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

[Denville]

I doubt very much if THos Markle who is an old sick man, is serious in what he says about Harry. he is just spouting off because he's angry. i looked for this interview but wasn't able to find one where he said he wished for harm to come to his son in law. So I hardly think he's worse than Harry who claimed that he saw the people he killed in war as chess pieces, or who admitted to actual violence against his bodyguard

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

Sadly, I don't have enough free time to be on this board all afternoon to keep up with a thread that moves this fast lol.



My position is really quite simple in that I have seen far too many people speculate on what the reigning monarch will or won't due by trying to make an argument invoking the "King's Will" terminology in place of an official announcement of any kind. I believe that until there is some kind of confirmation from BP on any topic, trying to guess what Charles is planning on doing is an exercise in futility.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Charles has shown that Harry can disrespect him, his heir, the institution, and the country and He will do nothing about it. On the contrary he will award them for the misbehavior. What does this say to the members of th family who do their jobs without making attempts to cash in on their titles?! I have lost a lot of respect for this man.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Charles has shown that Harry can disrespect him, his heir, the institution, and the country and He will do nothing about it. On the contrary he will award them for the misbehavior. What does this say to the members of th family who do their jobs without making attempts to cash in on their titles?! I have lost a lot of respect for this man.

How is he rewarding them? If you mean that their children are now known as Prince and Princess, that was the case from the day the queen died. According to the 1917 Letters Patent. Charles was never going to take away those titles from his grandchildren who have done nothing to deserve it.

[FigTree]

Also the case today with The Dukedowm for Edward but just for life.

Which I have always been a proponent of titles just being for life.

Got me thinking of Harry do. Will Archie get it. Or os ot really too late form them.and all chances like that will be from now.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Granada

I also wonder that now that the Sussex's have made their boatloads of money and their reputation have certainly taken a surprising hit (to them) , if they don't change their business model and modus opperendi in respect to The Royal Family ?

Their business model HAS been the trashing and cashing in, of The Royal Family. But seeing, the I believe unexpected backlash from fellow Celebrities with scathing pointed mocking and ridiculing of them, I wonder if they will now be more conciliatory? Especially now that THEY have involved their Titled Children as now members of this toxic "Institution", by insisting on them having Prince-Princess designation.

Maybe to keep their OWN and the Kids prestigious associations viable IN FUTURE to The Royal Family they will back off. To keep invites to Royal Ascot, Trooping The Colour, and Balmoral visits open.
Meghan thrives on PR and Press. However NOTHING she was doing outside of cashing in on her supposed horrible time as a Royal was resonating.

Now that they have the money, I wonder if they don't NOW focus on rehabbing their own image and positioning their kids to claim their "birthright" as quasi members of The Royal Family. Visits and such. In the news. While they can, under Charles anyway. Look to the future. Not that I expect them to go to Sandringham for Christmas, but private visits to Charles. And "showy" Events. Just to keep credible. And visible. Positive coverage.

Of course all documented in the Press. Pictures of Princess Lilibet Diana and Prince Archie arriving at the Tower for a tour in say 8 years or visiting Westminster Abbey. All splashed in Media. Favorable coverage of cute kids finding their heritage !

That I could definitely see happening. The way The Sussex's are operating now has limited shelf life. It is becoming tiresome and boring. I think we are in for ACT ll......

Isn't all that a little Netflix film or Princess Diaries ish. Love those films. But then I think that's what Megjan actually thought her future was.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Charles has shown that Harry can disrespect him, his heir, the institution, and the country and He will do nothing about it. On the contrary he will award them for the misbehavior. What does this say to the members of th family who do their jobs without making attempts to cash in on their titles?! I have lost a lot of respect for this man.

Yes. This is what many people will take away from this. How many exactly I don't know. Hopefully The King will not become the object of too much criticism but his advisers have certainly not helped him.

The 1917 LPs are not set in stone. They could have been changed at any time in the last six months as everyone well knows. Some sort of wording could have allowed for the late queen's cousins to have remained HRHs for life if that was a concern.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

I understand the general point but I struggle to grasp how one part of the 1917 LP applies but not all of it. Is it really correct as quoted in The Times that the use of HRH comes through their father? Surely, like the use of the title of prince/ss, it comes from their grandfather? This is all very unclear. As I said before this all a bit of a mess.

There are no relatives of the British monarch just known as a prince/ss with no style attached. Or at least there wasn't until the other day. Prince Alistair of Connaught was a HH wasn't he? At least until 1917 anyway.

