The Sussexes ‘forced the palace’s hand’ when it came to Archie & Lili’s titles

While Tom Sykes (the Royalist columnist at the Daily Beast) absolutely has an anti-Sussex bent, I actually think Sykes is one of the few royal reporters to actually get it right on what was happening behind-the-scenes this week with Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie’s titles. Archie and Lilibet have been prince and princess since September of last year, the very moment their grandfather became king, per the Letters Patent. Instead of referring to the kids with their titles, Buckingham Palace made a point of merely updating the titles of Prince William’s kids in the line of succession, while leaving King Charles’s mixed-race grandchildren without their birthright prince/princess titles. That changed when the Sussexes announced Lilibet’s christening and announced her title to People Magazine. Within 24 hours, the palace changed the line of succession to reflect the title change and the palace openly briefed reporters on how they had already been informed, of course, and it was all to do with the Frogmore eviction or something. Sykes points out that the palace was actually caught off-guard and then some:

What happened after the Sussexes’ announcement: After an hour of two of startled silence, the royal rabbit removed itself from Harry and Meghan’s headlights, and journalists were briefed that the palace had no issue with the move and had, indeed, been expecting it all along and would shortly be updating their website to reflect the new titles, and that the hold-up had only been a matter of Harry and Meghan getting on and announcing it.

Caught off guard: Harry and Meghan said in a statement that the decision to use Lilibet’s princely title was “settled in alignment” (note: not “approved,” the Sussexes’ point being that their kids were entitled to the titles as a matter of law and nobody’s permission was required) with Buckingham Palace. But the timing and manner of the big reveal made it look rather like the Palace, and many courtiers, had, if not been blindsided, certainly been caught off guard. The bulletin to People was about as far from a co-ordinated joint announcement as you can get and has fueled suspicion that Harry and Meghan, tired of Charles’ refusal to officially declare their kids prince and princess (which he could easily have done at any point from his accession address onwards), decided to put it up to the royals.

The king is pleased: Friends and allies of King Charles and Prince William told The Daily Beast that the king would be “pleased” that Harry and Meghan had decided to use Prince and Princess titles for their children, and that it showed they had never been discriminated against, contrary to Meghan’s claim in the Oprah interview that Archie was unfairly denied the title “Prince” at birth, suggesting this was down to racial prejudice.

Then why didn’t Charles use his grandkids’ titles back in September? A friend of Charles’ told The Daily Beast: “Meghan said on her Oprah interview that the royals had blocked Archie from becoming a prince, but it was always just a matter of convention. When the queen was alive they were great-grandchildren of the monarch so they were not entitled to the titles. Now they are grandchildren of the monarch, so they are.” The friend tried to put a pro-Charles spin on this week’s turn of events, presenting it as a victory for the values of traditionalists, saying: “Charles will of course be pleased that [Harry and Meghan] clearly want the children to inherit their royal titles.”

William is incandescent too: A friend of William’s, asked about the developments, also referred back to the Oprah interview, and told The Daily Beast: “Meghan made out there was some dastardly plot to favor William’s kids over Harry’s. That really hurt William. Now everyone can see that was never the case.”

Again, Charles refused to do this back in September: An alternative interpretation of the week’s action and reaction is that despite the readiness of the Palace to accept the titles, and there is no doubt that they acted quickly to update their website and made all the right noises this week, this does not obscure the fact that Charles failed to declare the children prince and princess soon after the death of the queen. Would it have been so hard for his accession address which paid tribute to Harry and Meghan to mention “Prince and Princess Archie and Lilibet,” for example? In failing to do so, and in leaving the question hanging, some would say Charles left an open goal, and, this week, the Sussexes scored.

Deafening silence: Christopher Andersen, New York Times bestselling author of a new biography of Charles, The King, told The Daily Beast: “Since Queen Elizabeth’s death, Charles’ silence on this matter has been deafening. There were many occasions when the king, in an effort to heal the rift between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family, could have made the grand gesture and bestowed titles on Archie and Lilibet, but Charles clearly chose not to. Harry and Meghan forced the Palace’s hand. Rather than continue to wait around to see if King Charles would bend and finally bestow them on the Sussex children, Harry and Meghan took the bull by the horns and did it themselves. You have to admire their audacity. It’s really very American of them.”

[From The Daily Beast]

I think this is mostly correct, although I hate that the Sussexes are being positioned as singlehandedly “declaring” their children prince and princess. Again, Archie and Lilibet have technically had those royal titles since September. It was automatic. Charles was the one playing fast and loose with the idea that he had to “give” those titles to his grandchildren, when really, his power in this situation would have been to take the titles away. Anderson is right as well – Charles tripped over his own d–k in this issue over the titles. The magnanimous move from a king would have been recognizing his mixed-race grandkids immediately, at the exact same time he recognized his white grandchildren.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Netflix.

