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.

"What is apparent is that it's not H who is leaking private convesations, as this story of a phone call came out from the palace"

Neither the Sunday Times article by Roya Nikkhah or her tweet used the words "phone call", nor did they provide any detail as to what was discussed.

"The article actually pretended that they had made up or some agreement was reached, and H merely corrected that." - Unless this comment refers to a completely different article to the one that was being discussed (Sunday Times, 14th March) then it said nothing of the sort.

From the article: "Last night it emerged that William and Harry had “been in contact” for the first time since last Sunday’s TV interview with Oprah Winfrey, in whichthe Duke of Sussex and his wife made allegations of racism in the royal family."

I think @myrtleWilson was spot on with this assessment: There is a great deal of difference in reporting the existence of a phone call versus sharing the contents.

Here is a link to the Sunday Times article, with a share token for anyone interested.

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

I hadn't realised that

Looks like the claims that the RF are quick to speak up other members but not H&M can go in the bin too ... though I wouldn't be surprised if there'd been some shift on this in light of recent events

Considering that H is in the US and W in the UK, how were they in contact? Via telepathy?

Also, a lot from the 'royal sources' in that article. And yet, H is the one with all the leaks. Hhmmm

9 articles out of how many? In all that time?

As people have counted before, there are loads per days and weeks.

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royal-press-office

There are other articles refuting that they were backed up also

That’s a lot, and more than all the other Royals in this time period

Because there were a lot more vicious and unpleasant articles about them.
Not just hair extensions

It needs to be altered. There is no need for anyone outside top 5 of succession to be a prince or princess.

When Beatrice was born she was 5th in line.

Charles
William
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice

Now everyone is on about treating siblings fairly, Eugenie was titled princess the same as her sister. Also they were both entitled to it as Andrew the son of a Monarch could pass down his HRH. Edward was and is also entitled to pass down his HRH which he has done, but Viscount and Lady don't use them. To be honest I doubt they ever will.

Archie and Lili are 7th and 8th. And they will only get further away as the Cambridge children grow and have their families.

Makes sense for all 3 Cambridge children to be prince and princess, heaven forbid anything happens to George in childhood or a young man his sister becomes next in line so makes sense for a princess to become a queen and have a title, just incase and you can't leave Louis out can you.

What use is a Prince of the United Kingdom in the US, as Harry as discovered, other than moaning to Operah and a few Netflix deals, it's worthless. So why should two children who will be raised in the US have UK titles? Makes no sense.

Also even if they had stayed in the UK, do we really need another "useless titled prince and princess" with no real aspect of the throne hanging on. No.

Archie is a Earl, Liliy is a Lady, they have titles. They just aren't marketable for a US market because the US don't understand past Prince /Princess Duke or Duchess.

Archie a Earl holds the same title as The Earl of Wessex, the youngest son of the reigning monarch, so it's hardly a minute title is it?!

But I digress. 2 kids raised in the US don't need a title link to a British throne. They've no prospect of sitting on it and will probably end up socialites, stockbrokers or lawyers or something. Let them have "normal names" like Zara and forge a life away from it all, because that's what they will have to do.

@Mummy194

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.

I'm really unsure of what point you are trying to make.

He says he's spoken to several sources.

The key issue with this story is isn't really about M.

It's about the fact that Palace HR were aware of allegations of bullying by a senior royal and did nothing about it.

That's very serious.

It's a abject failure to protect both the staff and M.

The allegations should have investigated at the time for the benefit of all.

If this was a "culture clash" they should have intervened to facilitate an environment of mutual understanding and expectations.

If the staff were ineffective and failing to meet the requirements of their job descriptions then they needed to be put on an improvement plan and/or managed out of the role(s) in favour of staff who were appropriately capable and Meghan deserved to have had any bullying claims against her cleared rather than having them left unresolved.

If the bullying claims were found to be true then HR should have intervened to protect staff by making clear to M what was/wasn't appropriate behaviour towards them and thus protecting M from repeating unacceptable behaviour and further bullying allegations.

