Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[Mbruno]

Right... And so did Archie and Lili the moment Charles ascended to the throne. This is not a discussion of whether or not the Sussex children should or should not become Prince and Princess as they already are – it's a discussion of whether or the titles they're currently fully entitled to use should be either stripped or modified.

Maybe the children will be treated like their parents, who officially kept the HRH style, but agreed not to use it publicly. Archie and Lilibet won't have many opportunities to use their titles and styles if they grow up in America anyway. I can't imagine them enrolling in school in California under the name HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Sussex for example.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I simply argue that if Archie and Lilibet receive the title when the King makes an announcement on the future of titles, nobody should be retrospectively stripped. And if titles are not slimmed down, anyone living who didn’t receive a title because of their Royal parent was female should be entitled. (I don’t expect them to use it, but Meghan has always championed women being empowered and I think it’s important that there is consistency.)

Do correct me if I've completely missed something in the flurry of news this past week but I'm quite positive the only two people who currently face potentially being retroactively stripped of their titles are Archie and Lili.

If Charles wishes to introduce changes that would make princely titles inheritable in the direct line only, he can just as easily do that starting from the next generation. Especially as it seems highly unlikely he will have more grandchildren at this point so he can most likely do it without having to strip anyone of their titles. Alternatively, he can introduce them retroactively. It's not like the likes of Beatrice and Eugenie have much to use their titles for either The idea of pointedly creating new LPs to ensure two of his grandchildren specifically be included in these changes... I can't say I wouldn't feel some type of way about that if I was in H&M's place. Do them all, do none or do it for the future, I say.

As for your final suggestion, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance on the subject of Archie and Lili's titles and while I have no doubt Meghan would agree with you, I think it's a bit rich to think she has any type of say on that matter.

 

[Fem]

I think the decision in this matter was already made, and have been thinking that when the line of succession was updated for the Prince and Princess of Wales (and their children), while Archie and Lilibet stayed as they are.

It's not the 80s anymore. Combining the (lack of) popularity of Meghan and Harry in the UK and the mood in the country, giving them the HRH and titles would be a huuuge mistake. Their parents chose to walk away, they don't get to keep the perks for themselves or for their children.

Besides, why would their parents want titles for them, when being the part of the RF brought them so much pain and misery?

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

The one thing I feel confident of is that whatever is announced, one camp will announce it as a decision made with the blessing of the other.

"The King has agreed in agreement with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex..." or "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, together with King Charles, have decided that..."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"His Majesty has agreed to issue letters patent to confer the prince and princess titles on his two grandchildren — who live with their parents in Montecito, California."​

The part about "issue letters patent" cannot be the case, since the current George V letters patent have already conferred prince and princess titles on them as male-line grandchildren of the monarch. Perhaps the writer meant issuing letters patent to remove the HRH, although I cannot see why that would be necessary either. The January 2020 "family agreement" for the Sussexes not to use their HRHs could simply be extended to their children.

It remains to be seen how much Mr. Wilkinson's exclusive got correct (or not), but there is one scenario under which "issuing [new] letters patent" to confer titles on Archie and Lilibet becomes plausible: The King could choose to replace the 1917 Letters Patent with a 2022 Letters Patent setting out more restrictive general rules, under which children of younger sons would no longer be entitled to be Prince and Princess, but then issue letters patent specially conferring Prince and Princess on the Sussexes' children, to make a personal exception for them. (To be clear, I am not saying that this will happen, only that it is one of the possibilities.)

Existing LPs notwithstanding, I honestly don't see why the children should even have the title of Prince and Princess at this point in their lives. They are a baby and a toddler, aren't the children of the direct heir, are living outside of the UK, and are unlikely to ever serve as working royals. IMO, Charles should follow the Wessex example, leave them as Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet for the time being.

They already are Prince and Princess and became that the moment Charles ascended to the throne. Stripping them of their titles now because they don't live in the UK would be akin to stripping Eugenie of hers since she's moving to Portugal.

It's not like the likes of Beatrice and Eugenie have much to use their titles for either

I must agree with Sionevar that a baby and a toddler who have held purely theoretical titles for a couple of weeks are at a very different point in their lives, titlewise, than 32- and 34-year-old adults who have been addressed and known by the title socially throughout their adult lives. Removing the royal title from Princesses Beatrice or Eugenie would be more analogous to removing it from Prince Harry.

As for your final suggestion, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance on the subject of Archie and Lili's titles and while I have no doubt Meghan would agree with you, I think it's a bit rich to think she has any type of say on that matter.

There have been many instances where Queen Elizabeth II gave her family members a say in title matters: As an example, the decision for Archie and Lilibet not to use their customary courtesy titles during the Queen's reign was officially stated as being the decision of their parents. The comments of the King's spokesman (which I will post in a moment) suggest that the Duchess (and Duke) of Sussex will continue to have a say under King Charles III.

