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

[Fem]

Well then, people wanted an independent company to look into this, and that was the decision made. Though I can't wait to hear how this company is not independent enough to handle this case...

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by tommy100

Interesting that CBS' defence is Oprah isn't a journalist - fair point. But isn't her best friend and de-facto spokesperson Gayle King employed as a journalist? Or is she an entertainer too?

I'd love to know what Oprah really thinks of this, especially now the facts are so easy to find.

That excuse sounds to me like CBS is saying that they know H & M's claims are a bunch of lies.

[Queen Ester]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

Thank you yukari for sharing and summarising the articles. I was about to post a Sunday Times article on the bullying allegation, which does include the quote on the worst incident has not come out



Palace raises stakes in Meghan bullying inquiry
Outside law firm leads unprecedented review, and William and Harry finally make contact
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...uiry-7v7wkjntw

Archived link with the full article: https://archive.ph/9hTtx#selection-789.0-793.87

Here is another Sunday Times article on the aftermath of the Oprah's interview

The Firm stands firm on Harry and Meghan
The royal family is licking its wounds after enduring trial by TV. The Queen will speak to Harry and Charles feels traduced over claims he cut his son off — but has the Sussexes’ whirlwind blown itself out?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...ghan-nz3lmcq6h

Archived link: https://archive.ph/Clc9N#selection-765.0-769.206

If this is true, then the Palace looks complicit in covering up for Meghan. It's not a good look.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by Queen Ester

If this is true, then the Palace looks complicit in covering up for Meghan. It's not a good look.

Not at all. But I fail to imagine what they could have done to stop it. Fire her as a duchess? Shut her up in Kensington Palace? Announce that she'd no longer have any public duties? Imagine the outrage at this treatment of Harry's wife who's a POC, to top it all. Cries of racism, anyone? The accusations of how they had started persecuting poor defenseless Meghan would have been a given. Exposed her to the world? How well would this have gone?
I really can't imagine what they could have done, so they chose the head in the sand and pray it would soon go away road, it seems. IF this is true.

[Curryong]

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

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Queen Ester

I think Meghan like to throw names around, like Archbishop, Fergie, etc, it's a common American habit

I would agree Meghan likes to throw names out there. Including HM. She made a point of saying she called her regarding Philip.

I don’t agree name dropping is an American thing though.

[CrownPrincessJava]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

It's not equality exactly when hypothetically two grandchildren (through sovereign's daughter/female line) is styled as children of an Earl without HRH (had Captain Mark Philips accepted the Earldom), whilst the other grandchildren were styled as HRH Prince/Princesses (through the sovereign's male line). HRH Prince/Princesses outranks children of an Earl.

Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn are legally HRH Prince/Princesses under 1917's Letter Patent as children of the son of the sovereign. However, their parents decided that they are going to be styled as children of an earl.

If Mark Philips have accepted the earldom, Peter Phillips will be entitled to use his father's subsidiary title (as the eldest son) and Zara Phillips would be Lady Zara Philips at birth (similar to how Princess Margaret's children were styled, who are also grandchildren of a sovereign through a female and non-heir line). Of course when Zara gets married in this circumstance, she would be Lady Zara Tindall just like how Lady Sarah Chatto is styled. Again, they are not HRH Prince/Princesses, because they are children of the daughter of the sovereign (not the children of the son of the sovereign). Had Princess Anne and Princess Margaret had more sons, they would be styled as The Hon. [First Name] [Surname], which is below Lord/Lady but above those without any titles. In contrast, if they had more daughters, they would still be styled as Lady [First Name] [Surname] like their eldest sister. Yes, David Armstrong-Jones (son of Princess Margaret) has succeeded his father's earldom and becomes The Right Honourable The Earl of Snowdon in 2017.

To go further back into the generation of George V's children, where the King has five sons and a daughter, who are affected by 1917's LP. Princess Mary, the King's only daughter married Viscount Lascelles (son and heir to Henry Lascelles, 5th Earl of Harewood). Her two sons were The Hon. George Lascelles and The Hon. Gerald Lascelles at their birth (styled as the sons of Viscount Lascelles). Yes, Lascelles is the Earl's family surname. They were not HRH Prince either, despite being the eldest grandsons of George V. When Princess Mary's husband succeeded the Earldom and becomes the 6th Earl of Harewood in 1929, The Hon. George Lascelles became Viscount Lascelles (using Subsidiary title) and The Hon. Gerald Lascelles remained the same for the rest of his life. Of course when Princess Mary's husband died in 1947, her son became the 7th Earl of Harewood.

