Prince Charles will change the Letters Patent, Archie & Lilibet won’t get royal titles

Britain's Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, visit Coventry

In the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Oprah interview, Meghan spoke about how she and Harry were part of conversations, during her pregnancy with Archie and after Archie was born, that their children would not have royal titles at birth, nor would the children have titles when Charles ascends to the throne. Meghan said, in part, “They didn’t want him to be a prince . . . which would be different from protocol, and that he wasn’t going to receive security.” Meghan also said, in a somewhat confusing way, that there were conversations about changing the Letters Patent, which was started by King George V, ensuring that all of the grandchildren of the monarch would be princes and princesses. She was torn to shreds in the British media for that claim, and every nitpicky royal historian came out of the woodwork to whitesplain the Letters Patent. Well, guess what? Prince Charles plans to alter the Letters Patent to ensure that his Sussex grandchildren will never be Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

Prince Charles is to ensure that his two-year-old grandson Archie will never be a Prince, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The heir to the throne has made it clear that Harry and Meghan’s son will have no place among frontline Royals as he plans a slimmed-down Monarchy after he becomes King. The move has incensed the Sussexes and is thought to have prompted the series of bitter accusations the couple have levelled at Charles and the Royal Family from across the Atlantic.

A grandchild of the sovereign has long had the right to be a Prince, but Charles is determined to limit the number of key Royals, believing the public does not wish to pay for an ever-expanding Monarchy. Charles has told the Sussexes that he will change key legal documents to ensure that Archie cannot get the title he would once have inherited by right, according to a source close to the couple. The decision, which follows months of fraught discussion behind the scenes, has plunged relations between Harry and his relatives to a dangerous new low.

‘Harry and Meghan were told Archie would never be a Prince, even when Charles became King,’ confirmed the source.

The full details of Charles’s plan for a slimmed-down Monarchy have never been revealed, but it has been speculated that only heirs to the throne and their immediate families will receive full titles, financial support from the public purse through the Sovereign Grant and police protection funded by the taxpayer. Insiders suggest they hadn’t seen the move coming, and were shocked to find that Charles will take the active step of changing legal instruments known as the Letters Patent in order to exclude Archie and others.

The loss will be all the more galling as the Sussexes have made a point of refusing to use another, lesser title for their son, who is technically the Earl of Dumbarton. They took that decision safe in the knowledge that Archie would become a Prince in due course. Or so they thought.

Earlier this year, a source close to the Sussexes confirmed they did indeed expect Archie to be named a Prince when Charles, Archie’s grandfather, acceded to the throne. Their spokesman at the time was even instructed to remind journalists of that ‘fact’. The Sussexes finally learned that would not be the case just before sitting down with Oprah Winfrey for their first bombshell interview in March. Insiders suggest the issue was still raw at the time of the recording – which might help account for the devastating criticisms they unleashed on the show, including the damaging implication that an unnamed senior member of the Royal Family had referred to Archie in a racist way.

An insider said: ‘Charles has never made any secret of the fact that he wants a slimmed-down Monarchy when he becomes King. He realises that the public don’t want to pay for a huge Monarchy and, as he said, the balcony at Buckingham Palace would probably collapse.’

A Royal source said last night: ‘We are not going to speculate about the succession or comment on rumours coming out of America.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Notice how the Mail accuses the Sussexes of only finding out about Charles’ decision before the Oprah interview, and then they basically say “the Sussexes were mad, that’s why they said all of that.” Meghan said that those conversations were happening while she was pregnant! H&M had some idea that Charles would do this as early as the spring of 2019. A source also tells the Daily Mail that “nobody realized from the interview” that Meghan was actually telling the truth and that “the real thing was that Charles was going to take active steps to strip Archie of his ultimate birthright.”

The whole “no one wants to pay for a huge monarchy” thing should actually happen. But it makes no sense when it’s about the Montecito royals, who support themselves financially and aren’t taking any money from the taxpayers for their upkeep. The only reason to take away Archie and Lilibet’s birthright is because of pettiness and racism.

(While I get the “it’s their birthright” conversation, I also hope that Harry and Meghan understand that their kids are so much better off in America as just regular untitled kids.)

HRH The Prince of Wales Birthday Family Portrait

archie1

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

Related stories

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

370 Responses to “Prince Charles will change the Letters Patent, Archie & Lilibet won’t get royal titles”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Alexandria says:

    Just do it ok! I’m still remaining their fan. And I know the real reason why because you have NEVER spoken about excluding Harry’s familyfrom your slimmed down monarchy before he got married. Goodbye!

    • BABSORIG says:

      I was a Meghan fan before she met Harry. And I have always liked Harry even before he met Meg. So, I am a fan of Sussexes let come what may. I’ve always been, I am one and always will be. It doesn’t matter whether they’re royals or not, I will always be a fan.
      I am confused, why is the palace sources calling these these “rumors from the US”? Anyways, IDC what racist petty Charles does.

      • GraceB says:

        I suspect “rumors from the US” is their pretty obvious code for anything said by the Sussex’s or their friends.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        GraceB
        It’s code for they don’t have a Sussex source and flew someone over there to create a rumor for their article. It’s intentionally vague and all Sussex sources are approved in case of lawsuits.

        This article is all noise.

      • observer says:

        “rumors from the US” is classic gaslighting speak

    • swirlmamad says:

      EXACTLY this. Harry and his family were always going to be part of the “slimmed down” monarchy….until he made the decision to marry a woman of color. We see you and your racism, Chuck. F off.

      • Amy Too says:

        I don’t even get the whole “no one wants to pay for an ever expanding set of royals that will pretty much collapse the balcony when they’re all on it.” It would have been 11 people total. Charles, Camilla, W, K, George, Charlotte, Louis, H, M, Archie, Lili. That’s less than what they have now. The Queen had 4 kids who all had kids. Charles has 2 kids who have 5 between them and they all seem to be done. And it’s not like Archie and Lili’s kids would all become Princes and Princesses and that would expand things even more because they wouldn’t be grandchildren of a monarch.

        And like other people have said, being a Prince or Princess doesn’t mean you’re a working royal who gets money from taxes. Unless they’ve been lying to us this whole time and they really are fully supporting all of the Queen’s adult grandchildren straight from the sovereign grant even though they don’t all work and they’ve been telling us only working royals gets taxpayer money and security. Harry is a Prince. He’s not a working royal. He doesn’t get taxpayer money and security. They told us this was standard. He lost those things because he’s not a working royal. They said that Andrew stopped getting taxpayer funds when he stepped down as a working royal and now his mommy pays for him privately. But maybe that’s all lies and they really did just single out Harry for punishment by taking away his money and security. Maybe they really do secretly pay for all the adult grandchildren of the monarch right now and that’s why we got that weird article about how Eugenie was going to be cut off when Charles became king. And now we’re getting more articles that imply that if you’re a titled grandchild of the monarch, you get all kinds of money spent on you. Didn’t something change when they went from the civil list to the sovereign grant where the Queen no longer had to detail exactly who was on the civil list and getting funds? Now she just gets this big lump sum and she can do with it what she wants? Did she decided she would just start paying everyone once she no longer had as much oversight?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Titles and being a working royal are separate things. Harry’s kids could have still gotten titles without being raised to be working royals.

        Sovereign Grant and Duchy of Cornwall both have freedom *from* information slapped on them. Very difficult to get any info about where the money goes. It was one of the former posters on here, LAK or bluhare, who dug through funding documents to get some key info. Hidden unless you were willing to really dig. She discovered the info that all helicopter travel for W&K, for work or private, is now paid by taxpayers. Rather like the planning documents for the hyperspace bypass in Hitchhikers Guide.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Nota
        Could be LAK as she claimed to have worked for the Duchy in some relevant capacity to how the duchy functions financially.

      • betsyh says:

        I wonder if Charles wants to actually tie titles to actual working royals in the future; that is, you can’t be a prince/princess unless you are a paid working royal. Maybe he thinks that a large royal family is a bad look. That the public looks at that balcony full of people and thinks, why are we paying for all those royal welfare recipients (whether or not they are paid for by taxpayers)? It will be an uphill battle to prove the monarchy’s necessity in the future, and by just giving the impression that he is being progressive, he thinks he is ensuring the continuation of the institution.

      • notasugarhere says:

        betsyh, if that were the case, they wouldn’t have changed the letters patent to make W&K’s kids all HRH and prince/princess. They would have kept the situation as it was, and once Charles was king, ONLY the heir to the heir (eldest child of W&K) would have been given a title and HRH during Charles’s reign. With Harry’s departure, it is far less likely that W&K’s younger kids will be working royals.

        Could have been, Wiglet Watcher, but it was a public document that was about Queen/Philip, Charles/Camilla, W&K. It wasn’t a Duchy document, but one out of Buckingham Palace.

      • Amy Too says:

        BetsyH, if that’s the idea, that they want to make the royal family look small by only having working royals be titled and show up on balconies, then it seems like they would be really leaning into the royal family as firm first and only as opposed to royal family as an actual family. Right now, when the Queen is surrounded by all her cousins, kids, grandkids, and great grandkids, it shows that she’s the matriarch of a big family and all these people love her and she loves them. (Whether or not that’s true in private, it gives the impression of family). But if Charles really wants to exclude one of his only two children and half of his grandkids from things like Trooping, which is meant to celebrate the monarch’s birthday, then he’s never going to really get that Family Man “here are all the people who love me and that I care about, look at all kids and grandkids who call me Papa” moments that humanize the royal family and act as propaganda for the idea that the royal family is just like your family (only more special). It’s really going to underline that this is NOT a family in any way, it’s solely a business, and the man who runs the business is fine with excluding his own children and grandchildren from his birthday party unless they’re working for him.

        I’m not saying you’re wrong or that it’s a bad theory and it can’t possibly be part of why they’re restricting titles to working royals and then only allowing those working royals on the balconyX because it probably is what they’re thinking. They have the worst instincts. Always.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Betsy Charles may think it’s a “bad look” for the balcony to be so full, but imo it’s a much, MUCH worse look for him to do this just as the first biracial grandchildren would be set to take their titles.
        He at least should have waited until longer into his reign, and have it apply to any children after Archie and Lili.

    • Lenni says:

      There is the obvious solution: they’ are US citizens. Rename them Prince Archie and Princess Lily. Imagine them Brits faces

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ Lenni : Michael Jackson did it for his two sons.

      • Kviby says:

        That would be extremely off brand! And anyone can name their child princess, I’ve worked with a couple people with that name. It’s not the point

    • Nic919 says:

      Looks like Charles got Valentine Low from the Times to correct this DM story and basically say that Archie and Lili will have the HRH once he’s king automatically and that they can decide once they turn 18 if they want to use it. Similar to james and Louise.

      So the question is : did KP send out this DM story to divert from their racist staff story?

      • Nivz says:

        Agree this was either tabloid fabrication or KP cross briefing. I didn’t read Low’s story, just heard about it, and looking forward to Kaiser’s take tomorrow and the discussion to follow in the comments!

      • Carty says:

        What would happen if Charles dies before QE? Would the issue be mute? They wouldn’t get any titles?

    • Kelly says:

      Okay, I think some people here were never royal watchers until Meghan married in.

      I’ve been a royal watcher for decades and am probably older than most here. So here’s the scoop – Yes, when Meghan said that there was talk about amending the Letters Patent, I already knew that because there had been talk that Charles would further slim down the monarchy literally ages before Harry & Meghan even knew each others.

      So, there’s that. If you weren’t paying attention until Meghan showed up, this is all news to you.

      The other part is that Charles is not the first royal to want to streamline. The Queen did the same thing some time ago. There was extended family who were getting financed and she took them off financial support. There was also extended family who were living in Kensington Palace rent-free, and she started charging them rent.

      For the longest time, the monarchy didn’t pay much in taxes and they had to start doing that a long while back because the taxpayers were getting restless. They are very aware that the monarchy is an archaic institution and that if the public really turned against them, that their days are over. This is also why some of Charles’s siblings opted not to give their children royal titles.

      My opinion after decades of watching them is that we will see less and less influence and pageantry as the decades roll on because the public will be less and less inclined to pay for them. The best thing Harry & Meghan could do is to NOT want titles for their children. Frankly, that stance would make them look their best. Besides, we do not have titles in the USA.

      • GuestWho says:

        I’ve been watching a long time too. Harry and his family were always expressly included in the streamlined monarchy until he married a WOC.

      • Becks1 says:

        Many of us have been watching for a long time, and Harry and his family was always part of the streamlined plan. And removing HRH from Harry’s children was NEVER discussed openly. If that had been the plan, they would have said so when they gave HRHs early to the Cambridge children.

        Also, the Queen didnt “want” to streamline, she was basically forced to do it.

      • Kelly says:

        I agree that Harry & Meghan were always to be part of the streamlined monarchy!

        But I would not have expected that there would have been talk about their plans to not include their offspring. There was no need to bring it up publicly before there were children. Keep in mind, the offspring of W&K will go the same way. Prince George’s children will be HRHs, but Charlotte and Louis’s children will not.

        Yes, the Queen has been forced to do a lot of things, like pay more taxes and get extended family off the payroll. I don’t expect the pressure is going to end. We will see more cuts over time.

  2. Lenni says:

    This is happening everywhere. Look at Spain

    • Cecilia says:

      Like kaiser said, the financial argument makes no sense. Archie and lili will never be a burden on the taxpayer so why strip them of their birth right?

      • equality says:

        Right. Eugenie and Beatrice have the Princess titles without being taxpayer funded so this story is full of it.

      • Haylie says:

        And why write a headline specifically targeting Archie?

        Charles is a trash bag racist. Having a “blink and you’ll miss it” reign is what he deserves.

      • GraceB says:

        I think this is the Sussex hating press twisting it as much as possible into Charles aiming at Sussex’s and Archie in particular.

        I might have missed something but I got the impression that it was on the cards years ago to do this. I don’t understand the argument Meghan made about Archie not getting security if he wasn’t a Prince. I don’t think the York sisters have security and if they did/do, that makes sense with Charles argument.

        Although I live in the UK, my family are from the Middle East, where they have Princes and Princesses all over the place. Far too many of them for no reason that I can figure out, and I’ve wished for a long time that they’d just stick to direct heirs.

      • TigerMcQueen says:

        @GraceB, first, the York sisters had security until they were adults.

        Second, it might make sense to you with Chuck’s argument, BUT then why did his slimmed down version of the RF that was on the cards years ago include Harry and his eventual family??? This plan only stopped including Harry and his wife/kids when Harry married a mixed race woman from America. It’s almost like cutting Harry’s kids out is more about their mother than saving money…hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

      • Myra says:

        The Yorks do not need security because their risk level isn’t high. Harry’s family have the highest risk level out of all of them, which makes sense why Meghan mentioned security and his title. RPOs can offer better protection than private security for a number of reasons. Private security are not likely to be permitted to carry weapons whilst overseas whereas RPOs can. Meghan was also making a bigger point about security, titles and concerns over Archie’s skin colour. All of those conversations were happening simultaneously.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Yorks and Anne’s kids had security until they turned 18. After that, Andrew paid for security for B&E. With which foreign oligarchy’s money?

        That was why Zara ultimately moved back to Anne’s property, because that estate is secured by taxpayers as long as Anne is a working royal.

