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.

Does this thread have to change into a Meghan bashing one? FFS.

I also think Charles has the right idea here, and that it will be a popular decision if he does it. He has always wanted to reduce the number of working royals, and if they are not undertaking any royal duties I don't see on what basis H&M expect their children to have a title.

If Harry does come over in a couple of weeks for the unveiling of the statue, I wonder if he is fully prepared for the response he's likely to get? It might not do him any good in the long term. If I was his family, I'd be worried about him too. WTF are they going to do to earn the kind of money they'll need to keep up that lifestyle?

Prince Archie is more marketable than Earl which is often a name in the US

I suppose he could/would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton, also styled Lord Archie.

It's the "Archie" bit that jars with the British titles. Tbh when I first heard their very US American names for their son, I really believed they meant it when they'd said they didn't want titles for him and had left the British Royal Family.

It's always seemed a bit silly that Andrew's children are princesses when Ann's and Edward's aren't. Given that Harry doesn't plan to do any royal work, I can't see that he has any valid reason to be miffed.

I also think Charles has the right idea here, and that it will be a popular decision if he does it. He has always wanted to reduce the number of working royals, and if they are not undertaking any royal duties I don't see on what basis H&M expect their children to have a title.

I agree. I think opinions will mainly range from complete lack of interest, to thinking it’s the right decision, with only a few thinking it’s a bad idea. I think it would be different if H&M were still working royals, because I think it would be a bit off to have them working but say their kids couldn’t have titles. But it sounds like Prince Charles wants it to be more of a “job role” title (but for life, obviously).

He married for love, she married for money.

How do you know? Do you know them personally or are you just making shit up?

It's always seemed a bit silly that Andrew's children are princesses

Yes, this is the massive anomaly. They have to be, absolutely have to be, the last titled non-working royal family members.

In fact I'd like it if Andrew and his family had them removed.

I think it's a good idea, and also includes Charlotte and Louis if they have children down the line. If George has children they will be titled, and so on down the direct line.

Reducing the titled line makes sense in the modern world, as evidenced in other countries.

It will be interesting to see how Harry and Meghan react to this decision; I think Harry will see this as a direct offence against him, and for both not having prince/princess will hurt PR/merchandising.

Yes I thought this was made clear in the interview.

Really it should all have been done and announced between Edward's children being born and William's marriage. The royal family seem shockingly bad at this stuff.

Now it's all caught up in a family breakdown, and removing titles from the first non white members of the family is stupidly tone deaf.

PC has talked for years about slimming down the RF, one of the reasons that he and PA ( allegedly ) don’t get on is because PC insisted that there was no working role for B and E within the RF .
His other siblings have been more pragmatic and prepared their DC for working lives out with The Firm.
I am just waiting for someone to claim that this news - which of course is yet to be confirmed but would explain a lot- is based on racism but I don’t think it is . The fact is that as the Cambridge DC grow up and have families , H and M’s DC will become very minor royals like The Duke of Kent who at one time was third/ fourth in line to the throne but is now way down the list .

One thing that would maybe annoy me if I were Harry and Meghan is that according to these letters patent, George, Charlotte and Louis also wouldn’t have been Prince or Princess til the Queen died as they were great grandchildren, not grandchildren, like Archie. But the rules were changed in favour of them because George will be king eventually and they didn’t want him to be not a Prince and then they had to add in the other two as well. So non princes and a a non Princess were created and Archie isn’t expected to be a Prince anyway til later but he’s being demoted in advance. They should have just left George and the others as Earl of wotsit, Lord Louis and Lady Charlotte. Who would have minded that?

Andrew's children being princesses is completely normal (in the sense that any of this is normal). What's not normal is Anne's first husband not taking a title on marriage so their children aren't titled, and Edward's children not using their prince/princess titles.

The tying of titles and with the idea of being a "working royal" is a very very recent concept.

I think it's a good idea to slim it all down (but then I think abolish it all) but Beatrice and Eugenie being princesses is not remarkable in the slightest and I wouldn't judge them or their parents for it. (There is of course plenty of other stuff to judge their father for.)

MindyStClaire
Now it's all caught up in a family breakdown, and removing titles from the first non white members of the family is stupidly tone deaf.

They are not removing titles - they don’t have them at the moment ! However as I said earlier they could be styled Earl /Lord and Lady.

But they would have had them within the next ten years. That's as good as removing them.

I don't disagree with the decision I just think it's been shockingly badly dealt with. But then that shouldn't really be a surprise.

Now it's all caught up in a family breakdown, and removing titles from the first non white members of the family is stupidly tone deaf.

Are they removing title from the first non white member of the RF though? I thought Meghan was still Duchess, Countess and Baroness.

Harry is definitely giving off a vibe I've seen before in end-game politics, a version of, 'If I'm going down you're all going down with me'.

Do you think he's being advised by Dominic Cummings?

@LadyWithLapdog

The DM is constantly needling on this subject. I wish they’d give it a break, with everything going on in the world this is their pathetic headline. Even the football would be better.

This

I agree and DM is obsessed with M and H and will rehash stories so there is something to print every day.

MindyStClaire

But they would have had them within the next ten years. That's as good as removing them.

But they still have titles they can use !

I do agree about communication issues however who knows what goes on behind closed doors ?

@FillerAngel

One thing that would maybe annoy me if I were Harry and Meghan is that according to these letters patent, George, Charlotte and Louis also wouldn’t have been Prince or Princess til the Queen died as they were great grandchildren, not grandchildren, like Archie. But the rules were changed in favour of them because George will be king eventually and they didn’t want him to be not a Prince and then they had to add in the other two as well. So non princes and a a non Princess were created and Archie isn’t expected to be a Prince anyway til later but he’s being demoted in advance. They should have just left George and the others as Earl of wotsit, Lord Louis and Lady Charlotte. Who would have minded that?

I may well be wrong but I thought that pre the HMQ change the old letters said the eldest son of the eldest son of the POW would be titled Prince. So the HMQ change didn't alter that. What the HMQ change did was in response to the change in primogeniture rules which happened before George was born. Without the HMQ change if William/Kates's first born was a female and second a male, the daughter (higher ranked in line of succession) would be styled Lady but out ranked by her Prince younger brother which economy within the context of a monarchy would seem anachronistic.

There's a poster who is really good on the letters stuff so they may pop along and explain why I'm wrong!

Another reason for Edward's children not being Prince and Princess is that it has always been understood that Edward will inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title after a suitable intervening period (maybe on the Queens's Platinum Jubilee?). So Sophie will become Duchess of Edinburgh and I guess the children will have the titles which stem from that.

@Zzelda

It's always seemed a bit silly that Andrew's children are princesses when Ann's and Edward's aren't. Given that Harry doesn't plan to do any royal work, I can't see that he has any valid reason to be miffed.

Yes, it was always talked about n the 80s that Anne had said she wanted her children to be as normal as possible while Andrew and Sarah went for all the bling and titles (as was their right tbf) I wonder if Edward and Sophie were encouraged not to make the same "mistake" as Andrew on that front, because remembering the couple back then, they certainly weren't adverse to a bit of self-publicity. (I think both have really redeemed themselves now, but sheesh they were awful when they first got together)

Didn't Prince Andrew demand his daughters were Princesses even though they were not entitled to be?

Yes, Meghan still has her title! So the first non white royal (that we remember) has not had her title removed.

i think most people assumed that when PC talked about slimming down, PH was going to be a working royal and he and his children would still be part of the firm.
so it seems odd that even before he walked away, he must have known his children would not be prince/princess. his walking away makes so much sense now.