Harry & Meghan are officially invited to Coronation

They should go out of respect for Harry's dad. Its still his father, and there are worst people in their world. Harry should accept the royal family is part of his cultural roots and legacy forvever.

They both need to go fuck themselves, which will please everyone who is bored with them. That's almost everyone.

Heh! Well played, Palace. No one wants them here and they know it. It’s a win-win for Palace and lose-lose for H/M. My guess is Harry will come solo. That’s their best move… but they’re not know for strategic smarts so who knows.

It's a State Occasion not a family get together. There is no reason to invite them.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were not invited to the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

HAHA, R1! These two have no respect for his dad or anybody else. I hope they go and the English public treat them with much deserved raucous scorn.

Sure, they should be invited. And they should also pay their own way.

Meghan should climb on to the blue todger tonight so she can use morning sickness as the reason that Harry is attending without her.

King George IV quite famously excluded his Wife from his Coronation.

^ I'm betting she was a cunt

[quote]I hope they go and the English public treat them with much deserved raucous scorn.

They'll bring the kids to use as shields from public scorn; as in 'how dare you scorn us and ostracize our innocent children in front of the entire world!' On that front, their indignation will even precede their arrival. Remember, they only have victimization to merch now.

The children will be used as pawns to force a temporary family reunion with every perceived slight duly noted for Gayle King who will be waiting on the other side of customs at LAX with a full phalanx of cameras and mics to further the victim narrative.

Invited? That should be a given.

There will ve no "family reunion" of any kind.

What r11 said.

There was never any doubt they'd be invited.

Go or No. They will be The Story. Win Win for the Sussexes!

R2 But not you Hyacinth. You're still here like clockwork on every thread . Multiple posting and multiple WWing your own blather to validate your ravings. Self awareness is not derangers strong suit. Is it hon?

Harry will say due to Meghan's pregnancy she will not attend and if is wife does not go then he ain't going. As any good husband should. The Windsor's will be tone deaf per usual but then what would the Windsor's know about good husbands?

These two are so boring and such an embarrassment. Harry is not the brightest bulb in the box and he is definitely being led around by the nose (or royal willy) by MM who has shown herself to have no class. They should be cut off entirely. They'll always have their neighbor Oprah in Montecito unless she drops them for someone more interesting

The coronation "save the date" message to the Sussices didn't even come from King Charles. It came from his office staff.

HA!

Harry and Markle ruin everything. I hope they DO NOT attend.

r10, the Gayle King sentence has me in stictches. Lawd, that was funny.

Vell said R12! Indeed zer vill be none!

Chris Rock brilliantly rips into Will Smith, Meghan Markle and wokeness.

I hope they go. Kate could use Meghan’s shoulder to cry on what with all her best friends turned her husband’s mistresses. Who is she to lean upon, Queen Harlot in waiting?

R15 you’re really trying to make “Hyacinth” happen, aren’t you?

[quote]They both need to go fuck themselves, which will please everyone who is bored with them. That's almost everyone.

The ability of you royalist twats to stay in a perpetual dual state of outrage and boredom fascinates me.

Hope Meg doesn't forget to pack Peg.

R22 Derangers/Deplorables cum all over themselves when "those good articulate ones": validate their racism. Perhaps you can appoint Rock to the House Of Lords or Supreme Court?

Who wants them there ? NOBODY...

I do, r28.

^^^ SMEGS

I wish they were not invited, and I hope they do not attend. They put a damper over everything they do and wherever they appear.

But here's my prediction: These two whiny, lying grifting, narcissists wouldn't miss this coronation for the world. They will be there. There is no way in hell that they will miss one of the biggest worldwide, almost-once-in-a lifetime global events ever. They will attend. They are two of a kind, and if there is any money, exposure, fame, notoriety and relevance to be had to add to their bank account, Harry won't miss it, and Markle knows exactly where the camera is at all times.

They can play all the games they want about "not knowing if they will attend." Trust me, they're going. In fact, they probably already know what they're wearing. And they probably already signed a new deal with Netflix to spill the dirt on the entire royal family and discuss who treated them like shit and wouldn't talk to them while they were there.

You heard it here first. They're going.

R17 Oprah sold her house in Montecito.

[quote]They should go out of respect for Harry's dad. Its still his father, and there are worst people in their world.

Yes, Harry and Meghan would be two examples of people who are far worse.

I wish there was an old-fashioned parade for Harry and Meghan. The kind where they taken through the streets in a cart and the public is allowed/encouraged to throw excrement and rotten food at them.

I think Meghan wants to go more than Harry

Has sassy little George commented?

She should bring her chickens and organic self and leave Harry at home with the kids.

^^No one would say she's black in that photo.

Harry paying tribute to an alleged bully who until a few years ago was living in a rental in Toronto while making regular trips to London to try and snare a dumb and gullible multimillionaire celebrity. Didn't she do well...

I do not have a personal opinion on the matter. However, it is ultimately up to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to decide whether or not they will attend the coronation, and it is not appropriate to speculate on their personal decisions. It is important to respect their privacy and allow them to make choices that are best for themselves and their family.

^^ChatBot R40 has spoken.

Between the constant links to nobodies on Twitter and IG, the trollbots, the Reface posts, and the Chatbot posts, this place has turned into a joke.

The Megstans like to use chat ai because it is usually very kind about Meghan and Harry.

But, because the Megstans are too stupis to realise how this kind of AI actually works, they don't realise that the very FACT that the AI is always kind about the Harkles is absolute proof that the media coverage the pair have received has beenby and large, very kind. AI takes a kind of 'average' of what has been written about a given subject on the internet, usually major sites such as newspapers etc., and regurgitates a summary.

Every time a Sewage Squad member posts an AI answer that is nice or neutral about the pair, they are merely confirming that the couple is lying about their "awful" media treatment over the last 4 years.

Indeed, the vast majority of articles written about them has been VERY kind and only turned fairly recently. Even after the Oprah interview last year, the papers were largely velvet-gloved, and people got fired for so much as disbelieving her, criticising them (Piers Morgan), or even just for supporting someone who criticised them (Sharon Osborne).

Posting Markle-related AI chat is hardly the 'win' the mental midgets of the Sussex Squad think it is.

^^^'too stupid', just like my butterfingers

I hope Meghan will wear something culturally appropriate like this to acknowledge her heritage to send a big FU to all of those white people in the BRF that tried to force her and her children to the back of the bus.

If Harry were to attend alone, nobody would speak to him and that would be seriously awkward. He can't rely on talking to Eugenie ALL the time, and they won't seat him near her.

Remember how he was just standing around isolated at Philip's funeral until Kate struck up a conversation with him? She won't be doing that again.

Meghan is beyond annoying but I don't believe for one second Kate isn't a cold, calculating and conniving bitch too. Didn't she choose her school based on hoping to meet Will and where he was attending. That is most unbecoming and telling.

R46 isn’t she also 43% Nigerian? Maybe Erica Badu could lend her something to wear in homage to her strong African roots, including a very tall turban to block everybody’s view.

Kate will be in all white and, I hope, like Camilla, positively dripping in diamonds.

I really want the Harkles there now.

R47 she might be, but she has done her job in the firm well for years now and no one has complained about her. Markle imploded after a few months.

r47 Kate got the grades for Edinburgh but not for Oxbridge, so she went to Edinburgh. After Oxbridge it's the best university in the country (aside from Imperial which is for STEM subjects). What was she supposed to do, take her top grades and go to some polytechnic? Edinburgh was the obvious choice.

^^^^^St. Andrews, not Edinburgh, but the same logic applies. She went to the best place her grades got her into.

* And Mummy Camilla is packing all your belongings in garbage bags for your convenience...no need to thank the old cunt...

[quote] isn’t she also 43% Nigerian?

Megs scored a free "Discovering My Roots" trip to Malta for herself and her agent by claiming that one of her ancestors was born on the island. Of course it was yet another lie that Meg profited from. Her Nigerian claim is more of the same.

R40 When are they going to respect their own privacy?

By inviting them Charles is rewarding them for their antics. He's left the door wide open for more betrayal and more mischief from them in the future. And Charles will have only himself to blame. In his own way, he's just as stupid and weak as Harry.

R55. I agree with you. But despite being disappointed by Harry, Charles is acting like a loving (or wimpy) father, and he wants his kid there.

William is much more hardcore. He's only Harry's brother and wanted Harry booted. But Charles is taking the high road. However, it's going to come back to bite Charles in the arse. The Markles will just do another interview whining and complaining about their difficult life and how everyone ignored them and made it "toxic." And Harry will not be getting an apology.

If the Markles attend, it's going to be super awkward because no one in the family will talk to them--just like at the queen's jubilee when they stood on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral and everyone ignored them until they finally walked down the stairs and left. Only it will even be worse for the coronation because it's both a solemn and festive occasion.

The Duke and Duchess of Lies will be attending the coronation. They can bitch all they want. They are full of shit. There is no way in hell that they will miss the coronation. Being associated with the royal family is their relevance and their bread and butter money train. If they don't attend--they are nobodies and worthless to the media.

They are going despite their supposed indecision, which is another lie. They can call the royal family racist until the turn blue. They are attending. They are not missing the coronation, the biggest event in the world where their faces will be slapped all over every newspaper and television station around the globe. They will be there, guarantee it.

Meghan has already chosen her coronation robes.

I hope they get pelted with rotten eggs and squishy tomatoes on their way INTO the event.

Are you kidding me? That woman wouldn’t miss it for ANYthing.

R59 Only one bloke I've seen "pelted with rotten eggs" but then I live in the real world.

R49 Camilla's only "job"

I wouldn't speak too soon, r61.

If Harry "The Uk is racist" "I don't like England much" Mountbatten Windsor has the stones (as if) to show up at the Coronation, he may well be forced to sit in that Abbey with rotten egg stench surrounding him.

He doesn't much like England? Well England ( and Scotland, and N. Ireland, and Wales) don't much like Harry either. Which is an understatement. He'll be lucky if he's not treated to an English version of an Italian Charivari.

R63 The only "stench" in the Abbey will be your man-baby's full nappy.

Smeghan is an Expert on stenches, see her poo commercial or read her book "the stench"

The 43 percent Nigerian claim was one more demonstration of her transparently stupid deceptions. Even if she didn’t make up the result, did she not pause and think, “Wait. No one will believe this if I say it. My father has little or no African ancestry. My mother’s family has significant African ancestry but has lived in the US for centuries. Will anyone actually believe that over centuries in the US my mother had almost exclusively Nigerian ancestors so that she ended up 86 percent Nigerian?” She’s so stupid she doesn’t realise the rest of the world isn’t stupid.

Why did Madea Perry have to fly her massive jet to meet w. the Markles all on camera??

Fashion Consult? Is Harry borrowing some togs from Madame Madea & go in drag. Will wearing women's frocks be a new way to deal with his multiple diagnoses. PTSD, ADHD, trauma survivor, entitled asshole, self centered prick?

Is Madea going to do a Netflix highlighting how they have been abused by all & sundry?

The real question why is Madea still hitching his wagon to this shit pile? What have they got on him? Even Orca , Gayle & Whoopi have gone mute regarding them..

So, there we have it. Harry says Meghan “saved him” from the royal family. All those insults she suffered, all the emotional trauma and the lack of warmth and inclusion eventually worked to a glorious purpose: she took a look around, didn’t like what she saw, and pulled his whiny little ass out of the torture chamber he could never have escaped on his own.

And now he occupies a position of safety from which he can lob insults and recommend therapy for all concerned. Except that if he ever really does get over himself and settles into happy obscurity with the kiddos, while the offers to write memoirs and make TV appearance dry up, the wife will go batshit insane with boredom and will begin casting around for new grievances. And, oh, she will find them. And the one that will be closest to hand? Him.

He should be trembling in tearful gratitude that his dad has so magnanimously extended their 15 minutes because if he doesn’t keep her face in the tabloids she will eat him alive.

Invited on a Post-It.

Now the back and forth. The coverage. "WILL THEY SHOW UP?" "MEGHAN ARGUES WITH HUBBY!" "HARRY GOES, NOT MEGHAN!" MEGHAN GOES, LEAVES HARRY IN CALIFORNIA!" "MAID WILL ATTEND INSTEAD OF HARRY AND MEGHAN!"

I am really thinking of just chucking the whole crime family out on an island and dropping food and condoms off once a month.

...but...but...what if CBS makes them a spectacular offer to co-host the festivities with their cheerleader Gayle King?

They could make millions while also being able to critique on live tv everyone and everything including Catherine's outfits. The critiquing would be under the guise of "just doing their jobs" because "they earn their own living".

It could be their foray into becoming a much sought after husband/wife commentating team. Maybe they could get their own show like spouses Kelly Ripa and Mark Consuelos. Instead of Live with Kelly and Mark it could be Stoned with Haz and Meg. Just spit balling here....

R14 look at those two losers

They were always going to be invited. And they will be there. But they will be relegated to background and not given any opportunity to officially be seen with the RF, other than a few press photos that will be released by Buckingham Palace.

r72 It's the stereotypical 'very EXITED open mouthed selfie!'.

The immediate and universal mark of an absolute asshole.

^Loving it. The thought of Harry having to do anything live & off the cuff on TV has the promise of stoned out comments galore.

Harry just admitted his love affair with weed on camera. Stoners always minimize their drug use.

He truly is the poster boy for stuck on stupid parked on dumb that many a stoner illustrates.

Love Meghan's word salad too! Ramblings of another idiot.

Please, please let them do live, no pause commentary on TV for the coronation. Laughs for days

R70 WE LOVE CAPS!!

[quote] Meghan is beyond annoying but I don't believe for one second Kate isn't a cold, calculating and conniving bitch too. Didn't she choose her school based on hoping to meet Will and where he was attending. That is most unbecoming and telling.

Lol! "...most unbecoming and telling."

Nothing succeeds like success.

And a tip off the hat to both Kate and Makle for setting their sights on William and Harry and winning.

Last I checked, both William and Harry were fully grown men with agency to choose who they'd marry. Based upon the attitude expressed by r47 above, you'd have thought to look for Kate and Markle holding guns to their heads to force them to marry them.

You can' make a spouse of someone who is unwilling.

I'm with Dominck Dunne when he observed, "I like climbers. They're interesting."

Kate is charming and has the ability to get along with people

^You can't make a spouse of someone who is unwilling.

The Duke Of Sussex lauds Terrence Higgins Trust's 40 year fight against HIV and AIDS. Harry has been involved with the organization for a number of years and notes the fight against HIV was "a big piece of my mum's legacy".

Derangers frothing at the mouth, convulsing on the floor, loosing control of their bowels in 5..4..3..2..

Losing control of their Camilla Parker-Bowels

Fixed for R80

Uh huh, r80

No one cares, r80.

You obviously do, R83

Interesting to see Harry still making use of the titles Prince and Duke, however, r80.

I czre, r84. I care that Prince Harry is not only a documented racist but a documented homophobe.

R82 Another pathetic Deranger fail.

R85 Those are his titles dimwit.

R86 I care that you need ..

No, r84, I don't care that Harry emailed an attachment of a letter to the Terence Higgins Trust for their 40th birthday. It's not as though he did anything beyond get a secretary to write it up for him. The THT wouldn't care about Harry if he wasn't a prince and a duke. The fact that he makes a big deal out of identifying himself as Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, with his cod crown, shows that even he knows that his only selling point is that he's a member of the British royal family.

Yes r85, they are his titles because he is a member of the British royal family. The only reason for any public interest in him is that he is a member of the British royal family. It's funny that being a member of the British royal family is obviously so important to him, because the Team Harkles people have decided that the British royal family is beastly, thanks to Harry.

Is that what passes for wit over at Celebitchy, r89?

I hope they’ve invited the Earl of Halifax

Not a Royalist by any means. Disliking Harry and Meghan doesn't mean you like the Royal family. Charles is hugely unlikeable. I wish they'd all fuck off.

Well I hope Kate and Meghan wear something FABulous!

Kate will, Meghan won't.

Windsor Derangers respond to Prince Harry saving kitten from drowning.

R86 A homophobe who tonged kissed a gay man and a racist who married a black women. My sides.

It’s incredible that there are still people supporting the repulsive and vile Harry and Meghan. Those supporters are deranged.

