There were high-level talks about Prince Harry & Meghan losing their Sussex titles

Prince Harry and Meghan Duchess of Sussex visit Canada House in London

Before the terms of Sussexit were announced on Saturday, I felt like (maybe) CB didn’t understand what was at stake with the titles. I felt like many casual royal-watchers didn’t get what was at stake for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, which is a larger conversation about just how insular, medieval and parochial the royal system really is. Is it a big deal, in the grand scheme of things, globally, that Harry and Meghan are “not using” their HRHs? No. But it’s a HUGE deal for royalists and it’s a huge deal within the Windsor industrial complex. And we still don’t honestly know if Harry and Meghan chose to “stop using” their HRHs or if the palace chose that as a punishment. Here’s more though: according to the Evening Standard, there were high-level discussions about another punitive action: removing their Sussex titles.

The Queen considered stripping Harry of his royal dukedom as well as his HRH title and allowing him to use only the lesser title of earl, the Evening Standard has been told. As “The Duke of Sussex” is one of the ancient royal titles, downgrading Harry and Meghan’s rank in line with their reduced level of official duties was discussed, sources said.

It is understood the suggestion was that the sixth in line to the throne would have been referred to by one of his lesser titles, the Earl of Dumbarton, with his wife being known as a countess — putting them on a par with Prince Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex.

But the Queen and Prince of Wales did not wish to appear “petty” and felt banning the couple from using HRH in public and for commercial use — while still retaining it — was sufficient.

A source said: “The Sussex title is one of the ancient royal dukedoms given to him ahead of his wedding to Meghan, along with other titles. Removing it was seriously considered and discussed at the highest level.”

[From The Evening Standard]

Again, I believe that it was discussed. I believe that Harry and Meghan were prepared for the worst case scenario, which would have been being stripped of their Sussex titles and their HRHs and everything else. They were prepared for the worst. And maybe what saved them was Charles and the Queen having a brief moment of clarity that they would have looked like giant, petty a–holes for removing Harry and Meghan’s titles and status just because the Sussexes didn’t want to be targeted with harassment and abuse any longer. Also, I’m going to keep bringing this up: we’ve heard NOTHING about any high-level conversations to strip Prince Andrew of his dukedom or his HRH and he abused trafficked teenagers and was BFFs with a convicted pedophile rapist.

Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, attend a roundtable discussion on gender equality!

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

116 Responses to “There were high-level talks about Prince Harry & Meghan losing their Sussex titles”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Aurora says:

    Everything about how this was handled reads as punitive but what exactly are they being punished for?

    • Guest2.0 says:

      Punished for daring to act like grown, mature adults who refused to continue being thrown under the bus and used as scapegoats for the Royal Family.

      • Lucy De Blois says:

        Scapegoats?? More like punch bags.

        And just one moment!! The article says that “But the Prince of Wales and the “Queen did not wish to appear “petty” and felt banning the couple….” So who was suggesting that H&M should loose the titles and the dukedom?????!!!!!

        The phrase clearly says that the queen “felt” the punishment shouldn’t be given to them. Charles agreed. So, who gave the idea??? William?

    • Nelly says:

      For no longer allowing themselves to be Billy and Andy’s scapegoats.

    • Toot says:

      They are being punished because they refuse to work any longer with the Royal Rota(so called Royal reporters). That group has been terrible to H&M, but the rest of the fam are buddy buddy with them and play their game.

      That’s why Harry said he would not be bullied into playing their game.

    • teehee says:

      Exactly- for not falling in line to the insitutional PR stunt known as “bash everyone but those next in line to the throne / who isnt the queens favorite sons / who dont make themselves look bad already”
      They look good– they look BETTER than the rest– therefore, off with their heads.

      Never forget- the monarchy is an institution of power and wealth, and it wants to preserve itself against threats…

    • kerwood says:

      For breathing while Black.

    • Joyce says:

      They are being punished for not embracing the basic tenants of royalty which is that birth determines everything.

    • I still think Harry came to that summit with receipts. The other participants can spin this anyway they want now — and obviously they are still continuing to throw Harry under EVERY bus that drives by — in order to make the 3 of them seen to be holding all the cards and their wanting Harry To be seen to be weak and broken and punished.

      Also, the day after Harry’s speech, a British commentator — after airing clips of said speech — made this statement (paraphrasing): I think we can see from Harry’s speech that he puts family first and duty second. The other commentator said (paraphrasing); yes, but for the Queen and the rest of the family it is duty first and family second as it should be with the monarchy.

  2. MsIam says:

    I guess if they did that it would clash with the “beloved family members” line in her statement. But I do believe they would have been that petty.

  3. Momof2rats says:

    But if they aren’t acting in the royal-capacity, it wouldn’t be so strange to remove their titles, right?

