I think the answer is 1) they really do not know any better and 2) even more to the point, they don't care about "details" or "facts" or whether something is correct or close enough. Ironic that it concerns the guy's title.
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.
Yes I remember this post well :) My question is about the term "retroactively". Like I said, to me retroactive to the Letters Patent are that new titles would not be given those born without the title prior to 1917. Are you suggesting that because Archie and Lili were 3rd generation at the time of their birth and only in September became second generation from the Sovereign the titles do not to apply? Is that what you're considering "retroactive"? If so, that makes sense! I'm just making sure I understand it all correctly and totally trust your expertise! :)
That is how I understand the question of whether they can be applied “retroactively”. When they were born, they were neither the grandchildren of the monarch nor the children of the eldest son of the prince of wales. So for sure they weren’t entitled to titles at the time of their birth. The question is whether the titles can be bestowed later on, after they’re already born, and after their grandfather became king. So that’s what’s meant by “retroactively” in this case.
Thanks for your thoughts! And that makes sense if that's the position. When I read "retroactive" in the Sept post and then again today, I was thinking the point was that it wouldn't apply to the grandchild of a monarch prior to the letters being issued so I appreciate the clarification! It will be interesting to see how this is formally handled by the Palace because it will sent a precedent for centuries to come! Exciting!
To your second question, it seemed like they wanted the perks and status (money, visibility, security protection, etc) of being major working royals while not having that level of responsibility and limitation (Meghan talked about wanting to be vocal about political causes, for example).
I have never subscribed to the notion that there is no half-in-half-out option. In Harry’s own words there were at least 5 options on the table at the Sandringham summit. The problem came in with what they wanted to do during the half out time. If Harry was planning to become a rugby coach and Meghan maybe the CEO of Smartworks, they could have done that and still represent the BRF on the side. But they wanted to have a parallel royal life just without the constraints of the BRF. They wanted to generate money from things like Netflix without running it past the palace everytime. They wanted the freedom to speak out on politics and other issues in the half out time. And just won’t work.
Yes, and I would like the salary/benefits of a full time job, but to work only part time....doesn’t work that way! The sense of entitlement displayed is beyond!
Harry is quite different from Beatrice and Eugenie. They are not (and never will be) daughters of the king. Harry is the king's son. [and also male which still counts for more than female].
It's kind of inescapable that he isn't as minor as his cousins are. If Charles had had 6 or 7 children, then, they would likely all be rather minor, just occasional gossip fodder and only the heir clearly distinct. Harry, especially with all his antics and issues, occupies a place that isn't exactly minor but isn't important either. And, he has about the worst possible disposition and spouse to be the king's other son.
I think because Harry and Meghan wanted to make money off of their royal connections. Beatrice and Eugenie have the cachet of being royal but are not giving speeches for money or being paid to wear clothes or promote brands (or if they are they are so quiet about it no one notices). They also wanted to promote their political stances, which is big no-no for royalty.
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.
This is true. I would hardly describe South Park as part of the typical royal watching community and yet there they are, with commentary on the utter absurdity of the Sussexes’ behavior.
I don't think Harry's close cousin, Eugenie, was at the christening? Odd because she WAS in LA the week before so you'd think that would have been the time to have the christening if you'd really wanted to have family there. People reporting that the King and Prince William were invited but didn't come. I'd think that a King coming to the US would be a big deal even for a private family event? Especially if William and Catherine were also invited? And can you imagine what the tabloids and media would have said about an expensive trip??
If they were invited, H & M would have known full well that it would not be possible for any of the senior royals to come, as their schedules are set months in advance. And why on earth would they want to come? The whole thing was highly irregular -- and tacky imo.
Good point re Eugenie. Some say Diana's sisters were there -- perhaps they were. If they were, i don't think it portends that the Spencers are "in H & M's corner" as Hello! tried to make people think. they may actually take a baptism seriously or were there to suss out what was going on.