      • Cate says:

        So, I 100% believe that racism is THe big reason why this has only come up since Meghan entered the picture. But…the comment about how much more risk H&M are at vs B&E made me wonder if the picture on security costs also changed a lot once Meghan arrived. If Harry had married someone nice and white like Cressida Bonas or whoever, he probably wouldn’t have been a huge security risk and his kids wouldn’t either. He probably also wouldn’t have been looking at spending extended time outside the UK, which I imagine would have happened even without Sussexit as Meg is American and I imagine she would have wanted the kids to spend a fair amount of holiday time there at the least. Basically, the projected security costs for Harry+ family may have jumped up a lot. And since Meghan was not a lovely white English Rose, no way is there room in the budget for that!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry has always been a huge target because of his military service. The Taliban put a price on his head. They openly plotted to kidnap him during one of his tours and torture him online. His work with Sentebale and with conservation means he’s always traveled and spent a lot of time outside the UK. Racism had added an enormous additional layer on that, but he always needed lots of security prior to Meghan.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ Cecilia : It’s only their birthright as long as the reigning monarch says it is. These things can always be changed. TQ expanded it to cover Charlotte and Louis (before they were born IIRK) while they were great-grandchildren of the monarch. Only George had a birthright to it under the Letters Patent as the firstborn son of the future Prince of Wales (William). And in Sweden, the first born son was supposed to be the heir to the throne but the reigning monarch changed it so that the first born would be the heir regardless of gender. So now Crown Princess Victoria will inherit the throne ahead of her brother Prince Carl Philip. So “birthright” is something that can be changed.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        I am a big fan of Harry and Meghan. But Charles’ move makes sense to me. Right now, Archie and Lily (monarch’s great grandchildren) are one generation below Beatrice and Eugenie, and one generation below James (monarch’s grandchildren). Even after Charles takes the throne, Archie and Lili will be in the same position as Edward’s children are now — and they are NOT “HRH” but instead styled as the children of an Earl.

        I do think part of this is spite, and it shows what kind of person Charles really is. However, I suspect that Charles will also take the tile away from Andrew’s daughters, and maybe even Andrew, when he takes the throne. I can’t argue with that part of it. I’ve always thought only the actual monarch (as the Head of State) should have a title and benefits, and nobody else.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edward and Sophie’s children are both HRH and have prince/princess titles. They choose to have them use lower titles, but they were given those higher titles. So why is it you advocate for the same thing *not* to happen for Harry and Meghan’s children?

        Charles won’t be taking away any titles, not from Andrew or his daughters. He’ll just deny them to his biracial grandchildren.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @notasugarhere — that is incorrect. On June 19, 1999, the Queen issued a written statement (which IS a letter patent) that Edward’s children would NOT be given the style of HRH, but would only have the courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

        The Queen (or eventually, Charles) COULD over-rule that decision at any time, and bestow the HRH titles on Edward’s kids, but the Queen hasn’t done so yet (and if she did, please post a link to it). So unless and until that happens, Edward’s kids are not HRH and are not “prince” or “princess.” Those titles are bestowed at the whim of the monarch, and again, the Queen said “no” at the time of the wedding (and hasn’t changed her mind since then, unless you have proof).

        Edited to add: to all the people who keep getting confused about Edward’s kids, read these links: https://letterspatentbrf.tumblr.com/post/181735115023/hrh-prince-edward-earl-of-wessex
        An important excerpt is, “any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness” — notice it says “should NOT BE GIVEN” the style HRH, which is different from people thinking they just won’t USE the style. It’s not just a matter of “use,” they DO NOT HAVE the titles HRH. I know Sophie in her desperation tries to claim her kids are royal, but they are not — at least, not until the monarch decides to overrule the 1999 decision.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Also adding this link:
        https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/55536/page/7011 — at the bottom of the page, under the heading “Crown Office,” it indicates that the statement put out by the Queen on June 19, 1999, IS considered a “Letters Patent.” So that’s conclusive that the Queen did not give Edward’s kids royal titles. Again, if anyone knows of the Queen changing her mind and issuing later letters patent to overrule the 1999 one, please post (and that is not a “dare,” I mean it seriously because I would be very interested in reading it and would appreciate seeing a link). Thank you.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        “And in Sweden, the first born son was supposed to be the heir to the throne but the reigning monarch changed it so that the first born would be the heir regardless of gender. So now Crown Princess Victoria will inherit the throne ahead of her brother Prince Carl Philip. So “birthright” is something that can be changed.”
        @Still_Sarah
        - while it is true that the Law of Succession was changed in Sweden it was made by Parliament AGAINST the monarch’s wishes. The Swedish king didn’t wish for this change. He wanted his son to be his heir. That is why the Swedish monarchy is less secure than the Danish and the Norwegian ones, because the Swedish parliament has proven, on more than one occasion, that they are willing to enact changes that affect the monarchy against the monarch’s wishes.

    • Alexandria says:

      Yea so why not announce it before he got married? Or stop talking about the Susexxes?

      • Isabella says:

        Grace, Harry was always part of the slimmed down riyals Until he married Meghan. The planning for years thing is the new spin.

    • Sierra says:

      Exactly – Sweden king did this last year or so. Charles talked about this years before Meghan and Harry even met.

      • Becks1 says:

        He’s been talking about the slimming down but it was ALWAYS to include Harry and there was no indication that the LPs would be changed so Harry’s children wouldn’t be HRH when Charles is king.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        🙄 And if you were actually paying attention years before, Sierra, you’d know that Harry and his wife were always included in Charles’ slimmed down monarchy. It’s only after Harry married Meghan that the narrative changed.

      • Haylie says:

        The talk was about William, Harry and their families being included in the slim down. The Daily Mail wrote articles about that years ago. Excluding Harry didn’t become a discussion until Meghan announced her pregnancy.

        But nice try at changing the narrative.

        Very much a racist family.

      • Ginger says:

        Exactly Becks. Harry was always included in that. The Diamond Jubilee balcony picture is proof of that. That was the face of the monarchy when Charles would become king and Harry was ALWAYS a part of that. So yes, Charles does want a slim down monarchy and Harry and his wife and kids were a part of that.

      • equality says:

        The grandchildren still retained their Prince and Princess titles in Sweden. They were simply removed from being paid royals.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Exactly, equality. They have their prince and duke/duchess titles in Sweden, they’re just Her/His Highness instead of Her/Her Royal Highness.

        Having and HRH and a prince/princess title has never equaled being a working royal for the BRF. Titles and being a working royal are two different things, always have been.

      • Myra says:

        The slimmed down monarchy would have excluded the Wessexes, the Yorks, the Princess Royal and all the other cousins still dependent on the queen. Now, they are still in but the Sussexes are out. As @notasugarhere mentioned, from what I read, only the ‘HRH’ was removed but the grandchildren are still princes and princesses.

      • Emmitt says:

        Sweden’s king didn’t strip his grandchildren of their titles (only their HRHs) and he didn’t direct it to just one kid’s children, he did it to both of his non-heir children’s children. His grandchildren will keep their titles, but won’t be a burden on taxpayers or have to be working royals.

        Nice try, though.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sierra, Charles has never publicly talked about any of this. It has always been leaks out of The Way Forward group, and those were to slim down the *working royals* to Charles/spouse, William/spouse, Harry/spouse. It was never about who got HRH and titles and who didn’t.

    • snappyfish says:

      It has already happened in the British Royal Family. Edward’s children, grandchildren of the reigning Monarch are not HRHs or have the title of Prince & Princess. Edward is the child of the Monarch. I still believe that Harry’s children will have titles when the time comes. What people report and what actually happens is quite often at odds with one another.

      • Little Red says:

        No, it hasn’t. Both Louise and James are HRH Princess/Prince. They just don’t use them publicly the way William/Harry and Beatrice/Eugenie do.

      • Elizabeth Kerri Mahon says:

        I believe that it was actually Edward & Sophie who didn’t want their children to have the HRH and the title of Prince & Princess.

      • snappyfish says:

        They do not have HRH titles. I think the Edward and Sophie agreed because the scaling back had begun. I remember watching their wedding and it was reported then that any children they had wouldn’t be HRHs. Sophie was gifted HRH as Countess of Wessex by the Queen her upon her marriage. It was always known any child they had wouldn’t be titled. My point was grandchildren of the Monarch are untitled now so it seems much ado about nothing since I have always stated I believe Charles will elevate Harry’s children once he is King

        Only Anne chose, by turning down her mother’s offer of titles for her children. Mark Philips also turned down the title he was offered when he married Anne.

  3. Cecilia says:

    Every single time i think about charles , baldy and his assistant my body fills itself with venom.

    But the fact that the daily mail is repeating something that was said 3 months ago and conceal it as an “exclusive” means that the sussex stories have dried up. Are we finally one step closer to the press exposing whatever baldy has to hide?

    • SexyK says:

      My suspicion is Charles and William are in a proxy war with each other and the Sussexes caught in the middle.

      Yesterday, the Express ran a story on how ‘mature’ Charles and Camilla are happy with Lillibeth’s name and on William kicking Harry & Meghan out of KP. Today, Daily Fail is reporting Charles doesn’t want to give his mixed race grandchildren any titles even when he’s king.

      Basically, I think Charles and William are exposing each other in how awful they treated the Sussexes while reopening wombs for Harry and Meghan to sell papers. This is a nasty and horrible family.

      • India says:

        SexyK, they are absolutely the nastiest of families and it is about time for this to be exposed.

      • Cecilia says:

        @sexyk: i have a question. If letters of patent are issued, can they be retreated later?

        If so charles can threaten the Cambs by retreating the letters of patent issued for charlotte and Louis.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Lilibet not Lillibeth.

      • PrincessK says:

        Yes, l heard that there is a battle going on between Clarence House and Kensington Palace, and the media are covering this up but putting out numerous anti Sussex stories.

      • LMR says:

        Spot on SexyK. It’s as if KP and CH are engaging in a game of chicken to see who will expose what about the other. Perhaps one will expose the other as the “concerned” party about the shade of Archie’s skin. Even though we now know there is more than one racist but one was very likely an heir to the throne.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      @Cecilia…wow! I felt that because its true for me also. Makes me want to spit! But then I remind myself to be like Meghan. Her approach is to focus on love and compassion. These are more powerful than hate but many of us are still trying to believe.

      Dont get me wrong…..I also know she believes equally in justice and accountability so its not tht she’s ‘soft’ abt those vipers in palaces. Truly, I dont know how one goes abt hvng compassion for vipers.

    • betsyh says:

      Maybe these stories are coming out now because of the recent report from Channel 4 News that is questioning why Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking operation is not being investigated in England, and its implication that it’s because of Prince Andrew. We all know that the British monarchy likes to use Sussex stories to divert attention away from the Prince Andrew scandal.

    • AnneSurely says:

      The way this petty, sausage-fingered buffoon has always radiated small d@#k energy is astounding to me

  4. MrsRobinson says:

    Are these the only two this would apply to? Would those who got the title at birth but would no longer have it under the new rules (Beatrice & Eugenie) be “grandmothered” in?

    • Becks1 says:

      I think so, and my guess is that William will change the rules again in the future so that Louis’ children are also HRH.

    • EllenOlenska says:

      And it will also apply to Charlotte and Louis kids right?

      • Zaya says:

        It doesn’t apply to Charlotte cause she’s a female and she can’t pass it down to her kids. The letters of patent are only applicable the children of the monarch and the grandchildren from the male line. That’s why B&E are princesses (cause they’re from Andrew’s line), but Zara & Peter aren’t since they’re from Anne’s line. So when Charlotte has kids they won’t have titles unless Wills give a one to Charlotte’s future partner. But Charlotte & Louis title will remain since they are part of the heir’s immediate family. Louis’ kids would be affected, but I’m guessing William will change the letters again so that it doesn’t.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Zara but Charlotte is in front of Louis in the line of succession now the rules have changed and therefore the rules of patent should reflect that.

    • Lauren says:

      It’s different with the York sisters as only the male sons of the Queen get to pass on the HRH titles to their children. So technically the Wessex children should also be HRH, but their parents thought it would be best for them to carry lesser titles and have freer lives. With the Cambridge children, the Queen made an exception and said that all the eldest children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (Baldingham) are entitled to the HRH.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That change was only made because the UK government was already in the process of removing primogeniture in the inheritance of the throne. If QEII hadn’t issue that and W&K had a daughter first? She wouldn’t have had a title, while any subsequent male children (potentially) would have.

      • GraceB says:

        It all seems really dumb when you stop and think about it. I mean how are the Wessex children or Zara and Peter any more or less free than the Yorks who got the Princess title? None of them are working royals. They’re all going to have to find real jobs. The only difference is the grandiosity and unearned privilege we apply to the title.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The unearned privilege also comes without the title. Linley/Snowdon wouldn’t have the huge commissions he has if he wasn’t the Queen’s nephew. Peter Philips wouldn’t have been able to make money of the Jubilee if he wasn’t QEII’s grandson. Zara would not have made the Olympic team if it wasn’t in the UK during the Jubilee. That is a ‘selection process’ not one based solely on numbers, so they put Zara on the squad over others because of the PR.

      • Lauren says:

        EDIT: I meant “all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (Baldingham) are entitled to the HRH.”

        Also, the RF thinking that not having an HRH grants more freedom is stupid, but keep in mind that these people live in a different parallel privileged world from us. The grandchildren of the monarch that do not have the title get to freely between high society and business dealings, they get the privilege and wealth that comes with the royal connections, but less of the scrutiny that comes with the titles.

      • The Hench says:

        @notasugar whilst I agree with you on Linley and Peter Phillips, that’s unfair on Zara. Horses don’t care about your title or who your grandmother is and eventing is one of the most dangerous and difficult sports in the world. Despite that, Zara has consistently been at the top of the sport – she was individual and Team European champion in 2005 and individual and team World Champion in 2006 – a title she held until 2010. She was selected for the 2008 Olympics but couldn’t go as her horse went lame and helped the British team to the Silver medal in 2012 and again in the world Championships in 2014. She is very much not privileged decoration

      • notasugarhere says:

        The people chosen for the UK Olympic eventing team are *chosen*. They are *selected*. Not based on numbers, but on whatever fuzzy other selection criteria the board decides. Zara was going to be put on that team no matter what, because of the Olympics and the Jubilee. If she wasn’t the Queen’s granddaughter, someone else would have been *selected* based on their better performance in that year and the previous one.

      • The Hench says:

        Nota – possibly she was selected because of her connections. You’re right, it’s a nebulous process but she came 8th out of 74 competitors so she justified her selection. It wasnt as though she was totally crap.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She wasn’t total crap, she was also the Queen’s granddaughter who had a bad few years running up to the Olympics with a new horse. That grace wouldn’t have been given to another competitor. She was in because of her Granny.

  5. Becks1 says:

    So in reading this it seems it’s still not confirmed, right? No one close to the Susssexes is talking to the Mail on Sunday and the palace didn’t confirm it.

    At any rate, this is SUCH a bad look for Charles. The time to do this – to change the rules around HRH – was when Kate was pregnant with George and they changed the rules so that all Cambridge kids would be HRH from birth. (So much for slimming down the monarchy right?) that was the time to say the oldest child would be HRH, the younger kids would not, and the children of Harry would not be HRH.

    The fact that they did not announce it at the time just makes it obvious that it wasn’t the plan all along. It’s only changing bc of Meghan.

    Very much not a racist family indeed.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      This is the RR’s causing trouble, Chuck has always wanted Harry to be part of his plans and until recently there was comments that indicated that Chuck still hoped that would be the case – the Sussex’s themselves have said that they wanted to continue to work with the RF in some capacity going forward.

      Saying all that I think it’s now apparent that there is too much bad blood at the moment that is being driven by the brothers damaged relationship. To me this story stinks of manipulations by KP to try and force Chuck to confirm his plans for the Monarchy. The Cambridges WANT the Sussex’s and their children cut out completely even thou am not sure Chuck and TQ want that but as always they won’t stand up to Cain or slap him down.

      William is unfit to be King and the family have been covering that up for years, Harry leaving has blown the lid off that and its only a matter of time before the press drop what they have on Cain and Unable. They are itching to do it.

      • Cecilia says:

        @digital unicorn i wish they would do it already. William deserves it. At this rate i think of him as worse than satan. Even satan would have the decency to leave a woman who gave birth 2 weeks ago alone.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        I agree @DigitalUnderground. This is the RRs or more likely @KP stirring up trouble today of all days. Even if the plan is to change the LPs, why would Charles announce it now with tensions so high between Harry & the Firm? Charles wouldn’t. But if you’re a narcissist, who can’t stop briefing against your brother and his family, you send your lackeys out to the tabs to stir up shit because you’re a miserable prick. Archie & Lili don’t need titles or Sovereign funds. They have two working parents to care and love them.

