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.

A child born outside the US to an American citizen has birthright citizenship if the US citizen parent lived physically in the United States for at least five years with two of those years occurring after the age of 14. Meghan meets that requirement.

Arnie isn't eligible because he was born outside the US and both of his parents were not US citizens. When he was at the height of his political popularity, there was talk of amending the Constitution so that he could run for president. Obviously, it was just talk.

@Serenster

I’m happy to amend my post to say her birth certificate is of interest because she’s the first person who is unchallengeably both eligible to be President and high up in the UK line of succession

Aren't we always told right here on MN that Harry is not important as he is so far down the list and is trying to be self important. So how is Archie suddenly high up the list?

@Cacacoisfarraige No apologies necessary. This is complicated stuff, and it confuses me sometimes, too, and I'm a lawyer.

@Cacacoisfarraige

Perhaps the outrage is due to the fact that it was published in the wrong fiscal year

@goldierocks

(Quotes in italics are from a previous post).

"In the meantime, within the palace someone raises concerns about the baby's skin tone, at the same time H&M are told that their babies will not be Prince and Princess. This is apparently due to slim down, too many prince/ess apparently, despite the fact that the palace went out of their way to change Charlotte and Louis - instead of saying first born is to be titled wether boy or girl and we just stick to that line. So H&M figure, too many princes is not the problem here. What if W&K had 5 children. Also the rule is not extended to H himself who may have had his own 6 children. So at the time of the rule, you never know if there could eventually be 11 prince/es."

Harry and Meghan gave different accounts during the OW interview. Meghan said "I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time ... we have in tandem the conversation of 'he won't be given security. He's not going to be given a title' and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he is born."

Harry said there was one conversation, and "that was right at the beginning...right at the beginning."

The skin colour conversation (one, not plural), as Harry described it, had actually taken place before the couple had even got engaged, at quite an early stage of their relationship. The question had not been asked specifically about Archie, but about any babies that Harry and Meghan might possibly have. 'Yeah,' said Harry, confirming the question that had been put to him by the unnamed person was 'What will the kids look like?'.

The Letters Patent were not changed specifically for Charlotte and Louis. The change was made in 2012 before any of the Cambridge children had been born. It ensured that if a girl was born first, she would not have a 'lower' title in the event she had a younger male sibling. It also said that all future Cambridge children would be titled prince/princess from birth, not just the eldest.

"To top it off they are told that because of this lack of prince title, the baby will not have protection. H&M ask why, no answer (they are well aware that security is about threat, from the Met because H did ask that question on an unrelated matter). They are well aware at this point that the palace can alter rules as they wish."

Royal security is decided and provided by the Metropolitan Police, specifically the Royal and VIP Executive Committee. The Royal households ('palace') do not decide who does and does not get security.

"Archie is born, and without consultation, he is titled Master. A statement is put out as such, with a brief that H&M wanted it so to protect the baby. Except, they never said any such thing."

Either the mother or father must be present when a birth certificate is produced. If 'someone' told the registrar to write something on the certificate that either parent was unhappy with, they could have declined to sign it. They could have put the registration on hold to seek clarification. Births do not need to be registered until 42 days after the birth. There was plenty of time to discuss how they wanted Archie's title to appear (they could have used Harry's lower title for him).

"At this point H&M realise that it could well be a reality that LPs really could be changed for their DC."

Their DC will be prince/princess according to the current Letters Patent as soon as Prince Charles ascends the throne. Only the monarch can issue LP's and there have been no reports that the Queen is planning to make any changes.
To put it another way - immediately upon the Queen's death, Archie and Lili will become prince/princess. At that point, Charles cannot issue LP's to take those titles away. Only an Act of Parliament can remove a birthright title once it has been granted (the 1917 Title Deprivation Act).

"They ask themselves, what is the point of them being senior working royals and getting the brunt of the criticism, working at a senior level with all the threats, when babies will not even be protected. They could be like the cousins B&E etc. They can go out make a living (does not have to be a 9-5, could be different projects like the Philipps etc.), but they will be there if HMQ needs them for something. Sussex Royal umbrella will take care of the existing charities if need be. They will set up shop on CW country of Canada to make working together easy."

