Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

Some reporters have stated that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH Prince at the time his grandfather becomes King. Are those reporters simply looking at the letters patent of 1917, or has the Palace itself confirmed that the 1917 letters patent will be followed for the Sussex children, unlike the Wessex children?

 

[Osipi]

As it stands now, when Charles becomes King, his grandchildren all are entitled to HRH Prince/ss. As no "will of the monarch" has been made known to state otherwise, that is what will happen.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Some reporters have stated that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH Prince at the time his grandfather becomes King. Are those reporters simply looking at the letters patent of 1917, or has the Palace itself confirmed that the 1917 letters patent will be followed for the Sussex children, unlike the Wessex children?

As it stands now, when Charles becomes King, his grandchildren all are entitled to HRH Prince/ss. As no "will of the monarch" has been made known to state otherwise, that is what will happen.

Yes, I understand that if Charles became King right at this moment, Archie would become legally HRH Prince. However, as you implied, the will of the monarch can decide otherwise.

Thus, my question was if the reports that Archie will become a Prince are based (only) on the letters patent, or if they are based on explicit confirmation from the Palace that the eventual King Charles does not intend to decide otherwise and he intends the letters patent to be followed.

 

[Osipi]

Yes, I understand that if Charles became King right at this moment, Archie would become legally HRH Prince. However, as you implied, the will of the monarch can decide otherwise.

Thus, my question was if the reports that Archie will become a Prince are based (only) on the letters patent, or if they are based on explicit confirmation from the Palace that the eventual King Charles does not intend to decide otherwise and he intends the letters patent to be followed.

Right now, Charles cannot make "his will known" or decide. Only the monarch can hold that right to make "her will known" in these matters.

The Queen is content so far with the way things are. Nothing would have been announced (even the name of the child) if it didn't have HM's blessing to do so. Until a monarch deems that Archie will not carry the HRH Prince honorific, it stands that he will be once Charles is King. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I understand the point you are making, but in my question I wasn't addressing the legalities. I am asking what, if anything, the Palace has explicitly said to reporters about the baby's eventual title when Charles becomes King.

 

[Osipi]

I understand the point you are making, but in my question I wasn't addressing the legalities. I am asking what, if anything, the Palace has explicitly said to reporters about the baby's eventual title when Charles becomes King.

The palace can't say a thing at all. Charles isn't King yet and thats the point. As far as we know, the whole thing about Charles wanting to "slim down the monarchy" is pure rumor. There is nothing concrete on record of him stating that.

I think what a lot of people seem to remember, like I do, is that there used to be what was called the "Way Ahead" group. The senior members of the BRF sat down with advisors and courtiers and would map out a plan for the future. Its a reason why we have the code name "London Bridge" with the plans intact for when the Queen passes. When Diana died, they used the plan called Operation Tay Bridge, for the Queen Mum, to model Diana's funeral on.

The "Firm" and the BRF take the monarchy seriously and there's a lot that goes on that we never get an inkling of. Its why I believe that there's a lot going on right now under our noses to assure that the transition between reigns happens smoothly. For all we know, the "slimming down of the monarchy" could have had its roots in the 90s and is being slowly executed over time.

Royal reporters really don't know what the inner workings of the monarchy are like. They know what they have been told or get bits a pieces from "leaks".

Of course, I'm no expert but its how I see it. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The palace can't say a thing at all. Charles isn't King yet and thats the point. As far as we know, the whole thing about Charles wanting to "slim down the monarchy" is pure rumor. There is nothing concrete on record of him stating that.

I don't think there is a restriction that forbids the palace from saying anything to reporters before Charles is King, should they wish. After all, the palace at one time made a statement about the future title of the Duchess of Cornwall, even if they have now reneged on that statement.

In this case, it is not clear to me whether or not the palace did say something to the reporters, and thus, I am asking in this forum.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Some reporters have stated that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH Prince at the time his grandfather becomes King. Are those reporters simply looking at the letters patent of 1917, or has the Palace itself confirmed that the 1917 letters patent will be followed for the Sussex children, unlike the Wessex children?

