Will Sophie take the title Princess

[Viviennemary]

Sophie will be 18 next month and will have the choice of whether to be styled HRH Princess Sophie or not. It was her parents decision not to have her styled thus even though she could be as the grandchild of the monarch. Not sure but I thought probably not. But if she was to become a working royal opening town halls and so on the title Princess would look better on the plaques.

Can't miss an opportunity to have a go at Meghan can we?

William and Kate have also come under fire on this thread. And it isn't about them either.

I have to say I agree she shouldn't be lobbying US politicians (or any politicians) using the title Duchess of Sussex. She has a high enough profile that she doesn't need to anyway. The cause is a good one but the way the letter was written was overly long and flowery with completely irrelevant stuff about eating at Sizzler restaurants. If it has a positive impact then that's all to the good but it's inappropriate to do so using their Royal titles IMO.

@Viviennemary

William and Kate have also come under fire on this thread. And it isn't about them either.

Yes - they were called lazy - by @julieca. This was the first comment off topic, so it's a little unfair for him/her to complain when others continue the 'derail'.

@Serenster

*You don't agree with maternity leave. Bear in mind the US is one of the only developed countries to not have paid parental leave so your view which is very strange on a parenting forum is really not in line with most of the developed world*

I struggle to understand this position personally (actively disagreeing with paid maternity leave, I mean) but it’s one of those issues where the US seems to have developed its own strong views based on their entrenched views about the role of the state. It’s a big political issue right now because so many people and politicians view it as unfair/unconscionable/incentivising bad behaviour for women to be paid to have children. There millions and millions of people in the US who believe this, so it’s not an outlier view in this context.

Out of step with the rest of the developed world, absolutely. But, like free healthcare, something where millions of Americans are happy to diverge from them.

Sure, there's a lot of disagreement about it. But my personal view is that having children is a choice, and no one should be required to pay for anyone else's choices. If someone wants a child but can't afford one, too bad for them. Lots of a people want things they can't afford, and that doesn't obligate the rest of us to pick up the tab just to make them happy. If me wanting a Ferrari doesn't obligate you (the general "you") to buy one for me, then you wanting a child doesn't obligate me to pay for you to have one.

I think it's because the US has stronger libertarian and individualist roots than much of Europe. You're right to link it to health care, because many of the same lifestyle choice issues come up a lot in those debates. In the UK, people are starting to have that same argument about treating unvaccinated covid patients.

She wants to have her cake and eat it. Use the title to get attention but slag off the ‘institution’ which bestowed it. She could call herself Meghan Markle. She is supposedly a feminist, so why does she need her husband’s name or his family connections?

She needs/ uses her husband’s name because she is married to him. She is not slagging off the institution in this letter so meh. Why does she make y’all so angry? . She ain’t here & you not paying for her. Tbh if I was her I would drop the duchess thingy, she has advocated for so many causes before going the royal family using her own name and at least then nobody insulted her. But if she doesn’t drop the using the title then fair play to her, it’s her choice that she will be criticized for and just us adds up to the pile of other protocols & things that she gets slated for.

Anyway as this thread is about Lady Louise, I hope she does what is best for her . I’m sure she & her parents have discussed the title & working royal issue and they know what is best for her. I would hope if she decides to use her title & become a working royal that she takes her time with it, and I would hope the press & the public are kind to her always. She seems like a lovely young woman.

@Zuluqueen

Anyway as this thread is about Lady Louise, I hope she does what is best for her . I’m sure she & her parents have discussed the title & working royal issue and they know what is best for her. I would hope if she decides to use her title & become a working royal that she takes her time with it, and I would hope the press & the public are kind to her always. She seems like a lovely young woman.

There's not a chance the press are always going to be kind to her.

There's currently no party Prince/Princess - it's almost guaranteed that she'll be the next target as Zara/William/Harry/Beatrice/Eugenie are by that stage and George and the younger ones are too young.

Hopefully the press will have the same agreement while she's at uni (assuming she goes) as they did with William, Beatrice and Eugenie and she'll get relative peace, but as soon as she's 18 there will be an element of her being fair game to them.

@JustLyra I suppose I’m just being optimistic and hoping that things will be different. So many royal women are targeted unnecessarily and it’s so unfair. I get that they are privileged and expected to perform certain duties without complaint, but at the end of the day they are still human & they hurt just like us. I remember how brutal the press were to Kate back then. It’s clear that not much changed with Meghan but one would hope the up & coming young royals have it easier. I can’t imagine how scary it must be for K & W to think their children may go through this in future. Things have to change surely!

@Zuluqueen I hope your optimism is rewarded, but somehow I doubt it.
I think the most that can be hoped for with how nasty the media can be is that they don’t start on her looks over her eye issues. If I was her mother I’d be very, very worried about that as they’re not shy in referring to it at the moment.

The fact that Charles is making noises about Edward not getting a Dukedom means imo that Louise is probably under a bit of pressure not to take up the title so the whole Wessex family remains a step back and the RF continues to minimise.

@ajandjjmum I did not complain about a derail.

