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.

There’s a glaring omission every time this “source” mentions Charles’ plan.

The second Charles becomes King certain title things happen. William becomes Duke of Cornwall. William and Harry become HRH The Prince William and HRH The Prince Henry. And all of Charles’ grandchildren on the male line (which is all of them in his case) become HRH Prince/ss.

So, if this change was going to be made one of two things would have to happen. Either the Queen would have to alter the LP’s now (and I think if there was no intention for Harry’s children to be titled it would have been done when the change was made to cover the possibility of the first Cambridge child being a girl).

Or one of the first things Charles intends to do as King is to strip his grandchildren of their very newly gained titles.

I simply cannot see Charles being stupid enough or badly advised enough to start his reign, given that he is not anywhere near as popular as his mother, by inviting the controversy of “King Charles takes titles from mix race grandkids”. Not even if he really wants to can I see him doing that.

@ohforarainyday

Good to see that Meghan's been vindicated and proven to have been speaking the truth when she says she was told the RF would be changing the rules so Archie would no longer automatically become a prince when Charles is crowned.

After all the posts calling her a liar or saying she didn't understand or claiming she wanted Archie to be a prince at birth, it's good that she's been proven right and Charles really was plotting to change the law to exclude Archie.

All the posters complaining about the fact they left: you do realise all the conversations about Archie's title and being denied access to security pre-date them leaving, and date to a time when they were both dutiful and hard working working royals?

Hard-working Royals? How long do you think Meghan was working as a member of the Royal Family, she's been married for 3 years and has lived abroad for around half of that time?

Beatrice and Eugenie have titles but no security funded by public money so I’m not sure why H&M would have thought that titles mean security. Prince Andrew paid for private security from his own pocket and he was furious about it.

B&E had taxpayer-funded security until they were well into adulthood.

Security is supposed to be based on need, not on title. Archie clearly had a very great need for security due to the sheer scale of attention his birth brought. He was just about the most famous baby in the world when he was born, and was a major target of Neo Nazis and white supremacists. Two members of a Neo Nazi organisation were jailed for plotting to kill Harry for being "a race traitor."

The fact Archie was denied security, and that the RF wrongly claimed this was due to him not having a title (when they were the ones who changed the law to deny him the title he otherwise would have been automatically entitled to) is pretty awful.

Makes sense to alter it now.

The fact Archie was denied security, and that the RF wrongly claimed this was due to him not having a title (when they were the ones who changed the law to deny him the title he otherwise would have been automatically entitled to) is pretty awful.

Nothing has currently been changed to deny Archie a title.

The Met Police have also said that his title would have nothing to do with his security planning.

How long do you think Meghan was working as a member of the Royal Family, she's been married for 3 years and has lived abroad for around half of that time?

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Meghan objectively worked hard during the time she was a working royal. Compare her numbers with the numbers for other royals.

She also did several very successful small projects (the Grenfell kitchen cookbook, the SmartWorks collection, the Vogue cover) and very successful tours, all during a very short time period.

Clearly Meghan is a hard worker in general and she brought that work ethic to the RF.

Wasn't one of the main complaints about her that she worked too hard and set too high expectations of staff, eg that she was up and working early in the morning while her staff were still in bed?

Also this whole thing about Charles deciding who gets security in future is nonsense.

The RF may have discussions with the Met, but ultimately it is the specific team at the Met who decide what they offer high profile individuals after assessing their threat.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that the Queen or Charles could, or would, get to decide rather than the professionals whose job it is.

The fact Archie was denied security, and that the RF wrongly claimed this was due to him not having a title (when they were the ones who changed the law to deny him the title he otherwise would have been automatically entitled to) is pretty awful.

They didn’t change anything to prevent him being a Prince currently did they? That was the status quo. The (potential) change is the one to his entitlement to be a Prince once Charles is king.

This is exactly what Meghan said in the interview, and I must have read a hundred times "she's wrong/ignorant, her children will be Prince and Princess when the Queen dies, she doesn't know what she is talking about " which is nonsense.

Meghan clearly said: normally they would become Prince/Princess when Charles became King buy this is being changed.

I don't blame them for being annoyed. If Beatrice and Eugenie get to be Princesses why not their children? I would be mightily passed off if I married Prince and my DC were just Master and Miss. I am sorry to say however that I suspect that this was a result of them leaving the RF and the UK, there's no point in them having titles if they are not in the fold.

I think it would make sense if the role of working role was something that you could step in and out of. Eight posts, say, offered first refusal along the line of succession. But able to take turns of service, say five years at a time. An official "school", like they have in Sweden for leading people into the role.

Not related to titles, and spouses not included in the list except for the direct two of the first two in line.

I believe Charles has wanted a slimmed down monarchy for years and I agree with him. H marrying a mixed race woman has changed that. It would be good for the modern RF to have a mixed race Prince and princess. On the other hand, those children are in California and their parents are estranged from two future kings, so would they even be good representatives of the RF?

