Lacey: It is ‘unlikely’ that Prince Charles will take away Archie & Lili’s royal status?

The Prince of Wales, Royal Founding Patron,  joined representatives of the British Asian Trust before they embarked on the charity’s ‘Palaces on Wheels’ cycling event. At the prince’s Highgrove, home , Tetbury, Gloucestershire,

As we discussed on Sunday, it looks like Prince Charles did tell the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that their children will not receive “prince” and “princess” titles when Chaz becomes king. The whole “grandchildren of the monarch are automatically entitled to become princes and princesses” thing is part of the George V Letters Patent, and Charles will apparently change it. To be fair, we’ve known for many years that Chaz plans to “streamline” the monarchy and he’ll apparently take away a lot of HRHs and such. But his streamlined monarchy always included his younger son and Harry’s family… until Harry married a biracial American. Now, suddenly, Harry’s kids don’t get their birthright. Anyway, Robert Lacey chimed in on the issue and his take is… odd.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s son Archie could be allowed to choose whether or not he becomes a prince when he turns 18, a royal author has claimed. Leading royal biographer Robert Lacey says the Duke and Duchess of Sussex could follow in the footsteps of Earl and Countess of Wessex – who have not styled their children ‘prince’ or ‘princess’. The couple’s children, James and Louise, are instead known as Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor. The siblings, who are 13th and 14th in line to the throne, will get a choice on whether to take royal titles or style themselves as HRH when they turn 18.

It comes amid claims, first reported in Mail on Sunday, that Prince Charles will ensure that Archie will never be a prince as part of his plan for a slimmed-down Monarchy. However, Lacey, who is set to release an updated edition of his book Battle of Brothers, told the Times that such a move does ‘not seem likely’.

He said: ‘It is possible that Prince Charles may try to remove royal status from the Sussex children when he comes to the throne but that does not seem likely. His priority then will be to gain popular support for upgrading the status of Camilla from princess consort to queen consort, and he is not likely to court unpopularity by removing HRH status from Archie and Lili.’

Meanwhile, palace insiders have reportedly told the Times that the Prince of Wales does not have the power to stop Archie from becoming a prince. According to the paper, under the current system, Archie will automatically become a prince when the Queen dies and Prince Charles ascends to the throne. Therefore, the only way that Archie could be prevented from becoming a prince is if the Queen decides to change the rules.

However, Lacey told the Times: ‘It is clear to me that the Queen and her advisers have discussed this issue at the highest level, and that the future royal status of Archie and Lili is not in jeopardy in her lifetime.’

[From The Daily Mail]

This is a pretty typical British saltine gaslighting: “Oh you know that impossibly cruel thing I threatened? You were just imagining my threat.” Of course Harry’s children are not under “threat” of losing their current non-existent royal status during the Queen’s reign – the issue is about whether Archie and Lili become prince and princess when Charles becomes king. That’s why Charles has promised to change the Letters Patent when he’s king. He can’t change it as Prince of Wales! He will have to change it as king. And no, it won’t be the thing he does on Day 1 of his reign. But he’ll definitely get it done in the first year or so, I can absolutely guarantee. Meanwhile, Charles is too chickensh-t to meet with Harry during Harry’s trip home:

Prince Charles has no plans to see Prince Harry when his estranged son flies home to the UK later this month, according to a report. When Harry flies in from the US to join brother Prince William at the unveiling of a statue for their late mother, Princess Diana, his heir-to-the-throne father will be more than 400 miles away in his Scottish estate, Balmoral, according to The Sun.

“Charles has made it quite clear he will not be around … because he is going to Scotland,” a source told the UK paper. “There is no planned meeting between the three of them.”

Once back in the UK, the Duke of Sussex will have to quarantine for five days before joining his 38-year-old brother at the event honoring their mother, the UK paper noted.

“The boys will walk out together out of respect for their mom,” another source told The Sun, insisting the feuding brothers will make separate speeches. “There have not been any personal chats or proper talks, just a very brief and minimal exchange of text messages. The relationship is still very much strained and there’s no sign yet that there will be any sort of coming together any time soon,” the source said.

Charles, meanwhile, will “leave the boys to it,” one of the sources said.

[From Page Six]

Charles is really like “honoring my dead ex-wife or making peace with my estranged son whom I helped exile? NAH.” Granted, Charles usually spends a chunk of the summer in Scotland. But usually he doesn’t go to Scotland this early in the summer – traditionally, the royals wait until mid-July at the earliest to decamp to Balmoral. Chaz is going there early to avoid Harry and to avoid remembrances of Diana.

Prince Charles leads the mourners

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

Related stories

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

136 Responses to “Lacey: It is ‘unlikely’ that Prince Charles will take away Archie & Lili’s royal status?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. DellT says:

    Charles is not in control, neither is the Queen. Its the men in grey suits that are making the decisions and feeding these stories to the DM: Its actually very scary, stalkerish and does the Royal Family no favors. Their handling of these matters makes them look absolutely incompetent, and not one less bit racist.

    Harry should absolutely NOT go to the UK for the statue unveiling, but I dont know how he can get out of it without looking bad. I truly hope he can get out of it.

    • Cecilia says:

      I mean if the queen and charles have an issue with the men in grey suits pulling their family apart they could always, you know, fire them. They are mere employees after all. They won’t tho because they are jealous.

      • DellT says:

        Well yes, the manuvering of the grey suits does suit them, as they do not anyone to be more popular than they. Sadly, when the grey suits go about their business, they inadvertently set the monarchy on fire. They have cheapened the image of the Royal Family.

      • PEARL GREY says:

        The royals can’t fire them because they are at their mercy. The courtiers are swimming in decades worth of tea on the royals, and not just any old tea either. Extra-marital affairs, domestic and international political interference, paedophilia and links to other paedophiles, rape and rape coverups, trafficking, physical abuse, staff bullying and exploitation, personality disorders, eating disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, lavender marriages, secret abortions of out of wedlock children, secret health issues, illegal business activities, toxic family sabotage and rivalries, hidden money, misuse of public money, racism, homophobia, planting stories in the media, unethical relationships with journalists, and who knows what else, but the courtiers know all about it and if they are not kept in power, they will open the vault on everything. The Windsors have to play along to keep their dirt behind palace walls, so in exchange, they let the men in grey run the show for their media overlords.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “and who knows what else,”

        @Pearl Grey – I think you pretty much hit all base points!

      • PEARL GREY says:

        @BAYTAMPABAY

        Oooh, I forgot a few – plagiarising or taking credit for other people’s work/initiatives, doing charity for PR purposes only, bolstering the court circular with fake engagements, paying palace employees to write comments online and using security to spy on family members.

