King Charles is watching the Denmark royal-title removal situation carefully

There’s been a lot of conspiracy-mongering in the wake of Denmark’s Queen Margrethe deciding to “un-royal” four of her grandchildren, seemingly out of the blue. One big conspiracy is as follows: new King Charles pulled Margrethe aside at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral and asked her to strip some of her grandchildren’s titles. She agreed, all to give Charles political cover to eventually do the same to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Yeah, all of that feels like bullsh-t? That theory makes little to no sense. That being said, I have no doubt that Margrethe saw the Windsor clan’s shambles and decided to take some actions right now so that Crown Prince Frederik wouldn’t be left with a catastrophe when he becomes king. I also don’t doubt that King Charles has been watching Margrethe’s maneuvers with some interest. Speaking of, the Danish press considers the whole title-stripping thing plus the near “exile” of Prince Joachim to be Denmark’s “Megxit crisis,” at least according to the Mail.

The Danish Royal Family is in the midst of its own Megxit ‘crisis’ and King Charles III will be ‘watching carefully’ amid increasing pressure on him to take ‘decisive action’ on the futures of Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and his other relatives, royal experts told MailOnline today. Queen Margrethe, 82, has removed princely titles from four of her eight grandchildren, saying it is ‘for their own good’ – prompting a bitter royal row with her family redolent of when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit the UK and emigrated to California in January 2020.

Jacob Heinel Jensen, royal correspondent for national tabloid BT who has been at the heart of the story in Denmark, told MailOnline that the Danish Royal Family is in ‘crisis’ – and is now in the midst its own Megxit.

He said: ‘The situation we have in Denmark today is what the UK had two years ago. Yesterday we had a Prince Joachim going rogue on TV saying how upset he was, how his children are suffering. The parallels between him and Harry are there for all to see. This slimming down is something we have seen all over Europe. The days of gigantic royal families with prince after prince and princess after princess, all paid for by the taxpayer, are over.’

Mr Jensen said it is possible that she may have spoken about her plans of slimming down the monarchy with Charles at the Buckingham Palace ‘reception of the century’ on the eve of the Queen’s funeral. Mr Jensen said: ‘Margrethe was very close to the Queen. She was one of the few people who called her “Lilibet” – and Her Majesty called her “Daisy”, her nickname in Denmark. I don’t know how close she is to Charles – but her importance as arguably Europe’s most senior royal was reflected in just how close she was to the Queen’s coffin in London’.

He added: ‘Charles has spoken about the need to slim down his family for many years – he will be watching what is happening in Denmark with great interest’.

Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, the future queen, has defended her mother-in-law Queen Margrethe’s decision to strip four of her grandchildren of their royal titles, and suggested her own children’s positions might not be secure. Mr Jensen said this is a clear ‘olive branch’ to Prince Joachim because they fear what he will do next.

Mr Jensen said that Queen Margrethe is hugely popular in Denmark – and much like her late cousin Queen Elizabeth II, she is admired for her duty to the throne and the people of her country. But polling suggests that the Danish population is split on her decision – with some branding her ‘The Ice Queen’ – which could spook Prince Charles if he is considering cutting off Harry, Meghan and their children.

[From The Daily Mail]

The Mail also had a piece with British commentators braying for Charles to do the same as Margrethe and cull down the Windsor clan to Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and their children. The British commentators seem to like the look of “the Danish slim down” and former MP Norman Baker said that “it is increasingly absurd that minor bit players like the Gloucesters and the Kents still come as part of the package.” See, that’s my thing too – the focus is too often on Harry and Meghan’s titles and their children’s titles, when really, Charles could use the extended family as political cover and make a larger decision about who counts as a working royal and who doesn’t, and who is an HRH and who isn’t. Because at the end of the day, if Charles is only making a decision about the Sussexes, it will be controversial, and he will look racist and petty. Especially given that the Sussexes have clearly already left – they are taking zero “public money,” they aren’t living in any palace or castle, they’re living in America and building their own empire.

