The new reign of King Charles III has begun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Harrys children are not prince/princess, but Andrews are.
Technically they are entitled to that. I think the RF should not have excluded them.
Charles was wrong to say in his speech that they shall continue to live abroard. On the surface his speech sounded heartfelt, but the English speak between the lines.

The media hate against Meghan continues. Daily Mail says the crowd had stony faces when she met the crowds. But one commentator who was there said that was not so. I doubt that the rift between W & H is as bad as the press is making it out to be

As a child of immigrants, I always say never say never. They might just go live in England one day

The English are weird

Why do people like this poster keep repeating the lie that the Sussex children are not prince and princess now? They have every right to the title. As minors their parents have decide whether they want to use them for their children or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard 50% of the English young (no age given) so not care if the monarchy continues. They need to get younger people on the throne or have more interaction so the public gets interested in them again. They need to find something to get the young interested.

This isn't like the Olympics adding skateboarding and half tube for ratings.

They have more interaction with the public than many other public figures. Growing up in a commonwealth country, we saw various members of the royal family multiple times - way more times than any celebrity or US president while living in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: That's so weird, to have your lastname be where your house is. Hi, my name is Larlo Baltimore.

Not so weird if you're Lord Baltimore.

[Anonymous]

People this is not hard. Great chandchidlen of the monarch aren’t prince and princess unless they are the children of the heir (William.) Now that they are the grandchildren (instead of great grandchildren) of the monarch, they get prince and princess. This is literally written protocol. It’s not an insult or complement to anyone. It just is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People this is not hard. Great chandchidlen of the monarch aren’t prince and princess unless they are the children of the heir (William.) Now that they are the grandchildren (instead of great grandchildren) of the monarch, they get prince and princess. This is literally written protocol. It’s not an insult or complement to anyone. It just is.

And as grand children of the monarch, Williams children have prince/princess titles, whereas previously only George did.
Harry’s kids are also grand children of the monarch but are excluded

Charles is not such a nice man

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People this is not hard. Great chandchidlen of the monarch aren’t prince and princess unless they are the children of the heir (William.) Now that they are the grandchildren (instead of great grandchildren) of the monarch, they get prince and princess. This is literally written protocol. It’s not an insult or complement to anyone. It just is.

And as grand children of the monarch, Williams children have prince/princess titles, whereas previously only George did.
Harry’s kids are also grand children of the monarch but are excluded

Charles is not such a nice man

And you know this from personal experience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People this is not hard. Great chandchidlen of the monarch aren’t prince and princess unless they are the children of the heir (William.) Now that they are the grandchildren (instead of great grandchildren) of the monarch, they get prince and princess. This is literally written protocol. It’s not an insult or complement to anyone. It just is.

And as grand children of the monarch, Williams children have prince/princess titles, whereas previously only George did.
Harry’s kids are also grand children of the monarch but are excluded

Charles is not such a nice man

William’s children are in direct succession from the heir. Harry’s are not.

[Anonymous]

Stop saying Harry’s children are excluded. They have the titles now, since Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Harrys children are not prince/princess, but Andrews are.
Technically they are entitled to that. I think the RF should not have excluded them.
Charles was wrong to say in his speech that they shall continue to live abroard. On the surface his speech sounded heartfelt, but the English speak between the lines.

The media hate against Meghan continues. Daily Mail says the crowd had stony faces when she met the crowds. But one commentator who was there said that was not so. I doubt that the rift between W & H is as bad as the press is making it out to be

As a child of immigrants, I always say never say never. They might just go live in England one day

The English are weird

Why do people like this poster keep repeating the lie that the Sussex children are not prince and princess now? They have every right to the title. As minors their parents have decide whether they want to use them for their children or not.

I don’t know but I agree - lots of lies and half truths being posted as “facts” I guess that’s what happens when Twitter and the Crown are your main info sources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People this is not hard. Great chandchidlen of the monarch aren’t prince and princess unless they are the children of the heir (William.) Now that they are the grandchildren (instead of great grandchildren) of the monarch, they get prince and princess. This is literally written protocol. It’s not an insult or complement to anyone. It just is.

I thought they don’t get the titles automatically because they were not grandchildren of the sovereign at birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People this is not hard. Great chandchidlen of the monarch aren’t prince and princess unless they are the children of the heir (William.) Now that they are the grandchildren (instead of great grandchildren) of the monarch, they get prince and princess. This is literally written protocol. It’s not an insult or complement to anyone. It just is.

I thought they don’t get the titles automatically because they were not grandchildren of the sovereign at birth.

I think if their parents were still in the fold, it would have been automatic. My suspicion is that it’s complicated by the current situation, the fact that their parents are not currently working royals or using HRH themselves. Just my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Harrys children are not prince/princess, but Andrews are.
Technically they are entitled to that. I think the RF should not have excluded them.
Charles was wrong to say in his speech that they shall continue to live abroard. On the surface his speech sounded heartfelt, but the English speak between the lines.

The media hate against Meghan continues. Daily Mail says the crowd had stony faces when she met the crowds. But one commentator who was there said that was not so. I doubt that the rift between W & H is as bad as the press is making it out to be

As a child of immigrants, I always say never say never. They might just go live in England one day

The English are weird

Why do people like this poster keep repeating the lie that the Sussex children are not prince and princess now? They have every right to the title. As minors their parents have decide whether they want to use them for their children or not.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/palace-clarifies-why-meghan-harrys-142400292.html

This article would seem to indicate it was not automatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s give Charles a chance. He just might surprise us.

Re: the monarchy - That’s up to the Brits. It’s their history/tradition. It’s also a big driver of their economy in terms of tourism. I’m sure that plays into the equation.

Have you read any of the many, many, many weird letters he has written to newspapers etc. He comes off as if he is somewhat reasonable lately but have no doubt that's a facade. He is going to become a petty tyrant within a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s give Charles a chance. He just might surprise us.

Re: the monarchy - That’s up to the Brits. It’s their history/tradition. It’s also a big driver of their economy in terms of tourism. I’m sure that plays into the equation.

Have you read any of the many, many, many weird letters he has written to newspapers etc. He comes off as if he is somewhat reasonable lately but have no doubt that's a facade. He is going to become a petty tyrant within a week.

Worse were the letters he sent to policy-makers.

"We have an idea what those might include: the prince has reactionary views on architecture, is keen on homeopathy and has often displayed a woeful incomprehension of science. But I'm now wondering what else he has sounded off on in 27 letters to seven government departments."


The Prince Charles letters cover-up only makes his views seem weirder -- The Guardian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Harrys children are not prince/princess, but Andrews are.
Technically they are entitled to that. I think the RF should not have excluded them.
Charles was wrong to say in his speech that they shall continue to live abroard. On the surface his speech sounded heartfelt, but the English speak between the lines.

The media hate against Meghan continues. Daily Mail says the crowd had stony faces when she met the crowds. But one commentator who was there said that was not so. I doubt that the rift between W & H is as bad as the press is making it out to be

As a child of immigrants, I always say never say never. They might just go live in England one day

The English are weird

Why do people like this poster keep repeating the lie that the Sussex children are not prince and princess now? They have every right to the title. As minors their parents have decide whether they want to use them for their children or not.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/palace-clarifies-why-meghan-harrys-142400292.html

This article would seem to indicate it was not automatic.

Well it would be word to give the kids HRH if their own parents no longer have permission to use HRH. I’m sure it’s under discussion but they are trying to get through the funeral.