Prince Archie & Princess Lilibet’s titles are finally on the line of succession

This week, we have to watch as monarchists and derangers pretend that royal titles are based on “merit” or “popularity” rather than birthright, primogeniture, proximity to the monarch and an ancient and archaic system built on bloodshed, racism, theft and property. Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet were always going to be prince and princess because of the Letters Patent, because their grandfather became king last September. While Charles has talked a big game about changing the Letters Patent and while he’s done the most to shun and exile his mixed-race grandchildren, he didn’t end up changing jacksh-t. So Archie and Lilibet have had those titles since September. The palace tried to play fast and loose when they updated the line of succession list following QEII’s death and they didn’t include Lili and Archie’s titles then. It’s only now, today, at approximately 9:30 am GMT, that the palace changed the kids’ titles on the line of succession:

“Sources” told the Daily Mail that the Sussexes were “frustrated that Buckingham Palace failed to immediately recognise Archie and Lilibet’s titles after the Queen’s death six months ago,” especially since Prince William’s kids’ titles changed immediately. Buckingham Palace claims that “they were waiting for Harry and Meghan to make a final decision,” except that the palace and the Sussexes were apparently in communication over the kids’ titles for months. Royal sources also insist that “Charles not blocking it – despite the turmoil Harry and Meghan has caused – is seen as an olive branch….[but] Charles would never have ‘punished’ his grandchildren like that.” He certainly let everyone believe he would punish his grandbabies that way, and he continuously refused to update the line of succession to reflect his grandchildren’s titles for months, so this is not the win for Charles. Meanwhile, the Sussexes’ spokesperson released another statement:

“The children’s titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch,” a spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex told PEOPLE. “This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.”

[From People]

Yeah, again – the Sussexes are saying the palace has known for “some time” that the Sussexes had “made a decision” (again, that’s not how it works) on titles and King Charles still assumed an air of punitive manipulation, that he would remove the kids’ titles to punish Harry for writing Spare. Charles turned what could have been a positive story for him into yet another fumble.

Photos courtesy of Misan Harriman/The Sussexes, SussexRoyal IG and Netflix.

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

154 Responses to “Prince Archie & Princess Lilibet’s titles are finally on the line of succession”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    This continues to read to me more and more that the Christening announcement using Lili’s princess title did not blindside Charles. There have been ongoing talks. They knew they would make the announcement using her rightful title and then they would update the Web site/line of succession. The Sussexes are probably perturbed that the titles issue was ever in question or used as a bargaining chip, thus the curtness of their spokesperson’s response, but I am still thinking Charles got something from them for this—like their attendance at the Conjob or maybe a promise not to upstage it. Or asking them to ask anyone they know to come sing for him.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I think the Palace tried to imply that there were talks but the fact is Charles couldn’t be blindsided by the announcement because the titles were Archie and Lili’s the minute he became King. He knows he couldn’t complain about what Harry and Meghan did yesterday.

      • Alice says:

        Exactly. He knew better than anyone else what titles the kids had once he became king.
        Charles is looking worse by the day even to otherwise non interested people. He realized the optics were terrible and that there was no positive spin of an ongoing lack of website update so it was hastily done . I believe it was the Sussex’s move to announce the christening using Lilibet’s proper title that put Charles on notice that more PR damage would follow should the titles not be recognized promptly.

    • Chloe says:

      Them not upstaging the coronation isn’t really in their hands. That would be in the hands of the press. But them publicly claiming their childrens titles like this means that they are very likely to attend the coronation.

      I would also like to point out that the titles couldn’t really have been used as a bargaining chip considering archie and lilibet became prince and princess the minute the queen died.

      At most harry and meghan were likely annoyed that their kids titles were shunned on the succession list, but I sincerely hope that harry and meghan demanded more than an update that they basically had to force Charles into.

      • L84Tea says:

        Yep, this sealed it for me. I now think they’re attending the coronation. There have been a few pieces moving around between H&M and Charles.

    • SarahLee says:

      I’ll also assume since the Sussexes noted that Chuck, Horseypoo, Peggy, and Keen had been invited to the christening, that there was some formal invitation like “You’re cordially invited to the christening of Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex.” No one was blindsided here.

    • Chelsea says:

      From the way the royal reporters have been scrambling, including Rebecca English straight up admitting that they were led to believe Charles would need to “do” something for the title change to come into affect, I do not think Charles was aware that in the statements around Lilibet’s christening they’d be mentioning her title.

      I think what probably happened is that Harry had a conversation with Charles last year after the Queen’s death asking if he planned on changing the letters patent and Charles told Harry no and Harry told him in turn that they’d only use the kids’ titles for official occasions until they were adults and then they decide for themselves what they wanted to do. I think Charles then used Harry not making any public statement afterwards to his advantage to push this false narrative that he had to give the kids the titles and thus had something over Harry for negotiations and blackmail and didn’t update the website to keep that going. Charles was probably waiting until around the coronation to make the announcement about titles so it looked like he was in the control the whole time; I’m sure he was blindsided by the initial statement and this clarifying statement which has the rota and derangers catatonic though a Christening is a formal occasion and they probably should have seen this coming.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Chelsea: The docuseries showed us that the Palace doesn’t negotiate with Harry. They didn’t negotiate about the titles. Charles told them he wanted to issue LP to remove Archie’s title when he became King. Charles took away Harry’s security and his house.

      • SomeChick says:

        I agree, Amy Bee. I think it’s more like someone announces their plan and the other side reacts.

        I am in stitches that these idiot royal reporters are less informed about the rules about titles (which have been in place for literal centuries and which is probably taught about in school) than a bunch of commenters on a gossip blog. they could be lying but tbh I think they’re just a load of idiots who midlessly regurgitate whatever they’re told.

    • Megan says:

      Yeah I agree with this. I think at this point the BM is entirely wrong and I’m getting the sense that Harry and Charles have been talking. I just don’t get the sense that Harry and Meghan would do this otherwise.

      I wish they would’ve.

      • Jais says:

        Well, Harry was v clear that he hadn’t spoken to his dad and bro when he did the interviews for spare. Since then, there’s def been email correspondence from Charles’ people. But I’m not convinced they have even spoken over the phone yet.

  2. Polo says:

    Yass!! Take what is rightfully yours!!!
    They’ve been trying to erase Meghan, Archie and lili from anything and everything royal! Nah!
    Now If Charles and the firm want it then come and get it! Show the world how much of a racist bum you are!

    • Noki says:

      Heads were spinning along side projectile vomit over at Kensington… Amber.. Oh sorry Adelaide cottage this morning.

      • Nicky says:

        Wouldn’t put it past Khate to ‘accidentally’ fall pregnant again just to push them farther down the line of succession.

