Amid official duties and family grief this week, the royal family has been dealing with other negotiations behind closed doors.
It’s no secret that King Charles is keen to make his legacy one of a slimmed-down monarchy and, according to various reports, one of the by-products is the titles attached – or in this case, not conferred – on the his son Prince Harry. two children
Under the traditions of the monarchy dating back to the 18th century, and with the ascension of King Charles, Sussex children are entitled to the titles of HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH the Princess Lilibet of Sussex, in accordance with the conventions established by George V in 1917 which state that the monarch’s grandchildren automatically receive royal titles.
But according to The sunthere have been tense discussions behind closed palace doors between the Sussexes and the king over which royal category Archie, 3, and Lilibet, 1, will be placed.
According to the publication, Charles has agreed to name them prince and princess, but has drawn the line at “HRH”, leaving Harry and Meghan “furious”.
An HRH title entitles the royals to a salary and police protection.
At a time when Britain is struggling with an economic crisis that has seen the cost of living skyrocket, it’s no surprise that Charles is keen to tighten his royal belt.
And speaking to members of the tax-paying public in London, it seems many of them are behind him all the way.
“The statement was made, and that was part of the change in the royal family, they’ve already changed it to ‘if you’re not working with the royal family, you’re not in the game (with HRH) and that’s it. And we support it,” David, 69, from Scotland, told news.com.au.
“I think he’s doing the right thing. For me personally, the Queen didn’t deserve all this pain over the last two years. There’s never been an apology for that and that hurts me. It’s a fair decision by King Charles.” , said Jackie, 71, Bedfordshire.
Tracey, 52, from Northampton was also “delighted with the decision” not to award the Sussexes with HRH titles.
“They decided to walk away, which is fine, I didn’t have a problem with that, although I’ve had a problem with what they’ve done since then, but there’s no way the taxpayers should have to pay anything when they’ve decided to do it. go away and make their own money,” he told news.com.au.
Kevin, 53, from Northampton, agreed: “They’re making millions from Netflix, so why should the taxpayer pay? The royal family here work 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 should not have to pay any of their costs.
“They are still part of the family, but Harry has chosen to distance himself from it,” she said. “I imagine people would be pretty upset about that (if he had HRH status). They’ve chosen to start their lives in America, so if Harry’s not going to get involved (the royal family), maybe the kids shouldn’t be so good.”
Max, 30, from Colchester admitted it would “be nice” if Harry and Meghan’s children could be HRH, but still supported King Charles’ decision to retain the titles.
“I’d rather not, it would be nice if they could, but with everything going so badly economically (in the UK) at the moment, it’s probably not the time to do that sort of thing,” he told news.com. .au.
“It should be the closest family (getting taxpayer funding) now, it’s more modern and it doesn’t need to be extended to everyone.”
This latest ruling follows the decision made more than two years ago when Harry and Meghan stepped down from front-line royal duties and moved to California, which saw them unable to use the titles of Royal Highness themselves.
In their big interview with Oprah Winfrey last year, they made it clear how frustrated they were by that ruling, as it meant they couldn’t access taxpayer-funded safety and security. And seconds The sunnow they are “furious” that their children are also not getting RHS status.
The HRH title also gives the royals access to a salary and means people are supposed to bow or curtsy when approached.
Seconds The sunThere have been tense discussions among the royals over the issue throughout the week, with Harry and Meghan pointing out that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have HRH status but are not members of the royal family.
“Harry and Meghan were concerned about the security issue and being a prince and princess entitles them to certain levels of royal security,” a source told the publication.
“There have been many conversations over the past week. They have insisted that Archie and Lilibet are prince and princess. They have been relentless since the Queen died.
“But they’ve been furious that Archie and Lilibet can’t take the HRH title.
“Here’s the deal: they can be princes and princesses, but not HRH because they’re not working royals.”
King Charles III is understood to be waiting for any official confirmation of the titles until after the Queen’s period of official mourning.
Read related topics: Queen Elizabeth II