        I’m sure there’s much more in the vault, and if the long-standing rumour that all bets will be off once the Queen passes, I wonder if the royals have a plan in place to protect themselves from exposure.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @pearl Grey – What about hiring Russian Bots to increase Instagram numbers???

      • PEARL GREY says:

        @BAYTAMPABAY

        Another one! *DJ Khaled voice* I forgot about that.

        The British media are going to be picking the meat off of the skeletons in the Windsor closet for decades to come. Journalists are already hinting at how much they are itching to finally be able to talk “freely”, and that’s just about William. To think what they must be sitting on about Charles. Even the Middletons won’t be safe. No wonder they are trying to create a little fiefdom tucked away in Bucklebury. They know their place as palace-adjacent royal in-laws isn’t guaranteed to protect them from the inevitable onslaught and with how knee-deep Momager Middleton is in with the press herself, when the poop hits the fan, it will splash on her too and her and her daughter’s sketchy journey to the thrown and involvement in the smear campaign will be revealed in public.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Like the Murdoch tabloids and others, the courtiers have decades of dirt/leverage on this family.

      • Golly Gee says:

        Exactly. They hold the power because they could destroy the royal family if threatened. So the Royals are not only figureheads nationally, they are also figureheads to some degree within the monarchy. I would love to know what decisions the Royal family members are actually allowed to make, and which are controlled by the grays.

      • teecee says:

        That is probably true but I don’t know of any decent parent who would choose to preserve their reputation over their children’s happiness.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @teecee – Have you not yet met Brenda & Stavros?

  2. Jen says:

    He’s just about the worst. He’s always been horrible, but around the Sussex wedding, it seemed he was doing better and being better. But nope. His true colors have shown.

    • I agree, JEN. Charles is a coward at heart. He learned early to hide himself behind his birthright and his ego. Sadly, he seems to always personally select the team around him to help enable his awful behavior.

      • anance says:

        It occurred to me that if you really wanted a slimmed-down monarchy, the first place to start would the Prince of Wales and Household. There is really no need for it after the other siblings are no longer royal.

    • Liz version 700 says:

      💯 Charles is a petty, selfish pathetic little man. He will be a terrible King and then his petulant son will finish the monarchy off forever ….

  3. lanne says:

    I’ve heard that rich folks can quarantine in a British territory—that’s how they have been getting around the quarantines. If Harry truly is going to this dedication, then I hope that he and Meghan and the kids can quarantine in Bermuda or the BVIs, he flies in to London for 1 day, and is out of there in less than 24 hours.

    I guess one of the palace idiots realized how racist it would look to this not a racist family to deliberately exclude to children of color, babies, from their birthright. Hence the pushback on the weekend stories.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I really don’t think Meghan is traveling ANYWHERE for any amount of time, even in a private jet, with a 2 wk. old newborn. If it was *just* Archie… not during the Pandemic.

      I’d lay my last dollar of her staying put, with Doria still there, with her kids, just blocking the “noise” coming from her toxic in-laws. I’m sure she’ll be on FT with Harry during feedings (considering the time difference). I don’t think Harry will spend a minute longer than he has to on that Salt Pillar Island.

    • Mikaela says:

      Hey – Bermudian here. This isn’t true. We have to quarantine if we visit the UK. Although I wouldn’t mind a visit from Meg and Harry!

    • anance says:

      It seemed like the old Texas two-step: now we are doing it, now we are not — for years. So when comes the population is primed for it.

  4. Lauren says:

    The best thing that Chuck can do is stay the fck away from Diana’s memorial especially after that whole Dyson report debacle and his and his other son gaslighting Diana. There is a theory among the squad and I’m thinking the same: KP released the changing the patent news to discredit Chuck and this is CH saying that no, there are other priorities, but not denying that the conversation of the change to the patents did happen. Still, Chuck definitely told his people about changing the patents and these people gleefully told Meghan and Meghan told the world and was called a liar that doesn’t get royal protocol. Now that the news is out there, confirmed, and the pushback is enormous, Chuck says, “yeah well, it won’t be for a very long time”.

    • Becks1 says:

      There’s something weird going on, right? I def think the story in the Mail came from KP and now Clarence House is pushing back on it – but in a very careful way. This isn’t a denial about the conversations like you said, but it’s close to a denial that he’s actually going to follow through. It kind of feels like KP is trying to use Charles to punish the Sussexes and Charles is starting to push back, every so slightly.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        That’s my feeing as well, Becks1! While it’s been discussed, nothing is set in stone. But for KP’s purposes, it’s what will happen day 1 of Charles’ reign. And this is Charles saying…not so fast. I can’t and won’t do anything right now.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It does feel like this is coming from KP, in an attempt to deflect from Kate’s failures last week.

  5. Cecilia says:

    This is nonsense. Meghan and harry told us themselves that that charles plans on taking those titles.

    • ElleE says:

      @Cecilia Exactly! We heard this from MM on March 7th and afterwards, even advocates said: “She could have explained it better” and “ She wasn’t 100% right there”. I have a good memory for some things and I think she said exactly this. Almost verbatim.

      Archie: gets title when Queen dies unless the ye olde Charles the whatever, Letters of Patent are changed and they are going to be changed, just for Archie.

      H&M planned what to tell Oprah and which of them was going to say what. Harry was standing right off camera when M made that planned statement-it was 4 sentences or so.

      H&M knew this painful anvil was going to be gleefully dropped on their baby son’s head so they told the world first in March 6th. End of. The family is just sticking with the announcement plan timetable.

    • anance says:

      This is just gaslighting on part of the BRF

  6. Lizzie says:

    So Archie and Lili will have the title when the queen dies. All chaz can do is take the titles away. His MO is very passive aggressive (mostly passive like going to Scotland every time Harry comes to London) so I cannot see him doing it. Good point that his focus will be Camilla.

  7. DS9 says:

    Harry should just go no contact with that rancid trash biscuits, get US citizenship and let their heads explode in their very own echo chamber.

    I’m guessing that’s exactly what will happen when Elizabeth is no longer with us.

  8. Becks1 says:

    So, I did think this was an interesting take. The Queen could have issued something now saying that the rules are changed and Archie and Lili will not become HRH when Charles is king, but she hasn’t done that, so clearly she’s okay with the status quo.

    So now we’re hearing that charles is going to do it when he’s king -but that’s messier IMO because then he’s actively taking something away. When the Queen dies and Charles becomes king, Archie becomes HRH Prince Archie and Lili is HRH Princess Lilibet. So then for Charles to change it, he would be taking it away and demoting them in a way, and that’s always messier than not having something to begin with. And it IS going to be a bad look.

