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.

Yes, true. Has any blood royal ever been stripped of their birth title?

Even King Edward VIII retained his HRH until the day he died, and he abdicated and was basically exiled.

@ohforarainyday

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.

100%

When there have been so many opportunities to do it why not then, but now? Its just racist to me.

They make a big show denying they are and then go do this. Its disgusting.

Its ven more disgusting to treat two brothers so differently. When I heard of slimmed down monarchy it mean just William and Harry now its not even Harry. No wonder he doesn't want to be a working royal after that, screw that. He has been royally screwed over.

Imagine growing up already knowing your second fiddle then bam you get your birthright pulled feom yo uto. Id be sticking my two fingers up and loving country aswell!

The monarchy represent this country and this love just confirms that racism is alive and well in an already archaic institution. Not representing our country well is it.

@ohforarainyday

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.

Is the title Prince/Princess of Wales a higher rank than Duke and Duchess then? So when Charles makes William Prince of Wales, is that title not as high a rank as Duke of Cambridge? Wasn't Philip styled 'Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh'?

Leaving not loving

CrazyCatsAndKittens

Basically, Charlotte and Louis' kids won't be princesses and princes either assuming that George marries and has children to pass the title onto. I guess if George is childless, then Charlotte will become Queen and her children will become princesses and princes.

JustLyra

As it currently stands Louis children will be titled with HRH Prince/Princess as long as William takes the throne at some point.

My point was that if Lili and Archie won't be entitled to be prince ad princess even when their grandfather becomes king, then Charlotte and Louis' children also won't be entitled to be princesses and princes even when their grandfather (William) becomes king if this change is enacted.

@ohforarainyday

Yes, true. Has any blood royal ever been stripped of their birth title?

Even King Edward VIII retained his HRH until the day he died, and he abdicated and was basically exiled.

Hmmm, the Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor were at one time declared illegitimate weren't they? As part of the world's longest tantrum? Perhaps Charles could try that route next?

@ohforarainyday

Yes, true. Has any blood royal ever been stripped of their birth title?

Even King Edward VIII retained his HRH until the day he died, and he abdicated and was basically exiled.

The Titles Deprivation Act removed a few in 1917. There’s also a couple who’ve lost titles for treason.

It needs an act of Parliament and I don’t think moving to America could really sit alongside treason - no matter what some of the tabloids think

Honestly, though, if I were Charles, no matter how much I wanted to "slim down" the monarchy, I would just throw Archie and Lilibet the prince/princess titles (with the proviso that they can't pass them down to their own children, of course). H&M have made it clear that they will moan and complain, and their supporters will think the decision is racially motivated even if it was in fact taken years before Harry met Meghan. Easier to just hand them the titles and give them one less thing to complain about.

Why on earth would they then kick up a fuss because their own child is not going to be a prince.

Because all this happened before they left, back when they were both working royals.

Meghan will claim it's about colour even though Archie looks white in photos.
Gross and racist.

Well, all the other Queen's grandchildren are white and only William's and Andrew's have the tile Prince/Princess so that won't wash.

Not correct. All the Queen's grandchildren are Prince/Princess except for Anne's children, and they would have been, except she explicitly requested they not be.

@cyclingmad You said:

“ Its even more disgusting to treat two brothers so differently. When I heard of slimmed down monarchy it mean just William and Harry now its not even Harry. No wonder he doesn't want to be a working royal after that, screw that. He has been royally screwed over.

Imagine growing up already knowing your second fiddle then bam you get your birthright pulled feom yo uto. Id be sticking my two fingers up and loving country aswell!

The monarchy represent this country and this love just confirms that racism is alive and well in an already archaic institution. Not representing our country well is it.”

I mean we already know the monarchy’s archaic rules are sexist as all hell. Princess Anne has already been treated differently to her brothers - bumped down below them in the line of succession, and no question that her children would be Prince/Princess because she was a girl. She didn’t throw her toys out of the pram over it, though.

Also, I assumed that Prince Charles always intended for Harry and his eventual wife to be senior working royals in a slimlined monarchy, but that their children would be totalled as Prince/Princess because as time passed they wouldn’t be senior working royals.

