The audacity, the entitlement, the sheer nerve of our favorite California complainers has reached new heights, and I cannot wait to break this all down with you wonderful people who actually understand what’s really going on with the royal family.
King Charles has finally put his foot down in a way that has the Duke and Duchess of Montecito absolutely furious. And honestly, their reaction tells us everything we need to know about their true motivations. This isn’t about family, tradition, or even heritage—it’s about status, money, and their desperate attempts to maintain royal connections while simultaneously trashing the institution at every opportunity.
According to recent reports, while King Charles has agreed to bestow prince and princess titles to Archie and Lilibet—those mysteriously elusive children we rarely see—he has drawn a firm line in the sand regarding the coveted His/Her Royal Highness (HRH) status. That’s right—no HRH titles for the California kids, and it has Harry and Meghan absolutely seething.
Now, before I dive deeper into this fascinating development, let’s take a moment to appreciate the delicious irony here. These are the same people who dramatically stepped back from royal duties, claimed they wanted privacy and freedom from the constraints of royal life, and fled to America to escape the “terrible burden” of being senior royals. Yet, here they are, fighting tooth and nail for royal titles and status for children who are being raised completely outside the royal sphere.
Archie and Lilibet may never set foot on British soil for more than brief visits. They’ll grow up as privileged American kids with zero connection to the duties and responsibilities that come with royal titles. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, isn’t it? They want all the prestige, status, and security benefits of royalty while contributing absolutely nothing to the institution. They want to have their cake and eat it too—or perhaps more accurately, they want to publicly denounce the bakery while demanding free pastries for life.
According to The Sun, this decision came after tense negotiations following Queen Elizabeth’s funeral. Can you imagine? The family is mourning the loss of their beloved matriarch, the nation is in grief, and Harry and Meghan are busy negotiating royal titles and perks. It’s beyond tasteless.
What’s particularly galling is how they’re framing this as a security issue. Let’s be crystal clear: their children, living in a gated community in Montecito, California, surrounded by wealthy neighbors and private security, are in no more danger than any other celebrity children in America—probably less, considering how rarely they’re seen in public. This isn’t about security; it’s about status and marketability.
And then there’s the race card—their favorite trick when they don’t get their way. Meghan notoriously suggested to Oprah that Archie might have been denied titles due to his race, conveniently ignoring the fact that there are clear rules about who gets what titles in the royal family—rules that have existed for decades, long before Meghan was in the picture. These rules have nothing to do with race and everything to do with how the monarchy functions.
Let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture here because this latest drama is just one piece of a much larger pattern that’s been playing out since Meghan first entered royal life.
From the very beginning, there seemed to be a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps willful ignorance—about what being royal actually means. The monarchy isn’t a celebrity platform; it’s not an entertainment brand. It’s a constitutionally significant institution built on service, duty, and tradition. When you marry into the royal family, you’re not joining the cast of a reality show; you’re committing to a life of public service, to putting duty before self, and to supporting the monarch and representing the nation.
Meghan seemed to view it as a stepping stone to global fame—a platform to build her brand and advance her personal agenda. When she realized that royal life meant following protocol, taking a backseat to more senior royals, and focusing on unglamorous duty rather than Hollywood-style celebrity, the shine quickly wore off.
And Harry, who once understood his role perfectly well, allowed himself to be completely divorced from the values and principles that had guided his entire life. The transformation is truly heartbreaking to witness. From a prince who served his country in war, created the Invictus Games out of genuine passion for helping wounded veterans, and had such a natural connection with the public, to this bitter, angry man who betrays family confidences for profit and abandons his relatives during health crises—it’s a tragic fall from grace.
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room that the mainstream media is too afraid to touch: these mysteriously elusive children, whose existence seems to be proven only by occasional strategic partial glimpses and highly controlled photos. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but isn’t it strange how two of the most photographed people in the world have managed to keep their children almost completely hidden from public view?
Compare this to William and Catherine, who regularly share family photos, bring their children to appropriate public events, and understand that as royal children, George, Charlotte, and Louis have a public role to play while still protecting their privacy and allowing them normal childhoods. They strike that perfect balance between privacy and public duty.
Harry and Meghan, on the other hand, use their children as bargaining chips and PR tools. They’re trotted out—or at least mentioned—when convenient for their narrative, then hidden away when it’s time for privacy. They want royal titles and status for children they’re raising entirely outside the royal sphere—children who may never spend significant time in Britain, children who will have no understanding of the duty and service that traditionally accompanies royal status.
Back to this latest title drama: the fact that Harry and Meghan are furious about their children not receiving HRH status tells us everything we need to know about their true priorities. If they genuinely wanted to break free from royal life, if they truly believe the institution was racist and harmful as they’ve claimed, why would they want their children to have titles from that very institution? Why cling to the status symbols of a system they’ve repeatedly criticized?
The answer is simple and transparent: because without those royal connections, they have nothing unique to offer. Strip away the titles, and what remains? A mid-level actress and a man whose only claim to fame is his birth. Their entire brand is built on royal association, even as they tear down the institution that gives that association value.