      • Tessa says:

        William does not want another child. It makes no difference if Kate has one child or ten, Harry has little chance of being King. And will the monarchy really last after William?

    • Jordy says:

      This is also why I think it’s important that Harry and Meghan not allow the royals or firm to “kick” them out of the UK.
      It’s about erasure like you said.. so don’t let them take what is yours! Weather money, titles, or country!!
      I want Harry and Meghan to be visible in the Uk obviously with safety in mind!

      • lucy2 says:

        This is a good point. My gut reaction is walk away, go live their happy life in CA, but you’re right, doing so allows the BRF to erase them. And it’s obviously important to Harry, and probably Meghan too.
        I agree this probably means they’re going to the coronation, I just hope they aren’t treated awfully like they were at the funeral, and that they are safe.

      • Jais says:

        If they go, it’s fair to say they will be treated awfully with whatever inane snubs the palace and press come up with. They know this. But they’ll still walk in looking glamorous and moisturized with perfect posture and heads held high. Once again, Meghan will serve a masterclass of grace under fire.

      • Mmmm says:

        They are free to do us they wish. But the image of them bowing to racist… does not appeal. I have compassion for them and wish them peace of mind

  3. Shawna says:

    Isn’t that nice to see? Good news in the morning.

    Based on how the documentary series portrayed the bullying allegations, I worry a bit that M had some sleepless nights over whatever internal negotiations were happening to have the website changed. Perhaps we’ll get the full story in a few years!

    Meanwhile, is People getting into pole position for getting scoops? We mocked their plan to roll out “royalty” issues of the magazine, but this was a good get for them.

    • aftershocks says:

      ^^ I doubt that Meghan ever lost sleep over ‘title negotiations.’ 😳 Their two children were already Prince/ Princess once the Queen passed. This is not the same as dealing with a serious lawsuit against a bothersome and abusive defendant.

      I don’t think either M or H ever fretted over BP & Chuck updating the website. As parents, their concerns surely are more about preserving the security, safety, happiness, beneficial growth, and well-being of Archie & Lilibet. In that respect, the titles play some part in their security needs and access while visiting Great Britain.

      But once again, the titles already belonged to the Sussex little ones, by birthright, as per the George V Letters Patent, whether or not ever acknowledged by Chuck. The fretting has been on C-RexIII’s part, which is just desserts for all of his neglectful, negative tomfoolery.

      • Shawna says:

        I’m assuming that the titles ARE related to security. That’s what the Oprah interview suggested. Even if it’s not strictly true, it’s what they led H&M to believe, and they linked the title with security in the interview.

  4. Moderatelywealthy says:

    If memory serves, this- that their children were recognized as princes- is important to the Sussexes because it means they would get security, or am I confused? We all know the tabloids will go ” but they wanted privacy. they did not want titles, they are not working royals.”

    • Becks1 says:

      I think the HRH was attached to security while they were in the UK, but we know that is not an absolute because B&E supposedly do not have full time security despite being HRH, and Harry does not have full time security while in the UK anymore despite being HRH (minus what he pays for obviously.)

      I wonder if the palace just told H&M it was attached to HRH for some reason.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        B&E had full time taxpayer funded security until Eugenie completed university.

        I think full time time taxpayer funded security is only for full time working royals and their minor children until said children complete university or turm 18..

      • windyriver says:

        This is an interesting question. I wonder if clarifying the children’s titles has something to do with the upcoming legal action about security, RAVEC’s decision, and whether or not Harry can fund his family’s security. BP has put out so much misinformation via the press, this is confirmation from KC that Archie and Lili are in fact prince and princess, in other words, blood royals (entitled to HRH, in abeyance or not, whatever “abeyance” means). This way, for example, no one involved with RAVEC can muddy the waters with, well, we have to clarify with the RF what their status is, it’s not listed on the succession page, etc. Very likely I’m mistaken, no doubt I’ve just become cynical…

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes but supposedly Sophie and Edward do not have FT security and I don’t think Gloucesters, Kents etc do, despite being FT working royals with HRH status.

        I looked up the issue of B&E’s security a few years ago (maybe around Oprah?) and there were a lot of articles from around 2011ish that they were losing their security (so Beatrice at least was out of college at that point so should have lost it anyway) and then there was a follow up that Andrew pushed back on his mother about it and then……nothing.

        I don’t believe they have it now – we would notice, surely? but I do think they had it for longer than the public realized/knew about.

      • aftershocks says:

        I think one of the most significant points regarding security is, Who actually needs it the most, regardless of their ‘working royal’ status? Harry, Meg, and their children obviously require the best security possible, wherever they go.

    • DouchesOfCornwall says:

      Exactly my thought since the announcement of lili’s christening. I think they’re preparing to go to the clowning of the dogsht grandfather

      • JT says:

        But surely if Charles wanted them to go to the Chubbly, he wouldn’t have evicted them from FC. He could have held off until afterwards. I don’t think the Clowning is a done deal yet, because I don’t think all of the back and forth would be happening. Things still seem tense at least on Charles’ side.

  5. Noki says:

    It seems they are doing whatever they can so the Sussexes attend the Clowning, I bet they offer a nice replacement for frogmore and guaranteed security next.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I doubt it. But thus move does put the Palace on the back foot.

    • susan says:

      I’m torn on this. perhaps there are discussions going on behind the scenes. maybe Charles embraced the christening despite not being there.

      Or maybe this is all that Queen Side Piece will allow him to do-or the only things he can do without her permission.

  6. equality says:

    He wouldn’t punish his grandchildren “like that”. He will punish them by withdrawing their security and taking away their home in the UK. He can’t justifiably take the titles in his supposed quest to minimize the RF without also going after his sibling’s, QE’s cousin’s and B&E’s titles. I expected them to change and only take the line on the website down to Louis and justify with the decreasing the royal footprint garbage. There are idiots on Yahoo commenting how H&M can’t “give” the titles to their children because KC hasn’t “given” them yet.

  7. Inge says:

    All hail Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana.

    Anyway the derangers are throwing fits, one is cancelling her plane ticket to London(from Hawaii) for the coronation and another is not interested till William is on the throne. Yay 🙂

  8. HarryforLife says:

    Oh happy day!!! I did a little jump and cheer in my kitchen this morning. The derangers are going to full on MELT today! It’s funny because in a weird way, the first thing I felt was close to the same thing I felt when Obama won the presidency. Which only made me think, maybe someone DID say that thing to Meg about her wedding being like Madela’s liberation. Sometimes when an injustice is corrected or something you’ve been waiting on for so long happens, it does feel exalting and glorious! Congrats to the (already for months!) Princess and Prince for being recognized finally and officially!

  9. EasternViolet says:

    It’s about time. They were entitled to these from the day QEII left this world.

