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

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by crm2317

The Sussexes just come across as desperate to stay relevant. Harry has just spent a Netflix documentary and the better part of an autobiography outlining how horrendous it was for him to be a royal. And yet here we are with him snatching up the titles for his offspring.

I think the Palace has played a blinder here. The Sussexes have complained non stop but then want the titles too? Everyone sees them now for what they really are.

I completely agree - they have cemented their true titles as the Duke and Duchess of Hypocrisy.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by sophie25

It's all vague anyway. Saying Archie and Lilibet don't need to 'use' the titles eventually dosnt really mean anything. B and E don't walk around with people calling them anything other than their names but they've never felt the need to relinquish their titles officially as it gives them status. I can’t see A and L ever doing it either in adulthood for the same reason. They won't float around being called Sir and Ma'am but I bet they won't get rid of them in the same way their parents hold onto the Sussex title. It's a shame royal titles are going down this road as in the past they came with an obligation to work for your country, now it seems to be a case of most wanting to be 'non-working royals' which translates as "we'll take the perks thanks but stuff doing engagements". That's why Harry has a cheek saying it's their birthright as they are being brought up in America as private citizens and will be giving nothing back to Britain as members of the royal family.

I agree that the "birthright" statement was arrogant especially considering that, regardless of the LPs of 1917, royal titles and styles are in the personal gift of the King and he can take them away whenever he wants. So there isn't really a set-in-stone "birthright".

That is different, for example, of one's position in the line of succession, which, in that case, is guaranteed by law and cannot be removed unilaterally by the monarch.

I still think also that it will be ridiculous if Harry and Meghan insist on the children using their titles in America. Despite the argument by some posters that Americans love royal titles, I don't know how other kids in school and their parents, or teachers, would react to having "Prince Archie" or "Princess Lilibet" in class. And when they are grown-ups, having lived all their lives in the US, will they use the names "Prince Archie of Sussex" and "Princess Lilibet of Sussex" professionally? Their situation is not the same as their father's, who was already known as "Prince Harry" and had the designation "Prince" as part of his public persona before moving to California. And being called a "Prince" in a country that is an actual monarchy and where that title legally exists is different from calling yourself a "Prince" in a republic like the US.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Granada

I for one am very disappointed at how this has played out. Game, Set, Match to The Sussex's. Pretty amazing coup for a Couple that railed against a "Hierarchical System" they said. But they want their children to get the perks. Why ?

Got to hand it to them, after 3 years of having accused the Royal Family of being racists, and unfeeling liars ( Charles) and violent bullies (William) they won their most desired prize. The Titles. For American based and raised Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. The first "Prince Archie" in history.

They brazenly lobbied against an "Institution", The Monarchy, that they felt greatly did them wrong, and sidelined them. That sorely needed a progressive new overhaul and outlook. No opportunity to slam The Firm as "out of touch" was ever passed up. And question the fitness of those in charge, apart from The Queen, but even She was insulted as having inadvertently passed on "generational pain".

Even insulted The British Public too. An ingrained Colonialism mindset and unconscious bias narratives were alleged that they harbored.

Non stop interviews, Books, Podcasts and a Docu-series not withstanding, The Sussex's threw out accusation after accusation and never stopped airing their perceived grievances. I think their campaign against The Firm did resonate too. How much ? We shall see.

They didn't and don't care how much they demean and diminish the work and reputation of The Royal Family. Why would they ? They are laughing ALL the way to The Bank with multi million dollar deals. They kept their Royal Titles ( for publicity and to monetize) and have now secured Royal Titles for their Children. They have lost nothing and are setting up their children in this Montecito " rival court" in America.

Down the line, People Magazine will have glossy pictures and gushing Stories of Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. I also forsee The California Royals doing Family Events too. Charities and other initiatives, just wait. Just like their counterparts in the UK.

Charles could have easily punted and said the situation was "in review" due to his long-standing aims of downsizing, AND as The Sussex Family was, as he previously said, building a life overseas. Who could find fault with that ? Why didn't he ?

