King Charles III made a decision about Archie & Lilibet’s royal titles

Fussy, ink-soaked King Charles III has retired to Highgrove for 24 hours as he finally gets a chance to reflect back on the hectic events of the past week. According to the Daily Mail, King Charles and Queen Camilla “landed” near Camilla’s estate, Ray Mill, where the king dropped off his wife and then headed to Highgrove solo. They left London shortly after the public procession yesterday. This “day of reflection” was built into Operation London Bridge. This was always the plan.

Meanwhile, it seems that somewhere in the chaos of the past week, King Charles has made a decision about his Sussex grandchildren’s titles. This was a discussion long before QEII’s passing, but it cropped up again when the site was updated with the new line of succession, and Archie and Lilibet were not afforded prince and princess titles. While Charles has let it be known that he intends to change the Letters Patent, he has not done so yet, so technically Archie and Lilibet automatically became prince and princess when QEII died. Now the new King has apparently made a decision about that:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s children will not get HRH status from King Charles III — but they will be prince and princess. The King is expected to anoint Prince Archie, three, and one-year-old Princess Lilibet, in the near future.

Tense discussions have taken place while Meghan and Prince Harry are in the UK for the Queen’s funeral. His Majesty has agreed to issue letters patent to confer the prince and princess titles on his two grandchildren — who live with their parents in Montecito, California.

Harry, 37, and Meghan, 41, agreed not to use their His and Her Royal Highness titles when they moved there two and a half years ago. But they moaned that it had left their family without adequate security. And they will now be ­bitter that Archie and Lilibet will also not be able to use the style of address. The Sussexes are said to have pointed out that princesses Beatrice and Eugenie have HRH status but they are not working royals.

A source said: “Harry and Meghan were worried about the security issue and being prince and princess brings them the right to have certain levels of royal security. There have been a lot of talks over the past week. They have been insistent that Archie and Lilibet are prince and princess. They have been relentless since the Queen died. But they have been left furious that Archie and Lilibet cannot take the title HRH. That is the agreement — they can be prince and princess but not HRH because they are not working royals.”

A spokesman for the King declined to comment.

[From The Sun]

Minus the sh-t about Harry and Meghan’s “fury” – which I’ll get to in a moment – I actually think this compromise is generally the right one? King Charles isn’t denying his mixed-race children their “birthright” as grandchildren of the monarch, they’ll still be prince and princess, but they won’t have the HRH style. Harry and Meghan have the HRH style but they “promised” not to use it. It’s asinine and needlessly fussy, but in general… I think this is a smart call.

As for the Sussexes “fury” – this keeps happening in royal reporting, where some Kensington Palace or (now) Buckingham Palace source makes assumptions about how Harry and Meghan “feel” and so those assumptions are ascribed to them as factual. While security and HRH styling was a big deal to H&M in 2019, they now have their whole lives in California, away from these terrible people. They know that “Archie and Lili becoming prince and princess” isn’t going to suddenly mean that the institution suddenly gives a sh-t, or that the institution will protect any of them.

I also seriously doubt that H&M have been “relentless” about anything to do with their kids’ titles. It’s very much like Harry’s military uniform – the Sussexes are sitting back and watching the new king make terrible decisions, knowing how sh-tty everything looks. If Harry hadn’t issued that statement about how little he cares about wearing a uniform at his grandmother’s funeral, the press would be eagerly telling us that Harry was “furious” behind the scenes and “relentlessly” trying to persuade Charles to change his decision.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

282 Responses to “King Charles III made a decision about Archie & Lilibet’s royal titles”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Princess Peach says:

    I feel like Charles is just slowly confirming everything they said was true.

    • ADS says:

      I agree.
      I am slightly confused about this bit from the S*n article: “His Majesty has agreed to issue letters patent to confer the prince and princess titles on his two grandchildren…”. I thought the extant position automatically conferred the prince and princess titles? Surely if letters patent are being issued, they are to remove the HRH that goes with the titles, no? In which case saying he has “promised” to issue letters patent is an interesting phrase, because such a promise is not to Harry and Meghan’s benefit. Was the promise made to someone else then? And if so, who?

      • dynastysurf says:

        There are two schools of thought regarding the previous LP – one that the title were automatic and one that the titles were appropriate but not actually conferred unless they were created as such by the sovereign. Seems like Charles is following the latter school of thought.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Footnote: The granddaughters in the female line of Edward VII (Alexandra & Maud, the daughters of Duke of Fife and HRH Louise, Princess Royal) were made Princesses of the UK and Ireland without the HRH by Letters Patent. Therefore, there is a sorta-like precedent for the action that the “The Dim” or “The Scum” (take your pick) is predicting Chucky III will take.

        I am not saying it is correct only that there is a sorta-like precedent for this action.

      • HennyO says:

        Exactly. I don’t agree that this is ‘the right thing to do’.

        If true, the letters patent ARE the intervention in the children’s birth rights, the titles they automatically have acquired, the minute the queen died on September 8th, 16: 40 BST, and are NOT a favour from Charles to them. By taking the HRH style away, he’s taken the children’s’ rights. So, all in all, Meghan was right in the Oprah interview. But they, (the press and the palace) desperately (again) want to make a point that she was lying, because she had exposed their plans (the discussions, as she said) at the time.

        Announcing this so quickly means that they, Charles more so, definitely were busy messing with Archie’s (and Lillibet’s) titles, but couldn’t announce the decision while the queen was still alive. Charles is doing his sun, DIL and grandchildren wrong. He’s an awful and rude man.

      • Bisynaptic says:

        Wondering the same thing. They are already prince and princess, according to the last letters patent. Why is it necessary to issue a new one, just to confirm the status quo?

      • Elsaveeta says:

        The Queen could have done it long before she died. She amended the 1917 letters patent for Prince Louis.

        On December 31, 2012 Queen Elizabeth II made an amendment to the 1917 Letters Patent by issuing a Letters Patent which gave the title and style His/Her Royal Highness and Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom to all the children of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son. Therefore at birth Louis was thus styled “His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge”.

        Prince Louis is fifth in the line of succession to the British throne, behind his grandfather, father and older siblings, Prince George and Princess Charlotte.
        Daughter of UK’s Prince William and Kate to be princess › article

        Jan 10, 2013 — However, the queen has issued a “Letters Patent” – a form of royal announcement – to change this so all the children of William, …
        Britain’s Queen Elizabeth has announced that if Prince William and pregnant wife Kate have a daughter she will officially hold the title of princess, updating rules introduced almost a century ago.

        Under a proclamation from King George V in December 1917, only the eldest son of William and Kate, who is due to give birth sometime in the middle of the year, would have been called a prince.

        A girl would have only have had the title “Lady” and would not have been known as “Her Royal Highness”.

        However, the queen has issued a “Letters Patent” – a form of royal announcement – to change this so all the children of William, whose father is heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles, would be treated the same.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Yup. Between this and the slightly curt “love” he recently proclaimed for Harry and Meghan in his speech, that Oprah interview is only proving the Sussexes’ case. RRs can stop whining and hoping for Harry to come back now.

      • kirk says:

        Whatever “love” means anyway.

      • LBB says:

        LOL – I see what you did there @kirk.

      • Georgia Walker says:

        Let’s face it, Charles don’t have any great love for Prince Harry, Princess Megan or their children. I didn’t think that Charles ever planed on giving Archie or Lilibet the titles of Prince and Princess. The British Monarchy are racist, white supremist, and thieves. We here in the USA loves Prince Harry and his family and whether Charles like it or not the World see how he is treating the Sussex’s, and has already formed an opinion of him and his royal family.

    • Mary S says:

      If the reporting is correct, Meghan told the truth. KC is taking Archie & Lili HRH titles. Because he was called out, he’s not taking away prince and Princess too. Without the HRH those children will be obliged to bow to everyone with HRH. This IS a big deal unless KC does it to all “non working” royals.

      • jwoolman says:

        Do the kids have dual citizenship? If they are American citizens, they don’t have to bow to anybody. About time somebody stood up to the royals. Or rather, remained standing up.

        And I doubt that the titles will matter to them or their parents anyway. Rather useless outside the UK and what remnants of the Commonwealth may still exist in a few years.

        As far as security is concerned, they might as well forget about it in the UK. It won’t be safe for them regardless of titles. Have you looked at comments sections in various forums? The Meghan-haters are like Trumpers, they drag her and her alleged sins into any conversation. They really do hate her with scary passion. I don’t think even Harry will be safe by himself, their hatred of his wife is spilling out to him as well.

        He can Skype with anybody who doesn’t want to visit in person. If I were him, I would keep the door open but wait for them to initiate contact.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Lili was born in the US so she’s a citizen. Archie is eligible by both whether or not they’ve completed the paperwork.

      • Humblepie says:

        The fact that H+M are worried about security makes indistinguishable from any other royal petrified of the mob. So they hate the royal family….. but exercise birthrights?
        It should all end, the whole monarchy. All titles and wealth should be given back to the people because the royals only enjoy this wealth by virtue of being allowed to by the country.

      • bettyrose says:

        @Humblepie – I see your point, and from a certain perspective I agree, but they are the target of very real death threats. And they have two young children. Security is the #1 reason they pulled out completely. And regardless of what one believes about the circumstances surrounding Diana’s death, she was an inconvenience to the RF and then she was gone, as was the person of color she was dating. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest they want security out of vanity. They want security because in the era of Brexiters and MAGATs, we need to take that threat *very* seriously.

      • DouchesOfCambridge says:

        @humblepie I watched a video from an interview Charles gave. He was asked what was his job as a royal. Boy, did he pedal that one. His response was awful and the mumbling was something something like “being a royal is a lifestyle”. It was an interview alongside Diana with the kids when they were toddlers.

      • ELX says:

        I really doubt that H&M’s kids will have much to do with any of those people, most of whom will be dead and gone by the time they’re adults. I daresay they will know August Brookbanks, but are they ever going to interact with the Wails’ brood? No—their father might go back for his father’s coronation, but even that is doubtful. The kids are going to be Americans in any case.

      • Bisynaptic says:

        They don’t have to bow to anybody.

    • HeyJude says:

      Absolutely. The funny thing he does seem to understand he’s telling on himself.

    • Nancy M says:

      It’s ridiculous to claim that they are furious about the HRH titles. They likely don’t care either way if their children are given Prince and princess titles. None of them receive royal security any longer. Please stop making things up.

    • Cynthia says:

      Other royals were given “grace” by the Queen; Charles got to marry Camilla and she is called Queen, William got to marry Kate and didnt have her queen V checked for virginity, Andrew did his thing snd she bought him out of it, the man who gave up throne to marry a “commoner” actually gave throne to Queen E, so none of this would have happened if he hadn’t abdicated the throne. Can’t we all just get along!

  2. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    I think this isn’t a bad idea. I believe the Swedish King did this a few years back (all the grandkids who weren’t the heir’s kids would lose their HRH but keep their titles).

    But I don’t get the “ they can be prince and princess but not HRH because they are not working royals.” part. Bea and Eugenie aren’t working royals and have HRH. Prince and Princess Michael retired yet still have their HRH as far as we know.

    • equality says:

      Good possibility that KC takes BEa and Eugenie’s HRH also.

      • DouchesOfCambridge says:

        There is no protocol/guardian of tradionnal sh*t. They do as “protocol” when it suits them or when they need to blame it on protocol, and they’ll absolutely change “protocol”, “traditions” , anything as the winds blows or when they feels like it. Alas, royals of with conviction, fighting for the good of their kingdoms, dont exist anymore and since a very long time. we’re left with a bunch of clowns, homewreckers and lady-waities.

    • Naomi says:

      I think a generational shift is afoot. So even if back in the 80s B&E were given ‘HRH” the policy moving forward is that anyone not in direct line to the thrown (like, excluding William & his kids) gets HRH. Charles might revoke HRH for B&E, but most likely I think they are just kind of “grandfathered” out — like he won’t take the titles away, but things are going to be different moving forward.

      • Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

        Then at the very least, Beatrice, Eugenie, the Michaels etc shouldn’t have their HRH used in official communication. Don’t officially take them away but don’t use them either.

