Meghan and Harry 6: Everything about this Is Kind of Cringe

[kachuu]

Apparently Harry will be flying solo to the UK again. I have mixed feelings because I wouldn't want to travel with a new born so I understand, but it's also interesting that the article mentions M not wanting Harry to face his family alone again like he did with Philip's funeral & intended to be at the ceremony. However...If you knew when you were due & when the ceremony was & wanted to participate-- what changed? Is there something with the baby that needs more attention or is this hormones after giving birth? ( I can't judge- I think I definitely experienced PP when I gave birth to my son)

But I am disappointed because this would have been a great opportunity for the family to reconcile & meet Lili.

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/meghan-markle-not-traveling-to-england

[viii]

15 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t pretend to know what exactly motivated them to move to California (though I suspect that Harry, at least, was not planning to move to the US initially).  

When they volunteer at a soup kitchen for an afternoon now, Harry and Meghan get a lot of applause for themselves instead of being seen as “just doing the right thing,” as royals.

 

I agree - I think Harry was eager to leave the UK and wanted to live in Canada. I think Meghan always wanted to return home, though, and once Canada refused to pay for their security, it was easy enough for her to convince him that California was the next logical move. And, to be fair, I do think California was the most logical place for them to locate to. Majority of Meghan's support system live in LA, and to agree with your second comment, they're angling hard for humanitarians/celebrities, rather than royals. 

1 hour ago, kachuu said:

Apparently Harry will be flying solo to the UK again. I have mixed feelings because I wouldn't want to travel with a new born so I understand, but it's also interesting that the article mentions M not wanting Harry to face his family alone again like he did with Philip's funeral & intended to be at the ceremony. However...If you knew when you were due & when the ceremony was & wanted to participate-- what changed? Is there something with the baby that needs more attention or is this hormones after giving birth? ( I can't judge- I think I definitely experienced PP when I gave birth to my son)

But I am disappointed because this would have been a great opportunity for the family to reconcile & meet Lili.

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/meghan-markle-not-traveling-to-england

I'm disappointed she's not going - it would have been good for the family and we might have gotten a glimpse of Lili. However, I think the wise decision is Meghan/children not attending. I mean, she gave birth less than a month ago and that's a huge travel undertaking with just a 2 year old and baby, let alone a newborn. Perhaps she had hopes to travel but we don't know what kind of delivery/healing process she's dealing with, we don't know if there's any health issues with Lili, etc. 

With tensions rising, it's probably best that she didn't attend. The focus of the visit should be Harry honoring his mother, and I'm sure if Meghan attended, it would all go sideways. 

That being said, I do hope Harry is able to have a productive conversation with his Grandma while having lunch together - and hopefully Gayle King doesn't tell us all about it. 

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Damn. 48h concentrating on my career and I come back to this. 
I will say, spokespeople pushing against misrepresented private conversations is BIG. This means either the conversations are not private anymore or HMTQ has taken a real interest, reads the papers/internet or wants reports so she can decide when to react or not. 
I said before, I can absolutely see how H&M could feel they “asked” for permission, while the Queen felt she was “informed”. Running around and screaming only your POV is True has bitten them in the back now. They are jumping the gun a lot. Just remember there multiple versions of their exist statement. They should have learned from that. H&Ms problem is that they are so wrapped up in their victim narrative that they have absolutely no regard for the feelings and perspective of others. Adding the massive chip on their shoulder about negative press.
I will say though, I find the topic of the naming of their daughter not exactly the right topic to start pushing back. 

I am not sure the palace is “pushing back” as much as the press is making it out to be. In the end, there is no sign that the Queen objected to the name, only that she may have felt that Harry should have asked ahead of time, not told her after the baby was born.  

Basically Harry seems to have taken it for granted that she would be delighted — just as he seemed to have taken it for granted that he could “step back” and just do what he felt like doing of his royal duties and spend half his time in North America, etc.  One wonders if he is just spoiled or one of those people who can’t see any point of view but their own.  Either way, the Queen may have chosen this moment to make it clear that he should stop taking so much for granted.