Pictures of George and Gerald both styled as The Hon. [First Name] Lascelles, in the labels of photographs before 1929
https://www.lookandlearn.com/history...-Lascelles.jpg
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...61?s=2048x2048

Even if Peter Phillips accepts the Earldom, Savannah and Isla would still be Lady Savannah Phillips and Lady Isla Phillips, not HRH Princesses like Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. Similar to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy's situation (as a granddaughter of the sovereign through a male line), where The Hon. Angus Ogilvy (second son of 12th Earl of Airlie) turned down an earldom, had Jack received and accepted an Earldom, August Brooksbank would entitled to use his father's subsidiary title. Princess Alexandra's children also do not have titles: James Ogilvy and Marina Ogilvy.

The latest exception of Prince/Princess given to grandchildren of the sovereign through female line was Princess Alexandra and Princess Maud in 1905 (daughters of Princess Louise and 1st Duke of Fife), but they were Her Highness not Her Royal Highness. Between when they were born and 1905, they were Lady Alexandra Duff and Lady Maud Duff, styled as daughter of The (1st) Duke of Fife. The 1917's LP by George V did not take the HH Princess titles away from them.

Again, you miss my point completely. The Queen was prepared to issue letters patent that the children of the Princess Royal had HRH and titles, just like her father did with her. Under the 1917 patent, NONE of the Queen's children would have titles when she was the Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Elizabeth. The Princess Royal REFUSED and her mother respected her decision.

Everyone here can hold on to the 1917 letters patent with dear life, but there has been already a handful of new patents issued since then. The latest in 2013.

[KrissyM]

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?

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by duchessrachel

That excuse sounds to me like CBS is saying that they know H & M's claims are a bunch of lies.

Agreed. They know. They would look pretty foolish if their response was to claim the interview actually contained the truth- when there’s proof of several lies such as the marriage, the title issue....not to mention Meghan making it sound like she couldn’t leave the country or the palace when we all saw her. Plenty of pictorial evidence there.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava

Again, you miss my point completely. The Queen was prepared to issue letters patent that the children of the Princess Royal had HRH and titles, just like her father did with her. Under the 1917 patent, NONE of the Queen's children would have titles when she was the Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Elizabeth. The Princess Royal REFUSED and her mother respected her decision.



Everyone here can hold on to the 1917 letters patent with dear life, but there has been already a handful of new patents issued since then. The latest in 2013.

That was back in the late 1970s. A lot has changed in how the royal family operates since then. There’s a reason Louise and James don’t use the HRH that they actually are entitled to use.

There’s a reason why Beatrice and Eugenie aren’t working royals.

There’s no comparison between Anne then and Meghan/Harry now. That was over 40 years ago. The direction the BRF has been going in for a long time is clearly a scaled back working royal family. And scaled back use of HRH.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava

Actually, it has been reported several times that the Queen was prepared to make Peter and Zara HRH and even Prince/ss of Great Britian and it was Princess Anne and her first husband who declined. There were reports she offered her oldest grandson an earldom on his wedding day and he refused.

Sounds like HM The Queen wanted equity amongst her children.

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava

Again, you miss my point completely. The Queen was prepared to issue letters patent that the children of the Princess Royal had HRH and titles, just like her father did with her. Under the 1917 patent, NONE of the Queen's children would have titles when she was the Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Elizabeth. The Princess Royal REFUSED and her mother respected her decision.

I would be interested in seeing those reports, as the consensus among the reputable sources and British royal family experts I have come across is that the Queen never considered making Princess Anne's children HRH or Prince/ss.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by yukari

New development on the bullying allegation:

https://mobile.twitter.com/rjmyers/s...59092206571525







DM also reports that Meghan team has written to Buckingham Palace demanding to see any documents, emails or text messages relating to the bullying complaint against her.



Meghan Markle demands to see emails and texts on bullying allegations after a senior Palace aide accused her of 'unacceptable behaviour' towards two personal assistants - as Prince Charles's staff sift through files





The rest of the article is just a summary of the allegation (Jason Knauf etc) if you don't want to add another click to DM.

