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.

Correction: it was John Dudley who was the second regent (or Protector as he was called) for Edward VI.

About the Zoom call with the Queen.

Tabloids have reported that the Queen was furious and has decided to start challenging these mistruths from the Sussex camp, which was why a denial was issued. It was interesting that Kate was recorded saying they haven’t Zoomed with them yet the next day too. It’s a big deal that they have changed tack.

I never believed most of their claims about Zoom. To hear Harry and Meghan tell it, they Zoom with the Queen (and formerly Philip) all the time, so Archie can tell her he wants a waffle maker, to show off the new baby, to ask how Philip is doing, etc. Also to hear them tell it, they couldn't just pick up the phone and call her to ask about titles, security, and others things she could have explained in a few sentences. And then there was the revelation that Harry learned of Philip's death when someone from the Embassy had the sheriff show up at his door, either because no one wanted to call him directly or because he wasn't answering his phone when they tried. For some reason, they seem to really want everyone to believe they're much closer to the Queen than they actually are. That doesn't make much sense to me, because the Queen is the one ultimately responsible for most of the decisions they're so upset about.

Yes it's funny how Charles and William are 'trapped' but the Queen isn't...!

Perhaps the RF shut down communications when they interviewed with OW, and private conversations started being leaked to the press (via GK).

I'd certainly stop talking to my family members if conversations were never kept private.

*Actually, the course for the “sources close to Harry and Meghan” was People magazine in the US - i.e. they published something they were given by a PR representative (that is their stock in trade).

“Sources from the Palace” spoke to the BBC directly. So, being honest, tabloids had nothing to so with this.*

Strange that they do no say ' their representatives' and use 'source' instead. I never saw the story on People.

It's got to the point where the DM chases H&M around the world to the US and have no inside info, so they resort to picking up crumbs from a gossip mag and put that in their front cover.

Then everyone froths about how H&M are attention seeking.

Didn't H&M say that they speak more HMQ now than they did when they were working royals?

I think that is why they are able to separate her as gran from The Queen. I think they give her the benefit of doubt because at her age, she has always had things done in a certain way and relied on these people who had served her well over the years. She may have a certain mind set about not disturbing the cart in terms of what they want.
At some point Oprah asks H if HMQ does as she wants, and H politely says, she has advisors (does not say yes or no) and sometimes they give her bad advise.

My question is if it's up to PC when he takes over to sack staff/advisors/courtiers. Would he have that power? Because if he does, I imagine he would get rid of a whole lot. But I somehow, don't think they can get rid of courtier, I believe those are appointed by parliament and have the great power within the palace.

First time, I am hearing about sheriffs showing up at H's door though.

The people around the Queen are appointed by the Queen , obviously the military appointments such as equerries are appointed in consultation with the military. Jobs in the Riyal Household are advertised by the usual recruitment agencies , I was approached to apply once. On the websites of the royal households there is a ‘work for us section’, jobs regularly appear, they have even been on Indeed.

As an aside just because someone doesn’t agree with advice it doesn’t make it bad advice

[quote Cacacoisfarraige]@Mummy194

Dean Stott was taking to people in the relevant article and another source gave the video call with the Queen nonsense update.

People magazine has been used by Meghan’s friends all independently without her knowledge went to discuss the letter to Thomas Markle ? So clearly a favoured place to provide ‘her truth’

www.google.ie/amp/s/people.com/royals/inside-meghan-markleprince-harry-complete-family-of-4-after-birth-lili/%3famp=true[/quote]
Well as you say MM did not know about the friends. As we know they were sources because H&M were working royals back then, so told friends not to go to the media. Though these friends got sick of all the lies they were reading.

Dean does give his name, as demonstrated by H&M's friends in the US of late. The actress who was on This Morning. Gayle (I should also point out again that Gayle was responding to the article leaked by W's team to Roya Nikkah about the private phone call, not H leaking as they keep saying in the British media). Everything else, comes from their office/spokeperson/rep.
So not 'sources' - but actual names and face. That is why I would take a 'source' with a pinch of salt.

@Mummy194 Harry was woken by the police because he didn’t hear his phone ringing ing when the Palace were trying to inform him of PP’s death. It was reported on 28th May in various publications both here and in the States. It was said that the British Embassy requested that the sheriffs vivat Harry so that he could be informed before the Palace released the news generally. O other time difference posed a problem.

Typos 🙄. Sheriffs visit and obviously the time difference.

@GlencoraP

I understand that bad advise may be subjective.

I'm aware of the job adverts, I have only seen lower ranking ones. Do courtiers and other very high ranking roles get advertised though !

Ah ok @smilesy thanks.

But I don't see how that links to his closeness or calls to HMQ

Yes but obviously they are often done via executive agencies. I know people who have worked there at executive level, most were approached by headhunters to apply, the vetting is a pain and puts a lot of people off. A lot do come from ex military or civil service at the private office level, but not exclusively.

By the way there isn’t a job called ‘courtier’ that’s just a phrase the press like because it gives the impression of arcane antiquity. The reality is much more mundane

@GlencoraP

By the way there isn’t a job called ‘courtier’ that’s just a phrase the press like because it gives the impression of arcane antiquity. The reality is much more mundane

It’s a really helpful catch all when they’re trying to be vague about who an anonymous source is, though.

Courtiers are definitely not “appointed by parliament”. I don’t know how anyone could even try to make the link! Thinking that shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of a) the Royal Household and b) …..parliament!

Gayle King is one of Oprah’s closest friends.

@GlencoraP

I am aware of the headhunting process. This would be applied to the senior staff like Samantha Cohen etc. Senior specialist roles if you like, so PR etc.

Then you have the 'courtiers' as they call them. Actually, titled very senior members - usually they are Lord / Earl something or the other. They will usually head The Great Office, Privy Purse, Lord Chamberlain Office etc.

Can they be appointed/ dismissed by HMQ?

I think the bad advise H was referring to, also was in reference to the likes of Jacob Reese Mogg who heads the Privy Council. lol

I'm guessing it's bad advice when it doesn't agree with what Meghan and Harry want

The actual title of Lord Chamberlain is ceremonial and surprisingly part time . Someone is recommended to the Queen the current one is ex MI5 I think and it is approved by the Privy Council. But they will be advised by the Comptroller of the lord Chamberlains office which is the person who actually does the job and that is not a political role although the holder frequently has a civil service background .

If I were the Queen, I think I would find the presumption by H&M that everything I do is down to bad advice quite condescending.

@Mummy194

*Actually, the course for the “sources close to Harry and Meghan” was People magazine in the US - i.e. they published something they were given by a PR representative (that is their stock in trade).

“Sources from the Palace” spoke to the BBC directly. So, being honest, tabloids had nothing to so with this.*

Strange that they do no say ' their representatives' and use 'source' instead. I never saw the story on People.

It's got to the point where the DM chases H&M around the world to the US and have no inside info, so they resort to picking up crumbs from a gossip mag and put that in their front cover.

Then everyone froths about how H&M are attention seeking.

Well you’re in luck then Mummy194 as I posted the link to the People article on the other thread. Reposting it here to make sure you don’t miss it this time.

people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-introduced-baby-lilibet-to-queen-in-video-call/