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

99 Responses to “The Sussexes ‘forced the palace’s hand’ when it came to Archie & Lili’s titles”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    From an earlier post: if we believe Meghan, this is BS:

    IF WE BELEVE MEGHAN and what she said in her sit-down interview with Oprah, it was the PALACE that was questioning whether their kids should be prince or princess. Thus, this whole new palace spin of “We were just waiting for Harry and Meghan to decide if they wanted their kids to have these titles” HAS TO BE total bullsh*t. There WERE negotiations going on. And I believe their attendance at the Conjob, and maybe even a permanent place to stay in London when they come, is part of it. And MET and Royal security. Even if Frogmore is to be taken, another space is being offered and negotiated.

    • Jais says:

      I believe Meghan and if she hadn’t said this aloud for all the world to hear, I believe Charles would have written a new LP while leaking that Harry and Meghan themselves had chosen not to give their children titles. Saying that he was waiting for Harry and Meghan to decide essentially makes Charles look weak, as if the Sussexes have all the power. At the end of the day, this was the rule and all should’ve been following it. If not for pettiness and white suprematism, Charles would have formally changed it on the website when he changed the titles for his white grandchildren. Of course, the palace is trying to spin in their favor but it’s a little late now.

    • Edna X Mode says:

      From the day they were born, Archie and Lily were automatically Lord and Lady because of their dad’s Dukedom. and IIRC also HRH’s cuz its a Royal Dukedom.

      Ofcourse the BP/BM don’t even mention their own vile refusal to call them Lord/Lady. And technically Archie takes the Courtesy title from the day he was born as Earl of Dumbarton. No mention of that title either!

      its been clear to me since day 1 they got off on calling Archie as “master” (which is an old timey existing form of adress but was Never applicable to archie as Lord/Earl.

      and ofcourse the refusal to call/update them Prince/Princess after THE Queen died…

    • Cessily says:

      I think Prince Harry was fed up with the bull sh*t and briefings against his kids and manipulation about the titles. He called their bluff and set the record straight. They are inherited titles not “earned” as the firm and rota on orders from someone in the royal family were trying to make it seem. I love that this literally blindsided all the rota. (To me that means that it also blindsided their royal handlers also). It’s about time Prince Harry took matters and the current written law into his own hands and claimed his children’s birthrights.

  2. That’s because the Sussexes play chess not checkers.

    • 2legit2quit says:

      Totally read this as they play chess and not crackers. Which would also be appropriate.

    • Whyforthelove says:

      No kidding, right now the Palaces are playing Chutes and Ladders with the board upside down. I LOVE THE FINAL DIG… “How very American of them.” Hahaha. In fact Americans don’t have Princes and Princesses, so in fact not very American…just ballsy as hell and I am here for it. I guess you could say giving a metaphorical finger to the King of England is something Americans are known for along with many former British Colonies. But it looks like plenty of Commonwealth countries and plenty of Chucky’s own British “subjects” are hopping on that train too….

    • Mel says:

      Called it yesterday. Harry and Meghan are playing Vulcan chess and those idiots are still trying to figure out how to set up a checkerboard.

  3. lucy2 says:

    Those titles have been in effect since the moment QEII died, nobody forced anyone’s hand, but they chose to update everyone else’s titles immediately, which just made them look bad. BRF and the media are so ridiculous about all this.

    • Well Wisher says:


    • Chloe says:

      @lucy2: agreed. There also was nothing for charles to “bestow”. Like the article correctly pointed out in the beginning, this was a matter of legality. Archie and lili got what is legally theirs. There is nothing charles or even their parents can do about it.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Harry and Meghan forced the Palace’s hand in acknowledging that Archie and Lili were Prince and Princess. I see nothing wrong in what they did.

    • Mary Pester says:

      Exactly, Harry called Charlie boys bluff. His children should have had their prince and Princess titles in SEPTEMBER, they updated BULLYAM and botox barbies children quicker than you can say “Charlie is a jerk”, but they ignored Harry’s babies. Harry has now said “nobody puts MY BABIES in a corner, so dance on this dip sticks”. Good for him, they might never use the titles, but that will be their choice, not the Royal rats

  4. equality says:

    PW’s children have consistently been favored over PH’s, especially PG. If PW is incandescent about anything it’s that his children haven’t been elevated even higher and PH and family lowered. I take that “audacity” as being “American” as a compliment.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      American here. I’m glad the British royalists see this as a “very American” move. Here’s to more American moves.

