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

[Durham]

From the Winfrey interview:

Meghan: …..You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.
Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . . 
Oprah:  . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

This appears to confirm that there were plans being discussed to change the 1917 LP. And H&M didn't like it one bit. I suspect the LP would have been changed but her malicious smears put an end to that.

 

[Durham]

The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".

Yes I agree. That sums it up very well. I'd probably add deafening to overwhelming.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".

Yes I agree. That sums it up very well. I'd probably add deafening to overwhelming.

Actions speak louder than words.

Under the present legislation, there is a very realistic chance that the United Kingdom will have King Harry and Queen Meghan, or Prince Regent Harry and the regent's consort Meghan, as their head or de facto head of state and first lady, carrying out state visits and representing Britain at the highest levels around the world.

All it would take would be (in the first scenario) a tragic accident when three young siblings are in the same room, car, helicopter, etc., or (in the second scenario) one man dying before the age of 82 and another man dying before the age of 49. Both scenarios sadly strike on a regular basis in families all around the country.

In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.

 

[Mbruno]

I absolutely agree with everything in your excellent post - thanks!

Yes, infuriating is the word I was looking for! The hypocrisy absolutely infuriates me! If I were a family member, I cannot imagine being in the same room with them!

But I’m an American and we don’t have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?

I am not British, but the line of succession is determined by law, so only an act of Parliament can change it in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the UK shares its line of succession to the Crown with 14 other countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. By convention, in the United Kingdom, an act of the UK Parliament touching the succession to the Crown would be expected then to receive the assent also of the Parliaments of the other Commonwealth realms before the British government would issue a commencement order. To make matters even more complicated, in some, but not all of those realms, the law of succession is also incorporated into their domestic law. So, to keep the symmetry between the line of succession to their own Crowns and the line of succession to the UK Crown, they would have to take action to change their domestic law first too, more so than simply assenting to the UK legislation. In some countries, that can be constitutionally complicated. For example, in Australia, it would require legislation both from the federal Parliament and the Parliaments of each Australian state.

In summary, changing the line of succession may be a long and difficult process, possibly involving multiple Parliaments in different countries. Accordingly, it is not a matter to be taken lightly or casually. Removing someone from the line of succession would be agreed probably only in grave circumstances like treason or other high crimes. I don't think honestly that the Duke of Sussex has done anything to clear that bar.

All it would take would be (in the first scenario) a tragic accident when three young siblings are in the same room, car, helicopter, etc., or (in the second scenario) one man dying before the age of 82 and another man dying before the age of 49. Both scenarios sadly strike on a regular basis in families all around the country.

In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.

Changes to the regency arrangements are easier to make than removing Harry from the line of succession because it is a domestic UK matter. Currently, the UK Regency Acts extend automatically to New Zealand under Section 4 of the
New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 , but they do not apply for example to Australia and Canada. The UK Parliament would not need the consent then neither of Australia, nor Canada or New Zealand to change its regency law (note: I don't know what the legal status of the regency is in the other realms).

When Prince Charles was a minor, the law was amended by the Regency Act 1953 to make Prince Philip Regent should a regency be needed, probably because the default Regent at the time, i.e., Princess Margaret, was not deemed suitable. I am pretty sure that, if William ascends the throne before George turns 18, Parliament can act quickly to appoint Catherine or someone else as prospective Regent instead of Harry.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

An anonymous "friend" of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex commented to Victoria Ward of the Telegraph on the timing of the recent updates:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...pdate-archie-lilibet-titles-appease-frogmore/

[...] Prince Harry and Meghan made the decision to use Archie and Lilibet’s prince and princess titles last year and shared their decision with Buckingham Palace.

However, they were frustrated that the Royal family failed to immediately recognise Archie and Lilibet's elevated status on its website [...]

There was no movement on the issue until a tabloid newspaper broke the news that the Sussexes had been asked to vacate their Windsor home. [...]

On the same day, the palace offered to update its website with Archie and Lilibet’s new titles, it is understood.

One friend of the couple raised an eyebrow about the timing of such communication, which was interpreted as an attempt to curry favour or to smooth relations amid the public humiliation.

[...]

A royal source insisted that they had always planned to wait until the Sussexes chose to reveal the news themselves rather than make the announcement on their behalf.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment.

 

[Hallo girl]

Actions speak louder than words.

Under the present legislation, there is a very realistic chance that the United Kingdom will have King Harry and Queen Meghan, or Prince Regent Harry and the regent's consort Meghan, as their head or de facto head of state and first lady, carrying out state visits and representing Britain at the highest levels around the world.

