People: ‘There have been arguments over titles for Archie & Lilibet’

During the mourning period and lead up to Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral, a handful of royal rota reporters were trying to make a certain story stick. That story? Behind the scenes in Windsor-ville, Prince Harry and Meghan were “relentlessly arguing” with the new king about the royal titles for their children. Immediately following QEII’s death, the line of succession was updated on, and Archie and Lilibet remained without titles. Last week, the Sun claimed that King Charles had made a decision to allow the Sussex kids to have prince and princess titles but not HRHs. As I said back then, the British reporting wanted people to believe that Harry and Meghan were very angry about this title thing and they were lobbying Charles behind the scenes. I doubt it. I doubt Harry even spoke to his father in depth, much less about his kids’ titles. So it’s curious to see the British reporting echoed in People Magazine:

Although Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s two children may be entitled to royal titles after King Charles became monarch under a 1917 rule, no name changes have been announced for Archie Harrison and Lilibet Diana.

Following Queen Elizabeth’s death on September 8, her eldest son Charles became King and announced that his wife Camilla would be his Queen Consort. He also said that his son Prince William and daughter-in-law Kate Middleton would inherit the titles of Prince and Princess of Wales. The royal family’s website was updated to reflect these changes, but Prince Harry and Meghan’s children were still referred to as “Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor” and “Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.”

Behind the scenes, there have been arguments over titles for Archie, 3, and Lilibet, 1.

Under current guidelines, grandchildren of a monarch could be princes or princesses. A rule established by King George V after he issued a Letters Patent in 1917 read: “…the grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms.”

As monarch, King Charles III could change that rule, but it’s unlikely he’ll choose to do so.

A spokesperson said that nothing would be decided or said about the issue while the family was in mourning, a period that lasts one week past the funeral.

[From People]

Again with the passive voice. People’s Passive Voice is becoming a real issue in their royal stories. “There have been arguments over titles” – who is arguing with whom? Because it seems like Harry and Meghan have been sitting back and watching as William and Charles make racist asses out of themselves. It seems like William is probably the one “arguing” that his mixed-race niece and nephew should not get prince and princess titles and Charles is wavering. Once again, this is an issue getting international coverage. When the line of succession was updated and the Sussex kids’ didn’t get titles, American broadcasters were covering it in-depth. It also proves that Meghan was telling the truth in the Oprah interview. So here we are.

Incidentally, in Katie Nicholl’s book The New Royals, she seems to suggest that the kids’ titles are contingent on Harry’s memoir. “A source close to the king” told Nicholl, “it depends a lot on what happens in the coming months, particularly with Harry’s book and their TV show.” It’s pretty disgusting that Charles thinks he’s got leverage over Harry and Meghan this way.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Missan Harriman/The Sussexes.

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

142 Responses to “People: ‘There have been arguments over titles for Archie & Lilibet’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. girl_ninja says:

    Archie and Lilibet SHOULD have their Prince and Princess titles as well as HRH status. I believe that though it is important to Harry and Meghan that they’re children get their birthright, they are not having knock out, drag out fights about this matter.

    • Christine says:

      That’s my thought as well. I don’t think they’re screaming mad about it, but I’m sure it doesn’t feel great to them that their children are being punished for putting their mental well-being first while racists and pedophiles get to keep their titles without consequence.

    • Soapboxpudding says:

      According to the 1917 Letters patent, as grandchildren of the King in the male line, they automatically do have the title of Prince and Princess regardless of what the BRF and tabloids want you to think. The HRHs are a different matter.

    • molly says:

      *IF* Harry and Meghan are fighting for titles, it’s because it’s tied to security or protection or something shady they’re being denied out of spite.

    • Ceci says:

      I don’t see the point of Archie and Lili having Prince and Princess titles or HRH titles since they are never going to be working royals. None of Anne’s or Edward’s kids have them although they were the grandchildren of a monarch as well and their parents are still working royals. Since Harry is a duke, Archie is already entitled to use Earl/Lord as a courtesy title and technically Lili is already lady Lilibeth as well. Since Meghan and Harry aren’t bothering to use those titles at the moment, I don’t think they give too much crap about the prince and princess titles. I would be different if they still lived in the UK if the titles are linked to security but since they are in the US, it’s not going to make any difference.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        Anne’s kids don’t have titles because their father isn’t titled. Anne didn’t refuse titles for them. They weren’t there for her to refuse in the first place. Had their father accepted the title, it would have been a different story.

        Edward’s kids have the titles. They’re just not using them. Louise was able to decide when she turned 18 whether she would use it, but it’s there for her to use. James also has his, but isn’t using it, and instead is using the courtesy Viscount title for the moment.

        It doesn’t matter anyway. Archie and Lilibet already have the titles. They were automatic upon Charles’ ascending the throne. This is just a way for BP to stick it to Harry and Meghan in the rags.

      • MakeEverydayCount says:

        Anne’s children are not allowed to have titles and styled HRH because titles do NOT go through the female bloodline. Edward’s children have titles and are indeed HRH’s. It is their birthright and just like everyone else that automatically received their birthright they should as well. The fact that it is an issue is due to one thing and one thing only….RACE. It is important to note as per the Oprah interview this discussion was being held WHILE Harry/Meghan were “working royals” so that “working royal” stuff is just code for punish Harry and lean into their RACISM

      • Duchcheese says:

        Enough with the “they will not be working royals” crap; where is it written in the 1897 LP that the prince and/or princess titles are tied to being or not being a working royal? Geez…people parroting this BM narratives ad nauseum is really annoying.

      • Lizzie says:

        You know Lili and Archie will never be working royals? H&M certainly do use their DoS titles, they do not use HRH in business. If the children’s titles and style are their birthright I don’t think they have to justify why it’s important.

      • Sarita says:

        I think Harry and Meghan care very much about the titles.
        Their children are the first mixed race royals in the line of succession so I do think that they want them to have the titles and HRH and the optics of those being withheld would be devastating to the monarchy.

      • Louise177 says:

        I don’t think Harry and Meghan care about titles. I do think they are offended that they are being taken away. They and the children don’t have the option to use or decline them. It’s one thing for them to choose but a whole different thing when the choice is taken away.

      • MicMac says:

        I dunno, With both of them likely growing up in America, and already being American citizens, I can’t see them using titles. Unless the wide culture has changed Americans sort of look down on its citizens having titles that aren’t tied to being elected to office. I understand the system. As both an Irish and a US citizen, not a fan of US citizens of any stripe having royal titles.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Ed’s kids are not “HRH.” Elizabeth said before his marriage that his kids shall not be styled as royal, only styled as children of an earl. That’s all it takes to give or remove “HRH,” the expression of the monarch’s pleasure. There was nothing said by Elizabeth about the children being able to choose when they turn 18. So until Charles (or William when he is king) expresses otherwise, Liz’s statement prevails as it came later in time and therefore overrules the 1917 view, at least as it pertains specifically to Ed’s kids.

