The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023

[kimebear]

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]

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/202...7-letters-patent-and-the-george-v-convention/

Mods, please move if this is best elsewhere.

 

[caethi]

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]

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/202...7-letters-patent-and-the-george-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]

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/202...7-letters-patent-and-the-george-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

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/19810592/harry-meghan-archie-lilibet-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/princess-lilibet-christening-harry-meghan-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-f...ildren-archie-lilibet-titles-prince-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/21642105/prince-harry-and-king-charles-agree-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]

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/britain/prince_highness_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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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/princess-lilibet-christening-harry-meghan-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]

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.

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 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]

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]

...

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.