[Granada]

XeniaCasaraghi and Durham,

I agree with you both. I had hoped that Charles would enact a new Letter Patent too, especially after the years of increasingly aggressive lies, misrepresentations, accusations, AND damaging information alleged. On top of persistant challenges to the Family-Firm. Never ending and malicious.

As Durham says the LP's are not set in stone. They can be updated.
George V did it to downsize the Family, amount of Prince-Princess in the midst of WWl, with German Names. He in fact got the idea from his Russian Uncle TsarAlexander lll.
Who, in the 1880's moved to limit the amount of "Grand Dukes and Grand Duchess" Titles. ONLY the MALE line children and grandchildren of The Tsar could be Grand Dukes and Duchess. Even though he knew his two beloved daughters children would in future be affected.

He "downsized" his own Family. By Imperial Decree.

Neither action was popular in the respective Families. But streamlining had to start someplace.

It was a great stroke to "modernize" AND save a great amount of money, and in Russia, financing Grand Dukes yearly stipends and Grand Duchess's Dowry's were exorbitant.

But, here we are. And I'm sure Harry and Meghan are aware of how Queen Margarethe of Denmark stripped Titles from the children of her second son too.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Granada

I also wonder that now that the Sussex's have made their boatloads of money and their reputation have certainly taken a surprising hit (to them) , if they don't change their business model and modus opperendi in respect to The Royal Family ?

Their business model HAS been the trashing and cashing in, of The Royal Family. But seeing, the I believe unexpected backlash from fellow Celebrities with scathing pointed mocking and ridiculing of them, I wonder if they will now be more conciliatory? Especially now that THEY have involved their Titled Children as now members of this toxic "Institution", by insisting on them having Prince-Princess designation.

Maybe to keep their OWN and the Kids prestigious associations viable IN FUTURE to The Royal Family they will back off. To keep invites to Royal Ascot, Trooping The Colour, and Balmoral visits open.
Meghan thrives on PR and Press. However NOTHING she was doing outside of cashing in on her supposed horrible time as a Royal was resonating.

Now that they have the money, I wonder if they don't NOW focus on rehabbing their own image and positioning their kids to claim their "birthright" as quasi members of The Royal Family. Visits and such. In the news. While they can, under Charles anyway. Look to the future. Not that I expect them to go to Sandringham for Christmas, but private visits to Charles. And "showy" Events. Just to keep credible. And visible. Positive coverage.

Of course all documented in the Press. Pictures of Princess Lilibet Diana and Prince Archie arriving at the Tower for a tour in say 8 years or visiting Westminster Abbey. All splashed in Media. Favorable coverage of cute kids finding their heritage !

That I could definitely see happening. The way The Sussex's are operating now has limited shelf life. It is becoming tiresome and boring. I think we are in for ACT ll......

I think your post is spot-on. I would add that I think the driver of ACT II will be Meghan and that she might find it challenging to keep her grouchy-pants, resentful, husband focused on the strategy.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Also the case today with The Dukedowm for Edward but just for life.

Which I have always been a proponent of titles just being for life.

Got me thinking of Harry do. Will Archie get it. Or os ot really too late form them.and all chances like that will be from now.

Why would you want them only for life? Isn't one of the big factors that they stay in the family for generations?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Durham

I understand the general point but I struggle to grasp how one part of the 1917 LP applies but not all of it. Is it really correct as quoted in The Times that the use of HRH comes through their father? Surely, like the use of the title of prince/ss, it comes from their grandfather? This is all very unclear. As I said before this all a bit of a mess.

I don't think it is correct. The LPs say that the prefixes "Royal Highness" and "Prince" or "Princess" are "at all times" attached to the Christian names of those who meet the criteria set out in the Letters i.e., children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom, children of sons of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom, or the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (later extended to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales by the LPs of 2012). There is nothing in the text that could be interpreted in my opinion as detaching the prefix "Royal Highness" from "Prince" if your father's HRH is "in abeyance".

The exact wording of the LPs is as follows:

[...] Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour [...]

The full text can be read here

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Why would you want them only for life? Isn't one of the big factors that they stay in the family for generations?

Time needs to move on. No need to keep them in the family. Within a generation or two they etop being royal anyway. For life is enough.

[OwlBranch]

Originally Posted by soapstar

In his book, Harry talked about his military training and mentioned how he targeted Charles’ car during one of his simulated air strike exercises. So I’d say that’s just as harsh as anything Thomas Markle has said.

Here is a great example of how two people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions. The way I read that passage was that Harry was being cheeky and was trying to show his father what he has learned thru his training. It was a joke, a bit of a prank. There is absolutely no harm whatsoever intended.

