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.

@SpindleWhorl

Like *@JustLyra* says, Harry has already used the title in Scotland. It makes them sounds so shallow to now reject it - as I'm sure the source of the story knows.

I believe that was the intended perception from lying Camilla Tominey.

How are they even rejecting the title when they have it, and as pp said, they have used it before.

Don't believe this story is true, Camilla never learns, she was trending all day yesterday from her lies.

Even though he had used it in Scotland, he could still have assigned it to his firstborn - same pattern as Duke of Kent assigning the Earl of St Andrews, or the Duke of Gloucester assigning the Earl of Ulster.

I know he could have. The difference with him and the Dukes is that he could have said “I actually use this in Scotland, like my father uses Duke of Rothesay and my brother Earl of Strathearn, so Archie can use Kilkeel instead as I’ve not used that in person”

He could have made that choice quite easily.

For me the issue is more the mixed messages we are hearing from Harry & Meghan themselves.

It was quite clear at the time of his birth that Archie could have been styled Lord Dumbarton, even though he wasn’t yet eligible to be a Prince. When Archie was born, however, Omid Scobie, after announcing the name on twitter and sharing the photo of the Queen, prince Philip, Doria and the three Sussexes, said “ As we expected, Harry and Meghan forgone a courtesy title for their child. All part of giving him as normal a life as possible.”

It was then a little odd for Meghan to say in her Oprah interview that: "They didn't want him to be a prince…which would be different from protocol” and then when Oprah asked if Archie being called a prince was important Meghan replied: “If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course…and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be … You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention … that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be… it’s not their right to take it away.”

So, it seems from that that they did want Archie to have a title (but Prince rather than Earl?). And then if they actually turned down a title because they didn’t like its name, rather than because they didn’t want him titled, why on earth say “they turned it down because they want him to have a normal life”. If that’s true, they surely wouldn’t await him to be a Prince, either. Is the real story that they turned it down because they didn’t like what was on the table?

Don't believe this story is true, Camilla never learns, she was trending all day yesterday from her lies.

I thought she was trending because she shared a vile email she’d been sent threatening the lives of her children, which is obviously awful regardless of any opinions anyone may have over her reporting.

I suppose he could, but I can't think of any precedent for that (can anyone?) and would have been a bit of a demotion for Archie, as the established custom is the most senior subsidiary title does to the eldest son, irrespective of its use (or non-use) before that son was born.

And it's perfectly OK to not use styles/titles for your DC, even if there are ones available (like Prince/ss for the Wessex DC, or Lady for Lili)

The normal life statement was from the palace.

MM addresses the fact that they were never consulted, Archie was just called Master and she does say in the interview that 'we never said that' - in regards with calling him master and wanting a normal life.

@Wanttocry

Don't believe this story is true, Camilla never learns, she was trending all day yesterday from her lies.

I thought she was trending because she shared a vile email she’d been sent threatening the lives of her children, which is obviously awful regardless of any opinions anyone may have over her reporting.

She was rumbled with a video demonstrating her lies. Then all the other lying articles were listed. Later, she came back with the threatening email which she did not report to the police, then despite it not saying who the user was, nor hotmail / yahoo knowing this account, she blamed H&M for it. Other posters reported it to the police for her, and she got a response from Met, which she never responded to.
The whole saga is covered on another thread on here.

@EdithWeston

I suppose he could, but I can't think of any precedent for that (can anyone?) and would have been a bit of a demotion for Archie, as the established custom is the most senior subsidiary title does to the eldest son, irrespective of its use (or non-use) before that son was born.

And it's perfectly OK to not use styles/titles for your DC, even if there are ones available (like Prince/ss for the Wessex DC, or Lady for Lili)

The Wessex children are the prime example. They could be titled from their father’s Princely title, but they’re titled from his Earldom which gives them “lesser” titles.

There is one example, it came up last time, I’ll have to check back as I can’t remember which exact one it was (I want to say one of the Connaught s but I’m not sure).

It would have been very unusual, but it would have been a lesser demotion than no title.

Also, if it was about an equality thing (and I’m only saying it because people suggest it might be) then having a Scotland specific title would have kept Harry in a similar vein to his father and brother. If that was important to him.