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 so agree with your comment...what do they REALLY want? I can understand why one may not want to live a royal life....they made that clear and fled the UK, but why the insistence that they remain ‘one foot in?’ I equate it to getting a divorce, but insisting that you remain ‘partially married.’ Makes no sense to me!🤔
Even if the kids remain in the US for their entire lives they will still have use for those titles. Those titles in the US will remind people of their royal connections and open up many doors of opportunity for them. People will want to be around them, and organizations will want to hire them,just so they can say they are affiliated with a prince or a princess. They’ll be able to live a life that very few others live, simply because there’s a title in their name.
Turns out the Palace will update the titles of the children on the Palace website. This article also talks about Lilibet not being christened inside a church. I’m guessing that this is an olive branch being extended by King Charles.
Not sure that is going to follow here. In the US, that is. While there are many - of the People Magazine crowd - who get wound up by "royalty", it is all fairy tale fantasy and generally merely a courtesy to refer to British monarchs or other countries' royal by means of a title. A now removed from the castle bridge burner and spouse are not going to be viewed as much of royalty.
I suspect folks in the US are not even going to accord Harry and Meghan Montbatten Windsor titles even in polite conversation. Not the masses of people. Sure, The Oprah will, but everyday citizens will refer to them as Harry and Meghan. Full stop. They won't call them the "Sussexes".
And the little ones? When they get to school, they are likely to be in for a rude awakening if they or their parents insist on titles being used. [But I am sure Harry and Meg will search out a school that will accommodate their demands.
Agreed that people will refer to the Sussexes by their first names. It will be weird to use any other name. On resumes, job and college applications, etc., those titles mean something. Those titles will open doors that the average person will never walk through. I live in Los Angeles, and the wealthy areas in this city are all about nepotism.
Yes it will open doors, but lets be honest, doors would in any case open for them. It is not like Lilly or Archie would struggle to get into good schools or to start a business, without titles.
On the playground, maybe. But as I said, when it comes to career, college, financial opportunities, etc. those titles will open up doors for them that don’t open for anyone else. I think that’s the motivation for their parents to want them to have titles.
They’re the grandchildren of the king. Their titles reflect that. There will be power hungry people who will associated with them hoping that will give them an opportunity to be closer to power, regardless of whether or not that actually happens.
But with those opportunities will come a lot of heartache. Those kids are going to grow up wondering who their real friends are, as opposed to people just trying to exploit them. Their father has experienced that his whole life, as have all the members of his family.
I actually feel sorry for those kids. As much as their parents say they want them to lead a normal life, giving them titles will do anything but that. Princess Anne didn’t give her children titles for that reason.
I don’t get it either. I see many are livid about the king ‘granting them titles.’ They automatically get them anyway and he’d have to jump thru hoops to amend it so who cares really?
I agree with so much of this, and I also don't care if they have titles. TBH, titles are kind of weird, and I'm a monarchist...! I agree with Jane's comment that "the Sussexes will find that using Prince and Princess every now and again on formal documents does not royalty make." Did anyone think Princess Lee Radziwill was really royalty?
But I don't think the Sussex children are entitled to them -- I was totally on board with Jane's post months back and don't think titles are applied retroactively automatically. It must be very strange to keep living the contradiction of criticizing the BRF and holding so much resentment against it, yet wanting all of the benefits of belonging to it. It would be like working for a corporation you dislike intensely but never trying to move on... it's unhealthy over the long term.
Agree. Funny, Howard Stern said as much in December with the release of the docuseries. He was baffled by their complaints & said Meghan seems to have a need to be adored, she wants to be beloved.
Harry and Meghan have stated that what they want is an apology (public?) from Harry’s family for their perceived grievances. They have zero insight as to the effects of their own behavior. They see the situation through a very narrow tunnel. Charles is in a tough spot for all the reasons you stated as well as genuinely loving Harry. But he is also the King of England with the full power of a 1000 yr old institution behind him. I don’t think H and M realize that despite any little victories that they may have obtained along the way, in the big picture this is and always will be a loss for them. As the saying goes they have burned their bridges and there is no room for a rapprochement.