I also think the mixed reaction to the Danish title issue is pretty notable. It isn’t across-the-board praise for Margrethe, and clearly this has not gone down well within the family nor among the Danish public. It will be the same way for Charles, especially if he – like Margrethe – makes a point of only focusing on a handful of royals and not an overhaul of the whole system.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

68 Responses to “King Charles is watching the Denmark royal-title removal situation carefully”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jess says:

    Yes Charles we know. I hope he sees the unnecessary drama and how it’s affecting the Queen and CP family. I think the DRF will survive but it left a sour taste in some people’s mouth.

    The DRF is much smaller though and their titles are styled differently than the Greek “royals” who don’t have succession rights.

  2. Snuffles says:

    I’m fascinated by all of this not because I have sympathy for the kids that lost their titles. They’ll be fine. They are still enormously privileged. It’s fascinating from the wider perspective of the point of monarchies across Europe.

    They are clearly spooked that their subjects will be coming for them soon if they don’t appear to cut costs. The people are asking more and more if they are worth the money.

    And while Charles has always wanted to slim down, he has always planned to keep Harry on board. It wasn’t until Meghan came along with her American black blood did he start thinking about icing Harry and his future children out as a punitive measure.

    But back to the Danish royal family. The affected are already speaking out. They might be angry enough to do tell all interviews with whoever the Danish version of Oprah is or write their own scandalous memoirs.

    And if Charles strips titles from more family members than just Harry and Meghan, they could do the same. You know he’s just itching to cut off ALL the Yorks and the Wessexes. If he wants cover, he’s going to have to cut off everyone except William and Kate’s family. Either way he’s going to catch hell.

    • SueBarbri says:

      That’s what I think, too! I think some government consulting firm or something has convinced these monarchs and their teams that people will only accept X number of “royals” in the future. I can’t speak to the finances of the Danish monarchy, but the flaw in the logic is that Charles is going to reduce the number of working and potentially working royals without actually reducing the flow of money into the royal coffers. He’s going to have to do both, or else it’s going to be a rough ride for the RF. I mean….does he think cutting Archie and Lili and the York girls is going to make him more popular? Maybe in the short term and with the racists and the people who hate Andrew or whatever it is. But in the long term, it’s still not enough.

      • equality says:

        Exactly. If he’s only “cutting out” those who don’t get public money, it’s just performative and playing to his racist base. If he cuts down “working” royals without cutting down funds to royals, still just performative. I’m sure the BM will slant whatever he does in his favor.

      • Nadine says:

        It works out better for KC3 – less share the Sovereign Grant money with – none of the articles I’ve read mention actually reducing it. In most people’s minds, less titles = less money.

    • Becks1 says:

      Agree with you and @SueBarbri.

      The key line from your comment IMO is this – “They are clearly spooked that their subjects will be coming for them soon if they don’t appear to cut costs.” i.e. “appear” to cut costs. We have seen no indication from Charles that he actually intends to cut costs, and in Denmark based on what others have said Joachim’s children were not receiving direct money from the government and were never going to be working royals. so the whole slimming down of titles/HRH seems like a concession to the anti-monarchists without giving up anything tangible, you know?

      charles does have a big problem on his hands and i’m sure he’s starting to figure that out. The easiest thing to do is to do nothing, let Archie and Lili be HRH Prince/ss, titles which will likely never be used since they’ll grow up in the US anyway. If he takes the titles away from Archie and Lili and not Beatrice and Eugenie et al, then he’s going to face accusations of racism. now the BRF will say “well its different bc B&E were always HRH Princess so its part of their identity” but as we’re seeing with the Danish royals, that only garners so much sympathy. If he takes the titles away from everyone, then he’s going to have some disgruntled royals who may not like him all that much to begin with.