        Keep that consistent on all levels at least.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Pumpkin that’s what I said below. Andrew already doesnt use HRH (for different reasons….) No non-working royal should be addressed as HRH in official communications if that is the new standard, or if the standard is “the parents dont use HRH so the kids don’t either.” Beatrice and Eugenie should just be Princesses.

    • ML says:

      I agree, @Pumpkin. In the Netherlands, the royal family is smaller and this works. Personally, I also believe that more daylight between H&M the BRF is a very good thing.

    • Becks1 says:

      I said below this isn’t a bad idea, but again, it would have looked so much better if this had been announced when the change for William’s children was announced*, or even when the Sussexes were married.

      *I wonder if it wasn’t changed then bc the Queen didn’t care bc that would be Charles’ problem, since they would be entitled to it once she died.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Things like this were always part of his plan to slim it down – if you are not a working member of the family no HRH for you (regardless of where you are in the line of succession). And yeah I agree its not a bad approach to take.

        As for the York Princess’s they got their HRH styles from letters patent from George V in 1917 that states the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns are entitled to the style. They got it via Andrew being a male line heir.

        The Wessex children do not have HRH at the request of their parents.

        In 2012 TQ issued new letters patent so that all children of the ELDEST living son of the Prince of Wales would bear the HRH style however it did not mention the younger living sons of the PoW which is why Archie and Lilibet did not automatically receive the HRH styles with their Prince and Princess styles (Chuck would have to issue new letters patent to confer them onto the children). As such this will also affect Charlotte and Louis now that William is PoW.

        I also suspect that this is in line with the wishes of Harry and Meghan – its stated they were conversations with them. Makes no sense that if they don’t use them why would they want their children to have/use them. H&M don’t seem to be too fussed about it all TBH.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        To add to this comment:

        ‘As such this will also affect Charlotte and Louis now that William is PoW.’

        It won’t affect them but it will affect their children, should they have them one day. Which is what I meant when I said it would affect them.

      • Over it says:

        @digital unicorn, actually it won’t affect Charlotte or Louis, when William is king, it would be his right to rewrite it however he sees fit to benefit his children. Just like the queen did for his and Charles Is doing to Harry . All if this is still punishing Harry for marrying and choosing his black wife over them

      • aftershocks says:

        @Digital Unicorn: “Things like this were always part of his plan to slim it down – if you are not a working member of the family no HRH for you…”

        I think a lot of hypocrisy abounds, quite clearly. Suffice to say, the British monarchy has always been snobby and elitist about how they confer titles because obviously that small realm which once styled itself an empire by way of colonization, is just so superior vs the rest of the world. Duh!

        Anyways, can we at least be honest that the ‘slimmed-down’ monarchy bs once included Harry and his progeny, but only if Harry continued to conform, to drink the kool-aid w/o gagging, and agree to forever be the monarchy’s and his inept brother’s beyotch! Glory be that Harry by the grace of Diana found his soulmate in Meghan, and they both got the F out of Salty Isle. Those salty mfs just can’t quit H&M though. We are witnessing this shizz in living color.

        Don’t be afraid to keep your eyes and your minds open. Try not to be fooled. The so-called ‘slimming down’ excuse is just that. An excuse to cover-up and excuse their obvious racist intentions. Had Harry married ‘right,’ ahem ‘white,’ absolutely none of this would be an issue to even be dwelt on or discussed. KC is just trying to get out of this the best PC way that he can, after M&H told Oprah the truth which left the ball loudly and publicly in Chucky’s court. That’s why we constantly hear the ‘slimming down’ excuse.

        KC is only ‘saving face,’ when in reality we know he wants to strip A & L so bad, if only to further punish his second-born son and wife (who’s too beautiful, brilliant, and bad-ass, plus her problematic proud ‘black heritage’).

      • Duchcheese says:

        @ DU, don’t put so much weight on the “there were discussions with the Sussexes”, because every time we were told the Sussexes decided or chose abcd, it was false. The Sussexes stated in their OW interview that it’s not up to them to deny their children their birthright. So the there were discussions with the Sussexes and they chose not to have HRH given to their children is just BS. Charles needs to grow a pair and own all his sheet instead of hiding behind his courtiers. I know how he loves to permanently live in Camilla’s CUnextT but still….. He doesnt get to give the titles to the Sussex children, they were already theirs via existing LP, once QE2 died and Charles ascended the British throne. So the narrative that Charles did such a good thing by making the children prince and princes but not HRH is just plain lies. I’m sure the children won’t probably even ever have anything to do with that evil family but at the end of the day, they are still Windsors and grandchildren of the monarchand should therefore be treated as such.

    • MakeEverydayCount says:

      “Working Royals” really means punish Harry. Haven’t you guys noticed that they only use that terminology when it comes to Harry/Meghan.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Exactly @MakeEveryDayCount! 💯 Your comment coming after mine is chef’s kiss! Because it hits the nail squarely on the head! Snap!

      • Kelly Sunshine says:

        They do use the “Working Royals” term when talking about Eugenie and Beatrice not being working royals.

    • Couch potato says:

      In a complete vacum, I’d fully undestand following the Swedes in this, but Chuck is king of a totaly different country. A country with a horrible history including slavetrade. He’s also the head of state of several countries where many citizens are descendents from the slaves the brits brought there. Had this been announced before Harry met Meghan, when the changes were made for Willnot’s children no one would care. Now it’ll look like he stripping the first POC’s in the family of their HRH titles. It’s not a good look for a family who’s already exposed as racsists. Especially after Meghan and Harry got a completely different treatement then the other HRHs. Bea and Eug both have HRH without being working royals. They work outside the firm, but got to keep the HRH, while Harry and Meghan aren’t allowed to use theirs. I fully get why one shouldn’t so the roles aren’t confused, but that should apply to everyone, not just H&M. Also, there’s several other members who were already half in half out, but they were refused. The RF has a different set of rules for H&M, than the other members, and that stands out for a lot of people.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        100% agree, Couch Potato.

        This looks like Harry’s punishment for the “crime” of marrying, procreating with, and trying to protect the life of his biracial wife. I actually could see Harry pressing for the HRH title, because he’s shown himself to be fierce in arguing — rightly — for the rights and protections that otherwise would be accorded to his children.

        Charles is truly a turd. Racism reigns in the B(a)RF.

      • clarissa says:

        yup if QEII wanted to go with Charles’s view of a slimmed down monarchy and changes it titles, she would have issued LP herself stating it. by not doing that, she put Charles in the position to have to take them away himself.

    • Siobhan says:

      Beatrice and Eugenie were given the HRH from the time they were born when their parents were working royals, and their grandparent was the monarch. When Archie and Lilli were born, their grandparent wasn’t the monarch. Back then the rules were also different than only the children of a male child of the monarch got the HRH automatically I believe. Edwards kids could have been Prince and princess but they turned the titles down I believe. Anne’s kids were never eligible to be a prince or princess for that reason – but she also turned down any titles for them including “lady” etc anyway.

      I also wouldn’t be surprised if Charles changed the letters patent to take away the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie though (if he can even do that).

      • Becks1 says:

        B&E were given the titles because of the Letters Patent of 1917, which says nothing about working royals, only grandchildren in the male line of the monarch.

        Under those same letters patent, A&L are HRH Prince and Princess.

      • Couch potato says:

        @Siobhan as @Becks1 says, the letters patent doesn’t say anything about working royals. According to the LP, Archie and Lilibeth became HRH prince(ess) the moment the queen died. KC will have to issue a new LP to strip them of the titles.

        My reason for mentioning Bea and Eug is that they have never worked for the firm, they work for private companies, but they can use their HRH as much as they want. They did that for a long time before H&M quit as senior royals. Harry and the York princesses were all grandchildren of the monarch, but only Harry, who was (at the time) a son of the future king had to stop using HRH. Other members workes half in half out, but H&M weren’t allowed. Andrew got to keep his military titles after he was dropped as a working royal, while Harry didn’t. The Firm has been treating H&M differently than the rest of them so many times, and the world outside the royal watchers are now picking up on more and mors of it. It’s not a good look for Chuck.

    • HeyJude says:

      I don’t mean to be the arse who points out the obvious but- those people are all completely white. That’s the difference. We need to stop being confused when Charles is very clearly showing us what his reason is and who he is.

    • SugarHere says:

      Prince Archie sounds fantastic.
      Princess Lilibet sounds poetic.
      For some odd reason, I am content with this decision, though I’m aware it is a hypocritically diplomatic, perfunctory peace gesture aimed at damage control. King Chuck-Un appears as very much not racist and eager to get Henry to tone down a little bit the incendiary passages of his November book? Let’s bear in mind Charles is not much if a grandfather. He is more of a wily strategist.

      Chuck unwillingly did the Sussex babies a great service by denying them the antiquated, pedantic “Royal Highness” fuss. What balanced human being wants to be called that sh..t in the 21st century? His / Her Royal Highness looks good only on eagles because it makes an unsavory caste-like statement of superiority. So I feel relieved the Sussex children are Prince and Princess only. I celebrate these titles as a double victory.

  3. Seaflower says:

    I also think this is the right decision, although its laughable with all the other HRH’s. I’m sure all W&K’s grandchildren will be HRHs

    • Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

      Yeah I’m sure W&K will reverse this once they get on the throne. I don’t see them not giving Louis’ kids HRH. And in case anyone asks about Charlotte, HRHs are only for the male line children/grandchildren. So Charlotte’s kids won’t get them (unless she marries a man who’s got a HRH in his own right or the BRF give her husband one or the rules outright change).

      • EMF999 says:

        Is that true though about Charlotte’s line now that they have abolished male primogeniture? Or does this still apply?

      • Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

        Still applies. They haven’t changed that from what I know.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Once William V is on the throne he can do whatever he wants. He can make Charlotte a Duchess in her own right (which I see happening in the name of equality), he can make all his grandchildren HRHs, he can take away Beatrice & Eugenie’s HRHs and he can make the hotdog man on the street an HRH is he so chooses to do so.

  4. dynastysurf says:

    This is exactly what I expected, given the rumors that Charles wanted to model the family after the Swedish royal family once he took over – only the children of the King (and their spouses, save for Chris O’Neil) and Victoria’s children have HRHs, nieces and nephews are prince/princess, but no HRH and their kids can’t inherit the prince/princess titles (duchies will still be inherited). Only those in the direct line have the HRH as they’re the only ones who are members of the Royal House.

  5. ThatsNotOkay says:

    So, so petty. But I guess, who cares? The kids are prince and princesses, and few know what HRH really confers or means anyway. Diana was stripped of hers but remained a princess. Do as Diana did.

    • MMC says:

      I think actually it would be easier for Meghan, Harry and the kids if they wouldn’t use any titles. Much easier to remain private and out of the spotlight.

      • ADS says:

        Meghan and Harry have never said they want to be “private” and “out of the spotlight” so I’m not sure your comment really makes sense.

      • MMC says:

        I thought they said they wanted privacy for their kids, which is why we barely ever see pictures of them?

        As for Harry and Meghan, I think they’re famous enough without having to hang on to toyal titles especially given their clash with the royal family.

      • Merricat says:

        There is a difference between wanting to be private and wanting privacy.

      • MMC says:

        Oh sorry, english is not my first language so maybe I used the wrong term.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        Why would it be easier? Plenty of royals have titles and aren’t working royals. How do the titles make it harder?

        Especially here on the U.S., no one cares about royal titles although certainly they care about Harry and Meghan.

      • MMC says:

        Exactly what I’m saying. I don’t get why they cling to the titles so much, especially after all they say happened.