What we do know is that this Sussex child, and presumably any more to follow, aren't following the 1917 Letters Patent already. Under those LPs Archie should be styled as the child of a Duke - as are Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor - at the very least. The fact that he is the child of a Duke and isn't being styled that way is a clear indication of the wishes of Harry and Meghan and I suspect Charles as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if, on the day of his accession, Charles does do three things regarding titles in addition to announcing his own regnal name:

1. confirm Camilla as Queen
2. create William as Prince of Wales so Catherine becomes Princess of Wales
3. announces that Harry's children won't be HRH

 

[Osipi]

I don't think there is a restriction that forbids the palace from saying anything to reporters before Charles is King, should they wish. After all, the palace at one time made a statement about the future title of the Duchess of Cornwall, even if they have now reneged on that statement.

In this case, it is not clear to me whether or not the palace did say something to the reporters, and thus, I am asking in this forum.

The title of Camilla's actually was from Clarence House and not the palace (BP, the Queen). I'm inclined that the palace communications staff and press staff have no official word to make a statement.

After all, the IT did muck it up royally with the email server going down and one report said that Archie was the first son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What I meant was official staff or spokespersons for any member of the royal family.

Looking at the most recent few pages of the thread for the birth, ACO commented there that some of the royal correspondents clarified there was no discussion of the child's future status.

I haven't heard that but I did see Chris Ship and other royal correspondents clarify that no decision on his future HRH status has been discussed. So basically nothing has occurred to prevent him from having it once Charles is king. It is not like the Wessexes in that case though they might make it official when that times comes.

Have any correspondents said or implied that they did receive an official word from palace communications about the child's eventual title?

 

[jacqui24]

Some reporters have stated that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH Prince at the time his grandfather becomes King. Are those reporters simply looking at the letters patent of 1917, or has the Palace itself confirmed that the 1917 letters patent will be followed for the Sussex children, unlike the Wessex children?

Unless an announcement is made while the Queen is still here, Archie will automatically become HRH the minute Charles becomes King. Saying nothing means LP of 1917 is in effect. It'll take a monarch's will to change it, but it doesn't need a monarch's will to follow it. In all likelihood, I expect that it'll still be announced at some point soon after Charles' reign that he will not use HRH.

I was initially puzzled as to why BP wouldn't just announce that. But I think it may have to do with publicly talking about The Queen's future passing, so there might be some taboo there. In the old days, it'll get heads chopped.

 

[Osipi]

What I meant was official staff or spokespersons for any member of the royal family.

Looking at the most recent few pages of the thread for the birth, ACO commented there that some of the royal correspondents clarified there was no discussion of the child's future status.




Have any correspondents said or implied that they did receive an official word from palace communications about the child's eventual title?

Nope.

 

[Mbruno]

What I meant was official staff or spokespersons for any member of the royal family.

Looking at the most recent few pages of the thread for the birth, ACO commented there that some of the royal correspondents clarified there was no discussion of the child's future status.




Have any correspondents said or implied that they did receive an official word from palace communications about the child's eventual title?

It would be rather bipolar to call him Master Archie instead of Lord Dumbarton and then later make him HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. There is no logic to it.

 

[Osipi]

It would be rather bipolar to call him Master Archie instead of Lord Dumbarton and then later make him HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. There is no logic to it.

I agree. I do believe that in the future the decision will be made by either the Queen or Charles as King that, at the request of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, their children will not bear the honorific titles of HRH Prince/ss.

I think the announcement today is a trailer of things to come.

 

[jacqui24]

It would be rather bipolar to call him Master Archie instead of Lord Dumbarton and then later make him HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. There is no logic to it.

While I agree that Archie is unlikely to take up the HRH title, is there any logic to not fix an LP that just keeps getting the same exception?

 

[Osipi]

While I agree that Archie is unlikely to take up the HRH title, is there any logic to not fix an LP that just keeps getting the same exception?