      I admit, part of me is laughing at how the queen handled this. Meghan said this was being discussed when she was pregnant with Archie; I think its clear that the Queen was fine with Harry’s children being HRH, hence why she didn’t issue anything changing those rules. She knew that Charles may have wanted it changed, but she shrugged and said “hey that won’t be my issue bc I’ll be dead, so congratulations on being king!” And she set it up so that one of his first official acts as king will be to strip his mixed-race grandchildren of their titles. Well played Betty.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        Agree wholeheartedly. Betts could’ve changed the letters patent but didn’t. Not even when Harry and Meghan split. She punished” them how she wanted to–stripping them of patronages, making them pay back renovation costs for repairs that were necessary, taking away Harry’s honorary military titles. But that was it. Perhaps she saw the royalty part as more of the family side rather than the working monarchy side. Charles sees it as the opposite. And Charles will be damned if he does, yet only side-eyed if he doesn’t. A smart man would leave well enough alone, but when has Charles ever been accused of being smart.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ The Queen DID NOT ‘make’ M&H pay back renovation costs on Frogmore Cottage. Harry voluntarily said he would pay those costs, during the Sandringham Summit. Harry decided this on his own likely in part to shut up the uncalled for rota whining about FC renovation costs (even though M&H had initially paid for fixtures, furnishings, and additional construction specified to their needs on a property that was already on its way to being completely refurbished as part of Crown Estate repair and maintenance updates, well before the Queen gifted it to them).

  3. Noki says:

    I am sorry if this question is basic as f*** but arent Royals suppose to be some sort of Supreme beings!? So how can you strip titles of a Prince/Princess/Duke etc. Since we live in a modern world wouldnt the approach be to strip them of any public funding (only funding direct heirs) but leave them be with their titles,is that not the point of Royalty?

    • Eurydice says:

      Your “basic” question is actually the heart of the matter. What royals decide to call themselves is their own internal squabble. Whether or not the public wants to support them (however they call themselves) is a different issue.

    • karkopolo says:

      This is the heart of the issue, though–if the birthright titles of princes and princesses can be removed at a whim, or based on arbitrary decisions their parents make, what does that say about the supposed “power” of the birthright? That it’s all just as meaningless and arbitrary as it appears?

  4. MissMarirose says:

    That Daily Mail article is so ridiculous. The DM interviewer was clearly trying to tie Daisy’s decision to Charles and the Danish journalist wasn’t really going for it. It’s “possible” she talked to Charles. Anything’s possible, lol. She was tight with the Queen, but not Charles so . . .
    A real newspaper wouldn’t have published that thinly disguised reality-free speculation.

  5. Cessily says:

    Taking titles away or “slimming down” doesn’t mean cutting costs. The budget for the British monarchy can’t go down by law, that is what needs to change. Who cares about who has how many titles someone has as long as they are earning their own living, they need to cut the budget and cap it from being allowed to grow. Give working royals a paycheck per engagement instead of an open ended budget that can never decrease.

    • Jais says:

      Thank you. There’s a law that the amount the British royals received in SG money cannot be reduced. Which is horrifying. So if that’s the case, this whole slimmed down monarchy is BS propaganda. Honestly, it feels like the royals’ real purpose is to serve as a distraction. As in people want to gossip about princes and princesses but the royal families are taking all the titles away and not even providing that. Lol, I’m not saying that purpose is a good thing but they just seem to be missing the point. If these people aren’t receiving money, what’s the point of taking the titles? If the SG isn’t being reduced and the taxpayers are still paying the same, more money is just going to the heirs and nothing is really being slimmed down. Taking titles away just highlights the nothingness of it all. Honestly, it just begs the question of why have a monarchy at all.