    I also have a feeling that Harry said, If you want me to come to the coronation, then the titles must matter and get off your ass and change your stupid website. I hope the titles also come with the expectation of protection when they step foot on UK soil

  10. Maxine Branch says:

    Amature hour over there. The children were entitled as mentioned and Charles continues to look like a fool. Obviously there are no true monarchist working there only folks with grudges while looking out for their personal best interest. This is about those children’s rights from being born to a blood prince whose father is sovereign, nothing more. Doubtful they will use them in America.

  11. Becks1 says:

    FINALLY. and again I love their spokesperson’s response. these have been their titles since Charles became king. They’re not pushing anything new here.

    • TeamMeg says:

      @Becks1 If Prince Harry and Meghan go to the coronation, do you think Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana will also attend? That would be the only reason for me to pay any attention. Otherwise, I am very much looking forward to not watching the coronation.

  12. Isabella says:

    Why don’t the York offspring have titles? Curious to know how this works.

    • Snuffles says:

      Because they aren’t the grandchildren of the heir.

      • ThatsNotOka says:

        Not only that, they’d have to be the grandchildren of male sons of the heir, according to the 1917 Letters Patent. So if Charles had had a girl, her kids would not be princes or princesses. Pretty sexist, but that’s how the Royals like it.

    • Becks1 says:

      Titles pass through the male line as a starting matter (99% of the time). Factor in the letters patent and the HRH/prince/ss go to grandchildren in the male line of the monarch with the exception of the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales (something like that.)

      Basically, when the queen was alive, if nothing had changed, George would have been HRH Prince George as the oldest son of the oldest son of the PoW, and Charlotte and louis would have been Lady and Lord. the Queen issued new letters patent before George’s birth so that all the children would be HRH Prince/ss (because there was a chance that the first born would be a girl, who would have been a Lady, and the oldest son could have been younger than his sister and been HRH Prince.)

      Then to talk about Princess Anne – her children never would have been HRH Prince/ss under the Letters Patent bc they were not grandchildren in the male line of the monarch, but they might have still had titles like Lord or Lady had her first husband accepted a title from the queen.

      Even if Andrew somehow became king B&Es children would not be HRH Prince/ss unless something changed.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Correct because the York grandchildren are in in the female line.

        Princess Margaret’s children, though titled, were never HRHs. They are titled as children of an Earl but not entitled to HRH.

        Prince Edward’s children, though titled, are not styled HRH but request of their parents and with consent of QEII. They are titled as children of an Earl and are entitled to HRH. Louise does not use the style HRH by her own (Sophie’s???) choice as she is 18. James does not use HRH by choice of his parents.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right, because Margaret’s children were in the female line as well. They were grandchildren in the female line of the monarch.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Ed’s kids are not royal, they are styled only as offspring of an earl, not a prince. QEII said so in writing, that’s all it took. There was nothing in her written statement about the kids or their parents “choosing” to be royal or not, because it’s not up to them, it is solely up to the will/whim of the monarch. Charles can easily restore their titles with his own statement whenever he wants, but I doubt he will.

      • EBS says:

        If it were solely up to the whim of the monarch, Charles could make a statement taking away Archie and Lili’s titles, which he cannot do. New letters patent would have to be issued.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @EBS, a “letters patent” is a written statement expressing the will of the monarch, there is no requirement as to what form it takes (handwritten, typed, etc.). So yes, Charles COULD remove Archie and Lily’s (and Andrew’s) HRH titles with a simple statement in writing. That’s all it would take. I don’t think he will though, because Andrew probably has serious dirt on Charles, and he will continue to placate Andrew. So if Andrew keeps HRH, there is no way Charles can take it away from Archie and Lily without huuuuge public backlash. In a way, Andrew is protection from Archie and Lily being stripped of their own HRH.

      • EBS says:

        @Mrs K, no, see my comment below. LPs are a formal legal instrument that have to be prepared by the Crown Office and signed in a particular way. The Wikipedia page for UK LPs is not bad and provides the requirements.

      • Nic919 says:

        The letters patent to official make William prince of wales had to be published in the gazette to be official. Same with the letters patent regarding the HRHs.

        To date there have been no letters patent rescinding the HRHs for James and Louise. So they have them as they did from birth.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Those letters patent on the wiki page involve things such as peerages, appointments to official offices, etc., which is not what we’re discussing here. This is only about royal style and titles, which is PURELY a royal prerogative. All that is required is an expression of the monarch’s will. For example, Princess Alice did not have any “letters patent” that complied with the wiki page’s examples (because, again, it was a royal title and not a peerage or government office). She was married to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and her official title would have been Duchess of Gloucester and she could also be referred to as “Princess Henry” (NOT “Princess Alice” because she was not a princess in her own right, but only by virtue of her marriage to a prince. Similarly, Princess Anne is a princess in her own right, but Meghan is “technically” Princess Henry). Anyway, after Duke of Gloucester’s death in 1974, there were no “letters patent” in the way the wiki page describes that made her a princess in her own right, but a court circular following the Duke’s funeral referred to her as “Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester” (!) and that was it — she was now a princess in her own right. Because the court circular indicated the monarch’s wishes on the subject. That is all it takes. (And again, this isn’t about peerages or government positions, it is solely about royal styling and titles).

      • EBS says:

        Princess Alice’s situation was different – she was an HRH both before and after she was known as Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen granted her permission to be known as Princess Alice in 1974 but she did not actually become a born princess (which would have had to take the form of a LsP and be recorded in the Gazette). Louise and James had, and arguably, still have, the right to be known as HRH and Prince(ss) due to the 1917 LsP and the Queen’s announcement in 1999 did not, and does not, change that. Similarly, Charles has today announced that Edward will be DoE for his lifetime but the Queen’s 1999 announcement did not compel him to do so – it was merely setting out her wishes.

  13. C-Shell says:

    Finally. What a cluster this is for Chuckles.

    Anyway, I think Prince Archie and, especially, Princess Lilibet sound like amazing character names for an enchanting story or Disney animated film!

    • Jay says:

      Truly, it’s a clown show. I’ve never seen a group more determined to rescue failure from the jaws of success, and then step on every. single. rake on their way out the door.