It really doesn't matter who the source was.

Once an allegation of bullying has been made in the workplace (whether by the "bullied" or a witness to "bullying") it should be taken seriously and investigated.

By not doing so, the Palace have had to commission and independent enquiry and also rightly face criticism of their poor HR practices as a result of failing everyone involved (including M).

@Mummy194

Considering that H is in the US and W in the UK, how were they in contact? Via telepathy?

Also, a lot from the 'royal sources' in that article. And yet, H is the one with all the leaks. Hhmmm

Email, text, WhatsApp, FaceTime, Zoom, Teams, going oldskool with Skype, commenting on each other's private instas, are all possibilities - heck it could have been through the medium of interpretative dance on Tik Tok

You can call it any of those, the bottom line is that it was William who first revealed that they talked, not Harry.

@Mummy194

You can call it any of those, the bottom line is that it was William who first revealed that they talked, not Harry.

So what?

To repeat a pp. There is a significant difference between acknowledging a conversation has taken place and discussing its outcome.

@Mummy194

9 articles out of how many? In all that time?

As people have counted before, there are loads per days and weeks.

Obviously, there were loads and loads of articles. Which demonstrates exactly the problem. No press office would ever, ever want to find themselves in a situation where they sift through the lengthy list every day saying “they said she’s bought a copper bath - that’s not true, Deny. They said her dress cost £2000. That’s not true, it was £1,700. Deny. They said she bent down and stroked the dog - we’re good with that one” etc etc.

It is a response best deployed sparingly, otherwise it totally loses any power. And worse, it starts to become a tool against you: “there’s been no comment on that story, it must be true” etc. This has already been happening as a result of the Sussexes’ propensity to sue when they dislike a story: “They haven’t sued the Times for the bullying story though have they….maybe they can’t because it’s true”. Generally this is absolutely not how you want to manage things.

Press offices facing all sorts of stories all the time absolutely do not want to get into the point by point response game, for these reasons. An ethical press office (in a public organisation like the Palace) also should only be denying something when it’s actually untrue. That was one of the things Omid Scobie and Meghan herself have subsequently made clear - lots of the stories actually had a basis in fact. And, even so, some of the denials were false. Do that too often to your press officer and they’ll resign.

Meghan may have been expecting she’d have a PR team like in Hollywood where they say whatever serves their clients’ interests best, irrespective of whether it’s remotely true or not. Like Sunshine Sachs are doing now. That is absolutely not what a public institution press office does though.

"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."

That's not what the article says at all. Selected quotes:

"The sources approached The Times because they felt that only a partial version had emerged of Meghan’s two years as a working member of the royal family and they wished to tell their side, concerned about how such matters are handled by the palace."

"The Times was approached by sources who stated that they wanted to give their account of the turmoil within the royal household from Meghan’s arrival as Harry’s girlfriend in 2017 to the couple’s decision to stand down as working royals last year."

Valentine Low's first article.

Not commenting on stories , has its good sides sometimes, god forbid you slip and you make a mistake , you can’t deny it then!
Meghan has expensive taste , she always wore expensive shoes and bags and watches So what? , Catherine has similar expensive taste in coats and dresses.
As for furnishing their house, ofcourse they will go with famous interior designers , just like W&K did!

As I’ve said , I’m positive rags like the Sun and DM would’ve cooled down with their stories had they stayed longer.
Carrie and Boris are the new H&M!

If William has no more children then by the time William is King then Harry will have moved up to 4th place and Archie and Lil 5th and 6th which is quite close to the throne for heirs who will have little knowledge of the royal way of life.

@Viviennemary

If William has no more children then by the time William is King then Harry will have moved up to 4th place and Archie and Lil 5th and 6th which is quite close to the throne for heirs who will have little knowledge of the royal way of life.

Possibly. But if Charles has the longevity of his parents, William's children could have children by then.

But once William becomes king although Archie could be 4th in line, he won't be a grandson of a reigning monarch so wouldn't get Prince anyway.