But he didn't. He capitulated and gave Harry and Meghan exactly what they wanted to set up their children as rivals to The Wales children down the line.
Does The British Monarchy REALLY want potentially rogue Royals using Titles down the line in America ? What if they get into trouble ? Doesn't Charles see how it diminishes The British Royal Family's prestige ? Did ANYONE think ahead on this ?

I think it was a big mistake that will come back to haunt them. And it won't stop the hypocrite Sussex's one bit from speaking out on anything or anybody they want.

This action has only emboldened them.

You sum the whole thing up perfectly. The British public would applaud KC if he took measures against titles etc and stopped inviting them to high profile royal events. He's actually damaging himself by not doing so which leads me to wonder why. Harry has said outright that he could write at least 2 more books and that he has held back on a lot more, even worse, revelations. I can only assume that KC is running scared of what he might do or say if he doesn't keep him sweet. I can think of literally no other explanation as to why the Sussex's keep getting away with what they are doing with virtually no consequences, it's utterly baffling.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I forgot that part on Serena's beliefs. That leaves me down to Oprah or Ellen. I don't get why there has to be secret godparent not disclosed for the public when everything about them is made public by them.



The service also imposes the faith on the godparents like a group conversion? I can't.

Umm, yes, the main purpose of a godparent is supposed to be to model and encourage the child in their faith - the Christian faith that they are already supposed to have. But parents may or may not pick people who will actually do that….

https://www.churchofengland.org/life...role-godparent

[Tatiana Maria]

Some further clarification about the religious requirements for succeeding to the British throne:


1. The Act of Settlement of 1700 stipulates that the British crown may only descend to Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia. Any person who is not a Protestant at the moment of the prior monarch's death or abdication will be bypassed for the succession to the throne.

This eliminates members of any Christian church that is incompatible with Protestant Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, etc.) as well as people who have no religious affiliation.

the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants

2. The Bill of Rights of 1688 specifies that a Roman Catholic is forever incapable of succeeding to the throne. This means that even if a Roman Catholic converts to Protestantism and remains a Protestant at the moment of the prior monarch's death or abdication, he or she will still be unable to succeed to the throne.

This "forever" exclusion is specific to (ex-)Catholics. Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, non-religious people, and so forth all have the option to convert to Protestant Christianity in order to enjoy succession rights to the British throne (so long as they have never been Catholics).

That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion F3... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same

3. The Act of Settlement of 1700 also requires the monarch to be in communion with the Church of England.

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this crown shall joyn in communion with the Church of England as by law established

At the time the Act of Settlement was enacted, only members of the Church of England itself were admitted to Holy Communion in the Church of England (refer to page 13 of this parliamentary research briefing from 2009). Therefore, the "communion" requirement in the Act of Settlement originally meant that the monarch was obliged to be a member of the Church of England.

Today, however, the Church of England admits to Holy Communion any baptized Christians who are members in good standing of a Christian church that subscribes to the doctrine of the "Holy Trinity" (which would mean that even Catholic and Orthodox Christians can be admitted to Communion in the Church of England). Therefore, by today's standards, anyone who meets the "Protestant" requirement the Act of Settlement of 1700 will probably meet the "communion" requirement in the same Act.

https://www.churchofengland.org/more...land/section-b


As for the Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church is a member of the Anglican Communion. It was formed from American churches belonging to the Church of England which, after the American Revolution against the British crown, began to self-govern and renamed themselves from Church of England to Episcopal Church for obvious political reasons. The separation was political, not theological. Religiously, Episcopalians are Anglicans.

Read more about the Episcopal Church of the United States of America:
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/who-...erican-church/

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Tarlita

The Archbishop of Los Angeles is Catholic and growing up as a Catholic and going to a Catholic school she should know this. Also did the Bishop bring the Baptismal Font with him along with the holy water from the River Jordan for the christening. Or maybe they borrowed the font from a local church.
I just have so many questions. Did the Bishop get a lift on the plane with Tyler Perry, or did he drive the 1.5 to 2 hours to Montecito.

Meghan attended Catholic school but she was never Catholic.

She was unbaptized and didn't belong to any church until she married Harry.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Meghan attended Catholic school but she was never Catholic.

She was unbaptized and didn't belong to any church until she married Harry.