      When you consider that this could have been a huge win for Charles – he could have attended the baptism in secret, posed with Doria and his adorable granddaughter, and made the baptism announcement from the palace, not people mag, and updated the names that morning, totally in control of the story and looking benevolent. Between the royal rota and the American media, it would get him at least a week of flattering coverage at a time when he very much needs it. But instead, we had this shambles.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    Judging from this new statement and some of the Royal rota tweets from yesterday it looks like Harry and Meghan forced the Palace’s hand and I applaud it. Harry should be grateful for Meghan because if she didn’t talk about the titles on the Oprah interview, the Palace would’ve never acknowledged Lili and Archie as Prince and Princess. After the Queen died they would have pushed the propaganda that Harry and Meghan didn’t want titles for their children. Meghan was telling the truth. Yesterday I was saying that Harry and Meghan were definitely going to the coronation but today I’m back to I’m not sure. I thought it was master stroke to include that the Royal were invited to the christening. It killed any attempt by the press to accuse Harry and Meghan of not inviting them and it gives them an out if they decide not to go to the coronation. It’s also interesting that the press are not crowing that the royals snubbed Harry and Meghan’s invitation like they did for Lili’s birthday party. The fact that the Palace leaked that Harry and Meghan were kicked out of Frogmore in the same of Lili’s christening makes Charles look terrible.

    • First comment says:

      I agree! Charles and the rest had six whole months to update the site with their new titles and he (they) chose not to while they updated in just a few hours their own! I said yesterday that with this boss move, Harry forced them to acknowledge his children titles. I don’t think that it was a matter of negotiations… if it were, there would be multiple leaks by now presenting us with the BRF views. I believe that Harry gave them the time to show some good will but he eventually got fed up with them and pushed the issue. Anyway, I still can’t guess what they will do regarding the coronation but I’m more and more convinced that it’s a completely different matter from their children’s birthright and no part of any negotiations.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Amy Bee & First Comment, ITA with each of you. I believe this is Harry’s way of saying that KFC will have to acknowledge his children properly. I think that People story was truly a friend of theirs. They have done two things recently that I consider to be master moves. They invited KFC&Escort and Fails&Wails to Lili’s christening. They chose not to attend. They announced the christening using Lili’s property title. BP was contacted to find out about changing the royal family’s website. This made KFC acknowledge his grandchildren’s proper titles. Now if KFC wants to take them away the world will know just what he did.

      Will H&M go to the coronation? Who knows. They were evicted/ejected from Frogmore Cottage, which is such a bad look for KFC. Don’t you think it was noble of KFC to change his mind and give them until after the coronation to vacate? He wanted them out before the coronation. I keep coming back to how this looks to people outside of the UK. The brf and bm keep saying they do not want the Sussexes there. They shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t attend.

  15. GuestWho says:

    The derangers are loosing their twitter minds. Lots of declarations of no longer supporting Charles. Do they really not understand how hereditary monarchies work? They were so happy believing that something was being withheld from H&M. The choice of giving A&L title was never his – his only choice is taking them away – which even he must realize is a bad, bad look. Their little souls are crushed.

    • Eurydice says:

      Too funny because it’s another example of how it’s All About Harry and Meghan. They don’t give a rat’s ass about Charles – and if William softens even a tiny bit with Harry, they won’t give a rat’s ass about William, either

  16. HarryforLife says:

    Also for the folks that know about protocol more than me, does this mean lower rank royals curtsy to the kids now? Does Meg?🤔 these arcane rules I know, but I still wonder. Thoughts?

    • Amy Bee says:

      No royals on curtsy to the monarch.

      • HarryforLife says:

        Oh gotcha! So then maybe non-royals if they chose to? Like how Meg had to curtsy to Chuckles when she first met him? And how we see people curtsying you Wigs?

      • Amy Bee says:

        It’s not a requirement for non-royals to curtsy to members of the royals. Harry making Meghan bow to the Queen and Charles was him wanting Meghan to impress his grandmother and father.

      • notasugarhere says:

        BRF royals curtsy to each other all the time, not just to the monarch.That’s why QEII kept rewriting the Order of Precedence. Anne and Alexandra demanded that they never have to curtsy to any married in. Likewise Andrew demanded the same for Beatrice and Eugenie.

        Diana was going to have to curtsy to Fergie after their divorces, because initially Fergie got to keep her HRH. Diana pitched a fit, lied to the press about it being ‘taken away’ when she sold it according to her lawyer. That’s why QEII wrote the new Letters Patent taking away HRH from anyone who divorces out – because of Diana’s lies. Princess Michael the Awful also mentioned it at some point, that she’d told Diana she would never make Diana curtsy to her. Even though protocol could now allow her to request/demand/require it of Diana.

        It is up to Charles to decide and rewrite the Order of Precedence how he wants. As I wrote a few threads back, this may be why Anne has pulled a disappearing act. Charles may now be demanding that she curtsy to Camilla and Anne doesn’t want to.

  17. UNCDancer says:

    Good for the Harry and Meghan! As long the monarchy exists, those fools shouldn’t be allowed to erase the mixed-race family from the roll. Now that said, King Charles will be the end of the monarchy. It’s barely a year in and he has fumbled it so hard. And given the economic climate in the UK, I bet the tolerance for the shenanigans of the BRF is waning.

  18. Mslove says:

    It was big of them to finally update the website for the mixed race grandchildren. Taking away their birthright would look bad, especially if Cams kids get titles.

    • First comment says:

      Big of them? They didn’t just do it… they were forced after the Sussexes spokesman’s statement.. it was something they should have done more than 6 months ago.

      • Mslove says:

        I was being facetious. Chuck is a horrible father & a crappy king.

      • Jojo says:

        Yeah. I came to say that. Only took them 6 months to change two words on a website. Very big of them (sarcasm).

        Harry will be well aware that although this stuff matters not one jot to most sane people, particularly in America, it will make a big difference to how his kids are viewed/treated by the titled aristocracy & establishment when in the UK. H&M are making it clear that they simply will not accept blatant discrimination, snobbish ‘othering’ or cancellation from any of them. Harry is rightly proud & protective of his wife & his children and he is making damned sure that they get publicly acknowledged respect, within a system he can’t help being a part of because he can’t be ‘unborn’.

        I’m also personally convinced that if all existing monarchies, aristocracies, hereditary titles and bestowed titles, across the globe were somehow abolished tomorrow H&M would be among those least concerned about losing theirs. Nothing in their happy, love filled, generous spirited lives together would be affected in the least by such changes. It’s clearly not what they define themselves by or how they define their personal self-worth. Unlike some others I could mention their self esteem isn’t remotely dependent on archaic Royal role-play or rank pulling stunts.

  19. Tessa says:

    Derangers are in a frenzy on dm comments. Not wanting small children to have titles. And going on about princess anne not wanting titles for her children. Totally different scenario.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Yep, Chuck’s losing a lot of support. It’s wonderful to see people get exactly what they deserve!

      • Becks1 says:

        It’s funny to see this playing out, bc the hardcore rangers and royalists are mad at him, and this isn’t winning him any fans from Camp sussex because most of our reactions are……well this should have been done months ago. I wonder if BP thought this would win back some of the “points” Charles lost after the Frogmore news and its just not having the intended effect lol.

