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

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Magnolia471

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...

Diana received a 17 million pound settlement. It would have been a few million less had she accepted the offer to keep her HRH.

Diana didn't lose Princess of Wales when she divorced. Like all divorced wives she kept the right to use her former husband's styles and titles so she went from HRH The Princess of Wales to Diana, Princess of Wales.

What was stripped from her via Letters Patent was the HRH. Note that that LP wasn't issued until the day AFTER Diana's divorce. Sarah kept the HRH from the date of her divorced until after Diana's divorce because it had not even been raised as an issue during her divorce negotiations. When Sarah and Andrew divorced she expected to keep the HRH and be HRH Sarah, Duchess of York. Between her divorce and Diana's though Diana was offered more money to give up the HRH which she accepted and so both women lost the HRH by Letters Patent issued by The late Queen.

[Asteria12]

They appear to be totally elevated within their own exceptionalism. They probably truly can't understand why most people find them insufferably narcissistic and hypocritical.

Originally Posted by 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.

Very much agree.

[Tatiana Maria]

The story that King Charles III had held discussions with the Duke of Sussex and agreed that the Sussex children could be called Prince and Princess but not HRH was first broken by Matt Wilkinson in The Sun in an "exclusive" on September 15, 2022.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/198105...et-hrh-status/

The above link was posted and discussed in the thread on Archie and Lilibet's titles. Seeing as Mr. Wilkinson's reporting was accused of being "a sorry source of reference" and "not good enough to use as liner in a birdcage", I think it is worth acknowledging now that the fundamentals of his report have been confirmed by the palace and the duke and duchess (although he was incorrect about new letters patent being issued).

[Tatiana Maria]

It would appear that following the christening, there were press releases sent out by both the Sussexes and Buckingham Palace, since the various newspapers' paraphrasing of their respective statements is virtually identical.

For future reference, here are the most detailed reports I have read:


Valentine Low writing in the Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...2023-nppf8tc7v

A spokesman for the couple said: ‘The children’s titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.’

[...]

The King was aware beforehand that the Sussexes intended to refer to their daughter as Princess Lili and that there had been correspondence about the matter.

[...]

It is understood the titles will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use by the couple, and this was the first opportunity to do so since the death of Queen Elizabeth.

Harry and Meghan are understood to be keen to not deny their children their birthright, but to allow them the chance to decide for themselves when they are older whether to drop or keep using them.

The Palace confirmed to the couple last year that the children were prince and princess and made it clear that their titles would not be taken away. Although there was surprise in Montecito that their children’s titles were not updated on the palace website, Harry and Meghan did not ask for the website to be changed. The palace offered to change the website only when the news broke last week about the couple being asked to move out of Frogmore Cottage.

The reaction of Buckingham Palace to the Sussexes’ announcement suggests that it had been waiting for Harry and Meghan to take a lead. A source said that the Sussexes had been entitled to use the titles since the King’s accession. Now that the Sussexes have confirmed the titles, the website would be updated “in due course”.

[...]

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.

Victoria Ward writing in the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...ince-princess/

However, it is understood that the couple made the decision to use the titles last year. The palace was informed and accepted the decision.

Sources close to the Sussexes had suggested they were frustrated that the Royal household had failed to immediately recognise Archie and Lilibet's elevated status on its website, not least as the Prince and Princess of Wales's titles, and those of their children, were swiftly changed.

They were only informed that the Royal family's website would be updated at the beginning of this month, after it emerged they had been asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage, their Windsor home, and that the Duke of York had been offered the keys.

Matt Wilkinson and Sarah Grealish writing in the Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21...ee-new-titles/

PRINCE Harry and King Charles agreed to give the duke's children royal titles during discussions after the Queen's funeral, it is understood.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Durham

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.

Yes, you're quite right on Lady Patricia.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri..._docs.htm#1919

I understand that, particularly in the British legal system, there is such a thing as unwritten law, but I personally have not heard about the alleged legal doctrine that once Letters Patent are issued in a given area of law, all other procedural precedents are nullified and Letters Patent become the only legally valid procedure from that point forward. That is why I requested a source for it.

Originally Posted by kimebear

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.

Originally Posted by kimebear

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 kimebear

Because he DID announce it. The Palace issued a formal comment confirming it. I"m talking about the people who use the phrase "the King's Will" as a means of trying to justify their own positions on matters relating to changes in the royal family when there's been no official comment on them.

Originally Posted by kimebear

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.