      • Isabella Saxon says:

        I would not give Charles credit for being the kinder one. Look how he treated Harry’s mom.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @DigitalUnicorn, I agree. RR’s are stirring up the pot again. The DM is one of William’s go to papers. There seems to be a pattern (along with clickbait) for the DM to put out a negative Charles/H & M story soon after Will & Kate have done something to distract from whatever. Maybe Kate’s new video and project isn’t going over as well they would like to believe. Someone mentioned on a different thread (apologies I don’t remember who) about Princess Anne’s decades long involvement with Save Our Children-looking at their site-they’ve/Anne have pretty much been doing what Kate is somehow trying to be some grand innovator of..there have to be people in the monarchy unhappy with that f@ckery.

        Meghan had already brought this all up. So why write this “confirmation” story now. Nothing really can be confirmed(well Charles himself could come right out and say it) until Charles is actually King and does it. He can change his mind any number of times until that happens.

        BP also never put out a statement comfirming that aides were to correct any untrue stories. That was said by RR’s. Curious if the BM’s are testing those waters with sly Willie’s/KP/Kate’s help. Kate Mansey seems to be inclined to write W & K favorable stories.

      • Demi says:

        I’m with you on this one I feel whoever put this piece wants people to turn on Charles

      • I also think ………”the source close to the Sussexes”…….that all these articles keep quoting is 🐀Rota-speak for……someone inside KP or CH. There’s no way that anyone truly connected to the Sussexes is “speaking” to these 🐀🐀🐀!

      • TabithaD says:

        I have to agree. I think William will not be a good king, and I think the powers that be are very aware of this.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Isabella Saxon, Diana probably got over the divorce, maybe not all of Charles’s treatment. Diana seemed to be a much happier person out of the marriage than within it. It’s a hard sell to think she would be okay with her son, William, calling her ‘paranoid’ in a internationally shared video. That pain would be worse than most things because it isn’t true. As Harry said, Diana was unquestionably truthful/honest?, and even Diana didn’t deride Charles in the Bashir interview regarding his feeling towards Camilla. Sh#t, with how Diana acknowledged Charles’s feelings in that interview..he should of been the one having a sculpture done in her honor. Nope, the “loving” son William, who called her paranoid is the bad guy. I hope the statue comes to life and tells him what a shameful person he’s become.

    • Cecilia says:

      On the contrary it was always reported that harry and his family would be very much part of the “slimmed down” monarchy. Only the other hanger-ons future was insecure. The wessexes, prince andrew, princess anne.

      • SurelyNot says:

        Princess Anne’s future has never been “insecure” in any scenario and I’m not sure it’s fair, with her work record, to refer to her as a hanger on. The others will most likely just become more quiet but I doubt will suffer any type of lifestyle change.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne’s future is not secure if Charles decides to eliminate all his siblings as working royals. That was his original plan, to have the only working royals in his reign be Charles and spouse, William and spouse, Harry and spouse. Her kids living rent free on her massive estate, fixed up with Crown Estate funds, and secured by taxpayers? Her adult kids living rent free in her taxpayer-funded townhouse in St James Palace whenever they want? Yes, the Anne branch with the milk-peddling son can be perceived as hangers on.

        That’s why Charles forced Lord Geidt out years ago, because Geidt was openly fighting Charles about getting rid of Edward and Sophie in addition to Anne and Andrew.

        Without Soverign Grant funding to pay for their staff at their Crown Estate Properties? Edward, Sophie, Andrew cannot afford to stay in those properties. Yes, they pre-paid the lease. They don’t have the funds to also pay the staff without SG funding.

    • Alexandria says:

      Chuck has mentioned slimmed down monarchy years ago but nobody can prove then that he wanted Harry’s family not be working royals. Why did Harry leave the military? It was to support these jokers! Anyone saw how excited Harry was at the engagement interview? It was clear as day Harry knew Meghan had to work and could hit the ground running, and he was excited about that.

      Anyway please just do it and keep their names out of your mouths!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry also had to leave the military then because TOB didn’t want Harry to have a higher earned-rank.

      • betsyh says:

        OMG nota, I had never heard that before. But it makes perfect sense.

      • Nedsdag says:

        @notasugarhere I believe Harry’s rank is captain whereas TOB is only a lieutenant, which means TOB has to salute Harry.

      • MerryGirl says:

        Harry’s military rank is actually MAJOR so he’s already higher in earned rank than William. Only honorary titles will make William higher and they’ve now stripped Harry of those.

    • Haylie says:

      Becks, yep. Not confirmed. But Meghan told us about this during the Oprah interview and she was called a liar/gaslighted as having misunderstood.

    • Nic919 says:

      The only way this removal of HRH works is if Charles removes the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie as well as the Wessex kids, who technically have the HRH but just don’t use it. They are also grandchildren of the monarch but not in the direct line. He cannot just target Archie and Lili because that is simply racist. There is zero reason to provide an exclusion for the york girls because they were never working royals.

      And really the letters patent should have been amended to apply only to the first Cambridge child and not all three.

      • Lizzie says:

        I’m certainly not an expert but I thought Charlotte and Louis titles were gifts from the queen and the patent applied to George.

      • Nic919 says:

        The letters patent included all of William’s children because at the time they didn’t know if the first would be make or female and it would have been awkward for the first child to be female and higher in line to the succession but not have an HRH compared to her younger brother.

        So Charlotte and Louis only lose their HRH if another letters patent is issued to remove them specifically.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        I think Charles will remove the titles from Andrew’s kids. “Technically” Edward’s kids do not have the HRH title. The Queen issued a written statement when Edward got married that his kids would not be styled “HRH.” THAT is sufficient to be a letter patent (because there is no legally required format for a letter patent). Despite Sophie’s desperate wishes and some members of the public misunderstanding, Edward’s kids do NOT have the HRH title. It would take a future proclamation from the monarch to grant them that title. Maybe the Queen intended to do so one day, but I’m pretty sure Charles will not.

    • Over it says:

      Absolutely correct Becks,let’s say it louder for the ones in the back. Harry children blood is a bit too dark for the British monarchy

    • notasugarhere says:

      It also comes from the Fail, which tends to be the W&K&Carole go-to tabloid, not one always associated with Charles.

      • SurelyNot says:

        it also quotes Sources close to the couple (Sussex) which we KNOW are non existent.

        I was wondering when I initially saw this if it would be covered here where we know for a fact the Fail has zero connectivity to the Sussex household.

      • Nic919 says:

        I don’t see Charles being so stupid as to give this info to the DM. I strongly suspect this was leaked by William or even the Middletons to make Charles look racist and as a counter to the clearly racist behaviour the KP staff was doing and revealed in the Lacey excerpt. That will be discussed more tomorrow, but I do believe this article may be a shot fired by KP to distract from their own mess.

    • Pix says:

      These people are so short-sighted. If this goes down it will hurt KP and William’s kids more than anyone. The next generation of children around the world will grow up knowing, seeing and talking about the divergent paths of the cousins – all due to racism. The narrative will be talked about over and over and will make the Royals look (more) absurd to the next generation. If the monarchy survives past a William reign I would shocked.

    • UnionSnack says:

      The more important is how it would affect the commonwealth. To make the changes shouldn’t Chuck get the support of the parliaments from commonwealth? And how these parlaments with POC as citizens would approve it? Chuck is digging himself.

      • Nic919 says:

        Because this doesn’t affect the succession the other commonwealth countries wouldn’t need to weigh in. This is simply about the silly titles that family gives to each other. But it will look racist if Harry’s kids are excluded and they don’t also remove the HRH from the York girls, Wessex kids and all the other white grandchildren of a monarch not in the direct line.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @UnionSnack, This hasn’t been confirmed by being said by Charles yet. A statement from Clarence House would confirm it. When it is indisputably known to come from him, I’ll be all set to unleash the wildfire on him. Until then, it’s the courtiers, rotas or KP putting this slag out. When Meghan said ‘they’ in the interview when talking about titles-I took it to mean courtiers/grey men. I don’t doubt the ‘they’ are running things. Believe Diana, Harry & Meghan when each spoke about it.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Becks 1, I agree! Had this been an issue to take, it would have happened when Her Keenness was pregnant. Considering this is coming from the Daily Fail, I wouldn’t put much stock into this article, but I agree with others that TOB is feeding them these ludicrous stories to not only take aim at Charles, but more importantly, to hurt Harry and Meghan.

      We are all fully aware that Harry and Meghan are financially independent, so the sources for this article are bullocks. As for their claim that Harry and Meghan responded to this article shows that they have absolutely no access to then, of all people, or they have dropped acid to come up with this BS.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @BothSidesNow, I agree. TOB’s love letter friend, Dan Wootton, is still with the Daily Mail. DW has a fairly long history of articles of embiggening Will and being slanderous towards Charles (and H & M). It’s not a stretch that DW was a silent partner in this story. One thing he has demonstrably shown is that he thinks that, who I consider a British version of Spencer Pratt & Heidi Montag, Will & Kate are the best thing ever. Especially Will.

        The relationship between Will, Knaupf, Wootton and the Daily Mail should not be forgotten.

    • letitbe says:

      Exactly, this is coming from the Daily Mail on Sunday and now this is true but all the other crap about Meghan and Harry aren’t. If you are a pack of lies you usually always are a pack of lies. Come on, I think this is just bait to their idiotic readers who like to comment on removing Harry and Meghan’s titles now. Look at the comment section it stirs them all up.

      Second, I know there has been talks from Charles about slimming the monarchy and titles and yes the Sussexes probably were/are part of the discussion, but who knows what it will look like when and if Charles ever becomes King. Keep in mind Charles is 72, and while he has good genes apparently, he did have a grandfather who died a bit young, just saying it could all fall to William as King. I can’t see how Harry, especially thought his kids were automatically going to be princes and princesses. He knows how it works. Plus, aside from everything it does appear Harry hasn’t really liked being a Prince, I find it hard to believe he wants his children messed in this crap. In fact it seemed they just wanted security, which could have easily been done with money from his family, which is the real problem. People on this site seem to scream at the monarchy but want Harry and Meghan to be a part of it with titles, it honestly doesn’t make sense to me. I’m glad they are gone good for them. I hope they put out good products and interesting things and lead happy lives not connected with the weird life of British Royalty.

  6. Woke says:

    What’s the point of slimming down the monarchy if the money going to them stay the same no matters how many royals are on the payroll. It’s not the titles the issue it’s the cost of the monarchy.

    • Haylie says:

      Right. And let’s not forget the taxpayer funded yacht they are gifting themselves… to honor Phillip.

      • BritDebbie says:

        @Haylie for once it wasn’t the Royals that wanted the yacht. Our current prime minister likes to spend money on shiny things that aren’t needed. He unfortunately has form. As mayor of london he brought water cannons that were illegal to use on protesters and spent a load of money on commisioning a garden bridge that would be shut off for private parties. He was also spending money on seeing if they can build a bridge between scotland and ireland.

        QE2 said she was not interested in it

    • equality says:

      Exactly. Where’s their travel expert they were going to hire to cut back on expenses? How much does it cost to fly Will around by helicopter? How much does it cost to maintain castles that nobody lives in for a good deal of the time? The Queen must be cutting back; she is looking for volunteers to weed at Sandringham.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      This what I have always said. The UK taxpayer will not be spending “less” money. The UK taxpayer will spend the same amount of money on a “less” number of people.

      • Cecilia says:

        Who will be doing “less” work if the Cambridges are anything to go by. So how is that argument of funding them for their duty going to stand if that duty becomes significantly less?

        Charles might not realize it but he might have kickstarted the end of the monarchy

      • Jais says:

        @baytampabay- I remember you bringing this up and I was floored. Figured this whole plan meant the royals would cost less for taxpayers but that’s not necessarily the case?

      • notasugarhere says:

        There’s never any talk of decreasing the estimated 600 million a year they cost. Interesting, no?

      • The Hench says:

        Yeah, they never give the money back. Less royals just means more money for those that are left. With Harry and Meghan gone that £600 mill is getting divided pretty much between Charles and William….

      • Lorelei says:

        Why does Parliament allow this?! If fewer and fewer people are titled, why on earth would the BRF still be receiving the same amount of money each year? It makes absolutely no sense and I hope that this is something that will be addressed soon. Absolutely ridiculous.

        @Haylie, I lol’d at your comment about the yacht. You can’t make it up, you truly can’t. The audacity of this family!!

  7. Kaiser says:

    Hey, I love you guys but this is one of those weekends where there are a million new royal stories. I have seen all of the stories and we’ll have the bulk of the coverage during the week.

    Please don’t threadjack and thank you, I hope everyone is having a nice weekend.

    • Nomegusta says:

      Sending ❤️❤️❤️❤️s for all the work you do!

    • Gail says:

      Where’s a ‘like’ button?
      Thanks Kaiser both for this comment and the work/research you do
      And to whomever reads this on the monarchy’s behalf
      Charles: you do this and we SEE your racist ass once and for all and oh, so very very clearly.
      This will not end well for you because now, you see, we will ALL WANT OUT OF THE COMMONWEALTH. It’s gonna die because you are a foolish, arse-hole & ignoramus. You will never earn or inherit your mum’s good will if you cut off generations of people and ALL people of colour.
      Big mistake. Huge.

    • SwirlmamaD says:

      Thanks as always for providing smart commentary and a haven for us Sussex fans! Keep doing what you do.

    • MerryGirl says:

      Kaiser, I don’t comment a lot but this is where I get my daily fix in a likeminded community here on Celebitchy. If I’ve never said it to you before, I’m saying it now…thank you for all that you do, for entertaining us with you witty commentary, for researching and posting spot-on humorous pictures and bringing all the fu*kshit here so we don’t have to give the Daily Fail and other garbage media our clicks.
      And I second all those who are asking for a ‘like’ button.

  8. Zaya says:

    So Louis’ kids won’t get to be prince/ss either right? Or will William change it back once he is king so that it only really effects the melanated branch of the family? But no, they are absolutely very much not a racist family…just don’t ever ask them to make the progeny of a mixed in-law prince/ss…or make them take a knee or support BLM. 🙄

    • FancyPants says:

      I think as it is set now, if Louis’s kids are born while William is king, they would be HRH.

      • Becks1 says:

        That’s how it is now (that Louis’ children would be HRH if William is king) – but that’s what is being discussed. Is the palace “only” going to change the rules for Harry? Or is it going to change the rules for everyone besides the children of the direct heir?

      • notasugarhere says:

        William could simply issue new letters patent to change it to whatever he wants.

    • Legalese says:

      Louis himself wasn’t even entitled to be a prince! They changed the law for Louis and Charlotte. Originally, the only one who was automatically entitled to it was George.

    • JaneBee87 says:

      I haven’t looked at the procedure, but don’t the letters patent require parliamentary approval? Sure, if BoJo and ridiculous crew are still manning the ship, the changes will pass in a second. But it’s not impossible that changes might coincide with a Labor govt that might actually pull them up on this, considering the enormous damage it would do to relationship with the Commonwealth countries.

      • JaneBee87 says:

        Please ignore. Am confusing Letters Patent and the acts governing the line of succession!

  9. KA says:

    Wonder what the Cambridge’s think of that. Doesn’t impact their children right now…. But it would apply to their grandchildren.

    • The Duchess says:

      They’ll change it back in time for when the Cambridge kids start having their own families. This is how racist and disgusting they are. They have no shame.

      • Ginger says:

        Unless Louis marries a women of color. Then it will stay. I will bet everything on that.

        Very much not a racist family.

    • India says:

      At this point in time, I feel sure Willy Jelly Boy and Kween Mean Kate are suffused with joy about this.

