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.

Who has had "an issue" with Meghan? Not one person is on record as saying she bullied them, only anonymous second or third hand allegations from the tabloid leaker whose job was to lead the smear campaign.

And to further clarify, those 2nd and 3rd hand allegations, are exclusively from the palace, no one from all her years of working, has ever accused her of bullying, they all cannot believe what they are hearing now.

Harry seems to have adored Meghan on sight (good), wanted her very much to want to be his wife (reasonable) and thought for some unknown reason that she would not get any bad press.

Another way of saying that is that PH has plenty of reasons to not be fond of the tabloid press, his first two serious girlfriends appear to have declined the offer to marry into the RF because they didn't want to have to put up with the nonsense.

As an actress, it might have been thought that MM would be used to intrusive press.

Certainly PH seems to have rushed to the alter with a relatively unprepared MM who expected to be able to set her own agenda and had no interest in quietly fitting.

Fair enough.

@PurpleOkapi

Is there any reason, other than Meghan's word, to believe that the stuff in the press she's so upset about was actually a lie? Much of it was basically confirmed in Finding Freedom, though with a different spin. If the Queen knew that the reports about Sophie were false, and also knew or at least suspected that the reports about Meghan were based in truth, that would be a pretty good reason for her get involved for Sophie but not for Meghan. Have any other bullying claims ever been reported? If not, it's not surprising that no others have ever been investigated.

Just by the numbers, it's getting harder and harder to believe that every single person who had some issue with Meghan must be racist.

It's quite easy actually, just leak pictures of the bath tub or whatever together with receipts from the workman or whatever. If you can deny reports about botox and hair extensions, you can deny reports about a spoilt person who is squandering money on indulgent frivolities - making her character seem unsavoury.

Nothing was confirmed on FF, which also seemed to have no idea of a lot of what was going on in MM's time in the RF. Nothing bout MH, Racism etc. Just a book like LCC, Angela Lavine etc, but maybe just a bit more researched - ie, actually asking questions from staff etc.

The Sophie stories are on tape.

The other bullying claims were on the press, just like MM was. The victims never filed a claim with HR or anyone.

@Mummy194

Who has had "an issue" with Meghan? Not one person is on record as saying she bullied them, only anonymous second or third hand allegations from the tabloid leaker whose job was to lead the smear campaign.

And to further clarify, those 2nd and 3rd hand allegations, are exclusively from the palace, no one from all her years of working, has ever accused her of bullying, they all cannot believe what they are hearing now.

Rewriting history again, sigh. The allegations are not from the palace. They are from former staff members of Meghan and Harry’s household, who went to a journalist at The Times with them. Doing this would normally be in breach of NDA obligations, except when you are saying that someone in a position of power in a public organisation is engaged is misconduct that has been covered up, you are treated as a public interest whistleblower and so the NDA provisions don’t apply.

This actually turns out to be a huge headache for the palace for several reasons. Firstly, it exposes the “Meghan bullied her staff” allegations, which they had obviously tried pretty hard to hush up. Secondly it shows that they have inadequate systems and controls to protect their employees from this kind of behaviour, and then to give them effective remedies if it does happen. And thirdly it means they have to go to the expense of hiring an expensive London law firm to undertake an independent investigation. If that investigation finds any of the allegations are established, they’ll have to (presumably) pay compensation, eat humble pie over their poor systems and controls and deal with Meghan and her PR who will regard anything said publicly on this topic as an outright declaration of war, I would imagine.

@smilesy

There is a great deal of difference in reporting the existence of a phone call versus sharing the contents.

Exactly. I’m sure William would have had no issue with GK simply confirming that a conversation had taken place. It was the fact that she said the call was unproductive that was the issue.

The article actually pretended that they had made up or some agreement was reached, and H merely corrected that.

Rewriting history again, sigh. The allegations are not from the palace. They are from former staff members of Meghan and Harry’s household, who went to a journalist at The Times with them. Doing this would normally be in breach of NDA obligations, except when you are saying that someone in a position of power in a public organisation is engaged is misconduct that has been covered up, you are treated as a public interest whistleblower and so the NDA provisions don’t apply.

Absolutely not rewriting history. The claims are from Jason Knauf who still works at the palace. It was not the former staff who made those accusations, it was JK who claimed them. The victim themselves never made any accusations, and asked for them to be taken back. Even the Times reporter, Valentine, admits he never actually spoke to the victims. Everything he has is from JK.

I also don't see how the palace would be interested in protecting MM from bullying claims and try to harsh them up, when they are perfectly fine with all the lies that get printed about her. They most definitely said no comment about the neighbours and car parking story etc.

H merely corrected that

What would they have made the post-interview phone call 'productive' then? What were they aiming to achieve?

Would a conversation with the RF about their grievances rather than an interview not have been more 'productive'?

I'm sure you all remember Hugh Grant

I watched his testimony before the Leveson Inquiry. That was an eye opener. I suppose it was a bit naive of me, but the aspect that I found really shocking is the extent to which people in various responsible roles are possibly paid to alert the media about the activities of celebrities.

Also does anyone have an idea of what "bullying" means in the context of what Meghan has supposed to have done? Because it seems to me that bullying is often alleged these days for all sorts of behavior that falls far short of bullying.

They most definitely said no comment about the neighbours and car parking story etc.

I have no idea what these stories are. But if the palace commented on everything they would never do anything else.

it seems to me that bullying is often alleged these days for all sorts of behavior that falls far short of bullying.

Like what, as an example?

If I ask you to show me proof that the claims are by Jason Knauf Mummy, you would not be able to. What the Times has is a copy of an email sent by Jason Knauf to Simon Case, and others, back in 2018, raising the issues internally, confirming he’s spoken to HR and asking that something be done. That’s contemporaneous evidence that the issues took place, not evidence that it was Jason Knauf who raised them with The Times in 2020 or so.

The Time reporter, Valentine Low, most definitely spoke to some of the employees personally - her talks about it in his podcast on this topic, and some of the descriptions they gave him about how they felt.

And you say you can’t see why the palace would be interested in protecting Meghan from bullying claims - well, that’s neither here nor there, when it is crystal clear from the contemporaneous email that serious issues were raised, and that we knew nothing about it until the whistleblowers went to the Times. If the organisation is an anti-Meghan leaky sieve, as you view it, then this chronology completely disproves your view. The Palace were quite clearly protecting Meghan by sitting on the allegations, doing nothing for the staff (to whom they owed a duty of care!), and, if Robert Lacey is to be believed, allowing William to protect his staff by officially separating their two households, and throwing Meghan and Harry’s staff to the wolves. I think it’s a story that reflects terribly on the Palace, but what it does show is that they didn’t want this anti-Meghan story getting out.

@FillerAngel

Meghan didn’t understand the way the BRF work and how they don’t defend themselves much. They expected her to shut up and take the criticism the way Camilla, Fergie, Kate, Princess Margaret Etc have copped it. There was once a poll created by a tabloid about Fergie with the results saying the public would rather shag a goat than the Duchess of York. She didn’t have an easy ride. No woman seems to. It’s wrong. It shouldn’t happen but with these individuals, ignore it and then the press moves on to some other target.

Harry did not tell Meghan that the press would be coming for her. He should have. They tear royal women down to build them up. Diana was mid tearing down when she died. She was called a tart, a loose cannon, all sorts of names that the readers of the tabloids may or may not have agreed with. Irrespective of the work she did with AIDS victims, landline victims blah blah. She got it right in the neck. Harry seems to have adored Meghan on sight (good), wanted her very much to want to be his wife (reasonable) and thought for some unknown reason that she would not get any bad press. She, as an American, would not have know about the goat shagging poll, the sheikh sting, the spiteful rumours bla blah and when they started, he lost his cool.

All this is very understandable. The press are dicks. They always have been. The royal women are there to have darts thrown at them til their sainthood. And Meghan did not enjoy being the dartboard - not least because her husband was either naive or conniving. “If I don’t tell her she will be married to me before she can decide she can do better”.

Leaving was a good idea. As her husband he did the right thing in supporting her because she was unhappy and homesick and a target. If he were a more honest less selfish person he would have prepared her for reality and not implied she would be a super celeb instead of a civil servant with great clothes. The man is an immature arsehole. And now it’s everyone’s fault but his.

The problem though is that the BRF DOES defend some members. They have done so quite a lot. Infact there was a story about KM even having a special support hotline set up for her when she got married. Then ofcourse, there are the denials about all sorts.

No point in blaming H because I don't think he knew they would make exceptions in MM's case. He must have thought, well if you are actually married, you will be protected like KM.

We are in a new era in media now, so I don't think it's unreasonable for H to have thought things will be dealt with according to the times.

