Prince Harry & Meghan’s kids don’t have royal titles in the updated line of succession

In the now-infamous Oprah interview, the Duchess of Sussex told Oprah that while she was pregnant with Archie, there were conversations around her pregnancy and the idea of Harry and Meghan’s children and whether they would have titles. Once Archie was born, we were told repeatedly that Meghan and Harry chose not to give him a title, although I have my doubts (still, to this day) about whether M&H had a choice in the matter. In any case, Meghan told Oprah that the conversation was about when Charles became king, he would change the Letters Patent to deny the Sussex children their prince and princess titles, the birthright of the grandchildren of the sovereign. Meghan was torn to shreds about it in (guess what) the British media. Months later, the Daily Mail reported just that, that Charles had the intention of stripping royal titles from Harry’s children when he’s king.

Now that King Charles III is on the throne, the royal.gov website got updated in a hurry, and of course they updated the line of succession, which can be viewed online too. Remember how it took them more than SEVEN WEEKS to add Lilibet Diana to the online line of succession in 2021? Yeah, they manage to update that thing pretty quickly when it doesn’t involve the first mixed-race daughter of a prince of the realm. Well, in any case, “the Duke of Sussex” is listed (meaning, Harry still officially has his Sussex ducal title), but Lilibet and Archie are not given the courtesy of prince/princess.

Tell me again how King Charles III wants to lead the commonwealth and increasingly diverse Britain. Tell me again how no one in the all-white inner sanctum of King Charles III has considered the idea that making a big public show of denying royal titles to his mixed-race grandchildren looks completely awful, bigoted and racist. And just like the announcement of the Prince and Princess of Wales, it’s not necessary to have this stuff settled immediately. While Charles “intends” to change the Letters Patent, he hasn’t done it yet! He could have chosen a kinder, gentler, more diplomatic route for now and then a year from now, or whenever, he could have said “on second thought, here’s a new Letter Patent and here are the reasons why it’s not racist.”

Photos courtesy of Misan Harriman, Avalon Red, Sussex Royal, Harpo, Instar.

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

361 Responses to “Prince Harry & Meghan’s kids don’t have royal titles in the updated line of succession”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Flower says:

    Interesting – let’s see if Charles has the bawls to strip the first bi-racial Royal children of their titles…. terrible optics ….

    • DouchesOfCambridge says:

      I think the question was asked and it’s probably that Harry doesn’t want his kids to gave titles anyway. It feels to me like they don’t care anymore for the circus and really, good for the kids?

      • Amy Bee says:

        @DoC: Meghan said that it’s not up to her and Harry to take away their children’s birthright. Plus she felt all the grandchildren should be treated the same. The Palace lied to the public when they said that Harry and Meghan didn’t want titles for their children. It could be that now that they live in the US having titles are not important but I don’t think if Charles changes his decision to remove the titles that they would object to it.

      • Athena says:

        Harry would want his children to have their birthrights. This is Charles and the white courtiers trying to delegitimize Harry’s children.

      • Bikny says:

        Harry & Megan didn’t give give their kids titles when they were born. When the kids turn 18 they can decide if they want the title or not. Princess Anne did the same thing.

      • DouchesOfCambridge says:

        @amybee @athena after all the sh*t i’d be happy my children wouldnt be included in their drama. But you are right, it is their birthright. It’s no wonder why Charles said that they would continue to build their new lives overseas. he wants nothing to do with them and the sussexes will clearly not cry over this. Harry & Meg will rise higher and I hope he ads another chapter to his book.

      • Couch potato says:

        The Wessexes chose not to use HRH prince(ess) on their children, but that was communicated by the wessexes. They did however use the lesser titles as children of an earl. Even if Chuck changes or has changed the letters patent, they should be listed as lord whatever is Harrys lesser title and lady lilibeth.

        The firm is so uptight about protocol they list/invite women as Mrs husbands name, even when the husband is not invited (Iknow that’s still used by some in the US, but that would be considered an insult towards the woman in my country). Calling the Sussex children master and miss is is a huge breach of protocol until it’s declared officially that they won’t use their titles. Wheter this is H&M’s whishes we won’t know until THEY have declared it.

      • Becks1 says:

        Princess Anne did not do the same thing. Her children have no titles to use. The “choice” was when Anne got married and turned down a title for her husband.

      • Virginfangirl says:

        Watch their interview with Oprah.

      • Queen Meghan's Hand says:

        @DouchesOfCambridge: The titles **ARE** an issue for the Sussexes because Edward Young (with then Prince Regent Charles’ approval) and RAVEC changed security protocol so security is assessed on rank and not risk. Their children have no rank. So, no security. Hence, Harry’s lawsuits and appeals.

        This is not about the titles: this is about the British monarch, first Queen Elizabeth II and now King Charles III, tying security together with titles and then refusing to give their great-grandchildren and grandchildren respectively, Archie and Lilli Mountbatten-Windsor, titles. Do you see?

        ***King Charles can not give his second set of grandchildren titles while also providing them the adequate security based on their threat risk.*** I am only emphasizing because Meghan and Harry’s point about security in the Oprah interview–the main reason why they left the country–has been intentionally muddled, glossed over, and missed by journalists and derangers in order to confuse well-meaning people.

        King Charles can ‘slim down the monarchy’ (can we have an open post on what that even means when they’re giving no property or wealth back to the people?) while protecting his MIXED GRANDCHILDREN. And he has signaled that he won’t do that.

        Hope Harry has been able to squeeze in sessions with his therapist now because whew, this is a lot!

      • Jais says:

        These are really good points@queen Meghan’s hand. So this is what I’m wondering. If Archie and Lili are tilted prince and princess, assuming Charles doesn’t write a new letters patent, and if Harry and Meghan visit the UK, would Archie and Lili automatically get security while in the country? I’m sort of confused about this. Shouldn’t they get it then? At least till they’re 18? Can see why Harry and Meghan would want those titles if that is the case.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Personally, I think inherited titles are both racist (superior blood) and sexist (titles inherited only through fathers). The monarchy and the peerage system is on the wrong side of history. I would prefer if this was Harry’s decision, as it would be a powerful political statement. However, IF this is solely the palace’s decision, then I am not surprised. The time for outrage was when the Queen said Harry and Meghan would not be using their HRH titles. If that statement was in writing, THAT’S. ALL. IT. TOOK. HRH titles are given and taken away at the pleasure of the monarch (which is different from taking away Harr’s dukedom, which would require an act of Parliament). But HRH only requires a written statement, and it does NOT need to be in any particular format or publication. Whether this written list of succession suffices is grey to me, because it doesn’t specifically address the HRH titles, except by implication — so I don’t think this is clear enough. But it wouldn’t surprise me if Charles eventually intends to strip that from all members except William’s line and Anne herself. (The same with the Wessexes — Sophie can tell people until she’s blue in he face that her kids can choose to use HRH when their 18, but Elizabeth said in writing that they shall not be considered HRH. Again, that’s all it takes.)

      • Elsaveeta says:

        A title offers them police protection.

      • Jais says:

        Thank you! I hadn’t really thought if it in that way but of course Harry and Meghan want their kids to have a title if it means they can travel to UK and they automatically get protection due to the titles. So if Charles writes a new letters patent taking away their titles, then they will never be given RPO security when they visit. It seems all in line with essentially banishing the Sussexes by denying them security. Obv, even without the titles, Harry is still suing to at least be able to pay for his family’s security. But who knows if he will win that case. This is next level evil.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Queen Meghan’s Hand, THIS 👆👆👆👆👆👆

        You are absolutely right!!! No matter IF H&M decided to decline the position of titles, I highly doubt due to the OW interview, this is all a fucking power play and Pettiness 12.5 on the rector scale.

        And for anyone that thinks that William, that selfish & jealous pr!ck of all that have walked the earth, would restore their god-given titles are fools and liars.

      • BlueDot says:

        @Mrs Krabapple I agree completely. They’re outdated and imply superiority through birth. It’s amazing that people still want these titles, despite the times we are in where we can see what they actually represent for what it is. Birth right is to have your family name. Titles are a styling, not a name.

        Also titles are clearly not linked with security. If they were, Meghan & Harry would also still have security. Didn’t the York sisters also get their security pulled, despite being grandchildren of the Queen? Many of the Queens other grandchildren didn’t have security either.

        Although the story keeps changing and keeping people suitably confused, my guess is that it’s based on risk and risk can be subjective. That allows those decision makers room to be very bias in their decision making.

      • usavgjoe says:

        Certain protections and rights as children of the British Royal realm come with those Titles. H&M never said they did not want their children to have those Titles… it was the RR and the BM that kept that lie going. Those two kids could be sitting ducks without them and the protections they afford.

    • Gm says:

      Agree. Charles and William( or their advisors) realize the rift looks bad and tried to present a more conciliatory but if Charles goes through with this….

    • lulubrown says:

      The Sun tabloid was already on it. They asked a senior courtier and were told they understand people questioning Harry and Meghan Kids’ titles because of the change to William and Kates. The excuse they gave was after they lay the Queen to rest all matters would be sorted out. Will and Kate were more of a priority.

      • Couch potato says:

        That’s a BS excuse and they know it. When they changed the list for the 4 first, they could have added Prince/princess in front of Archie and Lilibeth. It’s more work to go in again.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I knew Charles couldn’t slip this issue under the radar as soon as master/miss was formally posted on the line of succession. People didn’t waste any time asking the hard questions. The way they quickly updated the POW title as well as for George and Charlotte, they should have included prince/ss for Archie and Lili. They’re automatically entitled to them. The fact that they haven’t speaks volumes.

      • Yvette says:

        @lulubrown … I wonder why Will and Kate’s Prince and Princess of Wales titles were more of a priority? Perhaps they were afraid the people of Wales would protest the title before the investiture ceremony? Were they afraid some people might might start chanting for Harry to be the Prince of Wales?

        Just a Side Note: I remember watching Charles’s Prince of Wales open air investiture ceremony. It was extremely impressive (well, to me anyway). He looked so sincere and solemn when Queen Elizabeth placed the crown upon his head.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        @ Couch Potato
        But how much worse would it look if they updated to include Prince/Princess now, and Charles removes those titles later? I really don’t think he will do that, though and after the queen’s funeral I think the website will be updated to show Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

      • Couch potato says:

        @LuckyCharm it looks bad now, and it will look bad to strip them of their titles later. Had they made the change before Harry met Meghan, this wouldn’t have been an issue. This is a typical example of the courtiers doing what they want, not what’s right, even according to protocol, just to spite H&M. I doubt Chuck has had the time to think about how his grandchildren are addressed online.

    • Misa says:

      This is indeed EXTREMELY weird. Were the titles always Master and Miss? A Duke’s children are ALWAYS styled Lady and Lord. The daughter of a Duke even retains her title of Lady (and the precedence) if she marries someone without a title. If Lilibet marries John Smith, she is styled The Lady Lilibet Smith. Maybe Harry chose for them to be addressed without courtesy title (Lord and Lady for the children of a nobleman are called courtesy titles, they aren’t ‘real’ ones because the ‘real’ Duke is their father), but it would be a bit strange and also it would be made public that it was Harry’s choice.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Misa – yes, they’ve always been Master and Miss. for the reasons you mentioned, when Archie was introduced that way we mostly assumed it was H&M’s choice, because even without the HRH he could have been Lord. So I’m
        Not sure if they wanted him to be Master if they weren’t going to give him HRH or we’re going to take it away, or if the palace said they needed to style him that way regardless of other titles.

      • Carrot says:

        Charles is reclaiming apartheid, starting at home

      • Yvette says:

        I wonder how this works as well. Wasn’t Diana styled Lady Diana because her father was the 8th Earl of Spencer. Therefore Harry’s children should automatically be styled lord and lady. And I call BS on Charles removing the children’s titles (Harry and Meghan’s, too), if that’s his plan, because they live overseas. Many, many titled people have lived or remained overseas and didn’t loose their titles, remaining the Earl of this or the Countess of that and even the Duke of Windsor.

        If Charles strips any of the Sussex family titles we’ll know it was the Queen who had retained them. And it would confirm that Charles is just as threatened by Harry and Meghan’s popularity as he was by Diana’s popularity. Why else would he have allowed the petty tit-for-tat competition William and Kate seemed to have for Harry and Meghan to continue. As the Prince of Wales he could have put a stop to all that nonsense between his two sons in a second.

      • molly says:

        I thought Charles was crystal clear in his intent “I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas,”- no titles for anyone.

    • usavgjoe says:

      Don’t worry once this racist Kings mother’s body is interred… the Commonwealths are going to let loose on hisarse.

    • ELX says:

      In the long run it doesn’t matter. By the time these kids are adults, there won’t be a commonwealth with an English monarch at its head if it exists at all and there probably won’t be a UK in any appreciable form. H&M’s children are going to grow up here as Americans. As a legal matter American citizens are not permitted to hold foreign titles and they will be better off for it. George is going to have hard time—he’s being raised to expect something he’s most likely not going to receive. Whither that 40-year-old?

      • BeanieBean says:

        Re: legality of foreign titles. Not quite true. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states no title shall be granted by the US and no one holding government office may accept a title. As American citizens, Archie & Lilibet could indeed retain their titles, just as Harry can (even if he were to give up his British citizenship to become an American citizen). I expect if they wanted to run for office, they could give up their titles then.
        And I agree re: George. With those two for parents, no way is he going to be prepared for life as a working citizen. He’s really going to have a bumpy road in life.

    • Sms says:

      I think the plans to reduce the number of Prince and Princesses goes back to Charles and Andrew’s failed marriages. The Wessexes did not receive ducal titles and their children are not referred to as Prince and Princess. It’s what Sweden has done with the grandchildren outside the direct line. The title has nothing to do with security because Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie don’t get state protection.
      I think Charles’ policy make sense- there is probably limited tolerance in the UK for more titled royals.