      • Mary Pester says:

        BRASSY REBEL, as you know I’m a Brit and I fully agree with you. Harry and Megan are proud to be in America and proud that their children are being raised in a society that says “as long as your a decent person, and are willing to work hard, you can be and have anything you want. You don’t need castles of palaces or even titles. You just have to BE.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Cheers to that as an American. I also take it as a compliment of good old Yankee initiative and grabbing the opportunity when you see it.

      • Sobiewski says:

        Yee Hawwww, y’all! God bless, America & Americans. ;^)

    • koko says:

      There are some amazing “American” traits that I hope PA & PL inherit. Audacity is just one of them.

    • Whyforthelove says:

      Absolutely! That American dig was classic! The Boston Fiasco still seems to be cheesing of some Royals lol.

  5. SussexWatcher says:

    Yes, Harry and Meghan traveled back in time to 1917 to force Chuckles’ hand in 2023…6 months after Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet inherited their titles. Ah yes, Chuckles has always wanted them to have and use their prince/princess titles…that’s why he never updated the line of succession website and allowed the British media to bully and lie about his own grandchildren. Yup, the king is so pleased that he was also shocked and caught off guard by the Sussexes using the legal and rightful titles for their children.

    These people are so stupid! Time and time again they just sound like the racist incompetents that they are. Do they have any competent staff? Like, at all?? If Chuckles had only ordered the website be updated when the queen died then none of this would be happening. Once again, they’ve shot themselves in the foot and look like a bunch of headless chickens.

    • Jojo says:

      Exactly @SUSSEXWATCHER. They must think people are blind and/or stupid.

      Unfortunately the ‘Meghan lied on Oprah’ and ‘They’ve had the audacity to bestow the titles by themselves & (shock, horror!) announced it in an American magazine rather than via the palace’ is what the media is pushing across the board here in the UK. It’s deliberately being reported very ambiguously with any accuracy as to what Meghan actually said or the automatic nature of the titles being totally ignored. Also, now people are being distracted from this by the Edward DoE announcement today.

      The RF are all duplicitous, evil people who deserve the title of family even less than all the stupid made up titles they continue to bestow on one another. They had no intention of treating Archie & Lili equally unless absolutely forced to.

    • ChillinginDC says:

      I laughed at anyone acting like this discredits Meghan. No it doesn’t! LOL

  6. Well Wisher says:

    This is the other shoe that dropped.
    The need to win, when there is no race will continue to haunt the reign of King Charles 111.
    It would so much better to not make everything especially something so obvious and straightforward an issue.

    The sad fact that the King who did that particular patent was forced to do so because his grandchildren were withheld from him

    From that to this situation, what a 😳!!!

    William must have a say, instead of staying quiet with the appearance of looking smart.

    He leaked this as expected.

  7. Snuffles says:

    They keep twisting what Meghan said. She never said Archie was denied his title at birth. She said there was talk of changing the law so Archie and Lili would NEVER get any titles once Charles became king. And she only cared because titles came with security privileges.

    Of course none of these nuances will come through to the average person because they aren’t paying close enough attention like we are.

    • Well Wisher says:

      What else is new??

    • Polo says:

      It’s so frustrating seeing them take her words in part or out of context. These are all the usual suspects. I have seen it reported correctly other places and I’m surprised Sykes actually pointed out the obvious instead of being a stenographer for the palace.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Sykes is many things but he is NOT a stenographer for the palace.

        As Kaiser stated, Sykes gets the “behind closed palace doors” scenario correct 99% of the time.

        No doubt Sykes “absolutely has an anti-Sussex bent”, it must be stated he also DOES NOT like Peggington Wails and thinks Wiglet Middleton Wails is just pure downright common.

      • kirk says:

        Sykes is/isn’t palaces stenographer? Consider his headline article a few short hours earlier, “Harry and Meghan Unilaterally Declare Their Daughter Lilibet a Princess…but the palace hasn’t recognized the new handle, setting up a new confrontation…” Yeah, sure Sykes sounds SO independent (not).

    • JCallas says:

      They twisted her words on purpose because they knew she was telling the truth. The six month delay proved it.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      This. They do keep twisting what Meghan said in the Oprah interview. Meghan stated in the interview that when Harry’s Dad became king, their children would be prince or princess. While she was pregnant with Archie there was talk of changing the convention/Letters Patent so he wouldn’t have that title when Chuck became king. You’re right-she never said anything about the title being denied at birth. H&M have never said they didn’t want their children to have titles (I’ve seen some posting this).

      There have been planted stories suggesting this. Curiously, these planted stories started not long after the pregnancy announcement and when they were on the Oceania tour. And, we now know from Spare, after the Drab Four got together for dinner in October 2018. (along with the smear campaign ramping up against Meghan)

      We also know QE2 didn’t issue a new LP while she was alive.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She issued one in 2012 that covered W&K’s future children, making them all HRH and prince/princess at birth. It ONLY covered W&K’s future children, she CHOOSE not to have it cover any future children of Harry’s. Why do people forget this? Granny was under the control of the gray men/Charles/William for over a decade.

