The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021

[Tatiana Maria]

I think that what Meghan was trying to ssay in her convoluted way was that the loss of HRH for the children of younger sons.. (ie like Louis's children in due course) was "going to start with her children" and that she believed presumably that that was because her children were of African American descent.

What is unclear to me is who else (in the view of the Duchess) the legal loss of HRH for the children of younger sons (the de facto loss of HRH for children of younger sons already began with the Wessex children) could possibly have started with, other than her children (on the assumption that Charles is the first monarch who intends to issue new letters patent). The York princesses?

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are of the same generation as the Wessex children, but in contrast to their younger cousins they have used royal titles for all their lives, and will be in their 30s or 40s when King Charles accedes to the throne.

I suppose that King Charles could draft new letters patent stipulating that only younger sons' children who used royal titles during the reign of Elizabeth II will legally retain them, which would strip the legal HRH from the Wessex children, who never used it, but not from the York princesses, who did. Then the legal change would start with the Wessex children. Would that be acceptable to the future King and the Duchess of Sussex?

 

[Denville]

What is unclear to me is who else (in the view of the Duchess) the legal loss of HRH for the children of younger sons (the de facto loss of HRH for children of younger sons already began with the Wessex children) could possibly have started with, other than her children (on the assumption that Charles is the first monarch who intends to issue new letters patent). The York princesses?

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are of the same generation as the Wessex children, but in contrast to their younger cousins they have used royal titles for all their lives, and will be in their 30s or 40s when King Charles accedes to the throne.

I suppose that King Charles could draft new letters patent stipulating that only younger sons' children who used royal titles during the reign of Elizabeth II will legally retain them, which would strip the legal HRH from the Wessex children, who never used it, but not from the York princesses, who did. Would that be acceptable to the future King and the Duchess of Sussex?

obviously she perceives it as the RF not wanting her children to have royal titles.... and finding this way of doing it....

 

[TLLK]

Peter and Autumn did not have a wedding paid by the tax payers, they sold their pictures to Hello for money to pay for the wedding so I'm not sure what your point is. Harry got a nice wedding, with a lot of goodwill from the public, and he has been bitterly complaining as if he were locked in a dungeon on bread and water.
As for small weddings, only the senior royals get a big wedding etc. Zara Phillips was married in Scotland, no filming of the wedding etc. Eugenie's wedding was only shown on a tv programme, and there was still a lot of grumbling about the cost of security for it. If a minor royal wants to marry quietly with no cost to the taxpayer the queen is not going to say no to it...

Thank you for pointing this out Denville as these weddings were paid for privately and without taxpayer funding unlike William/Catherine's and Harry/Meghan's.

 

[Curryong]

IMO the Queen and Prince Charles wished for a big wedding. Harry was not a minor royal and was a fulltime working one. As Harry was the son of the Prince of Wales I think a big wedding was expected by the media and the grey suits at the Palace also thought it was a good idea. His wedding was largely paid for privately by the royals, except for security. And TV coverage was expected.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...arkle-royal-wedding-who-pays-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

Peter Phillips, Zara and Beatrice and Eugenie weren’t working royals at any time of their lives though Eugenie got a large wedding at St George’s with carriage ride, and security paid for by the taxpayer.

 

[Moran]

The idea that Harry's wish wasn't for a big wedding and he was almost forced into it doesn't sit well with me. Harry himself made it clear with his abundant complaints. He whined about being used and exploited, about being the family yes-man, about being sent to places he didn't really want to go. He was on a roll about the evils done to him. But he never said, "Poor me, I was forced into a lavish wedding!" In fact, he never, not once complained of having been made to wear a uniform and partake in parades, being in the eye if the public interest.

In fact, given the way he barged between the chairs after the 2020 Commonwealth Service because he was terrified Edward and Sophie would actually walk before him and Meghan shows that he was always into the flashy part of royal life.

The wedding was Harry's wish, IMO, no matter whose else it might have been.