    Charles is already going to come to the throne without the enormous public goodwill that his mother enjoys. And I think introducing Camilla as Queen is going to be a bigger priority for him than removing HRH from Archie and Lili, especially if they aren’t using it.

    The only way really for him to do it without looking totally racist is removing HRH from everyone except William and his children – and you can imagine the pushback from some if he removes the HRH from the York princesses? But that’s from a PR standpoint, Charles may not care about that.

    I don’t know, none of us know what is going to happen, but I think it’s going to be really messy and ugly when Charles becomes king.

    • Lauren says:

      The Queen should have no problem with it seeing as it was her grandfather that issue the patent in the first place and she made alterations to suit Baldy’s needs because she is so long-lived. For the life of me though I can’t figure out what benefit is there to not give Archie and Lilibet their HRH. It makes Chuck seems racist AF and there is literally no benefit. Let’s say he goes on with his plan and slimline the monarchy (let’s leave the York girls out as they get the titles due to their father being a son of the Queen and it is 100% in line with the patent) and the Sussex children don’t get their HRH, then it’s just Chuck, Camilla and the three Cambridge kids left, 5 people. Then, Baldy, is king and the HRH is sent forward only through George (unless Baldy changes the patent again), and then what? The monarchy will be reduced to the monarch, the Prince of Wales, and his heir. At that point there is no need for those many palaces, that much public funding, those many exemptions because there are just too few left. Makes no sense at all.

      • Lizzie says:

        What benefit was there in taking Harry’s honorary military titles? None, they just enjoy a petty move.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        “….so clearly she’s okay with the status quo.”

        I don’t think it’s so much she’s “okay”; she is an ostrich that prefers to bury her head at any conflict hoping it resolves itself or someone ELSE resolves it for her. She is NOTORIOUS for not “getting involved” (too messy! too emotional!). She will let it go and be Charles’ “problem”. She isn’t going to touch any of it with a ten foot scepter.

        If she WAS going to do anything, she’d've called a Presser at the Palace when all this bullshit started, or even when it started to get out of hand, and told them to cut the crap: this is her grandson and his wife, and they’re here to stay. But as we know, that is *not* Betty’s MO.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Lauren, that is the way many other royal houses run. Only the heir receives HRH, others receive His/Her Highness and are never slated to be working royals. If the Windsors slim down to monarch/spouse, heir/spouse, first born child as working royals? That isn’t a bad thing moving forward. All of those properties could be rented out for market rates, museums built at Buckingham Palace, Clarence House turned into government offices. Decrease the royal funding by at least 550 million a year. And any child NOT the direct heir goes out an earns a living.

        They are changing the rules mid-stream regarding Harry and Meghan and their family. Not stating it years ago when Harry was born, or years before he got married. Only after he chose to marry Meghan and have children with her were rules suddenly changed. That is what is obvious.

        They changed rules mid-stream with Beatrice and Eugenie too, who were raised to be working royals. It wasn’t until their late teens that the ‘working royal future’ option was removed.

        (TheOG) Jan90067, I think QEII checked out years ago. Whatever happens in Charles’s reign is his problem. She’s not going to take away titles from her fav’s daughters, so she’s not going to act on Harry and Meghan either.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Oh, Nota, I agree completely. She did check out even earlier than when PP “retired”. She never was one to try and “solve” an issue from the beginning. She either seemed to leave it to “The Grey Men” or PP to take care of, or wait till it seemed to resolved itself someway.

        And yes, she would NEVER do anything to Pedo’s kids; I do wonder if she’d put anything in her will that could be enforceable that their titles can’t be “taken” retroactively (ie: only kids Charles could affect would be Harry’s). Though I guess when she goes, there go her “wishes”, too.

        I also wonder if she altered the amount of £££££s she’s leaving to Pedo (giving him more of the lion’s share of cash) even with the tax laws (about direct heirs getting more since it’s non taxable). Either that, or she’s funneling the money to Pedo now to take care of *his* future, knowing Charles is going to cut him out.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        QEII is not going to take the style of HRH away from the Sussex kids, the York Princess, The Michaels of Kent, The Duke of Kent nor the Duke of Gloucester.

        King Charles III will not alter the 1917 Letters Patent either either because if he removes HRH from the Sussex kids then he must remove HRH from the York Princess, Prince Michael of Kent, The Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Yorks and the Wessexes get their HRH by being grandchildren of a son of the monarch, which is the exact same position that Archie and Lili will be in when Charles is King. If he changes the letters patent to the children of the direct line only, then he will be removing the HRH from Beatrice, Eugenie, james and Louise along with Archie and Lili. He can’t avoid doing this unless he specifically names Archie and Lili and that will make him look awful.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Nic919 – Which is why I do not believe that Charles III will do it.

        All this spewing of vile is just the Daily Fail trying to generate revenue$ and Robert Lacey trying to sell a book that most royal watchers have already bought. The “new” chapters of the Lacey book are just revivalist: presentation of old information in a new way.

    • Merricat says:

      +1

    • Becks1 says:

      @Lauren yes! we’ve been talking about that off and on in a few posts but its interesting that there is all this talk about streamlining the monarchy but no talk about reducing the sovereign grant or any other costs associated with the royals. the most we have heard AFAIK is that Charles isn’t going to live at Buckingham Palace and it will be open full time to visitors.

      • Myra says:

        Exactly. Plus, Archie and Lili are not dependent on royal funds so this issue around streamlining should be in relation to Anne, the Wessexes and Andrew. So, if you’re not having a conversation about those people than you are not really streamlining anything, you’re just being racist towards the grandkids, descended from a black lineage.

      • notasugarhere says:

        We’ve heard that’s what Charles wants, not that that’s what he’ll get. He wants to be based at Clarence House and Windsor. BUT the UK is spending 400 million restoring Buckingham Palace as a home for the future monarch – not as a museum.

        How much more taxpayer money will be spent turning it from newly-decorated private residences, suites, and offices into a museum and hotel? Now someone wants 90 million to restore one side of the stonework on Clarence House. More taxpayer money will be demanded for that, for an extranenous vanity home for Charles.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Becks, I also read that he doesn’t want to live in BP, to only use it for “work”, and that he wants to stay at CH.

        Myra, we’re also talking about all the “cousins” that live in the palaces (even though they are elderly and dying out soon). They also live off the teat, getting monies from TQ (who we KNOW funnels tax dollars off the SG: we’ve seen this repeatedly when she asks for monies for repairs to the palaces, monies that had already been allocated but *redirected* to what/whom we aren’t privy to; all we’ve know is the funds aren’t there to repair, and the palaces needs 10s/100s of millions of pounds *now* to be repaired up to standard).