    • Zaya says:

      It will only impact Louis’ kids, and when that time comes, William will probably change it so it doesn’t.

  10. Lauren says:

    I politely disagree, Meghan didn’t explain it in a confusing way, she cited George V or VI as the origin of the patent, but she was very clear explaining the content and that there talks for it to be changed so that her children would not be HRH’s. That amount was very clear from the interview and royal historians were screaming that it couldn’t be, that when Chuck ascended Archie would be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, and would you look at that Meghan had been telling the truth. What I can’t recall is that if all the screaming was only from the royal roaches, commentators, or historians about the title. I can’t remember if CH commented at all on the matter because they knew that they would have to come out sooner or later to confirm that Archie and his sister will not be getting the HRH’s.

  11. Harla says:

    Charlie’s argument holds no water as Eugenie and Bea are titled royals who receive no public funding or protection. Let’s just call this what it is racist and petty.

    • Nic919 says:

      Exactly this. The HRH has to be removed from them as well if this is even going to try to be an attempt to slim things down.

    • notasugarhere says:

      And from HRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, who technically aren’t/weren’t official working royals.

      • HeatherC says:

        Yes HRH Princess Michael of Kent who makes sure she has her HRH on her crappy novels.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I believe their publicly funded RPOs were taken away, and when Pedo raised hell, it was decided that he (through Mummy Dearest Enabler) would fit the bill “privately” (and where do you think HER ££££s come from, and why there is never sufficient monies allotted to upkeep the castles (BP/Highgrove etc) that required ADDITIONAL £££££££s from taxpayers)????

      • notasugarhere says:

        Or Andrew’s spending money came from his connections to foreign potentates? Remember the sale of Sunninghill Park to the shady foreign oligarch?

  12. CidyKitty(CidySmiley) says:

    Well.. I’m not trying to be that person because I think H&M are better than the monarchy.. it honestly I feel like it would be better for their kids to have no ties to the royal family. I don’t know why they would be upset that their kids don’t get titles, they can afford their own security so that can’t be it.. im not being a troll I swear I just don’t know why this is a big deal. I don’t know enough I guess.

    The principal of Charles doing it is the s*itty thing I get that.

    • Bettyrose says:

      ITA. The Sussexes are now American aristocracy. We don’t care about HRHs. Those kids will always be royalty in our eyes. But the sheer unabashed racism is mind boggling. You keep thinking this can’t be real but it is and then the RF doubles down on it.

    • equality says:

      It’s probably not a big deal to H&M NOW but their original plan was to stay in the UK and be working royals so protection (with all the death threats toward them) was a big deal. That was why they wanted a half-in deal where they could earn their own money, still represent the Queen and pay their own way. When that was refused they went their own way.

    • Nivz says:

      If no titles mean less intrusion from the press and the royals , then it’s better. But that’s not what’s happening, is it? They have no title, but all the intrusion, by virtue of their parents being international figures. Imagine if they’d stayed in the UK.

      Can I explain why I think the title matters? Because it hurts to be treated differently by your own family, even if they’re non royal. It’s not easy to get over that knowledge. It’s taken me a while to have the language to describe why the titles thing is an issue. It’s the perfect example of shifting goalposts. You change a rule to benefit one son’s children. Then you don’t change it for the other son (who happened to marry a half black woman.) THEN, you do make a change to the rules, but in the opposite direction, and to the detriment of the other son’s children. Primogeniture is a weak explanation for this, but to anyone who has observed, experienced, or simply educated themselves about racism, it is clear what’s happening. Nothing that hasn’t been said by others before, I’m sure, but it’s my two cents.

      • equality says:

        Excellent explanation.

      • Emile says:

        Thank you.

        As someone who is in favour of abolishing the monarchy, I would be happy if all of them were being stripped of their titles. But that isn’t what’s happening here.

        The decision to prevent Archie and Lili from becoming a prince and princess isn’t being made on republican grounds (or even cost-saving grounds, as BayTampaBay points out above). It’s being made on racist grounds.

      • Bettyrose says:

        NIVZ – those are excellent points. But instead of titles, the Sussexes will have a place in history for enacting the events that eventually lead to the fall of the House of Windsor.

      • swirlmamad says:

        This breaks it down perfectly.

      • PrincessK says:

        Yes, and Archie and Lili will be scrutinised just as much as the Cambridge kids, and probably even more.

    • erni says:

      I don’t think they are upset now. They were upset AT THAT TIME because no title = no security. At that time the Sussexes can’t afford their own security. They received so much hate that the need for security is paramount.

      • Tessa says:

        The bots are downright scary threatening to “boo” Meghan when or if she returns to the UK and some go on about “throwing things”. They sure need security under those conditions since the royals did nothing to stop the scary comments on media and social media.

      • sunny says:

        Even though the are clearly happy in America they get to be upset about this. If you are Harry, you see this change as a direct slap in the face and an attempt to make you children less protected, less respected, than every other children directly descended from a male British monarch. You can be done with the day to day of the Firm and still be pissed at that.

        And what has clearly motivated the change is the fact that Harry married a mixed race(specifically black) American. This is just another way that goal posts are moved when people of colour enter white spaces and more than that a clear sign to Harry and Meghan that the mere presence of blackness in their kids’ genes makes them lesser.

        It will be interesting to see if Charles actually does make this change because the Royals are struggling a lot in the Commonwealth nations already(mostly countries with brown and black populations). It is a pretty ugly look for a very much not racist family. I wonder who and why this story was leaked now?

    • Aud says:

      I think H and M worry about the safety of their children. They thought the RF would protect them but the title thing was confirmation that they are on their own.

      On a personal level, it has to be difficult for Harry to see his only parent openly favoring his brother and other grandchildren.

      • Haylie says:

        The irony is, now, the RPOs now (nor then) can’t be trusted to protect Meghan, Archie and Lilibet.

        How did that whacko who wanted to stab Meghan in the stomach to prove she wasn’t really pregnant with Archie get within striking distance of Meghan?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Aud & Haylie, I agree that H and his family need to be wary when in the UK. I hope that H always has his security with him, and that he’s not relying on the RPOs. I would not trust them. Meghan made it quite clear that without an HRH Archie would have NO security. I can’t imagine how that must have felt for her and Harry. How could they ever have left their child to do royal duties? Of course they wanted to earn money to pay for security themselves. Yes, Harry must have a really difficult time reconciling TQ and his father making sure all of W’s children have security while leaving his children totally unprotected.

        I realize that the DM is simply rewriting the info that H&M stated in their interview with Oprah. Isn’t it interesting that they don’t mention security once. Keen & Penn must be getting desperate to put this out there against Chuck, especially since I think Baldimort was hugely enthusiastic about it when the decision was being made at the time that Meghan was pregnant with Archie. Well, the ball is in PC’s court.

    • CidyKitty(CidySmiley) says:

      Thank you everyone who took the time to educate me! I dont follow this regularly and really used to only read the royals for fashion so I was behind.

  13. lanne says:

    I think this was decided a long time ago, when Meghan was pregnant. Writing this story now is part of the “ punishment” phase. The royals are scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for leverage over the Sussexes. They took away their patronage’s, Harry’s military honors, and their security. What’s left for them to take now?

    I also have a sick feeling that they have communicated privately to Harry that if he divorces Meghan and comes back, the kids of his next wife will be HRH.

    The royals have clearly decided to blame all of their problems on Meghan, not realizing that their own behavior toward Harry caused him to walk away, not Meghan. “Meghan made him do it” exonerates them from 36 years of treating Harry Iike shit. I predict all of their anti Sussex briefings will be explicitly geared towards Meghan in the future. Harry will always have an “out” with them, and they still fully expect him to return in a matter of time.

    • Tessa says:

      The RF would have Archie and Lili relegated to the status of PRince Albert’s children that he rarely sees. This is all so sickening.

    • betsyh says:

      “I also have a sick feeling that they have communicated privately to Harry that if he divorces Meghan and comes back, the kids of his next wife will be HRH.” I don’t know if Charles would say this to Harry, but I agree that if Harry were to remarry and have more children, this would certainly be the case.

  14. Lizzie says:

    Charles pettiness has never been so well displayed.

    • Tessa says:

      Diana was right about him. The whole time.

      • Liz version 700 says:

        Diana was 💯 right. If anything she was too polite

      • Lorelei says:

        Diana was right about Charles, and then Meghan was right about him. People need to pay more damn attention to the women in that family when they actually speak out!

        I’m annoyed that Charles got all of that glowing press for walking Meghan down the aisle, but at least now everyone knows it was BS. Quite honestly, what Charles deserves at this point is to be outlived by his mother.

        @Lanne it boggles my mind that any of them think that there’s a possibility that Harry will return, ever. Even if H&M were to divorce (won’t happen), Harry’s home is with his family. And now his work is there as well. Do they seriously think he’d ever come back to the UK to be their whipping boy, and see his kids a couple of times a year? I’d like to know what they’re smoking and if they’d share some with me, because it must be fun to be that detached from reality.

        They don’t know Harry at all. They never did. They always viewed him as a “spare,” then a “party boy,” and then the third member of some “trio,” never as an actual person.

        They’ve been underestimating Harry for his ENTIRE LIFE and they continue to do so even after he’s more than proven since he left that he doesn’t need them in order to be hugely successful, not to mention far more relevant than anyone else in that atrophying family.
        He will never go back, but it’s cute that any of them still harbor the belief that he might.

        I hope that neither Archie nor Lilibet ever set foot in the UK, at least until they’re adults and it’s their own choice. And I hope that Harry only goes back for the Queen’s funeral. He’s been treated like absolute garbage by every single one of them: family (except Eugenie, maybe), staff, the members of the media that the rest of his family is so cozy with— and frankly, none of them deserve to see him ever again.

    • Natalie C Tyler says:

      Absolutely! I now believe that the BRF is doomed to be voted off the island. “Divine Right of Kings” is not a compelling argument to keep Charles in Charge. He’s such a narcissist that he refuses to allow charismatic, appealing, popular people in his “royal” family. If they had behaved decently about Meghan, it would have made the BRF relevant again. QEII has a narrative that the people loved: the plucky young girl who decided to dedicate her life to Britain at age 6 or 7 in her pearls. The next star was Diana. And again, Meghan becomes a star and Harry understands his role more clearly. Charles is committing his own regicide!

  15. Edna says:

    “Charles has told the Sussexes that he will change key legal documents to ensure that Archie cannot get the title he would once have inherited by right, according to a source close to the couple.”

    First, we all know NO ONE from the Sussex camp is talking to the Daily Fail. So this is a big lie about “sources close to the couple.”

    Second, Meghan said this 3 months ago and got roasted for saying it. This isn’t new news. It’s rehashed news with a Daily Mail twist designed as click bait. The tabloids are having to rehash and remanufacture Sussex news to stay afloat.

    • India says:

      If the tabloids really want to stay afloat and make hay they should tell all the REAL TRUTH about Willy Boy and Kween Mean.

    • Amy Too says:

      Maybe Meghan saying it months ago makes her the “source close to the couple.” It’s not a new source, it’s not a new quote, it’s not a new conversation with the daily mail. They do this a lot. They take things that people have said before in the past to other people, and then quote is as one of their “sources” to make it seem like it’s a new quote/statement that was given directly to the daily mail yesterday and that’s why they decided to write the article.

      • Jais says:

        Was thinking the same @amytoo. The Oprah interview is the source. Meghan’s words in that interview is the sussex source from la. Why it needs to be reiterated as an exclusive in this moment idk? Distraction? Sure, but distraction from what; there’s so many choices. Possibly for something we don’t even know about…hopefully yet anyways.

      • betsyh says:

        Jais, as I wrote above, it’s a distraction from the Channel 4 News report on why Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking operation is not being investigated in England, and its implication that it’s because of Prince Andrew. We all know that the British monarchy likes to use Sussex stories to divert attention away from the Prince Andrew scandal.

      • Jais says:

        @betsyh- yeah it always distracts from Andrew that’s for sure but just get the feeling there’s even more going on under the surface.

  16. FancyPants says:

    I don’t know what the Grey Men are telling you, Charles, but this is not good optics. Whatever the reason. Not good at all. When are you going to figure out that H&M don’t need you for “PR survival” but you DO need them??

    • BritDebbie says:

      Why aren’t the newly hired crisis managers pointing out that this step, at this very moment in time, is yet again proving both Megan and Harry correct. Have they left already?

      Or did this happen before the crisis managers

  17. Eurydice says:

    I just have to keep reminding myself that this is one of the reasons why H&M removed themselves from that snake pit. Charles can slim down the monarchy all he wants, but it will still be an irrelevant, useless institution on the decline.

  18. Amy Bee says:

    First of all why is the Mail on Sunday pretending that they have a source within the Sussexes camp? They don’t and they still have to pay Meghan for publishing her letter and to print the front page apology. Secondly, this piece just seems like a retelling of Oprah interview. Meghan told us already that Charles didn’t want Archie a title she was very clear on this. So all the Mail on Sunday is doing is confirming what she said was the truth and the royal rota owes her apology for calling her a liar and saying she didn’t understand the rules. I think at one point the title for Archie was important to them but I think now that they are established in the US it doesn’t matter anymore.

    • lanne says:

      Many of us said at the time that a title would be a hindrance to Archie, not a benefit. The awkward state of the York women shows that an HRH hinders what you can do with your life, yet still tethers you to the royal family. While it would have been symbolic to have a nonwhite prince in the royal family, there’s no place for Archie in this family, and his life is more important than any symbol. That’s what the royals fail to realize about Harry. His life is more important than some perceived “duty” to prop up toxic narcissists and be their whipping boy.

      I think the Sussexes have made their peace with the loss of HRH all around.

      • Sid says:

        I think the awkward state of the York girls has more to do with who their parents are and the fact that they were initially raised with the impression that they would be working royals. In the end Eugenie seems to have figured out work, and Beatrice found a rich kid job so they seem okay.

    • MadMangoMal says:

      I think they wanted Archie to have a title because the title comes with protection and he was born at the height of the racist smear campaign, at the height of the easiest death treats they were receiving as individuals and then as a family. They wanted him to be titled while they still thought they could be working royals. Once they realized they would only escape with their lives, and not much else, the titles were unimportant.

    • Becks1 says:

      @AmyBee – that’s what I think – that the title was important once but no longer is. I think when they were going to be working royals for the rest of their lives, they wanted Archie to be HRH, have protection etc. now I think they’re pretty much over it, except that it’s just one more example of the pettiness and racism of this family.

      • Totally agree, BECKS1, AMYBEE, AMYTOO, and LANNE (#13 above). Meghan said (in the Oprah interview) this was all discussed around the time of Archie’s birth and Harry said in Jan 2019 (in the his speech at Sennibal fundraiser the night before he left England) that he was prepared to give up everything. For the Sussexes this is old news and they have moved on with their lives.

        Also, when the 🐀Rota quote, “sources close to he Sussexes” we ALL know that is 🐀Rota-code for someone in KP, CH, or BP speaking on behalf of William, Charles, or Kate. Or, as AMYTOO says, they are “quoting” Meghan or Harry’s own public words and calling them sources! There is no way anyone truly close to the Sussexes is speaking anonymously to these gutter snipes. We all know that when the Sussexes have something to say, they put their name on it. All this NOISE is just the 🐀🐀🐀rats and Royals chewing their own tails.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Mail on Sunday ‘sources’ are 99 percent Carole and her hired PR hacks.

      • Nic919 says:

        Valentine Low put out an article in the Times today which clearly comes from Charles and basically it says that no one is going to bother removing the HRH from Archie and Lili once Charles is king.

        Carole or William better watch it because I’m sure Charles is not happy about this kind of article.

