs born after the date of passage - similar to how the 2013 Act of Succession only impacts the places of those born after Oct 2011 when it was agreed upon by the Commonwealth heads.

So, say the Duke of XYZ's children are Lady A, Lady B, and Earl C - he is still the heir. Say Earl C is already married and has a daughter, Hon Miss M, when legislation is passed - she becomes his heir and is now called Viscountess M as Earl C does not have a living male heir at that time. Then, after the legislation is passed Earl C's wife gives birth to Hon Mister N. He does not supplant his older sister M as the heir and remains Hon Mister M until Earl C inherits Dukedom of XYZ. At that point he becomes Lord N and while his older sister become Countess M as the direct heir to the dukedom.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Marquess of Lansdowne includes of in the title. However, The Marquess Townshend does not have an of in its title. Why the difference?

 

[Curryong]

I’d say that Townshend is the Marquess’s family name though I believe that’s not his full title. While the Marquis OF Lansdowne probably refers to a place name.

 

[Roslyn]

I’d say that Townshend is the Marquess’s family name though I believe that’s not his full title. While the Marquis OF Lansdowne probably refers to a place name.

Yes, Townshend is the family name and the "of" is usually omitted when the title is prefixed to the family name. All you wanted to know about the "of" in peerages but were afraid to ask ?: The "of" in Peerages

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I haven't seen a complete transcript of the Duchess of Sussex's interview concerning her son's title, but a recently published article includes a lengthy quotation.

Speaking to Oprah, Meghan recalled how, when she had been pregnant, 'They [the Royal Family] were saying they didn't want him to be a Prince or a Princess'.

She continued: 'You know, the other piece of that convention is, there's a convention – I forget if it was George V or George VI convention – that when you're the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry's dad becomes King, automatically Archie and our next baby would become Prince or Princess, or whatever they were going to be… But also it's not their right to take it away.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ie-prince-plans-slim-monarchy-save-costs.html
​

"There's a convention – I forget if it was George V or George VI convention – that when you're the grandchild of the monarch [...] automatically [you] would become Prince or Princess" is false. The George V convention formulated in the Letters Patent of 1917 is that when you are the male-line grandchild of the monarch you automatically would become Prince or Princess, but when you are a female-line grandchild of the monarch you would not automatically become anything at all.


It is alleged in the article by Kate Mansey for the Mail on Sunday that at the birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor his parents expected their son to become a prince upon his grandfather's accession and that they were only told differently just before giving their interview to Oprah Winfrey this March. There are no named sources. It is claimed in the article that the information was obtained from an unnamed "source close to the couple".

Charles has told the Sussexes that he will change key legal documents to ensure that Archie cannot get the title he would once have inherited by right, according to a source close to the couple.

[...]

The loss will be all the more galling as the Sussexes havemade a point of refusing to use another, lesser title for their son, who is technically the Earl of Dumbarton. They took that decision safe in the knowledge that Archie would become a Prince in due course. Or so they thought.

Earlier this year, a source close to the Sussexes confirmed they did indeed expect Archie to be named a Prince when Charles, Archie's grandfather, acceded to the throne. Their spokesman at the time was even instructed to remind journalists of that 'fact'.

The Sussexes finally learned that would not be the case just before sitting down with Oprah Winfrey for their first bombshell interview in March.

[...]

An insider said: 'Charles has never made any secret of the fact that he wants a slimmed-down Monarchy when he becomes King.

'He realises that the public don't want to pay for a huge Monarchy and, as he said, the balcony at Buckingham Palace would probably collapse.'

[...]

A Royal source said last night: 'We are not going to speculate about the succession or comment on rumours coming out of America.'​

Could the statement of the "Royal source" be considered a denial? I am not clear on why they refer to the "succession" instead of "titles".

If there is truth to the claim that "the Sussexes [...] did indeed expect Archie to be named a Prince when Charles, Archie's grandfather, acceded to the throne. Their spokesman at the time was even instructed to remind journalists of that 'fact'", it would call into question whether the "senior source" who confirmed to Robert Jobson in April 2019 that Archie would become a prince was that spokesman.

However, the timeline set out in the Mail on Sunday article is inconsistent with what was reported last year in the book Finding Freedom, which was that:

[...] Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king. [...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...] The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."​

 

[Osipi]

[...] Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king. [...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...] The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."​

This all sounds convoluted to me as if the Sussexes seem to think that Charles would issue new letters patent that would refer to the Sussex children alone. It doesn't work that way at least as how I understand it. If Charles is to issue letters patent restricting the HRH Prince/ss titles to the main line of succession (William, George, Charlotte and Louis), it stands to reason that those letters patent would also be in effect and apply to Charlotte and Louis' kids unless William, then as king, issued his own new letters patent.

If Charles is going to enact a slimmed down monarchy by letters patent, it'll be one that stays in effect and not geared to one particular couple and their children that no longer wish to be a part of the monarchy and don't even reside in the UK. The rumors of Charles' slimmed down monarchy have been circulating for far longer than the concerns of the Sussex couple.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Please note that the paragraphs which you quoted were not written by me but are from the article linked in the preceding paragraph.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-harry-worried-day-charles-22502836

I agree that any changes would be intended to be permanent for future generations, although of course William and other future monarchs would remain entitled to make their own decisions.

 

[Osipi]

Please note that the paragraphs which you quoted were not written by me but are from the article linked in the preceding paragraph.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-harry-worried-day-charles-22502836

I agree that any changes would be intended to be permanent for future generations, although of course William and other future monarchs would remain entitled to make their own decisions.

I realized that and that's why I commented that it seems to be slanted to how the Sussexes are perceiving things from their angle. Especially mentioning Scobie and Durand.

You know too much about how titles and style really to author statements like that. I've learned a lot from you.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks, and the same to you. ?

I wanted to clarify for the benefit of any reader who might not have read the previous link because the quote appeared as "Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria".