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.

Which British people are calling to have removed, which the media are supporting (encouraging) and which the palace seem to be considering. I won't be the least bit surprised if and when that's announced too.

But does she still have it? And use it?

Viviennemary

But what is the point of Archie and his sister bring Prince and Princess if they are brought up in the USA a country which doesnt use titles. For people who are so disapproving of the royal system and are all for equality why are they so obsessed with rank and titles.

I agree plus , I repeat Archie and Lilibet HAVE titles !

But not Charlotte's. I thought they were doing away with male/female inequality. As Charlotte's rank is above Louis.

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.

Not quite as Andrew hadn’t quit the royal family when he had his children. Considering Harry has made it clear what he think of the royal family, and left it, I don’t think it would be appropriate for his children to be Prince/Princess of the U.K. If Andrew was to have children now, I would say the same thing.

@Viviennemary

But not Charlotte's. I thought they were doing away with male/female inequality. As Charlotte's rank is above Louis.

No, not Charlotte’s.

The only inequality that was changed was the bumping of girls from the line of succession by brothers.

That’s one of the reasons I don’t believe Charles intended for Harry’s children to be untitled.

When the LP’s were issued to cover the future Cambridge children it was a clear opportunity to scrap the 1917 LP’s and issue new ones.

Titles could easily have been restricted to the Heir and their heir. Male or female. End of all problems.

However, they didn’t. They only changed it for the children of Prince William.

Which means Harry’s children are still automatically titled when Charles becomes King. And also means that any daughters of William, even one who would have been Queen had she been his first born are still not entitled to have automatically titled children.

Also means, as it stands, that if George marries and has children (assuming things go as expected in terms of succession) then only his eldest son will be entitled to be titled if born when Charles is King.

Same sexism kicked down the road.

It has been common knowledge for the last 10 years that Prince Charles has been keen to streamline the numbers of working, HRH members of the Royal Family. I haven’t exactly seen a big groundswell of people out there demanding more royals, not fewer either - I think it has generally been seen as a sensible move, to reflect changing times.

Based on what we have seen in the press, it seems that his idea is that the direct line of inheritance to the throne will be the key ones - so the sovereign’s children will be Princes/Princesses but not their grandchildren, other than those directly in line for the throne. So, if you apply that to the current family, Charles and his siblings are Princes/Princess as currently, but of the grandchildren only William and Harry would be. Then only George, Charlotte and Louis of the next generation, then only George’s children of the generation after that.

If you applied that now, the only people who wouldn’t be titled that currently are would be Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Anyone want to die on the hill to defend their rights to be a Princess?

The argument raised on this thread against that is that the two grandchildren to whom this new rule would be applied are the children of a mixed race mother (and so it must be a racist decision). I’m not sure that should be the key factor swaying whether slimlining the use of titles within the family is the right thing to do. Otherwise, they can’t ever make any decisions about the future of the royal family as a whole that might adversely affect these two children in any way. That is clearly not a realistic proposition.

Oh, and as for the person who said it would be undesirable it would be if the children were “Princed” the moment the Queen dies, only to lose that status once Charles issues Letters Patent, their parents could of course let it be known that they don’t intend to style their children as a Prince and Princess (as Edward and Sophie did) irrespective of what the technical position is, knowing that the new head of the family intended to change the rules. Unless of course they thought they could bounce him into to letting them keep the titles by complaining about how unfair it would be to change the rules. Oh, wait….

If Beatrice and Eugenie were born now, I feel confident in saying that they wouldn't be HRH. The RF was very different when they were born.

@ohforarainyday

If Charles had loads of children and thus loads of grandchildren the way the Queen does, the argument about slimming the monarchy and denying all Monarch's grandchildren except direct heirs titles would hold more weight.

but Charles only had two children, so changing the law to ensure one boy is treated completely differently from his brother comes across as petty and unnecessary. We're not talking about loads and loads of grandchildren, we're talking about two, both of them mixed race. That's bad optics.

Because the fact is the Queen does have loads of grandchildren, and up till now no one has had any problem with making the entire crowd of them princes and princesses (Anne's children are the exception since she requested it.)

The issue of having lots and lots of titled but non-heir royal grandchildren would have naturally resolved itself due to Charles only having one child who's not a future monarch. So basically they're changing the law over one single person.

The RF needs working royals to conduct engagements. Engagements are the bread and butter of the BRF and the way the BRF justify their expense and existence, and generate goodwill. Many of the working royals are elderly and won't be around forever. There's a dearth of younger royals to replace them and regardless of "slimming" that will become a problem. It certainly feels like the Cambridge children are being groomed to be working royals. They're increasingly being put into the public eye, and unless there's a major change to the monarchy I expect they will be pressured into starting to do royal events quite young.

Totally agree with all this. Terrible to treat the two brothers differently.

Charles has had several opportunities to change the LP’s to restrict titles to William’s children.

When those LP’s were issued.
When Harry got married.
When the discussions about Harry and Meghan not using the HRH any longer.

There is simply no way now, imo, for him to change it after they are automatically titled without it attracting poor publicity and accusations of racism.

Even if he’s told Harry for years that was the plan, the fact it’s never been done, means it looks like it’s a racist choice.

Especially as if he does it straight he after he takes the throne it will look like his mother didn’t agree and he’s going to be viewed negatively in comparison with her already.

*ample opportunity to change them with HMQ’s agreement

I got the impression at the time Charles talked about slimmed down monarchy he was more referring to financial perks rather than titles. Like grace and favour peppercorn rent accommodation and allowances from the civil list and protection too. The cost is huge. I think Buckingham Palace won't be a royal residence any longer but just open to the public. I read this a bit ago.

Charles spoke about this decades ago.

