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

[kalnel]

Because of the unequal treatment of Archie compared to his cousins.

He's not being treated unequally to Prince Edward's children. As the monarch's grandchildren, they are currently entitled to use HRH and prince/princess, but they do not use it. Archie is not a grandchild of a monarch and is not entitled to those titles.

 

[Osipi]

I just think that with all the allegations and insinuations and claims that have issued from both Harry and Meghan's own mouths and have been proven to not be what we'd term "the truth", it makes it hard for someone to believe *anything* that comes out of their mouths and puts into question the actions that they've taken.

For a couple that have supposedly suffered so much at the hands of the British media, they've sure sold themselves as being worthy of tabloid news stories each time they open their mouths and say something. That's life in the celebrity lane of the entertainment world.

 

[TLLK]

He's not being treated unequally to Prince Edward's children. As the monarch's grandchildren, they are currently entitled to use HRH and prince/princess, but they do not use it. Archie is not a grandchild of a monarch and is not entitled to those titles.

This is true. Also let's not forget that both Archie and Lili have titles that they can use from birth if their parents choose to do so.

 

[Lucy Scot]

He's not being treated unequally to Prince Edward's children. As the monarch's grandchildren, they are currently entitled to use HRH and prince/princess, but they do not use it. Archie is not a grandchild of a monarch and is not entitled to those titles.

Not sure how this relates to my post. You are going up a generation by talking about Edward's children.

 

[Lucy Scot]

For a couple that have supposedly suffered so much at the hands of the British media, they've sure sold themselves as being worthy of tabloid news stories each time they open their mouths and say something. That's life in the celebrity lane of the entertainment world.

They can't control what is written about them. No one can. But they did not want to hand it to the Royal Rota on a silver platter. That was made clear as one of the reasons for them leaving. They've accomplished that.

 

[Osipi]

They can't control what is written about them. No one can. But they did not want to hand it to the Royal Rota on a silver platter. That was made clear as one of the reasons for them leaving. They've accomplished that.

I have to agree with you there. They've left and created their own brand of "news truth bombs" that basically are making them the brunt of a lot of jokes and making themselves to be seen as celebrities not to be taken seriously at all. They're doing damage to themselves far worse than the British media ever could.

 

[muriel]

They're doing damage to themselves far worse than the British media ever could.

Agreed. Though I doubt that they quite understand that yet. Or perhaps, that is at odds with "their truth" ?

 

[muriel]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15392582/prince-harry-arrives-frogmore-diana-statue/

Not sure it’s related to visiting Harry as he has to quarantine but HMQ seen driving toward Frogmore Cottage today. My guess she just enjoying her land. LOL. Not surprised these stories have started though.

HM has been known to walk her dogs at Frogmore, and that is where I suspect she was headed. I doubt HM would knowingly be a party to quarantine rules being breached to meet Harry. If for no other reason, I do not think BP would like to have Oprah or Gayle talking about it!

 

[Alison H]

Because of the unequal treatment of Archie compared to his cousins.

That's the way the whole thing works. Harry is treated unequally compared to William: William will be king, he will not. Diana and her sisters were treated unequally compared to Earl Spencer: he became an earl and inherited Althorp, they did not. Princess Leonor of Spain is the Princess of the Asturias: her sister Sofia is not. Prince Jacques of Monaco will become sovereign: his twin sister Gabriella will not. Princess Estelle will eventually be Queen of Sweden: her cousins are no longer even classed as royal.


It is not in any way, shape or form anything against Archie. Until such time as Prince Charles becomes king, Archie is in the same position as, say, Lord Freddie Windsor or the Earl of St Andrews, the great-grandsons of a monarch but not in the direct line of succession - and is being treated equally with them.

 

[Denville]

That's the way the whole thing works. Harry is treated unequally compared to William: William will be king, he will not. Diana and her sisters were treated unequally compared to Earl Spencer: he became an earl and inherited Althorp, they did not. Princess Leonor of Spain is the Princess of the Asturias: her sister Sofia is not. Prince Jacques of Monaco will become sovereign: his twin sister Gabriella will not. Princess Estelle will eventually be Queen of Sweden: her cousins are no longer even classed as royal.


It is not in any way, shape or form anything against Archie. Until such time as Prince Charles becomes king, Archie is in the same position as, say, Lord Freddie Windsor or the Earl of St Andrews, the great-grandsons of a monarch but not in the direct line of succession - and is being treated equally with them.

