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

[Mbruno]

Archie and Lilibet have HRH as well. Their father's status does not impact their right to have it and use it.

If the children did not have it or were not allowed to use it, Harry and BP would have said something via a spokesperson.

Charles supposedly has agreed to do BBC interview soon. I hope he puts the HRH issue to rest in regards to Archie and Lilibet.

Although they technically have the HRH, I agree with other posters that, as their parents have agreed voluntarily not to use HRH publicly, the children won't use it either. And I don't expect the Palace to refer to them as HRH, as they don't refer to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as TRH / HRH either.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

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

Why should Archie and Lili be punished for the "crimes" of their parents?

In my opinion, stripping them of their titles (for that is what it would have been) could've been argued if the intention was to slim down the monarchy. Stripping them of his grandchildren of their titles to punish their parents, that would've made me lose respect for Charles.

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

As a former historian, I disagree with you Look at Sweden. They've excelled using a system of non-hereditary titles for years and it holds no impact on the hereditary practice of the monarchy.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Why should Archie and Lili be punished for the "crimes" of their parents?

In my opinion, stripping them of their titles (for that is what it would have been) could've been argued if the intention was to slim down the monarchy. Stripping them of his grandchildren of their titles to punish their parents, that would've made me lose respect for Charles.



As a former historian, I disagree with you Look at Sweden. They've excelled using a system of non-hereditary titles for years and it holds no impact on the hereditary practice of the monarchy.

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

A news report addressed it, CNN. And a royal watcher
got confirmation from BP and put it on twitter what their style is and their titles. Also, don't you think if the King had any intention of stripping those children of their titles he would have done so long ago?

He couldn’t focus on that because the possible controversy of it and the allegations and innuendos that the Sussexes put against him.

 

[JR76]

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s.

Sorry for being nitpicky, but the last Swede to be ennobled was explorer Sven Hedin in 1902

 

[Denville]

I dont think that Charles ever wished to remove the HRH nad Prince titles from H's children, but he does not want to add any further HRHs etc to the RF. However, he thought that Harry woudl be a wroking royal. But Meghan raising the race issue meant that he had to tread very carefully. NO matter what he did, he would be liable to criticism from his son and wife. If he had announced soon as he became king that the children were HRH and Prince/ss, H could have retorted that he did not want his kids dragged into the RF with its genetic pain...if he had issued a statement or LP saying that they were not to be known as Prince etc, he would of course be liable to be accused of racism as Meghan had done 2 years ago. so he did nothing, and waited to see what they came up with. and we can see, they want the chidlren to be royally titled even though they are living in a republic where the titles will mean nothing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

As a former historian, I disagree with you Look at Sweden. They've excelled using a system of non-hereditary titles for years and it holds no impact on the hereditary practice of the monarchy.

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people [...]

Are you saying that the discontinuation of ennoblements in Sweden disproves that Sweden's monarchy is a hereditary system?

Or are you saying that it is acceptable to give life duchies to Swedish royals but unacceptable for British royals because Swedes are no longer ennobled but Britons still are?

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

They don't live in the UK. Don't represent the UK. Have very little or nothing to do with the family. They are just titles with no relevance whatsoever.

There are loads of old Russian and Italian etc running around. No one cares. May look good to get you in with the society and the WASPs but utterly rutherless and just dressing. So HRH or not. It barely matters.

I’m more concerned about Harry and his children’s - no matter their titles- place in the line of succession. With the ways in which Harry has made it crystal clear what he thinks of the institution, is that not grounds to remove him and his children from the line of succession? He is such a hypocrite and it galls me that he is in line to inherit the top role in an institution he has done nothing but deride and try to destroy. It doesn’t matter that William and his children are before him. It’s the principle of the the thing for me.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?

I fail to see a correlation between the discontinuation of ennoblements and the fact that Sweden is still a fully functioning hereditary monarchy in spite of giving its members non-hereditary dukedoms.