  19. Consey says:

    I read last year “Royal fiobles” that the Sussex walked into a trap. It was reported that the Sussex didn’t want Archie to have a title. The article stated if archie not giving a title at birth when Charles becomes king Archie cannot become a prince because he didn’t have a title at birth. They said the Sussex walked into their trap. It was obvious from when they went to Canada Charles, queen , William and George photo op was sending a message. The coldness at the christening from W/K. The polo match never witness 1st cousins and aunt not happy to see a baby. It was weird very cold. I think the Sussex are better off leaving that dysfunctional family. They can make their own life and not be a slave to the BS. It’s only a matter of time before that family collapses. They showed the world how conceited, out of touch, lazy, useless, selfish, xenophobic, petty, uneducated, not held accountable, entitled and greedy they are. Their not royals. It’s by default. Won a war and went into the fairytale crap mode they can’t shake. William is going to regret what he has done to his brother. His children will have a hard time finding spouses. No parent rich or poor will want their children involved with that dysfunctional family. Hopefully British parents will raise their daughter to be independent. Being amongst the so call elite isn’t something anyone should strive for. All they do is put down the working class to make themselves feel important. Their generational parasites. I wish the Sussex and their young family the best. The Sussex has given the younger generation a template to follow. The royal children have everything possible at their fingertips cease the opportunity to carve out a career. Hopefully Edward is telling his kids want to do. If that’s even possible for him to comprehend!

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Eh, that Royal Foibles site is questionable, so I’d take whatever they claim with a grain of salt. But yes, I agree that the Sussexes are ultimately better off without the close ties to the RF. The kids especially so, because it’s quite clear now that they would eventually have become scapegoats for their cousins.

      • Sofia says:

        Same. I liked their Rose/William write up but everything other than that has been… not good and the author pretty much buys into tinhat conspiracies about Meghan.

        Makes me doubt that Rose write up tbh

    • Amy Bee says:

      Meghan said in the Oprah interview that the narrative that they didn’t want a title for Archie wasn’t true. It was the Palace that put out the story that they didn’t want a title. Plus the Palace told them that Charles was going to change the rules to make it that Archie didn’t become a Prince when he became King.

    • lanne says:

      That story wasn’t true. Right now, Archie becomes a prince only when Charles becomes King. He has no prince title at the moment because he is a great grandchild, not a grandchild. Unless they change the rules via a Letters Patent, Archie and Lili immediately become Prince and Princess when Charles becomes king. Charles cannot issue a letters patent until he becomes king. Right now, the story is just speculation. It might even be a feeler to get public opinion. But there was no title at birth to be given to Archie unless the Queen granted a letters patent to make him a prince at that moment. That would have been a bad move, practically, as it would have set a precedent that would expand the royal family when they are trying to shrink it. Charles will be setting another precedent by issuing a new letters patent that on its surface, isn’t a bad idea: to limit HRH titles to the grandchildren of the main line—georges children would be HRH under the new system but not Louis’s children. It’s just that this is all happening due to spite and anger and racism that’s so bad. The trap that the Sussexes walked into was getting married and thinking they could be working royals at all. It’s clear that they never intended Meghan to have any role in the royal family, and that she was supposed to be a 3 year “degree wife” that they could chase out of the royal family so that Harry could marry someone more “suitable.”

    • Calibration says:

      Royal Foibles is not a reliable source

    • Nivz says:

      Guys, can anyone explain what happened at the polo match when Archie was a tiny baby? I saw pictures of everyone looking grim, and no interaction between M and K- or the kids, as mentioned above. Were there any other pictures at all of them talking? Do we know for sure that it was as bad as it looked in the pictures?

      Because it looked BAD. Meghan brings out the over empathetic side of me where I can too keenly (not THAT kind of keen) feel what she might have experienced, and I often get emotional.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Nivz, I don’t have an explanation but agree it looked bad. I’m guessing that Kate just wasn’t nice to Meghan outside of being superficial. The active smear campaign started the fall before the polo match photos with the crying story. It was a few days after the polo match that Meghan & Kate had gone to Wimbledon again IIRC. Oprah brought up Wimbledon and them appearing friendly. Meghan said something like it wasn’t what it appeared to be. I always thought Wimbledon was an attempt to cover up Kate’s ignoring of Meghan at the polo match. Other aristos were there so I’m guessing gossip was making the rounds. Speculating again, Kate probably wanted a do over after her putting her foot wrong at the Commonwealth Service and Meghan probably said peace out.

      • Jaded says:

        Nivz, I think it was a combination of factors. It’s well known that the successes Harry and Meghan had prior to Archie’s birth riled the Cambridges big time. I think Mean and Keen deeply resented the “parvenu” Meghan coming in and showing them up in every way (which is not hard to do given the fact that they’re a couple of lazy tossers). They blamed Meghan for influencing Harry’s increasing desire to stand up to William and carve his own path. There was definitely some financial shell game going on with the Foundation monies from the Hub cookbook and Smart Works clothing initiatives that Harry and Meghan noticed, hence the decision to separate the two households to prevent William from dipping into their funds for his own purposes. I’m sure the Cambridges deeply resented the fact that Meghan and Harry chose to have a VERY private birth and no parading the newborn on the hospital steps. The writing was on the wall early on that William was trying to throw his weight around out of sheer jealousy and the Sussexes were having none of it. Couple that with their racism and you have a perfect storm of resentment.

      • NIVZ: I read several very brief articles —- that disappeared quickly — that right before that polo match ( but on the polo grounds) William got into a screaming match at Harry and Harry did not back down and thus they had a huge fight right before they went on to the field. It was said that both Kate and Meghan were aware of the fight and that Kate did everything she could to not acknowledge Meghan at the event. All the photos of William and Harry during and after the event (especially while on the podium) bare this out. William wouldn’t even look at Harry, even though Harry tried to reach out while on the podium. William was so angry he looked like he would self-combust in some of those photos. When Harry met Meghan and Archie back at their car, it was obvious he was still upset and some reporters tried to spin it that he was fighting with Meghan. Everything is always about hiding William’s behavior with the 🐀Rota to the point that eventually they all sing the same song about something and the one or two who dared to report it accurately, have their stories pulled or they pull them and rewrite them so their singing in harmony: against the Sussexes. As we all know, the 🐀media is much better at harmonizing now, but those were early days and sometimes the truth was reported, albeit briefly!

      • windyriver says:

        @Jaded – Meghan said in the Oprah interview that she and Harry were not asked to do the hospital presentation after Archie’s birth – wouldn’t be surprised if that was William throwing his weight around right there.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Royal Foibles is highly questionable and incredibly racist.

    • Talie says:

      I read that site too – some of their tea did end up being true about the title thing. they did say courtiers were determined to block archie from ever having a title when Charles made it to the throne. And that was a year before the Oprah interview.

    • Lucy says:

      I think Royal Foibles has ins with the monarchy/aristos. Which means, I think they were spot on with the Rose/Kate drama, and everything else is based on what aristos are saying, which means totally slanted to the point of being Daily Fail sources against the Sussexes. He’s also gone out of his way to air all the nastiest, least verified things about Meghan and her background.
      So, I think that site is a good source of deep state royal/aristo thinking/plotting. I don’t think anything it has to say about the Sussexes is in any way accurate, that’s all told through a lens of racism and hate.
      After the Sussexit and before they announced all the deals, for example, it outright said that Harry is basically mentally ill and he would be unable to cope with the lack of structure of being on his own. There was supposed to be a tell all about his mental issues that has never been written, because it became obvious that it wasn’t a real thing. Which, the level of projection that’s been involved with everything coming from aristos, makes me think that maybe Billy was the actual one with the supposedly inheritable mental issue.

  20. Joy says:

    So they can’t change it to where they do receive a title as a courtesy and just have no funding? Oh wait they can but they don’t want to.

  21. Over it says:

    So you mean when Meghan that very intelligent and smart woman said what she said people said she was confused and a liar because because well she is black so therefore she lies. Oh wait, hold the press she completely correct.
    These f——-ing racist assholes will never stop.

  22. Sofia says:

    First of all the Fail has no sources close to the Sussexes that are speaking.

    Next, they can be HRH’s and not be funded as working royals. Example: Beatrice and Eugenie. But I agree with others that they’ll ultimately be better off titleless but I do understand why the Sussexes are upset about this.

    PS: they should have done this back in 2013 when some of the laws changed (like women not being displaced when younger brothers are born and to give all of William’s kids an HRH title) if it was indeed always the plan.

    And I’m assuming William will change it back for Louis if the law actually changes because I can’t see him being happy with non HRH grandkids

    • Nic919 says:

      They didn’t do that in 2013 because it would have meant removing the HRH from Beatrice, Eugenie and the Wessex kids. When George V passed his letter patent in 1919 he did remove this from a few people so it could be done here. But they can’t just target Archie and Lili. It has to be for all of them.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Also the 2013 change was another example of QEII reacting instead of acting, and she reacted poorly. The UK govt was changing the succession laws, she had nothing to do with it.

        She issued new letters patent so that all the kids of W&K would get HRH and a title. That was in case the firstborn was a girl. If she and the courtiers had thought it through, they would have issued letters patent that made ONLY W&K’s first child an HRH and with a title. The rest would have no HRH or titles.

        Or she shouldn’t have issued any change to the letters patent, no titles or HRH for any William or Harry kids during her reign. Let Charles deal with it during his reign.

      • Nic919 says:

        I agree. It’s pretty dumb giving an HRH to a great grandchild of the monarch anyway. It should have been nothing until the grandparent is monarch.
        Frankly they should remove all HRHs unless you are the actual monarch. These titles are dumb anyway. Look at how incompetent people are propped up because of it. And the untitled grandchildren of the monarch have managed to do very well without them.

  23. Chelsea says:

    Lol at them trying to pretend a Sussex source told them this! Yes a source close to the couple who spent the lasr 2 years lovked in a lrgal battle and who sent a letter to your paprr last year telling you they’d no longer interact with you decided to tell you something Meghan already said on camera with her full chests months ago in front of tens of millioms of people.

    Meghan’s version of events, that they were told this when she wss pregnant, makes more sense because if they knew Archie wouldnt be a Prince and wouldn’t be afforded security befoee he was born it explains why why he didnt have a “royal name”(ie wasnt named after any previous monarch and didnt have Charles name as a middle name) and they wanted more privacy for him. Why should Meghan be forced to do the Lindo Wing crap with him if he wasn’t going to be an HRH? At this point i dont think H&M care as it seemed one of the big reasons they wanted the title for him was for security and they’ve now worked to secure funding to be able to protect their families but i think they wanted it on the record in that interview so that when the time comes and Charles makes the change he cant rewrite the history of when he decided to do it and why. The entire pont of that interview seemed to be largely to stop the others from getting away with rewriting history without pushback as the Firm and press had been trying to do for the last year.

  24. Aang says:

    The idea that a Royal title that entitles one to power, deference, tax money, and fame without any connection to one’s actual contribution to society is anyone’s birthright is sickening. I’m honestly surprised H&M would even want that for themselves let alone their children. I’m glad they are out safe and living peacefully but I’ll never be a fan. They only seem to dis the system because it was cruel to them personally not because the very idea of it is wrong.

    • Sid says:

      These issues arose while they were still working for the BRF and when they thought that would be their life work. I hope you are not falling for an article from the same tabloid that Meghan sued and won against and who still owe her a printed apology and money. You really think the Fail on Sunday has a Sussex source???

    • notasugarhere says:

      Do you feel the same way about all of W&K’s kids being handed HRH and prince/princess titles, when only one of those kids is a future monarch? Or do you only feel this way about Harry and Meghan’s children?

    • Lorelei says:

      @Aang, I agree with your *first* sentence.

      My feeling on why Harry and Meghan are upset about it isn’t because of “power” or “deference” (Harry is a blood prince and the British sure as sh!t don’t show him any “deference” — they trash him constantly), but because the security was tied to the title. It was the security that Meghan was clearly most concerned about, rightfully so, since they’re the most targeted members of the family.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Security is not tied to having HRH and a title. Beatrice and Eugenie have HRH and titles, and no taxpayer-funded security.

        If Harry was still a working royal, even if they wouldn’t have Meghan as one? The family would have received security when they were all together – because of Harry being a working royal. Meghan and Archie wouldn’t have received it when Harry was gone. We would have seen the entire Sussex Family moving as a group, with Harry never leaving his wife and kids behind.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nota I’m just going by what Meghan said to Oprah, right out of her own mouth— that it was about the security

      • notasugarhere says:

        That might have been what she was told by the shady courtiers, but it hasn’t been true for anyone else post-18. Pre-18, yes, they all got security defacto because they were living with a working royal parent who had security.

  25. Over it says:

    Harry and Meghan are so much better off without anything from that bunch of racist roaches Harry shares blood with. Make your own way in life. Mags has done it for years. There is nothing better than saying I earned that all by myself. I wish Harry and Meghan and their beautiful children nothing but happiness

  26. Gk says:

    If this happens it will appear badly historically, and be interpreted as racist even though IMO it is retaliatory towards Harry and not racist as I believe had Harry stayed his children would have received the titles. Charles suffers from what we all do but to a greater extent as he is surrounded by yes men, we can’t see our own needs/actions clearly or objectively though we can see others clearly ( it’s a poor decision for you to cheat but in my case it’s fine).

    • Sid says:

      GK it is racist. Meghan said in the Oprah interview that when she was pregnant with Archie, she and Harry were told that these changes to the existing Letters Patent were being considered. What good reason would there be for that?

  27. Bea says:

    This is absolutely disgusting. Harry is not a distant cousin he is the future’s king SON. To me this reads as yet another betrayal to Diana’s memory. Shame on them.

    Meghan really didn’t know what she was getting into. I always say this but thank GOD they left.

  28. Lila says:

    It’s funny that when Meghan said this herself three months ago, not one royal reporter, royal source, royal blogger or whatever came out to say that this move has been in the plans for years now. No, they pretended that “American Meghan doesn’t understand how these things work!”.

    This is why I don’t believe the plan was to ensure Harry’s kids didn’t become HRH. That only happened when they realized that the children’s mother is biracial. Even in 2018/2019, we had royal reporters wondering if the Queen would intervene and make Archie a prince from birth. When she didn’t, they still kept pointing out he would be a prince when Charles becomes King.

    • Eurydice says:

      I’m not sure why, before the wedding,the RF wouldn’t have realized Meghan was biracial and would have a biracial child. HRH could have withheld permission for the marriage, but she didn’t. I’ve always thought that was a weird lack of follow-through.

      • Lila says:

        Judging by some of the weird narratives I read before and right after the wedding regarding her age, I think they did not expect Meghan to conceive so quickly and were hoping for a divorce before any children were born. The tone became particularly unhinged when the pregnancy was announced.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        I think certain people within the institution had just enough intelligence to realize that if they told Harry he’s not allowed to marry the person he’s engaged to that he would absolutely walk away from the monarchy for them. (They’d call it impetuous and assume that he’d regret it in time, because to them there IS no love greater than love for God and heaven knows they do take that whole ‘appointed by God’ thing seriously.)

        So, as Queenie has said before as to how she deals with some of Philips’ requests that she didn’t want to give him, tell him yes and then as soon as he leaves the room turn to your staff and tell them to make sure he absolutely NEVER gets it. Failing that (hoo BOY did they fail that) get rid of her, through divorce or other means (they ALL knew about the panic attacks and the weeping).

        Though in this case I don’t think Queenie was the one doing this, I’m thinking more Charles and/or Will.

      • LynnInTX says:

        Wasn’t Harry so far down the line of succession (6th right? Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry) by that point* that he didn’t need permission? I thought it was only for the first 4 or 5 people in line, but I might be wrong.

        *I know Kate only had Louis just before his wedding, so he might not have been when he got engaged, but they would have known she was due before the wedding.

      • Sofia says:

        @Lynnintx The first 6 in line need permission from the monarch to marry

      • Margaret says:

        I believe her family was promised money to stop the wedding. Full stop. The fake heart attack was to postpone it, but it didn’t work. The brothers don’t marry her letter, she is terrible, didn’t work either. The sisters, I will write a tell all book on how pushy she is, and fake, didn’t work.
        Now help get them to divorce, she will dump him, he will dump her. Harry come back without her, and we can go back the way it was. Pathetic.

