Months ago, when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their plans to move into Frogmore Cottage, it felt like every British paper went into meltdown mode. The move, it was said, was because the Cambridges and Sussexes hated each other and because Meghan is a diva and she made steel marshmallow Kate cry or something. Apparently, the Sussexes really didn’t have so many options as far as immediate housing though – most of the best apartments in Kensington Palace were already taken, or they would require extensive renovations. Frogmore wasn’t just their choice because of personal issues between Harry and William, it was one of the few choices available to them. That being said, I still believe – as I said months ago – that Meghan and Harry eventually will move into an apartment in Kensington Palace, or maybe somewhere else in central London. My guess is that they’ll stay full-time in Frogmore (in Windsor) for a year or so, then move back to the palace.
What is my point? My point is that I don’t believe all of the stories about how Meghan and Harry are so hellbent on having everything private and low-key and away from London for the foreseeable future. I believe those stories are an attempt to “put Harry and Meghan in their place,” and pretend like they aren’t assets to the monarchy. All of that to say, I think this Us Weekly story is bulls–t.
Royally discreet. Duchess Meghan and Prince Harry “are very keen to live their lives quietly,” a source reveals exclusively in the new issue of Us Weekly. The source adds that they don’t plan to give their baby an official royal title. “They’ll live a quiet life.”
The 37-year-old Suits alum is due to give birth to the couple’s first child in the upcoming weeks. “Meghan is focused on calm and positive energy around the birth,” a second source tells Us.
Royal contributor Omid Scobie previously told Us that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex want to “bring up children who know the values of normal things in life.”
“Meghan will take her kids on a subway. They’ll have chores, and jobs one day,” Scobie revealed. “They won’t be spoiled.”
Commenters on previous stories have mentioned something important, which is that… the Queen knows how it will look if Harry and Meghan’s Polo Baby doesn’t have a title. Polo Baby will be the first mixed-race child in the immediate line of succession, and the Queen knows it will look bad if the kid doesn’t have a title. Harry and Meghan could insist that Polo Baby remains title-free, but I doubt they will. I think Meghan knows that it’s important that her children have titles, don’t you? As for all of this “they’ll live a quiet life” stuff… as I said, they’ll be quiet for a while. They’ll enjoy Polo Baby and all of the first-time parenting stuff. But no, they’re not just going to run off to Windsor and never be heard from again.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Is this even their choice? Doesn’t the queen decide whether they get it or not?
It is actually their choice. It’s why Zara Tindall doesn’t have a title. Because Princess Anne opted not to give her children titles.
That isn’t technically true. Titles go through the man. Anne and her ex-husband refused a title for him that would have made her child Lord/lady but they could never get a title throguh her and never be prince and princess.
However, Edward and Sophie refuses the prince and princess titles for their kids and have them styled as Lord and lady instead.
That’s a little different, because Anne’s husband was not titled. So the children weren’t entitled to a title at birth (at least that’s how I understand it.) So same out come for Zara and Peter, but slightly different circumstances. Here, the father is titled (obviously) so the children ARE entitled to a title of some sort. I think its just going a matter of which one.
George V declared that all children of the British monarch would be princes or princesses. They would assume the style of His/Her Royal Highness, as would any grandchildren in the *male* line. The oldest son of the Prince of Wales would be titled Prince, and styled HRH. All other grandchildren of sons of the sovereign would have the title and style of the children of Dukes.
In 2012, Queen Elizabeth extended the title and style of Prince and HRH to all children of the the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, while the titles of her other great grandchildren were unchanged.
The sons and daughters of Princes Charles, Andrew and Edward* have the title Prince and style HRH. Sons and daughters not in the male line do not have any royal title or style, unless they get one from their father. Anne’s first husband opted not to take a title.
NOTE:* Prince Edward’s children are entitled to be princes/princesses with the style HRH. Per his choice, it was announced on his wedding day that they would instead by styled as the children of an earl.
So hypothetically, Harry and Meghan have a choice as to how to “style” their children’s titles, but the children will have them regardless.
Anne’s first husband, Mark Phillips, was offered an Earldom just like Anthony Armstrong-Jones but turned it down. Anne & Mark decided that they did not want their children to be titled. Not being titled allowed Peter and Zara to lead normal lives and engage in any commerce activitie$ of their own choo$ing.