Besides which they knew perfectly well before they got married that Archie would not be HRH and that there were ideas afoot for cutting back further on the HRH's... so if it bothered them why not step out of the RF then and manage on thier own and then they would not have to worry about A being discriminated against or security or anything.....

 

[Denville]

Not sure how this relates to my post. You are going up a generation by talking about Edward's children.

the point being that by the Letters Patent of 1917 Ed's children ARE entitled to be HRH yet their parents & the queen chose that they would not use the title and would be simply the children of an earl....

 

[Denville]

They can't control what is written about them. No one can. But they did not want to hand it to the Royal Rota on a silver platter. That was made clear as one of the reasons for them leaving. They've accomplished that.

So do they really think that it is preferable to control their own narrative by going on TV and the internet and abusing the RF which is Harry's own blood family?

 

[Kataryn]

So do they really think that it is preferable to control their own narrative by going on TV and the internet and abusing the RF which is Harry's own blood family?

I don't understand that either. Yes, it can be frustrating to learn of your own unimportantness when it comes to new ideas about the family firm and if things go really bad in your way to perceive them, you go. But what help could you get from destroying your family'simage on public TV? Where is the gain? Apart from small children, noone thinks that tantrums help getting the things you want without great damage amid action and happenings that will never go away.

Harry indeed tries to leave his mark on his family. I doubt it will change anything.
IMHO Harry should bite into the evil smelling apple and reconcile with his family, as numerous princes have done once they figured there is no way to win. And subdue Meghans unrealistic expectations.

And if the environment is really so toxic - that has been said now. The RF has ordered an inspection by a more-or-less neutral third party. Maybe they will publish the results. Harry can live in the US if he wants to. But not as a Royal prince doing business. We have understood (I hope he did as well!)

It's okay to stir up the pot at home. But it's not okay to blame your grandmother and your father for being children of their time and of their high status. It is okay to mention that IMHO and say you try to raise your children differently. We all do, hun!

Having said that, I still don't think Harry is as bad as some people want to paint him. I just miss the evidence here. Like his father and grandmother Meg and Harry are surrounded by people who have their own agenda. I just don't want to buy into any of these.

 

[Denville]

I
Having said that, I still don't think Harry is as bad as some people want to paint him. I just miss the evidence here. Like his father and grandmother Meg and Harry are surrounded by people who have their own agenda. I just don't want to buy into any of these.

I dont know who is surrounding them at all.. unless its people like Oprah. And she's not critical at all.

 

[ACO]

HM has been known to walk her dogs at Frogmore, and that is where I suspect she was headed. I doubt HM would knowingly be a party to quarantine rules being breached to meet Harry. If for no other reason, I do not think BP would like to have Oprah or Gayle talking about it!

You are right. They have rota reporters talking about it instead. Even today we had Russell Meyers on Lorraine reporting the brothers are now texting. ?

 

[Denville]

You are right. They have rota reporters talking about it instead. Even today we had Russell Meyers on Lorraine reporting the brothers are now texting. ?

There's no problem with texting... meeting up with someone in quarantine is another matter....

 

[muriel]

It's okay to stir up the pot at home. But it's not okay to blame your grandmother and your father for being children of their time and of their high status. It is okay to mention that IMHO and say you try to raise your children differently. We all do, hun!

Well said!

Having said that, I still don't think Harry is as bad as some people want to paint him.

Ironically, as I see it, the only person painting Harry in a bad picture is Harry himself. The media and Twitter only react to what he sets out.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

There's no problem with texting... meeting up with someone in quarantine is another matter....

If you read the posts, that isn't the point. The point is that the narrative is that the Sussexes will leak anything when in reality, BP are clearly just as "good" at leaking to the rota.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I still think the writing was on the wall about titles at least since the Queen granted HRH/Prince(ss) to all of William's children while Kate was pregnant with George. It would have been easier to extend it to "all of the heir apparent's grandchildren" or something like that rather than specify all of William's children, but she didn't. It was a non-issue at that point because Harry was still single, but I think it reflected a deliberate decision that Harry's future kids wouldn't need (and wouldn't get) all the trappings.

 

[muriel]

I still think the writing was on the wall about titles at least since the Queen granted HRH/Prince(ss) to all of William's children while Kate was pregnant with George. It would have been easier to extend it to "all of the heir apparent's grandchildren" or something like that rather than specify all of William's children, but she didn't. It was a non-issue at that point because Harry was still single, but I think it reflected a deliberate decision that Harry's future kids wouldn't need (and wouldn't get) all the trappings.

