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.

Great, so we are agreed they shouldn't get their security funded.

And the £37 billion spent/wasted on T&T, which you introduced into the discussion, is irrelevant to the question.

Finally we agree!

I have never said they should be getting it? Your posts to me appear to be based on me saying they should.
So I'm totally confused to be honest.

I don't even know what the question is any more to be honest 🤣

As I said on the other thread, I am sorry to hear about what your DD went through, so worrying and scary, an adult bullying a child.

I don't think money saved from paying for security will go to better policing.
i really can't see the link between the two.

Normally you have operational and capital expenditure (split from an accounting perspective and budgeting perspective) so I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions

I know, Cacaco; it's just that it wouldn't be the first time there'd been "creep" and I wouldn't trust this bunch as far as I could throw them

However no actual conclusions here; as with so much else, I'm simply waiting to see what happens (or rather, how it's presented)

[quote Cacacoisfarraige]@puzzledandpissedoff

Normally you have operational and capital expenditure (split from an accounting perspective and budgeting perspective) so I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions

What happened with the Windsor fire?. Could there have been similar arrangements ? I just know about the fire vaguely and no more.[/quote]
Originally the Govt. said they would cover the cost of the re-build of Windsor Castle, but there was a public outcry, so the Queen announced that she would pay for it. I seem to recall that one of the ways she raised money was opening Buckingham Palace to the public - and my understanding is that money raised from this is now used to maintain royal palaces and buildings.

Samcro

“I don't think money saved from paying for security will go to better policing.
i really can't see the link between the two.”

You’re right, it probably wouldn’t, but the perception of paying security for people who have left their job and moved to another country still makes it seem like a waste of money which could possibly be better spent elsewhere.

The link with paying for better policing was this:

• some posters said H&M's security should be paid for because they had received death threats, and the evidence was that 2 people had been convicted of those death threats

• other posters said that death threats in themselves were not a reason to provide security, if those threats were not credible e.g. the 2 people convicted were Neo-Nazis who had incited violence against a number of people and groups on the internet. There was no evidence they (or anyone else) had actively planned an attack, let alone one that had a chance of success

• the link with policing / domestic abuse was that, sadly, numerous women every year do have very credible, active death threats made against them, but do not receive security, with an average of 2 every week being murdered.

So, based on the logic that death threats (of any seriousness) = H&M get security paid for, then security should be provided for ANYONE on the receiving end of death threats (especially as the statistics show that all too many of those threats do result in death and serious injury).

Why are we actually talking about something that hasn't and won't be happening?

@Roussette because the question of security was linked to the question of whether Archie and Lili would receive titles in the interview and as a side issue it transpired that HaM had received a lump sum to start them off on their quest for financial freedom, which by necessity includes paying for security. Or was that not what you meant by that question?🤷‍♀️😀

Because some posters have said it should happen. Others have disagreed.

maybe all security for the royal family should be taken away.
why should they get security paid for is jane bloggs doesn't?
or is it only H&M who's lives don't matter?

H&M chose financial independence and all that entails. Including funding security themselves as do countless other celebrities in LA

@Samcro

maybe all security for the royal family should be taken away. why should they get security paid for is jane bloggs doesn't? or is it only H&M who's lives don't matter?

Nobody has said their lives don't matter.

The simple fact is they made decisions without speaking to the relevant agencies to assess the feasibility of their plans.

They assumed that the Met could and would continue to provide long term security abroad. They failed to consider both the practicalities, logistics and costs of doing so.

This has be discussed multiple times including how the Met assesses risk and the members of the RF that receive security on a full time/partial basis.

If provision of tax payer security was so important to them as a couple they could have made alternative choices.

They decided to proceed with their original plans and thus the removal of Met security was their choice.

This narrative of victimisation over finances and security is particularly irritating.

It seems to some that H&M need not ever take any personal responsibility for their decisions; especially the lack of consultation/research in making very significant life changes that relied on the largesse of the tax payer (and I include the Duchy Finances in that).

@DeRigueurMortis great post. It does feel a bit like Groundhog Day trying to point out that They Left so they need to live with the consequences 😂

[quote smilesy]@DeRigueurMortis great post. It does feel a bit like Groundhog Day trying to point out that They Left so they need to live with the consequences 😂[/quote]
I agree, but when you get people posting that they shouldn't have security because joe bloggs doesn't get it, it becomes a different conversation.
Thats what happens if people derail a thread.