        1) She could have left things as they were, meaning if W&K had a daughter first she wouldn’t have received a title. A son born second would have been prince and HRH as per the 1917 Letter Patent iirc.

        2) She could have issued new Letters Patent to say that grandchildren of the current Prince of Wales (then Charles) would NOT receive HRH or Prince/Princess at birth. Would have covered all children had by either William or Harry. It would also have fit with W&K’s fake stance on ‘oh we’re just everyday normal people’ meaning our kids won’t have titles for now.

        3) She could have issued Letters Patent to say all grandchildren of the current Prince of Wales (then Charles) WOULD receive HRH and Prince/Princess at birth. Would have covered all children had by either William or Harry.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @nota, you are correct. I forgot to type out part of the last sentence including after Archie’s birth(not generating a new one after he was born)..Aware of the 2012 one and it was always interesting that any possible future children of Harry’s were not included.

      • THERoyalExpert says:

        What the Queen issued in 2012 technically wasn’t a Letters Patent. It was an amendment limited to William’s children. That amendment said his children would be Prince and Princess from birth (because they wouldn’t have had those titles until she died otherwise).

        She did not amend the 1917 LP because provisions in it covered Harry’s children. That is they would be Prince and Princess when Charles took the throne.

        Failure to deal with those facts rest entirely with the RF. And the British media is responsible too because they were spreading lies.

      • notasugarhere says:

        New Letters Patent or amendment, it was completely unnecessary. I put that move down to William, who would want to deny any future children of Harry’s to be the same ‘level’ as his kids during QEII’s lifetime. And to work with Charles to pull this other sh!t after QEII passed.

    • kyliegirl says:

      Harry did say in the Netflix documentary that when something becomes public debate, 9 times out of 10, the issue up for discussion is shelved. After Oprah the issue of H&M children’s titles became up for debate. I firmly believe that Charles was going to quietly issue a letters patent when things calmed down after the corrie removing the titles from all but the first born child of the heir. Harry called his bluff and said you are trying to exile me from the country I fought for and was willing to die for, served for 36 years of my life. Harry said I am claiming my children’s birthright and you are going to have to look even more of a callous grandfather by taking them away. I don’t think Meghan had anything to do with this. This is Harry saying he is still a prince of the realm and you have to deal with me. I am going going away quietly. Just as his mother said in the panorama interview.

    • Daysy says:

      Spot on, the UK media has change the narrative of what Meghan said in the interview.

  8. Laura D says:

    I’m glad H&M have done this but, all the nonsense on Twitter and beyond could have been avoided if the royal website had been updated straight away. Charles (and to a lesser extent William) knew those kids were prince and princess by right but chose to put out that terrible briefing that they must “earn” their titles. What kind of loving grandfather does this? Now “they” have to stop feeding misinformation to their base and either issue a Letter Patent or move on.

    • Amy Bee says:

      He’s not a loving grandfather.

      • booboocita says:

        He’s not loving, period, except when it comes to himself and Camzilla. And I’ve no doubt he’d throw Cam under the double-decker bus if she outshines him in any way in the next 20 years.

  9. Noor says:

    Charles keeps dithering over this and that issues. Since becoming King he has kept creating controversies when none was necessary eg Harry wearing the uniform at Queen’s funeral, Prince Edward’s Duke of Edinburg title, royal titles for Lilli and Archie, evicting Prince Harry from the UK home gifted to him by Queen Elizabeth, etc.

    • kirk says:

      Not a good look for Chuck to pick a fight with USA based Episcopal Church, a member church of the worldwide Anglican Communion, if he thinks he’s ordained by God to rule over others.

      The baptism of Princess Lilibet Diana by Bishop John Harvey Taylor, on behalf of Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, was reported by both Episcopal News Service and the Los Angeles Diocese. According to Episcopal News Service, H-M “initially had asked Curry to preside at the baptism, a service he helped plan. But when he tested positive for COVID, he asked Taylor to take his place, according to Amanda Skofstad, the church’s public affairs officer.” Bishop Taylor said he presided over the sacrament at “the invitation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”

      Daily Fail is now running a smeary headline about Bishop Taylor who was post-chief of staff for Richard Nixon from 1984-1990. But Taylor did not begin working for Nixon until 1979, 5 years after Nixon resigned US Presidency.