Twat
Not test

It was widely reported that MM had been given the services of the Queen’s most trusted, most competent senior adviser, Sam Cohen, to show the new duchess the ropes when she joined, @Mummy194. I’m not sure of your point about a “hotline” - I’m sure Meghan had people she could ring if she needed advice.

The palace press offices issued 9 official denials of stories published about the Sussexes in the 18 months or so they were working royals. That’s a lot, and more than all the other Royals in this time period. Some of the things they officially denied on behalf of Meghan and Harry also turned out to be true, awkwardly (they denied that Meghan and Harry were intending to relocate to Canada shortly before the couple announced that themselves - clearly they’d been asked to deny it, and were unaware that in doing so they were misleading the press).

@SenecaFallsRedux

I'm sure you all remember Hugh Grant

I watched his testimony before the Leveson Inquiry. That was an eye opener. I suppose it was a bit naive of me, but the aspect that I found really shocking is the extent to which people in various responsible roles are possibly paid to alert the media about the activities of celebrities.

Also does anyone have an idea of what "bullying" means in the context of what Meghan has supposed to have done? Because it seems to me that bullying is often alleged these days for all sorts of behavior that falls far short of bullying.

The hospital informants thing from Hugh Grant’s testimony was shocking wasn’t it?

The (London) Times had the clearest account of the bullying allegations, but is behind a paywall. This Vanity Fair article directly quotes the main thrust of the Times article, though.

Multiple complainants/witnesses. Which seems to support either your thesis, Senux that it was mainly a culture clash, alternatively that the bullying was real, or some blend of the two. It does help to explain why William reacted strongly and decisively, if not diplomatically.

www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/03/meghan-markle-palace-bullying-allegations

Shrug - that’s what I think of Harry! He threw his wife to the wolves knowing exactly how it would play out. I think he’s an awful man. His only redeeming action is that he supported her in a move back to her home. Meghan could do considerably better.

@Serenster

Valentine Low's first interview he specifically say about the 2 people who made the claim : "one of them, I don't know, the other I am told...........(is upset). So no he did not speak to them. He later says there were lots and lots - I assume after being questioned. Bottom line, the victims never made any complaint to HR.

Sam Cohen, did work with MM, but she seemed to be working at the office as a PA or something role, nothing about her being some kind of etiquette etc. specialist. Strange to just stick her with this role too when there are plenty of etiquette/elocution/ butler specialist out there. To a senior working royal no less.

@Mummy194 you do realise that it’s perfectly valid (and perfectly normal) for people who have witnessed bad behaviour in a workplace setting to report it. In many cases the victims are too cowed, can’t face the stress it will cause and/or just want out of the job. If victims were the only ones who could bring a claim it would far fewer office bullies were identified.

ITV interview with Valentine Low for reference:

@Mummy194 Sam Cohen spent nearly 20 years at Buckingham Palace working as Head of Communications and Deputy Private Secretary to the Queen. She’s currently CEO of a Commonwealth Trust. So not a “PA or something”.

Also, Meghan had her husband ideally placed to show her the ropes, and as a university drama graduate, professional actress and someone who’d addressed the UN, might have justifiably been taken aback at the suggestion she needed elocution help. No idea why she’d need training in how to be a butler, either.

[quote Serenster]@Mummy194 Sam Cohen spent nearly 20 years at Buckingham Palace working as Head of Communications and Deputy Private Secretary to the Queen. She’s currently CEO of a Commonwealth Trust. So not a “PA or something”.

Also, Meghan had her husband ideally placed to show her the ropes, and as a university drama graduate, professional actress and someone who’d addressed the UN, might have justifiably been taken aback at the suggestion she needed elocution help. No idea why she’d need training in how to be a butler, either.[/quote]
Well obviously, she would not be training to be a butler. Just pointing out lots of qualified people who know how train someone in that field as they are specialists. Even the nannies get training.

It's like taking this high profile role for granted to just slap on anyone, when the person should be dedicated.

Yes, I know Sam was a Private Secretary and because her role was high, she would probably have her own PA and staff too, possibly a secretary, chauffeur, admin assistant etc. too under her. But ultimately MM was her boss. So why not hire a specialist for such a high profile role, instead of lumping in someone who does not specialise - just let Sam C get on with her main role, I'm sure she had a lot to do.

What on earth role are you saying then that Meghan should have had? Paul Burrell on speed dial?

Yes @DeRigueurMortis

And somewhere from 3minutes they point out that it was not the staff who complained and Valentine talks about the 2 victims he never actually directly spoke to.