      • Cessily says:

        This notion that stripping people of their titles saves the tax payers money is ridiculous and a bait and switch scheme by the monarchies and rota. If they are self supporting it is just used to punish and deflect. How long can Royal welfare budgets continue to increase by £14m per year with no end in sight? Can’t blame that on California. I agree they need to abolish funding of Monarchy’s with public funds and tax their wealth.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        The “nothingness of it all” — well put, Jais.
        This is all about made-up titles assigned to toffs who mistakenly believe their position in life was divinely ordained.
        Abolish the monarchy.

        As for H&M’s children, since this is the system into which they were born, stripping them of their birthright will look — and be — racist AF. (All of that can be true at the same time.)

    • Paulkid says:

      This is the modernizing they need, along with returning international riches. The rest is performative or blatant punshments.

    • Isabella says:

      They should cut homes, not people. That is where the cost lies. Charles is giving up zero homes, William is steadily adding. Imagine the upkeep, the duplication of services, etc. Until they slim down how they live, cutting people won’t make any difference. They have never done this.

    • Pilar says:

      Exactly and to that note. The crown prince of denmark and his wife’s spending actually increased last year.
      Those princes don’t receive any money from the state so it’s not like she is actually cutting down on expenses. It’s cosmetic. Nothing more.

  6. Annaloo. says:

    He never thought Harry was his and that’s always been the whispers, I don’t care that ppl say it isn’t so! I think this is why he’s been and is still being so hard and cold on Harry! It isn’t fair to Harry and King Charles is going to be a terrible of a king, as will his son William

    • Noki says:

      Unless he had a DNA test and found out he actually isnt his , then no reason for such cruelty. I dont get it the King and Queen mother loved both the heir and spare right?

      • aftershocks says:

        You are wrong @Annaloo. How many times must it be pointed out that Diana gave birth to Prince Harry in 1984, and she didn’t meet James Hewitt until 1986, when Harry was two-years-old! Prince Harry gets his ears, his nose and his close together eyes from Charles and from Prince Philip. He also gets his head shape from Prince Philip. Harry actually resembles Philip quite a bit facially, but he has the Spencer coloring and tall, lanky frame.

    • Tea4Two says:

      In a world where DNA testing is readily available, for this theory to continue to exist just seems asinine. And deliberate.

      • equality says:

        Yes! It’s not like Charles is invested in protecting Diana’s reputation. He would have already said that Harry wasn’t his.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        Yes, I side eye anyone who tries to perpetuate this theory because it’s utterly ridiculous.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ @Tea4Two, you’re right that the speculation over Harry’s parentage has been deliberate. It mainly came about simply because James Hewitt has red hair, so it was easy for the gossip to spread. But Charles could have easily shut down this vile gossip at any point, since he’s fully aware of the truth. No DNA testing is needed. 🙄

        As I mentioned up-thread, it’s well-known that Diana did not meet Hewitt until 1986. So it’s impossible for Hewitt to have fathered Harry, who was born in 1984. Plus, Harry does not look like Hewitt at all, aside from the red hair. Harry has Charles’ nose, eyes and ears, which Charles gets from Philip. And Harry looks a lot like his Grandpa Philip. End of.

    • MaryContrary says:

      Harry looks like the Windsors-particularly his grandfather, Philip. This is a ridiculous theory.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Actually Harry mainly resembles the Mountbattens and the Spencers, not so much the Windsors. Philip is a Mountbatten, not a Windsor. Harry especially doesn’t have the Windsors’ melancholy, rage-prone temperament and boneheaded shortsightedness! Fortunately, Harry is kind and generous, with the light-hearted, spirited nature and charisma of his mother, Diana. 👍😍

    • YeahRight says:

      So you think Charles who always wanted to one up Diana would’ve not told the public that Diana lied to him about Harry being his and use that as an excuse to cheat or continue cheating with Camilla? He clearly doesn’t care about Harry’s feelings so he would’ve gleefully announced it to the world. If there were any doubt a DNA test was already conducted.

      Harry looks like that man and the red hair is the Spencer genes. Wasn’t Liz grandmother queen Mary a redhead? So he got it on both sides.