      • Margaret says:

        @Ceci I agree there is no point in Archie and Lilibet having the prince and princess titles and HRH style. They will never be working royals and it seems they will grow up in the USA so what’s the point? I see it as just another burden for them. As you say, Archie is already entitled to use a courtesy title and Lili is entitled to be known as Lady Lilibet, because they inherited that status from their father and one day Archie will be the Duke of Sussex and nothing the petty royals can do will stop that happening. It would take an Act of Parliament to stop Harry, and, in due course, Archie, being a Duke and I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. The Dukedom is not attached to their “royalness”. The only one who has control over Archie inheriting the dukedom, which was a gift from Harry’s beloved grandmother, is Archie himself as he can renounce the title when he inherits it. He will be a peer, and peer – especially Duke – trumps mere prince anyway, so we have often been told.

    • usavgjoe says:

      H&M are passed this. They said what they said — Charles was going to do against their children in the “Oprah” interview. He has done that… he has denied Archie and Lilli all the Royal benefits (including security) that the “HRH” gives to those Titles. To just call them “Prince” and “Princess” is the same as no Titles… without the “HRH” those Titles are meaningless and have no teeth, and the King Petty knows this. So another checkmark of truth telling by H&M in the interview.

      • MakeEverydayCount says:

        As per Oprah interview the title discussion and HRH discussion was happening when Harry/Meghan were Working Royals. So it’s ALL based-on RACISM..PERIOD

      • Lionel says:

        But, in reality, what benefits would Archie and Lili get from an HRH? It reflects proximity to the throne, yes, but they’re Americans for the foreseeable future. I’m not convinced the HRH would affect any security they receive in Montecito. And the HRH would restrict what they’re allowed to do for work in the future.

        We can argue all day about the principle of the thing, and sure I agree that if they’re entitled to it they should receive it. At the end of the day I’m just not seeing how it would benefit them as children in California.

      • JaneBee says:

        @Lionel I’m from a Cth country where KCIII is head of state. I object to the refusal to acknowledge the official change in title for Archie and Lilibet that automatically occured upon the death of QEII, out of PRINCIPLE.

        There ARE rules and protocol governing the actions of the British royal family, and until a rule is officially and formally changed, then the King can bloody well play by them, and be held accountable for any failure to do so.

      • C says:

        As 6th and 7th in the line of succession, they should have HRHs.

      • PrincessK says:

        My understanding is that having HRH gives children certain levels of protection in the UK. This is what Meghan is concerned about. These children will probably want to school, live and work in the UK at certain points in time and they are prime targets.

      • Jais says:

        Agree with @janebee above. It’s the principle. And it needs to be transparent. Unless new letters are written, they have titles. So why is that not updated on the list? It should say that in front of their names right now. Do not give me any slowness of bureaucracy excuses. Then, if Charles chooses to take it away by writing new letters, they can change it again. There are some really willful misrepresentations going on right now. These discussions were happening when they were working royals. It has nothing to do with whether they are working royals or whether Harry talks shit about them in his book. It’s about racism.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ JaneBee, thank you!!! Please, louder for those in the back!!!!

        It’s simply an act of pettiness and consequences that KCIII refuses to acknowledge the fact that they are automatically given these titles upon his accession. No amount of hem-hawing is going to ignore the blatant fact that KCIII is punishing his grandchildren.

        As for H&M, I call this entire article absolute lies!!! Harry and Meghan are the epitome of grace and compassion. IF there were ANY discussions, they came from Wails the Incandescent, no one else.

      • Becks1 says:

        yes – just to reiterate – titles are not tied to being a working royal, or to living in the UK, or whatever. They’re tied to your relationship to the crown.

        But Meghan told us this was being discussed WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT, when she was a working royal, when they were living in the UK and intended to remain there, etc. She told us they were talking about changing the conventions “for Archie” and she couldn’t get a good reason why when she asked.

      • Sid says:

        Lionel, I don’t see how being an HRH Prince/ss restricts what you’re allowed to do for work. Eugenie has legitimately worked in the art world since she graduated from university. The current duke of Gloucester was HRH Prince Richard and working as an architect until his older brother died. Prince Michael’s sleazy racist wife is writing tacky romance novels that have “her royal highness princess michael” slapped all over the covers. And just because you have the titles doesn’t mean you are forced to officially use them in every situation. There is no reason why the Sussex kids can’t keep their titles and just use the Mountbatten-Windsor last name in their everyday lives.

    • BlueDot says:

      I guess on one hand you could argue that he might love them unconditionally but that’s different to letting them do what they want without consequence. If you separate the family from the firm then it comes down to business.

      On the other hand, I’m not sure why this is being made into a big deal. Their birth right is their name. Titles are just privilege and it amazes me how much people still want unearned titles. They represent this idea of privilege and superiority. We can’t rip apart the British for still living by some sort of class system and buy into it at the same time.

      I don’t think Harry & Meghan care to be honest. If anything I think this is just news outlets making up stories that they’ve taken from each other to make money.

    • lanne says:

      They DO have both the titles and the HRHs, according to the letters patent of 1917. The question is not whether they get the titles, but whether they can be taken away. At present, it takes a new letters patent to take them away. That means parliamentary action, unless the legislation passes that gives the monarch permission to grant and revoke titles at will. That opens another can of worms that the House of Lords would likely balk at.

      The reporters are playing fast and loose with this to serve their purpose. There’s no legal reason why the kids cant be styled as HRH Prince and Princess right now, just as Harry and Meghan can choose to style themselves HRH. They have made an agreement with the family not to use the designation, but they still have them. They could make an agreement not to have the kids use HRH or Prince/Princess (which makes sense with the way the children will be raised in the US) but they still have the designation. Lady Louise and James Viscount Severn also have HRHs that aren’t used–they could decide at age 18 to use those designations. (It was floated as an idea earlier this year for Louise). Right now, it’s the de facto usage that’s being discussed, not the de jure. At present, any change in the de jure usage of the titles has to go through a new letters patent, unless the law changes. A new letters patent would be used to remove the titles they kids already have by birth, not grant them titles. But most of the public doesn’t know this.

    • 809Matriarch says:

      I know right? Remember in the Oprah interview, Meghan said if they price they have to pay for not remaining silent is the loss of some things… so much has been lost already.

