So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

When I saw the room there were no caskets but the stones indicating where they were “buried”. I suspect there’s another room below that one.

What do you mean when you saw 'the room'? Have you been in the vault?

If you’ve been to the church’s in Europe, many powerful/historical people are buried right in the church. Those rectangular areas you see people walk over are graves. You can see it in the Sound of Music when Maria gets married. Yes, I am showing my age. There are also many sarcophagus’ in the churches.

When I visited Windsor many years ago you could go downstairs and see some of the monarch’s graves burial areas. The queen’s family was in a small room. Very simple.

and plain compared to other monarchs.

If you ever get to Vienna visit the Habsburg Imperial Crypt. Outstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

When I saw the room there were no caskets but the stones indicating where they were “buried”. I suspect there’s another room below that one.

What do you mean when you saw 'the room'? Have you been in the vault?

If you’ve been to the church’s in Europe, many powerful/historical people are buried right in the church. Those rectangular areas you see people walk over are graves. You can see it in the Sound of Music when Maria gets married. Yes, I am showing my age. There are also many sarcophagus’ in the churches.

When I visited Windsor many years ago you could go downstairs and see some of the monarch’s graves burial areas. The queen’s family was in a small room. Very simple.

and plain compared to other monarchs.

If you ever get to Vienna visit the Habsburg Imperial Crypt. Outstanding.

I've been to Britain several times but never thought to try to see the burial vaults--nothing against it--TIL. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

When I saw the room there were no caskets but the stones indicating where they were “buried”. I suspect there’s another room below that one.

What do you mean when you saw 'the room'? Have you been in the vault?

If you’ve been to the church’s in Europe, many powerful/historical people are buried right in the church. Those rectangular areas you see people walk over are graves. You can see it in the Sound of Music when Maria gets married. Yes, I am showing my age. There are also many sarcophagus’ in the churches.

When I visited Windsor many years ago you could go downstairs and see some of the monarch’s graves burial areas. The queen’s family was in a small room. Very simple.

and plain compared to other monarchs.

If you ever get to Vienna visit the Habsburg Imperial Crypt. Outstanding.

I've been to Britain several times but never thought to try to see the burial vaults--nothing against it--TIL. Thank you!

I was with a tour group so I don’t remember if they got the tickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d really doubt she requested a private audience.

My guess is that Charles was considering bringing them back as part time royals. They would get the part time royal thing they wanted, full titles, security and money. Charles would get to slim down the monarchy. Kick Beatrice ff the council and avoid giving Edward and Sophie more. Charles only likes Anne and doesn’t seem to like Edward and Sophie. He hates Andrew and doesn’t want his daughters involved in anything. He could shut down Harry’s book and subsequent interviews. It makes sense for Charles.

I’m sure that Edward and Sophie, Will and Kate and all the snippy palace staff are fighting hard against this hence all the leaks trying to make them look bad.

+100

This would be my guess as well. I think Charles was originally more open to the PT thing that the Queen. And what he cares about the most is Harry not destroying all of the good press he’s meticulously curated for Camilla with his book. But he clearly is trying to push Edward and Andrew and their families out. First by declining to give Edward the Duke of Edinburgh title and Andrew…that situation speaks for itself.

It also gives Charles more flexibility with William. All the reports of William going into rages with his father over who knows what is a problem if William is the only working royal Charles can stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

Why would the QM put Harry above all her other great grandchildren?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

Is this actually known as a public fact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

Is this actually known as a public fact?

Yes.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/queen-mother-left-prince-harry-more-money-than-william-in-her-25-million-will-to-protect-him/news-story/1f9c560e81a7737b8d4d39470975767d

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

Why would the QM put Harry above all her other great grandchildren?

Because he's the only one whose brother will be king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

Why would the QM put Harry above all her other great grandchildren?

She created trusts by family, one for Ann's kids, one for Charles kids etc. Of the trust for Charles' kids Harry gets the bulk.

[Anonymous]

Harry said it was his mother’s money that allowed him to be free.

[Anonymous]

According to that article the QM's estate was worth 14 million, and she had 6 grandchildren, including Margaret's children, so if she split her estate between all of her great grand children, there's no way the amount would be greater than the 10 million+ he received from Diana.