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.

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

Officers in the Met’s Royalty and Specialist Protection Squad and the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Squad travel overseas frequently yes, because they protect Internationally Protected Persons. Which Harry and Meghan no longer are.

The Met also has a UK Protected Person Squad, which works with the National Crime Agency’s own network across the UK police forces to protect UK citizens at risk - normally because they are/have been witnesses in criminal proceedings and as such there is a threat to their lives. They are the ones that don’t generally travel overseas.

As I said, providing 24/7 protection for the Sussexes would not fall within either group’s sphere of responsibility. So if the Palace did want them to still be protected by the Met, they’d have to come to a completely new agreement with them.

In fact, DD experienced racist abuse twice in the week from the same adult man (DD is a petite 13 year old) on the way to school. I would like her to have Met protection for the journey - happy to waive it for the rest of the day...

Sorry for your poor daughter, Allington

And I agree entirely. There are far better things that the Met could be doing with the money it would cost to protect two millionaires in Los Angeles.

virtual round of applause for you Allington for post quoted below (and the others) I am so sorry to hear about your daughter.

"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"

To add, the police liaison officer was great and incredibly supportive. I have no complaints. But any money spent on entitled, grasping people is less money spent on those in real danger

When Harry talks about suddenly being cut off I think what happened is it was sudden news to him that he would no longer be entitled to free security no matter where he was. If he ever thought about it, he saw it as an entitlement of his life, not of his work. I imagine he has many gaps in his understanding of how the world works for normal people.

I think his surprise at being cut off also perfectly illustrates that they didn’t really have a plan b when they were told no to the half in half out situation they had envisaged.

@Allington

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

This is what I keep thinking about. All the poor women who live in fear of stalkers and abusive exs but get almost nothing from the police.

I think that logic would also apply to the extra £18.1million given in the Sovereign Grant for the royal family in the last financial year. That has been paid. Any security costs for H&M hasn't.

I assume any Head of State will need paying for, whether a monarchy or a President.

Of course. I was talking about the increase year on year. There's massive wastage of money that could be used in far better ways. I would rather concentrate on something like the wasted £37billion of T&T that did little to help slow the pandemic.

£37billion! Compared to a request for security that never happened.

I quite agree the 37 billion was a waste of tax payers money and should not have happened.

I don't get the connection between that and security for H&M.

One line item was money wasted, so we should pay out another line item that would be money wasted (from the taxpayers perspective)? Don't get the logic.

That's the whole point Allington. One was requested and the request was declined.
The other was requested and paid out and is £37billion.

I don't get the logic either. Their request was refused, we're talking like it wasn't. To say that the money could have gone on protecting women and girls... yes. It still can because it isn't being paid out.

Cacacois Who is TQ? The Queen?

Yes the extra is primarily for the renovation of BP. I don't want to get into the Royal Accounts again, but there is plenty of expenditure that is to my mind pretty obscene. But there you go... that has been covered on different threads since the accounts came out, so I'll leave it there.

Cacacois

@StartupRepair

When Harry talks about suddenly being cut off I think what happened is it was sudden news to him that he would no longer be entitled to free security no matter where he was. If he ever thought about it, he saw it as an entitlement of his life, not of his work. I imagine he has many gaps in his understanding of how the world works for normal people.

It must be very odd at almost 40 to be able to just jump in your car and drive anywhere you want, whenever you want, on your own. And sometimes to have to do just that too, because there's no-one to pop out for a pint of milk for you.

@Roussette

Of course. I was talking about the increase year on year. There's massive wastage of money that could be used in far better ways. I would rather concentrate on something like the wasted £37billion of T&T that did little to help slow the pandemic.

£37billion! Compared to a request for security that never happened.

37 billion is a lot of money, but it also covers the cost of the testing too, which must be very high considering there’s been hundreds of thousands of tests done most days.

I believe that a lot of the increase was due to the major refurb of Buckingham palace

Yes, it was; supposedly it was an "uplift" for several years which would end when the renovations are completed

However remembering the arrangement that the Sovereign Grant can only go up and never down, it'll be interesting to see if it is reduced again, especially given there's every chance Charles will be monarch by then

@Roussette

That's the whole point Allington. One was requested and the request was declined. The other was requested and paid out and is £37billion. I don't get the logic either. Their request was refused, we're talking like it wasn't. To say that the money could have gone on protecting women and girls... yes. It still can because it isn't being paid out.

Cacacois Who is TQ? The Queen?

Yes the extra is primarily for the renovation of BP. I don't want to get into the Royal Accounts again, but there is plenty of expenditure that is to my mind pretty obscene. But there you go... that has been covered on different threads since the accounts came out, so I'll leave it there.

As I expect you know, the lack of logic I referred to was your contention that the Met/RF should make a bad decision BECAUSE the Government made a bad decision i.e. two bad decisions are better than one bad decision and one good decision.

So £37 billion of partially wasted money means even more money should be wasted on a completely unconnected matter.

Cacacois

I agree, love old buildings, just don't want to live in one!

@Allington
I'm just not sure on here who has said they should make the 'bad decision'. I haven't said that, I have checked back on my posts to make sure I'm not dreaming, and nowhere have I said that their security should be paid for. I am really not sure where you are getting that from?