Archie & Lilibet - No titles!

Thread closed

Ah yes, another thread!

They should remove Harry and the kids from the line of succession altogether.

Forget titles! Where are their parents? Harry and Meghan have a very elitist view of parenthood! It only counts if it's convenient for the parents! The kids are parentless in California.

Not sure why the press was running with they get titles. It was never happening and Megan's going to cry racism again.

R3- They did that before those two married and both were aware of it but tried to blackmail trf by accusing them of racism to force them give the children titles.

Markle may not show up for the funeral as a result of no titles for her rug rats.

I truly believe KC3 will strip H&M of their precious titles now. If anyone had abused my elderly parents the way these two abused TQ and PP they feel the wraith of hell from me.

Would ☝️

[quote] but tried to blackmail trf by accusing them of racism to force them give the children titles.

Merch and Lilibucks were eligible for titles until their Grampa became king. NOW they are. It's still early days.

FFS with these fucking inbred family threads.

^^ weren't

The press didn't make a mistake, the title are automatic. They do not need to be bestowed. Even the BBC said so last year.

“I’m not doing all this Royal business. Now give my kids prince and princess titles NOW!!!!”

R6 says the Firm found a loophole and that they are interpreting the Letters Patent to mean that your grandpa has to be the king when you are born to get the titles.

If Charles says Harry's children don't get titles despite the letters patent, especially if he does so this quickly after the Queen's death, it's going to look petty, and it's going to look like Meghan was right when she said in the Oprah interview that they were going to change the rules.

The professional Markle haters will say a million things to contradict this, and that's fine, but they're a small fraction of the public. Most people don't pay a lot of attention to the royals, and all they know is that the children of the king's sons should have titles. Which is true.

It’s already happened, R16. OP’s link is from the Palace.

Wrong.

I wouldn’t eat any food that crazy bitch MM brought me, how could they ever trust her?

Oh dear, TQ, PP, and now KC. Am I the only one who finds acronyms irritating?

Any bets on the how long it will be before the Hideous Two try to buy another child?

...And stay out!

R20- The Queen, Prince Philip, King Charles .

Markle will do a podcast on this outrageous injustice!

R16 Most people think if you quit a job you shouldn't get the perks from the job. I don't think most people are that concerned about two privileged kids getting antiquated titles.

Markle's kids with the stupid names have no titles.

R24- And no one will care or believe her. She has zero credibility and has been revealed to be a pathological liar.

Let the machinations begin.

Thank you R23, I know, but acronyms irritate me almost as much as the stupid nicknames. What's so hard about typing a proper name?

It’s hilarious to imagine Megham in full shrew mode at 1am, sitting on the edge of the bed, Harry exhausted… head-in-hands in a side chair, “Harry, you better get him to give Archie a Royal title! Don’t you realize how important that is?! It’s imperative! We have to get it done. That’s your son! Be a man… a real man! Get it done!”

Archie & Lilibet - No titties?

Are they getting the top surgery?

Oh so sweet is the revenge served cold to the losers of monteshitshow.

R29- Trying to rush before SS and MM get this thread shut down, ❤️.

Since Meghan knew about this in advance, the issue of titles was probably raised as leverage to get them to stay active. Now the Palace has followed through. She needs to squeeze out another kid to call their bluff.

The titles are not about employment. That's just your personal take on the matter, and like too many DLers these days, you think your personal opinion is reality.

Archie is a Prince. It was automatic at the moment Charles became King. If the title being left off of a webpage is an indicator that Charles is going to take the title away, then I stand by my opinion that it's a bad move, and is going to look like petty family infighting at a time when they should be concerned about more important things.

R34- That is why they did the Opr&h interview. They tried to blackmail trf into giving the titles to the children. When trf refused they went through with their threat and did the interview as Prince Philip was on his deathbed. Garbage people.

The cunt was basically blackmailing them, it’s not petty it’s necessary to keep a lunatic at bay.

I want to know what specifically was being referred to in Scobie's article earlier this week when he said "William had crossed many lines". This was a day before the Queen died. I wonder if it had anything to do with titles.

[quote] If the title being left off of a webpage is an indicator that Charles is going to take the title away, then I stand by my opinion that it's a bad move, and is going to look like petty family infighting at a time when they should be concerned about more important things.

Charles will try to spin it as, “they were not taken away, they were never bestowed to begin with.” The argument in the piece linked on this thread is that the family will state the Letters Patent reasoning applied only to grandchildren who were born while their grandparent was the King (which is why people are referencing the Sussexes having another baby now that Charles is King).

I agree it is a petty move, but Charles is a petty man.

[quote]the family will state the Letters Patent reasoning applied only to grandchildren who were born while their grandparent was the King

It doesn't, though. Not a single royal expert, historian, or journalist ever interpreted it as such. Even the BBC confirmed that Archie will become a Prince automatically, and they did so just last year.

On the other hand, Harry and Megan are featured prominently here as members of the “Royal Family.” Beatrice and Eugenie, and Anne and Edward’s children are not.

R39: Why should they care about titles being taken away? Why should " Just Call Me Harry ' care? They wanted nothing more to do with this racist family who hurt poor whittle fat meggsy so. Hypocritical liars.

Charles always wanted a slim downed monarchy. Other European houses are doing it. Why do they need princes and princesses running around California? They'll never be working royals and they don't live in the UK.

[quote]On the other hand, Harry and Megan are featured prominently here as members of the “Royal Family.” Beatrice and Eugenie, and Anne and Edward’s children are not

And so is Andrew, even though he's a non working royal and the family hates him. So what?

Agree with R43.

R43- Charles is only doing what he has planned to do for years. This bitch has tried to make it all about racism. They both are getting their comeuppance now and it is long overdue.

[quote] Even the BBC confirmed that Archie will become a Prince automatically, and they did so just last year.

But the BBC is not the King - Charles is. The only reason I could see for the family backing down from this move is if Will and Kate object on behalf of Charlotte and Louis’s future children, but William could just issue new Letters Patent when it’s his turn.

R17

The link is not up to date. The photo shows Queen Elizabeth and the page says that information on the site is subject to change.

From a drama and legal perspective, it would be amazing to see Harry try to sue the Crown over this issue.

If Charles and William want to have to deal with the bad publicity of this right now, and make it look like Meghan's comments in the Oprah interview were right, and if they want to deal with "he's really a Prince and you took it away from him because you're racists" for the rest of their lives, then good luck to them. If this is what they've chosen to do, it's an unforced error on their part.

If Charles and William want to have to deal with the bad publicity of this right now, and make it look like Meghan's comments in the Oprah interview were right, and if they want to deal with "he's really a Prince and you took it away from him because you're racists" for the rest of their lives, then good luck to them. If this is what they've chosen to do, it's an unforced error on their part.

There will be many, many unforced errors from Charles over the next few years. His mother was right to take a dim view of him.

[quote]But the BBC is not the King - Charles is.

Irrelevant. He can't simply change the rules on whim. King George V couldn't change the rules just because he wanted to; he had to file letters patent to make the change in 1917, and Charles is no different.

[quote] Markle may not show up for the funeral as a result of no titles for her rug rats.

Oh no! Say it’s not so! If Meg stays away, who will lead the casket tango in a weird, exposed-back-fat cape?

[quote]If Charles and William want to have to deal with the bad publicity of this right now, and make it look like Meghan's comments in the Oprah interview were right, and if they want to deal with "he's really a Prince and you took it away from him because you're racists" for the rest of their lives, then good luck to them. If this is what they've chosen to do, it's an unforced error on their part.

What audience are you talking about? Meghan and Harry are highly unpopular in the UK. Who really cares if Archie has a title? Black Twitter?

Perhaps Harry and Meghan asked that their kids not be styled as prince and princess, in the same way Edward and Sophie did for their kids.

Who cares? It's fucking 2022. No one gives a shit about titles except weird old British frauen clinging to a lost world and no one gives a shit about these people except those same weird British frauen.

The kids are going to grow up as Americans in California and aren't going to contribute anything to Britain, its citizens for The Firm.

Britain is struggling financially with Brexit. The BRF needs to slim down like other European royal houses in order to survive.

The two American kids don't need a title.

R57 someone else desperately cares about those titles, Meghan Markle

Lol r57, it's not us Brits who are obsessed with titles - it's the Americans.

R56 No, Megan wants the titles and the money that comes with it.

You are ridiculous R4. The kids are with nannies. Do you get this outraged when Baldy and Hag leave theirs?

Do "Baldy and Hag" regularly leave their kids in another country, r62?

R56

A "style" is "His/Her Royal Highness." A "title" is "Prince" or "Princess."

No amount of money or prestige will ever be enough. She’s an abyss.

R55

Who cares? People who don't want to see Archie and Lilibet treated unfairly and who are fed up with the disgusting racism of some members of the British public.

Yeah, and as you go down the line, no one else’s kids have titles. The titles stop at Andrew’s kids.

R66 Not half as much as people are appalled by the disgusting racism and hypocrisy of Megs.

R66 Nobody is worried about two rich kids being treated unfairly. What world are you even living in? And it's not racism. People just don't like Megan and Harry, for good reason. Kate got the same horrible treatment from the press for years and sucked it up. Megan is not special. She's mad because she wanted to be equal to William and Kate.

Screeching is my game

“Racism” is my play

Blame is my name

That’s what I do, because I’m a progressive white gay

R55 is probably one of those people who insists that the Meghan-hating trolls aren't racist.

r56 but Edward and Sophies children are still Princess and Princes. When they are adults they are 100% allowed to use such titles just like the York girls.

Those saying that Harry's children will never be working royals must have a crystal ball. It's not likely but they could rekindle a relationship with their families, head to a boarding school in the UK, any number of things can happen. So never say never.

[quote] If Charles and William want to have to deal with the bad publicity of this right now, and make it look like Meghan's comments in the Oprah interview were right, and if they want to deal with "he's really a Prince and you took it away from him because you're racists" for the rest of their lives, then good luck to them. If this is what they've chosen to do, it's an unforced error on their part.

Well, Charles and William can have some bad publicity now, while they still have public sympathy, or they can give titles and royal legitimacy to the California royals and give them a status which Meghan will use to attack the Royal Family for decades. It’s a no-win situation, but Charles is better taking the pain now. Meg will try to make his name mud regardless.

r58 how does the title prince or princess affect Britain's finances? It doesn't. Edwards children have those titles, though not in use, it doesn't cost the government any more or less. Most royal fans remind all of us that the royals pay their own way anyway, so what does a prince in CA matter. Harry is a prince, he too lives in CA, doesn't mean a thing one way or another for UK's current issues.

The titles don't have shit to do with the UK as a whole. It's a principle thing regarding the rules the RF set for themselves but may or may not be trying to suddenly b ack out of after nearly 100 years. That is their right, but don't throw in the "economy is bad, we can't afford two more HRHs" card cause it's foolish.

R66, they're not being treated unfairly. They don't need titles. Unlike their royal British cousins, they have the freedom to have a private childhood and to do whatever they want.

Diane von Furstenberg's granddaughter has the "right" to use a royal title but doesn't because she realizes how stupid it would look for an American to do such a thing.

This decision actually makes me think better of KC3.

r59 you would probably care about them too. Who the hell doesn't want to birth titled royalty? She married into the royal family, of course she cares about titles, as they all do. Hell, most of DL are royal family and title obsessed.

[quote]so what does a prince in CA matter

Indeed. Princess Beatrice is in Portugal, and I don't see the same people arguing that she should have her title withdrawn.

r75 then the best course of action is to follow the letters patent, Give them the titles and let them decide, as Edward did for his kids. Maybe they decide to move to the UK as adults, you all just assume they will remain in the US forever despite be half British. We don't know what they may want to do, but by the rules set by the RF, they should both be blood princess of the UK.

Charles didn’t change the rules. The Palace attorneys have interpreted the rules.

[quote]Who cares? People who don't want to see Archie and Lilibet treated unfairly and who are fed up with the disgusting racism of some members of the British public.

Only a fucking moron would be worried about 2 American kids, growing up in immense wealth, living in a $14 million dollar mansion, being treated 'unfairly.' Save your worries for people who deserve them.