      I don’t think going forward it matters as much as the RF believe it does. Therefore, Harry will publish his books and let the chips fall where they may. I also don’t think we will ever see Archie or Lily bowing or curtseying to anybody.

    • MakeEverydayCount says:

      For those of you who for some reason believe that HRH is tied to “working royal” please explain why George, Charlotte and Louis are all styled HRH? Someone above stated this is also about Principle…. I agree. Additionally, Charles ONLY has 5 grandchildren, why would he want to treat Harry’s children differently unless…melanin. He literally would have to change the rules to spite 2 of his grandchildren. Krama is a B….watch out Charles you will need those same grandchildren one day.

      • Nic919 says:

        Also Beatrice and Eugenie have the HRH and aren’t working royals.

        The entire working royals thing is made up nonsense. The letters patent do not reference any of that and Charles needs to create a new one to remove this from his grandchildren. That would be an awful look for him. Especially since his white grandkids aren’t likely to all be “working royals” except for George and possibly Charlotte.

        And having people lower to his grand children in the line of succession have the HRH looks really bad. Especially Andrew.

    • Moxylady says:

      I hate these photos. Why is Doria standing next to Charles when Camilla is sitting next to Harry? Shouldn’t she be sitting next to Meghan? WTF is Kate doing sitting there?

      • Mary says:

        LOL, @moxylady, especially with Kate’s skirt hiked up the way it is!

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t like where Kate is sitting, but I imagine part of that was bc with the heels she would have been too tall for the back. they did the same thing with their wedding pictures, had Kate sitting next to the bride and groom like that.

        I do like Doria in the back with Charles, at the time it seemed like a sign of including her and welcoming her. Knowing what we know now though…it just seems sad.

  2. ThatsNotOkay says:

    What kind of king or even father is Charles, to make every act conditional? He says his love for his son is unconditional, but his actions say otherwise. And quite loudly, I might add.

    • Persephone says:

      Well, his mother and father were remembered to have said that he was inadequate in many ways.
      He is simply living up to their assessments of him.

    • Well Wisher says:

      @That’snot okay
      Might I add that any action other that letting the automatic bestowed HRH stand mean that he will be taking them away from his grandchildren.
      One astute Twitter user noted that legally they are HRH after the death of the once reigning monarch.
      The deliberate update is either intentally incorrect or a precursor to the legalized dis-inheritance of the Sussexes children.

  3. SugarHere says:

    Blackmailed into sugar-coating the book in exchange for their children being granted their birth right? If this isn’t a terror (ist) move, I don’t know what is.

  4. Becks1 says:

    Yeah I doubt this is Harry and Meghan arguing. If they said anything at all during this particular time, it was probably along the lines of “you’re gonna do what you’re gonna do and we can’t stop you.” the international press made their argument for them, and I think Charles saw that and now can’t decide if being vindictive, petty and racist is really the best way to start his reign. I think William is pushing for the full removal of HRH Prince/ss so that his kids are the only young HRHs Prince/ss going forward. so i think at this point the arguing is between William and Charles.

    ETA and that’s not to say that charles doesnt WANT to take the HRH Prince/ss from the children. We know from Oprah they were discussing it then. But just that at this point I can see him thinking “yikes, this might not play so well” and William thinking “just do it dad.”

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      I see it as William pushing for the removal of their titles and HRH. If Charles complies, he can kiss the Commonwealth goodbye. He can kiss any goodwill he has from the Queen’s death goodbye. Because there’s no good reason to remove titles and HRH from 2 toddlers who live in the US and aren’t supported by the British people or their grandfather. So what would be a good reason to strip them of their birthright other than Grandpa and Uncle Bill are racist twats?

      • Becks1 says:

        exactly. He can’t say “well they don’t live in the UK.” That’s never been a requirement for HRH Prince/ss. He can’t say “well they aren’t working royals,” considering we just had a whole discussion yesterday about how Charlotte and Louis will never be FT royals. And again, being a working royal has never been a requirement for HRH.

        I actually love that Meghan put this out there during the Oprah interview – when they WERE working royals, when they WERE intending to live FT in the UK. She flat out said the conversations were tied to security and there were also the conversations about the “concerns” about the baby’s skin color “and what that might mean” etc. She laid it all out there.

        so now if they take the titles, despite any reasons they might offer, they are just proving Meghan right from the Oprah interview.

      • Nic919 says:

        It would be a great look to remove them from his innocent grandchildren but let Andrew keep his.

  5. AmelieOriginal says:

    Just here to say I love that picture of Lili! She is so cute! <3

    As for the titles, I personally think it would be so much easier and less of a burden for Archie and Lili to live their lives without titles like Zara and Peter Phillips or Lady Louise and her brother. But I also don't think it's a good look to "punish" the kids just because their parents made a choice to live in the US. Also terrible optics to deny them royal titles as the first mixed-race members of the family. Maybe give them a choice to forgo/choose their titles when they are 18? I don’t know what’s best here but I doubt Harry and Meghan have been arguing about this during the mourning period.

    • Jais says:

      Regardless of what we or Meghan and Harry or Charles and William believe, the point is that there is a choice. By taking away their choice, they are creating an unequal and racist dynamic. I’m all for abolishing the monarchy but while the system is alive and in place, there is no reason to deny the children this right of choice as Harry is the son of the monarch. Obv the monarchy is inherently an unequal system but Charles and William are going to want to proclaim themselves anti racist and very much not a racist family. This decision will not let them do that but they will try to mislead press as they are doing right now and make it about petty non-working royal Harry wanting titles for his kids when really it is about their racist actions and denying the mixed race babies their inherent birthright.

  6. YeahRight says:

    King Tampon is just that despicable to use toddlers titles to try to control Harry but as much as Harry wants his kids to be able to have the right to have that birthright and to choose to use it he will let Chuck and co. keep it before he goes back to being controlled by them again.

    That book has been turned in months ago it’s probably being printed now so even if he wanted to make changes to the book he wouldn’t be able to. They need to get over it. If they treated him good there is nothing to worry about.

  7. Chloe says:

    The royal rota need to let this dream of a sussex tv show go. They already said that they wouldn’t do anything reality tv related.

    And this is just more nonsense. It had already been decided that the sussex kids wouldn’t get any titles when meg was pregnant with archie. So i don’t know why they want to drag harry’s memoir into this.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Chloe, I thought that Meghan was talking about TQ not doing what she did for Fails kids and giving the titles now rather than waiting for Chuck to become King. This was before Archie was born and they were concerned about security, because they were told without the HRH Archie would not get security.