Wait. He called the Pakistani soldier "queer on tbe side?"

Think they've captured the true spirit of the Windsors.

^ A bit less hair a bit more rage.

R45 I suspect she'll be in something even less appropriate - you know, because she she doesn't want to draw any attention to herself.

Waxworks are appropriate.

Is is true that Camilla will become Queen? If so, quite a title for an an adulterer.

I’m not sure, R104 - the issue hasn’t been discussed anywhere on these threads at all since Queen Elizabeth II died.

Funny that you don’t see Charles being an adulterer as an issue to his being crowned. Your misogyny is showing.

Yes it is, R104.

Not you. Sorry.

R100 Well they have certainly captured their "humanity".

We'll consider attending IF my father-in-law pulls strings to get that South Park episode removed from circulation on television and the internet.

R101 I think that is the old head of The Duke of Kent.

The cause of Harry's misery is being born in a fancy human zoo and never having to work for anything.

He was happy in Afghanistan because he had to work and it gave his life meaning.

They hid him in a bunker, loads of info from his former comrades out there if you look.

R40 Stop looking at them! Respect their privacy!

Camilla is already Queen, 104. Are you gay, by the way?

If memes of you were made like this, would you feel suicidal?

The dress at least fits properly, so he's dressed better than his wife.

[quote] By inviting them Charles is rewarding them for their antics. He's left the door wide open for more betrayal and more mischief from them in the future. And Charles will have only himself to blame. In his own way, he's just as stupid and weak as Harry.

On the contrary, the more Charles is seen to hold out an olive branch to his unpopular, disloyal younger son, the more sympathy he gets. It humanises him. Most people can understand and sympathise with a parent who cannot bring himself to cut off his child.

It's hilarious. It's an empty gesture necessary to maintain appearances, and absolutely idiotic Harry and truly trashy Meghan will accept, when they should not.

Love it.

R117 It's a bit of a Hobson's choice for them, not that either would have a clue what that means.

If they go, they'll be booed on the perp walk down the stairs after the show again, perhaps with more vigor as the last time was, after all, a funeral. The Coronation is the solemn act of crowning a sovereign, but followed by a four day party which, given what I know about the UK will not be solemn but rather an occasion for consuming various brown liquids to excess. Yet if they don't go they're admitting they're irrelevant to the King's reign and cutting even more of the few frayed ties that connect them to his family.

My guess is that they think they can survive not going. They can send flowers with a note attached as they done in the past because hey, they know sentiment is one thing but a plug for the people who give them freebies can pay off down the line. Perhaps Little Merchie's birthday party that day will include paper crowns from Burger King so they feel like they're there in Westminster Abbey. I can just see Meghz cooing/manifesting that he, too, could be King some day and with a much better crown. But being booed only compounds the troubles they've seen since the Jubilee (where they were studiously ignored by the family, watched very carefully by Major Johnny, watched the show from a government office building with assorted royal irrelevancies and then being forced to walk out and down the stairs alone - Mike and Zara let them face the catcalls themselves) and the run-up to the funeral where they were first ignored and then hidden by a strategically placed big-ass candlestick during the service. Plus they know that Major Johnny is still there, his protective duties transferred from the late Queen to the new King.

They try to be so calculating in everything they do and look where it's gotten them: damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I bet they fly in just for the ceremony and then immediately leave. They won’t risk the embarrassment of not being invited to the after party like before. “Need to get back to the children.”

Meghan’s only reason to be there is to merch something and once she gets the picture, her work is done.

Fly in, make a grand entrance, attend the ceremony, leave by the side door and gone.

"So, Montecito Moron #2 is pushing the message that hallucinogens and other drugs can help with ‘trauma’.

That’s such a dangerous and irresponsible statement that I seriously hope nobody is paying attention to this bitch."

Reckless, ignorant, self-serving... Prince Harry's words will cause huge harm, says psychiatrist.

Once again Prince Harry is wading into the debate on mental health with reckless ignorance, oblivious to the facts and the catastrophic effects his words could have.

He speaks about using drugs that are illegal in this country, proclaiming the benefits he has enjoyed from cannabis and hallucinogenics such as ayahuasca. It’s hugely irresponsible.

Can Harry be deported for drug use? Please!

Not only hugely irresponsible, R120, but massively stupid to boot as well. His public pronouncements about drug use could sink any application for citizenship, whether on a spousal basis or, if indeed he has one, his O-1 Visa for Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement. How he got one is a mystery (read the conditions for issuance) and is only valid for a period of three years. It can be renewed by application, but renewal, like citizenship, can be refused on the basis of drug use prohibited under US law. Weed's legal in Califormia but not as far as the INS is concerned.

You'd think after the first couple of times they were hoist by their own petard, they'd learn something. You'd be wrong.

[quote]the more Charles is seen to hold out an olive branch

You guys have been spamming Datalounge for days with your constant assertions that evicting Harry from Frogmore and only sending an email invite are meant to be mean, punitive actions that Harry deserves.

But then when it suits you, suddenly, Charles is a nice man who just keeps holding out the olive branch of peace because of his good nature and even temperament.

This is ridiculous. I miss when we had Primetime and you cunts weren't posting here because you won't pay for the sockpuppet accounts you use for this bullshit.

I read Eugenie is moving back into Frogmore Cottage. She didn't lose any time.

I read Camilla is turning Frogmore Cottage into a Shake Shack.

I read Andrew is having the stuffed animals carefully arranged on his bed at Frogmore Cottage in hopes of attracting the "younger set."

Let's hope that H&M do accept and attend the coronation, and that the handsome Major Johnny Thompson is again assigned to the task of babysitting them!

I hope they attend so that we can enjoy watching them be relegated to the second tier and their antics trying to upstage the whole thing. Then there is always the distinct possibility that Meg will wear something overwrought, ill-fitting and overpriced.

Was this thread really necessary?

Absolutely, R129. You're not enjoying yourself here?

My fingers are crossed they do attend. The entertainment value of watching them arrive through the booing crowds, get given the coldest side eye this side of the Arctic during the ceremony, and then trying to rush to their car will be incalculable.

How many people in the Netflix production crew will they insist on bringing?

SkyNews.-Prince Harry's US visa could be 'revoked' after drug admission.

That will never happen R133, but can you imagine if it did! Harry would have to return to the UK, Meghan and the children wouldn't join him - nowhere to live, you know. Harry ends up back in NottCott, H&M divorce and everyone is right back where they started.

"SkyNews.-Prince Harry's US visa could be 'revoked' after drug admission."

Never!

The "email correspondence concerning the Coronation" was probably a list of conditions they will have to agree to get an actual invitation, including signing a NDA. Major Johnny and others will be breathing down their necks the whole time to head off mischief, and Meghan won't even get to cling to Harry because dukes traditionally seat separately from their wives. As much as she loves attention, I don't think the prospect of being booed by the masses and snubbed by the uppercrust to her face appeals to Meghan. Better to stay home and launch PR hand grenades from the safety of Mudslide Manor than be seated in Siberia behind a pillar (or a strategically placed candle). Harry, on the other hand, is desperate to feel royal again and be in proximity to Charles and William. I predict either he will go alone or neither will go. All options will fuck their already on-life support brand going forward though.

They’ve both dug such a hole for themselves that they’ll probably be extremely uncomfortable and subject to incredible scrutiny and discomfort whether they go or don’t go. And I say good! They’ve made this bed for themselves.

His visa is perfectly safe. The US can't very well accept unvetted hundreds every day at its southern border and then turn around to claim that since some stupid prince has admitted to doing weed and ayauasca (sp?) he's now booted from the country. Will never happen.

An American should start a petition to have him kicked out of the US, anyway.

What a shame the South Park season will be over by the time the coronation comes around.

[quote]His cunt wife won't attend. I don't believe we will see Megs at any Royal events going forward. She's done.

Problem is narcissists with their delusions of grandeur they don't suffer from embarrassment. She sashayed into the church at the Service of Thanksgiving in her white flying nun outfit as if she was bestowing some honor with her presence. Totally oblivious to the glares she was receiving.

I think she’ll endure a few boos and cold shoulders in order to get some fresh material to bolster her status as the Saint of Victimhood

Harry's not going anywhere. No politician worth their salt would mess with the King's witless celebrity son. Hence the kid gloves with Andrew.

I'm sure Chuckles wants some relationship with Archie and Lillibet. If only to narcissistically get his side of the story in their ears!

What a time we are living in.

“History shows that there are no invincible armies and that there never have been.”

That's right r143, the only reason a grandfather might want to hug his grandchildren is because he's a narcissist.

R137 Whatever gets ya off Hyacinth

r139 Deplorables = Derangers. Same lipstick different pigs.

She’ll turn this into her personal Selma, Alabama. Maybe a Gayle and her crew will accompany the much maligned couple through their coronation ordeal.

Even the Guardian is backing away from them these days. This isn't the first such piece they've run.

Thank you, R148. Fuck off, KGTs: you're not doing them much good over here. You might want to reconsider your strategies because like the Harkles, they're not working.

From the GUARDIAN piece:

"Polls also reflect a shift in US-based attitudes towards the pair: their approval ratings have plummeted since the South Park episode. According to polling commissioned for Newsweek, Harry’s popularity has dropped 48 points since December and Meghan’s is down 40. Now Prince Andrew, the guy who palled around with a convicted sex offender, has higher US approval ratings than the Sussexes."

[italic]Goin' down, down, down...[/italic]

If Harry and his wife are still considered "royalty" after all their despicable behavior, the monarchy has no credibility.

R141

[quote] She sashayed into the church at the Service of Thanksgiving in her white flying nun outfit as if she was bestowing some honor with her presence. Totally oblivious...

Until she saw where their seats were. There's video of the moment when Harry was realizing where he and his mrs. were to be seated. Mrs. Harry, saw, realized, and was not happy. No more smiling then. She looked pissed off.

^ The Guardian ?

[quote]Then there is always the distinct possibility that Meg will wear something overwrought, ill-fitting and overpriced.

If she goes to the Coronation, and I beg she will for the sheer idiocy of it all, I hope she will try to upstage by wearing a knock-off of the 'The Revenge Dress' that her dead mother-in-law so fabulously and famously trotted out.

I can certainly imagine Meghan dressing inappropriately for the occasion, as she is wont to do on the regular ... imagine those gate legs!

And the crowd goes wild ! Derangers your emperor has no clothes.

^^ No look it's not Charles it Mehgan I tell you Meghan!

Megstan and ANTIFA bused in by the Sussexes. So obvious!!!!!

R154 Egads!

Derangers Beloved Monarch. LOL

Their adoring subjects throwing kisses at their Majesties. 😂

The Harkles will be pelted with garbage if they dare to show up!!

Why have the last seven comments on this thread not appeared on this thread? The number on the thread list keeps rising but no new posts for an hour?

Ask and you shall receive: they all showed up when R161 did. Weird.

I, for one, have never adopted Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, as a role model for anything and so don’t feel endangered by him or anything he might ever say.

But I’ll give the Duke and his Duchess one thing, As a child I loved to turn over rocks and watch for whatever bugs might wriggle and squirm in the moist dirt and, as an adult, I derive much the same kind of pleasure from coming to the DL and reading all about their more-or-less highnesses.

^ Do us all a favor Deranger and crawl back under yours.

Ignorant Americans. You know nothing about our history. In 1623 His Gracious Majesty King Charles I was known for his love of exotic birds specifically chickens. Charles raised many beautiful birds at the Royal Chicken Coop at White Chapel. They were famed for their magnificent egg laying skills. The eggs of King Charles I were known throughout the Kingdom as being the rarest and most prized eggs.. King Charles would often gift these eggs to his favorite courtiers who overjoyed to receive them never dared to eat them. Often they would sleep with the Royal Eggs under their pillows. Preserving them and passing the Royal Eggs on to their decedents. Sadly the eggs were discontinued when Charles I head was discontinued from his body in 1625. What you saw today is merely our beloved King Charles III continuing the hallowed Receiving Of The Royal Eggs Ceremony. A sacred British tradition that R160 as a stupid Yank will never understand. God Save The King and his Eggs!

Indeed they are, r158. Most of the calls are cheers. The small group of lefty protestors sound as though they're using a loudspeaker, to force their marginal views on everyone else, as is their usual tactic. It actually sounds like one bolshy bloke and a couple of his mates.

R165 sounds American.

R165 sounds Sane.

Oh Megstans! Posting a bunch of anti-Charles posts doesn’t make your idol Sarah Jane Markle any less of a liar, or any more popular. But keep trying!

[quote] I read Eugenie is moving back into Frogmore Cottage. She didn't lose any time.

Daddy probably ordered her to so if Frogmore Cottage is occupied he won't have to leave Royal Lodge.

The Markles should never have been invited. They should decline the invitation. They are not welcome.

On the other hand, there is no way ever that these two lying, narcissistic, self-serving grifters would ever miss a global event such as a coronation. Booed or not, bad seats or not...they will be there. If there is money to be made and a TV camera nearby, they WILL be there. They already know what they're wearing. Get the private plane ready! Archie's birthday is irrelevant. They will be there.

Go or No Go the media attention of the world will be on US. Not doddering Man-Baby III & his Side Piece Hag.

[quote] Oh Megstans!

One good thing is that after South Park and Spare, those Megstans who are still capable of feeling shame for their past support of Meghan have gone silent, so there are fewer Megstans on DL spewing their usual bullshit.

Charles is a Scorpio and William is a Cancer.

Scorpios are spiteful and Cancers don't forgive or forget and hold a grudge FOREVER.

Harold's goose is cooked.

R174 while I don't have any faith in the horoscope, I am a Cancer and I NEVER forgive!

Unfortunately, the Duke and Duchess of Lies would never miss it--despite this cat and mouse "We don't know if we're going" nonsense. They're going. It's too bad. They ruin everything they touch. But, they're going.

Princess Di's Aunt Mary Roche just died. Will Harold go to the funeral?? He has to try to bolster his alleged closeness to her family to highlight how much he hates his Daddy.

^ Cancer is ruled by the moon R175 surely a lunatic.

Charles Arthur Victor George by the Grace of God King Tampon the First of Once Great Britain and Whatever Tax Shelters We've Got Left Across the Seas. Sometimes Defender of the Faith When It Suits Us. Phone Sex Operator of The Realm. Tank Filler.

As a gesture of goodwill I offered to let Harry's wife wear my blackamoor brooch at the coronation. Her response was very rude, so I was forced to tell her to go back to the colonies.

Meghan should come dressed in a Handmaiden’s Tale style.

[quote]Meghan should come dressed in a Handmaiden’s Tale style.

It can't be worse than whatever she's planning.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

R140 = hissing British frau

why on Earth would Sarah think she could even expect an invitation? I’m sure Andrew already received a terse email from the palace saying Sarah is certainly not invited.

Sarah was Harry's role model for "making it big in the States"!

by the way, when did THE coronation become just “coronation” without a definite article. NO ONE DOES THAT,. Fuck off whoever is not using “the” before coronation. It’s not a fucking verb.

R152 Yes, Virginia: even The Guardian sees through them now.

It's quite interesting that the statement from the Sussexes carefully describes "an exchange of emails with HJs Majesty's office" regarding the coronation. In other words, the assertions by a variety of columnists trying to stir the pot that Charles is "desperate" to have Harry there is bullshit. If Charles were desperate to have Harry there, he wouldn't have informed his son that the lease on Frogmore Cottage wasn't going to be renewed, and he'd have called Harry personally to discuss the coronation.

It's quite obvious that they aren't talking to each other, that there isn't going to be an apology either from the King or William, nor are there any guarantees being offered that if they come and behave themselves Charles won't take the Sussex title from Harry.

So, the deal is: if the Sussexes want their royal photo ops, they can swallow their pride, hang out at Frogmore Cottage for a day or two, get their photos into the history books and look like the hypocrites they are, endure the silent arrows of hate the rest of the family will send their way, and pack up the last of their belongings, and go home.

Or, they can do the more dignified thing and decline the invite to celebrate the placing of the crowns on Charles's and Camilla's heads, after Charles booted them out of FC, and Camilla is standing where Diana should have; Kate resplendent in royal jewels and holding George and Charlotte by the hands, smiling like the cat that ate the canary as William kneels under his ducal coronet, places his hands between his father's and swears fealty to the King.