R77, times change. Beatrice got lucky because she was born years ago. If Beatrice was born to Andrew now she would get nothing.

r77 Prince Phillip kept his Greek and Danish princely title outside of the UK. Didn't see people demanding a withdraw of those extra titles despite living in the UK for 90% of his life. Prince and princess have lived all around the world while retaining and obtaining titles. I don't get why America is some sudden exception. Sweden's princess lives in NYC with her title and all. This happens.

Isn't it too early to tell?It strikes me this "evidence" is indeterminate.

Why don't we just wait and see before getting our knickers in a twist?

R74 Didn't she want the titles so she can have more money? She mentioned something about how they needed the titles for extra security protection and how they weren't protecting the first people of color in the family (which isn't even true they are first, but alas...). So yes, it does cost for them to have titles. And Charles has given them enough, and they have enough money themselves to buy adequate security.

Beatrice is Harry’s generation, not Archie’s.

Edward and Sophie's kids are not prince and princess, r72. Louise turned 18 and became an adult last year and does not have the title princess, nor the title HRH.

If Meghan cares about titles then she's a huge hypocrite. She should have stayed and served the royal family and the British people, not married a prince and tear him away from his family in the hope that she'd force everyone in LA to call her kids prince and princess.

R77, Archie hasn't had his title withdrawn - he never had a title.

r80 if you are going to have this energy then we shouldn't talk about royals at all because it's 95% bullshit and pageantry. But we are all interested in the royals so let's not act like one royal is irrelevant because they are toddlers. It's all a topic of interest, stop acting special. Everyone here knows royalty is for entertainment purposes at this point. These debates are entertaining.

What more evidence do you require, r83? Do you imagine some flunky posted the new Line of Succession on the Royal Family’s website without checking?

[quote] Harry is a prince, he too lives in CA, doesn't mean a thing one way or another for UK's current issues.

R74 obviously forgot that Harry is suing the British government over security issues. Because he's a prince, don't know. King Charles is correct in denying Harry's children titles. Especially considering how viciously litiguous the parents are.

So what if Archie decides to move to the UK 20 years from now? What does that have to do with having titles? By that time, George, Charlotte, Louis will be the main focus (and their kids). Archie will be irrelevant.

"Prince Phillip kept his Greek and Danish princely title outside of the UK." - Are you sure about this, r82? I don't think he even had these titles in Greece or Denmark.

Exactly, R80.

In remembrances of QEII, many old film reels have been played showing how she started performing duties when still a kid. The two in California will never do anything like that for the UK.

r86 yes they are. They are grandchildren of a former sovereign via the male line. They are 100% prince and princess, but like the Sussex and their titles, or Camilla with Princess of Wales, not using the titles. But unless QEII created a letters patent for them, they are prince and princess. Edward just asked everyone not to acknowledge that titled, the crown agreed and the media followed.

No different then Camilla as Princess of Wales despite everyone pretending she's not.

Same with Eugenie in Portugal for a few days a week because her husband works there and the Swedish princess in NYC. They were born and brought up in the UK and Sweden respectively and had the titles from birth. Archie and Lilbet were not prince or princess from birth.

R82 Prince Philip gave up his Prince of Greece and Denmark title when he became a naturalized British subject. He adopted the name Mountbatten and was known as Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten. He was created a British prince by his wife in 1957.

r90 titles matter in the UK. So if he moves there in 20 years it would be a MASSIVE help to be Prince Archie of Sussex over, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Door literally open for you in the UK if you are a part of the aristocracy or royal. Who in their right mind wouldn't want an extra title to use as needed in the UK?

Just make that cunt the Queen already. Watch her fuck everything up and all her sycophants continue to “YASSSSS KWEEEN!” her.

The royals are parasites.

Get a job, people.

R93, Camilla is a different case because we are here discussing a title from birth or a title given due to birth. Even now on the list of succession James and Louise are not listed as prince or princess, whereas William's kids, and Beatrice and Eugenie are

R70

I'm not white, I'm not gay, and while Liberal, I'm not Woke.

In 1999, the Queen announced that Edward's children would be styled after his Earldom, not as Prince or Princess, HOWEVER a couple of years ago, Sophie confirmed Louise and James both have their titles, but will probably not use them.

Again, Beatrice and Eugenie are William and Harry’s generation. They were born granddaughters of the Monarch. The apt comparison is to their children who are not titled.

[quote]titles matter in the UK. So if he moves there in 20 years it would be a MASSIVE help to be Prince Archie of Sussex over, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Door literally open for you in the UK if you are a part of the aristocracy or royal. Who in their right mind wouldn't want an extra title to use as needed in the UK?

Because he would look ridiculous and silly using a title he wasn't brought up with, having grown up in California. Anybody would see through that.

R82

Philip had to give up his Greek and Danish titles and renounce any claims to those thrones when he married Princess Elizabeth.

[quote]“Racism” is my play

r70 is the little shit who has been using multiple sockpuppets to start racebait threads over the last few days. He made the mistake of replying to me with the wrong account, and when I put him on ignore, it was clear as day what he was up to.

If Archie wants to be a Prince when he grows up, I’m sure he can work something out with Uncle William.

The page OP cites was written while the Queen was still alive.

So the automatic titles of Prince and Princess did not yet get conferred to Harry's kids.

Now that he is the son of the sovereign, they do.

R105 it was no mistake Sherlock, no multiple accounts. Take your anti psychotic

Why should titles be bestowed upon surrogate kids? Nobody has seen them coming out of sMEGs's vag.

Lol r96, do you really think that doors wouldn't be opening for Archie in the UK if he wasn't called a prince? He's the grandson of the king, for crissake. In 20 years he may be the nephew of the king. It's not as though Beatrice gets more doors opened for her than Zara does. I doubt Margaret's kids had any trouble getting into anywhere they wanted to. Archie's problem in the UK will be his dumb parents.

[quote]titles matter in the UK

I doubt it but if they do, it's high time for them to move into the 21st century and drop that ridiculous shit. No wonder the UK was recruiting upper mgmt from the US some years ago.

R93

Camilla is a morganatic spouse. She is not part of the Royal Family except by marriage and she is outside of the lines of succession and inheritance. She has a title because she is the consort of the King.

The royal webpage updated this morning, r107, and listed the Sussex children as Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, which is where all the drama is coming from today.

R96, please, give it up! He would be a rich American who is blood relative of the royal family.

He wouldn't need a title to get his foot in the door anywhere!

R101, did you even read that article? Sophie is talking about the title HRH, not prince or princess.

R93 was referring to the fact that Camilla had been Princess of Wales since she married Charles, but no one used the title out of deference to Diana.

But what about the titties!

I thought they wanted no part in the BRF, so why do they want titles for the kids?

They don’t want titles for their kids, but they don’t want them DENIED their titles. That’s racism!

"I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas."

The King is cutting them loose. They're not part of it now. No titles, sorry.

No, that’s “my son married a sociopath who can’t be trusted”.

Camilla is absolutely not a morganatic spouse R112. The whole point of a morganatic spouse is that they don't get the titles.

Again, r120, it's not up to Charles' whim. King George V had to submit Letters Patent to make the change back in 1917, and Charles will also have to do the same or similar if he wants to make this change. He cannot simply decide someone doesn't get to be a Prince, he has to make the change official.

Pack your bags, Harry. We have books to write. Forget Omid. Get me Oprah.

R115

"HRH" is called a style. If you're a member of the Royal Family and have the title of "Prince/Princess/Duke/Duchess" you usually are accorded that honor, but not always. Wallis Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor was refused the HRH style because the Royal Family hated her and wanted to make a pointed snub. Reportedly, the Duke of Windsor, the former Edward VIII who had abdicated to marry Simpson, wept when he heard the news.

R122 They get titles. They don't get inheritance rights. Their children with the sovereign can never be part of the line of succession. Not an issue for Camilla at her age but it is with younger women.

R123–with a good lawyer, it IS up to Charles, as reality demonstrates.

Harry's children are now prince and princess because they are the grandchildren of a monarch. They weren't before.

Only the heir apparent if a great grandchild is given the title prince. However QEII issued a letter saying all of William's children will be princesses or prince.

The People article says "HRH titles" and I assumed they meant both style and title, and simply got it confused because it's an American publication, but Sophie herself in the full article says "HRH titles."

Maybe r125 can shed more light on it, but to me it sounds like they are HRH and Prince/Princess and those titles were automatic, even if they don't use them.

[quote]She has a title because she is the consort of the King.

Consort is short for "The Concubine Sort"

"The line of succession has been updated"

Is that right? 🤔 ... Per your link

"The Duke of Sussex is sixth in line to the throne and the younger son of The Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales"

Maybe someone ought to tell them there's a new sheriff in town

That’s not how the Palace is interpreting the LP, r128. They say what matters is your status when you were born and you don’t get a retroactive bump in title because your great-grandmother died.

This article, which another poster posted (thanks!), makes the most sense. According to the author, Archie and Lilibet were not automatically prince and princess when they were born as they were not, at the time, grandchildren of the then reigning monarch. Now their grandfather is monarch, they don't automatically become HRH but Charles has to issue Letters Patent. The author believes that Charles will not do that. But, that is nothing to do with the behaviour of Harry and Meghan - it's to do with the the fact that issuing an HRH cannot be retroactive. If anyone is to "blame" it's the Queen, who in 2012 - long before Meghan turned up - issued Letters Patent making all children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge HRHs at birth but did not extend this to Harry (i.e. did not make all grandchildren of the then Prince of Wales HRHs).

I find it hilarious that Meghan thinks she can demand of the royal family and royal protocol that all the rules are bent for her kids and then gets hysterical when they're not. If Harry and Meghan have another kid, now that Charles is king, then that kid would be HRH.

[quote]Meghan reported to Oprah that there was a disagreement about titles when Archie was born. It sounded like Charles explained to Harry and Meghan that Archie and Lily could not be HRHs immediately, and maybe that he suggested he would affirmatively take that status away when he became king. But I now think the likely reality is the Sussexes were told their children would not get Letters Patent to make them HRHs at birth and that Charles would not issue Letters Patent when he was king, either. That is to say, the Palace has already privately determined that HRH status cannot be retroactive.

He's 5th in line, r131. It's right here.

Sure he can, R123, he's the King. You make it sound like he's doing the paperwork himself.

As R43 said, he wanted to streamline the monarchy anyway. Whether it's perceived as petty or not, It makes sense to make it official. It's just a bit of admin.

If H&M wanted to be an active part of the royal family and were denied titles, that would seem wrong. But H&M don't want to so their kids should not have titles. Makes sense.

Since the 1917 LP discriminates on the basis of sex (children of the monarch’s sons are princes but not children of the monarch’s daughters), they really should be revised again to conform to the fact that the line of succession no longer favors sons over older daughters.

The amount of clit-sized penis pinching over imagined behind the scenes events on this thread is truly breathtaking.

R138 it's veritable circle jerk for clit rubbing.

@r134, "He's 5th in line, [R131]. It's right here. "

Yes, but here he's 6th and the son of The Prince of Wales. I'm just saying someone isn't doing their job updating the site

"About The Duke of Sussex

The Duke of Sussex is sixth in line to the throne and the younger son of The Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. He spent ten years working in the Armed Forces, ending operational duties in 2015. During his service, he conducted two tours of duty to Afghanistan with the British Army.

As announced in January, The Duke and Duchess have stepped back as senior members of The Royal Family. They are balancing their time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour their duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and their patronages. Frogmore Cottage in the UK remains their family home."

Pretty old info

I'm not a royal watcher, so I had to rely on looking things up, and I believe this is the first time this particular circumstance has existed since the 1917 letters patent. I couldn't find any other examples of great-grandchildren of the monarch, born to a prince, who were expected to become prince or princess when their grandparent became monarch.

[quote]It makes sense to make it official. It's just a bit of admin.

He has not made it official, however. A webpage was updated, and now there are questions. That is either an oversight on his part, or childishness, or perhaps something he had done in anticipation of negotiating with family members later on. It's neither official nor "a bit of admin."

R123, you've misunderstood. For Archie and Lilibet to become HRH Charles would need to issue Letters Patent. They are not automatically prince and princess as their grandfather became king after they were born. Meghan needs to get pregnant again if she wants one of her kids to be a prince or princess.

[quote]Again, Beatrice and Eugenie are William and Harry’s generation. They were born granddaughters of the Monarch. The apt comparison is to their children who are not titled.