I think it comfuzzles a lot of people right about now. The whole "why" thing. Perhaps the Queen is wise enough to leave things open for the future and allow her son and heir to make the right choices. Perhaps the whole Harry and Meghan thing have blown the monarchy to bits and they're hoping things settle down (you have to admit there's been too much backlash against this couple) and even perhaps there's reasons we're not privy to know at this time.

One thing I can state for certain is this whole situation has probably been a big eye opener for someone not familiar with the monarchy and how titles and styles work within the royal family and the peerage works. Its been a crash course for sure. I was lucky over 10 years ago to have good teachers here. I still thought Diana was actually Princess Diana.

We ask questions and we seek and find out the answers and discuss them. Someone asked me earlier about American coverage in the US here. I have no clue. I've been glued to here for information. Go figure. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What we do know is that this Sussex child, and presumably any more to follow, aren't following the 1917 Letters Patent already. Under those LPs Archie should be styled as the child of a Duke - as are Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor - at the very least. The fact that he is the child of a Duke and isn't being styled that way is a clear indication of the wishes of Harry and Meghan and I suspect Charles as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if, on the day of his accession, Charles does do three things regarding titles in addition to announcing his own regnal name:

1. confirm Camilla as Queen
2. create William as Prince of Wales so Catherine becomes Princess of Wales
3. announces that Harry's children won't be HRH

That is a good point. On the other hand, if the wishes of the future king and the parents are already clear (to themselves), why has there not been a public announcement (or a repeal of the Letters Patent)?

Unless an announcement is made while the Queen is still here, Archie will automatically become HRH the minute Charles becomes King. Saying nothing means LP of 1917 is in effect. It'll take a monarch's will to change it, but it doesn't need a monarch's will to follow it. In all likelihood, I expect that it'll still be announced at some point soon after Charles' reign that he will not use HRH.

I was initially puzzled as to why BP wouldn't just announce that. But I think it may have to do with publicly talking about The Queen's future passing, so there might be some taboo there. In the old days, it'll get heads chopped.

I am aware of the legal circumstances, but as you said, it continues to be possible that a change could be willed by the monarch at a future time. Because the British Royal Family has not consistently followed the 1917 Letters Patent, and the LPs are not even being followed for Archie as of this moment, presumably the palace realizes that conjecture about the child's status in Charles' reign will continue until an announcement is made, regardless of the Letters Patent.

There doesn't seem to be a taboo on discussing titles in the next reign, given the aforesaid announcement (now removed) in regard to Camilla's eventual title as the king's consort.

It would be rather bipolar to call him Master Archie instead of Lord Dumbarton and then later make him HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. There is no logic to it.

Unless one or both of the parents simply dislikes the sound of the Dumbarton title, I suppose, but that would raise the question of why they did not ask the Queen for an alternate earldom at the time of the wedding.

 

[Iluvbertie]

While I agree that Archie is unlikely to take up the HRH title, is there any logic to not fix an LP that just keeps getting the same exception?

I think it is so that there is no pressure on people like Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra to give up the titles. No one wants to do that.

I do think they will issue the LPs - in time - probably after the passing of the last of those born with the HRH in that group. They may even include the stripping of HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie.

The way they are doing it now is simply setting up the scenario whereby in the future it will be the norm that only the children of the heir apparent have HRH and when no one is left who gained HRH under the old LPs they will fix it.

 

[jacqui24]

I think it is so that there is no pressure on people like Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra to give up the titles. No one wants to do that.

I do think they will issue the LPs - in time - probably after the passing of the last of those born with the HRH in that group. They may even include the stripping of HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie.

The way they are doing it now is simply setting up the scenario whereby in the future it will be the norm that only the children of the heir apparent have HRH and when no one is left who gained HRH under the old LPs they will fix it.

I actually think if it's the will of the Queen, no one would pressure them to. At this point, the Queen it seems can do no wrong. And after her decades of service, it's certainly earned respect. It would be much easier if she would just do rather than wait another few decades and so many exceptions would have to be made in the meantime with speculation on it every time.

