Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[kalnel]

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.

Just want to clear up a fine point here: The United States doesn't grant its citizens titles, but it does recognize foreign titles. For instance, when President Biden ordered the flags to half-staff last week, he did it in honor of Queen Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth Windsor.

Even informally, if people have titles, they can use them here. Just recently I was filling out a form for an art museum membership that included a check box for "Prince/ss" as a title, along with Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., etc. It's rare, but not unheard of.

The U.S. Constitution prevents states and the federal government from bestowing titles, and it blocks office-holders from accepting them (or other gifts) from foreign princes. But, non-office-holders (like Grace Kelly or Meghan Markle) can hold titles.

There's also an immigration rule that requires people seeking U.S. citizenship to renounce their foreign titles.

So, to recap:
Lilibet: Born in the U.S. to an American mother, she has automatic U.S. citizenship. She keep (and use) her titles.

Archie: He is eligible for U.S. citizenship since he has an American mother who resided in the U.S. for five years before he was born, but he probably wouldn't have received U.S. citizenship automatically since he was born in the UK. He can use his titles now, but if he decides to seek American citizenship in the future, he might have to give them up.

 

[Prinsara]

To the best of my knowledge, Archie does have American citizenship. All Meghan and Harry would have had to do is register the birth with the local American authorities, along with the proof of her being qualified to transmit citizenship.

 

[Sunnystar]

Just want to clear up a fine point here: The United States doesn't grant its citizens titles, but it does recognize foreign titles. For instance, when President Biden ordered the flags to half-staff last week, he did it in honor of Queen Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth Windsor.

Even informally, if people have titles, they can use them here. Just recently I was filling out a form for an art museum membership that included a check box for "Prince/ss" as a title, along with Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., etc. It's rare, but not unheard of.

The U.S. Constitution prevents states and the federal government from bestowing titles, and it blocks office-holders from accepting them (or other gifts) from foreign princes. But, non-office-holders (like Grace Kelly or Meghan Markle) can hold titles.

There's also an immigration rule that requires people seeking U.S. citizenship to renounce their foreign titles.

So, to recap:
Lilibet: Born in the U.S. to an American mother, she has automatic U.S. citizenship. She was born with a title, and she can use it.

Archie: He is qualified for U.S. citizenship since he has an American mother who resided in the U.S. for five years before he was born, but he wouldn't automatically receive citizenship since he was born in the UK. If he decides to seek American citizenship in the future, he might have to give up his titles.

Wrong. Archie is a US citizen - birthright citizenship is automatic to children born overseas who have at least one parent that is a US citizen.

And, technically, neither of them have titles - they merely have a style of address in the UK. The only person in the Sussex family who has a title in his own right, as a peer of the realm, is Harry.

 

[Mbruno]

Just want to clear up a fine point here: The United States doesn't grant its citizens titles, but it does recognize foreign titles. For instance, when President Biden ordered the flags to half-staff last week, he did it in honor of Queen Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth Windsor.

The United States recognizes the titles of a foreign head of state like Queen Elizabeth II, but if you are a U.S. citizen who holds a foreign title (for example, one of a few Americans who hold a British peerage by inheritance or creation), can you use your title on a U.S. passport or other U.S. ID document? I don't know the answer, but I suspect the answer is no, unless you make the title part of your legal name.

 

[kalnel]

The only name lines on the U.S. passport are for surname and given name. Nothing for noble/royal titles -- or senators, representatives, judges, generals, presidents, and so on.

Just because it's not a line on a passport doesn't mean it isn't "recognized."

 

[Prinsara]

The only name lines on the U.S. passport are for surname and given name. Nothing for noble/royal titles -- or senators, representatives, judges, generals, presidents, and so on.

Just because it's not a line on a passport doesn't mean it isn't "recognized."

It doesn't matter. They're not recognized for any legal purposes. It's first name/last name to appear in court or pay your taxes, or get that passport. And if you want to run for public office or be in the military — senator, representative, judge, general, President — you have to give up your title.

 

[Mbruno]

The only name lines on the U.S. passport are for surname and given name. Nothing for noble/royal titles -- or senators, representatives, judges, generals, presidents, and so on.

