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

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Magnolia471

His mother got that title only though marriage...therfore after divorce she was not entitled to them. Nobody took anything from her, it was her decision.

I seem to remember it being said that Diana was offered the chance to keep her title if she took a smaller financial settlement. Since that money was for William and Harry's inheritance, it wouldn't be surprising if at least Harry felt resentful that his mother had to give up being Princess of Wales just so she could ensure his financial security.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by kimebear

This is exactly what I think. We know how touchy Harry is about the slights he feels that Diana experienced. We also know that he's more than a little touchy about William eventually having the top job and Harry feeling lesser-than.

Besides which, despite what the future King William might feel about his brother and SIL, he'd probably be hard pressed to begrudge his niece and nephew their royal titles. The children are innocent in all of this. They can't help what their parents do.

None of this is personal. It’s not about A&LD at all really. It’s about how the monarchy looks in the future. The following explains this well. Reform is overdue.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021...-v-convention/

Mods, please move if this is best elsewhere.

[caethi]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

My feeling is that they only consider english paparazzi despicable, not US paparazzi

If you call the paps to let them know where you will be, it's all good.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Durham

None of this is personal. It’s not about A&LD at all really. It’s about how the monarchy looks in the future. The following explains this well. Reform is overdue.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021...-v-convention/

Mods, please move if this is best elsewhere.

Exactly. Harry can't be blind to what is happening all over. With his own cousins, in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway. Pretty much all the monarchies.

Times need to move on. In any case they just look a little like peddling displaced Romanovs. Even Bea and Eug's titles look a bit anarchic at this point. How will these kids look in their teens and beyond. They have zero chance of ever being part of the royal family though so it probably doesn't matter. What's the next big event in the royal calender. Probably years ways. The thick and fastness of the last 20 years: weddings, births, jubilees makes us think they are common
They arent. Maybe Charles 10 years on throne. There will be nothing, god willing, for years to bring the famoly back. We are at least 20 plus years away from another big wedding etc.

[Alison H]

This morning's Express suggests that the children having the titles might be a sign that family relations are improving. It wouldn't surprise me if Harry and Meghan had organised the christening purely so that they could make an announcement uding the title, but I suppose it *is* possible that it was all discussed and the King knew about yesterday's announcement in advance and was on board with it.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Durham

None of this is personal. It’s not about A&LD at all really. It’s about how the monarchy looks in the future. The following explains this well. Reform is overdue.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021...-v-convention/

Mods, please move if this is best elsewhere.

I'm not a fan of the slimmed down monarchy trend going on.

While I do support the idea that only a limited number of royals benefit from public funds (the 'working' royals), the concept of actively reducing the number of princes/princesses who hold titles can easily and organically reduce itself over time.

Long gone are the days when monarchs had several children, who went on to also have several children. With most couples now only having 2 or 3 children, and some of them being daughters who won't pass on their titles to their own children, there will never be dozens of princes/princesses running around in any one country like there used to be.

I fear that the slimming down trend, sometimes done with blunt force cruelty (see Denmark) and gradually eliminating all the pomp and circumstance that has traditionally surrounded the monarchy, might just plunge it all into irrelevancy if it gets too modernized. Monarchists, at heart, like the fanfare surrounding their royals.

To quote Mr. Carson from Downton Abbey "Where's the show?"

Of course, by keeping the current LPs in place you will get the Harry & Meghans occasionally, but you get the Edward & Sophies too, and what would the current King Charles do without them?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Exactly. Harry can't be blind to what is happening all over. With his own cousins, in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway. Pretty much all the monarchies.

Times need to move on. In any case they just look a little like peddling displaced Romanovs. Even Bea and Eug's titles look a bit anarchic at this point. How will these kids look in their teens and beyond. They have zero chance of ever being part of the royal family though so it probably doesn't matter. What's the next big event in the royal calender. Probably years ways. The thick and fastness of the last 20 years: weddings, births, jubilees makes us think they are common
They arent. Maybe Charles 10 years on throne. There will be nothing, god willing, for years to bring the famoly back. We are at least 20 plus years away from another big wedding etc.

My biggest practical concern is that Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex, when they are teens or young adults, might become Hollywood-style celebrities whose lifestyle may have a negative impact on the Royal Family's public image.

Even if they live in another country and are not working royals in any sense, as long as they carry the Prince/Princess prefix, they will be publicly associated with the monarchy and, unlike their father when he was a teen and a young adult, will be on their own in the US, and won't have the benefit of being protected by the Palace or by whatever control the Palace might have over the UK media.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

My biggest practical concern is that Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex, when they are teens or young adults, might become Hollywood-style celebrities whose lifestyle may have a negative impact on the Royal Family's public image.

Even if they live in another country and are not working royals in any sense, as long as they carry the Prince/Princess prefix, they will be publicly associated with the monarchy and, unlike their father when he was a teen and a young adult, will be on their own in the US, and won't have the benefit of being protected by the Palace or whatever control it has on the UK media.

