Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Erin9]

Harry and Meghan Are Expecting, Baby Due Spring 2019

Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.

I do think a difference is that all 4 of HM’s children are FT working royals. And some of her cousins are working members as well. Charles has 2 kids. None of his cousins, nieces or nephews will be working members. The future is solely William’s family, Harry, Meghan and maybe their kids.

To me- it depends on just how many working royals they want, how slimmed down they want to be in the future...and what they’re going to give up to accomplish that. Something will have to give.

That being said- I won’t be surprised if Harry ‘s kids aren’t HRH based on the way the RF seems to be headed.

 

[Dman]

Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.

I firmly believe Harry and Meghan’s kids will carry out officially duties in the future. They will be the future of the Monarchy. Right now, it’s just on the Sussex’s and Cambridge’s. Duties will fall on the kids way into the future.

 

[Andy T]

I think it is interesting to look at the examples of those who were not entitled to HRH at birth but were expected to become HRH later (Charles and Anne, Charlotte and Louis). Letters patent were issued both times to make them HRH from birth. I may be wrong but I believe if the intention is for them to take HRH in the future then we will see letters patent issued to make them so from birth.

I think you may well be right. However, there is also the possibility that HM The Queen will decide to defer the decision to her successor, given that these children will most likely be way too young for Royal duties, and both intellectually unaware of and psychologically unaffected by the situation/any change.



In the Queen's family, the children of the two sons nearest the throne, i.e. her 4 'senior' grandchildren in terms of the succession, are HRH and it may be that as Charles only has two children, all his grandchildren will become HRH, even if there end up being 5 or 6 of them. In any case, I'm sure that it'll be a question of all of the Sussex children getting HRH or none.

 

[Somebody]

The difference is timing. That's important too. Right now, the Queen's cousins are still quite active. They likely wouldn't be around, or still working, in 25 years' time. Charles and Anne aren't likely to be going at the same speed then either. I expect Andrew and Edward will slow down as well as they'll be in their 80s. While we are currently experiencing a bulge of working royals, it's going to significantly slim down through attrition in 25 years to far fewer.

Yes, that argument has been made before but I don't buy it. I don't see how adding Harry and Meghan's children will help in this respect as the lowest numbers will be reached in about 20 year when Harry and Meghan's unborn child will come of age and thus be of little use.

There has been talk about slimming down the monarchy. Currently there are 15 members doing over 50 [days of] engagements a year. That is an unnecessarily large amount of which the majority do less than 100 [days of] engagements (only Charles, William, Andrew, Edward and Anne did surpass that number by November 1; the queen, Edward (Kent), Sophie, Richard and Harry might end up around 100 depending on their activities in the last 2 months of the year).

Taking a cut-off point of 85 years (it seems that most royals stay quite active until about that age; for example, the Duke of Kent at age 83 took on 92 engagements so far this year; comparable to his 10 year younger cousin the Duke of Gloucester):
- by January 2019 there are 15 full-time royals;
- by January 2029 this number will most likely drop to about 12 (still more than enough imo),
- 10 years (2039) the numbers will be at a relatively low point (if Charles is king at that point it will be 8-9 active royals; if it's William, we're talking about 7 - the Cambridge kids are in their early 20's and can take on an engagement here and there but most likely will focus on their studies);
- another 10 years (2049) later the numbers are going up again to 9-12 full-time royals (depending on whether the Cambridge kids have spouses that become active full-time royals) which should be more than sufficient;
- another 10 years down the line (so in 40 years/2059), we're still at 9-10 full time royals.
- by 2069 (50 years from now), we might get to another low point with William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan all being in their mid- to late eighties and only George and his siblings fully active; however, as king and queen William and Catherine will most likely still take on quite a large amount of engagements; and by that point George hopefully has grown children of his own supplying another generation of royals.

So, I truly don't see why Harry and Meghan's child(ren) (and spouse(s)) - who would start becoming active by 2049 at the earliest (in their late twenties) - would be needed; especially if the support of Beatrice and Eugenie is not needed now nor in the future; as they would be the ones that really could help out at the lowest point, unlike children by Harry and Meghan, but apparently that's not considered a need.

In the Queen's family, the children of the two sons nearest the throne, i.e. her 4 'senior' grandchildren in terms of the succession, are HRH and it may be that as Charles only has two children, all his grandchildren will become HRH, even if there end up being 5 or 6 of them. In any case, I'm sure that it'll be a question of all of the Sussex children getting HRH or none.