@Bay – lol re Peter/Zara, yes it allowed them to $ell pictures of their wedding$ to Hello! for big buck$ 🙂
Peter sold wedding photos which humiliated the royals. Zara was forbidden to do the same for her and Mike’s wedding, but they sold their first baby photos to Hello.
I listen to the podcast “On heir” (Omid is the co host). They mentioned this week that in order for the baby to get a title, the Queen would to issue new letters patent which is basically a change to the rules that would give the baby a title. The Cambridge children, because they are great grandchildren to the monarch, were technically not going to get titles upon their birth. Prior to George’ s birth, only children (Charles and sibs) and Grandchildren (Wills and Harry and cousins) of the The Monarch were given titles at birth. The Queen issued new letters patent ahead of Prince George’s birth to change that…. so now children of the heir’s heir would get titles. Mrghan and Harry’s baby is not an heir to the heir. NOt saying I agree with not giving baby Sussex a title…. just explaining what they said on the podcast.
Thank you for explaining!
King Edward VII did the same thing for the daughters of Princess Louise, The Princess Royal, Duchess of Fife who were his non-titled granddaughters in the female line. His daughter Victoria did not marry. His daughter Maud married a prince who became HRH King of Norway.
If and when Charles inherits the throne. Sussex babies will be titled HRH as they are now grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line. If Charles, for whatever reason, does not take the throne then the Sussex babies are NOT entitled to HRH Prince or HRH Princess because they are only great-grandchildren in the male line of the sovereign. The Swedes got rid of all this MALE-LINE NONSENSE in the early 1980’s. GO SWEDES!
The change was also made at that time in case W&K had a daughter first. The law changing royal inheritance rules was happening then.
There are three options:
1. Prince/Princess. That’s what Omid was talking about requiring the Queen to issue an exception.
2. Earl/Lord/Lady. That’s the default, still a “title” of sorts, and what they’ll likely get.
3. No title at all. That would be a deliberate decision and go against normal naming convention.
Complicating things further, Baby Sussex will become HRH prince(ss) once Charles becomes king, as the grandkids of the monarch through the male line. They may or may not already have the HRH title and they may or may not decide to ever use it.
Molly…..the third option doesn’t apply here because Harry is already a Duke, a son will automatically gain his title eventually and be known by Harry’s lesser title Earl of Dumbarton while his father is still alive, if his son should have a son while Harry is still alive Harry’s grandson would become known by Harry’s next title in order of importance Baron Kilkeel. The boys will legally ‘own’ these titles they are not honorary, transferable or require consent to ‘own’ them. They may not ever choose to use the titles but the will have them none the less.
All Harry’s Daughters will be known as Lady (name) Windsor or perhaps Mountbatten-Windsor in much the same way Diana (the daughter of a Duke) was Lady Diana Spencer before her marriage. If Harry should have other sons they would be called Lord (Name) Windsor.
Yes, but Princess Anne and Prince Edward turned down titles for their kids, so you can turn them down. At the time, Princess Anne’s kids weren’t supposed to have them cause they were royal from the female side. Yes a very sexist rule. However, the Queen didn’t think that was fair, and did offer them titles, but Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, her husband at the time, didn’t accept them. Now the line is different so Charlotte doesn’t give up her spot for Louis. It will be interesting if Harry and Meghan take a title for their child, cause as said above the optics could look very bad if they don’t get one.
Prince Edward did not turn down titles for his children. His children have titles. He did NOT want his children styled Prince or Princess. He wanted his children styled as children of an Earl. His son is a Viscount. Viscount is a hereditary title of the UK Aristocracy.
ETA: It has been widely discussed on many royal forum posting boards that it is quite possible that when the children reach age 18, they could ask to be styled HRH because they are legally entitled to HRH per the letters-patent issued by George V which to-date have not been changed.
Strictly speaking Anne did not turn down titles for her children because the children were not offered titles. Anne’s husband was offered the title which the children would then have inherited. Because of Britains still current Salic Law of Succession (women are 99% of the time excluded from inheriting titles). Anne as a female did not have her own title to pass onto her children. It may seem odd but the titles of Prince and Princess are considered as ‘honorary to the individual’ in UK law and are not transferable.
It is, at day’s end, entirely the Queen’s choice and final decision. The monarch is the “font of all honors” and as described here can issue LPs (or declarations, or statements) to change titles and stylings of royal fam members. That said, she would probably undertake decisions with at least some input from the people they would affect. She may have consulted Harry and Meghan, for example, on whether they wanted their children to be HRH from birth (they are automatically entitled to it when she passes).
