Camilla's case is different. By marriage, she was entitled to be Princess of Wales, but she chose not to use the title due to the weight of history we all know and the uproar it would have caused. That's why she was known as the Duchess of Cornwall. It had even been announced that, when Charles became King, she would be Princess Consort. As the years passed, public acceptance changed, and she eventually became Queen Consort.
That doesn't demonstrate any "inconsistency": it was a decision about the use of a title in very particular circumstances. Comparing it to the status of the Harkles is simply comparing pears and apples . ๐
And here's the difference with the Harkles: Camilla never stopped working for the Crown. She was the wife of the heir to the throne, she performed official duties, and she simply chose not to use the title of Princess of Wales for the reasons we all know.
Harry and Meghan did the opposite: they voluntarily stepped down as working members of the Royal Family. That's why they relinquished their official roles, patronages, and military appointments, and stopped using HRH. What they retained were their titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
So seeing "Duke and Duchess of Sussex" on a website doesn't mean they are working royals. The title remains; the official duties do not. That's the difference they're overlooking.
Girl with flowers in profile name thinks she knows more about royal history ๐คฃ it was a legitimate comparison btwn how Charles handled it vs QEII public statement in her name on BP letterhead re Mexit on RF website & channels. Sit down.
First, let's clarify who the Lord Chamberlain is. ๐ He's not just any civil servant, nor someone the King can use as a "front." He's the highest-ranking official in the Royal Household. His office is responsible for, among other things, organizing the King's ceremonial duties and public events, and the Lord Chamberlain oversees the overall activities of the Royal Household.
And it was anything but a โsecret letter.โ ๐ It was issued by the Lord Chamberlain, on the King's instructions, and distributed precisely to the authorities who needed to know the official position: the Government, military authorities, Lord Lieutenants, and Harry's own team. Nothing was hidden; quite the contrary, it was communicated through official channels to avoid confusion. Calling it a โsecret letterโ simply because it doesn't bear Charles's personal signature is a rather creative way of trying to portray an official communication as a conspiracy.
@DailyMailAU Charles refuses to remove them
From RF website, allows them to use dukedom titles just like Andrew and Fergie did and couldnโt be bothered to release a public statement in his own name on BP letterhead
@eadgyththeswan@VintageReadShow@RoyalFamily This is photoshopped. Why then did QEII release a public statement in her name on BP letterhead on Mexit released on RF website and social media channels?