Charles outfoxed them - they look hypocritical, cynical, and PR thirsty if they go, they look petulant and rejecting if they don't.

I hope to God at least Kate and Sophie and Anne will be in white gowns and tiaras, as well as the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester.

I'm wondering what will happen to the Fringe tiara. It's really too small and toothy for Camilla but it would look fabulous on Kate. No one but the Queen, Princess Anne, and Princess Beatrice have worn it since the Queen Mother died.

Camilla seems to go for the bigger ones, the Delhi, Durbar, Honeycomb. She hasn't, I think, dared to put on the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland yet, has she?

Why would Sarah even expect to go?

She's Sarah, Duchess of York, not HRH The Duchess of York. Strange woman.

That Charlie he's a sly fox. Yes indeed.

R150 They currently can't use HRH, that indicates that they aren't senior members of The Royal Family.

The styles and patronages removed from them seemed like nothing at the time, but have demoted them considerably.

R179 Crikey how sad Brits have to grovel to those two pervy gits. At least the commonwealth can bail out.

R192 where's the Commonwealth gonna bail out to? China? Ain't gonna be the USA.

R192. The commonwealth countries by and large don’t have Charles as head of state. I assume you are an American posting from a positon of complete ignorance?

I've noticed Americans seem to think the Commonwealth exists to enrich the UK whereas the UK gives money to the Commonwealth, much of which is impoverished third world countries.

R194 I assume you are a limey lickspittle posting from a position of complete subservience

R195 Yes the British have always been so magnanimous to the "lesser races"

Imagine Joe Biden doing that @r190 !

R196. I’m neither British nor subservient. I just haopen to know a little bit about what goes on outside US borders.

Charles puts the cooking oil on the chicken.

Then he dips it in flour, then egg, then Panko bread crumbs, fries it and eats it while standing.

All by himself.

He eats the eggs for breakfast the next morning.

Chris Rock explains how the rest of the world views the history of your exploitative little island and the depraved family that so ably personifies it.

R201. Yeah. As opposed to the US presidency and congress.

R202

Rock is actually mocking Meghan Markle saying she was unaware that BRF were racist swine as obviously everyone in the world knows this except the black woman who married into the family.

"I think the most painful thing for #HarryHasGoneMad after divorce will be the limited custody rights with his children, after by his own admission, to heavy drug use. He doesn't stand a chance for equal custody. Oh Harry, you are such a #dumbprince."

Charles should invite Chris Rock too.

Thank You, R205

Sarah, Duchess of York should be invited to the coronation. Charles and Camilla invited Sarah for Christmas at Sandringham. Word was that they were trying to bring the entire family together and stop excluding her from everything. They realized it was quite cruel to have Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie (and now with their own families as well) go off and enjoy the holiday without Sarah.

Yes, she and Andrew are divorced, but Sarah, Andrew and their daughters are still together as a unit. Sarah should be invited to the coronation so that Andrew has a partner (since not many others are talking to hi these days), and like it or not, excluding her all the time is just cruel. There really aren't that many big family gathering and having her there wouldn't hurt anyone.. At the very least, it's insulting to Beatrice and Eugenie to keep on excluding Sarah. Like it or not, she is part of this extended family even if others think it's an odd situation.

[quote]"I think the most painful thing for #HarryHasGoneMad after divorce will be the limited custody rights with his children, after by his own admission, to heavy drug use. He doesn't stand a chance for equal custody. Oh Harry, you are such a #dumbprince."

A man like Harry who had no problem revealing the most personal secrets of his family as well as telling incredible lies about them, will have no problem skewering Meghan in divorce proceedings. It will be scorched earth again.

What are the relationships like between Sarah and her daughters?

The princesses love their mother dearly.

This is why I miss The Windsors. They completely nailed the Sarah Ferguson relationship. In one of the early episodes, Sarah is having dinner in her bedsit and she has a cardboard cutout of Andrew.

What makes you think that Meghan would want custody? If they decide to divorce, the children will have already outlived their usefulness with Mummy Dearest.

R213 Appearances and also control and leverage.

U.S. vs England for the win ......

Which country is most deranged?

Jeremy Kyle sparks uproar as he jokes Prince Harry should 'throw Meghan down a well'

Oh, I love that guy!!

R191

To be clear the MM woman has nothing in her own right. Removing PH's use of "HRH" takes care of MM regardless either way.

If PH pulls a Princess Patricia of Connaught, then MM is busted down ranks accordingly.

Note for all his moaning PH has never gone so far as making a formal request to have his royal status removed. That is only way it will ever go as neither KC3 nor even Prince of Wales when HM's time comes would strip PH of his birthright, this no matter how cross they are with the Ginger Whinger.

Badly as Edward VIII behaved to some, Duke of Windsor still got the HRH.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have selected their coronation gift.

The American left keeps complaining about the 1619 Project being ignored, yet our little Megstans seem to be unaware the whole slave thing in America came about by accident. Portuguese slavers were heading from West Africa to Mexico and got lost and wound up in Virginia. So the royal family to blame for slavery would be the Portuguese Hapsburgs. UK royal family has no connection to them.

^ Sure Dee

Unlike the royal family, US presidents have owned slaves. Therefore, every US president is a racist who has benefited from slavery and the US presidency should be abolished. The same goes for Congress too, in which many racist slave owners have sat.

I wonder what Sarah, Duchess of York would wear to the coronation were she invited. Patricia Ramsey, the former Princess Patricia of Connaught, was permitted to wear the purple robe and coronet of a Princess of The UK & NI, with all her orders and medals pinned to her breast. Not just to the 1937 coronation, but also to the 1953 one. So maybe Sarah will be dressed as a royal duchess, even though she isn’t one.

Lady Victoria Patricia Helena Elizabeth Ramsay remained very much a member of BRF, whereas Sarah, Duchess of York is, well you know.

From above Wiki entry.

"Despite relinquishing her royal title, Lady Patricia remained a member of the British Royal Family, remained in the line of succession, and attended all major royal events, including weddings, funerals, and the coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth and of Queen Elizabeth II in 1937 and 1953, respectively. She rode in the carriage processions with other members of the Royal Family at the funerals of George V in 1936[13] and of King George VI.[14] At the coronations, she proceeded in state from Buckingham Palace with other members of the Royal Family and took part in the procession of princes and princesses of the blood royal, attended by a train-bearer and an officer to carry her coronet. She also attended royal garden parties and participated in state visits, her attendance being recorded in the Court Circular together with other members of the Royal Family.[15]"

Another thing, Princess Patricia was just that, a royal personage in her own right.

Whereas Sarah Ferguson was dead common and only received her rank via marriage.

Outside of limited instances (such as queen consorts) birth trumps rank by marriage.

Kate Middleton as Prince William of Wales by orders of QE2 had to bow curtsies to Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie when on her own (not in company of Prince William). The York princesses were born royal, whereas Kate, Duchess of Cambridge was not.

Until now, the King had not formally confirmed that the Sussexes’ children, Archie, three, and Lilibet, one, would use the titles of Prince and Princess.

The Royal family’s website, which lists them as sixth and seventh in the line of succession, still refers to them as Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.

However, as children of His Majesty's son, they are automatically Prince and Princess and would otherwise be entitled to be styled His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness.

Archie and Lilibet cannot use their HRH titles as they would take them from their father, whose own HRH title is in abeyance.

It is understood that the Sussexes have decided that their children's Prince and Princess titles will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use.

Gotta say, that is one of the ugliest babies I have ever seen.

R205 You know, I hadn't thought about that angle - how stupid of Harry to go public with his extensive drug use when in any custody battle his wife would have proof straight from the horse's, er, mouth.

Will the Archbishop of Los Angeles have to issue some kind of gentle correction to the Harkles story as the Archbishop of Canterbury was forced to do?

I mean, Katie Price’s daughter is named “Princess Tamiamii” (or whatever), doesn’t make her a princess.

"However, as children of His Majesty's son, they are automatically Prince and Princess and would otherwise be entitled to be styled His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness." - That is completely false, r225, and is a gross inaccuracy often regurgitated by the media, which indicates that they are either deliberately lying to stir the pot or their journalists are completely stupid and too lazy to look up basic facts.

There is no such thing as automatic retrospective entitlement to be prince and princess and be styled HRH. You can only be born a prince or princess and that only happens if you are born the child or grandchild of a monarch or the child of the direct heir to the throne. Archie and Lilibet were born the great-grandchildren of the monarch.

"However, as children of His Majesty's son, they are automatically Prince and Princess and would otherwise be entitled to be styled His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness." - That is completely false, r225, and is a gross inaccuracy often regurgitated by the media, which indicates that they are either deliberately lying to stir the pot or their journalists are completely stupid and too lazy to look up basic facts.

There is no such thing as automatic retrospective entitlement to be prince and princess and be styled HRH. You can only be born a prince or princess and that only happens if you are born the child or grandchild of a monarch or the child of the direct heir to the throne. Archie and Lilibet were born the great-grandchildren of the monarch.

Sorry for the double posting, DL is cruddy. R225 is posting that nonsense on other threads. Just to add, the claim that "Archie and Lilibet cannot take the title of HRH from their father because their father's is in abeyance" is utter nonsense Archie was born before his father's HRH was put into abeyance but he was never HRH. He was not, however, born the grandchild of a monarch so he has no right to be called prince of be styled HRH.

LOL the Harkles are really simmering over titles for their spawn. Wonder why? They can call the kids whatever the want, but until there is a change in the official RF website, those Prince and Princess titles have no meaning.

R231, I posted it. Not to say I endorse it or think it's true. It's what they're saying and we know about the things they say.

Wnether it's true or not about the titles, Harry & Meghan have a habit of releasing details BEFORE the Royal Family can do so. Remember Megxit?

I would think titles would be the responsibility of the Palace to announce.

R231, you better check your sources. All that papers say it's so and cite Charles' accession and 1917.

Who exactly is the Sussex's spokesperson and how exactly does he/she communicate with the press?

How on earth was a child christened with the title "Princess" in the US when that title has no meaning in that country and this was not a royal christening?

She was christened Lilibet Diana. The Sussexes just had to add Princess for their press release to seem more important than they actually are.

First orgasm in months.

R236, here's a source.

[quote]6. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

[quote]7. Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor

The 1917 Letters Patent don't say anything about the grandchildren of a new monarch automatically gaining the title prince/princess if their grandparent becomes monarch after their birth. The 1917 Letters Patent specifically state that their purpose is *to limit* the use of the titles prince/princess and HRH:

[quote]that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner

This Substack, which I came across on DL, explains why Archie and Lilibet are not prince/princess.

[quote]George V limited HRH status to (1) the children of the monarch; (2) at the second generation (the grandchildren), to children of the male line; and (3) at the third generation, to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. So, as you can see, George V wanted to keep the HRHs (princes and princesses) in the family, and only to those persons with a close connection to the throne.

[quote]You can see these rules in practice in the BRF today. Anne was born the daughter of the reigning monarch and therefore was born an HRH—a royal princess. But, as a female child of the monarch, her children (Zara and Peter) were not entitled to HRH status according to the 1917 Letters Patent. Anne and her husband declined other titles, but Zara and Peter were never entitled to HRH status. Contrast that to Andrew’s daughters (Beatrice and Eugenie), both of whom are HRHs.

[quote]There is a plot twist with Edward’s children. As the children of a male child of the monarch, they would be HRHs just like Beatrice and Eugenie, but instead they are styled as children of an earl. The Queen decided at the time Edward married Sophie that their children would not be styled HRH. There is an interesting British constitutional question about whether the Wessex children are legally HRHs, but just not using their HRHs (as Harry and Meghan are not using theirs, even though they retain their royal status), or if the Queen’s press release at the time of their parents’ marriage legally withdrew their HRH status. I am inclined to agree with the constitutional argument that supports the latter position—they are not legally HRHs. Regardless, the point is that as the children of a male child of the monarch, they would have been HRHs, but according to the pleasure of the sovereign at the time of their birth, they either do not use them, or legally never had them.

[quote]At the third generation, only Kate’s first-born son would have been entitled to HRH status at birth. In December of 2012, the Queen issued new Letters Patent to make all children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge HRHs at birth. All William and Kate’s children will be the children of the monarch, and it is in keeping with the dignity of the Crown to grant them that status.

[quote]Letters patent are not issued willy-nilly. Harry was obviously going to marry at some point and presumably have children. Had the Queen wanted Harry’s children to be HRHs at birth, she could have included them in the Letters Patent she issued for William’s children. She could have had the language drafted to say all the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales, or all the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales in the male line. She did not. That was long before Meghan or any question of race was in the mix.

[quote]The press and public have assumed that once Charles becomes king, as he did yesterday, Archie and Lily automatically become HRHs—Prince and Princess—because they are now grandchildren of the monarch. People think he would need to affirmatively take their new status away. But that is an assumption. We have no precedent to guide us, because this scenario has never happened before. George V’s first son was Edward VIII who abdicated in favor of his brother George VI, Queen Elizabeth’s father. As the grandchild of a male, Elizabeth and Margaret were born royal according to the 1917 Letters Patent. So we have never seen this part of the 1917 Letters Patent in action until now.

[quote]Legally, it actually makes more sense that Charles would need to affirmatively confer the status if he wants to raise these grandchildren to HRHs. The 1917 Letters Patent was clearly legal document that intended to limit. The king was seeking to narrow the number of people entitled to HRH status. It would defeat that purpose if all those children born non-royal—whatever their state in life—suddenly became royal princes and princesses.

^ They're important enough for you to take off your hood and make that inane comment hon

Well, The Times is now reporting Palace sources saying it's so, so I guess Substack loses this time.

The Times reports "palace sources" as saying a lot of things that never transpire, r243.

Perhaps Harry and Meghan literally christened their daughter Princess Lilibet Diana and Princess is actually her first name, like Prince the musician was named Prince by his parents. That would be the only thing that makes sense because princess is a title and it could only be a name if they have specifically chosen to use it as their child's name. Although, it's not actually a Christian name so some priests might object to it.

No royal prince/princess has ever been christened prince or princess. They are christened things like Charles Philip Arthur George (not Prince Charles Philip Arthur George) or Henry Charles Albert David (not Prince Henry Charles Albert David). It's a really bizarre announcement to mix a christening, which is a naming ritual, with the proclamation of a royal title. What's even more bizarre is that the royal title is not being proclaimed by the monarch, which is how it actually happens, but by some anonymous spokesperson to the media, direct from California.

The newspapers are powerfully motivated to show up the Sussexes. It's good for businesses. The point is being conceded to them.

But, OK, you cling to that.

Sometimes you are just wrong and you're digging yourself in deeper. You're wrong on this.

My guess is there is a requirement for UK princes and princesses to be baptized as Church of England. And this was in part what was holding up the official designation of the Sussex kids.

Also isn't this timing of this baptism curious? And now the Sussexes create a pissing contest about sending invites to events and no one comes so why should they got to the coronation?? I mean...this is grade 9 behaviour.

I would expect that such things as HRH, Prince, Princess, etc. come from the system that bestows them. Not from the people who want them or think they should have them.

People can call someone Prince or Princess without the actuality from the system having been given.

Just as people can call their pet "Prince" or "Princess".

Without the source that people covet or are trying to imply or appropriate such words attached to someone's name are meaningless.

Archie was christened ages ago, r246, he's still not a prince. Princes are born princes, they don't need to be christened for that. Hence why the late Queen passed Letters Patent so Charlotte and Louis could be born prince/princess, even though their grandfather was not king at the time of their birth. Because they could not retrospectively become prince/princess once their grandfather or father became king.

It's a title, not a limb. It can certainly be acquired after birth. 1917 says so.

Indeed r247. The only way that Archie and Lilibet could be styled prince/princesses and HRH would be if their grandfather passed a very rare Letters Patent proclaiming this, given they were not born with these titles. It's very unlikely that he will, however, given that these titles are now being limited (see Edward's kids, born the grandchildren of the monarch but who do not have these titles). I suspect the idea is to limit these titles to those who could be expected to perform royal duties, i.e. the children of the direct heir. The fact that Harry himself not only does not perform royal duties but he doesn't even live in the UK and his kids are growing up in the US makes it even more unlikely that such Letters Patent would be passed.