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Gloucesters have already moved to smaller space at KP in a bid to retire. They have outside money, they could move from KP completely. Probably happy to do so. Princess Alexandra late husband bought the lease on Thatched House (Crown Estate), so she’d likely be okay too. P&P Michael of Kent, technically not working royals but we suspect they’re funded? Yes, throw them out and make them pay their own rent elsewhere. Maybe his Russian buddies will put them up in a luxury apartment in Moscow.

        Duke of Kent (85)? I’d be okay with him being allowed to stay on in Wren Cottage at KP as a working royal. Let him die with his boots on. He’s old school, served the country and Queen as he thought he should. Has no money and doesn’t appear to have been part of any of these schemes. Let him keep doing his engagements and staying at KP. He did 200 engagements in 2019, he’s pulling his weight.

        Seems cruel to throw him out now, since he has nowhere else to go. Then again, I suppose Charles could put him at Wood Farm (if William wasn’t already possibly living there). He’s used to living at Sandringham, since he and the Duchess of Kent lived at Anmer Hall decades ago.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        For the record: I have no problems with Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Duke of Kent or The Duke of Gloucester. To expand on what Nota stated, I think Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Duke of Kent or The Duke of Gloucester have all done exactly what QEII ask of them and did it very well with no unprofessional and no unroyal funny business. I believe Princess Alexandra of Kent is already semi-retired but I am not 100% sure.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @Myra — the only real comparison is to Andrew’s kids. Anne’s kids are not royal, they are commoners. Edward’s kids are not royal either (due to letters patent issued by the queen in 1999 when Edward got married). But Andrew’s kids are in the exact same position as Harry’s kids, the children of the monarch’s second son. It would be difficult for Charles to treat Harry’s kids any differently from Andrew’s kids. Either they all need to keep their HRH titles, or they all need to lose them. I know Charles probably wants to strip Beatrix and Eugenie of their titles, but it would look bad to do it to Harry’s kids.

    • MA says:

      I kinda agree with this take. It seems like the discussion of taking the Sussex titles away, which will never happen. If the Queen won’t change the convention then I don’t know why Charles would at the same time he’s trying to make Camilla a Queen consort officially

  9. Elizabeth Kerri Mahon says:

    Once upon a time, I actually had some sympathy for Prince Charles. It can’t have been easy having Prince Philip for a father; the man wasn’t known for his patience. But this is just cruel. I remember the photo taken on the balcony during the last jubilee, the Queen surrounded by Prince Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, and Harry. That was supposed to be the slimmed-down monarchy. And now, because Harry dared to marry a biracial woman, all of a sudden, their children are going to have their HRH taken away from them when Charles becomes King? How does he think that is going to play with the Commonwealth? Barbados has already decided to leave; how many more Commonwealth nations will stay given the way that the RF and the courtiers have treated Meghan & Harry?

    • Liz version 700 says:

      Agreed, Charles is going to end up being the King of a very small very isolated island.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That has less to do with Charles and more to do with the natural evolution of former colonies to dump a foreign Head of State. That so many have held off for now? They’re simply waiting for QEII to pass.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota – Agree 100%. Many members of the Commonwealth of Nations are just waiting for QEII to pass. On the way out of QEIIs funeral service, I am sure the elected leaders and official delegates representing their respective countries will drop their official “parting of the ways” letters in the official resignation box.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I can’t believe that any monarchies still exist in the modern world. It’s such an outdated (and racist) notion that one bloodline was born to rule over people.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      I think any pity for charles is misplaced.

      I recently watched The Windsors on netflix (had been avoiding it…..it was one of netflix ‘recommendations’ because i watched The Crown). And what struck me on watching charles’ life-story (rmbr, these are real-life footage, plus commentary) was how arrogant he was and intent on having his own way.

      The story of how he got into bed with the Saudis is quite telling. Everything he does might appear to be selfless (like the Prince’s Trust) but he only gets himself involved in things if he sees how it will benefit him long term. The way the Prince’s Trust kinda clashed with one of betty’s jubilee events and how he didnt attend, was quite something.

      Also, in the 60s (i think) when the chinese first visited and both the govt and betty pulled out all the stops to welcome them, charles snubbed them and it was a big embarrassing deal for the uk. He snubbed them because he supported the dalai lama and Tibet and was against china.

      And dont lets get started on those many letters he wrote to lobby govt for things he wanted, even if it seemed to be supporting gd causes.

      He’s been defying his mother from even before he became Prince of Wales so I’m very sure he’s in charge of the BRF right now and is in a battle royal with willieleaks.

  10. Snuffles says:

    I’m still not convinced Harry has made any final decisions yet to go or not.

    • JT says:

      I don’t see how he could even go with the fuckshit that William just pulled with Robert Lacey’s book. I certainly wouldn’t. If William thinks he’s the most important, than let him act like it and carry the unveiling on his own. And let’s not forget that Will Jung Un just gaslit his mother and had the nerve to call himself honoring her. Harry should stay home, he’s going to get shit for it either way. Might as well be in beautiful Montecito with his wife and babies.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        William may think he is doing something but William is not smart enough to “pull shit” of anything else.

        William, and to some degree Charles, are being used by the Robert Lacey and The Daily Fail to sell, books. sell newspapers and generate online clicks for major revenue$.

        All of the BRF is coming off looking worse & worse each day that this shit goes on in the British Media.

      • Calibration says:

        honestly I thought that bs from Baldimort was put out in an attempt to deter Harry from attending so Haz would get the bad press of not being there to honour his mother. Who would want to go after all that crap. If he does go, he’s a much better person than I am, not that that would be too hard, but still.

    • A says:

      I kinda hope he doesn’t. At this point I think it would be the ultimate sign of respect for his mother, wife, children and ultimately himself that place seemed to bring 2 of the 3 most important women in his life misery and pain and the fact that clown show media is showing out right now, before he even touches down in a plane just makes it not worth it alone!

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Frankly, Harry is doing more to honor Diana by the compassionate work he is doing, and continues to do, as well as living his best life with a woman who *truly* loves him, who shows her he *truly* loves her by protecting her and his family (unlike his father).

        TOBB is living a bitter life, doing *very* little work in the same vein as Diana, has NONE of her empathy or compassion, and is married to a woman who is by his side by virtue of being the last one standing who wanted to be with him.

        Hmmm… which one is *truly* honoring his mother’s wishes/dreams?

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Same. I *think* the Independent was the first of the British media to claim he would, but I have yet to see a clear confirmation or denial from his and Meghan’s spokesperson. All we’ve heard is that they’re on parental leave right now.

      • JT says:

        I haven’t seen any statement from Harry confirming his attendance, so I don’t know why the press is so sure that he is going.

