Baby Sussex will likely not have an ‘HRH’ title, but will be called Lady or Earl

The Duchess Of Sussex Visits The Hubb Community Kitchen

My prediction is that the Duchess of Sussex will give birth in the next week, before or perhaps on Easter Sunday. That’s what my witchy sixth sense is telling me, but I’ve been wrong before. CB’s witchy sixth sense has been telling her for months that Meghan and Harry are expecting royal twins, so take that as you will too. One of the reasons why I think the birth is happening soon is because it’s basically the silly season in the British tabloids – they’re just throwing whatever nonsense at the wall because they don’t have anything else to write about until the baby comes.

I don’t have any final predictions about the baby’s gender or name (or, in the case of twins, genders and names). I think it would be sweet if they went with a D-name for a boy or girl, given that both of their beloved mothers’ names started with D (Diana and Doria). The name Donald is not on the table, obviously. But here’s something I’ve been wondering for months: the title. We still haven’t had a confirmation from Buckingham Palace about what kind of title, if any, Baby Sussex will have. Then the Telegraph dropped this into their coverage a few days ago and I was like “whaaa….?”

The Duke and Duchess, whose first child will be an Earl or Lady rather than Prince or Princess, said they would be “celebrating privately as a new family” after the birth as a first priority. In a short statement issued yesterday, they said they would not be sharing plans for the arrival of their baby, and will not undertake a public appearance after it is born.

The low-key plans in part reflect the status of Baby Sussex, who will be seventh in line to the throne. He or she will not have an automatic HRH title, being known as the Earl of Dumbarton if a boy, and Lady [firstname] Mountbatten-Windsor if a girl. George, Charlotte and Louis, the baby’s cousins, were all confirmed as being a Prince or Princess before birth thanks to a Letters Patent issued by the Queen in December 2012, seven months before the arrival the first Cambridge child. No such declaration has yet been made with respect to the Sussex’s baby.

[From The Telegraph]

From my understanding, though, it’s not too late for the Queen to give Baby Sussex an HRH or a different kind of title? The Queen can do whatever she wants in this regard, and I suspect that if she wanted to wait until the baby was born to declare the kid HRH Polo Baby, Earl of Ginger, she could. I don’t know. We’ll see.

The Royal Family attends a Service to commemorate the Armistice on the centenary of the end of WWI

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

237 Responses to “Baby Sussex will likely not have an ‘HRH’ title, but will be called Lady or Earl”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MissyS. says:

    I’m not looking forward to thousands of articles and news shows about why or why not the Sussex children will have HRH titles.

    • Snappyfish says:

      It would be an affront to Charles if this child goes without an HRH. It will be given that title. I have no doubt. Let’s not forget the Queen’s father had to make a decree prior to the birth of her children that they receive a HRH before his birth. If it is something that Harry wants ( I’m guessing it is) it will happen. If you think about it a child of the Sussexes with out a title will just bring about more Meghan bashing

      • jan90067 says:

        No, it wouldn’t. When Charles becomes king, the kids, as grandchildren of the reigning monarch (in the male line), they WILL be HRH. Whether or not their parents chose to style them that way is another story. Seems like M&H are choosing to go the same route as Ed and Sophie, which is fine.

      • aaa says:

        Meghan and Harry’s children will become HRH Prince/Princess __________ when Charles becomes King unless the monarch and/or the Sussexes choose to go the same route as the Wessexes and have their children be styled as children of a Duke/Earl which means that the child will keep the same styling he/she/they had at birth.

        Both George VI and Elizabeth II made declarations about the children born to heirs apparent because for different reasons you would have had heirs apparent (technically Elizabeth and Charles (at birth) were heirs presumptive) being born non-HRH.

        It was deemed important that a child who would likely ascend to the throne be born HRH, that does not apply to Harry and Meghan’s child which is why it seems likely that Queen Elizabeth will not issue a declaration regarding Harry and Meghan’s children. In the cases where something different was done , the announcements were made before the children’s births.

      • Tina says:

        The Queen has four grandchildren without an HRH: Louise and James have titles but no HRH, and Peter and Zara have no titles. George VI had two grandchildren without HRHs: Margaret’s children. It would be entirely appropriate to have a child of Harry’s styled as Earl or Lady without an HRH, and not at all an affront to Charles.

  2. Becks1 says:

    Part of me is surprised that they aren’t giving the baby HRH (at least as far as we know), but then part of me thinks it makes sense – Harry probably sees how life is different for Zara and Peter, and even now for Louise and James. I was a teenager/young adult around the time of Sophie and Edward’s wedding, so I don’t know how popular they were, but considering the popularity of Harry and Meghan I do think their child will have a different life than Louise and James regardless of title. But, with three Cambridge kids, presumably some of the focus will shift away from the Sussexes (or at least their children) as the Cambridges grow up.

    I know I’m all over the place, haha. Basically I can see why people think they should be HRH, and I can see why Harry and Meghan may choose not to go that route. I do get the feeling that is their choice though. (like I imagine there were probably a few discussions about it behind closed doors.) Who knows though. Time will tell.

    I do not think its twins though. I feel like that would have leaked out at some point, and also, the last time we saw her, she just looked like a woman at the late stages of pregnancy.

    • Himmiefan says:

      I can see how they don’t want their children stuck in the no-mans land between public life and private life like the York women are in. Since they’re a step or two away from the throne, I think it make sense to have them be like Zara and Peter and be more private individuals, and so no HRH.

    • Beck says:

      I think you’re right that Meghan and Harry are very popular at this moment in time but that actually a decade from now, or less even, it will be all about Prince George and as those Cambridge kids grow, Meghan and Harry will become similar to Prince Charles siblings and their spouses.

      I remember around the time of Edward and Sophie’s wedding and when they first had kids they were very popular too.

      • Salvation says:

        Why do you turn every discussion about the Sussexes into who will or won’t be relevant in 10 years? Why is is this important for you? Mind you, who is relevant from here forward will depend on what each person makes their position to be. If the Cambridges continue on this path, I guarantee you that Harry and his wife will be the most relevant Royals after Charles, that I guarantee you. Harry has a lot to his name, Sentebale, Invictus, his work with Walking With the Wounded, now him teaming up with Oprah on this Mental wellness series, I guarantee you that William has to work very hard to catch up with Harry, because AFAIC, right now Harry is already more relevant that the future king.
        In terms of them Sussexes not showing their kid, I still haven’t found anywhere on any official royal family website where that announcement was posted so I too believe this was a hoax.

      • Susan says:

        Salvation, Beck had a very simple, calm and reasonable thing to say. I think the bigger question is why that simple, calm and reasonable thing was so triggering to you. It isn’t really difficult to see that members of the royal family currently getting a lot of attention will fade in popularity as the Cambridge children grow up. William and Kate themselves will be eclipsed by their own children.

    • Spicecake38 says:

      Becks I like your assessment and I think it’s a really cool thing to go the *understated*route if that makes any sense.Like,we all know this child/children are blood royalty and whether or not they are given HRH upon birth is not that big of a deal IMO as an American watching from the sidelines.I am thinking that when Charles takes the throne and depending upon the future work and popularity of the Sussex line he will bestow upon them whatever titles he feels appropriate at that future time.And them NOT having titles upon birth I think is a great way for Meghan and Harry to show that they don’t really care and that they are about the work and about living some degree of normalcy at least for a while??

    • Bella DuPont says:

      @ Beck

      A few differences:

      Meghan has cornered a niche/demographic that is extremely unlikely to change in the next coming decades…..America + Common Wealth + POC. The growth of the Cambridge children won’t change this in any way.

      Her popularity may oscillate over time, but I think the attention is here to stay. (Same with her kids).

    • mint says:

      I think the Sussexes are making deliberate choices. They moved out of London to the country side. And sure this may be because of all the tensions behind the palace walls and having a safe space of their own but its also a move a lot of parents do- getting out of the city, be more private. They released a statement that the birth will be a private event- so no lion king presenting of the child. I guess not wanting a HRH title for the kid(s) falls in line with that. They can afford to do things differently and more privately. I think Harry always felt stuck being a royal and that he had no choice in doing something else. And he struggled a lot with his role. So I guess he wants to give his kid(s) the freedom of choosing a life of their own. Plus, now the interest in H+M is over top, but in 10-15 years, they will have faded to the background, as the Cambridges are taking over. I dont think that the Sussex Kid(s) will be working royals like their parents, so a HRH is not needed and I guess more of a burden. When you see the York sisters- they have royal titles but hardly do any royal work as they are too minor but they also do not hold a real job. I do not see H+M wanting this for their kid(s)

  3. minx says:

    Sounds sensible.
    Come on, Polo Baby, get moving. We need some good news.