    • Laura D says:

      @Annaloo I don’t like what Charles have done to Harry and Meghan but, he always believed Harry to be his son. To keep repeating those terrible rumours is hurtful to all parties concerned (Harry, Charles and Diana). When the rumours were at their worse Harry asked his Dad if he should take a DNA test and Charles no because he didn’t need one.

      Hewitt was not on the scene when Harry was conceived but, hey ho don’t let a vile rumour get in the way of the truth. Secondly, the ginger hair comes from the Spencer side of the family.

      Finally, the question of parentage seems to be unique to the “spare” Even loathsome Andrew didn’t escape as it was rumoured TQ had an affair and he was the consequence!

    • Emmitt says:

      Harry looks just like Charles…a red headed Charles. He has Charles’ face and beady eyes on Diana’s head. So if Charles wants to revive whispers that Harry isn’t his…good luck King Charles.

    • C says:

      Harry has Philip Mountbatten’s nose.

    • Isabella says:

      Charles would know the chronology better than anyone. Of course he knows he is Harry’s dad. Way to troll, @annaloo.

  7. DARK says:

    From what I can read in the Danish press they are critisising the Queen a great deal for how she handled this. Several royal commentators are saying that the responsibility for keeping the royal family running smoothly lies with the monarch in the same way that it is a CEOs responsibility to make sure that a corporation functions properly and that she is the head of HR in the end. The fact that she hasn’t made a statement herself regarding the fallout or that she hasn’t reached out to her son and grandchildren is something that they find very strange and they seem to be worried that it might reflect badly on Denmarks international reputation.

  8. Nicki says:

    So will these “slimmed down” monarchies also slim down what they’re taking out of their citizens‘ pockets to support them? Lol jk

  9. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    I agree too that the whole “Charles told Margarethe to do this” is a far fetched theory. Joachim and his kids seem genuinely hurt (even if Joachim himself is pretty entitled) and I don’t think Margarethe would ruin her relationship with her son and grandkids just to do Charles a favor.

  10. Chantal says:

    Haha I had just made that comment in another post. Btw BM, Meghan is a US citizen and don’t think Harry is trying to become one so they didn’t “emigrate”.
    So the BM is also ordering C-Rex to do this (we know he wants to). Like Joachim, Harry will raise hell. Then I think he really will cut all ties. I think Margrethe spoke with Charles and TQ re this plan a while ago. The timing is too suspicious and abrupt. This couldnt wait for another 2 weeks, or a month or two? She was so rushed she didnt bother to tell the grandkids?! So no royal blood then? Ok
    These spares take all kinds of bs for decades bc they aren’t the all important heirs and “work” for the monarchy only for their kids to be singled out and titles taken away, despite not being publicly funded. I’m sure other monarchical “spares” are also paying close attention to these sh*tshows and if they’re smart, waking up and planning contingencies. Why would any “spare” willingly serve any monarchy after seeing this hot mess? I go back and forth but I would love for him to eff up C-REX entire reign by removing himself and his children from the line of succession. I think that would be more damaging. Plus Andrew and his girls would move up higher. Imagine those headlines. I don’t know if Parliament would fight that request but an actual king abdicated so…Oh well be careful what you wish for Charles. That memoir is the least of his worries.

  11. Miss Owlsyn says:

    If I were Charles, I think I’d dip out of this whole mess. He got to be King. He is officially King Charles and the wife is Queen Consort Camilla. That can never be taken away from him. So why not just retire after a few months, say you got to be King, and leave this whole ugly sinking ship in William’s lap?

    Let him deal with the bullshit after he curated so much of it.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      He’s been waiting for this his whole life and he finally has it at 73 going on 74. He has former DailyFail employees as staff and he has former staff snatching up commentator gigs on American networks to push a sympathetic angle for him. He’s not going anywhere.

    • Well Wisher says:

      There are laws in place to prevent that from happening.