      • Jais says:

        Part of me thinks that he’s just waiting till the last minute to be like yeah no sorry can’t make it.
        Another part wonders if he’ll wait till the last minute to drop in like a ninja and be like yeah no y’all and your racist article shenanigans don’t scare me.
        But mostly just wish he’d stay home and bond with the new baby and drop a picture of his whole family alongside a picture of Diana in their new home. Statue unveiling what?

    • notasugarhere says:

      I wonder if his statement about ‘parental leave’ was a hint he has no plans to travel to the UK for this event.

      • Nic919 says:

        That’s how I read it. It’s also a really bad time to travel and for a statue? That’s not the same as a funeral.

  11. Jay says:

    I’m picturing Charles hiding behind the couch in his grand Scottish house with all the lights turned off, hissing at Camilla not to answer if anyone knocks on the door. Such a sensitive man.

    It seems to me that with this threat if removing his grandchildren’s titles, Charles is still demonstrating that he doesn’t get it. As Meghan and Harry said in the Oprah interview, royal titles for their children in the UK are connected to having security, but a title in the US? Who cares? Just because Charles and his family believe that their titles are the be all end all, they can’t imagine anybody thinking differently. They don’t understand, and probably will never understand, that they and their symbols no longer have power in this situation.

    They really seem to think their threat will get to the Sussexes, but Harry has already told us he’s willing to give up everything, and I believe he understood better than most exactly what that would mean.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      “I’m picturing Charles hiding behind the couch in his grand Scottish house with all the lights turned off, hissing at Camilla not to answer if anyone knocks on the door. Such a sensitive man.”

      OMG Jay… I’m DEAD!! lololololol. WHAT a visual!!

      And yes, totally agree… don’t think H&M give a damn about the title *per se*, but more of the idea that their children are being denied a *birthright* due to outright racism and intent to hurt.

  12. Merricat says:

    I do think historians will look back at this time as key to the monarchy’s end, and an excellent example of power diminishing due to vanity, ego, entitlement.

  13. Lady Digby says:

    RF are completely out of touch with modern society. Their crisis managers should stop all the criticism of Meg and Harry as it is damaging and it confirms that they spoke the truth to Oprah. It is a big world and everybody can shine if they put the work in. Meg and Harry are successfully building their lives in US so why it is necessary to rubbish them? Kate and William have centre stage now so let them prove their worth.Charles will be next King and Head of Church of England so it is not a good look if he chooses to estrange himself from his son, wife and kids.
    I am a middle aged Britisher who has been appalled by the way Meg and Harry have been treated by the tabloids fed by all those palace aides. Brexit happened and people are questioning the revelance of the monarchy so a republic could happen here, the age of deference is dead.

    • Eurydice says:

      I don’t believe that there are any crisis managers, just as I don’t believe there are people actually investigating the Meghan bullying claims or race issues in the monarchy. The monarchy is about superiority of birth. Once they are born they don’t have to do anything else except show up here and there in fancy dress. Nothing substantial is expected. When there is a crisis, all they have to do is hunker down behind “never complain, never explain” and wait for the crisis to be over.

    • taris says:

      i, too, wonder about this sometimes.

      if both charles and william are going to be king one day, why the insecurity and incessant need to be praised all the time? it’s apparently a crime for somebody else to shine once in a while? they chased harry and meghan away and yet they still shit themselves worrying about being eclipsed by brand sussex.
      with the british media establishment constantly fawning over them and the majority of (older) british people supporting them, it’s like, what more do they want, really? geez.

      *make it make sense*

    • Beach Dreams says:

      I’ve been wondering about those crisis managers. It seemed quiet for a very brief moment when they started in May, then things became worse by the end of the month. This month has had even more chaos. I wouldn’t be surprised if W&K are either disregarding advice or have gotten rid of their crisis manager already. Charles might still be holding onto/listening to his…CH doesn’t seem to have been *quite* as off the rails as KP and even BP.

      • Sunday says:

        I have a tinfoil tiara theory about the crisis managers: I think they realized that the royal family is half the battle or less – the majority of the problem lies with the tabloid press. I’m not defending the family in any way, and yes they do brief against the Sussexes, but I don’t think it’s all as voluntary as we expect. Between blackmail (that’s what the suppression of damaging stories about oneself through the provision of more valuable information or payouts is, after all) and the tabloids just spinning nonsense out of whole cloth to instigate a press battle, the tabloids are the ones throwing gasoline on this right and left. I think the crisis managers approached either the rota or the publications themselves and tried to enforce a new MO moving forward and the sh*tshow we’re seeing in response is the tabloids refusing the offer and demanding more blood, or else they start releasing all the things they’ve been holding back re: the rest of the family. Time will tell…

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Brexit happened and people are questioning the relevance of the monarchy”

      @Lady Digby – So is Northern Ireland and Scotland. The England is in good company.

  14. Izzy says:

    They’re still assuming Harry is going to that statue unveiling when it’s very much up in the air, isn’t it?

  15. Over it says:

    Chucky and Baldimort are so much alike, it’s scary how they are the same spineless, hateful, arrogant, selfish assholes. I despise them both equally.

  16. aquarius64 says:

    How do know Harry is really going to the UK?

    I think the new shooting war between KP and CH started because Omid Scobie stated in a press organization meeting there were several conversations in the BRF about Archie’s skin color and it may be from a head of state and the public has the right to know.

    • taris says:

      exactly.

      i think it’s important for everyone to realise that harry and meghan actually hold all the cards here. they have receipts, and they can always tell us any time who the racists in the royal family are. whatever the british media and the firm want us to think, the sussexes are actually doing pretty great and it’s the firm that’s in crisis.

      whether it was planned or not, it was super smart of omid to remind people over the weekend that the royals are racist, right as they were rolling out their latest wave of anti-meghan bile. there’s no equivalent of accusations they can lob at meghan that can ever be anywhere near as bad as racism (especially with a baby involved).

      so, i wish the sussexes, instead of having to issue out statements all the time refuting tabloid lies, would tactically communicate with credible reporters like omid with on-point messaging like this. as well, i think they may want to actually hire some comms & PR people who have worked on political campaigns because the hit jobs and character assassinations from the firm won’t stop any time soon.

  17. anna says:

    truly what trash. I hope after this they never come back. like – charles won’t even come see his son he hasn’t seen in forever who just had a child after everything. after insulting his wife and family in the press. I just hope harry and meghan find peace and just cut the whole UK crowd out.

  18. PC says:

    In other words, it would be a bad PR move for Chuck and he craves popularity

  19. Steph says:

    If the Queen dies before Edward’s children turn 18, would they still be entitled to their HRH’s since they won’t be grandchildren to the monarch?

