#Lilibet Diana Mountbatten Windsor

[theiconicmeghanmarkle]

Happy Birthday Princess Lilibet Diana 🎉🎈

Source: Klaire Kane

[yongyuan-st]

Happy 2nd birthday to Princess Lilibet 'Lili' Diana of Sussex. (b. June 4, 2021). 💗

[houseofbrat]

I don't buy Lady C. Sure she hears some gossip but she exaggerates. There are no grounds for KC to get custody of those kids. There is no law it was a claim made by George I in his disputes with his son.

I don't think Charles personally wants custody of the children. I think they want to know what their legal options are so that they can get the kids away from Harry's wife, as much as legally possible.

The kids aren't going to be in good hands if they're left in California to Harry's wife's ambitions. They're going to be pimped out to make money for Mama Sussex. The entire BRF knows it.

[harryandmeghansussex]

Happy Kiss A Ginger Day to Meghan's redheaded loves! 🧡

[woahkana]

Prince Harry carrying his two year old daughter Lilibet-Diana as he joins his wife Meghan and son Archie as they all gather to celebrate independence day.

[theiconicmeghanmarkle]

Prince Harry describes the moment he helped to bring his daughter into the world.

"When the doctor said it was a matter of minutes, I told Meg that I wanted mine to be the first face our little girl saw."

The Duke later added: "I slid my hands under the tiny back and neck. Gently, but firmly, as I'd seen in films, I pulled our precious daughter from that world into this, and cradled her just a moment, trying to smile at her, to see her, but honestly, I couldn't see anything.

I wanted to say: Hello. I wanted to say: Where have you come from?

I wanted to say: Is it better there? Is it peaceful? Are you frightened? Don't be, don’t be, all will be well. I'll keep you safe."

[yongyuan-st]

Lili and her mom and dad. 💖

[houseofbrat]

Rebecca English's recent revelation:

And while, fortunately, the King appears to be responding well to treatment and is hopeful of taking up more forward-facing public duties in the near future, recent events will have been a stark reminder of what awaits the Wales’ in the not so distant future. It is why, although his appearances today were both welcome and heartfelt, we should not expect to see a wholesale return to royal duties for the prince. Instead, I understand, he is likely to undertake one or two public engagements each week - often on the same day in order to minimise time away from Kate and the children - as well as continuing with his usual behind-the-scenes work. He will, I am told, almost certainly take some sort of role around the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings in June, as well as attending Trooping the Colour and the annual Order of the Garter service and, perhaps, one of the annual summer garden parties for worthy community heroes. And he will definitely continue to undertake investitures at Windsor Castle on behalf of the King over the coming weeks.

So the kids can be in school five days per week, but William can only do public engagements ONE DAY per week.

Somehow this wasn't a problem prior to William's recent four week break.

During the week of 18 to 24 February, William worked three days:

The BAFTAs on Sunday

The British Red Cross on Tuesday

An investiture at Windsor Castle on Wednesday

During the week of 25 February to 02 March, William worked two days but was originally scheduled to work three:

Missed King Constantine's memorial service due to "personal reasons" on Tuesday

Visited a synagogue on Thursday

Went to Wales for a few visits for St. David's Day

During the week of 10 to 16 March, William worked three days:

Commonwealth Service plus Earthshot function on Monday

Earthshot meeting behind closed doors at Windsor on Wednesday

A youth visit plus The Diana Awards' on Thursday

And yet, William is still being outworked by his father who HAS cancer and probably even The Duke of Kent.

Somehow, William was able to work three weeks with more than one day of public engagements per week prior to the kids' Easter break.

But now that not-rigorous schedule from February and March would be too much for delicate William, even though all his known children are in school FIVE DAYS per week.

And William also has his in-law to help out. They help out so much that William was able to go to a pub with his mother-in-law in Norfolk two weeks ago, when he was on vacation.

And let's not forget that nanny Maria is still around.

Just like the sudden need to do significant renovations at Adelaide Cottage, this goes beyond the fishy timeline about Kate's cancer and William's regular workshy-ness. It's pretty clear William is going into semi-hiding. This isn't about helping Kate; this is about avoiding the British general public. Because the general public is unpredictable and will say what they really think of you, when given the opportunity, to your face.

I guess that is what happened when William miscalculated on his pr machinations and realized his father wasn't going to move the big announcement back to suit William's needs. There's a reason why you make certain announcements on the anniversary of a happy day rather than a sad one.

Can't wait until Andrew permanently loses his favorite three little words. Along with Harry. Beatrice, Eugenie, Archie, and little Lilibet will all be losing a little bit more than that, as they will lose four words.