Thanks. I don’t think I realized that Jason Knauf quit working for the Sussexes a month after the email. That suggests he continued to be unhappy with what he was seeing from Meghan and what was (or was not) being done about it.

Also- most people when they make a point of emailing about a serious subject it is because they want documentation of what was going on and who knew. That, to me, indicates just how deeply concerned he likely was.

And he now works for William. Very interesting. I knew that, but I find that notable.

[Queen Ester]

Originally Posted by BriarRose

I think it's hard for people outside the CofE to understand just how unlawful a secret wedding is in the CofE. If she said "I felt spiritually married rehearsing my vows" no one would have blinked an eye. It's also getting a lot of attention because her husband is the grandson of the Head of the CofE. And this was with the Archbishop, who is the principal leader of the CofE. All those factors combined are why this is such a big deal, even though there are people in the U.K. who are not religious.

An analogy: someone receiving a vial of holy water from the Pope, then saying on television that the Pope baptized them. Catholics all over the world would most definitely point on that there was no baptism. Or like me hypothetically telling people that my husband's uncle, a Rabbi, told me pork is kosher. My husband would immediately correct me, even if I had no ill intent. Religions have rules. Meghan told a story that sounded like she, Harry & the Archbishop broke a well-known rule.

Either the Archbishop or Harry & Meghan could have made an immediate correction Monday morning that clearly stated there was no private wedding. Letting it continue to run on did the Sussexes no favors. But I think the comment was a bigger issue for the Archbishop, not Meghan. My father is a member and is convinced the Archbishop allowed Meghan to believe that the vow rehearsal was a private wedding, and he is angry at the Archbishop. (My dad is also very old, and for some reason has never been a fan of Welby. Not sure why.)

Do you think that is actually possible, that Harry and Meghan would call the Archbishop, and he would come to their house on demand? Would not he have to notify HM before, and then, HM would know exactly what transpired.

[UglyAmerican]

Originally Posted by yukari

DM also reports that Meghan team has written to Buckingham Palace demanding to see any documents, emails or text messages relating to the bullying complaint against her.

Oh, that's rich. So if Piers Morgan demands to see all documents she has regarding her claims of being suicidal and being denied treatment, she'll happily turn them over so that he can defend himself against the complaint she filed against him for saying he didn't believe her? After all, fair's fair.

Originally Posted by KrissyM

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?

Probably because everyone recognizes in hindsight that allowing/encouraging Beatrice and Eugenie to grow up with the expectation of being working royals only to take it away from them was unfair to those young women. Harry's kids were unlikely to ever be given that option, since they're in exactly the same position as the children of the spare, just one generation later. There's been talk about rolling it back further and not giving HRH titles to anyone other than the direct heir since at least the same time as Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security. I suspect the long-term plan was for Harry's kids to never have HRH/Prince(ss) titles at all, and that decision was made well before he ever met Meghan.

[Curryong]

Piers Morgan’s comments on Meghan were in response to his viewing an interview on TV. They weren’t made in the context of a looming official inquiry at the Palace.

And we don’t know how this inquiry is going to work yet.

[UglyAmerican]

My understanding is that the complaint was made to government regulators, with potential legal consequences for both Morgan and the network. Since the substance of her complaint was that accusing her of lying violated government broadcasting standards, whether or not she actually was lying seems relevant here. I hope the documents she wants don't get turned over. The Palace surely knows by now that anything it gives her will end up in the tabloids, and that's not fair to the employees who were rightly promised privacy when they complained.

[Curryong]

When has anything that Meghan was given by the Palace ended up in the tabloids prior to the Oprah interview? While of course leaks galore, including emails accusing Meghan of bullying from Jason Knauff can be published in newspapers by Times reporters and others with impunity. And that’s considered quite fair when those allegations are still unproven.

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by UglyAmerican

Oh, that's rich. So if Piers Morgan demands to see all documents she has regarding her claims of being suicidal and being denied treatment, she'll happily turn them over so that he can defend himself against the complaint she filed against him for saying he didn't believe her? After all, fair's fair.



Probably because everyone recognizes in hindsight that allowing/encouraging Beatrice and Eugenie to grow up with the expectation of being working royals only to take it away from them was unfair to those young women. Harry's kids were unlikely to ever be given that option, since they're in exactly the same position as the children of the spare, just one generation later. There's been talk about rolling it back further and not giving HRH titles to anyone other than the direct heir since at least the same time as Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security. I suspect the long-term plan was for Harry's kids to never have HRH/Prince(ss) titles at all, and that decision was made well before he ever met Meghan.