That is correct. She could not have been baptized in the CoE if she had already been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, as the CoE, like the Roman Catholic Church, does not "re-baptize" people who already had a valid (Trinitarian) baptism.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tarlita

The Archbishop of Los Angeles is Catholic and growing up as a Catholic and going to a Catholic school she should know this. Also did the Bishop bring the Baptismal Font with him along with the holy water from the River Jordan for the christening. Or maybe they borrowed the font from a local church.

You don't need a special font to have your child christened in. I know people who had their child christened in a glass bowl on their veranda and I know families where special bowls become heirlooms and are used for generations.
Do Anglicans use holy water? In the Protestant (Lutheran) churches I've taken part of christenings in any water can be used since it gets blessed by the priest during the christening service.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

There was no mention of WHEN Charles would honour that agreement though. It is only 6 months so it is possible it will happen in time but both men are probably still grieving for their parents and that change would be a defining moment of total acceptance that they are gone.

For some of us that defining moment could be when we move something, sell the house or whatever but for them it could be the passing of that title.

That is a really good point, all my life I have only known one Duke of Edinburgh and from the point of view of the family passing that title over could be very emotional. Charles is slowly dealing with things in his own way, I think we should just wait and see what happens. I suspect just before the coronation there will be an announcement.

Frogmore is resolved, the childrens titles are resolved, lets give him space. The King needed time to mourn as well as take on the role. The stuff going on in the background will be quite overwhelming, while still do visits etc.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Ing called Sir and Ma'am but I bet they won't get rid of them in the same way their parents hold onto the Sussex title. It's a shame royal titles are going down this road as in the past they came with an obligation to work for your country, .

That's not true. Titles were simply part of life, for most of the centuries that they have existed. They did not have any obligation to work for one's country

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Denville

That's not true. Titles were simply part of life, for most of the centuries that they have existed. They did not have any obligation to work for one's country

They were and then they evolved to go hand in hand with obligation and its been that way for decades now.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by crm2317

T
I think the Palace has played a blinder here. The Sussexes have complained non stop but then want the titles too? Everyone sees them now for what they really are.

Im afraid not everyone sees them for what they are, but all the same, they will gradually become less popular.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

They were and then they evolved to go hand in hand with obligation and its been that way for decades now.

Not entirely. Bea and Eugenie have HRHs and have never worked as royals.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

I completely agree - they have cemented their true titles as the Duke and Duchess of Hypocrisy.

Exactly. Those are their true titles.

That is my real take away on this whole saga . Not what Charles did or didn’t do, but them- their values, their behavior, their utter hypocrisy.

After all their whining- they’re still going to allow their children the use of Prince/ess. I mean- of course they are. Typical of them. It’s just interesting to see their hypocrisy laid out so clearly.

Especially when they made a point of saying Archie would only be “Master” when he was born. They tried to make themselves sound so unstuffy, down to earth, progressive, etc. Not so much as it turns out. Lol

Also- So much for all that racism/titles nonsense that Meghan tried to float in Oprah.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Denville

Not entirely. Bea and Eugenie have HRHs and have never worked as royals.

But when they were born it was expected that they were going to be public figures. Times changed but they already had the titles and they kept them.

[Ista]

This is the Sussex thread, so let's keep discussion focussed on the Sussexes and their family. There has been quite a bit of off topic discussion about Charles, his finances, the Wessexes, and so on. Unless that is closely tied and directly relevant to Harry and Meghan and their family, those conversations should be taking place on the relevant threads, not this one. Further off topic conversations will be deleted.

[Granada]

I used to think The Sussex's would gradually fade into irrelevance, but now I'm not so sure.

They certainly played this situation well and "won". Royal Titles " awarded" to their children six months down the line after The Queens death when the only People clamouring for them were the rogue, backstabbing Sussex's.

Tungsten, tough, resilient and unyielding....... Charles nickname for Meghan .....is certainly apt. For a couple that neither work for The Family-Firm, OR even live in The Country from where they derive their Titles, this is quite an achievement. What Meghan wants - Meghan gets. Indeed.