It should not be an issue for anybody that has followed the RF for sometime. That the York girls are not working members of the BRF should have given Harry enough of an indication that his children would nt be expected to be part of the firm, and by extension, the titles were probably unlikely to be on offer either.

 

[Claire]

Stories about Charles wanting a slimmed down monarchy and a rumored new LP to reduce the number of HRHs at the start or shortly into his reign have been floating around for at least 10-15 years, well pre-dating not only Archie's birth but Harry even meeting Meghan. Racism really has nothing to do with it and Meghan flat out implied that any loss of HRH would be "because racism" during the Oprah interview, and Harry did nothing to dispel that. It was gross and completely devalues real incidents of racism and prejudice.

I asked around and the first mention of it was at the Prince Royal's wedding. It is given as the reason why her husband didn't accept a title or her children didn't get when she got married. That was the 1970's.
The problem is unlike the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex which immediately upon their marriages, an press release was issued stating that how the children if any will be styled. Why was that not done with Harry? Why was it left open ended. Now I can actually understand why Andrew's children were left with theirs's. The 1980's was still a turbulent time - IRA bombings and assassinations. But today - why wasn't it declared at Harry's wedding what the children would be styled and stop any guessing.

 

[Alouette]

She is the one with the biracial ancestry and if she feels treated so much with racism in the Uk that she is suspicious of anything, then we have to accept that, IMHO. How can you say "racism has nothing to do with it" when we all do not know about it apart from Meghan claiming it was racism and she should know and that it was neither the queen or the DoE.

Racism is such a thing in our societies that you don't notice it at first and when you connect the dots, you are ashamed! Just think of the nursery rhyms about how to "fear the black man"... Some white women feel threatened if they are in a situation of being alone with a man with darker shades of skin, we've seen vids about that and their behavior then. Call them "Karens", yes, but the attitude exists!
And prejudice? Just read these forums and think about what we actually know (hard facts) and what is considered to be the truth here because the writer believed the media as if works so well with her own opinion. That's some sort of prejudice as well but one we have to live with.

I just think the British media has given us a somehow distorted image of Meghan & Harry and while a lot is just gossip and hearsay, we all formed our opinions and we are all now prejudiced against Meghan and Harry. People here even would love to call the queen and tell her not to go to see her own grandson because he will blab all she said to the media... They don't see a very old lady, recently widowed, with a government out to destroy her "united kingdom" for the sake of England, who just wants to hear in person of the birth of her latest great-grand-child Lilibet. They see "the queen" whose grandson is out to betray her. But this is not "The Crown", this is family. That's some sort of prejudice as well.
IMHO, of course.

Kataryn, you are correct in saying that racism is so normalized in predominantly white societies that we're not even aware of it. I say this as a white woman who lives in a region of the United States that is considered to be virulently racist. In reality, racism is common throughout the entire United States.

 

[Denville]

It should not be an issue for anybody that has followed the RF for sometime. That the York girls are not working members of the BRF should have given Harry enough of an indication that his children would nt be expected to be part of the firm, and by extension, the titles were probably unlikely to be on offer either.

Archie and Lili will be HRHs (under the 1917 LP) when Charles is King....It was never on the cards that they would be, until C is king..

I asked around and the first mention of it was at the Prince Royal's wedding. It is given as the reason why her husband didn't accept a title or her children didn't get when she got married. That was the 1970's.
The problem is unlike the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex which immediately upon their marriages, an press release was issued stating that how the children if any will be styled. Why was that not done with Harry? Why was it left open ended. Ng.

I dont recollect any press release at the time of Anne's wedding. Can you quote please? Mark didn't want a title, whihc meant that Anne's children were not going to have a title....

 

[Sandy345]

As I recall, it was made clear before the wedding that no title would be given to Mark. Mark and Anne did not want their children to have titles. I believe it was in the newspapers I don't recall how it was released to the media. Maybe just from the couple?

 

[Osipi]

I dont recollect any press release at the time of Anne's wedding. Can you quote please? Mark didn't want a title, whihc meant that Anne's children were not going to have a title....

I just remember that Mark Phillips declined the offer of a title and then his children would not be titled.

If we play the game with the wayback machine where the Queen was pregnant with her first child and Parliament amended The Succession to the Crown act at that time that the firstborn child would be heir apparent regardless of gender, it would be possible that King George VI issued new letters patent to establish that the Queen's firstborn's children would be titled, it would be doing so just in case her first child was Anne instead of Charles as we'd see the same situation of titles of children in the *main line of succession*.