Re Mark Phillips ‘opting not to take’ a title: it would have been offered by the Queen, or at least discussed with her. I believe the latter happened; there were discussions between himself, Anne and TQ and in end it was decided they didn’t want titles for Mark or their children. Early moves toward the ‘streamlining’ of the monarchy – which includes fewer HRHs and titled folks in the royal fam – would also have played into this imo.
I don’t know, the whole title thing is so arcane.
So arcane that I just realized where the word “entitled” came from. I am so slow.
Minx So true. So much riding on an accident of birth. Plus if DNA testing was done on the “aristocrats” and royals……there’d be some big surprises.
Yeah I call BS on this. Meghan is smart. She knows that her children should have titles and she knows exactly WHY they should have titles. And I think Harry feels exactly the same.
I honestly think that Harry’s kids would have been included when they made the change for all of William’s kids if they planned to give Harry’s kids titles. I mean, he obviously didn’t even have a wife at the time, but why wait? I think they were planning all titles to go through heirs only from now on. So, George’s kids will have titles, but not Charlotte or Louis. I don’t think they were thinking about how it would look if Harry’s wife was biracial because it was planned before she was in the picture.
Don’t they automatically get titles when Charles becomes king, as children of the sons of the direct heir? Whether or not they choose to *use* the titles as they grow up, is what I think is another matter, esp. once William takes the thrown. By then, George, Char, and Louis will (most likely) be a lot older (I’m thinking this is in about 20-30 yrs), and they’ll be doing royal duties (no matter how “lightly”), and the Sussex kid(s) won’t be in the mix as much.
Yes, this is about if the Queen will give them letters to allow them to be styled as Prince/ss now instead of waiting until becoming titled upon Charles’ coronation.
Unless for some bizarre reason why Charles is skipped (will never happen) they will get titles eventually.
Thank you for the explanation, Eliza and Lola! 🤗
A more realistic reason for Charles not ascending the throne is that he does not outlive his mother. I think the Queen Mum lived to be 102. I know she lived until after she was 100.
They will have titles as children of a duke. When Charles becomes king, they will become princes/princess as male line children of the king.
Unless the Queen issues letters patent otherwise, that’s what legally happens. Of course, Harry and Meghan can call their children how they place, but the children are legally entited to those titles at this point.
Hmmm. this is interesting. I thought for sure we would have heard something by now, either way. I would be surprised if they change the child’s title in the future, so my thinking was always, if they wanted the child to be HRH Prince Polo, the Queen would have issued a letter stating that, since the child will be entitled to that once Charles becomes king. Since we haven’t heard that, I had expected confirmation that the children would be styled similar to the Wessex children. But we haven’t heard THAT either.
maybe they will change their titles down the road, but I just didn’t expect them to do that.
As for all the “quiet life” business – I’m not sure what that means. They are full time working royals. they can only live so quietly.
I’ve seen nothing from Harry and Meghan that leads me to believe they want to live a quiet life. They seem quite comfortable in the “loud life” from what I’ve seen.
Yeah, this quiet life stuff completely contradicts how they’ve actually been since they got married. They seem very comfortable in the spotlight and eager to work and do a lot of high-profile engagements.
They’re not shrinking violets that just want to ride off into the sunset and raise their family away from the spotlight. They seem like they want to be front and center, making a difference.
I think moving to Frogmore was out of necessity, and they’re framing it as a lifestyle choice.
I do not think Meghan left Hollywood and the entertainment industry in order to to come to the UK to take up fox hunting and live quietly as a Turnip Toff.
Exactly. Also they can’t have “quiet lives.” Something those in US and outside of UK don’t understand: They owe it to tax payers to be working. They receive so much in tax payer $$$ they have to put on a show and work. Otherwise people would be livid. And they already are not very happy with the economy taking a nose dive and seeing how many millions in renovations Frogmore is getting. Especially with Soho house doing the renovations and adding a fancy yoga studio etc etc. Megs and Harry know they will have to work their butts off but they both seem happy and willing to do it.