      • Emmitt says:

        They felt Meghan would be too old to concieve and they would be able to run her out within 3 years, which is why they called her Harry’s “Degree Wife.”

        When she got pregnant pretty much immediately after the wedding, they ramped up the attacks on her to make her miscarry.

        They always planned on Harry’s children getting the HRH, not Meghan’s children because there wasn’t supposed to be any children by Meghan. The successful birth of Archie (b/c IMO they wanted royal doctors to attend to Meghan to kill the baby but she used her own American doctors instead) disrupted the plan.

      • Eurydice says:

        Thanks everyone for your takes. So, it’s not weird follow-through but a combo of incredible stupidity and malice. Really, it’s like every extra brain cell has been bred out of that institution. At this point, slimming down the monarchy is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  29. Liz version 700 says:

    The monarchy is starting to implode. I thought it would be a slow gradual thing, but I underestimated the power of the Windsors’ racism and toxic family dynamics. Charles was never suited to be King. He will be the head of a fading alabaster albatross. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of racists

    • Nyro says:

      We really are seeing the end. I saw a royalist admit that things look shaky mow but that the public will come on board again when Charles is coronated. I think the exact opposite. I think all the pomp and circumstance, the stolen jewels sitting on Charles’ head and on the bodies various family members, is going to anger a lot of people. It’s 2021. No one believes a clown like Charles and the rest of that unimpressive ugly family are anointed by God to reign over anyone. I think Gen Z will be absolutely disgusted. And they’ll be on platforms much more legit than tiktok by then.

    • 2cents says:

      And Brexit Britain will implode with them. The G7 debacle was a wakeup call that Britain is politically and economically isolated in the western world. This is the endgame of the UK on so many levels. Nationalism is a divisive force and the Scexit breakup will seal its fate.

      • Liz version 700 says:

        Agreed, the G7 was embarrassing for Britain. Isolationism and racism aren’t great models for a country as it turns out.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Charles will be fine as king, William would be an autocratic nightmare.

      The reach of the BRF was always going to shrink after the death of QEII, regardless of whomever was her heir. The 15 other nations in The Commonwealth who have QEII as their Head of State would be dumping that head of state regardless. Northern Ireland and Scotland will go independent. They’re all waiting until the Queen dies to make their Republican moves. Charles will end up King of England and Wales, nothing else.

      • Jaded says:

        I would love it if Canada left the commonwealth but unfortunately it’s a very lengthy and complicated process. Any changes to the office of the Queen here would need the unanimous support of all 10 provinces. There are also some 70 historic treaties with First Nations people and the crown so each one would have to be reopened and examined if Canada were to consider leaving.

  30. Rapunzel says:

    Wills really needs Harry for his reign… or so we keep hearing. But Harry’s fam was not supposed to be part of the slimmed down monarchy?

    Try again.

    • Haylie says:

      Exactly Rapunzel.

      And if Harry was always going to get the axe when Charles slimed down the monarchy as the Rota Rats claim, why are they so angry about him stepping down as a Senior Royal and the Netflix, Spotify, P&G deals?

      BRF and the Rota are the biggest liars.

      • KT says:

        If Harry’s kids not being HRH was always part of the plan, why wasn’t he told that 10 years ago? Clearly this was a discussion during the pregnancy because it was news. If it had been settled before there would have been nothing *to* discuss.

    • betsyh says:

      What Rapunzel said.

      • JT says:

        This right here. The firm should have just said deuces when Harry left and not another word about it, but it’s been well over a year and the royals are still bitching about Harry leaving. The firm is full of it.

  31. S808 says:

    I’m only annoyed cause they’re still gonna hound Lili D and Archie despite not being titled royals. In a lot of ways I agree they’re better off not being titled but it’s a huge con to me that they’ll likely still have to deal with the British press and likely be held to the same standards of their cousins.

    • Gina says:

      💯

    • mariahlee says:

      It’s really unfair. Likely higher standards.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      This is why I believe H&M will never take their kids to england for the foreseeable future. Any ‘relative’ who wants to visit with them out of a sense of “family” can travel to their home. Just as every other family with relatives all over the world do.

    • Lorelei says:

      @S808 ITA. I’m so torn about this. Part of me is like, “lol, they’re American aristocracy now, they don’t need these medieval-ass titles to be relevant! The entire BRF can sink into their racist irrelevance while the Sussexes thrive!”

      But another part of me is angry on Harry’s behalf because we all know exactly why this is happening. Guaranteed it wouldn’t be if he’d married Cressida Bonas or someone like her. His wife and children are being singled out and treated as less than the other members of the family, and I’d be devastated and angry if I were Harry, too.

      So while they will definitely be okay (more than okay!) in the US, I can understand why Harry is so hurt and insulted. (And on a purely pragmatic level, extremely concerned about the security ramifications.) Their children WILL still be hounded, just as you said. And part of Meghan probably feels a little bit guilty — even though she absolutely *should not* — because she knows the reason for all of this is because of who she is. I know I would feel that way if I were her; like I brought all of this on Harry. Even though Harry clearly sees her as the best thing that’s ever happened to him.

      It’s just sad and gross all around, and I hope the Sussexes have made their peace with it. Harry will never forgive & forget when it comes to this one — rightfully so, imo — but hopefully he’s moved on from the worst of the anger and resentment.

      On a totally superficial level, I cannot believe that Charles and his merry band of morons cannot see how bad this makes him look, and that they didn’t table it for now *solely* because of the horrific optics. The courtiers have shown us their poor instincts over and over again, so nothing should even surprise us anymore, but this one…JFC, just wait until Charles is crowned, allow Archie and Lilibet to be granted their titles, and THEN change the letters patent if you want to. But to do it right before the first biracial child is set to become a prince? Transparent and unconscionable.

      Charles has been a terrible person for decades and I choose to believe there’s a special place in hell awaiting him.

  32. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    So the UK has their very own narcissistic, short-fingered vulgarian- windbag, eh?
    The BRF is so tone deaf, it is almost comical.

  33. teresa says:

    I think with this, Charles has outed himself as the guy who didn’t want any black half American kid to be a prince. These people are not that bright, are they.

    • swirlmamad says:

      Or William is making sure this is getting out so as to put the heat on Charles and off himself. I still think TOB is the culprit there, though I absolutely agree that Charles has the same exact feelings. He just didn’t voice them directly to Harry. He’s so sensitive and non-confrontational, remember? 🙄

      • Nic919 says:

        And with the article from the Times today rebutting the DM allegations, I do believe this was William trying to divert from the mess of his staff.

  34. MerryGirl says:

    I remember years ago, I think it was the Queen’s 90th celebration or jubilee or something that after a parade on the walk only the ‘select’ royals left on open top vehicles – QE & Philip on one and Will, Kate & Harry on another. Then when they got on the balcony only the Royals of Charles proposed slim down monarchy were presented – QE & Philip, Charles & Camilla, Will & Kate & Harry. And all the reporting stated that Charles’ 2 sons and their families would form a part of Charles’ rein as working Royals. So this report is bulls**t and it ain’t even new as Meghan told us 3 months ago in the Oprah interview that they planned to change the convention to exclude Archie. They ‘very much not a racist family’ had always planned to include Harry and his family until he married a biracial woman. Everything Meghan & Harry said in the interview is coming to pass and all the RF underhandedness and evil will be exposed.

  35. Amelia says:

    F*ck them. Archie and Loki don’t need their stupid titles anyways they’re so much better off.
    As a U.K. citizen I get so mad when I think about how much of our parents hard earned money these leeches have already taken from us. When you realise that the public “doesn’t want to pay for an extensive monarchy” why don’t you realise that we don’t want to pay FOR ANY OF YOU! What have these lot done to deserve tax payer money anyways? Seriously. I hope they all get squashed under all the treasure and money they’ve looted of everyone.

    • Jaded says:

      Her name is Lili, not Loki.

    • Amy Too says:

      I apparently trained my autocorrect to accept Lili but when I tried to type Lili’s I kept getting Loki’s. Lol. I see your autocorrect is also being a jerk.

  36. February-Pisces says:

    Wasn’t the law changed so that the Keens kids get their titles now? Charlotte and Louis were suppose to get their titles when Charles becomes king, the same time archie would have gotten his title. But the Keens kids get theirs now, harry kids get theirs never. I’m convinced that they actually WANT to look racist, I mean that is their core fanbase.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The Queen should have left things as they were. Neither William nor Harry kids get titles during her reign, Charles gets to worry about it in his reign. But I’m sure Incadescent blew a gasket at the idea that his kids wouldn’t immediately be HRH and prince/princess. Carole would have pitched many fits over that too.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        If they’d left it as it was then IF Will’s first child (and heir) had been a girl she’d have had no title, the first son born after her would have been a Prince even though he’d be after her in the line of succession, and then any and all subsequent kids would be untitled.

        Considering the relatively negative ‘it’s about DAMN TIME’ tone they were getting from many quarters at the time about the move from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture that would have looked BAD, and would have spoiled Will and Kate’s whole ‘we’re different we’re special we’re gonna make the Royal Family NORMAL’ branding. As it is they got a lot of mileage out of the ‘all titled the same thing’ for their PR, making it seem like they were treating all their kids the same and not blatantly favoring George. It probably would have also looked bad to the aristos themselves, for a future monarch to have a lesser style than their younger siblings.

        And the press would spend countless stories gleefully recounting how stupid the decision was for every pregnancy Kate and any other royal lady had from them on, because every BRF pregnancy needs at minimum 85 articles about how titles work on the Pregnancy Coverage Schedule.

  37. Myra says:

    This confirms that Meghan told the truth about her experiences and it brings us back to the bigger issue. The establishment’s treatment of her was rooted in racism. There were concerns of the baby’s skin colour, denial of security, denial of titles, gaslighting of her experiences as a non-white royal and lack of due concern for her mental health. They tried to stop the marriage before it happened and when they knew it was still going ahead, told her she would not be a working royal. This was on top of the smear campaign that she wasn’t aware that they were behind before it was too late. Both William and Charles are incredibly racist.

  38. ML says:

    Hi from the Netherlands. Here, we have the system Prince Charles wants to switch to. King Willem Alexander’s daughters are princesses, but only Amalia’s children will have that rank. Prince Constantijn (Wim Lex’s brother) children have nobility titles, and aren’t members of the royal family. Beatrix used to be Queen and has been “downgraded” to Princess. I think this is good, tbh.
    I feel that Harry and especially Meghan and children are far better off far, far away from the royal family in Britain. If Archie and Lili could have gotten titles, it possibly would have taken longer to leave the royal family in which Meghan was being attacked, gaslighted, and emotionally abused. This is a backhanded blessing in disguise.
    As to it being racist: in these circumstances it may be (for the Dutch it is not). It absolutely looks bad given what Harry and Meghan experienced, though!

    • notasugarhere says:

      Will all of Amalia’s children have titles, or just the eldest? It would make more sense to eliminate titles from everyone BUT the heir and their heir.

      Getting HRH and titles wouldn’t have made it more difficult to leave the family. Having and HRH and a prince/princess title in the BRF doesn’t mean you are a working royal. Titles and working royal status are two different things. Beatrice and Eugenie have HRH and princess titles and are not working royals. Edward and Sophie’s children technically are HRH and prince/princess, they choose not to use those titles.

      • ML says:

        Yes. Beatrix’s sisters (as well as Beatrix now: she went from princess to queen and back to princess when her son became king) are all princesses. Willem Alexander and his brothers are/were princes. However, the children from the monarch’s siblings are not royals.
        Only the “head of state” and the king’s wife (not a queen’s husband) may be king or queen. Only the king or queen’s children and the direct line of the firstborn receive royal titles.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you. Wouldn’t it make more sense to announce now that only Amalia’s heir will receive HRH and a title of any kind? Any other children of hers will have no title.

      • ML says:

        My apologies for not being clear. The Dutch have had a streamlined monarchy for a very long time. Amalia’s children will (presuming things continue as they have for Wim Lex and Beatrix) have “prince/ss” in front of their names. However, only Amalia’s firstborn son or daughter will be able to do the same. So only Amalia’s grandchildren of her heir can have prince/ss titles. Only the direct line will be royals. Amalia’s other grandchildren will not.

    • Nic919 says:

      I am all for them removing silly titles, but if they are doing direct line only then the HRH must be removed from the Duke of Kent, prince Michael , Gloucester, the york girls and the Wessex kids. None of them are direct line either. There is zero reason to let them keep it.

      • LynnInTX says:

        If it’s direct line only after Charles is on the throne, then that would also mean Anne, Edward (and Sophie), and Andrew. I’m not particularly bothered by that last one, but Charles should probably be verrrry careful what he wishes for. That would mean 4 people as working royals – C&C, and W&K. The Cambridge kids are too young to be working royals… That would mean only 2 people doing any sort of regular engagements… and whatever W&K decide to do. How would the public feel watching THAT in trade for, what is it, 600 million a year in taxes?

        (Also, if Andrew’s is stripped, he’d be a open target for the law enforcement right? They wouldn’t be able to protect him the way he is right now. And I just can’t believe that Andrew is the only one with something very large to hide – and if his protection was stripped, I have no problems believing that he’d spill everything on everyone else out of spite.)

      • Nic919 says:

        I am using the current rule of grandchildren of a monarch not in a direct line so Anne, Andrew and Edward would be fine because they were children of the monarch.

        The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and Prince Michael all get their HRH because their grandfather was George V. Beatrice, Eugenie, James and Louise are the grandchildren of Elizabeth II.

  39. Mrs. Smith says:

    Didn’t M&H say in the Oprah interview that they’ve already lost a lot and are ok with losing whatever else the BRF has left? I need to rewatch the interview now, but iirc, at that point they knew the titles were a wash, but it was worth it because they are free and happy in Ca.
    PS: The “royal source” for Royal Foibles is Lady Colin Campbell, so read it for what it’s worth. She knows a few things, but she has a clear agenda on who she likes and who she doesn’t.

  40. Lilly (with the double-L) says:

    It was never going to happen for their children, with their Black heritage, even if they remained in the UK. It’s a weapon/threat to hold over them. But, that weapon is pretty powerless now. Their UK maga base will love it, though. They really want to doff their cap to their remaining supporters. Still, I prefer the racists who say it out in the open like this, over the pretend I don’t see color variety. (If you don’t see color stop posing with POC for your photo ops rf.)

  41. Harper says:

    Prince Willbert the Incandescent is really out of crumbs to throw to his MOS terrorists, isn’t he now? There is no news in this article; nothing has changed since Meghan reported this to Oprah. Oh, sources are indicating, blah blah blah but this is just hot air from the Big Bad Wolf Willy Windsor who wants his Kingdom to continue to bully Prince Harry. And now that there are two beautiful Royal children living in America, the Big Bad Wolf is going to trash their lineage as best as he can. New Royal baby girl named after the Queen’s nickname? Cue the story that Lili will never gain the Princess title to remind the pleebs not to pay attention to her.

    • Lady D says:

      Payback for picking a name with such an intimate tie to the queen. They are probably beyond furious with Lili’s chosen name.
      I think we’ve established that I can be petty concerning the RF so I really hope Lili’s name keeps them all up at night for a variety of reasons. Charles because he’s never had that kind of connection with his mother, William because her name ties her to the monarchy forever, and Kate because she didn’t have the guts or creativity to come up with such a cool name for her daughter. Kate *wanted the stodgy, old, correct British set of names that would reflect that whitest of monarchies.
      *I bet Kate had a name picked out for her daughter, before the whole William thing derailed her life. (thanks mom) Think she got to use it?

      • notasugarhere says:

        William is incandescent he didn’t think to use ‘Lilibet’ as one of Charlotte’s names.