      • Duchcheese says:

        @MMC, what do you mean after all they say happened? What does one have to do with the other? If the Sussexes were treated horribly by the BRF and the BM, does that mean their children are not entitled to be prince and princess? If Meghan and her children were and are still subjected to racist attacks from the BRF and the BM, does that mean their children are not entitled to their birthright? So, because the Sussexes talked about their experiences and how they were treated now “it’s good that the kids to not have titles after all the said happened?” So, in your book (and of course in the BM’s because once you said you confuse privacy with private I just knew), the Sussexes have absolutely no right to speak about their life experiences because why exactly? RME, I see we are back to victim blaming just because people resent the fact that Archie and Lili are prince and princess.
        And Charles gets no brownie points from me, he’s just looking out for himself because this issue has really become a very hot rod for him, and he knows it can explode any minute. All eyes around the world are on him to see how he continues to segregate the black children from the lily-white🤮🤮 other members of the BRF and how he continues to punish Harry for marrying a black woman. This “I’ll confer blah blah blah onto Archie and Lili” is just saving his racist face. There were already letters of patent that made Archie and Lili prince and princess the moment their grandfather ascended the throne, so he can miss me with all his racist 💩.

      • MMC says:

        I mean that after being treated horribly by a racist institution, I would not want to associate myself with the same institution by clinging to regressive titles.

        And Hary and Meghan are now famous enough not to need them.

      • lemontwist says:


        Your framing of the Sussex’s stance towards their titles as ‘clinging’ is skewed. And it’s also one that is very very often used as a way to paint them in a certain light in order to deflect from the ugly truths they’ve exposed about the way the BRF operates.

        The Sussexes not making a move to give up their held titles and their children’s held titles is not ‘clinging’, it’s just.. not making any move to change the status quo.

        A certain faction really, REALLY wants the Sussexes titles to be removed (and specifically the Sussexes). But that doesn’t mean that by not taking the action of giving them up H&M are ‘clinging’ to their family’s granted titles.

        You could ask yourself ‘Is HRH Princess Eugenie ‘clinging’ to her title?’. She is a non-working royal living outside of England. Would your view on the status of her titles vs H&M’s titles differ in any way?

    • PrincessK says:

      Harry and Meghan NEVER said that they wanted private lives. They said that they wanted an end to the lies and manipulation which was a direct result of being exposed to the royal rota and being forced into an invisible contract with the devilish British media.

  6. equality says:

    The current letters patent already confer the titles to A&L. Why would KC need to write new letters to do so? This sounds like a load of BS to claim H&M as liars on Oprah and to whip up feelings against them because of their “fury” over the titles and style of HRH. It hasn’t done anything to protect them so why would they think it would protect their children. I believe they are now well aware that nobody in the RF cares about the safety of any of them.

    • dynastysurf says:

      Two schools of thought regarding the letters patent – one that titles are automatic, one that they’re available but still need to be officially granted. Seems like Charles is following the latter train of thought. Can also see a possibility where the LP are being issued to say “yes, prince and princess, no to HRH” for any male-line grandchildren of any sovereign going forward (more like the Swedes have), which would still be true to the spirit of what Meghan said in the Oprah interview and tracks w/ what Charles has been saying he wants the monarchy to do for years.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think A&L would be HRHs IF Meghan & Harry had not left the working Royal Family. I think this is CIII-PO not wanting to explain to or be discussed in The Daily Fail.

        With regards to Beatrice & Eugenie, Andrew did not leave the working Royal Family as he was retired and will now be thrown out. CIII-PO will not remove Beatrice & Eugenie’s HRHs as the HRH title of the York daughters is leverage to hold over Andrew and Fergie to keep them inline.

    • Nic919 says:

      Until there is a new letters patent rescinding the HRHs, the 1917 granted them the HRH. The schools of thought people aren’t legal experts. A legal instrument remains in force until it is amended or rescinded. To date it has not.

      Parliamentary legislation doesn’t consist of press releases despite what the tabloids say.

      A more likely scenario is that Archie and lili will be treated like Harry and Meghan, in that prince and princess will be used but not HRH.

      Still leaves the York sisters in an odd position since they aren’t working royals.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        See above my comment on the York Princesses.

      • Duchcheese says:

        @BTB, your posts are very confusing, sorry to say. What you say is the case was never stated in the 1917 LP, the LP just stated that all children of the male children of the new monarch will become prince and princess once the new monarch ascends the throne. This working royal thing was just invented recently to beat the Sussexes. A manufactured shtick created, once Harry married Meghan, by the BRF, BM, RR and their minions to beat Harry with for marrying a black woman and for daring to remove his wife and child out of the viper’s den. There is nothing in the LP that says only children of a working royals will become prince/princess, if it is there, please post.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Duchcheese – I was trying to explain why I think that Chucky III will not remove the HRH styles of the York Princesses. This HRH business should be one rule for everyone. I concur with the theory that Archie & Lilibet are HRRs until Chucky issues paperwork denying them the style of HRH.

        I was giving my theories on why CIII-PO may act the way “The Dim” says he will act. To date nothing “official” has been released and if something had been or will be released, I am sure Chucky would not do it through the “The Dim”.

        We will all have to just wait and see what happens.

  7. Eurydice says:

    Ok, fine. Now update the website.

    • Lorelei says:


    • Carrot says:

      And provide Archie and Lili with security

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ A&L don’t get security without the HRH style. ‘Prince/Princess’ are titles. ‘HRH’ is the style. British monarchy has to make everything so convoluted, complicated, and nose-in-the-air because the royal Brits are better-than, dontcha know! Make that kool-aid drinking, ‘duty-bound’ working royal Bs are better than the rest of us lowly commoners.

        There’s a whole side and level to this that goes over most of our heads. One explanation I heard recently re the importance of the full royal styling with titles is not only the prestige and status, but the security, the due respect, the honor, the full protection and inclusion into the upper echelons of the cult. Obviously, not worth it if you have to be reduced, silent, spirit broken, and a cipher of your true self.

      • Duchcheese says:

        Archie and Lily only get security and protection paid for by their father, who is willing to do so. Your statement should be: “AND quit denying Harry and his family the security and protection that Harry is willing and ready to pay for”. Or maybe, they should just get off the Sussexes’ d!kc for once? Jeez these people are disgusting.

      • PrincessK says:

        But H&M are HRH and having problems getting security.
        Will it mean that their children will automatically get security until they are adults and can choose whether or not to be working royals.
        Archie and Lilibet may wish to do some schooling and university in the U.K. and their parents are probably worried about security for that.

  8. SJ (they/them) says:

    Imagine writing with a straight face that a parent was “moaning” about lack of adequate security for their g*ddamn BABIES. Jesus f*cking christ these people make me angry.

  9. Naomi says:

    Completely agree with everything, Kaiser. Given the circumstances (Sussexit, etc) it makes sense to keep the tradition of giving them the prince/princess title but maintain no ‘HRH.’ At this point H&M are paying for their own security anyway, so it’s not like ‘HRH’ for the kids would have any material effect on them.

    And I agree that this probably like Harry’s military uniform– I doubt H&M really care about the titles at this point. Maybe a little out of principle? But even if that, they probably kept it to themselves, and there’s no way they were putting up any fuss with family whatsoever. If anything I assume they’ve probably been doing their own thing as much as possible, and only dealing with family (and doing what they are told) when necessary.

    • aftershocks says:

      ^^ I think it matters insomuch to Harry, being that it is his birthright. He found being called a prince a huge burden, until he realized the platform it provided and the responsibility he had to step-up and to carry on his mother’s legacy.

      A lot of this is symbolic, and symbols have depth of meaning. Taking all of these things away from Harry and his family is punishment, pure and simple. It is snubbing and looking down on too. Even the constant discussion, attacks and lies in the tabloids are meant to be a slap in the face to the Sussexes.

      • PunkPrincessPhD says:

        @Aftershocks: this this this.

        Either it is all meaningless, or the symbolic meaning is consistently acknowledged. They can’t have it both ways without exposing the cracks in the foundation of this so-called birthright.

    • Molly says:

      Why do they want any titles at all?

      They complain about the BM, so why tie themselves to the monarchy?

      But as private citizens there is no ca$h.

  10. Tessa says:

    I cannot say I blame Camilla for keeping raymill I noticed it was said he dropped her off there

    • SussexWatcher says:

      She’s probably so relieved to get away! Chuck seems like a real rage monster, just like Peggington. But can you imagine the headlines if this were a different couple? So amazing what gets made up and sold as fact about H&M and what gets excused or glossed over for every other *coughwhitecough* royal.

      • Deering24 says:

        The more I see of the RF, the more I (can almost) understand why uber-wealthy couples have more than one house…

    • Jaded says:

      That’s the first thing I noticed — she’s probably knee deep in gin and tonics now and he’s talking to his flowers back at Highgrove.

    • PrincessK says:

      They have been living separately since they got married.
      There must have been something he couldn’t resist about her but l hear that they are very different in day to day life. She is messy and smokes. He is fussy and wants everything in place.

      • Becks1 says:

        I wonder if he is hoping W&K can get to the same kind of arrangement – mostly separate lives, but still enjoy each other’s company and can do royal engagements together well enough, etc. Spend time together, go home to separate houses, etc.

        But I don’t think that’s going to happen in terms of the enjoyment etc.

  11. Kokiri says:

    If only the RF put 1/4 of the effort into building & maintaining healthy relationships as they do with the ridiculous protocol.

    Imagine being so petty about your own grandchildren! That he even had to think about it at all is so awful.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      What’s so funny to me is most things they do backfire spectacularly! The whole madness with banning Harry from wearing his uniform, all that did was make him the star of the procession. Your eye was naturally drawn to him and the others sort of blended together making it hard at first glance to even notice the new king and prince of wails. It literally looked like a king (Harry) surrounded by his guards 🤣

      Hopefully this business about the titles will also backfire on Chuck.

      • windyriver says:

        Getty has a picture showing exactly that! It’s a front view but taken slightly from the side where William was walking. So suited Andrew and Peter (and Edward) on the right are cut out of the shot. And that’s exactly what it looks like. A very tall Harry in suit surrounded on all sides by a guard of people in uniform. Palaces must be loving that, but play stupid games….

      • EMF999 says:

        I loved that photo! It really made Harry stand out and diminished everyone else.

      • windyriver says:

        @EMF999 – what’s interesting is, the specific picture I’m referring to, I saw just on someone’s Twitter feed, can’t remember where. But – a bigger deal is that a very similar picture is posted on Peter Hunt’s Twitter (former BBC correspondent). And he is definitely making a point about how ridiculous that decision was by the RF.

  12. SussexWatcher says:

    But the HRH and the prince/princess title were automatic when the queen died, so this tabloid article doesn’t know what it’s talking about. He’ll have to introduce new Letters Patent to strip the HRH and if he does that, is he also going to strip it from Bea and Eug and the Wessex children? He can’t use the non-working royals as an excuse because a) they’re children and b) Bea and Eug (and Wessex kids) are non-working royals and their HRH wasn’t stripped from them.

    Obviously Harry and Meghan will do what’s best for them, but it pisses me off that this convention was fine for all the other grandchildren of the monarch…until the mixed race ones came along 🙄 Chuck is a fool if he thinks this will not have repercussions, particularly in CW countries. He is just fumbling from one mistake to the next. He’s such an idiot.

    • Nic919 says:

      Exactly. Tabloids are screed up the coverage of the lawsuit because they aren’t legal experts and have no clue. As it stands they have it until a new letter is issued.

    • Ace says:

      Yep. I think this is likely a leak from Chuck the Turd and his team to test the waters while they’re working out how to take away the titles from Archie and Lili. The tabloids will obviously play along because that’s what they do.

      My bet is that he might try to delay to keep the CW countries that are going to vote on the Monarchy, but he is taking away those titles because he’s a petty idiot.

    • lucy2 says:

      It’s all just ill informed speculation, which they know will get clicks.

  13. Lorelei says:

    Why does Charles need to issue a new letters patent to make this happen? I thought that any grandchildren of the monarch automatically became Prince/Princess, so wouldn’t it have been in effect for Archie and Lilibet as soon as the Queen died?

    And correct me if I’m wrong (which I definitely might be!), but isn’t the issue that only HRH’s get full security? THAT is the only reason H&M care about it; isn’t that what they said on Oprah? That the security seems to be tied to the HRH. (Instead of according to the threat level, which is absolutely insane.)

    • Watson says:

      Yup. Still unclear whether they get security or not cause they never cared about the HRH for the title but the security. I am Assuming that they aren’t though cause they’re terrible.