They are never going to get a public apology for a collection of grievances that can't be agreed on by both parties. Plus, I suspect even if by some wild chance it did happen, they still wouldn't be happy. The goal posts would move to something else.
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.
I completely agree with you Beth that the RF needs to clearly make a distinction in rank. I think it has started with Frogmore and am hopeful that we will see a clearer delineation at the coronation. As a huge royal follower, I think M has succeeded in tarnishing 'royal watching' for many people and I think that is her goal. She is tearing them down to build herself up and the irony is that the monarchy that she loathes and yet covets, is what gives her status.
Absolutely agree Beth! Disappointed that KC and Buckingham Palace weren't ahead of H & M on this. How many olive TREES are going to be extended, broken and thrown back, before KC says enough?
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.
Agree. Getting baptized at home seems kind of casual/a power play… and to make the Episcopal Bishop go to THEM!
All the Kennedys/ Rockefellers (etc) were all baptized in a proper church… the only time I’ve heard not is medical emergency/ battlefield… something like that.
My twin sister and I were baptized at birth (in the hospital room) bec they weren’t sure we were going to make it… (but we’re fine now!)
MM is such a cheeseball, everything is such a production w her. Wd have been much cooler if they just went to church (like everyone else), and just released photo afterwards.
Harry and Meghan have never come across as regular church goers or church members.
For them baptism is a dance party! With an arch bishop or bishop or whoever that was.
And it was a way to force the title into existence. It is a fait accompli but diminishes the "value" of the titles when you have to back door your way into it.
I think because the only reason they would baptize is to keep their Royal connections and Lilibet in the line of succession. If they are not practicing Christians, or Anglicans as the royals are, why would they baptize their baby? Many do for cultural reasons and connection to family tradition, but Megan was nominally attached to only the Catholic tradition before she converted to Anglicanism just days before marrying Harry. I think this history of her choices shows she chooses religious rites of passage based on pragmatism, not personal faith. At the very least, waiting two years to baptize a child is not the ‘done’ thing in a traditional practice of Christianity, if you believe in what it teaches and practices (infant baptism as in Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglican and Episcopal denominations).
I don’t think H&M can assume baptism in the American Episcopalian church qualifies Lilibet for succession the Act specifies they must be communicant members of the Church Of England for historical and practical reasons I think H&M would struggle to get the courts or the Privy council to accept a substitute
Agreed, it would be complicated. I think the real issue here is they are doing this for ‘looks’ and connection, rather than with any real belief they will ever be at the point of having to determine the suitability of Lilibet’s baptism in order for her to become monarch. As with most things H&M, not thought through!
Absolutely I think the King will let this one go thru to the wicket rather than engage in a pointless exercise in removing Lilibet from the line of succession
Not true. Being confirmed (they were only christened) members of the Church of England would only matter if they were being crowned. Otherwise, not becoming a confirmed Roman Catholic is the only requirement.
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.
Yes, this morning (CST USA) the Times of London online front page had "Charity boss quits and criticizes palace after race controversy" with Ms. Fulani's photo front and center. Although, the article itself recounted the facts that belied what she claimed.
And now their upper right image is "Kate joins Irish Guards in snowy training session for the first time as colonel"
Still no Camilla and International Women's Day on the front page.
From The Times: 'It is understood the titles will be used in formal settings but not in everyday use by the couple. Harry and Meghan are understood to be keen to not deny their children their birthright, but to allow them to decide as adults whether to drop the titles.'
If you read this, there is no sense that King Charles has any say in this matter. It's astonishing.
'Wearying' is indeed the word. The flurry of events and sightings, after a month and a half of quiet, have the look of intense PR planning. They are testing the waters, seeing what the reaction is and then they will rework.
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.
The christening has something to do with attending the coronation, I think. Or they lobbied for a UK christening and didn't get it? Good points made above about the pathetic mistake on the correct title of the Episcopal bishop as well as the oddity of christening occurring outside of a church. I'm sure there's an Episcopal church in Santa Barbara which would have accommodated them, not that they've bothered to attend, even on important Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter.