    • MerryGirl says:

      LOL, Polo Baby will not be rushed! He/she is probably thinking since y’all will be scrutinizing at me for the rest of my life, I’m taking my full term here and I’ll come when I’m good and ready.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Sitting in a hotel room watching HLN, who reports on the non news of no baby story every hour. You can sense their frustration of not having this story to fill Sunday hours. LOL.

    • Spicecake38 says:

      Polo baby is going to be chill,IMO 😉He /She will come when they feel like it.Nobody’s schedule but their own.

  4. Canadiangirl says:

    I think there may be a practical element. When Charles becomes king, the baby will be entitled to it, but if he never becomes king they won’t. No, I don’t think he will abdicate but Charles is 70 and it is always possible he could die before his mother, not likely but possible, in which case Baby Sussex will never be the child or grandchild of the monarch. Now again, this is very unlikely, but add that to Harry and Meghan’s rumoured desire to shelter their child and the precedent we have seen from Edward (who’s children, like the Sussex children will almost certainly never see the throne) and I do think that the baby will be lord or lady and there will be no letters patent.

  5. Erinn says:

    Meh. I think this is what they want. Harry goes on about wanting a more normal life every now and then so it would just make most sense to have them be a lady or earl. Less pressure, less scrutiny, but still with perks.

    I just don’t look forward to the articles we will see about Meghan “demanding” x title and the queen “punishing” them for it. I genuinely do think that whatever title the baby has will be H&Ms choice and I think we should respect that.

    • MissyS. says:

      You know it’s coming. So prepare yourself for articles about tantrums, snubs, jealousy etc.

    • Megan says:

      Since Harry’s children won’t be working royals, an HRH may be more of hinderance than a help later in life.

    • CuriousCole says:

      Isn’t it more of William constantly moaning for a “normal” life, than Harry? Harry’s biggest complaint is press intrusion, for which I cannot find fault.

  6. Josie says:

    TQ can issue letters patent at any time, yes, but it’s looking more and more unlikely that she will. The Firm doesn’t leave that stuff until the last minute, usually. And in fact, if Harry had wanted his children to be HRH, it’s more likely that the 2013 Letters Patent making all of William’s children HRH (changing the 1917 rules) would have also included him. So this is probably a conversation they all had a long time ago (Elizabeth, Charles, and Harry).

    Will Harry and Meghan’s kids use their HRHs once Charles becomes king? It’s hard to predict, but all the current evidence suggests no. I think they’ve all decided to follow Edward’s lead, not Andrew’s, and create a new framework where only the children of the heir are HRH. And I suspect they all reached this decision years before Meghan even met Harry, so it doesn’t have anything to do with her.

    • Eliza says:

      The letters were given very early with the Cambridge kids. I also thought when they weren’t announced months ago this would be the result: Lord/Lady titles.

      They will be HRH officially at Charles’ coronation, and they can decide then if they want to publically use that title like Ed who chooses not to for his kids. Unless Dianas prediction comes true, that Charles doesn’t get thrown, they will get the title to use if they please. I think they gave the letters to George as he would be born 3rd in line without a title, and the first 6 (?) positions are the most important to crown, and Polo baby is 7th so just out of the bubble that requires The Queen to dictate their lives.

      • Becks1 says:

        They issued letters patent before George’s birth because of the possibility of a girl, I think. I cant recall the specific wording (someone on here knows I’m sure), but had they not issued those LPs, and had Charlotte been born first, Charlotte would have been Lady Charlotte and then George would have been Prince George. I cant remember if the LPs were issued before or after the rules changed about succession (so had Charlotte been oldest, she would be the heir, regardless of any brothers, but I don’t remember whether that or the letters re: HRH were first. I think the change in succession was first.) The firstborn son of the Cambridges was “always” going to be HRH Prince as I understand it.

      • Nic919 says:

        The letters patent from 1917 had wording that only gave HRH to the eldest male child of the eldest male grandchild of the monarch which would have skipped a girl who was born first. They had to change since the succession law had recently changed to primogeniture instead of male primogeniture creating a possibility where the closer direct heir to the throne wouldn’t be an HRH compared to her younger brother.

    • Mary says:

      Edward’s lead is not really the guide here. His children are referred to for the time being as Lord and Lady simply because he has not yet inherited the ducal title that will be his as a monarch’s son. It was decided long ago that he will become Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies. His children will then be HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh, etc. Whether they decide to actually use this title then remains to be seen. I suspect they will.

      • Smalltowngirl says:

        That is not correct. It has nothing to do with him not being a duke, as the grandchildren male line of the monarch, they are entitled, whether their father is a duke or an Earl, but an active decision was made (and announced) for them to not go by HRH for multiple reasons and that will not change,

  7. P says:

    I dont think the baby will get an HRH now, but he/she will when Charles is King, as all grandsons/daughters of a king in the male line are.

    • Momoftwo says:

      Prince Edward’s children don’t have HRH

      • S says:

        But second son Andrew’s are, and William and Harry were both born before Beatrice and Eugenie.

      • Goob says:

        Edward’s children are legally entitled to HRH even if they aren’t styled that way.

      • Eliza says:

        Eduards kids are HRH, they choose not to use those titles for lesser ones.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @S – thats prolly cause Andrew asked for that styling (IIRC) and plus he is TQ”s favourite.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        They are technically HRH, but their parents have chosen not to use it.

      • Nic919 says:

        Letters patent from 1917 make all grandchildren of male children of the monarch HRH. Edward’s kids are HRH. Edward and Sophie weren’t originally going to be full time working royals so they decided not to have their kids use the HRH. They could decide to later on but probably won’t since Louise and James aren’t going to be working royals.

      • Candidly says:

        Edward is Earl of Wessex right now, and his children are styled as earl’s children. The plan is for Prince Edward to become the next Duke of Edinburgh when his father passes away. His and Sophie’s children will probably have new titles when that happens.

      • Kylie says:

        Both Prince Philip and the Queen have to pass away before Edward can be given the Duke of Edinburgh title. The title automatically passes to Charles when Philip passes but when Charles become King the title merges with the Crown and becomes available again to be given to Edward.

      • aaa says:

        There is no indication that Andrew requested/lobbied/demanded an HR for his children. His daughters are HRH Princesses because those are the rules that were in place when they were born and are still in place to this day.

        Edward and Sophie’s children not being HRH Prince James and HRH Princess Louise goes against “the rules”. I don’t think that it is going to change when Edward becomes the Duke of Edinburgh. Edward, even as an Earl, is an HRH Prince, and Sophie, as his wife is also an HRH. What entitles the Wessex children to the HRH styling is that they are male line grandchildren of the monarch, not that they are children of an Earl as opposed to children of a Duke. However they are not styled as HRHs due to an agreement that was made before they were born.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @aaa. Good point re lobbying and Andrew v Edward. We should also remember that Andrew’s children were born many many years earlier than Edward’s children. Beatrice and Eugenie were born in 1988 and 1990. Diana was still alive of course and still married to Charles. The tone and tenor of the Royal Family was quite different in the 2000s when Edward’s children were born. I think if Edward had kids in the 80s or early 90s it would just have been a default that they were going to be styled the same as Andrews.

  8. sus says:

    The baby will be an HRH as soon as Charles becomes King unless Harry and Meghan declines it. If they want to streamline the monarchy it makes sense not to issue a letters patent which would essentially mean that not only would baby Sussex become an HRH slightly earlier than if they don’t, also all of Charlotte’s and Louis’ future kids would become HRHs.

    • oddly says:

      They can’t decline the title, it automatically comes to Harry’s children when Charles becomes King, what they can do is decline to use the title for the children, when the children come of age they can then decide for themselves if they wish to use the HRH title or not.

  9. Joy says:

    There’s no way it’s twins unless they’re itty bitty.

    • MsIam says:

      Agree. I thought it might be twins too, at first. But I think she would have delivered by now if it was twins. At any rate, please hurry up and have this baby, lol!!!