        Charlotte is named after Kate, Carole, and Pippa. Carole and Charlotte have the same root. Charlotte is Pippa’s middle name. Elizabeth is Kate’s middle name. The only part of their daughter’s name that is *not* a Middleton name is Diana.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Charlotte is named for Charles: it is a feminine form of Charles. It’s also Pippa’s middle name. It’s both.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The stan version was she was named for Charles, but Charles/Carole/Charlotte are the same root. AND Charlotte is Pippa’s middle name. Those first two names are Middleton names, Diana was the outlier.

    • Well Wisher says:

      That it is in a nutshell. Hot Air.

  42. Marivic says:

    What kind of father is Charles? How could he do this to his son Prince Harry? Just as the world never forgave him for his transgressions against Diana, the world will also not forgive him for this injustice he’s doing to his son. The world is also looking at you William. You completely colluded with your father to ostracize your brother. You, The Other Brother, are complicit. The two of you are shameless, jealous bigots and racists.

  43. Lee says:

    Can’t wait to hear the explanation for this from the royal rota crowd. The palace allowed Meghan Markle to be attacked for months for telling the truth. That was hardly noble is it? In keeping with the new policy of correcting lies and misinformation immediately I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation from the palace why they didn’t step in. To those experts on the peerage by denying Harry his hrh and Archie his title of Prince does it change the line of succession or precedence for ceremonial activities in any way?

    • Kkat says:

      Nope, if the helicopter goes down in a fiery crash taking out William and his kids (why they should never all travel together) Harry would then be Heir to the throne after Charles, and then Archie

  44. Legalese says:

    The “slimmed down monarchy” argument also doesn’t hold any water because they literally changed the rules so that Charlotte and Louis could be prince/princess! The only one of William’s children who was automatically entitled to an HRH was George. So they literally made active changes to the law to ensure that all of William’s children became prince/princess despite not being entitled to it, yet are also making active changes to ensure that Harry’s children will not receive those titles which they are actually entitled to by law! How can anyone not see why Meghan and Harry would be upset by this??? It’s less about the actual titles I presume and more about the unfairness of it all. Any parent would be upset if their children were treated as “less than” by a grandparent, and if other cousins were given more favorable treatment – and this is on a far greater scale.

    • Lorelei says:

      The “slimmed down monarchy” was always planned to include Harry and his family, and everyone knows it. This only changed when he married a biracial American woman.

      I agree with you, though — I don’t think H&M are upset about the titles themselves, but about the principle of it. Their children are being singled out and treated differently because of who their mother is. (I also think the security ramifications played a part in why they were so angry, but it was never about the titles themselves imo.)

      The Sussexes have so much more than titles. And titles are *all* that W&K have.

  45. Robin says:

    What Charles has done is again so child like and vindictive.

    I recall William vowed to give back the HRH title to his mother upon his ascension. An admirable sentiment, and one which shows these titles are understood to be much more than financial giveaways. What a cruel thing to do, therefore.

  46. Noor says:

    is the title issue re-started to remove the focus on Robert Lacey’s new book that William and Kate view Meghan with suspicion and were wary of her motives from the very start.

    William and Kates negative attitudes towards Meghan are troubling because they are the same as Piers Morgan, Richard Kay, Dan Wotton and other reporters, royal commentators and other media figures who were anti Meghan from the start.

    For eg a former MP (Ann Widdecombe) on 10 Jan 2018 had branded Meghan “trouble” saying that the actress background and attitudes made her ” uneasy”.

    • Nic919 says:

      I think that this is coming from the DM and not the Times or telegraph means that it is a distraction to make Charles looks more racist than the KP staff as well as William and Kate, as outlined in the Lacey excerpt.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Mail on Sunday does tend to run with leaks from Carole, as she’s the one with the connection to their two past editors. Could see all of this coming from Carole, or from W&K through Carole.

      • Nic919 says:

        And the Times has an article from Valentine Low today that refutes everything in the DM article basically saying Charles will not be changing anything to remove the HRH from Archie and Lili.

        So it was William or Carole playing games with that article.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Your call makes complete sense. This was from Camp KP.

  47. ABritGuest says:

    Hmm I kind of suspect this story coming out now could be the fail lashing out at the BRF for not giving them tea on Lili’s birth. They had a front page about Chuck being interviewed over Diana’s death the other day. Or could be part of a briefing war-throwing CH under the bus for Sussexes departure. Or maybe after a period of calling Meghan a liar for things said on Oprah we’ve reached the stage where press are going to confirm what they said was true but with relevant spin.

    Harry & his wife was always part of vision for slimmed down monarchy- articles from 2012 jubileee etc confirm that. It just seems to have changed since Meghan came along eg encouraging Meghan to keep working as an actress as the Fail reported last year& as Harry said on Oprah. The costs argument doesn’t wash as Archie & Lili would have been in same position as Beatrice& Eugenie- titled but not frontline royals so would have to fend for themselves. Same as Edward’s kids who do have HRH etc but just aren’t using it.

    If this was always the plan then that would have been clearer when Harry got married or when they had Archie. As it was, royal commentators were speculating about the Queen issuing letter patents for him to be a Prince etc-I don’t recall talk about impact on slimmed down monarchy on Archie then & even after Meghan’s comments on Oprah, the rota press & royalists etc were saying Archie would be a Prince when Chuck is king. So this is an about turn.

    If this goes ahead not a great look if Harry’s kids are deprived of a ‘birth right’ on what looks like discriminatory grounds. on that basis can understand why that would be upsetting but sadly double standards, moving goal posts is reality of how racism works. However the firm needs to keep that energy- if they want to distant Archie& Lili then we shouldn’t hear briefings about how Charles is sad his youngest grandchildren aren’t around, they need to come to Sandringham for Christmas& be around ‘family’ or come for the Jubilee which the firm would only likely want for PR reasons & international press attention.

  48. HeyJude says:

    This will be the death of the monarchy in the long term, you watch!

    When the most popular family members don’t even have titles, as the decades go on and the “working royals” continue to disappoint and be dull representatives for the nation and continue to have Camilla scandals, pedophile scandals, rose trimming infidelity scandals, foreign money scandals the public will eventually get fed up. They’ll start questioning why everyone has to be on the public teat at all and they will move to abolish the monarchy.

    Especially as the world continues to march towards racial and social progress and this family is holding the entire country back from that and basically only coasting on goodwill to Elizabeth at this point.

  49. tamsin says:

    This “news” is released on Father’s Day? Does this not make Charles look like a vindictive father? To take action to “remove” the birthright from his “other” grandchildren of his other son will seem racist as well, especially when letters patent extended the titles to all of William’s children.

    • Christine says:

      Ducking H.E. double hockey sticks, YES! I am a single mom, and even I get the gravity of this choice of date. They are so horribly vindictive, it would be funny, if they were fictional. As such, I am so sorry.

  50. Lila says:

    I see comments saying “this is what happened in Sweden and other countries” but let’s be real: it’s not the same thing.

    Yes, there have been talks of a streamlined monarchy for years, but those talks always made sure to include Harry and his future wife. If this move (changing something that’s been in place for 100 years) was done simply for the sake of a streamlined monarchy, they would have come out and said it, either on the record or through one of their many surrogates.

    Instead, the Palace chose to brief royal reporters in order to push the false narrative that Harry and Meghan didn’t want Archie to be a prince. Even Meghan herself said there was no explanation given as to why they wanted to change it for her son.

    So no, this isn’t like what happened in other countries. This is about the Palace not wanting someone who isn’t 100% white to be a prince.

    • Sweet Dee says:

      Harry and Meghan were to be included in the streamlined monarchy but their kids never were, only the kids of the future monarch. Also, they left. That’s why they are no longer included. People are intentionally misunderstanding this.

      • jbyrdku says:

        I do agree that their children shouldn’t have titles, unless they live in the UK and grow up to be working royals.

      • Haylie says:

        No. You are the one intentionally misrepresenting this.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Not @Haylie(agree with you) Oh no…if H & M stayed, Archie & Lilibet Diana Mountbatten Windsor absolutely would have been working royals. With the glorious title of Scapegoat to Will & Kate’s children. Will & Kate would easily overlook Archie & Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor’s mental health for the sake of their own progeny.

        Whatever happens down the road, Archie & Lilibet Diana Mountbatten Windsor will always be children of a born Prince and a prince among men. And, the children of a lovely, compassionate, intelligent, well spoken woman who truly wants positive change for the betterment of others.

        No intentional misunderstanding happening here.

      • Lila says:

        No, you are the one intentionally misunderstanding this because:
        1. The discussions started in 2018/2019, when Meghan was pregnant and they were working royals and very much a part of the Firm.

        2. Who exactly told you they didn’t want Archie to be a prince because “that’s always been the plan”? They didn’t tell Meghan or any of their favorite reporters. Even after the interview, they still went didn’t say any of that and claimed Meghan didn’t “understand how things work”.

        This is obviously a spin.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Being a working royal is completely different from having a title, Sweet Dee. Harry’s children, as grandchildren of a future monarch, could have been given HRH and prince/princess titles at birth. Nothing to do with streamlining funding or who is or isn’t a working royal.

        ‘Also, they left.’ They didn’t ‘leave’ and it didn’t happen before their first child was born. They were driven out by W&K and the racist courtiers, with Harry trying to save the life of his suicidal wife by leaving.

        Intentionally misunderstanding racism? How quaint.

  51. Diamond Rottweiler says:

    These people are so painfully stupid. They fret about their relevancy and public perception constantly, but given the chance to embrace their biracial family, instead they underscore their racism and meanness to save relatively little money supposedly? I mean, they’re obviously toxic people, but don’t they have even the slightest impulse at least to gin up some badly needed positive PR that makes them seem like part of the world we actually live in? Have they ever heard of optics?? It’s like they have a handbook of what not to do and then do *exactly* that. Unbelievable.

  52. aquarius64 says:

    There is one title Lili can achieve that the Cambridge kids can never get: US president. To qualify to run for POTUS you have to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and live in the US for at least 14 years. Lili would be head of state and chief executive of a coequal branch of US government. She would also be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, a fact that I think would make Harry proud. Archie is a US citizen because of Meghan but being born in the UK could be a problem. However Archie could run for governor of a US state, can run for US Congress (be Speaker of the House if chosen by House members) , or be part of a president’s Cabinet. (But Archie could not be listed in the presidential succession because of UK birth.). My point is as Americans the Sussex children can rise to great heights and have access to real power granted to them by voters and officials, power that is earned.

    • Sim Kin says:

      Archie is a natural born US Citizen because he’s the son of an American citizen who is a woman. It is the same way Ted Cruz ran for president despite being born in Canada.

    • Nic919 says:

      Natural born citizen doesn’t mean that you were born on American soil, it means that you were an American citizen at birth and didn’t become a citizen later on. With one American parent, Archie and Lili are both natural born citizens and could run for president.

  53. Well Wisher says:

    At first glance, it seemed plausible and shocking until I remembered Prince Harry stated that his father stopped taking his calls after two telephone contacts. Also the observation of Meghan’s statement particular to said discussion during her pregnancy. The point was specific in terms of the idea of a biracial offspring and the benefits bestowed on that child.
    A British radio personality questioned the idea of removing the Sussexes, if the end result was to ‘win’ the ongoing endless competition and comparison.
    He observed that the only way Bill can ‘win’ is by pulling rank by titles. He will be the future monarch.
    Meanwhile the Sussexes have sailed away (metaphorically speaking) unto uncharted waters in terms of other British royalty. Bill cannot compete nor win so he’s back to the abyss of comparison like being on a 🐹 wheel.
    There only inconsistent statements were around one place KP, the idea of briefing against family members especially has become a habitual practice by employing palace employees, in-laws and the person who wants a particular slant out in the public.
    Despite the removal of the said employees the briefing remained unabated and will continue.
    If this were true, why did Archie’s birth certificate was reissued to include Harry’s title and Meghan’s name removed to make it similar to the Wales and York’s? Since the Patent Papers has not been legally updated, Archie will become a prince until further notice.
    Just like Meghan did not become a bully because she married into the royal family.
    With a habit to feed and access to former supply/target is replaced by space, he has returned to one familiar – briefing and is now telling on himself.
    He is such a petty dunce. 😂😂

  54. DellT says:

    Is anyone really shocked?! These ppl base their self worth on being better than others, esp ppl of color. Imagine the threat Meghan represented, a woman who, at one time, was almost as beloved as the Queen. Also, remember when prince albert of monaco was discovered to have had a black son with an african stewardess? What did the grey men in Monaco do? They passed a law meant to exclude that son from ever becoming king. google it. Its all racism

    • notasugarhere says:

      He would have been out as heir anyway, as he was born out of wedlock just like Jasmine Grace. It is only when they run out of heirs that the Monaco royal family has been known (historically) to change laws to hand the throne to the illegitimate offspring.

      • DellT says:

        They passed the law to ensure it. Its no coincidence they did this AFTER they found out Albert had a son. They ENSHRINED it in law, thereafter.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The constitution was changed 2 April 2002. Alexandre wasn’t even born until 24 August 2003. So no, it wasn’t changed to remove Alexandre from the succession. If anything it was done to remove Jasmine Grace.

  55. J ferber says:

    Yes, on Father’s Day. A special fuck you shout-out to Harry, Meghan, Archie and Lilibet. See, this is the same man who removed MI6 security from Diana and Harry’s family secretly, without telling the sitting ducks, so they could (hopefully) be killed without him literally pulling the trigger. But to all intents and purposes, it was a death wish for his nuclear family. He is scum and I’m rank him with soulless killer Putin, though as far as I know, has never killed a member of his own family. Slimmed down should be changed to slimed down (as another poster mistakenly? wrote.

  56. DellT says:

    This is fascinating. Watching the Royal Family flame out just like Piers Morgan. Racism is so virulent, it causes ppl to set their own house on fire, i.e. the Royal Family. They will NEVER recover from the past year. Ever. When the Queen goes, that is absolutely it.

    • Nina says:

      Google is not always your friend. Monaco is a Catholic country and has always had the rule that only the legitimate male heir inherits the throne.
      England had/has the same rule that is why during Henry the 8th reign, even though he already had a son(Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset), he could not be Henry’s heir because he was illegitimate.

      • DellT says:

        like i said, This is fascinating. Watching the Royal Family flame out just like Piers Morgan. Racism is so virulent, it causes ppl to set their own house on fire, i.e. the Royal Family. They will NEVER recover from the past year. Ever. When the Queen goes, that is absolutely it.

      • Jaded says:

        What’s Monaco got to do with the mess the current BRF has gotten itself into? What does the illegitimate son of a king who died almost 500 years ago have to do with the break-down of father/son and brother/brother relationships? This is not Google fodder, it’s the hidebound adherence to outdated protocols and racist elitism that’s bringing the current BRF down and it can’t happen too soon.

  57. Nina says:

    I call bullshit on this story from the the BM. They have no more leads. The cash pot has dried up. No one is leaking from the Sussex side. The BRF has no new information. The Keens are out of the loop and have no info to feed them. So let’s stir up the pot and get some clicks.
    By the time this is disproven, the public has moved on. If it turns out to be true, then they had a scoop and lots of new stories. Not even the grey men and Charles could be that stupid to announce something like this now.

    • Islandgirl says:

      Totally agree @Nina…except for the fact that it might actually have come from William and KP. I don’t see Charles releasing this information at this time. Who really benefits from this story? Why now?

  58. Gigi says:

    Someone brought this up in conversation: In order for Charles to change the Letters Patent to prevent Archie & Lili from getting their HRH titles, the entire Commonwealth, and I believe Parliament as well, has to approve of this change. It is completely within the realm of possibility that either Parliament or some Commonwealth countries approve of this change due to the ones being left out are bi-racial children. I think the Sussex kids will get their titles but they will go by their birth name in the USA and by their royal titles in the UK. Archie will inherit his father’s titles at death regardless.