      • Couch potato says:

        Following the swedish and norwegian royals in that would’ve been fine, if that were stated before Harry married Meghan and Archie was born. It does NOT look good to the rest of the world to strip the two first POC’s in the family of their titles.

        If I remember correctly B&E at least had security until they were 18 y.o.

      • VIVAAVIVA says:

        Charles’ policy can be as sensible as the word sensible—it isn’t the law until he issues new letters patent. At this moment Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex are legally entitled to these titles and styles.

        The website should have been updated accordingly and changed later if Charles changes the law.

        I actually agree that it makes sense that, for instance, only George’s kids will be HRH Prince/Princess Georgie. I think William will have no problem with that. However, because of the optics, I think Charles needs to let Archie and Lili to have the titles and let William issue those letters patent when George begins having children.

    • CMiddy says:

      “Using the old convention of Master as a form of address isn’t merely outdated and insensitive, it’s morally reprehensible” – sorry, can you please explain? Putting aside the title question, I really don’t get how “master” is morally reprehensible? If you do believe that is the case, what makes “miss” ok to you?

      • Bklne says:

        Because “Master” is the title that enslaved persons had to give to their slave holders. If that never occurred to you, it might be a good idea to think about the kinds of privilege that allow some people to not have to register those overtones.

        ETA: “Miss” isn’t loaded with the same kind of power imbalance.

  2. littlegossipboy says:

    That is a petty and stupid move that will only bring more attention to M+H.

    • Runaway says:

      Exactly!! That’s the part I don’t get they have all of these supposedly educated people around how is nobody making them aware of the optics of how they are just continually reinforcing Harry and Megan’s perspective and what they’ve shared about the racism and otherring that they’ve experienced as a part of the Royal family. Like wake up!!

      • littlegossipboy says:

        The optics are so so bad. I hope this further stirs anti-monarchy sentiment in colonised nations.

      • Carrot says:

        @Runaway, what you said. I’ll add, It’s 2022. Using the old convention of Master as a form of address isn’t merely outdated and insensitive, it’s morally reprehensible

      • Jane says:

        Yet various British papers are reporting the Archie and Lili ARE now Prince and Princess…

      • Christine says:

        I could not agree with you more, Carrot, Archie being styled “Master” is appalling.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ littlegossipboy, I guess king Charles’s declaration of love for his son, DIL in America was just optics as well. A man that declares his love publicly doesn’t issue such a clear statement that they are seen as “less than”. His love is conditional as well as his transparent.

      Bad move Charles, bad move indeed. We can see how you truly feel as do your son, DIL and precious grandchildren.

      • Gabby says:

        “Whatever love means”……isn’t that what he said with Diana? Still hasn’t learned, has he?

      • Elsaveeta says:

        Charles is a p.o.s. He could have titled them the same time as he did Cain and Waity Do-Little Katie.

        I am reading “Palace papers”. Even before he and Princess Diana were divorced he provided security and financial support for Camilla and made sure that she was comfortable in every way. I also read that in June 1997 Camilla caused a motor vehicle accident, she fled the scene leaving the woman stuck in her car and it was ALL COVERED UP; it’s all on Google. In fact, it seems he loved her more than his children William and Harry. Camilla also said that William has a vicious temper and would scream at Charles; William is the one he is afraid of and gives in to all of his demands because he knows even more than Harry, his being a witness to everything incendiary.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Yes @ Gabby. That was exactly his response was to Diana’s declaration of love.

        Wanker.

        #AbolishTheMonarchy

    • SugarHere says:

      This petty, revengeful, racially condescending title stripping has sent my pulse racing. The non-white Commonwealth countries would be well-inspired to secede from the English entity whose exclusive, divisive values and lopsided sense of hierarchy are not beneficial to them.

      With hindsight, I suddenly grasp Waily’s display of faux brotherly welcoming and grand gestures yesterday: having been informed beforehand, the Duke of Cambridge + Prince of Wales + Duke of Cornwall + 1st in line + climate protector was not only pink-washing his image. He was secretly gloating. Despicable.

  3. Talie says:

    The British press will be fixated on this until a public response is made and it can’t be made without Harry & Meghan’s buy in. Now, their heads are probably spinning. They came for a short trip and the Queen died. It’s possible they are mulling it over. I truly don’t think Harry wants the kids to have the titles, but I also think there is a recognition of the importance, symbolically, of them holding those titles. Charles issuing a new letters patent would not go over well without them feeling good about it. Harry, at this time, still has not publicly released a statement in support of his father. Protocol may dictate timing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if negotiations were going on about what is going down with titles, funeral seating, etc…

    • Snuffles says:

      Harry hasn’t released any kind of statement. William already released his. I wonder what the delay is.

      I also wonder how much involvement Harry will have in the proceedings. Apparently there is something called the Vigil of the Princes where they stand guard by the Queen’s coffin. Will he be involved in that? Will he speak at her funeral? What on earth is he going to do for the next week?

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Snuffles, hopefully Harry and Meghan return home to their children and return for his grandmothers funeral and are allowed to grieve in the comforts of their home instead of being used as PR puppets for Charles and his vile, scheming bother!!

      • Amy T says:

        I’m guessing that part of it, @Snuffles, is that Harry isn’t a working royal and didn’t have to release a statement. William, as next-in-line to the throne, doesn’t have that kind of latitude. Remember in the Oprah interview when Harry described them as “trapped?” I think that might apply here. (That said, I agree with what everyone else is saying about the optics of not referring to H&M’s children by their rightful (for now) titles.)

    • SAS says:

      @Talie, the one thing that surprised me about the interview was that they were very much NOT saying “we don’t want the kids to be titled” as was the commonly held view.

      It’s completely bizarre for them to not be automatically titled as grandchildren of the King. It’s mind-boggling that all the royal sycophants can somehow bend over backwards to deny the literal foundation of the monarchy (so-called “Royal blood”) for this particular situation.

    • Jais says:

      Yes, there does have to buy in by Harry and Meghan. As in, the decision needs to be transparent. No one can just say oh Harry and Meghan must’ve decided they don’t want titles for the kids anymore. Unless the Sussexes explicitly state that through their rep, it can’t be believed. We don’t know that they don’t care about the title unless they say so. And the palace has to know that Harry and Meghan will not let any lies about this float around in the press this time around.

      • FC says:

        I think Charles is using the titles as a bargaining chip to get H&M to come back in some respect. Like, “your kids only get their titles if you move to the UK part time” or something.

      • Jais says:

        Well if he really tries to use the kids as a bargaining chip, at some point, Harry and Meghan will let it be known, which will make him look terrible. So why do that? What’s wrong with these people?

      • Duchcheese says:

        At this point, the Sussexes are NOT making any decisions without their lawyers and/or reps present. The days of Harry being pushed into a corner and being forced to agree to this and agree to that are long gone. Once they left the UK and the palaces can no longer speak or make any statements for them, the days of bullying the Sussexes ended. That’s why they set the record straight and said in the Oprah interview that they made no decisions in regards to Archie’s titles or anything, all decisions were made by the palaces i.e.: the monarch, the PoW and their respective courtiers. There will be no discussion about the children’s anything without the Sussexes’ lawyers present, there will be no using anything as bargaining chips, those days are over. I feel sick to my stomach that now all the papers, radios and TV stations are reporting that Harry and Meghan refused things for their children, which they said they never did. From hence forward anything in regards to the children will be decided like divorce proceedings and laid out in clear terms with lawyers from both parties present and papers signed by the respective parties; that’s it. If and when Charles decides to change letters patent to exclude male children’s descendants from getting their birthrights, all will be in writing and signed by all respective parties, its that simple.

  4. Seraphina says:

    King Charles cannot read the room. He is not beginning in a positive direction. The shooing of the papers at yesterday’s ceremony, the other incident and now this. People are watching and people are calling him out on it. He is NOT his mother and he better keep that in mind. I don’t think the public will extend the same niceties to him.

    • zinjazin says:

      What other incident?

      • Seraphina says:

        The other incident is one of two at yesterday’s ceremony where KC signed papers. One was the shooing of the inkwells and the other was that face he made where he wanted something removed. They are lambasting him for it – rightly so. He never said thank you and he comes off in a very negative way. A picture says a thousand words and a video shows so much more.

      • zinjazin says:

        @Seraphina
        Aha ok, thanks for your reply.

    • Chic says:

      This title issue is on the front page of the Washington Post online.

      • Gabby says:

        Good. I’m glad it’s on the WaPo, exposing Chuckles for the petty moron he is. This shows that waiting 50-plus years for a job doesn’t make you ready for it. This and the hilarious mini tantrum at the proclamation ceremony portend a disastrous reign, and I am all here for it.

        Hopefully Harry will now become a US citizen, and very publicly lay his own place in the succession by the wayside. Then H&M can drop Windsor from their name and just go by the Mountbattens. A girl can dream, can’t she?

      • Snuffles says:

        @gabby

        I highly doubt that Harry would ever renounce his UK citizenship. His beef is with the monarchy, not the UK.

        I continue to waffle on what he will do regarding his titles now that the Queen is gone. I think he’s in wait and see mode. Even if he renounces the Sussex title, he will still be a Prince until the day he dies. There are so many layers to this be might just think it’s not worth it. I think he will keep them but use them less and less as the years go by.

      • Liz Version 700k says:

        Yep right below the fold on the Washington Post. Real news outlets are calling Chuck …explain yourself.

  5. KFG says:

    Yep so Meghan again, never lied. Chuck is being boo’d everywhere as are Betty and 🥚 and ☠. Chucky needs the sussexes bc he and every other member are despised. Lolololololol. I can’t wait for Harry to burn it down.

    • MeganC says:

      The huge crowds shouting “god save the king” seem pretty friendly to me.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        “Huge” is relative. Aerial shots of these supposedly “huge crowds” over the past few days tell a very different story from what the media is advertising.

      • MsIam says:

        God save the King was booed in Scotland. So Charles is skating on thin ice right out of the gate.

  6. Jess says:

    It would be stupid for him to change it when it would affect Williams’s grandkids though Louis. But whatever, when people are so spiteful they can’t look down the road then they get what they get.

    • Becks1 says:

      I am sure the thinking is that William would just change it back. They are going to do this in such a way to impact Archie and Lili and no one else.

      • swirlmamad says:

        If this is so clear to the rest of us — how on earth do they think they can pull this shit in plain sight and then try to play innocent? THIS LOOKS SO BAD. Period point blank. I don’t care how many times Bulliam invites H&M to walk with him and his lazy bones wife, or how much “love” Chuck proclaims for them as they forge their new life….They are racist assholes who are, quite simply, punishing their son and brother who dared to not marry a white aristocrat. Period point blank.

  7. Becks1 says:

    If they intended not to give Harry’s children titles, for non-racist reasons, the time to have changed it would have been when they changed it for William’s kids, when Kate was pregnant with George. State that going forward only the children of the direct heir are HRH.

    Even announcing the change when they got married would have been a bad look, but not AS bad. As it stands it really looks like this is about depriving the biracial grandchildren HRH.

    I don’t think H&M care per se at this point, but I think they are very aware of that last point. I don’t think Charles is.

    • Mrs. Smith says:

      Exactly. If QE or Charles had said up front when W&K married that only the direct line will get HRH royal titles, it would have at least seemed unbiased. The Prince and Princess titles are a birthright — full stop. The HRH style, well, maybe Charles will only remove that piece since H&M want to live full time in the US and not be any part of the working royal family. Regardless, this was a totally avoidable cluster and it keeps tripping them up. How embarrassing.

    • Nic919 says:

      They should not have given HRH to any great grand kids instead of giving them to all of William’s kids. It’s not necessary and children that young aren’t working royals anyway.

      As it stands though, the 1917 letters patent is still in place and Archie and Lili have the HRH even if they never use it. Like Louise and James. The website change was more to assuage William and his ego. It’s not like the website is a legal document.

      Just like how William changed his social media account minutes after his grandmother’s death was announced, this is more about image for the next in line.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Nic919, yes. This was TOB exposing how “important” he sees himself. He could not wait a few days after the death of his grandmother as he clearly is just thrilled that he now holds his precious PoW title. It’s a me-me-ME screaming from the hilltops type of action. TOB is letting everyone know how his mind works and it is all about him and no one else.

        The narcissist PoW can choke on it. May he be pegged to death.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Ah, yes, of course. This is less about Charles & more about William’s ego. And Kate’s.

      • Harper says:

        I truly believe the kerfuffle over the titles begins and ends with William. He didn’t want his kids at the same level as their mixed race cousins. He’s a ROYAL, gosh-dang-it! William has been rude about Archie and Lili since Day One and NOTHING has changed since then.

        Charles gave William the POW title, updated his and his family’s titles to princes and princesses of Wales on the all so important WEB PAGE OF SUCCESSION. Now when he does do the online upgrade of Archie and Lili to Prince and Princess, Charles can tell Whining William to just shut up about the titles already. He can say I gave your whole family the top titles without having to wait so stop being such a sniveling brat and let your brother have what’s his by right or else I’ll tell the disgruntled folks of Wales that they may have a point.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Harper that’s what I’ve always thought – that the HRH-removal push was more from William than Charles. Sure, Charles may want fewer HRHs running around, but I think William especially wants to make sure that its clear that his kids are “higher” than their cousins and he wants his kids to be the only HRH of that generation.

    • Carrot says:

      @Becks1 I think you’re right about H&M not caring as much at this point. I wasn’t prepared for how deeply angry and hurt I myself would feel about mixed race children being ignored like garbage on the world stage.

      My heritage is Asian and European. I wear my mix on my face and I’m good with it. It’s not, probably, as hard as being dark and different from a distance. Still, I’ve also had a lifetime of hearing “But I didn’t mean it that way” and “You’re so beautiful and exotic” and “What do you call food where you’re from?” comments.