Well, it looks as if they are setting a team of eight to be the working Royals (Queen, plus the main 7) with a few members of the wider family sometimes helping out, and/or taking on some charity patronages (especially if their careers/experiences meant they would have plausibly taken similar roles, such as Princess Eugenie and the scoliosis society, or the Tindalls (Olympic equestrian and national rugby captain) have sporty ones.

So if that continues, I guess the Cambridge DC become the next team (unless they want to do something else?)

Oh yes Princess Mary demoted to Lady Mary. But one of Henry VIII lesser punishments for those out of favour. And Queen Catherine demoted as well.

I mean we already know the monarchy’s archaic rules are sexist as all hell. Princess Anne has already been treated differently to her brothers - bumped down below them in the line of succession, and no question that her children would be Prince/Princess because she was a girl. She didn’t throw her toys out of the pram over it, though.

I actually wonder if the insistence on treating Harry and william the same as children was actually unhelpful in the long run.

Historically the heir has always been treated very differently from their sibling. This was unfair, and no doubt unpleasant on the siblings, but it didn’t ever blur any lines or give a false feeling of being equal.

Only in the last couple of generations has the “fairness” thing been happening and in the peculiar setting of the RF it doesn’t seem to help the younger sibling as the day where they are shown to indeed be different always comes.

Parliament's agreement wouldn't be needed to remove HRH, but it would be needed to remove the Duke of Sussex title. Previous precedent would be the former Prince Alistair of Connaught, (great-grandson of Queen Victoria) who had his title of Prince removed by George V's letters patent (the same ones that we have been discussing). He became a non-royal Duke. If any title is removed I think it is far likelier to be the HRH - no need to involve parliament, and there are plenty of non-royal nobles in the US who have careers. I think this is unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Windsor,_2nd_Duke_of_Connaught_and_Strathearn

@JustLyra I agree. I hope William and Kate prepare their two younger dcs better for their futures.

[quote Sylvan92]@JustLyra I agree. I hope William and Kate prepare their two younger dcs better for their futures.[/quote]
I think that may very well have been a consideration in not only having two children.

The difference is less stark between three or four than just with two.

@KatherineParr

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.

I agree.

@Viviennemary

Oh yes Princess Mary demoted to Lady Mary. But one of Henry VIII lesser punishments for those out of favour. And Queen Catherine demoted as well.

The Princes in the Tower were also declared illegitimate by Richard III, so would have lost their titles (they lost a bit more than that too, of course )

I read only the Queen can remove the Sussex title as that was a gift from her when Harry got married. So Archie will inherit that as it stands now.

"Only in the last couple of generations has the “fairness” thing been happening and in the peculiar setting of the RF it doesn’t seem to help the younger sibling as the day where they are shown to indeed be different always comes."

I think that it very much depends on the personalities of the younger siblings. Harry was doing brilliant things with veterans, mental health, conservation, foreign tours, had been given stewardship of the Commonwealth - he was developing a portfolio that reflected his interests - and almost could have had relatively more freedom than William to do what he wanted. Anne and Edward also found their "niche" whereas Andrew after the being in the forces ...................

The Princes in the Tower were also declared illegitimate by Richard III, so would have lost their titles (they lost a bit more than that too, of course)

Oooh, careful now, the Richard III society will be along shortly with that invocation. And you think us supporters of H&M are resolute? Crosses self 😉

@SallyLockheart

"Only in the last couple of generations has the “fairness” thing been happening and in the peculiar setting of the RF it doesn’t seem to help the younger sibling as the day where they are shown to indeed be different always comes."

I think that it very much depends on the personalities of the younger siblings. Harry was doing brilliant things with veterans, mental health, conservation, foreign tours, had been given stewardship of the Commonwealth - he was developing a portfolio that reflected his interests - and almost could have had relatively more freedom than William to do what he wanted. Anne and Edward also found their "niche" whereas Andrew after the being in the forces ...................

Both Andrew and Harry have struggled massively with their children not being treated equally to their older brother’s children.

So it is mostly likely personality, but there’s also an element I think in the fact that they were both very indulged and seen themselves as equal to their brother. Then got a stark reminder that they’re really not.

At the end of the article it says this
A Royal source said last night: 'We are not going to speculate about the succession or comment on rumours coming out of America.'