  12. Concern Fae says:

    Very bad rollout on this. Also, if the kids are going to lose their titles when they marry, probably better to not have them at all. What weirdness to bring to to deciding to get married or not, and bitterness if it ends – I gave up being a princess for you!

    But with all the press it sounds like part of the reason it was done this way was because M knew J was going to be all publicly salty about it and she didn’t want to get into it face to face.

  13. equality says:

    “The parallels between him and Harry are there for all to see.”? How so exactly? PH took himself off the public purse.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    Charles can only get away with stripping Archie and Lili of their titles if he also strips all titles of those below George. If he’s singling out the Sussex children it will look petty and racist. The Palace knew before Archie was born that Charles didn’t not want him to have a title but instead of telling the truth they threw Harry and Meghan under the bus saying that they didn’t want titles for Archie.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      I think he’ll look bad regardless. Meghan already set the tone when she revealed the ugly truth behind the lack of titles for Archie; Charles and his staff cannot explain that away, no matter what they decide. There’s also no way W&K would agree to having Charlotte’s and Louis’ titles stripped because they clearly want all of their children to be seen as ‘better’ than the Sussex children.

      • Amy Bee says:

        There’s no need for Charlotte and Louis to be Princess and Prince. The Queen made a mistake by issuing LP to give them titles during her reign. But maybe William was afraid that Charles would strip his children, except the heir, of titles when he became King.

      • Becks1 says:

        I understand why the Queen issued new LPs before George was born, but honestly she should have waited to have seen if it was even an issue (i.e. if the first born was a girl.) As the first born was a boy, basically nothing changed and she should have kept the status quo, which would have meant Prince George, Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis. Any LP she issued after the birth should have made Charlotte and Louis Lady and Lord permanently, as well as any of Harry’s children. the heir is the HRH prince/ss. And even with the LPs before the birth, she could have changed them to say “the first born, who will be the heir regardless of sex, will be HRH either Prince or Princess, and none of the other children of the Duke of Cambridge will be HRH Prince/ss. Going forward, only the heir is HRH.” I mean she could have worded it better lol.

        As it is now it just looks bad that LPs were issued to give William’s children higher titles before the old rules “allowed” it, while new LPs might be issued that take away Harry’s children’s titles. This is all so much messier than it had to be, or even than it has to be now.

  15. Em says:

    I hope when Charles does Harry releases a statement saying “LOL OKAY” and just leaves it at that. or a longer statement along “my wife already explained this in the March 2021 interview, please leave my children out of your mouths thank you”

  16. Lizzie says:

    Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think if you make a commitment to a child then you keep it. To raise them with one identity then say sorry that is no longer your identity is cruel and unnecessary. Correct course going forward who gets and does not get what titles. Real time corrections to who gets financing should be carefully thought out but can be done.
    The only thing I am sure of is that we don’t know the whole story and that it is nothing like the Sussex situation.

    • Miss Owlsyn says:

      I agree in that it would be the best thing to say, “Going forward, all future children, blah blah….” and not mess with those already titled. But at least in the British royal family, they don’t seem to do that. Am I misremembering that they only changed the order of succession *after* Charlotte was born, or shortly before she was born?

    • Well Wisher says:

      @Lizzie I agree with your statement, identity is a part of the nurture process, in which the child is being prepared for the larger world.

  17. YeahRight says:

    The thing is Chuck isn’t gunning for no one else’s titles but two toddlers. I think Chuck is being petty and stupid because he only has 5 grandchildren, 2 of which of mixed race heritage to exclude them is a huge red flag. It’s unlikely they will participate in anything royal. From a PR standpoint allow them to keep it. Allow Will to change it if he wants when he becomes king let him take the PR hit.

    I don’t know what the Danish queen is doing. The kids were already going to lose those titles once they turn age 25 and two of those kids are a couple years away I don’t see the point since they aren’t on the public tab anyway.