      • Chloe says:

        No. Meghan stated clearly that there were talks behind the scenes, when she was pregnant with archie, about not giving him a title when charles became king. She then went to explain that there is a convention that makes the grandkids of the monarch HRH but that they wanted to change it “when harry’s father becomes king” when she asked why she got no answer.

  8. Ka says:

    I think the only arguing is over how to do away with the Sussex children’s titles without setting a precedent that would impact Williams line. He wants to have his cake and eat it to.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      I do believe that PoWailing is behind this apparent public display of punishment.

      PoWailing will never be happy as he is nothing like his younger, sexy, charismatic, empathetic, impressive, hot, compassionate and successful brother!!!

      PoWailing can go straight to hell and take his vile wife with him……

      pathetic loser.

  9. CheChe says:

    This title business has a kind of demented narrative that appears typical to royal shenanigans when it comes to Harry and Meghan. I call it “As the Royals Turn.” I enjoy that cute picture of Lili.

  10. Merricat says:

    Punishing his son and daughter-in-law through his grandchildren is just the sort of craven cruelty that the peasantry can expect from Charles the Weirdly Unready.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      @ Merricat, to be fair, he hasn’t had a lot of time to get ready to be King. It’s only been 70 years, we can’t expect him to be prepared in that short period of time, you know!

  11. Iceanna says:

    KC III knows nothing about politics and good PR. If he did he would give these Children their birthright right away to avoid further inflammation among the Commonwealth. But he’s not very smart. And he’s racist. And ill adviced.

    • kelleybelle says:

      Frankly he is an incompetent, arrogant, racist prick.

    • CooCooCatchoo says:

      Absolutely. Action speak louder than words. By withholding their birthright, Charles is showing the world exactly what he thinks of his biracial grandchildren. By withholding their HRHs, he’s telling us that he doesn’t care about their safety, either.

    • HamsterJam says:

      Yeah, I mean all he had to do was have the website updated with their HRH Prince/Princess titles and it would have been a HUGE win for him. Instead it just looks really effing weird that the top 20 people are all prince/princess EXCEPT the only “part black” ones.

      • Sid says:

        ITA Hamster, especially considering how much Chuck seems to crave public adoration. I have no doubt he was preening like a peacock when he saw the positive public reaction and press he got for his behavior at the Sussex wedding. The fact that he didn’t insist on having the kids’ titles added to their names on the succession page even though it would have been a PR coup for him shows just how deep the racism is in that family.

  12. Eurydice says:

    Exactly, who was doing the arguing? Because with all the freezing out of H&M, when would they have had the opportunity to argue with anyone about anything?

  13. Amy Bee says:

    People just reworked the Sun article which is trying to stir up controversy over the titles. Harry and Meghan were told that their children would not get titles and I think they are just waiting for Charles to go through with it. The objective of talking about the titles on the Oprah interview was to expose the lies that the Palace put out there about Harry and Meghan refusing titles. Let’s see if Charles goes through his plan to strip the children of their titles. It seems now the Palace is going to use the excuse of Harry’s book to go through with the plan.

    • Well Wisher says:

      As Charles stated himself that the Queen made it clear that under no circumstances will patent letters be issued to effectively strip the Sussexes children’s of their inherited HRH, while she was alive.
      That is now changed.
      This scenario is similar to Princess Diana’s whose title was stripped as part of their divorce.
      Without the HRH, they are legally Master and Miss, no matter how it is presented.
      Imagine using one’s grandchildren’s inherited titles , their heritage as bargaining chips to control one’s son.
      This is one of the most vindictive acts backed by newly acquired power from ironically inheritance.
      As the man cloaked himself in imaginary victimhood, he misused one of the tools to punish, to bring into line and “put his son in his place” to serve him and beg at his table for scraps as he threatens about Frogmore ( he should return the £2m), titles and unconscionable security.
      He has put his cards on the table, with several of the help,er media repeating the same exact thing.
      He fail to realise that this is not chess nor checkers but life.
      William and Kate are not the only problem in this family.

  14. aquarius64 says:

    This will not end well for Charles. He now looks like he is taking his issues with the Sussexes out on the kids. And Nicholl stupidly painted him as a blackmailer. Thomas Markle with a crowd.

    • Well Wisher says:

      She reiterated what at least three other rota help implied, among them Wootton, Kay and Myers.
      They stupidly think that his behaviour implied strength and will induce fear in Harry to return to secure their permanent employment as gossip reporter since journalism is highly improbable.

  15. MA says:

    They are entitled to be prince and princess. The whole concept of royalty is silly and antiquated but I will never support breaking these supposedly sacred rules and traditions to make an example out of the first biracial blood royals in UK history.

    I don’t get the argument from purported supporters that the Sussexes should give up their titles and decline titles for their kids . Lack of titles won’t change any of the amount or tone of abusive coverage the Sussexes get. It won’t change relations with the royal family. They are inextricably linked forever because the Sussexes and their children ARE royals even without titles. They should stick it in the faces of that racist family and derangers and maintain their rightful place in the historical record. All giving up titles does is make their haters think they won until they find the next excuse to bludgeon the Sussexes with.

    • Well Wisher says:

      Be happy that the argument escaped you, because it is nonsense and a bullying tool for ………?

    • Sid says:

      MA, ITA completely to everything you said. And I’ll add something else. Chuck and co. know exactly what it would mean to strip those titles from the children. We are talking about two children with a biracial mom and a Black grandmother. For better or for worse, a lot of British people still seem willing to cling to their outdated class system. Like it or not, those titles are a layer of protection for the Sussex kids in certain circumstances within that system. Stripping them of the titles sends an official message that they are second-class citizens who can be treated any old way, even more than they have been already. And folks can’t just assume that because the children live in the US now means that will always be the case. Maybe one of them will want to go to school in the UK or work there. You never know what the future holds. I am not pro-monarchy, but if it is going to exist then the Sussex kids should not have their place in it snatched from them for racist reasons.

  16. lanne says:

    The more the royals go on and on about Harry’s book, the more copies they sell. They really, really don’t know about the Streisand Effect. The more they complain about the book, the more they look like people with something to hide. I don’t recall Queen Elizabeth, or the rota, clamoring for Charles to cancel his memoir back in the 1990s. He spoke openly about his relationship with his parents, and the flaws in his own upbringing.

    I don’t understand how these people don’t realize that they are whetting the public’s appetite for this book. All their Sturm und Drang is likely to fund Meghan and Harry’s beach house, their apartment in Manhatten, and maybe even a new place in the Cotswolds.

