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

[Mbruno]

Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

All grandchildren in paternal line of a British Sovereign are already automatically granted HRH under the LPs of 1917, so I don't see why any change would be necessary or why anyone would have that kind of discussion with the Queen.


I suppose someone could argue with the Queen that the rules should be changed though to give equal treatment to grandchildren in paternal and maternal line in consonance with the new succession rules in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, but I guess that is not what you had in mind.

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."

Luckily, there was no legalized segregation of people of color in the United Kingdom in 1917 or in the 1960s and, of course, slavery was abolished in the British Empire over 30 years before emancipation in the United States. I don't see why the history of racial relations in the United States (a country that legally severed its ties to the British Crown in 1783) should be taken into consideration in the rules that govern royal titles and styles in the UK, which BTW never included any race-based criteria.

 

[poppy7]

Like I said that's my opinion. If The Duchess hadn't said it, it still would have come up eventually. I'm not saying it's right the world is like this, only that it is.

It absolutely never would have come up. Because it made absolute sense for him not to be titled.

 

[Osipi]

Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."

First correction in your scenario. The subjects were *great* grandchildren and not grandchildren of the monarch. Secondly, it would never even have been though of being done at all if the Act of Succession to the Crown 2013 hadn't happened. There'd be no need for the Queen to do anything. If the Cambridges had a girl first, she'd be Lady Charlotte and her younger brother would be HRH Prince George of Cambridge, the heir apparent to the heir apparent to the heir apparent to the throne. Imagine the uproar and the hue and the cry from women about Charlotte not being treated as "equal" to her own brother! Quelle horreur!!

No matter the possible scenarios in the 21st century, something wasn't going to be looked at favorably. With the Queen being on the throne since 1952, not many people really have any other recollection of anyone being the Queen except for QEII. I was born in George VI's reign but as he died when I was a month old, I don't remember him being king at all. In 1952, the civil rights movement hadn't started yet. No one really remembered that Albert, the Prince Consort to Queen Victoria was an avid abolitionist in his time and the sexual revolution and women's lib and the equal rights fight weren't even thought of yet.

 

[Denville]

Its nonsense. If Meghan felt he was being deprived of a title becuase of his racail origins why did she and Harry deprive him of his courtesy title....

 

[KrissyM]

Because like it or not the BRF are an international brand with a high profile bi-racial American member! I don't care personally about the feelings. It's pragmatism.

 

[poppy7]

All grandchildren in paternal line of a British Sovereign are already automatically granted HRH under the LPs of 1917, so I don't see why any change would be necessary or why anyone would have that kind of discussion with the Queen.


I suppose someone could argue with the Queen that the rules should be changed though to give equal treatment to grandchildren in paternal and maternal line in consonance with the new succession rules in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, but I guess that is not what you had in mind.






Luckily, there was no legalized segregation of people of color in the United Kingdom in 1917 or in the 1960s and, of course, slavery was abolished in the British Empire over 30 years before emancipation in the United States. I don't see why the history of racial relations in the United States (a country that legally severed its ties to British Crown in 1783) should be taken into consideration in the rules that govern royal titles and styles in the UK, which BTW never included any race-based criteria.

Yes one could say that really sexism is alive and well in that rule. So either maternal and paternal line or neither. And I think that is the way it should be in the future. Do Meghan and Harry were after HRH for nothing but status it seems.

The reason it was changed in 2012 was because they couldn't have the potential future Queen being born Charlotte Mountbatten Windsor.

 

[Denville]

Because like it or not the BRF are an international brand with a high profile bi-racial American member! I don't care personally about the feelings. It's pragmatism.

Then why didn't Meghan use her son's title that she could have used, if titles are so important to her?

 

[KrissyM]

Well it's not a good look for the Inter-ethnic babies of the reigning monarch's line not to be HRH's in today's world. Is it stupid? Yes. But hey that's the way the world works.

 

[Denville]

Well it's not a good look for the Inter-ethnic babies of the reigning monarch's line not to be HRH's in today's world. Is it stupid? Yes. But hey that's the way the world works.

So it would be OK if Harry had married one of his other girlfriends, and they had a son, for that child not to be HRH?

 

[KrissyM]

In my opinion. No. However, my point is if the Sussex's children were automatically granted HRH's nobody could have used a race card.

 

[Moran]

It was a splendid look, though, when two teenagers with HRH who had been brought up to be working members of the royal family were stripped of this future and their security. Were they called leechers, or was it hangers-on? I really forgot.


Should Archie and his line for the next 200 years be the exception of the BR and almost all European Royal Houses because someone has decided that the rule of one drop of blood should apply here? Archie isn't Black.

