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.

The monarchy is based on the (ridiculous) idea that being born first matters. Leave it (and the titles) behind, or buy into it and believe that you are special, but your children are not as special as your brother's children. Don't insist on your children's titles but then want them to have the same privileges as your older brother's children.

It is all or nothing when it comes to the 'rules'

I think that Charles as King could remove princely titles, and certainly the HRH, retroactively, if Archie and Lili do acquire them under the Letters Patent of 1917. An Act of Parliament would be required to change the succession and to remove Harry's Dukedom, but for most of the history of British monarchies, princely titles have been customary rather than legal and fully the province of the monarch. I think that is still essentially the case.

Whether Charles would do that is another question. I think he is going to be more concerned with the issue of Camilla's title, and of garnering support for her to be called Queen and less likely to stir the waters regarding Harry and Meghan. I think it likely that at some point he may "amend" the 1917 LPs, but that it will apply prospectively. But I also think that he will encourage Harry and Meghan not to have their children use princely titles (as in the case of the Wessexes), especially if they are living in the US.

There was a bit of a row a few years back about Beatrice and Eugenie' security. And whether they'd get an allowance. Charles was against it. And said allegedly they shouldnt even be Princesses as he wanted a slimmed down royal family. Now I'd say they are in the szmd position now as the Sussex childrdn will eventually be as children of the second son of the monarch. So Harry could have worked it out if that was the way things were going. Also I doubt the Wessex children will adopt the titles Prince and Princess when they are 18. Still they might.

I read today that Harry agreed to do the Oprah interview just 24 hours after he found out he was to lose his military titles, apparently I’m a massive strop . I don’t know how he could logically have thought he would be alive to keep them if he was living in another country, but he obviously thought they wouldn’t really take them from him. Maybe it was the same with not issuing LP’s for his children? He just assumed it would happen and was incredulous ( for some bizarre reason) when it didn’t.

In a strip and allowed to keep them 🙄

Strop. Aargh 😱

I don’t know how he could logically have thought he would be alive to keep them if he was living in another country

Ominous.

@smilesy - do you know something we don't?!

I hope this all gets sorted out during the lifetime of the Queen and Prince Charles. Otherwise, I imagine that when Prince William is getting to grips with being King, Harry will be trying to bring him down (and the monarchy!) a peg or two. No wonder William wants things sorted out now.

@smilesy

In a strip and allowed to keep them 🙄

There is precedent for retroactive removal of a princely title. For example, His Highness Prince Alastair Arthur of Connaught (At the time, great-grandchildren of a monarch in the male line were “Highness” rather than “Royal Highness”) was no longer a highness or a prince after the Letters Patent of 1917. He became Alastair Windsor, Earl of MacDuff, a courtesy title as heir to his mother who was a Duchess in her own right.

Time is the royals' greatest friend. They can afford to wait things out till public opinion softens to indifference, and they do. Twenty years ago there was fierce opposition to Camilla ever being queen when Charles took the throne. Now people think of her much more positively and it's unlikely to be an issue. So a 'wait and see' approach works for them, and embeds the idea of the Sussex kids as not having titles in people's minds. It will then seem more presumptious and over-reaching if in a few years, kids who've been raised entirely in the US without titles are suddenly expected to be known as prince and princess. If they'd taken up the Lord and Lady titles it would have broken the ground for an upgrade. But it will look really odd after having made the move to the US, settled there and said they didn't want titles for the children, to then pivot to using Prince and Princess. I think public opinion will be that they should let it lie as the Wessexes have done.

Camilla still isn't welcome as Queen. A lack of recent headlines doesn't change our memories.

I read today that Harry agreed to do the Oprah interview just 24 hours after he found out he was to lose his military titles

Which means he won't get a platinum jubilee medal (I'm assuming there will be one)

I think quite a number of people will have platinum, diamond and gold medals. Not so sure if anyone will score the full set with silver as well, because the silver want given out to all, there was an allocation per unit, and most gave them to CO and youngest private/able rate/aircraftman. So are any of those juniors still in? Maybe in some obscure reservist role?

Oh for an edit button 😂😂😂

@PicsInRed

Camilla still isn't welcome as Queen. A lack of recent headlines doesn't change our memories.

I disagree. I think the public mood has softened at lot towards Camilla.

Using the title DoC (rather than POW on marriage - which she technically is) was an important part of her "rehabilitation" and frankly I think she's done well in role in pretty unobtrusive but productive way.

Diana was never Queen so there is no sense of her "appropriating" that title from her.

I also think the perception of Diana has changed.

Whilst I think a lot of people still think very fondly of her, I believe the public has now realised that she was a very complex person with as many flaws as attributes (like us all) and that her marriage wasn't so much about "fault" in either her or Charles's case - but the product of a totally unsuitable and rushed coupling of people who could not have been more different in outlook, age, interests and temperament.

Assuming Charles becomes King, Camilla will be Queen. What title she'll use (Princess Consort or Queen) remains to be seen, but she will be Queen, just as she is now Princess of Wales, but uses Duchess of Cornwall instead.

I agree with DeRigueurMortis

Plus I think there are a lot of younger people who may barely know who Diana was.

I agree @DeRigueurMortis. I think Camilla has proved herself.

She can prove herself all day long, Charles too, but I won't ever consider as my sovereigns a couple of adulterers who deliberately conned a 19 year old into becoming no more than breeding stock and drove her to madness.

Legally they may rule, but my opinions remain mine to hold.

@PicsInRed

She can prove herself all day long, Charles too, but I won't ever consider as my sovereigns a couple of adulterers who deliberately conned a 19 year old into becoming no more than breeding stock and drove her to madness.

Legally they may rule, but my opinions remain mine to hold.

Nobody conned Diana into marrying Charles. She did it willingly.

She was also the first party to be unfaithful in the marriage (in 1985 to her close protection officer Barry Mannakee. When the relationship became known he was relived of duty in mid 1986. By November that year she became involved with James Hewitt).

Charles only resumed his relationship with Camilla after finding out Diana was cheating in 1986.

Unlike you I'm not blaming either party. By 1985 both were deeply unhappy in the marriage and the idea of divorce was at that time unthinkable for the heir and his wife.

It was a bad match pure and simple.

The comments above bear out what I posted, I'd say. Of course not everyone likes Camilla and Pics and others are entitled to that view. But 20 years ago there would have been far more people in that camp. Now lots more people have drifted over to thinking she's 'proved herself, and others are just meh. The barrier of public disapproval to her being queen is much lessened.

Applying that to the Sussex situation, the more time passes, the more people's feelings they've been wronged will subside. People will be more likely to think they're making a fuss about nothing as time goes on if they're still pushing for their California-based kids to be prince and princess. And that it would be odd, by then, to even expect it.

I don’t think you can say it was Charles and Camilla who “conned” Diana. Rather the marriage was engineered by people outside of the relationship and it was doomed to failure from the start. Things are very rarely as black and white as they appear. I have experienced being in the wrong marriage, and whilst it was my exDH who had the affair, it was, in fact, symptomatic of our marriage not being right for either of us anymore. It was said that before her untimely death, Diana had become friends with Charles and maybe their relationship would have moved on. I don’t think anyone drove her mad.

Nobody conned Diana into marrying Charles. She did it willingly

She had just turned 20! It was awful. I cannot imagine encouraging my DD who was only just 19 when they got engaged .. to marry a 32 year old.

And I have no idea if she was the first to be unfaithful in the marriage. I doubt anyone knows. Charles's heart was elsewhere.

Just to add The Crown isn't "real" you know.....