Sometimes, I feel like the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s defenders are too quick to declare a story false without at least considering the idea that A) the Windsors are actually confessing to something diabolical and B) Team Sussex usually comes out and claps back on some of the worst stories so it’s good to wait until all of the facts come out. I’ll be more specific. This week, Richard Eden at the Mail ran an exclusive about Prince Harry speaking to the Earl Spencer about possibly changing the Sussexes’ surname to Spencer. This story was confirmed several days later by the Guardian, with a sh-t ton of extra context. Context like: Buckingham Palace managed to influence a delay in issuing Archie and Lilibet’s British passports, and Harry was so upset about the six-month delay, he consulted his Uncle Charles about the possibility of a Spencer name-change. The consultation happened in the months after QEII’s death, when King Charles was playing dithering games about the Sussex kids’ titles. Well, it looks like Vanity Fair might have gotten a briefing from Team Sussex too, because they have some interesting quotes about this story:
This year, Meghan Markle has emphasized that “Sussex” is the surname she shares with Prince Harry and their two children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. But a recent report from The Guardian revealed that a recent passport snafu led the duke and duchess to consider giving their children different legal names.
According to the newspaper, Harry and Meghan applied for British passports for their children, which were so delayed that the couple’s lawyers sent a letter expressing a desire to request access to the information under the terms of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a data protection law. Days after the letter was sent, The Guardian reports, the UK government issued passports for Archie and Lili.
“There was clear reluctance to issue passports for the kids,” a source close to Meghan and Harry told the newspaper. “The king hadn’t wanted Archie and Lili to carry the titles, most of all the HRH, and the British passports, once created, would be the first and perhaps the only legal proof of their names.”
A spokesperson for the couple told Vanity Fair, “We do not comment on private issues pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s children.”
The behind-the-scenes discussions about the Sussex children and the complicated subject of their legal names has been in the news recently after the Mail on Sunday’s Richard Eden reported that the couple once considered changing their legal names to “Spencer,” the maiden name of Princess Diana. VF understands that Prince Harry once spoke to his maternal uncle Charles Spencer about the family name but did not pursue a legal name change.
“He’s now closer to his mother’s family than his immediate family,” a source close to the family told VF. “At one point Harry mooted the idea of taking the Spencer name, but rejected it because he knew it would be way too controversial and yet another legal headache.”
Spencer has been a source of support for Harry during the last few years. “Harry is very close to his maternal side of the family, and in all of this his uncle Earl Spencer has been a shoulder to cry on,” the source added. “Harry has stayed with his uncle when he’s been over in the UK and is always invited to join the Spencers for Christmas.”
“At one point Harry mooted the idea of taking the Spencer name, but rejected it because he knew it would be way too controversial and yet another legal headache.” One of the things I still want to know is what names they use for all of their American business and legal documents. I would imagine that, especially after QEII’s passing, there was some suggestion to just drop their titles completely in all of their American dealings and simply adopt the same surname legally. Is “adopting the Sussex surname” more or less of a headache than adopting the Spencer surname? Once again, I appreciate how much the Spencer family has Harry’s back. And it’s always nice to hear that Uncle Charles invites the Sussexes to Christmas at Althorp!
Anyway, the Spencer name story is overshadowing a much more diabolical story about the influence wielded by King Charles and the palace courtiers. Never forget that these were the same people who removed Meghan’s name from her son’s birth certificate. And now we learn that they managed to influence British passport officials to the point of a six-month delay in issuing passports to two children? How is THAT not the larger story?
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.