They probably will get into that world. Nothing will ever affect the monarchy. Last year my class of ten year olds asked me why Harry was still included in the royal family.

Children will grow up not knowing who any of them are and if they do appear in the media will just be: Who is that? If the family don't reconnect and Harry isn't seen by the time we potentially reach the end of Williams reign no-one will evennknow he had a sibling. There are fully grown adults who barely know about Diana, just that she was Williams Mum.

[Somebody]

I wonder whether Harry and Meghan's condition for attending the coronation was that their children were made prince and princess (as in officially being confirmed/recognized as such). After all, Harry indicated that the royal family would need to make some meaningful steps (my words) towards them before they would be willing to attend.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by kimebear

Of course, by keeping the current LPs in place you will get the Harry & Meghans occasionally, but you get the Edward & Sophies too, and what would the current King Charles do without them?

The current LPs that are discussed aren't about children of monarchs being granted the title of prince or princess (Harry, Edward) but male-line GRANDchildren of a monarch (Lady Louise, Viscount Severn, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet); neither one of them is expected to take on a royal role in the future. So, why the need to keep them for the future; and distinguish between cousins who might be higher in line to the throne but don't have titles (Charlotte's children) and those lower in line who will (Louis' children).

[Durham]

Originally Posted by kimebear

I'm not a fan of the slimmed down monarchy trend going on.

While I do support the idea that only a limited number of royals benefit from public funds (the 'working' royals), the concept of actively reducing the number of princes/princesses who hold titles can easily and organically reduce itself over time.

Long gone are the days when monarchs had several children, who went on to also have several children. With most couples now only having 2 or 3 children, and some of them being daughters who won't pass on their titles to their own children, there will never be dozens of princes/princesses running around in any one country like there used to be.

I fear that the slimming down trend, sometimes done with blunt force cruelty (see Denmark) and gradually eliminating all the pomp and circumstance that has traditionally surrounded the monarchy, might just plunge it all into irrelevancy if it gets too modernized. Monarchists, at heart, like the fanfare surrounding their royals.

To quote Mr. Carson from Downton Abbey "Where's the show?"

Of course, by keeping the current LPs in place you will get the Harry & Meghans occasionally, but you get the Edward & Sophies too, and what would the current King Charles do without them?

There's no way these days that any children of Charlotte would be treated differently to those of Louis. So that's any where between 6 & 9 (probably) HRH's plus their parents with just the grand children of the current PofW. That's too many. It would be the wrong look for the monarchy.

And it isn't the monarchy being cut down it's the rf. The monarchy will retain all the trappings of majesty whatever the size of the rf. Think about Elizabeth i when there was no English rf, she was it! Or Queen Anne - just her & her husband.

The monarchy's relevance is not about the rf. That's really a late C19th/C20th invention. It's about the monarch being an essential part of the constitution & head of the nation. The rest is all froth.

[Alison H]

The monarchy needs to be in the public eye in order to be relevant. A lot of being in the public eye is about the wider family, especially when the monarch is, with all due respect to him, an older and not particularly glamorous person who isn't going to feature on as many front pages as the younger generation.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Magnolia471

His mother got that title only though marriage...therfore after divorce she was not entitled to them. Nobody took anything from her, it was her decision.
Can we stop with this revenge narrative? Diana was in good terms with Royal Family when she passed away. Other that fact what Archie and Lili even suppose to do with royal titles in US.

The issue of Diana's HRH was a negotiating point in the divorce.

From her divorce until Diana's Sarah was HRH Sarah, Duchess of York. At no stage in her negotiations was there any suggestion of her losing the HRH.

It wasn't until the final stages of negotiations with Diana that HRH came up and my information, and memory, is that Diana was offered more money or the HRH and she chose the money.

After Diana's divorce the Queen issued the Letters Patent stripping ex-wives of the HRH and so Harry is correct in that 'they' as in his grandmother took away his mother's title. But he forgets that Diana could have kept it had she wanted to do so but would have received less money as a result.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Alison H

The monarchy needs to be in the public eye in order to be relevant. A lot of being in the public eye is about the wider family, especially when the monarch is, with all due respect to him, an older and not particularly glamorous person who isn't going to feature on as many front pages as the younger generation.

I see things differently but I take the point. I sometimes think less is more. Monarch, spouse (usually), heir & spouse. Is there really a need for more?

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Durham

I see things differently but I take the point. I sometimes think less is more. Monarch, spouse (usually), heir & spouse. Is there really a need for more?

No not really. We don't really have more now. People take an interesr in the wider family of course..as they do in other monarchies but in terms of the centre of the point. No. I am.so.glad thr family, with the obvious exception seem close and spend those moments together.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Durham

There's no way these days that any children of Charlotte would be treated differently to those of Louis. So that's any where between 6 & 9 (probably) HRH's plus their parents with just the grand children of the current PofW. That's too many. It would be the wrong look for the monarchy.