Meghan, who is laser focused on being a "brand" for herself and Harry will now certainly do the same for the kids. Position them forward as influential too. Why else demand the Titles as their "birthright" ? This IS 2023, and for an American raising American Children I find it simply preposterous. How many Prince and Princess are needed, especially there's days.Especially in foreign countries ?

Funny how Sweden and Denmark are actually streamlining Titles, but Charles does just the opposite for The Sussex's.

Who do nothing but challenge and criticize The Family and the Institution !

But Meghan IS a genius at PR. Both Meghan and Harry ( the Spare ) are consumed by Status and having a "voice and reach". So while I see their goals of wanting their kids to have the ability to use the Titles, I finds it baffling that Charles gave in. He certainly didn't have to. I think he looks weak in doing so too.

This is also setting up William to deal with problems and complications down the line as the "Prince and Princess of Sussex" become teenagers and young Adults. What if they are like their Parents ? And thrive on drama?

I think it was very unfair to saddle William with this. I would be so hurt and furious if I were him. It will fall on him and later George, if complications arise where the whole "Royal Sussex's Family" engages in activities that commercialize Titles and ties to The Crown. And reduce The Crown to derision , mockery and question its relevance.

In a world plugged in 24-7 by Social Media no less. Ready to pounce on everything

Every time an 'olive branch' is extended to The Sussex they smash it to smithereens it seems. I expect this time will be no different sadly. Just that Charles has sadly probably guaranteed the drama continues into the next generation.

So much for streamlining ? Still think this move is terrible and will backfire down the line too.

[OwlBranch]

Originally Posted by Granada

I for one am very disappointed at how this has played out. Game, Set, Match to The Sussex's. Pretty amazing coup for a Couple that railed against a "Hierarchical System" they said. But they want their children to get the perks. Why ?

In the Oprah interview, Meghan was very clear that she wanted titles for Archie (for security reasons) but was denied. She specifically said it was Archie's birthright and not theirs to take away, so her feelings on titles was very clear.

Both Harry and Meghan stated that initially they wanted "half-in, half-out" but was blocked. Since this option was given to other family members, they were insulted that they were not given the same option.

In some ways, they have achieved what they wanted: be royal-adjacent, but being able to play by their own rules.

Originally Posted by Granada

But he didn't. He capitulated and gave Harry and Meghan exactly what they wanted to set up their children as rivals to The Wales children down the line.
Does The British Monarchy REALLY want potentially rogue Royals using Titles down the line in America ? What if they get into trouble ? Doesn't Charles see how it diminishes The British Royal Family's prestige ? Did ANYONE think ahead on this ?

I think it was a big mistake that will come back to haunt them. And it won't stop the hypocrite Sussex's one bit from speaking out on anything or anybody they want.

This action has only emboldened them.

I agree. The way the royal family handled the situation has been very short-sighted and emotional. They completely underestimated Meghan.

Look at Ed and Sophie, they had to quit their business ventures because they were not successful, and were caught trading on their royal connections as well.

Comparing Sophie to Meghan, both were women with jobs/careers of their own before marrying into the family. But Meghan, being American, just didn't respect the Monarchy. It also does not help that Harry feels that way as well. They are much better at this PR game than the Monarchy. Sure, their popularity is low according to polls, but their fame remains undimished and they will be able to leverage that into $$$ to support their lifestyle.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

Archie and Lilibet are now officially Princes of Sussex!
The website of the British Royal House appears updated from this Thursday with the titles.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

Good for them since they are entitled to this. It was overdue.

That said, and just to be frank, I predict Meghan and TV friends will now name drop them at every chance they get. I can't see Will and Kate referring about their kids with the title before the name like "prince George ate his food..." But I can see Meghan saying my prince Archie, my princess Lilibet this and that like she talks about Harry on the podcast as my husband without using his name.

The kids, still in diaper ages, are innocent on their parents' shenanigans and my only hope is they get to meet their UK Spencer and Windsor family in person or via zoom in years to come. And on that line, have they even met the cousins on Doria's side of the family? Tyler Perry, Ellen and the rest of the Hollywood neighborhood are not their blood relatives, Doria's, the Spencers, Windsors and few Markles are.

[Denville]

If it was overdue, it is clearly down to the Sussexes not claiming hte title for the children.