All it would take would be (in the first scenario) a tragic accident when three young siblings are in the same room, car, helicopter, etc., or (in the second scenario) one man dying before the age of 82 and another man dying before the age of 49. Both scenarios sadly strike on a regular basis in families all around the country.

In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.

What is on paper and the reality are two different things, I do not find this a comfortable subject anyway so I will withdraw.

 

[Denville]

I think everyone would prefer Anne or Edward to Harry or Andrew, but cutting people out of the line of succession is complicated and can't really be done on grounds of unpopularity. Which is possibly a bit of a shame, but so it is!

Um, I think that harry's self exile to the US, counts as walking out on the job, and Andrew's sexual scandal is also a serious issue and more than unpopularity. I think if either of them was next in line there woudl be pressure to get them to renounce their place.

From the Winfrey interview:

Meghan: …..You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.
Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . . 
Oprah:  . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

This appears to confirm that there were plans being discussed to change the 1917 LP. And H&M didn't like it one bit. I suspect the LP would have been changed but her malicious smears put an end to that.

Do you really believe what Meghan says? She is lying in that conversation by saying that the title has to do with protection and safety. She's probably lying that they were planning to issue LPs to remove the HRH from Archie. The queen would NOT do it, IMHO, and for Charles to do it he would have to let Archie have the title briefly and then take it away and I dont believe he would do that. And she calls it a convention which shows that she's not at all clear about it.

 

[Durham]

Do you really believe what Meghan says? She is lying in that conversation by saying that the title has to do with protection and safety. She's probably lying that they were planning to issue LPs to remove the HRH from Archie. The queen would NOT do it, IMHO, and for Charles to do it he would have to let Archie have the title briefly and then take it away and I dont believe he would do that. And she calls it a convention which shows that she's not at all clear about it.

Just because she lied about security doesn't mean she lied about questions over Archie's future title. I don't doubt it's true at all. It makes perfect sense. I think the King was more than happy to issue new LPs.

She knew exactly what she was talking about despite calling it a convention.

 

[Durham]

An anonymous "friend" of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex commented to Victoria Ward of the Telegraph on the timing of the recent updates:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...pdate-archie-lilibet-titles-appease-frogmore/

Of course they wanted to use these titles. They could have chosen to follow the Wessex example but they wont do that. Harry in particular is so conscious of his status, so defensive of any perceived slights. Besides they need the attention & any money making opportunities they can get from exploiting titles.

 

[Denville]

Just because she lied about security doesn't mean she lied about questions over Archie's future title. I don't doubt it's true at all. It makes perfect sense. I think the King was more than happy to issue new LPs.

She knew exactly what she was talking about despite calling it a convention.

So why didn't he issue new LPs? He coudl have done so in the last 6 months, he's been accused of racism already, so if he really wanted to, he could have changed things?

 

[Granada]

Anyone wanna take bets that the Sussex's are angling to take Prince Archie to the Coronation, if only for a small amount of time. I believe the then Prince Charles attended a * small part* of QEll' Coronation. So sad if that happens, because it would definitely make headlines.

I can definitely see them saying that Prince Louis at 4 years old attended Jubilee Events.....why can't Prince Archie? He is now the same age.

Just as Harry was preposterously negotiating and wanted Meghan to go with him to The Queens deathbed at Balmoral. Until he was flatly refused, Kate wasn't going, end of discussion. Precious time He wasted. William, Andrew, Edward and Sophie left without him. He had to arrange his own private flight up. The sulk and strop must have been epic.

Just as Diana used to orchestrate appearances to take the headlines from Charles, I can see the Sussex's doing something covertly to have attention on them. Using Prince Archie at Granddads BIG DAY would be perfect. Diana was terrific at stealing thunder, but compared to the Sussex's, she was a novice......LOL.

I just hope whoever the Team is tasked with the unenviable details of settling The Sussex's at Coronation Events are up to it. What a grim challenge !

 

[Durham]

So why didn't he issue new LPs? He coudl have done so in the last 6 months, he's been accused of racism already, so if he really wanted to, he could have changed things?

Because doing so would confirm in the minds of many that the accusations about race that Meghan made were true. That's why no new LPs have been issued. It's the only reason. Otherwise The King would have carried on with his changes & "slimming down" as shown by giving his brother a life peerage. No new ducal cadet lines from now on.

 

[Lilyflo]

Actions speak louder than words.