-
- The Duke of Sussex during the unveiling of a statue commissioned of his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, in the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace, London, on what would have been her 60th birthday. Picture date: Thursday July 1, 2021.,Image: 619146822, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR 48 HOURS- Fee Payable Upon reproduction – For queries contact Avalon sales@Avalon.red London +44 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles +1 310 822 0419 Berlin +49 30 76 212 251 Madrid +34 91 533 42 89, Model Release: no, Credit line: Avalon.red / Avalon
-
- The Duke of Sussex during the unveiling of a statue commissioned of his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, in the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace, London, on what would have been her 60th birthday.,Image: 619146823, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR 48 HOURS- Fee Payable Upon reproduction – For queries contact Avalon sales@Avalon.red London +44 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles +1 310 822 0419 Berlin +49 30 76 212 251 Madrid +34 91 533 42 89, Model Release: no, Credit line: Dominic Lipinski / Avalon
-
- The Duke of Sussex with his uncle Earl Spencer, at the unveiling of a statue of his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, in the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace, London, on what would have been her 60th birthday.,Image: 619146847, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR 48 HOURS- Fee Payable Upon reproduction – For queries contact Avalon sales@Avalon.red London +44 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles +1 310 822 0419 Berlin +49 30 76 212 251 Madrid +34 91 533 42 89, Model Release: no, Credit line: Dominic Lipinski / Avalon
-
- Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex arriving at the Invictus Games 10th Anniversary Service at St Paul’s Cathedral in London, England. UK. Wednesday 8th May 2024 -,Image: 871355456, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NORESTRICTIONS, Model Release: no, Pictured: Invictus Games 10th Anniversary, Credit line: JW / Bang Showbiz / Avalon
-
- Guests arrive to attend a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, at Saint Paul’s Cathedral, London Featuring: Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer Where: London, United Kingdom When: 08 May 2024 Credit: Cover Images
-
- Guests arrive to attend a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, at Saint Paul’s Cathedral, London Featuring: Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer Where: London, United Kingdom When: 08 May 2024 Credit: Cover Images
-
- Guests arrive to attend a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, at Saint Paul’s Cathedral, London Featuring: Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex Where: London, United Kingdom When: 08 May 2024 Credit: Cover Images
-
- Prince Harry Duke of Sussex attending a St Paul’s Cathedral service to mark the Invictus Games’ tenth anniversary in London, UK. Featuring: Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex Where: London, United Kingdom When: 08 May 2024 Credit: Dutch Press Photo/Cover Images **NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION IN THE NETHERLANDS OR FRANCE**
-
- Guests attend a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, at Saint Paul’s Cathedral, London Featuring: Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex Where: London, United Kingdom When: 08 May 2024 Credit: Cover Images
How is his mother’s family less “immediate” than his father’s? They just don’t stop with the nonsense. Charles is such a piece of sh-t he really wanted to block those interracial children…I wish I was surprised by this news, but I’m not.
Harry’s immediate family is his wife and children.
Exactly. Meghan, Archie, and Lilibet are Harry’s immediate family.
“…a source close to the FAMILY told VF.”
The wording of this by VF was so vague. Which family? Spencer, Windsor, or the Sussex? The SOURCE used “immediate family” to describe the Windsor, made me believe H&M did not brief VF for this article. It’s KC3 hit back at the Guardian article, just like Maureen’s story, aiming to blacken Harry’s reputation in UK people’s public eyes.
Agree . First thing I thought when I saw the words immediate his family
Angelica I was coming to ask the same thing.
In actuality, his “immediate” family are his wife and kids. The others (both sides) are all relatives.
The hateful, bitter energy the royals (and the government, to some extent) hold for two CHILDREN is the huge story here.
History will destroy the Windsors and their government enablers for this racist animosity towards the Sussex children.
@Beverley … Agreed. I believe there is a deliberate campaign to erase Meghan from the British Monarchy’s history books. Her name was changed on Archie’s birth certificate from Rachel Meghan Markle to Duchess of Sussex for a reason.
Decades from now, people would be more inclined to research the name in the ‘Mother’ field on Prince Archie’s birth certificate, identifying his mother as a Black/mixed race woman. A nameless Duchess of Sussex title, however, is only historically relevant and notable by association through marriage to King Charles III’s son Prince Henry, the Duke of Sussex.
All the ramblings about Willie’s inheriting the crown & what he’ll do as King….has it not occurred to anyone that Willie’s reign might be short? As in..he’ll do such a balls up of the job, the Republicans will finally get the monarchy abolished! Could happen.
