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

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Denville

was he invited?

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

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Regardless of the legal status of the children's titles in the UK, I can't see the point of calling them "Prince" and "Princess" in America, where those titles are not recognized.

From my observations, royal titles - especially British royal titles - continue to enjoy glamor and prestige on a social level in the United States, even though they have no legal effects. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's own popularity and prominence are evidence of that. If, in adulthood, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet follow their parents' examples and make use of their royal titles to promote themselves or their ventures, it would likely be very advantageous and profitable.

On the British side, the Sussex children bearing royal titles will probably not make much of a difference during the current reign, but any scandals or negativity that might attach to Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet when they are adults (for adults raised in America with little to no exposure to British culture and the British monarchy, by parents who have expressed prejudices against the country, it would not be surprising if at some point their actions would clash with British values or British expectations of their royal family) will be seen as reflecting on the monarchy of King William and King George to a much greater extent than if they had continued to be called Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. There is a clear difference between the public perceptions of the influence-peddling expose against Prince Michael and his business partner or the accusations of racism against Princess Michael compared to the scandals of the late Earl of Harewood and Gerald Lascelles, who like Prince Michael were non-working-royal grandchildren of a monarch, but unlike him did not enjoy royal titles.

Originally Posted by TLLK

The Letter Patent issued in 2012 for the children of Prince William reflected the change to absolute primogeniture rather than male primogeniture. It stated that all the children born to the eldest child of the Prince of Wales (then Charles) would enjoy a princely title and style, not just the eldest son.

The 2012 letters patent reflect male(-preference) primogeniture as they confer the titles of Princess or Prince and HRH on all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. If Charlotte were the firstborn child, she would be the future Queen, but under the 2012 letters patent it would still be George's children, not hers, who would be Prince and Princess.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...60384/page/213

Originally Posted by Denville

why? No matter what Charles did he was goig to get flak from the Sussexes. if he took away the titles he would be accused of being raicst. If he leaves them, for soem reason he is also bad. what difference does it make if there are 2 kids in the US with princely titles? THey are not getting paid by the British tax payer.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

Originally Posted by Alison H

They're in the same position - grandchildren of a monarch, children of a younger son. So for that matter are the Kents and Gloucesters. If a change is made retrospective so as to affect Archie and Lilibet, it'll affect them too. I don't think anyone's going to have their titles removed now: it'd just look too mean. A decision should have been made sooner.

Originally Posted by Moran

I suppose a retrospective change can be made regarding King Charles' own line and no one else. But it would look too mean.

If King Charles were hypothetically to follow through on his reported original wishes, it would be logical to apply the change to his own reign, and that would avoid removing royal titles from adults who have effectively used them as their names all of their lives.

I do not think the timing of the now hypothetical denial of royal titles has anything to do with it being deemed "mean", since accusations were also made about the denial of a Prince title to Archie during the reign of Elizabeth II, and that was decided long before his birth.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Titles apart, shouldn't Charles have gone to the baptism, she is his grandaughter after all?

Perhaps he didn’t get enough advance notice. He does have a busy schedule.

If family attendance (Harry’s anyway) was truly important to the Sussexes, perhaps they should have had it in the UK. For their UK Princess. It’s not like the Sussexes have real jobs.

[Durham]

It’s clear the H&M really want these titles for their children. It will be interesting to see whether there is some sort of formal recognition of these titles by BP. Up until then they are both correctly referred to as master & miss whatever their parents may say.

There is the possibility of course that BP may simply continue to refer to them as master & miss. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Exactly who cares. Except them. Tells us everything we need to know about them.

There is debate over whether they will be entitled to the HRH though.

Basically just Russian emigres rushing around with useless titles.

According to the 1917 LP, they are entitled to be HRH if they are grandchildren of the king in the male line. SO they are.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

From my observations, royal titles - especially British royal titles - continue to enjoy glamor and prestige on a social level in the United States, even though they have no legal effects. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's own popularity and prominence are evidence of that. If, in adulthood, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet follow their parents' examples and make use of their royal titles to promote themselves or their ventures, it would likely be very advantageous and profitable.