I would like to give a proper response to your response to me, but I don't think I understand your position. Perhaps there is something I have missed, because the first two quoted comments above appear to me to be arguing that Letters Patent have become the only legal method of making changes to titles, but the second two quoted comments appear to be stating that announcements and formal statements are also valid means of making changes.

Originally Posted by kimebear

The "King's Will" isn't a thing just because a few royalists now claim that it is.

As Durham pointed out, though, this has not only become a debate "now", which a review of archived debates on the Wessex titles will show. And while I do not believe the opinion of the majority is necessarily correct, I think the almost universal acceptance of King Charles III's creation of William as Prince of Wales by verbal announcement on September 9, 2022 (with letters patent only issued months later and not backdated) illustrates that not just a few esoteric royalists, but the majority of the public believe that letters patent are not the only valid procedure to convey the monarch's will on royal titles.

[Tatiana Maria]

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?

My reading of the palace source's statement as quoted in the Times is that Prince Harry's status - namely, having an HRH but not being permitted to use it - extends to his children now that they have become Prince and Princess like their father.

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.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...2023-nppf8tc7v

The palace's argument distinguishing Beatrice and Eugenie from Archie and Lilibet seems natural. It is the usual way of European monarchies that the removal of a right from an individual royal extends to future descendants but not existing descendants. For example, under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, if Prince Harry were hypothetically divorced or widowed and then remarried without the permission of the King, the prince would be excluded from the throne, and so would any future children from the unapproved second marriage, but Archie and Lilibet would remain in line. Other European monarchies have laws which function similarly.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.

It is certainly fascinating to compare how Princess Madeleine was pilloried by royal watchers for "accepting" royal titles for her female-line children while living abroad (even if there is no evidence that the King let her make the decision) to how the Duke of Sussex's choice to use royal titles for his male-line children is seen by most as righteous and deserved regardless of where he lives.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

Originally Posted by KristehH

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 believe you are right about the current public perceptions, KristehH, but it is probable that in 50 years' time the rift will be largely forgotten (how much of royal family history from the 1970s remains in the public memory now?) and Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet will simply be thought of as "royals", just like Prince Michael of Kent is today (and the choices and activities of Prince Michael of Kent are still viewed, fairly or unfairly, as a reflection on the royal family as a whole).

[KristehH]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I believe you are right about the current public perceptions, KristehH, but it is probable that in 50 years' time the rift will be largely forgotten (how much of royal family history from the 1970s remains in the public memory now?) and Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet will simply be thought of as "royals", just like Prince Michael of Kent is today (and the choices and activities of Prince Michael of Kent are still viewed, fairly or unfairly, as a reflection on the royal family as a whole).

Thanks, Tatiana Maria. Well, it's impossible to say what will have happened in 50 years time. Possibly Archie, Lili, and the Royal Family will have mended fences and they will visit the UK on a regular basis or even live there. But unless that happens, then I don't think people will have forgotten the rift or think that Archie and Lili's behavior, good or bad, reflects on the British royals. It seems much more likely that the Sussex children will grow up in California as celebrities' children and have minimal contact with the royals. So I don't think that they will be considered as a real part of the British Royal Family, not in the same way as those who live in the UK and appear at family events.

Not to mention, that in 50 years, Archie Lili, and the Wales children will all be well into middle age and there will be a younger generation getting much of the attention.

[Duke of Leaside]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

...

What was stripped from her via Letters Patent was the HRH. Note that that LP wasn't issued until the day AFTER Diana's divorce. ...

Actually this is incorrect. The LP was issued on August 21, 1996. One week BEFORE Charles and Diana's divorce became final on August 28, 1996.

That being said, there's no doubt the letters patent were issued as a result of the negotiations involved in the divorce process which had been settled some six weeks earlier; but the divorce decree became final and absolute and the marriage was thereby dissolved on August 28th.

It is true that Sarah lost her HRH on August 21, 1996 when the LP was issued and she had been HRH up to that point even after her divorce on May 30, 1996. But Diana remained HRH for another week until her divorce became final and then the (week old) LP applied to her as well.

[Hallo girl]

The real difference in all this is that the palace did not make an announcement after the Queens death with regards the childrens titles. There were comments on here with regards the Kings speech and the title of POW and why did he not announce the prince and princess titles at the same time. The family are non working royals the palace do not make announcements on their behalf, it was their decision if it was made public. If the palace had made the announcement the family could have complained about breaching the privacy of the children. They were in a no win situation and it looked better for some if the palace looked like they were the baddies in this.
Also we all knew the children automatically obtained the titles unless the King made changes and as time went on it became obvious he didn't want to.
Charles loves both his sons, he probably wants to give one a good shake and a talking to at this point but he will never stop loving him and I genuinely believe he never wanted to remove the childrens titles and as this has been agreed since September it makes others look petty and well lets leave it at that.