I would consider Harry’s wife and his children his immediate family, but ignoring that how is his paternal family his immediate family and not his maternal family? Does Earl Spencer and his aunts not hold the same placement as Anne or Edward? His mother is deceased but his connection hasn’t disappeared? This framing for a supposedly ” Sussex source” is a weird way to describe his familial connections.
That being said the Spencer’s do seem to support and have his back more. They came to Lili’s christening in the U.S.There is evidence if not confirmation of his uncle maybe celebrating Thanksgiving with them, and they are clearly welcome at Althorp as confirmed in Spare and recent trips by Harry.
I do agree and said as much yesterday that the name change isn’t the story. Cancelling passport interviews, changing names on birth certificates, preventing access to security briefings. This all indicates attempts to legally block those children from their citizenship and curtail their rights. Beyond the racism I think they worry about what Archie and Lili will and can ask for in 20 years. I don’t think they’ll want anything to do with them, but that family seems to thrive in believing everyone is a terrible as they are.
The source probably a British journalist.
The word “journalist “ is doing a helluva lot of heavy lifting there.
Why would the Sussexes talk to VF after their awful American Hustle cover?
Given Maureen’s piece on this, this is probably a Palace leak (for whose gain?) with Charles Spencer countering.
Vanity Fair telling us that Harry is closer to the Spencers than the Royal Family is stating the obvious.
The Spencers haven’t treated Harry badly unlike his father’s family.
Just a little bit obvious right? Lol
The squaddies run with stories, but it is ok to believe lying Vanity Fair.
This is the same BS that the tabloids wrote and VF is acting like they’ve inside information.
Harry was always close to his mother’s family.
Exactly… I don’t trust much from VF any more. I also don’t see where the Sussexes said anything. Their spokesperson said they don’t speak about the couples children. And as we have learned in the media especially shady ones like VF a source close to them can be anyone that has ever been in the same room with them.
That being said it has been clear for a while that Harry is closer to the Spencers than he is to the Windsors. Diana’s family has been the ones that have shown up for him for personal and professional events. And he shows up for them as well.
If a story rings false to me, there’s nothing I can do until more information comes out as was the case when the Guardian wrote about this issue. The DM piece did not sound true to me and as we found out the next day that the piece was lacking in context and was seeking to cause drama rather than explain the situation. If anything some people are too quick to believe what comes out of the DM when we all know when it comes to Harry and Meghan that paper has a vendetta and is squarely in the camp of the Royal Family. So to me, the DM piece remains false. I suspect the DM sought to distract from the actual story that the Guardian was going to put out. It’s clear that Richard Eden sought to muddy to waters and to obscure the Royal Family’s role in this situation.
Agreed. I do think that people sometimes outright dismiss stories as not possibly having any chance of being true when that’s not the case. But, I also think that sometimes people give too much weight to stories from ” reputable” publications because it’s not unhinged ranting like the tabloids. This particular story just seems to me like they took a combination of the Guardian article, The Daily Mail article, and the People article and made it seem like they knew something special.
Agree too. Eden’s story was a twisted version of some kind of truth. Bc it represented Earl Spencer as not being receptive or supportive. Which wasn’t the case. And it left out the important part about the passports being purposely delayed. So the DM story was purposely misleading and I think it’s good to side-eye that. A lot of people were saying sure they could see Harry considering the Spencer name but the rest if of the story sounded made-up. And it was.
The DM has a long history of telling untruths. I never trusted them unless the story was confirmed on the BBC. Unfortunately the BBC has become far more untrustworthy since the Tory government put one of their own in charge.
And just to add. I can believe Maureen sometimes has sources. But I also believe Maureen spins it in such a way that it becomes a half-truth and unbelievable. And he does strait up lie. Ask Kate beckinsale bc he’s made up a lot about her and her mom.
Agree. And also their spokesperson said we are not commenting on this. This does not equal this was true.
Wonder if somebody at BP or KP got wind of the Guardian story, or the Guardian even asked them to comment, and they ran to Maureen to tell him to muddy the waters ahead of the Guardian. Maureen’s often a mouthpiece for BP and KP.
