The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021

[Denville]

And yet, they were happy with calling him “Master” Archie instead? In what way did they think that would be accepted in America? These two make zero sense.

That's the title for a child...

 

[Mirabel]

I remember reading that several possible titles were considered for Harry, and he himself favored Sussex.
So, he must have known what subsidiary titles accompanied that, and been fine with it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They as in Harry and Meghan. Again all this came from a time when Meghan was pregnant with Archie. It isn’t current. She was discussing her frustration and confusion at the time. Once she didn’t get answers about them not wanting their children titled, they seemingly agreed. They aren’t at all.

Denville was asking about the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton.

The Duchess of Sussex's discussion of titles during her interview with Oprah Winfrey was limited to the title of Prince, which was indeed not their (Harry and Meghan's) decision to make, legally speaking.

At no point did she mention the decision not to use the title Earl of Dumbarton, a decision which was made by the Sussexes themselves per a communiqué issued by them at the time.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html


The below are the most complete transcripts of her comments that I have come across. If anyone would provide a full transcript of this section of the interview, it would be much appreciated.

Asked if a title was important to her, she replied: "If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course.

"All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’ve always just still been Meghan, right?

"So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.

"But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be.

"You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-could-allow-archie-24362551

“It’s not their right to take away,” she told Oprah Winfrey.

She was asked by Winfrey: “Do you think it’s because of his race?”

Meghan replied: “In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time, so we [had] the conversation of he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title.

“And, also, concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race​

Edited: Added a second source.

But my assumption that will change soon because Charles has to make a decision about his grandchildren at some point. Won’t be wise to wait until they inherit the HRH and then strip it.

At this point Charles has no legal authority to repeal or alter Letters Patent. If that his wish, he could announce his intentions for the future (as he did in regard to his wife's future title) and he could attempt to persuade his mother to enact the legal changes in her reign, but if she refuses, then Charles is obliged to wait until the children have legally inherited the HRH.

 

[Denville]

As usual, Meghan's words are rambling and make no sense... Does she really think that Archie wouldn't be "safe" if he werne't a Prince?

 

[Curryong]

As usual, Meghan's words are rambling and make no sense... Does she really think that Archie wouldn't be "safe" if he werne't a Prince?

We don’t know what the Sussexes were told by TPTB about future security arrangements. They may have been told bluntly that, in the future, arrangements were going to be made that she and Harry would only get security when on engagements.

Even though they were senior royals that would leave Archie and any other children unprotected as far as the Home Office (who pays for such things) is concerned, and would mean that they themselves would have to pay privately for their children’s security, unlike the arrangements for the Cambridge family.

 

[Denville]

We don’t know what the Sussexes were told by TPTB about future security arrangements. They may have been told bluntly that, in the future, arrangements were going to be made that she and Harry would only get security when on engagements.

Even though they were senior royals that would leave Archie and any other children unprotected as far as the Home Office (who pays for such things) is concerned, and would mean that they themselves would have to pay privately for their children’s security, unlike the arrangements for the Cambridge family.

Its possible... but I think unlikely that he'd be deprived of security under the age of 18. If he was living at Windsor, he'd be in a safe zone much of the time...
Anyway Meghan didn't say that. She didn't say "we were told that we'd have to pay for his security"... she just rambled as usual.....

 

[Claire]

I think he could be Earl of Dumbarton and use Mountbatten-Windsor at school. Whilst it's customary for peers to use their titles as their surname there are instances of the BRF using M-W (Prince William in the topless pics case IIRC). Louise is technically Mountbatten-Windsor but shortens it to just "Windsor" for every day use. I don't know what James uses at school.

To be fair the Telegraph article seems to cover all bases with some other sources claiming they didn't want a title and others claiming they were afraid that Charles was going to issue new LPs.

I went to school with someone who has a title and it wasn't used at all at school. Her parents used their titles but all the children used the family name not the title name at school.

James and Louise both use Windsor, and it helps that there were not the only Windsors at the schools they attend. Louise's award however is under Mountbatten- Windsor.

As usual, Meghan's words are rambling and make no sense... Does she really think that Archie wouldn't be "safe" if he werne't a Prince?