[quote smilesy]@DeRigueurMortis great post. It does feel a bit like Groundhog Day trying to point out that They Left so they need to live with the consequences 😂[/quote]

Exactly.

It's NEVER THEIR RESPONSIBILITY multiple, lengthy posts are very irritating.

They are a multi-millionaire couple in their mid to late thirties who had lots of options if they wanted to leave the RF - and some of those (if they'd paused to actually research the ramifications of each choice) might have included security or indeed a life where it wasn't needed (in the sense of CPO's but rather top notch household security) and the need for Duchy funds or "Streamers".

I've always been supportive of their choice to leave the RF if they weren't happy - but not at their expectation that everything is on terms that are being funded by someone else.

I particularly admired M's determination not to follow "protocol" of presenting her baby to the world less than 24hrs after giving birth (I felt awful for Catherine every time she had to do it) and doing the photo shoot at Windsor at her pace.

I applauded her for breaking silly royal conventions about nail varnish/tights etc.

I'd admire H for the Invictus games.

But this whinging about titles, security and money really annoys me.

I find their actions on occasions to be anything from admirable/good to hypocritical/grabby.

I agree, but when you get people posting that they shouldn't have security because joe bloggs doesn't get it, it becomes a different conversation.

No it doesn't.

It was a perfectly reasonable point to reflect on the lack of security that's provided to the general public who've been assessed as being at risk and the inflated (by as much as 10 times) cost of paying to protect a couple who've chosen to leave the expensive circle of security they already had.

There's a lot of naivete around funding and security.

The reason public figures receive public-funded security is because the risk to them has been assessed as being a security threat to the UK itself.

To put it bluntly, it's to avoid kidnap (and to avoid a PR disaster in general).

The main reason security is assigned is due to kidnap risk. Kidnap is the number one thing the people who make these security decisions are terrified of. Not assassination. Not someone getting punched. Kidnap.

Because if a royal is kidnapped by terrorists who demand certain things politically for their release, it holds the UK government hostage in an extremely public way and creates a major International Incident which could bring down a government.

Of course if a major public figure or royal is assassinated or attacked, it would be a massive PR disaster and of course they want to avoid that, but the main reason is to avoid a kidnap situation. That's why children of US presidents get such major security (more than even some politicians), because they represent a greater kidnap risk. It's also why sometimes quite random insignificant people (like retired politicians) receive security for life, because they have extremely valuable information which would make them a kidnap target.

It's very unfortunate, but none of this applies to ordinary people who are DV victims.

Rainy - all that post exposes is your lack of knowledge about how risk assessments are completed, security requirements are assessed and the different agencies that provide the services.

Given this has been covered many times by some very knowledgeable posters on these threads I would suggest might want to read their posts.

For all anyone knows the letters patent not allowing the Sussex children the titles Prince and Princess could already be drawn up ready to come into effect when Charles takes the throne.

I think it would be a PR disaster if the rules are changed for Archie and Lili . Can you imagine the hysterical accusations of racism?
But given H and M’s views on the “ toxic” RF , surely they will politely decline the titles and allow their DC to live as normal lives as possible ? It is expected that the family will remain in the US so what is the point of them having titles ?

@Oldbutstillgotit

I think it would be a PR disaster if the rules are changed for Archie and Lili . Can you imagine the hysterical accusations of racism? But given H and M’s views on the “ toxic” RF , surely they will politely decline the titles and allow their DC to live as normal lives as possible ? It is expected that the family will remain in the US so what is the point of them having titles ?

I think that’s what the palace machinery have now concluded and they will overrule Charles on this.

I can't see then agreeing voluntarily not to use thd titles as Edward and Sophie have done. I think it will be made official. Still its anybody's guess.

@Viviennemary

For all anyone knows the letters patent not allowing the Sussex children the titles Prince and Princess could already be drawn up ready to come into effect when Charles takes the throne.

I think if that was the plan the Queen would have issued them already.

She knows Charles is going to be less popular and he’s going to have enough to deal with in the beginning with the Camilla issue.

@ Viviennemary

I think you could be right however on what grounds would they accept them ? They could say it’s their birthright but I imagine a lot of people would be cynical about that in view of them walking away from The Firm .