      • kirk says:

        Brit media now stepping up to the plate to claim their preeminence as the most godawful not-news media wrongfully accusing Sussex spokesperson as stating an ‘archbishop’ presided over Lili’s baptism. Some Brit idiot named Garraway is crying foul because Reverend John Taylor is not an archbishop? Sussex spox: “I can confirm that Princess Lilibet Diana was christened on Friday, March 3 by the bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, the Rev John Taylor.” British media, once again, displaying preference for crap they pull out of their behinds over objective facts.

      • kirk says:

        Brit media includes CNN’s London-based Max Foster who claims Sussex spox confirmed to CNN christening was done by “Archbishop” of Los Angeles Rev John Taylor. That statement is at odds with the Sussex statement provided to People. I’ve stopped giving credence to news reports if byline comes from anybody based in UK. No reason to give them reliance without confirming other sources.

  10. Harper says:

    There they go again, using American as some sort of … dig? Anyway, when Betty bopped, C-Rex said “Don’t update Archie and Lili to Prince or Princess.” It was a directive done for a reason and it was discriminatory and it sat like that for six full months. Sykes saying C-Rex left an open goal and the Sussexes scored. When even the rota and the derangers think you’ve lost, it’s pretty bad.

    • equality says:

      I take saying Americans are “audacious” and have the courage to stand up for what is due as being a compliment.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I do not care for the anti-Sussex position of Tom Sykes. I probably would not care for Tom Sykes at all if I met him in person. However, this Tom Sykes person is not a member of the ROTA and is not deranged.

      Prejudiced and classist yes, absolutely, but snob Sykes is not deranged.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Harper – My comment was not directed to you. I was just stating my personal opinion.

      • Harper says:

        @BTB no offense taken. Sykes has written some awful columns and he strikes me as a huge snob. However, he is the one writer (I hesitate to call him a journalist) who has come right out and said he has sources who confirmed the Rose affair. I wish he would spill more in that regard but he probably is hesitant to go first.

  11. Flower says:

    How can you force someone’s hand to bestow something which is a ‘birth right’.

    FYI this is racism 101.

  12. Mumsy says:

    It’s funny nobody is mentioning the other hat trick Harry and Meghan pulled: by noting that Charles & Co were invited but did not attend, they’ve made Charles *himself* set a precedent for refusing to attend an important family event.

    Now if HM refuse to attend the coronation, well…they’re not the ones who refused first.

    • Ms CP says:

      Exactly! And this is giving me some hope that they don’t attend the Coronation.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Exactly. It also stops any stories about Harry and Meghan not inviting the royals as we know the Palace would have lied and said they weren’t invited, if that piece of information was not included in the statement.

    • Kingston says:

      I clocked this also and hv my fingers crossed that this is EXACTLY what it means.

    • kirk says:

      Mumsy – nice catch on them setting precedent for skipping an important family event. And you know that Chuck & Co got plenty of heads up notice because the christening was being planned with Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, who gave the sermon at their wedding.

    • kirk says:

      Good catch exposing Chuck & Co as the ones setting the precedent for skipping important family event. Pretty sure they were given ample heads-up notice for it too since Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, who gave the sermon at their wedding, was involved in planning little Lili’s baptism.

  13. girl_ninja says:

    Willy being angry about his brother’s children receiving their rightful titles is the MOST disturbing thing here to me. Not only angry about it but letting it be known to “friends” who shared it with the tabs. What scumbag.

    • tamsin says:

      Seems like Willy doesn’t want his brother to have anything. He would celebrate if Harry were left to beg in the streets. His jealousy just eats up any decency he may have had.

      • Dee(2) says:

        Seems like William and Kate are peeved that Meghan wasn’t impressed by their titles since that’s all they have to make them stand out and be different. Looking at it from that view explains the issues with houses, and titles, and obsession with seating arrangements, etc. It’s sad though because it’s totally in one direction. All that competition with someone not even in the arena let alone on the court with you.

  14. Nicki says:

    That’s the most balance thing Tom Sykes has ever written about H&M. He’s generally shady as hell, especially when it comes to Meghan.

  15. B says:

    You think the American audacity is shocking?? I think abusing a mix raced woman and othering her children is shocking. I think you being prevented from being MORE racist because she publicly called you out and now years later you claim she was lying about the racism is shocking. I find the negativity and controversy the palace keepings creating around the Sussex babies shocking.

    What I don’t find shocking is parents trying to end conjecture and speculation about their babies and ensuring they get their birthright.

  16. Jais says:

    That’s really it isn’t it? He could have and should have immediately changed their titles at the same time as the Wales children. There’s no excuse and it was 6 months of pure pettiness that reveals weakness and racism. Welp, it’s part of the historical record now. Charles waited 6 months.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Jais, I agree as well. The fact that H&M’s declaring that Lili was christened with her proper title is simply a fact. Yet we are to believe that this simply action of H&M stating the actual facts forced Chuckies hand?? That is such utter nonsense. KCIII should have changed their titles the moment he became king as he did with the Cambridge children. But KCIII still has an ax to grind with Harry and he simply didn’t change it due to his own pettiness and vindictiveness. H&M didn’t simply “decide” for their children their rightful titles as KCIII is trying to spin this. It’s utterly ridiculous and disgusting.