    And what about their “SussexRoyal” patent and site? Isn’t that commercially using their royal title?

    • Becks1 says:

      But, titles aren’t removed that often from royal family members. I am saying “not often” bc I honestly don’t know the last time it happened. Edward was still HRH, and became Duke of Windsor after his abdication, and he wasn’t acting in a royal capacity. Diana was still Princess of Wales, Fergie is still Duchess of York (although both lost HRH).

      So to take the titles away from H&M would have looked really petty and mean-spirited.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Andrew is still HRH and Duke of York, despite him being forced to step back due to his unsavoury doings with Epstein. It would have looked REALLY bad if they stripped the Sussexes of their ducal title while the racist grifter retained his.

      • Mac says:

        Andrew was fired for cause. It is outrageous that he did not lose his HRH.

      • I think ArtHistorian is right. To strip the Sussexes and not have stripped Andrew would be a huge PR gamble for them at this point. Perhaps that was indeed the winning argument amongst the 3 of them for allowing Harry and Meghan to keep what they did. Especially because the Queen wants Andrew back in place.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      No, they are Royal. He is a Royal born prince. They are the Sussex Royals. They cannot remove the fact that he is a Prince and truly there is no reason to remove Sussex from them or that would have occurred
      Even if they have decided not to use their HRH at the moment – they are still royal

      Many Royals do not or cannot act as senior royals – they remain HRH. The York princesses for instance.

      • Ava4eva says:

        Because royalty is a thing? In all honestly none of them should be HRH. I find it so baffling anyone is considered “royal born” in this day and age, that one would have to curtesy to any of them.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Not all members of the family are “HRH” — for example, Anne’s children are not. So Anne’s children have no royal status, and are commoners. And other members of the family — Like Princess Beatrice, or Prince and Princess Michael — have HRH titles and are royalty even if they do no work for the family at all. The “HRH” CAN be stripped from people, and the Queen could have taken it away from Harry if she wanted to.

        There are several classes that members of the royal family can belong to. And I will refer to them as the “royal family” under our common understanding of “family” (people related by blood or marriage), although those without HRH are not strictly “royal” family because they have no royal status:

        (1) Royalty. The “HRH” members are all royalty. Whether they work hard, or not at all, if they are “HRH” they are members of the “royal family.” The title is not tied to how much they work, or whether they are “senior royals.” It’s usually assigned at birth or marriage, but it can be given or taken away at the will of the monarch. Once the “HRH” title is gone, they are no longer royal. When Diana died, she was no longer “HRH” so the palace initially wasn’t going to do anything to acknowledge her death, because it was a private matter for the Spencer family, not a royal matter (even though she was the future King’s mother).

        (2) Peerage. These are the Dukes, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron. They could also be royal, but most are not. For example, the Duke of Glouster is a prince and a “HRH” so he is royalty. But the Duke of Devonshire is not royal.

        (3) Commoners. Not a royal and not a peer.

        William is royal and so are all of his kids. They all are “HRH” and have royal status.

        Anne is a royal, but her children are commoners. They do not have royal status, and they are not peers.

        Edward is royal, but his children are not royal. But unlike Anne, they are not commoners either. Edward is also an earl, and his children have the “rank” assigned to the children of earls. So his son James, who is not HRH and therefore not royal, holds the title Viscount Severn and is a peer.

        But none of that affects their position in line for the throne — even Anne’s commoner children are in line. The “HRH” status and titles, or not, have no bearing on their place in succession.

    • Emmitt says:

      Then why not remove Beatrice & Eugenie’s HRH’s and reduce them down to “Lady”?

    • Olive says:

      that awful racist Princess Michael of Kent uses her HRH on the cover of her books. she’s been using her HRH for commercial gain for decades now and the RF hasn’t stopped her yet.

      • MsIam says:

        I remember reading that she and her husband were referred to as the “Rent-a-Kents” because they took money for appearances. When Diana got married, I saw her all over the talk shows as some type of “royal expert” . I’m pretty sure she was getting her expenses paid and not flying to be on Phil Donohue on her own dime.

    • Fabuleuse15 says:

      What about Sarah, the Duchess of York? Does any of this makes any sense?

      • Rachel from LA says:

        Like Diana she’s divorced and retains the title she had while married but not the HRH.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        The other titles don’t make them royal (only the “HRH” denotes a royal). So when Diana was married she was “Her Royal Highness (HRH) The Princess of Wales” and was royalty. After the divorce, she was “Diana, Princess of Wales” and no longer royalty. It might seem like mere semantics, but it’s not — it is a very big distinction, and stripping Harry and Meghan of “HRH” would have been a *major* attack on them, as a statement that they are no longer considered a member of the royal family.