    • Well Wisher says:

      From the little I got, the patent of letters would have stopped them from ever having the titles.
      Instead he let them have the same effect as Princess Diana after the divorce.
      Under normal circumstances they would have been HRH, title and given name.
      The Sussexes children are not HRH.

      • Sid says:

        The Sussex children are HRH prince/ss right now.

      • Well Wisher says:

        Although they should’ve been, they are not recognised as such under this new monarch.

        Their titles are similar in legality to their divorced grandmother, the explanation in the tabloid is they will not be and/or are nonworking royals.

        Technically that can be returned with no legal work, should their father concede.

      • Sid says:

        Well Wisher, as I see it until Chuck actually issues new letters removing the children’s stylings and/ or titles, they are legally HRH prince/ss right now. I also don’t see it as the same as Diana who lost her HRH as part of the divorce proceedings and settlement. It took weeks for the BRF to add Lilibet’s name to the succession page on the royal website after she was born, so I’m hardly surprised they’re not behaving any better with regard to updating the kids’ titles on the page. And yeah, Chuck is probably trying to use public acknowledgement as some sort of bargaining/blackmail chip because that is the sort of person he is.

    • Nic919 says:

      They have it. A new one needs to be issued to rescind the HRH.

      The security issue is not linked to the HRH other than an excuse for them them not to give security for Archie and Lili. (I know Meghan referenced it in the Oprah interview but it really sounds like an excuse they made to her to deny security)

    • Lionel says:

      I’m unclear on the HRH/security issue too. Wasn’t it a big thing when the York princesses lost their FT security a few years ago? (Due to the “slimming down” of the monarchy?) They’re still HRHs, but what sort of security do they get in their normal lives today? How about the Duke of Gloucester, or the Kents? How about Louise and James who are grandchildren of a monarch, but either don’t have HRHs or don’t use them (I’m not sure which?)

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Lionel – I could be wrong but I think Beatrice and Eugenie “lost” their palace provided Royal security when they graduated from university.

        I also think, though I may wrong, that Andrew is paying for Beatrice and Eugenie to have private security or is reimbursing the cost to the government for providing Beatrice and Eugenie with regular Royal security.

        I have no idea what the security arrangement is when Jack & Eugenie are residing in Portugal.

    • Jais says:

      Yeah, the hrh and security thing is still confusing. If I’m understanding correctly, Diana’s hrh was taken away but “it is said” that she refused security(which I don’t believe). However, that would mean that she had no hrh but would still have security if only she hadn’t refused it. So they are not linked but it was suggested to Harry and Meghan that it was? Or it is linked and they’re fronting that it’s not. Confusing.

      • Lady Esther says:

        The security is separate from titles OR stylings OR status of working royal:
        –HRH Sophie of Wessex is a working royal and an HRH; she has no security (reported on in the press when it was taken away, she only has it on official engagements, but it probably doesn’t matter much as Edward has it all the time)
        –HRH Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals, but have the HRH; they have no security
        –Andrew cannot use an HRH styling nor is he a working royal anymore, yet he has official royal security (!!)
        There are probably lots of other examples but that’s off the top of my head. So the answer is as it always is: the RF does what it wants, how it wants, when it wants and their (public) justifications make no sense.

  14. Cel2495 says:

    Lol, these people are clowns. H and M don’t give a shit anymore about their titles. They now can pay for their own security and lifestyle. They do t need the RF but the RF sure needs them. Hope after this funeral they go home and blank them all, who needs that stress?

  15. Asantewaa says:

    I think Charles is forced to do it after being outed by Meghan. That’s right , fight for the birthright sof your kids, they can choose to drop them if they want when they turn 18.

  16. Becks1 says:

    I actually think this makes sense, even if it is petty. Harry and Meghan have HRHs but don’t use it, so now they’re just taking it one step further and saying the kids won’t have HRH, but will have Prince/ss titles.

    I think my opinion of how petty this is depends on what the letters patent say. If charles changes this for all royal children, then less petty – i.e. if he says that only children of the heir are entitled to HRH or whatever (basically cutting out Louis’ children), then its less petty to me. (even knowing that William can and will change that in the future.) to me, that’s overall consistent with Charles “slimming down the monarchy” and reducing the number of HRHs.

    He’s not going to touch Beatrice and Eugenie’s HRH because they’ve had that since birth, but it is messed up as hell that they aren’t working royals and the palace still uses the HRH in all official communication about them. they should also retire their HRHs so its Edward, Anne, William, Kate, and the Wales children, and then as time goes on it becomes George, Charlotte, Louis and George’s children.

    • Nic919 says:

      The 1917 letters patent did remove HRH from a few people who had had it since birth, so there is precedent to remove it from the York princesses. And removing from Archie and Lili is also removing it for the same reason. To be consistent they need to remove it from all of them.

  17. MA says:

    However anyone feels about titles, you can’t deny that the biracial kids are the only ones being treated differently. It’s asinine.
    The whole “working royal” distinction is a fiction since the whole premise of this entire institution is based on bloodline and not merit. It’s their BIRTHRIGHT and they are setting new precedent due to racism, plain and simple.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      This. Since their whole existence is predicated on good PR, this move is exceptionally stupid. But they can’t help themselves.

      • Marie McCubbrey says:

        It’s really nice to find this thread that doesn’t bash H & M. My heart actually aches at the open hatred for a M. The bigotry is so big it can’t see itself. Dear Meg has become the public target the the world has said it’s ok to lay your bigotry on her because she is so light of skin no one will expect it’s bigotry.

        Just nice to read comments from intelligent folk with eyes wide open.

        I hope Megan and Harry flourish in the US. Lots of people hate her here too. So I am determined to be a public supporter

    • Miss Jupitero says:

      I’m confused– B and E’s kids also don’t have titles or HRHs. What is the difference?

      • PunkPrincessPhD says:


        Only the direct children and grandchildren of the current monarch are entitled to Prince/Princess. Bea and Eug’s children are great-grandchildren of Elizabeth, but great-nieces and great-nephew to Charles III.

      • Ace says:

        B&E are not daughters of the Monarch, Harry is so his children get the HRH and Prince/Princess titles now.

      • Nic919 says:

        Titles and HRH don’t extend through the female line so neither Anne’s children or Beatrice and Eugenie’s (or “Louise) can pass on titles to their children.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Okay so: since Harry is the son of a monarch, so his children are entitled to HRHs, even though he is not himself heir to the throne? I thought the change they wanted to make is to give HRH only to those who are in that direct line and their children. In which case, B and E should not HRHs, or should at least be asked not to use theirs.

        Ugh sorry guys, this is such a petty mess. Let’s just abolish the whole damn thing. Control-Alt-Delete it into oblivion.

    • Sms says:

      That’s not entirely accurate since Lady Louise and her brother are also not HRH and not even Princess and Prince. I think the York girls were originally intended to be working royals and then before Lady Louise was born they decided to cut down the number of working royals.

      • PunkPrincessPhD says:


        The difference is that Lady Louise and Viscount James are entitled to Prince and Princess just as Eugenie and Beatrice, but Edward & Sophie deliberately chose not to use them and use the lesser titles instead.

        So, a choice, based on privilege. Not a punishment based on pettiness.

      • Becks1 says:

        the other difference is that it was announced at the time of their marriage that they would be styled as the children of an earl. There wasn’t any suspense or drama around it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        and if Edward becomes The Duke of Edinburgh, as BOTH QEII and Prince Philip wished and wanted) Louise & James will be styled as children of a non-royal duke per the wish of their parents based on the last reputable article I read on this matter.

        The Louise & James right to use the HRH style is different can of worms which has discussed in-depth on multiple previous threads dedicated specifically to the topic.

    • PunkPrincessPhD says:

      @MA: not merely “asinine”. Racist.

      If one has to perform convoluted mental, rhetorical, and legal gymnastics to *only* exclude the children perceived to be diluting that precious, snowy bloodline (which was never “pure” but anyway), then the reason isn’t semantics or pragmatism or anything else. It’s racist by effect and by design.

  18. Shawna says:

    *His Majesty* was the one relentlessly determined to secure a certain title for a loved one – QC Camilla.

    I’m glad they won’t be denied their titles. This feels like the second anti-petty gesture I’ve seen in the last two/three years (the first being when Liz arranged it so Harry and Meghan got their own processional time at the Jubilee service).

  19. Noki says:

    I think its good they get to be Prince and Princess,but maybe i am just shallow. I dont understand what the HRH is for anyways if they live in US. Is it for the purposes of hierachy or for a curtsy? Princess Di lost her HRH in the end didnt make her less amazing.

    • Lionel says:

      @ Noki, I’ve asked that question a million times and the only thing I can surmise is that the HRH makes a person more “Royal,” which is a distinction that means something to only a very few people in the world. King Edward VIII once bragged that he was going to be the only “true Royal” on a throne of Europe, because his father was the King and his mother was a German Princess by birth. That meant something to him that is hard for me to grasp, but certainly sounds like he thought being fully “Royal” made him part of a higher, and dying, race. Once the bloodlines started being sullied by “commoners” like the Queen Mother, who was simply an aristocrat, people weren’t born fully “royal” anymore and so they had to start appointing members of their higher race by being very careful about who got HRHs. This was the reason that Wallis Simpson was never granted an HRH despite being in a position where anyone else (wife of the son of a King) would have gotten one. She was never going to be admitted.

      AFAIK, the HRH didn’t initially have anything to do with security or whether or not you “worked,” it was just about your relative proximity to the throne and degree of reflected “royal-ness.” It’s so antiquated that it doesn’t make much sense now in a world where royals might get divorced or move to different countries or live in a social media spotlight or whatever. IMO security should be granted as needed according to risk, anyone in the immediate family who wants to work should be allowed to do so (but subject to the same rules as any other job — do your work and behave appropriately or get fired), and the archaic “HRH” should be reserved for the monarch and the direct heir, if used at all.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If you have HRH in front of your name then you an “official” member of the British Royal Family.

        If you do not have HRH in front of your name but are descendant of George V then you are simply a member of The House of Windsor.

        Footnote: This has NOTHING to do with the “Line of Succession”. You can be non-HRH and non-House of Windsor and still be in line for the UK Crown. Example: The current Duke of Fife and The current Duchess of Wellington..

  20. Alexandria says:

    It is fine to define HRH can only be for working royals but make it standard. You can’t explain your standard with Eugenie, Bea, the Michaels. Why can’t this damn family make sense.

  21. aquarius64 says:

    This is the Dim and the Fail reporting this. Looks like KP is back to briefing again to make Charles look worse. If Charles doesn’t do HRH Prince and Princess for the Sussex kids in a LP he looks like he’s denying his grandchildren of African American lineage royal status and he’s the Royal Racist in the Oprah interview.

  22. Haylie says:

    Chucky Fatfingers is a racist clown. Do people still think it was just William who had concerns about Archie’s skin color?

  23. C-Shell says:

    They are resigned to the BRF/CIII telling the world that they are “exiled.” They don’t expect any protection, either security or media defense, from that quarter — they take care of that on their own. While I don’t like that Bea and Eugenie, non-“working” royals, have the HRH and the biracial grandchildren do not, it’s a useless designation on the world stage anyway. Prince and Princess is what they are, and everyone knows what that means. Maybe CIII finally saw how deplorable he’d look if he denied them that. Small victories.

    The Sun knows how bitter and relentless the Sussexes are? Really KP? 🤣🤣

  24. Plums says:

    this is for domestic consumption because I can’t think Meghan or Harry give one single shit about HRH styling, and all anyone outside of the UK knows or cares about is Prince or Princess. If any serious discussions about this are happening at all, which I doubt, it’s probably solely about security.

  25. MsIam says:

    This doesn’t make sense. Archie and Lili are already Prince and Princess. The tabloids themselves said this. They are trying to camouflage the fact that Charles is taking away their HRH. I hope people hold Charles feet to the fire about this, if its true. The Sun is a lying tabloid after all. And he better take Bea, Eugenie, Andrew and whoever else is a non working Royals HRH too. Otherwise, he’s singling out Harry’s kids.

    • Lola says:

      Thank you! Yes! He’s stripping their HRH. They already have their HRH and prince and princess title. Archie and Lilibet received both automatically according to British law.