Just because it's not a line on a passport doesn't mean it isn't "recognized."

A title that is not regulated by the State, is not included in official documents and does not grant you any privilege, right or precedence in public law, or impose any obligation on public authorities, is not "recognized". It is just a designation (like being a member of the Boy Scouts or any private association/organization) that you may use privately (i.e. it is not forbidden or illegal), but does not concern the State.

I guess you and I just have different interpretations of what "recognized" means.

 

[Sister Morphine]

American citizenship is conferred in three ways: jus sanguinis, jus soli, and naturalization. Jus sanguinis means "by right of blood." If you're born to an American citizen mother, you are an American citizen. Jus soli means "by right of soil." If you're born in this country, you are an American citizen. Naturalization of course means you take an exam and fill out a crap-ton of paperwork. Oh, and it costs money too.

Archie was born to an American citizen mother, therefore he is an American citizen. Doesn't matter if he was born in the US, the UK, or on the moon.

 

[Prinsara]

Archie was born to an American citizen mother, therefore he is an American citizen. Doesn't matter if he was born in the US, the UK, or on the moon.

Not really. The American parent has to have resided in the US for five years, two of them after the age of 14, something the original post did correctly mention. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3#footnote-3

In this case, Meghan has.

 

[kalnel]

Not really. The American parent has to have resided in the US for five years after the age of 14, something the original post did correctly mention.

In this case, Meghan has.

I didn't mention the parent residing in the U.S. after age 14, but I did mention the five years.

I was just digging through the State Department and Immigration Services websites to see if I could find some more info to clarify the situation of people born abroad to an American parent (who lived in the U.S. for 5 years after the age of 14).

It's very confusing to read through, but, yes, they DO have citizenship by birth. But they (and/or their American parent) may have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to document the child's status.
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3

Either way, my original statement about Archie's citizenship was incorrect, based on further info.

 

[Prinsara]

Your statement about Lilibet is also incorrect. Since she was born in the US, it doesn't matter if both her parents are Martians; she has it. Her mother's citizenship is irrelevant.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Not really. The American parent has to have resided in the US for five years, two of them after the age of 14, something the original post did correctly mention. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3#footnote-3

In this case, Meghan has.

Yes...I'm aware of that. My point was that Archie is an American citizen, even though he was born outside the U.S. I remember all the racist idiots who still think Pres. Obama was born in Kenya and therefore shouldn't have been President, despite the fact that even if he had been born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen which automatically made him one.

 

[Prinsara]

Yes...I'm aware of that. My point was that Archie is an American citizen, even though he was born outside the U.S. I remember all the racist idiots who still think Pres. Obama was born in Kenya and therefore shouldn't have been President, despite the fact that even if he had been born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen which automatically made him one.

....actually, racist idiots aside, Obama's mother was too young at the time of his birth to have lived in the US for five years after the age of 14 to transmit her citizenship to him, as the law then required, so had he not actually been born in Hawaii, in the US, as was thoroughly proven, there would have been a problem. https://webcache.googleusercontent..../AFUqN02G_story.html&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Now back to the relevant children and their British titles and styling, not their American citizenship.

 

[Mirabel]

Wouldn't Archie and Lilibet have dual citizenship?

 

[Mbruno]

Wouldn't Archie and Lilibet have dual citizenship?

Archie is a British citizen because he was born in the United Kingdom and has at least one parent who is a British citizen or has settled status in the UK (in his case, his father is a British citizen).

Lilibet is a British citizen by descent under UK law since she was born overseas, but has at least one parent (in this case, her father), who is a British citizen other than a citizen by descent.

An interesting caveat though is that if Archie's future children are born in the US, I believe they will still be British citizens by descent, because Archie himself was born in the UK, but Lilibet's children will not acquire British citizenship if they are born outside the UK, since she was born in the US and acquired her British citzenship by descent.

I hope I got it right.

 

[FigTree]

Archie is a British citizen because he was born in the United Kingdom and has at least one parent who is a British citizen or has settled status in the UK (in his case, his father is a British citizen).

