Does King Charles have five grandchildren, or just three? It might seem like an easy question, but you'd be surprised how many people might say “three.” They often only consider Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, entirely overlooking Archie and Lilibet. Out of sight, out of mind.
In fact, there's an anecdote from *The Sun* that perfectly illustrates this. During a royal event in Australia, where King Charles and Queen Camilla were attending a service at a local church, the rector’s wife came prepared with gifts. But she only brought three—intended for George, Charlotte, and Louis. This oversight points to a much larger issue that could affect Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's children, Archie and Lilibet, as they grow older.
Harry and Meghan’s approach has somewhat distanced their children from the rest of the royal family, and this separation might shape the public perception of Archie and Lilibet in the years to come. For instance, while Harry and Meghan have advocated for their children’s titles, it raises a pressing question: will those titles hold value in the future, and will anyone actually care if they are taken away? Increasingly, the answer seems to lean toward “no.”
And a quick thank-you to Ana Lucia Diamonds, who provided me with a new jewelry cleaner that I’ve been testing out. I gave my Tiffany & Co. ring a refreshing polish with it, and it’s come out looking just as sparkly as ever—like having a bit of the legendary Cullinan diamond sparkle on hand! For those who may not know, the Cullinan Diamond is the largest flawless diamond in the world, with an astonishing weight of 530 carats. A piece of it is set in the scepter that’s on display at the Tower of London.
Charles and Louis seem to have formed a strong bond, while the King’s interactions with his other grandchildren are far less visible. We’ve seen several public moments between Charles and Louis, showcasing their connection. However, much of a royal’s public image relies on what they choose to display and the natural interactions that arise from those moments.
What’s particularly interesting about Archie and Lilibet is that we rarely see them interact with their parents. The last significant appearance was Archie’s first birthday video. Since then, we’ve only gotten a handful of pictures and a few clips from their documentary, with minimal footage of the children interacting with Harry and Meghan, let alone their grandfather, Charles.
This lack of visibility raises questions about their approach to privacy. Harry and Meghan have consistently emphasized that it’s crucial for their children to remain out of the public eye, insisting that they are private citizens. They discourage any conversation about their children, asserting that it would be an invasion of privacy. While I agree with the importance of privacy to an extent, this stance becomes complicated when considering their royal status.
Archie and Lilibet are in the line of succession, and they hold the titles of Prince and Princess of Sussex. However, it’s widely believed that Lilibet has never even visited Sussex, and it’s highly likely that Archie hasn’t either. The couple’s decision to keep their children away from the royal spotlight creates a significant disconnect. Many people struggle to perceive Archie and Lilibet as grandchildren of the King because their parents have made such a concerted effort to shield them from the public.
Harry and Meghan’s insistence on maintaining their children’s privacy contradicts their royal titles and the implications that come with them. They claim that Archie and Lilibet deserve recognition and protection due to their royal lineage, but at the same time, they restrict public interaction with them. The disconnect in Harry and Meghan’s public relations strategy is striking. They seem to want their children treated like the children of other royals, like Eugenie and Beatrice, whose children do not hold titles and are kept private.
However, Harry and Meghan demand full-time security for their children in the UK, asserting that they are constitutionally significant, yet they refuse to allow any visibility. Even King Charles has been unable to see his grandchildren, which raises the question: why should the public care? As time goes on, there’s a risk that Archie and Lilibet may be forgotten entirely.
This story about Charles’s grandchildren really highlights how critical public relations are for the royals. Public perception plays an enormous role in shaping a royal’s legacy, and how family members are represented publicly can affect how they’re viewed. For instance, Charles is often seen in affectionate moments with his grandchildren, including the memorable image of Prince Louis sitting on his lap during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee parade—a glimpse into a tender, close bond.
Forget they exist? While this strategy might work for Harry and Meghan in the short term, it will likely have significant long-term consequences for them. First and foremost, I believe Meghan is primarily responsible for the surrogacy rumors surrounding their children. Her and Harry's decision to play games with the public perception has led many to question the existence of Archie and Lilibet. This issue does not fall on the children; rather, it is squarely on Harry and Meghan.
The rumors about surrogacy and the perception of "rent-a-kid" all trace back to their actions. Because of their choices, if people forget about Archie and Lilibet, it’s their own doing. When the public can’t see or hear about the children, why should they care when Harry and Meghan complain that they aren’t receiving recognition? They have set the precedent that these children are largely invisible, leading to a lack of public interest.
I came across a comment suggesting that of course, Archie and Lilibet matter because they are human beings. That’s not the point. The real issue is that, due to Harry and Meghan's actions, the public perceives them as irrelevant. While we discuss them because they are part of a larger story, the average person has no connection to them. In this 24/7 media landscape, if you don’t see someone, it’s difficult to feel a connection. This disconnect poses a significant problem for Harry and Meghan moving forward.
I can envision a scenario where William might grow tired of Harry and Meghan's games and decide to end the situation. The simplest way to do this would be to strip Archie and Lilibet of their place in the line of succession or their titles. This could be justified by requiring that royal children must be raised and educated in the UK. I've advocated for this approach multiple times; it makes sense for children to have a connection to the country they represent.
Right now, the monarchy is facing a dilemma. Although Archie and Lilibet are technically part of the royal family, their connection to their grandfather seems tenuous at best. If they had more opportunities to engage with their royal identity, perhaps that connection would strengthen. However, there is a risk that if the children grow up detached from their royal responsibilities and act out, they could drag the royal family down with them.