      I wasn’t prepared for how sick and angry I felt that Charles the Turd treated his grandchildren so shabbily. Now half the frigging world will see and think it’s right to be racist. “That’s how royalty do.”

      • Jenny says:

        @carrot. “Charles the turd”. Love it and am stealing it! Lol

      • Liz Version 700k says:

        Charles the Turd is perfect

      • TeamMeg says:

        LMAO Charles the Turd! That one is going to stick.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Carrot, yes it is hurtful as it clearly shows how society is still refusing to acknowledge the harm that they cause over and over. I am extremely sorry for the pain and hurt that has been inflicted upon you. These statements have nothing to do with you and have everything to do with how utterly clueless and racist society is. Unless people educate themselves, you unfortunately should just ignore all of them or if you feel bold enough to do so, call them out on it.

        You are right, Charles is a massive turd. He is putting his own “how he sees” his son, DIL and grandchildren out for the world to see.

      • Carrot says:

        @BothSidesNow — I could hug you! TBH, I’ve been raised with good fortune in my parents. I’ve been empowered to advocate for myself since I was very small. And a time or two my parents had people removed from positions for good measure

        I know who I am and what my power is (and may yet be!) and I think that’s part of my own surprise at the immense anger and disappointment I’m feeling about the abuse Charles is not only perpetuating, but freshly creating.

        I really never thought I’d live in a world where blanket hatred is promoted by so many world leaders. It seems to keep happening too. I want to continue striving in a world where we see each other as individuals deserving of mutual interest and compassion. Think I’ll stick with that

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Carrot, I am so happy to hear how protective your parents are, as all parents should be. I am sending you excellent juju and all of the happiness that you desire ❤️

        The future holds many great stories for you as you have an apparent drive within yourself. I can see that nothing will hold you back even while those around you will try to suppress your every move. Never allow hate and racism get into your way as you are a greater person than they ever will be.

        I too am heartbroken as we watch those in power to grasp and champion the power of hate, many for their sole benefits. History will not expose or speak kindly at those committing these atrocious acts, nor should they be.

    • BeanieBean says:

      But had that ‘only direct line’ been the case during QEIIs childhood, what would have happened when her uncle stepped down? How does a Mrs. Betty Mountbatten-Windsor become queen? or would they have gone to one of her uncles next?

      • TeamMeg says:

        Prior to the revision, the heir was the oldest male child of the monarch, or, in the absence of sons, the oldest female child. Since the revision, it is the oldest child regardless of sex.

      • Becks1 says:

        In that case, she would have become HRH when her father became king, because at that point she would have HRH as part of the direct line. But even without that, under the usual rules for children of dukes, she would have been Lady Elizabeth. She was never Mrs. Betty Mountbatten-Windsor (or Miss Betty York when her father was the Duke of York.)

      • BeanieBean says:

        Thanks to both of you! These rules are so ridiculous!

    • SugarHere says:

      Nonsense. I am convinced that, out of principle, Henry and Meghan care deeply about the symbolism of their children being bestowed the titles they were destined to bear. Not only is Chucky’s first act as a king outright personal retaliation but blatant confirmation that the Sussexes told the absolute truth during the Oprah interview about being ostracized and discriminated against. Given that those titles are their children’s rightful legacy, Henry and Meghan are sensitive to “grandpa” disputing and confiscating them out of punishment. This goes without saying, since they have never explicitly and willingly reliquished any title.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        SugarHere, I think this is a really multilayered issue. I believe that their titles are their birthright. They hold dual citizenship–so they will always be citizens of the UK. Meghan has said that she’s very conscious of the perception that children have of her as Princess Meghan. Harry & Meghan are very much aware of the beliefs within the commonwealth countries that these titles also tell them how they are viewed by the monarchy–as are the poc within the UK. So much is tied to the symbol of those titles.

        I’m old enough that the results of the world wars were part of my life. As a child, I saw the film of the concentration camps when the people were “liberated”. Those images are never going to leave me. I’ll remember them until the day I die. The British monarchy allowed HRH the Duke of Windsor to keep his titles even though they exiled him. From everything that I’ve read, he and his wife helped Hitler and was doing all they could to push peace by attempting to broker a deal by giving parts of Europe to Hitler, and Eddie would have been given the crown again. In my opinion, if they take Archie and Lilibet’s titles from them they will be making a loud statement about who is acceptable and who isn’t. Nice that Nazis are acceptable, but not poc. Are they so far up in their own racism that they can’t see that?

      • SugarHere says:

        @Saucy&Sassy: Thanks for sharing your insight into this complex matter. As you put it, denying the Sussex children their titles also carries along hideous ideological implications as well as as an official political statement as to whom is “color-worthy” of a title (sorry for the hideous phrasing but that’s what comes to me when I delve into these people’s rationale).

        I am under the impression that King Chuck cannot not be aware of the stakes and ramifications, especially after the commotion caused by the Oprah interview. Isn’t this a calculated risk on his part, to slim down the Commonwealth to white countries as he is doing the monarchy? If so, I don’t see the English monarchical system surviving King Bullyiam because this level of racial insulation is simply untenable in the long run.

  8. Amy Bee says:

    Meghan is vindicated again. I rewatched that clip from Oprah interview about the titles yesterday and she’s as clear as day so for the media and royalists to call her a liar or say that she didn’t understand the rules was dishonest, cruel and racist.

    • Becks1 says:

      They always deliberated twisted what she said – I know they always do that, but I thought she was pretty clear in that interview, that there was talk of changing the LPs so the kids wouldn’t be HRH. And here we are, apparently still “talking” about it (ie it’s not off the table that the LPs are going to be changed).

    • MsIam says:

      This is why I don’t think they will touch the titles because it would prove Meghan right. They have spent the last two years saying she misunderstood or outright lied. If they do just what she said then that makes them the liars. The Oprah interview was the best thing the Sussexes could have ever done and why the Unroyals are still mad about it almost two years later. It’s almost thirty years since Diana’s interview and they still can’t let it go and she merely spoke the truth . Such evil people and yet they expect everyone else to have a stiff upper lip and move on.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ MsIam, I guess “stiff upper lip” is code for “my actions are not actually a sign of blatant racism” right?

  9. Surly Gale says:

    s I understand/understood the interview and all that went on/keeps going on is that the children’s titles are linked to SECURITY. Charlie takes away their titles, they never get the proper security needed when in England.
    They want them dead, cause they were never wanted in the first place. Not by the Firm, not by the family.
    My heart breaks for Harry and Meghan.
    I will revile Charlie from this day forth and forevermore he hurts that little family further.

    • North of Boston says:

      I think you may be right. Or at the least, they can’t be bothered to take any steps to prevent harm to them and will minimize talk of any threats (Fire in the nursery of a babe in the line of succession? Balderdash, it was merely a whiff of smoke)

      Not to be morbid, but do they not realize their whole house of cards is one fateful Wales-family helicopter jaunt away from disaster? Or one ill timed rose bush visit away from dire scandal?

      At this point keeping Harry onside as best they can would seem the most prudent path going forward, now that they no longer have his sentimental (and maybe dutiful) ties to her keeping his gloves on.
      The only reasons to *purposely* alienate him would be petty spite and abject bigotry. And to do it publicly when as king you already have only a fraction of the support and social capital that the previous sovereign did, right out of the gate, is incredibly idiotic.

      • Gilda says:

        Is it possible that some of the bargaining relates to Harry’s book, ie show it to us before it’s published or we’ll withhold the titles?

      • Feeshalori says:

        Gilda, l wouldn’t be surprised at all by that.

      • VIV says:

        “whole house of cards is one fateful Wales-family helicopter jaunt away from disaster”

        This is what I’ve never understood about their treatment of the second+ in line! Both kings immediately before Elizabeth were not “meant to be” King. Yeah its been a while because she lived so long, but it’s not like it has never happened before.

    • Queen Meghan's Hand says:

      YUP! Replied to an earlier comment with this reasoning.
      The British monarch, first Queen Elizabeth II and now King Charles III, tying security together with titles and then refusing to give their mixed raced great-grandchildren and grandchildren respectively, titles.
      Their HRH or titles styling should be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s choice. Just like it was the Princess Royal and her husband’s choice to not give her children titles. King Charles III has taken that choice away and along with it, Archie and Lilli’s assured safety in their country.

      • MsIam says:

        Titles come through the male line only. Anne’s kids weren’t entitled to titles unless her husband got a title and then her kids would be styled based on his title.

  10. Noor says:

    Early days yet. Let wait and see. But bear in mind the King of UK is the country’s symbol of national unity. He cannot preside over a fractured family and maintain his credibility .

    • sunny says:

      Yes to this @Noor. That is why I have doubts about this story. I think it was absolutely discussed but it would be beyond stupid to move forward with it. The optics are terrible especially given the Commonwealth (majority non-white) and the Chris Kaba protests(reminding everyone how deeply anti-black Britain is).

    • Merricat says:

      Agreed. He also cannot keep the Commonwealth countries by continuing to allow blatant racist abuse against his daughter-in-law–if the king won’t protect his own family, why would the people expect him to protect them?
      Smh.

    • TeamMeg says:

      Good point. Unity begins at home.

      It feels like there is more than standard issue racism at play here. Royalty is founded on the idea of bloodlines and purity. The monarch was believed to be descended from God himself. Forming alliances and maintaining purity of bloodlines is why marrying a “commoner”, even a white one, was considered “beyond the pale” (think about that expression – wow) and almost never done. Royal blood must remain untainted, no matter how fair-skinned the offspring may be. That is the disgusting vibe I take away from all this.

      Meghan carried herself like a Queen yesterday. So proud of my girl.

      • Bklne says:

        Just a word-nerd note about “beyond the pale”: it doesn’t actually have anything to do with color, of skin or anything else. “Pale” comes from an archaic word for “fence, fencepost” (related to “palisade”) and it means “beyond the border of safe / known /controlled territory”. There was a “pale of settlement” in Ireland that marked the boundaries of British-occupied territory under Cromwell in the 1600’s; the expression was also used for the territory in Russia where Jews were allowed vs forbidden to settle.

  11. Well Wisher says:

    Harry does care that his children share his birthright. While growing up he was constantly reminded as to who he is, and all be it reluctantly accepted his position and excelled at it.
    That was to his detriment, he did not realise that mediocrity was all that was necessary.
    Being an adult with a firm grasp on reality, he probably has moved on from any expectation of fairness and decency not that his grandmother is gone.
    With no guarantee of being treated fairly Harry and Meghan have the option and opportunity to quietly away from it all, starting at the coronation.

    Archie and Lilibet have what all children require nurture, guidance and love: they will be fine.

  12. Sarge says:

    I think they wanted titles for security reasons but also they recognised it was also their birth- right. Being denied hence the feeling it was racist; in addition to the other grievances that a senior royal was concerned about the skin tone

    • Jais says:

      Agree, at this point it still must be shocking to watch his children’s birthrights be stripped by his father bc of racism. Whether he cares about the titles or not.

      • Sue E Generis says:

        This. Harry and Meghan don’t care about the status of the titles, they care about the intention behind deliberately denying their children what should automatically be their due.

    • Liz Version 700k says:

      I never expect better from Charles and William and they never disappoint. What petty racist narrow minded a$$es these two are Jeez

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Yup @ Liz Version 700k!!!! But I did expect a little better from their pettiness right out of the gate.

        Why should we not all be surprised?

    • equality says:

      If I were PH, I would see Charles denying the titles as denying my children and having no pride in saying they were his grandchildren.

  13. Julia K says:

    If Charles can elevate Wm and Kate to titles that have optional timing, why are Archie and Lily being excluded from upgrades that are not optional. Wm and Kate are not automatic POW but Archie and Lily are Prince and Princess now that Charles is king. Fishy.

    • Kit says:

      I don’t know l was taking to a friend of Martin Sheen who supports de Welsh Republican movement he says which l believe that Charles made that fast move of Prince of Wales title because he knew that de Welah felt this should end with him, it was a move to show de Welsh that he was now in charge and in total contol. So shut de F up he is nie there King !@lHe is doing de same here with those titles, it’s his way only and will not be pressurised on anything. De Republican movement is growing and he is well aware of this. Let’s see how he manages William and Kate !!!!!

      I have to.say l sat there with my mouth open!

      • duchess of hazard says:

        Yes, @Kit, Martin Sheen gave an impassioned plea regarding the Prince of Wales title – you can see it as the pinned tweet on the Republic of Wales pinned tweet. They also have a series of tweets as to why the Prince of Wales title is steeped in English treachery and made the Welsh 2nd class citizens in their own country.

      • Alexandria says:

        Kit…maybe he swiftly gave them the titles so that 1) Diana as Princess of Wales can be slowly erased (not gonna happen) 2) he doesn’t want to deal with the Welsh so now it’s William’s turn to manage the heat.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        You mean Michael Sheen, right? His speech was fantastic.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ MrsBanjo, I think that they do. As for the people of Wales, they have started a petition already to strip the PoW title/power from the Monarchy.

        Maybe they should make Harry PoW, as I saw how tremendously kind and outspoken they are in regards to how poorly and atrocious that the BRF have treated Meghan. She seems to have tremendous support among the Welsh. They seems to be loved and cherished in Wales, unlike many in Britain.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        I was wondering what Martin Sheen has to do with Wales. 🤔

    • duchess of hazard says:

      @Ms Banjo, yes I stand corrected. Michael Sheen.

  14. Colleen says:

    This is a little off-topic but why is the Princess Royal so far down on the line of succession? Isn’t she Elizabeth’s second-born?

    • North of Boston says:

      Traditional misogyny and whatever they call the thing that means the line of succession follows reigning sovereign through their progeny.

    • Julia K says:

      @colleen, because the first born and all his family keep pushing her back a notch.