Lilibet is a British citizen by descent under UK law since she was born overseas, but has at least one parent (in this case, her father), who is a British citizen other than a citizen by descent.

An interesting caveat though is that if Archie's future children are born in the US, I believe they will still be British citizens by descent, because Archie himself was born in the UK, but Lilibet's children will not acquire British citizenship if they are born outside the UK, since she was born in the US and acquired her British citzenship by descent.

I hope I got it right.

Yes, in British law you are entitled to the citizenship of the place of either of your parents birth. Ironically you are not entitled if you are born in the Uk but your parents are from elsewhere and do not have settled status in the Uk. If that is the case it is then reviewed when you are 18. That is the same in most, if not all, European countries. The only exception is for Irish nationals.

So if Lili children were born in the UK, they could become citizens but not if they were born in US.

In any case Archie and Lili will probably spend little or no time in the UK. With Philip and Elizabeth gone within 18 months of each other the next big thing will be the coronation and they are both too young. After that there is likely to be no big family occasion for years and they don’t seem on holidaying terms with
The family. I have this image of them coming to the UK in their early twenties to find out who their Dad is like one of those brilliant to watch Sunday afternoon Netflix films.

In a ycase watching all the titles at the vigil today. All other grandchildren of a monarch should be Lord and Lady. All other great grandchildren should be titleless.

I appreciate the huge changes since Peter Philips was born in how we now want both a restricted monarchy but to give woman equal footing and Charles should reflect these changes in his own vision. Edward VIII did a lot of good in 9 years. Charles may not have long but he can set the monarchy on a new fit for purpose route.

I appreciate that people, especially from other countries, think it’s fantastical and magical with all these Prince and Princess titles but it’s not. The monarchy is a public service insituation funded by the tax payer and needs to be fit for the place and times it exists in. The British people don’t want loads of a Prince and Princess. George V saw the writing on the wall and changed drastically. Change is necessary for survival. And while everyone adored the Queen, Charles isn’t her and he will need to shape up to keep goodwill.

 

[ACO]

My guess is that Charles will likely will strip Archie and Lili of their Prince an Princess titles and they are just waiting until the funeral is over to announce it.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

My guess is that Charles will likely will strip Archie and Lili of their Prince an Princess titles and they are just waiting until the funeral is over to announce it.

I’m sure of that. It would make sense to do that some weeks after the funeral because everything would have settled down.

 

[kalnel]

Your statement about Lilibet is also incorrect. Since she was born in the US, it doesn't matter if both her parents are Martians; she has it. Her mother's citizenship is irrelevant.

No, my statement about her is correct. She was born in the United States to an American mother. She has citizenship. All those things are true.

 

[Prinsara]

No, my statement about her is correct. She was born in the United States to an American mother. She has citizenship. All those things are true.

And you seem not to want to acknowledge the fact that her mother's citizenship is entirely irrelevant. "Born in the United States, she has American citizenship." That's correct.

Ask Boris Johnson, who was born in New York to two British parents, and realized how American he was when he got stuck with a tax bill and American citizenship he had to renounce.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

James is formally known as Viscount Severn.
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_13.pdf

On legal documents he would be known, following tradition, as "James Alexander Philip Theo Mountbatten-Windsor commonly called Viscount Severn".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For those making predictions, it might be worth noting that, in reaction to Matt Wilkinson's "exclusive" in The Sun, the King's spokesperson denied that title discussions had taken place in the days following the Queen's death (as the report claimed), even though the timing of the discussions is a fairly minor detail. In my eyes, it would be strange if an official spokesperson made the effort to correct a minor detail but failed to correct the headline of the story (Archie and Lilibet being Prince and Princess though without HRH), if the headline were incorrect. Accordingly, my conclusion is that the main point (the children becoming Prince and Princess) is probably accurate, even if the details are not.

 

[FigTree]

For those making predictions, it might be worth noting that, in reaction to Matt Wilkinson's "exclusive" in The Sun, the King's spokesperson denied that title discussions had taken place in the days following the Queen's death (as the report claimed), even though the timing of the discussions is a fairly minor detail. In my eyes, it would be strange if an official spokesperson made the effort to correct a minor detail but failed to correct the headline of the story (Archie and Lilibet being Prince and Princess though without HRH), if the headline were incorrect. Accordingly, my conclusion is that the main point (the children becoming Prince and Princess) is probably accurate, even if the details are not.