Not sure about the requirements of the Episcopal church, but the Catholic church and many Protestant denominations often require that the parents be members of the congregation and/or attend a series of classes or pastoral counseling sessions before a baptism can be performed in the church itself.
I think a lot of it has to do with appearance and status. And we know they like to embellish everything so the Bishop’s title also got slight change. I feel like they are determined to have the kids be on the same level as Charlotte and Louis. If they couldn’t get they royal christening they would just have their own.
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.
It's pretty obvious that Meghan acts as her own "spokesperson"? She's too much of a control freak to let someone else speak for her, and the mistakes are always very telling.
And it is International Women's Day, the day that is so precious and important to M to highlight what women can achieve. To bad she start her own daughter's life with such a levrege so she wont be able to prove anything that is a result of her own abilities.
That’s a great observation! It does beg the question as to why!
Excellent point. I wonder if in fact a religious service took place.
Well a christening /baptism took place with a bishop so yes, it was religious - it just wasn’t in a church.
I think the answer is 1) they really do not know any better and 2) even more to the point, they don't care about "details" or "facts" or whether something is correct or close enough. Ironic that it concerns the guy's title.
Oh's that's right. We have a Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry, who spoke at the Sussex's wedding but is not an archbishop.
Not surprising when they lied about the Archbishop of Canterbury "privately marrying them in the garden" several days before their wedding.
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.
I highly doubt that M will skip such a historic and glamourous event.
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.
My thoughts on this are covered pretty thoroughly in that post I linked to when I mentioned the Letters Patent. ☺️
Yes I remember this post well :) My question is about the term "retroactively". Like I said, to me retroactive to the Letters Patent are that new titles would not be given those born without the title prior to 1917. Are you suggesting that because Archie and Lili were 3rd generation at the time of their birth and only in September became second generation from the Sovereign the titles do not to apply? Is that what you're considering "retroactive"? If so, that makes sense! I'm just making sure I understand it all correctly and totally trust your expertise! :)
That is how I understand the question of whether they can be applied “retroactively”. When they were born, they were neither the grandchildren of the monarch nor the children of the eldest son of the prince of wales. So for sure they weren’t entitled to titles at the time of their birth. The question is whether the titles can be bestowed later on, after they’re already born, and after their grandfather became king. So that’s what’s meant by “retroactively” in this case.
Thanks for your thoughts! And that makes sense if that's the position. When I read "retroactive" in the Sept post and then again today, I was thinking the point was that it wouldn't apply to the grandchild of a monarch prior to the letters being issued so I appreciate the clarification! It will be interesting to see how this is formally handled by the Palace because it will sent a precedent for centuries to come! Exciting!
It seems like they’re “handling” it by playing it cool, like “Yeah, they decided to use them”.
To your second question, it seemed like they wanted the perks and status (money, visibility, security protection, etc) of being major working royals while not having that level of responsibility and limitation (Meghan talked about wanting to be vocal about political causes, for example).
I have never subscribed to the notion that there is no half-in-half-out option. In Harry’s own words there were at least 5 options on the table at the Sandringham summit. The problem came in with what they wanted to do during the half out time. If Harry was planning to become a rugby coach and Meghan maybe the CEO of Smartworks, they could have done that and still represent the BRF on the side. But they wanted to have a parallel royal life just without the constraints of the BRF. They wanted to generate money from things like Netflix without running it past the palace everytime. They wanted the freedom to speak out on politics and other issues in the half out time. And just won’t work.
Yes, and I would like the salary/benefits of a full time job, but to work only part time....doesn’t work that way! The sense of entitlement displayed is beyond!
Harry is quite different from Beatrice and Eugenie. They are not (and never will be) daughters of the king. Harry is the king's son. [and also male which still counts for more than female].
