Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[FigTree]

I don't get the feeling from H&M that it matters to them to keep the connection with the RF intact (if they are, they are going about in a very peculiar way), but i will change my mind if the content of podcasts, interviews and books will drastically change over the next time.

if i were K.Charles, i wouldn't change anything concerning to the Sussexes, no stripping of titles, letting them keep the titles and styles they have now due to the Letters patent in 1917.
But make a very clear statement in general that taxpayers money and organised security are only given to working royals, this is no surprise nor change to any of the other family members.

Then in private have a business meeting with the Sussexes (not just an informal chat), to make them understand when and in what situation security and money is giving to them and when they have to arrange it themselves, and make them very clear (and have them sign something to confirm their understanding) that these are not related to whatever titles they may have.

...and for any public complaints H&M will come up with in the future stick with "recollections may vary" and "are house is always open to discuss the matter in private"

Their links to the royals is all they really have to make money. Ether that extends to wanting the children to have titles is another thing.

Harry and Meghan should get on with living amd any child’s title is really beside the point as would say.

 

[muriel]

I would think that what matters most is keeping the King’s family intact.

If making what is the right decision for The Firm going to impact whether the family remains intact, you know there are real problems in the family!

It is very clear H&M have made it their life's mission to be aggrieved, so it almost does not matter what Charles does. The sulking and negative commentary from H&M is unlikely to stop in a hurry.

 

[muriel]

Here is my take on the matter of titles. Whilst the Sussex kids may well be HRH under the 1917 Letters Patent now that Chares is King, it was announced at the time of Archie's birth that he would be known as Archie M-W. That position remains, and the same applies to Lili.

They may have the HRH titles, but they continue to be styled as Master and Miss M-W. Unless expressly stated so, that remains the will of the monarch, who remains the font of all honour. That the RF family does not indicate titles of Prince and Princess for Archie and Lili merely confirms this.

 

[Heavs]

I don't get the feeling from H&M that it matters to them to keep the connection with the RF intact (if they are, they are going about in a very peculiar way), but i will change my mind if the content of podcasts, interviews and books will drastically change over the next time.

if i were K.Charles, i wouldn't change anything concerning to the Sussexes, no stripping of titles, letting them keep the titles and styles they have now due to the Letters patent in 1917.
But make a very clear statement in general that taxpayers money and organised security are only given to working royals, this is no surprise nor change to any of the other family members.

Then in private have a business meeting with the Sussexes (not just an informal chat), to make them understand when and in what situation security and money is giving to them and when they have to arrange it themselves, and make them very clear (and have them sign something to confirm their understanding) that these are not related to whatever titles they may have.

...and for any public complaints H&M will come up with in the future stick with "recollections may vary" and "are house is always open to discuss the matter in private"

I think the Sussexes care a lot about "keeping the connecting intact". In so such as they need to be seen to be real royalty to make money. This is what a lot of their continuing complaints about not getting "half in, half out" where about. And it's clear that they both value titles and styles very much hence DOS being splashed everywhere on books, Better Up and even letters to congress. And that they value royal titles for their kids hence their wrong allegations that Archie "needed" HRH to get security to protect him. There's also a lot about the BRF that they want nothing to do with but they love certain aspects.

I'm not sure that they actually want much to do with the family themselves. But even then Harry has publicly said and via known mouth pieces that he was upset with the family's cool treatment of him after Oprah so who knows what they're thinking about that.

I think if having private meetings to explain the situation to them would have worked then they wouldn't be in this situation. I think they have tried explaining things, especially at the Sandringham Summit and it simply hasn't worked for whatever reason.

If I were Charles I probably wouldn't issue LPs taking titles away (assuming that he needed to) but simply go on as they already have using Master/Miss or their names when referring to them.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Usually when a Sovereign adapts "the rules" it is not retroactive.
This out of respect for decisions by earlier Sovereigns, out of courtesy and benevolence to the persons to which new rules have effect.