Even if I'm completely wrong and Archie and Lilibet could retrospectively become prince/princess, the only person who can officially declare that is the king - not an anonymous Sussex spokesperson- and he hasn't.

Letters Patents aren't passed. The monarch issues them. Passed suggests are a vote or a bowel movement. Jesus.

However they take place, r251.

Here is the full text of George V's 1917 Letters Patent:

"George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting: Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Her Reign declare her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned And whereas we deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of Our Reign"

It says nothing that links the title with the moment of birth. It simply lays out who is entitled to what, based on who their father and grandfather is. Once Charles became King and Harry a male in the direct line of succession, his children become eligible for the "titular dignity" of prince and princess. No one seems to question it except a couple of people here. It's probably the first time it's happened since the 1917 LP was issued. They fiddled with the LP for the Queen's children as they wouldn't have qualified as grandchildren of the King because she wasn't male line. Those LP is below the 1917 at link.

There has never been an example of a royal prince/princess who did not have the title at birth receiving it retroactively, r254. This is why the Queen issued a Letters Patent to make William's children subsequent to George prince/princess and HRH - because it is not possible to receive these titles after birth.

The whole point of the 1917 Letters Patent was to limit the number of royal princes and princesses, not increase them. It literally says "that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner".

It also says:

[quote]that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour

In other words, it specifies that the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales be styled prince, i.e. the grandson of the Prince of Wales is a prince. Why would it need to specify this if the grandson of the Prince of Wales would automatically become prince once his grandfather became king?

How is it not possible? The sovereign can call anybody anything they wish.

Prince Philip was not a Prince of the United Kingdom of the United Kingdom until his wife, the Queen, created him such, so there's your example. "We are desirous of conferring upon him a style and dignity appropriate to his rank and station NOW KNOW YE that we of Our especial grace certain knowledge and mere notion do by these Presents give and grant unto His Royal Highness Philip Duke of Edinburgh the Style and Titular Dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland"

From the link: "On June 19, 1999, at the time of Prince Edward's wedding, it was announced that The Queen had decided, with the agreement of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children of their marriage should not be given the style of His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl (see the press release from Buckingham Palace).

At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent. The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases (see the documents concerning the style of the Duke of Windsor's wife and issue, in particular the view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed", and the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"). How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."

It is entirely in the sovereign's purview. The Palace has not denied it. You're the only one denying it, pretzel, and you're wrong and increasingly pathetic. Find one expert, other than yourself of course, who's arguing your contention. One. You can't.

Letters Patent of 31 December 2012, a few months before George's birth, with which the Queen declared that all William's children would be styled HRH and be prince/princess. What was the need for this if William's kids were going to "automatically" become HRH prince/princess when their grandfather or father became king? Why didn't the Queen issue the same Letters Patent just before Archie was born?

[quote]31 December 2012

[quote]The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.

The need was George would have got the title and the other two wouldn't. They wanted their children to have equal standing.

What this means is that only the children and grandchildren of the monarch through the male line are [italic]automatically[italic] given the title of prince or princess, as well as the first son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (Prince George).

The Queen issued a new Letters Patent in 2012 ahead of the birth of Prince George to ensure that all the children of the Cambridges would be similarly titled as prince and princess, despite the rule usually only applying to the eldest son. This would have meant that, had Princess Charlotte been born before her brother, she would not have been a princess, but instead Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor.

"Using Letters Patent, a method by which the sovereign can give orders without the involvement of Parliament, the Queen decided that from now on "all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales" should be given the title of Royal Highness "with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names".

Until now, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was entitled to the honour, following a decree made by George V in 1917, meaning that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a daughter later this year she would have been known as "Lady".

You really reckon, my mad mule, King William's daughter would have been Lady all her life? Give it up. You're busted.

Is it just me or has a thread been deleted about the Sussexes and their offspring titles?

[quote]They wanted their children to have equal standing.

Except their children don't have equal standing because only the eldest is heir to the heir. In any case, the younger two would still have become prince or princess once their grandfather became king (according to those who believe that the title prince/princess can be bestowed after birth). So why the need to change things to make them all HRH prince/princess at birth?

Moreover, if the point of the 2012 Letters Patent was to give all William's children equal standing, it quite specifically does not Harry's children equal standing to William's children. The Queen issued Letters Patent to make William's future children HRH prince/princess at birth but she did not do the same for Harry's future children.

I don't know who you're addressing, r259, but of course King William's daughter, as the daughter of the king, wouldn't have been Lady Charlotte all her life, which is why Letters Patent were issued to make her HRH princess at birth. Because she would otherwise never have become princess, because there is no such thing as automatically upgrading to princess once your granddad becomes king..

Just to qualify my answer at r261: "Except their children don't have equal standing..."

Their children of course all have equal standing in their hearts and in their private family life, but in the public royal system, George is the one who pulled the short straw and has to do the hard work.

r250 is correct, essentially. Re-read that post (saves me a lot of typing...)

r255 it is entirely possible to receive titles after birth. The monarch can do whatever they want in that matter, whenever they want. Happened all the time in the past; QEII was known to 'raise' up many noblewomen in rank and styling when their brothers inherited titles from grandfathers, passing them over for "Lady" designation as daughter of a Duke/Marquess/Earl. She could order this as she saw fit.

The monarch alone holds control over the Prince/Princess designation, and use of the HRH honorific.

For heaven's sake, they would have had equal standing as HRHs and .. oh, fuck it... it's like the remedial class, the literal mindedness around here.

[quote]Except their children don't have equal standing because only the eldest is heir to the heir. In any case, the younger two would still have become prince or princess once their grandfather became king (according to those who believe that the title prince/princess can be bestowed after birth). So why the need to change things to make them all HRH prince/princess at birth?

If you're referring to the LP issued by QEII re the Cambridge children, the point was to have all Kate and William's children be made HRH so that a potential firstborn daughter (one is assuming that Kate/Wills didn't do a gender-reveal ultrasound) who would be heir, wouldn't have lower rank/title than a younger brother. At that time, only the firstborn SON of the heir to the heir could be HRH Prince. There was no coverage for a DAUGHTER. They had to issue something to allow for that possibility, it would have been disastrous to have a baby girl by "Lady Charlotte" and be heir, and her potential younger brother be "HRH Prince George".

As it stood it was a moot point because George was born first. But optics here.

R266, that one won't give up. Alternate reality. Block it. Spare yourself. It's a fixation.

Lol, r264 can't tell the difference between HRH prince/princess and a noblewoman.

R266, then the Queen could have passed Letters Patent relating solely to William's firstborn, in the case that it was a girl.

R267, what titles do Archie and Lilibet have at the link below, which has been updated since the Queen's death to cover everyone's new status?

By the way r267, are you the one who said that Beatrice would never be a Counsellor of State?

Honey, I can see your posts adding up but you're talking to yourself now. Block does that to ya.

And here's the link of Counsellors of State for you, r267.

[quote] The monarch alone holds control over the Prince/Princess designation, and use of the HRH honorific.

Sort of. He can demand someone who is not HRH not use the HRH styling, but he would have to issue Letters Patent (and have Parliament approve it) if he wants to officially change who is already a prince or princess, or who is a royal duke or duchess.

By the 1917 Letters Patent, which declared among other things that all grandchildren of a sitting monarch are automatically entitled Prince or Princess, both Archie and Lillibet automatically became Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lillibet of Sussex the second Elizabeth II died and Charles, as their grandfather, became King. Charles can ask that they not use that styling, or their parents can insist they not use that styling, but he would have to issue legislation that would go before Parliament if he wanted to offically remove it in law.

The most important thing we can take away from the announcement from Harry and Meghan today that they have christened their daughter princess, is that they're definitely coming to the Coronation!

R269, not to interrupt your hysterics, Poirot, but you may have noticed this at the top of the page you cited:

Some information on this website may be out-of-date following the death of Queen Elizabeth.

Of course, the official website of the British monarchy is about as reliable at the Telegraph or the Times.

hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Exactly r275 and the line of succession has indeed been updated, therefore it contains the very latest information pertaining to the current situation. In fact, the page with the line of succession was the very first thing that was updated, as Charles was changed to King and William to Prince of Wales while everyone moved up a place in the line of succession. Therefore, if Archie and Lilbet had indeed officially become prince and princess then the line of succession, as given in the updated information on the official royal website, would liste them as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. But it does not. It lists them as Master Archie and Miss Lilibet.

Just as the Counsellors of State were updated to include Beatrice.

You've seen the logs, have you, R277?

And then explain me this, since you seem to know everything else: if the site's updated with "the very latest information pertaining to the current situation" how come it still says "Some information on this website may be out-of-date following the death of Queen Elizabeth."? Cause that doesn't seem very the latest information pertaining to the current situation to me. But obviously, I dwell in the real world.

Jan Moir is in such a state of umbrage she's almost Hilary Rose in her prose:

As the gospel choir sang and holy water was sprinkled, an intricate knot tightened on the 21-month-old's ties to the British Royal Family. And that, frankly, is astonishing. For one can wish this tiny little girl all the best in life, but still wonder about the righteous dissembling and connivances of her parents.

A princess? Is there some mistake here?

For since they fled to America to escape the deprivations of royal life back in 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have given every impression of a couple who utterly loathe the concept of monarchy, along with the Royal Family and nearly everyone in it.

According to their oft-told account; as an institution it is racist, as a historical construct it is indefensible and as a crucible of family life it failed so very badly on every count that, while in its clutches, Meghan contemplated committing suicide when pregnant with her first. And that is just awful.

Gawking at freaks fell out of favour in Victorian England, but our exiled prince seems to be opening up a rich new seam of curiosities on his own, and I don't mean his frozen penis.

R273, the monarch does not require parliament to pass a law in order to issue Letters Patent to change a title or style.

In any case, Letters Patent don't lay down a defining rule for all time nor are they intended to foresee every potential situation. They are issued in order to resolve particular issues that have arisen. They are, however, based very much on precedent and attempt to amend previous Letters Patent as minimally as possible, only what is needed to address a particular issue.

For example, the 1917 Letters Patent were designed to "modernise" the royal family and slim it down in the middle of the First World War because Queen Victoria had so many great-grandchildren knocking around calling themselves prince or princess. Moreover, many of them were German and Britain was at war with Germany. The intention of the 1917 Letters Patent was to reduce the number of HRHs and princes and princesses.

The 1917 Letters Patent overlooked the issue of what would if the sovereign had no sons and only daughters, because it was attempting to resolve a situation of that moment and George V had several sons. Yet, the question of the sovereign having only daughters arose in the next generation, with George VI, who was the father to two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret. When Princess Elizabeth was pregnant, George VI had to issue Letters Patent in 1948 giving princely titles and the HRH to all her future children, otherwise they would not have been prince/princess at birth because they were not the children of a son of the sovereign. No one suggested that it didn't matter because they would automatically become prince/princess when their mum became queen.

Because r278, some information is out of date. But, the information about the line of succession is 100% fully updated. Charles was updated to king, William was updated to Prince of Wales, William's kids became "of Wales", but Master Archie and Miss Lilibet stayed Master Archie and Miss Lilibet, because, unlike Charles, William and William's kids they had not automatically acquired a new title.

Elsewhere, Beatrice was updated to Counsellor of State.

You're wrong, R281.

Letters Patent have the same effect as statute law in the UK. The Crown is head of the legal system.

OK, R281, so some information is out of date, but the information that you want is exactly right up to date?

And you know this how, dear?

Sure, r282. Whoever was supposed to update Archie and Lilibet's titles must have forgotten to do so because they are irrelevant to British life. That's even more demeaning to Archie and Lilibet - to upgrade everyone else's titles but overlook to upgrade theirs because they are overlooked.

Oh, that sounds really likely. Thanks for clearing that up.

Could you please clarify, r284: what you are saying is that everyone else who had an automatic title upgrade on the Queen's death has had their information updated on the royal website, except for Archie and Lilibet, who still have only their old titles? That's a bit rude, isn't it, to upgrade everyone else's titles but not theirs. Why is that, I wonder?

Because it's good to be Prince of Wales, heir to the throne. It's that simple. Hierarchy is a blunt instrument but it packs a real punch.

Only really "automatic" thing happened is Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales became monarch. Much of what followed required action by new sovereign.

Sooner rather than later KC3 made Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge Prince of Wales.

Charles needs to fix this issue of Meghan calling her kids prince and princess asap.

Same loons in media and elsewhere that created "Princess Diana" are ones largely also responsible for "prince Archie" and "princess" "princess Lilibet "Lili"

Sadly days when major news and other media employed fact checkers who knew about such things are long gone. Even NYT continually refers to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana" both during her lifetime and still. One would think the old Grey Lady if anyone would know better, but apparently not.

This is where on average British and some European media shine as it is their pigeon. Not across board but still on average streets ahead of others elsewhere.

Bloody Harkles can't pull the wool over my eyes!

Ole prisspots like R291 would wake the fuck up and live in 21st century. One would think.

R289 Pissed Off Wales

^ Nasty wanker just like his Pa

This was announced six months to the day of HMTQ's death. Many are speculating that H&M were asked not to push the issue for that length of time out of respect, to avoid creating a media circus that would overshadow the coverage, and so they wouldn't look like vultures. But of course Meghan had the end of those six months marked on the calendar and announced it to The Day.

I thought they wanted to give their children a nice normal life without the media scrutiny and breathless reporting.

Always lying. Always.

MM is pushing hard to have her children first bi-racial UK royals. That is pretty much things in a nutshell.

Notice how neither Princess Anne nor Countess of Wessex made such a fuss about their children not being royals. Those women are sure of themselves, their world and place in it; OTOH the Markle woman is everything one would have against dead commoners marrying to royalty.

All this proved was how absolutely desperate H&M are to be considered royal. The sad reality is that Harry's bloodline will just continue to move farther and farther away from anything royal adjacent, but he's still clinging on to it for dear life. These titles do nothing for their children born and raised in America, and the fact that Great Granny Lilibet was a princess of the UK will just be a curious factoid in their eventual family folklore.

All of this very much depends on confirmation from The King, without that it means nothing. They could call her Empress if they choose to, and nobody would give a fuck.

HRH Princess Lilibet, Empress of India, Duchess of the Milky Way, Countess of the Solar System.

Look, Harry and I are victims, so we are entitled to declare our kids the Czar and Czarina of Russia if we feel like it. So, respect our privacy while paying careful attention to us.

Are the Duke and Duchess available to perform investitures? How do I submit myself for consideration for an honour?

Oh l'amour, l'amour!

DEATH RIDDLE.- Mystery as Russia’s ‘Scarface Oligarch’ who sold Meghan and Harry their £12m Montecito mansion dies after blasting Putin.

Just out of curiosity: Had Charlotte been born first among William and Kate's children, what would her titles be as she progressed through her life?

I'm sorry, [R262], I ff'd you on accident when trying to WW you. You are right, as I understand it: a child doesn't "upgrade" his/her title simply because the throne shifts up a generation. That was one of the purposes of the1917 L of P, to keep endlessly creating HRHs with every generation.

And, if Archie and Lilibet end up with HRH Prince/Princess before their names, it is only because HRH Charles III is a dickless wonder.

^^^^

I should have called him "Grandpa".

I'm probably on a list somewhere now.

only a princess? Don't the sugars refer to her brother as King Archie? And Meghan definitely wanted/wants to be queen.

The important thing is that everyone understands that true princesses of Great Britain come from California, as proclaimed by the Church of England in Los Angeles.

Aren't christenings usually for babies, not toddlers?

[quote] Aren't christenings usually for babies, not toddlers?

Yes and the sooner the better because if your baby is not christened and dies, it goes to Purgatory. Meghan was gambling with Lilibet’s eternal destination by waiting so long.

Yes. I was christened when I was about 6 weeks old. But they may have chosen this point in time in an effort to counteract the kind of bad/awful/really massively awful press they've been getting, R311. Still, a pity that a child's baptism is milked for publicity all the same.

Unfortunately, it's the Harkles so it has once again backfired on them spectacularly. Think of it as a strategic christening and them as piss-poor strategists.

WE WANT PRIVACY!!!!.

R311

It varies by faith and custom.

In Catholic families there was often a rush to have infants christened soon as possible. This was when Church held infants not baptized went to "limbo".

Other Christian faiths and or followers did or do things differently.