  17. CC says:

    Oh no! Poor little thousand year old imperial institution had its hand forced!

  18. Lilpeppa40 says:

    I disagree about this being mostly correct? Meghan did not say in her interview that the palace didn’t give her kids titles at birth which was racially motivated. She very clearly said there were talks about changing the convention for when Charles became king and that’s what seemed racially motivated. I think she may have said they weren’t offered titles at birth (in response to a question about them turning down titles for Archie) but at no point did she say he was unfairly deprived of titles at birth that he was entitled to. Ugh these ppl make me sick. It’s frightening how they can twist things even with video and transcript.

  19. Ace says:

    So much willful misunderstanding of what Meghan said in the Oprah interview by those royalists bootlickers and yet they can’t stop making Chuck look like the petty and abusive asshole he is.

  20. Amy Bee says:

    I’ve been saying this whole week that Harry and Meghan forced the Palace’s hand regarding the titles. It’s very clear by the reaction of the press and the actions of the Palace after the statement was released. The Palace is trying to spin it as if they were always going to declare Archie and Lili as Prince and Princes but that’s not what they were saying since the Queen died and until this week. Charles and William’s friends are trying the clean up the mess that the Palace made by telling Harry and Meghan that their children would not get titles. I’ll repeat again, Meghan was telling the truth on the Oprah interview and she’s been vindicated. If she had remained quiet about the titles, the Palace would still be saying that Meghan and Harry didn’t want titles for their children.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Adding I’ve written before, William never wanted Harry’s children to have HRH or titles. And W&K&Carol(E) want Charlotte to be the only HRH and Princess granddaughter of Diana.

  21. LB says:

    Whatever happened behind the scenes, Charles looks so bad. Prior to Spare, stories flooded the UK Media about Charles “deciding” about titles for Archie & Lilibet. The decision was never his (I understand he could revoke by Letters Patent). They became Prince & Princess when he became King. I don’t believe any reporting about H & M waiting to decide. Charles has been absolutely terrible to his mixed race grandchildren. He purposefully did not use their titles, he did not attend Lilibet’s christening, he evicted his grandchildren & their parents from their UK home (paid for by their parents), he refuses them proper security or at least access to intelligence in the UK, he scheduled his coronation on his grandson’s birthday, and by all accounts, he has barely seen Archie & Lili. Not getting the award for grandfather of the year. Not exactly the King of inclusivity for the UK and Commonwealth.

    • B says:

      EXACTLY!! @LB they keep trying to spin this as Chuckie would never have taken the titles from his much loved grandchildren, he was just waiting on the Sussexes. But you have listed example after example of him being a terrible grandfather. I find the stripping of their security in Canada to be the most egregious but his coronation date really highlights his dislike for the Sussex babies. If he just wanted to be petty he could have planned his coronation on Harry or Meghan’s birthday but he specifically chose his grandson’s birthday. It just screams resentment.

      • Jaded says:

        Not only stripping their security while they were on Vancouver Island, but leaking their whereabouts to the gutter press 6 weeks after they arrived. They were literally swarmed by paps, and at one point there were about a dozen boats full of paps with long-range cameras bobbing in the ocean off their property. They had to keep all curtains and blinds shut from then on. After they moved to Tyler Perry’s estate, 6 weeks later it happened again. Paps were literally cutting holes in the fence to get photos.

      • LB says:

        Oh yes, add leaking of their location to the list. I am Canadian & that remote North Saanich location definitely had to be leaked. It is not like they were hanging out in Vancouver or Toronto hotspots at the time. Canadian borders were about to close due to COVID. So they were sitting ducks. When Charles, the RF, their staff & the UK media go after H & M, they are also hurting H&M’s small children. Charles is doing this not only to his son & daughter-in-law, but to his own grandchildren, his own blood. It is unconscionable.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Except it was William’s minion, Dan W who leaked their location through Christian Jones and his husband. SussexSquad tracked the payoff from Dan W to Christian Jones’s husband iirc.