Plus by allowing Archie and his sister to have HRH Prince/Princess before Charles ascend to the throne goes against his "alleged" plan to reduce the number of HRH Prince and Princesses, which has been planned for at least a decade, way before Meghan arrived at the scene. The only reason why there is an amendment in 2012 was to ensure that if William's first child is a girl, she would not be Lady [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor whilst her younger brother, whose behind her in line of succession, is Prince [First Name] of Cambridge. The amendment was trying to be consistent with the Succession of the Crown Act where there is absolute primogeniture. Of course George was the first born in 2013, so the change did not appear drastic or apparent.

I think there are lessons learned from what happened to Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, where they were brought up to be senior working royals, but then Prince Charles wanted to slim down the monarchy, angering Prince Andrew. There is a reason why Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn are styled as children of an Earl rather than the usual Princess Louise of Wessex and Prince James of Wessex. I guess The Earl and Countess of Wessex saw the high level of scrutiny of having a HRH Prince/Princess title and considered/realised that their children have little chance to be working royal. And they probably thought it would be better to start with nothing and then be given something later on rather than to initially have something, but then to take it away.

I think similar principles will happen to Archie and his sister. It may not appear good, but it's better in the long run. Many people on this forum have speculated that Charles maybe restricting HRH Prince/Princesses to

• Children of the Sovereign
• Children of the heir of the Sovereign (rather than children of the sons of the sovereign)
• Children of the heir of the heir of the Sovereign

By following this rule, when Charles becomes King, in his grandchildren generation, only George, Charlotte and Louis would be HRH Prince/Princess, but not Archie and his sister. Again, this rule is draw up not because Archie and his sister are biracial nor an agenda against Harry & Meghan. This "stream lining" rule would also applied to George, Charlotte and Louis's children, where only George's kids get HRH Prince/Princess even when William is King.

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava

Again, you miss my point completely. The Queen was prepared to issue letters patent that the children of the Princess Royal had HRH and titles, just like her father did with her. Under the 1917 patent, NONE of the Queen's children would have titles when she was the Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Elizabeth. The Princess Royal REFUSED and her mother respected her decision.

Everyone here can hold on to the 1917 letters patent with dear life, but there has been already a handful of new patents issued since then. The latest in 2013.

Originally Posted by KrissyM

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?

May I suggest both of you visiting and reading the Question about British Styles and Titles thread to understand more about the royal and noble titles as well as some predictions about the future by some members? Because titles are considered off-topic in this thread and there seems to be massive back-and-forth arguments with no common ground. You could also pop new questions there if you want and often the explanations/responses are more comprehensive. If you are worried about asking the same question as before, there is a "Search this thread" button near the top of the page, just below the page scroller, where you can type in keywords and phrases before hitting "go". After you clicked one of the search results, the keywords/phrases you searched is in coloured in red.

There is no need to accuse some forum members of being archaic or stuck in the past simply by not being convinced that some royal family members deserve better or equal treatment as the heirs, because it's the 21st Century

[Curryong]

Then Robert Jobson of the Standard must have been told a lot of garbage by aides/insiders in May 2019 when they strongly inferred that Archie would become a Prince in the new reign and he wrote about it.

And Sophie Wessex recently stated in a magazine that Louise and James did have HRHs but would wait until the were 18 before deciding whether to use them.

[Queen Ester]

Originally Posted by UglyAmerican

My understanding is that the complaint was made to government regulators, with potential legal consequences for both Morgan and the network. Since the substance of her complaint was that accusing her of lying violated government broadcasting standards, whether or not she actually was lying seems relevant here. I hope the documents she wants don't get turned over. The Palace surely knows by now that anything it gives her will end up in the tabloids, and that's not fair to the employees who were rightly promised privacy when they complained.

"According to the Times Knauff, who now heads up the Cambridges' charitable foundation, sent an email to Prince William's then-private secretary Simon Case, in a move designed to get Buckingham Palace to protect staff Knauff claimed “were coming under unbearable pressure from Meghan"
Does this mean that William was aware at the time of the bullying charge? This is getting worse and worse for the RF, seems that William knew as well, unless Simon Case did not inform him, it'll be interesting to see who knew what and when, William may find himself embroyled in this sordid mess.