I don't think it works that way. What if William and Catherine will have another child? In that case the 4th senior child would be the child of a future king; if not, the 4th senior child would be only the grandchild of a monarch.

Formally, all grandchildren of the monarch in male-line should be HRH; however, as this wasn't practiced for Louise and James, the most logical thing would be to formalize this new rule for all in a similar position (i.e. children of a younger child of the (future) monarch) - or elevate Louise and James to their rightful position if that is considered a mistake by now.

 

[jacqui24]

Yes, that argument has been made before but I don't buy it. I don't see how adding Harry and Meghan's children will help in this respect as the lowest numbers will be reached in about 20 year when Harry and Meghan's unborn child will come of age and thus be of little use.

There has been talk about slimming down the monarchy. Currently there are 15 members doing over 50 engagements a year. That is an unnecessarily large amount of which the majority do less than 100 engagements (only Charles, William, Andrew, Edward and Anne did surpass that number by November 1; the queen, Edward (Kent), Sophie, Richard and Harry might end up around 100 depending on their activities in the last 2 months of the year)

Before this conversation gets any further, you might want to check some of your numbers there.

 

[Somebody]

Before this conversation gets any further, you might want to check some of your numbers there.

I did. So please tell me which of my numbers are off in your opinion. I have them all written down before me and even shared my cut-off point to be completely transparent. So, I stand by my numbers and conclusion.

To be precise: the number of 7 remaining royals (applying a strict cut-off point of 85) will be reached in 2035 when Anne turns 85. William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan will be early to mid 50s and Andrew, Edward and Sophie early to mid 70s - so that team can continue on for another 5-10 years while William and Catherine's children finish their university studies and start picking up royal duties in their late 20s.
If Charles and Camilla are still alive, I assume they will still do quite a few engagements and I don't see Anne retiring as long as her older brother is still active; that is against her character (so, it might be slightly later at which point George, Charlotte and Louis are older and more likely to take on royal duties).

Harry and Meghan's eldest child will be a teenager by 2035 and it's not reasonable to expect him/her to do lots of royal duties for at least another 10 years; and by that time the Cambridge kids probably are (getting) married and have started replacing their greatuncles and greataunt (3 adults; potentially being replaced by 3-6 Cambridge kids + spouses).

 

[jacqui24]

I did. So please tell me which of my numbers are off in your opinion. I have them all written down before me and even shared my cut-off point to be completely transparent.

I checked Bertie's numbers, the total number far exceeds 50, and a number of royals that you stated will reach 100 if they rack up numbers by the end of the year has surpassed it in October.

BTW, I did the math for the current number of royals (unlikely to grow until the children grow up), and what it'll look like in 25 years' time. All, but Harry, will be over the age of 60 (older than Duke of York is now).

If I do the math and count who won't be here, and have the assumed cut off to be 95, The Queen, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent, and Duke of Gloucester wouldn't be. Prince Charles barely made it at 95. So now we are down to maybe 9, including sovereign. Now granted, they can still be around, but at that point, I see them taking the route of Duke of Edinburgh, so retired.

Of those 9, Charles will be 95, and likely scaling back. Anne will be 93, so that's a maybe around, but definitely scaling back. Duke of York will be 83, doubt he's going to be doing as much as he is today. The Wessexes will be in their late 70s.

However, fast forward 10 more years, Charles and Anne likely won't be around. Duke of York will be 93, and the Wessexes will be in their late 80s. That literally leaves with 4 (Cambridges and Sussexes) from the current crop.

That's 11 people in difference. Cambridge kids and spouse (assume all will be married and their spouses are working royals, which is a bit optimistic). We are still 5 short compared to today.

And that's assuming everyone lives to very old age and very healthy. While the BRF has good track record, it's not a given.

 

[Osipi]

Its also very possible that in the future, there will be members of the British royal family working for the "Firm" that do not carry the HRH honorific. As we've seen by the line of succession to the throne, there are people closer to the throne that do not have the HRH before people that do have the HRH.

It may change to be that only the senior line of the monarch (Charles, William, George, George's heir) and their families will carry the HRH and the supporting members such as Harry and Harry's children will work as a royal duke and children of a royal duke.

It isn't a requirement to have a HRH honorific to work for the family "Firm".