      Whew, the racism. That Charles would do this to his own grandchildren. You just know Harry & Meghan have been going through it behind the scenes.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “This doesn’t make sense.”

      Of course it does not make sense because it comes from The Dim. However it does generate clicks & comments.

      Until I see an official piece of paper issued from Charles or hear words coming directly from his mouth, Archie & Lili are HRH Prince/Princess.

  26. Amy Bee says:

    This piece is being put out to get a response from Harry and Meghan. I hope they don’t fall for this bait.. As I understand it, someone can correct me, the Queen issued a LP for the Cambridges because so they could titles before Charles came to throne. They could have waited until the Queen died to get their titles but I guess William couldn’t wait. In this instance there’s no need for Charles a LP for Lili and Archie as they are supposed to automatically become Princess and Prince upon Charles’ ascension to the throne. And Meghan told us and which was confirmed later by a leak to the DM that LP would be issued to take away their titles when Charles becomes King. I think this will be done after the funeral.

    • Becks1 says:

      One of the reasons the Queen issued new LPs for the Cambridges was bc of the change in succession rules. It ended up not mattering, but under the old LPs (the ones that apply to H&M and their kids), only the oldest son of the oldest son of hte Prince of Wales was entitled to HRH Prince. so had Charlotte been born first, she would have been Lady Charlotte, George was second born would have been HRH Prince George, and then Lord Louis.

      but with the change from male primogeniture, this would have meant that Lady Charlotte would have been the heir to the throne, with her younger brother as an HRH Prince, even though she was higher than him in the line of succession. So they changed it so that wouldn’t happen. As it turns out, nonissue since the first born was male.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Becks1 – Agree with 100%. If the “Succession to the Crown Act 2013” had not been passed then only George would have been an HRH until CIII-PO ascended the throne.

    • Smalltowngirl says:

      I believe it was issued for the Cambridge children because George automatically got the title due to his place in the line of succession and they didn’t want a situation where one sibling was HRH and the others were not.

    • Jais says:

      So did Archie and Lili automatically become HRH prince and princesses when Charles ascended the throne? Could the new letters patent be to take away the HRH part but leave the prince and princess part? Bc I’m also confused why a new letters patent would need to be written. And finally does the HRH title decide who gets security rather than the prince or princess title? Hope these questions make sense.

      • dynastysurf says:

        It’s a weird situation but there are two interpretations- one where it’s automatic, one where they still have to be created prince/princess, and if Charles subscribes to the latter, a new LP makes sense (and would likely clear things up going forward). Security as far as I’m aware doesn’t always depend on title and relies on “working” status – e.g. Bea and Eugenie or the Queen’s cousins only have it when they’re carrying out official engagements, other than that it’s their own responsibility.

      • Sid says:

        dynastysurf, I have never heard of this second interpretation in all years I’ve been following this royal clownshow. Where is that coming from?

      • Feeshalori says:

        And Harry wants to pay for his family’s security when visiting the UK based on risk assessment which is still being denied at this point so that adds another level to this whole mess. And this family definitely requires the security.

    • lanne says:

      It’s a little more complicated than that. Back when Kate was pregnant, it wasn’t known if she would have a girl or a boy. So had Charlotte been the oldest, according to the 1917 letters patent, she would not be a princess, but Lady Charlotte. Only George would have been HRH Prince, as the first son of the son of the son of the monarch. So to avoid a potential Lady Charlotte, HRH Prince George, Lord Louis, the Queen issued a new letters patent to make all the kids HRH. It would have been even stranger if male primogeniture were eliminated and you had Lady Charlotte, heir to the throne, then HRH Prince George after her.

      Harry’s kids with Meghan would always be a paradox. On one hand, they could see the awkward position of Beatrice and Eugenie, who were raised to take on roles that would no longer exist for them. The HRH limits a lot of things that they can do. They are essentially private citizens without the freedom of private citizens. They are bound to a bunch of archaic rules about what they can do without any material benefit. It doesn’t make sense of Archie and Lili to be tethered to the royal family, especially not this royal family. At the same time, the symbolic importance of Harry’s children as Prince and Princess can’t be understated either. The lack of HRH means the titles are strictly ceremonial, and that’s honestly the best situation for all future descendents outside the heir of the heir.

      Chuckles is likely congratulating himself for this “compromise,” but he needs to make sure his grandchildren have the security they need in the UK. That’s his duty as a grandfather before all else.

      Hail, Prince Archie and Princess Lili! They are the Prince and Princess of our hearts, and that’s what really matters. The royals can take their HRHs and shove them somewhere uncomfortable (or maybe not so uncomfortable for Woody Woodpegger. **no kink shaming here. Just asshole shaming. Literally and figuarively.).

    • BRC says:

      I think Kate is pissed that the Duchess of Sussex didn’t curtsy to her in Windsor during walk about

  27. Seraphina says:

    🤣 let him go ahead and give his grandchildren the titles. I love to sit back and watch the fireworks. I’d also love to see the monarchy fall apart at a more rapid pace – within my lifetime.

  28. girl_ninja says:

    I think that Harry and Meghan sharing this information about the titles of their children on Oprah was wise. It now shows us how much of a trash heap Charles is. What a ridiculous and awful man he is. I also think that H&M were ready for the snub and they will move on. I hope Charles and the other royal couple get EVERYTHING they deserve.

  29. Les says:

    I keep thinking back to Tyrian telling Jon Snow-You’re in the Great Game now- Poor Meghan has been thrust into the great game with less knowledge than Jon Snow had. You have to grow up being exposed to the unsaid rules and manipulations to survive a sea of treachery. She doesn’t have an evil b*tch personality. This game destroys all who don’t play by the rules. Kate looks ten years older and teetering on the brink of cardiac arrest from malnutrition. I sincerely doubt that Meghan or Harry care if their children are HRH at this point. The kids will grow up go to Stanford or Northwestern and lead productive lives in a world where the monarchy is a faint footnote.

  30. Feebee says:

    At this point I wouldn’t put it past Charles to issue letters or whatever stating Grandchildren HRH are dependent on residence in the UK. Yes incredibly petty but no, not outside the realm of possibility. “Continuing to build their lives overseas” he didn’t need to say that but he did. This shit isn’t off the cuff, they mean to say these things and for reasons.

    Meghan, god love her, has tried to maintain serenity over her face as much as possible. Harry on the other hand has looked ropeable a few times. I know part of this is grief but I believe shit is going down behind the scenes too. Not necessarily that they’re too worried about but it’s probably still painful on top of the circumstances.

  31. equality says:

    Ed and Sophie still haven’t gotten an upgrade either. KC pounced right on Will’s promotion. Wonder if he hasn’t decided about Ed yet or is hoping nobody notices or cares. Sophie’s not “bitter and moaning” about that?

    • lanne says:

      Maybe they are waiting for the pictures of Ed looking preposterous in his Halloween costume “I’m a soldier!” get-up to fall out of the news cycle?

    • DARK says:

      Pretty sure the UK Government issued Charles an order to appoint the Prince of Wales straight away. They have enough problems without letting the discussion about independence get momentum in Wales as well.

    • Becks1 says:

      I wonder if he’ll appoint Edward once the mourning period ends? His mother AND father could not have been clearer that they wanted Edward to be Duke of Edinburgh, for Charles to go back on that now…..well, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

  32. tamsin says:

    Do I understand this correctly- Charles will have to issue Letters Patent to take away the HRH from his biracial grandchildren? They forced Harry to be a non-working royal and now the consequences are visited on his children. I’m outraged not because I think those ridiulous titles are important, but that it’s important to the royal family and royalists, so this is a punishment. Charles is taking away something that was theirs by tradition and law.

  33. Merricat says:

    King Charles the Petty. Boo-hoo, why don’t my children/grandchildren love me?
    Last King of England. Make it so.

  34. Lola says:

    This is not a compromise. This is a deliberate act to ensure that the first mixed-race Russ do not have equal
    standing with the other grandchildren of the sovereign. It’s just packaged as benign.

    According to British law as per the 1917 George V Letters Patent both Archie & Lilibet automatically became their royal highnesses Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet the second Charles ascended as King.

    Again, just so it’s clear, Prince Harry’s children are HRH Prince Archie & HRH Princess Lilibet and have been since the moment QEII passed away since they are grandchildren of the monarch (Charles) through the male line (Prince Harry).

    Charles can’t “grant” a title they already hold. He’s issuing the Letters Patent to strip them of their birthright, their HRHs.

    This is EXACTLY the scenario Meghan was monstered for mentioning during the Oprah interview. QEII refused to issue new Letters Patent stripping Archie, which is why Charles was forced to wait until he was king.

    • Over it says:

      @lola I 💯 agree with everything you said.
      And might I add that if it’s only working royals that should be styled hrh, then Willy, Kate and all their children don’t need them because they don’t work.

    • Jais says:

      Okay, so this is where I’m at too. Framing it as he’s writing a new letters patent to assure they are prince and princess is bullshit bc they already are. It’s really removing the HRH which is what Meghan said in the first place, or at least half of it. We can debate whether it’s better for the kids to grow up with or without an HRH, or whether this is a smart slimmed down monarchy plan that just happened to start for the first biracial grandkids, but at the end of the day, the new letters are about Charles stripping something away and not giving anything that isn’t already theirs.

      • Lola says:


        It’s also not about the UK taxpayer or the sovereign grant. Archie & Lili are completely funded by Harry & Meghan.

        Prince Michael of Kent is 51st in line to the thrones. Both he and & his dreadful, racist wife still have & use their HRHs, neither is a working royal.

        Edward’s children, James and Louise are 14th & 15th in line to the throne, both received their HRH’s and the option to decide if they use them when they turn 18. Neither is expected to be a working royal.

        Additionally, James was allowed to use one of Edward’s subsidiary titles and is actually Lord James, Viscount Severn. His sister is Lady Louise.

        While Archie & Lilibet are the untitled, 6th and 7th in line to the throne and a no courtesy titles, ranked lower than a whole slew of people that come after them in succession.

        It’s so blatant. It’s so racist. Once I realized what the palace did to Harry’s kids, I’ve been aghast.

      • Fortuona says:

        Lola if Archie was in the UK and Harry said yes Archie would be the Earl of Dumbarton as that is one of his dads titles . James is known as Severn because it is one of his fathers lesser titles and they chose to use that one because his mother is Welsh

      • Sid says:

        Fortuona, remember what Meghan said in the Oprah interview when Oprah commented that Meghan and Harry didn’t want titles for their kids. Meghan told her they never said that and went on to explain the nonsense the BRF tried to pull. Which means the BRF courtiers lied to all those rota rats who went on to print that the Sussexes didn’t want titles for their kids. The question to ask is who made the decision to announce the baby formally as Master Archie after he was born instead of including his courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton.

    • B says:

      Christ @Lola! This blatant racism is sickening to read even when I know the Sussexes are financially independent and living in the USA. Can you imagine how Harry and Meghan must have felt when they were told this while being tax payer funded royals working for the monarchy? This ‘compromise’ is just as racist because the intent is the same, to make Harry and Meghan’s bi racial children lesser than than the white children.

      They can spin it by claiming slimmed down monarchy or that the children live overseas but the truth is the Sussex children aren’t funded by tax payers and plenty of royals live in the USA. This is just to reassure everyone in the monarchy that whiteness will always take precedence over blackness no matter rank or order of succession.

      What’s truly galling is that Harry’s family planned to do this to his kids but act as if the true injustice was that Harry told people about it. They really want to be allowed to be racist in peace.

  35. Nevia says:

    Well, at least Archie and Lili are/will be Prince and Princess. But damn, Charles is so petty. I can’t deal with this man. These are his grandchildren, for crying out loud. Does he not, like, feel anything? Or care at all?

  36. Well Wisher says:

    So there was some bargaining done, and at least being designated ‘Prince and Princess’ will provide adequate protection where it is necessary IPP included.

    In terms of Harry’s fury, it is default emotion of ‘source’ to the sun tabloid.