    • Bee says:

      She’s so petite, with twins, she would be enormous. If she has twins I will be shocked.

  10. S says:

    The HRH title is highly coveted and brings with it not only pressure, but the presumption of being a lifetime member of the royal family, which means royal duties and a lifestyle befitting someone who is a member of The Firm.

    To not have it for someone >10 away from the throne would be … Fairly significant. Remember: Andrew and Fergie’s daughters were named princesses at birth, despite Will and Harry already being born, so this would be a huge break from tradition for the spare’s offspring not be codified as royal. It does fit with the slimming of the royal family, but it also seems a bit of a slap, honestly. Sure, the pressures that come with being an HRH are intense, but so are the perks, so I find it a little hard to believe that it was really Harry’s idea to decide that for his unborn child, who could always forego the HRH as they get older, if they so choose. It’s not like their child won’t have massive inheritance and profile, no matter what they’re called, but it’s still at least vaguely stunning. Never forget: the current Queen is the born-a-princess daughter of a “spare” herself.

    And, as much as I usually ignore these stories and think the Markle hate is intense and motivated very much by exactly what we all suspect it is, AND that the spotlight they’re both under is intrusive and, I’m sure, extremely stressful…That all being said, to not do a baby pap walk is dumb. You just had a 31 million pound wedding paid for by the people, who also bought you £500k of maternity wear. You’re hugely popular and absolutely a part of The Firm yourselves, so, yeah, do the wave and baby stroll to the car. How hard is it, really? And it would actually probably INCREASE privacy, long term, as without it, paps will be relentlessly trying to obtain baby pics themselves, and the whole thing will almost certainly be a security nightmare—again, all funded by British taxpayers. So, yeah, wave outside the the Lindo Wing holding a bundle. It’s not really that intrusive. And, frankly, if you want privacy all that badly, don’t marry a prince, or anyone, really, whose entire life and livelihood is about being seen.

    • Canadiangirl says:

      But Andrew’s daughters were the grandchild of a monarch, it would have been more of a conversation if they didn’t have the HRH (like it has been for Edward’s) and the situation was very different. There was no exception needed and at the time, no talk of streamline the monarchy and reducing the number of working royals (and for all that they were given that title, it has been made very clear the York girls will not be working royals).

    • sus says:

      Beatrice and Eugenie are grandchildren of the monarch and thus entitled to HRHs. When Charles becomes King Baby Sussex will be entitled to be HRH.

    • Lanne says:

      Quite a long reply for someone who doesn’t understand how the HRH system works. And no, the public does not own the Sussexes, and are not entitled to decide a woman’s birth plan. You want a Behold, the baby moment? Go watch the Lion King!

    • IlsaLund says:

      “And, frankly, if you want privacy all that badly, don’t marry a prince, or anyone, really, whose entire life and livelihood is about being seen.”

      Why is there the assumption that this is solely Meghan’s decision to not do the “pap walk?”

      31 million pounds for the wedding and 500,000 pounds for maternity clothing sound like British tabloid numbers.

    • MissyS. says:

      You are repeating the same talking points from obsessive Meghan haters at The Sun and Daily Mail. You wrote this long post just to take another dig at Harry and Meghan. Stop with the fake outrage. Maybe Meghan wants to take some time to heal before she has to face millions of people.

      Childbirth can be easy or extremely painful and difficult. Each birth is different. The wellness of mother and baby should be most important and not the public’s bloodthirst for photos and gossip.

      • S says:

        Feel free to think otherwise, but I don’t hate Meghan Markle and think the British tabloids have treated her quite badly. At the same time, we’ve seen time and time again, for all sorts of celebrities, that releasing baby pictures, or doing a large, public photocall actually increases their privacy, by removing the tantalization factor of a “secret.” And in this case, it’s not just the parents, but the baby itself who are famous, so posting an Instagram pic ain’t gonna cut it, and they press stalking will be wild if they try and forego that tradition. I’m not saying it’s right; I’m just saying it is.

        As royals these people are very, VERY much in the spotlight. It’s not going away. I agree completely that, that spotlight is often very harsh indeed, but the benefits come along with the downsides, just like anything else, and expecting to have one without the other, or not see reality for what it is (good and bad), seems … pointless.

        I can’t even imagine how much being a member of the British royal family feels like living in a gilded cage, but the cage is VERY gilded, and the family at large have been pretty clear they want to keep living in it, so this is one of those things that you hold your nose and do, and pretending it’s an outrageous or onerous request is a little weird considering the absolutely lavish perks that come with the position. Being on display is what being a 2019 royal is. The show is, quite literally, the whole thing.

        If they’d elected not to have a royal wedding. Not to live in a “cottage” in a royal castle. Not to have all the trappings then, yeah, I could see it. And I’m not saying Meghan demanded, or should have done without any of those things…Just that, this is the path. This is what it is. For better and for worse.

      • Kiitypride says:

        Child birth is literally child birth.

        I really think people forget that things can go wrong.

        But people have to have their pound of flesh.

      • minx says:

        I wish they would present the baby, have the photo op, and be done with it. Then they can go home and relax.

      • Nic919 says:

        They will be showing the baby just not on your schedule. It’s gross to dictate to a woman what she should be doing immediately after childbirth. Some women die from childbirth but demanding that she primp up for the press based on some made up numbers by the Daily Mail is highly disturbing. You don’t own her.

        The Queen didn’t show pictures of her kids for months and she spends more money than anyone but somehow Meghan needs to be held to something only Diana and Kate ever did, even if her child won’t even be an HRH and working royal.

      • S says:

        If you want to believe I’m a monster who hates Meghan, and children and freedom, that’s totally cool. You are correct, when the queen had her children 70 YEARS AGO, things were different. The leaving hospital photocall has been the current expectation for the majority of Brits royal baby lifetimes, and my point was more what Minx said: that it actually seems smart to just get it out of the way.

        I’ve had three kids, so I have some vague idea of what childbirth entails. 99% of women have visitors the day they give birth. They also see people, and people see them, as they leave the hospital—it’s not all that secret a process. They don’t have a staff, and stylists and hair and makeup people to make them look good while doing it, either. (And, no, I don’t begrudge her any of those things either. If I could have had hair and makeup for my baby pics, I would have taken them in a heartbeat.)

        No one is saying that if Meghan has a difficult childbirth, she isn’t owed as much recovery time as needed before leaving the hospital. No one is saying she should set up a webcam and offer 24/7 baby access. But pretending it’s gross or in some way coercive to look at someone whose current job (and, well, kind of past job, too, in this case, only this time the role is her life) is to be looked at it … Welp, it’s as odd to me as all the hate she gets. 🤷‍♀️

        Oh, well. Carry on.

      • Nic919 says:

        Not every woman experiences childbirth the same way. And some women need to be wheeled out of the hospital because they can’t walk. Are we demanding pictures of this? Because they have already stated there would be a photocall a few days later. How is that being unreasonable? What if she needs a c-section? I know plenty of women who planned on a natural delivery and then required an emergency c-section because sometimes things happen.

        And by pointing out what the queen did 70 years ago, the entire point was to show that walking out of the Lindo is not a tradition and isn’t long-standing at all. When it’s done by a few people it’s not a tradition. It’s what they wanted to do and Diana got attacked in the media for doing something different than the Queen, which was her choice.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, the same talking points from tumblr, DF, and RoyalDish until they finally shut it down. Easy to spot.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ S

        I appreciate the fact that you seem to be making an effort to at least sound vaguely respectful and reasonable (unlike some of the ludicrous posters on RD an DM)…… but fundamentally, your problem still seems the exact same one as they’re suffering from: A complete inability to feel any empathy for a woman you (and they) believe married out of place.

        Otherwise, you’d be able to see that no matter who she married or how privileged the position, nobody deserves the outright abuse and vitriol that she’s got and keeps getting.

        As far as the abusive British tabloids are concerned (with their expectations of making even more money on a pregnancy they’ve tried so hard to derail) they can kiss my skinny, pimply *ss.

      • S says:

        Believe what you will, but I think no such thing. Not even close.

