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

[Alison H]

Louise is now legally an adult, so can make the choice for herself. Presumably she's happy to be Lady Louise rather than Princess Louise. If that's what works for her, so be it. Someone really needs to make it clear which titles, if any, Archie and Lilibet are using, and stop the confusion.

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

It is unsurprising but nonetheless disappointing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and to a lesser extent the King have decided to enforce the sexism of 1917 for another generation.

It also creates an odd situation for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as their lack of royal styles can no longer be interpreted as part of a progressive downsizing of royal titles but is only an inexplicable absence of the titles enjoyed by all other male-line grandchildren before and after them. (It was explained in 1999 that the decision was due to the future Wessex children's future roles, but that explanation no longer holds as the Sussex children's future roles are not expected to be any more official than the Wessex children's.)



I see nothing "fail" in Rebecca English (and other royal correspondents) choosing to report the Palace's statement on a news story of public interest.

I think Curryong was referring to the Daily Mail, which has a notorious reputation in the UK.

[Katariina]

Personally the parents just announcing this was the best way to handle the situation. They legally had the right since Charles became the king, but the theoretically the parents might not have wanted to use the titles for the children like the Wessexes. So better that it’s them and not someone else confirming the titles, as precedent for future similar cases. Even if here it was known the parents wanted the titles.

Regarding future and sexism mentioned here by Tatiana Maria, is there any movement pushing for a change so that when Charlotte has children and William is king that her children also could have these titles? Or is it something that seems too distant and not relevant now so most don’t really care?

[suztav]

There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.

Why didn't they just baptize her when they were in the UK for the Queen's Jubilee and they had a 1st birthday party for her?

This couple continues to perplex me with their passive/aggressive attitudes about everything.

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by suztav

There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.

Why didn't they just baptize her when they were in the UK for the Queen's Jubilee and they had a 1st birthday party for her?

This couple continues to perplex me with their passive/aggressive attitudes about everything.

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.

They made a point in mentioning that she is now a princess too.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

It is unsurprising but nonetheless disappointing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and to a lesser extent the King have decided to enforce the sexism of 1917 for another generation.

How's choosing to use the titles they are legally entitled too sexist? The problem with having a male-line preference as in the LP of 1917 lies with the King who can change it and not with those which it applies to.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

It also creates an odd situation for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as their lack of royal styles can no longer be interpreted as part of a progressive downsizing of royal titles but is only an inexplicable absence of the titles enjoyed by all other male-line grandchildren before and after them.

I totally agree with this. There was a precedent set decades ago for a model going forward regarding the roles and titles of the Royal family that has been thrown out the door either by the Sussexes not agreeing with it or King Charles and/or Queen Elizabeth dithering about and not making their will (if it indeed was their will) official.
Now instead the King has allowed the Sussexes to take command of the narrative and whatever he now does will be seen as a reaction to them even if it has been thought of and planned for a long time.

[Granada]

Yet ANOTHER mess for Charles and The Family to deal with just prior to The Coronation.
Now the "will they or won't they come" question can be lumped with the Family having to decide whether to recognize Prince-Princess Titles for The Sussex's Children ! In America no less.
I will be monitoring The Royal Family website for updates.

Kudos to The Sussex's though, well played to put attention back on them and basically dare Charles to act to strip the kids titles. Great strategy, *possibly* get them sympathy in the States ( their market) and further complaints and allegations against the mean Royal Family.

Will Charles dither and do nothing ? Not a good look in my opinion with the British Public. He could very easily announce that as part of the "slimming down" of The Royal Family ONLY The Heir's Children get Titles. Queen Margarethe of Denmark did it.

Sure, it will generate headlines and chatter, but IT would fade soon enough.
Doing nothing will only embolden The Sussex's too.

It is so tiresome the games The Sussex's play. They live for drama. Now using the children to ramp up controversy. Pathetic.

[acdc1]

Do they get the full HRH Prince/Princess of Sussex titles?

[muriel]

Originally Posted by suztav

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.

Maybe it was Samantha Markle.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by acdc1

Do they get the full HRH Prince/Princess of Sussex titles?

