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

[Denville]

I agree with those who said the current plan is probably for only George's children to be titled. The concerns about slimming down the monarchy are valid, but I think proactively limiting it to only one person and their offspring is inviting problems. What if George can't have biological children, or marries a woman who can't, or just doesn't want to? What if he has three children, but two of them decide to do what Harry did but in a better way, pursuing their own careers or just living a quiet life in the country without ever being a working royal? Whether this plan is workable will depend on the life choices of the children and grandchildren of someone who's just a child himself.

That's the case iwth all plans. George himself may not want to be King. if so, perhaps the monarchy will end, sad but not disastrous. or more likely, the next heir will take over. George may decide he doens't want to be king, may not have children.. and then Charlotte is the heir.. so its up to her if she wants to take it over.....
I dont think that its feasiable to continue with 15 or so royals working, taking up resources and going on till they get very old.

 

[UglyAmerican]

It wouldn't be unsalvageable, but if Charlotte has kids young, her kids may be grown and established in other careers - never having had titles or the expectation of being working royals - by the time it becomes apparent that George isn't going to have any, or that George's kid(s) aren't interested. Even if one of them could be persuaded to come home and be King/Queen, they wouldn't have been raised to it the way William and even Harry were, and I think that would cause problems.

 

[angieuk]

True. Even George may just decide when he's 18; I don't want to be the next King in waiting. I want a private life, and move to another country and live in the Sun.

But in reality, George, will need to find a wife who is willing to take the job on, where they both must make the best of it. George may well remain a bachelor for many years, doing the job on his own. In just 10 years from now, the headlines will change to IS THIS THE GIRL FOR GEORGE?

At least Harry's children will get to live a private life abroad.

 

[Queen Claude]

There wouldnt be that many. Most royals dont have more than 2 or 3 children.. and some of them will be girls. And the rule since 1917 has been that only the grandchildren in the male line of the monarch have HRH.. so there are not that many around. however since the trend is to restrict the title to fewer royals, its likely That Charles has plans to restrict it to the children of the heir, and not anyone else. He wont take it away from anyone who has it already but he may not want Louis' children to have it nor Harrys... as boht are younger sons.

Charles cannot make the rule until he is King, and unless the current Queen acts, the George V rule will be in his place when Charles ascends and therefore Archie and Lili, as male line grandchildren of the monarch, will be HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lili.

My suspicion was that shortly after Charles' ascension that a statement was going to be released similar to the one that was issued when the Wessexes got married, which would have been something along the lines of "The King has decided, with the agreement of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, that their children will continue being referred to as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Lili Mountbatten-Windsor". In other words the Sussex children will not be styled as His or Her Royal Highness nor be titled prince or princess. However that probably won't happen because the Sussexes are not in agreement and apparently do want their children styled/titled as HRH Prince / HRH Princess.

So if my suspicion is correct then the Sussex children would have either been retroactively stripped of their titles/styling, or if Harry and Meghan were in agreement, they would have legally had the HRH Prince / HRH Princess title and styling but would have continued to be referred to in the same non-royal manner as they were before Charles' ascension.

What I am curious about is that since this family conflict is now in the public domain, will The Queen actually be the one to issue a letter of patent overturning the George V LP and restrict the HRH Prince / HRH Princess title and styling only to the children of the monarch and heirs apparent.

 

[Denville]

True. Even George may just decide when he's 18; I don't want to be the next King in waiting. I want a private life, and move to another country and live in the Sun.

But in reality, George, will need to find a wife who is willing to take the job on, where they both must make the best of it. George may well remain a bachelor for many years, doing the job on his own. In just 10 years from now, the headlines will change to IS THIS THE GIRL FOR GEORGE?

At least Harry's children will get to live a private life abroad.

well thats one of the things of a monarchy, the human interest factor. but I would say that its not that likley that dozes of royals will say "I dont wnat to be King" and shy off to the sunny side of California or hte south of France.