    • Sofia says:

      They would still be able to use it because they would still be the grandchildren of a monarch. They’re legally HRH they’re just not using it so it’s not going to be “taken away” when she dies. So yes they could use it even if the queen dies tomorrow

    • MsIam says:

      I wondered that too. So maybe that’s why Sophie is trying to suck up to the Cambridges just in case. If Charles won’t give the HRH to his own grand kids then why would he give it to his niece and nephew if the queen dies before they turn 18?

      ETA: I didn’t see your response Sofia before I finished mine’s!

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think Sophie has been sucking up to W&K for years because Charles planned to remove them as working royals. He got the Queen’s private secretary, Lord Geidt, fired over his public moves to push Edward&Sophie forward as a crucial part of Charles’s reign. They have the lease on Bagshot, but they don’t have the money to pay the staff if they don’t have Sovereign Grand funding. Ditto Andrew and Royal Lodge.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Once and for all: The Wessex kids are HRHs. Edward and Sophie, will the permission and blessing of QEII, chose to raise their offspring in the manner of children of a non-royal earl. When Edward ascends to the Dukedom of Edinburgh, James, his son, will become The Earl of Wessex if under 18 or HRH The Earl of Wessex if over 18.

      Sophie has stated this in many print interviews as have other TRUE academic royal scholars.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      To clarify for people who are confused: Edward’s children are NOT “HRH” because the queen issued a “Letters Patent” when Edward got married that his kids will NOT be given those titles. The 1999 Letters Patent are more recent in time, and therefore over-rule the one issued by George V.

      The information can be found here:
      https://letterspatentbrf.tumblr.com/post/181735115023/hrh-prince-edward-earl-of-wessex
      https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/55536/page/7011

      Note that the Queen said his children will not be GIVEN the titles, not that they merely cannot “use” them (by comparison, Harry and Meghan were told not to “use” their titles, but Edward’s kids were prohibited from being GIVEN the titles).

      The Queen (or eventually Charles, but that’s unlikely) can always change her mind and give Edward’s kids the HRH title any time she wants. That’s entirely up to the discretion of the monarch. But so far she hasn’t done so. I’ve asked before if anyone knows of a Letters Patent from the queen that over-rules her 1999 one, but so far there isn’t any evidence of one. And Sophie’s desperate assertions that her kids are really royal doesn’t count.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Mrs. Karbapple – here is what I have dug up: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2018/10/to-be-royal-or-not-to-be-royal-that-is.html

        I am not disagreeing or arguing with you but there seems to be quite a lot of conflicting info on the Wessex offspring in regards to style and title.

        Edward Wessex’s children do use a “style” of HRH.

        James has and uses the courtesy “title” Viscount Severn.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Sorry! I meant to say Edward Wessex’s children do NOT “use” a “style” of HRH.

      • Nic919 says:

        The gazette only contains a reference to bestowing Edward the earldom of Wessex. The other part about not using HRH for the kids is part of a communications memo and not a letters patent. All laws and statutory instruments must be published in the gazette and that second portion is not. And so the Queen did not reverse the 1917 letters patent of George V. It is merely an agreement with the Queen. Same as with getting the dukedom of Edinburgh. It is an agreement that Charles could ignore once he is king.

        Publishing bills and laws in the gazette is a common feature in all countries that were once British colonies and still use a parliamentary system.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @BayTampaBay – thank you for the link, it is very interesting. I agree there are conflicting statements out there re: Edward’s kids. But I prefer to follow official statements put out by the queen, which is how I came to my own conclusion. I do think it’s possible that the queen orally promised Edward she would make his kids royal when they turn 18, or gave him other assurances privately. But I haven’t been able to find any public statement from her to that effect. I guess I’ll have to wait and see what happens when they turn 18 (although again, I haven’t seen anything official regarding the age of 18 — does anyone know where that number came from? Thanks in advance).

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @Nic919 – there is no legal requirement as to what form the letters patent take. Any written statement would suffice.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Nic919 – Thank you for clarifying why there is so much conflicting info on the Wessex kids.

        Sophie Wessex always minds her Royal Ps & Qs so I do not think she would have explained the HRH situation with Louise & James the way she did to the Daily Mail if it were not true that James & Louise are HRHs but will not use the “style” of HRH during their minority per request of their parents and the agreement of QEII.

  20. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    HRH needs to raise his bicycle seat. He’s going to knacker his knees.
    Funny that since the Met has been forced to look into the PaedoAndy/Epstein/Maxwell allegations, all this has come out; ditto PWT’s shitfest in Lacey’s book. One would surmise that they’re protecting Mumsy’s Special Boy by sacrificing the rest – again.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Nobody, especially Robert Lacey, is protecting anyone. The Daily Fail and Robert Lacey are only spewing whatever spew generates revenue$ but keeps them away from law enforcement. Spewing bile about Prince Andrew will guarantee you an all day seat for a formal inquiry at the London Met Constabulary or Scotland Yard. I am sure that the UK is like the USA and if you refuse to fully cooperate with law enforcement you will be shown a jail cell for showing contempt. Nobody is trying to protect Andrew. The British Media is only trying to protect their sources. The Sussex spew is really just vile and libelous family tittle-tattle with trashy gossip thrown in for shit$ & giggle$. The dirt on Andrew is criminal.

      Point in case: The British Media no longer beats-up on Camilla for the simple reason that beating-up on Camilla is no longer a revenue generating venture.

  21. Amy Bee says:

    CH has never denied that Charles wants to change the rules for Archie and Lili so Meghan told the truth.

  22. anotherlily says:

    The point at issue is whether Letters Patent can appy in retrospect and change what already exists. The current rules grant HRH status to every grandchild of a reigning monarch born through a male line. If Charles were to change the rules so that only the children of the heir have HRH status then would it remove HRH from Andrew’s daughters? I think probably not because it is for the current reigning monarch to decide which of their family can be HRH and this continues after that monarch’s death. The Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra are HRH as grandchildren of George V and the Queen cannot remove that status from any of them.

    William’s younger children are HRH because the Queen changed the rules to include all children of the heir to the Prince of Wales before the younger children were born.

    I think Lacey is probably right. Archie and Lili become HRH as soon as Charles is King. Charles would have to remove HRH status from them and this would involve Parliament. The ruling would then apply to any children born to Prince Louis unless Charles explicitly targets Archie and Lili, perhaps on the grounds of dual nationality. But this would be difficult to argue without allegations of racism. British royal history is full of foreign born Princes.

    Charles is doing himself no favours by continuing to be silent as his youngest grandchildren are abused and threatened in the tabloid press.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Charles doesn’t need parliament to change HRH status. It’s the Dukedoms and such that he has no say over.

