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.

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

And maybe he never planned to. There's no proof either way.

Gosh there are some hard-of-thinking posters around!

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.

Nope my information comes direct from a member of the Cabinet, who has first hand personal experience of this kind of security at the very highest level.

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

You mean posters who pretend to be "royal insiders" but they support your own personal biases so you blindly gobble up everything they say.

Besides look at the posts here - the entire argument shows a massive inability to grasp basic logic.

Harry and Meghan wanted security while they were actively Working Royals, which is completely fair.

As soon as they left, they accepted they'd have to pay for their own security, which is why they've worked so hard to sign big money deals so they can afford to pay for it themselves.

The same big money deals that haters seem utterly enraged by, despite simultaneously demanding they do what they're already doing which is pay for their own security!

How exactly do you expect them to pay for their own security if you don't want them to work and froth yourselves half to death when they do?

why would it surprise you to know that some of us do have access to information that you clearly don't too.

Equally it is rather silly to claim a source but to dispute others have sources, but wouldn't be so indiscreet to divulge.. top trumps would be rather foolish game to play if you did have any inside knowledge.

It might interest you to learn that the government of the day are not privy to all that goes on.....who knew that? most people. Serving government and civil service assisting serving government won't be the best source, is a little nose tap for you there.

my information comes direct from a member of the Cabinet, who has first hand personal experience of this kind of security at the very highest level

Loose lips sink ships

My information comes directly from the Queen, who is my Mum's BFF...

@ Allington.

Why does the Queen know Charles will be less popular?
Edward VII was very unpopular as Prince of Wales, but became a very popular king. It just might work out for Charles. We won't know until it happens.

You mean posters who pretend to be "royal insiders" but they support your own personal biases so you blindly gobble up everything they say.

No Rainy.

I mean posters who given detailed descriptions of the security risk assessment and provision process that I've then fact checked.

As for my "personal bias" I think you'll find I'm actually one of the posters who is actually pretty balanced.

I've been happy to defend/applaud and criticise/denounce actions from all members of the RF where warranted.

As soon as they left, they accepted they'd have to pay for their own security, which is why they've worked so hard to sign big money deals so they can afford to pay for it themselves.

Please stop re-writing history.

They felt entitled to security regardless of being working royals or not and were obviously pissed off when they didn't get it.

Goodness me there's plenty of things to defend/support them in that are actually worthy.

When you defend them at all costs and in all instances, the gravitas and worth of your posts simply diminishes.

Lilbet? Really? Huh.

Somehow I missed that memo.

I mean posters who given detailed descriptions of the security risk assessment and provision process that I've then fact checked.

Please point to these posts, then. I'd love to read them! I'm sure they're a really good laugh.

And I'd love to know more about how a Mumsnet poster does her own "fact checking" about how high level government security decisions are made.

Face facts, publicly funded government approved security is based on risk assessment. Linda who works in ASDA whose ex-boyfriend threatened to kill her is simply not in a position that would create a possible security threat to the nation the way a major public figure is.

That's why public figures who are risk assessed as being high risk as kidnap or assassination targets are deemed eligible for taxpayer-funded security, and regular members of the public are not.

Sorry for everyone whining that it's "not fair" but anyone who genuinely thinks the government makes major financial decisions based on what's fair is living in cloud cuckoo land.

No Rainy.

I'm not doing your homework as well as my own.

They felt entitled to security regardless of being working royals or not and were obviously pissed off when they didn't get it.

Please stop making up porky pies. Harry and Meghan DID get security, so why on earth would they be "pissed off at not getting it"?? Their entire grievance around security was based on a) the fact they were told Archie wouldn't receive his own security despite being obviously high risk and despite this going against precedent and b) the fact the RF lied and claimed security is linked to title when it's not.

You do realise we can go back and read every single word Harry and Meghan have actually said, right? There's not one word to indicate they expected security to continue after they left, and to claim they were pissed off at not receiving security when they factually did receive security is just a straight up lie.

Again: how come the same people whinging and moaning about them needing to pay for their own security are the same ones whinging and moaning about them working?

The ways in which security need is risk assessed is a matter of public record. I don't understand why people are even making it an argument - Harry and Meghan clearly needed security, the fact they GOT security is proof of that. And now they're paying for their own security so how is it anyone else's business?