    • LadyAle says:

      If they have decided to be out of the Royal Family it would be honest not to use any title at all. It is not a punishment, I thought that it is what they wanted. I think they should agree with that. And of course don’t use anything related to Sussex for commercial issues (Sussex Royal and things like that).
      Besides this, I’m sad about HM The Queen. She is a very old lady, since she was young she has be loyal to all her duties. It is hard to see that in the last years of her life she has to deal with all this. She doesn’t deserve it.

      • L4frimaire says:

        Feel sorry for the Queen!? This is self inflicted. Why should we feel sorry for her.They had absolutely no reason to set the press dogs on Harry and Meghan and undermine them and the work they did. She is at the top of that toxic atmosphere. She can show support for her pedophile rapist son, but not once showed an ounce of support for her grandson and his wife when they were being attacked daily, especially when she was pregnant. She, Charles and William deserve much worse. Disgusting people.

  4. OriginalLala says:

    The BRF has shown their ass time and again, I can’t wait for the world to be rid of them.

  5. JaneDoesWork says:

    The juxtaposition of Sussexit and the “revelation” that Andrew is allegedly a pedophile is the most damning context for the firm. Anyone who doesn’t exclusively get their news from the Daily Mail can see how differently the firm handled these two situations.

    The fact that Andrew has skated away from any repercussions from his actions with the support of the Firm while Meghan has been vilified for deigning to work while black is just disgusting.

  6. Kiera says:

    I don’t know why but I keep getting the feeling that Charles is the one who keeps poking his head in and being like wtf guys. From Andrew to him personally helping them money wise it’s just a sense I’m getting that the queen and William can’t see beyond their noses but Charles sees the long term value in the Sussexes. Which was kinda further confirmed for me by that ridiculous story by Dan Wooten. No reason to bring Charles in unless William was feeling slighted.

    And I shall now go and readjust my tinfoil tiara .

    • Helen says:

      I was just coming down here to say this. I think Charles has been able to reflect on what he learned from Diana in terms of image, and he’s using it now.

      The more we hear, I wonder if Charles was asking them to hold back their plans because he needed more time to Shadow King QEII into not making a stupid decision.

    • Jen says:

      I think Charles has better PR instincts than his mom and William, but that is not difficult.

      • Snap Happy says:

        I read an article that Charles and Andrew teamed up to push out the Queen’s secretary (?). The new secretary is getting blamed for what happened with the Sussexes. Honestly when I heard he worked with Andrew to push someone out it made me question Charles’s
        Motives. Especially since the tiara story came from leaks from his biographer.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      This is where I’m at, too! Notice it didn’t say anything about William objecting to a plan to strip them of their titles. Because I’d bet he was the main one along with a gaggle of courtiers pushing for it. I read something about it being William’s idea to strip his military honors. Petty. Just petty.

      • Tina says:

        I think that Andrew should have been stripped of his HRH when he got fired, it is hypocritical. The only thing I can think of to defend that decision is that he has been accused but nothing proven. He should comply with all investigations though. That said regarding the stripping of the Sussex military titles..I thought that was fair. They allowed them to keep their other patronage’s and charities like Invictus games. But if you join the military you can’t partially step away so it would seem like you couldn’t expect the capt general of the marines to also be allowed to do the role part time in another country. I think it is more common sense than vindictive.

    • Yes Charles is such a good father to Harry with his continued monetary support. And yet, Charles is still so petty that his team is leaking like a sieve on how supporting Harry and Meghan for the next year is going to bankrupt him. Supposedly — as far as forensic accountants for magazines like FORBES can trace — Charles is personally now worth about $400 million dollars. This sort of worth generates millions annually in interest. I just don’t see him funding the Sussexes (according to today’s papers out of his personal funds not Duchy money) to the tune of £3 million pounds is going to bankrupt him.

  7. Becks1 says:

    I am sure it was discussed and it seems like SOMEONE had a moment of clarity as to how bad it would look .As long as Andrew has his HRH and title, everything they are doing to the Sussexes just looks so bad.

    I think the HRH thing was voluntary, honestly. I think Harry probably came prepared to give that up (meaning not use it.) Offering those up from the start saved the Queen from having to actually “take them away” and my guess is that helped them save the Sussex title.

    But I also think H&M were prepared to give it all up.

    • Guest2.0 says:

      Yes. I think the courtiers, et al, were just that mad and petty to try and punish them by taking away the titles. But someone had a moment of clarity and realized the “optics” of it all. Pedo Andrew still has his taxpayer funded home, his titles, everything and yet the Sussexes should lose theirs for being mature adults trying to get away from all the toxicity. And yeah, H&M were prepared to give it all up.

    • Hope says:

      Isn’t the Sussex title associated with someone who campaigned against the slave trade? Imagine taking it away from Meghan because she refused to stay in a position where she was being subject to racist abuse without being able to defend herself.

