Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet

[Snog]

Do you think Prince Charles will bestow titles on Harry's children when he becomes king?

i have always assumed PC vision of a slimmed down rf would include both his sons.
if he doesn't include PH & M it will just make it look like everything they said was true.

I think there was a lot for Harry and Meghan to learn from Sophie and Edward. How half in and half out doesn't work, how to win over a hostile press and how to bring up their children with a relatively normal and private life.

It would absolutely have included both of them, and their wives, if not for whole Charles is King, but for when William is.

Because of the abdication and early deaths of a few the Queen had 9 of her generation as working royals (herself, Philip, Margaret, Duke & Duchess of Gloucester, Duke & Duchess of Kent, Princess Alexandra & occasional Prince Michael of Kent) alongside her mother, aunts and uncles in the beginning.

Of Charles’ generation there was meant to be 7 - him and his wife, Andrew and his wife, Edward and his wife, and Anne. They’d take over from the Aunts, uncles, cousins and his parents.

There’s not a chance the plan was that of William’s generation there would just be him and his wife. Slimming from 10+ to 2 in 40 years would just be madness.

It was to focus on his line, rather than Andrew’s etc. It was never (imo) meant to cut any of them out.

Edith, I cannot find it (I came to it via one of these threads, but that makes thousands of posts to search through and I can't find it via Google either). There was no petulance, though - more 'we were asked to consider and agreed'.

Prince Harry and Meghan don't want to be included. When they couldn't get the half in half out option they hoped for they chose to entirely step back. The Queen even gave them a 12 month cooling off period so they could be certain it was what they wanted.

I think you are right, @NimrodNimroy. I suspect that, when William comes to the throne, his cousins (those who want to be active members of the Firm) will do royal duties alongside W and K and their children (assuming Charles shares his mother's longevity, it could be 25+ years before William becomes King, so the children will all be adults).

I hope that, when W does accede to the throne, he deals with the issue of roles for Charlotte and Louis better than previous generations have done. Whether that be as active Royals, or as private individuals, W and K will, I hope, have learned from the lessons of Princess Margaret, Princes Andrew and Edward (to a certain extent - although Edward has grown into his role, it was not an easy process), and especially Prince Harry and Meghan, and will make sure they have a fulfilled life that makes them happy.

They do

They use their Lady and Viscount titles, not Princess and Prince.

@NimrodNimroy I can only agree with your statement if you conclude your first sentence with .........they do not want to be included if things do not change.

Or else, you could phase it as :
They were told either they stay in and accept how things are, or nothing. No half way.

Which to me still is not giving them options really. I'm not even sure what the point of saying here is 12 months, and you still keep things the way they are. That is just a virtue signal, surely.

H&M said their problems, and asked for help. They were told that help could not be offered. So they said, ok then, let's meet half way with a half in / half out, to take the pressure off. They were told it's either fully in or completely out - without changes??

If people stop listening through the filter of tabloids and shrill panelists like Piers Morgan, they may actually start to hear what H&M are saying. A person can tell even from this thread that people are not listening (eg. what MM said about the titles and patens and Archie). They made it clear that MM was being treated differently from other family members. They are clear they requested help and no one was listening/caring or willing to help.

Here is Harry, speaking calm, clear and succinctly about what took place and what drove them away. All I can say is that it takes a special kind of cruelty to listen to this and be dismissive.
This is the interview that the British media do not talk about, or want people to hear. I would recommend you to take a minute and listen to the whole thing straight from Harry's mouth, without the background tabloid noise.

twitter.com/SarahData_/status/1538998178342641664

You don't actually know that 'PC' wants to change the rules, but as to 'why should he?', well, he's the future king. When it comes to royal titles, the sovereign is the fount of all honours. With a few exceptions, no member of the royal family has a 'right' to be called prince or princess. It's entirely within the gift of the sovereign.

As for the rules being 'fine', well, there's long been a desire for a 'slimmed down' royal family among the general public, and limiting prince or princess titles to the direct line would seem like a good way to go about it. This is especially true since Lili and Archie are going to grow up as Americans, probably with little contact with the 'toxic' royal family. Their parents are purported podcasters and Netflix producers, not working royals. It would seem pretty absurd for them to have royal titles.

Indeed, IcedPurple. I am forever surprised when visiting these threads that people apply the word 'fair' to the RF. By definition, everything about the RF and the bubble that they operate in is unfair. The very concept of the RF is unfair. 'Unfair' should be the starting point of any conversation about the RF and not its conclusion.

@notanotheroneagain - I think your last post is very wise. I think that the issue with Harry and Meghan could have been handled far better than it was.

If people stop listening through the filter of tabloids and shrill panelists like Piers Morgan, they may actually start to hear what H&M are saying.

Harry and Meghan did actually speak to us very clearly in January 2020 when they published their exit manifesto in great detail on their website. They told us wanted to “carve out progressive new roles within the institution”, but still “collaborate with the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, all with an aim of being able to profit financially from their positions. They were told that that wasn’t possible. It was then, and only then that the narrative that their environment was unsurvivable was developed.

I listened to what they were saying then. It’s one of the reasons why I have viewed the stories they have spun since with a critical eye.