      • anotherlily says:

        He does need Parliament to remove HRH status from those who already have such status.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        No, HRH is purely in the monarch’s hands. It’s how the Queen was able to change the rules for Diana and Fergie without parliaments permission. She would have needed parliaments help if she wanted Diana and Fergie to stop using Princess of Wales and Duchess of York.

    • Nic919 says:

      Unless the letters patent specifically exclude the Kents , Gloucesters, Yorks and Wessexes, they would lose their HRH if the patent broadly states that only grandchildren in the direct male line of the monarch can have an HRH.
      George V did remove honorifics in his 1917 patent and so it is not unheard of for that to happen.

      I don’t see Charles doing this unless he includes them, especially the Yorks and the Wessexes, because none of them were ever working royals.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “The ruling would then apply to any children born to Prince Louis.”

      @anotherlily – TRUE!

      It would not apply to the eldest son of Prince George as he would be the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales but would apply to all of George’s other children. Therefore, if George’s eldest child is a daughter there are technical problems which is the reason QEII issued Letter Patent of 2013 BEFORE it was known that George was a Prince and not a Princess.

      QEII’s Letter Patent of 2013 applied to and only accelerated the HRHS of the children of William, Duke of Cambridge. QEII’s Letter Patent of 2013 does NOT apply to the children of Prince George.

  23. Margaret says:

    After the willie boy, put down of his mother, with the paranoid statement, if I were harry, I would let that hypocrite stand up on his own. Send a video statement. With the new covid variant rising, and a new born at home, I wouldn’t take the chance.

  24. J ferber says:

    I always thought Meghan told the truth from the get-go. It’s the royal family that is filled with liars, schemers, sycophants, cowards, murderers and racists. England is foolish for spending hundreds of millions of pounds on their rancid Aryans.

  25. Ainsley7 says:

    I always thought that Charles would be limiting titles to people who have a chance at becoming working royals. So, William’s kids get them, but only George’s kids will get them. Prince Louis and Princess Charlotte are likely to be working royals, but their kids definitely won’t be. Just like Harry’s children were never going to be regardless of their race. It’s pretty clear that titles have done the York girls no favors. I don’t think it has anything to do with racism, but it does look connected due to all the other racism that family has taken part in.

    I would also like to know why H&M believe that a title would guarantee their kids security. Whoever told them that lied. It’s the police and parliament who decide. The Royal family has no say and have to pay for security privately if it is deemed unnecessary. All the Queen’s kids except Charles only get security when on official duties. Harry had enough threats against him that he had 24/7 security. Otherwise he would have also found himself with his security being cut to only while working. So, I don’t understand why he thinks his kids having titles would have guaranteed them having security

    • Becks1 says:

      I mean, I’m guessing Harry understands how it works better than the rest of us.

      But this is the part of the interview where I think things got confusing because there was SO MUCH coming out. I think Meghan thought that a title and HRH guaranteed security, because Oprah asked her if him having a title was important to her and she said something like “if it means he’s going to be safe/protected then yes.”

      My guess is the conversation was that he would not have the HRH title AND he would not have security (remember they didnt want to pay security for Meghan.)

      I’m actually looking it up now about Sophie and I found an article from 2011 about how their security was going to be cut but they were going to appeal – wonder what happened there. Then it says this:

      “It was reported last month that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are to be stripped of protection officers after a row over the £500,000 annual cost.

      Prince Andrew has fought to keep the 24 hour guards for his daughters – who are 5th and 6th in line to the throne as they have HRH status.

      But the argument has failed because their cousin Zara Phillips has no protection – even though she enjoys a higher status.”

      So that was 2011, so they had RPOs up until that point (so well after they turned 18, which is when many people say they lost RPOs.)

      But its also from Katie Nicholl so that explains the weird line at the end about Zara “enjoying a higher status” which she doesn’t – she’s not HRH and she is lower in the line of succession than B&E.

      • notasugarhere says:

        iirc Zara and Peter lost protection when they turned 18 and moved off Anne’s estate. There were articles about Zara being surprised by it. She thought she’d get RPOs and security anywhere she lived, but it turned out protection was only defacto as long as she lived on her mother’s secured estate.

        It was back when she was dating the jockey. She moved on and off Anne’s estate several times, but she and Mike are back there now because of security. As long as Anne is a working royal, the estate is secured by taxpayers. Another massive cost that is hidden in budgets.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        I’m often confused by Harry. He should know how things work, but I’m not sure how much attention he was paying to the things that didn’t effect him. Like, it’s pretty clear in the interview that Harry, for whatever reason, did not prepare Meghan as well as he should have. I don’t think he knows the ins and outs as well as people assume he does.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota – This is exactly my reasoning why all “working” and retired from “working” royals need to live at Kensington Palace. Security at Kensington Palace is always going to be there just like at a high rise building in New York City. If a royal wants to live somewhere else or have a second country pile for weekends then they can pay for personal security out of their own pocket when not in residence at Kensington Palace.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’ll add, all lease agreements need to be made public so it can be verified they’re paying market rent. And all private properties, like Sandringham, Balmoral, Birkhall, Ray Mill, Gatcomb, are required to be secured with Windsor private funds.

    • notasugarhere says:

      With Harry’s departure, it is less and less likely that Charlotte and Louis will be working royals. If the slim down is main line only, heir only. Those other two should be raised to earn a living. Start now, while they are young, instead of raising them to think they’ll live a life supported by taxpayers.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        I’m not entirely sure Harry’s departure necessarily means that Louis and Charlotte will also be expected to make their own way. Charles’ slimmed down monarchy was meant to include Harry and Meghan. It’s the same in most the European royal families. Right now, it’s the Queen, Cornwalls, Cambridges, Wessexes, and Anne. Everyone will either be retired of passed on by the time George is a working Royal. I could see Louis being let off the hook, but Charlotte will definitely be pressured to work for the firm. Especially if it takes awhile for George to marry.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        I think Will and Kate will go the Prince Andrew route and raise them to expect to be working royals and not preparing for the possibility that they might not be, and then when they’re nearly adults someone else will finally put their foot down on the matter and they’ll have to fumble about for a while to figure out how to work and support themselves.