Quite Right - I do worry that appears more and more that these inaccuracy were knowing said. What I mean there is no way Harry, Meghan and Sunshine Sachs did not know that these untruths would be found to be incorrect.
The interview was a play act to Americans who don't know better and believe what they see on TV. It is just what type of PR spin is happy for their principles to be seen as liars and manipulators just for the notoriety to continue?

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57589216


A bit more detail from the BBC:



A senior Clarence House spokesperson said: "As we'll all remember in January 2020 when the duke and duchess announced that they were going to move away from the working royal family, the duke said that they would work towards becoming financially independent.

"The Prince of Wales allocated a substantial sum to support them with this transition.

"That funding ceased in the summer of last year."


So that's yet another thing that Harry and Meghan have lied about. And it was really very good of Prince Charles to give them anything at all, given that they were not doing royal duties in the spring and summer of 2020.

Interesting.

In reading the article Harry said in the interview he was cut off in the 1st quarter of 2020. Which would be end of March of 2020 by most people’s definitions of the quarter system. Certainly mine, given my job.

Charles’ official reports say he funded them through summer 2020.

When called out by the media- the Sussexes PR says Harry meant 1st quarter of the fiscal reporting year in the UK which was April- June. Of course- he didn’t say that at the time. And just about anyone listening (at least in the United States) imo would have interpreted his words as meaning March 2020, which was also when they wrapped up their work as working royals. Which- I suspect- is what they intended people to think: That daddy cut them off right away- rather than generously helping them out until the summer.

This is so typical of how the Sussexes word things IMO though.

 

[Curryong]

Harry referred to the first half of 2020 as the cutting off period, not the first quarter.


[FONT=&quot]‘My family literally cut me off financially in the first half of 2020," he told Oprah during the couple's interview.[/FONT]

 

[Heavs]

Interesting.

In reading the article Harry said in the interview he was cut off in the 1st quarter of 2020. Which would be end of March of 2020 by most people’s definitions of the quarter system. Certainly mine, given my job.

Charles’ official reports say he funded them through summer 2020.

When called out by the media- the Sussexes PR says Harry meant 1st quarter of the fiscal year- which was April- June. Of course- he didn’t say that at the time. And just about anyone listening imo would have interpreted his words as meaning March 2020, which was also when they wrapped up their work as working royals. Which- I suspect- is what they intended people to think: That daddy cut them off right away- rather than generously helping them out until the summer.

This is so typical of how the Sussexes word things IMO though.

Yes I suspect they wanted people to think Charles cut them off right away instead of helping them get started on their new life. And give the lack of awareness of the real world Harry has displayed in his interviews I'm not sure he'd differentiate between fiscal year and calendar year. The Quarter Days (still used for commercial rent etc) in the UK are March 25th, June 24th, September 29th and December 25th.

Just like they tried to draw a link between HRH and security which doesn't exist and they drew a line between HRH and race which doesn't exist either.

"We don't care about titles, you don't need to be royal to serve, except they matter because security and race!" Hmm...

Even if Charles had completely stopped funding them in early 2020: If you leave a job, even a family business (on bad terms) you don't expect to continue being paid for the job you're no longer doing. And you don't get the perks that were once yours either. Especially if you expressed a public desire to be financially independent.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I'm skeptical of these "sources" and the reasons they give for the couple objecting to "Dumbarton." There was a very similar discussion on this forum a few weeks or months ago, where some posters speculated that was their reasoning. I think there's a very good chance the reporters saw that discussion and repackaged it as something said by "anonymous sources." I've seen the tabloid media do exactly that on another celebrity forum I follow (not about the royals). Someone will post some theory about something, there will be some discussion of it, and then a few days later that theory will be in some gossip rag with the headline "Sources say ... "

As for the money, I remember that at the time they first stepped back, no one believed Charles would immediately cut them off. Some thought he should, but no one though he would. Everyone was surprised when Harry said Charles had done that. But now, as with so many of their other difficult-to-believe claims, at the very least there's more to the story. For all the complaining they do about inaccuracies in media coverage, and as much harm as they claim inaccuracies in stories about trivial matters have caused them, you'd think they'd be a little more careful with the facts when publicly accusing others of much more serious actions.

 

[Denville]

James and Louise both use Windsor, and it helps that there were not the only Windsors at the schools they attend. Louise's award however is under Mountbatten- Windsor.