[quote JustLyra]@Zuluqueen I hope your optimism is rewarded, but somehow I doubt it.
I think the most that can be hoped for with how nasty the media can be is that they don’t start on her looks over her eye issues. If I was her mother I’d be very, very worried about that as they’re not shy in referring to it at the moment.[/quote]
Yes this would worry me too. She is only 18. Negative press about this could be devastating for such a young woman.

I think it’s very unlikely that Edward won’t get the Edinburgh title.

With the age gap between Charles and Edward, Edward and Sophie will be important bodies when William becomes King.

Charles is 72. Even if he is a full time working royals until he’s 90 then when he starts scaling back William’s children will only be 26, 24 and 21 so at least the younger two will be too involve in Uni etc to be full time royals.

Edward and Sophie being 16 years younger than Charles means they’re very likely to be strong bridges between the three reigns imo.

Whilst Charles wants to slim the family thr loss of Andrew, and in particular Harry and Meghan as full time royals (that would have been around 900 engagements a year minimum when they were all ft) there’s a need for Edward and Sophie.

Plus people, generally, like the Queen more than Charles. Going against his mother’s public wishes wouldn’t be a wise choice imo. Especially when Philip very publicly handed the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme duties over to Edward.

@JustLyra why couldn't his children be full-time royals at 21 plus? Anne was 18 years old. People finish university at 21 years old.
This just sounds like an excuse not to scale back the RF as Charles has promised.

[quote julieca]@JustLyra why couldn't his children be full-time royals at 21 plus? Anne was 18 years old. People finish university at 21 years old.
This just sounds like an excuse not to scale back the RF as Charles has promised.[/quote]
Charles has never publicly promised to scale the family back. Everyone knows it’s his plan, but he’s never said it out loud.

Anne started engagements at 18, but she didn’t go to university. I think it’s extremely unlikely that the Cambridge children won’t go to Uni. The boys, especially George, are likely to do a stint in the military after as well.

They could start full time royals duties before marrying and having children, I just think it’s likely that William will want them to do the Uni > military > marriage > family > full time duties route that he’s had, and that the Queen enjoyed in Malta with Philip.

The slimming down would never, ever have included Harry and his eventual wife not being full time royals so there will be a large gap in Charles’ plan and I think Edward and Sophie will be the plug. Especially with their increasing role over the last couple of years - which will have happened with consultation with Charles and William.

@julieca

You can look at the engagements for all RF members in the court circulars. Anne is affected by the pandemic and does lots of engagements. William and Catherine do not. And often what engagements they do include things like a phone call. This information is public. Just read the court circulars. They show quite clearly that they are lazy in terms of Royal duties anyway.

I just looked up the court circulars. Princess Anne and the Queen are very busy ladies. Charles, Camilla, William and Kate do almost nothing in comparison.

Even the minor royals like Edward and the Duke of Gloucester were busier than them.

How can you say Charles does "nothing" in comparison when in the last few years he's done the most engagements? In 2019 he did 521 to Anne's 506. Anne did more days than Charles, but not engagements.

Edward did 308. The Queen 295. Andrew 274. William 220. Kate 126. Harry 201.

Sophie, Camilla and the Duke of Gloucester all did 200+ each (Sophie and Camilla did more than William, DOG less). The Duke of Kent, Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Alexandra did over 300 between them.

In 2020 Charles did the most engagements again. Followed by Anne, William, Edward, Sophie, The Queen, Camilla, Kate and then the Kents and Gloucesters.

I do believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that an 'engagement' can mean a phone call. So the numbers might be in the hundreds but it's not quite like it seems.
Half of those numbers could be 'telephone call by video' as they like to call it on the Engagements list.

For all Edward and Sophie do, we really don't actually see them do we? It must be a bit galling for them... no press coverage to speak of. It's just K&W and they don't match what E&S do.

It must be slightly galling given some of the things E & S do. Sophie in particular has done some things with women’s rights over the last few years that is worthy work.

The main time you see them is when they get sent off to do the foreign royal weddings and events.

I see the Queen is reported to have been in hozzie, and the papers are reporting on BBC shuffling of political reporters for reasons including someone needing to anchor the endless 'era-defining' event of her 'inevitable' tragic demise.

I do think Charles will be stepping up even more now and needs to sort out his 'team'. I just can't see Louise in it, or any the Yorks. But he's going to need help from somewhere.

Camilla, Anne, E&S - there's only so much they can do. Camilla and Anne must be knackered at their ages. I'm a lot younger and feel buggered. But they have a big support set-up.

So I know nothing

Hozzie

Hospital

I think over the next 10 years the full time working royals will be Charles, Camilla, Anne, Edward, Sophie, William, Kate with back up from the Duke & duchess of Gloucester. The Queen, the duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra will slow down and stop.

In 15 years Charles will be 87. It’ll be William, Kate, Edward and Sophie that do the bulk with Charles, Camilla, anne and the Gloucester’s all slowing down.

I think, and it’s purely my opinion based on nothing, that they reason William is so angry with his brother is likely to do with George having to start full time duties younger. He’ll want him to do school > Uni > military > family > royal duties like he did, but if there’s any one of that group that drop out he’ll have to start younger.