Prince Harry’s ‘HRH’ was removed at a Kensington Palace exhibit, he’s ‘demoted’

Two very stupid, petty and small things happened around the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s royal titles and their “placement” within the Windsor klan. For whatever record, Meghan and Harry are in Montecito, enjoying their lives and going to the beach every day. But on Salty White Folk Isle, people cannot help themselves. They just want to be awful and stupidly nasty. For the first story, the background is that Prince William and Prince Harry technically “own” their mother’s wedding gown. Usually, the gown is on display at Althorp, the estate of the Earl Spencer. But the gown is currently on display at Kensington Palace, and of course they had to get stupidly petty with the placards:

Dresses worn by the Princess of Wales went on public display at Kensington Palace last week, with the placard “Lent by HRH the Duke of Cambridge and HRH the Duke of Sussex”. But under the Megxit terms decided with the Queen at the “Sandringham summit” the Sussexes were allowed to keep, but not use, their HRH titles. Notices for the dress display will now be changed to reflect Harry’s new status, The Sunday Times reports.

Harry, 36, and William, 38, donated two of their mother’s dresses to the Royal Style in the Making show. A spokesman for the Royal Collection Trust, said the dresses were “loaned by HRH the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex”.

They added “due to an administrative error, for which the Royal Collection Trust was responsible, the labels were incorrect and will be updated”.

The two dresses on show are Diana’s famous ivory taffeta and lace wedding gown, designed by David and Elizabeth Emanuel.

[From The Sun]

The first placard was right – it should have the HRHs for both Harry and William. Harry’s HRH was not removed, H&M just said “who cares.” But on something formal like a palace exhibit featuring the wedding gown of his mother, Harry’s HRH should be included. And it’s incredible that they’re doing this over an exhibition including Diana’s wedding gown. Diana, who had her HRH removed. Diana, who would be so proud of her younger son for getting out.

Meanwhile, the Royal Family made some special arrangements on their website:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have been demoted on the official Royal Family website since they left their senior roles and moved to the US. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now listed below Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex, as well as the Princess Royal and the Duke of York on the official site.

The Prince of Wales’ growing role as an active heir preparing to ascend to the throne is reflected in his own promotion to the top of the ‘Royal Family’ section on The Queen has been removed and is instead featured higher on the page.

Despite the reshuffle, the website still claims the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be ‘balancing their time’ between the UK and the US. Of the website change, Buckingham Palace told MailOnline it had no comment ‘other than that we refresh the website regularly’.

Elsewhere, the Princess Royal was moved up five places to sit below the Duchess of Cambridge on the website page. And the Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were added to the bottom, just beneath the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.

Under the Duke and Duchess of Sussex the website reads: ‘They are continuing to honour their duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and their patronages. Frogmore Cottage in the UK remains their family home. The Duchess will continue to support a number of charitable causes and organisations which reflect the issues with which she has long been associated including the arts, access to education, support for women and animal welfare.’

[From The Daily Mail]

The fact that H&M have been “demoted” on the Windsors’ site is not some big deal? A little bit surprised that they didn’t do this back in March of this year, when the Sussexes’ “one year review” was over and H&M told Her Maj “service is universal.” I’m not as offended by this as the HRH-placard debacle, honestly.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Source: Read Full Article