New Sussex website

[MaturingCheeseball]

So I see there is a brand-new Duke and Duchess of Sussex website. Very glossy.

But the self-aggrandising! I just read Meghan’s bio and - cringe - it was the worst of LinkedIn. Sometimes less is more!

I am curious how they now plan to move forward, it’s clear the rebrand means they want to commercialise their titles and monetise them, as they wished to do when the left, but their reputation is so poor now, I’m not sure coming over all royal is going to fix it for them, in fact I’m sure it’s not. I’m sure Harry feels it’s his title and if we wants to cash in, then that’s what he will do.

hinestly what a mess they’ve made of this. Maybe they hope people will stop seeing the mess and simply start seeing them as royal. I personally think it’s went too far for that to happen.

Restricting royal titles to the sovereign's and heir's children would mean a lot of other current 'princes/princesses' losing their titles too.

Current Princes and Princesses who have the title because they are grandchildren of a sovereign, rather than child of a sovereign are:

Prince Edward the Duke of Kent
Princess Alexandra
Prince Michael of Kent
Prince Richard the Duke of Gloucester
Princess Beatrice
Princess Eugenie
Prince Archie
Princess Lilibet

Given the two oldest Kents are more or less retired, Prince Michael has never been a working royal and the Duke of Gloucester is also approaching retirement, they would probably support the King’s wishes on the subject.

Beatrice and Eugenie probably would be more annoyed! It wouldn’t be the end of the world however as they have their own lives and careers quite apart from being Princesses. As daughters of the Duke of York, they could both style themselves as Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie if they wanted to.

Does it have to be a living sovereign? I mean the late Queen was the sovereign so wouldn't that count?

The suggestion was Charles amend the Letters Patent to mean that only children of the Sovereign/the direct heir get Prince/Princess.

So anyone who got their title by being the Sovereign’s child keeps it (currently that’s just Andrew, Anne, Edward, William and Harry). And the children of the direct heir (George, Charlotte and Louis) and then any children George has would be entitled to the titles. Everyone else loses it, if they have it (so it would apply to Edward and Sophie’s children, but they don’t use the titles so it will have no impact) or don’t get it going forward.

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I think Charles will have no option but to remove their titles. Not doing so will damage the monarchy. He can’t let them monetise like this.

I’m a little stunned they’ve done it, it’s goading behaviour and clearly they think Charles is too weak to act.

@Serenster You make an interesting point and that list shows just how few current Princes/Princesses it would affect. As you suggest, now really would be a good time to make the decision, well before William’s children grow up and produce another generation.

The diplomatic approach though would be to end it as of now, rather than strip current holders of their titles.

Harry is the son of the reigning monarch...is it possible even in theory to stop him being a prince? Can Letters Patent do that?

Yes in theory but that I think would never happen.

But the whole point is that it's hereditary. If it happened, would it mean prince and princess titles would all have to be bestowed and not inherited? Kind of undermines the whole premise!

There was something very weird going on with Archewell's finances in the last published accounts. Approx $500,000 of income that the foundation ought to have received in interest was unaccounted for. The accounts showed only $4,000 received in interest - yet the Archewell foundation should have received a whole lot more in 2023 with $10,000,000- 13,000,000 in its accounts. At 4-5% interest it should have generated $400,000 - 650,000 in additional income. The low amount of interest makes it seem like the money is being moved out of the accounts during the year and someone else is getting the interest.

Of course it was a Delaware registered foundation where only the minimum 5% needs to be used for charitable purposes - the other 95% can be used for "expenses"

But what happens to Archewell's money? Can they just move the money to Sussex. com?

I think the King needs to step in here. They are doing exactly what they promised they wouldn't - monetising their titles. They've skated on thin ice all along, and now they've just presented it as a fait accompli.

The titles are bestowed though! They are entirely within the control of the monarch who issues Letters Patent to set out their wishes and then the principles set out in those are applied.

To take Archie and Lilibet for example, when William got married, QEII issued a specific Letter Patent to clarify that all his children would be styled Princes and/or Princesses - as they were the children of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales. But that didn’t apply to Archie and Lilibet - the existing principles meant that they only became Prince and Princess when QEII died and their grandfather became King.

If QEII had lived a few years longer, and if Charles’ current cancer had proved terminal and he predeceased his mother,Archie and Lilibet would never have become Prince and Princess.

I think they would remove the Sussex titles, as a first step, I’d be very surprised if they removed prince. I think Charles will not do that or even consider it.

but it’s the Sussex title they are monetising, and that’s a different animal

I think it sheds light on their claims about the 'men in grey suits' throwing them under the bus to the media to protect other members of the RF. They obviously believe that their bad press is someone else's fault.

The reality is, PR can't make people believe you are something you are not. It can focus attention on X instead of Y for a short time, and if you consistently do X and have it highlighted then gradually the public become aware of X and begin to associate you with X.

But it is a long term strategy and you need to be fully committed to X, not just claiming to be committed without demonstrating that commitment.

As the old saying goes, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You can, however, emphasise the benefits/qualities of a sow's ear in the right context (far more durable than silk!).

Thank you, that's very interesting. So when the Queen ascended, she had to bestow the titles upon the children she already had, and again when Andrew and Edward were born? And again when William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie were born?

If for some reason she hadn't done that, would it have affected the line of succession? So it's theoretically possible to be the heir apparent, first in line to the throne after the reigning monarch, without ever being a prince or princess?

The eldest son of the eldest son of the PoW - under the old Letters Patent - would have been 'prince' from the day of their birth. That was when boys took precedence over any older sister, so if Charlotte had been born first she would have been 'Lady Charlotte' and George (if born after) 'Prince George' - because George would have overtaken her in the line of succession despite being born later.

Under the new rules it is strictly by birth order, so if Charlotte had been born first she would be above George in the line of succession. But under the old title rules would have had a 'lesser' title than a younger brother who was lower down the line of succession.

IYSWIM

No, the existing Letters Patent were from George V in 1917. He was trying to limit the numbers of people who could be styled Prince and Princess. He lmited it to the children of the monarch, and the children of the heir.
The problem was that QEII lived long enough to have great grandchildren, who, apart from the son eldest child, had no such privilege. So Letters Patent had to be issued to allow Charlotte and Louis to be so styled.
Harry must have known this, so the issue about Archie's title, and colour, was just baloney.

Off the top of my head - saying they'd refused him mental health support despite praising William years ago for being the one to get him into therapy, pointing out William's 'alarming' baldness and saying he was losing his likeness to their mother with age, calling Camilla dangerous and making unsubstantiated claims that she 'sacrificed' him for her own PR, implying that he was the only one in the family who married for love, revealing that Charles carries a teddy bear with him everywhere because of his trauma from school. I'm sure there are many more if I wanted to go and look.

Great. He should do it because it would mean a whole load of minor “royals” would also be downgraded - hopefully the beginning of the end of the whole rotten bunch. Or would it just be a law for H&M? In which case it would be downright discrimination.

Charles would never do that to Harry and Meghan. It's just theoretical. The titles are just too important to the pair of them (see website).

Why was Charles a prince from birth? He wasn’t the child of a monarch or the child of a son of a monarch?

He was the grandson of King George V1

@ChimneyPot grandchild of a reigning monarch? Like A & L when Charles became King.

I don’t think there will be any removal of titles but I do think there will be some form of correspondence regarding some of the language used on the website. Mainly for future precedents, the royal family will not want further royals using titles and imagery as royal seals of approval.