    Two royal houses making unnecessary errors for no reason.

  18. aquarius64 says:

    The Sussex title strip is risking major blowback especially in the US because Meghan, Archie and Lili are American citizens. The “Special Relationship” could take a hit and the Wales will face uncomfortable questions in Boston. So Chuck will throw other members of the BRF under the bus and take it as collateral damage.

  19. L4Frimaire says:

    If he does strip Archie’s and Lilibet’s titles, why shouldn’t he also strip Charlotte and Louis? After all, once George is of age and has his own family, what purpose would those two serve? Also if they strip all the cousins, the Kent’s, Gloucesters, Yorks etc., what’s to stop them from going after titles as a whole. Why not get rid of the hereditary dukes, marquesses, barons etc. What’s their role in society. Why not simplify and slim down all those feudal titles as well?

    • Blithe says:

      I’m trying to imagine what will be left if the monarchy is in the hands of the elderly, irritable KC, his tarnished bride QCC, the work-shy New Wales’s, and a nine year old child. The BRF visits that gave a personal touch to the people they encountered will dry up, and perhaps the cultural pride and identification with the monarchy via QE will dry up as well. Commonwealth countries —and others — will recognize the open —and familiar — disdain apparent in the treatment of the Sussexes. The aristocracy will be paying attention to the way that supposedly inviolable birthrights get written off. What will be left to support — and who will still care? I’m not coming up with much beyond tabloids and their dwindling readership.

      There’s a master plan, though, right?

    • Kittenmom says:

      💯 agree with this. If titles were removed from all but Baldimort & George, I think I really wouldn’t have an issue with this (besides how utterly idiotic it is to heap rewards upon the first out of the womb) But for heaven’s sake, if the reduction in titled folks does not lead to a proportional decline in funds for these lazy wankers, why even bother with it at all.

      • Blithe says:

        Because it gives the appearance of frugality, while diminishing everyone except the winners-who-take-all. Win-win, depending on the perspective of the decision makers. Also, most tax payers aren’t likely to scrutinize the fine print. They’d get that the monarchy has been “slimmed down” without really registering that pie is just getting divided into a smaller number of larger pieces.
        My concerns are focused on the way these changes have been communicated to those impacted by them. I also hope that the older royals, who made decisions based in what they viewed as “duty” get adequately taken care of.

  20. Well Wisher says:

    This proposal is an act of malice towards the parents of the children, who to no fault of theirs, are being publicly punished and humiliated.
    It is evidence of dysfunction as a virus, of which the Sussexes seek safety by distance and cure through mental therapy.

    They should stay the course with love as their guide: then testify to their transformation and restoration.

    Harry’s memoirs will be a good start.

    For the others, stop talking and just do it.
    Just produce the slimmed down version of the monarchy, and most importantly cease and desist with the chatter of non-working royals.

    For the opposing side draw up a plan, meet with your employers be they be tabloid owners and/or whomever, get their approval until they turn on you and go after the spare and his family.

    We know they’ll thrive and survive. Some of us are looking forward to the silence that ensues.
    Verbiage is no substitute for comfortable silence.

  21. JMoney says:

    The reaction is mixed but its not strong on either side. I think the ppl pushing this are Billy and Katie b/c they want Charles to take the heat. I say that b/c I don’t think its a coincidence for Katie’s first international solo engagement, she went to Denmark and met with CP Mary and Q Margarethe. Not that I think this was discussed when they met but I think both monarchies have closer relations than ppl otherwise would think.

    Nevertheless, I think at this point its very safe to say Charles will strip the children of their titles its a matter of when and I think it will happen after Harry’s memoir comes out. I highly doubt there will be anything incriminating but I think Charles will use that as the excuse saying if they want to continue doing this, their kids can live freely without any formal titles tying them to the Monarchy (this is why the RR keep mentioning Harry’s memoir every chance they get; its to put out the narrative Harry’s actions are the result of the titles going away). At first there will be outrage but I think the outrage won’t be as strong as ppl on here believe it will be b/c PH, Meghan and their kids are already incredibly privileged and taking away something that was given by “birthright” (which as a concept is bs) isn’t that big of a deal in the long term. Yeah it sucks, but its privileged drama if you will.