[houseofbrat]

Again, the anon missed the obvious fact that Meghan ghostwrote all those sentences about Lili and Archie in Harry’s book to begin with!

Narcs typically have a golden child--in this case Archie--and then see children of the same gender--in this case, Lili--as threats to themselves.

Anon’s whole post is proof that Meghan ghostwrote Harry’s book.

Know what I find super interesting? Harry saying his whole life he was the spare and having so many problems and anger because of it…and yet all he and Meghan ever do is talk about Archie. Lili is an afterthought to them.

Harry is perpetuating the same anger and resentment at his family making him “spare” in his daughter, and yet he thinks he’s breaking the cycle of generational trauma.

Of course it could be that the children are so young that it doesn’t matter now but the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. And:

Meghan gushed all about Archie in her interview with The Cut. Lili was a throwaway mention at the very end with “unsmiling eyes.”

Lili would’ve been old enough to babble at a microphone for Archetypes, the way Archie babbled on the Christmas 2020 podcast.

Archie got a whole book when he was born, Lili just got drama about her name.

Archie had a whole media conglomerate and “philanthropic” enterprise named after him. Nothing for Lili.

Archie gets several home videos in Netflix. Lili gets just one - her nose stroked after feedtime so she falls asleep.

Archie’s had several papwalks, a royal debut, a royal christening, and many holidays. No papwalks or holidays for Lili though, just a bunch of artistic black and white photos.

She’s barely 2 years old and already she’s an irrelevant nothingburger.

My prediction: Lili is going to be ten times worse to Harry and Meghan than they ever were to their own families.

Well said and yes I agree.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

I’m sure this would have been mentioned but could they have changed their last name to Sussex so that when Meghan divorces Harry she has the Sussex surname instead of Markle so she keeps the Royal connection?

No. Meghan's surname has legally been Sussex since May 19, 2018.

It's the children who haven't been able to use 'Sussex' as a surname. The "we finally have the same last name" comment is meant to cause outrage in people who don't know what has really been happening or how titles and styles work. It's a 'fuck you' to Charles.

Meghan still gets to keep the title after a divorce. Under the divorce protocols, Meghan becomes Meghan, Duchess of Sussex instead of Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, as she has been known since Megxit*. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex becomes her title for life unless she remarries and takes her new husband's name; however, that is only an assumption. Neither Diana nor Sarah have remarried so we don't actually know where the palace actually stands on this.

*Meghan's full official title is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex but use of the HRH went into abeyance per the terms of the Sandringham Summit/Megxit. The HRHs still belong to her and Harry, they just can't use them. This is why they're fighting so hard for half in/half out - being "in" (even if only part time) lets them use their HRHs again.

Keep reading for how the Sussex title conversation got to where it is today...

A disclaimer first - I'm not an expert by any means on titles. My knowledge on titles comes from the royal books I've read and it is totally possible I may be wrong on any of this.

When Harry was getting married, Queen Elizabeth gave him a new title, The Duke of Sussex, as a wedding gift. This is an important distinction to make - the title was given to Harry only, not to Harry and Meghan. (I see a lot of newer fans/royal watchers making this mistake.) When Meghan married Harry and became his wife, she took The Duchess of Sussex as her new married name (with Duchess being the female equivalent of Duke). Meghan is also able to use Harry's HRH in this way too; she only has HRH because it's Harry's and she assumed it as part of his Duke of Sussex surname.

Royal family protocol is that if you have a title - whether it's your own or courtesy of your husband or father - then that title becomes your surname. Hence Kate calling herself Mrs. Cambridge and George being registered for school as George Cambridge. If you don't have a title, then you use the family's surname, Mountbatten-Windsor.

Princess Anne was the first person to use Mountbatten-Windsor in an official capacity when she signed the marriage register with Mark Phillips. Lady Louise (Edward and Sophie's daughter) is the first person to actually be known with Mountbatten-Windsor as her surname; her actual name is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. And also William used Mountbatten-Windsor as his surname when he sued over Kate's topless photos, which suggests that the titled members of the family may use Mountbatten-Windsor in a personal capacity.

Because Harry and Meghan declined titles for their children, Archie and Lili's surname at birth were Mountbatten-Windsor. So the family was The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, and Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. Even if Harry and Meghan had allowed their children to use their titles from birth, they still all would've had different surnames: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the Earl of Dumbarton, and Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.