    • HeatherC says:

      At this point we have to rename the Streisand Effect the WIndsor Effect because it keeps happening. They do not learn. From Harry’s upcoming book to Meghan’s podcast to the OW interview, TMYCS……they’re the best advertising for H&M projects.

  17. Amy Bee says:

    The titles don’t matter now because Archie and Lili live in the US and I don’t think that Harry and Meghan are going to make a big fuss about this when Charles strips their children of their titles. It would have meant something if they were still part of the system and he did it. And for the press to be now pretending that the titles are important when they did everything in the past to portray Harry and Meghan as first not rejecting titles for their children and then as liars when they spoke about the titles on Oprah is gaslighting.

    • Lizzie says:

      Living in the US means nothing regarding titles, they are the birthright of Lili and Archie as the monarchs grandchildren through the male line.
      FYI, the York sisters are not part of the ‘system’ either and have full HRH Princess titles.

      • Amy Bee says:

        But Beatrice and Eugenie live in the UK and are still treated as members of the Royal Family. Archie and Lili are living in the US as children of rich and famous parents. That’s all. A title does nothing for them in the US.

      • lanne says:

        Beatrice lived in NYC for years. Eugenie lives in Portugal. No one is threatening to take their titles away. Lots of royals have lived outside of their countries. This is about the othering of biracial children. If the royal family wants to do this, then they need to be called out for it.

  18. Abby says:

    I would like for the British royals to just try to take away the HRH and titles from the only mixed race children in the family. Try it. I dare you. See how that works out for you. Let us see.

    • SAS says:

      Yeah, honestly at this point I wish Charles (William) would just strip absolutely everything like they obviously want, showing their true colours, and for M&H to become the Mountbatten-Markle’s and continue to take the entire world by storm.

  19. Chantal says:

    I was in camp “Harry, remove yourself and your children from the line of succession.” After all the evil things Charles the Vindictive did to the Sussexes during the so called mourning period, I’m in camp “Harry, just sit back and watch your father and brother eff everything up and continue to show their racism.” The Sussexes will continue to thrive while Chuck twists himself into knots trying to figure out how to take their titles instead of concentrating on trying to be somewhat competent, stemming the hemorrhaging of the Commonwealth getting the hell out of dodge, oh and getting the Wails to work more. Speculation about who the royal racist is will also start up again. The focus was on William but these acts will put the spotlight back on Charles. This wannabe tyrant refuses to read the room. And anyone who has ever crossed him had better beware! No wonder Liz refused to retire. Nobody wants to watch their legacy turned into a fiasco.

  20. Athena says:

    Two years ago the king of Sweden removed the royal highness title from five of his grandchildren. The only grandchildren who retained the HRH were those in direct line to the throne. By removing the HRH the grandchildren were not expected to, in the future, perform royal duties. In Sweden they have the royal family and a sub-set of that called the royal house. Those in the royal house perform official duties. If someone is listed as being part of the royal house, they are expected to perform official duties and even as children receive a taxpayer funded sum every year.

    I don’t know if HRH in the U.K. comes with an annual payment. Using the Swedish model, it makes sense for Charles to limit the HRH to those in direct line, unfortunately for Charles because those children are a quarter black and the royal family has been blatant about their racism, to do so now would label him a racist. Had he gone out of his way to show love and support for Meghan. To be photographed with Harry’s children, to have a hand on Archie’s shoulder on the BP balcony, then when he removed the HRH people would understand the logic of it and not brand him a racist.

    Charles has now painted himself into a corner. The best option he has is to leave the Sussexes children with the HRH, which they will never use anyway. (I just don’t see Archie when asked to tell the class his name on the first day of kindergarten, saying His Royal Highness Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, more like I’m Archie) and let William take it away when he is king, which will also take the HRH away from the children of Charlotte and Louis.

    • Well Wisher says:

      I am intrigued by the origins of the ‘Swedish model’, as to why it was deemed necessary.
      Except for a balanced and nuanced explanation, it does not apply in this circumstances.
      This is specific to King Charles 111.

      • Elizabeth says:

        In Denmark, only Crown Prince Frederik’s children have the HRH. His children are HH’s instead. In Holland, the King’s brothers children have the title of Count and no HRH either. If the argument is that they shouldn’t have the title of Prince or Princess because they won’t be working royals than Beatrice and Eugenie shouldn’t have them either.

      • Athena says:

        @well wisher. It was deemed necessary because of scrutiny over the increasing number of royal. Parliament was planning to look into it so he made a proactive decision.

      • Well Wisher says:

        Google under the using the year 2009 as a marker and the monarch’s name.
        It provides all the instances of inappropriate behaviour by him.

        This rule provided another distraction for the forgiving public and away from the heat

      • Well Wisher says:

        Google using his name with emphasis on the year 2009, it will soon become apparent why this law was used as a distraction.
        His inappropriate behaviour cannot be discounted.

  21. anna says:

    if they don’t get titles and don’t get security – their parents will never bring them to england, right? so if Charles ever wants to see them again, he’ll have to go to california (and short of a real referendum to abolish the monarchy, he would never make a show of apology like that I think)

  22. Pancake Bacon says:

    This is useless kerfuffling.

    Harry and Megan say they’re not rushing for the kids to have the burden of titles (or so it appears), and the family has stated they are still officially in mourning at the moment.

    As grandchildren of the monarch, Archie and Lilibet have the right to be styled as Prince and Princess. Are Harry and Megan wanting to reserve this right till the kids are grown, just as Prince Edward did for Louise and James? Or do they wish for this immediately?

    Revisit this in six weeks, I’ll give it.

    The “HRH” is out of the question though. Harry and Megan are not working royals. So their children shouldn’t expect to be.

    • Amy Bee says:

      So does this mean that Beatrice and Eugenie should be stripped of their HRH as well? What about Prince and Princess Michael? HRH never had anything to do with royals are working or not until Harry and Meghan left the family.

      • Cessily says:

        The Royal rules always seem change for the Sussex’s family, the racism is glaringly obvious to the world now.

    • Nono says:

      HRH is not a matter of working royal or not but a matter of the degree of separation to the throne.
      Bea and Eugenie are HRH but are not working royals and have never been.

  23. Over it says:

    Peggy and Chucky can both take their titles and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine

  24. Cessily says:

    So the BRF and King Charles the Cruel have stooped so low that they are now blackmailing babies (children) out of their birthright? They all need to stay out of the USA, I don’t see any warm welcome for any of them here at all.

    Everything in the Oprah interview was absolutely correct.

  25. Mslove says:

    Kings & queens have used their children as political pawns for many many years, all to the monarch’s advantage, of course. Chuck is no different really, except he has horrible instincts, and not fit to rule, IMO.

