Prince Charles to alter the Letters Patent - Sussex Children won't become Prince/Princess

[Comeinoutoftherain]

Apologies for the Daily Mail reference, but it's all I have so far.

Apparently PC told H&M shortly before the Oprah interview that his intention was to amend the Letters Patent so that only the children in direct line to the throne (aka William's children) would receive the Prince/Princess title.

So neither Archie nor Lilibet were going to be "upgraded" to Prince/Princess on the Queen's death.

That explains that slightly vague comments made in the OW interview about Archie not being made a Prince; and why relations between PC and H&M were clearly very fraught.

If this is true (and I accept it's hard to see the wood for the trees with the constant press briefings from both sides) I can see it from both points of view.

Harry is in Prince Andrew's position (as a royal, not as a person) which makes Archie and Lilibet on a par with Beatrice and Eugenie. As they get older, and William's children start their own families, the Sussex children drop down the pecking order pretty quickly.

I think Charles has it right that the British Public don't want to keep paying for an extended royal family, you can see that playing out in Europe at the moment. So even if H&M were working royals, their children likely won't be; and I can understand why he wants to present a limited number of royals to the public.

From Harry's perspective, it must feel like a downgrade. It must be difficult being the second (and only other) child in a hierarchical monarchy; being aware from the beginning of all that William is to inherit. Having his children lose something that is currently their birthright must sting a bit.

This should probably have been considered before William and Harry had kids. I doubt it would have been as big a deal when you are not considering actual children, just abstract ones. Or at the very least, it should have been done when the Letters Patent were altered for George, Charlotte and Louis.

It's clearly added to an already tense atmosphere and won't help family relations get back on track.

One angle in all this to remember is that if ghastly tragedy struck the Cambridge family (something like a catastrophic plane failure when they're all travelling together) then Prince Harry will have to decide if he will come back and embrace Royal life as potential King Henry IX, and what that means for his family, Archie in particular

Perhaps the Cambridges should start travelling separately like the RF used to.

I think that’s a wrangle at the Palace about exactly what Charles is allowed to do. It’s not that the original story was wrong. I can’t pretend Lacey gets stuff wrong I just don’t like him.

I don't think there's a wrangle at the Palace at all.

I think there has been a misinterpretation of M's comments to OW, a load of salacious copy from royal commentators for clicks and an absolute vacuum of anyone setting out the position clearly.

I'll post what I put on the other thread to explain further.

Sorry it's a bit long....

Viviennemary
"I think something will be done. Harry simply cant be allowed to go mouthing off for the next fifty years about how awful the royal family is. While retaining his place in the succession. Look what happened to Ratner."

It's not that simple.

Removing H from the line of succession requirements an act of Parliament. It's not something HMQ can do independently.

It's also worthy of note that H is all that separates Andrew from the throne if the Cambridge line is thwarted.

Despite the negativity towards the Sussexes I very much doubt if given the choice the public would prefer to see that odious bastard Andrew as King rather than Harry.

So if you did want to remove H from the line of succession I can't see how that would be possible without also removing Andrew - thus leaving the Wessex family as the direct heirs (there's also then a whole other question about if Anne's position should be re-assessed in favour of Edward but that opens up other legislative requirements making the situation even more complex).

There's no way the RF will want to do this.

Firstly, removing one person from the succession isn't great PR but removing two...it also then further ignites/highlights the Andrew shit show.

However, that's not really the biggest reason not to do it.

As soon as the RF asks parliament to remove either H or H&A they they lose control of the narrative.

Given the current Tory Govt I don't doubt any such legislation from a predominantly pro-monarchy govt with a large majority would pass.

However it would still have to be debated in the Commons and there is nothing stopping any of the Republican MP's (of which there are quite a few in the Labour Party/SNP etc) tabling motions to say well if we are getting rid of H&A then let's amend the bill to get rid of the lot.

Worse they get the opportunity in Parliament to discuss why that should happen - potentially listing every scandal etc into the public domain and thus framing a national debate on the monarchy as a whole.

They'd lose even if they win - so no, this isn't a route the RF will go down.

I don't think they will strip their titles either - as I posted in a other thread they can't "de-Prince" Harry (a title by birthright) and for the same reason, when Charles becomes King he can't stop Archie and Lili becoming Prince/Princess. HMQ would have to do this via Letters Patent before they inherit the titles and I just can't see that happening.

It's one thing to issue new LP's to prevent a first born female Cambridge child having a lesser title than a younger male sibling and as happened with a male heir, their siblings not having equivalent titles within that family it (as Archie and Lili are equivalent to each other) but quite another to actively prevent Harry's children inheriting their birthright.

Charles could only remove Archie/Lilly's titles by an Act of Parliament and the fallout of that is not dissimilar to that described above re: the succession. Again I just can't see him doing that (on the other hand I can see him issuing LP's to slim down the monarchy so that Charlotte/Louis's children are not entitled to be Princess/Prince and also asking H&M not to style their children Prince/Princess - but ultimately that's for the children themselves to decide upon adulthood whatever their parents views on the matter).

