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

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Moran

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]

Originally Posted by soapstar

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by sophie25

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:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

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]

Originally Posted by kimebear

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]

Originally Posted by soapstar

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?

[Kaye1850]

Originally Posted by Durham

Did he say that? Goodness me. What chutzpah!

Oh yes, he did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu22txPK2Iw

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Durham

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!

Who says the king wants to limit titles? He wants to save money, yes and he doesn't wnat a big working royal family but he has shown no sign of removing titles from non working royals.

[Durham]

Ha ha. Thank you.

Does Mr Cooper not know how to question his interviewees? Any informed journalist would surely have challenged such a risible & dismissive comment.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Denville

Who says the king wants to limit titles? He wants to save money, yes and he doesn't wnat a big working royal family but he has shown no sign of removing titles from non working royals.

These ideas have been about for years. Just like as you say not wanting a big working rf. It's all part & parcel of the same thing.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by assia

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

But that doesn't answer my question, sorry? If anyone has read an account of the baptism have the parents stated that they invited Will, Kate, Cam and Charles?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Durham

These ideas have been about for years. Just like as you say not wanting a big working rf. It's all part & parcel of the same thing.

what it mainly comes down to, is money and public perception. A smaller family is cheaper, and looks better. It is also less vulnerable to scandal. If Prince X gets in trouble, but he's not a working royal, then the king/RF as a whole is not touched by his scandal. But Charles has shown no sign of wanting to remove titles from Andrew who is now not a working royal, nor Harry who is the same. so why would he take titles away from his grandchildren who have done nothing wrong or foolish.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Durham

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?

Yes. Prince Carl Philip's and Princess Madeleine's children use the prefix Prince/Princess, but without the HRH.

One important dfference, however, is that they were already HRHs before the 2019 decision by the King of Sweden that stripped them of the style of Royal Highness, except for Prince Julian, who was born in 2021.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC

Y

We are Anglicans: the only Archbishop is in Canterbury.

Not in the Anglican church - there are two in the UK - Canterbury and York and 5 in Australia e.g. Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth in Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglic...h_of_Australia

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Denville

Who says the king wants to limit titles? He wants to save money, yes and he doesn't wnat a big working royal family but he has shown no sign of removing titles from non working royals.

He doesn't want to 'save money' exactly. He wants to keep more of it for himself by not having to provide for other royals. There has been no suggestion of reducing the amount of the Sovereign Grant and that is the only way to 'save money' other than for him to save more for himself rather than save any from the British taxpayers.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Denville

what it mainly comes down to, is money and public perception. A smaller family is cheaper, and looks better. It is also less vulnerable to scandal. If Prince X gets in trouble, but he's not a working royal, then the king/RF as a whole is not touched by his scandal. But Charles has shown no sign of wanting to remove titles from Andrew who is now not a working royal, nor Harry who is the same. so why would he take titles away from his grandchildren who have done nothing wrong or foolish.

I certainly agree it's about public perception which is surely precisely why it is important that most relatives of the monarch are not princes. A prince x would be more newsworthy than a Mr or a Lord x.