The letters patent refers to sons and grandsons, so it's not an apt comparison, unfortunately. If Beatrice or Eugenie were sons, then it would be an apt comparison, but since they're daughters, they're not.

William and Harry, Kate and Meghan all at Windsor together - live on TV now!

Looking at the flowers laid by the public.

R144–Andrew is a monarch’s son, so his children (make or female) are Prince or Princess.

Meghan needs to stop clinging onto Harry's arm. She needs to learn that it's not about her. The public watching on TV are not going to be watching and saying "aw, isn't she lovely, the way she leans on him like that". The point of this appearance is to focus on the public, to comfort them, to thank them for their floral tributes and their commiserations.

R147 is in reference to Harry and Meghan's appearance at Windsor, alongside William and Kate. I will give kudos to Harry and Meghan for honouring Harry's grandmother, and supporting the new king and Harry's brother, the Prince of Wales.

Watching the BBC now. Kate looks lovely. She's so natural when she's chatting to the crowd.

What I want to know is why Archie and Lilibet aren't Master and Miss Mountbatten-Markle or Markle-Mountbatten or what have you. MM is supposed to be a great advocate of equality, right?

William's protection officer looks like a dyke. Hot!

Did anyone else notice that Meghan spent much longer with the non-white people on the walkabout?

She's currently playing with the nose of a white baby, so, no, not really r152.

"Currently" is neither here nor there, R153.

I'm slightly baffled at the people who look overawed to see Meghan. She has the star wattage of a used light bulb.

She spent ages on that baby's nose, r154.

I think it's more a case of "OMG!" rather than being overawed, r155.

I wouldn't be surprised if Meghan counter-briefed against William's having invited them on the walkabout. "The right to go on walkabouts is universal".

It is absolutely the correct interpretation that Archie and Lili did not automatically become HRH when Charles became King. Otherwise, there would be no reason to mention the Prince of Wales in the 1917 Letter Patent, since the Prince of Wales is destined to become King. It would just say that all children and grandchildren of the Monarch are HRH at birth or become HRH when the King or Queen ascend to the throne.

In the 1917 Letter Patent, it explicitly says that the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales is entitled to an HRH designation. That means only George (as Charles was POW at the time). In fact, the Queen issued another Letter Patent in 2012 to make ALL of William's future kids HRH and Princes / Princesses. Why would she have done that if they would automatically become HRH upon Charles' ascension to the throne?

So this new succession list from the Royal Family is correct. Archie and Lili are not HRH or Prince and Princess. Charles doesn't need to do anything to take their titles away as they never had the titles to start with.

[quote]the Yanks!

The real reason for British Meghan Derangement Syndrome, in two words.

Why wouldn't the BRF have issued corrections to any of the news articles that said Archie would become Prince when Charles became King, then? Why didn't they issue a correction when Meghan said he should be Prince, but they were going to try to change things to refuse him the title? Have they really been telling Harry his whole life that his children would not be Princes or Princesses, and he lied when he said otherwise?

Because, R160, it's a losing PR battle. She already positioned it in the "my poor son will not be Prince because...racism." Anything they say will put them on the defensive and your average person doesn't look at the exact legal interpretation of some Letter Patent from 1917. It would keep the narrative alive. Meghan would respond in another weepy interview insisting that Archie is the first this has ever happened to. Of course he is. The LP is from 1917 (a long time ago, but not so long ago that it would have repeated itself many times) and this particular situation has not come up until now.

[r156]

No, it's not. The Queen issued that Letter Patent so that all of William's children would be HRH Prince/Princess from birth.

It would not have been a losing PR battle if they had corrected things years ago. The media and fans (and haters) have expected the children of the Sussexes to have titles once Charles ascended to the throne. The royal family knew this. Not correcting it, and leaving it until now without explanation, is causing a lot of confusion and anger that could have been avoided.

It also doesn't explain why Harry also seemed to believe Archie should be a Prince.

Why should the BRF take any of Meghan's poisonous spew seriously and get dragged down in endless media battles trying to correct her inane statements, r160?

The 2012 letters patent was reported at the time as being about correcting the sexism of the 1917 letters patent. It wasn't until Meghan became pregnant that one outlet (the Observer, and no others, that I can find) reported that the Sussexes children may not get titles, and that William's children (except first born male) wouldn't have gotten any, either, without the 2012 letters patent.

It's possible that Meghan was told that Archie wouldn't get a title unless a new letters patent was issued, and that there was opposition to the Queen doing this (probably from Charles, at least) which she took to mean that convention had been changed for Harry's children. Unlike many on here, I find many of Meghan's statements to be gaffes from someone who doesn't know anything about the British royalty, rather than evil schemes meant to take down the entire family.

However, so many other media outlets reported that Harry's son would become Prince when Charles became King, that I feel like there is something more going on here than mistakes and/or lies.

[quote]the Sussexes children

I was so appalled by the crazy overuse of apostrophes on that other thread, that I didn't use an apostrophe when one was needed!

"The Sussex's children"

I'd be surprised if Meghan hadn't had the rules and protocol of the royal family explained to her, r165, literally by the royal family itself.

The media outlets just kept repeating each other. If they'd read the letters patent carefully, they would have understood the situation.

The 2012 letters patent doesn't seem so much about sexism, more to make sure that all of William’s kids were HRH from birth, as it was apparent that the Queen was going to be around for several more years and even a second or third son would not be born an HRH. If the 2012 letters patent hadn't been issued, then Louis would not have been born an HRH.

[quote]Did anyone else notice that Meghan spent much longer with the non-white people on the walkabout?

In light of his rapidly shrinking realm, R151, I hope Charles is aware of the vital role Harry and Meghan can play in the future of the Commonwealth, evidenced in part by William and Kate's disastrous Caribbean tour. His "subjects of color" are watching.

^oops - meant for R152. Sorry

[quote]"The Sussex's children"

How do you know that the person wasn't referring to the children of "the Sussex" (Harry), as opposed to the children of the couple (the Sussexes).

Whilst meeting commoners outside Windsor castle, an Argentinian paraplegic told me this was the greatest miscarriage of justice since the Dreyfus Affair.

No 126, morganatic spouses do not get titles any more than they get inheritance rights. That's why Archduke Franz Ferdinand's wife was not an archduchess.

Oh, Lord! It's gonna be hell getting these Klan Grannies to sleep tonight. Trazodone milkshakes for everyone!

^ I know, it's like Christmas morning with an IV of heroin and winning a billion dollar lottery all rolled in together 😂

r132 that's odd because William got an extra dukedom thanks to Granny dying. King Charles didn't even have to grant William the title Duke of Cornwall. He got it once the Queen took her last breath. So they are really play fast and loose with these rules to ensure harry's children aren't granted their titles. It seems so unnecessary and cruel by the crown.

[quote]Diane von Furstenberg's granddaughter has the "right" to use a royal title but doesn't because she realizes how stupid it would look for an American to do such a thing.

What on earth do you mean?

[quote]r81 If Beatrice was born to Andrew now she would get nothing.

Except those hideous fuckin’ pop eyes.

What are you going on about, R175? No-one has played fast and loose with the rules. When Charles became king, Cornwall shunted down to William, as always happens. The duchy of Cornwall is the heir's source of revenue (there is no income with the Prince of Wales title). A hereditary title like a dukedom isn't the same as a style (HRH). Harry has his titles already.

People speculate that the Sussex kids won't get any titles bc the Palace would have to pay for their security. Are these titles just a courtesy or are they really entitled to security and other royal perks as Prince and Princess? Doed anyone know?

No, being styled a prince does not automatically entitle you to security.

WELL, IF THERE IS NO TITLES AND NO SECURITY AND NO EXTRA MONEY…. THEN I GUESS WE WILL RELEASE THE BOOKS, YES BOOKS WITH AN ‘S’!!!

Meghan's main press leak articles are: People, Glamour, and most of the American magazines of this caliber. I would bet that Meghan/PR had a deluge of articles released stating "Now Archie and Lilibet are Prince and Princesses!" as a preparation to shape the narrative/try to force Charles to give them the titles. As we can see from these threads, most Americans don't understand how the succession/titles work, so they are laying the foundation for outrage.

Meghan is might be short sighted and impulsive, but nobody has ever said she was a dummy. She and Harry know the rules inside/out about who gets what. There is no confusion. It's clear now that "Operation London Bridge" was very much underway b/c the moment the Queen took her last breath, everything happened quickly. There was a lot misinformation in these threads that I bought into as well and I thought I knew the rules. Per the DL "title queens", William WOULD NOT be Price of Wales automatically, that he would have to go through an investiture, which clearly and explicitly not the case.

We'll see what happens but OP's list looks pretty definitive and Charles would have to make an effort to change things. Harry is his son - I could see Charles giving them another year trial similar to the Queen's trial during year 1 of Megxit - play nice, shut the fuck up, we will give you a little royal juice for your lives "overseas" by allowing the walkabout today, and if you follow the rules in a year, perhaps there could be a title change. Meghan and Harry would have to stop an engine already in. motion.- I'm sure each Archetypes reveals another "truth", plus the book deals, etc. Maybe it's worth it.

Harry and Meghan could work up a dishy and scandalous nightclub act for Vegas. Can either sing or play the piano? The Royals had better watch their step if they know what’s good for them.

I see Suzanne Sommers as Very Special Guest Narrater… maybe doing some bits as Camilla.

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU FREAKS!! 😱

Does anyone else read this thread title as ‘No titties’?

I don't understand why they care about titles. I thought they wanted to leave the firm?

Yes, R185.

^ I don't understand why you have so much trouble understanding the simplest concepts... Are you stupid?

No, but you must be, R187.

"The Brunette & the Ginger in the Electric Jaguar"

@r188, Oh, snap!

Their popularity is so low, I cant see how this could hurt Charles or the institution. Have Prince and Princess Kardashian in SoCal would just further cheapen the monarchy.

I know there's Andrew but he's been stripped of a lot of things - and not allowed to do what he wants. But there would be no restraints on this harridan (and unfortunately, there's just no way her kids will grow up and fit in the royalty - I really think it would be a terrible burden for them to try to straddle both worlds)

I too, opened this thread only because I read "no titties!"

* HAVING Prince and Princess Kardashian...

The DM is stirring the pot with a lead story proclaiming they're "entitled to" receive the titles.

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

Harry and Meghan

“Buk, buk, buk, ba-gawk”

They kind of have to, r194. The Meghan-hating industry said repeatedly that Meghan was lying in the Oprah interview when she said they weren't going to give Archie a title even though he was entitled to one once Charles became king. They have to stick with the story, otherwise it will look like Meghan was right.

I'm sure the Palace is none too happy about it, though, because the titles are probably something that need to be done via letters patent, at least for Lilibet since she's a daughter, and they would probably rather this all go away. I have to think this was something that was going to be discussed among the family later, after the dust settles.

[quote]I don't understand why they care about titles.

R186, at the time, Meghan was saying that, within the Firm, titles mean more security, so if Archie was entitled to an HRH then it would follow that he would get more security, so that's what they were most concerned about.

I'm re-reading the transcript of the Oprah interview and it seems that Meghan already said that they decided there would be no title for Archie, but the royal family refused to say so publicly, which was causing problems because she wasn't releasing a photo of Archie when he was born, per tradition. Meghan said that, since he wasn't going to be a prince, then the tradition didn't apply to him, but the Palace wouldn't say anything and let everyone think she was just refusing to go along with what was expected of the royals.

As I and a few others said earlier, it didn't make sense that the Palace wouldn't clarify all this years ago. It would have been so easy to respond to a BBC article with "the letters patent is only for sons and grandsons, not great-grandsons, Archie will still be a Duke like the other great-grandchildren etc. etc." as a correction, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, they didn't do anything, and here we are.

[quote]That’s also part of the spin, that was really damaging. I thought, ‘Can you just tell them the truth? Can you say to the world you’re not giving him a title, and we want to keep him safe, and that if he’s not a prince, then it’s not part of the tradition? Just tell people, and then they’ll understand?’

R196, Archie was not entitled to the HRH title when Charles became king and he and Lilibet are still not entitled to it. If they had been born when he was king, then they would. But he was not king when they were born, so they are not.