    • Steph says:

      Tina, I don’t think they could take Invictus or Sentebale away from even if they wanted to. Those are charities he set up on his own and aren’t considered royal patronages. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

  8. aquarius64 says:

    They kept the Sussex title because Andrew didn’t get Duke of York title taken away. DoY title traditionally goes to the second son of the sovereign but he didn’t get it until he married Fergie. Betty and Chuck didn’t want non stop international bad press so they split the baby and the Sussex offered to drop the HRH. Also Archie is heir to the title through the queen’s Letters Patent as Archie is Harry’s firstborn son. The Windsors would look like monsters for punishing a baby and I bet Harry fought for him.

  9. Ainsley7 says:

    The Queen can’t strip them of their titles. Only parliament can do that. The Sussexes agreed not to use their titles to avoid parliament getting involved. The Queen has already apologized for Royal family drama distracting the government a few months ago with Andrew. She knows how bad it would be to have it happen again and for something much less serious. Apparently, their use of Sussex Royal is still being discussed. They may have to drop the Royal part. The Royals have agreed to certain rules with parliament over the years. One of them being that they won’t make money off their positions. That’s why the Sussexes couldn’t be part time. MP’s were already calling them out for it. It wasn’t just personal family drama and the Queen potentially looking petty.

    • Kebbie says:

      I think they’ll have to drop the royal part and just go by Sussex. They should anyways so people don’t accuse them of capitalizing on the association. It’s not like anyone is going to forget that he’s Prince Harry. I think they had it that way in the hopes they could do the half in/half out thing.

    • Momof2rats says:

      Ainsley, I was wondering about “Sussex Royal”. If they want to be free of the royal family (which I completely understand), why would they want their website to have “Royal” in the title? It makes them look like they want to capitalize over being royal without doing the work. It just doesn’t seem to be the clear break they need and want. I hope they drop it.

      • Emily2 says:

        I don’t think they want to be free of the Royal Family. They wanted to remain working royals, just not senior royals who deal with the Royal Rota.

      • Lady D says:

        …because he is royal? It is literally in his blood. He did nothing wrong, he does not deserve to be stripped of his titles, any of them.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      @Ainsley, @ Momo, why should they drop the royal from their brand, they have legal copyright, and since the talks had been going on for sometime, why haven’t they said anything about it? Sussexroyal foundation is a charitable org, it would not look good to stop them from using it. They might as well stop everything in UK with Royal in it’s name; like; Royal Jersey Potatoes, Royal Hotel, and many many more., Royal Prime Beef, I could go on forever. The queen never apologised for Andrew. Fergie is still Duchess of York. Andrew , who has brought shame bordering on criminality, still ponce about with his mummy with his; HRH. All will change when Charles becomes King. #Sussexit!

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      Someone suggested “Sussex Global” and I am here for it!

    • Livvers says:

      “One of them being that they won’t make money off their positions. That’s why the Sussexes couldn’t be part time. ”
      Yes, this has always made sense to me, H&M’s proposal that they carry on with official royal duties while earning private money directly (rather than as a financial pool indirectly administered like Charles’ businesses) was always going to be a very hard sell. But Andrew has also been off making private money from serving in his public/royal functions for years, so, what a double standard.

      • Olive says:

        so does princess michael of kent, who has used her HRH on the cover of her books for decades.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        Andrew wasn’t doing it legally. All his deals were illegal and not meant to ever be made public. Harry and Meghan aren’t trying to live like that.

      • MsIam says:

        Then why is Charles allowed to use the Duchy of Cornwall name for commercial purposes? Is his organic produce or whatever he sells less tacky? Plus, Harry and Meghan do not have to use the SussexRoyal name for income. They can make their own money as duke and duchess but the foundation is separate and is a charity.

      • Livvers says:

        @ MsIam
        I’m sure there’s info available that clarifies the distinctions currently made b/w a crown body (the duchy) having business interests vs. private earnings made when one is royal, and the potential for conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest that Parliament is probably concerned with. My point was simply, given the potential for conflict, I understood H&M’s proposal would be a tough sell, and also, this rule about private earnings by royals has been applied unevenly (see: Andrew). There are potentially constitutional issues involved in how Harry makes his money (see my other post below).

      • dynastysurf says:

        @MsIam I believe – and someone correct me if I’m wrong here – the Duchy of Cornwall thing isn’t viewed as tacky or profiting off the royal family directly because it’s not being set up solely for Charles’ own benefit. The duchy will go to William, and then George, etc. and the “Duchy Originals” brand will stay with the Duchy of Cornwall and not go with Charles. The Duchy is a portfolio of investments the heir is allowed to have access to for themselves and their family because their ability to earn income in other ways is limited, and Duchy Originals, while being a brand started by Charles, is just another investment that’s part of that portfolio.