IMHO, the book was very kind to Charles as a father. He knew his father loved him but pointed out that he was not able to be as demonstrative of his love as his mother due to Charles upbringing.

Some people think Monarchy is supposed to be mythical and mysterious to have power over people. By allowing us to peek behind the curtain, to expose these people as human beings, the family has lost some of that magic.

[American Observer7]

Originally Posted by Denville

How is he rewarding them? If you mean that their children are now known as Prince and Princess, that was the case from the day the queen died. According to the 1917 Letters Patent. Charles was never going to take away those titles from his grandchildren who have done nothing to deserve it.

I was about to post about this myself. Charles did not need to do anything to make Archie and Lilibet's titles official. It was automatic and official as soon as the Queen passed away. That is what many refuse to acknowledge. Also, Charles never had any intention whatsoever of issuing Letters of Patent to take those titles away. I don't care what Harry has said or done. Archie and Lilibet are still his grandchildren! Let me also make it clear that Archie and Lilibet also have the title of HRH and their father's current status has no bearing on that either.

HRH, Prince Archie Harrison of Sussex

HRH, Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex

It's done. And again, it was done as soon as the Queen passed away.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by American Observer7

I was about to post about this myself. Charles did not need to do anything to make Archie and Lilibet's titles official. It was automatic and official as soon as the Queen passed away. That is what many refuse to acknowledge. Also, Charles never had any intention whatsoever of issuing Letters of Patent to take those titles away. I don't care what Harry has said or done. Archie and Lilibet are still his grandchildren! Let me also make it clear that Archie and Lilibet also have the title of HRH and their father's current status has no bearing on that either.

HRH, Prince Archie Harrison of Sussex

HRH, Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex

It's done. And again, it was done as soon as the Queen passed away.

Sadly, not. HRH is strictly in the personal purview of the monarch and always has been. (Try looking up Wallis, Diana, or Fergie). If the children are not addressed as such (not that children use "Your Royal Highness", anyway), because their father agreed not to use his, then it's not automatic, no matter how much outrage it may provoke.

It's also a style, not a title.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I don't think it is correct. The LPs say that the prefixes "Royal Highness" and "Prince" or "Princess" are "at all times" attached to the Christian names of those who meet the criteria set out in the Letters i.e., children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom, children of sons of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom, or the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (later extended to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales by the LPs of 2012). There is nothing in the text that could be interpreted in my opinion as detaching the prefix "Royal Highness" from "Prince" if your father's HRH is "in abeyance".

The exact wording of the LPs is as follows:



The full text can be read here

Yes I agree. I don't know who this royal source was but it sounds to me as if they (BP) don't want the children to be known as HRH. They know perfectly well it doesn't make sense to divorce the title from the style but don't want to have to admit it.

I think The King has always wanted to limit the use of prince/HRH but the behaviour of the Sussexes over this issue has made him/his advisers cautious. And no we can't point to a particular statement to prove this but it's been discussed for years & is a bit of an open secret. I also think the Sussexes know perfectly well why The King would like to end the practise of creating royal cadet lines but choose to be bloody minded about it. Just because they can. Like teenagers proving a point.

[Granada]

American Observer, just to be fair, it isn't really known *if* The Sussex's Children are in fact HRH's.

Keep in mind too that when The Sussex's spokesperson announced the formal news of "Princess Lilibet Diana's" Christening, they DID NOT have their daughter's designated as "HRH The Princess Lilibet Diana" either.

The Sussex's carefully had this information released, I'm sure thought and consideration went into it.

So I'm going WITH the Parents own announcement. As of now The HRH hasn't been formally decided, or perhaps agreed upon.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by American Observer7

I was about to post about this myself. Charles did not need to do anything to make Archie and Lilibet's titles official. It was automatic and official as soon as the Queen passed away. That is what many refuse to acknowledge. Also, Charles never had any intention whatsoever of issuing Letters of Patent to take those titles away. I don't care what Harry has said or done. Archie and Lilibet are still his grandchildren! Let me also make it clear that Archie and Lilibet also have the title of HRH and their father's current status has no bearing on that either.

HRH, Prince Archie Harrison of Sussex

HRH, Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex

It's done. And again, it was done as soon as the Queen passed away.

How do you know this?

So do you think that the debate about limiting styles/titles over the last twenty odd years has been a media concoction? Is there any merit in limiting styles/titles or should the system just continue with no reform?

Or are Archie & his sister somewhat more special & deserving than Louise & James?

[HenRach Dominion]

My supposition is that Prince Archie's and Princess Lilibet's HRH are in abeyance along with their parents until that is no longer the case or they decide to use it as adults rather than not given altogether.