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, kachuu said:

Apparently Harry will be flying solo to the UK again. I have mixed feelings because I wouldn't want to travel with a new born so I understand, but it's also interesting that the article mentions M not wanting Harry to face his family alone again like he did with Philip's funeral & intended to be at the ceremony. However...If you knew when you were due & when the ceremony was & wanted to participate-- what changed? Is there something with the baby that needs more attention or is this hormones after giving birth? ( I can't judge- I think I definitely experienced PP when I gave birth to my son)

But I am disappointed because this would have been a great opportunity for the family to reconcile & meet Lili.

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/meghan-markle-not-traveling-to-england

I never thought Meghan was going to make the trip and I was surprised when there were reports that she was planning to.  Aside from the hassle of traveling such a long way with the kids so soon after Lili was born, I would think the trip would be very stressful for all of them because of how everyone is feeling about the Oprah interview and so forth.  Rightly or wrongly, the royals are going to blame Meghan more than Harry, so reconciliation of some sort is more likely without her there.

For my part, I have not been hopeful that the birth of the baby would help reconcile Harry and his family because both sides seem to feel they are the injured party.  

[viii]

25 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

One wonders if he is just spoiled or one of those people who can’t see any point of view but their own.  

I think it's more likely that Harry has just never thought about it. He has had to put very little thought into the majority of his life, most everything has been done for him, clearly to his detriment. He goes on living his life and making decisions he thinks sounds good and expects it all to fall into place because for his entire life, he's had people running around in the background ensuring that things do fall into place. Now he's without those people and is quickly realizing that life is actually hard work. 

[EmCatlyn]

7 minutes ago, viii said:

I think it's more likely that Harry has just never thought about it. He has had to put very little thought into the majority of his life, most everything has been done for him, clearly to his detriment. He goes on living his life and making decisions he thinks sounds good and expects it all to fall into place because for his entire life, he's had people running around in the background ensuring that things do fall into place. Now he's without those people and is quickly realizing that life is actually hard work. 

That’s what I call being spoiled. ?

[QuiverFullofBooks]

It’s easy for hard feelings to happen when someone leaves the BRF. The duke of Windsor was mad that no one came to his wedding - because he didn’t invite them, because everything had always been done for him, and it never occurred to him to arrange it.

Edited June 17, 2021 by QuiverFullofBooks
Riffles

[viii]

12 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

That’s what I call being spoiled. ?

Touché ? 

[Xanariel]

2 hours ago, viii said:

I think it's more likely that Harry has just never thought about it. He has had to put very little thought into the majority of his life, most everything has been done for him, clearly to his detriment. He goes on living his life and making decisions he thinks sounds good and expects it all to fall into place because for his entire life, he's had people running around in the background ensuring that things do fall into place. Now he's without those people and is quickly realizing that life is actually hard work. 

This seems pretty likely. Tbf, probably most of the royals would struggle if taken out of that life. I know a fair few First Ladies have mentioned finding it difficult to adjust when they leave the White House with all the rules and staffing available, and that was only for eight years at most, not their whole life. 

But I think Harry's decision to both completely uproot his lifestyle while pouring petrol over all his bridges seems like it would be pretty emotionally taxing, to say the least. 

In the span of about two years, he's gotten married, had his first kid, fallen out with his brother, left his job, fallen out with his father, moved to a brand new country, dealt with the loss of a wanted pregnancy, spectacularly clashed against the rest of his family in a public interview, lost his grandfather, and had a second child. 

No wonder he seems a little at sea at times. 

[viii]

I have a lot of sympathy for Harry because you're right, he's gone through a lot of things and I don't think his mental wellbeing was that stellar to begin with. 

However, he also causes a lot of the problems for himself, which makes me exasperated with him. 

[just_ordinary]

16 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

It’s easy for hard feelings to happen when someone leaves the BRF. The duke of Windsor was mad that no one came to his wedding - because he didn’t invite them, because everything had always been done for him, and it never occurred to him to arrange it.

To be fair- he could have sent invitations made out of platinum, there was never a chance an important member of the family would have appeared. Even if they wanted to (but who knows, hurt feelings might have prevailed even so).