  26. Dara says:

    OK CB experts, I’m confused. As children of a duke, shouldn’t Archie and Lilibet be listed as lord and lady at he very least? Or do children not get to use that honorific until they have reached a certain age? If discussions are really ongoing about what titles they will use publicly, I get that using prince and princess on an official website only to take it away later would be a dumpster fire move, so wouldn’t lord and lady have been a good placeholder until a final decision lands?

    • Amy Bee says:

      It doesn’t appear that Harry and Meghan were given that option. The Palace announced when Archie was born that Harry and Meghan weren’t giving him a title. I think that’s what a lot of people are missing.

      • Becks1 says:

        I remember at the time, many of us assumed (*raises hand*) that the lack of a title was their choice, and that if they wanted the baby to be titled, the Queen would have issued a new LP to start the baby off as HRH (so there would be no change in status when she passed.)

        But while I don’t remember if Meghan flat out said they weren’t given that option when he was born (I really need to rewatch Oprah but can’t find it anywhere, ugh), its clear that there was some sort of hold up and some reason why he was not introduced as Lord Dumbarton. Maybe they figured eff it, if he’s never going to be prince we’ll just start him off as untitled and keep going that way, or maybe they were told to leave off any titles/stylings.

        Based on the past 3.5 years, I’m inclined to believe it was the latter.

      • Dara says:

        @Becks1, I thought that too at the time. But with Oprah Meghan did say flat out they were not given a choice, either about a prince title for Archie or an HRH, and really weren’t given a reason as to why. I couldn’t find the full interview either, but The Sun still has a full transcript up. I hate giving them traffic, but here’s the link.

      • Becks1 says:

        Dara- no I remember that part. But that (HRH Prince) was something that Archie wasn’t entitled to until Charles became king (which is why we’re talking about it now).

        i’m talking about why Archie is not styled as Lord Archie, Earl of Dumbarton or whatever it would be. He should be entitled to that as the son of a duke.

    • Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

      Yeah Archie could be called “Earl of Dumbarton” and Lili “Lady Lili” but for some reason, they’re not using those titles. Now as @Amy Bee said, the palace probably decided for them no titles whatsoever and isn’t even letting them use the titles a duke’s kids would have.

      • lanne says:

        Maybe Harry will address that in his book. I don’t think we know whether or not the choice of noble styling was the Sussexes or the royal family. Would the royal family even have the authority to prevent a duke from styling his kids with lesser titles? Isn’t the the right of all dukes with lesser titles? By the time Archie’s successor was named the Duke, the Dukedom would no longer be royal anyway. The descendents would be too far down the line by then. Perhaps the royal family “suggested firmly” not to style Archie as Earl and the Sussexes chose to aquiece, or maybe they themselves chose not to style the kids as Lord and Lady. I wouldn’t trust anything the BM or the RF said–I’d wait to hear what Harry has to say, if he chooses to address it. But for now, HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lili are grandchildren of the king, and have the right to be styled as such.

      • Dara says:

        @lanne, you touched on my follow-up question. The Sussex dukedom won’t automatically pass to Archie when Harry leaves this world (hopefully many decades from now)? The crown takes it back to give to someone else? I thought they only did that if there were no heirs.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Dara, no, Archie will be Duke of Sussex. Lanne is saying it will no longer be royal, meaning Archie’s children wouldn’t be HRH anyway. The same thing has or will happen to the Kent and Gloucester dukedoms I believe.

      • lanne says:

        yes, @Becks1. I was thinking about the Gloucesters and the Kents. Those Dukedoms will cease to be royal once the current Dukes die and the title passes to the heirs. They will become noble dukedoms like the Duchy of Devonshire (of Chatsworth House) and the Duchy of Northumberland (the Duchy Pippa tried to weasel into through marriage–a powerful dukedom who used to defend the northern border of England from Scotland, and whose castle was used as the setting for Hogwarts).

    • Dara says:

      Thank you! The rules around hereditary titles are dumbfounding to me, I suppose by design – keep the peasants out and all that.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        The rules for proper hereditary titles are pretty straightforward it’s just that ‘Prince’ and ‘Princess’ and the ‘HRH’ thing are all courtesy titles that have always existed at the whims of the monarch and only apply to the monarchs’ close family, so naturally the rules get twisted into knots and changed and changed and changed again depending on who hates who at any given time.

        Honestly, even courtesy titles in the UK are pretty straightforward and simple, you just have to have memorized which titles are bunched together in one family. It’s only the royal family that’s outright confusing about it.

    • PrincessK says:

      Prince Archie and Princess Lili are also entitled to be called Lord and Lady, and Archie is already Earl of Dumbarton. They are presently HRH Prince and HRH Princess until Charles decides to take one or both away from them.
      Word has it that an announcement will be made after the funeral and I am betting that Charlie is going to remove the HRH, despite Meghan pleading for it to remain because of security.

  27. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    Okay so as usual with these title posts, people are getting things wrong.

    1) Anne did not refuse a HRH for her kids. Her kids weren’t ever getting one in the first place. The rules are for *male line* grandchildren of a monarch and since Anne is a woman, no titles for her kids. The only titles that were refused for Anne is Peter getting a courtesy title and Zara being Lady Zara as Mark Philip refused a title. Once again: Anne didn’t refuse any HRH as her kids’ never had a HRH to refuse in the first place.

    2) HRH is not tied to being a working royal. Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals. Sophie and Edward were initially not working royals and weren’t going to be (until fake sheikhs forced them to becoming working royals) yet were still HRH.

    • lanne says:

      Yep. Titles and HRH can be taken away from the kids, not granted. I hope people continually call the kids HRH Prince and Princess on social media–calling all Sussex Squad members on social media! The kids should be called Prince and Princess until/unless Harry and Meghan themselves say they don’t want the kids to have those titles. Keep Prince Archie and Princess Lili trending. If the royal family, as the ratchets have stupidly suggested, want to use those children as bargaining chips, then lets keep the light shined on that fact for all to see.

  28. JCallas says:

    I think Charles decided that Harry and Meghan’s children shouldn’t get any titles before they were born but is afraid of the backlash.

    • PrincessK says:

      Yes, Charles is keeping quiet about it for now, and will later strip them of HRH but allow them to keep Prince and Princess.
      Courtiers are already leaking that this is going to happen.

    • Becks1 says:

      Which is exactly what Meghan told us would happen.