Whether we like it or not, those titles were Archie and Lili's to use from 8 September 2022. XeniaCasaraghi argues that Charles shouldn't have allowed them to use their titles because of their parents. To that I ask, why should Archie and Lili be held accountable for the actions of their parents?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And even though Spain is no global power like centuries ago, the tradition was the people with Dukedoms, etc. being Grandes of Spain are considered royal cousins of a monarch. That is as in equal ranking to marry into royalty or the equivalent of mediatized German nobles. In rank theory, being a Duke in Spain is higher than the equivalent or serene princes in other monarchies and right below royal princes.

Interesting. Clearly conceptions changed over time, as in the 19th century the marriage of Infanta Luisa Teresa and the Duke of Sessa was treated as unequal.

Changes are now needed before Charlotte and Louis are of age, so that they both pass it on or neither do. The older sister not being able to pass on HRH when succession is gender neutral is nuts.

Well said, though I am not holding out high hopes.

I suspect it may have been restricted to the heir’s line at this point had Charles had a third son like his parents, but the racism allegation would never go away if he had, given that only Harry’s children would be affected immediately.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, Prince George and Prince Louis will pass on their royal titles while Prince Archie cannot. Following the same logic as the original allegations, King William can once more be accused of racism in a few decades on the grounds of Archie's children being treated as inferior to George's and Louis's children (unless the mothers of George and Louis's children are multiracial or of a different race).

If the children did not have it or were not allowed to use it, Harry and BP would have said something via a spokesperson.

The palace's media briefing did indicate that the children would not use HRH, and a Sussex source responded to that statement in the Times. See the links here.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...nd-events-7-oct-2022-a-49644-post2536412.html

[...] Also, Charles never had any intention whatsoever of issuing Letters of Patent to take those titles away. [...]

How do you know this?

A news report addressed it, CNN. And a royal watcher
got confirmation from BP and put it on twitter what their style is and their titles. Also, don't you think if the King had any intention of stripping those children of their titles he would have done so long ago?

I think Durham might have been asking for a source confirming that King Charles has never had any intention of issuing new letters patent. Clearly he has no such intentions now, but that is not the same as saying he has never had the intention (intentions can change).

 

[Mbruno]

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?

But princes and princesses of the Royal House of Sweden were already given duchies for life only when the King of Sweden could still award hereditary titles of baron and count, see the wording of the Instrument of Government of 1808.

And, again, take the case of Spain, which has a large group of hereditary peers (more than 2,000 title holders, of whom about a little over 400 are Grandees) and, yet, under the Royal Decree 1368/1987, the King grants the right to use "titles of nobility belonging to the Royal Family" only for life and can actually suspend that right at any time, as King Felipe VI did to this sister, Infanta Cristina, formerly Duchess of Palma de Mallorca.

 

[Granada]

AmericanObserver7, you posted " B P gave confirmation to a Royal WATCHER (Who ? NOT a REPORTER ?) who then put it on Twitter ( OF ALL PLACES) what their styles is and their titles". That doesn't seem to me the way BP works at all.

I think that the HRH designation for the children is still in negotiations with The Sussex's, who are pushing for it. OR they have been told.... No. The Children aren't getting that.

Otherwise it certainly would have been released when the Sussex's OWN spokesperson announced "Princess Lilibet Diana" Baptism info. Not released as " HRH The Princess Lilibet Diana either ".

Personally, I think they should be VERY grateful the American based Children are getting Prince-Princess Titles anyway. After everything that they have alleged to certainly diminish and demean the Royal Family. Charles could have changed it through new Letters Patent, but he didn't.

Most Americans only hear Prince-Princess and have NO understanding of HRH anyway. And to The Sussex's, the market to profit and prestige for them and the children, IS America. Why not be satisfied with this ?
Why on earth would anyone think this is a punishment ?

Why is it difficult to see that the Children don't have HRH ? Its a new Reign and new, more "progressive" procedures and policies are being put in place. Isnt THAT what the Sussex's claimed they were advocating for anyway ? Now Charles is implementing changes with his own Family.

