Oh, so the palace *did* brief the media about removing the Sussex kids’ titles?

Camilla Tominey had a new piece in the Telegraph this weekend, all about Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie’s titles. Tominey is, like so many deranged haters, performatively clutching her pearls at Lili and Archie’s birthright and she’s trying to make it sound like Prince Harry and Meghan are making some kind of bold statement by simply… adhering to the Letters Patent, in which all children of the monarch are given royal titles. All of the royal reporters, including Tominey, have played fast and loose with the fact that King Charles could have used his grandkids’ titles in the online line of succession on the royal website months ago. They continue to echo the palace talking point that the Sussexes only decided recently that the kids should have titles. Keep in mind, even by the palace’s own chaotic briefings in the past week, they’ve known of Harry and Meghan’s “decision” for months. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that Charles simply should have referred to Archie and Lili with their titles starting last September. Some highlights from Tominey’s very weird piece in the Telegraph:

This is so curiously worded: The King could have only changed [Lili and Archie’s titles] by issuing a second letters patent stripping them of their titles which, despite briefings to the contrary, the palace insists he never had any intention of doing. Sources close to the Sussexes suggest that they made it known to the Firm before Christmas that their children were going to take their titles. As a second statement released on behalf of the couple later on Wednesday stressed: “The children’s titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.” Harry and Meghan are thought to have been somewhat put out that the Royal family’s website had not been updated earlier. Royal sources claim they were waiting for a formal announcement by the couple.

The palace knew about the christening announcement: According to one well-placed insider, the royal powers that be were aware the “Princess Lilibet” statement was coming because it followed internal “discussions”. It is not known whether these conversations extended beyond the different parties’ press offices to become a topic of family discourse but whatever the nature of the talks – the Sussexes’ decision does have implications for the future of the monarchy.

Oh, the slimmed-down monarchy: For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities? Whatever the reason behind Harry and Meghan’s decision-making, their children are a cut above celebrity in America, where in the absence of a class system there is a hierarchy of fame and fortune. But as Dr Craig Prescott, a lecturer in Law at Bangor University, has pointed out: “If they believe that this may benefit Archie and Lilibet in the future, is it worth the cost of an increased public profile? Do they risk becoming curiosities: an American Prince and an American Princess?”

Titles = public life?? Having fiercely guarded their children’s privacy, as well as their personal security, Harry and Meghan do not appear to have fully accounted for the fact that Archie and Lilibet may wish to live lives well out of the public eye. To coin a Sussex expression, how on earth will royal titles enable them to find their freedom?

This is all about Camilla?? Not so much a pre-emptive strike, as a calculated move to reaffirm their children’s place in the palace pecking order, the timing of the Princess Lilibet announcement is interesting – coming just a week after reports emerged that the Queen Consort’s grandchildren will take a leading role in the Coronation on May 6.

The palace is still convinced that Meghan and the kids will not come to the Chubbly: With a save the date email having already been sent to their Montecito home, does the decision to take the titles mean we will not only be seeing Harry and Meghan at Westminster Abbey but Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet? Don’t bank on it. Summing up the consensus behind palace walls, one royal insider remarked: “The thinking is that only Harry will come.” With Archie turning four on the day of the ceremony, Meghan and the children have the perfect get-out-of-Coronation-free card.

[From The Telegraph]

“The King could have only changed [Lili and Archie’s titles] by issuing a second letters patent stripping them of their titles which, despite briefings to the contrary, the palace insists he never had any intention of doing.” So… the palace was openly briefing the press on Charles’s plan to issue a second Letters Patent, which he never actually planned to do? That sounds like a Charles problem, not a Sussex problem. Harry understood (better than Meghan) what it meant when his father became king and what it would mean for his children. He waited to see what his dogsh-t father would do, and Charles did what Harry expected: went out of his way to refuse Archie and Lili their birthright titles publicly until Harry challenged him on it publicly.

As for all of the “concerns” about Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet becoming curious American royalty… are we still pretending that a royal title equals public money, security and protection from harassment? Because we have eyes, Camilla Tominey, we know that’s not the case. The titles are just that – titles and nothing more. Lili and Archie are American kids who will live in America and visit their dogsh-t grandfather, the king, once in a blue moon.

Photos courtesy of Instar.