I was surprised to see headlines claiming M would come. With a newborn I always assumed they didn’t want to put extra stress on themselves. And it’s not as if they would have fallen into a plushy warm family reunion but a frosty and tense situation. Less privacy to work through things but an emotional hyped very public engagement. Of course it would have been nice for a family meet up. But I can totally see why it was probably never really in the cards. I do think it’s sad for H to face the music alone. I wonder if he already has sleepless nights about it. I know, I would. 
The bitchy part of me, thinks that another factor is that she was visibly extremely uncomfortable when she came back after Archie. You could tell she was not feeling her pregnancy pounds. So I don’t think we will see her till she has lost all of them. That part of the natural earth momma picture definitely wasn’t for her. And standing next to your sister in law who just looks like Kate did immediately after birth is most definitely not bringing in flattering comments (yes tabloids and people are THAT mean). That’s not a criticism though. She can do whatever feels best for her. Side note: Kate showed off her after birth bump openly. I guess when everything else almost immediately shrinks back or never even grew much bigger you are just more relaxed in such a public situation. But she when she had her first engagement after pregnancy she had shedded all of it (and she has pretty short maternity leaves 5 weeks/4months/6 months). I will say, as we have traditionally very long maternity leaves (so no exposure to very pregnant women at work and often not after 1 year after), and there was not one woman I knew a bit more closely I was actually surprised how big her bump after birth was. Steep learning curve. 

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

 I do think it’s sad for H to face the music alone. I wonder if he already has sleepless nights about it. I know, I would. 

Sleepless nights or not, I think Harry may find it easier to reconnect with his family on a personal level without Meghan around.  She may give him “courage,” but I bet she also stirs up his grievances.  

Furthermore, no matter what Meghan says about how she and the Queen are buddies, I suspect she isn’t a favorite with Harry’s family.  If she is not there, they may feel more comfortable dealing with him. 

Since there is Zoom for him to chat with Meghan and get her emotional support, going alone might be best for him in the long run.

[Beermeet]

On 6/17/2021 at 9:43 AM, viii said:

I think it's more likely that Harry has just never thought about it. He has had to put very little thought into the majority of his life, most everything has been done for him, clearly to his detriment. He goes on living his life and making decisions he thinks sounds good and expects it all to fall into place because for his entire life, he's had people running around in the background ensuring that things do fall into place. Now he's without those people and is quickly realizing that life is actually hard work. 

The way you excuse Harry and condemn FJ member tabitha is fascinating.  Poor Harry huh?  Nazi outfit wearing, p*ki calling his comrade,  likening fighting in war killing people to video games and he's good at it, known shit behavior and you take kindly to him.  Because poor Meghan?  These two are a joke.  Fake woke bullshit for money. 

Why would Meghan want to go back and be seen as friends with the evil BRF?  Because she needs them, Harry needs them.  She throws around her dutchess title while slamming the RF,  cries racism and suicide but names their daughter after TQ.  

The BRF ain't shit protecting Harry all these years and they are reaping the repercussions. I just don't see how anyone can look at H&M and not see frauds though.  Forget the word salad, their actions speak loudly.  I'm sorry,  I'm not hopping on their faux woke train.  They do not deserve the benefit of doubt,  imo. 

*I didn't mean to come off all " this shouldn't be discussed here."  Of course , there are tons of topics here! I meant not for me.  I think I typed out loud  ?  Carry on, I won't be bugging you all.   Cheers?

[just_ordinary]

On 6/15/2021 at 10:54 AM, Xanariel said:

If it helps, this is a very quick and vague run-down of papers that tend to crop up in royal gossip:

The BBC and The Times (the paper that broke the bullying scandal) are generally reliable in that their sources are all lined up, and they're so high-profile that if the Palace disagrees with what they're saying, they'll generally send out the spokesperson to deny it. If they stay silent or issue a vague "no comment", that's generally pretty telling. 

The Daily Telegraph - generally well-regarded in its reporting, but strongly conservative in its political leanings and general outlook, so very unlikely to ever like the new Harry and his way of doing things. 

The Daily Mail is a right-wing tabloid that isn't very fond of Meghan (and that she's successfully sued) which is why it's always worth being aware of the slant and possible inaccuracies to their stories. That being said, they're a popular newspaper with some well-connected journalists that gets royal scoops more often than you'd think, though sometimes the details are fuzzy - e.g. they accurately reported Harry had yelled at Angela Kelly over a tiara for Meghan, but initially suggested it was about her wanting a tiara with emeralds rather than her wanting to take it out for a hair trial. 