 

[Somebody]

I checked Bertie's numbers, the total number far exceeds 50, and a number of royals that you stated will reach 100 if they rack up numbers by the end of the year has surpassed it in October.

Iluvbertie's numbers were my source; again: please specify what is off as I don't appreciate my numbers being questioned without proof when I made an effort to be as accurate as possible. FYI: I included Catherine, Meghan and Alexandra among the 15 full-time royals although they haven't made it to the 50 yet but Alexandra is at 49, and Catherine and Meghan had some special circumstances this year.

BTW, I did the math for the current number of royals (unlikely to grow until the children grow up), and what it'll look like in 25 years' time. All, but Harry, will be over the age of 60 (older than Duke of York is now).

If I do the math and count who won't be here, and have the assumed cut off to be 95, The Queen, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent, and Duke of Gloucester wouldn't be. Prince Charles barely made it at 95. So now we are down to maybe 9, including sovereign.

Of those 9, Charles will be 95, and likely scaling back. Anne will be 93, so that's a maybe around, but definitely scaling back. Duke of York will be 83, doubt he's going to be doing as much as he is today. The Wessexes will be in their late 70s.

However, fast forward 10 more years, Charles and Anne likely won't be around. Duke of York will be 93, and the Wessexes will be in their late 80s. That literally leaves with 4 (Cambridges and Sussexes) from the current crop.

That's 11 people in difference. Cambridge kids and spouse (assume all will be married and their spouses are working royals, which is a bit optimistic). We are still 5 short compared to today.

And that's assuming everyone lives to very old age and very healthy. While the BRF has good track record, it's not a given.

Ok, so my numbers aren't off. You just have different assumptions: that is, that the number of active royals should be equal to the current numbers. That is inconsistent with the idea of a slimmed down monarchy but happy to think that scenario through.

I agree that if the number should remain consistent at about 15 H&M's children are needed - as are Beatrice and Eugenie (and even Louise and James to bridge the gap between the Cambridge and Sussex children coming of age and neither the queen's cousins nor her children taking on engagements).

However, it seems that the British royal family is the only one with such an excessive number of full-time royals. They could easily slim down to about 8-10 in my opinion. Andrew, Edward and Sophie are there for many more years to support the monarchy while the Cambridge children are growing up. And hopefully the current members in their late sixties/early seventies (Charles, Camilla, Anne, Richard and Birgitte) have many more years ahead of them as well.

[Edited]

 

[jacqui24]

Iluvbertie's numbers were my source; again: please specify what is off as I don't appreciate my numbers being questioned without proof when I made an effort to be as accurate as possible. FYI: I included Catherine, Meghan and Alexandra among the 15 full-time royals although they haven't made it to the 50 yet but Alexandra is at 49, and Catherine and Meghan had some special circumstances this year.


[Edited]

Meghan is at 97 at the end of October, not counting her engagements (26, I believe) prior to marriage, and Sophie is over 200. Harry is at 170 something. How are your numbers right?

Ok, so my numbers aren't off. You just have different assumptions: that is, that the number of active royals should be equal to the current numbers. That is inconsistent with the idea of a slimmed down monarchy but happy to think that scenario through.

I agree that if the number should remain consistent at about 15 H&M's children are needed - as are Beatrice and Eugenie (and even Louise and James to bridge the gap between the Cambridge and Sussex children coming of age and neither the queen's cousins nor her children taking on engagements).

[Edited]

See above, when I questioned the numbers, it wasn't the number of working royals.

And as I said, it's a matter of timing issue with York princesses. No one is needed right now as the youngest working royals still carries out fewer engagements than their elders. However, it wouldn't be the case once the children come of age. I do have to wonder if the Yorks weren't so unpopular, what would've happened to the York princesses, or at least Beatrice. i see that as more of either way situation, but since the public generally has such strong dislikes for the Yorks, it was a easy no. The royal family has enough PR spins to deal with. It was certainly easy enough to add the Wessexes into the mix once their private ventures imploded. So it doesn't seem one or two extra person would really break the bank.

 

[Somebody]

Meghan is at 97 at the end of October, not counting her engagements (26, I believe) prior to marriage, and Sophie is over 200. Harry is at 170 something. How are your numbers right?

Now I understand, I wasn't precise in my language: I used 'days active' by Iluvbertie (see this post). My apologies.