 

[Heavs]

IMO the Queen and Prince Charles wished for a big wedding. Harry was not a minor royal and was a fulltime working one. As Harry was the son of the Prince of Wales I think a big wedding was expected by the media and the grey suits at the Palace also thought it was a good idea. His wedding was largely paid for privately by the royals, except for security. And TV coverage was expected.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...arkle-royal-wedding-who-pays-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

Peter Phillips, Zara and Beatrice and Eugenie weren’t working royals at any time of their lives though Eugenie got a large wedding at St George’s with carriage ride, and security paid for by the taxpayer.

It was expected, but they've done a lot of things that were *not* expected. If they'd truly wanted a smaller wedding I'm sure they could have had one. Nothing apart from Meghan's comment suggested they wanted something smaller before or after the interview. She seemed to just want the "gotcha" moment of revealing that they (did not) get married three days before. And it fit in with their complaining about everything about royal life.

They also invited a lot of Hollywood celebrities that they didn't know so I don't think they were upset about "the spectacle" and glamour of it at the time. And then there's things like the extremely expensive engagement photo dress that no one forced them to choose which wouldn't necessarily have been available if they'd had a smaller wedding.

St George's is basically the family chapel and a royal peculiar, so it's not surprising that many get married there, whether they're working royals or not.

So how are these wedding expenses judged? Peter Phillips and Autumn got a big wedding but they are divorced now. So despite the expense, not all marriages pan out and no refunds are given to taxpayers. Even if Harry or any other younger royal wanted to elope or have a very small wedding with only a few people, they probably would not be allowed this type of wedding by HM.

It's not the expense it's the fact that they complained about it whilst not acknowledging any positives about the situation. They seem at the same time angry about the hierarchical nature of the BRF but desperate for the perks (titles, money etc) they clearly both like publicity (see the last 18 months) yet complain about a "spectacle for the world" whilst claiming to have actually gotten married three days earlier, which was factually incorrect anyway. This was also the big event that showcased Meghan to the world and she may not have had a big a platform if there were no TV cameras around.

Harry complains about being cut off but doesn't mention his father gave him at least a lump sum into the Summer of 2020 and maybe more. They seem to think "financial independence" meant just the Sovereign Grant but the Duchy money would keep flowing.

Harry complains about being the "yes man" but doesn't acknowledge the fact that actually his elderly relatives clocked more engagements than him and that he had the time and money to get help for his problems that others don't have.

They complain about the institution being toxic but want to come back for the good parts.

They complain they were silenced but don't acknowledge the enormous platform that the monarchy still gives them to this day.

Allegedly they think Dumbarton is silly but are fixated on the fact that their children might never be HRH.

They complain about the things they got and complain about the things they failed to get, it's part of a pattern that is frustrating.

 

[tihkon2]

I found Oprah's "gasps of amazement" at the things that Meghan said, really ridiculous (the woman is no actress)
.

Well, actually Oprah was an Oscar nominated actress for "The Color Purple"

 

[Somebody]

I think that what Meghan was trying to ssay in her convoluted way was that the loss of HRH for the children of younger sons.. (ie like Louis's children in due course) was "going to start with her children" and that she believed presumably that that was because her children were of African American descent.

obviously she perceives it as the RF not wanting her children to have royal titles.... and finding this way of doing it....

If she truly perceives it that way, it is a clear sign of her not understanding the British royal family (which she admitted) and also of seeing everything through a very specific lens, i.e., as if anything that happens to her is motivated by racism.

It must be really hard to work with someone who has no desire to understand but only to misinterpret/misrepresent to fit her narrative.

 

[winifred]

"The spokesman added: 'I betray no confidence when I say they've been very successful in becoming financially independent.' "

Excellent news for the Sussexes. I hope this means they can now move on and live the life they want, without the constant looking back.

Re titles: Archie will be Duke of Sussex when his father dies, surely? And whether the family uses the titles or not, as of now Archie is Lord Archie and Lili is Lady Lili.

 

[Sandy345]

The idea that Harry's wish wasn't for a big wedding and he was almost forced into it doesn't sit well with me. Harry himself made it clear with his abundant complaints. He whined about being used and exploited, about being the family yes-man, about being sent to places he didn't really want to go. He was on a roll about the evils done to him. But he never said, "Poor me, I was forced into a lavish wedding!" In fact, he never, not once complained of having been made to wear a uniform and partake in parades, being in the eye if the public interest.