R197, Meghan was wrong about security. Beatrice and Eugenie and the Queen's cousins who are princes and princess don't have it.

R198, why should the royal family come out and make statements in response to dumb accusations against them on a chat show?

Who in the royal family gets a security detail and how much does it cost?

Well, there’s no hard and fast rule about who gets security detail and who doesn’t. The security at Harry and Meghan's wedding was reported to have cost an estimated £30 million, however that was a particularly high profile event which involved the closing of streets in Windsor for the newlyweds' horse and carriage procession, so on a regular day the bill wouldn't be anywhere near that high.

Up until 2011, Prince Andrew’s daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie had received protection at a reported cost of £500,000 per year. And, ever since then, they’ve covered the cost themselves. However, there is a police task force, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), that ensures the Royal family and public figures have round the clock protection. This is primarily funded by the state.

Why is Archie’s title important to his security?

Under protocols established by George V back in 1917, the children and grandchildren of a sovereign have the automatic right to the title HRH and prince or princess. This basically means that Archie will technically be entitled to the title of Prince when Prince Charles accedes the throne and therefore, should expect the same security detail that is afforded to Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis (who all have bodyguards, including at the elder children's school).

But, according to Meghan, back in 2018, she was advised that Archie wouldn’t be given the title of prince, which means he wouldn’t receive a royal security detail.

"They were saying they didn't want him to be a prince or princess, which would be different from protocol, and that he wasn't going to receive security," Meghan said. "This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy where I was going, hold on for a second."

She continued on to say, "They said [he's not going to get security], because he's not going to be a prince. Okay, well, he needs to be safe – so we're not saying don't make him a prince or princess, but if you're saying the title is what's going to affect that protection, we haven't created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder, you've allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe."

Meghan and Harry had expected that Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but during the interview, the couple advised that protocols may be changed in line with Charles’s wish for a ‘slimmed-down’ monarchy, excluding Archie from the title of prince.

Meghan also added that it's concerning that "the first member of colour in this family isn't being titled in the same way as other grandchildren would be."

Poor King Charles. Will no one rid him of this turbulent woman? (j/k - I don't think assassination is the answer but honestly, I have no idea what can be done). Imagine the next 10 wretched days for the BRF. Can Zara's husband (Tindall?) be assigned to be their wrangler? He seemed to have their number.

^ Chuckles seems to like "turbulent women", he's been surrounded by them for years. Zara's husband is NOT the Royal Thug

R196. Why would giving Harry’s daughter a Princess title require any special action that is not required in giving his brother the title of a prince? Since when dies the sex of the child, as opposed to the sex of the parent, have a beating on that? Sometimes statements are based on a superior understanding facts and not just “Meghan hate”.

It seems like the Palace thought that they would be really stickin' it to Meghan by refusing to explain publicly that Archie wouldn't be a prince. However, they didn't expect that Meghan would go public with that, nor did they expect the tabloids and press would try to prove Meghan was a liar by repeatedly stating that Archie WOULD, in fact, get the title once Charles became king.

After a year and a half of the public being told that Meghan is wrong, Archie was going to be prince, they waited for Archie to be listed as a prince on the official royal website, only to find out that nope, he's not going to be a prince at all.

The irony is that Meghan said in the interview that the Palace had already made their decision to not make Archie a prince, and no one remembers that part, because the tabloids and the BRF were too invested in making her look bad by claiming she was lying. Now it's come back to bite them as it turns out she was right, the Palace HAD already decided, but they wouldn't say so publicly.

The royal family claimed Meghan was lying about the future status of her son since the Oprah interview? I never saw that statement. Do you have a link?

^ This ^ Meghan isn't trying to hurt the Royal Family, but she is holding them accountable

[quote]The royal family claimed Meghan was lying about the future status of her son since the Oprah interview? I never saw that statement. Do you have a link?

As you well know, I never said any such thing. I said the opposite. The Palace never released a statement clarifying anything about Archie's title, even though she and Harry asked them to. They refused.

That bit them in the butt, because after the Oprah interview, the tabloids and even some legitimate news sources were the ones who said that Meghan was lying and Archie WOULD be a prince. Now we've had a year and a half of tabloids calling her a liar, saying Archie would be prince once Charles was king.

Now Charles is king but Archie isn't a prince. Oops.

Suddenly it's clear that for a year and a half, much of the press has been lying to make Meghan look bad, and the Palace never stepped in to clarify, which is causing them PR problems now, thanks to their unwillingness to make what should have been a simple statement a long time ago.

Once again, the delusion and outright mental illness is rife in yet another 'Royal' thread.

Here's a tabloid implying Archie will be HRH when Charles takes the throne... It didn't happen

"But under protocols established by King George V in letters patent in 1917, Archie does not have the automatic right to the title HRH or prince, because at the time of his birth, he was the great-grandchild of a sovereign, not a grandchild, the Guardian reported.

Only children and grandchildren of a sovereign have that right, according to the report.

Archie will only be entitled to those titles when Prince Charles takes the throne."

R207. As you very, very well do know you did say that. That’s why you just corrected it to state they did not respond instead of the royal family claiming she was lying as you originally posted

As you knew the palace never addressed any of her claims. There was no obligation on the family’s part to respond to any of the things she said and not responding has proved to be a very wise course of action. The woman is constantly running her mouth. Is the family obligated to use a statement each time she does?

This article says it did happen, R209.

^ That's great if it were true, but CNN got it wrong. Surprise!

That article is making assumptions, r211.

It's no big deal.

Did Lady (not princess) Louise, as a grandchild of the then monarch, have government security set up for her at university? What about non-HRHs Peter Philips and Zara?

King Charles's threat seems to have worked - sMEGs wore stockings in public for the first time. hahahahaha

Master Lucas Tindall is NOT the King's grandson

@r215, Why don't you investigate and report back as to their status as far as security goes

I honestly see both sides. I get that Archie should be a prince, but, at the same time, I understand that that BRF needs to be pared down too. It's kind of crazy expecting taxpayers to pay for all of this. Maybe keep it to the direct line and that's that - once William and Kate's kids are grown only George's offspring get titles and so on....

R211. The US press is definitely not to be relied upon when it comes to anything involving the royal family.

Sure, R220, but the Guardian has it too.

R219. It’s not just a trend towards reducing the size of the family. It’s a matter that the children are being reared outside the country that grants the title by parents who are using their own titles for commercial and political purposes. That might have been permissible in the 18th century but not today.

^ That article is dated 9/8 and yep, they too got it wrong. Meghan was right

There's a reason the official royal website does not have Archie listed as prince. Lilibet, being a granddaughter, wouldn't get the title of princess at all, per the letters patent. That's why Queen Elizabeth created a letters patent in 2012 for William's kids, in case he had daughters.

In retrospect, she may have done it also because William's kids would be the great-grandchildren of the living monarch and not made HRH by the 1917 letters patent at all, but the press, if memory serves, suggested the 2012 letters patent was about correcting the boys-only part of the rule.

If I were Charles, I would give those Sussexes lots of titles. This will make them even more idiotic, ungrateful, disloyal, and desperate, when they continue to sabotage the system that supplies their prestige. Laughing stock.

@r222, Your trying to qualify legal status with your own bias. That's not how the law works

The haters are up and about, so much for the good discussion 🙄

@r210, "As you knew the palace never addressed any of her claims. There was no obligation on the family’s part to respond to any of the things she said and not responding has proved to be a very wise course of action"

Not really, she was asking for for clarification of her son's legal status. By ignoring her they have now proven her right and not the liar the tabloids implied

R222 I said nothing about the law. I commented on what was sensible and reasonable in a democracy. What laws exactly do tou have on your mind that you think are relevant? Can you please cite the legislation so that people can address your comment.?

And what precisely is the “bias” I was expressing

[quote] It's kind of crazy expecting taxpayers to pay for all of this.

Yes, that roughly £2.6 each British taxpayer forks over to support the Monarchy every year would mean a world of difference to the lives of the commoners. It won't even buy 'em a pack of fags

^ They come in packs? 🤔

[quote]As you knew the palace never addressed any of her claims

Which I said about five times already, before you repeated it back to me. You can't counter what I actually said, so you invented things I didn't say and are arguing against those instead. It's pathetic.

@r229, "And what precisely is the “bias” I was expressing "

" It’s a matter that the children are being reared outside the country that grants the title by parents who are using their own titles for commercial and political purposes. That might have been permissible in the 18th century but not today. "

That is NOT a legal argument, that is YOUR bias. You just can't wrap you mind around law, can you?

R232. This is tiresome. You do realise that posts on this site are not writer. In disappearing ink?

“ the BRF was too invested in making her look bad by claiming she was lying”.

When you say that the royal family claimed she was lying I take you to mean that they claimed she was lying. In what form of English not addressing claims the same as claiming someone is lying?

^ The kind of English they always use, expressing their opinion through the tabloids alleviating any personal responsibility for their claims. The tabloids called Meghan a liar, the Royals never said a word to clarify. Meghan was right all along

R295. Who is they. I’m quoting the poster. Are you saying the poster is a member of the royal family ? I think you are confused.

^ "They" is the same "they" you referred to. Are you trying to be clever or can't you follow your own post?

I’m just defeated by your illogic or poor English or both.

"I’m just defeated "

I'm glad we agree

I’m sure the BRF wants Harry and Meghan to shut up about security. It’s not helpful that all the nutters in the world know who has security and who doesn’t. Harry is foolish to drag this into the public eye.

[quote] “we haven't created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder, you've allowed that to happen”

Oh Meg, you were just as culpable as anyone about “creating tabloid fodder.”

^ I've heard the BRF were tabloid fodder long before Meghan showed up...

Nor were Lilibet and Archie the king's grandchildren when they were born, r217. They were the monarch's great-grandchildren, just like Lucas Tindall.

Indeed r240. By constantly going on about how they don't have security, they're making themselves more vulnerable. It's almost as though security isn't their real concern and they just want something to bitch about.

^ They have security, they pay for it

@r243, Didn't Anne refuse titles for her children? Doesn't that make Lucas Tindall basically a footballer's son?

Mike Tindall played rugby.

^ Sorry to Mike, American here 😂

The Royal family was accused of withholding titles because of the colour of their skin. THAT was a flat out lie told by Meghan! This decision was made based on wanting a slimmer monarchy. That’s it. Why would they wade in on this discussion when she couched it in such inflammatory and false terms! You want us to feel sorry for her? She DID lie about this: not that it was happening but why.

I really do at times despair about the rewriting of history by Meghan’s defenders. I feel like I’m being gaslighted!

Well, yes, r245, but they want us to pay for it. For some reason, if they pay then that isn't enough security for them and they are still at risk.

Would you morons quit referring to "the firm" which was a novel and you sound ridiculous.

@r249, You don't know why they did it, because they never said why they did it, which was Meghan's point all along making YOU the only liar here

@r251, The problem is GB won't let Harry have his own security when he visits making him and his family vulnerable. That's not right. They won't protect him and they won't let him protect himself

@r250, You sound just like a MAGA Trumper, don't like what's being said so it must be gaslighting. Only an idiot thinks they're being gaslit when faced with facts they don't like

Not everyone in this world has a title bestowed upon them at birth. Some of us have to go out there and get a real job and earn respect. I certainly don't sit on my bony ass all day long, feasting on tea and crumpets.

They could have interpreted the 1917 letter to mean that Archie became an HRH when his grandfather became king, but not Lilibet. A lot of media read it that way. But what they decided and told H&M is that status is determined and FIXED at birth. Since they were not grandchildren of the monarch when they were born, they do not get the title later unless the King decides to give it to them. I can’t see that happening as long as none of them is a working royal.

If Charles was a good man and grandfather he'd want to protect his grandkids if he could. He can, but he won't 😠

Harry has said repeatedly that he'll pay for his own family's protection, but he feels the rules were changed because of him and now the Royal Family's security won't work with the Sussex security leaving his family totally unprotected when visiting the UK. That just sucks

If Meghan were white, this would be a non-issue. Charles would probably get pats on the back for refusing to hand out HRH Prince/Princess titles to those who will never serve the crown as full-time working royals. It's ridiculous that Bea and Eugenie have them, but they were born in a different time and were likely the last of the useless titles. James and Louise don't use theirs, and it's highly likely Charlotte and Louis' children won't, either.