King Charles has shown remarkable restraint and generosity in agreeing to grant prince and princess titles to Archie and Lilibet, given the way Harry and Meghan have behaved—the Oprah interview, the Netflix series, Harry’s tell-all book. Many people, myself included, thought he should deny them titles altogether. After all, why should children being raised as private American citizens, completely outside the royal sphere, with parents who have repeatedly attacked the monarchy, be granted royal titles at all?
But Charles, showing the kindness and patience that characterizes his reign, offered a reasonable compromise: Archie and Lilibet will be prince and princess, acknowledging their place in the line of succession, but they won’t be HRH because they are not working royals. It’s perfectly logical and consistent with how the monarchy operates.
And yet, Harry and Meghan are furious. They’re pointing to William’s children as a comparison, conveniently ignoring the fact that William’s children are being raised within the royal sphere, are appearing at appropriate royal events, and are being prepared for lives of service to the crown. George, in particular, is being carefully raised to eventually become king; Charlotte and Louis are being raised to support their brother and the institution.
Meanwhile, Archie and Lilibet are being raised in California by parents who have publicly rejected royal life and duties. They will have no connection to the working monarchy, no understanding of service and duty to the crown, no role within the institution. Why on earth would they need or deserve HRH titles?
This isn’t about racism, as Meghan tried to imply to Oprah. It’s about working versus non-working royals. It’s about being part of the institution versus rejecting it. It’s about duty versus celebrity. It’s about service versus self-promotion. The race card is their go-to move whenever they don’t get their way, but it’s wearing increasingly thin.
The British public welcomed Meghan with open arms. Her wedding was a global celebration, with black cultural elements prominently featured and celebrated. The queen broke protocol repeatedly to make her feel welcome. She was given prestigious patronages, immediately invited to events with the monarch before marriage, and offered opportunities most royal brides would dream of.
And how did she repay this extraordinary welcome? By deciding within months that royal duty wasn’t glamorous enough, that the hierarchical nature of the monarchy didn’t give her enough spotlight, and that the British tradition of a stoic upper lip wasn’t compatible with her California therapy-speak and victimhood narrative.
Let’s be clear about what’s really happening here. This isn’t about titles for children, security, or racism. This is about Harry and Meghan trying to maintain their marketability by clinging to royal connections while simultaneously trashing the institution those connections come from. It’s about having the prestige of royalty without any of the responsibility or duty. It’s about monetizing royal status while rejecting royal service.
And King Charles has finally said, “Enough.” He’s drawn a reasonable boundary. Yes, his grandchildren can have prince and princess titles, reflecting their place in the line of succession. But no, they cannot have HRH status when they are being raised completely outside the working monarchy by parents who have rejected royal duties.
It’s the perfect compromise, and the fact that Harry and Meghan are furious about it reveals their true motivations. They don’t want what’s reasonable or appropriate; they want special treatment, exceptions to the rules, the benefits of royal status without any of the responsibilities.
What does the future hold for this fractured family? I wish I could be optimistic about reconciliation, but with each passing year, with each new attack, with each boundary tested and grievance manufactured, that hope grows dimmer. Harry has burned too many bridges, betrayed too many confidences, and missed too many important family moments.
He’s absent during his father’s cancer treatment and his sister-in-law’s recovery from her own cancer. He’s missed the opportunity to be an uncle to George, Charlotte, and Louis during their formative years. He’s thrown away relationships and connections that can never be fully repaired.
And for what? For a California mansion and a Netflix deal? For celebrity status and speaking engagements? For a wife who seems to have completely rewritten his history and reshaped his identity to fit her narrative?
It’s a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare—a prince who had everything and threw it all away, not for love, as the romantic narrative would have it, but for a carefully constructed cage of his own making, with golden bars and a breathtaking view of the California coast—but a cage nonetheless.
King Charles has made the right decision, drawing a reasonable boundary while still acknowledging his grandchildren’s place in the succession. And if Harry and Meghan can’t understand or accept that, it only further confirms how completely they’ve lost their way.
The monarchy will continue without them, as it has for a thousand years, through wars, scandals, abdications, and far greater challenges than the Sussex saga. William and Catherine will continue to demonstrate what modern royalty should look like—relatable yet dignified, accessible yet maintaining appropriate boundaries. King Charles will build his own legacy as a thoughtful, environmentally conscious monarch, bridging tradition and modernity.
And Harry and Meghan? They’ll continue their strange existence in California—not quite royals, not quite celebrities, but somewhere uncomfortably in between, using their titles while complaining about the institution that granted them, talking about privacy while seeking the spotlight, criticizing the royal family while benefiting from their association with it.
It’s an unsustainable position, and the title drama is just the latest crack in a facade that’s increasingly showing signs of strain. Without their royal connections, what do they really have to offer? What unique value do they bring that countless other celebrities don’t? The answer, increasingly, seems to be very little.
As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Do you think King Charles made the right decision? Are you surprised that Harry and Meghan are furious about such a reasonable compromise?