On the British side, the Sussex children bearing royal titles will probably not make much of a difference during the current reign, but any scandals or negativity that might attach to Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet when they are adults (for adults raised in America with little to no exposure to British culture and the British monarchy, by parents who have expressed prejudices against the country, it would not be surprising if at some point their actions would clash with British values or British expectations of their royal family) will be seen as reflecting on the monarchy of King William and King George to a much greater extent than if they had continued to be called Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. There is a clear difference between the public perceptions of the influence-peddling expose against Prince Michael and his business partner or the accusations of racism against Princess Michael compared to the scandals of the late Earl of Harewood and Gerald Lascelles, who like Prince Michael were non-working-royal grandchildren of a monarch, but unlike him did not enjoy royal titles.

These are all excellent points & undoubtedly reflect majority monarchist opinion in the UK. The King is in danger of making unwise decisions as to how to go forward. Let's hope his advise is sound otherwise there is the risk of alienating, & undermining the trust of, natural supporters of the crown.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Denville

According to the 1917 LP, they are entitled to be HRH if they are grandchildren of the king in the male line. SO they are.

It is entirely up to The King to make this decision whatever you or I may think.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Durham

It’s clear the H&M really want these titles for their children. It will be interesting to see whether there is some sort of formal recognition of these titles by BP. Up until then they are both correctly referred to as master & miss whatever their parents may say.

There is the possibility of course that BP may simply continue to refer to them as master & miss. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

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.

[Magnolia471]

Originally Posted by Erin9

Perhaps he didn’t get enough advance notice. He does have a busy schedule.

If family attendance (Harry’s anyway) was truly important to the Sussexes, perhaps they should have had it in the UK. For their UK Princess. It’s not like the Sussexes have real jobs.

I wonder if they invited Thomas or Samantha Markle as well🤭

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Denville

According to the 1917 LP, they are entitled to be HRH if they are grandchildren of the king in the male line. SO they are.

Just saying it is something currently debated. Who knows. You really cares.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Denville

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.

Which is why I ventured this as a possibility only. But there are very good reasons for the monarchy not to recognise these titles as outlined by Tatiana Maria.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Durham

It is entirely up to The King to make this decision whatever you or I may think.

Not unless he changes the LPs. The 1917 LPs gave the HRH to the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line. If Charles wants to change that, that is fine but he has to make an announcement of the Kings wish, or issue new LPs.

[BritishRoyalist]

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. He is not a monarchist/royalist, but have been very sympathetic to Harry and Meghan. They lived at his house for a few months in 2020.

[suztav]

I continue to be amazed that the Sussex couple are so preoccupied with whether or not their children have HRH/Prince/Princess status.

Fact: they had HRH status the second Charles became King

Point of Curiosity: why do they even care when Harry is one tape saying that he couldn't see himself living in the UK and, therefore, his kids won't be exposed to that lifestyle. They both enjoy the California breezy lifestyle.

WTH gives with these two?!

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Denville

Not unless he changes the LPs. The 1917 LPs gave the HRH to the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line. If Charles wants to change that, that is fine but he has to make an announcement of the Kings wish, or issue new LPs.

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 in the male line unlike the Gloucesters & Kents (albeit a deceased monarch) so who knows there may be a grey area right there.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist

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. He is not a monarchist/royalist, but have been very sympathetic to Harry and Meghan. They lived at his house for a few months in 2020.

And the reason for this is because of what H&M have said to him & the rest of the world for that matter. The fact that there are two sides to every story appears to have passed him by.

Maybe he hopes to monetise the children in one of his future films?

[HRHHermione]

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.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

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 all about money, publicity, grievance & entitlement.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Durham

Which is why I ventured this as a possibility only. But there are very good reasons for the monarchy not to recognise these titles as outlined by Tatiana Maria.

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.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Durham

It may well be The King's Will that A&L are not referred to as prince/princess.

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.