In fact, given the way he barged between the chairs after the 2020 Commonwealth Service because he was terrified Edward and Sophie would actually walk before him and Meghan shows that he was always into the flashy part of royal life.

The wedding was Harry's wish, IMO, no matter whose else it might have been.

In my post I didn't give my speculation on Harry's Feelings about having the large wedding much less that he was opposed to one.

My post was about that in recent memory the only ones who had relatively small weddings were Bea and Edo (due to pandemic the larger planned wedding was canceled) and Anne's second wedding. I never heard of any of the Queen's children and grandchildren going out to elope or "demanding" a small wedding or any stories of their even wanting a small wedding.

 

[Kaye1850]

“In fact, given the way he barged between the chairs after the 2020 Commonwealth Service because he was terrified Edward and Sophie would actually walk before him and Meghan shows that he was always into the flashy part of royal life.“

One of my favorite moments in royal history ️

 

[Osipi]

It was expected, but they've done a lot of things that were *not* expected. If they'd truly wanted a smaller wedding I'm sure they could have had one. Nothing apart from Meghan's comment suggested they wanted something smaller before or after the interview. She seemed to just want the "gotcha" moment of revealing that they (did not) get married three days before. And it fit in with their complaining about everything about royal life.

They also invited a lot of Hollywood celebrities that they didn't know so I don't think they were upset about "the spectacle" and glamour of it at the time. And then there's things like the extremely expensive engagement photo dress that no one forced them to choose which wouldn't necessarily have been available if they'd had a smaller wedding.

St George's is basically the family chapel and a royal peculiar, so it's not surprising that many get married there, whether they're working royals or not.



It's not the expense it's the fact that they complained about it whilst not acknowledging any positives about the situation. They seem at the same time angry about the hierarchical nature of the BRF but desperate for the perks (titles, money etc) they clearly both like publicity (see the last 18 months) yet complain about a "spectacle for the world" whilst claiming to have actually gotten married three days earlier, which was factually incorrect anyway. This was also the big event that showcased Meghan to the world and she may not have had a big a platform if there were no TV cameras around.

Harry complains about being cut off but doesn't mention his father gave him at least a lump sum into the Summer of 2020 and maybe more. They seem to think "financial independence" meant just the Sovereign Grant but the Duchy money would keep flowing.

Harry complains about being the "yes man" but doesn't acknowledge the fact that actually his elderly relatives clocked more engagements than him and that he had the time and money to get help for his problems that others don't have.

They complain about the institution being toxic but want to come back for the good parts.

They complain they were silenced but don't acknowledge the enormous platform that the monarchy still gives them to this day.

Allegedly they think Dumbarton is silly but are fixated on the fact that their children might never be HRH.

They complain about the things they got and complain about the things they failed to get, it's part of a pattern that is frustrating.

Thanks for making a clear and concise list of all the woes and ills and complaints that the Sussexes have whined about. And that's not even close to being a total list of things that they've come out with since January 8, 2020.

What does this tell me? It tells me that if they were a couple intent on moving forward and making a success of their new, happy-go-lucky lives, that they would have definitely realized (or perhaps had a PR firm that would realize) that they've wasted a precious amount of time when all this was new and shiny in the public eye to actually focus on what they want to do and how they plan to implement it and actually *plug* Archewell and projects to garner a following and interest in the *now*.

Talk about wasted opportunity! Imagine what they could have done with the Oprah interview if they sat down with her and talked about joint projects, the Invictus Netflix project, things Archewell wants to accomplish and get involved with. One reason comes to mind though. That stuff isn't sensational enough to get the shock and awe jaw dropping reactions from Oprah and get tongues wagging all over the world about the "poor, mistreated Sussex couple".

Harry and Meghan sold out for what sells in a tabloid world. Simple.