I also think the Frogmore situation was more amicable than has been inferred by commentators, and this little announcement this week of the christening therefore the titles is a way of letting the public know that the Sussex's are not the losers in all this.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Denville

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

I agree, if this had been discussed after the death of the Queen then it is H and M who have decided on the timing. I just think it shows that what she said in the Oprah interview was wrong, they were not entitled until Charles became King. All those posters on here who tried to say that have been proved correct.

They decided the timing of the reveal to the public. How they use or do not use them in the future will determine our opinion of them.
I know people think they have won, not sure what there is to win, but I think it shows their true nature.

[Somebody]

Changing the website would not have been a breach of any kind. Not changing it was an active decision that caused a lot of confusion as for the Waleses all changes in titles were immediately made.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Changing the website would not have been a breach of any kind. Not changing it was an active decision that caused a lot of confusion as for the Waleses all changes in titles were immediately made.

I am sorry but I think we need to agree to disagree on this point, by changing the website it basically made an announcement. We are not privy to the private conversations, what was discussed or agreed.

The only people bothered were on social media, nobody else really cared. It didn't cause confusion as far as I am concerned because I knew that unless Charles actively made changes the children had the titles whether they were used or not or announced or not.

[Denville]

yes of course they had the titles, but Charles probalby held off announcing anything because whatever he did would probalby provoke some negative response from H and Megan.

[Lilyflo]

The scenario that makes sense to me is that during the discussion with Harry following HMQ's funeral, Charles acknowledged the children's princely status. However, Harry had previously stated that Archie would be known as plain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor so it was up to him to signal any amendments to how he (and Lilibet) should be known. That signal came last week when the Sussexes referred to Lilibet as Princess Lilibet Diana and the website was amended soon afterwards, probably after a request from BP to Harry for confirmation.

[HighnessN]

The reason the palace never commented is that it was up to H&M to decide how they want their kids to be addressed. We need to remember that when Archie was born, he was entitled to use Harry's Earldom but the couple had announced that he would not use it.
(I now think they actually wanted a Prince title but when they were told he doesnt currently qualify to get it, they threw a little fit). Had the children been using titles from birth, their change in titles would have been done automatically by the palace. The problem was that they were not using titles at all even though they had them.

H&M have made it clear they dont want the palace communications team to speak on their behalf, so there would be no announcement unless it came from them.

The delay in H&M making the announcement in my view, had a lot to do with timing. They had the Netflix doc & book coming it & making that announcement prior to attacking the Film would have been a dumb move.
Making the announcement now, before the corronation make me believe that the is a good chance they will be attending. Birthright & all

[Granada]

So from what I understand The children now have the Prince-Princess Titles, WITHOUT the prestigious HRH. Interesting, so does that mean they are NOT entitled ( especially when older) to the little head bows or cursty, when visiting The UK ?

I find all these little intricacies surrounding this latest development so interesting. Same as now, I wonder *IF* The Sussex's attend the Coronation will they want 4 year old Archie to accompany them there for at least part of the ceremony.

[ACO]

They have the HRH, it is just not going to be used. The same way with Harry and Meghan.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by sophie25

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?

I think they would have forgiven Thomas Markle. But it is another view when you consider Mr. Markle's environment. From what I remember of their engagement time is that they tried to get him out of the limelight and set him up comfortable but discreet. Then came her half-sister Samantha and advised him on searching the public. From then on they showed him that he could be "theirs" on being quiet or Samantha's on coming forward with all sorts of claims that were unkind.That ended their relationship with him. Meghan is a hard mistress to please. Harry is IMHO much softer. But both are still in awe for the "crown" of Britain. Proud of their relation to it, but it's difficult for them to distinguish between. "Papa" and the King and "Brother Willie" and The Prince of Wales. With Thomas Marle it was easy: take Samantha's side and you are out.

[ACO]

Thomas Sr literally wished harm to come to Harry. You can say a lot about the Sussexes but I never seen them utter such things about anyone. Also Meghan said Harry is to decide what relationship he wants with his family. She hasn't talked about any desire to have one. That is his choice as it was hers regarding the Markles.