My guess is they've been flatly refused a royal christening - she can get baptized ‘whenever’ - there is no rush so why do it now …in LA …. and not in the Church of England ? I see this as a power move of publicizing the princess title since they’ve lost Frogmore and there is no royal christening coming their way.
They have no choice but to show up - it’s all they have but I wonder if only Harry will show.
Jane, first, thank you for hosting comments! Your subscribers are a thoughtful and insightful bunch and I appreciate their thoughts. Second, I agree that it appears the Sussexes made the Prince/Princess call unilaterally. What a weird thing to do. It doesn’t make sense to use the titles when they live in a country where titles aren’t recognized. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
I'm interested for you to clarify saying that the Letters Patent would not be applied "retroactively". I'd agree with you for royals born prior to their implementation. But Archie and Lili are grandchildren of the King and I do believe that while they may not be appropriate to utilize in practice, they are a Prince and Princess - much like the Sussexes have been asked not to use their HRH status in practice, they still retain it.
I'm also interested in something else if you don't mind addressing it - Why is what Harry and Meghan wanted seen to differently from the lifestyle of other minor Royals like Beatrice and Eugine? They're adults with their own lives, live abroad much of the year, have outside jobs, etc. but they're still able to carry out a limited number of events on behalf of the Crown, attend major royal events, and maintain patronages, their HRH, and so forth? Is it because they've stepped back vs having initially been in that role of a minor royal? Trust me, I'm not a fan at all of how H&M have handled themselves or this entire ordeal, but I don't find their initial proposal for their roles to Her Majesty, Charlies and William to have been that outrageous.
As always enjoyed you insights, Jane. I think the Sussexes are definitely forcing Charles's hand and it looks like he's giving in. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Thank you for getting such a thoughtful, comprehensive response out so quickly, Jane! I am always so keen to have your take on these matters. To me, this seems pretty tone deaf, especially in light of all the recent ~pop culture~ references to the Sussexes. My reading is that even those outside the royal watching community have seen H&M for the hypocrites that they are and that none of these antics seem to be helping their image. This is yet another example of them wanting to have it both ways. While they may have won this battle, I don't think it actually helps them "win the war" in the long run.
I think I differ from most monarchists when I say I don't actually care if the Sussex children have titles. It makes sense to me that they would. However, I don't think they'll have much use for them in their lives, if the plan to live in the U.S. and remain outside the royal sphere is followed.
That said, I'm not clear at all as to what the Sussexes do want that they haven't already received or achieved on their own merit. They've told their story on their own terms several times now. They live where they say they want to live. They are making money outside of the royal family, which they wanted. They are unhindered by royal protocol and can seek therapy, financial gain, and social clout in whatever method they chose.
But they still seem unhappy about something. It's almost as if they just want to be universally loved and they want public acknowledgement from the Palace that they were right in every choice they made. Neither of those things are going to happen.
I 1000% agree - M and H have backed Charles and the palace into a corner. They push to the limit in hopes the opposition back down. It's like they are saying to Charles, we've given our children the titles 'publicly', if you're not going to provide them with a title you need to take it from them - 'publicly'. The title debacle should've been dealt with as a matter of urgency before they had the chance to forcibly gain the upper hand.
Was it fear they where being swept under the carpet, in terms of their 'royal' status, announcing this to the public after Frogmore cottage was no longer their UK base? Screams desperation to me.
How anyone can support Harry or Meghan is beyond comprehension - the hypocrisy is off the scale.
I am ready for the RF to make a clear distinction in rank with M&H and I believe we will see that at the coronation. We may agree and we may not agree with it but in the end this family drama which I believed would happen because of M’s history. It has caused me to not hold the RF (Charles) in as high esteem as I did. The RF has also lost some of its grandeur. I hope in a year I have been proved wrong. I’m tired of the racist argument in the world.
It’s absolutely bizarre to me as a practicing Catholic that you would choose to baptize your toddler child in your personal home and not go to the Church. It’s almost insulting to the clergy to say, we’re so important, you must come to us. To a bishop, no less! Baptism outside a physical church in a traditional liturgy (Catholic or Anglican) would usually only be performed in threat of death or perilous circumstances.
It’s a play to make sure their children are still regarded as Royal and in the line of succession- however far down you are, you must be baptized to be the monarch- before they come to the Coronation.
