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.

The BRF and the media need to get their story straight. Are the Sussexes totally irrelevant minor royals who were never going to have a position in the 'slimmed down' monarchy, or has Harry's departure put unfair pressure on William and Kate to do more work than they want and created a crisis where in the future there won't be enough royals to do all the work required of them?

My view: The Sussexes were always going to have a position in the slimmed down monarchy, hence why they started working full time for the firm. I think it's similarly obvious that Archie would not have grown up to undertake royal duties etc. in the same way that Beatrice/Eugenie/Louise/James won't, hence no title.

I'm also not convinced that the royals will have a 'crisis' because there aren't enough royals to go around - yes the numbers will naturally decrease as we lose people like the Duke of Kent/Duke and Duchess of Gloucester/Princess Alexandra, but I'm honestly sceptical of how much a difference this would make. The Scandinavians seem to do ok without their extended family. What it does mean is that George, Charlotte and Louis will need to step up much earlier than their parents, which has probably annoyed William and Kate, but I'm not sure this is unreasonable. Again, the Scandinavian royals get going much earlier than William and Kate did.

I think there was always a plan to stop the prince/princess titles other than the direct heir to the throne, and this would have been one of the many reasons for the anger towards the Family.

On a side note, I wonder what H&M think of Princess Catharina-Amalia Carmen Victoria.

She is heir to the throne of the Netherlands, yet has rejected a€1.6 million yearly allowance from the royal treasury and has committed to paying back €300,000 she spend during her uni years. She won’t accept the trust fund until she takes her role and the costs in as Princess of Orange. Good for her!

Society is changing and the perks of royalty now are no longer seen as a birth right but there is now some expectation of returns.

I met Sophie Wessex once at an autism charity event and I was surprised at how little security she had - just the one officer, who drove, and she drove herself in a separate car.

She was very knowledgeable and mixed well. Quite a good egg, we thought.

Beatrice/Eugenie/Louise/James won't, hence no title.

They all have titles.

Louise and James don't use theirs by parental wish (though they may choose to at 18) but are Prince and Princess as well as Lorn Severn and Lady Louise. James will become Earl of Wessex upon his father's death and will in turn pass this title down to his own first born sons (hopefully this will include first born daughters at some point ).

B&E have always used their titles.

The treatment of H&M and their - very relevantly, mixed race - children is entirely different to the treatment of any of the other royal blooded children, including recent ones who are still minors, and that's why people like me are on the brink of being completely finished with the idea of monarchy at all. I previously thought "but stability!", "but what alternative!", however now I feel that the attitudes overtly hardwired into the monarchy, and seemingly not ever changing, are simply untenable to rule over people who are not all white.

I think there was always a plan to stop the prince/princess titles other than the direct heir to the throne, and this would have been one of the many reasons for the anger towards the Family.

I think if that was the case the prime chance to make that the case was when the LP’s were issued for William’s children.

Harry was unmarried, the rules of male primogeniture had just changed so it was prime time to scrap the 1917 LPs and issue completely new ones.

They didn’t.

On a side note, I wonder what H&M think of Princess Catharina-Amalia Carmen Victoria.

It's a cynical PR move to counter public anger over royal expenses - they have one of the most expensive royal families in the world and the public were questioning value for money. That's why the grand gesture - pure self interest.

@JustLyra

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.

Yes, that's how I remember things. It would have been at least 30 odd years ago that talk started about, not the direct relatives, but the ones living in what he was reputed to call the Aunt Heep (Kensington palace) Round about the time Princess Michael of Kent was the one getting all the bile in the press. Plus ça change, and oh, look, she was also a "foreigner". Says more about the MSM and redtops than the actual family imo.

My view: The Sussexes were always going to have a position in the slimmed down monarchy, hence why they started working full time for the firm. I think it's similarly obvious that Archie would not have grown up to undertake royal duties etc. in the same way that Beatrice/Eugenie/Louise/James won't, hence no title.

I agree with the first part. Harry and his wife were always going to be large part of the royal family. Especially when William becomes King.

However I disagree with your thought that Archie wouldn’t have been titled. I think he would have been in the same position as Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James - non working, but titled.

Meghan ... was alleging the change in titles was because of Archie’s colour

I thought that one had been rescinded, since Scobie reportedly said H&M now realise it was down to protocol rather than racism?
Not that he's any better than the Mail, but his position as "spokesperson" seems fairly entrenched, if only because he's not yet been sued for any of his witterings

As for this allegation now being "officially admitted to be true", the irony of the Mail being quoted when it suits and derided when it doesn't is bending what passes for my mind

I just read about this in the DM. I think it's the best decision in the long run. But it should have been formalised years ago if this was the intention. Long before Harry got married and had children. It needs to be done now and not later. Because the longer they delay it the more trouble.

@Oldbutstillgotit

I thought H and M didn’t want titles for their children ? If they did , Archie would currently be Earl of Dumbarton and Lilibet would be ( I think ) Lady.

This is what I thought too.

As several people have said, PC has always made it clear that he wants to slim down the 'Royal' family.

The treatment of H&M and their - very relevantly, mixed race - children is entirely different to the treatment of any of the other royal blooded children

Is it though? What other great grandchildren are there? William's children are in the direct line to the throne so are arguably different.

@SpindleWhorl

I met Sophie Wessex once at an autism charity event and I was surprised at how little security she had - just the one officer, who drove, and she drove herself in a separate car.

She was very knowledgeable and mixed well. Quite a good egg, we thought.