It's even sillier in that Archie and Lili will grow up in America and barely know their royal relatives. Making them a prince and princess is just about their parents' egos: There is no material point to it. They won't be any safer as prince and princess than they are as lord and lady.

The BRF likely didn't address this issue publicly because the Queen was still alive. It would be gauche to discuss in the press what her great-grandchildren would or wouldn't get after her death. Of course, the Sussex camp didn't care about optics or feelings, which is par for the course with them.

^ Except when they visit the UK where Harry has been told he can't have his own security. Explain how that is fair to anyone

[quote]The problem is GB won't let Harry have his own security when he visits making him and his family vulnerable. That's not right. They won't protect him and they won't let him protect himself

Absolutely untrue. Harry is free to hire any and all private security when he's in the UK. And which he did when they were in Manchester last week. The problem is he wanted to hire the MET police (and debatable if he was really willing to pay), which was a no go. It's like asking if you can rent the NYPD for your own protection. Doesn't work that way.

Harry wants armed security. The only way to get that is the Met police. He doesn't need armed security of course, but what Harry wants . . . Harry screams about until he gets.

He'll be screaming about it for a long time, I suspect.

Meghan will try to play it both ways. If Archie gets a title, then Meghan will start with “Lilibet is the first black WOMAN and not giving her a title is racist and misogynistic.”

Charles is wise to shut it down completely.

I also think Charles knows the clock is ticking and he has at best 20 years to create a legacy, while trying to cleanup the Diana/Camilla issue. He’s not going to squander his legacy on who gets a title and who doesn’t.

The issue is that privately hired security in the UK can’t carry guns, while the royal protection officers would.

Harry wants the exact same security William and the other senior royals get, even though he is no longer, by his own decision, a senior royal. If he wanted to keep that kind of protection, he should have remained with the family business. It would be like a regular person quitting their job and still expecting their old company to pay for their health insurance.

That's the crux of the matter. Harry wants all of the perks he grew up with but also wants to go his own way and do as he likes. Half-in, half-out is what he and Meghan have always wanted and is the source of their dissatisfaction. The Queen tried to explain that you get the perks or you get the freedom--nobody gets both. Harry and Meghan will never be happy unless the BRF give them that arrangement, and the BRF never will.

"“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K.,” the statement said.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home,” it said.

Harry, who is Queen Elizabeth II’s grandson, “inherited a security risk at birth,” and his family has been subjected to “well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats” in recent years, the statement said, noting that other British figures who have left public office and have inherent threat risks get police protection at no cost.

A government spokesperson said in an email that the U.K.'s protective security system was “rigorous and proportionate” and that it was long-standing policy not to provide detailed information about such arrangements.

The spokesperson also added that it would not be ​​appropriate to comment on the details of any legal proceedings."

Good point R260 that makes a lot of sense

Public office? Is he saying he's on par with a former prime minister? My god.

A few points:

1. Security is not inextricably linked to titles. The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are Princes. Even the Duke of Kent's younger brother Michael is a Prince. Do they have security? I doubt it.

2. As the son and daughter of a Duke Archie & Lillibet already have courtesy titles (Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lillibet) and their parents decided not to use them.

3. The line of succession can only be changed by legislation. It's not up to Charles. By contrast, he can do whatever he wants with Letters Patent and interpretation of same re the princely titles and HRHs.

Megs is playing checkers

When were Harry and Meghan prevented from hiring private security in the UK, r254?

Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael of Kent were born after their grandfather, George V, died, so when were they granted HRH styling and princely status, if not at birth?

R238. I made no comment on the law. I just said it is nonsensical and unjust to give them titles since they live in America and don’t perform any service to the UK. That is a logical argument, not a bias.

What are legal implications to not giving them a title? You need to cite the legislation that denying them a title would violate.

They apparently want security with guns, R273. Too bad, so sad. No one gets that type of security except the monarch, the heir to the throne and his family, and working royals only while they are actually working. Princess Beatrice and Eugenie are HRHs and Princesses. They're not working royals and they don't get security. This was always about calling out the Royal Family for not giving Archie (and his future sibling) an HRH and Prince title. It's 100% blackmail. The whole security angle was brought up to create the impression that Meghan is not just a shallow, vindictive bitch who has always dreamed of having grand titles for herself and her kids, but instead a worried mother.

Good theory r276

That's in line with Haz and Meg's wishes, as they didn't want titles for their children.

The King should take his time with this issue . It is inevitable that dreadful Harry and cunt Meghan will resume hostilities from a cowardly distance .

This reminds me of an interview Katie Holmes while she was married to Tom- he has been widely discussed as pretty much a textbook narcissist - that when she went out looking good (in a skirt is what she said) Tom would always check “do you have security?” The implication being that she looked so awesome she needed armed guards. Is this unending need for security based on affirming their position of being important? A bodyguard for a Montecito school run? (I lived there for 4 years and it’s ab as sleepy, insular and rich a town as you can imagine) Was Harry always like this? I think this all comes since he married her. I know someone who used to do bar crawls with him. He hated security. is this a narcissist thing?

R280, it’s difficult to tell what Harry was like pre-Meghan. The palace created a public profile for Harry: cheeky lad about town who unfortunately lost his mother and deserved respect because of it.

I think “The Windsor’s” Harry is closer to the real thing.

R271 Thank you for explaining to some of the Meg fans how this all works and yes you are correct only when members of the royal family are carrying out duties on behalf of the Monarch are they given Met protection. Even Princess Anne doesn't get full time security and someone tried to kidnap her and shot her bodyguard. I may not be like all of the Megaloons on here who apparently went to Oxford and studied Constitutional law, but I know the the Letters Patent do not require the consent of parliament though are legally binding. In fact Charles could sit around all day drafting letters patent giving everyone he likes titles, hell he could make Camilla's dogs Bluebell and Beth Princesses if he wanted. This is one of the few remaining powers the Monarch has. Charles has obviously already done letter patents in relation to the new counsellors of state and Prince William.

Archie and Lili aren't getting Princely titles, they already have courtesy titles from the Duke of Sussex. Charles has made it very clear way before Megs came on the scene that he as going to slim down the monarchy.

[quote]Megs is playing checkers

It's like she and Hazza didn't even anticipate the Queen's demise especially when her health started failing.

Why are people so obsessed with titles? It's not like they offer any benefits like an annual income or something. I doubt anyone in the US gives a fuck or knows the difference between a master or prince. William is the only one in the family who really profited from his new title. But even without the Duchy of Cornwall he was still a millionaire who had access to private jets, servants and lived in fancy mansions.

She's obsessed with titles, R284, and Harry is obsessed with whatever she wants. The reason? Perhaps it confirms that she is as important as she feels she is. Oh, and imaginary security that appears the minute you have a title apparently.

R284, "Master" is much of a title - and it's only for a boy. The press won't use it when Archie grows up, except maybe in a jokey way. OTOH, if he took his dad's courtesy title, his wife twenty years from now could be a countess, which would no doubt make her the toast of the Santa Barbara hot yoga scene.

[quote]The BRF likely didn't address this issue publicly because the Queen was still alive. It would be gauche to discuss in the press what her great-grandchildren would or wouldn't get after her death.

The press was already discussing it. It would have been incredibly easy to have a royal watcher that they trust contact the BBC and correct the misinformation.

You guys took everything that was said by "sources" after the Oprah interview as coming straight from the Palace, and you never once called it "gauche," but in this matter where a little clarification would have helped, suddenly the Palace couldn't have commented at all because it would have been in bad taste? Come on now.

Leave the kids out of your insane posts.

I'd ask if you could stoop any lower, but I already know you can.

🙄 Life without a title .....

Just announced: Charles has proclaimed Archie His Galactic Highness, Prince Archie, Duke of North America.

Archie has a title, Earl of Dumbarton, no?

R291. Yeah, but it’s shitty.

I think she turned down the Earl of Dumbarton title because she was holding out for Prince. Plus I'm sure she hates that Dumbarton contains the word "dumb."

So much misinformation here. You can do a search of prior threads where they was endlessly debated. While I can't say what CIII has planned for his Sussex grandkids in terms of titles, I can say this:

Archie and Lilibet were (are) entitled to HRH designation and Prince/Princess status under the standing LP of 1917, issued by George V. The issue is: that LP - any LP, in fact - may be overruled at anytime, anyplace by the will of the CURRENT MONARCH. There does NOT need to be a new LP issued to achieve this, although it's been well-argued (and I agree) a new LP certainly confers more authority and clarifies more clearly.

As the "Fount of all Honour" in the UK (Google this if you wish), King Charles III holds full power to grant or ungrant HRH designation, or princely status, at his whim by public or private declaration. He only has to make his wishes re this known, and it is so. Unlike a last name/surname, HRH and princely status are NOT legal rights for anyone in the UK, they are honorifics, conferred by the will of the sovereign, by whatever means he/she sees fit to use. LP, royal warrant, or simple statement.

The 1917 LP stands, but I'm wondering if behind the scenes CIII has already indicated he intends to override it. Hence, the official webpages still standing with Archie and Lilibet's previous 'titles'. We will soon find out, as the Sussex team can't seem to keep anything under wraps that concerns them....perhaps the Royal Webmaster is slow. Perhaps not.

R274 To answer your question: TRF lawyers came to the interpetation of the law that since George V was both their grandfather AND someone who HAD BEEN the sovereign at some point in history, they were allow titles at birth. Now this would have caused an interesting pickle had once-king-but-then-abdicated Edward IV (or whatever number he was) had children with Wallis, but that never happened, so they left it alone.

[quote}...but Edward and Sophies children are still Princess and Princes. When they are adults they are 100% allowed to use such titles just like the York girls.

R72: no, not necessarily. If QEII made it clear that the Wessex children were to be permanently styled as "Lord" and "Lady" before their birth, at the time of Edward and Sophie's marriage - then that statement would stand until she said otherwise. And I highly doubt she said otherwise, during her lifetime. AND, I highly doubt the new King CIII is going to state otherwise either.

Use of the HRH honorific, and a princely title, are NOT legal rights, conferred by some kind of standing law. They are strictly doled out at the will and whim of the current monarch. This is one of the key, full rights and privileges leftover to the UK monarch from prior ages. He or she has full control over the use or non-use of these designations, and can confer or remore them in a number of ways (mentioned in my prior post just above).

Sophie Wessex made statements that Louise, for example, was entitled to use her HRH Princess title once she turned 18. She was incorrect, sorry to say. Only the reigning monarch can overrule the previously-made statements by QEII re the titles of the Wessex children.

remore = remove in r296, apologies.

Thank you, R295. I couldn't find any source for this but maybe it's in a book that hasn't been digitised or what have you.

Aren't prince and princess of the blood, inherited? It is the styles that are negotiated.?

[quote]Since when dies the sex of the child, as opposed to the sex of the parent, have a beating on that?

There's your answer right there.

The Lillibet gamble was mistimed. It was probably a play to gain the Queen's favour. They didn't expect Charles to be king so soon. They're incapable of seeing more than one move ahead.

R274, good question. I wonder if it's because their elder brother was born when their grandfather King George V was alive and it was considered demeaning to the younger siblings not to be also titled prince/princess. This is the reason why Letters Patent were issued in 2012 so that any children of William and Kate apart from the eldest son could also be titled prince/princess.

Ah, now I've read r295's answer. Yes, that's it, I believe.

I wonder what would happen if Harry and Meghan had a third child. That child would be prince/princess. Would that mean it's older siblings would also retroactively be made prince and princess.

The posts are like bickering over who gets to wear the red fez at the Shriners convention.

Everybody gets to wear a red fez at a Shriner's convention.

It's more like a demolition derby here with those funny little cars the Shriners drive...

American media seems so desperate for Archie and Lillibet to become prince and princess. They were the first to announce it would be automatic and are the ones asking questions why it wasn't.

Meghan and Harry are making their own money and good for them. They have turned their back on the UK. They need to foot the bill for all of their own security in perpetuity. TRF owes them nothing.

R302, Someone described the queen’s LP this way, re William’s kids: The law of primogeniture was changed at some point (after Anne was born. And it wasn’t retroactive) so that a first born would be the heir no matter if the baby was a boy or a girl. I think this must’ve happened when Kate first became pregnant.