 

[Denville]

The idea that Harry's wish wasn't for a big wedding and he was almost forced into it doesn't sit well with me. Harry himself made it clear with his abundant complaints. He whined about being used and exploited, about being the family yes-man, about being sent to places he didn't really want to go. He was on a roll about the evils done to him. But he never said, "Poor me, I was forced into a lavish wedding!" In fact, he never, not once complained of having been made to wear a uniform and partake in parades, being in the eye if the public interest.


The wedding was Harry's wish, IMO, no matter whose else it might have been.

ah but to be fair, Megahn told us it was their second wedding at St Georges.... they'd been married 3 days before!

In my post I didn't give my speculation on Harry's Feelings about having the large wedding much less that he was opposed to one.

My post was about that in recent memory the only ones who had relatively small weddings were Bea and Edo (due to pandemic the larger planned wedding was canceled) and Anne's second wedding. I never heard of any of the Queen's children and grandchildren going out to elope or "demanding" a small wedding or any stories of their even wanting a small wedding.

They had the weddings they wanted, I presume but they didn't get public weddings.

"The spokesman added: 'I betray no confidence when I say they've been very successful in becoming financially independent.' "

Excellent news for the Sussexes. I hope this means they can now move on and live the life they want, without the constant looking back.

Re titles: Archie will be Duke of Sussex when his father dies, surely? And whether the family uses the titles or not, as of now Archie is Lord Archie and Lili is Lady Lili.

But its Harry and Meghan who have elected not to use their chilldren's courtesy titles..

T

Talk about wasted opportunity! Imagine what they could have done with the Oprah interview if they sat down with her and talked about joint projects, the Invictus Netflix project, things Archewell wants to accomplish and get involved with. One reason comes to mind though. That stuff isn't sensational enough to get the shock and awe jaw dropping reactions from Oprah and get tongues wagging all over the world about the "poor, mistreated Sussex couple".

Harry and Meghan sold out for what sells in a tabloid world. Simple.

Do you really think that they care about Archwell and what it can accomplish, other than getting them public notice. Like when they were in Africa and instead of concentrating on the work they were supposed to be doing, they made it all about their own liffe and problems. I'd like to believe that Harry does care something about Invictus but the way they've behaved in the last year, seems to me to show that he doesn't really care that much. He said it himself that he didn't want to be on that tour with the Gurkhas, his fellow soldiers...so that seems to me to indicate that he is/was putting on a show of being a caring charity worker... and what he cares about is complaining about his own "hard life."

 

[Osipi]

Do you really think that they care about Archwell and what it can acomplish, other than getting them public notice.

Actually, I think they did and still do have ambitions to do good through Archewell. It's, IMO, the central point of their "brand". I just think they wasted a lot of time where they could have been putting a more positive slant on what they hope to do rather than focus on the negative things they perceive they had to deal with and escape.

 

[Denville]

Actually, I think they did and still do have ambitions to do good through Archewell. It's, IMO, the central point of their "brand". I just think they wasted a lot of time where they could have been putting a more positive slant on what they hope to do rather than focus on the negative things they perceive they had to deal with and escape.

Hmmmm. I honestly dont think so. I think they want to lecture the world, and to put forward a left leaning POV.. but the first, second and third thing they want is that "financial independence".....
If they were really giving up royal life to concentrate on their own charity work.. they had a platform to do so with Orpah and what did we get "the RF were so cruel to us".. just like the film about their work in Africa was about their various woes and problems...

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

Hmmmm. I honestly dont think so. I think they want to lecture the world, and to put forward a left leaning POV.. but the first, second and third thing they want is that "financial independence".....

If they were really giving up royal life to concentrate on their own charity work.. they had a platform to do so with Orpah and what did we get "the RF were so cruel to us".. just like the film about their work in Africa was about their various woes and problems...

I tend to think- it’s both. I do think there are issues they genuinely care about. (But after they’ve worked so hard to rip into everything connected to the past- I think the skepticism is fair.)

But- I do agree that it’s hardly their first priority. Oprah was the best platform they could have had to present their philanthropic vision. Instead- they used their time to complain about private family issues that dated well over 1 or more years in the past. And have continued to complain. Right now- that IMO is their big legacy. That is what they’re best known for. Their choice. Especially Meghan. No one knew who she was pre Harry. And she didn’t take the time to really establish herself before quitting IMO. She’s not Diana.