My recollection is this is usually done after the child is born. So I still think there is time for this drama to unfold. Now in somewhat similar boats, but not quite cause there was four of them. Andrew did take titles for his daughters, Edward and Anne did not take titles. Plus Zara Tindall (Anne’s daughter/Harry’s cousin) whom Harry is close to, said numerous times it was always easier for her without a title. So I think this could be an interesting choice, but I feel like some might insist they take the title cause of the optics. I mean if the Queen offers a title to the first mixed raced child in the monarchy and they don’t want to take it, some are still going to believe it wasn’t really offered. I’m betting a title and they are taking it.
Zara still uses her royal connections to get all of the perks.
They live a quiet life, just as most of the British royals do, outside of doing their royal jobs.
But couldn’t this be because Meghan has been pregnant almost their entire marriage? Wasn’t she very sociable and out and about in high society before she married?
We didn’t see them for the majority of their courtship. We didn’t know she was flying to the UK every week or every other week for a year and a half. We heard rumors of vacations, but only one photo of one vacation in three years has emerged. Plus the pap photos from a friend’s wedding. We’ve seen next to nothing of them out-and-about on private time since their engagement announcement. No photos of them in the Cotswolds.
They aren’t out in London every night conducting their private life in public. They’re living quietly.
@Becks they wouldn’t need to confirm styling like the did with the Wessexes because the Wessex case was a change from the norm. Those children would naturally have been expected to be HRH Prince/Princess at birth as things stood; for reasons previously explained this wasn’t going to be the case so they issued the LP and made the advance public statement when Edward & Sophie married. They don’t need to confirm re the Sussex babe because as ‘rules’ stand now he/she will be styled as child of a Duke (for now). Nothing to state.
The Queen is in her 90s and won’t live forever; it won’t be a long wait before Sussex child/ren become HRHs so imo the current thinking is let things happen naturally as current rules stand. As far as optics go, there’s the competing issue of royal fam ‘streamlining’ that Charles is obsessed with, and that would include imo not giving out more titles/ranks than absolutely necessary. I don’t think he’s on board with raising ranks that will ultimately rise later.
@noway the LP for Wessexes was long before the birth of the kids. And the kids are actually still legally ‘ranked’ as prince/princess, but that’s a longer post. Andrew didn’t ‘take’ titles for his daughters, they were automatically titled at birth.
Yeah, I get that they don’t need to confirm anything, and that the current rules would have the kids be Earl/Lord/Lady, but I am just surprised because I was sure they would not change titles. (like, if they are going to be HRH Prince/ss when Charles becomes king, I think the queen would have issued a LP stating that, and if they want to go the Wessex route and stay titled as the children of a duke, I would have expected that to be made clear as well.) Obviously they can change their titles, I just figured they would opt not to do that.
@Becks I think this is a worthy point. The fact that historically recently TQ has issued declarations re her grandchildren before their birth, re changes to their styling & titles, may point to what they already have planned for the Sussexes. Meghan is due anytime, and no LPs issued, so safe to say no HRH is forthcoming for Baby S.
Guessing here only, but it may also signal plans to have them ‘upgrade’ to HRH at her passing, conforming with current rules – ie, no statement, no changes…if they were planning to have Sussex kids styled as children of Dukes permanently, even after Grandad is King, the precedent would be to announce it *now* to avoid future controversy and confusion.
Wouldn’t there have had to be a formal exception made thoguh, like was done for Charlotte and Louis? Because only the children and grandchildren and direct heirs are entitled to the title prince or princess?
Since there has been no announcement of that kind, I have just assumed that the exception will not be made and the baby will be Lord or Lady, similar to Edward’s kids (though in his case it was a choice).
I agree that this isn’t going to happen but I’m not buying the three-dimensional chess theory that this is coming from the hierarchy and designed to put Meghan in her place. The Occam’s Razor most likely theory is that it’s coming from the Sussexes themselves to distinguish themselves as down-to-earth, bake-your-own-banana-bread people. And this isn’t a slam! It’s just an acknowledgement that this is a good PR move.
We hear this all the time from all of them. And title or not, Baby Sussex is going to have a great privileged life. Princess Anne’s kids have no titles and they seem to be having a great old time. Baby Sussex will be the grandchild of an English king. He or she is set for life.
Agreed. Meghan may know what a normal life looks like, but Harry (and William to a degree) has this fantasy idea about what that would entail. He seems to think he should be getting all the perks of a royal life, while living privately, which is not how it works. I don’t think this is coming from anywhere besides exaggerations of Meghan and Harry hinting they’d like their kids to have a more low key life.
This was my read as well. Takes a bit of mental gymnastics to get to this being a hit piece.