It's kind of inescapable that he isn't as minor as his cousins are. If Charles had had 6 or 7 children, then, they would likely all be rather minor, just occasional gossip fodder and only the heir clearly distinct. Harry, especially with all his antics and issues, occupies a place that isn't exactly minor but isn't important either. And, he has about the worst possible disposition and spouse to be the king's other son.
I think because Harry and Meghan wanted to make money off of their royal connections. Beatrice and Eugenie have the cachet of being royal but are not giving speeches for money or being paid to wear clothes or promote brands (or if they are they are so quiet about it no one notices). They also wanted to promote their political stances, which is big no-no for royalty.
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.
This is true. I would hardly describe South Park as part of the typical royal watching community and yet there they are, with commentary on the utter absurdity of the Sussexes’ behavior.
I don't think Harry's close cousin, Eugenie, was at the christening? Odd because she WAS in LA the week before so you'd think that would have been the time to have the christening if you'd really wanted to have family there. People reporting that the King and Prince William were invited but didn't come. I'd think that a King coming to the US would be a big deal even for a private family event? Especially if William and Catherine were also invited? And can you imagine what the tabloids and media would have said about an expensive trip??
Truth
If they were invited, H & M would have known full well that it would not be possible for any of the senior royals to come, as their schedules are set months in advance. And why on earth would they want to come? The whole thing was highly irregular -- and tacky imo.
Good point re Eugenie. Some say Diana's sisters were there -- perhaps they were. If they were, i don't think it portends that the Spencers are "in H & M's corner" as Hello! tried to make people think. they may actually take a baptism seriously or were there to suss out what was going on.
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.
All of this! So well articulated.
Yes to this! I think Harry thought that fleeing the UK and the royal family was going to magically solve all of his problems.
I so agree with your comment...what do they REALLY want? I can understand why one may not want to live a royal life....they made that clear and fled the UK, but why the insistence that they remain ‘one foot in?’ I equate it to getting a divorce, but insisting that you remain ‘partially married.’ Makes no sense to me!🤔
Even if the kids remain in the US for their entire lives they will still have use for those titles. Those titles in the US will remind people of their royal connections and open up many doors of opportunity for them. People will want to be around them, and organizations will want to hire them,just so they can say they are affiliated with a prince or a princess. They’ll be able to live a life that very few others live, simply because there’s a title in their name.
Excellent point, Susan, and 💯 correct!
Will also be able to use on credit cards, college applications and passports = power move! 😂😂😂
Turns out the Palace will update the titles of the children on the Palace website. This article also talks about Lilibet not being christened inside a church. I’m guessing that this is an olive branch being extended by King Charles.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/03/meghan-and-harrys-daughter-lilibet-has-a-christening-and-a-new-title
Not sure that is going to follow here. In the US, that is. While there are many - of the People Magazine crowd - who get wound up by "royalty", it is all fairy tale fantasy and generally merely a courtesy to refer to British monarchs or other countries' royal by means of a title. A now removed from the castle bridge burner and spouse are not going to be viewed as much of royalty.
I suspect folks in the US are not even going to accord Harry and Meghan Montbatten Windsor titles even in polite conversation. Not the masses of people. Sure, The Oprah will, but everyday citizens will refer to them as Harry and Meghan. Full stop. They won't call them the "Sussexes".
And the little ones? When they get to school, they are likely to be in for a rude awakening if they or their parents insist on titles being used. [But I am sure Harry and Meg will search out a school that will accommodate their demands.
Agreed that people will refer to the Sussexes by their first names. It will be weird to use any other name. On resumes, job and college applications, etc., those titles mean something. Those titles will open doors that the average person will never walk through. I live in Los Angeles, and the wealthy areas in this city are all about nepotism.
I kind of disagree, but I could be proven wrong
Yes it will open doors, but lets be honest, doors would in any case open for them. It is not like Lilly or Archie would struggle to get into good schools or to start a business, without titles.
I think they will get tease about being princes or princess without a country don’t you think?
On the playground, maybe. But as I said, when it comes to career, college, financial opportunities, etc. those titles will open up doors for them that don’t open for anyone else. I think that’s the motivation for their parents to want them to have titles.