But now that Archie and Lili are grandchildren of the monarchy and eligible to use HRH Prince/Princess honorifics (per the 1917 letters patent), Harry and Meghan have changed their minds on allowing Archie and Lili to use titles. So now Archie and Lili can use their own titles (technically Harry's title) and now everyone finally has the same surname under family protocol of using Dad's title as their surname - all four of them are now legally HRH ____ of Sussex, even though the HRHs are in abeyance.

This is where the 'eff you' to Charles comes in: if the BRF had just done a new letters patent for Harry and Meghan's kids when she was pregnant with Archie (as they did for William and Kate) then all of this would have been avoided in the first place. So in Harry and Meghan's eyes, it's the BRF's fault they're weren't a 'real' family until just now when they all began using the Sussex surname.

Other than remarrying after a divorce or Harry's death, the only way Meghan loses Sussex is if the title is removed from Harry - voluntarily, by Parliament, or by Charles. If Harry doesn't have the title, then Meghan can't use the title and neither can the children. If this were to happen, then Harry becomes The Prince Harry ('The' signifying he is the son of the reigning monarch), Meghan becomes The Princess Harry, and I'm not sure what Archie and Lili get.

In this case, I can see Harry and Meghan legally changing their family's surname from Mountbatten-Windsor to Sussex so the family can continue being Sussex without Harry having the title but I can't see anyone taking it away at this point, even if Parliament did change the laws. What's probably more likely is a letters patent from Charles that converts the Sussex title from "Harry and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" to just Harry and only for his lifetime (as Charles awarded Edward the Duke of Edinburgh title).

[thatwritererinoriordan]

Am I crazy or was there a time when the media were praising Harry for bravely approaching the taboo topic of mental health in public? Now that Charles is king, no one is allowed to say that he was an abusive husband to Diana and their screwed-up family dynamics traumatized the young princes? Royals in 2023 shouldn't still be given the power to ban discussion of their faults from the public forum. The U.K. isn't an absolute monarchy under an emperor.

tl;dr: Let Harry admit he has trauma so he can deal with it. Let Archie and Lilibet have a fighting chance at a healthy, functioning family.

Honestly, whatever else you think about the William/Harry drama…Diana would not have approved of this. She absolutely loved and adored her kids.

If Diana were around today she would lose her mind about her kids turning on each other.

No one acknowledges this.

[jerseydeanne]

"They will stick to and they will suck on these Windsor connections, because it suits them financially and it suits them socially –and frankly, without them what have they got?"

[sassyfrassboss]

I'm pretty sure he can. If his great-great uncle can give up a kingdom than he should be able to give up a dukedom.

>>I think the issue though is that Harry has to give up the dukedom before the divorce. Otherwise Meghan can still call herself Duchess of Sussex because that was her legal married name. If Harry gives up the dukedom before the divorce, their surname becomes Mountbatten-Windsor and Meghan has no claim to Sussex.

I’m now thinking about their PR that they were changing their surnames to Spencer. That was a really random piece of PR and hindsight being 20/20, I’m now wondering if they really are (or were) discussing the title for the divorce. Especially since all of Meghan’s solo branding since the Jubilee has been “Meghan” (and particularly for Archetypes) - no title, no HRH, no royal anything. (Which seems contradictory because she makes anyone who refers to her as “Meghan” in their articles or social media change it to Duchess of Sussex”.)

Oh...I didn't think of that.

The Spencer thing was so random but I can see her being "Meghan Spencer" and having "Princess Lilibet Diana Spencer" as her sidekick.

I don't think Harry will give up the title because he will want Archie to have it one day. He can't have William's sons having a Duke title and not his own.

[sashabeauty87]

Reading comprehension is fundamental!!! This doesn’t mean Lili, it’s whoever is the last out of Charles descendants (Will, Harry, and the current grandchildren: George, Charlotte, Louis, Archie and Lili) that is the living survivor out of the 7! This however doesn’t include children born after the declaration (so let’s say Will and Kate or Harry and Meghan have another child and or great-grandchildren are born he/she isn’t included).

Why you and other squaddies are celebrating beats me cause y’all don’t have a clear understanding of what you’re reading. Also, unless any of you have a crystal ball and or some other way to foretell the future you don’t know if Lili will be the last living descendant and she nor does any of them get anything (no money, no shares, etc) so again what are any of you celebrating?

Disney managed to agree this just before those appointed by DeSantis took over

Look at the clause.

Lili is the youngest descendant.

A Disney princess

[flossie9]

JAN MOIR: Princess Lilibet? I thought Harry and Meghan wanted nothing to do with rotten Windsors!

👏👏

[theiconicmeghanmarkle]

Princess Diana's sisters, Lady Jane Fellowes and lady Sarah McCorquodale flew to Montecito for Lilibets christening.