And then when the Cambridge children do start having children he bumps back down again.

I really don't see the point in him having the title, he will be raised in the USA with his sister. Imagine trying to get a job with the title of prince for a foreign country.

@Serenster

Great post.

This I think is especially pertinent:

It is a response best deployed sparingly, otherwise it totally loses any power. And worse, it starts to become a tool against you: “there’s been no comment on that story, it must be true” etc. This has already been happening as a result of the Sussexes’ propensity to sue when they dislike a story: “They haven’t sued the Times for the bullying story though have they….maybe they can’t because it’s true”. Generally this is absolutely not how you want to manage things.

On that subject I note H's threat to sue the BBC over the Lilibet name permission story hasn't yet materialised and the BBC didn't pull the story.

Perhaps such legal manoeuvres take longer than I would expect however.

@Viviennemary

If William has no more children then by the time William is King then Harry will have moved up to 4th place and Archie and Lil 5th and 6th which is quite close to the throne for heirs who will have little knowledge of the royal way of life.

You've missed one

After Charles, it's William George, Charlotte, Louis then Harry 5th, Archie 6th and Lili 7th

Oops, ignore me - I skipped a generation!

If Charles lives to the same age as his father, then William wouid ascend to the throne in 2047, by which time agencies rage will be in his mid 30s and quite likely will have started a family, as might his siblings.

*Prince George
(My keyboard must hate me to have turned that into 'agencies rage' - I'm sure my DYACs are getting weirder)

@Serenster

That is precisely their job. If there are too many stories you can't cope, you get in more staff (even if temporarily, I know this, as I have done a similar job). Do you think all these big companies have just one person trawling through data on their own?

The phrase ' you only had one job' comes to mind.

I remember one company when I was a young intern. Our job was to go in early, read all the newspapers and cut out all the articles relating to the company, photocopy them and send them to all the Heads of departments, make sure to highlight the negative news on top - the Press Office/ PR would deal with an answer to those, and promote and highlight the flattering puff pieces. These also went to the legal department who would decide who to pursue. The internet was going strong at that time, though not as much, such companies have now also moved on with the times. The palace is so big, with so much staff members, I find it hard to believe they would operate below these standards - they mostly certainly seem to do for everyone except for H&M. The harder you come down, the more the press realises that this will be hard, and back off.

@Mummy194

I think you'd missed the key point.

The "job" of a Press Office is to adopt practices which best serve the interests of the organisation you work for.

That's not always to respond to every single story for the reason @Serenster eloquently explained.

Put simply if you respond to every inaccuracy, when you don't respond it's a tacit admission that the story is factual and when that story is negative or critical you risk drawing greater attention to it as a result.

[quote DeRigueurMortis]@Serenster

Great post.

This I think is especially pertinent:

It is a response best deployed sparingly, otherwise it totally loses any power. And worse, it starts to become a tool against you: “there’s been no comment on that story, it must be true” etc. This has already been happening as a result of the Sussexes’ propensity to sue when they dislike a story: “They haven’t sued the Times for the bullying story though have they….maybe they can’t because it’s true”. Generally this is absolutely not how you want to manage things.

On that subject I note H's threat to sue the BBC over the Lilibet name permission story hasn't yet materialised and the BBC didn't pull the story.

Perhaps such legal manoeuvres take longer than I would expect however.

[/quote]
I agree. Lots of great posts from Serenster.

The RF’s “don’t complain, never explain” rule is obviously to avoid having to deny/confirm/sue over every tiny article. H&M must have plenty of £££££ to be taking such a different stance.

The one thing they do consistently deny are claims by companies that they are clients, especially when these are used as promotional messages. Outside the system of Royal Warrants, there is no endorsement and firms who make claims will be told to desist.

(Obviously what they're actually seen wearing etc will usually be identifiable, but that doesn't mean the company can use it freely in advertising).

So why deny botox and hair extensions then.

Also why deny a certain affair.