Far, far better to leave things as they are, because simply put H&M's revelations have been as damning to them as the RF in terms of popularity and fundamentally they are going to run out of things to say.

I think it's fair to say that the "bigger" brand of the RF is better placed in the long term to weather the storm of any further revelations from H&M (perhaps unless they have something "nuclear" to offer - but that's very risky to them. Anything big enough to really destabilise the monarchy would take their "status" away with it).

The whole situation with titles/succession is far more complicated that people realise and there's been muddying of the waters from a lot of sources.

Fundamentally in the OW interview M referred to protocol being changed for Archie and I think people have assumed that means Charles "stopping" Archie/Lili be Prince/Princess.

The fact is protocol has not been changed and Charles cannot prevent them gaining these titles.

What I think M actually meant was that she and H were operating under the presumption that the "protocol" ie LP's that were changed to ensure Charlotte and Louis were known as Prince/Princess from birth would happen again for their children and were upset when informed that was not the case.

It's therefore a matter of opinion as to whether you think it's reasonable that younger Cambridge children's titles were "accelerated" whereas this was presumably refused for the Sussex children and not a case of titles being prevented/removed as some people have wrongly interpreted.

So if you did want to remove H from the line of succession I can't see how that would be possible without also removing Andrew - thus leaving the Wessex family as the direct heirs (there's also then a whole other question about if Anne's position should be re-assessed in favour of Edward but that opens up other legislative requirements making the situation even more complex).

Removing Andrew would leave Beatrice, her child, Eugenie and August as the next in line, not the Wessexes.

Princess Anne - daughter of the Queen- did not give her children HRH or Prince/Princess. At one point Anne's son was the only grandchild. This. is. not. a. Big. Deal.

Gosh that is very long, but the move Charles is said to have proposed/attempted doesn’t concern H&M’s titles does it? “Just” A&L’s

The optics are awful but on the other hand the allegation is already out there now that PC proposed a change for the titling of H&M’s children.

Fundamentally in the OW interview M referred to protocol being changed for Archie and I think people have assumed that means Charles "stopping" Archie/Lili be Prince/Princess.

She didn’t know that the Letters Patent were called Letters Patent , though - she wasn’t all over the detail, she was talking about the message as she understood it, and several strands of it.

So the optics swing in the Sussexes favour.

The fact is protocol has not been changed and Charles cannot prevent them gaining these titles.

The allegation is that he will change it, thinks he can change, intends to change or similar though, isn’t it? He does have history for this.

Two points working in his favour; That the Sussexes have chosen not to let the DC use Earl, Lady or Lord for the children, as was they’re right and they said titles didn’t matter to them.

Secondly, by the time A&L are adults and entitled to claim their titles, having Californian adults as titles British Royals will probably look preposterous enough to justify to whatever legal mechanism is necessary to remove the prospect of claiming them, or using them.

I’m sure constitutional advisers and courtiers are scrambling to weigh in on what’s possible or not.

It looks exactly like an interesting new wrangle to me, albeit it’s barely got going yet.

Princess Anne couldn't, it doesn't go down the female line. Her children were only ever going to take a title from their father. Mark Phillips remained untitled, hence Peter and Zara.
Anthony Armstrong Jones took a title (the Earl of Snowdon) so Margaret's children were Viscount Linley (now the 2nd Earl) and Lady Sarah.
So Princess Margaret's children could have been without courtesy titles.

@bellinisurge

Princess Anne - daughter of the Queen- did not give her children HRH or Prince/Princess. At one point Anne's son was the only grandchild. This. is. not. a. Big. Deal.

Princess Anne’s kids were never going to be HRH or Prince/Princess as Princess Anne doesn’t have a penis.

At most they’d have been titled as the children of an Earl if Mark Philips had accepted a title.

I think there has been a misinterpretation of M's comments to OW, a load of salacious copy from royal commentators for clicks and an absolute vacuum of anyone setting out the position clearly.

No this is coming from Robert Lacey from a UK palace source or sources (very good ones). It’s not derived from the Oprah interview, it’s not from the Sussex camp. It’s a new nugget Lacey has been given that has been used to reinterpret earlier events, including the contents of the OW interview.

Yes, @RickiTarr, the fact that they don't use a courtesy title for Archie made it very clear from the start that they didn't want that for their children. Which is why I find it all so confusing. He's not styled Lord Archie, Earl of Dumbarton, nor the girl Lady Lilibet. I'm guessing it's because they wanted them raised outside the royal fold. (I could be wrong on the motivation).

It does show how much things have changed.

Princess Margaret’s children - niece and nephew of the Queen & grandchildren of George VI - are titled because their father was offered one and accepted.

Princess Anne’s children - grandchildren of the Queen - are not titled because their father did not accept the title

Princess Alexandra’s children - great-grandchildren of George V - are only not titled because their father turned down the earldom offered by the Queen.

Yet there was absolutely no question that Jack Brooksbank or Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi would be offered titles. There’s also no chance Lady Louise’s husband will be offered one if she marries. Even Princess Charlotte’s husband is highly unlikely to be offered one.