 

[Lee-Z]

I agree with those who said the current plan is probably for only George's children to be titled. The concerns about slimming down the monarchy are valid, but I think proactively limiting it to only one person and their offspring is inviting problems. What if George can't have biological children, or marries a woman who can't, or just doesn't want to? What if he has three children, but two of them decide to do what Harry did but in a better way, pursuing their own careers or just living a quiet life in the country without ever being a working royal? Whether this plan is workable will depend on the life choices of the children and grandchildren of someone who's just a child himself.

Imo limiting the titled persons is not the same as limiting the line of succession...if George for whatever reason doesn't have children, he will succeeded by P.Charlotte and her offspring, there is plenty of time for them to have titles then should that occur.

Something similar would have happened in Monaco if P.Albert hadn't had his children a couple of years ago, he would have been succeeded by his sister and her children after her. The sisters' children are not titled themselves at the moment.

 

[Denville]

Charles cannot make the rule until he is King, and unless the current Queen acts, the George V rule will be in his place when Charles ascends and therefore Archie and Lili, as male line grandchildren of the monarch, will be HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lili.

My suspicion was that shortly after Charles' ascension that a statement was going to be released similar to the one that was issued when the Wessexes got married, which would have been something along the lines of "The King has decided, with the agreement of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, that their children will continue being referred to as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Lili Mountbatten-Windsor". In other words the Sussex children will not be styled as His or Her Royal Highness nor be titled prince or princess. However that probably won't happen because the Sussexes are not in agreement and apparently do want their children styled/titled as HRH Prince / HRH Princess.

So if my suspicion is correct then the Sussex children would have either been retroactively stripped of their titles/styling, or if Harry and Meghan were in agreement, they would have legally had the HRH Prince / HRH Princess title and styling but would have continued to be referred to in the same non-royal manner as they were before Charles' ascension.

What I am curious about is that since this family conflict is now in the public domain, will The Queen actually be the one to issue a letter of patent overturning the George V LP and restrict the HRH Prince / HRH Princess title and styling only to the children of the monarch and heirs apparent.

I dont think the queen would do it, she's conservative. Only if she felt there would be rows and ructions over the issue if it was left till after she died. It is a problem with Archie and Lily, but I didn't want to bring it up because it might seem like we're going round and round on the titles and the "Meghan" and race issues. I woudl say that overall thoguh Charles wouldn't WISH to take away HRH from people who already have it, but I was thinking of Beatrice and Eugenie, rather than Harry's children who are only tiny....

 

[Alison H]

I can't see any way that the HRH style will be removed from those who already hold it - can you imagine telling the Duke of Kent that he's being demoted after 85 years? And I think it would cause upset if Beatrice and Eugenie lost their HRH styles: it would be seen as an insult to two people who hadn't done anything wrong. But, going forward, it may well be different.

 

[Denville]

Imo limiting the titled persons is not the same as limiting the line of succession...if George for whatever reason doesn't have children, he will succeeded by P.Charlotte and her offspring, there is plenty of time for them to have titles then should that occur.

Something similar would have happened in Monaco if P.Albert hadn't had his children a couple of years ago, he would have been succeeded by his sister and her children after her. The sisters' children are not titled themselves at the moment.

well yes of course limiting the number of titles doesn't mean that the non titled are not in the succession. They dont need titles to succeed. If Anything had happened to the queen and Charles in the late 70s, Anne would have succeeded and followed by her son Peter.....

I can't see any way that the HRH style will be removed from those who already hold it - can you imagine telling the Duke of Kent that he's being demoted after 85 years? And I think it would cause upset if Beatrice and Eugenie lost their HRH styles: it would be seen as an insult to two people who hadn't done anything wrong. But, going forward, it may well be different.

Of course not. I can't imagine why anyone would think that that might happen.. though it has happened in other monarchies. But it would not happen in the UK. but if Charles became king in a few years automatically, Archie and Lili would become HRH, but I think that (as long as there wasn't ructions about it) Charles would not regard THEM losing their HRH as a big thing and would do it.. unless he feared a big row with Harry.