Quite Right - I do worry that appears more and more that these inaccuracy were knowing said. What I mean there is no way Harry, Meghan and Sunshine Sachs did not know that these untruths would be found to be incorrect.
The interview was a play act to Americans who don't know better and believe what they see on TV. It is just what type of PR spin is happy for their principles to be seen as liars and manipulators just for the notoriety to continue?

I found Oprah's "gasps of amazement" at the things that Meghan said, really ridiculous (the woman is no actress) but I can see that to people who dont know how silly a lot of it is, it might sound plausible..
But the more they say, the more Harry makes these stormy outbursts, I think people will work out that they dont tell coherent stories....

Iey first stepped back, no one believed Charles would immediately cut them off. Some thought he should, but no one though he would. Everyone was surprised when Harry said Charles had done that. But now, as with so many of their other difficult-to-believe claims, at the very least there's more to the story. For all the complaining they do about inaccuracies in media coverage, and as much harm as they claim inaccuracies in stories about trivial matters have caused them, you'd think they'd be a little more careful with the facts when publicly accusing others of much more serious actions.

well He did cut them off, it seems but with a generous pay off. Ie he gave them money to get started and then siad "You're on your own after that". And if they were wanting financial independence its difficult to see what else he could/should do.

 

[muriel]

Harry referred to the first half of 2020 as the cutting off period, not the first quarter.


[FONT=&quot]‘My family literally cut me off financially in the first half of 2020," he told Oprah during the couple's interview.[/FONT]

I wonder why those that were seeking financial freedom expected to be supported forever. They were given a lump sum, he had inherited money from family members, she had a lifetime of showbiz earnings as a very successful actress as we are often reminded, what more did they need?

 

[Denville]

I wonder why those that were seeking financial freedom expected to be supported forever. They were given a lump sum, he had inherited money from family members, she had a lifetime of showbiz earnings as a very successful actress as we are often reminded, what more did they need?

well I dont think she was that successful as an actress. but she had some money.. ANd yes indeed it was pointed out by some people that they didn't have THAT much money between them.. not enough to live on in the style they were aiming at. But it would usually be countered that they would manage and that Meghan had a large fortune and so had Harry. \However, as we see, they regard themselves as not that well off and in need of assistance.

 

[camelot23ca]

Interesting.

In reading the article Harry said in the interview he was cut off in the 1st quarter of 2020. Which would be end of March of 2020 by most people’s definitions of the quarter system. Certainly mine, given my job.

Charles’ official reports say he funded them through summer 2020.

When called out by the media- the Sussexes PR says Harry meant 1st quarter of the fiscal reporting year in the UK which was April- June. Of course- he didn’t say that at the time. And just about anyone listening (at least in the United States) imo would have interpreted his words as meaning March 2020, which was also when they wrapped up their work as working royals. Which- I suspect- is what they intended people to think: That daddy cut them off right away- rather than generously helping them out until the summer.

This is so typical of how the Sussexes word things IMO though.

That’s just how they roll. They make statements that lack detail, or are ambiguous enough for people to draw their own conclusions, and then when facts are provided that seem to go against “their truth” the details and technicalities suddenly become important.

Harry and Meghan knew that when they chose to speak about finances and Harry’s issues with the PoW, people wouldn’t be focusing on when, exactly, Charles stopped funding them. They would focus on the first part of the sentence: “my family cut me off.” In terms of the impact the statement would make, the second part of the sentence was irrelevant. Now that we know they weren’t cut off in any sense they start arguing about details, none of which change the fact that they chose to publicly make a misleading statement in order to hurt Harry’s father.

removed insult

 

[UglyAmerican]

Harry referred to the first half of 2020 as the cutting off period, not the first quarter.


[FONT=&quot]‘My family literally cut me off financially in the first half of 2020," he told Oprah during the couple's interview.[/FONT]

He starts to say "the first half," then corrects it to "the first quarter."

EDIT: That link was just the first snippet I found of the relevant segment. I didn't even watch the rest of it.

 

[Somebody]

Sorry but what does this mean "they didn't give him a title"?? Of course he did not get a Prince title as he IS NOT the grandson of the monarch. What answer was she asked for?
And he DOES have a title that he can use, Harry's secondary title Lord Dumbarton or the third title, Lord Kilkeel. So if titles are so important to Meghan why not use one of these? And if they are not so important to her what was the fuss about ? Considering they were probalby planning to go to the US by the time of A's birth I can't quite understand why they wanted him to use any title....