@Serenster

Very true. Suggesting they wished to collaborate with HM was breathtaking in its arrogance!

I'm not sure we can attach any more weight to PoW's intentions for the future of royal styles than we can to the apparently impeccably sourced assertions that his regnal name will be George.

The Sussexes have shown they completely misunderstood the current situation on titles, so I don't give great weight to suggestions that may have arisen from their comments on any aspect of current or future styles

A person can tell even from this thread that people are not listening (eg. what MM said about the titles and patens and Archie). They made it clear that MM was being treated differently from other family members. They are clear they requested help and no one was listening/caring or willing to help.

Maybe we’re listening, but just not agreeing with their take on it. I’d rather deal in facts than speculation from someone whose relationship with the truth is somewhat stretched at best.

@IcedPurple
The patents are not there to be used and abused by a king as and when he wishes. They are not there for him to just wake up today and change them, and wake up tomorrow and change again. At least that is not what they are intended for. That is why they are not changed that often. The 1917 patent remain in force today with only a handful of amendments in all that time - even then you can see some of the changes are quite necessary or significant.

The patents can be summarised into the following three points:
(1) All children of the Sovereign can be called a prince or princess;
(2) Those children, whose father is a son of the Sovereign, can be called a prince or princess;
(3) The eldest son, of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, can be called a prince.

The rules are clear: Archie is currently not entitled to be called a prince, but once Charles becomes King, he does become so entitled because his father, Prince Harry, then becomes a son of the Sovereign.

In the interview, MM expresses two concerns:
The first is that because Archie is not a prince, he is not entitled to security. Yet, security appears to be based on risk rather than on title.
The protection of members of the royal family is based on a threat assessment conducted by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, based on intelligence, with security given to those who face a large enough risk.

The second concern is that the rules could be changed in the future, meaning that Archie does not become a prince once Charles becomes King.

The posters on here seem to think that MM things that Archie is already entitled to be a Prince presently, and that is not what she said.

Once more, it has already been raised several times on here, that the changes in 2012, were not there to address a slimming down model, and indications are that Harry and his family would be part of the slimmed down inner circle anyway. Once more, the exclusion of Archie was made during the time when H&M were in the UK.

Their parents are purported podcasters and Netflix producers, not working royals. It would seem pretty absurd for them to have royal titles.
I don't even know what you mean by this because the Cambridges are YouTubers. And H&M did not become producers while still working for the RF.

For me I always view this with frustration, that with what looks like determination to be stubborn and assign blame and a status of 'villain' to H&M, I hope they will not suppress the next generation, just because they don't want to listen or admit that H&M are correct, changes do need to be made.

It resonates even more when Harry says PC told them, that is how it was done for me, and that is how it will be for you. It seems with resignation. It would be a good idea for William, especially, not to take the same stance as his father in regards with his own children.

They are not there for him to just wake up today and change them, and wake up tomorrow and change again

That’s exactly what they are for - they are for the monarch to shape and define titles how they want to.

The 1917 ones haven’t stood untouched since 1917. They’ve been used as a basic outline, but there has been multiple examples of specific LP’s being issued against them (the Queen’s children’s titles when she was Princess Elizabeth, Princess Margaret’s husband being titled, Princess Anne & Princess Alexandra’s husbands being offered titles, the Wessex children not using their titles, the Cambridge children to name just a few).

Titles are at the whim of the monarch. That’s the whole point of them.

Not that any move to exclude the Sussex children has actually been made. And no princely title has been removed from anyone since 1917.

@Serenster
The paragraphs on Sussex Royal do not at any point, go into details of why they were leaving. It is just that, a few lines of paragraph, giving a few points of the way forward.

No story has been changed. It addresses the future, does not go into details about the past. The details are shared at the interview - after the 12 months. The SR statement was not there for that.

The patents are not there to be used and abused by a king as and when he wishes.

They absolutely are. That's how monarchy works.

They are not there for him to just wake up today and change them, and wake up tomorrow and change again. At least that is not what they are intended for.

They aren't 'intended for' anything.

The sovereign has absolute power on such matters. Exiled secondary royals do not have a say.

If that bothers them and you so much, why the palpable desperation for royal titles?

In the interview, MM expresses two concerns

I'm not going to go over the veracity or otherwise of Meghan's 'concerns' for the hundredth time, but frankly, her 'concerns' are irrelevant. The sovereign, and the sovereign alone, gets to decide.

I don't even know what you mean by this because the Cambridges are YouTubers.

You know exactly what I mean. The disingenuous act does not become you.

And H&M did not become producers while still working for the RF.

Again, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, but 'H&M' are private citizens, supposedly working in the entertainment business in California. They are not involved with the 'business' of the royal family at all. So why the desperation for royal titles?

The 1917 ones haven’t stood untouched since 1917.
Go read my post again, I never said they were never untouched. The few times I was referring to in over 100yrs of them are the examples that you give.

The elimination/not giving of a title you are referring to in the last line, is exactly what I class as a prominent/significant change - more especially as it's not a common action in these patents.

There’s zero point having a debate with someone who is just going to be downright rude.

Once more, for the hundredth time @IcedPurple , H&M were talking about the titles during the time they were senior working royals, living in the UK.

You sounded rude yourself, tbh.