They won’t deny a point like that because that gives the answer. In any case Charles has long decided his tack on this. Before Archie and Lili were born probably long before Harry met Meghan. Who the people are is irrelevant, it’s about the institution.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They won’t deny a point like that because that gives the answer.

Perhaps I could have worded it better. If the headlined claim had been wrong, there were phrases that the spokesman could have employed to insinuate that the claim was shaky, without explicitly answering the title question one way or the other (which he, understandably, has said they do not intend to do during the mourning period). For example, he could have used the reply that was given last year to a Daily Mail story which claimed that Archie would not become a prince: "We are not going to speculate [...] or comment on rumours [...]". But he said nothing of the kind about the Sun's "Archie will become a prince" story.

 

[FigTree]

Perhaps I could have worded it better. If the headlined claim had been wrong, there were phrases that the spokesman could have employed to insinuate that the claim was shaky, without explicitly answering the title question one way or the other (which he, understandably, has said they do not intend to do during the mourning period). For example, he could have used the reply that was given last year to a Daily Mail story which claimed that Archie would not become a prince: "We are not going to speculate [...] or comment on rumours [...]". But he said nothing of the kind about the Sun's "Archie will become a prince" story.

I don’t think it says anything. It’s just another way of answering the question by not answering it.

 

[Meee]

For those making predictions, it might be worth noting that, in reaction to Matt Wilkinson's "exclusive" in The Sun, the King's spokesperson denied that title discussions had taken place in the days following the Queen's death (as the report claimed), even though the timing of the discussions is a fairly minor detail. In my eyes, it would be strange if an official spokesperson made the effort to correct a minor detail but failed to correct the headline of the story (Archie and Lilibet being Prince and Princess though without HRH), if the headline were incorrect. Accordingly, my conclusion is that the main point (the children becoming Prince and Princess) is probably accurate, even if the details are not.

It could be another olive branch to Harry and Meghan, as the timing is the main reason for any criticism that they would get currently. He’s shown he’s not prepared to have them criticised for something they haven’t done, regardless of any other differences that may exist between Harry and Meghan and other members of the family. “There will be no comment at this time” would have allowed it to continue.

We can all agree that clarity is needed (so likely there would be a discussion/meeting, even as a courtesy to inform them before the King makes his wish public.) We know that the children are entitled as things stand, but we also know that their grandfather began talking about slimming down long ago.

If he has decided no titles then he absolutely wouldn’t want to give so much as a hint now, or all the ‘children denied because of their race’ would be resurfacing during the mourning period when it’s supposed to be about his late mother and our late Queen.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

I don't want to speak on this topic until whatever announcement or message comes from the Palace itself is released, but I do think that whatever happens, it will leave some surprised. The route the King will take is definitely not clearcut or obvious at the moment.

 

[Lee-Z]

Maybe it would be best to wait for actual anouncements with regards to this topic and possible responses of the ones involved before we react to that?
i think we're still going by the clickbait the media threw at us

who knows we'll be surprised..

 

[Mirabel]

Maybe it would be best to wait for actual anouncements with regards to this topic and possible responses of the ones involved before we react to that?
i think we're still going by the clickbait the media threw at us

who knows we'll be surprised..

Well-said!
What on earth is the rush?
Can't we get through the Queen's funeral before worrying about what titles everyone will or will not have?

 

[Heavs]

I mean this topic has 5 pages in 4 days so clearly it is a topic of interest. Just as we've discussed potential COS changes, the Little Cambridges becoming the Little Waleses and a theoretical new title for Anne. It's just that there's very often a lot of baggage in Sussex threads.

Unlike for example Charles immediately sweeping away any unhelpful speculation about if/when William and Kate were going to become PPOW, this isn't an important topic but it will be interesting to see what happens as it may well set a potential precedent for hypothetical "children of spares" going forward.