How do republicans who support H&M feel about 'princess' lillibet

[purpledalmation]

I mean how do you reconcile the, to me, gross hypocrisy of saying you want to leave the royal family to pursue your own projects and for privacy and would give up their royal titles.

Their own projects so far consist of trashing the royal family and making money from it, while clinging to their royal titles.

Privacy consists of reality tv shows, public therapy sessions and a book tour.

They touted their children's privacy and security as a reason for leaving yet they name their children prince and princess. A sure fire way to draw attention to them and reduce their security.

I honestly want to know how people who want the monarchy gone yet praise harry and Meghan for their bravery in standing up to the RF, square this circle?

The Queen of Denmark took royal titles away from 4 of her grandchildren, and the Swedish King removed all but 2 of his from the 'royal house' so there is recent precedent for that sort of thing.

I don't think it's likely, at least not in Charles' reign. But my point is that royal titles are in the gift of the sovereign. Harry has painted an extremely negative picture of Charles and William. If they are as awful as he claims, why give them power over what his children are called? Didn't he want to find freedom from the 'institution', not link his innocent children to it?

If the reports that say Harry discussed the children's titles at the late Queens funeral are true, I think it speaks volumes.

As a Republican l feel the same way about H and M as the rest of the royal family.

Don’t want them, not interested in them, don’t care about anything to do with them.

Women are always judged. Looks, behaviour, style, sexual availability

Not unlike the prep school matron then ...

And I confess I'd forgotten about the Danish/Swedish royals having the titles removed, Icedpurple. As you say it's a precedent, but like you I really don't see it happening here

So the facts are that there was no change to the process of titles for any grandchildren - and these arrangements were already officially in place before any of the children were even conceived.

And in this case H&M children were always be Prince and Princess the day their grandfather became king if their parents chose to take up that option.

So what has been the controversy?

Did the then PC threaten to remove these titles?

Did H&M not understand the existing official process that W&K DCs were not equal to theirs due to line of succession?

Were H&M complaining on OW that their DC wouldn’t get these titles until HMQ died? Or at all?

Why have they waited until now to exercise their option to announce their choice to use these titles - when they could have done so in September?

You're not wrong, @Puzzledandpissedoff !
Also, Charles would never remove the titles. He wouldn't do anything like that to them, no matter what they do.

So what has been the controversy?

As you say, the "arrangements" were already in place - which some mentioned long ago - but it seems the controversy arose from their own suggestion that Archie at least would be less favoured because of his race

It was quite popular at the time, with the usual posters claiming it "proved" the RF's racism. Shame they didn't bother to inform themselves of the facts, but there you go

Let's not forget the absolute corker , without his title he won't get security!

Yet weirdly, in the Tom Bradby interview about "Spare", he said they'd never accused the RF of racism, the British press did. 🤔

As the only source is Harry, then I'm not sure how far it can be relied on.

And as the upshot seems to be "we're sticking with the current LP, so would you please let us know idc if you want your DC to be Prince and Princess - your call and we're happy either way" then I suppose that might count as a discussion?

The Oprah interview, hailed by their fans at the time as 'brave' and 'devastating', is now becoming something of an embarrassment. I too had to laugh at the claim that it was the 'British media' who accused the royals of racism. Then again, Harry probably blames the bRiTisH mEDiA every time his bald spot expands.

I do think his grasp on reality is rather tenuous, and there's noone in his life to talk sense into him anymore.

Some of the nasty posts on here regarding Archie and Lilibet's names are downright disgusting. Are they not regal enough for the royal family? The posters making these comments should be ashamed.

Don’t be so ridiculous, people are allowed opinions on names, don’t ever venture to the baby names section on here you will implode.

Quite. How absurd.

Im not keen on Lilibet or August as a names , but I like a lot of the posts are just snobby, nothing wrong with Archie or Savannah mia IMO.

@purpledalmation no, I know camillas kids won't be Prince and Princesses. I was asking if they will be given other honoury titles?

No.