I mentioned in a previous post that I think Harry may leave the royal family at some point. If they are planning to forgo titles for their kids, I think this proves that I think Harry’s obligations to the BRF will end once Elizabeth is gone. I have no evidence to back up what I’m saying but I just have this funny feeling Harry wants out and plans to leave once Elizabeth is gone. Given Charles’ stance on The List, he may have even been prepping Harry for a day when he’ll have to make it on his own. I had a feeling since the nude scandal back in 2012 that Harry has been slowly pursuing an exit strategy. I just don’t think he intends to remain on the list and Meghan and Harry will eventually go their own way. I think Meghan has been plotting for them to eventually be living in LA and I think Harry wants that as well.
Really? I don’t get that vibe at all. I think Meghan really thinks she can make a difference in her role and she has reinvigorated Harry to care again.
I mean look at their Instagram page, if they were slowly trying to phase themselves out, they wouldn’t be posting new photos every day and private photos of them helping elephants. They’re committed to their roles, IMO.
They could have easily gotten away with doing half the engagements they’ve done in the last 10 months. They WANT to be the hard-working royal couple, I think.
I think Harry has more private money than he is being credited with.
IIRC, I read somewhere, years ago, that Diana’s portion of her father’s private estate went into a trust fund for Harry. Bill Cambridge got none of this as it was expected he would have plenty of $$$$ from the Ducky of Cornwall when Charles became King.
Whatever he might have inherited from his Spencer grandfather wouldn’t have been a fortune. A few million at best. The majority of the money plus the estate would have been kept intact for the new Earl. A few million when you’d have to pay for all of your security the rest of your lives? It would run out quickly.
I think Diana inherited from her mother and the settlement from Charles, I read a while ago that Harry got more due to him not being the heir.
https://www.rd.com/culture/prince-harry-prince-william-inherited/
It is anti and fan fiction that Harry would leave. Harry leaving the line of succession wouldn’t be a simple process and would have to be approved by the government.
One? His legal obligations to the country and monarchy do not end when the Queen passes. He is required to continue as a Counsellor of State and to live in the UK to fulfill that legal obligation. That’s why Charles cannot get rid of Andrew. Counsellors are the first four people in the line of succession over the age of 21. They are required to live in the UK as part of that legal obligation.
HM’s Counsellors are Charles, William, Harry, Andrew.
Charles’s would be William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice.
William’s would be Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie until enough of W&K kids are 21.
Harry will be a Counsellor of State for all of Charles’s reign and most of William’s potential reign, unless W&K have a fourth child. If they have a fourth child, Harry will be a Counsellor until that last child reaches 21. If William passes away before his eldest reaches 21, Harry is legally required to be Regent. Otherwise Andrew is Regent. Whatever Harry might think he wants? He isn’t going to endanger the monarchy or his eldest nephew by setting things up for Andrew to be in charge if something happens to William.
Two? He, Meghan, and their children would be completely without protection of the monarchy. At the mercy of an unfettered global press with no power of the monarchy behind them. Their lives would be worse, not better, if they left. The press would never leave them alone and the taxpayer would not pay for their security.
Nota is back! Thank you for spelling out the reasons why Harry and Meghan aren’t going anywhere. That narrative that they can up and leave is ridiculous. Harry is all about duty to the Crown.
Notasugar,
I have to respectfully disagree for a few reasons. That said, I kind of hope I am wrong and you are right. Let me outline the 3 reasons I disagree.
1) Politics/Survival of the Monarchy: I think people forget how much of a fight is ahead once Queen Elizabeth is gone. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see the monarchy surviving beyond the next monarch. I just don’t. If they do survive, I think they’ll be purely there for religious purposes and The List will be gutted to only immediate family of that Monarch. I can see Harry peacing out, the second there’s any resistance. Now I will be the first to call London a tourist graveyard without a royal family. But given the political climate, constant criticism, I think the BRF may have outlived their usefulness and may just be done. There may be a day when I think Councillors, etc don’t really matter.
2) Harry’s behavior in London. I’ve noticed that even before Harry married Meghan that whenever Harry is in London, he looks like he’d rather be anywhere but in London. He seemed happiest when in the army and not being a royal. He also seems much happier abroad, even when the paparazzi are hounding him. I think he likes being away from his family. Whether that translates into the courage to strike out on his own, I’m not sure. Compared to 10 years ago, I definitely can see a day of Harry walking away from his family.