The Guardian is a generally respected paper that is firmly left-wing and has called for a Republic since about 2000. It generally criticises the monarchy, but has shown sympathy to Harry and Meghan, especially regarding the racism she's faced. Doesn't tend to break gossip like the Cambridge/Sussex feud, but more legal and financial matters of the BRF. 

The Sun is another tabloid - very well-known and occasionally gets some bigger royal journalists writing articles, but overall take with a hefty pinch of salt. Infamous for its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster thirty-odd years ago, and has not massively improved since then. 

The Daily Star/Express/Mirror - lots of royal stories, but take with all the salt. The Palace will not generally bother to even acknowledge the stories. Along with the Daily Mail and others, these tabloids were singled out by the Sussexes as papers they would no longer be cooperating with, which did not have much of an impact on their reporting. 

I wonder if, as the Sussexes have been so keen on drawing a line between "mean old BRF" and "cuddly Queen who we love so much" that they would have seen any embellishments on the relationship as flattering to her - she's not like the rest of them, she's a cool granny who's close to the great-grandkids - without registering how badly the whole thing was going down with her. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-william-split-his-household-from-prince-harry-after-meghan-bullying-claims-stw8fm0sh
 

The Times came up with a follow up of the bullying claims. I share Xanariel‘s description of the different newspapers. The Times was also the paper that was about to come out with them stepping back story iirc so they definitely are well informed. The story reads specific enough, so we are probably not talking about „anonymous sources“. I am sure, where they still part of the BRF or the split would have been more amicable those things wouldn’t have seen the light of day. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-william-split-his-household-from-prince-harry-after-meghan-bullying-claims-stw8fm0sh
 

The Times came up with a follow up of the bullying claims. I share Xanariel‘s description of the different newspapers. The Times was also the paper that was about to come out with them stepping back story iirc so they definitely are well informed. The story reads specific enough, so we are probably not talking about „anonymous sources“. I am sure, where they still part of the BRF or the split would have been more amicable those things wouldn’t have seen the light of day. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. 

Thanks for the link.  As I am not a subscriber, I can’t read most of it, but I am always fascinated by different perspectives.   Can you (or someone else who subscribes) give a summary of the main points?  TIA.

[WiseGirl]

Coming to post about The Times article.  It is the current lead story on People.

https://people.com/royals/prince-william-prince-harry-had-fierce-bitter-argument-meghan-markle-bullying-claims/

[Coconut Flan]

44 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

Coming to post about The Times article.  It is the current lead story on People.

Be careful lying about people.  It can get ugly.  

I'm still not sure what Harry has been thinking lately or even if he's thinking.  

[viii]

1 hour ago, WiseGirl said:

Coming to post about The Times article.  It is the current lead story on People.

https://people.com/royals/prince-william-prince-harry-had-fierce-bitter-argument-meghan-markle-bullying-claims/

???

[Xanariel]

It's not technically the Times running their own piece, but rather them describing excerpts from an upcoming book by a historian/biographer Robert Lacey. Awkwardly, he's the historical consultant for Netflix's The Crown which Harry has called more accurate than most of the stories about him in the press. 

Not sure about the whole book and its accuracy as I obviously haven't read it, but some of the juicier claims:

1. Kate was wary of Meghan from the start (doesn't say why) and William believed she neither respected or wanted to be part of the monarchy but already had a prior plan to bounce. 

2. As early as 2017, a senior aide spoke to Harry and Meghan about ill-treating staff, to which Meghan replied "it's not my job to coddle people". Lacey notes that some commentators attributed this to Meghan merely being American in her style of working - but it was the American Jason Knauf who became alarmed by the stories emerging from her staff and collected them to present to the royals. 

3. Harry and Meghan are described as repeatedly "humiliating" staff members and ruling through "fear". Harry screamed down the phone at people, Meghan shouted and demeaned people in meetings and "nothing was ever good enough". Staff were described as feeling sick and some suffering from PTSD.

4. This was passed in a dossier to William, who confronted Harry over the phone. Harry was defensive of Meghan and slammed the phone down. Contrary to press speculation at the time, Harry didn't choose to have a separate household - William decisively pushed for it to happen because he was disgusted by the reports, felt Meghan was at the root and had pulled Harry away from him, and did not want her in a joint household with him any longer. 