 

[poppy7]

Because like it or not the BRF are an international brand with a high profile bi-racial American member! I don't care personally about the feelings. It's pragmatism.

Nobody cared. Nobody really cares. That point has been a non issue in the UK. Feeling now is the less members to pay for the better.

I mean Meghan being appalled that she was asked if she wanted to keep working because theybdidnt have money for her was another one. I actually think that was incredibly modern of them. Why shouldn't a self made woman keep on working. All the men did. I actually think that was pretty progressive of them. Acting wasn't a political job that could have brought issues to the family.

Meghan may have been much much happier.

 

[Heavs]

Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."

But Archie is a great grandchild of the monarch. He currently IS in line to receive an HRH when he becomes the grandson of the monarch.

Are you suggesting that the Queen retroactively grant "a title" to all her great grandchildren - including the ones who's own parents don't have one? Assuming Peter and Zara both refused (and maybe even Eug would as well considering her own experiences) people would ask why she bothered doing it anyway.

And what happens if Ella, Freddie, Marina Ogilvy, the Chattos and Armstrong Joneses etc decide as Great grandchildren of a monarch they should get HRH and start complaining?

That would be more problematic and very unpopular with the Great British Public than simply letting things take their course with Archie and his sister when Charles becomes King. I mean I personally wouldn't mind but it wouldn't be popular - people would think she'd lost her mind.

And whilst it's not their fault I can't see the public being on board with Bea and Eugenie's children getting an HRH and "rewarding" their grandfather who is seen as the one who most cares about titles out of the current family (apart from now Harry and Meghan apparently).

No one thought it was because of his potential colour or biracial heritage when he was born. They only do now because his parents lied about it.

I would also have been fine if she HAD granted him an HRH when we was born but she didn't and now he's going to grow up American with parents who made it clear they don't like "The Institution" or what it stands for, I see little reason in him having one, especially right now.

 

[Osipi]

Yes one could say that really sexism is alive and well in that rule. So either maternal and paternal line or neither. And I think that is the way it should be in the future. Do Meghan and Harry were after HRH for nothing but status it seems.

The reason it was changed in 2012 was because they couldn't have the potential future Queen being born Charlotte Mountbatten Windsor.

Yeps! It's all big, bad Parliament's fault for changing that Act of Succession to the Crown. Yet its the monarchy's fault that the Queen favored some great grandchildren over all the other ones she has and especially one that happens to be biracial by birth.

 

[poppy7]

Archie isn't Black.

He is of mixed heritage. I am always a little wary of making those statements. It is for each person to decide.

 

[Moran]

If it wasn't the race card, Meghan would have found another. She was determined to have been wronged in everything, from the Catherine clash to her son's security.
No one else cared. No one said "They're forced to do it because he's biracial!" when he was born. It's believed only now, and only out of the UK.

 

[amaryllus]

There are other ways to play the race card if one is determined to go there. Say he was made a Prince. Fine. They could have implied well our boy was not treated as well as the other grandchildren because of his mixed race heritage and still add “some one” commented on his complexion line and now we have the same hoopla and controversy

 

[KrissyM]

But Archie is a great grandchild of the monarch. He currently IS in line to receive an HRH when he becomes the grandson of the monarch.

I corrected my typo. I wish the world was as color-blind and just as it should be. It's not. The Duchess' race has been a part of the deal since day 1. It will be apart of her children's lives as long as they live. Again my opinion isn't about what anyone 'wants' it's about the fact that race was always going to be apart of the issue. They could have headed off any accusations from anyone about the titles. They didn't and it was a bad move.

 

[Moran]

He is of mixed heritage. I am always a little wary of making those statements. It is for each person to decide.

I didn't say he wasn't of mixed heritage or that it wasn't up to him how he felt. I said that biologically, he and his descendants would move further away from his Black percentage if they chose women with less mixed heritage than they are/will be. For how long should they get HRHs based on Meghan being biracial, by the logic of good optics, in a world where monarchies need slimming down in order to survive?

 

[Hallo girl]

It was a very private internment but the family involved definitely know where her remains rest. Nothing here in the US has been mentioned anywhere that I've seen what Harry did to remember his mother today. It was respected as a private thing, I'd imagine.



Althorp is the residence of Diana's brother, Charles, 9th Earl Spencer and his family live there day to day still.

Sorry I cut short my post, it was in response to a poster that said somebody had to drive to Althrop with the flowers etc etc.

 

[Hallo girl]

I didn't say he wasn't of mixed heritage or that it wasn't up to him how he felt. I said that biologically, he and his descendants would move further away from his Black percentage if they chose women with less mixed heritage than they are/will be. For how long should they get HRHs based on Meghan being biracial, by the logic of good optics, in a world where monarchies need slimming down in order to survive?