However, I mainly used the number to establish the number of active members and I don't think that changes: I think we can both agree the current number is 15 (unless you would want to include Timothy Laurence, prince Michaal, princess Michael, princess Beatrice, princess Eugenie and the Duchess of Kent as they were the once that I excluded because of a limited number of engagements/days active).

And as I said, it's a matter of timing issue with York princesses. No one is needed right now as the youngest working royals still carries out fewer engagements than their elders. However, it wouldn't be the case once the children come of age. I do have to wonder if the Yorks weren't so unpopular, what would've happened to the York princesses, or at least Beatrice. i see that as more of either way situation, but since the public generally has such strong dislikes for the Yorks, it was a easy no. The royal family has enough PR spins to deal with. It was certainly easy enough to add the Wessexes into the mix once their private ventures imploded. So it doesn't seem one or two extra person would really break the bank.

Indeed, nobody is needed right now. If they want to stay at about the same number of active members the York princesses should be added sometime in the next 5 years or so; as Harry only recently started full-time it would be perfectly reasonable to start while in their mid-thirties).

The same reasoning applies to H&M's children: they won't be needed by the time they are old enough to start royal duties as the BRF will have adjusted to a smaller number (going from 15 to about 12 in the next 10 years and going down to about 8-10 in 20 years and stabilizing at that point.

Of course, if the next 20-30 years show that 8-10 full time royals is not enough, they will first call upon the York princesses, probably the Wessex children and in 30 years on the Sussex children to help out. However, that seems an unlikely scenario.

 

[jacqui24]

Now I understand, I wasn't precise in my language: I used 'days active' by Iluvbertie (see this post). My apologies.

However, I mainly used the number to establish the number of active members and I don't think that changes: I think we can both agree the current number is 15 (unless you would want to include Timothy Laurence, prince Michaal, princess Michael, princess Beatrice, princess Eugenie and the Duchess of Kent as they were the once that I excluded because of a limited number of engagements/days active).

Yea, same for my calculation for number of working royals. As for using events than days, I tend to use number of events since you really can't count a whole year due to down time in royal events. Summer is mostly silent and Christmas and New Year. And of course, one can't always plan the events on the same days. But I do think we have to factor in optics. There is a desire for a smaller monarchy right now because the Queen had 4 kids and her cousins are still working. But when you take most of those engagements away in three decades, all of sudden, there is a drastic decline, and now the feeling might be quite different if the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall are still posting the same numbers.

 

[Somebody]

I decided to look back to see what the numbers of active members were 10 and 20 years ago:

Jan 2009: 13 (excluding the Cambridges, Sussexes and adding the duke of Edinburgh & duchess of Kent)
Jan 1999: 11-12 (excluding Camilla, the Wessexes, the Cambridges, the Sussexes; and adding the duke of Edinburgh, duchess of Kent, Queen-mother, princess Margaret; I am not sure how active the Queen Mother was aged 99)

Going back to the start of her reign:
The queen started with 7 active members (not counting queen Mary who passed away a year later): herself, the duke of Edinburgh, the queen-mother, the princess Margaret and the duke and duchess of Gloucester and the dowager duchess of Kent as active members.
She purposefully enlarged that number to include 3 more members in the next 10 years, raising the number to about 10 (as expected the duke of Kent and therefore also the duchess of Kent, and (not-necessarily expected princess Alexandra.

It seems that having about 10-12 active royals has been the Queen's average for most of her reign. The current 15 seem to be the highest number in many decades; imo mainly because the queen doesn't want to ask her eldest cousins (the Kents) to retire and also wanted to make sure that her grandsons became full-time royals (bad optics if they would wait another 5-10 years). Slimming down the monarchy (a wish Charles apparently has had for quite some time) could therefore very well include going down to 10 or less.

 

[M. Payton]

Why is there an argument about something that has not happened yet and is far off in the future.........

 

[Somebody]

Why is there an argument about something that has not happened yet and is far off in the future.........

Because it seems to be part of the argument as to why some think H&M's children should be HRH and others don't see the need. Hopefully they live long and fulfilling lives; independent of the form that might take and the titles they might have

 

[Saz83]

Hopefully they live a long and fulfilling lives; independent of the form that might take and the titles they might have

Absolutely agree. Whatever the title I think we all hope that they have the freedom to live the life they want and do the things that make them happy.