They do come off as lecture-y to me. That doesn’t personally go down well with me. I find it irritating out of anyone, but especially celebrities.

Earning money is surely important. A lot of their earning potential is naturally based off being part of the family they’ve felt compelled to trash. And….so are their philanthropic endeavors for that matter. It gave them their platforms. All of them. It’s….interesting to say the least.

 

[Denville]

I tend to think- it’s both. I do think there are issues they genuinely care about.

But- I do agree that it’s hardly their first priority. Oprah was the best platform they could have had to present their philanthropic vision. Instead- they used their time to complain about private family issues that dated well over 1 or more years in the past. And have continued to complain. Right now- that IMO is their big legacy. That is what they’re known for. Their choice. Especially Meghan. No one knew who she was pre Harry. And she didn’t take her he time to establish herself before quitting IMO.

They do come off as lecture-y to me. That doesn’t personally go down well with me. I find it irritating out of anyone, but especially celebrities.

Earning money is surely important. A lot of their earning potential is naturally based off being part of the family they’ve felt compelled to trash. And….so are their philanthropic endeavors for that matter. It gave them their platforms. All of them. It’s….interesting to say the least.

the thing is, that Harry himself said that he didn't like royal duties, didn't want to be meeting poorer people who were "free" while he wasn't, was "burned out" by being forced into all those tiresome tiring royal duties. So, well its kind of his own words that he doesn't really want to slog out there and do boring charity visits... I'm afraid that Its hard now not to feel that he has ruined himself and his image as a kindly if not very smart bloke... who did genuinely care for people. And he has abused most of his own family.. even if they WERE as bad to him as he makes out, there's nothing IMO to be gained from noisily trashing them on TV.
Maybe he'd say, if you asked him, that he "doesn't feel like that any more" and really enjoys what he's been doing in America.. (mostly IMO telling the world every time their charity makes a donation)... but he would have said, no doubt that he enjoyed the tours and the work with poorer people in his royal past. So how can one feel sure that he is genuine about committing to doing good?
I'm afraid there is an instinctive way they react, that shows how selfish they are.. when the free security from the Canadians dried up, they headed like homing pigeons to LA to borrow a house from some millionaire they didn't know, I gather.

 

[Erin9]

the thing is, that Harry himself said that he didn't like royal duties, didn't want to be meeting poorer people who were "free" while he wasn't, was "burned out" by being forced into all those tiresome tiring royal duties. So, well its kind of his own words that he doesn't really want to slog out there and do boring charity visits... I'm afraid that Its hard now not to feel that he has ruined himself and his image as a kindly if not very smart bloke... who did genuinely care for people. And he has abused most of his own family.. even if they WERE as bad to him as he makes out, there's nothing IMO to be gained from noisily trashing them on TV.

Maybe he'd say, if you asked him, that he "doesn't feel like that any more" and really enjoys what he's been doing in America.. (mostly IMO telling the world every time their charity makes a donation)... but he would have said, no doubt that he enjoyed the tours and the work with poorer people in his royal past. So how can one feel sure that he is genuine about committing to doing good?

I do agree. I edited my post to add that while *I* think there’s genuine sentiment to help people- I do think they’ve opened themselves up to people being skeptical. And questioning their true values.

I think they’ve taken a hatchet to their own images- especially Harry, at least for some of us, with all the public complaining. (I’m not sure Meghan had much of an image to lose.) Plenty of people who either liked them or were previously ambivalent have a negative opinion now. (And plenty are supportive to be fair.)

We’ll see how all this plays out over the long haul. It’ll be interesting.

 

[Denville]

I do agree. I edited my post to add that while *I* think there’s genuine sentiment to help people- I do think they’ve opened themselves up to people being skeptical. And questioning their true values.

I think they’ve taken a hatchet to their own images- especially Harry, at least for some of us, with all the public complaining. (I’m not sure Meghan had much of an image to lose.) Plenty of people who either liked them or were previously ambivalent have a negative opinion now. (And plenty are supportive to be fair.)

