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

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

As a former full time teacher, I can attest that I've had a "Prince (name)," two "Saints (name) and a "Ms (name)" appear my roll sheet as the students' legal names during my career in California public schools. In my experience, the students themselves requested that the "Prince," "Saint" and "Ms" be dropped. They were embarrassed that their parents had incorporated those "titles" into their names. As a staff we just explained to the students that we'd only add the "titles" if their parents/guardians were present.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

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.

I dont know if it was. They had their titles because of who their father was.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by TLLK

As a former full time teacher, I can attest that I've had a "Prince (name)," two "Saints (name) and a "Ms (name)" appear my roll sheet as the students' legal names during my career in California public schools. In my experience, the students themselves requested that the "Prince," "Saint" and "Ms" be dropped. They were embarrassed that their parents had incorporated those "titles" into their names. As a staff we just explained to the students that we'd only add the "titles" if their parents/guardians were present.

Its quite ridiculous, to think that tehy will be using these titles at school.... George and Charlotte are not called prince and Pss....

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Toledo

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

I disagree with 'overdue' as the royal website merely reflected the parents' wishes, as expressed when Archie was born, that he'd be known as Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. It was up to Harry to inform BP if he wanted them to change anything and it appears an agreement to do that was only made recently.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Denville

Its quite ridiculous, to think that tehy will be using these titles at school.... George and Charlotte are not called prince and Pss....

Nor are Lili and Archie. They already said they will only be used in formal settings. The media and royals will refer to them as such. I don’t see it happening anywhere else like it doesn’t for any of them.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by TLLK

As a former full time teacher, I can attest that I've had a "Prince (name)," two "Saints (name) and a "Ms (name)" appear my roll sheet as the students' legal names during my career in California public schools. In my experience, the students themselves requested that the "Prince," "Saint" and "Ms" be dropped. They were embarrassed that their parents had incorporated those "titles" into their names. As a staff we just explained to the students that we'd only add the "titles" if their parents/guardians were present.

I might not be around by the time they become adults, but I hope at some point Meghan and Harry make peace with their demons, their inability to associate with blood relatives without finger-pointing and blaming.

I wish they give the kids a chance without prejudice because like Harry researching on his mother, one day they will read all these stories, see parodies and books about these years of quarrels and feel embarrassed by it. A child is not a toy, nor a weapon toward family discrepancies with the in-laws. Neither is a product to be marketed. It's just a child. And as I said, I might not be around but hope Royal Forum members 18 years from now post pictures and threads of Princess Lilibet in tiara full glam at her uncle's palace galas and other events.

[ACO]

Meghan spotted out yesterday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hollywood.html

[Granada]

Thanks ACO.
The Victory Lap. As expected. A giant win. For Brand Sussex.

Did you see She waved and THANKED The Paparazzi ? "Have a good day and Thank you so much"...so much for loathing The Press.

[soapstar]

A few posts have been deleted. Please don’t speculate about the relationships the Sussex children will have with other members of the BRF. That also goes for the Wales children. Let’s stick to discussing the adults. Thanks.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Granada

Thanks ACO.
The Victory Lap. As expected. A giant win. For Brand Sussex.

Did you see She waved and THANKED The Paparazzi ? "Have a good day and Thank you so much"...so much for loathing The Press.

Meghan was leaving the event for Harvest Women’s Home that she (Archewell) hosted for International Women’s Day.

[soapstar]

It’s quite fascinating how this has all played out. Instead of BP formally announcing the titles, the announcement was left up to the Sussexes (and People Magazine). The Palace has been so silent, the Sussexes actually had to release a second statement reaffirming that it was their children’s birthright. It’s so odd. I wonder if it’s because the Sussexes are no longer working royals, so the Palace doesn't feel they have to announce anything pertaining to them?

Originally Posted by ACO

Meghan spotted out yesterday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hollywood.html

Just watched the video. The Sussexes have made it quite clear that they fear and despise the paparazzi, so it’s interesting to see Meghan smiling and happily interacting with them.

[Kenya]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Tyler Perry NEVER made the exclusion of the BRF a condition for being Lili's godfather. He said he didn't want to fly to Britain and "be a part of all that" which I took to mean a Royal christening in the COE with all the bells and whistles.

Here's his full quote, after saying he was honored to be asked to be Lili's godfather:

"I got off the phone and took it all in and then I called them back and said, 'Hold on a second, does that mean we have to go over there and do all of that in the church with them and figure all of that out? Because I don't want to do that.'"

(Emphasis added by me.) I agree that he didn't make the exclusion of the BRF a "condition" of his acceptance of the offer, but he clearly expressed his preference to avoid going to England for a typical royal christening with the family.

And who could blame Meghan and Harry for abiding by his wish when they finally got around to baptizing Lili? You never know when you might need the use of a mansion or private plane, so it's definitely smart to keep Godfather Tyler happy. He even brought a 10-person gospel choir from Atlanta with him to the baptism!

[Denville]

he thinks that baptisms in church are some kind of oddity?

[sophie25]

" With them", says it all really, their friends obviously despise the royals too.

[Denville]

so how does he manage to be freinds with Harry? Would he be offering him a free house if H were not a Prince?

[Biset]

Originally Posted by ACO

Meghan spotted out yesterday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hollywood.html

Oh, look. It’s Backgrid Photo Agency. What a coincidence.

[suztav]

Originally Posted by Biset

Oh, look. It’s Backgrid Photo Agency. What a coincidence.

This is exactly what Meghan has wanted all along -- expensive clothes, fancy shoes and handbags, lunching w/friends, a rich husband -- and none of the boring obligations and restrictions that come along with being a working royal.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Biset

Oh, look. It’s Backgrid Photo Agency. What a coincidence.

Thank you for sharing Biset. I'm not surprised that they just happened to be there as she exited the restaurant.

[Alison H]

Fancy there just happening to be a load of photographers waiting.

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by soapstar

Just watched the video. The Sussexes have made it quite clear that they fear and despise the paparazzi, so it’s interesting to see Meghan smiling and happily interacting with them.

My take is that Harry despises the paparazzi and Meghan loves the paparazzi - to my eyes she is not merely tolerating them or being polite, she is lit up from within.

Harry's hate goes back to Diana, Diana was chased, heckled and her personal space invaded, sometimes by a handful of paps, other times by throngs. Meghan's experience is vastly different, she is not dealing with throngs and she is not being heckled and she is loving it. To be sure Meghan despises the tabloids who write negative articles about her and social media trolls. There may be other incidents, but one time it sticks out where Meghan seemed to have a problem with the paparazzi was in the Netflix documentary where she and Harry seemed to be agitated by being followed by a lone pap on a scooter. My take was that she was feeding off and/or pandering to Harry, with a side of performing for the Netflix cameras.