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

91 Responses to “Oh, so the palace *did* brief the media about removing the Sussex kids’ titles?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Beverley says:

    Thank you Kaiser. The designation “Charles, the dogsh*t Grandfather” is really growing on me.

    • Seaflower says:

      Let’s just shorten it to “Charles the Dogsh*t” for brevity. Covers a multitude of situations.

      • G says:

        We also have Charles the Turd in case one wants variety..

      • Roo says:

        And for those days when we need a bit of insouciance, I suggest using “KFC” (King Fucking Charles). 🙂

      • Jais says:

        I like KFC, king fucking Charles, bc it also makes me think of Kentucky fried chicken, which works bc he’s greasy and gross. But it also kind of makes me hungry in a shameful give me my bucket of fried chicken type way. Although, I prefer the Popeyes spice actually.

    • JDMyrick says:

      Next time I’m walking and I see a big pile of dog poo… KCIII will always come to my mind. Thanks for memory Kaiser.

  2. ThatsNotOkay says:

    The fact that they keep harping on this and changing the story (as per usual, with the Rota), just means Tominey is broke. It also means that Charles cannot figure out what the better spin is on how much of a shit person and parent he’s always been.

  3. Dee(2) says:

    The questions about them having titles and not being able to live a non public life it’s fundamentally what’s wrong with the British media. This idea that you have to play the game. Plenty of non British royals with titles have lived and worked in the United States and didn’t have to do any sort of public facing events to go on about their lives. They will be celebrities given who their parents are. However just like the kids of a bunch of other celebrities, writers, actors, directors who choose not to follow in their parents footsteps no one will be demanding that they make public appearances because of who they are related to.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Harry and Meghan have said that Archie and Lili not going to be using their titles in everyday life. So Camilla Tominey is just being a concern troll.

  4. mel says:

    Somehow, I don’t think there’ll be any trips to see King Pop-pop. Granny was one thing Charles is another. Don’t think it’s gonna happen, frankly I think when this is over, everything will be over. I think the visits to the family will NOT happen.

    • Jennifer says:

      Yeah, I highly doubt he ever “met” them at the Jubbly and probably never will get any visits if they aren’t wanted and oh, have nowhere safe to stay.

  5. Becks1 says:

    To me this is Camilla tominey doing a lot of clean up. This reminds me of her scrambling after the cry-gate story was corrected by Meghan, where she was insisting her sources there were good (well Carole or Camilla or whoever would be a good source) but couldn’t’ quite admit that her source lied to her.

    I do believe that the palace was actively briefing the press about removing Prince/ss from the Sussex children and that’s the reason their names were not updated on the website, because charles planned on taking the titles away in the future and was just hoping no one would notice (which is stupid but whatever they don’t always think these things through lol.) Or he was briefing as a way to see how the public reacted or something. so now the RRs are basically trying to protect themselves but we know they are TICKED because they were lied to about this. They had no idea the Princess Lilibet announcement was coming and they’re MAD.

    • Jais says:

      They are mad. Which I kind of love. Honestly, the palaces plant and leak true things but they also lie a lot to these reporters. So agree becks1 that they’re mad about this. Some of these reporters, esp CT, also really love to punish the Sussexes. They were gleefully writing about Charles stripping the children of their titles. Then they were wrong and it feels to them like the Sussexes won. They’ve really built up this one-sided competition.

    • DouchesOfCornwall says:

      Wasnt there in the past a statement from the palace where they had to name either archie or lili or both and the titles weren’t on? If they were prince and princess all along with no questions about it, it would’ve been clearer than clear at that point.

  6. K8erade says:

    The only logic I *could* see for Archie and Lili not being allowed titles is that they don’t live in England. Lili I can see there being questions as she was born in America/does not likely have British citizenship. But this whole thing sounds like a PR disaster of Charles’ doing and things that could have been addressed in a logical way rather than this vindictive s**t with the British media. This just sounds like more courtier manipulation and temper tantrums with Tominey as a mouthpiece.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Beatrice and Eugenie have frequently lived outside the US, they still have HRH and princess titles. Where they live isn’t the issue.

      Both their kids have dual US/UK citizenship. Meghan was born in the US, any child she has anywhere in the world is automatically a US citizen. Harry was born in the UK, any child he has is automatically at UK citizen no matter where they’re born. Any grandchildren he has would not automatically be UK citizens; where they’re born would impact that.

