The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023

[Durham]

I cant see any. the fact that they are now deciding to use the titles just shows that they know they have to puff up their link to the BRF, in order to get the notice they need in the USA. If Charles takes away the titles, he will be attacked as racist by them. If he leaves them and says nothing, he can get on with his life as king and let them prattle away, in America.

This last bit we can agree on.

 

[Denville]

It may well be The King's Will that A&L are not referred to as prince/princess. This would not formally contradict the LP's. The fact that six months after his succession BP's website refers to them master/miss would seem to indicate something surely.

And they were not born the grandchildren of a monarch (albeit deceased) in the male line unlike the Gloucesters & Kents so who knows there may be a grey area right there.

No, I think its pretty obvious that Charles did not say anything about the titles for the children because he knew that if he said yes they are HRH, he woudl be accused of trapping the children in the monarchy which their parents did not want, and if he took the titles away, of course he would be a racist. I think he was wise to do nothing and see what they came up with.

 

[Durham]

The term "The King's Will" truly bothers me. The whole point of using Letters Patent in the first place is to convey a monarch's will on matters.

Exactly why is there now some sort of esoteric debate on Letter's Patent being overruled by possible intent of the monarch on an issue? A system is already in place to make sure that these matters are perfectly clear, which is why what the LPs state should be taken as fact until they are replaced by another.

Because the only person who matters in a monarchy is the monarch. What deceased monarchs did is not relevant. Unless it is changed (a possibility) BP's website is the only public guide as to how The King currently thinks. And besides, that entry does not actually contradict the LP's from last century, which many believe are no longer fit for purpose anyway.

This is an old debate of course that predates H&M & would still be current even if they had not left.

 

[Denville]

There are still procedures which have been followed, and should be followed. If Charles DOES wish to take away Archie and Lilibets titles, he should state it as his will, or issue LPs. the queen issued a statement that Ed and Sophie's children would NOT be using HRH, she did not just let people guess.

 

[Denville]

Yes and so we're Camilla, William and Kate.

Did Harry or Meg state this or how have the invitations become public?

 

[Durham]

There are still procedures which have been followed, and should be followed. If Charles DOES wish to take away Archie and Lilibets titles, he should state it as his will, or issue LPs. the queen issued a statement that Ed and Sophie's children would NOT be using HRH, she did not just let people guess.

But the present monarch can do whatever he wishes. He sets the procedures. He does not have to follow any precedent set by his predecessor. It is entirely up to The King to communicate these matter as he sees fit whatever we might think. Surely the current entry on the royal website makes it crystal clear what the sovereign's will is (at least for now).

I do agree though that it would be best if it was made clear one way or the other.

 

[Durham]

No, I think its pretty obvious that Charles did not say anything about the titles for the children because he knew that if he said yes they are HRH, he woudl be accused of trapping the children in the monarchy which their parents did not want, and if he took the titles away, of course he would be a racist. I think he was wise to do nothing and see what they came up with.

No I don't see it like that. On the contrary I think it's obvious The King wants to limit titles & sees being non committal as leaving things nice & unclear. It also avoids drama, drama, drama!

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Yes, it does help and thank you!
I do wonder why it was suddenly ‘important’ for them to christen her now and not in the preceding almost-two years?
(They probably would have loved for John Taylor to be an ARCHbishop!)

I wondered about that too. Usually it is two - six ish months (easier to hold the child and less likely for the child to be freaked out, I’ve always thought - lol). But sometimes parents and/or clergy want to wait until a special feast day or have to work around family schedules so that’s certainly not a rule. Or wait for the Bishop’s annual visitation. I suppose they could have (and maybe they did) reach out to Bishop Curry if they wanted our head bishop, but he is inconveniently in NY…

And yes, as someone said, in an emergency or with an infant or child who is ill, hospital or house calls are made.

My favorite part of the service is when the priest/bishop walks up and down the aisle showing off the child:

( from the BCP). When all have been baptized, the Celebrant says

“Let us welcome the newly baptized.”


Celebrant and People

“We receive you into the household of God. Confess the faith
of Christ crucified, proclaim his resurrection, and share with
us in his eternal priesthood.”

Remembering my youngest’s baptism when her little neck was too big to button her christening gown - lol!

 

[Erin9]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 -

This news honestly took me by surprise. I think on some level, I expected that Harry and Meghan recognized that the use of titles were inappropriate for children being raised in the U.S. and without close ties to the monarchy and I thought that’s why they’d opted out of using the ducal courtesy titles of Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet.