An example is in the Netherlands where a whole batch of the royal family has left the Royal House conform current legal frameworks but were not stripped of titulature which they were entitled to because of earlier decisions made by earlier Sovereigns.

King Charles III can issue a new Letters of Patent modernizing the one by King George V, with the stipulation that it respects current titulature based on earlier Letters of Patent. It is most unlikely that the children of the Duke of Sussex will loose their right on being a Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern-Ireland. But it is unlikely that future grandchildren to a Sovereign, not born by his direct heir, will still become Prince(ss).

 

[Alison H]

Here is my take on the matter of titles. Whilst the Sussex kids may well be HRH under the 1917 Letters Patent now that Charles is King, it was announced at the time of Archie's birth that he would be known as Archie M-W. That position remains, and the same applies to Lili.

They may have the HRH titles, but they continue to be styled as Master and Miss M-W. Unless expressly stated so, that remains the will of the monarch, who remains the font of all honour. That the RF family does not indicate titles of Prince and Princess for Archie and Lili merely confirms this.

That's a very good point. At the time of Archie's birth, they kept things low key by only giving him two names rather than three or four, and said that he would be plain Master. If they wanted titles, they could have said that he would, as expected, be known as the Earl of Dumbarton.

 

[Denville]

I would imagine that Charles is just leaving htings as they are, by not updating the website. The couple chose to uses master and Miss as titles for the children so by rights one would expect that they hardly want the children to be known as Prince and Princess.

 

[Mirabel]

I would imagine that Charles is just leaving htings as they are, by not updating the website. The couple chose to uses master and Miss as titles for the children so by rights one would expect that they hardly want the children to be known as Prince and Princess.

That's what I thought too.
Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

HRH is a STYLE not a title which is why I said Archie could pass on his titles while I said the others couldn't pass on their styles.

HRH is both a title and a style. See the the 1917 Letters Patent:

Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour [...]​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is one practical difference though: Beatrice and Eugenie have been HRHs for 34 and 32 years respectively; Archie and Lilibet are respectively a 3-year-old boy and a 15-month-old girl who have been HRHs for 15 days.

Precisely. The difference between stripping adults nearing middle age of a title which has been part of their social identity throughout their lives (I am referring more to the 'Princess' than the 'HRH'), and stripping an infant and toddler of a title they have never used, are unaware of, and have only theoretically held for a few weeks is self-evident to me.

It also seems to be self-evident to other European monarchs and governments, as they have all left the titles of adult members as they were, even as they deprived new generations of children of their "birthright" titles:

Spain: The 1987 royal decree stripped the HRH from the future children of Infantas Elena and Cristina (unlike other European monarchies, Spanish royal women traditionally passed on their HRH to their children when the marriage was dynastic and the husband was born or naturalized a Spanish subject), but permitted existing recognized HRHs (the Duke of Cádiz, the Princesses of the House of Borbón, etc.) to remain HRH.

The Netherlands: The 2001 royal decree denied all royal titles to the future children of Princes Constantijn and Johan Friso, but the children of Princess Margriet were permitted to remain HH Princes of Orange-Nassau.

Luxembourg: The 1995 royal decree took away the title Prince or Princess of Luxembourg from the future children of Prince Guillaume, but the children of Prince Robert retained it.

Note also that, as has been debated over and over in the discussions about the Wessex children's titles, some experts contend that the Sovereign's will legally supersedes any letters patent, and from that point of view, Archie and Lilibet might never have been Prince and Princess after all, if that is what Charles willed at the moment of his accession.

Since no public money is expended on children with those titles, why should anyone care?
Or is it just malice toward their parents?

Instead, stripping Archie and Lili of their titles now seems very pointedly directed at the Sussexes as presumably they're the only ones who will be directly affected (unless Charles intends to introduce major changes that'll strip everyone not in the direct line of their titles retrospectively, which I very much doubt he would). In that case, I think if I were Harry and Meghan, I too would wonder what makes my kids different from, say, the York princesses who are in the same situation (neither parent nor themselves working royals) but don't have their titles stripped ?