Yes, indeed. And Lili was supposed to be Lady Lili (just like her grandmother was known as Lady Di(ana) before marriage. That should have been a batch of honour instead of complaining that she wasn't to be a princess from birth. The queen's youngest grandchildren aren't known as prince and princess either... So, it didn't 'start' with H&M's children either.

 

[Curryong]

But the Sussexes were cut off from Sovereign Grant money as that had paid them some money annually before they left.

And Harry said ‘My family literally cut me off’, he didn’t say his father alone. Charles’s one off transitional parting gift was the last. The Sussexes aren’t now receiving any money from the SG or the Duchy of Cornwall, and haven’t for a year.

They are financially independent of Charles and of the Royal Family and the taxpayers who provide the Sovereign Grant money. That will continue, no doubt to everyone’s satisfaction, within the media and out of it. And the Sussexes are also free.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

He starts to say "the first half," then corrects it to "the first quarter."

EDIT: That link was just the first snippet I found of the relevant segment. I didn't even watch the rest of it.

Thank you. I was getting confused. I knew I’d read the article correctly. And the Sussex PR team did flatly respond with: Harry meant 1st fiscal quarter in the UK. They were directly quoted in their response. Why would they need to clarify and elaborate on the definition of 1st quarter if he’d only said 1st half of the year to begin with? There it is….

Obviously 1st quarter (as most here would define it) comes across differently than 1st half…..which is possibly why Harry fixed his response.

 

[Somebody]

My guess is that, at school, James goes by the name of James Wessex, like William Wales, Harry Wales, George Cambridge, Charlotte Cambridge and Louis Cambridge. Just like Archie could have gone by the name of Archie Sussex.

But James doesn't go by 'HRH prince James of Wessex', in that case he would be James Wessex; so his situation is not comparable to his cousins(once removed) who are known as royal highnesses. His sister Lady Louise (Mountbatten-Windsor) is known as 'Louise Windsor'. It is likely that James is known as 'James Severn'.

If they wanted to avoid using Harry's secondary title. Harry is still a duke so going by 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor' would have been a perfect alternative, there was no need to make him a plain master (and his sister a plain miss) while he is the son of a royal duke. The children of all other royal dukes who aren't royal highnesses go by Lord/Lady and the eldest son by the subsidiary title of their father. In that case he could use 'Archie Windsor' (or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) at school - which I think would be preferable anyway in the USA; even if he would officially be known in the UK as Earl of Dumbarton/Lord Dumbarton.

 

[Somebody]

I remember reading that several possible titles were considered for Harry, and he himself favored Sussex.
So, he must have known what subsidiary titles accompanied that, and been fine with it.

There is no fixed set of subsidiary titles; but I am quite sure it was discussed with him beforehand. And it need to meet some basic principles such as being from different countries in the realm, at least including Scotland (next to a ducal title from England).

 

[Sandy345]

well I dont think she was that successful as an actress. but she had some money.. ANd yes indeed it was pointed out by some people that they didn't have THAT much money between them.. not enough to live on in the style they were aiming at. But it would usually be countered that they would manage and that Meghan had a large fortune and so had Harry. \However, as we see, they regard themselves as not that well off and in need of assistance.

No she was not top rung in Hollywood. But she did have steady work and a steady role on a TV show which paid good money. Some actors and actresses remain on daytime dramas but she had a step up to prime time. I think Harry appeared to address the security issue primarily re: getting funding.

 

[Heavs]

That’s just how they roll. They make statements that lack detail, or are ambiguous enough for people to draw their own conclusions, and then when facts are provided that seem to go against “their truth” the details and technicalities suddenly become important.

Harry and Meghan knew that when they chose to speak about finances and Harry’s issues with the PoW, people wouldn’t be focusing on when, exactly, Charles stopped funding them. They would focus on the first part of the sentence: “my family cut me off.” In terms of the impact the statement would make, the second part of the sentence was irrelevant. Now that we know they weren’t cut off in any sense they start arguing about details, none of which change the fact that they chose to publicly make a misleading statement in order to hurt Harry’s father.

removed insult

This was also in conjunction with complaining about how their security had been abruptly pulled and they had to flee to the US and had no idea how they were going to survive except on his inheritance from Diana and *had* to sign with Netflix to make ends meet. All of which was misleading.