This move just… it really defies logic. If you want to escape the confines of the monarchy, by all means, do so. But you can’t have both.

It’s why I nearly lol when I read the news. It does defy logic, but: It’s so typical of them to hold onto everything royal that they can- while making a fortune off of complaining how archaic it all is and how wronged they were by everyone.

It’s right up there with them constantly telling us how down to earth they are- not formal at all- but they WILL use those formal royal titles/styles for their American raised kids following an American christening that we know senior royals did not attend. Not to mention- visiting the UK hardly appears to be a priority. So….okay then. This all makes perfect sense- only not. It’s rather amusing to me really.

ETA- I’m kind of surprised they bothered with a christening. Lili is almost 2. It sure wasn’t a high priority. Maybe it was just an opportunity for them to announce she’s a Princess. I’m kidding….mostly.

 

[Erin9]

No, I think its pretty obvious that Charles did not say anything about the titles for the children because he knew that if he said yes they are HRH, he woudl be accused of trapping the children in the monarchy which their parents did not want, and if he took the titles away, of course he would be a racist. I think he was wise to do nothing and see what they came up with.

I think Charles was in a no win situation with this. I’ll be curious to see if indeed he does ever acknowledge them as Prince/ess.

 

[assia]

Did Harry or Meg state this or how have the invitations become public?

Frankly I fully understand that even if the invitations were extended to them the King the Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales have not attended at the baptism where most of the guests would be hostile to them with regard to all they have been told by the Sussexes how bad they are . And the King of the United Kingdom agenda is certainly booked for months so it would have surely been impossible for him to make it.
The baptism is mostly a familial ceremony especially within the Royal Family so it would have been more convenient to hold it in Britain . Just my own opinion

 

[kimebear]

Because the only person who matters in a monarchy is the monarch. What deceased monarchs did is not relevant.

In the absence of a formal statement from the monarch or an official change in the Letters Patent that dictate procedure and tradition, the rest of it is just guess work. The "King's Will" isn't a thing just because a few royalists now claim that it is.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The "King's Will" isn't a thing just because a few royalists now claim that it is.

That is a remarkable statement. What is your source for your statement that the authority of the King's will over royal titles, which was taken for granted for many centuries before titles were ever regulated by letters patent, and which no authorities in Government or Parliament have questioned as far as I am aware, has been abrogated?

 

[Durham]

In the absence of a formal statement from the monarch or an official change in the Letters Patent that dictate procedure and tradition, the rest of it is just guess work. The "King's Will" isn't a thing just because a few royalists now claim that it is.

The wording on the royal website is all we can go on though. Is that not so? After all, if the wording is changed tomorrow people will then take that as a clear expression of The King's wishes will they not?

And The King's Will (or however else this is expressed) is most definitely a real thing. How else could The King just announce that he had created his eldest son PofW? William was the PofW as soon as The King expressed his will to that effect, he most certainly did not have to wait until the issuing of the LP.

Royalists & monarchists are not necessarily the same thing of course. They can be very distinct demographics.

 

[tommy100]

Not at all surprised. In a way I'm glad the children haven't lost titles just because of their parents actions but on the other hand I can't understand for one minute why parents who hated every minute of being part of "the institution", think the RF and the Commonwealth it is linked to is racist and who crave "privacy" so much would want their children to use such titles.

 

[kimebear]

That is a remarkable statement. What is your source for your statement that the authority of the King's will over royal titles, which was taken for granted for many centuries before titles were ever regulated by letters patent, and which no authorities in Government or Parliament have questioned as far as I am aware, has been abrogated?

What is the justification for stating that Harry's title can't be taken from him since he's entitled to it under the LP of 1917 without issuing a new one?

 

[kimebear]

And The King's Will (or however else this is expressed) is most definitely a real thing. How else could The King just announce that he had created his eldest son PofW? William was the PofW as soon as The King expressed his will to that effect, he most certainly did not have to wait until the issuing of the LP.

Because he DID announce it. The Palace issued a formal comment confirming it. I"m talking about the people who use the phrase "the King's Will" as a means of trying to justify their own positions on matters relating to changes in the royal family when there's been no official comment on them.


When no official comment is made, we have only the LPs to go by.

 

[soapstar]

Yes and so we're Camilla, William and Kate.

There are schedules and security that need to be taken into consideration, so I’m not surprised that KC and William didn’t attend. If it had been held in the UK, I think Charles would have attended. I wonder if Meghan invited her father?