        Essentially, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster (the Queen’s version that she ostensibly uses to fund herself and her family’s private expenses) are the only royal dukedoms that actually still involve property/money – everything else is purely a title thing. That’s where the distinction lies. Sussex is just a title – it wasn’t given to them with the intention that it would ever become a money-generating opportunity (like Cornwall or Lancaster), it was more supposed to be a mark of their senior status as royals because Duke as a given title is a higher rank than Prince as an inherited one.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have HRH and use their titles to make money. They also had free housing off the taxpayers for years until it was uncovered. They show up as reps for the Queen at State Dinners and events.

        A similar arrangement for Harry and Meghan, where Harry and Meghan offered to represent the Queen part time but wanted freedom to pursue earning a living the rest of the time? Earn a living without using HRH as part of that. Their arrangement would have been far more suitable than what we’ve seen from the Kents.

    • Hey Livvers — Re the royals’ agreement with the government that they won’t make money off their royal positions. Someone in government needs to take a hard look at the entire family from Charles on down. They are all making money off their royal family status. Charles even demands money for dinner with him at Highgrove. I think it will only be Harry and Meghan that own it.

  10. lillibet says:

    I’m not sure the Queen could be worse at optics if she was trying to win the prize for worst at optics. Hi, you have an accused pedophile whose title has never been in danger.

  11. Kath says:

    Can someone please explain titles to me? I don’t understand how the HRH title is different than the Sussex titles? Maybe I don’t understand what HRH really means?

    • Eva says:

      I was just thinking the same! Someone explain like I’m five please :D

      I thought HRH Duke/Duchess of Sussex went together but apparently they’re separate titles? Or something? What’s the difference?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      HRH is a royal title, Sussex is a ducal title. There are royal highnesses who have ducal titles and there are dukes who are not royal.

      Traditionally, younger royal sons have held ducal titles since it is a higher title than the princely title (unless we are talking the Prince of Wales title, which is reserved for the direct heir to the throne). The British peerage system is confusing and complicated.

    • Amelie says:

      I might be wrong but an HRH title is higher than a Duke/Duchess title if I understand correctly. Harry and Meghan have agreed to no longer use the HRH for commercial/public use so they still retain it privately (so… what does that mean, the courtiers call them that?). Harry received the Dukedom/Duke of Sussex title upon marrying Meghan but he inherited the HRH. Not sure if that explains it!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        HRH is a “style”. Sussex is a “title”

        All children of a monarch and grandchildren in the male line of a monarch are HRH at birth.

        Just because you are an HRH or HIH does not mean you have to use it.

        The Duchess of Wellington is/ was born an Imperial Princess of Germany. However, she does not use her HIH.

        The Wessex kids are HRHs but their parents ask the HRH not be used and their children be styled as children of an Earl in every day life. QE II agreed.

        To be a member of the British Royal Family you must have an HRH in front of your name. To be a member of the “Windsor Family” you simply must be a descendant of George V such as David Snowdon, Sarah Chatto, Peter Phillips and Zara Tndall and Amelia Windsor.

  12. Abena Asantewaa says:

    What is their crime, really? Wanting to work, while still serving the queen? Afterall their jobs as patrons, are not 9 to 5, why couldn’t Harry have kept his Army and Commonwealth Youth Patronages. Are they expecting them to sacrifice their mental health and marriage for the sake of The Crown? I see the decision as punitive, but H&M will be victorious.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Are they expecting them to sacrifice their mental health and marriage for the sake of The Crown?”


  13. Livvers says:

    Apparently Harry has a potentially important constitutional role for when the Queen is out of country or unable to rule (very ill/regency) that, in his absence, devolves to Prince Andrew and then Beatrice. I wonder how conscious the queen, Charles, William, and their advisors were when discussing these questions of titles and how seemly it is for Harry to earn his way, considering Andrew has been allowed to associate with seedy & sketchy businessmen for YEARS while still having a constitutional role. Not sure if linking is allowed here, but the info I am referring to is the most recent post on a website called “ukconstitutionallaw*org” (replace asterisk w/ period)

  14. margedebarge says:

    I know it’s not so simple and I’m behind H&M however they decide to go about this, but if they just dropped titles and pretense all together and simply became Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, I’d respect tf out of that.

    Or take Doria’s name and become Harry and Meghan Ragland hehehehe but that’s an act of aggression they’d never be able to walk back if needed.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      But why should they?? If Andrew can keep his HRH AND his title while be a non-working royal so can Harry and Meghan. Sussex is their brand and they were smart to fight for it and the BRF was had a moment of clarity and realized how bad it would look if they were stripped of it. Especially while Pedo Andy is making church trips with Mummy Dearest

      • liriel says:

        Comparing to pedo Andrew. It would be a great FU I don’t need you. They seem to be opportunistic a bit. Sussex royal yet no royal.
        (pedo andrew is a lost and toxic case, no words)

      • Ennie says:

        Excuse me, but they are royal.