    • Nic919 says:

      The British monarchy ran by male primogeniture until just prior to George’s birth. And it was not retroactive. This means Anne is placed after Andrew and his daughters and Edward and his children. Andrew and Edward outrank Anne.

      Charlotte is the first sister to outrank her younger brother in Uk history with respect to succession.

      • Colleen says:

        @Nic919, Gotcha, thank you! I do vaguely remember them changing the rules prior to…George’s birth? I just never put it together.

    • Chris says:

      I think it is too soon . Remember they took more than 6 months to put Lilibet’s birth on the official website, but Sienna was added within weeks. I think they are playing with the Sussex’ fans. Archie and Lilibet became Prince and Princess automatically after their grandfather became King. I think they are waiting the end of the funeral to let the world know. I believe it would have upstage the week of funeral.

      • Green girl says:

        I don’t get why they would wait for after the funeral if they are updating to include their titles. The titles could have been added and everyone would have a higher opinion of Charles. They really need H&M to show the family is united. If you were Harry and they pulled this stunt, wouldn’t you want to start pulling back on what you need to do in the next week? Such as no more public walk abouts…,

    • Smices says:

      Because she is female, her younger brothers and their kids jumped her in the line. That’s also why her children don’t have titles. Not because she turned them down as is commonly reported. Because the title only follows the male line.

    • Flower says:

      At the time Anne was born the rules of male Primogeniture applied to the laws of succession. So essentially the first born son takes it all. The Queen only became queen because her uncle abdicated and her parents had two girls. I can just imagine the conversations that were had at the time.

      Those rules were removed just before George was born in the event the first born was actually a girl.

      Again notice how a positive amendment was made for the Cambridge children but a negative one made for the Sussexes.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      She is displaced by her three brothers (including the sweaty nonce!) and all their children. Great system, huh? It means that the British will have a white male head of state for at least the next 75 years. If I were British l’d be thrilled. Not!

      • Lucky Charm says:

        When QE II made that change, it still didn’t have any effect on the next three in line, anyway. Charles was the first born, he had no daughters, and George was born before Charlotte. Unless George abdicates and Charlotte becomes queen, it was always going to be a white male monarch for the next couple generations at least.

      • Becks1 says:

        The change was made when Kate was pregnant with George. So it could have had an effect had she been pregnant with a girl first. It just happened that the first born was a boy so nothing changes.

  15. girl_ninja says:

    It is Sussex children’s birthright to have those titles. Charles made sure to hand over the Wales titles to Will and Kate so why not change all that over? He really is something. I cannot with that ridiculous man.

  16. Lili says:

    I’m sure I read somewhere there is a bill to enable the royal family to be able to strip titles without parliament. However it goes this is currently a bad look for Charles, if someone had the time to change it for will and Kate they had more than enough time to change it for Archie and Lilibet. I must say the look I saw on Meghan’s face yesterday as she got started that walk I had only ever seen when she was in South Africa, knowing what we know now I wonder if they are threatening her Kids.,

    • SnoodleDumpling says:

      Oof, that would terrify the aristocracy even MORE then stripping a title through an act of Parliament. That would mean that if you get one vicious idiot as monarch and say one wrong thing your family could permanently loose the one thing they actually care about.

    • Jaded says:

      Yup — a second reading of the bill is before Commons to give the reigning Monarch powers to remove titles — “To provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE or following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament.”

      I’m sure Chuck the F*ck will try to ram it through the third reading and House of Lords, then gleefully watch heads roll. This is so clearly a racist jab at the Sussexes, I can’t imagine how H&M must feel. If I were them I’d attend the Queen’s funeral then never set foot back on that hateful island, not even for Chuck’s coronation.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Oh, wow, this is hateful. I hadn’t heard of this bill before now, but obviously it’s engineered specifically for Harry & Meghan and their kids. And it’ll go through, no doubt.

      • Gabby says:

        Especially not for Chuck’s coronation. I vote for them quietly going home now and skipping the queen’s funeral. It’s just too toxic.

      • Carrot says:

        Should the bill pass, what changes?

        Harry is stripped of all titles. No Prince, No Duke, etc.

        Harry and progeny are removed from the succession.

        Harry officially becomes Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, etc.

        Archie’s birth certificate is once again changed, this time reflecting two parents, each with first and last names.

        H&M’s lease of Frogmore Cottage is vacated.

        The only new thing would be H&M lose their current home in England? But for everyone else? Think about it!

  17. Ace says:

    They definitely want to take those titles, they’re probably trying to figure out how to do it as quietly as possible because they know how it will look. I don’t know how M&H feel about it at this point, but I wouldn’t expect them to have their kids using those titles in their normal lives. Like, they’re not going to sign them up for kindergarten as Prince Archie and Princess Lili, but that’s different from having the titles taken away.

    I think that for now Chuck is not going to mention it and probably suggest to his friendly rota not to use the new titles if they talk about them. Because I don’t see M&H saying anything about it, specially because they don’t fuck with any of the tabloids, so they can pretend that Archie and Lili never got the Prince and Princess titles. That way when new LP come out, maybe mentioning something else too, they can pretend the Sussexes kids never used those titles anyway so it doesn’t matter. The new list on the website support this imo.

    • Smices says:

      That won’t work. There were a wave of articles yesterday about how Archie and Lily are Prince/Princess. Including a salty tweet from Angela Levin. People in the US press are already inquiring about the update to the website. They can’t deep this under the rug.

      Personally I think Charles is using this to pressure Harry over his memoir.

      • Flower says:

        I agree @Smices – the US press are watching and will report this from a very different angle. Nothing will be held back if Archie and Lili are stripped of their titles.

        I can see why Charles will want the titles gone as essentially America will then have their own little Prince and Princess – whom are also bi-racial. Too strong a symbol to ignore.

        Anyway like I said before – if we thought things were messy before…. eeek…

      • Virginfangirl says:

        I agree. A bargaining chip.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        I’m not going to make any excuses for Charles the Turd (thank you Carrot!) but couldn’t this be the Grey Men’s machinations?
        They’ve made it clear that they don’t want a Black woman and her children sullying the precious pure royal bloodline (being sarcastic here in the use of “pure”). They’ve also made it clear they’d like to erase Meghan and the children.
        Charles and William are just as evil but yesterday’s walkabout suggests someone is advising them on optics.
        Anyway I just want what H&M want — the respect due to their children from the royals.

      • MsIam says:

        The memoir is already finished. So no bargaining there. I think that Charles wants them to work for him outside the UK. Will and Kate are a disaster outside of Little England. There’s no one else until the Wails kids get older, other than Edward and Sophie. And I don’t think Charles likes them. Remember “Sophie the queen’s favorite daughter-in-law “?

  18. Lilpeppa40 says:

    It’s interesting to me because since the letters patent operate automatically, they have the titles so I can’t think of a non-racist reason not to include them. If H&M decide not to have their children use it, they could have changed it after. That being said, their titles are the one area I have weird mixed feelings about. I dislike the idea of monarchy as a whole so I’d love if no one had them; but it exists and H&M shouldn’t have to give up their titles due to the braying of racists when they’ve done nothing wrong. But with all the discussions currently being had about the long lasting impact of colonialism and the awful role the monarchy has played, Idk if titling the kids is a great idea. That being said, I’m nobody giving my comment on a website they’ll never see and I trust that H&M will do what’s best for them and their family.

  19. Alexandria says:

    The HRH and Prince/Princess titles were for security reason and an entitlement unless the parents requested for a different title. Key word is THEY requested instead of being forced. Anne and Edward requested. HM did not request that and assumed the default. Instead the firm proceeded to discuss whether a new LP should be raised. Worse they could not give a good reason. That’s why HM could not understand but of course suspected racism. What other factor was there? Discussion of a new LP was not discussed FOR Anne and Edward. There was no such thing and could you imagine telling that to Anne and having the press run with it? Discussion of a new LP was not raised at all before Harry married. So of course HM did not understand and could only return to racism. The ball is in Chuck and his snake team’s court. The spotlight is on them to explain themselves, not HM.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      Anne didn’t get a choice about titles outside her husband. Her kids only would get titles if their father had accepted one himself. Edward and Sophie kept the titles for their kids, but opted not to use them until the kids decided once they’re 18. But they still have them.

      • Alexandria says:

        Thank you. So Anne’s then husband opted not to receive a title. Sophie and Edward do get them by default and chose to use a different styling (I forgot this word styling). So they had a choice and exercised their choice. Did HM get a decent discussion to choose?

  20. TheOriginalMia says:

    Until Charles issues a new LoP stripping Archie & Lili of their birthrights, I’m not going to get upset because of the Royal family website. The purpose of the changes was the Cambridges, now Wales. The Sussexes are not important to them. Charles isn’t going to strip them because he’s not stupid. He knows there would be a swift mass exodus from the Commonwealth. The optics would be awful. Not a good look for the new king.

    • Jais says:

      I get it’s just a website but the world is watching now. There were multiple articles in the US about how Archie and lily were now prince and princess in the past week. Isn’t an American journalist at some point going to ask why it’s not changed?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I don’t think that Charles is actually that smart. He’s cunning but he isn’t that intelligent – and he lives in a bubble surrounded by yes men. At heart he is a pathologically self-absorbed man who is also vicious.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, right now they’re navigating through a long list of ancient traditions and BP has always been behind the times when it comes to social media. I mean, if you can imagine, W&K are considered the most tech savvy in the family. I think BP is doing the bare minimum until after the funeral. But it interesting that the media has already pounced on this and brought to the forefront – it will have to be addressed soon.

    • Jaded says:

      Unfortunately there’s a bill in the works (first reading by the Commons) that WILL give the reigning monarch full permission to add/remove titles without LP and Parliament’s approval. I imagine Chuck will try to push it through second and third readings ASAP, then fast-track it through the House of Lords. This looks sooooooo bad.

    • Feeshalori says:

      The issue is that if the titles for POW and W’s children were amended on that site, so should have Archie and Lili. Why for some and not the others? It’s their birthright. Charles also speedily named William and Kate as the new prince and princess of Wales and should have declared Archie and Lili’s new titles as well in the same breath. This is what the public sees and is commenting on.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Not buying it. If you’re updating a website, or a database, or a spreadsheet, you make all the updates you know you need to make. You don’t do half (2/3), you do them all. It’s not that hard.

      • Lorelei says:

        @BeanieBean, ITA. Seriously— it’s changing *two words*. If they intended to alter Archie’s and Lilibet’s titles, they would have done it at the same time that they updated EVERYONE else’s on the website. It’s disgusting.

      • Eurydice says:

        @BeanieBean – I think it’s exactly what the spokesman said – they’re waiting for Charles to sign off on the change. It doesn’t matter that the change should be automatic – things are changing rapidly and I can imagine that nobody wants to make a move on anything related to H&M without Charles’ approval. At the same time, H&M are not high priority right now, like W&K are.

  21. A says:

    Why is anyone suprised by this? She literally said on national television they told her they didn’t want Archie to have a title. Now did they come right out with it and say it was because the race of his mother probably not ( Although judging by the parade of stupid that has come from these people the last couple of years it would not shock me if they did). The idea that in honor of the Queen that this instution is stop going to being petty and cruel especially towards children even for a second then your in for a lifetime of disapointment! I’m just happy when that when they come out and try to tell the lie that this was at the request of their parents there parents have the means and mediums to hit back with the truth this time!

  22. SIde Eye says:

    Very much not a racist family eh? Hmmmmm

    Those titles are their birthright. There seems to be no one around Charles who can read a damn room. I hope when the predominantly Black/Brown countries leave the Commonwealth, they cite the treatment of Harry and Meghan and their children as just ONE of many reasons why.

    You say you’ve changed (though you’ve never returned the stolen art, jewelry, or paid reparations to the people you’ve harmed). You say slavery was an abomination. But look at your actions towards your Black FAMILY. Towards your own blood.

    Disgusting. I’m Canadian and we’re supposed to say Long Live the King right now. I ain’t saying shit. Fuck these people. Look how fast he issued those titles to Prince Egghead and his bigoted Karen of a wife. He couldn’t do the same for Archie and Lili? Bullshit. In one fail swoop, the could have communicated he can stand up for his own grandchildren. So spineless.

    Also as several of you pointed out: Meghan told NO LIES. They are the liars and the gaslighters. I’m sad to say I expected exactly this. They keep showing us who they are and they are vicious, racist, petty, jealous, easily threatened, and downright trifling.

    • Debbie says:

      Yup, you said it.

    • Jaded says:

      Canadian too and I am sickened by this. It’s like they all think they’re teflon and none of these egregious actions will stick to them. Well I say this reign is going to be all about stickiness and I fervently hope that all of the countries that have been rumbling about leaving the Commonwealth start leaving in droves, and loudly. If only it was that easy for Canada, but unfortunately it would be a long, tangled mess of provincial referendums, rewriting First Nations’ agreements they have separately with the crown, and creating a new constitution, not to mention going about electing a Canadian regent. *SIGH*, it’s not starting off well is it.

    • SIde Eye says:

      @Debbie thank you and @Jaded I love your posts and you’re 100% correct. Canada is never getting out – it’s far too complicated. Canada’s best hope is that the monarchy is eventually abolished. The truth is I don’t think it can survive William.

      I remember at Harry and Meghan’s wedding when Charles walked Meghan down the aisle. It was such a touching moment. The way he offered his arm to Doria afterwards and for a second there I thought maybe I’ve read Charles all wrong these last few decades and he’s changed for the better. I’m so mad at myself for ever thinking that. I’m such a sucker sometimes and that was one of those times where I read so much more into a situation than what was really there. I should have known better than to think these people are capable of changing/evolving.

