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.
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. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
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.
One thing I noticed in their spokesperson’s statement was an error about the officiant. The Episcopal Church USA does not have archbishops. The Bishop of Los Angeles is Rev John Taylor.
It is such a silly mistake to make and it leaves me wondering why. Was it intentional to inflate importance and draw parallels with the Wales children? Or do they just not know any better?
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.
I agree completely. Of course, they are going to the coronation. They probably requested that gold state coach to use for transportation and got mad when KC said no.
They want all the unearned privilege associated with being royal without having to do any of the hard work (dealing with media, having to follow established policies, etc…). It is clear that they love their titles and the status it brings them. They want the same for their kids. I would like them so much more- if they stepped down and then lived a quiet CA life. They have done just the opposite.
Why on Earth would you want your children to receive a title from an institution that you have identified as racist? Likewise, an institution that has been so traumatic that M thought about suicide and H now has been diagnosed with PTSD. As a parent, I cannot rectify this contradiction. I would never want my child to be associated with an institution if I truly believed it was racist and toxic. I would want to protect my child at all costs.
I get wanting a relationship with the family- but let’s be clear: H and M want to be recognized as royal and they want they same for their children. Being royal is more important to them than standing firm against an institution they have publicly defined as racist. It is mind blowing to me.
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 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.
This title grab will do nothing to improve their image. It is as blatant as the nickname grab, both in very bad taste. H&M’s hypocrisy is off the charts.
It seems to me that once againt the Sussexes have cut off their nose to spite their face. I just don't see what they get out of this long-term. Short-term they get headlines and the illusion of them (and their children) continuing to be royalty. They probably also get the satisfation of once against "sticking it" to the BRF. But they have not done themselves any favors with this announcement. My understanding is that folks in the UK are not happy about this. As for Americans...we like the sparkle of royalty, but we also firmly believe in meritocracy. There is a reason the US does not have a royal family. I do not see this playing well here, especially these days when people are very sensitive to perceptions of unearned privilege and generational wealth (see the recent furor over "nepo babies" - and aren't princes and princesses the ultimate nepo babies?)
Speaking as an American, I find the Sussexes insistence on raising their children as American, while also demanding titles from a foreign monarchy for them, to be gross and hypocritical. It reminds me of their poorly-judged "get out the vote" video - just a total lack of awareness that people who live in a democracy might resent foreign royals telling them what to do. Insisting that their children be styled as a prince and princess makes them seem even more out of touch. I can't see that it will help their public image - which is what they really should be focusing on, not more grievance-driven one-upmanship with the BRF.
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.
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.
When I saw the headline "Princess Lilibet Christened Today" I thought about how, in four years time, Lili might want to be known as just plain Lili. Truthfully, her name sounds like something in a Disneyfied fairy tale. I say that with empathy because my daughter has regretted giving one of my grandchildren a name that, even with today's odd names, odd spellings, has caused her teasing. Anyway. Good comments Susan but I do think Harry continues to have mental health issues and the therapy he is receiving is not helping. I think he does need to resolve his issues with his brother and his father but it's not going to happen with him sticking to California. They can't just hop a plane and come visit him. I do feel sorry for him and for King Charles and Prince William too; it's heartbreaking and will only continue so. Meghan seems to be fine without her father, she still has her mother. Harry has no one from his first family.
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.
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. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
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.
Thank you for hosting comments.
One thing I noticed in their spokesperson’s statement was an error about the officiant. The Episcopal Church USA does not have archbishops. The Bishop of Los Angeles is Rev John Taylor.
It is such a silly mistake to make and it leaves me wondering why. Was it intentional to inflate importance and draw parallels with the Wales children? Or do they just not know any better?
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 seems like Meghan's clap back for losing Frogmore....
I agree completely. Of course, they are going to the coronation. They probably requested that gold state coach to use for transportation and got mad when KC said no.
They want all the unearned privilege associated with being royal without having to do any of the hard work (dealing with media, having to follow established policies, etc…). It is clear that they love their titles and the status it brings them. They want the same for their kids. I would like them so much more- if they stepped down and then lived a quiet CA life. They have done just the opposite.
Why on Earth would you want your children to receive a title from an institution that you have identified as racist? Likewise, an institution that has been so traumatic that M thought about suicide and H now has been diagnosed with PTSD. As a parent, I cannot rectify this contradiction. I would never want my child to be associated with an institution if I truly believed it was racist and toxic. I would want to protect my child at all costs.
I get wanting a relationship with the family- but let’s be clear: H and M want to be recognized as royal and they want they same for their children. Being royal is more important to them than standing firm against an institution they have publicly defined as racist. It is mind blowing to me.
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 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.
This title grab will do nothing to improve their image. It is as blatant as the nickname grab, both in very bad taste. H&M’s hypocrisy is off the charts.
It seems to me that once againt the Sussexes have cut off their nose to spite their face. I just don't see what they get out of this long-term. Short-term they get headlines and the illusion of them (and their children) continuing to be royalty. They probably also get the satisfation of once against "sticking it" to the BRF. But they have not done themselves any favors with this announcement. My understanding is that folks in the UK are not happy about this. As for Americans...we like the sparkle of royalty, but we also firmly believe in meritocracy. There is a reason the US does not have a royal family. I do not see this playing well here, especially these days when people are very sensitive to perceptions of unearned privilege and generational wealth (see the recent furor over "nepo babies" - and aren't princes and princesses the ultimate nepo babies?)
Speaking as an American, I find the Sussexes insistence on raising their children as American, while also demanding titles from a foreign monarchy for them, to be gross and hypocritical. It reminds me of their poorly-judged "get out the vote" video - just a total lack of awareness that people who live in a democracy might resent foreign royals telling them what to do. Insisting that their children be styled as a prince and princess makes them seem even more out of touch. I can't see that it will help their public image - which is what they really should be focusing on, not more grievance-driven one-upmanship with the BRF.
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 can't fathom their level of self-delusion about their importance in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if Meghan wears a crown to the coronation!
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.
When I saw the headline "Princess Lilibet Christened Today" I thought about how, in four years time, Lili might want to be known as just plain Lili. Truthfully, her name sounds like something in a Disneyfied fairy tale. I say that with empathy because my daughter has regretted giving one of my grandchildren a name that, even with today's odd names, odd spellings, has caused her teasing. Anyway. Good comments Susan but I do think Harry continues to have mental health issues and the therapy he is receiving is not helping. I think he does need to resolve his issues with his brother and his father but it's not going to happen with him sticking to California. They can't just hop a plane and come visit him. I do feel sorry for him and for King Charles and Prince William too; it's heartbreaking and will only continue so. Meghan seems to be fine without her father, she still has her mother. Harry has no one from his first family.