This has the appearance of a grab, not a gift. If this was Charles' decision, or the outcome of years of negotation, it would surely be presented as benevolent and kindly King Charles' Coronation gift or some such. There would also be some sense of the late Queen's youngest son Edward's children being treated in the same way as the King's younger son's children. Pragmatically, Charles might have said 'they have titles, a decision will be made on whether they can use them when they are adults', which seems to be more-or-less the position with Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. The announcement would have been on a mutually agreed date, and certainly not on a day when Queen Camilla and the Princess of Wales have important engagements. All around, this is a Sussex ploy. Here in the UK, the citizens have been confronted today by breakfast TV interviews with Ngozi Fulani complaining that she hasn't received a 'public apology' from the Palace, news that Harry's phone-hacking case v The Mirror will go to trial in May (!) (Edit: May 9, the first working day after the Coronation, and it is being reported that Harry will give a statement in person) and then the news of Royal titles for Archie and Lilibet. The Palace press team were 100% caught on the hop as their grid had Camilla's International Women's Day event at Buckingham Place and Princess of Wales at the Irish Guards. Haven't seen either of them on the TV news today. It's very, very wearying.
Edit: For some reason, I'm reminded of the Sussex' statement that the Queen didn't own the word 'Royal'. King Charles appears not to own 'Princess' either.
Harry talks a lot about the mistakes of his father and how he wants to break the generational pain. But this move is using his children as pawns in their ongoing fight with the palace. I just don’t think the kids will one day thank them. I can hardly think of any advantage for the kids to grow up in the US being known as prince(ss).
Thirty years from now we will be reading/watching Lilli and/or Archie talking about the damage this move did to their childhood.
On a different note, I haven’t read all of Spare or watched the whole Netflix, but from I saw neither Meghan not Harry seem to be religious. So I am slightly surprised that now that they are not obligated to have a christening, that they still chose to go that route.
I am flabbergasted as to how "pushy" this all seems. That they want the titles is amazing since it has caused Harry so much "pain". They truly are hypocrites. I am disappointed that the palace doesn't seem to put them in their place.
Shocking how much more material South Park has for a second installment in such a very, very short time. Harry and Meghan's desperation is palpable.
Interesting to note the use in some of the stories today of the term "a royal source". The meaning of some of the comments about titles coming from a Sussex "royal source" -- and as you noted so well yesterday, Harry and Meghan "are not only no longer senior royals, they are really *former* royals" -- would be very different coming from a BP "royal source". So the Sussex habit of playing with words seems to be in play here.
I do hope the children have loving, responsible nannies.
My guess is they've been flatly refused a royal christening - she can get baptized ‘whenever’ - there is no rush so why do it now …in LA …. and not in the Church of England ? I see this as a power move of publicizing the princess title since they’ve lost Frogmore and there is no royal christening coming their way.
They have no choice but to show up - it’s all they have but I wonder if only Harry will show.
Jane, first, thank you for hosting comments! Your subscribers are a thoughtful and insightful bunch and I appreciate their thoughts. Second, I agree that it appears the Sussexes made the Prince/Princess call unilaterally. What a weird thing to do. It doesn’t make sense to use the titles when they live in a country where titles aren’t recognized. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
I'm interested for you to clarify saying that the Letters Patent would not be applied "retroactively". I'd agree with you for royals born prior to their implementation. But Archie and Lili are grandchildren of the King and I do believe that while they may not be appropriate to utilize in practice, they are a Prince and Princess - much like the Sussexes have been asked not to use their HRH status in practice, they still retain it.
I'm also interested in something else if you don't mind addressing it - Why is what Harry and Meghan wanted seen to differently from the lifestyle of other minor Royals like Beatrice and Eugine? They're adults with their own lives, live abroad much of the year, have outside jobs, etc. but they're still able to carry out a limited number of events on behalf of the Crown, attend major royal events, and maintain patronages, their HRH, and so forth? Is it because they've stepped back vs having initially been in that role of a minor royal? Trust me, I'm not a fan at all of how H&M have handled themselves or this entire ordeal, but I don't find their initial proposal for their roles to Her Majesty, Charlies and William to have been that outrageous.
As always enjoyed you insights, Jane. I think the Sussexes are definitely forcing Charles's hand and it looks like he's giving in. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
This seems like Meghan's clap back for losing Frogmore....
Thank you for getting such a thoughtful, comprehensive response out so quickly, Jane! I am always so keen to have your take on these matters. To me, this seems pretty tone deaf, especially in light of all the recent ~pop culture~ references to the Sussexes. My reading is that even those outside the royal watching community have seen H&M for the hypocrites that they are and that none of these antics seem to be helping their image. This is yet another example of them wanting to have it both ways. While they may have won this battle, I don't think it actually helps them "win the war" in the long run.
I think I differ from most monarchists when I say I don't actually care if the Sussex children have titles. It makes sense to me that they would. However, I don't think they'll have much use for them in their lives, if the plan to live in the U.S. and remain outside the royal sphere is followed.