 

[Heavs]

Imo limiting the titled persons is not the same as limiting the line of succession...if George for whatever reason doesn't have children, he will succeeded by P.Charlotte and her offspring, there is plenty of time for them to have titles then should that occur.

Something similar would have happened in Monaco if P.Albert hadn't had his children a couple of years ago, he would have been succeeded by his sister and her children after her. The sisters' children are not titled themselves at the moment.

Yes. Peter Philips was 5th in line to the throne when he was born and never had a title. Theoretically all his uncles could have been killed in an accident or something. The line of succession includes a lot of people with no titles and so far we haven't heard Charles intends to limit that in the way some countries have done.

As things currently stand if George never had children and Charlotte and her children where his heirs then under the current rules they wouldn't have HRH either whilst Louis's would.

If Charlotte or Louis's children become heirs then either they'll simply be heirs with non HRH titles or no titles. Or else special LPs will be issued.

I would personally not support removing it from adults who already hold it, especially the Queen's cousins after a lifetime of service.

 

[Denville]

Yes. Peter Philips was 5th in line to the throne when he was born and never had a title. Theoretically all his uncles could have been killed in an accident or something. The line of succession includes a lot of people with no titles and so far we haven't heard Charles intends to limit that in the way some countries have done.

As things currently stand if George never had children and Charlotte and her children where his heirs then under the current rules they wouldn't have HRH either whilst Louis's would.

If Charlotte or Louis's children become heirs then either they'll simply be heirs with non HRH titles or no titles. Or else special LPs will be issued.

I would personally not support removing it from adults who already hold it, especially the Queen's cousins after a lifetime of service.

sorry Oh dear Lord what was I thinking? I said that Anne woudl be heir if Charles died.. but of course she would only come after her 3 brothers. I must be getting senile.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

IME, bullying creates a climate of fear and the bulled often dont want to pursue a complaint because they fear that it wont work out well for them, that they will be seen as weak, that the bully will be upheld and will then find ways to make life even more difficult for them.. or that they will find it hard to get another job. It is not that they fear they themslelves have over reacted but that they fear that taking action will only worsen a bad situation,

Yes, I work with elementary children and it is the same. They instinctively fear that if the bully is confronted it will make things worse for them. And often it does at least in the short term. If it is a bad situation and adults (higher ups) don’t get involved it won’t stop. I spend a lot of time with the kids with bullying behaviors to help them learn healthier coping mechanisms and figure out what is going on at home. One kid I worked with was horrible to a so called friend whose parent had been killed. Many witnesses told me about this. But the parents of the bully couldn’t believe their child would behave in such a way. When I have numerous calls from parents asking me to separate their child from the “bully” you know there is a real problem.

In the RF situation that is why it is critical to have protocol that is clear to all and easy for employees to be able to make complaints without fear of making it worse. And William chose as a solution to separate himself from the bullying - sometimes that is all you can do.

I think there's been a change in society in general regarding attitudes towards bullying. 30 years ago, a child who told an adult that they were being bullied would have been told not to sneak and that they should stand up for themselves, and an adult being bullied in the workplace would have felt that they just had to put up with it. Yes, I'm sure Royals have got away with bad behaviour in the past, but so have an awful lot of other people, and times are different now.

Yes, we very specifically teach children how to deal with bullies these days - sad that we have to do this but true.

The thing is if they pushed back they would get heavily criticized by some in the media. IMO. I think a lot of the trouble has been the media and social media some of whom have constantly criticized Meghan and many of the earlier "accusations" were debunked. There have been stories that the Sussexes have ignored, including the engagement ring stories where Meghan was accused of "not liking" the ring Harry gave her and redesigning when it was Harry's idea. Some of the accusations have gone to "that level."

Why did Harry want to redesign the ring he had designed to start with?