Not Lacey, but also juicy - reports in the Mail that Charles is going to issue new Letters Patent to limit titles to William's kids for the sake of reducing the monarchy to more publicly-acceptable numbers. Harry and Meghan found out about this just before they sat down to the interview and it's believed this was what triggered them into burning their bridges in such a public manner.  

Edited June 19, 2021 by Xanariel

[EmCatlyn]

17 hours ago, Xanariel said:

Not Lacey, but also juicy - reports in the Mail that Charles is going to issue new Letters Patent to limit titles to William's kids for the sake of reducing the monarchy to more publicly-acceptable numbers. Harry and Meghan found out about this just before they sat down to the interview and it's believed this was what triggered them into burning their bridges in such a public manner.  

Wait— Charles can’t issue “Letters Patent” until he is king.  Even if the reported plan is true, it is only a plan.  The Queen is still alive.  She could live another three to six years if we go by her mother’s longevity. 

The Sussexes don’t often make sense, but with several years to go before Charles could change things so H & Ms kids don’t become princes/ princesses, why react so quickly? Assuming it was true that they heard this and were angered, the Oprah interview was not the wisest response. ?  There might have been a chance that Charles could be persuaded not to change things— now the odds are he feels especially motivated to do so.

[just_ordinary]

4 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Wait— Charles can’t issue “Letters Patent” until he is king.  Even if the reported plan is true, it is only a plan.  The Queen is still alive.  She could live another three to six years if we go by her mother’s longevity. 

The Sussexes don’t often make sense, but with several years to go before Charles could change things so H & Ms kids don’t become princes/ princesses, why react so quickly? Assuming it was true that they heard this and were angered, the Oprah interview was not the wisest response. ?  There might have been a chance that Charles could be persuaded not to change things— now the odds are he feels especially motivated to do so.

I wonder how it works though. I mean, he could ask HMTQ to issue it for him. I have no idea if she is willing to do so though. She has always been reluctant in that regard. On the other hand, it’s him who has to live with it.  Can she draw it up, and get it issued for a certain date? Going to effect the day before she dies? Can he have it drawn up and issue it the second he is king? He is king the second HMTQ dies but maybe some things require the paperwork to be done? Maybe a quick Letters Parent could go out before the children get the titles? He also could just take the titles away afterwards iirc, but that’s way more work and would be a PR disaster. I am highly fascinated by this details and technicalities. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

I wonder how it works though. I mean, he could ask HMTQ to issue it for him. I have no idea if she is willing to do so though. She has always been reluctant in that regard. On the other hand, it’s him who has to live with it.  Can she draw it up, and get it issued for a certain date? Going to effect the day before she dies? Can he have it drawn up and issue it the second he is king? He is king the second HMTQ dies but maybe some things require the paperwork to be done? Maybe a quick Letters Parent could go out before the children get the titles? He also could just take the titles away afterwards iirc, but that’s way more work and would be a PR disaster. I am highly fascinated by this details and technicalities. 

I think it is possible he would ask the queen to do this.  However, there is no telling if the queen would.  She hasn’t yet, and she has had plenty of time.

Regarding whether Charles as new king could put out a new Letters Patent right after he inherits the throne, I think he probably could.  He would probably tell the family first, and it’s possible that this is what the news item was talking about: that he had notified Harry that even when he (Charles) became king, the Sussex children would not be princes.  ??‍♀️

I think the most interesting revelation from the Oprah interview remains the fact that Harry and Meghan wanted their children to be titled “prince” and “princess.”  You would think since being royal was so horrible for Harry, he would be happy to have his son and daughter free of the institution.