  22. First comment says:

    “Harry and Meghan, (were)tired of Charles’ refusal to officially declare their kids prince and princess (which he could easily have done at any point from his accession address onwards), decided to put it up to the royals.” I’m saying this from the beginning, this was not a matter of negotiation regarding their presence at the coronation!! They (the palace) were caught off guard and were confused about what kind of narrative they could spread out. Also, “Meghan made out there was some dastardly plot to favor William’s kids over Harry’s. That really hurt William. Now everyone can see that was never the case.” how can anyone see that this was never the case? By changing the children’s titles only after they were forced by Harry’s spokerman statement ? They never meant for that to happen!!! William refused to recognize his biracial nephew with the famous quote “I’m already an uncle “. He certainly didn’t want Harry’s children having the same titles as his own that’s why they didn’t update the site for more than 6months! But, alas, Harry knows them well and he made sure that his children got their birthright. After the pushback Charles received for the “eviction ” from frogmore, he couldn’t ignore the issue. Any further delay would have shown to the whole world how much racist the BRF is… thus, we have once more William being incandescent… I love it.!

  23. Slush says:

    *sigh* these dumb f*cks in palace have me defending a system I hate lol

    Listen, I believe the monarchy should be abolished, so yes that includes the titles for everyone, including Harry, Meghan, and their kids.

    HOWEVER, as it stands now, H&M just followed the rules set out by QE. That isn’t a force of anyone’s hand. The palace were just being jerks about it in the first place.

    Ugh. Anyway. Abolish the monarchy.

    • Jojo says:

      @ SLUSH that’s exactly the position I find myself in too, sigh! The monarchy needs to go wholesale asap. It’s an archaic, undemocratic, elitist relic that should have no place in modern society. However, as long as it does still exist then it’s got to be the same stupid rules for all, across the board. WanK and KC can take their petty manoeuvres to lash out at H&M via their children and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

  24. HeyKay says:

    I think that whoever is giving advice to Charles is either
    #1. Incredibly bad at their job.
    #2. More likely is being ignored by Charles.
    #3. Charles needs H&M much more than they need anything from him.
    #4. The Coronation needs to put on a good face worldwide. Charles is not popular, has botched everything he has tried to do since becoming King. PR nightmare in every direction.
    #5. I hope H&M gave Charles a To Do List. And he follows every item on it.
    JMO, but if C gets a traditional balcony photo with H&M, W&K and himself in it, the headlines would solve a lot of HIS PR troubles.
    Man, if I were H&M, I really don’t think I could be that forgiving tho.

    Scotland, Ireland and Wales please break free from UK rule. Help end this outdated joke of The Monarchy.

  25. Chelsea says:

    That “source” is lying; Meghan did not say in the Oprah interview that Charles blocked Archie from being a Prince at birth. She said that Charles and those around him were discussing changing the letters patent to prevent Archie from becoming a Prince AFTER Charles became King.

    For months since Charles became King the RRs have tried to gaslight Meghan by claiming that she was wrong and Archie wasn’t entitled to be a Prince at Charles’ ascension and now they’ve all got crow on their faces which is why royalists have been having meltdowns on Twitter for days. I do agree though that the Sussexes forced Charles hand but it wasn’t just this week’s statement; Meghan’s comment to Oprah did this as well because the last thing Charles wants to do now is prove that she was telling the truth and he’d been considering stripping the kids of their titles before they were even born so he has to confirm they are titled and leave it at that. This week’s move was very smart though because it takes Charles’ ability to claim that he was gracious to “give” it to then(he can’t give the title; just remove it) or that he was playing hardball and using this as blackmail over them(as had been reported by RRs for months).

  26. notasugarhere says:

    ‘Meghan said on her Oprah interview that the royals had blocked Archie from becoming a prince, but it was always just a matter of convention. When the queen was alive they were great-grandchildren of the monarch so they were not entitled to the titles. Now they are grandchildren of the monarch, so they are.’

    Do they think we don’t remember the weird Letters Patent update from QEII before George was born? I would not be surprised if William had been advocating *for years* that his kids should be royals from birth while any future children of Harry’s shouldn’t be. After all, William is at least as petty as Charles.

  27. Over it says:

    Meghan was never wrong . Pegg-a-lot and turd and company keep conveniently ignoring the part that Meghan said when chucky became king there was talk of then not giving their children titles . So yes Peggy and turd . Meg was correct, you people did say that . You did go ahead and do it because look how long it took and if you could have gotten away with it completely by issuing patents, you would have but because the world is currently paying attention to your racist games with the biracial grandchildren, you had no choice but to pretend that you were always going to give them . You can’t tell us when but you were always going to do it and you are so happy about the fact that Harry and Meghan went ahead and called their children prince and princess, only your not because it’s killing willy that the biracial grandchildren got the Same prince and princess titles as his all white children. . . However we aren’t stupid and see right through your B.S and you are completely racist so let’s not pretend otherwise.