I don't blame them for being annoyed. If Beatrice and Eugenie get to be Princesses why not their children? I would be mightily passed off if I married Prince and my DC were just Master and Miss. I am sorry to say however that I suspect that this was a result of them leaving the RF and the UK, there's no point in them having titles if they are not in the fold.

Because it's different now. Because when Beatrice and Eugenie were born the monarchy was in a different place, and they realised now that they need to change with the times to survive.

If you will be pissed about this, then don't marry a prince, and if you marry for love then what does it mater anyway? Nothing ever stays the same.

A 'hierarchical' monarchy, are there any other kinds? (ok so probably meant hereditary).

I would be mightily passed off if I married Prince and my DC were just Master and Miss.

Archie and Lilli are entitled to use Earl and Lady

If the royals, Charles in particular, wanted to slim the family further then they had the ideal chance when the special LP’s were issued for William’s children.

The 1917 LP’s could easily have been replaced with new ones to say that only the Heir Apparent and their eldest child received the HRH Prince/ss titles.

That would have simplified things going forward.

However, they chose not to edit the 1917 LP’s at all. They issued one off LP’s that only cover William’s children.

That doesn’t suggest to me that Charles intended for only William’s children to be titled. The timing would have been perfect to make that change if he had.

The slimming down of working royals has already happened when you look at numbers.

I think it is insensitive at best from Charles, when things were changed so that Charlotte and Louie could be Princess and Prince, I think? Or have I got that wrong?

The rules were changed before George was born because William might have only had daughters. Male preference primogeniture would mean that William could not pass on his titles to his daughters.

Good to see that Meghan's been vindicated and proven to have been speaking the truth when she says she was told the RF would be changing the rules so Archie would no longer automatically become a prince when Charles is crowned

It was predictable that someone would say this, but actually nothing's been "proved" one way or the other, especially with it being the wretched Mail - unless the nonsense they print which doesn't suit is "proof" as well?

I'm well aware that the RF drip feed whatever they want to the media, but AFAIK we still have nothing but tittle tattle about what Charles intends to do. As with everything concerning this ghastly family I'll believe it when it happens, though it might have some credibility in that any "slimming down" could involve him grabbing more of the goodies for himself

The rules were changed before George was born because William might have only had daughters. Male preference primogeniture would mean that William could not pass on his titles to his daughters.

William having only daughters wouldn’t have been so much of an issue.

The LP’s were issued because if William had had a daughter first she’d have “only” been Lady. However a younger brother (as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) would have been HRH Prince.

So the future Queen, as the changes meant she wouldn’t have been bumped out of her place in the succession by a brother, would have had a lesser title than her younger brother.

M has not been vindicated. She was alleging the change in titles was because of Archie’s colour. What’s been reported is that the change is part of Charles’ desire to slim down the monarchy.

That’s the point! B&E had their security removed because it was unnecessary and a waste of public money! Why make the same mistake again for 20 years? Archie is famous now because of recent events but in 10 15 years time, all this will have died down and no one will barely know who he is. I wouldn’t recognise Peter Philips out in a crowd, or either of Edward’s children. Archie will be the same as his parents calm down.

So the first black royal blooded children will have the law changed so that they cannot become prince and princess. Well done Charles. Totally not a racist family eh.

I want to know who expressed "concerns" about what Archie would look like, and exactly what words were used. Now that this allegation is officially admitted to be true, it's time we found out exactly how racist our ruling institution still is.

Something that needs to be remembered when Charles’ desire to slim the monarchy is mention is when that first started being discussed.

In the late 80’s and 90’s when it first became a thing the number of working royals, and potential working royals, was huge due to the early deaths of his grandfather and uncles meaning the Queen’s cousins were working royals.

The Queen, Philip, Charles, his wife, Anne, Andrew, his wife, Edward, QEQM, Princess Margaret, the Duke & Duchess of Kent, Princess Alice, the Duke & Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Alexandra were all working royals.

The slimming down, imo, was Charles making it be know that the same automatic assumption of working royals would be expected, or wanted, from Andrew and Edward’s children. That was an instant slimming down from how things would have worked previously.

So the first black royal blooded children will have the law changed so that they cannot become prince and princess. Well done Charles. Totally not a racist family eh. hmm

Totally agree, but H won’t tell us he’s prioritising his birth family over his wife and kids, I have no idea why he won’t name them, we’re sat here paying for a racist and we don’t know which one it it

I simply cannot see Charles being stupid enough or badly advised enough to start his reign, given that he is not anywhere near as popular as his mother, by inviting the controversy of “King Charles takes titles from mix race grandkids”.

I can. But my sense is that the push for this is coming from William, not Charles.

@PicsInRed

I simply cannot see Charles being stupid enough or badly advised enough to start his reign, given that he is not anywhere near as popular as his mother, by inviting the controversy of “King Charles takes titles from mix race grandkids”.

I can. But my sense is that the push for this is coming from William, not Charles.

Why would you think it’s coming from William?

The people most impacted by Harry and Meghan leaving being working royals are his kids (no chance George will be able to not be working until his 30s due to the ages of the current royals left) so why would he want to slam the door ensuring his brother can never come back?