    The King feels entitled to, while leaky POW desperately wants Harry to return to servitude.
    This is their idea of an ‘olive branch’ seemingly unaware that the Sussexes are thriving away from their new environment.
    It might big of King Charles 111 to partly confer what are his grandchildren’s birthright, in an effort to have their father accede to his selfish desires.
    Would it have different, if one or both had been named in recognition of him?

    Kay from the fail, wrote a moan fest about Harry losing out of an opportunity to be behind the very important people in his family.
    (Meghan, like her children, will have a semi made up role (50% of ability) not to outshine the others.)

    It may not be noticeable to them that on a psychological level, Harry has a certain freedom in itself by being able to embrace his own personality.He is simply free to be.
    Now they want him back on their terms, using emotional blackmail e.g. the older extended family are ready to retire, he is king at the age of a pensioner and POW cannot do all that is necessary.

    The claim that Harry is not doing much in California, whereas 5 days “work” per month is it? not service is universal?

    • lanne says:

      Kay is mad that Harry isn’t standing behind his brother so they can all benefit from harry’s popularity and charm. Everything Harry does from this point forward benefits himself, not them. Who on earth aspires to be the Spare behind the position of power, needing to beg and scrape for money, subject to the whims of a tyrannical brother? William can have the spotlight all to himself. My guess is that Will-di Amin’s joy in the spotlight came from the idea that harry would always be behind him. Both he and Khaterade are the types whose greatest joy comes from being placed above others. They need to be envied and admired to have purpose in their lives. They need the proof that they are “better” than other people just for existing. No matter what Harry accomplished, so long as William was in front of him, William could see himself as “better”. The of Wales titles probably don’t taste as sweet as they would if Harry were still walking 3 steps behind them.

  37. Likeyoucare says:

    I’m going to give the title to my biracial grandchildren that rightfully theirs.

    But i’m going to be kicking, moaning and complaining to british medias along the way.

    And I’m going to use you both to gain popularity and as a destraction for my black subjects and commonwealth countries that have not fired me as king yet.

    Your racist grandad,

  38. Snuffles says:

    I don’t think any conversations were had. Charles has been non-stop since the Queen died. I doubt he’s had the time to have any significant conversations with his family even if he wanted to.

    This is just spin like others have pointed out. Archie and Lili are currently HRH Prince and Princess. He’s changing the letter of patents to strip them of their HRH as he always planned.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Snuffles. what you stated makes perfect sense. Charles has had no time to do anything but funeral and ascension duty. All of this is just “The Dim” making-up stuff to generate clicks and revenues.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah, the Sun here is kind of playing fast and loose and I guess Charles or someone is hoping people don’t notice? It’s not a matter of “granting” them Prince/ss. They have it, along with HRH. It’s a matter of stripping the HRH.

      Like I’ve said a few times now – this would all be a non issue if this was announced even when H&M got married and he was made Duke of Sussex (like it was announced for Edward and Sophie) – there was some racism and negative coverage of Meghan but the Great Smear Campaign had not started yet. at that point, I think most people would have shrugged and said “okay this is line with slimming down the monarchy.” But now, it just seems petty and racist. OR if they had announced this when they changed it for William’s kids – that going forward only the children of the direct heir would be HRH or whatever.

      I think its clear the queen wanted Harry’s children to be HRH and that’s why no such announcement was ever made.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – I very much agree with your last statement and would also add that QEII wanted Edward to be The Duke Edinburgh.

  39. Noor says:

    A little history note: King George had too many children and grandchildren Therefore there was a need to control and limit the title Prince only to the eldest son of the heir and grandchildren of the King. But Charles only have 2 sons and 5 grandchildren and will not be face with this problem.

    What Charles is doing is to change the Letters patent and denied the HRH status to Prince Harry’s 2 children, which is a real shame.

  40. PunkPrincessPhD says:

    I don’t think the compromise is a bad one, all around – but JFC the tone from the S*n is nastier than even I expected.

    “Harry and Meghan moaned relentlessly about titles…” 🤦‍♀️

    This isn’t about the titles. It’s about what those titles represent and what it says about how they and their children can expect to be treated as members of the family (not as members of the Firm).

    • Sid says:

      And really, why should there have to be a compromise when the compromise (if it even exists) is only because these young children have a Black grandmother? The blatant racism of this vile. It’s not like QEIIs generation where she had a bunch of HRH cousins. The main BRF is naturally slimming itself since it’s just down to Charles and his kids, of which there are only 2. The Sussex kids being HRH is not going to result in any huge cost increase. This is racism, point blank.

  41. Over it says:

    I am sorry and forgive my ignorance but this is a weak bull shit excuse. Charlotte and Louis, I am Leaving George out because he is next in line , aren’t working royals either and they still have HRH. At the end of the day no matter how Chucky wants to dress this up, he is making lili and Archie titles lesser because they are not his all white grandchildren. And this is one more petty as f way for him to get back at Harry for choosing his wife and children over Charles and his colonizing institution.

  42. Merricat says:

    When this is over, Harry will rarely, if ever, come back for royal events. The monarchy set itself on fire; all Harry and Meghan did was escape.

  43. YeahRight says:

    No matter how you polish this turd up, it stinks! Suddenly all these changes when the wife of a prince isn’t a white woman. It’s othering plain and simple! Even though they are as white as their father but because of who their mother is they are getting treated differently. The only reason they didn’t go with the original plan is because Meghan told the world before they could leak it and say this is what Harry and Meghan wanted.

  44. Margaret says:

    I don’t see the point of them being prince and princess if they are not also HRH. What’s the point of being a prince of princess if you are not an HRH? The modern UK does not need more princes and princesses, and If they are going to grow up in the USA there’s no point at all to declaring them to be prince and princess. Those children could end up going into American politics and would be entitled to stand for the position of president. It seems crazy to me to declare them to be prince and princess of the UK.

    I think it is wrong, and discriminatory, to have Harry’s children not entitled to HRH when the York girls are HRH. It’s all well and good to say things were different back in the 80s when Beatrice & Eugenie were born, but if this is part of a long-term plan to scale down the monarchy and only have the heir’s line bearing HRHs, which I actually think is fair enough, the decision should have been made and put into action well before Harry was married. Such decisions should be made about children not yet born, not those who already exist. Harry and his wife could still have been working royals but their children not. That is the position with Princess Anne and it could have been the same with Harry. It smacks of unappealing dithering and indecisiveness to have left it till now. The Wessex situation is different because the parents chose for their children to have the lesser status.

    • PunkPrincessPhD says:


      Only Lili can run for President, as Archie wasn’t born in the United States.

      (Loving the idea of President Princess Lilibet, though 😆)

      • Sid says:

        You don’t need to be born in the U.S. to run for president. You just need to be born a U.S. citizen, which Archie was since his mother is/ was a U.S. citizen when he was born.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        No Sid, you must be born on US soil, either the USA proper or a US territory like Guam, like Arizona prior to statehood (Barry Goldwater) or The Panama Canal Zone before its independence (John McCain) not matter what Ted Cruz has/had to say on the matter.

      • Dee says:

        Sid’s right. Children of a U.S. citizen born on foreign soil are also eligible.

  45. Roxanne says:

    If Charles isn’t commenting then who authorized the close source to talk in the first place?

  46. mazzie says:

    The Sussexes must have skyrocketing blood pressure from all their ‘fury.’ Plus it makes no sense. They didn’t give their kids the courtesy titles, they aren’t using their HRH, they can afford security now so why would they be mad at their kids not having an HRH?

  47. Noor says:

    HRH is a style used to address a prince/princess. Losing the HRH title meant they may not have been invited to royal events, and when they were, their lack of the title affected things like who had precedence and where they sat (source CNN article why HRH meant so much to the British royals)

    So Prince Archie and Princess LIlibet will always be like the lesser royals even though their grandfather is the King.

  48. AmelieOriginal says:

    Okay, this makes sense. I think H&M are fine with the no HRH, they don’t use theirs so why would their kids get it too? If they mostly grow up in the USA, it would be useless to them anyways. Charles knows yanking Prince and Princess from Archie and Lilibet isn’t good optics since they are the first mixed race children in the family, especially with all the social media pushback of Meghan being bullied by the UK media. It sounds similar to what the Swedish royal family did in recent years. Once the mourning period is over, Charles will probably issue a new letters patent clarifying the HRH rules. I bet you Louise and her brother James will be included in that. Eugenie and Beatrice may not be stripped of it but… they aren’t senior royals and now neither of their parents use HRH. I don’t think they should be entitled to it either. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out for the rest of the family.

  49. lanne says:

    At this point, I wouldn’t trust any security coming from the royal family for my children if I were Meghan and Harry. Too many opportunities for “accidents.” Do I think these people could do harm to infants?

    Yes, I do. I think there are plenty of people inside the palace who would consider it a necessary sacrifice for the good of the Crown. I hope Harry and Meghan never place their trust in either of their paternal families ever again.

  50. Blujfly says:

    the Queen was allegedly against taking Diana’s HRH and Charles insisted on it. What does this teach us? That Charles wants something punitive about titles. The Queen was against it because she rightfully saw it as punitive but because more important it doesn’t make any sense. How can you be a prince or princess and not a “her/his Royal highness”? These constant “compromises” Charles is such a fan of make absolutely no sense of reality. A person who is a prince or princess literally is descended directly from the reigning monarch (or married to someone who is). How can they not be Royal highnesses? Once you start making these types of claims, the whole system becomes changeable, and therefore the meaning of the system becomes unclear. This alterate reality Charles and the Cambridges constantly create isn’t borne out in the real world. Essentially Announcing to people before the South African tour that the Cambridges were popular doesn’t make it so. Giving the Sussexes fewer employees and less advance work and justifying it by claiming the crowds in Australia would be smaller didn’t make it so. Telling the press there’s less threat to Meghan and Harry because they aren’t working royals doesn’t make it so.

    • PunkPrincessPhD says:

      @Blujfly: it’s almost like the whole thing was always a flimsy construct built on sand and unicorn dust 🤔

      • Pip says:

        Yes! Sand & unicorn dust which I think the UK – or some of us – are finally tiring of. There are certainly more & more republican-leaning articles appearing in the papers. I loved this comment in the Guardian today: “People say she didn’t like fuss. She literally wore an actual crown, travelled in a gold coach & was accompanied by trumpet fanfares.” That made me howl with laughter. It’s a load of old cobblers & please can we move on from them, in my lifetime ideally.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Diana traded her HRH for more money from Charles.

      However, you are correct. QEII wanted Diana to keep the HRH and Charles wanted the HRH stripped. Diana settled for a bigger divorce settlement check; very smart lady.

      • sevenblue says:

        “Diana traded her HRH for more money from Charles.”

        There is no evidence indicating that. I noticed that this tabloid rumour started to circulate more often. Before that, it was “Diana rejected security”. But, after they refused to provide security to Harry because of change of status, they don’t talk about Diana’s refusal of security any longer. Strange!

        There are multiple reports that she was forced to give up the title; not exchanged it for more money.

      • AppleCart says:

        And I assume Charles only wanted Camilla to have HRH knowing they would marry at some point down the road. Not the ex-wife. He raged over an inky pen, I can only imagine how badly he behaved during divorce negotiations.

      • MakeEverydayCount says:

        I think everyone is missing a very important point. In the Oprah interview Meghan said that discussion had started about stripping Archie of his title and HRH before he was born. Therefore, this has NOTHING to do with Working Royals because at the time Harry/Meghan still worked for the family….They didn’t want the mix race children with a title nor HRH status PERIOD. As I stated before “Working Royals” is ONLY used to punish or deny Harry and his family.

  51. Emmitt says:

    Nah. If he’s going to strip Archie and Lili of HRH styling, everyone beneath Louis needs to stripped of HRH styling too.

  52. eb says:

    Anything less than HRH Prince or Princess will be perceived as a snub/slap in the face of people of color the world over. They show a startlingly lack of awareness.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Ideally, PC should clarify that all of his grandchildren all retain their HRH, but moving forward all of THEIR children except for the heir of the heir, will only be Prince/Princess. That would make the most sense, and is not punishing anyone, being racist or showing how pettiness outranks practicality.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      I think this is the bottom line: At a time when Commonwealth countries are considering whether to stay in or bounce, this decision — if true — will send a clear message to people of color across the Commonwealth.