 

[Erin9]

.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...began-row-bullying-claims-against-Meghan.html



Harry appoints his own news reporter for 1st July, Diana Memorial.

If this is true…for goodness sake. This is the unveiling of a statue for his mother. Why why why do you need your very own reporter for this?

It makes a lot of sense to me now that William apparently was the one who wanted to split households- rather than Harry. I can certainly see him wanting distance if he believed the apparently numerous bullying claims from people whose opinion he valued that Harry then seemingly dismissed out of hand. Seems like a good call to me professionally AND personally.

I’m not at all surprised if Harry refused to even consider the possibility. That sounds about right from what I’ve seen of him in the last nearly 2 years. (Though if Harry himself has screamed at staff as is alleged….he clearly had his own problems behaving professionally. There’s no excuse for just screaming at people. So, he may not be clear on what is and is not appropriate behavior. Or is more than capable of rationalizing why it’s okay in x case.)

I also think it is interesting that Lacey’s addition found another apparent lie from the Oprah interview- the problems pre-dated their successful tour. Can’t say I’m surprised.

It’s really hard for me to get around the simple fact that everything went so very epically wrong in such a short period of time when Meghan entered the picture. That speaks volumes to me.

 

[Osipi]

If this is true…for goodness sake. This is the unveiling of a statue for his mother. Why why why do you need your very own reporter for this?

If this is true that Harry wants his own, personal journalist there to cover this event, it points to Harry feeling that this is not going to be a pleasant experience for him at all. It's no longer about William and Harry being able to be civil to each other as brothers as they come together to commemorate and remember their mother but rather there is an element to it now (especially with the release of the new Lacey information) that there's a battle going on for positive coverage for Harry and positive recognition. Very similar to his photo op in a US cemetery on Remembrance Sunday.

It seems to me that Harry is spiraling lower and lower into a world where he feels he needs to create his own story and be believed. It's possible that he's seeing his whole world crashing around him and finding that there's no positive way forward from where he is.

Looking at the "big picture", I do think you've hit on something, Erin, stating that Meghan is the catalyst.

 

[Somebody]

Them wanting to create their own narrative has been clear for a long time and was even made explicit in their 'announcement' of their HIHO-plan. They were only going to work with young upcoming diverse journalists that supported them.

 

[Denville]

Them wanting to create their own narrative has been clear for a long time and was even made explicit in their 'announcement' of their HIHO-plan. They were only going to work with young upcoming diverse journalists that supported them.

I just dont know waht there will be to say about Harry at the opening of the statue (if he does go_). Its about Diana, not the boys....

 

[Osipi]

Them wanting to create their own narrative has been clear for a long time and was even made explicit in their 'announcement' of their HIHO-plan. They were only going to work with young upcoming diverse journalists that supported them.

This seems to be working about as well as a kid's five cent lemonade stand going up against the Coca Cola company's Minute Maid brand. Harry and Meghan aren't anywhere near a David that could slay Goliath.

Then again, ego can make people feel that they can bring any giant down to size.

I just dont know waht there will be to say about Harry at the opening of the statue (if he does go_). Its about Diana, not the boys....

All of this really is casting a grey cloud over what should be totally about their mother and remembering her on what would have been her 60th birthday.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Harry does pull out of going to the UK and the statue remains unveiled for the time being. There are all kinds of good reasons that could be given for this.

 

[Queen Claude]

I am not too bothered by Harry wanting to have a non-royal rota reporter cover the unveiling of the Diana statue. While we can debate how justified his feelings are, Harry has ill-will towards the royal rota and to me it is not that big of a deal that Harry wants a reporter of his choosing assigned. Now when the reporter is actually announced, there may be some issues with his actual choice, but not merely him wanting to add a non-royal rota reporter to the list of reporters covering the event.

 

[Denville]

This seems to be working about as well as a kid's five cent lemonade stand going up against the Coca Cola company's Minute Maid brand. Harry and Meghan aren't anywhere near a David that could slay Goliath.

