Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to rewatch the Megan and Harry Oprah interview if you missed it? I am interested now.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I said I understand it exists. I don't think it really matters to anyone except the bean counters in the palace adding up their chits of who did or said what or wore the wrong thing. I would place much more importance on not further estranging my second son.

His second son is an unreliable loose cannon. He's a liability at this point and Charles is right to keep him at arm's length so he doesn't further undermine the monarchy.

Yes, monarch before family, just as his mum did.

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.

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.

I said I understand it exists. I don't think it really matters to anyone except the bean counters in the palace adding up their chits of who did or said what or wore the wrong thing. I would place much more importance on not further estranging my second son.

His second son is an unreliable loose cannon. He's a liability at this point and Charles is right to keep him at arm's length so he doesn't further undermine the monarchy.

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.

I said I understand it exists. I don't think it really matters to anyone except the bean counters in the palace adding up their chits of who did or said what or wore the wrong thing. I would place much more importance on not further estranging my second son.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He won’t be memorable. Does anyone remember Queen Victorias son who was King for like 10 years? That’s going to be Charles.

There's a whole period called "Edwardian" with distinctive art, especially fashion and literature. It's pretty well remembered for ten years.

Very excited about the art and fashions to come out of the Charletan era

There's already a name, the Carolean era.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He won’t be memorable. Does anyone remember Queen Victorias son who was King for like 10 years? That’s going to be Charles.

There's a whole period called "Edwardian" with distinctive art, especially fashion and literature. It's pretty well remembered for ten years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petulant one. Which is what you get for 'hiring' a head of state based on his/her bloodline.

Okay so I am anti royal family but I think this behavior is just typical frustration. I mean if you kept trying to sign stuff and the ink kept leaking all over would you get irritated? Maybe that’s just me who would. Plus, you know, mom dying, family drama, stress about being king, etc.

I agree, this is much ado about nothing. Having a pen leak, apparently repeatedly, is annoying and I would be annoyed. He didn’t make that big a fuss. Give the man a break. He’s been running all over the place since his Mom died. And I am no fan of these folks, but give the guy a break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petulant one. Which is what you get for 'hiring' a head of state based on his/her bloodline.

Okay so I am anti royal family but I think this behavior is just typical frustration. I mean if you kept trying to sign stuff and the ink kept leaking all over would you get irritated? Maybe that’s just me who would. Plus, you know, mom dying, family drama, stress about being king, etc.

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.