Given that children of dukes and marquesses are styled as lord and ladies and daughters of earl are ladies as well, I am inclined to make sure that children of princes (and princesses - although that would be a change but consistent with the new rules of succession)

In a way, it could be also seen as consistent with the rules of the peerage, since children of peeresses in their own right traditionally enjoy the same courtesy titles as children of male peers.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the decision in this matter was already made, and have been thinking that when the line of succession was updated for the Prince and Princess of Wales (and their children), while Archie and Lilibet stayed as they are.

The King's spokesman explained the lack of update a few days ago:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ted-Master-Miss-updated-succession-order.html

The King's spokesman said the monarch had announced William and Kate's titles as the Prince and Princess of Wales, and expressed his love for Harry and Meghan in his address to the nation on Friday.

'While the website was updated for the Waleses, clearly updating love on a website doesn't quite work so we've not quite done that but clearly he does love them. We will be working through updating the website as and when we get information,' he said on Saturday.​

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19768951/meghan-markle-prince-harrys-children-titles/

Asked whether Archie and Lilibet would take the titles of prince and princess, [the King's spokesman] said: "At the moment, we're focused on the next ten days and as and when we get information, we will update that website."​

More recently, he stated (apparently in answer to the "tense discussions" report) that title discussions and announcements are unlikely to occur before the end of the mourning period on September 26:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ie-Lilibet-not-announced-period-mourning.html

And yesterday [September 14] a spokesman for King Charles said it was ‘unlikely’ that any announcement would be made until at least September 26, when the period of royal mourning ends.

They told the Daily Mail: ‘The King is focused on the mourning period so it is unlikely [any announcement would be made] on other titles during that period.

‘The future is an amazing thing. I am sure that at some point there will be discussion, but not during the royal mourning period.’
​

 

[Fem]

The King's spokesman explained the lack of update a few days ago:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ted-Master-Miss-updated-succession-order.html

The King's spokesman said the monarch had announced William and Kate's titles as the Prince and Princess of Wales, and expressed his love for Harry and Meghan in his address to the nation on Friday.

'While the website was updated for the Waleses, clearly updating love on a website doesn't quite work so we've not quite done that but clearly he does love them. We will be working through updating the website as and when we get information,' he said on Saturday.​

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19768951/meghan-markle-prince-harrys-children-titles/

Asked whether Archie and Lilibet would take the titles of prince and princess, [the King's spokesman] said: "At the moment, we're focused on the next ten days and as and when we get information, we will update that website."​

More recently, he stated (apparently in answer to the "tense discussions" report) that title discussions and announcements are unlikely to occur before the end of the mourning period on September 26:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ie-Lilibet-not-announced-period-mourning.html

And yesterday [September 14] a spokesman for King Charles said it was ‘unlikely’ that any announcement would be made until at least September 26, when the period of royal mourning ends.

They told the Daily Mail: ‘The King is focused on the mourning period so it is unlikely [any announcement would be made] on other titles during that period.

‘The future is an amazing thing. I am sure that at some point there will be discussion, but not during the royal mourning period.’
​

Yes, I saw that. That's also something that makes me think the decision was made in case of Archie and Lilibet - because they were updating the website and didn't do it for them.

If they were following current LPs their titles would be automatic. Prince Charles became HM King Charles III and in that moment we should be talking about HRH Prince Archie/HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex. Just the fact of needing an announcement or a decision in this matter means they are/were not planning on following the current LPs.

And if the reports are true and someone is indeed making a fuss about it, wouldn't be the first time they do so. But giving the Sussex children titles would be a huge mistake, if that was to happen.

 

[Sun Lion]

If Her Majesty was in anyway a buffer, this is a new Reign and Charles wants to build an historic legacy that he won’t allow to be tarnished.

I think he said it in his first speech really, his blueprint for both sons and their families.

 

[Sister Morphine]

As for the Sussex little ones, style them like the children of a non-royal duke. That way they have something, but not what they'd have if their parents were still senior working royals.

 

[Marengo]

This thread is not about the Duke of York and neither is it about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

 

[Mbruno]

As for the Sussex little ones, style them like the children of a non-royal duke. That way they have something, but not what they'd have if their parents were still senior working royals.

They are already styled as children of a duke as their father is a duke. However, their parents said they did not want the children to use those styles.

If Harry is stripped of his dukedom, then Archie is automatically affected too since he is Harry's heir and will be the next Duke of Sussex if he outlives his father.

On the other hand, the only precedent for descendants of the British Royal Family being stripped of peerages was in 1917 and not only did it require an act of Parliament, but also it applied only to German princes who took arms against the United Kingdom in World War I. That is hardly Harry's case.