They’re the grandchildren of the king. Their titles reflect that. There will be power hungry people who will associated with them hoping that will give them an opportunity to be closer to power, regardless of whether or not that actually happens.
But with those opportunities will come a lot of heartache. Those kids are going to grow up wondering who their real friends are, as opposed to people just trying to exploit them. Their father has experienced that his whole life, as have all the members of his family.
I actually feel sorry for those kids. As much as their parents say they want them to lead a normal life, giving them titles will do anything but that. Princess Anne didn’t give her children titles for that reason.
If they want their children to live the lives of Beatrice and Eugenie, I suppose they have achieved their goal.
I don’t get it either. I see many are livid about the king ‘granting them titles.’ They automatically get them anyway and he’d have to jump thru hoops to amend it so who cares really?
I agree with so much of this, and I also don't care if they have titles. TBH, titles are kind of weird, and I'm a monarchist...! I agree with Jane's comment that "the Sussexes will find that using Prince and Princess every now and again on formal documents does not royalty make." Did anyone think Princess Lee Radziwill was really royalty?
But I don't think the Sussex children are entitled to them -- I was totally on board with Jane's post months back and don't think titles are applied retroactively automatically. It must be very strange to keep living the contradiction of criticizing the BRF and holding so much resentment against it, yet wanting all of the benefits of belonging to it. It would be like working for a corporation you dislike intensely but never trying to move on... it's unhealthy over the long term.
Agree. Funny, Howard Stern said as much in December with the release of the docuseries. He was baffled by their complaints & said Meghan seems to have a need to be adored, she wants to be beloved.
Harry and Meghan have stated that what they want is an apology (public?) from Harry’s family for their perceived grievances. They have zero insight as to the effects of their own behavior. They see the situation through a very narrow tunnel. Charles is in a tough spot for all the reasons you stated as well as genuinely loving Harry. But he is also the King of England with the full power of a 1000 yr old institution behind him. I don’t think H and M realize that despite any little victories that they may have obtained along the way, in the big picture this is and always will be a loss for them. As the saying goes they have burned their bridges and there is no room for a rapprochement.
They are never going to get a public apology for a collection of grievances that can't be agreed on by both parties. Plus, I suspect even if by some wild chance it did happen, they still wouldn't be happy. The goal posts would move to something else.
Absolutely agree. The Sussexes are a Train Wreck.
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.
Gosh I agree here! So annoyed on many levels...and Charles (😵💫😵💫😵💫) has got me missing QEII immensely.
I completely agree with you Beth that the RF needs to clearly make a distinction in rank. I think it has started with Frogmore and am hopeful that we will see a clearer delineation at the coronation. As a huge royal follower, I think M has succeeded in tarnishing 'royal watching' for many people and I think that is her goal. She is tearing them down to build herself up and the irony is that the monarchy that she loathes and yet covets, is what gives her status.
Absolutely agree Beth! Disappointed that KC and Buckingham Palace weren't ahead of H & M on this. How many olive TREES are going to be extended, broken and thrown back, before KC says enough?
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.
Yes, I agree!
Agree. Getting baptized at home seems kind of casual/a power play… and to make the Episcopal Bishop go to THEM!
All the Kennedys/ Rockefellers (etc) were all baptized in a proper church… the only time I’ve heard not is medical emergency/ battlefield… something like that.
My twin sister and I were baptized at birth (in the hospital room) bec they weren’t sure we were going to make it… (but we’re fine now!)
MM is such a cheeseball, everything is such a production w her. Wd have been much cooler if they just went to church (like everyone else), and just released photo afterwards.
Harry and Meghan have never come across as regular church goers or church members.
For them baptism is a dance party! With an arch bishop or bishop or whoever that was.
And it was a way to force the title into existence. It is a fait accompli but diminishes the "value" of the titles when you have to back door your way into it.
Dance Party — with celebrities!
Why does the baptism force the title issue ?!