But the rule about titles hadn’t changed (a little fuzzy on this part). So if Kate had a girl, ie Charlotte, first, she would be known as Lady Charlotte (great-granddaughter of the monarch) and she would be the heir and future queen. Kate’s next child is a boy, named George. George would automatically be a prince. As a Prince, George would take precedence over a mere Lady whenever they do that ranking stuff like who walks into a state dinner first. But Charlotte was due to be queen one day in this scenario. So to avoid this situation, the queen made all William’s kids princes and princesses.

When I first read this scenario, it made sense, lol, but now I’m confused as to why a male great-grandchild of the monarch would automatically be a prince. I await your scathing replies.

The Princess of Arizona has spoken.

[quote]MEGHAN MCCAIN: No Oprah, Harry and Meghan's truce won't last. Here's why the professional troublemakers won't mind tearing down the monarchy - and why the Palace MUST fight back

[quote]So, is it curtains for the Royals? I'll leave that quandary to my British friends.

[quote]But I do know this: If Harry and Meghan perceive some unconscionable slight, or even if their bank account runs low, they will return to their righteous crusade against the Royal family.

[quote]For all her hand-wringing over reconciliation, Oprah will welcome them back on her show to spew more vicious allegations – without the slightest pushback.

[quote]The progressive stars of the American media will happily usher them back into the fold to tell us all how terrible British (and American) culture really is.

[quote]This is the reality. And if King Charles and Prince William want to have a fighting chance, they better start fighting back.

🕵 Between the snark of the media and Datalounge, is it any wonder that there is so much discord among the Royals ?

It seems she's hell bent on raising Archie and Lilibet in the US, so what do they need British Royal Family titles for exactly?

Because it's so classy, R311 - just like our Megs. btw, Richard Nixon was hoping Prince Charles would start dating (and marry) one of his daughters - Tricia and Julie? Can remember the one he was trying to push on Chuckie.

[quote]R311 It seems she's hell bent on raising Archie and Lilibet in the US

It’s not just her. He was raised in the culturally and socially stifling environment of royal palaces and doesn’t want that full time for his own kids. He sees the damage it does.

Besides which, his own mother wanted to move to California near the end of her life, and he probably sees raising his family being there as some kind of comforting destiny.

I hate that they won on the Prince/Princess. But I think it'll be like Michael Jackson naming his son Prince Michael Jackson II, lol. Prince Archie? Princess Lilibet? With those stupid names, they could be cartoon characters - like two Connecticut (California) Yankees in King Arthur's Court. It will sound like they're 'half in half out' like Beatrice and Eugenie, but they won't have a clue about the family they're a part of.

Oh well, I hope I'm wrong. My personal wishes are a divorce within a couple years and extended holidays with dad in London, at least having some semblance of being a part of the BRF.

R313, there's absolutely no evidence that Diana wanted to move to California, but, if she did, that would show her up to be a terrible mother who would have abandoned her children in another country for the sake of her own pleasure. Is that what you think of her?

I bet Montecito is a far more stifling environment in which to raise those kids than the one they would have grown up in in the UK.

R308, William's children, on their birth, were the children of the heir to the heir. One day their father will become king (and, one day, their eldest sibling king/queen). That's why they were all made HRH from birth.

I don't understand what "HRH" status confers beyond having the title prince or princess.

I guess I assumed it just meant you'd have to be addressed differently - but that doesn't seem important enough to make a stink about (by H&M) so I guess I'm missing something. Like do HRH's automatically get the most advanced security - but, say, a regular prince, without the HRH, wouldn't get it?

It gets you the Royal Scissors when they open a Tesco's, Waitrose or Saintsbury. Gros Grain ribbon.

As we have seen with the children of Andrew and Margaret, titles get you nothing.

I thought they hated being royal? You can't have your cake and eat it too

Seems that CBS also thinks they're Prince/Princess.

Not sure - but I think they have been told they are Prince and Princess. But Harry and Meghan also want HRH - so that they get security. Harry must have lots of anxiety about when Diana no longer received security from the Royals. It didn't go so well.

For the FINAL TIME: Having an HRH does NOT GUARANTEE OR GRANT SECURITY. It won't make a whit of difference if Archie and Lilibet get HRH 10x over: they aren't getting royal security, not living over in America with non-working-royal parents.

Beatrice and Eugenie are HRHs who haven't had security provided to them in years. Now that Andrew isn't using HRH, and is no longer the son of the monarch (is the younger brother), look to have his cut or eliminated soon.

Harry isn't having anxiety over this topic b/c of Diana or anything related to safety issues. He's having conniption fits due to jealously and one-upmanship. He wants his kids to have what his brother's more-important children have, which isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen.

Princess Alexandra of Kent is an HRH, has been all her life, as are both her brothers (Prince Michael and the Duke of Kent), and - guess what? - none of them have royal security.

R324, that’s because they’re not POC and Global Humanitarians and media billionaires.

Chuckie needs to reinstate Diana's HRH posthumously so that Wills has an HRH mother.

I'm pretty sure Willz said years ago his first act on becoming King would be to restore his Mum's HRH.

Chuckie needs the good PR now that he is being portrayed as so prissy.

[But the desk WAS small]

When they each turn16 they can take it upon themselves to get the title of Emancipated Minor.

R327 Will was a little kid then and his mother was using him as her shoulder to cry on.

Why would Harry's kids have titles? They live in California. We don't have titles. Is Meghan trying to emulate Princess Zsa Zsa Gabor?? Certainly a role model for her as the only reason Zsa Zsa was famous was due to her marriages.

William might have restored her HRH if she was alive; it ain't happening now

Prince Archie just sounds wrong.

I can’t believe they gave their kids such trashy names.

Between the trashy kids’ names, being rude to the help, and grubby, grabby body language, Meghan really is the trash trifecta.

They'll thank mom that they weren't relegated to a life of cutting ribbons and shaking hands in Treacledillyham.

"I'm pretty sure Willz said years ago his first act on becoming King would be to restore his Mum's HRH." - Did he actually say this? Or is this just another one of those things that he allegedly said although no one ever heard him say it, as is the case with a lot of things relating to the royal family?

r336.This sounds like something Burrell would make up to me. Mr fantasist.

What’s the point of restoring the HRH of a dead woman? She got a statue. Let it go.

Gasp! GASP!!

Anyway...

r294, Meghan said in the infamous interview that it had already been decided back then. She also mentioned that they refused to announce it or make it clear, and she never said who, specifically, made the decision.

[quote]...what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

[quote]...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...I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

[quote]Harry isn't having anxiety over this topic b/c of Diana or anything related to safety issues. He's having conniption fits due to jealously and one-upmanship.

More fantasy from the people emotionally addicted to the idea of Harry and Meghan being the most evil people in the world.

Even the Oprah interview you shit your pants over on a daily basis, Meghan said "if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe" regardless of whether he was a prince or not. Her understanding was that he would get protection if he was a prince, and obviously that's not true, but she said that even if he wasn't going to be a prince, he still needed protection.

On top of all that, Harry spoke about protection from the media long before he even met Meghan. To say that he doesn't care about protection is just a lie. It's a lie you want to be true.

I think Charles is dooming the monarchy because the more Charles pares it down the more people are going to think it isn’t anything special anymore and that Charles really isn’t needed either, or William.

Is "protection from the media" the same thing as security, r341?

R341, Archie already HAS protection. It's just not supplied by the British taxpayer or the Crown or the US government or whomever. Nobody is denying them security. We just don't understand why they can't continue to pay for it themselves.

Complete bullshit, R341. She's friends with Princess Eugenie who IS a princess and an HRH. Eugenie does not get security. Harry, as dumb as he is, knows that just being a prince and an HRH doesn't get you security. He's been royal his entire life, so he should know that not all of the princes and princesses get security. And WTF is protection from the media? Being protected from having your feefees hurt?

Sorry, LSA visitor, Meghan wanted prince/princess titles for her kids because it makes her feel important and because that is the only way she and her husband make money nowadays (their association with royalty). That's why she uses "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" in everything she does. For someone who doesn't care about titles and hates the Royal Family, it sure seems like she loves using that title. As non working royals, they were not supposed to be using their titles to make money.

[quote]the only reason Zsa Zsa was famous was due to her marriages.

???

But dahling, I vas a movie star!

I didn't say he didn't, r344. You're talking about something completely different than what I was addressing.

I used to think you guys couldn't follow conversations worth a damn, but now I think you purposely misrepresent what people have said so you can reply to what you WISH had been said, not what really HAD been said.

This is especially true with your comment, because I remember what you guys said when Harry tried to pay for extra protection when he and the family came to London. You weren't saying "why doesn't he just pay for his own?" then. You were saying he didn't need it at all. What you say and the stories you tell change from post to post.

I go back to the tweet the VP of Sunshine Sachs put out just as they left the Royal family and how Meghan wanted to be an internationally famous celeb, not perform drab good deeds as a royal, making Big Bucks like the Kardashians do. That's Meghan in a nutshell. She's basically a Real Housewife and I assume that's where she'll end up.

I'm just laughing at OP and all the haters that claimed to know the RF and swore that Harry and Meghan's children will get nothing. The excuses are even funnier. Face it, things aren't at all what they seem. I mean that with regards to how nice or how mean Meghan, Harry, and the royal family may be. I think everything and everyone of these people are somewhere in the middle, we are just fed a lot of noise from the extremes with praise or contempt.

Best to just wait and see when it comes to family drama.

The Harry's still have titles, just no new ones.

What have Harry's children got, r349?

Terrible parents, and years of therapy awaiting them in the future R351.

Prince and Princess r349. As of last week they were commoners, now they are royal Princes of the United Kingdom. That's a nice promotion! Not HRHs but even their parents aren't using their HRH titles so this is a perfect compromise. Cost the UK and Crown nothing to honor the family's rules on the prince and princess titles so why be petty? They chose to be mature about this and it's good PR.

Earlier in this thread, people were arguing that the RF wouldn't grant them the Prince and Princess titles because of a loophole that can be used to argue that "since they weren't born into these titles so may not get them". Then the posters were gleeful like OP. It was a stretch and I'm happy to see the RF not play those games.

So they came to perfect compromise. Harry's children are a Prince and Princess of the UK, like Edward's kids. Not HRHs but they live in CA, the monarchy is slimming down, and they wont be in the royal inner circle so I think it's perfect.

At first, I didn't want H&M's kids to get titles. I think just because I'm angry at H&M and their nasty behavior.

But now I'm glad the little ones will always have something special, of their very own. I have a feeling their lives will be difficult, with their mentally ill parents. I hope I'm wrong and things go well for them - you never know. But neither parent seems very stable or even compassionate. I have a slight worry that Meghan will be jealous of Lilibet's title of princess - but I can never figure out how all that works.

Is Meghan also the Princess Henry as well as Duchess of Sussex? Or would she be if she divorced?

They don't have Prince and Princess yet. With all the leaks, I am sure they will get them sans HRH, but the line of succession still have Master and Miss as their titles. The Palace said no decisions will be made during the mourning period. I'm sure Charles is dangling the titles for behavior. If I were Charles, I *might* give in on the HRH Prince/Princesss for an NDA from Meghan. Meghan said she "didn't sign anything that said she couldn't talk" and that she discovered her dusty old diary "at the bottom of the drawer at Frogmore while packing". Until those NDA's are signed and I personally saw that diary hit the incinerator, Master and Miss they would stay.

R353 James and Louise, Edward's kids are grandchildren of a monarch and they aren't Prince and Princess.

Are H&M still thinking they will try to start their own "alternative royal family?" Maybe that's why they are trying to score some titles and HRHs.

Hopefully the Markles will latch onto some truly flush gravy train so the kids get to be in super posh schools. They will need to be well insulated & isolated from peers who will taunt them constantly with Princey Archie & Princessa Lilibutt. Kids can be cruel. Imagine if Haz & Meg. fill their heads with ego about how they are royal & they try to swan around other kids. They will both need karate lessons.

They are not behaving though. They have used TQ's death as a huge PR blitz to keep their names in the headlines. They are leaking all kinds of shit in order to try to get what they want. Their minions have been attacking the royal family this entire time. I hope Charles tells them to fuck off back to Montecito.