3) Depends on how much privacy and self-sufficiency Harry wants: I think we all know (and it isn’t saying much) that Harry has the most life skills out of anyone in the royal family. It would be an adjustment for Harry but I think out of all the members of the royal family, Harry would be okay without the bubble. He wouldn’t have royal money or that much standing but he has enough where he could live in privacy outside of the UK or buy up Frogmore if he wanted.
Like I said, this all supposition on my part. I kind of hope you’re right because I can see a very tough road ahead for Harry if he decides to leave. But I can see him doing it.
I do agree that I think Meghan would rather he didn’t but I also think she would support him if it became too much.
It doesn’t matter where Harry “appears” happier to you. He has a legal obligation to his country, one I don’t see him abandoning. Especially as it entails the danger of Andrew gaining control if something happens to William.
If the monarchy ends, then all of their Counsellor duties would disappear obviously. Otherwise, he is required to fulfill them.
They are living a quiet life and are only seen when doing engagements. From what I’ve seen, that’s their preference. They aren’t required to live in London but can stay quietly at Windsor while still doing their royal work, as Anne lives quietly at Gatcombe.
He cannot purchase Frogmore, it belongs to the taxpayers. He was happy in the Army with helicopters, but his Army rank was going to require him to take a desk job. That is a big part of why he left, because he didn’t want to remain in the service at a desk.
They would be treated even worse if they did leave. Absolutely no protections and Harry does not have the money to provide the kind of security they require for decades. There would be no privacy either in the UK or outside of it. The global press would be after them every day in an unprotected free-for-all.
They have the best of both worlds IMO. They have a cushy home, freedom to work on the charities they support, but don’t have the legal/political obligations of monarch or heir’s heir that William loathes.
Great info, Nota! I didn’t know any of that.
Harry would make such a great king, it’s kind of sad William is the older one. Harry just seems so much more compassionate and empathetic.
@Lucia, Australia, Jamaica, NZ and Canada may choose to give up the monarch as head of state when the Queen dies. But it is extremely unlikely that we will abolish the monarchy here in the UK. There is no appetite for it.
I disagree. Harry and Meghan want to be humanitarians, but they are accustomed to a lifestyle that would not be sustainable if they were to go it alone. Harry is growing up. What he said as a rebellious youth most likely is contradictory to what he says as his reality at this time. $30 million +\- would not go far.
No it wouldn’t get them far at all. But 10-20 years from now, they may not have a choice.
Unless the monarchy ends in the next 20 years, they’re set. Other countries may peel off after HM passes, but the UK is less likely. If the whole thing appears to be going bellyup before Charles dies? Charles will ensure he leaves a larger sum of money to Harry and each of his grandchildren than expected. Money that wouldn’t come to him ordinarily if the monarchy stays put, as there would be no need to keep HM’s current private funds intact for the next monarch.
I think Harry and Meghan will just leave it at Lord or Lady.
“most of the best apartments in Kensington Palace were already taken, or they would require extensive renovations. ”
Dumb question: who is living in these apartments?
The Cambridges, the Gloucesters, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent all have large apartments.
If everything is a hierarchy, it would seem that the queen’s cousins need to make way for her heirs.
I’m not sure why Prince Michael of Kent has an apartment there to begin with since he is not a working royal and neither is his wife.
They had it basically grace-and-favour from the Queen (on the taxpayers) until the press found out in 2002. After that BP stated “The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent’s apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually, from her own private funds. This rent payment by The Queen is in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding.”
HM hid one of her Bowes-Lyon cousins in an apartment at KP or SJP rent-free until it was discovered too. HM’s friend and cousin, Margaret Rhodes, lived rent-free at Windsor in Garden House until she passed in 2016.
Palace staffers and various relatives, as Kylie mentioned. There is also office space in the building.
Nota –
The Queen also pays the rent for Zenouska Mowatt to live in a house on the estate at Windsor
The Zenouska Mowatt situation is always interesting, the RF clearly want to keep her mouth zipped.
Zenouska works as Head of Marketing for Halcyon Days – I would’ve thought she lives in London? No matter what happened with the situation with her parents, she seems to have worked hard and done well in her career. I looked at her LinkedIn and she’s just been promoted
Another dumb question x 2:
When we talk about TQ “paying rent” to support cousins etc living at various palaces and castles – where does that rent money go? To the taxpayer?