Under the present legislation, there is a very realistic chance that the United Kingdom will have King Harry and Queen Meghan, or Prince Regent Harry and the regent's consort Meghan, as their head or de facto head of state and first lady, carrying out state visits and representing Britain at the highest levels around the world.
[...]
In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.

The reasons the British public aren't pressuring their MPs to change the LoS are because there are many more urgent issues consuming our thoughts and also that the scenario leading to 'King Henry' is too awful to contemplate and highly unlikely so Harry will probably remain where he is in LoS. In the event of a terrible tragedy, I would stake my last £1 that if public opinion of the Sussexes remains as low as it is currently, the monarchy's existence would be on a knife edge and we'd have a referendum on becoming a republic.

Harry used to be one of the most popular members of the BRF but he's bitten the hand that feeds him. In legal terms, popularity doesn't have an impact on the line of succession but in reality, without public approval, we wouldn't have a monarchy at all so popularity does matter.

 

[victor1319]

Besides they need the attention & any money making opportunities they can get from exploiting titles.

Hmm, but I wonder, if there is any chance to milk the titles in the future of the kids.

I mean, the Sussex title is already a courtesy one. Prince Harry does not own a castle in Sussex or a manor. I even wonder, what was the last time he was in Sussex, or if he has even ever done something for Sussex... It is just a dubious title! But he is the second son of a reigning King, that is true, a Prince.

So, the kids will be probably more like euro-trash in America with their titles! Distant relatives of then King William...

 

[Durham]

The outcome would be:

a republic, King Archie (regent anyone(!) other than his parents) or skipping straight to Queen Beatrice.

Republicans, Legitimists or Yorkists! Almost like in France! Instead of Bonapartists we could have a faction of the Jacobites added to the melee!

Sounds fun!

 

[Durham]

Anyone wanna take bets that the Sussex's are angling to take Prince Archie to the Coronation, if only for a small amount of time.

I think the answer to that would be his position as the son of non working family members. No one wishes the boy anything but a happy life but there's no appetite in Britain for this family. Not after everything that's happened.

 

[FigTree]

I think the answer to that would be his position as the son of non working family members. No one wishes the boy anything but a happy life but there's no appetite in Britain for this family. Not after everything that's happened.

No one would would wish them anything but the absolute best.

But they aren't, at the moment, anything to Don with the royals.

 

[Lilyflo]

Anyone wanna take bets that the Sussex's are angling to take Prince Archie to the Coronation, if only for a small amount of time. I believe the then Prince Charles attended a * small part* of QEll' Coronation. So sad if that happens, because it would definitely make headlines.

If Archie's parents are looking for photo opportunities to enhance their family 'brand' (which is what they have become), they could do worse than ensuring that Prince Archie of Sussex is photographed at his grandfather the King's coronation beside his royal parents in all their finery.

Maybe the Sussexes will play it cool though, take a back seat and let others have the limelight.

 

[Meee]

I think everyone would prefer Anne or Edward to Harry or Andrew, but cutting people out of the line of succession is complicated and can't really be done on grounds of unpopularity. Which is possibly a bit of a shame, but so it is!

Changing it so that gender neutral succession were retrospective would likely be easier. Given that Charles only had sons, no one would have lost a realistic chance of inheriting the throne (the argument given for not doing it) had that applied. Andrew was 4th in line with his nephew having recently married at the time gender neutral succession was agreed.

They can’t cut Harry out for bringing the monarchy into disrepute either. It’s a loose definition that could have excluded from the line most of the people in it!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Of course they wanted to use these titles. They could have chosen to follow the Wessex example but they wont do that. Harry in particular is so conscious of his status, so defensive of any perceived slights. Besides they need the attention & any money making opportunities they can get from exploiting titles.

This is coming from a "friend" of the Sussexes??

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is coming from a "friend" of the Sussexes??

No, that was Durham's comment. I quoted what the "friend" said in this post:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...events-7-oct-2022-a-49644-79.html#post2536905

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I dont think that Charles ever wished to remove the HRH nad Prince titles from H's children, but he does not want to add any further HRHs etc to the RF. However, he thought that Harry woudl be a wroking royal. But Meghan raising the race issue meant that he had to tread very carefully. NO matter what he did, he would be liable to criticism from his son and wife. If he had announced soon as he became king that the children were HRH and Prince/ss, H could have retorted that he did not want his kids dragged into the RF with its genetic pain...if he had issued a statement or LP saying that they were not to be known as Prince etc, he would of course be liable to be accused of racism as Meghan had done 2 years ago. so he did nothing, and waited to see what they came up with. and we can see, they want the chidlren to be royally titled even though they are living in a republic where the titles will mean nothing.