The Sussexes are so confusing. Meghan has completely cut off her dad because he was continuously going to the press to spill family secrets (something the Sussexes have been doing to the BRF for the last few years), yet are ready to forgive and have a relationship with Harry’s family. A family they claim withheld their son’s titles due to race, refused to help Meghan when she was suicidal, leaked damaging stories to the media and generally made their life hell. I seriously don’t understand how they reconcile it.

This news honestly took me by surprise. I think on some level, I expected that Harry and Meghan recognized that the use of titles were inappropriate for children being raised in the U.S. and without close ties to the monarchy and I thought that’s why they’d opted out of using the ducal courtesy titles of Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet.

This move just… it really defies logic. If you want to escape the confines of the monarchy, by all means, do so. But you can’t have both.

I feel the same way. Both Harry and Meghan have made it known that they think the whole system is toxic, yet are happy to accept the titles and perks that come with being royal.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I hope for Louis' children sakes that they stop this [...]

According to the precedent that has just been set, it will be for Louis and his children's mother to decide whether his children continue to be privileged over Charlotte's children by virtue of his male gender.

I cant see why they woudl do that. It may take some time to update the website but there is no reason that I can see, that the BP people would not call them P and Pss, if that's what their parents want them to be called.

As posted earlier, Buckingham Palace confirmed to correspondents that the website will eventually be updated with the Prince and Princess titles in accordance with the parents wishes, but that was not a given, as there have been other occasions where Buckingham Palace has not followed the wishes of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Tyler Perry agreed to be a godparent but only if he didn’t have to be around other members of The Royal Family or Tavel to The U.K. Hence why it was not done in the COE or why members the TRF were not present.

Is there a reliable source for this? Regarding "it was not done in the COE": The bishop identified by the couple as having baptized Princess Lilibet is a cleric of the Episcopal Church, the US branch of the Church of England.

ETA- I’m kind of surprised they bothered with a christening. Lili is almost 2. It sure wasn’t a high priority. Maybe it was just an opportunity for them to announce she’s a Princess. I’m kidding….mostly.

Since the Act of Settlement limits succession to the British crown to Protestants, it seems prudent to baptize children who are meant to be in line to the throne so that their identity as Protestants is formally registered.

What is the justification for stating that Harry's title can't be taken from him since he's entitled to it under the LP of 1917 without issuing a new one?

That statement was not made by me; perhaps you are confusing my comment with another.

Because he DID announce it. The Palace issued a formal comment confirming it. I"m talking about the people who use the phrase "the King's Will" as a means of trying to justify their own positions on matters relating to changes in the royal family when there's been no official comment on them.

When no official comment is made, we have only the LPs to go by.

Durham was referring to the website royal.uk, which is official.

 

[Durham]

Because he DID announce it. The Palace issued a formal comment confirming it. I"m talking about the people who use the phrase "the King's Will" as a means of trying to justify their own positions on matters relating to changes in the royal family when there's been no official comment on them.


When no official comment is made, we have only the LPs to go by.

It is telling that (so far) the only official communication we have in this reign is what it says on the royal website. That's very unambiguous.

This may well change of course. But even if it does change there may well be no official announcement at all, just an updated entry without fanfare.

 

[ladongas]

Harry, always Diana's son. Always whining about Diana. Always invoking her name to cover up for all his misdeeds. Unless he needs what he's due as King Charles's son. A lovely man, married to an equally lovely wife.

This may not mesh with Harry’s views.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

There are schedules and security that need to be taken into consideration, so I’m not surprised that KC and William didn’t attend. If it had been held in the UK, I think Charles would have attended. I wonder if Meghan invited her father?

The Sussexes are so confusing. Meghan has completely cut off her dad because he was continuously going to the press to spill family secrets (something the Sussexes have been doing to the BRF for the last few years), yet are ready to forgive and have a relationship with Harry’s family. A family they claim withheld their son’s titles due to race, refused to help Meghan when she was suicidal, leaked damaging stories to the media and generally made their life hell. I seriously don’t understand how they reconcile it.



I feel the same way. Both Harry and Meghan have made it known that they think the whole system is toxic, yet are happy to accept the titles and perks that come with being royal.

Remember Harry's terse response to Anderson Cooper's inquiry regarding why he doesn't stop using his title"

"What good would that do"?

The last sentence of your post pretty much explains it.

 

[FigTree]

From the times.

However, they will not be HRHs. A palace source said: “The use of the style HRH would come through their father and the Duke of Sussex’s HRH is in abeyance.”

Sources close to the Sussexes pointed out that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still have their HRHs even though their parents no longer have theirs. The palace argues that that is because they already had their HRHs when their parents lost theirs.