        It seems to be the way this family operates in general. Assume that what is will always be and never even contemplate that anything else could ever be (let alone prepare for the possibility), and then be BLINDSIDED when reality hits, things must change, and constantly scramble to cope and bitch about the changes.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        I actually think it SHOULD be the direct heirs only. The monarch is the head of state, but the other family members are unnecessary (besides the direct heir, who will be the NEXT head of state). That’s why I think monarchies are stupid. But it makes more sense to limit the HRH title, security, privileges, solely to the head of state and future head of state, then extend it to a large family. If a monarch has 10 kids and 40 grandchildren, do they really all need to be HRH and supported by taxpayers? As much as I dislike the man, I think Charles is on the right course.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It makes it clear to the anti-monarchy public that anyone but the direct heir is now considered extraneous by The Firm itself. That means Charlotte and Louis should be raised without the use of their titles, and raised to earn a living in the real world.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Anisley7 – HRH cannot pass through Princess Charlotte as she is female. She is in the same position as Anne, The Princess Royal.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        I wasn’t referring to Charlotte’s children working. I was referring to her working the same way Anne does (literally since I think she will get the title Princess Royal from William). Her kids will be raised to work just like Anne’s as well. My point about George possibly being unmarried was the number of working Royals. It could end up just W&K and George at a certain point. Which is why I don’t think either Charlotte or Louis is off the hook, but especially not Charlotte.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Ainsley7 – Sorry! I read you comment to fast. I agree with your comments on Charlotte.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Not clear then why Eugenie & Beatrice had taxpayer security until after they finished uni I believe. There are also claims that Andrew is getting taxpayer funded security now. That info is from tabloids so I take that with a pinch of salt but also wouldn’t surprise me if true.

      Sophie & Louise were also spotted with security when they were shopping in Windsor before Philip’s funeral so doesn’t look like they just have it during official duties. I think security is an example of where it’s not very transparent in how it works in practice which Harry would probably know more about which may have informed his expectations.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think the security for the York Princess was more to keep the girls away from :undesirables and the possible resulting tabloid coverage than protection from the public in general.

  26. Emmitt says:

    IMO Archie and Lili’s titles won’t be stripped but Harry & Meghan will be told their children will not be recognized as HRH Prince or Princess by the royal family…i.e. they may be Prince/Princess but WE’RE not going to call them that ever (just like Camilla is actually the Princess of Wales but she will never be called that).

    If Charles strips Archie & Lili, he’s got to strip all the rest of them. And if he’s going to strip Archie, Lili, the York Girls, the Wessex kids etc then he needs to strip Harry of all his titles too.

    That would make a lot of people happy but would make a bigger mess of things.

    • Jan says:

      Charles cannot stripe Harry tittle of Duke, only parliament do that. He was born a prince.
      They can take away HRH, military honors, but they can’t take away Major/Captain Wales, they down play the Major part, because they don’t want him rank above Princess William.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Jan is correct. The monarch can only stirp away the HRH. The removal or “attainment” of titles takes an act of Parliament. No Member of Parliament would touch this mess with Boris Johnson’s or Jacob Rees-Mogg’s ten-foot pole even if they had ten-foot poles.

  27. Shannon Brown says:

    Hmmm….I read a bit more about this and it seems that once Charles becomes King, then Archie and Lili will automatically be a prince and princess. Charles would have to change the Patents to stop that. The other side note to this is Charles is DEAD SET to make Camilla his Queen Consort. That will go down like a lead balloon with the British public. So, Charles ultimate goal hinges on Camilla and him being well-received publicly. Removing titles from your bi-racial grandchildren isn’t going to give anyone any warm fuzzies. So….what’s ole Chuck gonna do?

    • Becks1 says:

      Exactly. As it stands now, Archie and Lili are prince/ss the minute Charles ascends to the throne (which happens when the queen dies). Charles would have to issue new letters patent to change that. Now, that’s not a hard thing to do, he could certainly do it – it doesnt have to go through parliament or anything – but it would be SUCH a bad look, especially if its one of the first things he does…..and he’s going to want to use his PR capital on pushing Camilla as Queen and not princess consort.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “So….what’s ole Chuck gonna do?”

      NOTHING!

      Which is exactly what future Charles III has done in the last 50 years with respect to managing the monarchy as the “future” head of the family.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Correct, there were no letters patent issued (yet) that take away Harry’s kids’ HRH title when Charles becomes king (by comparison, the queen took away Edward’s kids’ right to HRH by a letters patent issued in 1999). It would be very bad publicity to do so in the future. However, it would also mean Charles cannot strip Eugenie and Beatrix of their HRH titles either (as children of the monarch’s second son, they are in the exact same position as Harry’s children). It’s a pickle for Charles, he might chose to leave everything as it is now and just make sweeping changes for any future children born into the family.

      • Shannon Brown says:

        Probably, but he will have to fight for Camilla. I mean, they are still showing Princess/Lady Di’s wedding dress today. She was just featured on People nearly 30 years after her death.

        LOL….LOL…LOL!!!!!

        Camilla doesn’t stand a chance. No offense, but she’s a “handsome” woman. Lady Diana was beautiful and seemingly magnanimous. Camilla, or duchess whatever, is no where near Diana in looks, beauty, and style. She will NEVER be able to compete with that memory.

        NEVER!!!!!

      • notasugarhere says:

        In your mind perhaps, Shannon Brown, but not in everyone’s. Most people in the UK do not care about royals. Those who do? MANY do not care about a failed first marriage 30+ years ago. They have more important things to worry about. 40 percent of marriages in the UK end in divorce, it is nothing special. I get it, Diana lovers will always think otherwise, but it just isn’t the reality.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She might be Queen Consort legally, as she is now legally Princess of Wales, and choose to go by Princess Consort. If she is Princess Consort? Sets the stage for William’s future wife to be known as Princess Consort as well.

      • Shannon Brown says:

        Haha….let’s see. You Britons love tradition. I’m sure that’s why Diana will out last Camilla.

        LOLOLOL

        I bet Prince Chuck will do everything in HIS power to secure that title for his former Mistress. I mean…he’s done everything else right.

        We’ll talk five years from now, SUGAR LESS

  28. Coffeeisgood says:

    That’s gonna make him look so bad to strip the kids of their titles when he becomes king.

  29. Ariel says:

    Those people are just batsh*t crazy.

    If they weren’t ungodly wealthy they’d be the trashy people your aunt live near. And she’s always got an entertaining story about the cops showing up to take bill out for a rage fit on the front lawn in his Dolphins shorts.

  30. blunt talker says:

    I think this story was planted to upset Prince Charles by his oldest son-I truly believe William wants to skip his father in the line of succession-The Cambridges are more popular than Charles and Camilla-Any weakness William can find and use against his father he will use it-this makes his father seem mean and vindictive towards little children-They are trying to show the coldness of Charles towards Harry and his family and people of color-If the government decides to skip Charles then Princess Diana’s statement-that man will never be king-might come true.

  31. BayTampaBay says:

    Charles cannot be “skipped” in the line of succession.

  32. Noor says:

    Is Robert Lacey a historian?
    Nah. he is more a journalist making money from the lives of royalty.