And where does the money she uses to pay rent come from – the Duchy, ie the taxpayer? Is it just a nonsensical money-go-round?
I do think that Meghan and Harry baby will get a titled I know it the Meghan haters hope that the queen will banished her to the ivory towers never to be seen again that not going to happen. The baby will get a title because it’s the future king grandbaby and it’s the great grand kid of the queen of England . As much as some people would like to believe that Meghan and Harry are in irrelevant low in the tolem pole the royals need Meghan and Harry .
@Kaiser there were said to be three large spaces available when W&K were looking. They refused those and demanded the largest space already being used by the museum. If Harry and Meghan wanted to live at KP, finding them space wouldn’t have been a big problem.
With Buckingham Palace undergoing 10 years of restoration? That leaves Andrew, Edward, and Sophie without their London apartments for a few years. Any office staff located at BP will need new offices elsewhere in London for a time. Anne already has a townhouse in Saint James, along with Princess Alexandra. With Beatrice and Eugenie moving out of their SJP space, that opens up one apartment. Or Andrew/Edward/Sophie might be given small spaces in KP in the interim.
I agree that the renovations to BP make it difficult to establish a London apartment. But within a few years Clarence House will be vacated by Charles when he becomes king and there may be a renovated BP apartment available. Given that Meaghan and
Charles seem to get along so well, she might prefer an apartment at BP ( not just st for proximity to her office, but proximity to the king). In the meantime
Frogmore gives them privacy as a young family and will probably be their main base for years to come.
Harry and Meghan will not be given Clarence House, the outcry would be too loud. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re thinking. Charles is said to want to keep CH and move to Windsor, abandoning BP entirely. I don’t think he’ll get away with that. Eventually they’re going to have to eliminate CH and SJP as royal housing, getting everyone in BP or Kensington.
I definitely think Clarence House would be an option. I personally don’t see H & M going back to KP.
I don’t think the public would put up with Harry and Meghan getting such a lavish home as Clarence House. If that was in the offing, my guess is he would have been given Clarence as a title instead of Sussex.
@nota — “With Beatrice and Eugenie moving out of their SJP space” — I know that Eugenie & Jack were to be living at Ivy Cottage at KP, but any word where Beatrice will live? Is she out of SJP already?
We’re told Beatrice lives in NYC. When in London, who knows where she stays? With Eugenie at Ivy? In Andrew’s space at BP? At Royal Lodge Windsor with Andrew?
Their kids will be styled as the children of a duke. Then when Charles becomes King there is a choice as whether to continue that way or go with the royal titles they are entitled to under the letters patent as male-line grandchildren of a monarch.
With the extensive renovations done at Frogmore I highly doubt they will leave it after a year. There would be howls. I bet they make that their base for a long, long time.
If they need overnight digs in Central London they’ll find them somewhere, but I doubt they establish a large living space there. It’s not that far from Windsor and for the most part they can commute in and out as needed.
I am not sure why on earth anyone would think that them moving to Windsor was anything but pure preference on their part. Their engagement photos, wedding and wedding reception were all there. I think the simple explanation is that they both like it.
I think this every time someone says they’ll move back to London full time soon. Firstly, where? If there’s no place now that would have been appropriate, why would something magically appear in a year or two. Secondly, after completely renovating what was basically offices/small apartments into one large home, it would be extremely unwise to pack up and leave to another place, which they would most likely have to renovate to their tastes. I would hope they keep it as their main home, and have a base in London, which may become the main home once their child becomes school aged. If they care about optics at all!
Most of the working royals have a country home plus a London space. Anne’s is one of the biggest at SJP, but they all have some space in London for early morning or late night engagements. They might be keeping Nottingham Cottage for that purpose with Frogmore Cottage as their main home.
I agree, I think they’ll keep Frogmore Cottage and have an “apartment” at BP or St. James like Anne, Andrew and Edward do.
They will definitely need a decent London base, even though Windsor is not too far, they will have lots of London engagements and need room to receive and host guests in London.
@Kittycat – Clearly, GOTDAMN and Diana were very tight. Next week it won’t just be family insights she’s sharing, she’ll fill us plebians in on everything: the corgis take on Brexit, the palace shortbread recipe, the Queen’s favorite kdrama!
Who is GOTDAMN?
lol
They will be styled as children of a Duke (Earl of Dumbarton for a son and Lady for a daughter) until Charles becomes King. Once this happens they will be elevated to HRHs.