With advent of better prenatal, post natal and child healthcare infant and child mortality rates have dropped thus likely went some of the rush to have babies baptized.

Lady Victoria Hervey warns Harry "It didn't end well for Diana".

Baptism and christening are not necessarily the same thing. Baptisms can be immediate and informal if thought necessary (even the medieval church allowed anyone to perform a baptism in that situation - a priest wasn't essential). Christening and the appointment of godparents can come later.

oh hissssssss hissssssssssssssssssss hisssssssssssssss

this really has brought all the kooks out, everyone is spitting venom and outraged! Hisssssssssssssssssss

HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!

I suspect the announcement that Lilibet has been christened Princess (which doesn't even make sense) is another attempt by Harry to illegitimately claim royal things for himself, like when he and Meghan announced they were going to "continue" to represent the Queen and launched their "Sussex Royal" website, or Harry's continued inappropriate use of a royal cypher, to give the impression he is acting in an official royal capacity.

R306, she would probably have become Princess of Wales once her father became king. And then a Duchess once she married. Presumably her titles would change just as an eldest son's would.

Hey guys, royal website updated to add Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Some of you were right and I was completely wrong! Obviously there was a negotiation going on, in order for them only to be given those titles now, and not automatically on the Queen's death. Never mind, the family is united in love and admiration for each other, which is all that matters. A reconciliation between Harry and his father and brother is on the cards and Meghan is a true royalist. Harry probably demanded the titles in exchange for professing fealty to his father at the coronation, or whatever he's going to do there.

Way to go, Charlie! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

So KC3 caved in; what a silly thing to do.

Even more crass is the Ginger Whinger and that wife of his christening their child with title "princess".

Whole thing is just bizarre and am beginning to agree with those who say the entire lot of them need to go.

[quote]tonged kissed a gay man

The only mystery of Sergey Grishin's death as reported in r305 is why it was in a comfortable hospital bed and not after a three-story fall out a window.

[quote] oh hissssssss hissssssssssssssssssss hisssssssssssssss

[quote] this really has brought all the kooks out, everyone is spitting venom and outraged! Hisssssssssssssssssss

[quote] HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! - !!

Somebody forgot to take their pills this morning. MARY!

" she would probably have become Princess of Wales once her father became king. "

No, title Princess of Wales is reserved exclusively for wife of Prince of Wales. Mother of young Princess Alexandrina Victoria kept pushing for her daughter to be made "princess of Wales" when it was clear she would inherit. Everyone of Victoria's uncles who became king quashed that idea for same reason.

Even Princess Elizabeth who was all but most certain to inherit was never made "princess of Wales".

Princess Charlotte may have been heir apparent instead of presumptive thanks to changes in succession laws; but she would have still not become princess of Wales upon Prince Charles becoming monarch.

Well, it's official, according to the "the very latest information pertaining to the current situation" . How will you wiggle now, R277?

So the royal outcasts Harry and Andrew's children are titled, and the children of hard-working, blameless Anne and Edward are not..

R328, Archie and Lilibet didn't automatically become prince/princess when their grandfather became king, that's why they were not listed as such on the updated line of succession, when everyone else's titles were automatically changed. Charles agreed to it, perhaps as part of his process of reconciliation with Harry and as part of the arrangements for the coronation.

You are a marvel, R330. And so full of shit.

But you accept now they are a prince and a princess? I mean, it's official enough now for you?

Meghan really cares about the titles. They don't mean squat here and no one is boeing to her.

She never thought that maybe the whole title thing was the root of her husband's depression?

There's no mystery about the timing - they have no clue about the real world. I can't make up my mind about the next move (and I'm probably giving them far more credit for strategy than they deserve.) Are they getting the last loot they can before a total break? Are they paranoid Parliament will take the titles and so wanted to shore up the princely bullshit for their kids? Is there some kind of twisted logic at play that this will somehow put them on better footing at the awkward family gatherings when they attend the coronation? It's like they're set up to be next gen Fergie: never going away, ultimately inconsequential, yet capable of commanding a headline forever, even if it just makes them a laughingstock. Maybe they aren't up to anything. Maybe it's just another random impulse depending on who they feel has wronged them that morning.

Those poor children couldn't care less about the titles, but their parents are obsessed with them. It's not healthy.

Yes, r330, I accept that their grandfather has now agreed to allow them to be called prince and princess, which they did not automatically become when he became king, hence why they have only been officially designated prince and princess now and not at the moment of the Queen's death, which is when everyone else received their new titles.

Unless you have a better explanation as to why they were not designated prince and princess on the official line of succession until this morning. Did whoever updates the website simply forget?

I think r318 has sprung a leak…

I would gladly slit those lil wog spawn throats and drink their blood for England. Be white. Be British.

I'm disappointed in Charles. Not because he gave the kids titles but because there was nothing kingly in his manner of doing so. With TQ we would get monogrammed statements, written in an authoritative (and sometimes devestating) voice, giving the impression that she was never caught off guard and always one step ahead and in full command.

It's like Charles doesn't even care. I can see him waving his hand with annoyance and telling whomever, yes yes update the website. And that cheapens it all so much more than American celeb babies having titles.

I agree Charles looks weak. He needs to start releasing all the dirt MI5 gathered on MM along with select pieces of the bullying report.

It's very odd...the nastier they are, the more they're rewarded for their shitty behavior. It boggles the mind.

It's not a reward, the spawn were always entitled. Prince DumDum activsted it now so that idiots would somehow blame Chas.

Here's the keys to your new Ferrari. But you can't use it. Just keep it in the garage.

[quote]Sort of. He can demand someone who is not HRH not use the HRH styling, but he would have to issue Letters Patent (and have Parliament approve it) if he wants to officially change who is already a prince or princess, or who is a royal duke or duchess.

NO. A big no. The monarch has full rights in determining who gets or uses the Prince/Princess titles. Of course, there is a road map laid out by previous LPs as to who gets these at birth, but the sitting monarch can change this at ANY TIME, for any reason. By one of three methods: 1) LP 2) royal warrant or 3) simply writing out, proclaiming, or stating their wishes on the matter.

[quote]By the 1917 Letters Patent, which declared among other things that all grandchildren of a sitting monarch are automatically entitled Prince or Princess, both Archie and Lillibet automatically became Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lillibet of Sussex the second Elizabeth II died and Charles, as their grandfather, became King. Charles can ask that they not use that styling, or their parents can insist they not use that styling, but he would have to issue legislation that would go before Parliament if he wanted to offically remove it in law.

No he does NOT need to go to Parliament. The monarch in the UK is the Fount of all Honour (Look it up), they have full right to grant or remove a princely designation, or the HRH honorific, at any time, for any reason known only to them. The King (or Queen Regnant) does not have to "ask" anyone in the Royal Family do to anything. They TELL them what they want done about these topics, and it's done. Lawfully.

As stated above, previous LPs lay out an outline of who gets what titles at birth, to make things easy. BUT - the monarch can overrule any prior LP anytime they wish, by one of the three previously stated methods. Parliament has no involvement whatsoever.

LPs (Letters Patent) are issued by a sitting monarch, and are only in force until a new LP is issued, overruling the prior one. But they can also be overruled by a royal warrant (A kind of royal declaration, of sorts) or by simple declaration of the wishes of the sitting monarch, either verbally or in writing.

LPs are not binding onto subsequent monarchs. They don't need new LPs to be made outdated, although its thought that LPs should be replaced by new LPs, to keep things clean clear and simple.

An instance of a public declaration by the sitting monarch, overruling a prior LP, was QEII's public statement at the time of Edward and Sophie's wedding, stating that their children would not be HRHs, and would be styled as children of an Earl.

Do Archie and Lilibet now have the HRH honorific as well?

That's me here ^^^

r345 I would say no, given how their mother didn't use it in her public statement about Lili's christening this week. They've been ordered by Charles not to use it, essentially putting in mothballs - I'd say permanently, although some may disagree.

He may allow the use of HRH again, for the Sussex family, should they return to the UK and return to royal duties. Not likely at this point.

Does the vile Sussex family have to bow and curtesy to William and Kate? That would be cool to see.

No.

They will never be close enough to the Waleses to have to worry about bowing and curtsying ever again - altho I would love to see that.

From what I read they have the style (HRH) and the titles (Prince/ess) but because Harry's is in abeyance (and his first wife's is simply a courtesy, not held in her own right), the children's HRHs are in abeyance as well.

Actually I'm not sure if Harry's is in abeyance... it may be he simply agreed to not use it. That's what Andrew did, so he retains, he just can't milk it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

From above: Yet, of course, they had to be invited, and it would be even worse if they did NOT attend. Had they not been offered an olive branch, Oprah Winfrey & Co would have seen it as the ultimate insult by the Royal Family. It would be proof that the British Establishment was anti-American, snobbish and racist – the only possible reasons, in Prince Harry's universe, for anyone finding his egomaniac wife a pain in the neck.

Besides, if they had not been invited, or if they had chosen not to come, we would have been presented with the nightmare possibility that Harry would be hired by some American television network to provide a running commentary on his father's big day.

His mixture of stupidity, malice and self-obsession would have come splurging out, dishing yet more dirt on his family and on the institution of the Monarchy.

The option of their non-attendance, therefore, would have been far, far worse, than the embarrassment caused by them actually turning up. Of course, assuming they do arrive in May, there will be concerns they will try to upstage the other royals, and will be especially determined to outshine William and Kate.

In time-honoured fashion, they will probably arrange to attend some charity event to advertise how much they care for some section of the community supposedly neglected by the other royals. Or they will be seen hobnobbing with some particularly hot A-listers.

Nauseating as this will be, everyone will have to just grin and bear it.

There remains, however, a number of unanswered questions. It seems overwhelmingly likely that their agreement to attend the ceremony has been negotiated by some third party – whether this was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who knows?

No doubt some sort of 'deal' has been struck. Can it be mere coincidence that, while Meghan cannot call herself Her Royal Highness, 'Buckingham Palace' this week let it be known that it will be permissible to talk of 'Prince' Archie and 'Princess' Lilibet Diana.

Is this a signal that negotiations have indeed been going on behind the scenes? If so, it leads to another line of questioning.

Who the blazes do they think they are? And how can they have the barefaced cheek to be 'negotiating', and holding the King of England over a barrel? And how can anyone take them seriously, when they have spent the last three years rubbishing not only Harry's family but all the trappings and flummery of monarchy, while desperately wanting to hang on to titles and privileges?

It emerged this week that the little Princess had been recently baptised at Harry and Meghan's home in Montecito, California, by the Bishop of Los Angeles, the Rt Rev John H Taylor, a former chief of staff to President Nixon.

But even this joyful news could not be disseminated without being accompanied by the obligatory victim narrative.

The King and the rest of the family had been asked to attend this momentous event, we were told, but for some reason best known to themselves were unable to attend.

Although there will be many people in this country who will be pleased to see them when they show up at the Abbey, the British people will hope, in the name of common decency, that Harry and Meghan try to behave themselves.

The Coronation is an occasion when the vast majority of the population will be rejoicing. It is not because we are members of the King's fan club. The coronation isn't primarily about Charles III or about his personality. It is about our country, and the continuity of British history.

Surely this is the time to stop the royal trouble-making, resist the urge to pick quarrels, and instead build some bridges and behave with a bit of humility and good humour.

That said, while we are allowing ourselves some optimism, let's hope that some clever person at Westminster Abbey finds a couple of seats for them which are behind a pillar, out of reach of the television cameras.

What misery and destruction halfwit Harold has brought to his family by marrying this conniving viper. The RF won't be rid of this problem or have any peace for decades to come, if ever.

Then-Queen Elizabeth declared in her Megxit statement that the Sussexes will not use the HRH because they are not working royals.

Choke on you dentures you deranged antediluvian psychos..

It seems the Harkles could slit the throats of George and Charlotte and still be welcome within the bosom of the Royal Family.

It seems R358 would be welcomed within the walls of an psychiatric institution in the Northern Hemisphere.

#HarryandMeghanareHypocrites

Sorry to see that the Meghan-pap-walk thread got deleted. That's the kind of fun I'm here for--her all turned out for frau brunch in dark sunglasses and ugly designer shoes and bag, grinning and waving and enjoying her moment like Hilary Duff in 2015.

And they lived happily ever after..

^^^^^

Having a prince title is going to cause inevitable comparisons between the lovely Wales children and Meghan’s halfwit offspring. Proper Prince George will be seen dressed appropriately and attending a quality British school, while Archie is eating dirt and playing in chicken feces. Meghan doesn’t care how that kind of comparison is going to hurt Archie.

The world is littered with useless aristocratic and royal titles. Haven't you ever summered in Var or wintered in Bern, darling?

Lick my Royal crumpet R365

[quote]Does the vile Sussex family have to bow and curtesy to William and Kate? That would be cool to see.

Anne, Andrew and Edward never had to bow to Charles when he was Prince of Wales, at least not publicly.

Now, if William is petty...

SKY NEWS.- Meghan Markle will stay in California for Archie's fourth birthday while Prince Harry attends King Charles' coronation in May, as he is expected to be in the UK for a "very contentious" reason, former BBC royal correspondent Michael Cole says.

"Now, it has been revealed that King Charles agreed on the use of Royal titles at the end of 2022. It was not known whether Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex would take the titles they inherited when their grandfather became King Charles III, but it was later confirmed that they would be able to use them on formal occasions."

Charles is making Edward & Sophie Duke & Duchess of Edinburgh.

Well done and about time!

Will Edward's Earl of Wessex title go to his son now?

Yes, R372.

Exactly r356, the HRH is only used on official occasions. If Archie and Lilibet are not performing royal duties in an official capacity, then the HRH will never be used for them.

People think Charles is weak and he caved to blackmail. I see it differently - if you want to have the upper hand, give someone something that they want, and that you can take back at any time.

In the name of my most royal majesty I knight thee.

Arise, Sir Loin of Beef

Arise, Earl of Clove

....but if he takes it back, then he's "racist". Any disciplinary action Charles ever attempts he will immediately be branded "racist". For the rest of Charles' and William's lives, any corrective measures they assert the Arsonists of Montecito will immediately be squawking that the RF are racist.

Charles will never be able to remove titles like that Denmark Queen did.

Arguably by the the time Charles would make the move to do a Denmark the only people left to cry racism will be a couple of thousand hysterics on Twitter (which may not outlast the monarchy at this rate) and those two diabetic dingleberries who come here to cry Klan Granny and Yaaaaaaas! before they waddle back to LSA or whatever home for the mentally retarded is most suited to them.

Some fun facts from link:

THE QUEEN WAS 22 when Charles was delivered by caesarean section at Buckingham Palace on November 14, 1948.

The Prince's Trust once gave a £1,500 grant to an aspiring actor called Idris Elba to help launch his career

[quote]Actually I'm not sure if Harry's is in abeyance... it may be he simply agreed to not use it. That's what Andrew did, so he retains, he just can't milk it.

No. No again. He (Harry) has 'agreed' to nothing. He was ORDERED not to use it, per her grandmother the Queen back when he departed the UK for Canada, and ended his stint as a working royal. She told him to put it "in abeyance", and he had no choice but to do it, lest harsher judgments be made with his titles. Does anyone here really believe that Harry and Meghan would WILLINGLY give up their HRHs lol?

The monarch fully controls usage of the HRH honorific. Full stop. Anything to the contrary printed in the Maul, the Sun, or elsewhere is just incorrect.

OK, calm down, R380. It won't solve the climate crisis either way.

NO. NO AGAIN! I HAVE ISSUES TO SORT!

LOL Megsie is such a coward

Didn't Wallis, the OG Meghan Markle insist in being addressed as though she was a royal highness despite not being one?

I always read that was the Duke of Windsor who insisted on that. Wallis was too busy hating the bed she'd made for herself to lie in.

R370 Hear Hear !Edward is DL's Royal Eldergay.

The Duchess of Endupburgh in full regaylia

^ So many medals for cottaging? Who knew.

372 Yes he will be known as the Earl of Weirdsexx

R385 in the Windsor household she was always referred to as “Son Altesse Royale” or “SAR”.

Thank you R374, and The Titles Troll. Americans seem to go slack-jawed about the topic.

Meghan isn't attending the Coronation? She'll be busy with her lawyers planning the separation/divorce now that her children can swan around America as Prince and Princess.