      • S says:

        Last word from me … 99% of the British press complaints about Meghan are utter and total B.S. This is one of the few (only?) where I can kind of see their point. Even the stories complaining about clothes and wedding cost are easily dismissible because, duh, they’re royals, she wasn’t going to be shopping at Top Shop, or getting married in some church basement. (Also, that wedding was gorgeous and emotional in ways no royal wedding I’ve ever seen was. Meghan did an outstanding job combining their two families traditions and history, even when one of those sides is naturally overwhelming because, you know, royalty.)

        But, again, as I’ve said over and over (and won’t repeat again, because if you don’t want to believe I mean it, that’s for sure your prerogative ) … I don’t think they’ll have any more peace by NOT doing it. I presume it will just be one long scrum of security vs paps until they finally do the dang photocall. No matter where or when it is, it’s always going to be nuts and overwhelming. It’s the nature of the royal press beast.

      • Megan says:

        @s – can please site specific examples of celebrities who increased their privacy by posing for baby photos at the hospital?

      • jules says:

        @S, I see your point. Unfortunately you are being used as an example of what happens when you comment and are not 1000% pro-Meghan. There is no balance with the narrative here.

    • Royalblue says:

      Samantha is that you? What a nasty closing paragraph.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      It’s clear you can’t see it, but your comments are teeming with victim blaming…..and here’s the dictionary definition:

      “Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them. “

      And sadly, most of your comments are riddled with examples of it.

      “Well, if she didn’t want the abuse, she shouldn’t have done such and such….” “What else did she expect to happen, after she did this and that….”

      There is no excuse for Abuse. It’s just that simple.

      • S says:

        Meghan and Harry, and Kate and Will are some of the most privileged people on the planet. Bad press aside, they’re far from victims.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        Yes….The endless abuse of a heavily pregnant woman is OK with you…..I refer you back to my initial “diagnosis”: Zero Empathy.

      • BritWoman says:

        You never, ever write a fair or balanced comment when it comes to Kate or Meghan. So really, sod off. You’re not even British.

    • MsIam says:

      You act like she’s some prize horse, bought and paid for! Queen Elizabeth didn’t jump out of her maternity bed to show off her babies. This whole thing is a fairly recent tradition. And why do you need to see a picture of the baby right out of the hospital as opposed to a few days later when mother and baby are feeling up to it? Entitled much?

      • Lanne says:

        S, you’re determined to go down with this ship. That’s what makes me think there’s some implicit bias going on here (that could be for any reason—Meghan married above her station, or resentment toward royal privilege in general). Ask yourself why you think the public is OWED exactly what you want: the Lion King Simba show (which of course Meghan would be criticized for—preening for publicity). You have created a convenient scenario to justify a bad opinion of her. You don’t have to like Meghan, that’s your choice. But to think she owes you something is incredibly problematic.

      • Kittycat says:

        Is S gone yet?

  11. ShazBot says:

    Honestly, I think it makes perfect sense. Beatrice and Eugenie are HRH because Andrew is arrogant, selfish and jealous, and is pushing his daughters for something that isn’t really needed. Charles is smart to be streamlining the monarchy, and it makes sense that only the direct line of heirs should continue with HRH titles. So eventually Charlotte’s and Louis’ children shouldn’t get it either.
    I know people want to read into it because the courtiers are racist snobs who hate Meghan, but I really think this is the most practical move for the monarchy overall.

    • Eliza says:

      All of the sons of a monarch’s children are HRH. Eduards do not use it, but that’s their official title. Like Camilla is actually the Princess of Wales but does not use it. I think both reasons are due to Diana. The royals were very popular when Fergie had the girls, less so when Sophie delivered. And Camilla could never use Diana’s best known title.

      • S says:

        But Camilla does use HRH in front of her Duchess of Cornwall title. And, yes, it was decided before their marriage that she wouldn’t take the Princess of Wales designation, due to its associations with Diana. She will become queen consort if/when Charles takes the throne.

      • Kylie says:

        When Charles and Camilla married, it was announced that she would be Princess Consort when he became King. But lately there have been stories about how he wants her to be Queen Consort, so I guess we will see when it happens.

      • S says:

        @Kylie, Yes, I remember it that way, too, but everything I’ve seen currently talks about her being queen consort. At this point, it doesn’t appear the Queen will ever abdicate in favor of Charles … Not that she should, but I think it was at one time a vague idea she might. So, if she’s gone, she doesn’t get to dictate what Charles calls his wife once he ascends. My guess is that, with time, and Camilla’s increased popularity among Commonwealth citizens, the fears of what it would look like have died down.

      • jan90067 says:

        The “Princess Consort” was ALWAYS just a “something to appease the peasants” kind of announcement. There was no way in hell that Charles was EVER going to really not have Camilla as QC. Using that title (while it IS part of her titles due to marriage) was his way of “easing” Camilla, using the DoC title instead of PoW, to gradually get the public “used to her being there” kind of thing. There would’ve been a revolt if he insisted she be called PoW. Now, that enough time has passed, you can bet everything you own that she WILL be called QC, and that she WILL have a coronation, just as Charles wants.

        You’ll also notice that term, “Princess Consort” has been removed from the website; it’s been gone for quite a while now. Another “tell”.

      • Olive says:

        @S the idea that the queen would ever abdicate in favor of charles was only ever a “vague idea” of tabloids. the same tabloids also claim charles will be skipped. it’s fan fiction. it has no basis in reality and anyone who knows a thing about the queen and what she witnessed with her uncle abdicating knows she will never abdicate.

      • S says:

        Olive … I don’t actually disagree. I meant more for age or health concerns, than any sort of abdication for “retirement.” I think she takes her role much too seriously for that. As she’s now well up in age and that hasn’t been an issue, I don’t think it ever will be.

    • Sash says:

      Exactly. It’s just practical. And it eases any pressure on the expectations of the children.

    • Mego says:

      I have to agree. HRH for Beatrice and Eugenie is pointless and was not declined because of their parents inflated egos. Yes I said it but I think it’s true. It isn’t necessary or important for Baby Sussex to have a title. I will be surprised if Harry and Meghan don’t follow Edward and Sophie’s lead.

    • Susan says:

      Andrew didn’t have to push for anything regarding his daughters’ title. They were entitled to it from birth as grandchildren through a male line. It’s ridiculous to say it was because of Andrew’s “arrogance”.

      • Mego says:

        I never said anyone pushed but rather didn’t decline. Big difference. To me it is a reflection of the parents grandiosity that they didn’t decline the princess styling for Bea and Eug. They were never going to be working royals so it’s purely status. Edward and Sophie didn’t feel the need to have their children styled as they were entitled. Anne’s husband declined a title so there was a precedent.

  12. Heather says:

    I like Doriana for a girl. It sort of combines her mother’s name with his mother’s name.

    • Momoftwo says:

      That’s my name, there are not many of us 🙂

    • Lady D says:

      That was my guess for a name, too.

    • rose says:

      lol no , that’s such an ugly name . Reminds me of Renesme or whatever from Twilight where they combined names and was dumb .

      • Momoftwo says:

        Well I’ve always been told my name was pretty but to each their own

      • Wisca says:

        I’m assuming you responded before Momoftwo stated her name. I refuse to believe anyone could be that cruel.

        I’m a fan of embracing the royal title because the child will be a DOS (Descendant Of the enSlaved). But I also understand rejecting the title for a million reasons.

        I bet Meghan is as shocked as Obama was. Growing up biracial & well educated placed them a bit outside of regular black folks, so the white rage must be difficult. (I am not saying there aren’t a ton of educated black Americans.)

      • ADS says:

        @Wisca, no. Growing up well educated will not have “placed them a bit outside of regular black folks”. Your final sentence does not excuse the offensiveness and complete inaccuracy of this comment. And please don’t bother telling me you are black yourself, it makes no difference.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      That is nice, but I also like Dorathea.

  13. Louise says:

    Harry and Meghan do not get to decide whether their baby is a hrh a letters patent would have to be made and they aren’t just made willy nilly, and when they are made they have to go to the privy council for approval it really is just a rubber stamp though they never go against the queen they also only sit a few times a year on set days they don’t just randomly happen. The British public does own the royals they enjoy there immense priviledge only so long as we the British people deem the unessesary institution somehow relevant. Meghans biggest problem is that she doesn’t understand British culture or the ingrained traditions we hold sacred. I don’t think she should have to primp and preen straight after birth but please don’t tell me it’s about privacy she loves the limelight this is merely a tactic to try and create suspense and interest so they can try and break the internet by posting the first pictures on there Instagram. I’m sick of Americans making these wild assumptions and untrue statements about an institution they no nothing about and do not understand. I hope she has a safe delivery and a healthy baby every woman deserves that, childbirth is the hardest thing you can do and I wish her the best of luck.