That said, I'm not clear at all as to what the Sussexes do want that they haven't already received or achieved on their own merit. They've told their story on their own terms several times now. They live where they say they want to live. They are making money outside of the royal family, which they wanted. They are unhindered by royal protocol and can seek therapy, financial gain, and social clout in whatever method they chose.
But they still seem unhappy about something. It's almost as if they just want to be universally loved and they want public acknowledgement from the Palace that they were right in every choice they made. Neither of those things are going to happen.
I 1000% agree - M and H have backed Charles and the palace into a corner. They push to the limit in hopes the opposition back down. It's like they are saying to Charles, we've given our children the titles 'publicly', if you're not going to provide them with a title you need to take it from them - 'publicly'. The title debacle should've been dealt with as a matter of urgency before they had the chance to forcibly gain the upper hand.
Was it fear they where being swept under the carpet, in terms of their 'royal' status, announcing this to the public after Frogmore cottage was no longer their UK base? Screams desperation to me.
How anyone can support Harry or Meghan is beyond comprehension - the hypocrisy is off the scale.
I am ready for the RF to make a clear distinction in rank with M&H and I believe we will see that at the coronation. We may agree and we may not agree with it but in the end this family drama which I believed would happen because of M’s history. It has caused me to not hold the RF (Charles) in as high esteem as I did. The RF has also lost some of its grandeur. I hope in a year I have been proved wrong. I’m tired of the racist argument in the world.
It’s absolutely bizarre to me as a practicing Catholic that you would choose to baptize your toddler child in your personal home and not go to the Church. It’s almost insulting to the clergy to say, we’re so important, you must come to us. To a bishop, no less! Baptism outside a physical church in a traditional liturgy (Catholic or Anglican) would usually only be performed in threat of death or perilous circumstances.
It’s a play to make sure their children are still regarded as Royal and in the line of succession- however far down you are, you must be baptized to be the monarch- before they come to the Coronation.
This has the appearance of a grab, not a gift. If this was Charles' decision, or the outcome of years of negotation, it would surely be presented as benevolent and kindly King Charles' Coronation gift or some such. There would also be some sense of the late Queen's youngest son Edward's children being treated in the same way as the King's younger son's children. Pragmatically, Charles might have said 'they have titles, a decision will be made on whether they can use them when they are adults', which seems to be more-or-less the position with Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. The announcement would have been on a mutually agreed date, and certainly not on a day when Queen Camilla and the Princess of Wales have important engagements. All around, this is a Sussex ploy. Here in the UK, the citizens have been confronted today by breakfast TV interviews with Ngozi Fulani complaining that she hasn't received a 'public apology' from the Palace, news that Harry's phone-hacking case v The Mirror will go to trial in May (!) (Edit: May 9, the first working day after the Coronation, and it is being reported that Harry will give a statement in person) and then the news of Royal titles for Archie and Lilibet. The Palace press team were 100% caught on the hop as their grid had Camilla's International Women's Day event at Buckingham Place and Princess of Wales at the Irish Guards. Haven't seen either of them on the TV news today. It's very, very wearying.
Edit: For some reason, I'm reminded of the Sussex' statement that the Queen didn't own the word 'Royal'. King Charles appears not to own 'Princess' either.
Don’t you think the aide or the royal family expect this. They should expect that these two have always agenda.
Harry talks a lot about the mistakes of his father and how he wants to break the generational pain. But this move is using his children as pawns in their ongoing fight with the palace. I just don’t think the kids will one day thank them. I can hardly think of any advantage for the kids to grow up in the US being known as prince(ss).
Thirty years from now we will be reading/watching Lilli and/or Archie talking about the damage this move did to their childhood.
On a different note, I haven’t read all of Spare or watched the whole Netflix, but from I saw neither Meghan not Harry seem to be religious. So I am slightly surprised that now that they are not obligated to have a christening, that they still chose to go that route.
I am flabbergasted as to how "pushy" this all seems. That they want the titles is amazing since it has caused Harry so much "pain". They truly are hypocrites. I am disappointed that the palace doesn't seem to put them in their place.
Shocking how much more material South Park has for a second installment in such a very, very short time. Harry and Meghan's desperation is palpable.
Interesting to note the use in some of the stories today of the term "a royal source". The meaning of some of the comments about titles coming from a Sussex "royal source" -- and as you noted so well yesterday, Harry and Meghan "are not only no longer senior royals, they are really *former* royals" -- would be very different coming from a BP "royal source". So the Sussex habit of playing with words seems to be in play here.
I do hope the children have loving, responsible nannies.