If Harry was ordered not to use the HRH, then why do they still refer to themselves as "Their Royal Highnesses?"

That's their old website r393, from when they were still working royals a few years ago. They never took it down, and haven't updated it.

But when QEII ordered them to stop using the HRH, why didn't they take that off that web site or just take the web site down? B6 leaving it there, they are still claiming to have active HRHs.

When I married Rainier they snubbed our wedding, so I put a curse on the Windsors. I'm glad it's worked so well.

[R395] You're surprised that these two are loathe to admit defeat even when the reality is that they have been defeated?

No, no surprised, but aren't they committing fraud in a way?

I've noticed in some recent photos that Prince Edward (aka the new Duke of Edinburgh) has been looking thin and somewhat gaunt in appearance especially the face and neck (see photo below). I hope he's not ill.

Take a look at the second photo here. Edward really has lost a lot of weight. He looks like he has cancer.

[quote] If Archie and Lilibet are not performing royal duties in an official capacity, then the HRH will never be used for them.

Never say never. Wait until their mother launches a new line of children's wear of "HRH Prince Archie for Boys" and "HRH Princess Lilibet for Girls".

And make no mistake, once they begin school in California, they will be registered officially as Royal Highnesses.

Broadly speaking, the assumption of birthright is there, it's in the 1917 Titles Act- what the Act never did think to specify is whether that right can be assumed retroactively, i.e., when children who were not entitled to the royal title at birth suddenly go up one rung when their grandfather becomes King.

I don't think anyone believes that the Palace was waiting for the Harkles to "make up their minds" about whether they wanted the children to have those titles officially now. Only a Martian would believe that the woman who refused to do the Greet the Public After Birth So They Can Meet the Baby because "the people who refused to give my child a title [sic, he had a title at birth, just not a princely one-she never mentioned that] want me to serve him up on a silver platter" . . . or the woman who lied to Oprah about her kid not being given an HRH at birth was because of skin colour concerns . . . didn't want those titles for her kids NOW.

The problem with the Harkles is always the same: they always manage to reveal that what they say is the opposite of what they really feel and mean.

If the thing had been settled last September, why wait till now to announce it and change the Line of Succession listing?

And if they were all agreed it should emerge NOW, why didn't the announcement come from the Palace, which is what it always does?

It's clear that Charles had reservations about doing it at all and that the Harkles have been panic-stricken after all the vitriol they hurled at the family that Charles would take the Sussex title and issue Letters Patent amending the 1917 Act and depriving them and their kids for the Royal Adjacency Aura they so slavishly worship, despite their egalitarian pretensions.

Charles is well-known behind the scenes for being a pathological ditherer. He should either have issued the LPs the moment he became King (Netflix and SPARE were already done and dusted) or agreed right away and announced the new titles right away.

Dithering and waiting was the stupidest thing Charles could do. He took Frogmore Cottage and gave the Harkles another reason for revenge and to force the Palace's hand, which is exactly what the Harkles did.

In the great scheme of things, it's not really a big deal. It's not as if the kids are going to become working royals or represent the monarchy, and those titles will only get them bullied in American schools. Ffs, Charles was mercilessly bullied at Gordonstoun, he life was a misery. Sooner of later the tides of time will wash over all this.

And the Palace's acquiescence and the Harkles' admission that the kids were NOT supposed to get those at birth does show Meghan for the race-baiting bitch she is.

The Harkles got what they wanted but obviously had to push for it publicly; the Palace, by simply giving in and not making the announcement as it properly should have, made it clear there's still plenty of frost between it and the Harkles. They'd been angling for a "royal" christening at Windsor with Charles and Camilla and the then-Cambridges present since the day Lilibet was born. The didn't get it.

But it was, as always, really badly handled.

I've noticed that too, r399. He's not quite gaunt, but it doesn't look right for a 58 year old. His siblings, parents, and grandmother had robust health at his age. Maybe he's doing some weird keto diet.

^And, the HRH that goes with a royal peerage like the Sussex one will cease with Archie's son. After the grandson, it reverts to being an "ordinary" ducal title, i.e., Your Grace instead of Your Royal Highness. And if Archie has no male heir, the Sussex title will eventually revert back to the Crown, anyway. The Earl of St Andrews, the Kent heir, is the grandson of Prince George, Duke of Kent, who received the title in the 1930s from his father, George V. Thus, the HRH will stop with him when he inherits the title.

The same thing will happen in two generations to the Sussex title, or sooner if Archie has no son.

R395 I think that was the older website, wasn't it?

The thing is, they just always make themselves look so much the opposite of the impression they give on alternate days. It's all tainted already. it's not as if it makes people like them more.

Angela Levin on GBN said something about Meghan wearing a tiara at the coronation.

Has anyone else heard anything about that?

I thought only the senior working female royals were going to dress like that. Because, otherwise, why wouldn't Bea and Euge and Pss Michael wear them, too?

And it was understood that there wasn't going to be any "role" for Harry in the ceremony.

God, if he shows up in that coronet ringing that enormous bald spot on his head it will be the absolutely divine living end!

I don't understand how it all came to this point.

We knew how to deal with recalcitrant family members during my time. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.

The Bishop of LA posted a blog about baptising Harry and Meghan's daughter, Princess. He says he baptised her Princess Lilibet Diana, so Princess must be her first name. It's weird, though, that in just a few lines he goes from calling them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, to calling them Prince Harry and Meghan. The caption ("Prince Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex") is ridiculous.

Most interesting thing about the baptism is that the bishop was the chief of staff to Richard Nixon post White House years and later director of the Nixon Library.

^It is rather comical, isn't it? No matter how they try, they end up looking ridiculous. Her birth certificate doesn't say "Princess"; do they think christening her with it makes it "legal"?!

I think there was a similar snafu when Lilibet was born; Harry, when he filled out the birth certificate, either wrote in or dictated, His Royal Highness of Sussex, which isn't his name at all. It's his title - his legitimate name is Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor. The photo of the birth certificate drew howls when it was leaked. Harry was probably high as a kite when he filled it out.

They really are totally obsessed with their status.

No, the Sussexes did not "force Charles' hand and he did not "dither. He sat back while they threatened and cried, and let them announce their trailer christening via People Magazine.

Yeah, Edward does look gaunt r399, but he also looks in good spirits and quite vigorous in this video from today. Fittingly, he was in Edinburgh today and it was also his birthday.

Kate in combat gear, out with the army in the field, in the cold and snow.

Even Marlene is on board with the abeyance thing for Harry and his kids. If she says it’s true in her blog, you can believe it.

I'm just waiting for Lady Colon and River. We won't know what's really happening until they materialize.

[quote]He took Frogmore Cottage and gave the Harkles another reason for revenge and to force the Palace's hand, which is exactly what the Harkles did.

How did they force any hand? Charles had already told them he would allow the children to be Prince/Princess. They wouldn't have dared publish that statement about "Princess Lilibet" and her christening if they weren't already absolutely sure they were getting the titles - otherwise they risked the ire of the Palace and a public rebuttal that the kids didn't have titles "yet". They would have looked stupid, moreso than they usually do.

They have no power over Charles and his power over the HRH honorific and titles. As King he has total control over these areas, this has been one of the remaining areas in which he had the Sussexes over a barrel.

The Windsor's are above all survivors. Charlie will stand on that balcony hugging Harry. Camilla will be seen holding Archie in her lap. Katie and Megs will be "caught" exchanging child rearing tips. Why? Not because it's real but because it's theatre and royalty in the 21st century is just another episode of The Crown with worse actors. Charlie heard the boos and felt the eggs whiz by his head. Ratings were plummeting. The series may not get picked up!. Bloody hell! What to do? Call in the show runners! Rewrite. Give those supporting players their proper credits above the title if need be! Blue pages ! It's the reboot of The Firm and if it's what the audience demands that's what we'll give em. Charlie's Mum The Queen bowed to the coffin of a girl she despised. Her son the King will kiss the hand of Meghan Markle a woman he despises. It's the price this hoary old sit com pays for being renewed for another season. The Windsor's have proven they are nothing if not adaptable. They will make nice nice during the coronation in a well choreographed PR blitz. Sorry to disappoint you mean girl deranged frauen. In May you'll see The Reconciliation Episode and weep bitter tears. When the cast is all hold hands and singing Kumbaya on the balcony .The studio audience chants KISS! KISS! they will.

R416, you nailed it.

R400 a has the AIDs ! I'm shocked ! Shocked!

R416 none of that will happen. Also, the plural of “Windsor” is “Windsors” not “Windsor’s”.

Back to school for you and your feverish imagination.

R416 We demand more then a kiss!

So, in the end, is it correct to say the only tool for Charles to use at this point is to issue Letters Patent rescinding Mr. and Mrs. Harry's titles/styles and then the Mr. and Mr. Harry children have no titles either? Even Prince and Princess?

The plural of Deranged is Derangers. Back to the looney bin with you R419.

[quote]So, in the end, is it correct to say the only tool for Charles to use at this point is to issue Letters Patent rescinding Mr. and Mrs. Harry's titles/styles and then the Mr. and Mr. Harry children have no titles either

He should make it conditional. To be a prince or princess a person should have to be a working royal. If they are not, then their title should be extinguished.

There'll be no grandeur or glamor of bygone days.

Would be a riot if Mer Majesty QEll left a signed Letter Patent attached to her Will stripping away the Harkle titles completely, and signed before her death, for Charles to bring to light at his discretion, as in "oh, look what the barristers have just found!"

R404

Also keep in mind any son of Archie's like other peers must be of his body by lawful marriage (to a woman).

Thus if Archie turns out to be gay or just choses to have children via surrogate or adoption, those sons don't inherit.

There is a movement afoot to change laws so children of titled gays (UK) can inherit. Much like similar efforts allowing daughters to inherit peerages either as of right as first born or in default of no male heirs don't see things changing anytime soon.

R399. R400 Edward has lost both of his parents in 18 months and his wife was visibly distraught after the death of Queen Elizabeth.

Grief can take a terrible toll on anyone, especially if you have to comfort a partner who isn't coping well. Give him a break.

I won't hear a word said against Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh.

r427 - I recall Edward, Sophie, and Louise coming out of a service at a smaller chapel in Windsor Park before Prince Philip's formal funeral service at St. George's Chapel. They were well composed to answer a few questions, but they had clearly been crying. I believe it was the same occasion that Andrew barreled forth and tried to hog press cameras. Cut off at the pass?

A good tweet: Meghan went barefoot and wore ripped jeans to meet the BRF but wore thousands of dollars worth of clothes and jewelry to help with low-income charities.

Lilibet's christening was held five days after the baptism of Pippa Middleton's youngest child, Rose, which was attended by the Prince and Princess of Wales at a church in Berkshire. Richard Eden @richardaeden No royal christening for PrinceHarry and Meghan's daughter, Lilibet. He and Meghan had wanted it to be held at St George's Chapel, Windsor, where Archie was baptised.

America now has a Royal Family!

Bow and curtsy to us, you peons.

The problem isn't that Charles agreed that the Sussex kids should have the princely titles, it's that if he did, he should have announced it right away, just as he announced right away that he had created William Prince of Wales. Why the delay? If he wasn't really of two minds about it, why create the fog of uncertainty that gave that gave the impression? And why wait till Edward's birthday for the DoE title? That's what gave rise to all that criticism about not honouring his father's wishes, and holding the title for Princess Charlotte (which is ludicrous, she's going to be Princess Royal, since when has a female in the immediate line of succession been given a royal ducal title that she can't pass on?!).

The problem is that the failure to clarify matters quickly leaves the tabloids free to spread false stories and rumours, some of which will never completely disappear, and that make Charles look indecisive at a time when he can't afford to look that way any longer.

The Harkles still got a second-rate deal: backyard party, meaningless cleric, no announcement from the Palace. The comparison to Archie's christening won't be lose on anyone, but it's the best they could do.

Charles, yes, could still issue Letters Patent changing things, but if he was so inclined, he should have done that right away, too. It's too late to do that and look good doing it.

One thing Charles or the Queen could have done is leave the Sussex title but make it a lifetime peerage only, just like Charles did with the DoE and Prince Edward. It would have left Harry his title, but would have ensured that Archie would never inherit it or pass it on to a son of his. Archie could enjoy his "Prince" title for life, but that would also die with Archie, as he can't pass on that HRH and by the time Archie has kids, William be on the throne and royal titles will all be over for Harry's descendants on that score.

The whole morass of speculation is what is damaging to Charles. It doesn't matter that it was "all settled" last September - if it was, why not say so and stop the bloody stories and counterstories?

I say again, the Queen shouldn't have left this on Charles' shoulders.

Now that they've "won" titles for their kids, you know that the status-obsessed Harkles are dying to break out and start using their "HRHs"

Titles are stupid. The kids are American.

How elegant and classy! They're truly noble. WINNING, bitches!!!

R433 Frau worries

R433, because when you're thinking through your the priorities, within hours of the death of the Queen, your mother, perhaps creating your heir Prince of Wales is more important than announcing titles for two kids you've barely seen, in the care of two people hardly anyone can bear, all domiciled in a country half a world away.

R433, you seem to know better than the King which titles he intends to grant to whom and when (to say nothing of your knack for predicting the future.) We are so lucky to have you here. I feel like Moses on Mt. Sinai, getting ten tips for titling.

The Queen's influence was significantly reduced by death. You may have noticed their is a new monarch and he's, as Americans like to say, the decider.

Diana's older sisters, Lady Jane Fellowes and Lady Sarah McCorquodale, were present at Princess Lilibet's christening, according to reports.

Brits love a jolly to America, if only because of the exchange rate. Plus, they were probably curious to see Casa Prefabricada.

And they lived happily ever after😁

R442, a nine year old really shouldn't be on this site.

Incidentally, has anyone ever referred to Frogmore Cottage as 'Frottage'?

I'm still amused by a 10 person choir for a toddler's christening.

I'm still amused by a 10 person choir for a toddler's christening.

R440 - you left out “allegedly”. I find it a good fit with most Sussex pronouncements.

Classic headline from the Maul.... I laughed out loud:

Royals 'hope' Harry and Meghan will be 'seated in Iceland' at King's Coronation... With 55 days to go before the ceremony, Charles is already rehearsing - and family tensions are rising

If the Harkles had any decency and any of their whining reflected the truth about the BRF, they'd have renounced ALL their titles: prince, duke/duchess, baron/baroness, earl/countess for themselves as a couple, plus any the children are entitled to. Requested that the necessary UK organ legally detach them.

But as the Guardian put it, their main gripe is they didn't get a bigger piece of the privilege pie. Or the biggest piece.

And seeing as they can't get any attention without the titles, they hang on with their fingernails. Nothing else about them commands the money and attention they crave.

Stunning but not unpredictable hypocrisy.

Hopefully US liberals will ditch them for this. Not to mention the anti-BRF Sussex Squad loons. How will people like Gloria Steinem reconcile what they say with hanging onto the titles? Tyler Perry is clearly a hypocrite, too.

R449

Things aren't going very well for them. Even they know they're worthless without the link to the monarchy.

Actually, not sure about him.

Just wait until the love stops winning!

Hopefully it doesn't. That's why they alienated everyone else so they only have each other.

Harold is oblivious.

Harry's mind is compromised.

Harry's glad he bailed on this house of freaks. Decade more he'd have looked likes one these hateful gargoyles.

^ You're unwell.

[quote] You may have noticed their is a new monarch

Oh, [italic]dear.[/italic]

Good catch, R457! Feeling better?

I got into a rabbit hole of royal birth videos and burst into a fit of laughter when the narrator stated, "But by now, a tearful Prince Harry had had enough" on this one due to the ironic relevance of that line today even as a grown man.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Good times.

R460 There is a precedent for Grandchildren of The Monarch attending, but they tended to be a bit older than the flat packs. The youngest being Prince Albert who aged 6/7 attended his Grandfather King Edward the sevenths in August 1902. A Monarch ascending the throne with adult children and grandchildren is unusual.

Obviously King Charles was his Mothers, but he was the heir. Princess Anne was deemed too young to attend the ceremony, but is in balcony photo's.

[quote]Hopefully US liberals will ditch them for this.

This has nothing to do with American politics, but you've been so brainwashed by the constant stream of culture wars bullshit that you don't realize it.