So they were painting a picture of being cut off at a moment's notice with his mother looking down on them having left Harry an inheritance "because she knew we would need it".

I don't know, a part of it for me is that they appear to be ungrateful for everything they *did* receive from HM and Charles (and the taxpayer - see Wedding) and like to complain about what they didn't as well. You'd think not a single good or fortunate thing had ever happened to Harry to hear him tell it recently.

 

[Somebody]

Denville was asking about the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton.

The Duchess of Sussex's discussion of titles during her interview with Oprah Winfrey was limited to the title of Prince, which was indeed not their (Harry and Meghan's) decision to make, legally speaking.

At no point did she mention the decision not to use the title Earl of Dumbarton, a decision which was made by the Sussexes themselves per a communiqué issued by them at the time.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html


The below are the most complete transcripts of her comments that I have come across. If anyone would provide a full transcript of this section of the interview, it would be much appreciated.

Asked if a title was important to her, she replied: "If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course.

"All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’ve always just still been Meghan, right?

"So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.

"But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be.

"You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-could-allow-archie-24362551

“It’s not their right to take away,” she told Oprah Winfrey.

She was asked by Winfrey: “Do you think it’s because of his race?”

Meghan replied: “In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time, so we [had] the conversation of he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title.

“And, also, concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race​

Edited: Added a second source.

At this point Charles has no legal authority to repeal or alter Letters Patent. If that his wish, he could announce his intentions for the future (as he did in regard to his wife's future title) and he could attempt to persuade his mother to enact the legal changes in her reign, but if she refuses, then Charles is obliged to wait until the children have legally inherited the HRH.

She is trying to imply a lot (that things like security/title/skin color are related) while not outright lying (which imho she knows she would be if she would directly say that lack of title and security was motivated by racism). In the mean time, she conveniently 'forgets' about Louise and James. More over, her argument is that changes that have been anticipated for a few decades should not go ahead because her children happen to have a African-American grandmother. In principal, that doesn't seem a relevant consideration in how to go about British royal titles.

 

[Sandy345]

This was also in conjunction with complaining about how their security had been abruptly pulled and they had to flee to the US and had no idea how they were going to survive except on his inheritance from Diana and *had* to sign with Netflix to make ends meet. All of which was misleading.

So they were painting a picture of being cut off at a moment's notice with his mother looking down on them having left Harry an inheritance "because she knew we would need it".

I don't know, a part of it for me is that they appear to be ungrateful for everything they *did* receive from HM and Charles (and the taxpayer - see Wedding) and like to complain about what they didn't as well. You'd think not a single good or fortunate thing had ever happened to Harry to hear him tell it recently.

The thing is that as a rule royals get the lavish weddings. The only two low key weddings I recall were Bea's and Edo's (they would have had a big wedding if it had not been for the pandemic) and Princess Anne's second wedding in Scotland. Anne as the Queen's first child to marry got a large scale wedding at Westminster Abbey, for her first marriage.

So how are these wedding expenses judged? Peter Phillips and Autumn got a big wedding but they are divorced now. So despite the expense, not all marriages pan out and no refunds are given to taxpayers. Even if Harry or any other younger royal wanted to elope or have a very small wedding with only a few people, they probably would not be allowed this type of wedding by HM.

 

[Denville]

The thing is that as a rule royals get the lavish weddings. The only two low key weddings I recall were Bea's and Edo's (they would have had a big wedding if it had not been for the pandemic) and Princess Anne's second wedding in Scotland. Anne as the Queen's first child to marry got a large scale wedding at Westminster Abbey, for her first marriage.

So how are these wedding expenses judged? Peter Phillips and Autumn got a big wedding but they are divorced now. So despite the expense, not all marriages pan out and no refunds are given to taxpayers. Even if Harry or any other younger royal wanted to elope or have a very small wedding with only a few people, they probably would not be allowed this type of wedding by HM.

Peter and Autumn did not have a wedding paid by the tax payers, they sold their pictures to Hello for money to pay for the wedding so I'm not sure what your point is. Harry got a nice wedding, with a lot of goodwill from the public, and he has been bitterly complaining as if he were locked in a dungeon on bread and water.
As for small weddings, only the senior royals get a big wedding etc. Zara Phillips was married in Scotland, no filming of the wedding etc. Eugenie's wedding was only shown on a tv programme, and there was still a lot of grumbling about the cost of security for it. If a minor royal wants to marry quietly with no cost to the taxpayer the queen is not going to say no to it...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They didn’t give him a title. Meghan spoke of that one instant during her pregnancy where she was asked for an answer and was apparently not given one. She was frustrated because it appeared to want to start with her children and she rightfully wanted to know why.

