Amid official duties and family grief, the royal family is reportedly holding other talks behind closed doors this week.
It’s no secret that King Charles is looking to make a thinner monarchy his legacy, and according to multiple reports, one of the by-products is the titles given to – or, in this case, not to – his son Prince Harry. two children.
In keeping with the long tradition of the monarchy dating back to the 18th century, and with the ascension of King Charles to the throne, Sussex children are eligible to receive the titles of HRH (His Royal Highness) Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibeth of Sussex. under agreements laid out by George V in 1917 whereby the monarch’s grandchildren automatically receive royal titles.
But according to SunBehind the closed doors of the palace, there are intense discussions between the Sussexes and the King about what category the royals Archie, 3, and Lilibet, 1, will be placed in.
According to the publication, Charles agreed to name them a prince and princess, but drew a line under “His Royal Highness”, leaving Harry and Meghan “furious”.
The HRH title gives members of the royal family the right to pay and police protection.
At a time when the United Kingdom is grappling with an economic crisis that has sent the cost of living skyrocketing, it’s no surprise that Charles is looking to tighten the royal belt.
And speaking to taxpayer representatives in London, it seems that many of them are in full support of him.
“There was a statement made and it was part of the change in the royals, they already changed it to ‘if you’re not a member of the royal family, you’re not in the game (with HRH) and that’s it.’ And we support that,” David, 69, from Scotland, told news.com.au.
“I think he is doing the right thing. For me personally, the queen didn’t deserve all this heartache over the past two years. There has never been an apology for this and it makes me angry. This is a fair decision by King Charles,” said 71-year-old Jackie from Bedfordshire.
Tracey, 52, from Northampton was also ‘pleased’ with the Sussexes’ decision not to be crowned His Royal Highness.
“They decided to leave, which is fine, I didn’t have a problem with that – although I have had problems with what they have done since then – but taxpayers don’t have to pay for anything when they decide to move away and earn their own money,” she told news.com.au.
Kevin, 53, from Northampton agreed: “They make millions off Netflix, so why should taxpayers pay? The royal family here works for the country, and they (Harry and Meghan) decided not to do it.
Emma, 34, from Middlesborough, was generally more sympathetic to Harry and Meghan’s situation, but still agreed that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay the bills for any of their expenses.
“They are still part of the family, but Harry has decided to distance himself from her,” she said. “I think it would really annoy people (if they got HRH status). They decided to start their lives in America, so if Harry isn’t going to be involved in (the royal family), maybe the kids shouldn’t be involved either.”
Max, 30, from Colchester, admitted it “would be nice” if Harry and Meghan’s children could become His Royal Highness, but still backed King Charles’s decision not to grant titles.
“I’d rather they didn’t, it would be nice if they could, but given that things are going pretty badly economically at the moment (in the UK) it’s probably not the right time to do that sort of thing” , he told news.com. .au
“Now it has to be the closest family (receiving taxpayer funding), it’s more modern, and it doesn’t need to be extended to everyone.”
This latest decision follows a decision made more than two years ago when Harry and Meghan left frontline royal duties and moved to California, where they could not use the titles of His and Her Royal Highness themselves.
In their high-profile interview with Oprah Winfrey last year, they made it clear how disappointed they were with the decision, as it meant they couldn’t access taxpayer-funded security and protection. And according to Sunnow they are “furious” that their children will not be given HRH status either.
The HRH title also gives royals access to paychecks and means people must bow or curtsy when they approach.
According to SunThere have been heated discussions within the royal family all week about this, with Harry and Meghan reportedly pointing out that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have Royal Highness status but are not members of the Royal Family.
“Harry and Meghan were concerned about security issues, and being a prince and princess entitles them to a certain level of royal security,” a source told the publication.
“There has been a lot of talk over the last week. They insisted that Archie and Lilibet were prince and princess. They have been ruthless since the queen died.
“But they were furious that Archie and Lilibet couldn’t get the title of Royal Highness.
“It’s an agreement – they can be a prince and a princess, but not HRH because they don’t work as members of the royal family.”
It is understandable that King Charles III is postponing any official confirmation of the titles until after the official period of mourning for the Queen is over.