  28. Angie says:

    This guy played right into Harry and Meghan’s hands. Nothing says I love my grandchildren by kicking them out their UK home. What a self own. LOL

  29. Mary says:

    Okay, once more for the derangers in the back. During the Oprah Winfrey interview, Meghan actually spoke about the two means by which a Princedom can be bestowed upon a child. The first is by birth as spelled out in the 1917 LP (male line grandchildren of a Monarch automatically are princes or princesses). The second, as with the case of Charlotte and Louis, it can be accomplished by a new, distinct, LP. This latter method is what Meghan referenced in her interview, when it comes to bestowing a title.

    Now, when Meghan spoke about the two different ways in which Archie could be a Prince, it did get garbled and sort of merged but this whole thing about how the Queen could not bestow Princedoms on Harry’s children is bullcr*p. She did that very thing for Charlotte and Louis.

    Meghan was concerned that not only were Harry’s children not bestowed with princely titles by LP but as well that discussions were had to, in the future, change the 1917 LP so that they would either never gain the titles, if the Queen issued a new LP, or have the titles taken away from them by Charles later. She was upset because they were treating her future, biracial, children differently. So, to all those reporters and derangers that said that Meghan didn’t understand how things worked, screw you.

    I think this also would have been particularly upsetting for Harry if there had always been an understanding that his children would be deemed princes and princesses at birth under a new LP issued by the Queen. Personally, I think there was such an understanding but then Meghan came along and that put a kink in the works.

  30. Mary Pester says:

    Fees, your welcome, I have so many happy memories of all the times that I visited America. In all I was there at least 15 times and I never EVER came away disappointed. I wish I had been able to up sticks and live there but time and ill heath wasn’t on my side. I take out my albums and look at them all the time. But now, I have found this group of rational, happy, willing to share people and I thank you will all my heart for holding Harry and Megan close, and allowing this sick oldish lady the time and space to share my views

    • BeanieBean says:

      Aw, Mary Pester–from one internet stranger to another, I’ve really enjoyed reading your posts. Your fresh perspective–and humor!–have been a pleasure to read.

  31. Over it says:

    Hi peeps, I have a question and please someone help me with the answer. And correct me where I am going wrong.
    So when William children were born they went by George, Charlotte and Louis Cambridge correct?
    So why did Archie and lili not go by Sussex when they were born? Why is their name now Archie and lili of Sussex. The having to have Charles become king first for them to become prince and princess I get, however what I don’t understand and praying someone can answer is why they couldn’t be Archie Harrison Sussex and lili Sussex from birth? Anyone who knows the answer please answer

    • lanne says:

      Without titles, they are private citizens, and thus they use the official last name of the family: Mountbatten-Windsor. With titles, they are referred to as Prince and Princess of Sussex. Those titles also come with HRH designation, as per the 1917 letters patent, but they are choosing not to use them for now. Meghan and Harry are also HRHs. Their titles are not in abeyance—they have just agreed not to use them.

  32. susan says:

    Agree. I think though that as it has to be deliberate to stop Lili and Archie from being prince and princess, the fact is that Charles is a little bit soft sort of man and although he did speak of slimming down the monarchy, that he would look spiteful especially since H&M decamped. And being in such a public position he is acutely aware that everyone is watching. There is a sad sort of interview of him when he was about 18 and about choosing a wife. Good grief what did they tell him over and over again for him to be so insecure about choosing a wife? I personally don’t think racism was a part of it. Meghan said that there were several conversations. Some about colour. Some about bestowing titles. After the media made such horrible stories I can believe she was sensitive. I went to Bahamas in about 1998. At that time I met with locals and we discussed CHOGM. Charles had an affair with a Bahamian beauty queen according to my sources. CHOGM was held in Bahamas in 1985 and Harry was born 1984. I don’t think Charles is racist. I also don’t think he was ever faithful to Diana. Camilla just put up with his behaviour and fed his ego as per the tampongate conversation.

    • equality says:

      Having an affair with a POC is a very different thing from marrying and having children with a POC.

    • Beverley says:

      Equality is absolutely right. White men have told me how much they wanted to bed me…but they’ve been very clear that they see me as a good time, but would never introduce me to their friends and family. One told me once that he was desperate to sex me, but we would never be out together in public.

      That attitude is as old and colonization and is an integral part of racism.

  33. blunt talker says:


  34. Caribbean says:

    The things been said about the kids tiles boggles the mind. Charles was ‘blind sided’ so I guess if someone calls him king, he will be blind sided too? Cause the Sussexes kids and him had titles at the same time.
    ‘Journalists’ don’t have to go investigate anything anymore they just dress up and put out a hit job on the ‘it’ person of the moment. But Meghan has it worse than anyone.

    • kirk says:

      No one will ever convince me that Chuck did not know exactly what he was doing by allowing any confusion to exist in minds of people who don’t want to admit children of American biracial spouse are true inheritors in BRF line of succession. He allowed crap-talk to continue for six months! Creep!