  59. lanne says:

    With all of this mess over Lili’s name and the children’s titles, we should stop hearing about how Harry needs to bring the children to the UK to meet Charles, Elizabeth, their cousins, etc. this family has no love for Harry’s children. The UK is not a safe place for them to be. What a shitty way to treat a son, brother, and grandson who has done so much for the popularity of the RF. This is a toxic family whose love is utterly conditional. I feel sorry for all of the children born into this mess, and I’m glad that Archie and Lili will grow up with the unconditional love and support from their parents that Harry was so cruelly denied.

  60. khaveman says:

    The RF and British press seem so full of negative energy, I mean nonstop negativity. Life is so short. Enough. Hope the Sussexes move on fully and never look back. Happier vibes!

  61. Athena says:

    Charles will only be king for a nano second. This is William not wanting Harry’s children to have title similarly to his children.

  62. Mina_Esq says:

    I hate to be crass, but what a petty see you next Tuesday Charles is.

  63. Jay says:

    Charles has been talking about a streamlined monarchy for such a long time, but it always included Harry and his eventual family. Practically, Harry was essential to their survival — who else was there to go out and actually do the work?

    I think, unfortunately, that a lot of the current family’s structure was built under the assumption that Harry would agree to play the role of the fun, slightly rogueish bachelor uncle forever, always available when you need to send a quick charm offensive to one of the colonies, and always willing to share credit for his work with the other brother.

    How else to explain that, despite the fact that this “slimming down” has been coming for awhile now, William and Kate have never been working with any urgency to fully assume their roles? Did the Cambridges (and the rest of the family) truly believe they would soon be two of the only “working royals”? They never acted like it. Instead, we heard about how they needed time to settle in, find their feet, and William vaguely talked about getting a part time job and taking some classes. Basically, the Cambridges took a decade long gap year. At a minimum, they could have been
    travelling outside of the UK at least once a year (not on vacation). But they didn’t do that, because everyone assumed Harry would always be there to fill in the gaps.

  64. Athena says:

    I feel bad for Harry that this is what his family decided to run in the papers on Father’s Day. The BRF is trying to suck all the joy from his life, they want to break him, they want to create enough pain to destroy his marriage, but that is not going to bring him back. Harry is not going to miss out on raising his children and in being present in their lives.

    They heard Meghan was doing an interview with NPR today and probably thought this was going to be another Oprah type interview. I read a comment in one of papers on how they hope the interviewer ask Meghan some serious follow up questions. So the BRF strikes first in anticipation of a strike from Meghan, and once again shot themselves in the foot.

    • Joan says:

      So crazy, why would they think she would talk about anything other than the book? That was the purpose of the interview.

    • PrincessK says:

      I see that the Cambridge’s wheeled their kids out for a photo op. Clever timing but we are not fooled.

      • swirlmamad says:

        You also notice that it was just William with George and Charlotte. Nice little dad’s day out with the kids. Where was Kate and Louis? Curiouser and curiouser. I’m sure that will be posted and discussed at length tomorrow.

      • Nic919 says:

        William was at Sandringham with George and Charlotte but not sign of Kate or Louis. Interesting that they were at the place that everyone thinks is his new residence.

  65. PrincessK says:

    I think that there are some dark games going on. I think that the Sussexes should remain silent and make no comment. Why is this issue being raised now? Some people are playing dirty tricks and playing a game of chess.

    I cannot believe that there is nobody sensible enough in the Palace to stop all this. Some people are taking advantage of the Queen, she doesn’t have much influence clearly, and will be gradually passing more of her role over to Charles…right now nobody sees to be in control. There is definitely a war between CP and KP.

  66. Merricat says:

    And here I thought Charles was the brightest among the royals. Lol. Nope, just the whitest.

    • Lorelei says:

      He might actually be the brightest as well, which…does not inspire confidence in his reign. But, I mean, look at the other members of that family! Not exactly a brain trust, lol. Meghan is the most intelligent of all of them, imo.

  67. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    My question with all of this is then: Why is Harry so vital to the monarchy if his children aren’t?

    At this point, the royals and their reporters need to keep Harry’s name out of their mouths. Just leave them be.

    • True says:

      Great question question! My question is why is a spare so essential to begin with? Never heard this talk about previous spares.

      • Carmen-JamRock says:

        Itts no joke that the bitchslap that rendered willieleaks unconscious and required surgery when he was a child, did some cognitive damage & is the reason for his infamous incandescent rages. It hasnt helped that he’s always had a jealous streak where H is concerned and was raised with an over-inflated sense of entitlement.
        But its the brain damage that worry the MenInGrey so they were counting on H to continue being the foil.
        Now theyre all in a quandry…..this moment mad as hell wth H for daring to leave and at M for “taking H away from his brother; next moment begging him to return.

  68. Curious says:

    well it doesn’t matter now. the only thing new is that IF this is Charles confirming what Harry/Meghan said on Oprah. or is someone else feeding the press this to bring Charles down. Anyways Meghan/Harry left cause they was scared that with no title for Archie,he will have no royal protection. and this they already knew when she was pregnant with Archie. they was suppose to be working royals with no income, guess Charles wanted them to pay for Archie protection from their savings while they work royal duties. that of course is one of the reasons they left ,to make their own money to support themselves and protect their children. plus since the courtiers never protected Meghan with all the fake stories about her,by removing it from the press. which they couldn’t cause William people was telling the press the fake stories, by leaving they can sue without the courtiers permission. so ,nothing new, Harry/Meghan knew all this already and left. they are not looking for titles for their children now. when it was denied to them when she was around 6 months pregnant with Archie. Meghan must have thought, wait a sec, so they want Harry and I to do events for them, while the aides /courtiers slander my name at every turn ,every day ,and also refuse to give my son a prince title,that will gave him protection till he finishes school. whats the point of all this . time to start making plans and get out of here. my family lives are in huge danger.

    • lanne says:

      I think the “plan” hatched by the grey rats was to take security away from Harry and Meghan while they were in Canada to force Harry to use his own money to pay for security. When that money ran out (Harry can likely only withdraw limited amounts from his trust each year), he and Meghan would be forced to crawl home and meekly accept whatever treatment the royals imposed on them. Then the smear job against Meghan would be dialed up until she finally broke and left Harry, taking Archie with her. This was the “foolproof” plan to get rid of Meghan and get Harry back. They had no plan B. They also, in their utter stupidity, didn’t consider that Harry might actually love his wife and want to build his life with her. They obviously didn’t realize that Harry and Meghan had powerful friends who could help them. They didn’t realize that Harry and Meghan were talented and resourceful and could earn their own money. Leaving was the best thing that Harry and Meghan could do for their own lives and for their family.

      • Lemons says:

        They (the BRF) really should have just given up once they found out Tyler Perry had them covered like a real father figure. At that point, they weren’t going to fail. It just wasn’t ever going to happen.

    • DellT says:

      yup. bondage and danger

  69. BeanieBean says:

    “A Royal source said last night: ‘We are not going to speculate about the succession or comment on rumours coming out of America.’”
    Except this rumor is coming from the Mail on Sunday. More fictional ‘reporting’ from the MOS.

    • Curious says:

      is there anything call a royal source? these papers make up things with fake sources. and they use the same wordings when they speaking up for william too. cause they can’t out their sources either way . like friends said, an inside said ,Harry/Meghan run a tight ship so the press can’t name anyone from Harry /Meghan staff of saying anything, plus Harry/Meghan have no relationship with the DM or other uk press that they already sued and won.

    • equality says:

      What? I thought the courtiers were told to contradict any lies coming from America? Wasn’t that the story recently to start complaining and explaining?

    • Nic919 says:

      The Times had an article that shuts this down. So either Carole or William had some fun trying to divert attention from the bad actions of the KP staff.

  70. DellT says:

    Even if Charles developed a conscience, the men in Grey Suits would not let him be compassionate to his son. Remember, Harry said the media in the UK controls the Royal Family. Imagine Charles coming out in support of Harry, what the DM and other outlets and pundits would due to him: drag him and Camilla for filth. The same would happen to William if he ever stepped out of line. This is why what Harry did is so monumental. He broke the strong chains which keep the Royal Family in bondage, and the powers that be hate him for it (the media) and envy him for it (his other family members).
    This is messy. I hope Harry and Meghan stay quiet, and I hope Harry DOES NOT go to the July 1 statue unveiling.

  71. Delphine says:

    In addition to the obvious racism, I think it’s completely morbid for him to make all these plans for when he’s king and to let it be known. The Queen is still with us and could actually outlive Charles.

    • Curious says:

      well Meghan/Harry knew about his plans, so who else was there when Charles spoke about it ? maybe someone is selling out Charles and that person had to be there to know about it . whoever did it ,and did it on fathers day,to show what kind of man charles is .at the same time proving harry/ meghan spoke the truth on oprah. i am sure the queen knew of this plan. being nice to Harry/Meghan does not mean the queen doesn’t know. this is a huge plan ,he had to discuss this with the queen, william , the courtiers and whoever else. he can’t just throw things out to Harry/Meghan just like that .it concerns their lives. talking about Archie skin tone and such ,we all can see Charles hurried up his plans to cut Harry unborn son from being prince.

    • Dl says:

      I wish the Queen would outlive him

    • notasugarhere says:

      You think William ‘banish them to Africa’ is a better choice for monarch right after QEII? FFS

  72. Dl says:

    I am Princess Diana’s age. Charles is a racist egotistical but wipe and so is TOB and definitely Kmart who cannot string two thoughts together. I am done with these jerkwads if this turns out to be true.

  73. TEALIEF says:

    At this juncture why would they want any titles, and honorifics from a House, and an Institution that has conducted its official business and familial relationships – as it pertains to them and countless others – with such dishonour?!

    Besides wanting their children to be healthy, happy and well-adjusted, I would hope that they instill the value of consistent, hard work. Any titles and honorifics before, and credentials after their children’s names should be legitimately and professionally earned, along with its accompanying benefits. The only HRH that matters is hard work, respect, honour. Happenstance of birth is not an accomplishment.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That is a stance frequently taken by Meghan haters, you understand right?

      The difference is having titles they would be given (if the children weren’t mixed race) and CHOOSING not to use them.

      • TEALIEF says:

        @NOTA No arguing about choice: Their children have a birthright and inheritance that is due to them. Their parents choose to use theirs to work hard and do good work on behalf of others. After all, that’s what BRF say, their work is about service. My point is the House of Windsor- with all their titles and outdated protocol – and the Institution that works for them is rotted. Their treatment of the Sussexes because she, by happenstance not choice, is a POC speak to that.  If BRF want – and it seems to be the case – to plant the Union Jack in the Rock of Racism singing Rule Britannia while it sinks into the North Atlantic, that’s a choice.

        My gran was twice in three years – no choice for children especially the very little ones – made to stand by the roadside in her school uniform for hours in the burning sun with a Union Jack her hand and wait for the Royal HRHs to do the drive-by wave. This, while watching her school friends drop left and right from the heat. Such school outings she hasn’t forgotten.

  74. VICKYISHERETOSTAY says:

    They are just mad they can’t see Lili so they are drumming up old news the Sussexes already spilled.

    • Curious says:

      I think the press was prepared with many headlines to drown out any fathers day pic of Harry and his children.because they thought Meghan might post a pic of Harry and their children wishing him a happy fathers day . but it backfired.cause Meghan didn’t post anything.

  75. Curious says:

    whatever Charles is going to do in the future it won’t be before the queen dies in 5 or 6 yrs. by that time Archie will be 7 yrs old.,Charles will be like 78 yrs old. he will be an old tired king,that will need a lot of help from Lazy William. Charles helped the queen a lot. doubt William will help Charles as Charles have helped the queen.

  76. Bunny says:

    Fine. Change the Letters Patent.

    But immediately and forever stop your infernal “a source close to the RF” whinging to the media about how poor Archie & Lili won’t know their cousins and other relatives.

    You’re kicking them out of the family. You don’t get to whinge, ever.

  77. L4frimaire says:

    I’m just tired of these people and their rinse, repeat vitriol. If they’re slamming Meghan and throwing racist, degrading sexist slurs at her, or trying to attack their children, it must be a day that ends in “Y”. The only thing these people have accomplished since January 8, 2020 is to bury Prince Philip. The rest is jerking around and attacking Meghan, and Harry, because he married and has kids with Meghan. Sick of them.

  78. lee says:

    This story is no longer the big headline running on the Sun or the Daily Mail. The blow back must have been fierce.

    • DellT says:

      no its not taken down due to blowback. Its served its purpose, getting 10K comments and even more views, and made them the money they need. Thats how it works. The story was up for over 12 hours as the headline.

    • Nic919 says:

      The Times basically said it’s wrong, so Charles essentially is telling William that he can divert his racism with this false story.

      • Sid says:

        I wonder if the Clarence House staff’s choice of SM photo to celebrate Father’s Day was also meant to be a bit of snipe back at William for this.

  79. Shannon Brown says:

    Yeah…that’s Prince Charles prerogative. Of course, it makes PERFECT sense to slim down the monarchy so it remains a bastion of old white men and old white women. That’s what all Britons want anyway.

    Anywho, Archie and Lili will be far more welcomed in America than in Britain anyway.

  80. Christine says:

    *massive eye roll*

    1. You can’t quit the people who already quit you. Harry and Meghan never expected anything different, hence they are making their own way on the beaches of SoCal, so that’s not who this new take is aimed at, which leads to;

    2. The press has figured out that the only way to get people to care about the royal family, even tangentially, is to mention Harry and Meghan, they need clicks. I refuse to click.

    3. If this actually came from Chuck, he meant it for Beatrice and Eugenie. Whatever, they get that they have always been the “evil step daughters”, in this farce, if we are using fairy tales as actual life experience.. When QEII dies, they won’t be grandchildren of the monarch. Which leads to;

    4. Do what you will, royal family. Harry and Meghan are going to be amazing, with or without you.

  81. blunt talker says:

    My thoughts and prayers will always be with the Sussex family-as they say come hell or high water-Harry’s children will be objects to the press no matter titled or not-the best thing is that their children can make decisions about life without the entire monarchy looking down their throats. Their children will definitely be more worldly.

  82. FF says:

    So… the only grandchildren to not be princes and princesses are the biracial children but there’s no institutional racism in the UK.

    Ok.

  83. Juniper says:

    William hates Meghan. Therefore, Meghan’s kids are not going to be Princes/ Princesses

  84. teehee says:

    They literally do hang a bullseye on the chest of anyone who isn’t subdued to the current ruler and the next in line.
    Woe to him who is more popular- be it for merit or not, is entirely irrelevant.

  85. Yasmine says:

    I feel like some people are missing the point with the importance of giving Arch and Lili titles. It’s not simply about the status and pomp of title from an archaic institution. It’s about acknowledging the humanity of a mixed child. Like some people have pointed out, if Harry’s partner was white then these conversations wouldn’t be happening. It’s because Meghan is biracial that the legitimacy of their children’s right to exist is always in question. Denying Arch and Lili their titles is denying their full humanity and saying they are lesser humans because they are part black.
    I say this all from my lived experience. I’m a racialized woman, and while I don’t care for hierarchies (in fact, I find them oppressive), I have to navigate a world in which I am lesser than white dudes so I have to give importance to the titles I have at work. I have to state my education and title in meetings so that I can assert myself as being ‘worthy’ of being heard. Basically, I have to work really hard to get the basic respect that white people get by default. So yeah, screw hierarchies in theory. But in a world where power structures (including both corporations and nonprofits) seek to erase women and poc and deny them any positions of power to effect change, it matters a lot for me to be acknowledged and given the full respect. And sure, these are super rich and privileged people who can live comfortably without titles, so we can say “who needs these dumb titles anyway!” But it’s what the titles represent for racialized people: the acknowledgement of their fully humanity and right to exist in that space. I believe that’s why it matters on a fundamental level to M&H.