I am not clear on what "it appeared to want to start with her children" refers to.

A grandchild of a UK monarch not being allowed a royal title (neither legally nor as a courtesy) started with the children of Elizabeth's aunt Mary, Princess Royal.

A male-line grandchild of a UK monarch not being known by a royal title started with the children of the Earl of Wessex.

A male-line grandchild of a UK monarch not having a royal title legally is a potential reform which has yet to be started. If the reports are true that it is Charles's (as opposed to Elizabeth's or William's) intention, who other than the Sussex children could it possibly start with?

A child of a UK royal duke not being known by a courtesy title of nobility (Earl or Lady) started with the Sussex children. However, the Sussexes communicated in 2019 that the decision not to use "Earl of Dumbarton" was one they made for themselves.

Even now CH doesn’t want to discuss it, which is understandable, as we all know where it will lead.

So Archie has no title and I assume will never have one.

I haven't encountered a quotation attributed to Clarence House specifically, but comments from unnamed "Royal sources" would appear to hint that the children will remain Prince and Princess. I am not sure, however, whether to interpret the comments as confirmation that they will.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ntil-18-to-choose-if-hell-be-prince-j5z25flr2

However, experts and Palace insiders say Charles has no power to stop Archie becoming a prince — or his sister Lilibet a princess — when the Queen dies.

Charles can only change the rules after he becomes king and it is thought extremely unlikely that his first act on acceding to the throne would be to block his grandson from the title.

[...]

A royal source said: “There is a long-standing convention that means this happens automatically with reign change.”​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ie-prince-plans-slim-monarchy-save-costs.html

A Royal source said last night: 'We are not going to speculate about the succession or comment on rumours coming out of America.'​

In any event, Archie and Lilibet will continue to be entitled to use the courtesy titles of the children of a duke, unless the courtesy title system of the British peerage is reformed in their lifetime.

If they wanted to avoid using Harry's secondary title. Harry is still a duke so going by 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor' would have been a perfect alternative [...]

When a British duke (or marquess) has no subsidiary title for his eldest son to use, it is traditional for the heir to use 'Lord Mountbatten-Windsor' while younger sons use 'Lord [given name] Mountbatten-Windsor'.

 

[Denville]

I think that what Meghan was trying to ssay in her convoluted way was that the loss of HRH for the children of younger sons.. (ie like Louis's children in due course) was "going to start with her children" and that she believed presumably that that was because her children were of African American descent.

 

[Alison H]

But the Sussexes were cut off from Sovereign Grant money as that had paid them some money annually before they left.

Of course they were. If I were to leave my job, I might hope to get a "Sorry you're leaving" card (and that's if leaving on good terms) and a bunch of flowers. I wouldn't expect to keep being paid for work I was no longer doing.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

This was also in conjunction with complaining about how their security had been abruptly pulled and they had to flee to the US and had no idea how they were going to survive except on his inheritance from Diana and *had* to sign with Netflix to make ends meet. All of which was misleading.



So they were painting a picture of being cut off at a moment's notice with his mother looking down on them having left Harry an inheritance "because she knew we would need it".



I don't know, a part of it for me is that they appear to be ungrateful for everything they *did* receive from HM and Charles (and the taxpayer - see Wedding) and like to complain about what they didn't as well. You'd think not a single good or fortunate thing had ever happened to Harry to hear him tell it recently.

Agreed. They sounded entitled and ungrateful to me. And their statements were indeed misleading.

I think they were fortunate to get anything more from Charles at all given:

They said they wanted financial independence. They got it. Just not how they’d intended.

And- they put up a website stating as fact things that had not been agreed to. (That they then had to walk back weeks later. I imagine that was embarrassing.) That is IMO unprofessional behavior by any definition. I lost a tremendous amount of respect for Harry and Meghan for that alone.

Also- they were already multi millionaires. It’s not like they’d been living month to month….like a good chunk of society.

They quit their job. So, money stops coming in from the previous sources.