I think because the only reason they would baptize is to keep their Royal connections and Lilibet in the line of succession. If they are not practicing Christians, or Anglicans as the royals are, why would they baptize their baby? Many do for cultural reasons and connection to family tradition, but Megan was nominally attached to only the Catholic tradition before she converted to Anglicanism just days before marrying Harry. I think this history of her choices shows she chooses religious rites of passage based on pragmatism, not personal faith. At the very least, waiting two years to baptize a child is not the ‘done’ thing in a traditional practice of Christianity, if you believe in what it teaches and practices (infant baptism as in Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglican and Episcopal denominations).
I don’t think H&M can assume baptism in the American Episcopalian church qualifies Lilibet for succession the Act specifies they must be communicant members of the Church Of England for historical and practical reasons I think H&M would struggle to get the courts or the Privy council to accept a substitute
Agreed, it would be complicated. I think the real issue here is they are doing this for ‘looks’ and connection, rather than with any real belief they will ever be at the point of having to determine the suitability of Lilibet’s baptism in order for her to become monarch. As with most things H&M, not thought through!
Absolutely I think the King will let this one go thru to the wicket rather than engage in a pointless exercise in removing Lilibet from the line of succession
Not true. Being confirmed (they were only christened) members of the Church of England would only matter if they were being crowned. Otherwise, not becoming a confirmed Roman Catholic is the only requirement.
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.
Oh my gosh. Thanks for all this insight. As an American observer, I have no idea what it looks like in the UK. I agree, this is wearying. Sigh.
Interesting point about Edward and Sophie’s children...I hadn’t thought about it in those terms.
Yes, this morning (CST USA) the Times of London online front page had "Charity boss quits and criticizes palace after race controversy" with Ms. Fulani's photo front and center. Although, the article itself recounted the facts that belied what she claimed.
And now their upper right image is "Kate joins Irish Guards in snowy training session for the first time as colonel"
Still no Camilla and International Women's Day on the front page.
That's really so discouraging. Why is the Press in general so lacking in their support for the royal family? I just don't get it.
From The Times: 'It is understood the titles will be used in formal settings but not in everyday use by the couple. Harry and Meghan are understood to be keen to not deny their children their birthright, but to allow them to decide as adults whether to drop the titles.'
If you read this, there is no sense that King Charles has any say in this matter. It's astonishing.
'Wearying' is indeed the word. The flurry of events and sightings, after a month and a half of quiet, have the look of intense PR planning. They are testing the waters, seeing what the reaction is and then they will rework.
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.
The christening has something to do with attending the coronation, I think. Or they lobbied for a UK christening and didn't get it? Good points made above about the pathetic mistake on the correct title of the Episcopal bishop as well as the oddity of christening occurring outside of a church. I'm sure there's an Episcopal church in Santa Barbara which would have accommodated them, not that they've bothered to attend, even on important Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter.
To inherit the British throne you need to be Church of England and I guess Episcopalian is the American equivalent.
The Episcopal Church is a member of the Anglican Communion (Church of England) but there are differences:
https://difference.guru/difference-between-the-anglican-and-episcopal-church/#Origins
Not sure about the requirements of the Episcopal church, but the Catholic church and many Protestant denominations often require that the parents be members of the congregation and/or attend a series of classes or pastoral counseling sessions before a baptism can be performed in the church itself.
I think a lot of it has to do with appearance and status. And we know they like to embellish everything so the Bishop’s title also got slight change. I feel like they are determined to have the kids be on the same level as Charlotte and Louis. If they couldn’t get they royal christening they would just have their own.
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.
Harry also said he wanted a family not an institution... this title is the direct link to the very institution he loathes ! how weird!
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.
It's pretty obvious that Meghan acts as her own "spokesperson"? She's too much of a control freak to let someone else speak for her, and the mistakes are always very telling.
And it is International Women's Day, the day that is so precious and important to M to highlight what women can achieve. To bad she start her own daughter's life with such a levrege so she wont be able to prove anything that is a result of her own abilities.
Well said! and the title is not really in keeping with Meghan's position on feminism!