    • equality says:

      Lili has citizenship because her father does. Archie has citizenship in the US despite being born in the UK. Titles go by blood-line and letters patent.

      • K8erade says:

        Oh yeah. I’m not saying they don’t deserve it. I’m saying that’s the only possible logical argument which as you point out is not logical at all.

    • G says:

      Lili would have to be a UK citizen to be included in the LoS

      • Isabella says:

        I believe this is right, from another commenter: “Harry was born in the UK, any child he has is automatically at UK citizen no matter where they’re born.”

      • Feeshalori says:

        Both children have dual citizenship.

      • ketara says:

        I don’t think that’s true, my understanding is that they can be born and christened anywhere, by the anglican communion, and that the only thing that would remove them from the line is being a catholic, or married to one.

    • Well Wisher says:

      Never heard about any preconditions of not using titles.
      This particular writ was patented because the king at that time did not have good relations with his children, the grandchildren were being withheld from seeing him, so he enact the writ.
      Lili’s citizenship will take less than a month, because of her father. There is no good reason why this balloned
      into a PR crisis.

      This embarrassing situation can cease if the one hand clapping stops.

  7. OriginalLeigh says:

    “ For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities?”

    The Sussexes are not the only non-working royals who use their titles???? Do they think we’re all stupid?

    • equality says:

      And, even without titles, Zara and Peter manage to work that royal connection to get gigs.

    • notasugarhere says:

      As if the RRs don’t know that ‘slimming down the court’ has nothing to do with titles. It is about 1) the number of working royals and 2) how much taxpayer money is spent on this sh!tshow.

      Notice none of this slimming down talk involves decreasing the roughly 600 million in taxpayer funds spent each year by/on these pampered poodles.

      • Jais says:


      • BayTampaBay says:

        Are there not seven non-working Royals: Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry and Meghan?

        These Royal “Rat” Reporters cannot even count!

      • Jennifer says:

        Yeah, it’s a total number of money now going around less people. “Slimmed down” doesn’t make it like, cheaper on taxpayers or anything 😛

    • MsIam says:

      Actually he has seven non working Royals who could use their titles for commercial opportunities. But somehow only the ones in America are the problem. And is he planning to strip the Gloucesters and Kents once they all retire? What a horrible “family”.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Oh, woe is me, moans Charles. Too bad, so sad. Guess you’re stuck with the mixed race children having titles because if you’re even thinking of removing theirs, you’d better expand that LP to include everyone who doesn’t work in that family.

      • Jennifer says:

        You know what, if Charles REALLY wanted to remove those titles, he could lift a finger/leaky pen/whatever and actually put some effort into doing it. He’s king, he could. But hm, so far no?

      • Lucky Charm says:

        He can’t issue a new Letters Patent because all the pens, quills, ink pots and inkwells in the entire UK have revolted against him!

    • Kingston says:

      ” For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities?”

      This is them still focussed on trying to find an argument to sell to their sycophants as a reasonable justification for taking away the prince and princess titles from Prince Archie and Princess Lili (and perhaps even their parents!) somewhere down the road.

      They really really truly believe they could escape the stink of such barefaced RACISM.

      • Beverley says:

        @Kingston, could it be that such barefaced racism is pervasive, acceptable, and overwhelmingly embraced by British society? I mean, why else do so many Brits vehemently deny the existence of racism on their salty shores, yet parade it openly and with such relish? Against toddlers?

    • Cessily says:

      I can’t wait to see how much this “fable” of a slimmer down monarchy is costing the British subjects. It is looking like it will be an astronomical figure and not one single £ of it is because of The Sussex family or their titles.

  8. girl_ninja says:

    Charles and that whole lot are ugly and hateful. I am so tired and disgusted on behalf of Harry and Meghan that I can only imagine how they feel.

  9. equality says:

    She needs to get her story straight. Her contention is that BP knew that H&M would use the titles when Lili was christened. If that is true then the fact that Cam’s grands would be at the Chubbly would have to be planning to drop at a certain time on the part of the palace. She can’t have it both ways.