  29. Renae says:

    My personal feeling is that Chuck’s gonna do what Chuck’s gonna do.
    Makes no matter except: if he strips them of their titles, the ball is in Harry’s court.
    See if the Harry goes to the coronation. See if he ever steps in that country again (except as a private citizen/celebrity….and watch what happens when Wales fails.

  30. PC says:

    I think Charles will issue new LP that remove royal titles from Harry’s kids as well as the children of Charlotte and Louis under his new slimmed down monarchy.

    • Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

      Charlotte’s kids aren’t even getting a HRH in the first place because she’s not male. HRH is only for those male line grandchildren of the monarch. So under the current rules, out of the Wales kids, only George and Louis’ kids will get HRH. Unless the rules change.

      • Tessa says:

        Charlotte could have a scenario where she marries a commoner and William gives him a title so their children would have titles

      • Becks1 says:

        @Tessa even under that scenario the children wouldn’t have HRH under the current system. Its only grandchildren in the male line of the monarch. Even if Charlotte marries normal Nick and William names him Earl of Normaldom, the children would not be HRH. That’s part of the issue Sofia mentioned above. Anne never turned down HRH for her children. They were never entitled to it.

        So that’s part of what makes this discussion so silly. Even if Charles kept Archie and Lili’s HRH, their children aren’t HRH under the current rules. Only George and Louis’ children will be HRH, and then from there only George’s grandchildren will have HRH. So the system is naturally going to slim down. It just seems like there are so many HRH out there bc Queen Mary had 4 sons, 3 of whom had children who were all HRH. So it seems there are these relatively distant people out there (the Duke of Kent, who is a grandson of a monarch and the first cousin of QEII, so not really “distant,” he just seems so to people today, and Prince Michael of Kent and his wife, etc.)

    • Mary says:

      @pc, and then William can issue letters of patent so that all of his grandchildren are HRHs with princely titles, which would leave Prince Archie and Princess lilibet as the only male-line grandchildren of a monarch, possibly in the monarchy’s history not to have the princely titles.

      • Beverley says:

        If Charles doesn’t, William will do this if he ever becomes king. The very point is to make the mixed Sussex children second-class royals. The reason he and Charles are so blatant about their disdain for the Sussex children and their determination to marginalize them is because Charles and Will truly believe they are backed by most of their UK subjects. The racism they’ve heaped on H&M is clearly noticed worldwide but the Windsors are confident that racism is normal and acceptable in their kingdom.

  31. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Personally, my view is screw the royal family. Why have titles that tie you to such an outdated, racist organization? Besides, I also don’t believe in monarchies in principle (admittedly, I am American). IF there is going to be a monarchy, the only person who should have a title is the monarch, as the head of state. Nobody else in that family should have a title.

    I know there is the question of security, but Harry and Meghan could just refuse to take their kids to Britain if security won’t be provided. That is harsh because they are british, but the world is a big place and britain in low on the list, imho.

    • lanne says:

      I don’t think anyone reasonably believe those children should be tied to the royal family in any way. I highly doubt that Meghan and Harry would trust the royal family to do right by their children–I’ll be that their guardianship plans should anything happen to them don’t include the royal family at all. I shudder to think what would happen to those children if they were to be raised by the royal family in such circumstances.

      The principle is what matters here. The royal family want to take away the kids’ birthrights out of spite, for racist reasons. They should be called out for them. They should not get a pass on it. They would like nothing better than to tell the world that Harry and Meghan agreed that the kids would not have titles. That lets their racism off the hook. If they are going to be racist, then they need to be loud and proud about it.

      I wonder if their initial refusal to recognize Archie with his title is because they still expected Harry to divorce Meghan, and the title could thus be preserved for his “legitimate” white children through his next wife. So hail Prince Archie and Princess Lili! They are legitimate members of the British line of succession. Their grandfather is the King. If Charles doesn’t want to acknowledge his own grandchildren, then let him say it with his whole chest. Let him show the world who he really is.

  32. lanne says:

    Okay, I looked. This is what the 1917 Letters patent says:

    “that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour”

    In other words, the children of the sovereign (Harry) and the children of the sons of such sovereign (Archie and Lili) will at all times hold the attribute of Royal Highness with the title of Prince or Princess.

    HRH and Prince/Princess are not separate entities under the 1917 Letters Patent. Charles cannot grant the title of Prince/Princess, nor the HRH to Harry’s kids. He can only take them away via another letters patent, unless he can get Parliament to change the law.

    That’s what the law says.

  33. QuiteContrary says:

    I didn’t want to click on the Sun link above, so I went to Oprah’s website and also Elle to collect these quotes:
    Here is what Meghan said about the title issue:
    — “Having the title gives you the safety and protection.”

    — She said there was no “explanation” or definitive answer for why Archie was not made a prince, but his first cousins—George, Charlotte, and Louis—were.

    — She said she doesn’t care about her own title. “All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment I don’t have. I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’m clear on who I am independent of that stuff. The most important title I will ever have is ‘mom.'”
    — But she said she was concerned by the “idea of our son not being safe and also the idea of the first member of color in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be.”

    — And Meghan noted: “It’s not our decision to make [on whether Archie would have a title]. Even though I have a lot of clarity of what comes with the titles good and bad…that is their birthright to then make a choice about.”

    — Meghan said that while Archie’s title was being discussed, “all around this same time we had in tandem the conversation of he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title, and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.”

    — She added: “I think it was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalized conversations.”

  34. aquarius64 says:

    Here’s one title Lili can earn: POTUS

    • Lizzie says:

      Lili and Archie can be POTUS, they are both natural citizens. If mom is a US citizen and has a baby in England the baby can have dual US/UK citizenships. ( I assume both children have dual citizenships. )

      • ROAA says:

        Lili can be POTUS while her father, mother and brother are still alive. Unlike you know who 🤭 he’ll wait until his grandfather and father die to become king

  35. Lizzie says:

    Lili and Archie can be POTUS, they are both natural citizens. If mom is a US citizen and has a baby in England the baby can have dual US/UK citizenships. ( I assume both children have dual citizenships. )

  36. Ernestine wilson says:

    Meghan indicated in the Oprah interview that the HRH styling would allow security protection for the children, so that would be worth fighting for. The Prince and Princess titles are useless affectations. In the US Archie and Lili can be called Prince and Prince, Empress or Emperor with little fanfare. Every time I think William, Charles and their vile wives have hit bottom, they go lower.

  37. rawiya says:

    Oooh boy. Charles is lucky I’m not his child writing a memoir, because were my kids titles contingent on me being nice in said memoir? I’d burn the entire family tree down. By the time, we reached the last chapter, no one in the Windor-Mountbatten-Wales line would have been spared. Continge on that, Chucky!