Denville, the problem with this is Charles is letting things be dictated by [the Sussexes]. They should be treated like the Duke of Windsor by having no say in anything. The fact that this story came out the day before Edwards birthday is a sign that the palace still has a mole and are being forced to compete with the Duo.

 

[LauraS3514]

But I’m an American and we don’t have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?

A little OT, but yes, the USA does have a "line of succession." 1. Vice President (Kamala Harris). 2. Speaker of the House of Representatives (Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California). 3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington). 4. Secretary of State (Anthony Blinken). 5. Secretary of the Treasury (Janet Yellen). Then the rest of the Cabinet follows in a set order.

Three of the first five in line are women.

 

[tommy100]

I think the answer to that would be his position as the son of non working family members. No one wishes the boy anything but a happy life but there's no appetite in Britain for this family. Not after everything that's happened.

BINGO!!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...rys-children-have-not-yet-invited-coronation/

https://archive.is/mtDF1#selection-1325.0-1341.31

The children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, are not currently invited to the Coronation, The Telegraph understands.

Prince Harry and Meghan were invited in recent weeks, but it is understood that correspondence from Buckingham Palace did not mention Archie or Lilibet.

The couple have had no information about whether the children, who are aged three and one, have been included in the plans.

The Sussexes have not yet confirmed whether or not they will attend the ceremony crowning King Charles III at Westminster Abbey on May 6.



I don't know why they would expect their infant children to attend the service and then their claims of wanting privacy would surely discount any attendance at a worldwide broadcast concert or similar event? As ever with these two though its a case of say one thing do another.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Only parliament can change the line of succession and they will not do that for anything short of treason... or a major crime.

Treason is not a reason to remove someone from the line of succession e.g. those men who fought against Britain in WWI and had their titles put in abeyance remained in the line of succession as do their descendants today.

Surely the most treasonous was the Kaiser who led his nation to war with Britain but even he remained in the line of succession as do his descendants today.

 

[Sionevar]

I don't know why they would expect their infant children to attend the service and then their claims of wanting privacy would surely discount any attendance at a worldwide broadcast concert or similar event? As ever with these two though its a case of say one thing do another.

I suspect it's less about privacy, and more about wanting to have full control over how their children are shown to and shared with the world. It's all about the 'brand'.

 

[Curryong]

Who stated that the Sussexes expected that their children would attend the Coronation?

Harry would know from his own experience and that of his cousins that no royal children under the age of about seven were ever expected to sit for long hours at church services or any big formal occasions (unless they were attendants at a wedding and even then they would be supervised by Nannies).

I don’t believe the Sussexes have ever expected or demanded that their tiny children would be at the Coronation, any more than Louis, Sienna, August or Lucas are expected to attend.

 

[Curryong]

World Central Kitchen are publishing a cookbook, and there are a lot of notable people who contributed a recipe, including Meghan. The book will be available on Sept. 12th.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634650371640492034

Meghan entered her Lemon Olive Oil Cake.

She also baked this cake during a during Woman's History Month in 2021 in which Archewell worked with WCK to provide meals and support in Chicago.

 

[ACO]

Who stated that the Sussexes expected that their children would attend the Coronation?

Harry would know from his own experience and that of his cousins that no royal children under the age of about seven were ever expected to sit for long hours at church services or any big formal occasions (unless they were attendants at a wedding and even then they would be supervised by Nannies).

I don’t believe the Sussexes have ever expected or demanded that their tiny children would be at the Coronation, any more than Louis, Sienna, August or Lucas are expected to attend.

Agreed. I think we will see George as an heir but the others? Maybe the older grandkids but not the toddlers. This story doesn't even make sense.

It is like the Daily Mail headline today saying Sophie is happy she was given the Duchess titles so she no longer has to curtsy to Meghan. Nevermind the fact she never had to and they only do to the monarch and their spouse. But yeah know...

Sell them stories.

 

[Lee-Z]

World Central Kitchen are publishing a cookbook, and there are a lot of notable people who contributed a recipe, including Meghan. The book will be available on Sept. 12th.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634650371640492034

Meghan entered her Lemon Olive Oil Cake.

She also baked this cake during a during Woman's History Month in 2021 in which Archewell worked with WCK to provide meals and support in Chicago.

Never tried an olive oil cake but maybe i should, sounds interesting (and Breakfast Tacos from Michelle Obama certainly do too)