    • Couch potato says:

      As usual the rats manage to contradict themselves in the same article. The people buying their crap must be a special kind of stupid,

  10. Acha says:

    Although I don’t care about royal titles, I am glad that Archie and Lilibet have them, simply because they are the first mixed-race kids to be given titles. It means a lot to me, also a mixed-race person, to see that the RF is being forced to give them the same respect. I know nobody’s gonna learn from this in Extremely Normal and Not At All F-K’d Up Island, but at least it’s something.

    • aftershocks says:

      ^^ @Acha, this is not exactly true. If you are referencing only Great Britain in modern times, then okay. But historically, Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, had a visibly mixed ethnic background via her Portuguese mother’s African ancestors. The children of Charlotte and George III did not present as ethnically mixed, but they were.

      In modern times, there are some European royals with titles who have mixed ethnic backgrounds, including Prince Alfons of Liechtenstein (son of Prince Maximilian and Princess Angela, who was born in Panama and raised in NYC); and Prince Joachim of Denmark’s older sons, Count Nikolai and Count Felix (their ‘Prince’ titles they were born with, were recently taken away by their grandmother, Queen Margrethe II). Joachim is divorced from his first wife, Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, whose ethnic background is Asian and European.

  11. Jm says:

    Charles and Camilla look ridiculous in those feather outfits. The level of out of touch you’d have to be to not be mortified to walk around like that.

    Also I’m really glad they are using the titles. It’s about time the UK had black and American royals in it. I love the message it sends, although I wouldn’t fault Meghan at all if she had decided not to. I can only imagine how exhausting it is just existing as black with those people and not wanting to deal with another battle.

  12. Brassy Rebel says:

    She conflates small children having titles with somehow forcing them into the public spotlight. Honestly, no one here cares about titles except a few rogue American royalists. And H&M have been pretty clear that it will be up to their kids to retain or reject these titles when they are older. Tominey is not making much sense here. But then, she rarely does. She’s actually afraid that a three year old and a one year old “could attract commercial opportunities”. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

    • MsIam says:

      That’s a deranger talking point, that “Meghan” wanted the kids to have titles for commercial opportunities. I guess they are convinced she’s coming out with a line of Archie and Lili baby products or something. The derangers stay policing the Sussexes wallets, whether its what they spend or what they earn. It’s insane.

      • TheWigletOfWails says:

        Camilla is a deranger hiding behind a “respectable” newspaper. Harry called her an execrable woman for a reason.

    • Blithe says:

      Yep. The likely reality is that if BP had officially used the kids’ titles immediately after the (real) Queen’s death, there would have been a few articles in People magazine about the cute little American Prince and Princess, then that would have probably been it — With maybe a few more articles when each kid turned 18. BP’s horrible behavior has actually attracted attention and created interest, since even people who don’t care about the BRF don’t want to see toddlers treated unfairly.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        Because of their security concerns, H&M are very careful about the release of even still photos of the kids. And here’s Camilla Tominey worrying that they’re going to try to make them YouTube stars. It’s utter delusion and insanity.

  13. Amy Bee says:

    I love the concern trolling from Camilla Tominey. If it weren’t for Meghan’s intervention during the Oprah interview, the Palace would still be playing us for fools regarding the titles. Charles briefed to the press that he he intended to issue a LP, exactly as Meghan had said, that’s why all of them were shocked by Harry and Meghan’s use of Princess in their statement last week.

  14. HamsterJam says:

    Won’t someone think of KFC? He has 2 non-working babies using up titles

    • G says:

      Technically 5. Wales’ kids aren’t working either but are publicly funded 🤷‍♀️

      • Jais says:

        Ugh they sure seem like working royals sometimes. Especially when their parents take them to an event for awkward photo-ops.

      • Ace says:

        Sorry, but the Wails kids have been working hard deflecting from their parent’s laziness for years. Some respect for George being forced into a suit so he can sit between his parents to make less obvious they hate being next to each other. And Charlotte has also done her bit.

    • Surly Gale says:

      I’m not entirely sure what KFC refers to. Thinking it’s maybe King Fuching Charles, but not positive. That said, whenever I come across the KFC name for Charles The Turd, all I read is “Kentucky Fried Chicken” and I have myself a little giggle.

      • Jais says:

        @surlygale! I just said the same above. Everyone I read KFC, I think king fucking Charles but also Kentucky fried chicken.

      • Surly Gale says:

        @Jais, sorry I didn’t see your comment when I made mine! LOL Great minds, eh?!