The 1917 Letters Patent would allow them to be known as HRH Prince [ ] or Princess { } of Sussex.

[Kaye1850]

Are christenings at the family home/mansion commonly done in US?
I’m surprised the Bishop would make a house call to do this, rather than use a place of worship.
(Please note he is Bishop, not Archbishop.)

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Granada

Yet ANOTHER mess for Charles and The Family to deal with just prior to The Coronation.
Now the "will they or won't they come" question can be lumped with the Family having to decide whether to recognize Prince-Princess Titles for The Sussex's Children ! In America no less.
I will be monitoring The Royal Family website for updates.

Kudos to The Sussex's though, well played to put attention back on them and basically dare Charles to act to strip the kids titles. Great strategy, *possibly* get them sympathy in the States ( their market) and further complaints and allegations against the mean Royal Family.

Will Charles dither and do nothing ? Not a good look in my opinion with the British Public. He could very easily announce that as part of the "slimming down" of The Royal Family ONLY The Heir's Children get Titles. Queen Margarethe of Denmark did it.

Sure, it will generate headlines and chatter, but IT would fade soon enough.
Doing nothing will only embolden The Sussex's too.

It is so tiresome the games The Sussex's play. They live for drama. Now using the children to ramp up controversy. Pathetic.

I don't think it is a mess at all. Whilst the children are entilted to be known at Prince and Princess of Sussex under the 1917 Letters Patent, the fact that BP have no officially announced it so, or updated their website to reflect it indicates, to me, that this is not the King's intentiaon. The reality is that the children will never be working royals, so they really do not matter in the scheme of things. Their names should be taken off the royal website completely.

The bigger irony, in my mind, is that whilst H&M are so scathing of the royal institution and all that it represents, yet have gone ahead with the titles, quite possibly, unilaterally. Might there be a contradiction there?

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by muriel

I don't think it is a mess at all. Whilst the children are entilted to be known at Prince and Princess of Sussex under the 1917 Letters Patent, the fact that BP have no officially announced it so, or updated their website to reflect it indicates, to me, that this is not the King's intentiaon. The reality is that the children will never be working royals, so they really do not matter in the scheme of things. Their names should be taken off the royal website completely.

The bigger irony, in my mind, is that whilst H&M are so scathing of the royal institution and all that it represents, yet have gone ahead with the titles, quite possibly, unilaterally. Might there be a contradiction there?

You tell their fans and supporters. There is a definite contradiction in there and proves what people who aren’t fans of them have thought.

[acdc1]

Originally Posted by Kaye1850

Are christenings at the family home/mansion commonly done in US?
I’m surprised the Bishop would make a house call to do this, rather than use a place of worship.
(Please note he is Bishop, not Archbishop.)

American who was raised in a religious mainstream Protestant home, and while I am not friends with anyone of Sussex-level wealth, it is not common for baptisms to happen at the family home. It’s something that happens at church and then you may have a celebration at home for family and friends.

[Granada]

Muriel, I do think its a mess, yet another unnecessary complication, ramped up by the Sussex's to generate controversy. They specifically referred to Lili as PRINCESS Lilibet Diana. Why even go there, unless they were seeking to put The Titles Issue front and center. The children Titles factor very much into the calculating Sussex's plans.

Ahhhhh, more intimate family information released by the privacy obsessed Sussex's... why ?

They succeeded greatly in a PR push, again.

The ball is now in Charles Court, either let it stand as HRH Prince-Princess of Sussex or issue new Letters Patent.
I used to read that one of Queen Elizabeth few faults was her habit of ignoring bad news or developments. The "ostrich effect"....bury your head in the sand and wait for it to pass. I hope Charles didn't inherit that.

This situation is a test for him. It will be interesting to see how he reacts.

By the way, I find it curious that the Sussex's didn't release a picture of 'Princess Lilibet'. On top of the fact they waited nearly TWO years to baptize her too.

Also......there is NO way the Author of " Spare" and Meghan, who are very concerned with 'Status" were going to let his arch nemesis William's children have higher status over their children. No way.