It also seems like the sewage squad have parked their sagging, ginormous asses on this forum as of late.

Charles was the direct heir and Prince of Wales and that certainly didn't protect him from bullying.

Not buying the idea that having those titles will protect the Sussex kids from bullying.

I must be missing something. When was it announced that Archie and Lilibet are going to made prince and princess? Did Charles say this?

R353, having to born the child or grandchild of a monarch or the child of the direct heir in order to be a prince or princess is not a "loophole", it's the rule. The title cannot be given retroactively. Half of the Queen's own grandchildren are not prince/princess or HRH.

r361, No this is bullshit coming straight from the Sux PR.

This was posted in another thread but am doing so again to (hopefully) put an end to things.

By letters patent issued by George V only children and grandchildren of monarch are princes and princesses. At time of their birth neither of Prince Harry's children were grandchildren of HM, the Queen, but great-grandchildren.

The Prince of Wales now HM Charles III means his children and grandchildren also moved up. Prince Harry's children are now princes and princesses, but HM is not as of yet inclined to make them HRH. HM's reasoning is that the style belongs to working royals, which the Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex are not, and certainly neither of their children who haven't even left the nursery.

Prince Harry (likely egged on by the Markle woman) has his nose out of joint because the Queen preemptively made children of Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge (now the Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc...) not only princes and princesses, but royal as well (the HRH).

That situation was different in that Prince William was second in direct line to inherit after his father. Had HM, the Queen not acted Prince William's children would have had status of a duke (IIRC). Eventually yes, when (then) Prince of Wales became king, Cambridge children would have risen up, but no one wanted to wait.

For various reasons PH and MM are continuing to wage war to get what they believe is fair due for their children (the HRH). Prince Harry has made the quest part of his larger mission about "security" for himself and family. How two small children who live thousands of miles away from UK would benefit from being royal in terms of security is not immediately apparent. That is unless PH's next move is to get HM or the Crown to pony up additional funds in aide of providing same.

The Markle woman's motivations are clear; she's pushing for the first mixed race, black or whatever you want to call them British royals.

One really does not understand why Prince Harry continues to beat this dead horse.

His children are American citizens IIRC so there isn't even spaces on various official papers for "HRH" designation as say with British or even other passports issue in Europe.

Unless the Sussexes plan on sending one or both of their children to school in UK, the HRH isn't going to do much good elsewhere. Even within UK great pains are taken when any royal attends school that they aren't given much deference because of their birth. It's not like other children are going to crane their necks for Archie or Lilibet.

R341, r347 You keep saying we're misinterpreting what she said: "Ok, well, he needs to be safe". You are taking that sentence literally. We are reading the subtext.

"He needs to be safe" like "He needs to wear a seat belt in the car"? " He needs to wear a helmet when he's on a bicycle"? Is she the only mother in creation who thinks well, my son is not a prince but he needs to be safe? And yet, she's the only mother whose husband is suing to have royal protection officers assigned to them when they've in the UK despite not being working members of the BRF anymore..

Let’s assume that Harry gets his security paid for by the British taxpayer. Then what’s next? What will he expect after that?

No, I'm saying YOU are misreading it, r365. I don't know who the "we" is you are referring to, but as far as I can see, you're the only one who thinks I said that Archie never had security. I never said that.

[quote]Not buying the idea that having those titles will protect the Sussex kids from bullying.

I don't think Meghan said that, though. She did somehow get the idea that the amount of protection members of the royal family got was based on their titles.

Obviously that's not true, because Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security back in 2011.

It was never about security - that was just an excuse. It was about status. Or really relative status - in other words, seething jealousy of Kate. And if Kate disappeared, she'd move on to her next target. She's a hate machine.

The “safe” business seems like some sort of dog whistle, like Meghan being “denied access to healthcare.”

Do we have a date when Archie and Lilbet finally get titties? This seems like cruel and unusual punishment, even for the royals.

Why would their kids get titles as Prince and Princess? Edward and Sophie's kids are a Viscount and a Lady. And isn't Archie already the Viscount of Dumbarton?

It would be better for their kids not to have them as they will never be part of British national life.

Of the Queen's grandchildren Zara,Peter,Louise and James have been able to have relatively private childhoods. By being princesses, Beatrice and Eugenie drew more media attention,particularly in their teens and twenties and some of it was really brutal.( remember Bea at 16 in her bikini?)

R371 I know that was a typo but Im laughing

There was a YouTube show about media coverage of Bea and Eugenie and how the media and the public hated them. I hadn't realized there was so much criticism of them, Meghan's nothing compared to what they went through. The media and the public have always loathed Andrew and of course Fergie. Meghan and Harry were just the new Andrew and Fergie. Louis better watch out in the future!

r372 Edward's children are also Prince and Princess. You never hear them called that because royal titles such as Duke and Earl rank above Prince and Princess. You use your highest rank.

King/Queen > Prince of Wales > Royal Duke > Royal Earl > Royal Prince/Princess > Regular Duke > etc.

Without titles, they can grow up as normal kids. They might appreciate that, y'know?

Princess Anne kept her children out of the limelight by leaving them without titles.

Have Prince William and other grandkids seemed extra happy to you? They seem unhappy to me. There's too much stress from being watched and recorded all the time. While Harry has been in the US, he isn't given much importance, BUT that has made him truly FREE. Hasn't it?

Until Harry comes to grips with the fact that he is never going to one-up his brother, he will never truly be free.

From what we've seen, it's a safe bet Meghan is the type to never give up anything she or in this case her children are "entitled" to, pun intended.

Meghan's gotta merch those titles!

[quote]Edward's children are also Prince and Princess. You never hear them called that because royal titles such as Duke and Earl rank above Prince and Princess.

You never hear them called that because they were styled as children of an Earl from birth, per order of the Queen at the time of their parents' marriage. They technically are not Prince or Princess, but Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. The Queen overrode the LP of 1917 with her public statement in 1999.

[quote]royal titles such as Duke and Earl rank above Prince and Princess

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

He adds nothing to the royal family. He is a big zero, a dumb cunt. He doesn't contribute anything of value. why should he get any security or his kids benefit? Why should the taxpayers pay for this useless cunt? Just cut him loose, better off that way.

I don't understand why these two idiots think they need royal titles in Califuckingfornia. This is the U.S. we don't do titles. I wish they would go back to Britain or Canada or wherever.

[quote]r378 Until Harry comes to grips with the fact that he is never going to one-up his brother, he will never truly be free.

What makes you think Harry wants to? He has a more pleasant life than William, all told, which despite its luxury and (perceived) glamour is really one of drudgery.

R385 I dunno, at least William's life is one of purpose and service. Not the worst thing.

The same service and purpose offered to Harry. He said no thanks to that boring constricted wife. If they had stayed the media likely wouldn't have let up on Meghan. Yeah, they hound them, but they are in America which isn't as hostile to those two. They have a beautiful home in sunny CA. They have a lower profile than they did in the UK. They get to pick and choose which charities to support.

DL wants me to believe that they are miserable, but the CA weather alone can make a Brit much happier in life.

R385. If Harry and Meghan are happy, they have an odd way of showing it. When I’m doing well I don’t botch endlessly about things in the past. Meghan can’t shut up about what was effectively a supposedly bad internship and a supposedly annoying family she lived near for a year-and-a-half.

Let’s call her a realist.

Meghan hasn’t spilled her guts about ALL she went through with those fucked up inlaws. Let’s be honest!

She’s touched on uncomfortable things and nice things. She’s a modern American woman and if that makes the royals blanche and piss their pants, okay. Welcome to the 21st Century.

r387, for good climate and food Portugal is far closer if that was all they wanted. They wanted California to get rich, like people have for over a century.

Don't claim they are keeping a low profile. They just embarked on a pretend " royal tour" and were too busy to take up the invitation to Balmoral to visit the Queen. Now they are "mourning" her?

They are a pair of twats.

Yeah Meghan has led such an exemplary life and came from such a highly functional family, what she saw probably did make her “blanche”.

In a couple of years the press would have got bored if they just did the Princess Anne stuff. They wanted fame more than anything,

Funnily enough, many people of color are sensitive to racist environments.

R394. Interesting insight.

I know. It flummoxes the BRF.

Really? Maybe we can help them. What do they need to do?

For starters, ditch the blackamoor pins, and call out those who cruelly wear them to diminish others?

Though that would require empathy, which seems to be in short supply in that family.

That’s a devastating list. Thanks so much for compiling it.

Why are you so obsessed with the nearly-80-year-old wife of the Queen's cousin, r398? She's barely part of the royal family. I hardly know my grandmother's cousins let alone her cousins' spouses.

The really appalling thing is not that one old biddy did this, but that not one of the other royals pulled her aside to essentially say, “That’s not cool, take it OFF.”

Everyone acting like nothing was going on was just gaslighting.

Did what, r401? Do you even know what happened, if anything happened?

R401. Definitely. Why hasn’t there been a three-year national discussion of this matter?

By “Everyone acting like nothing was going on was just gaslighting,” I mean at the luncheon where it happened.

And even afterwards none of the senior royals stepped up and said, “That was an embarrassment. We’re sorry it happened.”

How did Princess Michael of Kent's wearing of the brooch actually affect Meghan?

^^ are you really that culturally clueless?

Evidently I am, so please indulge me. How did it affect her?

Here is an article that may help you, from [italic]House Beautiful.[/italic]

[quote]One of those actions is to call out art and decor that, no matter its stated intention, is rooted in racism or bigotry. Among them: the Blackamoor, a depiction of a dark-skinned person—generally a slave or servant—of Moorish descent, which is used as ornamentation. Blackamoors can be found in the form of jewelry or in pieces of home decor. No matter the context or time period of the object, though, the motif is one that is undeniably damaging.

[quote]“They might have become synonymous with Old World luxury, but these items exploited servitude as ornamentation,” says Adrienne L. Childs, PhD, an art historian, curator, and author of the forthcoming book ‘Ornamental Blackness: The Black Body in European Decorative Arts.’

[quote] […] While collectors might argue that an antique Blackamoor figurine is more a celebration of 18th century European craftsmanship than an endorsement of the slave trade, the way they represent Black bodies is unquestionably grotesque. “The fine materials, the ‘beauty’ of these things, they all divert from the very troubling nature of what you’re really seeing, which is an enslaved body,” says Childs.

Though the article is focused mostly on the furniture style, the Blackamoor jewelry is part of the same historic pack and parcel (as they acknowledge in the opening of the piece, and elaborate on further.) Had it not been offensive to wear such a racially charged pin when “greeting” a person of mixed race into your family, there wouldn’t have been such an uproar in the press.

I’m surprised you don’t know this, if indeed you don’t.

Does r408 think this would have been a suitable engagement gift to send to Meghan Markle?

R408, do you think the Queen's cousin's wife deliberately wore that brooch to denigrate (light-skinned, mixed-race) Meghan or is it possible that she just wore it without having read that House Beautiful article and therefore didn't realise that it was going to trigger Meghan?

You know this poster is trolling, right? They're just trying to keep you on the hook so you'll continue to respond. Everything they've posted has been a question. "What happened? Why are you so obsessed with some old cousin? Why do you think it's racist? How did it affect her?"

You have to stop responding to people like that. Please, you need to value your time, and not waste it on a rightwing question troll.

R408, I'm still none the wiser as to how this would have actually been so terrible for Meghan unless she was already acquainted with the idea that these pieces are offensive. Which most people weren't, by the way. What is most likely is that Princess Michael was seen wearing the brooch and then some in the press/on Twitter went digging until they found that yes, turns out these things are considered offensive!

It's like the term, "master bedroom" - no-one is offended except those who've decided that, all of a sudden, they are.

[quote]R412 I'm still none the wiser as to how this would have actually been so terrible for Meghan

Well, my goodness, that’s a real [italic]White Girl Problem[/italic] you find yourself in, isn’t it?

Best of luck with that!

How was it "terrible" for her r413? Did Meghan start having panic attacks? Was it the equivalent of being called the n-word?

In a way, I hope the kids do get titles because you know that Megs will use them at every ridiculous opportunity just like she insists that she be credited with her full title.

Perhaps Princess Michael wore the brooch to get attention? Perhaps she was merching the brooch for some extra money? Perhaps she was beating Meghan at her own game?