    • Lanne says:

      Meghan has said exactly nothing about how she feels about royal family traditions. So unless you are a mind reader, you have no idea what she thinks. What “sacred traditions” has she snubbed? I’d love to get an answer on that. I’d like a list of royal traditions with specific snubs Meghan has made. This should be a very easy thing to do. I actually tried to do it myself, but I am an American so maybe I don’t understand. So for the sake of us poor Yanks, please. What sacred traditions has she snubbed. Of course, you won’t be talking about nail polish, leg crossing, or 1 shoulder dresses or bump holding, because then you’ll have to indict Queen Elizabeth, Princess Diana, and the Duchesses of Cambridge and Cornwall.

      • jan90067 says:

        Lane, don’t waste your breath. It seems like a lot of trolls and haters from the now closed Royal Dish pages on Harry and Meghan have drifted over here to spew their foul garbage. Just ignore them.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Jan90067

        I don’t remember ever disagreeing with any of your comments, because you’re usually always so on point. Except this once (in my mind, at least).

        What these people want is to tacitly turn this woman into some sort of monstrous caricature of herself. To pump as many rumors and lies into her storyline that they become conventional wisdom. It is *extremely important* not to ignore them…..we have to keep correcting the misguided comments and fighting back against the more deliberately malicious ones.

        No matter how hard they try, she is not going to be the new Fergie. We can’t allow that.

    • MerryGirl says:

      ‘Sacred traditions’ my a**. They never said they wouldn’t share photos of the baby, they said they were not doing the photocall right after the birth which is very reasonable and which by the way is not a ‘sacred tradition’ – before Anne & Diana, all royal babies were born at home which appears to be what she is doing given that the photocall will be held at Windsor Castle.
      Please get a grip on the facts. Regarding privacy, they are entitled to that before they share photos with the masses, we will see the baby but just not immediately post birth.

      • Befrazzled says:

        I hadn’t given it that much thought, but I think you’re right – she’s likely giving birth at home, but of course they’re not going to come right out and say that. The reason there’s no hospital presentation is because they don’t plan on being at the hospital! That actually makes more sense to me, privacy-wise, rather than run the risk of paps and grainy pap shots and trying to avoid being seen by crowds lining up at the hospital.

      • S says:

        If Meghan is giving birth at home, or at Windsor, with doctors on site I’m sure, instead of at the Lindo, as has been reported elsewhere, then having a photocall two days after birth is totally normal and not even slightly an issue. Trying to leave the hospital in secret and be at home with baby for a few days is what seems silly … In that, the constant press bombardment, no matter how good security is, would likely allow them zero peace during that delayed period of time anyway.

    • Nic919 says:

      The sacred tradition that started in 1982 by Diana and is something the Queen never did herself with her kids. Please. Something done twice by 2 people in under 40 years can’t be called a tradition in any real sense. The real long-standing tradition until Charles was born was to have the prime minister watching the birthing process. Why don’t we demand they bring that back too, except that rebel George VI decided his daughter now Elizabeth II didn’t need to endure that tradition again.

      • Megan says:

        @Nin Andrew and Fergie posed for photos outside the hospital for both girls and Edward and Sophie posed with James (they did not pose with Louise because she did not immediately leave the hospital). When the tradition of home births ended, the tradition of a photo call started. William and Kate were doing what the generation before them did, hence a new tradition.

      • AryasMum says:

        Not disagreeing with your point, but didn’t Sophie present James? And she quite possibly would have presented Louise if they were both healthy at birth.

      • Nic919 says:

        Diana was accused of breaking tradition by not doing what the Queen did. The press went after her for doing something different just like they are doing to Meghan here. It’s not suddenly a tradition when some others did the same after Diana. This is a family famous for traditions that are hundreds of years old but suddenly something first done in 1982 is something that Meghan must do herself?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edward and Sophie posed with both Louise and James. Sophie was in the hospital for 11 days, Louise longer. Edward collected Sophie from her hospital first, they posed outside the hospital, and went home. Five days later, Louise was released from her hospital. Edward and Sophie posed with her then.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I agree with the general point but Diana was not the first. Princess Anne also posed with at least one of her kids outside the Lindo Wing and I think Princess Michael did as well.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Princess Michael posed because the Baroness hasn’t met a camera she doesn’t like.

    • Lucylee says:

      Louise, if the British own the royal family, then that means they are property. Are they your slaves? Is the lovely Queen a slave? How about “never put a foot wrong” Kate? Or, is it just H and M? How will seeing a baby or its picture right after birth change/improve your life? Will you get a day off from work? Will you not have to pay your bills that day? Abolish the monarchy if you wish, but you might end up with another Brexit type situation and your stiff upper lip persona won’t permit you to admit you did not make an informed decision. All of those little shops selling cups and tea towels will out of business. Personally, I find your acceptance a class system that excludes you strange. One last question, how do you own the people that rule over you? I think your status is subject.

      • Tina says:

        We are citizens of the UK, not subjects. No one rules over us but ourselves, through Parliament. We live in a constitutional monarchy, the operative word being constitutional.

      • Emby says:

        None of this makes sense.

        Also, abolishing the monarchy will not ruin tourism. Thats ridiculous. If anything it would permit the palaces to open to the public, increasing revenue and decreasing expenditure.

      • BritWoman says:

        Tina, Lucylee is another American who has no understanding of British govt. These people are know-nothings about our country and govt, but continually preach to us about Meghan not breaking protocol, etc.
        I come here mostly for the absurdity of the comments and the group think. It’s quite amusing.

      • Olenna says:


    • notasugarhere says:

      “know nothing” not “no nothing”

      These are two people who managed a high-interest courtship for over a year, with only a handful of pictures to show for it. The baby shower was only discovered because of a waitress getting paid off by a tabloid. They seem to be doing their best to stay out of the limelight in their personal life, which includes their child/ren who will not be working royals.

    • Olive says:

      what tradition, exactly? diana was the first to present on the steps of the lindo, and kate copied her. that’s the extent of this “ingrained tradition” you “hold sacred.” the queen gave birth at home and didn’t show photos of her kids for months after!

  14. Lanne says:

    Against better judgment I peeked at the Fails 642256788744689 article about the birth. Half the 1.2K comments were “when will (insert disparaging name) realize that none of us care!” I guess the Hate Brigade over there don’t understand the concept of irony.

    • Kiitypride says:

      It truly weird.

      These people claim to hate Meghan but show up to read and comment on every story written on her.

      Someone posted that & Meghan lives rent-free n their minds” which is so true.

      • MissyS. says:

        I made the mistake of reading comments on the Cambridge family photo story. About 90% of the comments are about Harry and Meghan. You would think these people would would be happy to see photos of two future monarchs, but no, they were obsessed with spreading gossip and speculation about the Sussexes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Those W&K and kid photos are so obvious. Similar to last year’s photos of Kate and kids at the horse trials. Because of their history on this subject? When they do not complain about photos of the kids taken in public it is clear. They’re out there deliberately getting public photos of the “happy family”, “hands-on parents” unable to work for a month because of school holidays, Rose who?, etc.

      • Megan says:

        Or they turned out to support Zara and didnt want to make it all about them by insisting their RPOs force everyone to delete their cell phone photos and tell the professional photogs covering the event they can’t photograph the Cambridges even if they are hanging out with one of the top placing riders.

      • Nic919 says:

        The photos in the Daily Mail are taken by professional photographers like James Whatling and they would never be printed unless KP approved it. Especially not of the kids. IPSO notices can be sent very quickly and they weren’t so the pictures from Friday were approved.

  15. Snowflake says:

    Are they having a boy or girl? What do you guys think? I want the baby to be a girl myself

    • jan90067 says:

      I’ve thought girl for quite a while now. Don’t know why, but… 😊.

      Those recent pics, of Harry with the little baby and the ballerinas was just heart-melting. He’ll be a great dad, I think, with either way, but I’m hoping it’s a girl. And I like the name one of the posters above suggested: Doriana. Very lyrical, and honoring both grandmothers w/out giving the child the “burden” of living up to “Diana”.