It would be weird if Anne was born first and heir apparent to the Crown but unable to pass on titles because she's in line to be monarch but as a female, can't pass titles through the main line of succession to the Crown.

 

[Alison H]

I've always had the impression that it was Anne and Mark's personal choice, and that the Queen was quite ready to grant Mark a title, as was done for Tony Armstrong-Jones, if that was what he and Anne wanted.


There was no need to issue a press release about how Harry's children would be styled, because it was already known that they would not be styled HRH until such time as Charles became king.


It's not relevant to compare Prince Harry's children with Prince Andrew's children. Prince Andrew is the son of the monarch. Prince Harry is the grandson of the monarch. Harry's children are not in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie. They are in the same position as people like Lord Freddie Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor and Lady Rose Gilmour. None of them have the style of HRH.

 

[Denville]

I've always had the impression that it was Anne and Mark's personal choice, and that the Queen was quite ready to grant Mark a title, as was done for Tony Armstrong-Jones, if that was what he and Anne wanted.


There was no need to issue a press release about how Harry's children would be styled, because it was already known that they would not be styled HRH until such time as Charles became king.


It's not relevant to compare Prince Harry's children with Prince Andrew's children. Prince Andrew is the son of the monarch. Prince Harry is the grandson of the monarch. Harry's children are not in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie. They are in the same position as people like Lord Freddie Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor and Lady Rose Gilmour. None of them have the style of HRH.

I think the queen was disappointed that Anne and Mark didn't want a title..but i dont recall any announcement about it.

 

[Osipi]

What the reality boils down to is that not only is Harry the grandson of the monarch, but he's also not in the main line of succession to the Crown. His children will be automatically HRH Prince/ss when Charles becomes king (unless something changes). As he's not in the main line of succession, the LPs issued by the Queen to update titles and styles due to the change in the Act of Succession to the Crown 2013 don't apply to Harry or his family as they're not in the main line of succession.

Archie will be able to inherit and pass on the Duke of Sussex title to a son but not a daughter. Lili will not be able to pass on any title to her children. This applies until Parliament changes the rules for inheriting peerages. The changes that Parliament made to the Act of Succession to the Crown and could possibly make to remove gender discrimination from inheritance of peerage titles encompasses everyone the ruling would affect going forward.

It's funny how racism is claimed because of all of this but the changes to stop discriminating because of gender gets shoved under the carpet and racism becomes the sole focus of why Archie isn't a prince nor will he possibly be a prince in the future. I see Meghan using "selective rationalization" here. Perhaps she honestly believes that because she is biracial, Archie and Lili will be discriminated against but looking at how things *really* work shows differently.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Not really because they never said they were referring to the fact that he wasn't made a prince from birth, that's just the narrative their detractors like to push. IMO it was quite clear (and has since been made even clearer by BP's own "sources") that they were referring to future changes. But fact of the matter is that none of us know what's gone on behind the scenes. Categorically denying that there's a possibility racism may play a part in a potential decision to remove the titles Archie and Lili currently eventually are entitled to is extremely one-sided.

Also criticising one thing doesn't mean you can't be opposed to other things. "Racism becomes the sole focus of why Archie isn't a prince", well yes, because bringing up sexism in this specific case wouldn't make sense as he wouldn't be impacted by it.

 

[Osipi]

Not really because they never said they were referring to the fact that he wasn't made a prince from birth, that's just the narrative their detractors like to push. IMO it was quite clear (and has since been made even clearer by BP's own "sources") that they were referring to future changes. But fact of the matter is that none of us know what's gone on behind the scenes. Categorically denying that there's a possibility racism may play a part in a potential decision to remove the titles Archie and Lili currently eventually are entitled to is extremely one-sided.

Also criticising one thing doesn't mean you can't be opposed to other things. "Racism becomes the sole focus of why Archie isn't a prince", well yes, because bringing up sexism in this specific case wouldn't make sense as he wouldn't be impacted by it.

The thing is, though, that if there are changes made and it affects Archie and Lili, it would be a change that not only affects them but *anyone* in the position that Archie and Lili are in going forward into the future. It's not *specifically* geared to remove titles from the Sussex children only.

If a change is to affect *anyone* in that position going into the future, how can it be deemed racist? It'd affect Charlotte's children and Louis' children and so forth and so on. ?