According to this timeline, by this point Harry and Meghan had been upset by the 'skin colour' comment from a family member, were upset that Archie was not going to be a prince and have no security and disagreed with what was written on his birth certificate. Yet they still wanted to remain working for the Queen, albeit on a reduced basis. From their own statement: "The preference of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex was to continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity, while not drawing on theSovereign Grant."

"PC cuts the funds and security. H asks if the risk has been assessed as lowered. No."

Prince Charles has no power/authority to cut security. This can only be done by the Metropolitan Police (the Royal and VIP Executive Committee). The protection of members of the royal family is based on a threat assessment conducted by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and is based on intelligence, with security given to those who “face a large enough risk”.

When the accounts were published today, it was confirmed the Sussexes no longer received funding from Prince Charles by the end of the first fiscal quarter (some point between April-June 2020).

"They scramble around. Tyler Perry to the rescue - come live at my empty house and security will be provided. (I have to say at this point that PC was likely instructed at this point to cut the funds, don't think he would have just done in personally, with a grandchild this young). Yes, they go. Advice from old friends about a way forward. Netflix, Spotify etc. are concluded."

The Sussexes moved into Tyler Perry's LA home in March 2020. Meghan confirmed this date in the OW interview. Harry added: "The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed."

Omid Scobie has released a statement on Twitter today which says: "Despite some confusing reports, Prince Charles and Prince Harry's timelines for the period the Sussexes' financial support ended are the same. Clarence House says funding continued until last summer (Q1 of the UK's fiscal year is April to June) and Harry told Oprah the same.'

For clarity, what Harry actually said is: "Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2021". (I.e. Harry didn't mean calendar quarter, he obviously meant fiscal quarter!!!)

We now know the move to LA was somewhere between 1 to 3 months before the funding from Prince Charles ended. I don't think that is particularly 'short notice' (it's a standard notice period in England). Omid Scobie has now gone on the record agreeing with the funding timeline and therefore must also agree that the Sussexes were in LA for at least one month (and up to theee months) before the funding ended.

"H&M were hurt that security was taken from baby Archie definitely, and were also hurt by what they saw as racism against him. What parent would not be. They were not whinging and complaining. They had resigned themselves to what took place. There were lots of questions about why they left. I think they just came to recount a certain time and the events that took place."

There seemed to be a significant downshift in public sympathy towards the Sussexes following the Tom Bradby "not many people have asked if I’m ok" interview while on the Africa tour. It was seen as 'whinging and complaining' whilst among some of the poorest human beings on the planet.

Even in spite of all the 'hurt', the Sussexes still wanted to work for the Queen albeit on a limited/part time basis. I doubt the OW interview and subsequent public outpourings would have happened if their request had been granted.

@goldierocks

Harry seems to recall one conversation that sticks to his mind, probably the first one. He most definitely does not say, there was only one conversation, and not plural. He talks about that one conversation which he says he will never forget.
So they never give us a number of how many conversations there were.
The conversations do not have to be specific about Archie himself, ultimately, the fact that he marries MM, it's about their children who will be mixed race. This is what I say will sting.

I am well aware the LPs were in 2012, which is why I say, if this was about slimming down or too many princes, that was the opportunity to say only W's first born will be named prince or princess if it's a girl. Change the rest of W and H's children not to have those titles. After all, PC has been planning the slim down for years. This was the opportunity if that is what he wanted.

Like any organisation, requiring high profile expensive, expertise security, it costs a lot for the Met to provide these officers. H&M cannot just rock up at the Met offices and say they want this security, even if the Met agrees with them, it has to be signed off. Clearly, the palace was not willing to sign this off.
Even if you are a diplomat and obviously need protection officers, this has to be signed off by your embassy - requested, then the Met will have it's own internal system with signatures / approvals. That is how it works, this is a lot of money, and the Met have to have all signatures in place to prove, does not matter if they agree with you, they have to account for everything.