His brother just became Duke of Edinburgh, but will not have the ability to pass the Dukedom to his Son. It is now a 'life peerage'. New policy in place. Are the now Edinburgh's complaining about that ? Nope, they were obviously so honored and appreciative from the video I watched of them in Edinburgh yesterday.

Is anything ever enough ? Its amazing, they don't live in The UK or work for The Family-Firm, but they want every single vestige of Royalty bestowed on them and their Children.

 

[Mbruno]

AmericanObserver7, you posted " B P gave confirmation to a Royal WATCHER (Who ? NOT a REPORTER ?) who then put it on Twitter ( OF ALL PLACES) what their styles is and their titles". That doesn't seem to me the way BP works at all.

I think that the HRH designation for the children is still in negotiations with The Sussex's, who are pushing for it. OR they have been told.... No. The Children aren't getting that.

Otherwise it certainly would have been released when the Sussex's OWN spokesperson announced "Princess Lilibet Diana" Baptism info. Not released as " HRH The Princess Lilibet Diana either ".

Personally, I think they should be VERY grateful the American based Children are getting Prince-Princess Titles anyway. After everything that they have alleged to certainly diminish and demean the Royal Family. Charles could have changed it through new Letters Patent, but he didn't.

Most Americans only hear Prince-Princess and have NO understanding of HRH anyway. And to The Sussex's, the market to profit and prestige for them and the children, IS America. Why not be satisfied with this ?
Why on earth would anyone think this is a punishment ?

Why is it difficult to see that the Children don't have HRH ? Its a new Reign and new, more "progressive" procedures and policies are being put in place. Isnt THAT what the Sussex's claimed they were advocating for anyway ? Now Charles is implementing changes with his own Family.

His brother just became Duke of Edinburgh, but will not have the ability to pass the Dukedom to his Son. It is now a 'life peerage'. New policy in place. Are the now Edinburgh's complaining about that ? Nope, they were obviously so honored and appreciative from the video I watched of them in Edinburgh yesterday.

Is anything ever enough ? Its amazing, they don't live in The UK or work for The Family-Firm, but they want every single vestige of Royalty bestowed on them and their Children.

I don't think that the children using HRH is being discussed and I am pretty sure that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that their deal not to use HRH after they left the UK extends by implication to the children too.

The discussion on this forum was not so much about whether the children can use HRH in practice, which they cannot, but whether they formally have the style or not. I think they do, as their parents and the Duke of York do too since the HRH style is in fact attached to the Prince/Princess title in the LPs and has never been formally taken from them. I see their not using HRH more like a "gentlemen's agreement". If they broke the agreement though, then more drastic action would probably be taken.

 

[Denville]

I’m more concerned about Harry and his children’s - no matter their titles- place in the line of succession. With the ways in which Harry has made it crystal clear what he thinks of the institution, is that not grounds to remove him and his children from the line of succession? He is such a hypocrite and it galls me that he is in line to inherit the top role in an institution he has done nothing but deride and try to destroy. It doesn’t matter that William and his children are before him. It’s the principle of the the thing for me.

Only parliament can change the line of succession and they will not do that for anything short of treason... or a major crime.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think that the HRH designation for the children is still in negotiations with The Sussex's, who are pushing for it.

The discussion on this forum was not so much about whether the children can use HRH in practice, which they cannot, but whether they formally have the style or not. I think they do,[...]

I don't understand what is causing doubts. As far as I can tell, all statements quoted from palace sources have consistently referred to using the HRH:

Statement from Buckingham Palace: "The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."

Statement from a royal source: "The Duke of York will no longer use the style ‘His Royal Highness’ in any official capacity."

Statement from a palace source: "The use of the style HRH would come through their [Archie and Lilibet's] father and the Duke of Sussex’s HRH is in abeyance."

Some article writers and social media users may have been sloppier with their wording, but they are not official sources.

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

Whether we like it or not, those titles were Archie and Lili's to use from 8 September 2022. XeniaCasaraghi argues that Charles shouldn't have allowed them to use their titles because of their parents. To that I ask, why should Archie and Lili be held accountable for the actions of their parents?