      I feel so sorry for the Sussexes but especially for Harry that this is his family. I am biracial and our family has had its share of issues – but I cannot imagine having White family treat the rest of us like we are less than or not really part of the family. I cannot imagine the sting of that and adding to it all of it playing out on a world stage. It stings me and I’m not even part of their family. I’m appalled. I can’t even fix my face now when I see KC.

      Long live Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet!

    • kirk says:

      God Save the King? I thought Canadian national anthem was O Canada – pretty sure that was what was played at the start of cross border junior hockey league games I used to go to. Not sure about all the steps needed to throw monarchy yoke off Canada, but I’d think tribal treaties w-monarch could remain; it’s not like they’re actually worth the parchment they’re printed on anyway.

  23. JCallas says:

    Charles will probably announce a new rule that only children of working royals get titles after the funeral/ mourning period. The British press will pretend the Oprah interview never happened.

    • Flower says:

      He still cannot strip them on this basis as they’re a birthright.

      The logical thing to do is retain Archie and Lili’s titles and request they not use them until they’re 18 and can make their own choices. That is what H&M want.

      Also the symbolism of removing titles from the only bi-racial children shocks the conscience. Not a good look King Charles.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Flower: Harry and Meghan never objected to the children getting titles. They were told that their children would not get them when Charles became King. The Palace lied to the public saying that they didn’t want them.

      • Flower says:

        @Amy Bee – yes that was my understanding of the Oprah interview – however the UK press twisted the narrative.

        What I am saying above is that Archie and Lili should keep the titles and make their own decision once they reach the age of majority (in the UK) because as everyone as stated this is their birthright.

      • Sunday says:

        I can imagine the racist courtiers’ trying to justify their racism with if Harry and Meghan aren’t using their HRHs anyway then why give them to Archie and Lili too. To me, the most logical action and the best global PR move would obviously be to make them TRHs Prince & Princess Archie & Lili immediately, then issue some sort of statement indicating that Harry and Meghan will continue to forego their royal titles in conjunction with any commercial endeavors, but whenever they appear in the UK in an official capacity (like any funerals, coronations, weddings, investitures, etc) they will be appearing as members of the royal family and will therefore be referred to as such. To me that’s an easy and clear way to delineate between their “royal” life and their personal careers, while preserving Archie & Lili’s birthrights and avoiding a global scandal of denying the first mixed race children of the crown their titles.

        Of course, that would be the prudent, sensible, and forward-thinking course of action so I expect Charles and the firm to do the worst possible thing instead. Good – give him enough rope for the entire institution, I say.

      • Carrot says:

        @Sunday — The BRF needs YOU! Perfectly communicated common sense! You’d probably be wasted working for them though. They pay bubkes

    • Mary says:

      @jcallas, then Beatrice and Eugenie better be prepared to lose theirs as well. That is your conundrum King Charles, figuring out how to yank Archie and Liilibet’s titles retroactively while not doing it to the other, white, non-hereditary male line Royal grandchildren without looking like the racist that I think you are. If the Sussexes’ kids titles go the others should go as well. If not, Charles would absolutely be telegraphing his racism.

      Some in the tabloid press are trying to justify Charles’s actions by saying that he wants to streamline the monarchy to reduce the number of working royals. The problem there is that we can all see that there are, and have been, princes and princes that are not working royals.

      I wish Meghan and Harry would just name the racists in the family and be done with it.

      • Jaded says:

        And the two most prominent working royals besides C&C (and I use the term *working* with my tongue wedged firmly in my cheek) are indolent, disinterested and hate each other. What a train wreck this is going to be.

  24. YeahRight says:

    Reading the comments excuse after excuse after excuse… How many royal aides does it take to update a website? 5? 10? 20?

    Stop the tab BS that Harry doesn’t want his kids to have titles if Harry was done with this royal mess. He would’ve dropped his own titles a long time ago. He wants his kids to have a piece of their birthright. He has said it, feel free google it instead repeating tabloid lies. He wants his kids to have the option to choose on their own to use their titles or not.

  25. aquarius64 says:

    Even if Charles is using the titles as leverage on Harry’s memoir, it will backfire because it will be seen as taking the fight out on a three year old and a one year old. So far BP is going the no comment route. Worse, this story is starting to pick up in US media. The American press won’t push it today because of Sept. 11, but it has not pulled its punches on Charles and the monarchy. Also the Fail is running this story as a flex, showing the world they still control of the BRF despite having a new king.

    • Snuffles says:

      It’s weak leverage if that.

      I’m getting rage-y again. It continues to blow my mind how obtuse this whole operation is. They cannot see beyond their own noses. They keep fucking it up and then act shocked when shit backfires on them. Charles is 73 years old and continues to be “baffled” by Harry.

      • Carrot says:

        Snuffles, agree. No leverage there. H&M know unless monarch’s word is documented and published at large as to be binding, it’s worthless, and even then, meh.

        Charles is 73. He isn’t healthy. I don’t think he’s going to be around to be baffled much longer

  26. Gm says:

    Also it could be part of Charles negotiations, like play nice or I’ll yank these or an error even, however I’d say to Charles be careful. Insult/ be mean to me and I can turn other cheek and fake make nice but my kids? You are forever on my bad list and I’m watching.

  27. Over it says:

    All this reminds me of is that the feelings and doing right by people of color is never ever going to be a priority or natural instinct to the Windsors. Not for Meghan, not for Harry mixed race children , not for people of color in the uk and definitely not for the ones in the commonwealth. I would love to say Chucky is a disappointment to me but he was always a small petty jealous bitter ass.

  28. Tessa says:

    For once, Charles has to think of himself as a father and grandfather and not treat Lili and Archie that way. Let them have the titles.

    • robem07 says:

      The Prince and Princess titles are theirs because their Grandfather became king. The update should have listed them that way even if their parents decide not to use the titles while they’re minors. Maybe the warped thinking behind not updating their titles, is that it would look even worse (aka racist) to put Prince and Princess before their names (as they deserve) and to later remove them.

      • Flower says:

        I think they are hoping the UK populous will not notice. People on this board are far more clued up on Royal protocol than the average Brit. Most Brits consume their news from the tabloids aka The Daily Mail.

        The Daily Mail is a propagandist machine and as you can see it functions very well.

        The UK is now essentially a semi-fascist state.

      • Jais says:

        The uk press has noticed though. Emily Andrews was asked on GMB why the titles for Archie and Lili weren’t changed and EA kind of shrugged and said it sometimes takes them a while to update things. That answer can only be given for so long.

      • Mary says:

        @robemo7; flower, that was my initial take on it, that either Charles hoped that people wouldn’t notice what he was doing or that the palace could just issue some lame excuses and the British public wouldn’t question it.

      • Mary says:

        Interestingly, I just noticed that while the US version of The Daily Mail has an article about whether or not Archie and Lilibet will “miss out” on being titled that same article does not appear on the British version of the Fail. They really do appear to be taking steps to not confirm to the British public that Archie and Lilibet are now Their Royal Highnesses Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. Whew, the willful ignorance is real….

    • QuiteContrary says:

      Charles is incapable of acting out of love because he’s incapable of being loving.
      He will always put himself first, which is why Archie and Lilibet might be given their birthright after all — to salvage Charles’ reputation now that people are paying attention to this issue.
      Then again, he and William generally choose the dumbest and most malevolent course of action.

  29. Veda says:

    You know what Chuck E will say. He will say that as they “continue to build their lives overseas an English title is not tenable “. Sick sick sick!

    • Mary says:

      I think Charles made that “overseas” comment for several reasons but I believe that you are correct in saying that one reason may very well be to justify yanking not only Archie and Lilibet’s’s titles but perhaps ultimately Harry and Meghan’s as well. Eugenie, watch out!

    • Feeshalori says:

      I was thinking the same but so many royals from other monarchies have lived and worked overseas away from their countries of origin and as far as I could tell, were never stripped of their titles or birthrights. Beatrice and Eugenie for example. They’ve both worked several years in New York and Eugenie is now living in Portugal, splitting her time between there and the UK. I don’t hear anyone screaming to remove her title of princess for doing that.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Adding, l didn’t reference children in this example, but you know the double standard would have been in play here. Also, they never had to stop using their HRHs either nor had their titles yanked. The hypocrisy is so palpable.

  30. Scal says:

    So I have no knowledge of this-but people on Twitter were saying that the updated 2012 LP made it so it wasn’t a automatic thing that the grandkids get a prince/princess title. And that predates Meghan and Harry would know that.

    Is that true? I thought the George V stuff trumped that? Can any of the smarter CBers explain that?

    • MrsBanjo says:

      If that were the case, then the RF would have said as much when Meghan brought it up in the Oprah interview. The only LP was to change primogeniture in case George was a girl. Nothing was done about titles of other grandchildren of the monarch.

    • Nic919 says:

      The 1917 letters patent made HRH all grandchildren of the monarch through the male line. I.e. all children of the sons of the monarch. This one also stated that the first male child of the first born son of the heir apparent (also male) would also get the HRH.

      The rules of succession then changed in 2012 to remove male primogeniture and make it simply primogeniture. And not retroactive. Meaning that from 2012 on, no sister was ranked below a younger brother, as what happened with Anne.

      Prior to George being born, Elizabeth issued another letter patent to give HRHs to all the children of the first born son of the heir apparent because there was a possibility that William would have a girl as the eldest and she would outrank her younger brother in the succession to the throne, but she would not have an HRH and the younger brother would as per the rules of the 1917 patent.

      At that time Harry didn’t have children and they likely assumed that by the time he would that Charles would be king and the kids would automatically get HRH under the 1917 one.

      • Mary says:

        @nic919, “At that time Harry didn’t have children and they likely assumed that by the time he would that Charles would be king and the kids would automatically get HRH under the 1917 one.”

        Given that Harry was upset that Letters of Patent were not issued affording Archie a princely title, I think Harry, prior to his marrying Meghan, had either been told or left with the impression that an LP would be issued for his children as well.

      • MsIam says:

        @Mary and they probably would if he had not married a black woman. That would make his kids titles equal to William and Kate’s. Although given how jealous Kate is they may have tried to block it for anyone Harry married, even if it was Pippa.

  31. MY3CENTS says:

    Let the Reign of Petty begin.

  32. Desdemona says:

    The article on “express.co.uk” “explains it all… “The King’s spokesman said the monarch had announced William and Kate’s titles as the Prince and Princess of Wales, and expressed his love for Harry and Meghan in his address to the nation on Friday.”While the website was updated for the Waleses, clearly updating love on a website doesn’t quite work so we’ve not quite done that but clearly he does love them. We will be working through updating the website as and when we get information,” he said.

    Asked whether Archie and Lili would take the titles of Prince and Princess, he added: “At the moment, we’re focused on the next 10 days and as and when we get information, we will update that website.”

    Right… Very “enlightening”… No racism folks, none at all… (eyerolling..)

    • Amy Bee says:

      What a weak explanation.

      • Eurydice says:

        It is a weak explanation, but it’s so very typical that I actually believe it. So far, Charles is in “don’t make waves” mode – everything by the book, all according to tradition – and I don’t think he’s going to change that for a while, if at all. Eventually, Archie and Lili will be updated as prince and princess because they are already so and because it’s no effort to keep them that way. Charles will have enough to deal with without adding something unnecessary on his plate.

    • aquarius64 says:

      So Charles has been caught out and now he’s boxed in. He’s going to have to issue Letters Patent stripping the Sussex kids of the titles or have the Royal Website minion to update it. Side note: Edward the Earl of Wessex has not been upgraded to Duke of Edinburgh. Bet the Wessexes use this title fight to push that through. Too late for Louise, though; she’s Charles’ niece not granddaughter. Louise’s elevation to princess would have happened through Letters Patent from the late queen.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I believe Louise is still entitled to Princess because she is a male-line granddaughter of a monarch, whether that monarch is living or dead. She’s just not using it, at least for now.

      • Feeshalori says:

        And that goes for James as well.

      • Mrs.Krabappke says:

        Edward’s kids are not royal. The queen issued a statement in writing that they shall not be styled as royal. That’s all it takes. There is no legal requirement for a letter patent to be in any particular format or in any particular publication. A written statement is all it takes, and the more recent (QEII’s statement) would control over the one from 1917. Charles would have to issue a new statement to bestow HRH on Ed’s kids, but he will never do that.

    • kirk says:

      There’s two ways to interpret the palace statements, including ‘love’ can’t be updated on a website 🤮; (whatever ‘love’ means anyway):

      A. Typical courtier fu¢Kery in regards to H-M (their oh-so-brave underhanded resistance to Meghan’s ‘bullying’);

      B. Anticipatory courtier fu¢Kery since they’re a-wishin’ and a-hopin’ and a-prayin that Chuck will take away the Sussex kiddo titles so they website won’t ever need updating (their oh-so-brave dedication to duty).

  33. Mslove says:

    Nothing says unity like denying Archie & Lili their titles. King Chuck did everything in his power to elevate Camilla, but not a single thing for Prince Harry & his family.

  34. Minime says:

    This is all so disgusting, really! About time to abolish this outdated, racist and petty monarchy.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Start with requiring Charlie Windsor to pay minimum 400 million in death taxes for the private billion in wealth he just inherited. Tax free monarch-to-monarch transfer of private wealth remains while the UK crumbles around their ears.

      • kirk says:

        Wasn’t the law allowing tax-free monarch-to-monarch transfer of wealth supposed to deal with situations when there were back-to-back monarch deaths in quick succession? Not sure when the last one of those situation occurred…

      • notasugarhere says:

        No, it was John Major kissing Windsor ass in the 1990s. He conflated private wealth with govt property and essentially said they have to be rich-and-taxless or our royals would look bad. Long past time to revisit that.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      That’s the bottom line @Minime. This is all so stupid and pointless. Like the monarchy itself.