 

[jacqui24]

Because it seems to be part of the argument as to why some think H&M's children should be HRH and others don't see the need. Hopefully they live long and fulfilling lives; independent of the form that might take and the titles they might have

We can all agree with that.

 

[Terri Terri]

Exactly that! I take my cue from how Harry and Meghan live their unofficial lives....very privately! I can well imagine that they would want the same for their child/children.

The way I see it...their children will have the best of both worlds and will be able to live and do whatever they want with their own lives without the responsibilities, stress and strain that will fall on their cousins.

 

[loonytick]

The current two oldest generations of the BRF have seen tremendous changes in their lifetimes regarding public sentiment about the monarchy, ways of connecting with people and attitudes towards titles and how they should be passed on. It seems foolish to assume the method of “royal work” and number of working royals needed decades from now is an easily predictable.

But it is safe to say that letting baby Sussex be born without an HRH gives the BRF maximum flexibility to move forward into Charles’s (and then William’s) reign with whatever version of official royal family size seems right to them. When his time comes, Charles can decide to make all his grandchildren HRH or issue new letters patent. But he doesn’t need to decide for certain just yet.

 

[Pranter]

If I understand things correctly it really it doesn't matter if the Queen issues new LP's or not. When Charles is the King any Sussex children will be HRH unless they (parents/Charles) don't want them to be.




LaRae

 

[Osipi]

That's the gist of it Pranter. With the Cambridge children, it was kind of a new thing that needed to be considered because of the Queen's longevity and dealing with great grandchildren in direct line to the throne. That's why the photos of all three heirs to the throne with the Queen is so special. ?

 

[Somebody]

That's the gist of it Pranter. With the Cambridge children, it was kind of a new thing that needed to be considered because of the Queen's longevity and dealing with great grandchildren in direct line to the throne. That's why the photos of all three heirs to the throne with the Queen is so special. ?

There was already a rule about the eldest son of the eldest son of the heir being born a royal highness and prince of the UK (as king George V was very well aware of that possibility during his life time there were also 4 generations). However, a very recent development was that the first child regardless of gender would be the future sovereign and the LPs didn't account for that.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks for that part about the Cambridge first child. That actually was the *sole* reason that the Queen issued the LPs before George was born and after the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013. ?

With Harry's children, there is no dire need to solve the HRH problem for them at this time and let things go according to how they're always done. They just might make an announcement before the impending birth and then again they may not. We'll just have to watch and see what happens.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If I understand things correctly it really it doesn't matter if the Queen issues new LP's or not. When Charles is the King any Sussex children will be HRH unless they (parents/Charles) don't want them to be.




LaRae

Exactly--the moment Charles becomes King, any Sussex children will immediately become HRH.

There was already a rule about the eldest son of the eldest son being born a royal highness and prince of the UK (as king George V was very well aware of that possibility during his life time there were also 4 generations). However, a very recent development was that the first child regardless of gender would be the future sovereign and the LPs didn't account for that.

Yes, I also pointed this out earlier in the thread this morning--in post #482

Charlotte and Louis did not exist and George hadn’t been born yet when the LP that elevated them to HRH were issued.

William’s first born son was always going to be an HRH because of the 1917 LP.

But if Charlotte had been born first she would not have been an HRH despite being the heir to the throne, yet her first younger brother would have been. That is why the new LP were issued for William’s children.

 

[Abbigail]

IF the rumours are true that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to be seen as 'walking the walk' and not just 'talking the talk'.

He has already made it clear that the York girls are surplus to requirements as working royals.

There are only four HRHs in their generation and already two are regarded as too many for the needs of the family.

With William already having three children Charles is well on the way to having more HRH grandchildren than the Queen has.

Only a fool wouldn't realise the problems the York girls are having because they are HRHs but not working royals. They are despised and have been almost all their lives.

Although when they were born there was no question of them not being HRH but the mid-90s that decision was being questioned and is certainly questioned largely in the vocal media and its supporters.

That would be the future for Harry's children if they are HRH.

There was no necessity for any announcement at the time of Harry's wedding in the same way as there was at Edward's as Edward's children would automatically be HRH unless something was said but Harry's are not automatically going to be HRH.

The longer it takes for any announcement from The Queen the more it looks likely that she isn't going to be issuing the LPs and so they will be Lord/Lady from birth with the eldest son known as the Earl of Dumbarton (now watch HM issue the LPs in the next 24 hours).