    • jules says:

      Ridiculous, the baby will be a girl or a boy. Surprise!

    • Ana says:

      Awww I think it will be a girl! Either way they must be truly happy right now. I am so happy for them. I have a 9mo old and is truly a blessing.

  16. Digital Unicorn says:

    TBH I don’t think the Sussex’s really care and they may get that styling at some point and not all royal’s have it.

    I was hoping Kaiser would cover the Fail story of her mother’s brother selling her out to the press – seems the UK tabloids were able to write a big enough cheque to tempt her mothers family. This whole saga with both sides of her family just saddens me esp as I see parallels with my own – if I ever married a Prince I have several relatives on both sides who’d give the white Markles and this Uncle a run for their money.

    • Lanne says:

      That was really disappointing. I looked at the comments and they were all glowing! Beautiful baby and such. This confirms the DM fuckery regarding comments—no way the Hate Brigade would be so effusive. I’m calling bots on 7/8 of their comments. But hopefully the Ragland sellouts ends here.

      • Olenna says:

        Agree. DM manipulates the comments and I, too, wish her uncle would stop. But, apparently he has/had possession of his mother’s (Meghan’s grand) photo album. So, this may not be the final sell-out.

      • Olive says:

        these aren’t even ragland sell outs – this is doria’s HALF brother. they share the same mom but different dads so this uncle isn’t a ragland.

      • Karen2 says:

        My comment on the sad fact that all her relatives seem to be selling her out didnt get past the mods.

    • Kittycat says:

      I am disappointed in Meghan’s uncle selling her out.

      Anything for money.

    • Olive says:

      this isn’t the first time that uncle has sold her out. he sold family photos around the wedding, and yet he apparently still wonders why he wasn’t invited.

    • Peg says:

      @Digital Unicorn
      This brother sold pictures before, if I was Doria I would be pissed at him selling that picture of her one day after giving birth.
      He is still peeved that he or his wife did not get an invited to the wedding, and acting like Meghan owed his wife an invite. This is the reason.
      Doria’s step-mother and her half brother Joe was at the wedding, I think Doria had a say in who in her family Meghan invited to the wedding.
      They’re reports that Meghan went to LA, after the baby shower, and Doria was in England a few weeks ago, maybe getting a ride on her Friend Oprah’s plane.

  17. Mimi says:

    I am really confused that people are still whining about Meghan and Harry not standing on a set of fucking steps and taking pictures with their newborn baby. There will be a photocall two days after the birth. You will see pictures. What does it matter where they are taken or when?

    The royals are not owned by the public. The institution is subsidized and supported. There is a difference. You can’t own other human beings.

    • Louise says:

      You can own an institution and the British monarchy is an institution that every single brit has a stake in, so yes we do own them. If our opinion didn’t matter they wouldn’t pander to us in order to keep themselves in power, it is a symbiotic relationship even the queen understands that otherwise they wouldn’t try to address the criticism levelled at them.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        You. Can’t. Own. People.

        Regardless of the “symbiotic” relationship between British taxpayers and the monarchy, the RF are not your slaves. You do not own them. You do not get to decide every little thing they do.

        That you think otherwise is f*cking gross.

      • Lady D says:

        Every member of every Commonwealth country has a stake in them too. You don’t own them.

      • Jaded says:

        The whole commonwealth has a stake in the BRF but that doesn’t make us owners either. We don’t dictate what they should/shouldn’t do especially things of a very personal nature like choosing to show off or not show off a newborn. It is most definitely not a tradition that must be upheld by any member of the BRF, it is a personal choice. I fully agree with M&H that to subject a newborn to a harrowing, noisy crowd of paps yelling and flashbulbs going off is horrible, and the idea of trotting the baby out like a prize-winning dog at the Westminster Dog show is ridiculous.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        “… yes we do OWN them”.

        Christ. Imagine being this delusional. 🤭🤮

      • CairinaCat says:

        Louise in the past has claimed to be French, so she picks and chooses her nationality to suit her hate speeches

      • Abby says:

        Can’t believe what I am reading. We don’t OWN people.

    • Kiitypride says:

      I think people had already wrote stories critical of Meghan posing at the hospital so now they have to redo all of that work!

      • Louise says:

        Who cares if she poses or not it’s the tradition of the easel announcement and the cannon salute that matter why is it that tradition is considered a dirty word even zara had the easel.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I see nothing in the statement from BP that says there will be no easel or salute not that it is carved in stone that those things MUST happen or the monarchy fall to pieces.

        Where on tumblr or the DF did you and Tim find that?

      • Becks1 says:

        And will and Kate didn’t announce via the easel. they announced on twitter, and then it was posted on the easel.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I love the moaning and thrashing of teeth and rending of garments over the beloved EASEL! Hahahaha

    • Nic919 says:

      The same people who are obsessed how Harry and Meghan are minor royals are unimportant and not future future consort seem to demand quite a lot from them if they are so unimportant.

      • notasugarhere says:


      • sunny says:

        100% this. People cannot argue and call them minor royals and then demand from them the exact sort of behaviour of the major royals.

        Personally, I am amazed at how gracious they have been with the press given how horrible and racist the British press coverage has been for 2 years. They are doing a photo call but on their terms.

        Glad on the lack of title thing because it seems to make sense. However, I do think it will leave their baby less protected to a certain extent and given the rampant racism we have seen, god knows what this baby will be subjected to by the British press.

      • Lady D says:

        I saw a comment on the Fail about presenting the babe and it read, “I payed for your wedding pal, I’d better see that baby” Nothing ominous about that statement. The poster actually believes they owe him a viewing of the child, even though he despises both of them.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ NIC919, Lady D

        After you’ve left 500 bitter comments bleating about Meghan’s latest transgression or crime, at some point you need a fresh supply of material to complain about, so you can leave another 500 bitter comments complaining about how it’s obviously not Harry’s baby.

        (I’m calling that as the next big controversy after Polo baby pops)

      • Mego says:

        Yep. Irony much?

    • Kris says:

      I think they just wanted an opportunity to bash her by comparing her to Kate.

  18. Tim says:

    In terms of succession to the throne they are irrelevant, but until the Cambridge children have reached majority they will be expected to attend engagements and support the monarch. The easel and gun salutes that announce a royal birth are tradition and should be followed. Harry has proven time and time again that rather than hate the press he actually rather likes it and is terrified of becoming irrelevant. That is why he’s teaming up with Oprah he desperately wants to make his mark and he is on record as saying just that. If royal life is such a burden then he should renounce his rights to the line of succession and sail off into the sunset. His position is now that of Andrew and there is nothing wrong with that although I wouldn’t want to become Andrew he is a thoroughly reprehensible human being. Being a supporting role within a production is better than not being a part of that production at all. I hope they have a safe delivery and are given the time they need to establish a bond post birth.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Whole lot of project there. I see nothing in the announcement that states there will be no gun salute or easel. tumblr and DF projection and assumption there.

      As has been discussed ad infinitum, but maybe you’re new here so you missed it. If Harry walked away, he’d be leaving his nephew vulnerable to Uncle Andrew as possible Regent. I don’t see Harry doing that to his nephew.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        So many new posters, nota!

        I still don’t understand all the bellyaching over Meghan’s birthing plan when the world will see the kid/s 2 days later. After reading Diana’s words about how she could barely walk to the car because of her stitches and that she burst into tears as soon as the car was out of sight, is it any wonder Meghan doesn’t want to subject herself to the same? All these entitled British subjects demanding autonomy over Meghan’s body and child are ridiculous and wouldn’t expect the government to ask the same of them in exchange for their free healthcare.

      • Tina says:

        I agree that the new posters who feel entitled to anything from Harry and Meghan beyond a reasonable level of work are delusional, but we are not subjects. We are citizens.

    • Lady D says:

      When or where has Harry expressed terror that he will become irrelevant? It seems completely out of character for him.

      • Mego says:

        Harry talked about his fading relevance in an interview and said he had a limited time. In the context that i heard it I took it to mean that he had a limited time to use his fame to put a spotlight on his philanthropic causes. Use his fame to do good. Tim either didn’t hear what I heard or is deliberately misconstruing what Harry said.