I'm not doing your homework as well as my own.

Thanks for admitting that you can't back up your claims.

But it’s definitely “not fair” to expect the taxpayer to pay for someone who has left their job and the country.

@ohforarainyday

Besides look at the posts here - the entire argument shows a massive inability to grasp basic logic.

Harry and Meghan wanted security while they were actively Working Royals, which is completely fair.

As soon as they left, they accepted they'd have to pay for their own security, which is why they've worked so hard to sign big money deals so they can afford to pay for it themselves.

The same big money deals that haters seem utterly enraged by, despite simultaneously demanding they do what they're already doing which is pay for their own security!

How exactly do you expect them to pay for their own security if you don't want them to work and froth yourselves half to death when they do?

You forgot that between being working royals and having security and leaving and accepting that they would have to pay for it themselves , comes them assuming it would be paid for.

You forgot that between being working royals and having security and leaving and accepting that they would have to pay for it themselves , comes them assuming it would be paid for.

Proof?

@ohforarainyday

You forgot that between being working royals and having security and leaving and accepting that they would have to pay for it themselves , comes them assuming it would be paid for.

Proof?

😂😂😂

Their "leaving" statements and the OW interview.

I have no idea why posters are banging on about security when they're not getting it and are paying for their own. It's done. It's sorted!
This was going on and on round and round in circles last week too!! 😂🤣

Why would a baby get personal security? It doesn’t go anywhere on its own. No royal babies get security. It comes via their parents.

They do go to nursery and school. K&W's do have security officers and I actually know that for a fact! My DD has seen them 😀

Why would a baby get personal security? It doesn’t go anywhere on its own. No royal babies get security. It comes via their parents.

Then how come the Cambridge children all have their own individual security, separate from their parents?

Of course children go outside without their parents. They all have nannies as standard, and Meghan's mum lives nearby and presumably is a hands-on gran. It's also necessary when they start kindergarten and then school, since obviously a parent isn't going to sit in the corner of the kindergarten all day every day.

If they didn't have their own security, they wouldn't be able to leave the house without one of their parents, which clearly is not practical when both parents work. Imagine being in a situation where your mum can't take your baby to the park!

Their "leaving" statements and the OW interview.

Wrong as always!

@ohforarainyday

They felt entitled to security regardless of being working royals or not and were obviously pissed off when they didn't get it.

Please stop making up porky pies. Harry and Meghan DID get security, so why on earth would they be "pissed off at not getting it"?? Their entire grievance around security was based on a) the fact they were told Archie wouldn't receive his own security despite being obviously high risk and despite this going against precedent and b) the fact the RF lied and claimed security is linked to title when it's not.

You do realise we can go back and read every single word Harry and Meghan have actually said, right? There's not one word to indicate they expected security to continue after they left, and to claim they were pissed off at not receiving security when they factually did receive security is just a straight up lie.

Again: how come the same people whinging and moaning about them needing to pay for their own security are the same ones whinging and moaning about them working?

The ways in which security need is risk assessed is a matter of public record. I don't understand why people are even making it an argument - Harry and Meghan clearly needed security, the fact they GOT security is proof of that. And now they're paying for their own security so how is it anyone else's business?

I'm not doing your homework as well as my own.

Thanks for admitting that you can't back up your claims.

Poppycock.

They had security and made a set of decisions without checking if that was compatible with continuing to receive it from the relevant agencies.

Same wrt getting over £2m pa from the Duchy (aka taxpayer).

Their lack of consultation with the agencies writing very substantial checks demonstrate a level of entitlement that is neither attractive nor appropriate.

Goodness me I don't blame them from wanting a different life but you don't get to do that in the expectation that it's funded by someone else (way in excess of what you were already receiving)

If security for Archie was their prime concern then they had that already and walked away from it.

Their choice - because they didn't want a life of privacy, they wanted a life of A list celebrity funded by the U.K. taxpayers.

If security for Archie was their prime concern then they had that already and walked away from it.

Except they went on national TV stating the exact polar opposite.

Goodness me I don't blame them from wanting a different life but you don't get to do that in the expectation that it's funded by someone else (way in excess of what you were already receiving)

Nonsense.

There's not a single thing to back up these wild allegations and assumptions of yours.