Tagging onto R461

There had been talk early on that if KC3 didn't do something about that dukedom and Prince Edward it would make for awkwardness at the coronation; MM as a duchess (if only by marriage) would outrank Countess of Wessex thus the latter would have to crane her neck to former. Imagine!

Sorting that mess out may have played a role in KC3 keeping his word and giving his younger brother the D of E as promised.

^eyeroll oh sure

ALLEGEDLY:

Only those two would want to disrupt a day like May 6th with a birthday party a four year old will likely not remember.

Mind you, I suppose it's not the party, it's the value of the pictures.

And the balcony? Well, if they want the whole family to hear them being booed, I say go for it! Fixed smiles at the ready.

I don't believe one damn thing about anything I read about Will They? Won't They?

Still, I'm enjoying the hell out of reading all of it.

And, I'll give the Sussexes credit for milking the suspense. I'm in for it.

Still, this is about all they have left in the cow. After the Coronation, they're done.

Unfortunately, they won't be done after the Coronation.

There will be a whole new set of grievances about how they and their children were treated at the Coronation to air and milk. If halfwit Harold loses his case against the UK for security on 3/8 that will be another waaagh about how his father and brother want him and his wife and kids to die.

Supposedly, The Tig is relaunching to coincide with the Coronation, so the merching of phantom Prince Archie and Princess InvisiLili is just around the corner. Archie Chicken Feed and Lili Jam, anyone? She's come full circle, from dlist actress blogger to dlist duchess blogger.

Narcissists never give up and they never give in. She will be concocting ways for them to stay in the headlines for the next decade.

^^^ should be 5/8 (May 8th) not 3/8

How are the Sussexes and the Brooksbanks ALL going to stay in Frottage for the Coronation festivities? Five bedrooms for all those people? Isn’t there a Soho House in London that lets rooms for longer than an hour?

No need for overnight accommodations, R471. Tyler Perry has agreed to have his plane circle London for the afternoon and whisk them away when the show is over to minimize the throwing of over-ripe fruit and raised voices directed towards the D&D of Overseas.

[quote]his father and brother want him and his wife and kids to die.

Don't we all...

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have gifted a horse to the King.

Years ago, the RCMP gifted the late Queen a horse called Burmese. He was the horse she rode during many Trooping the Colour ceremonies including the one where someone shot at her. She trusted him so much that when he was retired, she didn't ride a horse again but instead rode in a carriage.

^ continued from above.

Charles is preparing himself for his Coronation.

I hope Charles puts in place very detailed end of life directives so that his death, unlike the Queen's, won't have the added stress of Harold insisting his harridan who has smeared the RF should accompany him to his father's deathbed. Harold has also smeared his family but Charles would want to see his son one last time. No one wants to see Meghan and her phony one tear from her left eye.

Noble is a beauty. Nice jewelry too.

What does DL think of the wedding dress of Princess Iman of Jordan? Notice the "dangling tendrils".

I don't mind the dress but she could have ditched the hair strands.

"Charles is preparing himself for his Coronation."

Fixed for R476

R479 Bugger off there's only room for 1 Wog Bitch on this thread.

Gorgeous dress, r479

So Meghan takes her badly dressed assistant to lunch and waves at the paparazzo who photographs her? Did she hire him?

Of course she hired him - it was a pap stroll. Check the photo credit - it’s her go-to agency when she wants to be photographed “just out keeping a low profile”.

The Coronation demands are so charmingly Tolkien.

You'll recall that the Sackville Baggins' wanted a personal and official invite to Bilbo's 111th birthday party, though the only reason they wanted to attend was because Bilbo supposedly had trunks full of gold. Of course, Bilbo warned Frodo to watch that odious Sackville Baggins woman, who he'd previously caught trying to sneak off with his spoons!!

WAAUGH! Allegedly in tears because he dididn'get to enter with HMQEII. Even his big brother making an effort in solidarity by not coming in with HM wasn't enough. This is after the Harkles had announced they were quitting. What the hell did he expect?

Dimbo lives and breathes titles, rank and privilege. His only problem with those things is that he isn't higher up the food chain. It's so sad how he and Markle emphasise their ducal titles.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

They deserve the cold shoulder. They have caused a lot of pain, damage and distraction. They did not need to fight this out in public. But they sold it to make money.

They should not come to the coronation. If they started doing it the Duke and Duchess of Windsor way they might salvage some kind of cachet. But, different generations. Although Windsor benefitted from a wife who apparently had some kind of understanding about how to play a bad hand.

R486 You are spot on Dee . Every time we see the Sussexes they look like they are about to burst into tears.

R484 It was Backgrid, THE go-to pap photo agency in the area that is called for an arranged "pap" shot. Meghan has used them plentifully, and also used them to set up her father before the wedding.

He didn't say they are always in tears, r489.

You shouldn't even be calling them the Sussxes, unless you're a hardened royalist.

Meghan's single tear for the departed Queen at r487 cracks me up.

[QUOTE]The 2014 video, filmed at Soho House in Toronto, where her legal drama Suits was made, shows Meghan boasting that she can shed a tear for the camera in three seconds. Asked by someone behind the camera if she can make herself cry, Meghan says: “Oh, I can do that so well. Oh my God, it's crazy.

You have to wonder how often she deployed this special skill during her tenure in the royal family when circumstances demanded a manipulation tactic. From tiaragate, to her "suicidal ideation," to doe eyes getting glassy on the verge of tears during the Oprah interview.

Such a strong feminist! 💪

R489. I hadn’t thought of that. People who smile in public have uniformly happy private lives. Thank you for that.

I have never before seen the tear-stained, solemn face photo op in Jessica Lange's Coven costume at R487. That is wildly inappropriate for decorum, her stature, and how she actually treated the Queen in her final years.

Definitely Borderline Personality Disorder. Jesus.

Mrs. Sparkles has deadly dead eyes in most photos, otherwise they're glistening with evil..

So why can’t they stay in a hotel or some other place? They want Charles to kick the Eugenies out of their home?

don’t we think Archie and Lilibet are a little young for a coronation? It will be yet another way the Sussex family will ruin the coronation, this time with crying kids.

Hope itit'true HMQEII left him nothing. He looks like an orange ape here.

Those kids have never been exposed to average size extended family gatherings let alone massive crowds and protocol. Medusa would never take the chance of the children misbehaving publicly and embarrassing her.

Of course when they grow up and ask her why they weren't there she will tell them it's because Grandpapa Charles and evil Step Monster Camilla didn't want them there because they are BLACK and violent necklace breaking uncle Willy and reluctant lip-gloss sharer Auntie Waity Katie don't like hugging BLACK people.

Netflix probably waited ages to get the six hour whinge-a-thon out of the way before pulling this.

[QUOTE]So why can’t they stay in a hotel or some other place?

Royal residences are all guarded and there are security patrols around Windsor.

I've posted this before -- Harry’s hair didn't use to look like the brillo pad mess at r498. Long term cocaine abuse can fry hair. I used to work in the mental health field decades ago. Then it was clinical lore. Now there's evidence for structural changes down to the follicle.

Go to the section labeled "Ultra-structural alterations of hair obtained from cocaine users"

Wonder how much money wannabe techie Harry had in Silicon Valley Bank. Hmm.

The Royals primarily bank with Coutts (established 1692, now part of the NatWest group). They even have a private cash machine in Buckingham Palace.

Even the ginger whinger can't have been foolish enough to move money away from that kind of security.

Speaking of Coutts... the nasty scolds:

"But as the running costs of Clarence House, Royal Lodge, Birkhall, the Castle of Mey and Walmer Castle continued to escalate, so did her overdraft at Coutts Bank, which rose from £4 million to £7 million.

"Golly, I could do with £100,000, couldn't you?" she asked one bemused dinner guest. "I had such an awful afternoon with my bank manager scolding me about my overdraft."

His faithful subjects fail to appreciated His Majesty's charm yet again.😂

^^

Luv the lickspittle with the whistle trying to drown out the cheering crowd.. LOL

[quote] "But as the running costs of Clarence House, Royal Lodge, Birkhall, the Castle of Mey and Walmer Castle continued to escalate, so did her overdraft at Coutts Bank, which rose from £4 million to £7 million.

[quote]"Golly, I could do with £100,000, couldn't you?" she asked one bemused dinner guest. "I had such an awful afternoon with my bank manager scolding me about my overdraft."

Elizabeth II and Charles paid off most of the overdraft for the Queen Mother on the condition that she pay the remaining by selling some pieces of jewelery that she had never worn and which could not be traced back to her. And she did, but grudgingly. Among the pieces were a tiara and necklace inherited from Queen Mary, a couple of Greville brooches never seen by the public, and some strands of pearls were sold to a relative who allowed the QM to retain the necklaces in her possession until her death when the relative finally received them.

Fear not Sussexstans! No doubt Charles will now step down and name Harry and Meghan as his successors. If there's anyone who can revive the popularity of the BRF it's those two!

Link, R508?

"A ROYAL insider says Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will have "no control" if they decide to attend the coronation - and will be treated as "minor figures" on the day."

r511 What is Harry and Meghans problem with being minor?

Don't believe PH is bothered much about being "minor", after all he is the spare and knew from a young age a day would come when he would be pushed into background.

No, IMHO much of this anger at being "minor" comes from the Markle woman who believes she and her children are being slighted for various reasons, primary of course their race.

Being an American MM has no frame of reference regarding dynamics of royal or even noble families where the eldest son is *it* so to speak. All MM knows is she is a royal princess (even if only by marriage) and attention should be paid.

MM and PH could have remained in UK and paid their dues like say Prince Edward and Countess of Wessex. That is work hard at what can turn hand to and make themselves useful to the nation and RF.

Bollocks. Harry is extremely "bothered," at the BRF system, statmrting with his slightly smaller bedroom as a mite. Oh well, it's over now. good luck Harold and your insta lovin bitch.

Yeah, I agree... after Spare it's evident he can't bear his place in the hierachy. That idiot he's married to somehow understands nothing about the system except that she can't figure out how to work it to her satsifaction.

You mean a raggle-taggle tiny gang of middle-class leftie protestors, r505.

[quote]They even have a private cash machine in Buckingham Palace.

Where, specifically?

Time for more Deranger Fumigant

Queen Camilla wore Queen Mary’s Russian Sapphire Cluster Brooch for the first time on Commonwealth Day.

Good to see that HM isn’t shy about raiding the jewel vault!

The only items I don't think Camilla will wear are The Cullinan Brooch (Granny's Chips) and the fringe Tiara's, too closely associated with Queen Elizabeth.

Judging from what's coming the cunt's way she should have worn the Cluster Fuck Brooch

R512 It's Meghan's problem with being a supporting player. At the absolute pinnacle of her drab career, she was only 6th on the Call Sheet of a basic cable Canadian soap. Her greatest performance prior to that was as the FedEx delivery driver on Horrible Bosses. A role which lasted 1 min 30 sec. SHE WANTS TO BE THE STAR!!

Meghan nurtured and fed Harry’s grudge until it became monster. A different spouse might have convinced him of the benefits of being the spare, and helped him settle on a different path of do-gooding and a more relaxed life away from the cameras. I think Meghan goaded him “You’re just as royal as he is, Harry. Why do we have to walk behind them all the time. Like we’re second class citizens because I’m black!” And so on.

I wonder if Harry will ever notice how diseased Meghan is. A good therapist can help guude him to the realization.

If co-dependent wasn't a thing, they'd inspire it.

"I wonder if Harry will ever notice how diseased Meghan is."

I doubt it....

"She can bring him such misery. If she is playing him for a fool, he's the last one to know, loving eyes can never see".

R521 she’ll certainly be wearing Granny’s Chips on coronation day - Camilla’s crown will have the Cullinan diamonds III and IV replacing the Koh-I-Noor.

Are we taking wagers on both attending, Harry only attending, or neither one attending?

Queen Camilla was met by cheering crowds yesterday.

Sorry, there's no world where Harry should have married a woman who "escorted" a rich businessman to the White House. That shouldn't have happened. Harry made a bad mistake. He should have renounced his title to marry her.

That's why they blew it up.

You can pretend she's a modern, liberated woman. But it's the oldest profession in the world.

[QUOTE]there's no world where Harry should have married a woman who "escorted" a rich businessman to the White House

I missed this. Who did she escort?

John Fitzpatrick. Who also came to her wedding. And introduced her to Rory McIlroy.

It's a bad look. I wouldn't let my son marry her.

I just read the Reddit thread about her and Fitzpatrick. If true, sounds like she was trading sex for freebies and introductions. Question is how was she introduced to Fitzpatrick?

You just be nice to the gentlemen, fancy, and they'll be nice to you.

Diana's brother isn't taking any shit from the Orange Menace.

[quote]Diana's brother isn't taking any shit from the Orange Menace.

I have no doubt Diana did kiss up to Trump. I would bet she was looking for a place in NYC and thought Trump Tower might be a good place.

The Queen Mother sold Queen Mary’s amethyst parure, which she never wore. The necklace from the parure was spotted on Anna Wintour a few times. The tiara was probably broken up for the stones and metal.

She also “dated” that Mnuchin fella.

At least he had the good sense to marry a golddigging “actress” who never pretended otherwise, and is in on the joke. (Louise Linton, “Me, You, Murder”)

^^ Me, You, Madness

"And, the HRH that goes with a royal peerage like the Sussex one will cease with Archie's son"

That "HRH " comes from being children or grandchildren of monarch. Has nothing to do at all with peerage titles.

Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were royal highnesses long before they received peerages.

Perfect example would be late monarchs cousins the Kent and Gloucester branches of BRF. Males are all "HRH" and princes because their grandfather George V was king and thus as male grandsons of monarch they were royals.

When current princes in Kent and Gloucester lines die that will be end of "HRH"/royal status for those branches of BRF. Their male heirs will inherit peerage titles but won't be royals. Yes, they will remain in line of succession, but that has to do with being heirs of Electress Sophia.

Princess Di was looking for a filthy rich husband a la Jackie Kennedy. Can't remember his name, but she was linked for a year or so to a short, old and very rich Jewish businessman in NYC. She might have met Trump then.

[quote] Can't remember his name, but she was linked for a year or so to a short, old and very rich Jewish businessman in NYC

Jeffrey Epstein? In all seriousness, I wonder if Epstein and Maxwell were tangential friends of Diana.

Di's brother needs to shut his tragically ugly mug with its greedy pie hole. He refused to give her shelter from that storm of her last summer. And now he gets to dine off her corpse, by doing that cheap carnie gig.."Step right up folks pay your money & get to see the People's Princess's crypt." PS. I heard sh isn't even buried on the "The Sacred Isle of Interment"

Maybe he needs to spend his time finding a richer American heiress to pay his bills. Her Lordship Spencer Duke of Slime.

R545. Agreed. The Windsors are not the ideal family, but the real dysfunction seems to reside on the people who marry into the family, like the Spencers and the Markles.

Speaking of ugly mug Charles Spencer, what did he do to poor Kitty that she's married to a geriatric? I love Kitty Spencer. I think she is so gorgeous and I love her style, but she seems like she was damaged by her upbringing.

I think you're thinking of a guy called Teddy Forsmann (not sure on the spelling.)

Yes! Teddy Forstmann was the one. Don't think Epstein was rich enough back then to interest Di.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

per request : Deranger Thread Fumigant

I agree that there are a lot of parallels between Meghan and Jussie.

The Maul has a story, repeating comments from Brian Cox as part of the Succession publicity before the season starts (March 26 on HBO, oh, yeah - be there!) Anyway Cox is like it's bullshit Meagantoinette didn't know what she was marrying in to, while calling for the abolishment of the monarchy.

The funny part is this:

"MailOnline has approached representatives for the Sussexes for comment via email. "

Which means every time the Mail sticks the knife in word reaches Casa Prefabricado before publication. Stomps up and down hall swearing.

I relate to Diana in that while we are both bat shit crazy, I think we both go for people that give us a feeling. Diana was never that into looks or money if you assume her great love was Hazmat Khan. I think she always wanted someone who just "got her" and was authentic. That's the difference between her and Meghan (amongst other things) - I always felt Diana saw herself as the underdog and really connected with the downtrodden people she helped. She was sincere in her craziness. I love the stories of Diana driving around late night with no press giving fur coats to street hookers ensuring that they keep warm. I feel like that is something I would do if I had her money and status.