  53. Renae says:

    Personally, I think its fine. All these HRH’s running about is giving a definitely unroyal feel to it.
    I look at it like the Saudi royal “family”. Thousands of Princes and Princesses which make the titles almost meaningless.
    Charles needs to weed out and reconsider the titles for many of the cousins and married-ins.
    My only problem is if he only does this to Harry’s kids. Then, its petty and wrong.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The 2nd and 3rd cousins will die-off so natural attrition will take care of that matter.

      The 1st cousins, children of Margaret, have no royal titles or royal styles.

  54. Blujfly says:

    @Lola, your point is exactly why the Queen was wary of screwing with titles and HRH. Archie and Lilibet are in the line of succession as is their father. The Queen had lived through and been deeply effecting by an unwelcome and unplanned abdication. If the Cambridges got hit by a bus tomorrow (and I am in NO WAY WISHING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN) , Harry becomes the Duke of Cornwall and heir to the throne. The Queen lived through eras where air travel, domestic strife, and auto accidents were more common and more dangerous. We heard she expressed concern about the Cambridges traveling all together. What if something really did happen to the Cambridges? Can you imagine the PR job that would be needed to attempt to rehabilitate Harry and Meghan’s image? The only thing Queen cares about was securing that line.

  55. Waitwhat? says:

    This probably isn’t a popular opinion, but I don’t really understand why they’re attached to their titles, or why they want their children to have them (especially if they’re being raised in California). Why not drop them and just be the Mountbatten-Windsors? Or the Sussexes? They’re not “working royals” so why not junk the whole thing – that way they avoid having various motives or emotions ascribed to them, and they make the break with the BRF clear. It’s not like not using the titles will make them less famous and they can let what they do speak for them.

    • PunkPrincessPhD says:

      @WaitWhat: I’m only going off what I’ve taken from H&M’s interviews, but I kind of equate it to my PhD. I don’t throw around my title and demand everyone call me “Doctor”, but in situations where my expertise is relevant, I use it. When my husband and I got married, we were announced as “Doctor and Mister MyName-HisName” because *I earned that*. If I’m presenting my work on a panel and someone introduces the bros as Doctor and me as Miss? No way. (It’s happened more than you’d think)

      So I think as racialized members of the BRF, it’s important that A&L have the choice to use them or not – this is their right, as much as anyone else’s.

      Either all of it is meaningless, or all of it has symbolic meaning. It can’t be some for me but not for thee.

      • Waitwhat? says:

        I guess it’s because I genuinely *do* think that these titles are meaningless, not to mention anachronistic, that I don’t really see why they want them – especially if you’re living in the US where they actually got rid of the BRF 200 years ago, lol.

        I see what you’re saying about your PhD and you should *totally* use it – if I had one I’d make everyone call me “Dr Waitwhat” 😀 But also you earned that; you didn’t get it just because your parents were also PhDs. I guess that just ties back to why I think the BRF titles are ridiculous, though.

        And you’re right, it shouldn’t be different for certain members of the family but not others. Maybe the answer (other than getting rid of the whole institution) is just to take the HRH away from everyone except the “core” BRF.

    • Merricat says:

      They’re not attached to the titles. In Britain, the racist lunatic fringe has made countless threats to their lives, including their children. They reasonably want proper security inside Bedlam, and the firm refused to let them even hire their own.

    • Chantal says:

      They’re not attached but Harry was born a Prince of the UK and is the son of the King and brother to the future king. Its his and his children’s birthright and he should fight for them like any parent would. Legally, his children, as grandchildren of the current monarch, are HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lilibet , 6th and 7th in line to the throne (Harry is 5th). I’m not sure about Lili but Archie has dual citizenship. This is no minor matter and stripping Harry’s kids while others further down the line of succession are HRHs is nothing but racism.

      I think C3POS is realizing the wrong move could blow up his entire reign. Removing everything from the kids could not only cause many more Commonwealth countries to leave but Harry as well. Make no mistake about it. If Harry were to remove himself and his children from the line of succession, that would eff up Charles’ entire reign. Not many peole are even considering this possibility. There would really be no reason for Harry to keep letting them leech off the Sussex popularity, further abuse him and his family, but enable him to cut ties completely. It would also move Andrew to 5th in the line of succession. Imagine the people’s response to that. Talk about a constitutional crisis! C3 saying the Sussex kids will still be prince/ss is just a band aid on a powder keg.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “If Harry were to remove himself and his children from the line of succession”

        Cannot be done. Only parliament can alter the line of succession. All Harry could do would be to abdicate or become a Roman Catholic if the crown came to his head.

      • Chantal says:

        @BayTampaBay. Thanks for the info! I thought with all of the previous talks about the RF worried William would leave, it applies to Harry too. But it only applies to direct heirs. Which makes this whole thing worse! Wth???

    • MsIam says:

      For all these people who keep saying the titles don’t mean anything, if that is so then why the push to strip them? If they are meaningless then why not leave things as is, as determined by the 1917 letters patent. The Sussexes are not costing the BRF or the taxpayers one dime but they are jumping over every hoop to try and get those titles taken away. Even the slimmed down monarchy argument makes no sense because the Sussexes are already self-funding. Why is no one asking why they are so eager to not be associated with the Sussexes but don’t have this same energy about the Yorks? If anything the Sussexes profiles have improved those of the rest of the family. But jealousy and racism won’t let things be.

  56. Nic919 says:

    If the HRH is removed from Archie and Lili then they would rank lower than Andrew, the York princesses, And Edward and his kids who are siblings and nieces and nephews to the monarch. It makes no sense for any of them to be HRH.

    The succession doesn’t change, but it looks ridiculous especially when some of these HRHs aren’t considered working royals. (And let’s be Frank the Wails barely qualify as working at the moment too ).

    • Fortuona says:

      Not they are not . Before this spec they were 5th and 6th in line without an HRH and tommorow they wil still be 5th/6th in line without an HRH

      • Jais says:

        Then what is the HRH for?

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        The royal family seems to be using the lack of HRH as reason to deny security to Harry’s family. This seems like pretext, as Andrew still receives security at taxpayers’ expense despite being told not to use HRH anymore (that Harry and Meghan are viewed as the villains of the family when Andrew still exists is a whole other problem). So there’s that.

        But also, the royals are very petty people. Losing HRH means they rank lower in precedence which affects where they sit at formal events, who enters the room first, etc. That seems stupid to me (an American) but superficiality it is sooooo very important to the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family. This is their way of telling Harry’s family “we’re better than you.”

        Also, losing HRH means they are no longer “royal.” Titles like princess and Duke don’t necessarily mean someone is a royal. There are royal princesses like Beatrice, and non-royals ones like Diana after her divorce. There are royal dukes like Gloucester, and non-royal dukes like Norfolk. Losing HRH means they are not considered actual “royals” even if they are members of the royal family (as we use the term “family” in its common meaning).

  57. kay says:

    No Harry’s children deserve their full titles. William and Harry lost their mother as children and had to deal with that trauma growing up. The monarchy and the media destroyed their mother they have no right to take anything away from them. They owe them so much. You cannot compare them to anyone – nobody went through what they went through and they are still suffering because of it. Harry deserves his titles for himself and his children. They should be ashamed of themselves the way they have treated Harry and his wife and children.

  58. PunkPrincessPhD says:

    Can I just say to everyone on here:

    You are such a thoughtful, knowledgeable bunch. Reading through the royal threads here over the last week has been really thought-provoking (unlike the autopilot nastiness below the line on other sites).

    Round of applause to all Celebitchers doing their best to lay out the complexities and dynamics at play.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      I second this emotion! And thank you, Kaiser, for working overtime. You must be exhausted, but I appreciate the excellent coverage.

    • AppleCart says:

      I so agree with this. CB is the only site I at times look forward more to the comments than the articles (I love the articles!!!)

      I have learned so much and may not agree with everyone. But like the discord can be respectful amongst each other. And everyone has very good points to make.

      As an American I have learned so much about the Royals. I can only imagine how hard this is for Meghan. Trying to navigate all this and just keep her family together.

  59. Siobhan says:

    I think the decision seems the right one personally though I’m curious – is the HRH really connected to security? Also do Beatrice and Eugenie have security when they’re by themselves, apart from the larger royal events where security is there for everyone? Like do they have taxpayer funded security to follow them wherever they go privately and at their houses that aren’t located within castle grounds? I never thought that the HRH was what determined security, so I’ve always been confused on that one.

    • Alana says:

      Eugene and Beatrice have private security. They were stripped from royal security in january

      • Jennifer says:

        Basically, this is all excuses and hypocrisy. B&E can keep the HRH without being “working royals” (I don’t think they were permitted to be working royals if they wanted to), but they’re using this excuse now.

  60. Sue E Generis says:

    I don’t think this is good at all. How convenient that the only people affected are Harry’s non-white children. The people who came before are not affected as they’ll be grandfathered in. The people who come after, when William is king, won’t be affected because he can change it back. So, de facto, the only people with their status denied will be Archie and Lili and their descendants.

    Also,, it doesn’t matter that Harry and Meghan don’t care about titles and status. It’s the continued, deliberate othering of the Sussexes.

    • sunny says:

      This is an excellent point. Also I am struck by the framing, claiming Harry and Meghan about this issue which for them is a very real security issue given the threats they have faced. Just wild. Can you imaging the gall of, “They won’t stop complaining about their children’s security? The nerve of them!”

  61. SeeJanet Ferber says:

    Question: by not conferring HRH to the babies, does THAT alone take away their royal security in England, even though they will still be prince and princess? Also, Andrew has royal security, though asked not to use HRH. Harry, too, was asked not to use HRH, but he doesn’t get royal security in England, nor is he allowed to pay for it. So what’s the BFD about HRH? Thanks for an explanation.

    • Lola says:

      That’s my point, Charles IS NOT conferring anything on Archie & Lilibet.

      They automatically became
      HRH Prince Archie & HRH Princess Lilibet the second that Charles became king. It’s done. Their titles were bestowed according to existing UK Law.

      Charles is trying to muddy the water and say he’s going to “give” them
      Prince & Princess titles, but not the HRH. A&L have had their HRH since Charles took the throne.

      He can’t “give” them something they already have, he’s using language to try to strip them of their HRH. Even while the line of succession of filled with non-working royals that still have and use their HRH.

      For example 51st in line to the throne HRH Prince Michael of Kent and his horrid wife. Meanwhile, 6th & 7th were denied courtesy titles, and now Charles is trying to strip their HRH so that they’ll forever be lower ranked than the White grandchildren of the monarch.

  62. Jess says:

    KC3 is so nasty it’s embarrassing. The US Secret Service is willing to give full protection to the grandchildren of the VP and parents (if necessary). Joe Biden’s elderly mother was given a detail when he was VP.

    Why wouldn’t Charles want the first mixed race Prince and Princess to have HRH and therefore full security when on UK soil. He is forever disgusting to me.

    • Dot says:

      Because the entire British monarchy, save Harry and possibly Eugenie & Beatrice, are racist arseholes.

      I hope that the next vote for Scottish independence passes. I hope Wales declares independence. I hope North Ireland reunites with Republic of Ireland (26 + 6 = 1). I hope all the commonwealths leave (yes, even Canada, Australia, and NZ despite what a pain it would be).

      I loathe them with the passion of a thousand suns.

  63. Kay says:

    the world media are also acknowledging the treatment of Harry and Megan. Some high profile journalist are supporting them in the UK. I think they are finally getting some acknowledgement of the abhorrent abuse they are being subject to.

  64. Julie says:

    Everything has confirmed what M & H has said as proof.

    Now Richard Kay writing all Meghan needs to to is do what Diana did. Separate. Then she can go do her charity stuff.

    Accept a divorce. Then Harry will be okay.

    Where is the fury on that?

  65. Julie says:

    Yes. It’s exactly what QEII did to Diana.

    They didn’t want to leave.

    They didn’t want to end up like Diana.

    So thanks for proving Harry wasn’t lying in his interview too.