  35. Beach Dreams says:

    They’re clearly trying to figure something out and put it off as long as possible. They told one of the tabloids some ridiculous word salad about it being ‘difficult to update love’ and that they would wait to address it after the funeral. Convenient.

  36. Flower says:

    I am beginning to wonder if Chuck snuck in that guest edit of the Voice in anticipation on this mess.

    Two birds – one stone. Effectively destroying the only UK black newspaper whilst signaling to the mainstream media that he’s ticking the diversity box.

    • Amy Bee says:

      If it was, it was a wrong move because there was a backlash against him guest editing the Voice.

      • Flower says:

        Agreed – but there was also a backlash against the Voice, who have now lost the legitimacy to speak up on behalf of the UK black population.

  37. K says:

    I am so confused. I thought H&M were very clear about not wanting a royal life and having their kids deal with that crap? That would be one of the greatest things they could do for Archie and Lili.

    • Virginfangirl says:

      Watch the Oprah interview. For the first time, or again. It clearly lays out their thoughts on this subject.
      And I’m glad they got their thoughts about this subject out there. Although people will deny the truth even when it slaps them in the face.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      No, that was tabloid garbage. Harry and Meghan have not refused titles for their children.

    • sevenblue says:

      What are you talking about? Have you seen Oprah interview? Here is what Meghan said about titles after making clear that they didn’t reject title for Archie:

      “even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad — and from my experience, a lot of pain. I, again, wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.”

      And, additional context of what the Firm and the royal family were planning while leaking that all of it was Harry and Meghan’s preference:
      “..also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . .  You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be…. And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.”

      It is unbelievable to me people are still lying even though Meghan explained all of it. Thank God, Oprah interview happened. So, the history of Sussex family won’t be made of lies from royal family.

    • YeahRight says:

      Y’all clearly don’t listen to nothing they say. The Oprah interview is right there on YouTube. Those titles are their birthright, Harry doesn’t want them to be denied that.

    • Debbie says:

      It’s interesting that some people who either didn’t watch the Oprah interview, didn’t listen to H & M’s own words on the subject, and clearly swallowed the English tabloid’s stories wholesale, suddenly feel that they’re in a position to say “what’s best” or “better” for the Sussexes’ children. Now it’s my turn to say “I’m so confused.”

    • Jaded says:

      H&M were actually crystal clear about their children’s titles being their birthright. It also ensures they get appropriate security when traveling in England, something that was refused to Harry despite him saying he would pay for it. His request was cockblocked by that evil snake Edward Young who is a member of Ravec, the secretive arm of Home Office and the Met, and the issue of his refusal to forward the request to the rest of Ravec and the Met is currently under investigation. When you have someone like Kate Friggin’ Moss being able to hire RPO’s for her wedding, it begs the question why was it refused for Harry?

  38. Anna says:

    Well, on one of the local forums in Berlin (super multicultural city, full of migrants) I saw: the Queen is dead, long live Prince Archie! People everywhere are noticing. They are idiots.

  39. Marion says:

    Maybe something is lost in translation but I don’t get why the kids would get titles since their parents decided to leave the RF…
    I think H&M knew about that, they decided not to give them titles when they were born, so I guess they might be OK with that…?
    Anyways, isn’t it better for the kids??

    • Truth says:

      Harry is still a Prince. They left the Firm and working royals. There children are still entitled to the titles. They should not be treated differently than other grandchildren of a King.

    • Haylie says:

      They didn’t leave the royal family. They stepped back as working royals. No one is ever confused about this when it’s Beatrice or Eugenie, who are not working royals, but are still Princesses.

    • Jaded says:

      They didn’t leave, they offered to be half in/half out to get away from William’s Machiavellian interference but were refused and forced out. In any event the point is moot — you are born with a title and keep it despite not actively working for the “Firm”. Having a royal title also allows you heightened security when they travel in the UK, although that was refused even though Harry offered to pay for it.

    • Puppy1 says:

      To clarify: Harry and Meghan did not “Leave the Royal Family”, they stepped down from being “Working Royals”. Period.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      A title is not a present you can give and take as you please. It is not a game like pass the parcel. Never mind people are being petty and want to treat it as such. It is much more serious than that. It is their birthright, and they are entitled to this, passed on through the bloodline. Isn’t this what that class system is all about?!

  40. LRob says:

    As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think Charles intended to name the Prince of Wales so quickly but decided to do it to forestall sudden petitions circulating in Wales to delete the PoW title. So I think: 1)there is a lot of business to be handled after the funeral incl Archie and Lili’s styling and 2) Harry and Meghan have to decide which styling they want to use for the kids as minors, even though they are prince and princess by law.

  41. Jean says:

    My opinion, there shouldn’t be monarchies in this day and age, if there must be it should be strictly the Monarch and direct heir only, everyone else, brother, sister, uncle, aunt go get a job! Harry made the best decision by leaving with his family and he will be extremely successful, every other minor royal should follow suit and stop hanging on to tax payer funded lifestyles and crumbs from the table of the monarch! As for titles….outside a tiny section of the UK and some boomer Europeans nobody in the real world gives a ……

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Sure Jean. You don’t like or believe in monarchies, yet you’re so bothered by speculation about the Wails’ marriage that you repeatedly say “No divorce, they’ll never divorce, end of!” whenever people discuss it.

      • Jean says:

        Because that’s all it is Sis speculation, no evidence just pure speculation, don’t give a fig whether they divorce or not, but I do like facts! #AbolishTheMonarchy

      • Beach Dreams says:

        You seem to have forgotten that this is a gossip blog, where people will…gossip and speculate. If you don’t like that, you can scroll past the comments. It’s quite easy.

  42. Veronica S. says:

    I think the only thing that that surprised me a little about all of this is how open and blatant it was. Racism I expected, but I didn’t expect people openly calling her a “mongrel” in published op-eds. I expected it to be coded the way it more often is here in the States, couched in veiled economic or demographic dialogue or in the occasional Freudian slip up.

    I do wonder if some of the media resentment possibly stems from the fact that this blew up the idea that Europe was so much farther ahead of the US on racial issues. It had to be a blow that, of all places, they chose America to live, a place notorious for its systemic racism against black ethnic groups. But here it’s recognized and known by the majority. Most own it, even if we are shit at taking the right steps to address it. The only people who don’t are either racist themselves or profoundly ignorant. This smashed a lot of preconceptions people had about things being better over there.

  43. Purplehazeforever says:

    Unless King Charles III issues a new letters patent, grandchildren of the sovereign automatically receive titles under King George 1917 letters patent. Until he does so, Archie & Lillibet are Prince Archie & Princess Lillibet. People updating websites are idiots or they just suck.

  44. Bumble says:

    KC cannot he that stupid. He knows he is already on thin ice, he wouldn’t risk it. Maybe he is waiting to hear if they want to take the titles…maybe some negotiation involved: titles to come back in some semi-way?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I actually think that he is that stupid. He is incredibly vicious towards people he think wronged him – and as a pathologically self-absorbed man, nothing is ever his fault. He cannot handle his jealous over Meghan and Harry’s incandescent global star power. Look at the pictures from Germany! I fully expect that he’ll yank the titles of Archie and Lili – and I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries to remove the Sussex ducal title if it becomes possible to do so with a new bill.

      Charles may be a cunning snake – but he isn’t intelligent and he is just so petty and vicious. That display at the Accession Council was just plain stupid. His popularity isn’t high and then he goes out and act like a petulant brat. The stupid arrogance is mind-boggling.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        ArtHistorian, well, if he does I guess he’s decided that he need only concern himself with the UK. If he thinks that globally that action will go unnoticed, he’ll find out quickly how wrong he is. I thought Prince of Fails was determined to conquer the US? Is he prepared for what he’ll face? (I actually like the Prince of Fails and Princess of Wails.) Let’s see what happens when he’s in the US–if he has the guts to come now.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        You have captured his character perfectly.

  45. Dara says:

    At the time, I thought Chuck’s “wishing them well as they continue their new life overseas” statement was a way to say he was kicking them to the curb and Harry and his family were on their own and would henceforth be completely outside the institution. Then they did the walkabout and I wasn’t so sure. Cut to today and I think my first instinct was correct. Chuck will want them at the funeral for appearances, and maybe at the coronation, but that’s it. They’re out.

    • Truth says:

      They have been out for two years and shown no desire to go back.

    • Mary says:

      💯. I think Charles wants them out of both the Firm and the family. These moves by Charles just confirm to me that, like his mother, he views the firm and the family as one as opposed to separate entities.

      • Dara says:

        Precisely. Charles is going to trim an entire branch off the royal family tree. Fatherly affection is not a motivating factor, or not enough of one to change what is about to happen.

    • Green girl says:

      Agreed. I have been conflicted about what these messages and the walkabout all mean. Imagine how Harry feels.

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Dara: I felt the same way but I got the feeling that Harry told him he’s out. I suspect they had a talk at Balmoral and Harry told him his life is in the US.

  46. tamsin says:

    Prince/ Princess, along with HRH, is the birthright of Archie and Lili dating back to previous Letters Patent. Charles would have to specifically issue new Letters to deny them, an action that would tell the world that he is expunging just Harry’s entire line because without a doubt William would change it right back upon Charles’s death. It would signal racism without a doubt, unless the Letters also stated that in future all non-working royals would not get titles. It would be a huge can of worms, so there is no excuse for not putting HRH in front of Archie and Lili’s names. Camilla would have been Queen Consort even if she were afraid to use the title, because that is the tradition, and if I am not mistaken, law. She WAS the Princess of Wales, she just didn’t use the title: They made the CHOICE to use the Cornwall title. Having mama’s blessing was to wipe out Charles’s statement of having Camilla be Princess Consort. Retaining King as the higher title is ancient chauvinism. For the sake of equality, I think all consorts should just be automatically given the title of Prince or Princess in their own right. King Charles also needs to confer the Edinburgh dukedom on his brother, according to his parents wishes. He definitely has a lot of work to do. As for William, being Prince of Wales does not technically involve any specific duties, and I think Charles, rather in a panic, was just anticipating Welsh resistance. Because of the current feelings of the Welsh, I personally see the move as very arrogant, and Charles is beyond a doubt arrogant.

    • maca says:

      I have read that they are not retroactive. If they get another child, he/she would automatically be prince/princess. Archie/ Lilly were born while Charlie wasn’t a king, that’s why the rules don’t apply to them. If I understood it right. The same way Andrew and Edward are in front of Anne in succession, but Charlote in front of Luis (they’ve changed the rule right before George was born).

      • equality says:

        If you were correct, why would H&M have been accused of lying when they said Archie wouldn’t be a prince?

      • Jaded says:

        The monarch’s children and grandchildren through the male line are eligible for Prince or Princess titles, so through Charles as reigning monarch, Archie and Lilibet are now eligible. That Charles will allow it is another matter altogether and I think this will be a bone of contention for a very long time or until the bill allowing the reigning monarch to remove titles without Parliament’s approval (currently in it’s first reading) gets passed or rejected.

      • CrazyHeCallsMe says:

        This new bill allowing the Monarch to remove titles sounds as though it’s designed to specifically target Harry and his children. Interesting indeed.

      • Blithe says:

        CrazyHeCallsMe — My first thought wasn’t Harry and his children, but Andrew. I think Charles has wanted to put some limits on Andrew for a very long time. Titles aside, if this has no impact on the line of succession, the responses to these potential power hungry moves will be the opposite of strengthening the monarchy long term.

      • equality says:

        If they pass the bill, any aristocrats who have ever snubbed or annoyed PW better look out.

      • Mary says:

        @Maca, I believe you are referencing what Meghan and Harry haters ,who don’t like the idea of biracial children being titled as a prince or princess, are spouting.

        Currently, any princely title is dependent solely upon a child’s male-line relation to the sovereign. Pertod. There is absolutely no language in the 1917 LP indicating that it applies only proactively i.e., that it does not apply to children who were born as a male-line great-grandchild of a sovereign. Indeed, it has been used in the past to apply retroactively to divest some of Queen Victoria’s great-grandchildren of their prince and princess titles. I believe seven lost those titles in 1917 under the then new LP. I am not aware of any post 1917 born children born as the male-line great grandchild of a sovereign that were then upgraded in status but that may be explained by the relatively quick successions between Edward VII, George V, Edward ViII and George VI.

        Okay, now my head hurts!

  47. Kyle O says:

    @Dara. What do you mean out? And what does being non-working royals have to do with Archie’sand Lily’s birthright?

    • Julia K says:

      @dara, agree that ” wishing them well” is similar to what we say when we terminate someone’s employment( fire). “We thank you for your service and wish you well in your further endeavors”. I got that phrasing as well. Sounds like the boot to me, not from being family members but from any hope of ever returning to royal life. Being non working totals should have no effect on Archie and Lily. Two separate issues.

      • Dara says:

        Yes, exactly. I couldn’t put my finger on why exactly alarm bells went off in my head when he said those words, but you nailed it. I’ve read too many departure announcements in corporate land with that exact phrasing. I can’t think of one time it was used when the person leaving was doing so voluntarily.

        As someone said above, I don’t think Charles views them as two separate issues. The firm is the family, and vice versa.

    • Dara says:

      Out-out. Maybe not overnight, maybe not all at once, but total exclusion. Out of the line of succession, Harry removed as counselor of state, no HRH’s, not allowed to use prince/princess for the children, no royal protection even if they offer to pay out of pocket. How long is the Frogmore lease? Because I’m thinking even that won’t be renewed and we’ll get some BS excuse about why. Same with the Sussex titles. I don’t think Chuck would go as far as making it official through Parliamentary decree, but sometime in the next decade, Harry and Meghan will announce they are no longer going to use the ducal titles. It will be presented as their choice, but again, some BS excuse will be floated by the palace.