Yes, she's certainly redeemed herself since the famous interview. I love what she's doing for women. I thought she was a bit "it's our turn for the limelight" when Philip died, but I think that is actually part of the plan. And I wonder if he saw how The Crown portrayed him and thought "shit, better get my finger out on the PR here". I remember him being considered a bit of a prat back in the day, but TC is vicious. (I know not much of it is factually researched apart from the actual public events etc, but still)

To me I think it’s clear that there was a huge misunderstanding on Harry’s part. And given the poor information he has given Meghan (she didn’t know she’d be expected to curtsey to the Queen when they met privately until minutes before she met her) has lead to this whole thing.

In the interview Meghan said they expected all the grandchildren to be treated the same.

I think Harry clearly expected the same thing to happen for his children as happened for William’s children. He didn’t take into account that that wasn’t done because of the children being entitled to the titles in the future, but to prevent the rampant sexism in the way titles are dealt with being flagged up at the time.

I find it hard to believe that there has been no discussion about titles and the likes when Harry got married. The way the titles of Edward and Sophie’s future children would be used were announced on their wedding day. There’s no way that the Queen would have failed to mention plans to do things differently if that was the case.

Assumptions were made and assumptions are often wrong.

Anne's first husband declined a title and therefore there are no subsidiary titles but their children. Earl of Dumbarton is one of Harry's subsidiary titles that Archie can use, same applies to Viscount Severn, its Prince Edwards title.

Poor wording on my part, which will teach me to post before proof reading - that should have read no royal title for Archie.

Archie isn't completely untitled - he has titles available to him in the same way that Viscount Severn does and by and large he is being treated in the same way as Sophie and Edward's children. Harry and Meghan have chosen so far not to have him styled as Earl of Dumbarton/Lord Kilkeel and Lili as Lady Lili, but they would be perfectly within their rights to change their minds on this at any time.

I know Beatrice and Eugenie use their HRH but they've been doing that since 1988/1990 which was a very different time. At the time no one thought that they wouldn't grow up to be working royals. They're a slightly awkward anomaly in the new set up owing to the fact they were born before the slimming down plans were thought of.

When the Queen dies is the point at which Archie and Lilibet's titles would change if the Queen or Prince Charles (when he becomes king) doesn’t issue Letter Patent to change the rules. That, surely, is also the point at which Beatrice and Eugenie should change from having the title Princess to Lady as they will no longer be the grandchildren of the monarch.

I have no idea why (Harry) won’t name them, we’re sat here paying for a racist and we don’t know which one it is

If whatever-was-said could be proved I'd agree completely, but can it?

The rest of us will probably never know, but I'd expect the family to have asked Harry who it was and what they said since that would be the obvious thing to do ... however whether he'd have a credible answer is anyone's guess

@SnowdaySewday

When the Queen dies is the point at which Archie and Lilibet's titles would change if the Queen or Prince Charles (when he becomes king) doesn’t issue Letter Patent to change the rules. That, surely, is also the point at which Beatrice and Eugenie should change from having the title Princess to Lady as they will no longer be the grandchildren of the monarch.

Royals can be automatically upgraded, but not downgraded.

@SnowdaySewday

When the Queen dies is the point at which Archie and Lilibet's titles would change if the Queen or Prince Charles (when he becomes king) doesn’t issue Letter Patent to change the rules. That, surely, is also the point at which Beatrice and Eugenie should change from having the title Princess to Lady as they will no longer be the grandchildren of the monarch.

No. You become titled because your grandparent is or was the monarch.

So Beatrice and Eugenie will always be HRH Princess because their Grandmother was the Queen.

Several of the Queen’s cousins (including the Duke of Gloucester and Princess Alexandra) were born after three death of their grandfather George V, but they are still titled as the grandchildren of a monarch.

@SoupDragon

The treatment of H&M and their - very relevantly, mixed race - children is entirely different to the treatment of any of the other royal blooded children

Is it though? What other great grandchildren are there? William's children are in the direct line to the throne so are arguably different.

Charlotte and Louis aren't and neither are Louise and James (also still minors). All are princes and princesses (albeit Louise and James are styled Lord and Lady which is only... somewhat grand ).

It's relevant as the letters patent to adjust the situation of W&K's children covered not only the 1st born, male or female, but also subsequent kids. No changes were made for Harry's future kids at that time. Of course, we all then thought Harry would marry a white British Earl's daughter or something...

Changes will be made only now that Harry has had mixed race children and the UK public, it turns out, aren't as non racist as we like to publicise and Meghan wasn't willing to make that part of herself smaller and erase her black identity and associated charitable interests.

The comments on Archie's looks, gross racism (e.g. the infamous racist BBC journalist tweet, and the infamous Telegraph correspondent tweet making fun of George Floyd in order to racially abuse Lili) have belied any attempts to claim that this isnt institutional racism of both palace AND media.

A better path would have been for the Palace to use the media to change racist attitudes, rather than to actively play up to them, but tomayto tomahto, right?

Archie isn't completely untitled - he has titles available to him in the same way that Viscount Severn does and by and large he is being treated in the same way as Sophie and Edward's children.

Again, Sophie and Edward's children are prince and princess. They simply aren't styled as such in the media.

That is what is being denied for the 1st time only to the 1st mixed race royal children. That is the PR (and moral) disaster. We see them.

Royals can be automatically upgraded, but not downgraded

Just like the amount paid in the Sovereign Grant ...

Not everyone knows that the Wessex children are entitled to use Prince and Princess. But it is their parents choice they don't. I read when they are 18 they can decide for themselves. Can't see Harry turning down the usage of the Prince title for Archie after all this fuss. So it will need to be done fformally Imagine the to-do when/if this happens.