 

[just_ordinary]

It just occurred to me: HMTQ did not include Harry’s future children in the Letters patent when the little Cambridges got their styling. There was no real reason to make all of them P&P or to phrase it that way. They could have gotten rid of male preference primogeniture without making all of them P&P. They could have changed it to the oldest child instead of the eldest living son of the eldest living son. So they specifically made the closest family of the heir P&P - heir and children. It’s safe to say the decision was already made, even then. The grandchildren will not have the title/style if they are not in the direct line. We will see the same with future children of Charlotte and Louis. 
The Letters Patent from 2013 has the titles as a gift from the Queen. I don’t think the way titles are given out are a legislative decision. Charles will simply have to change or replace the Letters Patent from 1917. I would be interested how it reads in full. Because “allowing the title of Prince and Princess to be given to” reads not as “automatically bestowed” upon to me. More like the sovereign can choose to hand the titles out to the already living children but doesn’t actually have to. But as it is not quoting the real source this could be just misleading. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Xanariel]

The very interesting thing is that, while Buckingham Palace has refused to comment on the story in the Daily Mail, the DM itself quoted a royal source stating that "we are not going to speculate on the succession or comment on the rumours coming out of America" - implying that whoever the source is (not likely to be the royals themselves) thinks it was someone from Camp Sussex who leaked the story. But I'm not sure I believe that Meghan and Harry would have approved going to the DM - they hate it. 

Lacey has commented on the story to say that he doesn't think Charles would change the titles as king because he'd be mindful of making unpopular decisions. Thing is, I don't think the decision would be unpopular. There's not enough strong feeling for the Sussexes in the UK for people to make a fuss about their kids getting a give-second-old title stripped from them, especially when those kids are thoroughly American. 

Another new extract from Lacey's book published in the Times - he says that the conversation about their kids' skin colour happened prior to their engagement and it wasn't asking about how dark they would be, just a general speculation about what any babies might look like (doesn't say who it was). He says that there were no conversations had with Harry or Meghan on the topic when Meghan was pregnant with Archie and actually states that Meghan lied about this in the interview - "she made that up - although that is not to say that it did not matter". 

He also says that he believes Meghan was given an inaccurate view of modern royalty by living in Kensington Palace among the Queen's elderly cousins, who still get perks such as living in historical apartments and some of whom carry out duties for the Queen in exchange for a stipend. He suggests that that Sussexes thought that this could be an option for Archie going forward and also give justification for taxpayer-funded security, without realising the simple fact that security is contingent on the royal in question carrying out royal work, and going off to America would forfeit that security regardless of whether Archie was titled or not. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Xanariel

[EmCatlyn]

15 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

It just occurred to me: HMTQ did not include Harry’s future children in the Letters patent when the little Cambridges got their styling. There was no real reason to make all of them P&P or to phrase it that way. They could have gotten rid of male preference primogeniture without making all of them P&P. They could have changed it to the oldest child instead of the eldest living son of the eldest living son. So they specifically made the closest family of the heir P&P - heir and children. It’s safe to say the decision was already made, even then. The grandchildren will not have the title/style if they are not in the direct line. We will see the same with future children of Charlotte and Louis. 
The Letters Patent from 2013 has the titles as a gift from the Queen. I don’t think the way titles are given out are a legislative decision. Charles will simply have to change or replace the Letters Patent from 1917. I would be interested how it reads in full. Because “allowing the title of Prince and Princess to be given to” reads not as “automatically bestowed” upon to me. More like the sovereign can choose to hand the titles out to the already living children but doesn’t actually have to. But as it is not quoting the real source this could be just misleading. 

I am not sure that not including any future children of an as then unmarried Harry in the 2013 Letters Patent says anything about future plans about titles for those children.

The decision to give all the children of the heir the title of prince/princess, instead of restricting it to the eldest son as the 1917 Letters Patent outlined, ensured that all the siblings should be princes and princesses.  It was not just about making sure an eldest daughter (who could fall ahead of a brother in the new line of succession) got a title. I think it was to make the children a bit more “equal” with each other while they were growing up.

The children of the “spare” would not have to deal with one of them being a prince/princess and the others not, so it may well have been assumed that they could wait and get their titles when Charles became king and they qualified as grandchildren of the monarch.

This isn’t to say that there may not have been a plan already not to give Harry’s eventual children the title of prince/princess even after Charles became king, but I wouldn’t take the absence of mention of them in the 2013 Letters Patent as a sign that it had already been decided they wouldn’t get the Prince/princess title because there is another good explanation (IMO.)

However, I also think that it seems very odd that the Queen and Charles had decided in 2013 that Harry’s kids would not be princes or princesses, but not told Harry.  I mean, that’s precisely the sort of thing (titles, lines of descent, social position) that these sorts of people talk to each other about.  Harry may not have known where his money came from, but he would surely have been told what his hypothetical children’s position would be.