Then again, ego can make people feel that they can bring any giant down to size.



All of this really is casting a grey cloud over what should be totally about their mother and remembering her on what would have been her 60th birthday.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Harry does pull out of going to the UK and the statue remains unveiled for the time being. There are all kinds of good reasons that could be given for this.

yes I t hink it is sad.... But I dont want the statue to be left much longer, Its been a long time being sorted out.

 

[Erin9]

Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

I just dont know waht there will be to say about Harry at the opening of the statue (if he does go_). Its about Diana, not the boys....

That’s exactly what I’m mean. What is there seriously to say?! I get that they want to control the narrative. That’s been clear at least since the website- maybe the Africa interview. But this is just the unveiling of a statue to honor his mother. Why do you need your very own journalist for that?!

As another poster noted- this casts a shadow over the whole event IMO.

 

[Denville]

That’s exactly what I’m mean. What is there seriously to say?! I get that they want to control the narrative. That’s been clear at least since the website- maybe the Africa interview. But this is just the unveiling of a statue to honor his mother. Why do you need your very own journalist for that?!

Unless he plans to have a speech of his own to say, and then it will come off as a rival to wahtever William says.

 

[Curryong]

The British media, especially the tabloids, will almost certainly skew any reports about Harry and William’s demeanour, facial expressions, any conversation between them, to be anti-Sussex in content, as they have over the past eighteen months with regard to this latest meeting of the brothers.

I think that is what Harry is trying to guard against by having at least a neutral and or sympathetic tone to one journalist’s articles about this Diana statue unveiling ceremony. It’s not about the speeches, it will be about all the other things that the Royal Rota and other British media will no doubt decide to comment on.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree with those who said the current plan is probably for only George's children to be titled. The concerns about slimming down the monarchy are valid, but I think proactively limiting it to only one person and their offspring is inviting problems. What if George can't have biological children, or marries a woman who can't, or just doesn't want to? What if he has three children, but two of them decide to do what Harry did but in a better way, pursuing their own careers or just living a quiet life in the country without ever being a working royal? Whether this plan is workable will depend on the life choices of the children and grandchildren of someone who's just a child himself.

Her Majesty's eldest grandchild, Peter Phillips, has never been a Prince but was Nr 5 in the line of succession when he was born. That is higher than Archie, whom currently is Nr 7. With other words: being a Prince(ss) says nothing about being a successor.

Might -God forbid- something disastrous wipe away the first 6 successors, Archie will be created a Prince of the United Kingdom and enroll into a new -royal- life. No any doubt about that. But it is very well possible Archie will see himself back at Nr 16 or so, when he is 35. Can one "hostage" someone into a royal lifestyle for the unlikely eventuality of ever, ever, becoming the Heir indeed?

 

[MaryVirginia]

I just dont know waht there will be to say about Harry at the opening of the statue (if he does go_). Its about Diana, not the boys....

Exactly, what will there be to say? Why does Harry have to be petulant about everything?!

Which leads me to another point of discussion on this thread: Charles "slimming down" the monarchy. Whatever he chooses to do with titles, I just hope he is making some effort to encourage the next generation toward substantial career fields. Given that Prince George may not ascend to the throne until he is past most people's retirement age, it might be healthy for him...most definitely, Charlotte and Louis. Harry has nothing to fall back on in life as is the case with so many second and third children of the monarch.

 

[Sandy345]

Care to address any of the other wildly inaccurate assumptions you threw out there regarding the article that I pointed out?

To be honest, being such an involved, hands-on parent is why I think Diana would have given her sons wide berth as adults to work through their relationship issues - she would have wanted to maintain her own good relationship with each of her children and, my guess is, exercised a lighter hand than would be indicated by your "had words". But, perhaps that's just a misinterpretation on my part because "had words" is synonymous, to me, with "reading them the riot act" and not tolerating any falling out/distance/space in the sibling relationship.