      As far as I’m concerned, it will be a good thing. Charles and William don’t have what it takes to shepherd the monarchy into the 21st century, and it’s going to get very messy as they try, and fail, to keep the public on-side. Better Harry and family be far, far away from the turmoil. My heart hurts a little for Harry, because I believe he truly cares about the institution and his family legacy, but a worthy life of service does not require a hereditary title.

      • Hopey says:

        We’re going to find tht tamponcharlie is a petty little man with a Napoleon complex & 70 years of grudges to unleash.

        He got his first taste of kingship with tht ceremony tht made him PoW when he was what….18? 20? A young man entering his prime. But had to wait half a century for the Crown, during which time he was ridiculed, jeered, mocked & written about as if he were a mere commoner. And during which time he could only watch helplessly as the kingdom he was destined to inherit, was reduced ignominiously.

        So, for as much as he can get away with, he’s gonna make some folks go thru some things. There’s a reason he hired an ex DailyFAIL bully to run his Comms operation.

  48. Escape says:

    Based on what Harry and Meghan having been saying in interviews, they don’t must not want their children to have “royal” titles.

    Anne’s children aren’t titled.

    • AnneL says:

      That’s not what they said in their interviews. You must not have watched them.

    • Feeshalori says:

      And Anne’s children aren’t titled because she and Mark Philips declined an earldom at the time of their marriage which the Queen offered. I remember that well and how they said they didn’t want their children to be brought up royals. She couldn’t pass down any titles on her own because female royals in the BRF don’t have that right. Harry and Meghan did not decline titles for themselves or their children.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Anne’s children don’t have titles because shes a woman. Only the male line have titled children.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Yes, Amy Bee, l said in my next to last sentence that Anne couldn’t pass down any titles on her own because female royals don’t have that right.

    • robem07 says:

      When Anne had Zara and Peter, the 1917 Letter of Patent limited titles to children of the Monarch’s male offspring and their children. Anne’s husband, at the time declined a title and Anne also declined titles for her children offered by the Queen. The rule was changed before Wm. had children.

  49. AnneL says:

    Charles is a petty twerp. No wonder his parents didn’t like him.

    For the record my son’s close friend was on jury duty in Brooklyn the day the Queen died. There were a number of people from Caribbean countries that are (or were) part of the Commonwealth in the jury pool. When news circulated that she had died, a lot of them cheered.

    Have fun losing what’s left of your “empire,” Chuckles.

  50. tamsin says:

    BTW, Harry also loses his use of Wales. I imagine he will now use Sussex, so he will become Harry Sussex. Archie and Lili would also be Sussex, because Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname for untitled members of Philip and Elizabeth’s direct line.

    • Jaded says:

      Harry’s, Archie’s and Lili’s last name is actually Mountbatten-Windsor which is used for male-line descendants of Elizabeth II and Philip and their children.

      • tamsin says:

        Mountbatten-Windsor used for descendents without a title. Archie and Lili will have titles as grandchildren of the king. Their father is the Duke of Sussex. I think Harry will have to use Sussex as a last name since Wales belongs to William’s family now. He can’t continue to be Prince Henry of Wales. As Prince and Princess, his children are also entitled to use Sussex. Mind you, they may continue to use M-W for convenience, but Harry definitely would not use Mountbatten-Windsor as HIS last name unless he lost his title.

      • Jaded says:

        Before his marriage, Harry used Wales as his surname for military purposes and was known as Captain Harry Wales. He can use Mountbatten-Windsor whenever he wants, and his children have the last name of Mountbatten-Windsor as descendants who don’t use the HRH style. The royal family’s website states: “The Queen’s descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.” As Harry is no longer using HRH, he is entitled to use the last name Mountbatten-Windsor if he needs, such as on official documentation.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Jaded, but Harry is still styled HRH. He’s not using it, but it’s still there, so I would think he would use Sussex. That actually makes sense because the world knows who the Sussexes are.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I believe whatever house the dukedom is head of becomes the surname, so for Harry’s children it would be Sussex. Much the same that the Duke of York’s daughters are/were Beatrice York and Eugenie York.

  51. Steph says:

    As sixth in line, if Archie wants to marry before the Cambs have kids, won’t he still need KC3 permission? So he won’t be titled but still can’t act as a fully private citizen?

    • Amy Bee says:

      I don’t think he will have any say in Archie’s life because he will be living in US and it’s likely that when he decides to get married, Charles will no longer with us.

    • Duch says:

      Steph, yes, that’s right – his or William’s permission, at which time Archie would be 5th in line if the William’s kids haven’t sired offspring. As I understand it, he needs the king’s permission or he can be taken out of the line of succession.

      Same for Lilibet as the new 6th in line under that future scenario.

  52. Chantal says:

    Charles definitely wants to yank the Sussex children’s titles. Birthrights be damned. He’s stalling for time as he looks for a way to legally do so. He might be able to get Parliament to pass that law allowing monarchs to remove titles, which could be detrimental to the aristocracy in the future. But racism usually trumps common sense and self preservation. Its possible that he and Parliament have been working together all along. If this law passes, the establishment will totally and truly own him. And the RF is already deeply in debted to the BM. Puppet king indeed. It could also backfire and result in the total destruction of their relationship with Harry removing himself and his children from the line of succession. I know leaving is a wet dream for the derangers but what would be the benefit of staying? The RF needs their star power, they don’t need them. Imagine the damage that would cause and the headlines and whining that act would generate for decades (unfortunately blaming Meghan of course but what else is new). But they would truly be free from the RF. Unfortunately for Charles, the US press and rabid BM have taken hold of this obvious and potentially explosive issue and will not let go. Talk about self sabotage and the Windsors excel at this. The Sussexes are truly in a vipers pit over there. I hope Harry and Meghan know that many of us care and support them.

  53. Flower says:

    A lot of KP foot prints on this page all of a sudden. You’re dealing with a different crowd here – we don’t just swallow propaganda as fact…

    • Deanne from Canada says:

      Flower: 100%

      H&M are following Anne’s deal. Let the kids at 18 decide what they want. End of. No drama here.

      A title of PoW will not alter their work ethic. It may force Will to mend fences with his brother (at his dad’s insistence). I can see that happening much to Kate’s ire. If Will were smart, he would make moves in this direction..

      It will force Kate to be more active in charity work putting her yummy mummy spa / shopping / gym life in jeopardy.

      PS: Lastly friends who do not follow BRF (texted me) viewed the Windsor walk about as Kate leading the charge looking rather pissed off with zero connection to anyone else. Going through the motions of « duty » as if she wanted to be anywhere else. Meghan looked as if there had been a row in the car prior to the walk about.

      • Jaded says:

        Your “PS” is spot on Deanne. I too felt like Kate was barely containing her ire. She stalked out of the car, paid no attention to anyone, and Meghan looked like she’d been iced out. I don’t think there was a row per se in the car, rather that Kate did not engage with anyone even to respond to polite chat. She certainly had an obvious bitch-face happening and Meghan clung to Harry for dear life. Keep it up Khate, it only seals your fate more and more.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Deanne: Anne’s chidlren were not titled because she’s a woman. She had no choice in the matter.

      • Deanne from Canada says:

        @Amy – Thanks. 🙂 My years of receiving Majesty magazine at Xmas and birthday from my Royal watching grandmother have been tested!

        So it’s really up to King C3 whether or not to be a quiet racist ass or a loud one w/ denying titles.

        Gotcha!

    • Liz Version 700k says:

      This!!! Well said Flower

    • @ Flower, yup……if you pay attention to the patterns lately, you can tell that one of their MO’s has been to make up a specific talking point, and then have a bunch of “new” accounts appear and try in different ways to push said talking point in the comments. It’s very obvious that today’s talking point has been various versions of, “but I thought Harry and Meghan didn’t want any titles for their kids, I’m sooooooo confused!” Like I said on yesterday’s post, they’re not slick.

  54. Mrs.Krabpple says:

    You now what? Screw the royal family. The Sussexes can stay in America where their work is appreciated, and continue to build on their global brand. The monarchy is on the wrong side of history anyway, so let them implode all on their own.

  55. Moderatelywealthy says:

    Charles III is not an emotionally astute person. Add to that the fact that he is selfish, has spent his whole life waiting to get a job and you start to understand why William is who he is.

    The whole ” streamlined RF” is just a hoax . The RF is not going to be less expansive because there will be less working royals. The public will get less bread and butter engagements and continue to pay them money and Charles will only barely keep the old cousins in their favour and grace places, but his nephews and nieces better count with only their parents for support.

    Charles is not a good father and he does not strike me as a religious man. This means he probably does not believe in life after death and therfore cannot claim to care about legacies because he will not be up there in heaven to watch what people will think of him.

    This means: William will get anything he wants because Charles wants to watch William fail in his lifetime. He knows this will eventually happen. William´s facade is starting to erode , especially with the young generations. Charles does not need the young generations. He is not young himself. The older folks who hold William in their hearts because of Diana will not be enough to get William to be beloved King in twenty years time.

    Harry is, to Charles, an afterthought. The walk with William was probably one of the last things he could get out of Harry for free. There is no quid pro quo with Harry, which suits Charles just fine. telling Harry to do this last thing for him in memory of his grandmother is like emotional blackmail, but this is nothing to Charles. William demands castles, heliopters, titles. Charles will probably try to emotional blackmail Harry into attending his coronation, but honestly if Harry does not attend, I do not see Charles caring that much.

    • HeatherC says:

      If they don’t attend the coronation KC3 will absolutely care because there will be more articles and attention paid to their absence than his yay I’m officially king tax payer funded party

      • K8erade says:

        I don’t believe Harry will attend his coronation or any further royal connected events. I think Harry is done after this. The UK media can whine, cry and caterwaul all they want. I truly believe that with Elizabeth gone, he’ll move out of Windsor and get a place elsewhere in London. I think Harry will keep his distance from this toxic family from now on. I don’t even think he cares about titles anymore.

    • Deanne from Canada says:

      @Mod – King C3 DOES care if H is a no show at his coronation because it’s really bad PR. King C wants a unified Windsor house live on tv. That’s the only reason he wants H there.

      Just my 2 cents

      • K8erade says:

        If Charles didn’t want the bad PR, then he should have treated his youngest son better. Harry won’t go.

      • Truth says:

        Agree he wants them there. Question is why do it after this funeral debacle. I think there are negotiations going on now behind the scenes.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        I think Harry holds the power here. If the Sussexes are not at the coronation, Chuck will not get as much attention. Look at how much attention was paid for TQ’s Jubbly because the Sussexes were there. They need the Sussexes when they want global attention. I would bet good money that H&M know they have that bargaining chip. That doesn’t mean they aren’t sitting in a toxic toilet bowl right now. I think that’s exactly how they’re being treated, but they do have the what the Firm wants–and hates them for it.

  56. Midnight@theOasis says:

    This is crazy that it’s even an issue about Archie and Lilli becoming HRHs. I am truly appalled and dumbfounded at the behavior of the BRF. At a time like this, with the entire world watching, they’ve allowed the BM to turn the Queen’s mourning period into a chaotic shambles because of their one sided vendetta against the Sussexes. Word should have gone out immediately to shut the BM’s asinine stupidity down. Instead, KP and Kate/Midds were allowed to go on the attack. Now the entire mourning period/funeral is being overshadowed with this foolishness. And international media is there to watch and report on it. Commonwealth countries watching this shit show probably can’t wait to cut ties. I think Antigua-Barbuda have already announced becoming a republic and I’m sure others will follow.

  57. Anna4 says:

    Charles started talking of a slimmed down monarchy shortly after the Diamond Jubilee in 2012 while Megan was married to Trevor Engelson. Has nothing to do with her. The most pissed off person at the time he began making his downsizing plans known was Andrew who bleated on about his “blood princesses” getting short shrift so Charles did probably have Harry’s future kids in mind at that time.

    • Truth says:

      That slimmed down monarchy always included Harry, his wife, and kids. He was limiting his siblings, their children, cousins, etc… not his own kids.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Charles’ intentions were always to include Harry and his future wife and children in the slimmed-down monarchy. He wanted to cut out the extra bodies on the balcony and expunge the extended family and relatives.

    • kirk says:

      Well Chuck#3 inherited his unplanned-for slimmed down monarchy from QE2 what with the abrupt departures of Harry, Meghan and Andrew. But the slimming did not correspond to lower support bill for RF, did it?

  58. Myeh says:

    After their queen passed what I observed in my daily life was all the hidden racists coming out to defend her and their new king. I am of part east indian ancestry and my client’s (older white people) said things like well how are you taking it? Showing a surface level woke awareness of colonialism to doubling down well she didn’t take the kohinoor diamond from your people personally to which my retort was she had 7 decades to right a wrong Millicent and she dropped the ball. To which all I heard was mumblings of her service and how her son is an environmentalist. OK well you can be those things and sitting atop of a white hierarchy punching down with your massive privilege too. Those things arent mutually exclusive! The mental gymnastics of their supporters upholding, perpetuating and enabling systemic racism is sickening. They hyperventilate everytime Harry and Meghan make a move they’re so obsessed in their jealousy for their popularity. I will always remember the outpouring of love and the sea of flowers for Diana. Nothing compared to the service Queen. Harry and Meghan have inspired the empathy, sympathy and love that Diana had. As far as I’m concerned they inherited Diana’s title Queen of Hearts and so will their kids. Way better than some made up stuffy title.

    • AnneL says:

      Thank you for posting your very important perspective. I can only imagine how it must feel to have to deal with their excuses. I don’t think I could hold back.

      I mean, I’m American. I don’t care about the Monarchy as it doesn’t impact me. If I were a Brit I would want them OUT. But this whole thing with their treatment of Meghan and her children just makes my blood boil. I can’t stand to see the sycophantic treatment of this family.

      I really hope Charles, and William after him, just step in it so badly that it will end their reign. I don’t personally hate the QEII or anything but enough is enough.