 

[Durham]

From the times.

However, they will not be HRHs. A palace source said: “The use of the style HRH would come through their father and the Duke of Sussex’s HRH is in abeyance.”

Sources close to the Sussexes pointed out that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still have their HRHs even though their parents no longer have theirs. The palace argues that that is because they already had their HRHs when their parents lost theirs.

So if true then princely titles but not royal status. All very peculiar. And a bit of a mess. Who is advising The King on all this?

Isn't this what happened in Sweden?

 

[sophie25]

From the times.

However, they will not be HRHs. A palace source said: “The use of the style HRH would come through their father and the Duke of Sussex’s HRH is in abeyance.”

Sources close to the Sussexes pointed out that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still have their HRHs even though their parents no longer have theirs. The palace argues that that is because they already had their HRHs when their parents lost theirs.

Harry is still HRH he just dosnt use it, the same as Prince Andrew, so the children are HRH.

 

[FigTree]

Harry is still HRH he just dosnt use it, the same as Prince Andrew, so the children are HRH.

They are saying they are quoting the palace. Isn't on me.

 

[kimebear]

My comment was a counter to this:

That is a remarkable statement. What is your source for your statement that the authority of the King's will over royal titles, which was taken for granted for many centuries before titles were ever regulated by letters patent, and which no authorities in Government or Parliament have questioned as far as I am aware, has been abrogated?

What happened with titles before LPs started to be issued doesn't really matter. It's accepted and acknowledged that the Sovereign is the fount of honours, but the changes in the bestowal of titles going forward has been laid out in LPs for quite some time now. To try to make an argument that it's only the King's will that is all that's really needed would be to render all LPs unnecessary and obsolete.

Durham was referring to the website royal.uk, which is official.

The website may be official, but in reality it is slow to update in many cases. A change in the titles of the Sussex children should be a formal announcement by the Palace. Either confirming the 1917 LP or indicating that a new one will be issued.

 

[Durham]

Remember Harry's terse response to Anderson Cooper's inquiry regarding why he doesn't stop using his title"

"What good would that do"?

The last sentence of your post pretty much explains it.

Did he say that? Goodness me. What chutzpah!

 

[Durham]

My comment was a counter to this:



What happened with titles before LPs started to be issued doesn't really matter. It's accepted and acknowledged that the Sovereign is the fount of honours, but the changes in the bestowal of titles going forward has been laid out in LPs for quite some time now. To try to make an argument that it's only the King's will that is all that's really needed would be to render all LPs unnecessary and obsolete.



The website may be official, but in reality it is slow to update in many cases. A change in the titles of the Sussex children should be a formal announcement by the Palace. Either confirming the 1917 LP or indicating that a new one will be issued.

Patricia of Connaught's change in status was made by Royal Warrant. This at a time when LP's were also being used. I don't think(?) a LP for Patricia was issued though I could be mistaken. The point being that there are various ways these sort of things can be dealt with by the sovereign. Just because The King used a warrant or expressed his "will" would not have any impact whatsoever on the use of LP's.

 

[sophie25]

There are schedules and security that need to be taken into consideration, so I’m not surprised that KC and William didn’t attend. If it had been held in the UK, I think Charles would have attended. I wonder if Meghan invited her father?

The Sussexes are so confusing. Meghan has completely cut off her dad because he was continuously going to the press to spill family secrets (something the Sussexes have been doing to the BRF for the last few years), yet are ready to forgive and have a relationship with Harry’s family. A family they claim withheld their son’s titles due to race, refused to help Meghan when she was suicidal, leaked damaging stories to the media and generally made their life hell. I seriously don’t understand how they reconcile it.



I feel the same way. Both Harry and Meghan have made it known that they think the whole system is toxic, yet are happy to accept the titles and perks that come with being royal.

I totally agree with your comments relating to her Dad. She (self confessed) had a great father who was very good to her growing up but he made a couple of blunders, which don't seem to have been malicious, and for which he apologised for and he gets cut off....forever! Yes he has spoken about her to the media since but that wasn't why he was cut off in the first place and I think he did it out of frustration. Harry, on the other hand, claims that his relationship with his Dad was never good and that his family consistently briefed against him and Meghan out of pure vindictiveness, yet H and M still want to have a relationship with them, apparently. Also, as you say, they have told the press so many personal details and negative stories about the BRF but get angry when they get blanked by them in the same way that they blank Thomas Markle. Is anyone else confused or is it just me?