Of course, had Diana been alive, chances are that Harry wouldn't have the highly distorted view of the press that he does and, possibly, not have faced as many mental health challenges as he has faced in life.

The fact is, William will be the CEO of the BRF in time and you can think its heavy-handed but he has to look out for that future and the monarchy's wellbeing, even ahead of his own brother but especially when his brother and SIL are reportedly behaving in a manner that could destroy the monarchy.

William is not in charge. His grandmother is still. And then his father is next. I had thought that it irritated current monarchs to think someone was seen to be "too eager" to move up. For instance when George V was sick (not life threatening) he was irritated with Prince Edward for rushing back home. I stand by my opinion about William. A man who is future King needs to have diplomacy and tact. william IMO needs to work on this. I think it was "personal" with William not his thinking thoughts of his future as King.


I disagree, Diana was never stand offish with her children and I don't think she would remain so. She was one to speak up about things, especially as she got more confidence towards the end of her life.

There were more serious threats to the monarchy much more over the years. Harry will never be monarch and he knows that.

The hands off attitude you describe re: Diana should have been William's regarding Harry. IMO.

 

[Anna1519]

The British media, especially the tabloids, will almost certainly skew any reports about Harry and William’s demeanour, facial expressions, any conversation between them, to be anti-Sussex in content, as they have over the past eighteen months with regard to this latest meeting of the brothers.

I think that is what Harry is trying to guard against by having at least a neutral and or sympathetic tone to one journalist’s articles about this Diana statue unveiling ceremony. It’s not about the speeches, it will be about all the other things that the Royal Rota and other British media will no doubt decide to comment on.

I agree. Regardless of what either brother does, the media is already going to cast its own shadow over this event by taking apart every single interaction, facial expression, and word. The rift between the brothers overshadowed the real purpose of the statue unveiling a long time ago. Given that Harry already mistrusts the Rota and that he will be there on his own without any type of personal support, I'm not surprised that he would at least want a journalist he perceives as neutral there. I don't think his motives are nefarious.

 

[Erin9]

I agree. Regardless of what either brother does, the media is already going to cast its own shadow over this event by taking apart every single interaction, facial expression, and word. The rift between the brothers overshadowed the real purpose of the statue unveiling a long time ago. Given that Harry already mistrusts the Rota and that he will be there on his own without any type of personal support, I'm not surprised that he would at least want a journalist he perceives as neutral there. I don't think his motives are nefarious.

If Harry brings his very own journalist, the one thing they won’t be is neutral.

IMO- this just serves to further exacerbate everything.

 

[Curryong]

If Harry brings his very own journalist, the one thing they won’t be is neutral.

IMO- this just serves to further exacerbate everything.

Why would it exacerbate anything when practically every royal reporter, journalist and media person, including ‘royal experts’ in Britain will be looking to criticise and make snide inferences about everything Harry does, says, how he looks, etc etc at this ceremony?

If I had to make a speech before a huge TV and online audience I would, knowing that my ‘reception committee’ would almost certainly be 98% against me, try and make sure that someone reporting on the event was there and on my side.

 

[Erin9]

Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

Why would it exacerbate anything when practically every journalist and media person, including ‘royal experts’ in Britain will be looking to criticise and use snide comments with everything Harry does, says, how he looks, etc etc at this ceremony?

If I had to make a speech before a huge TV and online audience I would, knowing that my reception would almost certainly be 98% against me, try and make sure that someone reporting on the event was on my side.

I just don’t think it’s helpful. It’s supposedly a simple statue unveiling to honor your mother.

William is certainly going to be closely scrutinized too, the situation being what it is. So will Catherine for that matter.

 

[Sandy345]

But then it could revert to the "good prince-bad prince" mantra that has been used for decades now. Which I find very unfortunate. Every move will indeed be scrutinized I hope all the Spencers are there. I would like to see them all honoring Diana and it would give the press something else to pay attention to.