It's also worthy of note that H is all that separates Andrew from the throne if the Cambridge line is thwarted

Not quite, it's H and his children before A

A minor can become King, but someone would be Regent, and that also follows the line of succession to the next adult.

Edward VIII abdicated for himself and any DC born after the abdication.

So if H quits the succession, Archie becomes next heir with next adult as Regent, so Andrew, or if he had the good sense not to take the role then Beatrice.

@Maireas

Yes, *@RickiTarr*, the fact that they don't use a courtesy title for Archie made it very clear from the start that they didn't want that for their children. Which is why I find it all so confusing. He's not styled Lord Archie, Earl of Dumbarton, nor the girl Lady Lilibet. I'm guessing it's because they wanted them raised outside the royal fold. (I could be wrong on the motivation).

I can’t see how that won’t weaken their future position when they’re saying “Yes, we raised our kids as untitled, heart covering, Star Spangled Banner singing Americans who know nothing of the UK, but we want to help them claim their rightful British royal titles now please.”

The BRF will change the rules in that scenario, and they’ll look reasonable to do so. We don’t have sleeper royals in foreign realms.

I don’t get it. Meghan otherwise played this really well, had them all scrabbling and on the defensive.

Even this titbit that Charles was never intending to let Archie be a Prince looks awful now, but it would have looked even worse if leaked last year (I have a theory about that, though.) Now Charles suddenly has 15+ years to find a way to make it work, and frankly the Palace can rewrite any rule, law or convention they put their collective minds to once we have Charles III.

@WinnieTheW0rm

It's also worthy of note that H is all that separates Andrew from the throne if the Cambridge line is thwarted

Not quite, it's H and his children before A

A minor can become King, but someone would be Regent, and that also follows the line of succession to the next adult.

Edward VIII abdicated for himself and any DC born after the abdication.

So if H quits the succession, Archie becomes next heir with next adult as Regent, so Andrew, or if he had the good sense not to take the role then Beatrice.

I'm assuming any such act of Parliament would be framed to remove both H and/or A and their offspring also.

It wouldn't really make sense to do otherwise in these circumstances.

Edward VIII abdicated for himself and any DC born after the abdication.

So if H quits the succession, Archie becomes next heir with next adult as Regent, so Andrew, or if he had the good sense not to take the role then Beatrice.

It’s a tangent I know, but if Edward VIII had only abdicated for himself and had then had a child, would that child have then gone ahead of Elizabeth? Or would they have immediately become King/Queen on birth, with King George acting as regent? Or do abdications always cover children yet to be born?

All this twisting and turning to figure out a way to get rid of a mixed race family who complained of racism. So much twisting that we're considering paving the way to a man implicated in child trafficking and rape, and then multiple family members (Peter, Wessexes) who have used royal status for commercial gain, and even Queen Bea, who's renowned for being work shy, the beginning of whose relationship with now husband Ed was far to close for comfort with that of the abandoned mother of his child. . Bleeding Christ.

@Wanttocry - Edward's abdication was an unusual situation, and the government wanted him gone and the line of succession changed to Albert and his descendants. They were concerned about stability, should a child of Edward and Wallis pop up and make a claim, it had to be clear that it wasn't valid.

I thought Prince Charles told Harry if he was leaving to be a private citizen he was going to change LP so H&M kids would not be HRH Prince and Princess but if stayed as a working royal they would be. It seems fair enough to me. Those kids don't need titles in US and H&M already turned down the Earl of Dunbarton title.

@PicsInRed

All this twisting and turning to figure out a way to get rid of a mixed race family who complained of racism. So much twisting that we're considering paving the way to a man implicated in child trafficking and rape, and then multiple family members (Peter, Wessexes) who have used royal status for commercial gain, and even Queen Bea, who's renowned for being work shy, the beginning of whose relationship with now husband Ed was far to close for comfort with that of the abandoned mother of his child. . Bleeding Christ.

That’s why they should just come to an agreement now and knock this all on the head pronto.

[quote Maireas]@Wanttocry - Edward's abdication was an unusual situation, and the government wanted him gone and the line of succession changed to Albert and his descendants. They were concerned about stability, should a child of Edward and Wallis pop up and make a claim, it had to be clear that it wasn't valid.[/quote]
I know, I meant more hypothetically what would happen if a childless person who has abdicated, then has a child. Where do they fit.

Oh I see. I suppose when it goes through parliament that descendants will be included in the instrument of abdication. You don't want claims from randoms popping up!

I mean it’s not just the fact I’ll optics, it’s the way it now looks like walking out the front door & catching a plane to do commercial deals gets you harsher criticism than sitting home quietly taking huge “consultancy” fees and advertising eggs or whatever it is.

I have horrible feeling they won’t though and this will rumble on.

Building on the hypotheticals... presumably an adult cannot abdicate their existing children from the line of succession. So how old do you have to be to exercise this option. Is it 26,18? Or is their a royal version of Gillick competence?

That's a good question, Myrtle . If you are abdicating the throne it's different from abdicating from the line of succession. I suppose that the most sensible thing for stability is to abdicate for any descendants as well.

As you say, an adult can surely make their choice?