    • Lucky Charm says:

      @Hamsterjam, I respectfully disagree. Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet are clearly working very hard staying in the front of every single rota rat and royal experts mind 24/7/365!

  15. ariel says:

    The silly costumes chuck and camilla are wearing- would look right at home in a mardi gras parade.

    Someone needs to interview charles and ask- how, after a lifetime, are you so incredibly bad at public relations?????

  16. Is That So? says:

    I hope the first thing the Sussexes teach their children is don’t curtsy to anyone and don’t let anyone curtsey to you. A small lowering of the chin or an handshake is all that is required. The appropriate place to bow is after a performance or at a Renaissance Fair.

  17. Blue Nails Betty says:

    “ For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities?”

    Good grief. Every royal in every nation, since the beginning of time, has traded on their titles. Do they really think we believe Charles built up his businesses by cold calling people and only identifying himself as Chuck? That his letterhead and business cards don’t have his titles on them? That people don’t introduce him using his titles?

    Not a damn one of these loathsome, mediocre fools would have any measure of success if they hadn’t won the birthright lottery as royals complete with being titled from birth.

    • LB says:

      Totally agree. Prince & Princess Michael have been trading on their titles for decades. Not sure that Princesses Eugenie & Beatrice would have their jobs without their titles. Let’s not forget Peter “drink British Milk” Philips posing regally in front of a castle. Plus nobody would be interested in Zara & Mike without their royal connections. Mike went on reality tv! No doubt that Camilla’s children have and will benefit from their royal connections. And let’s not forget the Middletons! Calling bs on all of this.

  18. Ceej says:

    Unsurprising dose of sexism/misogyny to suggest only Megan has a built in excuse not to attend due to their child’s birthday.

    Perhaps Harry doesn’t want to be an absentee father and also has a perfect excuse?!

    • TheWigletOfWails says:

      It’s a well-used tactic by the BM..they love separating Harry from his wife and kids because they want to keep pretending that they don’t exist.

    • Over it says:

      It’s disgusting how they think if they keep on writing articles about separating Harry from his wife and children, it will become so. They do it all the time and it makes my blood boil. Harry choose Meghan and him and her decided to have these children. They are Harry children and these people need to stop the vileness against two innocent children . We see you racist,we see you. .

  19. Jais says:

    Am really uncomfortable with the way CT writes that the Sussexes let it be known that their children would take their titles. These cute children have not “taken” anything but nice job on trying to make them seem like grabby little title-takers. Tominey is a bitter mess. Those kids have titles due to their birthright, according to the monarchy rules, which Tominey claims to support. Those kids didn’t take anything and it’s not cool for her to insinuate that they did. She’s just mad Charles didn’t punish those children and strip them of their titles.

  20. Is That So? says:

    Every single thing that Meghan and Harry said during Queen Oprah’s interview that Piers and the other royal sycophants said were lies have been proven true, by the tabloids.

    What is alarming about reading the comments of the royal sycophants on Facebook is how committed they are to the idea that the Sussexes lie and how much they will twist themselves in knots to hold on to that belief.


    • TheWigletOfWails says:

      I wouldn’t pay much attention to them. They delude themselves that the entire US hates two private citizens then cry when the Sussexes are minding their business, or out and about looking peaceful and successful. Everyday people who don’t care about the BaRF are waking up to the reality of who they and their unhinged, racist supporters are, thanks to Spare.

  21. Mads says:

    The “working royals” category is a short sighted policy that is now coming to bite them in the arse. It was a poorly thought through solution to the Andrew problem and then used to try and humiliate Harry and Meghan. Hypothetically, if Cam outlives Chuck and ceases to carry out engagements, will they strip her HRH designation? (William probably would, but you get my point lol). They are playing with the principle of hierarchy and that weakens the very foundation of the system

    • SueBarbri33 says:

      And, I’d add that the whole point of these titles and styles and HRHs is that they are supposed to be guaranteed no matter who inherits them or what they do or do not do. Plenty of monarchs have been mad, plenty of royal princes have fallen out with their fathers (see the Hanovers and darn near every other house), but royals can’t lose their titles for poor behavior, mental health problems, or anything else like that. Pretending otherwise is a waste of time and an insult to nerdy historians everywhere. The only exceptions I can think of are abdications (Edward and Wallis) or bills of attainder (Wars of the Roses, etc). If you can’t cherry pick monarchs, you definitely can’t cherry pick royal grandchildren and it’s absurd to pretend otherwise.