    • Jaded says:

      Harry has actually embraced the role(s) he performs as part of the BRF with dedication. His work with Sentabale and Wounded Warriers, the Invictus Games and now this huge mental health initiative seems to have, along with Meghan and impending fatherhood, been his saving grace. How you can suggest he stop whining about his life being a burden and up sticks is ridiculous. Also your claim that he’s terrified of becoming irrelevant is pure fantasy – he just wants to do good work, enjoy his impending fatherhood and work with his lovely partner to make the world a better place.

  19. line says:

    Personally I think, give them royal titles for me it is not necessary.
    If there is still a monarchy in 30 years, the Sussex children will not be full time royals because he will have George, Charlotte, Louis and maybe a fourth baby Cambridge. Not having royals titles has been beneficial for the Casiraghi, Amadeo of Belgium, Zara and Peter.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Prince Amadeo of Belgium does have a royal title, a couple of them.

      • line says:

        He has abandoned his titles since his marriage. He now lives in London and works as a banker

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not using them in everyday life vs. officially renouncing them. He still has his titles, and after discussions, was re-given his place in the line of succession for the Belgian throne iirc.

  20. Sassy says:

    Either they are irrelevant or they aren’t. Can’t have it both ways. Can’t say that they are minor royals and they should act like it then demand that they do a baby presentation like she’s birthing a heir with easel and gun salutes. Besides technically their baby isn’t going to be royal.

    • Leticia says:

      The easel is standard for all children that descend from the current monarch. I am however unsure about the salute, maybe someone else here can say yay or nay either way.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Their baby will be royal as the child of a royal duke and prince, but will not be a working royal funded by the Sovereign Grant.

      • Lady D says:

        Totally off topic Nota, but when William becomes King, can he issue a Letter of Patent taking the HRH away from Harry’s kids and his many cousins?

      • Nic919 says:

        I don’t think William can remove an HRH already granted by a previous monarch unless there is a reason like treason. A lot of the Saxe Coburg Gotha cousins were removed from the British line of succession due to supporting Germany in WWI. Mere petulance won’t be sufficient. There won’t be that many HRHs by the time William is king anyway.

  21. Lafonda says:

    It’s ‘projection’ actually.

    Nothing Tim said was either hateful or incorrect. He was just pointing out the reality of the situation, this baby will be in the same position as Beatrice and she copped it from the public for being an utterly irrelevant waste of space. Those were the exact words they used. Why is a supporting role so offensive to some people, Anne plays a supporting role and she is both the hardest working and the most appealing. Her job is to be seen and not heard and she does it wonderfully I might add. In fact I wish she was our next monarch she’s simply superb.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, that re-edit contained a lot of poor grammar on my part.

      Tim is doing what so many are. Insisting Harry, Meghan, and their child are irrelevant while also claiming privilege and ownership over their private lives. AFAIK, there has been no statement made regarding the easel at BP or any salute. Tim is claiming it as fact and ranting about it.

      Anne’s job is to be seen and heard while working, which is why she is leading in the number of engagements done thus far this year. She keeps her private life private. That is what Harry and Meghan are doing. High-profile charity work and royal engagements, keeping their private life private. You praise Anne for doing the same things.

      Anne the most appealing? Anne who has faced criminal charges for her inability to control her dogs? Anne who openly told reporters to Sod Off? Who told an elderly person they had wasted their time making a bouquet for HM when she was sick? Anne on the front of People Magazine for her extra-marital affairs? Anne who has her children live rent-free in her taxpayer-funded home in London and rent-free on her taxpayer-secured estate? A private estate that was fixed up (illegally) with Crown Estate money?

      I’ll take Charles over Anne.

  22. TheOriginalMia says:

    Those children should be afforded the same HRH status as their cousins. If they decide to relinquish them when they are older, then so be it. As has been pointed out, they will be HRH once Charles becomes monarch anyway.

    • S says:

      Agree, and if Charles, for whatever reason, does not become monarch, believe the Sussex children still deserve the same title as the Cambridge kids, as they’ll be just as popular and equally scrutinized throughout their childhoods. If they decide not to become “working royals” as they grow up, they can elect to not use the title.

    • Smalltowngirl says:

      Why? If the monarchy persists and with it the standard that Charles seems keen on setting, Harry and Meaghan’s children will never be working royals, but George, Louis and Charlotte will. George will be king. They are not equal. The children of the Prince of Wales/monarch are not the same as the children of the monarch’s younger son/younger brother, who will likely never be higher than 5th in the line of succession (and that is if Kate and William don’t have more children).
      William and Harry’s children aren’t equal becuase William and Harry aren’t equal (and I fully agree that William needs to show up and work more and pull his weight), as the Queen’s reign comes to an end and hte next stage starts that will become more obvious and there will be different pressures and expectations both of hte brothers and their children.
      I also think Andrew can be used as an example and that there may have been false expectations set for his girls that led to disappointment when Charles made his stream-liming plan but also ridicule from the public. Because Andrew Wanted his girls to be equal to William and Harry and they just aren’t, not in the sense of the monarchy.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        They will grow up knowing they are the grandchildren of the King. They will know their place in the hierarchy. They will be taught to have a work ethic and that they may be called on by their cousin George to play the same role as their great grandmother’s cousins in his reign.

  23. rrsr says:

    I find this debate ridiculous with or without royal titles, the Sussex children will have privileged lives because they will be part of the British royalty and their grandfather Charles, their uncle William and theirs cousin George will be king.

  24. aquarius64 says:

    I think we will get the title and name of Baby Sussex the same time he or she is presented to the world at Windsor Gardens. The baby is 7th in line to the throne but this is a historic birth: a child who descends from American slaves will be a successor to the throne of the United Kingdom. I think they went with the birth plan to give Meghan the time and space she’ll need to recuperate and play out the PR side to this.
    Remember the press release had the arms of the British monarch on the letterhead which means the queen signed off on this plan.

    • Wisca says:

      Well said aquarius64.

    • Peg says:

      I don’t think Meghan was ever going to do the presentation at the Lindo Wing.
      Americans delivering babies are not out of the hospital 4-7 hrs after delivery, too many lawsuits waiting to happen.

  25. guest says:

    Cant wait until the glee the racist will show over this. Normal people wouldnt see this as a big deal but the tin hats will declare this as the queen hates Meghan and you know there is no way a baby with black blood would be addressed as hrh.

    • Betsy says:

      That’s really the only reason I had hoped Harry and Meghan’s kid(s) would be HRH from the get go. Otherwise I can see both sides and all the reasons on this page make sense, but I can’t help but hope that these kids get all the normal (in their whackadoodle royal world) they can to shut down as many critics as they can, even if it wouldn’t be traditional or warranted or whatever.

  26. guest says:

    Ot…but I love the pr pics of the cambridges with their kids. Right on schedule too. Although jason gets a c for not including a pic of will and kate standing alone 🤷‍♀️

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      Obvious PR. I expected to see Kate and the kids, but a William sighting too! Oh my! Somebody is shook by the complete failure of their press bullying.

      • Ellie says:

        They do this nearly every year. But since Meghan’s come on the scene all the Cambridge appearances as a family have to be ‘PR’ 🙄

      • Lady D says:

        The first time those pictures were out, the press was ragging on Kate and calling her an oblivious mother of the heir. To be fair, she deserved to be called out, if I recall it was Zara that pulled George out of the path of a horse that day. There has been pictures of them at this event every year since George was about two.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Autumn Phillips, right before the horses came barreling down that path. Kate sat on a hill watching.

      • Becks1 says:

        I did a quick google, and there are actually very few (if any) photos from this event. Most pictures of them from similar events are from the Houghton horse trials in May (I bet they wont go to THOSE this year, hahahahaha) and some events over the summer. So based on my quick google and WKW, this does not appear to be an “almost every year” event.

      • whatever says:

        Yep @Elle, Cambridge pictures are setups/PR but a hoard of paparazzi showing up outside a random homeopathic shop in London was a complete and utter coincidence Lolz!!

      • Jegede says:

        @Ellie – 👍👍👍👍👍

      • Famina says:

        I agree those pics looked staged.

      • Olenna says:

        There is absolutely no evidence the Sussexes (yes, that includes Harry, too) were met with a “hoard of paparazzi” at the wellness store. The constant use of hyperbole to support one’s negative opinion of Meghan is extremely tiresome, especially when it appears there was only one primary commercial source for the photos for the Popsugar article (which was picked up by other outlets).