  15. Amelie says:

    They’re basically being treated like they’ve divorced the family which in essence, it sort of how it’s panning out. Both Diana and Fergie lost the HRH title when they divorced Charles and Andrew respectively but still remained Princess of Wales/Duchess of York. I think they would have lost the titles if either remarried but neither did. I think there had to be some kind of repercussion for stepping back and it was either lose the HRH or strip them of the Sussex titles. Charles must have convinced the Queen that if Andrew still retained his Dukedom after the Epstein interview drama, they could not strip Meghan and Harry of Harry’s Dukedom as they are not suspected of criminal activity and it would look really bad looking like they were punishing a biracial woman and her son (but we all know Elizabeth turns a blind eye to Andrew’s misdeeds). It’s the lesser of two evils.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      They haven’t lost their HRH titles, they’ll just refrain from using them. This is like Camilla not using the Princess of Wales title, which is her’s because she’s married to the Prince of Wales.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        and Louise and James not using their HRH style and HIH Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington not using her HIH Princess style.

        Louise = Lady Louise Windsor but she is an HRH

        James = Viscount Severn but he is an HRH

        Antonia = Antonia, Duchess of Wellington but she is an HIH

  16. Guest with Cat says:

    The only thing keeping me from casting stink eye at the Queen is that Harry himself has gone out of his way to speak well of her, even in his parting words, which seemed to be from the heart and not extorted out of him.

    There were petty courtiers and a jealous brother and goodness know what all involved in all this mess. Then there were concerns about lawsuits and demands of Parliament and public opinion thrown in for good measure. It was complicated.

    Harry reportedly got to the talks two hours early to have a much needed private word with his grandmother. Who knows what the woman who is his grandmother, who allegedly would have spared him that horrific walk behind his mother’s casket, who knows what that woman said to him in that private family moment.

    The Queen, with all the archaic apparatus that surrounds her is a different entity altogether.

    There are times I think the grandmother desperately tried to sneak past the Queen this time around. I think we caught a glimpse of her.

    I don’t forgive either the old mum or the official Queen for propping up Andrew. But that’s a very different mess to sort out. There aren’t racist jackals in the establishment baying for blood the way they did in the case of the black Duchess.

    I don’t trust Charles as far as I can throw him. I saw the video where Meghan is having a very successful engagement with people and press at one of his parties. I think it was the anniversary of his investiture. Charles walked up and said something to Harry and Harry looked up at the cameras and said something like “I can’t, there’s cameras.” And then suddenly they hustled Harry and Meghan away. It looked for all the world like Charles didn’t appreciate the media focus on Meghan and had had enough.

    On top of that, during these recent negotiations, there was the immediate leak from his people that Meghan’s and Harry’s demands on his Duchy money were draining him dry. And it was Charles who got rid of Lord Geidt, a move that destabilized the authority centralized under the Queen.

    It was Charles who kept Harry at bay rather than deal with the matters that the Queen had told Harry to take to him.

    Yeah, I’m going to sit back and see if Charles and William trip over themselves trying to throw each other under the bus now that their favorite mutual scapegoat has escaped his pen.

    • AmeliaPeabodyNeedsABeverage says:

      Those are very good points! I didn’t know about the event with Charles and Harry’s comment about the cameras.

    • Babz says:

      Guest with Cat, I think that event you’re referring to was an early birthday celebration of his 70th birthday, at one of the Queen’s garden parties. It just happened to fall two days after the royal wedding, and Harry and Meghan postponed leaving for their honeymoon because Charles wanted them there. Two days after the wedding – did he honestly believe the cameras weren’t going to follow every move of the newlywed Duke and Duchess??? On top of that, Harry gave a lovely speech in honor of his dad, praising him to the skies. But sure, the boy and his new wife are the center of attention, and God knows, we can’t have that so they need to leave. Having such a thin skin and overweening jealousy are two of Charles’ nastier traits. Traits that seem to have manifested mightily in his heir.

  17. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    “Also, I’m going to keep bringing this up:”

    Never stop. It’s the single most important observation. End of royal story.

  18. Hotsauceinmybag says:

    Here’s a better article with pictures of Meghan walking her dogs (much better coverage than the Daily Fail, although the article does credit DF for the photos).

    She looks so HAPPY! And light! Their departure feels like a loss to me but this is a win for them.

    Re. the titles, everything about the arrangement feels punitive, to me at least.