R546 Odd you should say that, because all Harry has done is harp on the "genetic pain" that he assures us was all down to the Windsors.

Totally ignored was the dysfunction of his mother's family. The Spencers were awful, and Diana's father and grandmother in particular. Her grandmother, Lady Fermoy, married Fermoy strictly for his title (he was an abusive shite), Earl Spencer treated Diana's mother brutally, the divorce case was one of THE big society scandals of the day, Diana's older sister was booted out of her fancy school for alcoholism and Sarah also suffered from an eating disorder, and the heir, Charles, is on his third marriage and also reputed to be no peach of a husband.

It is amazing that Harry ignored all that.

Most families are fucked up. I don't know why anyone expects royal families not to have their "issues". It's actually rather reassuring that they're not ideal perfect families.

It would be too much to bear on top of the money and status, wouldn't it?

It doesn't matter what the Harkles claim. They're grifters and plant ridiculous stories in the press almost daily.

When King Charles publicly refers to Merchie and Invisibet as Prince Merchie and Princess Invisibet then I'll believe they have those titles.

Right now they are children of dubious origin named Mountbatten Windsor.

R556 That's ridiculous. He already HAS referred to them by their titles by giving permission for them to be listed as such. You can question all you like with your tinfoil hat whether they were actually born to and gestated by Meghan, but the fact is those kids were entitled to be called Prince and Princess the day the Queen breathed her last. If it weren't the case, the King wouldn't have greenlit the change in the Line of Succession on the web site.

It won't matter a tinker's curse in the end, because the name without the game doesn't get you too far, as the kids' parents have found out over the last three years.

Until someone comes forward with rock solid proof that they were adopted or born via surrogate or implanted by aliens from Mars - Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet they are whether Granddad utters the words aloud in public or not.

Nope. If the late Queen wanted them to be styled Prince and Princess like William's children she'd have made that happen. She chose not to, King Charles doesn't refer to them that way and no one else does either.

For the Harkles to refer to their kids that way and plant stories saying that carries as much weight as calling MJ's kids Prince or Katie Price's kid princess.

Unless I hear it come out of the King's own lips, it's just morewaek Harkles spin.

*weak Harkle spin

Those kids are going to have a hard time when they start school. No American children are going to treat them like royalty. Their titles mean nothing in the US.

^^I predict they will be mocked for their Disney cartoon character names by 1st grade.

[QUOTE]Totally ignored was the dysfunction of his mother's family. The Spencers were awful, and Diana's father and grandmother in particular. Her grandmother, Lady Fermoy, married Fermoy strictly for his title (he was an abusive shite), Earl Spencer treated Diana's mother brutally,

Absolutely, the late Earl Spencer was a drunk who beat his wife for her failure to produce a male heir, though the genetics of that had long been sorted out. Three girls were too much for the alcoholic Johnny Spencer do he went apeshit on Frances.

And *she* was unfairly characterized as a bolter. How many bruises and black eyes was she expected to suffer?

R561

Earl Spencer famously dragged his wife down to Harley Street to sort out why she wasn't producing heirs.

Those kids will have the most normal names in all of wealthy Southern California.

Ok, except for the old lady ones that originated in their family. But the pissing contest insecurities of the more monied in their circles, and their parents terrible reputation, and their mother's questionable past, will all but ensure they return to the UK as soon as Megs realizes what her title is worth over here.

That sounds familiar, r562. After reading a lot of accounts of the marriage, it sounded absolutely abysmal and soul-crushing for Frances. Being scapegoated by the women in her own family on top of it? And *she* got the scarlet letter as Johnny frolicked.

And Earl Spencer had the gall to use his sister’s funeral to claim that he and his family were going to continue the mentally healthy upbringing Diana had provided. Fortunately, he ignored the children from the day of the funeral.

Personality is essentially formed by the age of three.

All of Harry's neuroses can be traced back to those first three years of his life. He was right there with his mummy. Dad may have been away a lot or simply uninterested in them, he's a product of his mother all the way.

A spoiled wastrel, unable to cope with life so he became a drug addict and alcoholic. Is that the way Diana raised him to be? Evidently.

Yeah, those Spencers were complete trash.

[QUOTE]Personality is essentially formed by the age of three.

Which theories and empirical evidence?

[quote] Right now they are children of dubious origin named Mountbatten Windsor.

I totally agree and I love how you stated this, Unfortunately, I think the change of succession made me accept the fact. I did enjoy the Palace/Charles' low key flex of disapproval by making a grand annoucnement of Edward becoming the DOE while crickets on Archie and Lilibet's new titles.

I’d never really considered it until “recollections may vary” but Buckingham Palace really are the masters of shade. Reinforced with the formal announcement by HM King Charles III of Edward being made Duke of Edinburgh while Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor’s christening and assumption of the Princess title were revealed to a breathless world by People Magazine.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

There was another Spencer son, named John after his father, born 17 months before Diana, but he died 10 hours after birth.

I don't think the announcement of Edward's new title was shade, r570. It was certainly planned in advance (it was made on Edward's birthday, when he was on a scheduled trip to Edinburgh) and not rushed out in response to the Harkles' bizarre briefing to People magazine. The manner in which it was declared that Princess and her brother Archie were now prince and princess was solely the decision of their parents. If anything, it's more likely that they made the announcement about Princess Lilibet Diana to pre-empt the announcement about Edward.

Not sure "recollections may vary" is intentional shade either. How else can you politely point out that things weren't exactly as Harry and Meghan alleged? It's a genius line though.

The funniest thing about those two: He hates cameras, she loves them. I’ve never seen her look annoyed by a camera’s presence. Anna Nicole was like that, too.

The reporting was fairly consistent that a decision had been reached and the Palace was waiting for the Sussexes to say so. Technically, under 1917, it was stating the obvious so there wasn't much to announce and presumably little desire to boost their egos. They handled it in their usual chaos.

Re R575:

"George V’s oft-quoted letters patent of 1917 stipulates that the grandchildren of a monarch automatically become prince and princesses at birth along with the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. (Queen Elizabeth II refined this in 2012 to cover all the living children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales – hence why Charlotte automatically became a princess and Louis a prince). Similarly, Archie and Lilibet automatically became a prince and princess when Charles III ascended the throne upon his mother’s death on September 8, 2022 (although they cannot use their HRH style as their father’s is in abeyance).

The King could have only changed that by issuing a second letters patent stripping them of their titles which, despite briefings to the contrary, the palace insists he never had any intention of doing. Sources close to the Sussexes suggest that they made it known to the Firm before Christmas that their children were going to take their titles. As a second statement released on behalf of the couple later on Wednesday stressed: “The children’s titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.” Harry and Meghan are thought to have been somewhat put out that the Royal family’s website had not been updated earlier.

Royal sources claim they were waiting for a formal announcement from the couple."

It is plain in retrospect Meagain either didn't understand or chose to ignore why Archie wasn't a Prince from birth. Could her nose have beeb out of joint because the LP was amended to make Cambridge children princes and princesses while their great-grandmother was on the throne? Again a case of not understanding or understanding and not accepting anyway?

R576 could Sparkles have chosen a more unflattering dress? She appears as a large plank of wood with a twist tab on top. Charming as always.

If the UK government is royalist, the PM needs to work with Charles to reach agreement to strip royal titles from non-working royals who do not reside in the UK. It’s a mockery of the institution to have two American children in California be officially treated as royal. They could stay in the line of succession.

Problem is he's made too much noise about it and now seems, as ever, indecisive. Poor job of managing expectations.

I was in the park today (Toronto) walking dog and met a woman from London. The topic came up and - focus group of one but nonetheless - said in London the view of them among the people she knows is either outright hate or boredom, but no support or sympathy for them, mostly because of his book. There is a generally feeling he's far more mentally disturbed than anybody thought but that for years he got cut a lot of slack because of his mother's death at such a young age for both of them.

She also lived in Toronto off and on and had a relative in Meagain's neighbourhood and the general view was she was unfriendly and up herself when she was just here as sixth on the call sheet, well before Harry. And nobody liked her dogs. As a dog owner, when people don't like your dog, that's not where you want to be.

R558 Cling to your fantasist reductionism about what you KNOW the Queen was thinking, if you like. You have the cart before the horse: she gave William's kids the titles at birth, first, in order to ensure no daughter born first carried a title inferior to a younger brother despite the daughter being first in line, and, second, because William's line was now the direct one to the throne. The line goes down through the older son: if you look up the law, it says: The eldest son of the eldest son of . . . That would have made any son born after a first in line daughter a Prince, whilst the daughter remained Lady Charlotte M-B.

Harry became the adjacent line the minute Prince George was born. The Queen adhered to custom; her only change, in tandem with Parliament, was doing away with male primogeniture in terms of the Line of Succession. But she couldn't and didn't have the power to change it as far as the hereditary peerage went. Thus: Edward's son now has a peerage title, and his sister does not.

That's it. The Queen knew perfectly well those kids would become HRHs the minute she died. Why go out of her way to make an empty gesture?!

No one, but NO ONE, would have changed that listing without the King's express permission. He doesn't have to shout it from the turrets of Windsor Castle. The change in the listing IS the King's voice, whether you like it or not.

The change to the line of succession was an Act of Parliament. She couldn't have changed it without an act of parliament. Succession rights are parliament's jurisdiction. Other than that, R582 is right.

If Meghan didn't understand why Archie wasn't a prince, Harry certainly would have and could have explained it to her. But that didn't fit the narrative of racism they settled on after they were denied the "half-in/half-out" arrangement they wanted. If you recall, Meghan said that Archie wouldn't be getting ANY titles, which is a flat-out lie because he could use his father's subsidiary title.

Wonder if she saw the handwriting on the wall during the Oscars.. Angela lost to Jamie. The screams of #OSCARSOWHITE got shouted down by the slap heard & seen around the world. BLM fatigue & disgust have set in for many as the financial thefts from its leaders revealed. But of course all those saintly folk in LA & Sf will dish out some dosh.

She could still wave the BLM banner & see if she can get any Reparation dosh. If she can rent a house in SF , wonder if she can collect from both LA & SF. She is 43% Nigerian after all. And Maltese as well.

Now if she can only find some Chinese in her background she could shoot for a lead/star role in a film & get that Academy nod. But maybe that slew of awards to the Chinese this year was just more virtue signaling from a bunch of phonies who just can't help themselves or put brakes on the train before it hits the brick wall.

Interesting that Cruise went to London to honor Caine. Who knew he was smart enough to realize that this year's Oscars was just a slightly different version of the same shit show. Guess Cruise can't be bothered with Turd Polishing.

Why couldn't the queen, or now king, change all peerages to strict primogeniture instead of male line primogeniture if they wanted to, R582? I meean, I'm sre they won't, now there isn't really a parliamentary peerage, but couldn't they?

If the King never openly and publicly uses the Harkles kids' titles, no one else will either.

They'll simply be another silly pretension from Ms Harkle.

R582: Peerages are a Prerogative Power, meaning a power the Crown once exercised but not devolved to elected government (like signing treaties, negotiating trade, deploying the army), so the monarch must act on advice of government. Peerages are legal entities in the UK. The Duke of Devonshire signs his passport as Devonshire, even though his family name is Cavendish. There are centuries of law relating to peerages. In any event that's the answer to your question: the monarch can't act without the advice of government when it comes to peerages because there are legal considerations and the power of honours must by convention involve the advice of the government of the day.

sorry, a power now devolved... not not devolved.

Monarch cannot of his or her own accord change how existing hereditary peerages go. that would require action from Parliament. Just as the Crown Succession Act also required action from same said body of government.

As peerage stands today and has for centuries is the thing is self limiting. If a family does not have legitimate male heirs peerage titles will go extinct. Baronies which are normally created by writ are another matter. There a daughter/female often can inherit either in her own right or in absence of male heirs.

This is what Lord Marchmain bangs on about lying on his deathbed in Brideshead Revisited. Neither his heir nor Sebastian have bred sons from legitimate marriages, nor likely ever will. Thus the "greater honors" bestowed to the Marchmain family will become extinct. However they do have an old barony which can be inherited by females and Lord Marchmain is thrilled that his eldest daughter, Julia, will likely inherit.

Problem is if you allow daughters or females in general in a family to inherit then peerages would in theory never go extinct. Also since females marry out of their families into another would those children be allowed to inherit?

Tagging onto one's post above beauty of peerage is that in each generation only one member (eldest son) will rise up and become a peer (inheriting), everyone else drops down to commoner status.

You see this within BRF. Grandchildren of the Ginger Whinger will all be commoners (no HRH). If Archie marries and breeds sons the dukedom will continue so long as the Sussex line provides male heirs, but again they will not be "royal" dukes.

It's either sad or funny depending upon way one looks at things; only holding a life peerage Duke of Edinburgh's male heirs will only inherit the earldom and lower family titles. OTOH Archie Sussex will one day be a duke and so will his grandsons, great grandsons, etc...

[quote] It's either sad or funny depending upon way one looks at things; only holding a life peerage Duke of Edinburgh's male heirs will only inherit the earldom and lower family titles. OTOH Archie Sussex will one day be a duke and so will his grandsons, great grandsons, etc...

That’s completely Edward’s fault. If he had cared about titles like Meghan does, his descendants would have done better.

R586 Because the rules governing the hereditary peerage are not in the Sovereign's power. It would have to go through Parliament, including through [ahem] the House of Lords.

The hereditary peerage is not in a hurry to change the rules. And, actually, a hereditary peer does have the power to leave the estate to anyone he wishes. You may remember that in "Brideshead Revisited", Lord Marchmain at the last leaves the estate to his daughters, by passing his son, whom he despises.

What a hereditary peer cannot do is pass the title onto a daughter. The estate, yes; the title, no. There are perhaps four or so hereditary titles that do pass on to a daughter, but generally speaking, that's the way the thing is set up.

Sometimes they can't leave the bulk of the assets, either. Recall Downton, the estate was entailed to the heir, which was why they were all trying to get Mary married to whoever it was.

Imagine Harry being single dad, picking up the kids at the Beverly Hills Family Services Associates and having his supervised visitation in a semi-public area with the court-appointed chaperone. Then he has to take his private jet all the way back to Montecito. It’s so sad!

All Haz and Meg have succeeded in doing is convincing people to root for William and Catherine.

I never gave W & K or the BRF a second thought until the Markle Circus came to town.

"You may remember that in "Brideshead Revisited", Lord Marchmain at the last leaves the estate to his daughters, by passing his son, whom he despises."

Lord Marchmain didn't get on with his heir for many reasons but chief among his reasons for separating estate from titles was Brideshead marrying that common (and poor) widow.

Brideshead (the estate) was in debt, we know this from things Rex Mottram said along with Julia once questioning her brother why he was suddenly interested in the family jewels.

Idea that Brideshead and his common little wife along with her two children would be ensconced at family estate while it "crumbled down around them) was more than Lord Marchmain was prepared to stand.

Happily for Lord Marchmain (and not for Brideshead) in real life Britain ended fee entail in 1925. Lord Marchmain goes on about how the entail ends with him and who should he leave the estate to. "Who wants it? Quis?"

In fiction such as Downton Abbey along with real life we know that ending of fee entail as families knew it, coupled with crippling new taxes (including death duties) caused break up of many great estates starting in years between the wars. Things continued when Parliament again raised taxes in wake of WWII. So many great houses were being demolished and or roofs taken off allowing nature to do the deed that it spurred what has become known as the National Trust.

Since H&M are so stuck on titles and being royal, they really are doing a massive disservice to their children. There is probably no other, more unique experience than being an HRH Royal. One is never meant to do an earthly thing as an HRH living in a palace. Meghan is so focused on money and being the center of attention that she couldn't just sit back and enjoy the experience. What a gift to give your children. A close relationship to the king and his cousins his own age. Affluent, rich SoCal, is still SoCal and no matter how much money you have. It's not being royal. Royalty is all about the traditions and a certain way of doing things. The US and California, both suck right now. I would love to be in a royal bubble away from it all.

Oh lawd! Now Oprah is offering her advice on this hot mess.

PH and MM will be on the View next, that or Whoopi will soon be giving her advise as well.

[quote] One is never meant to do an earthly thing as an HRH living in a palace.