We’ll see how all this plays out over the long haul. It’ll be interesting.

I thin that Harry's the one who is really getting angry and even if it IS justified, it doesn't look good. (and IMO its not really justified). Meghan is more inclined to ramble and say confusing things, than to make these angry tirades...
And Harry DID seem a nice enough lad in years gone by. But I now honeslty feel it was not sincere,.. after all he told us it wasn't....

 

[Erin9]

Talk about wasted opportunity! Imagine what they could have done with the Oprah interview if they sat down with her and talked about joint projects, the Invictus Netflix project, things Archewell wants to accomplish and get involved with. One reason comes to mind though. That stuff isn't sensational enough to get the shock and awe jaw dropping reactions from Oprah and get tongues wagging all over the world about the "poor, mistreated Sussex couple".



Harry and Meghan sold out for what sells in a tabloid world. Simple.

I hi- lighted the paragraph above your last one for clarity, but it was the last paragraph I really wanted to focus on because it is THAT simple. And put quite succinctly.

 

[Alison H]

One news presenter has suggested that Harry should have been made the Duke of Scilly. (That's as in the Isles of Scilly, off the coast of mainland England. The c is silent.)

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...gnalling-Harry-Meghan-Earl-Dumbarton-row.html

So is Archie, officially, the Earl of Dumbarton? What is the Scottish connection to Harry? Is it the late Queen Mother?

 

[Denville]

Royal dukes get a Scottish, an English and an Irish (northern) title. Archie is not the Earl of Dumbarton but Harry is, and so its usual for the eldest son to use the second title...

 

[Queen Claude]

TMZ has published a copy of Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor's birth certificate,
https://www.tmz.com/2021/06/24/prin...te-daughter-his-royal-highness-royals-family/ .


https://dam.tmz.com/document/5d/o/2021/06/24/5d3940c4ef4e4326a947aa3157c14317.pdf

 

[TLLK]

Why on Earth is the "Duke of Sussex listed as his first name and "His Royal Highness" listed as his last name???
I could understand that he would use "Prince Harry" or " Prince Henry Charles Albert David" but not Duke of Sussex.

 

[Prinsara]

I'm not even sure how that's legal in a country that doesn't recognize titles. Not for legal purposes...

 

[Osipi]

Makes me think the "birth certificate" they got ahold of somehow is a fake one. There's no way a legal birth certificate in California would condone using HRH or a British peerage title in place of a legal name. What did they list the mother as? Tungsten Flower?

 

[Heavs]

So Harry's using "Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness" as his name and Meghan's using Rachel Meghan Markle. That makes no sense what so ever. Is that even legal? Is this real?

It does say "Last- birth name" so are people supposed to list their last name as it was at birth? Because "HRH" certainly wasn't his last name at birth or any other time.

Prince Harry then Duke of Sussex would make more sense. Or M-W.

I wonder if Meghan legally changed her name when she got married or is using that because it says "birth name".

 

[TLLK]

So Harry's using "Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness" as his name and Meghan's using Rachel Meghan Markle. That makes no sense what so ever. Is that even legal? Is this real?

It does say "Last- birth name" so are people supposed to list their last name as it was at birth? Because "HRH" certainly wasn't his last name at birth or any other time.

Prince Harry then Duke of Sussex would make more sense. Or M-W.

I wonder if Meghan legally changed her name when she got married or is using that because it says "birth name".

Heavs-A California birth certificate typically has the mother listed with her her birth name or what was in the past known as her "maiden" name, so I'm not surprised to see "Rachel Meghan Markle." Harry's on the other hand is really odd IMO.

 

[Osipi]

Actually, I believe the only legal recognized last name Harry could use in the US is Mountbatten-Windsor. HRH is a honorific and The Duke of Sussex is a British peerage title not legal in the US.

This is a prime example of how the letters patent of 1960 that the Queen issued should anyone of her descendants that need a legal surname would use Mountbatten-Windsor.

Either the birth certificate is not legal or someone forgot to put enough caffeine in the clerk's office that registers the birth with the State of California.