A statement was put out about Archie's title in the easel on the morning after his birth. And the story ran like that. Perhaps this was when the penny dropped about him. Postpatrum, maybe they were not inclined to go on a fight with the palace about his titles when they were still just enjoying him in his first days. Maybe later as things become clear, they had a 'hang on a minute' thing. I know I would not be wrangling about these things when I just given birth. The other titles belong to H to hand over to Archie later (when he passes?)

The whole point is that the talks were going on, so as far as they could figure the LPs regarding A and sibling could be changed in good time.

Yes, they wanted to support the queen, they are just not happy with the advise that is going on in the palace. Infact, personally they love the queen. As people have always said, the crown will always remain, what would change however, are the people employed.

As you say, Harry said, I get told you are being cut off, I just got told at short notice security is being removed . So wether the funding gets cut off on whatever date, he was told this in March and his location leaked, so he had to get a move on before border closes.
The main crux of it, is that they were told in March that security is ending and had to leg it.

Strangely, the downshift in public sympathy did not happen for KM who went to a podcast just a couple of months later to say to some poor and some of them single women that she was some kind of struggling mum. No thoughts of whinging and complaining when it came to her.

Yes, they still want to work for the queen. She failed in not protecting them under her watch, but they are not completely discounting her warmth towards them either.

I am well aware the LPs were in 2012, which is why I say, if this was about slimming down or too many princes, that was the opportunity to say only W's first born will be named prince or princess if it's a girl. Change the rest of W and H's children not to have those titles. After all, PC has been planning the slim down for years. This was the opportunity if that is what he wanted.

Hmm I agree that it was the perfect opportunity to address titles for Harry’s children, but I do think removing titles for all but William’s eldest would have been the wrong thing to do. If your aim is continuing the royal family (which I would assume is the aim of the royal family) it makes sense to have a little bit of a deeper bench. You wouldn’t want a situation where George is raised to be king, the other two are untitled and raised to go and get a job, and then George decides in his twenties “thanks but no, I’m off”, and then you have an untitled non-working royal as heir. Which yes I appreciate is not the end of the world in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of the RF thinking about its own longevity, it’s probably best avoided.

I am well aware the LPs were in 2012, which is why I say, if this was about slimming down or too many princes, that was the opportunity to say only W's first born will be named prince or princess if it's a girl. Change the rest of W and H's children not to have those titles. After all, PC has been planning the slim down for years. This was the opportunity if that is what he wanted.

OTOH, you can see why parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc would want siblings treated alike as much as possible, which they usually have been in the BRF.

Precedents for cousins being treated differently are of course myriad in a system like monarchy, so the whole family are used to that, even if looks odd to us.

Like any organisation, requiring high profile expensive, expertise security, it costs a lot for the Met to provide these officers. H&M cannot just rock up at the Met offices and say they want this security, even if the Met agrees with them, it has to be signed off. Clearly, the palace was not willing to sign this off.

Again, the Palace does not pay for Met security. The Treasury pays for it. It is nothing to do with the Palace. I don’t know how many times this has been said. It comes out of public funds. The Special protection officers are also employed to look after the PM and other politicians as necessary. They are not exclusive to the Palace.

Sorry, that should say they are not all exclusive to the Palace, as some of the close protection officers are exclusive.

“Aren't we always told right here on MN that Harry is not important as he is so far down the list and is trying to be self important. So how is Archie suddenly high up the list?”

Well, I’ve actually previously pointed out that they are going to climb up the list @Mummy194 once the Queen and Prince Charles die, so I don’t think I’m the poster you should be aiming that post at.

Also, just on the Security/Protection thing generally, it’s not just anyone who is entitled to protection - you have to fall into the definition of an Internationally Protected Person under the UN Convention. This applies to Heads of States and those representing them. So, Princess Anne for example, gets protection on her engagements because she is representing the Queen, but not otherwise because she’s presumably classified a low risk. As Prince Harry and Meghan are no longer representing the Queen in any capacity they are not classed as Internationally Protected Persons. They/the Royal Family would have to come to an entirely separate agreement with the Met to provide any protection.