    • equality says:

      I don’t buy that Anne (who didn’t want to have to curtsy to Di) turned down titles for her children. Either her ex-husband said no or it was a palace lie like with H&M.

      • Becks1 says:

        Remember that Anne got married and had her kids years before Diana was on the scene. She might have felt differently about it without a superstar like that in the picture.

        I also imagine even if she did want titles and was told no, shes fine with it now because her kids really are a lot better off.

    • Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

      Anne’s kids would never have been Prince/Princess anyways. Titles are only given to the children of the monarch’s sons. Anne is a woman therefore no titles even if Mark had accepted a title. This is also why Margaret’s children aren’t HRH despite Antony Armstrong-Jones being given a title.

      For a group of people who love shouting rules/protocols at H&M, they sure don’t know some of the monarchy’s basic and legal ones.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Anne’s kids could have had titles if her husband was given one. But whether he declined or it was QEII who decided, we’ll never know. We only know the outcome was he did not get a title so his kids didn’t either.

      • Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

        No. Well they would have been Lord/Lady but not HRH because in the BRF, the HRH titles come from the males.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        The “HRH” titles are at the whim of the monarch. If QEII wanted Anne’s husband(s) to be “HRH” she could have done so with a simple written statement, same with Anne’s children. For example, QEII’s father made Philip an “HRH” Duke when he married Elizabeth. Then after she was queen, Elizabeth made Philip an “HRH Prince.” When the guy who abdicated was made a Duke, his brother (the new king) had a choice between making him a royal HRH Duke, or a “regular” Duke — ultimately he chose to make his brother an “HRH” Duke, but with the added twist that his wife and any children he may have with her will not be given the “HRH” titles themselves. All of this is at the whim of the monarch. QEII could have made Anne’s husband a prince if she wanted to, or give Anne’s kids the “HRH” titles, etc. It’s entirely up to the monarch’s wishes.

  20. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    Charles really pissed off a lot of his supporters with this move. They really thought that he was punishing the Sussex’s, which they want more than they want the monarchy, but now that’s obviously not the case and they’re quickly turning on the king. I’ve been saying for years that by allowing the press and public to abuse the Sussex’s so, the BRF were setting themselves up for the loss of support and now they’re reaping their just rewards.

  21. Cessily says:

    The “punitive manipulation“ by Chucky, Cow, Peggy and Kkkatie seems to have backfired. Not only are the hate accounts on Twitter out of control with their comments on two children not even school age yet but they have upset the propaganda arm of the palace by leaving them all with egg on their face looking like the court jesters they are. Glad it is backfiring on the palace, playing games with other peoples lives is sick and needs to stop. I truly hope they read all the hate and racist comments aimed at two babies, one probably still in diapers. The adults posting the vile racist hate are a huge security risk for not only the Sussex’s but for the kids also and the BRF is directly responsible for every single one of them imo.
    I truly hope that security comes with the titles because the BRF has made it extremely necessary for these babies to be protected.

  22. Jais says:

    This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with BP. Hmmm. And they’re updating the website today? The delay looks petty. Especially in comparison to everyone else titles changing right away.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I think the Palace had no intention of changing the website. Harry and Meghan’s announcement yesterday forced the update.

      • Jais says:

        And I love how the Sussexes did that. So interesting how quick they were able to change it. It’s clear they use that website as some sort of punitive control thing.

  23. Loretta says:

    Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex, I love It!

  24. Rana says:

    🤣🤣 So now Baldy’s daughter is not the only “princess” of Diana’s grandchildren! Someone is incandescent with rage.

  25. Z says:

    As the Old saying goes “give them enough rope and they will hang themselves”. At the end of it all Charles will only have himself to blame for all of this mess, if he wasn’t a petty, vindictive and jealous little boy who is easly manipulated, some if not all of this could have been avoided.

  26. Harper says:

    Take that, Daily Fail. People magazine–an American gossip publication–was used to foil the silly game that started the day the Queen bopped off and someone ordered the Cambridge titles updated, but not the Sussexes’. Harry and Meghan made one statement about the titles and the palace FOLDS. How embarrassing for Willy, who thought he was winning for the past six months.

    • Jaded says:

      Pegs must be ready to stroke out. He and Pa got well and truly checkmated by one simple statement. Honestly, they really are the royal version of Dumb and Dumber aren’t they.

  27. LB says:

    The timing of this announcement is so close to the announcement of the Frogmore eviction. I wonder if the titles were part of the “negotiations” re Frogmore. Something like, ok we will leave Frogmore without a fuss but refund us our money & the titles remain and will be used (and website updated). Like so many things re H & M, KC should have handled this differently. Once again, it is not a good look for him and his two grandchildren will understand what he did when they are older. But it is wonderful to see Archie & Lilibet as Prince & Princess officially.

    • equality says:

      I hope it’s petty right back at KC. He leaks about FC to make himself seem stern and H&M counter with A&L’s titles.

    • Amy Bee says:

      The Palace is not saying there were negotiations. The Palace is now saying that Harry and Meghan could have used the titles all along.

      • sophie says:

        I think that they’re trying to imply that it was Meghan and Harrys call all along. Like Edward and Sophie deciding not to give their children titles until they’re 18 and possibly decide for themselves to chose them.

      • Jais says:

        Agree. They’re trying to make the 6 month petty delay on their part look like they were just being considerate and letting the Sussexes decide. Which is not how it works.

    • First comment says:

      No, I don’t believe it was not a matter of negotiations! If it were, the site would have been updated before the Sussexes statement and Charles would have made sure that it was a “loving” move towards his two grandchildren through leaks.

  28. Mooney says:

    Yayyyyyy 🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉
    All hail HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lili Diana of Sussex, the first of their names. I hope everyone calls them only Prince Archie and Princess Lili everytime we we talk about them, just to watch derangers combust with incandescent rage 😉

    I know some of you were against them having titles since growing up in America and all that, but it’s their birthright that was being denied to them, only to them and their mother.

  29. art maven says:

    It’s disappointing to me that in the 21st century, there are still people who value historical titles that confer or imply high status on the basis of birth. No modern person can support or endorse this fairy story. They all should stop.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      I totally agree. But to pretend that the two biracial children are not entitled to their birthright or must “earn” it is racist and cannot be allowed to stand.

      • art maven says:

        The concept of this institution can not be redeemed by admitting bi-racial latecomers. The only future it has is to cease to exist as an official institution.

      • MerlinsMom1018 says:

        @Brassy Rebel
        (love your name btw)

        I agree. It’s the principle of the issue to me. Whether used or not going forward, the HRH’s are their birthright being the children of a blood prince.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        You miss my point, Art Maven. When the institution ceases, all titles cease. The “biracial latecomers” are not excluded while the system protects white titled people. That’s racist as hell.