  22. JCallas says:

    “ For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities?”

    Is CT referring to the Yorks?

  23. Jaded says:

    The number of times Upchuck has fumbled the ball in his brief tenure as King is astonishing. And thanks to the coverage here on CB all his fumbles are being revealed under a very harsh spotlight. The briefing battle around the Sussex kids’ titles, IMHO, was the worst. Using 2 innocent little kids to play out a spiteful, racist game is sick. I think the Upchuckathon will be the last time the Sussexes do anything with that despicable family,

  24. Eurydice says:

    A law lecturer from Bangor? That’s who she finds to get a quote about H&M’s children?

    • Feeshalori says:

      Bangor, Maine, in the US? Or is there a city in the UK?

    • TheWigletOfWails says:

      At first, I thought it was Bangor, Maine but it’s the one in Wales. I bet she got that quote from somewhere else, since her lies and weirdo behavior towards Harry and Meghan (especially Meghan) are well documented.

      • Lizzie says:

        Either way, Maine or Wales, this person has zero insight. Meghan has said the titles are tied to security in the UK. The titles are their birthright as grandchildren of the monarch, end of story. It’s up to Meghan and Harry, for now, to choose when and where to use them then it will be Lily and Archies choice when they grow up.

  25. MSTJ says:

    Another spin? OMG!!! I thought all the spins were already covered by end of last week. These tabloids are relentless in their efforts to rewrite history but I refuse to acknowledge them. Charles and his sycophants were malicious, vindictive and cruel to have refused to publicly recognize the children’s titles when he became king last September.

    On one of the Celebitichy blog last week I shared my assessment of how the events likely unfolded. We need to keep highlighting the malice each time a tabloid spin is put out to rewrite the history of the cruelty towards two innocent children.

    Here is what I think went down.

    The titles were automatically eligible to be used once Charles became king last year because the children inherited them at that moment. Charles made a speech to the world last year and acknowledged Will and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales and maliciously did not acknowledge the Sussex children as Prince and Princess. Bear in mind, the Prince and Princess of Wales titles were not automatic and were only confirmed in parliament this year, a few weeks ago, which is why I view Charles’ actions regarding the Sussexes children’s titles as malicious and I think the courtiers also did see his actions that way too. Consequently, the courtiers did not update the website and allowed their sycophants to believe the children would not be Prince and Princess. They were also never going to make an announcement about the titles. They always figured they (the palace) had the upper hand regarding official announcements. They never expected the Sussexes to make an announcement about the titles, otherwise they would have updated the website before the christening because they knew when the christening was going to happen. The Sussexes, however, justifiably utilized the announcement of Lilibet’s christening to make it known to the world that she was a Princess. Add the Anglican bishop to the mix and voilà, checkmate.

    Afterwards, the institution and their tabloid friends tried to spin positive narratives for the courtiers and the royal family. Their clean up the mess narratives, however, all came across stupid because they were lies and many people globally saw through the lies. They cannot hide the maliciousness of Charles and the institution. The rest of the world sees it.

    We should not allow them to spin any narrative that is remotely acceptable or lacking in the malice demonstrated. They (tabloids, courtiers and royal family) deserve no grace for their I’ll-judged actions against two innocent children. They are vindictive, malicious, cruel people and they pursue every opportunity available to denigrate the Sussexes.

  26. QuiteContrary says:

    “For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities?”

    Again with the implication that two preschoolers should be working to earn their titles, as if titles ever are earned. For some reason — hmm, what could it be? — Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet are being singled out, with their parents, for being “nonworking.”

    For the eleventy-billionth time, royal work isn’t real work anyway. So all of of this is nonsense. Racist nonsense.

    • tamsin says:

      So a two toddlers need to work to “earn” a royal title that is conferred because their birth? Doesn’t that just challenge the whole idea of hereditary titles and positions? Mind you, if this notion only applies to mixed race people, one can’t perhaps draw a different conclusion. So maybe Charles needs to do more to “earn” his title as king.