  38. Matilde says:

    Beatrice & Eugenie do not have security. Zara Tindall & Peter Phillips do not have security. Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn do not have security. The “keeping them safe” argument doesn’t fly.
    Meghan & Harry left. They no longer wanted to be part of The Firm (and christ, who can blame them). Their kids will be far, far better off as private citizens. But my goodness, they certainly want all the titles and privilege that go with being a royal (at yet more expense to the taxpayer).

    • Tessa says:

      Harry said he would pay for the security

    • Melie says:

      @Quitecontrary, You can watch or download the Oprah interview and, “The me you can’t see” ,on this website:

    • QuiteContrary says:

      Matilde, you are being willfully obtuse. None of the other royals you cited have been subjected to the vile racism and death threats that Meghan (and her children) have experienced.

      Harry and Meghan’s children are also direct descendants of the king. If they are deprived of their titles and birthright, racism will be the reason.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Matilde, Harry was born into the royal family–he didn’t hold his hand up when they asked who wanted to join. That in itself put him at risk. His military service and two tours in Afghanistan made him a target of the Taliban (and he still is today). The brf and bm have done everything they can to engender hate and radicalize people. The entire Sussex family are at a high security risk.

      All Harry is asking for is the proper security when he, meghan and kids are in the UK–he has made it very clear he will pay for the security, so please don’t spread disinformation.

      The brf and bm have put them all in this position, please don’t say because he is no longer a working royal he no longer gets security. I don’t want to see any of them die because of the giant targets on their backs. I wonder how the world would view the UK if that happened on their shores? Something everyone needs to think about.

  39. LROB says:

    People mag. has made a mess of explaining the Letters Patent as relates to the children of the son of the Sovereign.It states that the children of the sons of the monarch are entitled to hrh and prince and princess titles. Charles will have to CHANGE the letters patent to remove that right for Archie and Lily.

  40. tamsin says:

    Harry would know what level of security is required for his family. He wants to pay for high level security himself when they are in UK since his American security does not have access to UK threat intelligence nor can they apparently be armed. He has been told he can’t have security period, and individuals are not allowed to hire Met security which is apparently not true. He does not want money from the UK government to do British charity work, nor is he asking for free security. And it seems to me we have no idea how the Sussexes feel about Charles’s current inaction regarding their children’s titles, but as has been said many times, Charles would have to act to remove the titles that they are entitlted to.

  41. jferber says:

    LROB, He will change the letters patent, only to take away the HRH from the children and “give” them the prince and princess titles. This is a sleight of hand, a disingenuous one, too, since he is really writing the letters patent to remove the HRH titles from them. At the queen’s death, the children were automatically HRH and prince/princess. So in a show of giving them something, he’s actually taking away something because of vindictive spite, jealousy and pettiness. Diana was the People’s Princess. This man is nobody’s king.

  42. Andrea says:

    This whole thing is bizarre and the reporting is deliberately trying to muddy the waters. Under the current letters patent they are already a prince and princess of the United Kingdom and are entitled to the style of HRH. (Harry and Meghan are also still legally entitled to the style, but they have agreed not to use it.) Legally, the HRH style and the prince/princess title are separate; Diana was a Princess but not an HRH after her divorce. So any change Chuck makes to the letters patent will be stripping them of either the style or the title or both, but not doing anything will simply keep the situation as it is, where they have both title and style legally but are not using them.

    Personally I don’t think Harry and Meghan particularly want the title or the style for the kids, it would probably be more trouble than it’s worth, just like it is for Louise and James and arguably also is for Beatrice and Eugenie. And if they did start attempting to use the title and style for the kids without the imprimatur from the palace, the British media would go nuclear on them immediately. Just as the international media will not be favorable to Chuck removing their titles and styles.

    I have no doubt William would do it, and also strip Harry and Meghan of their titles and styles too. I think Chuck may eventually strip the kids of the titles and styles, but he will probably wait until he can feel like his hand has been forced and feel sorry for himself about it. Probably after the memoir is published, maybe to coincide with his coronation or Pegging ‘s investiture as Prince of Wales.

  43. Div says:

    Yeah, prepared to get slammed for this but here it goes.

    The BRF is racist asf and Will and Charles are petty (tho I do think Charles is less terrible than Will). I also think the Prince & Princess titles-without the HRH-makes a lot of sense. The King of Sweden stripped several of his grandkids HRH. From what I understand, this was also done in several other royal families.

    The royal family is on its last legs. Giving the kids unnecessary tax funded benefits-esp. if they live outside of the UK-is an issue. At the same time, the optics are f*cking terrible. And yes, one can bring up Eugenie and Beatrice. Stripping two 30 year old women is different than the Swedish King stripping kids of their HRH, imo. AND the thing is Beatrice & Eugenie’s HRH titles are basically meaningless at this point…they’ve been stripped of most of the benefits.

    The issue is Charles has worked his dumb self into a corner. He made the HRH a fairly meaningless title outside of Will, when it used to come with a ton of tax payer benefits. So does he award HRH’s and then strip those who have the HRH’s of the subsequent benefits a la Eugenie and Beatrice? Or does he just stop having HRHs in general….

    • sparrow says:

      You make a good point here. It does look incredibly vindictive, and I suspect the super seven are rubbing their hands with glee, but he is indeed backed into a corner. He (the queen) should have made a blanket stripping of HRHs well before this. Apparently, Andrew and Sarah have harped on about this for years and insisted their daughters are HRH; being Mummy’s favourite, he got to keep them. The royal family is a mass of contradictions that seem to be used to hurt M&H but not others.

      Has anyone read And What Do You Do for a Living? Not really relevant to this post, but there is loads about the nonsense orders, titles and medals the royal family awards itself. Plus stuff about how they are living off the fat of the land that is the duchies Lancaster and Cornwall. So, when people point out that Kate’s clothes don’t cost the tax payer anything because they are paid for personally by Charles, they are missing the point, ie that C’s income is vast and generated by a twist in tax benefits, as well as the abuse of George III’s policy re the crown estate. The pointless greed of this self congratulatory family is astounding. There’s also stuff about Edward, who seems to get away pretty much free from scrutiny. There are also insights re H&M. I admire them both so much, I believe they are a couple trying to make a life built on worthwhile endeavours and that they have been treat disgustingly, but it was interesting to read some stuff that I wasn’t aware of.

  44. sparrow says:

    I’ll never get over that photo. Not just for Kate’s body language but her outfit; it is SO gaudy. What was she trying to do? Upstage (impossible, given Meghan and the context)? Ruin the photo by being so sticking out like a sore thumb?