    How dare him want to save his wife.

  66. Jean says:

    Honestly this is a non story, of course the kids will be prince and princess, they won’t be HRH because their dad is no longer a working royal. Doubt if the Sussexes are bothered, just the usual tabloids trying to stir up hate. Anne’s kids had no title, the Wessex kids are not HRH so big deal.

    • MsIam says:

      The kids won’t be HRH because their “grandfather” stripped it from them. Don’t get it twisted please.

    • Mary says:

      “Anne’s kids had no title, the Wessex kids are not HRH so big deal.” @jean, don’t misstate the facts or try to mislead.

      Ann’s first husband turned down the offer of a title, an Earldom. Had he accepted Zara and Peter would be known as Lady Zara and Lord Peter (or Peter could have used a subsidiary title if given). However, that was a conscious decision on the part of Phillips to turn down the Queen’s offer. Harry and Meghan have specifically said they do not want to turn down a title for Archie.

      Further, the Wessex kids are HRHs. It was just decided early on that they would be “styled as” (referred to as or called) a Lady and Viscount (James using one of Edward’s subsidiary titles).

      Even what is probably your favourite tabloid, the Daily Mail, has an article in which Louise and James are noted as being both a princess and prince and HRHs..

  67. kirk says:

    “Tense discussions have taken place while Meghan and Prince Harry are in the UK for the Queen’s funeral” claims the Sun tabloid without proof. Let’s not even get into British media overuse, nay exclusive use, of unnamed sources on royal stories. And this story is even worse because they slipped up by saying they only listened to one source. NO confirmation from Chuck#3 spokespeople.

    “But they [H-M] have been left furious that Archie and Lilibet cannot take the title HRH,” continues the single unconfirmed source. Soooo sorry to hear Sun needs readers so bad they’re willing to write fiction about the internal emotional states of people who’ve cut you out of their lives.

    This American has always been nonplussed about the British significance and emphasis on HRH. There doesn’t seem to be any monetary value associated with it unless you’re HRH Princess Michael and need it to sell your trashy romance books. AFAIK the only meaning ascribed to titles by Meghan was the promise of security; she’s since been disabused of that idea.

    • MsIam says:

      When Meghan was told about the security they still were working royals. Charles plan was to strip her and Archie of security. I guess they still expected her to do some royal duties in between her acting jobs since she had to pay her own expenses. Basically she would be half-in half-out which supposedly could not be done. So now they are claiming this “not working royals” argument to muddy the waters. What a f-up family.

  68. Mary says:

    “AFAIK the only meaning ascribed to titles by Meghan was the promise of security; she’s since been disabused of that idea.”

    @kirk, NO, Meghan was very clear during the Oprah Winfrey interview that one of the reasons she cared about the princely titles was, basically, that she didn’t like the idea of her biracial child being treated unfairly and differently than his white cousins, and having his “birthright” taken away from him for spurious reasons. No, she clearly had concerns about it being, or looking very much like, racism.

    • kirk says:

      You’re right. She didn’t want unfair treatment of biracial children. Not denying the obv racism of BRF. My interpretation of her talk with Oprah was that denial of security was overriding concern.

  69. Beverley says:

    It’s clear that the monarchy, the BM, and many white Brits intend for the royals to stay lily white. The “very much not racist” RF will be forever furious that Harry brought Black blood into the line of succession. So furious, they want Duchess Meghan, Prince Archie, and Princess Lilibet dead.

    Racist asses are being displayed and they’re damn ugly.
    It’s clear to everyone just how incredibly hateful Salt Island really is…the world is watching.

  70. kay says:

    I think Princess Ann was involved in some of these decisions about the children. She didn’t like princesss Diana. Diana already said numerous times that the family didn’t like her, Diana’s children won’t forget that ever.

    That walkabout that Prince Harry did at Windsor was to support his brother William.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Kay, I think the walkabout was what C3PO wanted and William didn’t have a choice. I think how JHate Wails acted clarifies that. Harry did it in honor of his granny.

  71. Kathryn says:

    Agree with KC on this one. Would be ofc ridiculous to strip them of all titles but also makes sense to not make them HRH, as their parents aren’t. Can’t imagine that the kids will grow up and want to be involved as I’m sure H&M will tell them one day all the reasons they left and also probably wouldn’t want them back in the viper’s nest. What is cool though is one day when they’re older, they’ll tell them that they are a prince and princess. Real life princess diaries!

    • Truth says:

      Their parents are HRH. They just don’t use it bc the royal family was being petty and thought that was a punishment to limit their use. Princess Michael can be HRH then those kids should be to.

    • MsIam says:

      Harry doesn’t want his kids to feel less than and I don’t blame him. They have always looked down on him and Meghan from day one since they got married. I think this is more about William and Kate not wanting Harry’s kids to have the same status as the Wails kids, i.e. HRH and Prince/Princess. What kind of brother doesn’t accept his own niece and nephew and what kind of grandfather is the same way? Answer: a racist one.

      • Mary says:

        @msiam, I totally agree with your sentiment that William does not want the Sussex children styled and titled as his are. Please, Harry just name the racist(s) !!!

  72. Emily says:

    Hundred percent agree: this is the right call. The titles are their birthrights, but…they’re Americans now, with parents who are making their own way, and very well. By the time the children are grown, there (hopefully) may not even be a monarchy. Honestly, their being grown and dignified and working–while still retaining legitimate, yet no-longer-relevant titles–may be the best thing that could ever happen.

    As much as I’m rooting for the Sussex kids, I’m also rooting for the Cambridge (Wales? Who the hell knows?) kids. I hope that all these kids move beyond the notion of a monarchy, the notion that your birth determines your life.

    • Truth says:

      Other royals have titles and live in foreign countries. This doesn’t have anything to do with them being Americans. It has to do with Charles thinking this will make his base happy and hopefully Harry happy to.

    • MsIam says:

      Then why are you not calling for all of the kids to not have HRH then? Then everyone would be on equal footing. Or is that the real issue?

  73. Sunnyville says:

    Make no mistake Chuckie only did this little stunt thinking it will win him points with press/public. Judging by the petulant idiots tantrum during the official signing event , he’s clearly so out of touch with reality so ofcourse won’t see how this won’t work on Harry.

    I mean does he expect Harry to forgive him leaking his location & taking security+blocking his access to UK intelligence 🤨it’s too late. They’re NEVER COMING BACK

    • Mary says:

      @truth, I concur save for the part where you state that Prince Charles wants to make Harry happy. If this is true, Prince Charles allowing that Archie and Lilibet are a prince and princess without the hrh honorific, he is only doing this to try to not appear as the vindictive racist that he is. He does not now, nor do I think he ever really did, care about Harry’s happiness.

      The ONLY way that yanking Archie and Lilibet’s’s horrifics retroactively would appear fair and equitable is if Charles took it away retroactively from ALL of the other non-working royals that currently hold it (and remove it from the working Royals as they retire).

      Someone on another thread mentioned that some people are trying to say that a child is not a prince or princess upon birth but rather only when pronounced as such by the current sovereign. That is absolutely ridiculous. There is no evidence of that having been a requirement before (show me one Letter of Patent or other written indicia) and I am absolutely appalled at Charles and his camp for blurring the facts to try to hide their racism.

    • Tan says:

      My parent asked me oh it looks like Charles has forgiven Harry. I said it’s actually the other way around and I don’t believe Harry he forgiven his father for jeopardizing the lives of himself, his wife and his then infant son. My dad was like 😳

  74. A says:

    I mean, ultimately I feel like this decision was kind of stupid, but it makes sense. Harry and Meghan, while entitled to be styled as HRH, have agreed to not use that style. But Harry is still Prince Harry. Meghan is still the Duchess of Sussex. They just don’t style themselves HRH Prince Harry and HRH the Duchess of Sussex.

    It would be odd if their children were entitled to that style, but the parents were not. I wonder if this is a case like Meghan and Harry’s where the children are entitled to that style, but it won’t be used, or if they will simply never be allowed to use that style at all. I think if it’s the latter, then they would have to issue LP to make it that way, bc as it stands right now, their children are officially HRH Prince/Princess Archie/Lilibet of Sussex. I think it is just going to be a situation where Harry and Meghan simply agree to not use those styles, rather than having Charles issue separate LP to make it so that they don’t have that style at all.

    I doubt Harry or Meghan cared very much about any of it, except for what it meant for their security and their children’s safety. That is probably still their main priority, and always will be, which is exactly as it should be imo.

    • Tessa says:

      They would be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Harry is called Prince Henry and upon marriage Meghan is Princess Henry. They generally go by Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Harry and Meghan never gave up HRH just agreed not to use it in business enterprises. That is odd to me because Sophie and Edward were allowed to run their own outside businesses but used the HRH when conducting business. The royals
      seem to make up rules as they go along.

      • A says:

        Yes, they are HRH the Duke/Duchess of Sussex, that is correct, because the convention is to use the title that comes with a peerage, if the person in question has a peerage + a peer title. Harry does, so therefore they are the Duke/Duchess of Sussex.

        The rule for being allowed to use the style of HRH, or having that style at all, is pretty clear to me, tbh. The RF takes it away to punish whoever they feel needs to be punished. Fergie got it take away from her post-divorce bc she was an embarrassment. Diana famously got it taken away from her after her divorce, with the excuse being that Fergie set the precedent, but really it was to punish her as well. Wallis Simpson was never entitled to the use of the style, again for obvious reasons. The only thing with Harry and Meghan is that there is no divorce, and Harry is a male-line descendant of the monarch, as well as the son of the current monarch. No one wants to set the precedent of taking away titles or styles, because that would open up a can of worms that no one wants. So this is their compromise.

        What always struck me about this particular thing is that like…the average lay person doesn’t really give a sh-t about how someone is styled. Like, no one really cares about whether someone is HRH or HH or HSH or any of it. The only people who really care about these things are the members of the royal family themselves + members of the British aristocracy. To everyone else, it’s just meaningless.

  75. Beverley says:

    While the world watches, KC3 and the RF make it crystal clear that mixed race children will always be considered inferior to white children, even the monarch’s grandchildren.

  76. Grace says:

    All this drama reinforces my belief that this monarchy needs to come to an end.

  77. Mary S says:

    When I saw this article, I was upset about the sheer unfairness. But, The truth is the union of Harry and Meghan & the children of that union will never be given the respect of all other members of that “family.” As long as Harry and Meghan are safe and free, I’m going to ignore all of the nonsense from the tabloid media, social media, & any other disreputable source. This has been going on for six years. I’m tired of the nonsense. As long as it isn’t impeding Harry & Meghan, I’m tuning out the noise.

    QE2 is gone. After this period of mourning is over, I hope Harry can put the folks on that island in his rearview mirror and never look back.

    • MoonRiver says:

      Very well said. The queen’s death is the beginning of the end of the BRF. It may take a couple more decades to actually happen, but I doubt George will see the throne. I also ignore entirely the H&M media hate. I didn’t know what was being said about H&M until I read comments here about the coverage. Shameful, but not surprising.

      As far as Harry and Meghan, thank goodness they can enjoy freedom, happiness and success in the United States.

  78. HamsterJam says:

    Racist king can explain all he wants.
    He can’t change the order of succession which makes it glaringly obvious that Meghan’s kids are the only ones with the lesser titles.

  79. MicMacm says:

    Eh the kids are both American citizens, do they really need the HRH title? Kinda fought two wars against the British Empire for that sort of thing to not be important.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      MicMacm, they’re also UK citizens and in the line of succession. This is also Harry’s birthright. The brf are the ones to make it clear to H&M that their child wouldn’t be given an HRH and that if he didn’t have it then he wouldn’t get security. That’s the position that the brf took and that’s what came out in the Oprah interview. You tell me, why would CIIIPO do this? Could it possibly be because Archie and Lili are biracial? Well, the world is watching. Let’s see what Chuck does.

  80. Kit says:

    I read today that actually no decision has been made until after they mourn de Queen, is that 7 days after burial Monday .??

    Is KP leaking again and KC is pushing back , l mean KC is Head of de Commonwealth, and supposed to be this progressive King surely he must know how this looks ??