    • Tan says:

      I agree – the full British royal family including thr king and the future king and queen should all have their titles removed and revoked and Britain should be a republic. I’m very glad u agree with the sentiment

      • art maven says:

        The only royal “visionary” is the one who contacts the PM and the Commonwealth and commences the process of decommissioning it’s existence.

      • Tan says:

        Maybe in our lifetime hopefully

  30. Brassy Rebel says:

    Royalists and monarchists are all very snooty about royal blood and being a prince or princess “of the blood”, and then two biracial children are born into the monarch’s family. According to the current letters patent, as the grandchildren of the king in the male line, these children are titled prince and princess. But suddenly, there’s a glitch. They have really shown themselves here. Did they think H&M, after all the disrespect shown to them, would let them disrespect their children? Shameless racists and abusers.

  31. Sarah says:

    If the Royal Family is so racist then why do they care about titles anyway?

    • equality says:

      It is the children’s birthright as much as the completely WHITE members of the RF who automatically and without question receive those titles.

    • Laura D says:

      @Sarah – It’s who they are! The bigger question is why were the family so desperate to airbrush them out of the history books? The titles shouldn’t matter but, obviously they do to a LOT of people on Twitter who obviously had no idea that Archie and Lili were entitled to those titles as soon as Charles became king. It’s entirely up to Archie and Lili if they want to use them when they’re older. By reminding people they are blood royals Harry and Meghan have given them a choice.

      Another question I would ask is if titles weren’t important than why did Charles go back on his word to the British people when he told us Camilla would be Princess Consort? He then went back on his word to his aging mother when she agreed to Camilla being Queen Consort. Titles shouldn’t really matter but, they do to that family and it’s important that Archie and Lili are acknowledged as “blood royals” and not married-ins. The only people surprised they are real royals with real titles, are those who know more about hate and spite than they do about the BRF.

    • Becks1 says:

      Because its racist for the white grandchildren to have titles but not the nonwhite grandchildren.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        Yes. As Becks1 said, it’s as simple as that.

        This is the system Britain still has. As long as it exists (and hopefully it won’t for much longer), the monarch’s nonwhite grandchildren should be treated the same as his white grandchildren.

        It’s possible to hold two thoughts in one’s head at the same time: The monarchy is a dumb, white supremacist and outdated institution. And the monarch’s nonwhite grandchildren shouldn’t be erased.

    • C says:

      Considering they offered to give the titles up and were refused, the children should have them as well.

    • Mary Pester says:

      @sarah, because parents don’t live forever, it’s their children’s birth rights and likewise up to the children to decide if they want to use them later in life when their mum and dad are not around. Seriously, if anything (god forbid) happened to Harry and Megan, do you really think those sharks at the paiace would tell either of them that they are a Prince and Princess because their grandfather was king. I don’t think so /!!

  32. Fifty-50 says:

    I’m wondering if the booing and Camilla getting the Burger King paper crown really shook them yesterday. I think Camilla especially, while she’s used to being hated, is not used to being outright disrespected and mocked— the absolute shade of that paper crown.

    They were rarely booed or blatantly made the butt of jokes while out and about when QEII was alive; now there are protesters at every event. It’s one thing to read about international disgust and being dragged on twitter. Experiencing it is different and drives the message home in a visceral way.

    I wonder if this is actually an attempt at damage control on Camilla’s part. There’s more subtlety to the narrative than Charles’ usual hamfisted approach. There’s no spin about being a “good grandfather to recognize the birthright,” just a “but we were respecting the Sussexes! They wanted this! We were doing what they wanted!”

    And while the RR is surprised, I was expecting more “HOW DARE THEY” stories, which is what Charles and William would have rushed to do. Instead we seem to have relative silence, a mandate which could only come from on high.

    • Becks1 says:

      The RRs were shut up pretty quickly about this. They definitely got word from BP very quickly that there was not going to be pushback on this.

      ETA of course I said that before seeing the other post from the Telegraph, LOL.Whoops.. Maybe they did not shut up that fast after all.

    • windyriver says:

      Camilla made a big mistake in how she handled the situation with Ms. Fulani, once again in the news, and an even bigger one when she/BP failed to speak out about Clarkson’s disgusting piece. Wasn’t even necessary to mention Meghan to criticize what he wrote. To me, that was a turning point, a revelation about her true nature. As a supposed ally against domestic violence, hers should have been one of the first voices heard. Instead, not a word, while pictures and stories appeared in the press highlighting her recent lunch with good friends Clarkson and Morgan.

      Charles is king, she has what she wanted; but she got a little too sure of herself, and is now finding out the goodwill she bought and paid for over time was surface only. Those around during the Diana years are remembering why they didn’t like her. Also, she and Charles expected the reverence for a figure seventy years on the throne would pass to them. Not so much, as crowd reactions are making clear. Especially as Charles began his reign by apparently having nothing better to do than exact petty vengeance on his son, at his son’s grandmother’s funeral, an event broadcast globally – a mistake compounded by dragging his feet on acknowledging the titles that son’s children were entitled to, then evicting the entire family from the house they financed at great expense. Quite a track record in six months. Someone over there really needs to open their eyes about how these actions are playing out, outside the royal bubble.

      • Tessa says:

        I never bought into Camilla as an advocate for domestic violence nor bought into her spin. I did not forget how she treated Diana and later Meghan.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles had to do this not Camilla. I think her plans to promote her children are still her main concern.

  33. HamsterJam says:

    SQEEE! Bless them and their loyal companion Guy of Sussex.

  34. Ace says:

    Considering that I don’t believe a single word that comes from BP or the British tabloids when it comes to the Suxesses my opinion is, based only on their spokeperson, that Archie and Lili had their titles since the Queen died and that BP hadn’t told them explicitly that they were going to remove them so they’ve used them.

    If Chuck knew about that statement about Lili’s christening using her title it was five minutes before it came out, as a courtesy that he definitely doesn’t deserve, because if BP had known much more in advance we would have had the usual rodents at the very least hinting about it last week.

  35. Mary Pester says:

    I think Harry had had enough and told Charlie and his chocolate umpalumpas, “eat sht, those are my children’s RIGHTFUL titles and they are having them. So suck it up buttercups”. The idiots were caught on the back foot and have been playing catch up (but aren’t they always)

  36. aquarius64 says:

    It’s sad it had to take some bad press for Archie and Lili to finally have their birthright recognized. Children of African American lineage, Prince and Princess of the Blood Royal of the UK. Will they get royal monograms? If the Sussexes come to the Con-a-Nation and the kids come, the Wailes kids will be overshadowed. You know Prince Incandescent is having a meltdown. The Wessexes too because Ed hasn’t become Duke of Edinburgh. I bet Ed and Sophie fight for it now and a LP for Louise to get the rank of princess. I think it’s too late for Louise because she’s not the grandchild of the sovereign now. That should have been settled when the Queen was alive. To the haters, choke on it.