I don't like the names Savannah, August, Sienna, Archie or Lilibet.
I like the names Charlotte, Lucas, Isla, Louise and James.
Personal taste.

I can hear her now when she’s 10 in the playground. “I AM a Princess!” 🤢

Just to set the record straight, but I am probably wasting my time here:

Meghan mentioned the convention that allowed grandchildren of the sovereign to get princely titles. She specifically mentioned Archie becoming Prince when "Harry's dad" her words, became monarch.

She then said there was talk of the convention being changed so that Archie did not get a title.

She said she was concerned because it had been suggested that security was linked to titles.

She then said, "in tandem" with all of this were conversations about how dark he was going to be.

Just think about for a minute: the king has just two sons.

The one married to a white woman has three children, all bearing princely titles, and indeed, the convention was changed to accommodate the fact that the eldest might be a girl and so her brothers could not "outrank" her.

The second son married a biracial woman, their kids have a right to automatic princely titles when their grandfather becomes monarch. For whatever reason, there is talk of the convention being changed so that they don't get the titles.

It may not have been race that motivated the conversation about changing the convention, but surely the minute a woman of colour entered the family, it should have occurred to someone, anyone, that talking about removing from her children titles that were theirs under their own rules was not a good look for the Family? If the advisers were more diverse, and the family had had any sort of sensitivity training, it would have become clear what conclusion would be drawn surely?

I believe that Charles really wanted to take the titles away, hence the delay in confirming the obvious, but that issues of race stayed his hand. And now that the Sussexes have called his bluff, he can't walk it back without looking dreadful.

For whatever reason, there is talk of the convention being changed so that they don't get the titles.

But who was doing the talking? M and H have never elaborated on this have they? So how can we believe it?

A plague on all their houses.

This^^

They are all venal, entitled and grasping.

Nothing to choose between any of them.

Isn't it well known that there was talk about slimming down he monarchy at the time? From the BBC:

"I saw that Meghan mentioned that there were plans to narrow eligibility and I imagine that this is a reference to the Prince of Wales's stated view that the size of the royal family needs to be reduced," said Bob Morris from the Constitution Unit at UCL.
"However, he has not so far as I know given details of how it should be accomplished."

www.bbc.com/news/uk-56325934

The one married to a white woman has three children, all bearing princely titles, and indeed, the convention was changed to accommodate the fact that the eldest might be a girl and so her brothers could not "outrank" her.

"The one married to a white woman" happens to be the heir to the throne. That's highly significant, and for you to omit this is highly disingenuous, if I'm being kind. Harry and William are not equal in the hierarchy, and neither are their children.

The second son married a biracial woman, their kids have a right to automatic princely titles when their grandfather becomes monarch. For whatever reason, there is talk of the convention being changed so that they don't get the titles.

Across the European monarchies, conventions have been changed to limit titles only to the direct line grandchildren. Britain is unusual in that all grandchildren of the monarch get royal titles. It wouldn't be at all surprising if there was talk of changing this, especially as Charles has long been believed to favour a 'slimmed down' monarchy.

It may not have been race that motivated the conversation about changing the convention, but surely the minute a woman of colour entered the family, it should have occurred to someone, anyone, that talking about removing from her children titles that were theirs under their own rules was not a good look for the Family?

But you haven't got a clue what conversations did and did not take place. Meghan is supposedly an intelligent woman, so surely she could see the above mentioned trend among European monarchies, as well as the fact that a precedent had been set by the Wessexes in opting not to take royal titles. She could surely also understand that 'rules' change, and that what was valid a century ago may not be so now.

And now that the Sussexes have called his bluff, he can't walk it back without looking dreadful.

What 'bluff' though? Charles could have issued LPs limiting titles to William's children months ago had he wanted to.

Isn't it well known that there was talk about slimming down he monarchy at the time?

But what has that got to do with titles? Just because you have a title doesn't mean you're a working Royal. I assume that Charles is slimming down the monarchy to have fewer working Royals.