The Sussex's secondary place in "The Hierarchy" was a big issue for them. Now they are involving their poor kids into this.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

It is unsurprising but nonetheless disappointing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and to a lesser extent the King have decided to enforce the sexism of 1917 for another generation.

It also creates an odd situation for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as their lack of royal styles can no longer be interpreted as part of a progressive downsizing of royal titles but is only an inexplicable absence of the titles enjoyed by all other male-line grandchildren before and after them. (It was explained in 1999 that the decision was due to the future Wessex children's future roles, but that explanation no longer holds as the Sussex children's future roles are not expected to be any more official than the Wessex children's.)



I see nothing "fail" in Rebecca English (and other royal correspondents) choosing to report the Palace's statement on a news story of public interest.

It has nothing to do with sexism as you imply but simply the fact that the Wessexes where in a different set of circumstances compared to the Sussexes who want the titles for their own questionable reasons. The Wessexes only made the choice for their children because of all the mess of the 90s when very few wanted to see more royal HRHs given the public mood. The Sussexes aren’t really paying attention to much of the public mood around titles

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

It has nothing to do with sexism as you imply but simply the fact that the Wessexes where in a different set of circumstances compared to the Sussexes who want the titles for their own questionable reasons. The Wessexes only made the choice for their children because of all the mess of the 90s when very few wanted to see more royal HRHs given the public mood. The Sussexes aren’t really paying attention to much of the public mood around titles

Please reread: I did not say that the Wessexes' decision was sexist. To the contrary, it slightly mitigated the effects of sexism compared to fully implementing the 1917 Letters Patent.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Granada

The ball is now in Charles Court, either let it stand as HRH Prince-Princess of Sussex or issue new Letters Patent.

Originally Posted by muriel

Whilst the children are entilted to be known at Prince and Princess of Sussex under the 1917 Letters Patent, the fact that BP have no officially announced it so, or updated their website to reflect it indicates, to me, that this is not the King's intentiaon.

Buckingham Palace indicated today to royal reporters who made inquiries after the christening announcement that the website will be updated to refer to the Sussex children as Prince and Princess. We will see if and when it happens, as the palace website is not known for prompt updates. Six months after Queen Elizabeth II's death, the profiles of senior working royals on the royal website still include phrases such as "supports Her Majesty".

That said I do wonder if Buckingham Palace is simply trying to save face. Prior reports on the title issue referred to talks between the King and the Duke and Duchess, suggesting it was not as simple as waiting for the couple to make a decision and following whichever decision they made, which is the current line from the Palace.

[Alison H]

According to the Telegraph, and it doesn't say where they've got it from:

It is understood that the Sussexes have only recently decided that their children's Prince and Princess titles will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use.

That sounds a bit confusing, but I suppose no more so than than Prince George being known as George Cambridge or George Wales at school.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by suztav

There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.

HenRach Dominion posted the article here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2535787

Originally Posted by muriel

The 1917 Letters Patent would allow them to be known as HRH Prince [ ] or Princess { } of Sussex.

The 1917 Letters Patent likewise allow their father to be known as HRH, but he agreed in 2020 to cease using it.

On the one hand, it might seem strange for HRH to be used for the children but not for their parents, as it could give the impression of the children outranking their parents. On the other hand, the children will not be involved anytime soon in business activities, which is most likely the true reason the parents were requested to desist from using their HRHs (the official reason was that it was because they were no longer working royals).

Originally Posted by RandyDrx

I think Curryong was referring to the Daily Mail, which has a notorious reputation in the UK.

Certainly, but here was nothing unethical or objectionable in regard to Rebecca English's reporting of the palace's briefing, and the reputation of the Daily Mail in general does not discredit her or her information, especially as others have reported being told the same information.

Originally Posted by Alison H

According to the Telegraph, and it doesn't say where they've got it from:

It is understood that the Sussexes have only recently decided that their children's Prince and Princess titles will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use.

That sounds a bit confusing, but I suppose no more so than than Prince George being known as George Cambridge or George Wales at school.

I doubt that any of the British princes and princesses have had their titles used in everyday conversation when they were children.