Going back to 2012 it was announced on the 3rd December that Kate was expecting. The Queen issued the new LPs giving HRH to all of William's children on 31st December - or nearly four weeks later.

It is now approaching that four week mark since the announcement and Meghan is further along in the pregnancy than Kate was when it was announced she was expecting. Of course the Queen could issue the LPs at any time but I am simply showing a 'timeline' of events.

The timeline comparison doesn't work here, given what's happened since the baby announcement. We've had Harry and Meghan's first major tour, immediately followed by Charles and Camilla's tour and still to come, Remembrance Day events and Charles' 70th birthday. The Queen isn't going to drop an LP announcement in the midst of all that. If there is going to be announcement, I suspect it won't come until after Charles birthday celebrations. And I do expect some kind of announcement before the baby is born, not necessarily LP related but one that clarifies how the Sussex children are to be styled at birth and once Charles is king (if they are not made HRH at birth).

I remained baffled by the insistence that the Yorks are despised simply because they are non-working royals with titles. Heck, I think it's a stretch to even say that they are despised, as they aren't in the press garnering enough unsavory headlines for the majority to hate them. Whatever ill feelings there are towards them likely has more to do with who their parents are than anything else. And on that note, I would say that unless there is some major scandal involving the Sussexes, their children will be beloved by many. We are already seeing as much excitement and anticipation for this baby as there was for the Cambridge children and in my opinion that is one of several reasons why they will end up as HRH, be it at birth or when Charles ascends.

 

[jacqui24]

Thanks for that part about the Cambridge first child. That actually was the *sole* reason that the Queen issued the LPs before George was born and after the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013. ?

With Harry's children, there is no dire need to solve the HRH problem for them at this time and let things go according to how they're always done. They just might make an announcement before the impending birth and then again they may not. We'll just have to watch and see what happens.

They will address this once and for all by the name the baby’s name is announced at the latest. Once the Queen passes, this is not something they would want to address. There will be too many things to deal with at the same time. Particularly thorny time if Charles wants to make Camilla Queen. They won’t let this will they or won’t they question go out that far. Even if they’ll change to HRH later, it’ll be announced when this baby comes.

 

[Osipi]

Oh I definitely agree here. If there is one thing that the "Firm" is good at, its being prepared for all contingencies and leave nothing to chance.

What is so neat too with being excited about Harry and Meghan's first child, along the way while waiting for the birth, we learn so many of the ins and outs on how things work, how the BRF does things and never, ever run out of things to talk about.

 

[loonytick]

I remained baffled by the insistence that the Yorks are despised simply because they are non-working royals with titles. Heck, I think it's a stretch to even say that they are despised, as they aren't in the press garnering enough unsavory headlines for the majority to hate them. Whatever ill feelings there are towards them likely has more to do with who their parents are than anything else.

Well, I think casual observers (I.e. most of the public) are confused by someone with the title “Princess” who doesn’t do royal work. And it’s confusing that the rest of the grandchildren who live or are are slated to live more private lives are without an HRH. We who watch closely know that it’s a matter of timing, that the York sisters were the last born before the BRF started seriously thinking about paring down the working roster, and that they have held actual jobs and done (albeit more quietly than their cousins) charity work. But to people who don’t understand it, seeing Princesses who mostly show up on the public radar for big celebrations, outside of restaurants or when they vacation feeds a perception that they’re spoiled and lazy...on the public dime.

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Harry and Pregnant Duchess Meghan’s Baby ‘Won’t Be Spoiled’

So this is Omid Scobie already talking about Harry and Meghan’s kid is going to be raised to have a job, ride the subway etc. Nothing really too revealing.

But we can already see the problem that’s going to hang over Harry’s children. They’re not going to be in the main line of succession, they’re not going to work for the Firm, so why are they going to need fancy royal titles.

 

[muriel]

Prince Harry and Pregnant Duchess Meghan’s Baby ‘Won’t Be Spoiled’

So this is Omid Scobie already talking about Harry and Meghan’s kid is going to be raised to have a job, ride the subway etc. Nothing really too revealing.

But we can already see the problem that’s going to hang over Harry’s children. They’re not going to be in the main line of succession, they’re not going to work for the Firm, so why are they going to need fancy royal titles.

IMO, a complete "fluff" piece! I guess it is articles like these that keep the royal press pack going.