Of course, he’s closer to his Spencer relatives. They are the keepers of Diana’s memory. They loved her. However complicated the sibling relationship was, they have stood ten toes down for Harry & William since her death. It’s only William who has pulled away from them.
I said in an earlier post I was sure his uncle Charles Spencer let Harry stay at Althorp when he was in England. As for using a different last name, it’s easy enough to USE a name without legally changing it. To legally change everyone’s last name so they all have the same one involves a lot of paperwork and a court order.
I know what it’s like to have a toxic immediate family (parents and siblings), and I am closer to my cousin and aunt/uncle because of it. And my in laws. And friends. Those are the people I rely on and trust. I’m glad Harry and Meghan have their friends/found family, the Spencers and Doria.
One thing I’ve learned as I too have prioritized myself, my kids and my spouse is that family is the people who love and support you. You don’t need the people who don’t – even if they are close relatives – to have a fulfilled and happy life.
Why would he not be close to the Spencers? They are as much his family as his Windsor aunts and uncles. He’s half Spencer, no matter what his legal surname might be. If it were me I’d want to be closer to them too. They act like a normal family that supports each other.
I had forgotten they tried to take Meghan’s name off of the birth certificate. That is so disturbing. I don’t blame him for not wanting to go through the headache of a name change, and he shouldn’t have to worry about it. They shouldn’t have been trying to erase his wife and the mother of his children, or literally withheld their legal identity and birthright from them.
This explains the somewhat over reaction of Meghan when she corrected Mindy about her surname. They literally had to fight to share the same surname as a family. I am sure Harry and Meghan also have plans in motion in case William takes the revenge further and the titles are taken away. But I am glad they are fighting to keep what is basically Harry’s and his kids’ rightful inheritance. I wonder if any trust funds are set up for A and L by their kingly grandfather?
Sooo who is telling VF that Harry often stays with the Spencers when he’s in the uk. I’m not denying that he probably does but I’m just more curious about who is telling VF that? It seems like a reasonable assumption but kind of unsafe to publicize considering Harry’s lack of security.
Northampton is 2 hrs 3 mins on the M1, otherwise it can take 2hrs 45 mins.
Most of Harry’s events are in London.
So then what is this even about?
@jais
Nobody knows where Harry is staying, so they speculate that he’s staying with Spencer, because they have a close relationship, but it’s two hours from London, so he was probably in a hotel, close to the courthouse. But let them keep scheming.
Harry is a military strategist and he’s good at it :)👍
The passport thing is inarguably one of the most disturbing stories that has emerged from this whole terrifying saga of abuse. The fact that it’s still shocking to us, after all we’ve seen from Harry’s birth family in the past few years…that’s saying something. Of course they’d be desperately grasping for a distraction.
I expect the delay was actually caused by the HRH titles, I doubt that the passport office had any idea whether they were entitled to them or not,
Thankfully the kids were not in Britain when this was all going on, this is pretty terrifying to think about. Imagine having to protect your children from their grandfather and government officials who want to erase them. The strength of Harry and Meghan is truly awe inspiring, they sure have been fighting for every ounce of their “Joy era” and earned every smile.
Nothing about this seems briefed by the sussexes except for the direct on the record quote. The rest of it seems direct from courtiers who thought this would be a good example of Charles wielding his power. The british government would have informed the palace about the request for British passports and Charles and his courtiers would have tried to manipulate the situation as a means of controlling/punishing the sussexes. As for the Name change. It wouldn’t suprise me that Harry has thought about being a Spencer at several points in his life. What seemed utterly false to me was that he would have brought this up while in the country for a family funeral. He quietly entered and exited the country so he would not be the story. Do we really think he would raise such a sensitive issue at such a sensitive time? I don’t. I think they took something that is likely true (Harry considering the Spencer name) and wrote an utterly false story about that. These are the same people who took a true incident ( Kate made Meghan cry) and wrote that Meghan made Kate cry. They built a whole angry entitled black woman abuses poor innocent white woman narrative based on facts that were true but they twisted to suit themselves.