    • Emily2 says:

      The contrast in that article between Meghan’s casual outing and casual clothing vs. the Cambridge’s delegations is really cool. I know to some, it will highlight how important a role William has but honestly I’d much rather live Meghan’s life.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They’ve already filed a complaint about photos taken of their rental home. The paps are breaking privacy laws, and Harry and Meghan aren’t going to put up with it.

      • liriel says:

        Ok a question. The last few outings were photo ops, right? She was all smiles and the pics from up close.. during the break we had no pics.

      • Guest with Cat says:

        Yesssss! I love the backbone these two have. While I would love to see a much of them as possible, I don’t have the right to see anything they don’t post themselves. Also, I always get creeped out by those kinds of pap photos of people because it makes them look so vulnerable in terms of their safety.

    • Photos of Archie and Meghan on walk: Archie is already a big boy at eight months. He looks huge to me. Very long-legged like his dad.

  19. RoyalBlue says:

    The Royal family is so spiteful and vindictive. That will be their legacy when the history books are written.

  20. Angie says:

    I agree keep bringing it up! I am convincing now I want to BRF to loose their status. They’re horrible. Just horrible. I also agree with how punitive this all seems. I hope Meghan and Harry live happily ever after.

  21. Betsy says:

    I don’t wish the queen’s death soon, but I am curious af just what’s going to happen when Chuck becomes king. Because if you believe, as I do, that the leaks and smears nastiness came primarily from Will’s “side,” and that he hasn’t done nearly enough to earn his keep as FFK, I want to know if Chuck will do anything to provide consequences.

    Or any consequences for Andrew, since he raped trafficked teenagers. Like stripping him of his titles and perqs and letting him face the law.

  22. Charfromdarock says:

    It is astonishing to me that an organization of this size doesn’t hire professional publicists and crisis managers. Of if I’m mistaken and they do have them, they need to hire better ones!

  23. Seri says:

    Just wow…this is a truly royal level of bullying. I wonder though, in this digital era can’t the queen access the world herself without things being filtered through courtiers? Why courtiers have such a great power over the crown?

  24. Mads says:

    Stripping them of their titles would have permanently closed any door where they could want to come back into the fold. I’m not saying that Harry and Meghan would, but I can see this navel gazing family realize how much they screwed this up when Charles eventually ascends the throne. William and Kate do not have the best work ethic and the added pressure of becoming Prince and Princess of Wales will fall on them like a ton of bricks. They will rue the day they sidelined Harry and Meghan.

    • Harla says:

      Hi Mads, while I agree with you 100%, I don’t think any of the RF are evolved enough to realize what they’ve lost. And I don’t believe that being the P&P of Wales will change W&K one bit. They aren’t going to suddenly work more or attend more engagements, no everything will be tailored around what William wants to do, no more, no less. Personally, I think we’ve been seeing for years the best that the Cambridge’s have to offer. I agree with you because I’d love to see all this happen, I just don’t think it will.

  25. Capepopsie says:

    They will never learn, will they? Look How they treated Princess Diana. It blew up in their faces and she became more popular and beloved than ever. Now Prince Harry and Megan are given a simular treatment! This is going to backfire on them in a way they can’t even imagine at this point.

    • grumpy says:

      Diana was getting a lot of stick before she died to be honest. It was her death that made her a ‘saint’. I can remember the evening she died, (obviously several hours before) watching a comedian on BBC 1 prime time ripping into her; I think the first Austin Powers film was coming out then too and had jokes related to her and they cut them out in the cinema in the UK because of her death. She was on an endless holiday with Dodi and being criticised for it in the papers.

      • morrigan01 says:

        I truly think one of the reasons Diana ended up dying was that she remained in Europe, particularly the UK. She lived in Kensington Palace after the divorce, and was still doing charity work there and around Europe.

        And who can really blame her for staying? Her kids were the closest heirs to the throne and had to remain in England. Also, that Aristo life was the only life she’d ever known. It’s hard to leave a world or place when it’s the only thing you’ve ever known.

        Harry was already half-out before now, and Meghan wasn’t born and raised in the UK. She was only tied to that world through marrying Harry. They have wisely moved 8 time zones away to a whole other continent. So the UK press can still talk about them, but it probably feels much more different when you’re getting torn apart by the press in your own backyard, than it does by a press that are almost 5000 miles away. (And when the pap laws governing you now are different than the ones in the UK).

  26. Ames says:

    “B-but the sweat … pizza .. with peasants?! … THAT’S NOT MY HAND!!”

    “Oh, why don’t the BELIEVE me, Mummy?? WHYYYYYYYYY???”

  27. Lizzie says:

    Who made the suggestion? Bill? Not picked up by TQ or PC.

  28. Sandra says:

    With all the stories about parents who can’t get their kids out of the house, it’s baffling to me that there is so much uproar over people wanting to move out, live their own lives, and make their own money. Oh the horror!!