    • Feeshalori says:

      It doesn’t matter if the monarch is dead, Louise and James are still the grandchildren of a monarch via the male line and are entitled to the style and title of prince/ss. Whether or not they get to use them remains to be seen, especially if Charles is holding back on titles as with the DOE for Edward.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        No, QEII took away Ed’s kids’ royal status, they are not HRH prince and princess, they are only children of an earl and NOT styled as children of a prince. QEII’s wishes were reduced to writing, which is all it takes. There was nothing in it about the kids being able to choose for themselves when they turn 18. For them to be royal now, Charles would have to issue a statement in writing (which is all it takes), expressing his will that they be styled as children of a prince. Which he could easily do, but my guess is he won’t

      • EBS says:

        You can’t have it both ways – either (a) the Queen was bound by the 1917 Letters Patent and Louise could have decided to become Princess/HRH when she turned 18 (which happened when the Queen was still alive) AND Charles is bound by the 1917 Letters Patent and Archie and Lili automatically became Princ(ess)/HRH when the Queen died, or (b) neither is the case. It has to be (a). The only way for the Letters Patent to be denied in either case would be for new letters patent to be issued, not a simple communication from the monarch.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Whatever the deal was at the time about the Wessex kids being allowed to use their titles or not, they’re still the grandchildren of a monarch, albeit deceased, through the male line which l initially addressed. So under normal circumstances, they would have been using the titles under the 1917 LP even after they assumed them after the queen’s death, but due to whatever agreement was reached, whether official or not, they’re not and at this point l would think some clarification should be made. Perhaps the argument could be made that this occurred after the Queen’s death, but that should be made official.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        The 1917 letters patents can (and have been) amended in part whenever the monarch wishes, and it can be amended specifically with respect to one person and not repeal the entire thing. That’s what happened when QEII issued her statement expressing her position on Ed’s kids. It amended the prior wishes of the deceased monarch specifically with respect to Edward. Just as Elizabeth modified the 1917 scheme with respect to Edward specifically, Charles can do the same now that he’s the monarch. Charles is not bound by Elizabeth’s wishes anymore than Elizabeth was bound by prior monarchs. I gave this example above, but will post it again here: when Elizabeth’s uncle abdicated, his brother the new king made him an “HRH” Duke. By prior letter patent, the HRH Duke’s children would also have been “HRH” but the new king didn’t want that, so he specified that the Duke’s wife and any kids he may have with her, would NOT be styled “HRH.” This was a statement specific to his brother and his brother’s potential future children, and the king had every authority to do that. That is exactly what QEII did with Ed and Sophie’s future kids. I don’t think people understand that the provisions in a letters patent are only good until a future monarch amends them in some way. Here, Elizabeth specifically amended the application of the styling for Ed’s kids, just as her father did for his brother’s potential kids. The rest of the 1917 letters patent remained in effect until they are specifically modified. It is not all or nothing.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        “AND Charles is bound by the 1917 Letters Patent and Archie and Lili automatically became Princ(ess)/HRH when the Queen died”

        Ah, I get it now why people are trying to insist Ed’s kids are royal, because they don’t want to risk Harry’s kids not being royal too? But those are two different situations. A monarch specifically said Ed’s kids “shall not be styled as children of a prince” but no similar statement was made about Harry’s kids. Choosing not to use “HRH” for Harry’s kids (or for Andrew, by the way) does NOT take away the “HRH” title. For that to happen, the monarch would have to put out a written statement like QEII did for Ed, that Archie, Lily, or Andrew “shall not be styled HRH” which hasn’t happened (yet). If Charles ever did THAT, then the HRH goes away. But right now, Archie, Lile, and yes even Andrew, continue to be HRH because there was no express written statement taking it away. But there was an express statement taking it away from Ed’s kids. So different situations.

        “The only way for the Letters Patent to be denied in either case would be for new letters patent to be issued, not a simple communication from the monarch.” — there is no technical requirement for what form a letters patent
        takes. By definition, it is merely a written statement expressing the monarch’s wishes. QEII did that with Edward. Whether Charles will do the same with Andrew, Archie, or Lily, remains to be seen. My own opinion is Charles WILL NOT do anything because Andrew has dirt on him. And if he allows Andrew to remain HRH, he will do the same for Archie and Lily.

      • EBS says:

        No, letters patent are a technical, legal instrument that take a particular form and are prepared by the Crown Office on behalf of the monarch and the name of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is subscribed/printed at the end of all documents as a way of authentication of their having passed through the Crown Office.

        They are referred to by the year of issue (I.e. the 1948 Letters Patent providing that the children of Elizabeth and Philip should be prince(ss) and HRH). The most recent one of interest was the 2012 LP indicating that the eldest born would always be the heir, so George would be the heir, if he had been a girl.

        Charles can amend an existing LP or issue a new one if he pleases, but it is not the same as a simple communication from the BP or CH press office.

      • Nic919 says:

        I did a search of the gazette after the press release was issued when Louise was born. There is no letters patent published that states the HRH was removed. A press release saying it is the wish of the queen that they wait until she is 18 is not the same thing as a legal instrument published in the gazette.

        The gazette is searchable to confirm this.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        There is no legal requirement that bestowing or taking away the “HRH” has to be published in the gazette. The wiki page that others link to only involves peerages and government offices, and that sort of thing, NOT royal styles. There is a difference, because royal styles are purely a royal prerogative. I posted this example above, but just look at Princess Alice as an example. She was married to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and her official title would have been Duchess of Gloucester and she could also be referred to as “Princess Henry” (NOT “Princess Alice” because she was not a princess in her own right, but only by virtue of her marriage to a prince). After Duke of Gloucester’s death in 1974, there were no “letters patent” in the way the wiki page describes that made her a princess in her own right, but a court circular following the Duke’s funeral referred to her as “Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester” and that did it — she was now a princess in her own right! Because the court circular indicated the monarch’s wishes on the subject. That is all it takes. (And again, this isn’t about peerages or government positions, it is solely about royal styling and titles).

      • EBS says:

        I promise, if Louse or James wanted to be known as HRH and Prince(ss) the Queen would have granted it. Royal titles are granted by convention and the form of that convention is the LsP. As Nic919 says, William was granted PoW by Charles and that has been issued as a LsP and recorded in the Gazette, as is required (not until 13 February – it takes some time). Princess Alice was never actually a born princess, the Queen just permitted her to use the title. That’s different from it being conferred officially, which the 1917 LsP does for Louise and James (and Archie and Lili) unless the King issues a new LsP to the contrary.

