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.

You're talking 24/7 bouncer style security that Hollywood types wish to acquire. They see off anyone that wants to speak to their employer. That's not the same as risk assessed security and police protection.

Credible threats are dealt with as there are wide ranging powers that are enacted that are able to track and why you don't hear about endless kidnaps. Not because of the security fighting off kidnappers all day long, it's because the intelligence in the first place that prevents it getting to that stage (which all shows you don't know anything about how intelligence led risk assessments are made).

H&M don't want to interact with anyone and want everyone kept away from them - that isn't how it works. H did benefit from the RF security whilst living on RF property and it was easy to extend it to him whilst a senior working royal, not because there were particular risk assessments saying he continued to require it. When there was a credible plan, it was dealt with.

Terrorist attacks leak through, not because of lack of intelligence to prevent it - is lack of manhours and redeployment. H is after private security - keep people away from me - police led security isn't there to do that. If there's a credible plot with legs H&M will be made aware and certain events take place and the threat is dealt with or nothing comes of it and not a credible risk and reassessed.

Harry left and not a single repercussion to our political system rippled anywhere - Harry going isn't important. If something happened to a direct line heir it does throw up issues for our country and why they have security whether there are credible threats or not, Harry still wants to benefit from what living near to William (living on royal properties) enabled him to piggyback from.

@ohforarainyday

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.

😂😂😂😂

PMSL at "wild allegations" based solely on statements and interviews by H&M themselves.

What the hell is it with this blind devotion?

If you want someone to admire get over to FWR and see the video of the woman giving righteous fury about a "woman" with a root and two veg in a (mandatory nude) female spa in front of children.

She's done more for women's rights than most women will ever do by taking a stand.

You're talking 24/7 bouncer style security that Hollywood types wish to acquire. They see off anyone that wants to speak to their employer. That's not the same as risk assessed security and police protection.

This 100%

The kind of security that poor Prof Whitty needs. Sorry, I know it's off topic, but I happened to read this after seeing those dreadful images of him being assaulted.
For the third time.

H&M wanted bouncers to prevent people from talking to them?
Where do people read this nonsense.

H and his family are targets because of their proximity to the crown, not physical proximity, but because his grandmother is queen, his father and brother future kings.

It was reported that the Met said the threats level had gone up because of H marrying a woman of colour, MM. And also because of Andrew.

That is why H asked the question, has the threat level gone down, and the answer came back, No.

Mummy Harry has security. When he's in the UK......

He used to get security when he travelled abroad as a full time working member of the Royal family.

He's not that anymore and he doesn't live in UK so no security.

Obviously noone wants anything to happen to him, but we can't indefinitely provide security.

We can't always get it all our own way.

Harry clearly thought the rules didn't apply to him.

If he had actually went about things the right way this would have been explained to him.

If I was leaving my employer, I would make sure I told my boss before everyone else knew. Keep things pleasant and not burn any bridges too.

And were is everyone getting a £2M payment from anyway.

The is just over £4M lumped together with Cambridges and 'other expenses' which were described as upkeep like gardening, maintainance etc. So that you cannot tell if the lump sum is £20K or £200K.

Strange that Clarence House goes on to talk about Diana's inheritance, which has nothing to do with them. As well as Netflix and Spotify deals which were done later, and once again have nothing to do with CC. But never, ever state the lump sum amount.

What the palace needs to do is say how they sacked 400 employees, got a bailout and still managed to overspend on flights etc during a pandemic.

I appreciate that the Cambridge children have security now they are at Nursery and school. I was going to bed when I wrote my last post and didn’t explain it very well. I was replying to this:
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.

When did the RF lie and claim security is linked to title? Of course it isn’t, otherwise all the Queen’s children would have it 24/7 which they do not.

@Mummy194

And were is everyone getting a £2M payment from anyway.

The is just over £4M lumped together with Cambridges and 'other expenses' which were described as upkeep like gardening, maintainance etc. So that you cannot tell if the lump sum is £20K or £200K.

Strange that Clarence House goes on to talk about Diana's inheritance, which has nothing to do with them. As well as Netflix and Spotify deals which were done later, and once again have nothing to do with CC. But never, ever state the lump sum amount.

What the palace needs to do is say how they sacked 400 employees, got a bailout and still managed to overspend on flights etc during a pandemic.

There's nothing stopping Harry saying how much money he received and when to clear up all the confusion about being cut off. He's been quite happy to talk about other family matters.

Why should he? Does he have to expose every bit of his finances to the public?
I think not. If that happens, we need William to say how much money he got too, and that won't happen.

We could of course look at RF finances, there is some opacity there

CC confirms as he says that he was cut off at the first quarter of last year.

Whatever they gave him was clearly not enough for security and CC probably knows that. Why don't CC clarify how much, since they are the ones who are saying he was given money.

If the palace had the inclination to troll his daughter, he probably has no time for their little games.

my post was in response to Mummy saying it it could be £20k or £200k. Unless the Cambridge household expenses went up extortionately during lockdown, the CH figures suggest harry and meghan are likely to have received a figures well into 7 figures. So not exactly cut off financially.

Cost of security for non-working royal is not the RF's responsibility - why should Charles have to cover that cost when they are in the USA. We have already established that. They wanted financial independence.
Boy, do these threads go round in circles.

troll his daughter - you need to explain that one, Mummy

I agree. As I said last night, why on earth are we discussing this?

The RF are not paying for their security.

I think some posters just need to let it go.

Whatever they gave him was clearly not enough for security

If they were so concerned about security, they should have left in a more thoughtful and organised manner, as pp have said. They seemed to want security to continue as before anyway and as that was being provided by the UK taxpayer via the
Met tha could not continue.

And it hasn't.

It was reported that the Met said the threats level had gone up because of H marrying a woman of colour, MM

I personally know everyone in the Met and they all say that the threats level hasn't gone up... and I asked the head of MI5 over coffee last week and they say the same.

So that's proved then

@Roussette. Security is being discussed again because Rainy brought it up yesterday at 19.40.

No no, there were pages and pages of it being discussed with the same old stuff last week

I know. I said it was being discussed again. 😀

I use the the word "bouncers" as a bit of whimsy to highlight there is more than one style of close protection.

Rainy: was worried about Archie in the park and needed close protection - if there was a plan in the making for a kidnap it would be picked up and H&M alerted. Going to the park is fine - they don't live in a sink town and they'll be mixing with similar people (they might have to speak to them or say "don't speak to me" on their own behalf).

The Hollywood style protection is about keeping fans away etc - don't take photos. Famously when M was at Wimbledon and said someone's taking a photo of her - the camera was removed and it turns out he was taking a selfie of himself on the side of the court, bit of a funny story asked to delete photos of Meghan and there weren't any it was of the chap himself!

That isn't what police protection is for - it comes as part and parcel of the wider role of RF protection that H&M were able to access along with living inside royal residences.

M said to Oprah that the reason they didn't get security was because of racism (in tandem etc). That is untrue despite rain insisting they need state funded police protection at all times to stop someone speaking to them at the Park. That's Tom Cruise style protection they're after and how they wish to live - security on hand to get them coffee etc

perhaps your "cabinet" source Rainy and why you misunderstand and get upset about how police protection works is Matt Hancock - camera in his office and he assumed not working etc - I mean you can trust anyone in cabinet with your life and they only speak truth.

Possibly it would be easier for us all to just agree with rainy that none of the above is true and everyone's just being nasty to Harry and racism is at the heart of police protection decisions. I guess that's what the "cabinet" friend decided anyhow.