      So are they thinking Archie might do a concert tour with his little toy grand? Maybe Lili could play the drums? Maybe Charles should ask Archie to play at his coronation. Surely he wouldn’t turn down grandpa.

  27. Over it says:

    Again with this f—-ing narrative that Harry should come to the chubbly alone and leave Meghan at home with her children
    Celebrate her child birthday as if Harry sperm didn’t help make them . It’s again trying to erase Harry biracial wife and his mixed race children and I am here to tell you, the world will f—ing end before Harry lets that happen.

  28. Tara says:

    I now hope that Meghan will go to the Chubbly, leaving Harry to watch the kids.

  29. Saucy&Sassy says:

    I don’t think anyone is surprised that the palace was ‘briefing’ about KFC taking the titles and now suddenly everyone knows the titles existed when QE2 died. What’s interesting is that this atrocious woman wrote it for all to see. Oh, yes, they’re mad about not knowing about the christening with the Archbishop and the name announcement in advance.

    If the Sussexes decide to go the UK, I anticipate all of them will go. H&M, if they decide to attend, will go to the Clowning together. Harry testifies the following week, so I could see them being in the UK with the children. According to the leaks from the palace and bm, Frogmore Cottage is theirs until this Fall.

    I looked, and Harry’s judicial action regarding security is scheduled for April. I have a feeling what they do will be predicated on having proper security that he can pay for, but who knows?

    Eugenie and Beatrice, I believe, lived in New York for work. They always used their titles. No one really cared in the US. I’m not sure that people knew they lived there. That’s how uninterested Americans are in titles. It’s a very difficult lesson for the brf and bm to learn that outside of the UK, the Monarchy just ain’t that important or interesting. The Sussexes, however, are very interesting and they are doing work to help people. That makes them newsworthy. Their titles are not what people are paying attention to. Let’s be frank. If the titles were that important more people would be interested when Anne or Sophie was in the US. Guess what? We’re not interested. KFC needs to take notice. He shouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t get large crowds and adulation if he visits here. Look how little notice Americans paid to Fails and Wails when they were here.

  30. Mary Pester says:

    OFFS will someone tell the Palace and their paps that their washing machine has STUCK ON THE SPIN CYCLE!

  31. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Before the tabloids start throwing around words like “slim down his court,” maybe they should first define what that means? The Sussexes are living off of their own money, and don’t regularly attend all the unnecessary (and expensive!) pomp and circumstance ego boosts that the other royals seem to crave so much. Isn’t that contributing to a “slimming down”?

  32. Tessa says:

    The royal insider wants harry to leave Meghan home. So now it’s the original story that Meghan stays home. And the spin of a divorce coming. This is really offensive imo

  33. Tessa says:

    And there is Sarah Ferguson using her duchess of York title on the cover of her new book. She is an ex wife yet these writers obsess over titles if two small children

  34. Wesley says:

    Harry & Meghan have stepped back. There is nothing to say that Archie or Lilibet won’t move to the UK & resume working for Charles when they are 18.
    Frankly, the Palace would be best advised to get rid of the tabloid journalists from their communications team & find some Grandee who understands PR & diplomacy.

  35. Robin Samuels says:

    Many readers are tired of the Royal Family, particularly Charles, Camilla, William, and the Royal Rota. This clown show began the day QEII died and worsened each day. The website updated the titles for William and Kate. Kate wore a piece of the Queen’s jewelry, and Charles
    flip-flopped on Harry’s wearing of uniform and reception invitations within 48 hours. To make matters worse, the planning of the coronation began, and May 6, 2023, became the selected date, which also happens to be Archies 4th birthday and graduation at Oxford University. Behind the curtain between Spare and the Harry and Meghan Netflix documentary, we saw how vindictive and evil Charles and William are, even though Royal Rota spun it as Harry and Meghan bashing the royal family. Then the back-and-forth discussion as to whether Archie and Lilli receive their birthright titles since their grandfather is now King of England or does Charles have the leverage to say yay or nay. The most profound statement in the Harry and Meghan Netflix documentary was Tyler Perry’s statement. Charles was abusing Harry and Meghan and tried to force them, at least Harry, back into the fold. History will not be kind to his reputation as a parent and legacy as a monarch. He’d rather die in shame than accept one ounce of the blame.

  36. Princessk says:

    Who are the FOUR non working royals who use their titles??