And you mentioned them talking about Camilla's title under the next reign, that's correct. Which begs another question of why they wouldn't just settle the issue of Harry's children's HRH title completely. If the Queen's wish is needed for Archie not to be Lord, then it is odd that she didn't make it clear it was her wish and just have an announcement from the parents that made it sound like it's their choice. Going back on their word on Camilla's title WILL create drama in a time that's already going to be very busy. With Charles taking away his grandchild's HRH title, that's just another thing the some can use to freak out about at that time.

 

[Osipi]

I actually think if it's the will of the Queen, no one would pressure them to. At this point, the Queen it seems can do no wrong. And after her decades of service, it's certainly earned respect. It would be much easier if she would just do rather than wait another few decades and so many exceptions would have to be made in the meantime with speculation on it every time.

I honestly think its the Queen's will to leave options open and as Archie is only a newborn, she knows she has no clue what the monarchy will be like in 18 years. Maybe even Charles doesn't have a clue what the monarchy will be like in 18 years.

I've been fortunate that I was introduced to a PHC (primitive home computer) in 1982. I'm a senior citizen at 67 years old now and can remember holding a mouse for the first time and manipulating the thing with my fingers. OH! its supposed to roll on a pad. OK. I've run a computer business in Florida that failed in the 90s because it was the land of "I've fallen and can't program my VCR". My husband doesn't use a computer at all except to play Sudoku. I remember laughing and saying "shopping online? Will never happen" and my most famous words that come back to haunt me still "what the hell we need a modem for??"

My point is that we're looking at all of this in the here and now and how it applies to the monarchy here and now. HM, The Queen knows how fast this world is changing and the monarchy will have to adapt to that. That'll be Charles' job and after that, William's and then George's. If anyone has "gone with the flow" of things, its the Queen. ?

 

[Mbruno]

I think it is so that there is no pressure on people like Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra to give up the titles. No one wants to do that.

I do think they will issue the LPs - in time - probably after the passing of the last of those born with the HRH in that group. They may even include the stripping of HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie.

The way they are doing it now is simply setting up the scenario whereby in the future it will be the norm that only the children of the heir apparent have HRH and when no one is left who gained HRH under the old LPs they will fix it.

Why would the Kents or the Gloucesters , or the York princesses for that matter, have to give up their titles ? Any new LPs would not affect previous titles , I suppose, unless there was an explicit provision otherwise. Or am I wrong ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

It would depend on the wording of the new LPs.

If they simply said 'only the children of the heir apparent' will have style and titles of HRH Prince/Princess' then those LPs would strip the existing people who don't fit that criteria of HRH.

They could word it so they could keep it but then the pressure comes because you get why should xxxx who is the child of the 2nd/3rd/4th son of a monarch have HRH and not yyyy who is also the child of the 2nd/3rd/4th son/child of a monarch?

Just because the wording of the LPs doesn't strip others of their titles doesn't mean that there won't be pressure on those who should be unaffected to give up that style of address.

 

[Somebody]

As it stands now, when Charles becomes King, his grandchildren all are entitled to HRH Prince/ss. As no "will of the monarch" has been made known to state otherwise, that is what will happen.

I think the problem is that we don't know whether today's message was 'the will of the monarch' or not. We only found out later that that was the case for Louise and James...

So, some clarification from the palace would be helpful.

 

[Gawin]

It would be rather bipolar to call him Master Archie instead of Lord Dumbarton and then later make him HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. There is no logic to it.

I suppose it's possible Harry & Meghan don't want their oldest child to be treated/styled/etc. any differently than any future children. No courtesy title for the younger sons (and definitely no courtesy title for any daughters) so let's not have Archie use one either. But that doesn't explain why they don't at least call him Lord Archie since all the children can be Lord/Lady.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I actually think if it's the will of the Queen, no one would pressure them to. At this point, the Queen it seems can do no wrong. And after her decades of service, it's certainly earned respect. It would be much easier if she would just do rather than wait another few decades and so many exceptions would have to be made in the meantime with speculation on it every time.