JustLyra, I see what you're saying. My personal view is that HM seems to be strongly opposed to formally amending George V's letters patent, for reasons I can't personally work out, hence why she fudges the changes (issuing the new letters patent for William/fudging the status of Louise and James).

If they are really going to issue a new letters patent, it really would be better for the Queen to do so now. I can't imagine Charles will want to start issuing letters patent immediately after the Queen dies, and it feels far more unfair to me to deprive them of the title afterwards - better to have it all ironed out in advance, particularly in light of the poor relationships.

I have to say I would not be over eager to call my child "Earl of Dumbarton." I mean, it's not exactly a dashing name, is it? ("Dumb")

@JustLyra

Charles has had several opportunities to change the LP’s to restrict titles to William’s children.

When those LP’s were issued.
When Harry got married.
When the discussions about Harry and Meghan not using the HRH any longer.

There is simply no way now, imo, for him to change it after they are automatically titled without it attracting poor publicity and accusations of racism.

Even if he’s told Harry for years that was the plan, the fact it’s never been done, means it looks like it’s a racist choice.

Especially as if he does it straight he after he takes the throne it will look like his mother didn’t agree and he’s going to be viewed negatively in comparison with her already.

If he’d done it at any point after Harry started dating Meghan there would have been accusations of racism. I’m not saying that he shouldn’t have done it sooner if he wanted to, but you suggest that had he done it when Harry and Meghan married it would have avoided the current racism conversation. But I don’t think that’s true, as it would still have been clear that it was mixed race children he was talking about, even if they hadn’t been born yet.

I agree it should have been done when they made the changes for William’s children, it seems bizarre to not just make all the changes you want to make in one go. Unless there was some thinking that if for whatever reason W&K only had one child, they might keep the titles for any children of Harry’s, so that it doesn’t slim down too much.

Can Charles issue LP before he becomes King or possibly Prince Regent)? I thought it was the monarch only.

Though I suppose it's fair enough for him to tell his family, especially those who might be affected, what his future intentions might be.

@KatherineParr

JustLyra, I see what you're saying. My personal view is that HM seems to be strongly opposed to formally amending George V's letters patent, for reasons I can't personally work out, hence why she fudges the changes (issuing the new letters patent for William/fudging the status of Louise and James).

If they are really going to issue a new letters patent, it really would be better for the Queen to do so now. I can't imagine Charles will want to start issuing letters patent immediately after the Queen dies, and it feels far more unfair to me to deprive them of the title afterwards - better to have it all ironed out in advance, particularly in light of the poor relationships.

I think if Charles and William really wanted the 1917 LP’s replaced with new ones she would have. Things like the balcony appearance only having her, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry show that she’s supportive of them being front and centre of the family going forward.

I just cannot see anything in anything that has ever been said or done by the RF that suggests that Harry’s children would be untitled.

Something has gone badly wrong with the communication between Harry and his father. That seems fundamentally to be the issue. That assumption on Harry’s part that the grandchildren of Charles would all be treated the same with early titles seems to be the heart of all the confusion and issues.

To be perfectly honest it should have been done when Edward and Sophie had their children, as it was clear that they were on board with what the changes would mean. I guess the Queen thought that there was no need, however, and didn’t foresee a future when one of her family would resent the idea.

The BRF can't remove Meghan's title because doing so would automatically make her a princess, which imo they absolutely want to avoid.

In the UK, Duke and Duchess are actually 'higher' titles than Prince and Princess. That's why both Meghan and Kate go by their Ducal titles and not by the title Princess, when they both do hold the rank of princess. (The other reason is that non-blood princess are styled with their husband's first names, and naturally most women don't want to be called Princess Husband's First Name - Princess Michael of Kent being the exception.)

Harry's title of Prince cannot be removed no matter what laws are changed because he is a blood prince and the son of the future king. Which means Meghan's (currently unused) title of Princess cannot be removed either, unless they divorce.

If the BRF was to strip them of their ducal titles, it would default down to their next set of titles, which is Prince and Princess Henry of Wales. I really can't imagine the BRF being happy with Meghan being referred to as Princess.

@WinnieTheW0rm

Can Charles issue LP before he becomes King or possibly Prince Regent)? I thought it was the monarch only.

Though I suppose it's fair enough for him to tell his family, especially those who might be affected, what his future intentions might be.

No. He’d have needed the Queen to issue them, but it wouldn’t be unexpected for her to issue them with his vision in future.

Any change to letters patent would have to be instructed to be issued by the Queen - Charles can't do that as Prince of Wales.

KatherineParr I agree, the Queen seems disinclined to change the letters patent. Perhaps she doesn't like change, not unusual of a person of her age.

JustLyra. cross post!

I got the impression at the time Charles talked about slimmed down monarchy he was more referring to financial perks rather than titles.

Exactly. It's pretty clear that Archie and Lili will be raised entirely in the US and will never receive any taxpayer money nor live in any royal residences, so squabbling about changing the law to deny them the titles they would otherwise automatically entitled to just looks petty at best, racist at worst.

Harry's title of Prince cannot be removed no matter what laws are changed because he is a blood prince and the son of the future king.

It can be done with the agreement of parliament.

However, imo that will never, ever, ever, ever happen (same with Andrew) because the RF would not want to flag up to the public that those titles can be removed.

Especially when you consider how unpopular Charles has been over the years. They know there’s a chance George or Charlotte could be that unpopular sometime, either temporarily or permanently, and they know if the public realise to much how easily it could be removed then the whole monarchy is at risk.

Kokeshi123

I have to say I would not be over eager to call my child "Earl of Dumbarton." I mean, it's not exactly a dashing name, is it? ("Dumb")

My understanding is that he could be styled Lord