“These are the same people who took a true incident ( Kate made Meghan cry) and wrote that Meghan made Kate cry. ”
To be fair, liar Camila T did not reinvent the truth. She was told the false narrative by the Middletons and wrote what was said to her.
That being the case, still yes, BM & RR are not reputable journalism organizations.
That’s the thing. I can’t remember the saying but it’s something like the best lie contains a truth. And that’s the BM in a nutshell.
I feel stupid having to ask this question, but why would the office in charge of issuing passports notify the palace of anything?
I was wondering the same thing.
Is it possible BP and KP also don’t want the Sussex children to have British passports, full stop? Yes, the HRH issue is vile, but is there more? I’m unfamiliar with rules around British passports, but would they help prove British citizenship, or allow the bearer to stay in Britain (which Bulliam would hate) longer than on a tourist visa?
I think so, too.
@Kaiser – the 2023 Archewell tax filing lists as directors – Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. And they seem to be using the same for all the other business we see, like WLM, BetterUp, Travelyst and their Sussex site.
I can see this (except for their definition of “immediate family,” that’s Meghan, Archie, and Lili). After my father died (I was an adult) I’ve become much closer to his side of the family. Because I’m one of the youngest cousins, so I have a whole bunch of cousins that have stories and memories of my dad that predate me. Unlike Harry, the other side of my family (my mom’s in my case) is fine and I get along with them too, just Mom is still alive. It’s hard to explain but it’s different
TL;DR: I get it.
According to Spare, not a single member of the Windsor family, who were all in residence at the time, checked in on him after he found out Diana died. Not one. They didn’t even put the (then) boys together so they could lean on each other. The next thing they did was use the boys as human shields against bad PR. Next thing they did was get rid of them by putting them back in boarding school (again, not even together bc their ages at the time had them in different schools). I wouldn’t want to pass on that name either. It was Lady Jane Spencer who went to see Harry on his birthday (only TWO WEEKS after Diana died). The entire Windsor clan, including the queen and Philip, are absolutely horrible people and don’t deserve the honor of passing on their name. I don’t know if I believe this story about taking on the Spencer name but I’m glad they ditched Mountbatten-Windsor and that Meg dropped Markle.
Apparently the Queen had weekly teas with William who was at Eton, so possibly she checked in on him then. But Harry was never invited to these teas, even when he joined William at Eton.
They should all go by “Ragland”.
If they don’t have passports, they can’t leave. That was them trying to stop them from leaving. these folks are BONKERS!!!!
I’m actually confused by it all. Why do they even need British passports? They have American ones.
@Steph, I am guessing for dual citizenship? Harry said he wants his kids to visit his home country and he brought them before. I am also guessing, since they include HRH titles, it would be diplomatic passports, which would be valuable while travelling to other countries too.
Because they want them?
That’s the only reason they need.
Choosing to not believe the daily mail et al,to not view them as a credible source of information does not make one a Sussex defender.
Richard Eden/Maureen Eyers wrote an entire article based on an non-existent interview that he had with Kate Beckinsale. They stalked and ambushed her mom,a cancer stricken elderly widow, who was still grieving the recent passing of her husband of 40 years.
Prince Harry’s immediate family are his wife and his 2 children, VF is also lying.
The bigger issue is why does KCIII want the Sussex family to be “obliterated”?
Feminegra’s take on the “Spencer-gate” makes more sense.
https://feminegra.com/harry-and-meghan-considered-spencer-surname-as-palace-blocked-their-childrens-passports/
https://feminegra.com/prince-harry-and-the-spencer-family-legacy-challenge-royal-tradition/
So snarky to say the Spencers “offered a shoulder to cry on” rather than “provided a sounding board” or a “sympathetic ear” or just “offered advice.” …
Whom, exactly, are they considering Harry’s “immediate” family—his father and brother? Because, by traditional reckoning, his “immediate” family is now his wife and children. And he seems plenty close to *them*.