This is what *I* would do – biracial royal children in direct line to the throne. Optics are important. Racists will rejoice if these children are Miss and Mr only. Their Royal status will protect them more than none.
There is no chance they would ever be Mr. or Miss. They will either be titled as the children of a duke, as you state, or they will go ahead and get the HRH going now and not wait for Charles’ ascension. I think they go ahead and do the HRH, since the kids will eventually by HRH anyway, and also it would not look good for Meghan’s children to not be on equal footing with W&K’s. The average person is not going to understand the rules of rank and precedence, so they should just go ahead and make them HRH and avoid any possibility of looking discriminatory to the first mixed-race kids in the BRF.
Many are speculating that they will refuse any and all titles for their children. This means courtesy titles as the children of a Duke are replaced by no titles at all. I don’t agree and it seems far fetched.
That’s dumb, they won’t refuse *all* titles.
@Cee, there is no way to do that. If they wanted to refuse any and all titles for their children, Harry would not have accepted the Dukedom of Sussex. As long as he is the Duke of Sussex, his children will at least be styled accordingly, legally speaking. They could have a preference regarding how they want to be addressed, but that’s entirely a different thing here. And if Harry has a son, he will be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton, and he will become the Duke of Sussex whenever Harry kicks it, so he will get a title regardless.
Just my wild prediction: no presentation at the Lindo wing. No title for baby Sussex.
I think they’ll style them as children of a Duke and then when Charles becomes King, they’ll continue to style them as children of a Duke so as to give their children more normal lives or at least appear to be laidback or not bothered by styling.
I agree with Kaiser that if the Royals care about how it looks, Harry’s child(ren) will receive HRHs at birth, rather than waiting for Charles to be King. Otherwise, why Charlotte and Louis? I understand that they are the heir’s heir’s children, but they still aren’t the 3rd heir. They would have received their titles with King Charles. Considering the child will be multi-racial, it would look good for the family to use this as a way to welcome the baby into the family in their own official way. If the Queen doesn’t care about how it looks, then I think it’s less a slight on them, and more she doesn’t care to respond to anyone and prefers to try to keep some traditions going, or follow some kind of hierarchy. She is picky about that.
And, considering how their Instagram is already being run, yup, no way do Meghan and Harry fade into the background. They are setting up for public works for the next couple of decades. Insta will be helpful while they are on maternity/paternity leave to show their minds are still on work (thinking very fancy TBT)
With Charlotte and Louis, it creates equality between the siblings and so as not to have a situation where George is prince and they are merely lord and lady.
Also it was done before George was born because if George had been a girl, it would have been a situation of an heir to the thrown not being titled /princess (as inheritance laws were changing), so that possibility had to be addressed.
Charlotte and Louis could have also waited until their grandfather became King, to be elevated in rank. So yes, TQ decided to make sure all children were on the same “level”. She could therefore do the same with Harry’s children. However, we’re close to the due date and no LP have been issued.
The LP were primarily issued to avoid any nonsense regarding George being born a female, her father’s Heiress, and not being granted HRH status as the previous LP stated that the eldest SON of the POW’s eldest son was entitled to this title and rank. TQ made sure that if William’s first child, and thus the next Monarch, was female, she would receive the title and rank of the Heir’s Heir’s Heir.
They will be titled Lord or Lady at the child of a royal Duke. When Charles is King technical they will become HRH Prince or Princess of Sussex but likely will only use their Lord or Lady title. Harry’s oldest son will inherit the title of Duke.
When the Queen dies, Charles will move to Buck house and William will move to Clarence House. Then H&M can move into W&K’s place at Kensington Palace, of course they will reno it first LOL. So H&M should just stay at Frogmore until the Queen passes. There I sorted it.
I respectfully disagree. I don’t see them ever moving back to KP. I think they’ll stay in Windsor.
The bronzer she uses isn’t flattering. The rest I have no opinion on. Whatever floats their boat.
Lord Polo of Ginger Loins. 👑🐎
We all have titles. My grandchildren are ‘Master’ and ‘Miss’. It used to be that the eldest son had ‘Esq’ after his name on correspondence. It stands for ‘Esquire’. Another quaint old British custom that seems to have died out.
Has anyone seen LAK?! I haven’t seen the screen name on here in what feels like a year?? Hope they are well?
I too deeply miss LAK… and sixer.
“Steel marshmallow Kate!” 🤣