      • Annie Day says:

        @Famina I agree those pics looked like PR . You hardly ever see Will intracting with his own kids unless it is for a tour/event. Kate to me seems like a hands on mother who truly enjoys being a parent.

  27. HeyThere! says:

    My thoughts:

    -no way is she having twins.
    -baby will be a boy.
    -name will be classic with a twist of unique.
    -baby has already been born recently. They are in full stealth mode. Once news breaks they know it’s forever in the public eye. They are going to take a few weeks to themselves.
    -HRH title will be given.

    I’m excited for them. I hope they can pull off the total private birth and then announce that baby was born in the weeks prior just as a way to get back at the British press that has been so awful to her! Also, my birthday was recently so I’m secretly hoping we share a birth day. LOL

    • Betsy says:

      I kind of think Baby Sussex has arrived, too. I can’t fault them for keeping the news close, if so – but like every biddy with zero need to know, I’m anxious for news!

  28. Andrea says:

    Did anyone see the obvious Prince William piggyback ride deflection photos yesterday?

    • guest says:

      Lol I rolled my eyes. I mean come on. If that wasnt a photo op I dont what was.

    • Ellie says:

      Did you miss the photos of Kate carrying Charlotte? And George piggybanking on Mike? But sure, only the one of William and Mia is apparently soo obvious.

      • guest says:

        Kate playing with her kids is nothing new. William piggybacking kids around…yep i agree pr

      • whatever says:


        William pictured being attentive to Mia Tindall at horse trial’s is nothing new either. Being pictured Piggybacking kids means nothing, maybe William regularly piggyback’s his kids and his cousin’s kids but its just that we never see it.

      • Kylie says:

        There are pictures from a few years ago of William and Mia playing. So I don’t think this is just PR.

      • Chicken says:

        William never joins on those outings, it’s always some combination of Kate, Zara and Mike, Autumn and Peter, and their respective kids. Obvious PR is obvious.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Yes, and I think they’re just adding even more fuel to the fire because we’ve rarely seen William in previous “candid” Cambridge kid photos. It’s almost always just Kate and the children. There’s also the fact that it looks like W&K are interacting with anyone except each other. They didn’t even bother to attempt to look cheery together.

      • Ellie says:

        @Beachdreams You must be looking at different photos then – since there are so many candid photos of William and the kids, George especially. When they went on tour with both kids (I think Germany) and when Kate and George came to watch him play polo one year just as examples. Somehow the picture of him giving a piggybank is different “BeCaUsE HeS NeVeR dOnE ThaT BeFoRe!” As if you really think he’s NEVER in 5 years given a piggybank to any kid? LOL.

      • Ellie says:

        And if they did look cheery together you would be for sure claiming it was PR. But they aren’t, so it’s not? I’m sure it will be spun as PR anyway with however they are behaving though.

      • Nic919 says:

        Photos of William with his kids on tour aren’t candids. There are few if any candid photos of William with the kids. We have seen Kate with them but not him.

      • Ref7 says:

        I thought they looked really content in the recent photos, even standing right next to the Marchioness.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Was the Marchioness at the Burnham horse trials?

      • whatever says:

        If you look at the complete set of candid pictures from the previous occasions that Kate and the kids have attended various horse trails William is a picture too at a lot of them. It’s just that he isn’t as interesting as Kate and the kids so his pictures rarely get published.

      • Nic919 says:

        Everyone else is using candid photos to mean photos of the kids not attending royal events but when they are out informally with Kate. They brought the kids on tour with them so of course there will be photos of them with William. That’s not candid at all.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        @Ellie, please learn the definition of “candid” before going on a rant. Photos of William and the children on tours and other official engagements are not candid in any sense.

        @ref7: If Rose Hanbury was there as well, do post a link to the photo(s). I searched and nothing came up.

    • Kylie says:

      Kate has taken the kids to either this event or a similar event in the past. I thought it was cute to see George with Mike.

    • Mego says:

      No but I saw the headline screaming WILLIAM GIVES MIA TINDALL A PIGGYBACK and rolled my eyes. Like I’ve said their pr is never subtle or original. Harry was always the one who played with the kids in the RF not William.

      • whatever says:

        Except there are pictures of William playing with Mia before. This isn’t the first time. Just google “prince william mia tindall” and you’ll see the pictures.

      • Mego says:

        The day out with the Tindalls was an obvious pr stunt to distract from affair rumours and stories. They showed up with the kids knowing they would be photographed and a glowing article would appear in Hello, the DM etc etc. Much easier then getting off their behinds and doing some royal engagements. Their work ethics for people who will be King and Queen Consort are abysmal.

  29. Ref7 says:

    Standard protocol.

  30. guest says:

    “Yes, the same talking points from tumblr, DF, and RoyalDish until they finally shut it down. Easy to spot”

    Omg lipstick alley has turned into a clusterfck since royaldish shut down Meghan comments. They have their own Meghan “unpopular thread” over there and its filled with all these new posters posting their own conspiracy theories. They are easy to spot especially when they call harry hazard.

  31. Mary says:

    I would prefer that M & H’s kids are deemed blood princes/princesses from birth only because, as others have pointed out, this would lead some to use this as a reason that the Queen is not pleased with the children of Meghan and that they are “less than” Will’s kids. They could always then have their children styled as Earl, Lord and/or Lady, like the Wessexes.

  32. Hmmmm says:

    I was on some other gossip site that also has a conspiracy theory section lol and they don’t think Meghan is really pregnant. They say she has a surrogate. 🤷🏽‍♀️

    • Mego says:

      Of course! Because naturally Harry and Meghan were spending all their time after the wedding vetting a surrogate to carry their child. Perhaps it’s the same person Meghan hired to ghost write her cookbook. 🙄

    • Olenna says:

      Someone put it succinctly in another thread: The really malicious ones in the anti-Meghan crowd want to portray her as “less than”, that she is incapable of reproducing biological, royal heirs. Some in the anti-Kate crowd did the same thing. Let’s face it; there are some really disturbed, mentally unstable people in this world with access to the internet and social media. Some are intelligent and mask their conditions by positing or quoting facts and figures, others are shamelessly ignorant and seem to be energized and self-elevated by spewing hate.

  33. Charfromdarock says:

    What possible difference does it make to the general public if the photos are dropped on Instagram? The photos are going to be printed/posted on thousands of sites the world over instantly in either case.

    I would not want to subject a new born baby (or new mother) to the chaotic noise and lights of the paparazzi. Not to mention the security threats.

    Whatever they decide, I hope Meghan has a uneventful delivery and that she and Baby S are healthy.

  34. AG-UK says:

    Why do people read that rag? I suppose tabloids are the only ones that report on them regularly. You don’t read about them in the Guardian or Observer. She might have it where I had my son albeit NOT in a suite but god knows if I could have afforded I would had to make them let me out after 2 days after a C section.

  35. TheMummy says:

    Seems strange that Meghan is HRH and she is not part of the bloodline, but their children, who ARE of the bloodline, will not be HRH. I get how it works. It just strikes me as odd.

  36. Natters5 says:

    I think the Queen listens to what the parents want for the child as her grandchildren vary from Princes and Princesses (Prince Charles and Prince Andrew), Earl and Ladies (Prince Edward) to no title at all (Princess Anne’s children). If Prince Harry really wants his kids to have a HRH title they will, if they don’t get one its because the parents didn’t really advocate for it. Prince Harry was third in line at one point so there is no reason if he request a title it shouldn’t be given.

  37. Ana says:

    I always believed Willy and Kate were pulling our leg saying the babies were around 6-8 HOURS old around the time of the photocall. There is no way, I don’t care what they say.
    If I were in their position, I would have misled the public too, for PR, make myself pass for super woman-pushed out a baby- have great make up and hair- better than y’all. Lol

  38. Amelie says:

    Not here to comment on the title of Meghan and Harry’s child as I don’t care. But I think she’s having a girl. Her baby shower had a pastel/pink color theme and Serena Williams recently said she was giving Meghan baby advice and she used “she” to refer to the baby. Maybe a slip of the tongue but I think Serena knows the gender, Meghan is one of her closest friends.

  39. Lisa says:

    I can see why they would just want to go either by the Lady or Earl title. They will have privilege but be able to live a more private life this way.