 

[kalnel]

If there's any announcement about the children's titles -- and it's certainly not the most pressing issue facing Charles -- my guess is that it will be that has Harry and Meghan have stepped out of the life of working royalty, their children will be known as Master and Miss (or Mr. and Ms.) until they reach the age of 18. At that point, they can decide whether to use their titles as working royals.

That would put them on the same footing as Louise and James, and it would acknowledge that they have the right to a title, if they choose to adopt it.

 

[HRHHermione]

Archie and Lilibet: Style and Titles

To me, what’s most important here is that these children are never excluded or made to feel lesser than. In my opinion, nothing the royal family has done would do that. I hope they are always welcomed and that they have the opportunity to get to know their cousins and their heritage.

I also think it’s very much up to their parents and that their parents have to decide what is most important to the well-being of their children. If the Sussex couple want their children to have titles and to be centered as a part of the royal family- not as heirs, but as cousins like Harry and William’s own cousins- then the Sussex couple should move back to the UK and negotiate a return to royal duty.

If they do not wish to do this, and they want their kids raised privately without media attention in the U.S. than they should give up any titles.

Trying to raise any children with a Prince or Princess title in U.S. schools just seems cruel to me. They will always be singled out in a way their peers won’t understand.

 

[Hallo girl]

The decision will have been made, but not announced until after the funeral nothing should distract from the days leading up to HM funeral.

 

[Carin]

As for the Sussex little ones, style them like the children of a non-royal duke. That way they have something, but not what they'd have if their parents were still senior working royals.

They already have that. Harry and Meghan decided not to use the ducal titles for whatever reason.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

To me, what’s most important here is that these children are never excluded or made to feel lesser than. In my opinion, nothing the royal family has done would do that. I hope they are always welcomed and that they have the opportunity to get to know their cousins and their heritage.

I also think it’s very much up to their parents and that their parents have to decide what is most important to the well-being of their children. If the Sussex couple want their children to have titles and to be centered as a part of the royal family- not as heirs, but as cousins like Harry and William’s own cousins- then the Sussex couple should move back to the UK and negotiate a return to royal duty.

If they do not wish to do this, and they want their kids raised privately without media attention in the U.S. than they should give up any titles.

Trying to raise any children with a Prince or Princess title in U.S. schools just seems cruel to me. They will always be singled out in a way their peers won’t understand.

In what way will they be singled out? The late Queen Elizabeth II’s other great-grandchildren from Zara to the York girls children don’t have titles or the style of HRH, even Louise and James who should have had the titles and style, but haven’t accepted it . They will live in America where titles aren’t acknowledged so it would be pointless.

 

[Alison H]

They'll always be singled out to some extent anyway, because they'll be the King's grandchildren whether they're Master and Miss or HRH Prince and HRH Princess.

 

[Mbruno]

T

If they do not wish to do this, and they want their kids raised privately without media attention in the U.S. than they should give up any titles.

Trying to raise any children with a Prince or Princess title in U.S. schools just seems cruel to me. They will always be singled out in a way their peers won’t understand.

Since the titles are not legally recognized in the US or in the state of California, I assume the children simply won't use them there.

Recently a newspaper reporting on a social event in New York cited Princess Madeleine of Sweden as "Madeleine O'Neill". I believe, but cannot confirm that this is also how Madeleine's children are named at school in Florida. Note that, although her children were stripped of the HRH styles by King Carl Gustaf, they are still Prince/Princess and Duke/Duchess of [xxx] in Sweden itself; their personal coat of arms is the Royal Coat of Arms of Sweden with a differenced third quarter displaying the arms of their respective duchies. Yet, they do not use their titles and styles in the United States.

If The Sun's report is accurate, it appears to me that what is being proposed for Harry's children is basically the same that was applied to Madeleine's children, who are also American and are being raised in the US.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

They'll always be singled out to some extent anyway, because they'll be the King's grandchildren whether they're Master and Miss or HRH Prince and HRH Princess.

It really isn’t a big issue IMO. It’s down to perception of the situation. I really don’t get why people want to make it seem like it’s the worst thing in the world.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There is no any problem at all.

Legally Camilla was HRH The Princess of Wales. In practice she was known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall or (when in Scotland) as HRH The Duchess of Rothesay.

Legally Louise is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. In practice - formally- she is known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

Legally James is HRH Prince James of Wessex. In practice - formally- he is known as Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn.

Legally Archie is HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. In practice - formally- , most likely, he will be known as Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton.

Legally Lillibet is HRH Princess Lillibet of Sussex. In practice, - formally-, most likely, she will be known as Lady Lillibet Mountbatten-Windsor.

Legally Katharine is HRH The Duchess of Kent. In practice she was known as Mrs Kent (at the school where she did teach music).