(There is other police squads that provide protection, eg to witnesses in organised crime cases etc, but those are based in the UK and they don’t go abroad other than in exceptional circumstances, like to escort a witness back to the UK for a court case etc).

“Aren't we always told right here on MN that Harry is not important as he is so far down the list and is trying to be self important. So how is Archie suddenly high up the list?”

Barring the most terrible and heartbreaking disaster, there is absolutely no way Harry or his offspring will ever get within a mile of the Throne - thank goodness! Did anyone ever seriously think that Andrew and his children would actually ascend the Throne (same situation)?

George is 7 now - in 15 - 20 years he will presumably be married and starting his own family, likewise Charlotte.

Sorry - pressed enter too soon!

So when George/Charlotte have children, the Sussex clan will be pushed further down the line of succession.

I doubt George will be starting a family at 22.

Yes, Harry is high on the list of succession but the likelihood of his actually taking the throne is low.

Presumably those saying H&M should get full security paid for because of death threats would also advocate for the many women receiving credible death threats as a result of domestic abuse to receive full time security

If not why not? Given the stats of women murdered by ex-partners vs members of the Royal family murdered by random strangers

As Prince Harry and Meghan are no longer representing the Queen in any capacity they are not classed as Internationally Protected Persons. They/the Royal Family would have to come to an entirely separate agreement with the Met to provide any protection.

At the time when this took place, I'm not sure if they were completely not representing HMQ as they were still in communication with the royal patronages and charities. This was seen as the transitional year.

We are not sure if H&M expected to have the security forever, they never said they did. Due to their proximity to HMQ and PC and W, that makes them more vulnerable. I think if they atleast were not cut off, there would have been an option for private if need be.

Protection officers do get deployed overseas all the time. Their immediate reporting HQ is usually an arm in the embassy.

@Viviennemary

I doubt George will be starting a family at 22.

If Charles lives as long as his father, then George will be in his mid-30s by the time William becomes king. So it's quite likely he or his siblings might be married with children (assuming that's their preference)

@Allington

Presumably those saying H&M should get full security paid for because of death threats would also advocate for the many women receiving credible death threats as a result of domestic abuse to receive full time security

If not why not? Given the stats of women murdered by ex-partners vs members of the Royal family murdered by random strangers

Women who are in danger are protected in one way or the other. Hence why you should not take pics of children without consent, as the family may be running away from an abusive situation.

If a child has had a threat, the police give them a special dedicated number to call in case, depending on their assessment of the threat, this gets pushed up if more serious t actual check ins, then up it goes, till 'police protection/ witness protection /name change and move house etc. In those cases they are usually dealing with normal joe's . In the case of H, you are talking proper specialists.

Really? You are claiming that women at risk get proper 24 hour protection?

I think you are out of touch with reality.

It was made quite clear that as of 31 March 2020 they stepped back completely from being working royals and involvement with their ongoing patronages would be on a personal basis only. The whole point of the year review was to give them breathing space to consider if that was what they wanted to do and have an defined way back if that was what they wished.

At the time when this took place, I'm not sure if they were completely not representing HMQ as they were still in communication with the royal patronages and charities. This was seen as the transitional year.

From the SussexRoyal website:

AS AGREED AND SET OUT IN JANUARY 2020:

Per the agreement The Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties and not undertake representative duties on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen.

@Allington

Really? You are claiming that women at risk get proper 24 hour protection?

I think you are out of touch with reality.

I do work with the vulnerable, and yes, someone had to have security checking in around the clock. In her case, it was for a short period, comparatively. and the situation escalated and they had to be moved out of town.

Two women a week are killed in the UK by domestic partners/ex-partner. Not all have asked for police help, but a proportion have. They don't get 24 hour police protection. And they are facing credible threats not fantasizing teenagers with no clear plan.

Let's advocate for their needs, before an entitled couple who have been thoroughly risk assessed and have chosen to move away

The millions they are demanding would save dozens of women and their children from attack, trauma and death