And you mentioned them talking about Camilla's title under the next reign, that's correct. Which begs another question of why they wouldn't just settle the issue of Harry's children's HRH title completely. If the Queen's wish is needed for Archie not to be Lord, then it is odd that she didn't make it clear it was her wish and just have an announcement from the parents that made it sound like it's their choice. Going back on their word on Camilla's title WILL create drama in a time that's already going to be very busy. With Charles taking away his grandchild's HRH title, that's just another thing the some can use to freak out about at that time.

But I think that's part of the issue--the Queen can determine who is or is not an HRH Prince/Princess. And she can give a Royal Dukedom. But once it is given, she doesn't have the power to change the rules of the peerage.

 

[Osipi]

I think the problem is that we don't know whether today's message was 'the will of the monarch' or not. We only found out later that that was the case for Louise and James...

So, some clarification from the palace would be helpful.

With Edward and Sophie, the will of the Queen was made on their wedding day before they had the chance to have a "legally begotten child".

At that time too, Edward and Sophie saw their lives going in a different direction than working for the "Firm"

 

[jacqui24]

I think the problem is that we don't know whether today's message was 'the will of the monarch' or not. We only found out later that that was the case for Louise and James...

So, some clarification from the palace would be helpful.

No, the wording on Wessex announcement was clear the decision was made by Queen with agreement of the parents. The confusion there is that if it means they are just not styled as HRH or not HRH since the Queen didn’t issue and LP. The Palace said the Queen’s wish (decision) was enough.

I guess if anyone is going to issue the announcement, it’s likely to be Charles. If she didn’t intervene today, I don’t think she would in the future.

 

[Osipi]

I think it is so that there is no pressure on people like Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra to give up the titles. No one wants to do that.

I do think they will issue the LPs - in time - probably after the passing of the last of those born with the HRH in that group. They may even include the stripping of HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie.

The way they are doing it now is simply setting up the scenario whereby in the future it will be the norm that only the children of the heir apparent have HRH and when no one is left who gained HRH under the old LPs they will fix it.

Exactly. Everything and every angle will be well thought out with all its repercussions taken into consideration.

It wasn't so long ago that actually some members of the BRF were allowed back into the line of succession because they married a Roman Catholic. That was retroactive. LPs can change a lot of things.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the problem is that we don't know whether today's message was 'the will of the monarch' or not. We only found out later that that was the case for Louise and James...

So, some clarification from the palace would be helpful.

The message on the day of the Wessex wedding stated that the decision was the Queen's.

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.​

At that time too, Edward and Sophie saw their lives going in a different direction than working for the "Firm"

True, however it is worth mentioning that per the then spokeswoman, the decision was based upon the circumstances of the future Wessex children rather than the circumstances of Prince Edward and Sophie:

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding.​

If the Queen's wish is needed for Archie not to be Lord, then it is odd that she didn't make it clear it was her wish and just have an announcement from the parents that made it sound like it's their choice.

But I think that's part of the issue--the Queen can determine who is or is not an HRH Prince/Princess. And she can give a Royal Dukedom. But once it is given, she doesn't have the power to change the rules of the peerage.

I believe the original poster was referring to the rules of the 1917 letters patent, not the rules of the peerage. There would be no confusion if Archie had been born as the son of a non-royal duke in the British peerage, since it is established that following the rules of courtesy titles is not mandatory for the children of normal peers (a number of peers' children have chosen not to use them).

 

[loonytick]

I have a question about how things tend to be these days in the families of non-royal, “normal” peers. If circumstances are such that a young child is eligible to use a courtesy title, how frequently would the child actually be in a situation where they are referred to as “Lady X” or “Viscount Y?” I know there were many eras when, say, household staff would greet all of the children as formally as befit their title, but does that still happen widely today? Or is the title something that is referred to much more often for an adult than a child?