There is just a difference between what someone legally is entitled to and what the preference is in practice. No more, no less. It is not all that heavy or difficult stuff, folks.

 

[Denville]

They'll always be singled out to some extent anyway, because they'll be the King's grandchildren whether they're Master and Miss or HRH Prince and HRH Princess.

If they are in the US, I think using the titles HRH and Prince/ss would be just asking for teasing at school.

 

[Alisa]

There really is no big issue. Lots of royals been educated and have worked here in the US. By convention they have used their family name or some derivative..

For ex. HSH Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein was simply Mr. Max Liechtenstein here in the US. He was educated and worked in the finance sector in NY.

Another example is HRH Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg who was educated here in the USA and was simply Miss Alexandra Nassau.

Personally, I feel the Sussexes kids should be. HRH Prince(ss) of Sussexes. But as they are growing up and are being educated they should remain Mr./Miss X Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Sister Morphine]

If they are in the US, I think using the titles HRH and Prince/ss would be just asking for teasing at school.

You think they'd send their kids to a public (U.S. public) school? Their kids will go to expensive private schools where a lot of the other students are kids of famous people or politicians or what have you. If they get teased for anything, it'll be having red hair, not for having Prince or Princess in front of their names.

 

[Erin9]

At an absolute minimum, I don’t think they should get more than the Wessex kids. At a minimum.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

At an absolute minimum, I don’t think they should get more than the Wessex kids. At a minimum.

They are exactky the same as the Wessex kids.

Like the Wessexes they are grandchildren of a Sovereign.

Like the Wessexes they are princes (princesses) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern-Ireland with the prefix HRH.

But -like the Wessexes- they are not addressed as such.

 

[Mbruno]

You think they'd send their kids to a public (U.S. public) school? Their kids will go to expensive private schools where a lot of the other students are kids of famous people or politicians or what have you. If they get teased for anything, it'll be having red hair, not for having Prince or Princess in front of their names.

Even George and his siblings were formerly George/Charlotte/Louis Cambridge, now Wales, at school. I don't think they are normally addressed at school as HRH Prince/Princess although everybody in the UK obviously knows who they are.

In the olden days, royal princes and princesses did not go to normal schools. They were homeschooled (i.e., educated in the Palace) by private tutors and had little contact with other children. This has now long changed. All the current generation of heirs or monarchs in Europe, and the respective heirs of the latter, were or are being educated in normal schools with other "normal" children (I think Queen Elizabeth II was the last reigning monarch in the continent who had not attended a regular school). Whether it is a public school or an exclusive private school is really unimportant or irrelevant to the discussion in my opinion.

It is not surprising that princes now go to regular schools and, later, university or maybe even graduate school, as those institutions, at least in my opinion, can provide a much broader and higher quality education than private tutors. Moreover, attending regular schools keep royal children more in touch with the real world (or "down to earth") than they otherwise were when they had secluded lives.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Young royal children of today aren’t formally addressed by titles anyways so I don’t understand the fuss. Moreover the children will probably live and stay in a country where titles aren’t recognized. People should stop mentioning equality because that doesn’t mean that a child is less loved whether they have titles or not. The only reason why people are tying the working royals issue to titles is because the public are assuming that some of the extended family are paid for by taxpayers(which isn’t true) and also since the scandals of the 90s, there is a desire for less royals with titles and styles.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Did i say that?

You said kids in school would tease them if they had "HRH Prince/Princess" before their names. Something like that would be more apt to occur at a public school than a private school, which is where Harry and Meghan would most likely choose to send their kids. Since private schools tend to cater to kids from more affluent backgrounds, even if they were titled, they wouldn't stand out as much.

 

[Denville]

You said kids in school would tease them if they had "HRH Prince/Princess" before their names. Something like that would be more apt to occur at a public school than a private school, which is where Harry and Meghan would most likely choose to send their kids. Since private schools tend to cater to kids from more affluent backgrounds, even if they were titled, they wouldn't stand out as much.

of course they will go to private schools. That does not mean that they wont be teased if using royal titles or even Earl of Dumbarton etc.

 

[Heavs]

Believe me teasing/bullying over background, family, finances (among many, many other things) can happen even in the most elite schools to anyone. Look at the culture at Herlufsholm or the fact that Princess Aiko got badly bullied at Japan's most elite school where most of the old aristocracy still go. It's not a reason they should (or shouldn't) have HRH.

Personally I think that being like Lady Louise, Viscount Severn, Zara, Peter or in the generation above - Lady Sarah Chatto is the best of both worlds.

Having the Prince/ss titles really opens you up to public scrutiny and complaining even if you're not a working royal or receiving taxpayer money in any way. I doubt Bea or Eugenie would have received half the stick they did if they were "Lady" even with their parents' scandals.