      LOL, I feel like Diane Keaton in The Godfather yelling “This whole thing needs to STOP!!!” at Al Pacino.

    • Nlopez says:

      Well said MYEH! I am not mourning her at all. I feel human compassion for her loved ones, but she did nothing for black and brown people. Neither will chuck and willie.

  59. Lily says:

    I really hate the idea of titles. No one is born better than anyone else.

  60. Margo says:

    Ummm. Why do they want the titles anyway. They don’t live in Britain, or represent the crown. They profess to dislike the institution and left to find freedom. Also It’s not a given that they get titles. Anne’s kids don’t and nor do Edward’s. Fame ho Andrew’s do but they are irrelevant in the reign of Charles as are Harry’s kids, because that’s what they chose. To leave. I don’t think racism has any thing to do with it.

    • Jais says:

      Ummm, well, if you read through the thread, the titles are connected to official RPO security and Harry and Meghan want their babies to receive all the possible protection in the world. And regardless of that, it’s their birthright. Abolishing the monarchy would be the best, but while it’s a living system still in place, there’s no good reason to deny the babies a title. The whole slimmed down monarchy propaganda does not mean the cost will allot the sudden be slimmed down.

      • Anna4 says:

        @Jais. I don’t know where the security linked to titles idea is coming from but it’s false. Even while the Queen was alive, her daughter Princess Anne didn’t have royal protection except when she was doing an official engagement. Same with Edward and Sophie. Titles for Archie and Lili would change nothing regarding their security.

      • Jais says:

        So I get that I’m confused bc to be honest it’s all confusing, most likely by design. So princess Anne never had security her whole life unless she was doing an engagement? Is that really true?? It’s late but clearly I have some research topics for the upcoming week.

    • BeanieBean says:

      @Margo: Wow. You clearly didn’t read or take in any of the previous comments on this article; otherwise, you would realize that every single one of your statements is wrong. That’s some might strong willful ignorance you’ve got going there.

      • Margo says:

        @beaniebean. Ummm Right. So h and m do live in Britain and are working royals? Anne’s kids have titles? Not every statement I made is wrong.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Margo, actually the statement that the Sussexes put out before they left in March 2020 clarified that they would be spending their time between North America and UK. The pandemic put their plans on hold. Now that they can move around the globe, we’ve seen them out and about for their charities. Once they have proper security, I believe we’ll see them more in the UK.

      Anne’s children have nothing to do with Archie & Lilibet. Perhaps you need to do some reading on this post and discover how misinformed you are.

      I don’t believe Harry ever said he didn’t like the institution. I believe he made it clear that the media–aided by the courtiers and family members–is what he is completely opposed to. Because of the racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc., attacks in the media, it has placed his wife, children and himself in danger. Don’t make the mistake of thinking they don’t get many death threats, because you would be oblivious and spreading disinformation. He refuses to be owned by the media in the UK. That will never change.

      • Margo says:

        @saucy&sassy. H and M are free to travel and do what they want but they do not work for the royals anymore so they cannot represent them. It’s like retiring from a company and expecting to still receive the perks. Anne’s children are grandchildren of Elizabeth 11 and don’t have titles. So I think that is precedent and relevant. Harry is one of many grandchildren and his kids are great grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth. They only have the option of a title because Charles is now the monarch. Security is not tied to a title. These are the facts however ppl want to spin them.

  61. SourcesclosetoKate says:

    It’s clear they’re using Meghan and Harry as a human shield to make the change happen without having to deal with any backlash of the unpopularity of the monarchy, that we are seeing around the world. I know harry and Meghan are smart enough to be aware of this, that’s why they don’t look fully committed to all this change nonsense. They are going to get the hell out of dodge as soon as the opportunity arise.

  62. MsGnomer says:

    This is all very interesting bureaucracy and fun with document signing. I want to know what will happen to P. Andrew of sexual predator fame now. Is that case still open here in the States?

  63. Flower says:

    If anyone wants to see why KC3 has become King b!tch in cheif – just have a look at the Daily Mail comments sections for ‘Queen Camilla’ articles.

    This is how the Daily Mail control the narrative and brainwash the general populace. This is why we also see contrasting reactions to Meghan online and in person.

    The DM comments section are 100% fake propaganda tool and they’re veering on dangerous at the moment. I hope H&M do not bring Archie & Lili to the UK – I dont trust Chuck – especially as he has no apparent emotional connection to his grand children.

  64. AnneL says:

    Sorry this is kind of OT, but I just saw on the news that Andrew will be taking care and custody of her Corgis. He really is the favorite child.

    He’s a creep but I assume he likes dogs so hopefully they’ll be well treated.

    • K8erade says:

      Andrew gifted her the corgis after QEII lost her last group of dogs. She wasn’t planning on getting anymore but Andrew gave them to her as a gift. It sounds like he was prepared to care for them in this event. Now do I also think Andrew having the corgis is also a set up for a scam? Yes.

  65. Flower says:

    The Queen was probably trying to help him with his plea in mitigation when he finally goes to prison – “sorry your honour I have dependent Corgis”

  66. Julia K says:

    If Archie and Lily had been addressed as Prince and Princess 2 days ago, they would have been immediately provided with security at their California home. This is the basis for the whole feet dragging; Charles and Wm do not want to pay for their protection.

    • Jais says:

      So, I’m still curious about this. If they are prince and princess, would they only receive RPO protection in the UK or would it also be in Cali? I’m really wanting to understand this bc nothing gets me more worked up than watching the sussex family be deliberately denied safety.

      • Margo says:

        It’s a question of $. The British public pay for security which isn’t cheap. If u are not a working Royal the public won’t pay.

      • Jaded says:

        They should be able to get RPO protection while in the UK, but Harry wanted to circumvent the “they’re not working royals so they don’t deserve RPO security” by paying for it himself. Edward Young (the Queen’s private secretary and member of Ravec) cockblocked him by not forwarding his request to the Ravec committee and Home Office, so there’s now an investigation underway by his lawyers to find out the reason why he didn’t forward Harry’s request to the appropriate members.

      • Jais says:

        But technically the Cambridge kids are not working royals? Assuming child labor laws would have an issue with that…But do each one not get security? I’m thinking they do get it? And it’s bc of their titles right? Should only George as the heir get security? Is that how it works? Prob not since a new letter was issued giving charlotte and Louis titles and I’m guessing security along with those titles. If it’s a question of $, I suggest getting rid of the whole dang monarchy. If adding two babies the security they need is too much $ then I don’t know what to say. If they can’t take a few mill out of the 86 mill or whatever it is they get a year from the SG or the duchy of Cornwall or wherever then I don’t know what to say. Y’all have had Harry under a microscope just as much as William since the day he was born and yeah money can be set aside to protect his kids. At least till they’re 18. What is wrong with y’all?

    • BeanieBean says:

      Don’t think so, no. Is Harry getting British RPO at their California home? Or is it security he & Meghan pay for? I think the latter.

      • Jaded says:

        It’s private security they pay for in Cali, but although they can accompany him on visits to the UK, they aren’t allowed to carry weapons or be advised by RPO protection services of any active threats or warnings.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        H&M pay for their private security. They don’t need RPOs in the US, because their private security can carry weapons and I believe 100% that their security is getting any intelligence that’s needed from the government.

        When H&M are in the UK, their private security cannot carry weapons and they do not get intelligence. They can’t even tell people to move back out of the way. Only the police can do that.

        It’s not that complicated. Harry said he’ll pay for security by RPOs when he’s in the UK–the UK is refusing to give him security.

    • Margo says:

      This is not correct. Titles do not guarantee security. Anne is a princess and only has security when on official events . Plus she does the most events of any Royal. British tax payers won’t pay for kids with titles living in another country.

      • Moderatelywealthy says:

        Your willfull ignorance is best served at another comments section.
        Everybody knows Harry is suing to have the right to refund the tax payers for security WHEN HE IS IN BRITAIn, due to their high risk status.
        Lily and Archie are, by their OWN RULES as grandchildren of a Monarch, Princes and eligible to security in the UK.

        While titles should not exist in my opinion, THEY DO EXIST FOR THE RF and are considered the birthright to the grandchildren of a monarch.

        If you are a royalist and do not understand their own rules when it comes to the biracial children and insist in stating neither Harry nor Meghan wanted the chindren to be princes ( which they cleraly said they wanted them to have achoice and wanted to provide them with the security they deserve) then YOU AS A ROYALIST is admiting you think there is only one set of grandchildren you consider ” proper”.

  67. Jean says:

    Looks like the Wales couple are moving to Windsor Castle, that was obviously the plan all along….so much waste and excess in that family

    • Kyle O says:

      If it’s true it’s in aid of puffing him up. As it stands now he is a figure of ridicule. The grand palaces and titles are to make him seem like he is someone to be reckoned with. To give the impression that he is greater than Harry. It won’t do any good. He is who he is – a lazy, stupid, petty man representing an archaic dying institution. Before he was given this promotion, he already had two major apartments at KC. What entertaining has he done there? What diplomatic events? What major fundraising? None as far as I know. In fact the social event organizer left soon after he and his wife moved in since there was no need for him.

    • Jaded says:

      William may be moving into Windsor Castle…in all likelihood Kate will stay, for the most part, at Adelaide Cottage. Especially after her toxic behaviour at the walkabout with Harry and Meghan.

  68. Likeyoucare says:

    I believe meghan. The BRF had take away meghan name on her own son birth certificate once.
    The titles are her children birth right. We never know how their future go. The title come with securities. The children need to have that option.

  69. smarmyo says:

    The second reading of bill #3066, “Removal of Titles” is scheduled for September 12, 2022. It is sponsored by Rachael Maskell, who is ostensibly a Labour candidate, though her history is odd. British correspondents here would have to interpret her motivations.

  70. aquarius64 says:

    The US media has been telling the story Charles wants to work on conversations for the Empire’s racist past and how to improve things going forward. That’s a tough sell when your grandchildren of African American lineage

  71. POP789 says:

    Do we know if Meghan and Harry said they wanted the titles for the kids or if it was even discussed yet? Didn’t they say when Archie was born they declined a title. Edward, Sophie, and Anne all declined for their kids titles. Plus Meghan and Harry don’t seem to like the “firm” at all. Why would they want it for their American raised kids it’s kind of weird. I don’t understand the love on here of the titles to an archaic institution. I’m still hoping the Sussexes ditch their titles. It’s odd to me.

    • Kyle O says:

      That question has been answered numerous times in this comment section, and by Meghan, herself, in the Oprah interview. To answer once more, Meghan has said it is not her or Harry’s place to deny the children their birthright.

    • Jaded says:

      When Archie was born in 2019, rumors abounded that Meghan and Harry deliberately declined to give their son an HRH title. In fact, Meghan said during her interview with Oprah, this was not the case: According to Meghan, the decision was made for them by undisclosed members of the royal family (or “Firm”). “It was not our decision to make,” she said. The question of title was wrapped up in other pressing matters (like racism). Since their unborn child was not going to receive an HRH title, they also wouldn’t get a security detail.

      While explaining this to Oprah, Meghan cited a 1917 decree introduced by King George V, under which only the eldest son of the queen’s first born, Prince Charles, would be entitled to an HRH title. In 2012, the queen issued a “letters patent” so that Prince William and his wife, Kate, could give their children HRH titles. Why not Harry?

      • Snickers says:

        Prince William is the direct heir to the throne, Harry is not. Charles wants to slim down the monarchy. He can make the rules about titles. Those are the facts.

      • sevenblue says:

        @Snickers, they were discussing to change the rules, so when Charles becomes King, Harry’s children wouldn’t automatically get titles. This is the fact and all this time rota rats said Meghan was lying, their children will get titles when Charles gets the throne. Now, why don’t they announce the titles very loudly if Harry and Meghan lied?

        Charles’s slimmed down monarch plan has always included Harry and his future family, until he married a biracial woman of course.

  72. HamsterJam says:

    I seldom feel compelled to use this sort of language, but that man is POS. Diana was right.

    Believe people when they show you who they are.
    His contempt for people who aren’t carrying bags of untraceable cash was on full display yesterday when he bared his teeth like a dog to “signal” to a “servant” that he was unhappy his pens were moved 3 inches to the left instead of 3 1/2 inches to the left.

    The man is a monster. There is not a moral fiber in his body. I have known people like him, I saw it in his eyes when he growled.

    After seeing that I would not put anything past him, including arranging a brake job on a Mercedes or throwing his son and grandson to the wolves.

    Only one thing he cares about and that is him and whoever does the best job of polishing his scepter.

    • Dulcinea says:

      I agree with you that he’s awful. I think that he’s one of those guys who “will get what he wants at any cost” so when the public starts to turn on him
      He’s going to throw everyone under the bus. He always uses his children to deflect from his issues (remember when he married Camilla and the big news was the children of Díana agreed with the decision?) so he may start with Andrew but not one is safe William and his marriage will go next and so on…
      He is a dreadful bully. I guess William didn’t fall far from that tree.

  73. Siobhan says:

    I wouldn’t read into the website that much. I would honestly be shocked if a letter patent was issued stripping them of titles after all of the drama on this particular issue. I don’t think they would let Meghan be right on this, even if it was the original plan, but who knows.

    I think more likely is that they’re having conversations with Harry and Meghan now regarding whether they want their kids to have Prince and princess titles. Supposedly they turned down the earl title for Archie at his birth – and even in the Oprah interview it was unclear if they wanted titles or not – the implication seemed to be only if it would give them security.

    So I think they are going to clarify with Meghan and Harry if they even wanted a prince or princess title to be used before they post anything on a website.

  74. Miss Jupitero says:

    Can’t say I get all the hoopla. Beatrice and Eugenie’s kids are also not getting titles, even though they are in the succession. Wasn’t KC3’s plan all along to keep titles only to those in the direct line?