Of course, they are just children now, but the monarchy must think long-term. In 10, 15, or even 20 years, will Archie and Lilibet contribute positively to the institution, or will they cause damage? Given their parents, I suspect they may end up causing more trouble than solving it. Therefore, the monarchy might need to address this issue themselves by revising the Letters Patent to clarify the requirements for royal titles, emphasizing the necessity of a connection to the UK.
If a referendum were to arise regarding Archie and Lilibet's titles, there likely wouldn’t be a significant public outcry. Many people might simply shrug and accept the decision, recognizing that the children have not played a role in their lives or the culture.
Harry and Meghan have created this situation for themselves. I'm not suggesting that they should constantly parade their kids around, but when the perception is that the King only has three grandchildren, they need to reconsider their strategy. Most royal children are somewhat visible for a reason: they live privileged lives that are partially funded by taxpayers. While it’s true that Archie and Lilibet are reportedly privately funded, there is an unspoken expectation from the public.
Take Kate, Princess of Wales, for example. She didn’t likely want to step out hours after giving birth, looking exhausted, to greet the public. But she understood that this was part of her role because her children are essential to the monarchy’s future. This public engagement helps to forge a bond between the royals and the public.
We may not see royal children often, but those glimpses allow the public to grow attached to them. This connection matters, especially when difficult times arise, like when Kate faced cancer. When the public sees these children grow up and experience life, they feel a sense of empathy and investment in their well-being.
There’s an unspoken social contract between the royals and the public: the royals receive immense privileges in exchange for giving up some of their privacy. Meghan Markle, however, seemed to overlook this understanding from the start. She wanted to take all the benefits of royalty without reciprocating anything.
Consider how she handled the birth of Archie. Initially, the public wasn’t even informed when she went into labor. Instead, they were told she had gone into labor after she had already given birth. This lack of transparency only deepened the public's skepticism and disconnection.
Some might argue that Harry and Meghan needed to ensure Meghan got home safely after giving birth, and perhaps that's true. However, I think that excuse is a bit of a cop-out. The public had no idea which hospital she was in or who her doctors were. Sure, for a normal celebrity, this level of privacy might make sense. But when you're royal, it’s a different story. Being a royal comes with certain expectations regarding transparency, and while it might feel uncomfortable, that's part of the role. Meghan seemed to struggle with this concept; her desire for control over her image and privacy appeared to deeply disturb her.
As a result, people started to question her motives. This led to existing rumors about surrogacy, which she inadvertently fueled by making such a spectacle of her baby bump. She would often clutch it and adjust her coat to showcase it, making it seem like she was trying hard to prove her pregnancy. This over-performance only led to speculation that she was faking it all and had used a surrogate. While I'm not on the surrogacy bandwagon and have mentioned this before, I understand why those rumors gained traction. Meghan herself intertwined this narrative with her pregnancies, which has cast doubt on the legitimacy of her children in the public's eye.
Beyond the rumors, many have simply forgotten about Archie and Lilibet, partly because Harry and Meghan talk about them only occasionally. When the public hardly sees these kids, why should they care about trivial details, like the length of Lilibet's hair? It feels so bizarre and unnecessary for them to handle things this way. All it's done is give rise to crazy rumors that continue to grow louder over the years. The more they try to hide, the more people think they must be hiding something else.
The issue is that when you start lying about significant events, like when Meghan went into labor, it doesn’t just create a bad impression; it undermines trust. While it may seem like a minor issue, the media and the public were left confused and feeling betrayed when Meghan announced she had already given birth, even though the media was just starting to report on the labor news. This left many feeling like they had been slapped in the face.
Unfortunately, Meghan has tied those negative feelings to her children. She’s done them a disservice under the guise of trying to protect them, claiming it was all for their benefit. Yet, in reality, she has harmed their future relationship with the public. There’s no doubt in my mind that their issues stem solely from their mother’s choices.
Over time, the separation between Harry and Meghan and the rest of the royal family has only widened. Reports indicate that Charles has only seen Archie a handful of times and likely has never met Lilibet. The same goes for William and Kate, who have also had very limited interactions with the children. This detachment is entirely on Harry and Meghan. Meghan seemed to enjoy the games she played, believing it gave her some control, but the outcome has been negative.
As time passes and Archie and Lilibet remain out of the public eye, people will naturally care less about them. If their titles or places in the line of succession were stripped, the public might just shrug it off, with only the most devoted Sussex fans expressing outrage. This is the reality Harry and Meghan have created for their children.
If they want to change this trajectory, they could take some straightforward steps, like returning to the UK and spending time with family. Imagine sharing a photo of Charles with his grandchildren—it could lift spirits and reconnect the family. Unfortunately, Meghan seems to associate royal life with negativity, completely missing the point.
The beauty of being royal is that the public enjoys watching your children grow. You don’t just have a village looking out for your kids; you have an entire country, or even a world, taking interest in their lives. It’s exciting to see royal children grow up and take on new responsibilities, and many other royal families successfully navigate this balance.
Yes, Harry and Meghan's children can still lead mostly private lives. Other royal families manage to allow their children to participate in public events without sacrificing their privacy entirely. For instance, I don’t need to know George’s favorite subject in school, but seeing him and Charlotte occasionally engage in royal duties is delightful. Watching them grow up and transition into adulthood is a shared joy for the public, largely because Kate and William have handled this balance well.
Megan misled the American public during her Oprah interview by suggesting Archie and Lilibet wouldn’t have a similar upbringing to William and Kate’s children. In reality, they could attend school privately without being stalked by the press. Meghan framed everything negatively, claiming they would remain completely private.
Well, Meghan, you got your wish, but that also means being out of sight often leads to being out of mind. I don’t think the public will be clamoring to keep Archie and Lilibet’s titles long-term; they’re simply forgetting them.