It was a choice available.

@Mummy194

The normal life statement was from the palace.

MM addresses the fact that they were never consulted, Archie was just called Master and she does say in the interview that 'we never said that' - in regards with calling him master and wanting a normal life.

Omid definitely tweeted out the “normal life” comment, with no reference to the Palace so I presume he had Meghan and Harry’s blessing. And he’s the only person it’s attributed to in a google search, so I think you’re wrong there.

twitter.com/scobie/status/1126151259336138753

When the original reform to titles happened in about 1920 there were over 100 people who lost titles including for example the family of Lord Mountbatten who was born a Prince

@Serenster

Omid has said over a dozen times, he is not a spokesperson for Sussexes. Even his book shows, he did not know everything, he admitted that he consulted lots of sources to write the book.

He basically said the same thing all RRs were saying. H&M were with their newborn at this stage. Even more, they were still with the palace.

It's quite tiresome when people keep repeating the same thing, when even he denies it. Just because he is not on the hate train.

Am I supposed to keep repeating that Richard Kay, Camilla Tominey, Roya Nikkah, Chris Ship and a whole host of other RRs are William's mouthpiece.

You can believe anything you want to Mummy. Those of us who look at things a little more objectively find it quite clear that Omid is so very close to the Sussexes that he may as well be their spokesman.

So why @Mummy194 , have the Sussexes not sued, or at least not denounced, Omid Scobie, given you say that not everything he says is true?

Mummy194 in the report on the MM legal case about information released by Omid Scobie.

"Mr Justice Warby said in his judgment: "The inference invited is that he (Omid Scobie) had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant (MM)

"This seems very likely."

that's written down in a legal summary so will have had considerable thought and deliberation made before being committed to paper.

Just because he is not on the hate train.

Because he only says nice things you mean?

Only says nice things about the Sussexes, I think you mean @MargaretFraggle. He is often very barbed about other Royal Family members.

clear that Omid is so very close to the Sussexes
Oh yes No doubt about that.

The Sussexes did not sue Omid, just like they did not sue LCC and the 6 other people who wrote a book about them last year.

In court, MM representatives said Omid was wring his own fanciful book full of suppositions and conclusions etc, just line anyone else who writes book. Omid himself admitted a hundred times, he wrote his own book from different sources.

The judge based his conclusion on the fact that MM's office said to correct a certain story (I think it was regarding her father), when Omid went to ask, he was given that correction. Therefore this counts as a kind of collaboration in court. If LCC had asked MM office she would have been given the same story, and in court it would have counted as collaboration (or atleast part collaboration or feeding).

We fully discussed this on a previous thread.

I think you mean, they can trust him to not twist things.

Omid writes about other royals too, and he is never mean about them, but will point out discrepancies.

Mummy194 I assumed erroneously in the instance you had very detailed recall of all thing MM and Omid Scobie. apologies. This is the reference

"However, in a judgment released today, he said there was evidence that Meghan's side had "briefed the press" about the initial application to stop her friends from being publicly named during the High Court case.

Mr Justice Warby said reporter Mr Scobie - who is set to release a biography about the couple next week - tweeted about the application just 58 minutes after they were filed."

That does suggest he is on direct dial with Meghan, does it not?

@SpindleWhorl

The Telegraph is reporting this morning the Sussexes rejected the Earl of Dumbarton title for having 'dumb' in it, as well as the money stuff.

They must read mumsnet as that was oddly, and repeatedly, suggested here.

@SallyLockheart

Mummy194 I assumed erroneously in the instance you had very detailed recall of all thing MM and Omid Scobie. apologies. This is the reference

"However, in a judgment released today, he said there was evidence that Meghan's side had "briefed the press" about the initial application to stop her friends from being publicly named during the High Court case.

Mr Justice Warby said reporter Mr Scobie - who is set to release a biography about the couple next week - tweeted about the application just 58 minutes after they were filed."

That does suggest he is on direct dial with Meghan, does it not?

Or he is keeping an eagle eye? With sources in place (maybe even paid from court) to let him know first when things come out? That is why the judge did not action this any further than that comment. He has no proof of anything.