We are risking going down the road that a royal has been accused of, I personally don't think we should.

 

[Moran]

We are risking going down the road that a royal has been accused of, I personally don't think we should.

I quite agree.

 

[KrissyM]

Yeps! It's all big, bad Parliament's fault for changing that Act of Succession to the Crown. Yet its the monarchy's fault that the Queen favored some great grandchildren over all the other ones she has and especially one that happens to be biracial by birth.

That isn't what I meant. I realize that controversy is eternal, but this one could be seen coming lightyears away. IMO it's just common sense to head off the ones you can.

 

[poppy7]

I didn't say he wasn't of mixed heritage or that it wasn't up to him how he felt. I said that biologically, he and his descendants would move further away from his Black percentage if they chose women with less mixed heritage than they are/will be. For how long should they get HRHs based on Meghan being biracial, by the logic of good optics, in a world where monarchies need slimming down in order to survive?

He shouldn't have it for any reason.

Alot of parents, to be fair, with Archie's heritage would refer to them by their dominant heritage. Barack Obama's girls are black for example.

 

[Osipi]

I think one thing we should remember that when it comes to Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent issued by a monarch, it has nothing to do ever with the person but is a change that affects *all* future incidents going forward.

It's like the discussion of Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen Camilla. It would take an act of Parliament to strip her of the Queen title she is entitled to. Also, if it was done for Camilla that she would be a Princess Consort instead of a Queen, that ruling would also affect Catherine, in time, and also George's wife when he becomes King.

It's never done against one specific person for one specific reason pertaining to that person. So the biracial card in this instance is pure nonsense. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Hallo girl]

This is possibly the wrong thread but I will leave others to decide. I have just watched a documentary called when the Spencer's met the Windsors. So It is the C and D story but it also touched on the relationship of the brothers with the Spencer's. I had not realised that at the service in the Guards chapel for the 10th anniversary of his mother's death Harry had left his seat sitting with the Windsors and sat with the Spencer's.

 

[poppy7]

That isn't what I meant. I realize that controversy is eternal, but this one could be seen coming lightyears away. IMO it's just common sense to head off the ones you can.

It isn't. It's a non issue to anyone but Meghan

 

[AC21091968]

It was a splendid look, though, when two teenagers with HRH who had been brought up to be working members of the royal family were stripped of this future and their security. Were they called leechers, or was it hangers-on? I really forgot.


Should Archie and his line for the next 200 years be the exception of the BR and almost all European Royal Houses because someone has decided that the rule of one drop of blood should apply here? Archie isn't Black.

Yes, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie were called hangers-on, leachers, spongers, free-loaders, ugly spoilt stepsisters and the lists goes on. The public appeared to be happy with Charles' decision of not letting his nieces becoming working royals. And also Eugenie's gap year with taxpayer security got lots of negativity. Most were happy with Met Police decision to remove security protection from the York Princesses. I would not be surprised if some wants their title removed/stripped.

Unlike Edward and Sophie, Harry & Meghan appears to not have learn lessons from the difficult/awkward situation surrounding Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Perhaps because Harry was not been told "no" frequently enough and was getting away with a lot of things. Beatrice and Eugenie would be slaughtered by the media and general public had they behave what Harry did. I personally have sympathy for the York Princesses who have been dragged through their parents mistakes, been told "no" several times, been overestimated and misguided by their father. Yet they remain very close to the Queen & royal family with little or no resentment, handle the negative press very well and behave impeccably in public. Maybe being told "no" did help to keep them grounded.

A royal style and title comes with a lot of scrutiny, especially if it's HRH Prince/Princesses. So I could understand why Edward and Sophie want to style Louise and James as children of an Earl. I don't think Louise is upset that she is not styled HRH Princess and I don't think she is going to use it when she turned 18 this year. She seems to be close with Beatrice and Eugenie, perhaps they were telling her that she wouldn't have to face the high level of scrutiny they had face in the past.

 

[poppy7]

This is possibly the wrong thread but I will leave others to decide. I have just watched a documentary called when the Spencer's met the Windsors. So It is the C and D story but it also touched on the relationship of the brothers with the Spencer's. I had not realised that at the service in the Guards chapel for the 10th anniversary of his mother's death Harry had left his seat sitting with the Windsors and sat with the Spencer's.

He didn't. He did go over to them though and had a chat. He sat with his brother during the service.

 

[Hallo girl]

He didn't. He did go over to them though and had a chat. He sat with his brother during the service.

I am just quoting what was said in the programme I stand corrected.