Clearly, there are differences of opinion in this thread as to whether it was Charles' original intention that going forward, children of younger sons would no longer be known by royal titles. None of us can know for certain. But if that was his original intention, and he backtracked due to the parents' behavior or allegations, then it would not be inaccurate to say that the parents' behavior or allegations have been rewarded. And if it was always his intention and he had hypothetically followed through on it, then naturally it would not have been any sort of punishment for the children.

I’m more concerned about Harry and his children’s - no matter their titles- place in the line of succession. With the ways in which Harry has made it crystal clear what he thinks of the institution, is that not grounds to remove him and his children from the line of succession? He is such a hypocrite and it galls me that he is in line to inherit the top role in an institution he has done nothing but deride and try to destroy. It doesn’t matter that William and his children are before him. It’s the principle of the the thing for me.

I am sure people will point out that German royals and nobles whose countries fought against Britain during World War One or World War Two were allowed to preserve their right to ascend the British throne. But I personally find it absolutely ludicrous that they were. (Though of course, if the British public of 1919 or 1946 truly thought it was acceptable for someone who went to war against their country to become their monarch, then that is their business.)

 

[Granada]

I'm in complete agreement with Royalist.in.NC, but I understand that there seems to be no mechanism in place to remove Harry from The Succession.

What I still find so hypocritical and repugnant is the Sussex's now leeching on to prestigious royal tiles for their children.Who are being raised in America after their Parents fled the unbearable pain of being working Royals. And being denied a "progressive new role" in the Monarchy.

Now they are however talking about their children's owed Titles due to ROYAL "birthright". Huh ?

Why? Isn't this the Couple that NAMED a Book detailing their supposedly oppressive and hellish time as Working Royals, and being TRAPPED in " The Institution " ...... called "Finding Freedom" ?

Then have given multiple Interviews, Podcasts and Docu-series to monetize AND publicize their plight. And TWO Books too.
Now they want to saddle their children with the same curse of Titles and Association to a dreadful antiquated Institution ?

It is actually comical and infuriating at the same time. Laughable hypocrisy.

But gotta keep the royal con job and grift going forward at all costs......

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

QUOTE=Denville;2536851]Only parliament can change the line of succession and they will not do that for anything short of treason... or a major crime.[/QUOTE]


I understand that - but I don’t think that makes it right. At all.

I would imagine that those in the UK advocating for the end of the monarchy are thrilled with how the Sussexes are making their job easier.

Hopefully members of the RF will continue to find ways to deal with the continuing grief the Sussexes pile on them. William seemed to rise above it on the walkabout after HM’s death. But that was before the book and all of Harry’s interviews. I can’t help but think of the “cut direct” used in Jane Austen’s time.

What horrible and hypocritical “family members” these two are! ?

 

[Denville]

Why not just ignore them? THey are living in the US, they wont be welcome in the UK again IMO. It doesn't matter what the children are called, they are v unlikely to do more than see their relatives now and again. Parliament certainly doesnt want to get entangled in family rows and will only intervene if there is a major situation,

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I'm in complete agreement with Royalist.in.NC, but I understand that there seems to be no mechanism in place to remove Harry from The Succession.

What I still find so hypocritical and repugnant is the Sussex's now leeching on to prestigious royal tiles for their children.Who are being raised in America after their Parents fled the unbearable pain of being working Royals. And being denied a "progressive new role" in the Monarchy.

Now they are however talking about their children's owed Titles due to ROYAL "birthright". Huh ?

Why? Isn't this the Couple that NAMED a Book detailing their supposedly oppressive and hellish time as Working Royals, and being TRAPPED in " The Institution " ...... called "Finding Freedom" ?

Then have given multiple Interviews, Podcasts and Docu-series to monetize AND publicize their plight. And TWO Books too.
Now they want to saddle their children with the same curse of Titles and Association to a dreadful antiquated Institution ?