    I think H&M will graciously accept that decision publicly and won’t contest it in the way Joachim is doing b/c they weren’t big on titles for their kids anyway.

  22. QuiteContrary says:

    I’m not going to lie: I’m enjoying Charles’ predicament.

    • karkopolo says:

      He’s had so much bad PR since day one and I’m eating it up.

      • Sid says:

        karko, it is absolutely hilarious to watch the blunders and embarrassments pile up. I cackled when I read Truss effectively banned him from COP27. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person.

  23. karkopolo says:

    I completely agree that Chuck should remove all the hangers-on like the Kents & Gloucesters, plus the Yorks & Wessexes. I don’t think he will, but if he’s going to arbitrarily remove the birthright, he should absolutely define *who* get the birthright. Either you pick and choose, or it’s direct heirs only.

    The key thing for me, which is why I don’t think Chuck will do the rational thing and slim it down to heirs only, is that he’d have to remove Charlotte & Louis’ titles that QE2 deliberately gave them.

    Otherwise, 20-some years from now, we’ll be in the same place: the spares will have titles, they’ll start having kids, and people will ask “well what is their role now, really? Where do we draw the line?”

    I guess the other reason I don’t think he’ll do it is because Kitty & Bill would have to pull their weight, and we all know that’ll never happen.

  24. NuNu says:

    Important note: Prince Joachim’s children are also mixed race. His first wife, and mother of his first two children is an asian woman of Chinese descent born in Hong Kong named Alexandra. His first two children are biracial and THIS is who is coincidentally cleaved from the herd? It’s fairly obvious the two youngest fully white children are simply casualties of the real targets, the first two biracial children, Prince Nikolai and Prince Flix.

  25. L4Frimaire says:

    I’m not sure of the thinking behind the Danish decision or if any personal animus or the government is involved. The Queen Margarethe even issued a statement apologizing for the upset to the grandkids. However, Charles’ motivation is completely driven by spite, anger and racism. Don’t care how they try to soft-peddle it with slim down nonsense. If it was about slimming down, why does the sovereign grant keep increasing? He thinks that by removing titles, he will hobble the Sussexes and negatively impact their ability to be independent, because he sees them as a threat to the monarchy. Let’s see if he blows up the whole system just to get to them.

    • Mary S says:

      I thought it was only Archie and Lili’s titles that would be affected by the LP that Charles is considering. Are you thinking he is going to remove titles from Harry and Meghan too? I thought an act of parliament was needed to remove the dukedom? Can he remove Harry’s title as prince? Interesting.

      In any cases, I believe if Charles strips titles from Harry, Archie or Lili it’ll harm him far more than it will harm them. I believe that some are pushing for the removal of titles hoping to erase the mixed race royals. I also think the impact of removing titles on Harry and Meghan’s marketability will not go as KC3 is expecting. My expectation is that it will make them more interesting, more famous and more sought after, not less. People usually root for the underdog, ie, Cinderella, Rockie, etc. But, only time will tell.

  26. ML says:

    KC has already laid the groundwork to remove the titles. He has shoved H&M down the webpage. He has removed most of what Meghan did in the UK in her bio on that website. Archie and Lili are being referred to as Master and Miss, when those are not their titles. Meghan’s name was removed from Archie’s birth certificate. H&M were treated as less-than family members during QE’s funeral—even less than Paedrew!
    The only reason KC might not remove the titles at this point is due to his lack of popularity and how it might influence people thinking even worse of him. KC looking at Denmark…maybe, but he’s been telegraphing his intentions far longer.