    I truly believe that Meghan gave Harry exactly what he wanted – I don’t think he’s ever wanted this life that he was born into. Then he married someone who agreed that this is all total BS, and supported him in getting out. Good for both of them. And honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if William isn’t a bit hurt – I don’t think he wants the royal life either, and he might feel betrayed watching his brother get what they would both like, which is being out and free.

    As a Canadian, it weirds me out that they moved to Canada. It makes me feel uncomfortable, like we can’t fly under the radar anymore, lol. I’m happy they chose us, but it’s just so weird!!!

    • Helen says:

      Now that you say this, I wonder if the reason Harry stayed with Chelsea Davy so long is because she didn’t want to be in the fold either, but, because of her family, she couldn’t see getting him out of the fold?

      • morrigan01 says:


        I can see that wrt Chelsy, but I do wonder how much she didn’t want to be in the fold? Maybe she tried to be a part of it, because she didn’t see how she and Harry couldn’t even *not* be a part of it? And the scrutiny and pressure was just too much for her to stick around. And back then, Harry didn’t know/have any real set plan on how he could leave, even though he was disillusioned with Royal Life. Plus, he was still in the army then.

        And yeah, because of her family, they never would have been compelty out of the fold anyway.

        It’s been said that it was at William and Kate’s wedding when she and Harry officially broke up for good. That would be 2011. I’ve never gotten the impression that Chelsy and Kate were good friends. Chelsy apparently got press that painted her as a drunk party girl compared to Kate. I don’t know much about Chelsy Davy, but I don’t see where she was more into partying than Kate was.

        So yeah, I kinda wonder if Chelsy saw Kate and her mom for what that was all about, and didn’t see being a part of that appealing either.

        Can I also say, I don’t think Harry was ever very serious about Cressida? While I do think he loved Chelsy dearly (first love and all of that) and is deeply in love with Meghan, Cressida seems like he was going through the motions. I think that whole relationship was set up for him by the likes of Ingrid Seward and others among the toffs and gray suits, because Cressida was from that Arisot Set and seen as “appropriate.” (Especially if that gossip about Harry having a black girlfriend right before Cressida is true).

  29. kerwood says:

    I think it was a combination of the Queen’s courtiers and Andrew that wanted to strip the Sussexes of their title. And I’m guessing that Charles had to put a stop to that, maybe by agreeing to let Andrew be seen in public.

    I never thought I would mourn my Queen BEFORE she died, but I do. I miss the fantasy around QEII. I know that she’s an 93 year old woman and she must be so tired. It seems that Prince Phillip has checked out and all hell has broken loose. The Queen has a lot of evil people pouring poison in her ear, starting with her child-rapist monster of a son.

    I don’t think this is what she wanted, but in the end, she’s the one who signs off on this shit, so like it or not, she’s responsible.

    I hope that when the Queen is dead and buried and Charles is securely on his throne, he puts William in his place and goes after Pedophile Andrew. HARD.

  30. jules says:

    I just can’t take any of this royal name stuff seriously. In the bigger picture it’s all pretty ridiculous hierarchy.

    • morrigan01 says:

      To my American self, this title stuff is – an amusing trivia question? Like, I have no idea what the difference is between a Viscount, a Count, a Lord, a Marquis, etc. And that people take it all so *seriously* is just bemusing to me.

      Edward the VIII was just so angry and slighted that Wallis wasn’t given an HRH and saw it as *such* a slight; but I always kinda wondered if Wallis herself cared about it or not. Given we have no record of her having any opinion on it, I kinda think she never did.

      I bet someone was threatening to strip Meghan alone of her HRH, and Harry was like “okay, if you’re taking away her’s you’re taking away mine too along with it.” And there was some balking of taking away a blood prince’s HRH. Hence the “keep but can’t use” agreement.

      This also ties into people being so sure Meghan would insist on some high title for Archie. Again, misreading the two of them , particularly her. Her identity as a person isn’t tied up with some title, and Harry clearly sees the real *him* as just Harry, not the prince or anything like that. (He pretty much said so after the Vegas incident).

  31. yinyang says:

    I wonder if william and Kate are dumbfounded that Harry didn’t throw Meghan under the bus the way they did, they seem to enjoy it.

  32. Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

    I actually think all this angst on this thread is overthinking it. There are two irrefutable rules.

    1. Being born to it is one thing. Marrying it is altogether different. You are not equal. You will never, ever be equal.

    2. The BRF plays the long game. Always.

    To compare Meghan to Andrew is in violation of rule #1.

    The BRF didn’t “strip” the title from Harry or Andy because of both rules. Both are royal born. And they think both will eventually return (or be returned) to the fold.

    Just hopefully without those pesky Sarah and Meghan appendages (as per the BRF).

  33. Izzy says:

    They still look petty. 🤷🏻‍♀️