Since 1917 there have only been INCREASES in the number of people eligible to the HRH Prince/Princess;:

1948 - the children of a Princess aka Elizabeth

2012 - all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

At some point I do see Charles issuing the LPs to reduce the numbers to just the children of the heir apparent in each generation - that would be equal then for Charlotte and Louis as neither would pass on HRH to their children. I don't see him increasing to allow for the children of a daughter when he knows how glad his niece and nephew are that they were able to grow up without the HRH.

I suspect he is waiting until at least the Kent's retire and maybe the Gloucester's so that he can have them keep their HRHs as a 'thank-you' for loyal service while then stripping Archie, Lilibet, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James along with any future grandchildren via a younger sibling.

Personally I think that should have been done by the late Queen but she, of course, would never even look at an issue but now there is a Prince and Princess of the UK being raised in the US who will have no real concept of what those titles mean, particularly to the people of the UK.

Even if Charles doesn't want to issue new LPs to restrict the HRH Prince/Princess it should be mandatory to be a Prince or Princess of the UK a person has to a) be raised in the UK and b) permanently reside in the UK and once a person decides to no longer do that it should be automatic a loss of HRH Prince/Princess for themselves and any descendants who would otherwise be so entitled.

[Magnolia471]

Originally Posted by kimebear

I seem to remember it being said that Diana was offered the chance to keep her title if she took a smaller financial settlement. Since that money was for William and Harry's inheritance, it wouldn't be surprising if at least Harry felt resentful that his mother had to give up being Princess of Wales just so she could ensure his financial security.

Diana got no source of income, she didn't accept those money for Harry but rather for herself at the time.
Again, she was entitled to be princess of Wales by marriage it was not her birthright. Ending her marriage meant losing the title, there is nothing to be resentful...

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Since 1917 there have only been INCREASES in the number of people eligible to the HRH Prince/Princess;:

1948 - the children of a Princess aka Elizabeth

2012 - all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

At some point I do see Charles issuing the LPs to reduce the numbers to just the children of the heir apparent in each generation - that would be equal then for Charlotte and Louis as neither would pass on HRH to their children. I don't see him increasing to allow for the children of a daughter when he knows how glad his niece and nephew are that they were able to grow up without the HRH.

I suspect he is waiting until at least the Kent's retire and maybe the Gloucester's so that he can have them keep their HRHs as a 'thank-you' for loyal service while then stripping Archie, Lilibet, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James along with any future grandchildren via a younger sibling.

Personally I think that should have been done by the late Queen but she, of course, would never even look at an issue but now there is a Prince and Princess of the UK being raised in the US who will have no real concept of what those titles mean, particularly to the people of the UK.

Even if Charles doesn't want to issue new LPs to restrict the HRH Prince/Princess it should be mandatory to be a Prince or Princess of the UK a person has to a) be raised in the UK and b) permanently reside in the UK and once a person decides to no longer do that it should be automatic a loss of HRH Prince/Princess for themselves and any descendants who would otherwise be so entitled.

What you say is completely sensible and I think the royal house of Sussex will be a thorn in the BRF's side for years to come. The children being HRH's along with their parents but being American is ludicrous.

[Magnolia471]

At this point I wonder what is going to happen to the allegations of racism against the royal family.
Meghan has explicitly blamed the royal family for not granting royal titles to her children due to their "skin color". Now they have received them, so what? They created a substantial image damage to all members of the royal family with false allegations and will get away with it like nothing happened. And what bothers me the most, they just manipulated the public by throwing out the word racism just to create more drama and sell their documentaries and other crap and it's so disrespectful to people who actually experience racism on daily basis.

[KristehH]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

My biggest practical concern is that Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex, when they are teens or young adults, might become Hollywood-style celebrities whose lifestyle may have a negative impact on the Royal Family's public image.

Even if they live in another country and are not working royals in any sense, as long as they carry the Prince/Princess prefix, they will be publicly associated with the monarchy and, unlike their father when he was a teen and a young adult, will be on their own in the US, and won't have the benefit of being protected by the Palace or by whatever control the Palace might have over the UK media.

I think it will be all right. I mean, pretty much everyone on the planet knows there is currently a rift the size of the Grand Canyon between the Sussexes and the Palace. I don't think Harry, Meghan, or the children's possible future behavior would reflect on the Royal Family. Everyone knows Harry and Meghan have made their break and their own family isn't really part of it anymore. Hence, Harry and Meghan always trying to emphasize that link.

I do think the question of Harry's children's titles should have been dealt with a long time ago, but I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see that it's going to cause terrible harm to the Royal Family. Archie and Lili obviously aren't receiving money from the British taxpayers and I think a lot of people can sympathize with Charles being the father of a difficult son and a grandfather perhaps hoping to one day have a relationship with his estranged grandchildren.

I think it was a bigger deal to end the lease of Frogmore Cottage. That gives the Palace a lot more control if the Sussexes continue to visit the UK.

I also think that Harry and Meghan have made it more clear than ever that their only real problem with the monarchy was that they weren't more highly ranked. It seems very hypocritical to rail against the institution and the family, and then cling to titles for themselves and their children. It's very hard to take them seriously.