I’d go with the attention theory. Here we are still talking about it. Princess Michael was always a figure in the background.

And if you look at the original picture, it looks like she’s wearing it on her raincoat, which she probably took off once she went inside. Meghan may never have seen the brooch at the actual event.

And she apologized for wearing it, so why are we talking about it years later?

Because someone wants to keep waving the bloody shirt forever?

I cannot believe with all this access to info. People still choose to stay dub & even dumber!

The Moors were the reason Europe was the bastion of civility, culture & learning.

When they invaded because of the superb warriors they were, they civilized Europe. They brought science, learning & much more to those they conquered they were Kings, FFS, not slaves.

The link I have added is a black history link, BTW.

Read something beside Tik Tok & Porn sites, folks..fear not information & history..they will not harm you

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Princess Michael's brooch supposed to be one of the Three Kings, the Magi? It was a Christmas party. I mean, I wouldn't have done it just because of how crazy sensitive everyone is now, but is a bejeweled KING really so bad?

Stupidly thoughtless or deliberate, we don't know r419. Anyway, she is barely related to H. The crazies do ,however, look for racism in the strangest places. Jan Moir ( who is a nasty bitch so I hate to defend) used the word niggling. Old word for irritating or persistently annoying, as in back pain say. They still keep claiming it's racism because they are thick.

So let me get this straight. Ancient wife of Queen's cousin wears some brooch that she didn't necessarily know is racist, apologizes for wearing it, and we're still talking about this as "proof" that the RF is hopelessly racist. The apparently perfect Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform on Halloween (or whenever) and called someone a "our little Paki friend" and "raghead." He also apologized. That's forgiven and forgotten, even though he should have absolutely known better as a young person. Sorry Sussex Squad, your pathetic attempts to make Harry and Meghan victims will not succeed.

Let them play victim all they like back in the good Old USA...Byeee

. Maybe they can ask Juicy Smollett to tell them where to get their camera ready nooses.

Meghan Markle who claims to have known nothing about the BRF and said that she didn’t know how popular Harry was in the US because she didn’t Google him, knew the history behind Blackamoor?

Sure, Jan.

We've moved on...

Now according to the Times, Harry is "in despair" about the letters E. R. being taken off his uniform - but not off Andrew's, dammit!

Next time you're on the playground, throw sand in his face, Harry! Oh wait, if you leave the harridan and go back home, he may be your only friend. So be brave and suck it up! We all know what a courageous chap you are

BTW, speaking of ginger courage, Neil Sean said that Meghan wrote a long hand-written letter to King Charles asking for a one-on-one meeting, just the two of them! Because, uh, we know who's really in charge in that marriage!

From the article referenced above:

"However, the Duke of Sussex is understood to have been devastated to find his grandmother's initials had been stripped from the shoulder of his uniform, The Sunday Times reports. The initials were not removed from Prince William's uniform. Harry's despair is understood to largely centre around Prince Andrew, who is also no longer a working royal, having retained the initials on his vice-admiral’s uniform as the Queen's children held a vigil on Friday night… such was his despair, Harry is said to have considered wearing a morning suit as they were leaving in order to avoid the embarrassment last night."

* oops - not Prince Andrew - it was Prince William! Quelle horreur!

* oops #2 - it's both! Sorry for the spam.

But by the way, do you think Meghan plans to seduce Charles in their one-on-one? (assuming it's granted - do you think it will be?)

Interesting, she wants time to "explain things directly". So Oprah interview, part II, with the king.

Probably should have her do the presentation to one of KC's aides before the time is wasted.

SO, about this supposed letter.

She wants a private meeting with Charles, but she called up her mouthpiece Gayle King to report on his private telephone call to his son right after Big O's broadcast?

M wants privacy but refuses to let others have their privacy.

Hypocrite.

Please, for the love of god, Charles, do not meet with Meghan. She knows these are turbulent times and she's going in for the kill.

If Charles is dumb enough to be willing to meet her, Camilla'll cut her off at the knees.

Is requesting to speak with one’s father in law really so odd?

R432 when he's speaking to Biden, Macron, every King in Europe and the Middle East and Japan, every Prime Minister from the Commonwealth, he's kinda too busy to speak to his lying daughter-in-law.

Their titles are prop, one and prop two.

-Meagan

[quote]432 Is requesting to speak with one’s father in law really so odd?

[quote]R433 when he's speaking to Biden, Macron, every King in Europe and the Middle East and Japan, every Prime Minister from the Commonwealth, he's kinda too busy to speak to his lying daughter-in-law.

Well, I hardly think she expects to speak with him by midnight, tonight!

I’m guessing reaching him by phone isn’t the way it works, so if she wants to discuss family matters with the head of the family, her father in law, a written request for a meeting seems the correct procedure.

It does make one appreciate why Harry and Meghan wouldn’t want to raise their kids in an environment where you have to present immediate family with a written request to speak with them.

Well, R435, considering that she regularly throws said family under the bus on international broadcasts, I would say that she should make her case in writing and Charles should evaluate it very carefully. Not your average daughter-in-law.

I guess. You’d just hope Charles is big enough to rise above the (inflated) drama and get in with family affairs. He’s expected to be an expert in diplomacy now.

Was he a close, loving father to his sons, by most reports?

ON with family affairs - not IN (!!)

Archie is entitled to use his father's subsidiary title of Earl of Dumbarton and is heir to the Dukedom of Sussex. Harry and Megan chose not to use it as it would interfere with their complaining. It's no different than Prince Edward's son using his subsidiary title of Viscount Severn. For that matter, an Earl is above a Viscount as far as titles go (Duke, Earl (Count), Viscount).

A Marquis is below a duke and above an earl. Have they dispensed with that Frenchified title? Merci, William the Conqueror.

They have titles ~ Master and Miss. That's all they need at their age.

Can't you just see Prince Archie (and Meghan would insist everybody call him that) at recess on the playground of an American elementary school? That kid would get his head shoved down a toilet every day.

The US Tabloids will probably start calling the kids prince and princess because they think those titles will make people more interested in them.

It will be interesting to see if the Sussexes use those titles when they refer to their kids in their own press releases.

Do redheads still come in for so much harassment? Probably more than blacks do.

r442, not if he collected for neighborhood knighthoods...

R444, there doesn’t seem to be as much teasing in general anymore. Kids don’t get teased for wearing glasses or braces anymore. I’ve heard middle schools kids say “gingers have no souls” often, but that’s about it.

Now that they have social media, the “bullying” seems to be more of what my mother would call “ostracizing”; leaving kids out.

It's so anachronistic that they refer to Zara Tindall as "Mrs. Michael Tindall."

I want a frothy drawing room comedy called [italic]No Time for Titles.

Dear Meg Fans:

It's like this. We hate them because they were given millions they did nothing to earn, and they whined because it wasn't billions!

Consider that.

THIS

"And even afterwards none of the senior royals stepped up and said, “That was an embarrassment. We’re sorry it happened.”"

R404 etc., there's something you don't understand and it's this: Royalty does NOT apologize to C-list actresses. Not even when the royalty is completely and utterly in the wrong!

They live by "Never complain, never explain", and aren't given to apologizing to their peers, and certainly not to little climbers like that girl from American TV. No, they see if the jumped-up C-lister can keep her poise when indirectly insulted, because face it, if she's still there next week or next month, Phillip is going to insult her to her face and it wouldn't do if she made a scene. No, if a gel wants to marry a bloody royal, she'd better have a damn thick skin, and not just because of Phillip, it's because for the first few years she's going to get the kind of cold shoulders that Katie and Cam got! If she can't stick it out, well, she'd be happier back among the middle classes, wouldn't she.

"climber" "c-list", remind me what any of these royals did that is impressive or admirable? Phillip was in the war like a huge number of men of his generation who were anonymous and that's about it. These are pointless silly people born into a reality show with a lot of property attached. If you took that away from them they'd quickly become as ridiculous as the pretender to the Italian and French thrones are today.

Living relics from a by-gone era, though not to be discounted in any way. The British Empire had been the greatest empire the world has ever known. A major if not THE world power before WWII. The represent an impressive national history, and they can trace their lineage back over a thousand years to the first King of England, Athelstan, in 927ad. Very, very interesting. And to add to all that - they're highly successful and calculating in their scheme to remain relevant - to ensure the survival of the Monarchy. Again, very interesting.

The monarchy will survive in a slimmed down England.

R452, I'm not saying that the royals have any right to treat C-list actresses and other climbers that way, just that in the real world they do.

And she absolutely is a climber, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Social mobility is good, although I don't think Harry likes downward mobility as much as he thought he would.

Philip to Harry: "You step out with showgirls, you don't marry them."

Meghan could have become a formidable presence in the BRF if she had toughened up and stuck it out, especially if she had embedded herself and Harry as the go-to royals for Commonwealth functions, which are becoming increasingly important. She could really have given Princess Grace a run for her money in the actress-turned-princess category.

If she'd also managed to stabilize Harry and get along with her in-laws, they'd have showered her with family orders, high-end properties, and the best lifetime loans from the royal jewel vault. Meghan has shown that she has no talent for the long game, and you have to have that to survive and thrive in the BRF.

Spot on R457 and this is never more apparent than now.

I think Meghan had been chasing fame for so long and been frustratingly unsuccessful, when she hit the jackpot with Harry, she let all her inner demons - the ones she'd had to reign in when she was a starlet reaching her sell-by date - go on a rampage. I think seriously she is mentally disturbed as is Harry. It's like when two alcoholics marry: there's nobody to run the store. She and Harry together are a deadly combination. Their kids are going to have a helluva Mommie Dearest book to write someday.

"I think Meghan had been chasing fame for so long and been frustratingly unsuccessful, when she hit the jackpot with Harry, she let all her inner demons"

A common process in Hollywood, but one which isn't accepted in Royal circles! No, a commoner who marries into royalty is expected to be humble and learn the ropes, and to put up with a bit of thoughtlessness and hazing, or year after year of that shit, before they're accepted as One Of Us.

Seriously, I think that one of the reasons she made such a hash of being a working royal and fitting in, was that she married Harry on the understanding that they'd be leaving. So she really had no motivation to learn the royal ropes, which explains why she made such a hash of things in Britain. But what's her excuse for making a hash of things in Montecito?

Meghan had no intention of being part of the BRF. She married Harry for the attention.

She was given a patronage at the National Theatre. Can you imagine the influence she could have had in that position? She traded it all for a tacky house in California, an appearance on Oprah and the pretense that she has influence at the United Nations.

R461 rather I imagine a patronage at the Nat would have been humiliating for her. The actors at the Nat are classically-trained actors who earned their stripes in repertory. They would have snubbed her.

They would have snubbed her behind her back, but would have had to curtsy to her at every gala performance.

Can’t you just imagine?

What the feck? Why is Markle sponsoring another charity performance? It’s the third one this month! Do I really have to attend?

R335 Instead, Archie and Lilibet will be relegated to years of therapy and possible stints in rehab.

Just read about what a horror show his couple was. How they screamed at the staff...they can fuck off and die.

The writing was on the wall in that engagement interview where she blabbered about her plans for "modernizing the Royal Family" or "modernizing the Monarchy," or something like that. Like she was going to assume a prominent role in the doings of a centuries-old European institution she'd been acquainted with for like five minutes as the foreign TV actress girlfriend of the future King's second son. The presumption was flabbergasting, as well as the sheer crude ignorance. When you go live in a foreign culture you know nothing about, your role for the first few years is to shut up and learn. Particularly when you're going into what's to be a job. Your role is to zip it up, do what you're told, make yourself useful if not indispensable, and gradually and incrementally find a niche that's complementary to your affinities and strengths while respecting and playing well with the larger institution. What a life she could have had.

Meghan is a huge asshole, but she has practically no family and no stability.

I get very dark vibes from both Thomas and Doria. Doria abandoned her. It’s not like she could call her mom up and have a good cry when things were tough.

Some people survive that, and some become damaged to the point of pathology.

Yeah, Doria doesn't seem particularly maternal. When they were in the UK, Doria was photographed chilling in L.A. Your average grandmother would be thrilled to watch (or at least help in watching) the kids while their parents are out of the country. She's not relatively young, she's in shape - so I'm sure she can do it.

*she's relatively young