  37. Sean says:

    I know this is really about making sure Archie and Lilli aren’t erased from the history of the Royal family but I wish H&M would just completely walk away and tell the BRF they’re no longer needed.

    I know, it’s complicated because it’s Harry’s family and he’s probably still processing everything. However, they nearly drove Meghan to suicide and continue to subject her to abuse. H&M even made a documentary that called out their treatment as well as how racist and toxic the British empire’s colonization is.

    And they still want their American children to have HRH titles? I know it’s their “birthright” but the monarchy does not want Harry’s wife and children in the picture. Are H&M using the titles just to stick it to the BRF as a reminder?

    I could be misreading things but I just don’t get it. H&M still seem to be pro-monarchy after everything they’ve gone through. They called out its racism and its treatment of Meghan yet it still seems they want some connection to it.

    There’s more I could say but in short I just don’t get why they’d still want any part of that institution.

    • Truth says:

      If the monarchy doesn’t want his wife and children in the picture let them take the titles away. He is not going to do it for them.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Sean, because regardless of what the brf want, Archie & Lili exist. H&M will not let them erase them from the history books. They are Prince and Princess. If KFC doesn’t want that, he will have to take those titles away. Since they got those titles the moment QE2 died, they’ve already had them for 6 months. What is the difference now? The brf had to acknowledge those titles, which they did. Now, no matter what goes down in the future, Archie and Lili will not be erased. They are part of history.

      I’m sure if you were their parent, you would not want the brf to pretend that your children didn’t exist. That’s what this is about, and it was the right thing to do.

      • Sean says:

        Yeah, the more I think about it, that’s probably what’s going on. They won’t allow the BRF to act like the biracial grandchildren do not exist.

        Hopefully H&M want nothing more to do with the BRF but this is like a nice reminder of “Hey, F I, we’re still here and we exist. There’s nothing you can do about it.”

    • Okay says:

      I feel its about his kids knowing their heritage and being given their birthright outside of the BM manipulation with the royals. Its giving them a reality check that if they keep picking and choosing when history and tradition matters and doesn’t they are making themselves irrelevant. If they want to be treated like family they need to treat them like family. Family fights but letting Pegasus terrorize everyone to get his way is getting embarrassing. I’m not sure why Charles cares what Peg thinks. Peg is stuck in the system and even if he had something on Charles who cares. Charles wont be king that long and all Will doing is making H&M a rival court to his own reign. I am certain that he is being muzzled for now about the titles thing because he is unhinged at the moment. I think Charles finally said shut up or no bi house for you but its coming he cant help himself and its going to be EPIC and a horrible idea because these are his brothers kids and his niece ad nephew. Power move for H&M.

  38. QuiteContrary says:

    Charles could have won some support from Black Britons by supporting the Sussexes all along. Now he’s losing support from racist derangers who wanted him to further punish the Sussexes.

    He’s such a weak moron. And an entirely unpopular one.

  39. Lolo says:

    I assume the statement meant that BP was waiting for H&M to decide whether they wanted to publicly use titles for their kids, kind of similar to how Edward and Sophie were going to let their kids decide when they were older if they wanted to use their titles.

    • EBS says:

      That’s what I thought too, Lolo. I can’t stand any of the royals and I’m sure they had bad motives, but on the face of it, waiting is not completely unreasonable given that H&M had declined to use Earl of Dumbarton when Archie was born.

    • Lily says:

      All along the children had their birth right titles. Megan and Harry even stated after Archie’s birth that THEY would decide if and when they would use them. The press were the ones that put it into everyone’s head that Charles may revoke them. It was a mute point.

  40. Saucy&Sassy says:

    One of the mistakes that have been made in the UK and the US, is that the powers to be think they can control hate. That’s not possible. Once QE2 died, the leash on the hate dissolved. The haters are happy as long as they get what they’ve been told they want. Why would the brf and bm not expect the haters to be furious at KFC about this. They’ve told them over and over again to hate the Sussexes, the Sussexes must be punished, the Sussexes are horrible people. They should have anticipated this. You reap what you sow.

    I think we’re going to be seeing some interesting stuff (not in a good way) in the US with the upcoming Presidential election. I think that hate could easily be extended to the Repub candidates that are not Trump. That should be anticipated, too.

    • HamsterJam says:

      That is one of the most astute observations I have ever read.

    • Tessa says:

      When the queen was alive they were still getting the hate comments as early as 2016. The queen and Charles could have spoken against it but chose not to.

  41. Faye says:

    I’m so glad Harry and Meghan have stood strong against Charles is abuse and gaslighting. I admire them for refusing to compromise with bullies. At least their kids have this one small thing from their old life.

  42. Flower says:

    So basically Chuckles made Harry & Meghan pay £2.4 Million for the titles and attend his sh!tty clowning party ?

  43. Jennifer says:

    Petty wars with Charles:
    “Well, FINE, we’re going to tell people we invited you to the christening and got no response AND OUR KIDS ARE TITLED NOW AND YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT.”

  44. jgerber says:

    Maybe someone mentioned it above, but is the “deal” between the Sussexes and Charles that since he posted the kids’ rightful titles of prince and princess, the Sussexes will go to the Chubbly? If that’s true, it’s a crappy deal, in my opinion, since those belonged to the kids anyway, Charles can break any promise, even a legal, written contract because no one would force him to obey it and they will treat the Sussexes abysmally, as we all know already.

  45. Saucy&Sassy says:

    “This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.” Ends H&M statement. Translated: Liar, liar pants on fire.

  46. Denise says:

    Someone mentioned the Order of Precedence upthread. Here is a link to the current order from Wikipedia.

  47. Lucky Charm says:

    There really is no need for all this wailing and gnashing of teeth by the BM about the children’s titles because it won’t be an issue in another generation anyway. Since they are not children of the heir (barr any disaster that takes out all of the Wales’ – heaven forbid) Prince Archie’s and Princess Lilibet’s children won’t be Prince or Princess, and Lilibet’s won’t have any titles at all since she’s a female and they’re only passed through the male line. If Prince Archie has no sons to inherit the Sussex dukedom, then that expires with him too.

  48. AppleCart says:

    Does this mean with the official titles. They get the security that they deserve? I understand nothing of royal rules. But I do remember Meghan in the Oprah interview. Just wanting to make sure her kids where safe if they had royal titles.

    Or will Charles again cry ‘poverty’ and provide them nothing as is their birthright.

    • EBS says:

      Titles and security aren’t linked. Beatrice and Eugenie are HRH Princesses and they don’t have it. James is a minor grandchild of a monarch and he doesn’t have it. I think because Meghan mentioned it in the same breath as the possibility of Charles issuing new LsP depriving Archie and Lili the Prince(ss) titles, people have conflated them. But I think they were just mentioned at the same time in the interview as things they were concerned about.