It is actually comical and infuriating at the same time. Laughable hypocrisy.

But gotta keep the royal con job and grift going forward at all costs......

I absolutely agree with everything in your excellent post - thanks!

Yes, infuriating is the word I was looking for! The hypocrisy absolutely infuriates me! If I were a family member, I cannot imagine being in the same room with them!

But I’m an American and we don’t have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?

 

[Denville]

People do not care. They are not all that close to the top of the line of succession, they are in teh US. People in the UK dont take as much interest in the RF as outside people seem to imagine

 

[American Observer7]

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?

What do you mean? Archie and Lilibet are still little kids. So, they will grow with their titles. They don't need titles. It's their birthright!!

You all can debate this all you want but it's done, the titles and style are in place. They were in place when the Queen passed way.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

People do not care. They are not all that close to the top of the line of succession, they are in teh US. People in the UK dont take as much interest in the RF as outside people seem to imagine

Thanks for your insights

 

[Denville]

What do you mean? Archie and Lilibet are still little kids. So, they will grow with their titles. They don't need titles. It's their birthright!!

You all can debate this all you want but it's done, the titles and style are in place. They were in place when the Queen passed way.

True but given that the couple had decided not to use the titles that the children were able to use, such as Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet, it seems odd that they are so attached ot the Prince and Princess titles. They could have chosen to do what Ed and SOphie did, and just used Master and Miss or lord D and Lady Lili. Esp when theyve claimed not to want to be part of the royal insitutuion and spoken about Genetic pain.

 

[Lilyflo]

But I’m an American and we don’t have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?

I couldn't speak for the rest of the country and there's no evidence currently of how much the average person cares about the succession order. However, the polls do show that the Sussexes are unpopular here so if there were surveys on their place in the LoS, I suspect there would be a majority in favour of dropping them down (or off).

The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".

 

[Denville]

well if William and his children did not exist, then Harry would have been the heir and as such, his leaving would have been a much bigger deal. Perhaps he might not have wanted to leave, if he were the only son. Or if he had chosen to leave, while his father was still POW, he might have been pressured to give up his place in the succession as he would be the future King. If God forbid anything did happen to WIll and his family, I think that given that H has gone to the US, and is settling there, he would be more or less ordered to give up his place and he and his children would be removed from the line, and next in line would be Andrew. SO then, I guess you would also have Andrew having to give up HIS place.. and it would be Beatrice who was next in line.

 

[Alison H]

But I’m an American and we don’t have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?

The Sussexes are extremely unpopular in the UK, but they have been pushed down the line of succession and the chances of any of them actually becoming monarch are remote ... although I do wish that the Waleses wouldn't all travel together. So I don't think people are that bothered about it.

As for people who were on the German side during the world wars, they were way down the line of succession and I doubt that anyone gave them a second thought.

 

[Hallo girl]

I couldn't speak for the rest of the country and there's no evidence currently of how much the average person cares about the succession order. However, the polls do show that the Sussexes are unpopular here so if there were surveys on their place in the LoS, I suspect there would be a majority in favour of dropping them down (or off).

The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".

I would agree, there is no mileage in removing them, if they are that bothered they should remove themselves, but we know they will not do that.

Their place is lip service only IMO.

 

[Denville]

The Sussexes are extremely unpopular in the UK, but they have been pushed down the line of succession and the chances of any of them actually becoming monarch are remote ... although I do wish that the Waleses wouldn't all travel together. So I don't think people are that bothered about it.

As for people who were on the German side during the world wars, they were way down the line of succession and I doubt that anyone gave them a second thought.

well yes the German dukes etc were well down the line and the chances of them succeeding was pretty much zero. In a while, Will's chidlren will be having kids too, and Harry will go down further.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Thanks to the British posters! My vote would be for Anne and Edward but I know that’s not how it works

 

[Alison H]

I think everyone would prefer Anne or Edward to Harry or Andrew, but cutting people out of the line of succession is complicated and can't really be done on grounds of unpopularity. Which is possibly a bit of a shame, but so it is!