I disagree.
If the late Queen did it without stripping the York girls', the Gloucesters, and the Kents' HRH Prince(sses) title, then it would still can be seen as it was aimed only to the Sussexes since they'd be the only one affected.

As far as the public goes, the concern that a change which immediately affects only one couple's children would seem maliciously and pointedly directed at them doesn't seem to be borne out in the reactions to previous title reforms.

Prince Constantijn's children in the Netherlands, Prince Guillaume's children in Luxembourg, and Prince Sverre Magnus in Norway are or were for a time the only persons affected by the stripping down of titles in those monarchies. But if the discussions on TRF are any indication, very few people wonder about what made Constantijn's children different from Margriet's children, Guillaume's children different from Robert's children, or Sverre Magnus different from Märtha Louise (who kept her HRH until she began working). There don't appear to have been any accusations of pointed malice towards Constantijn and Laurentien, Guillaume and Sibilla, or Sverre Magnus or his parents.

(I am aware that those children did not have a two-week period of being technical HRHs under a letters patent, but that is separate from the argument I am addressing.)

 

[Toledo]

I disagree.
If the late Queen did it without stripping the York girls', the Gloucesters, and the Kents' HRH Prince(sses) title, then it would still can be seen as it was aimed only to the Sussexes since they'd be the only one affected.

It's lose-lose situation for the BRF and I think the best approach is what's they doing now: ignoring it, and prevarication, no title change on the royal website and no statement/LP revoking or confirming their titles. It would also put the Sussexes in the tough spot, what with Harry's "just call me Harry" and his distaste of being royal (by his own admission) and Meghan's "linked and not ranked" but then again if they start "advertising" their children as Prince and Princess, it would not be their first hypocrisy.

I think you hit the nail on the head on that one. In this era predicted by Andy Warhol's "everyone will have 15 minutes of fame" a big factor within celebrities is the ability to monetize their antics. Archie's name is already on Archetypes and the Archwell products. Add in an official title from Grand Papa Charles III and here in the USA the tabloids will explode out of their supermarket racks with it on the cover.

This is a decision for the UK and the King if they want to have non-working Royals living overseas, and loose lips during TV interviews, at equal ranking as working Royals like the Princess Royal, the new Princes of Wales, etc. Let these kids just born the other day be kids and not pressured to have their name into marketing* products unless they have a say on it after they turn 18.

*While typing I opened another search window and found out Lilibet Diana's domains were purchased prior her birth. Smart move but foreshadows what would happen next. So, I'm taking now the side of fine with the Prince/Princess prior the name and no HRH, but not now. The focus should be on Charles III as how he starts his reign to update the Monarchy, and not drag the King into the California drama that seems fueled by tabloids.
And let the kids, Archie and Lilibeth, be without pressure of being celebrities before they can even walk. Sorry if I'm too frank about it but King Charles has higher priorities to tackle now within the Commonwealth to be distracted away by Montecito.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I disagree.
If the late Queen did it without stripping the York girls', the Gloucesters, and the Kents' HRH Prince(sses) title, then it would still can be seen as it was aimed only to the Sussexes since they'd be the only one affected.

It's lose-lose situation for the BRF (...)

No, in that case the Sussex kids would be affected in much the same way that potential future kids of Louis would be affected: Once their respective grandfather ascend(ed) to the throne, they'd never receive any princely titles to begin with.

But since the matter wasn't dealt with before QEII died, Archie and Lili have been legally entitled to use their princely titles since 8 September 2022 which changes the situation completely. Whether you think it's a good or a bad idea to take away their titles, there's no denying that implementing changes that retroactively strip the Sussex kids specifically of the titles they now legally hold, will only directly affect the Sussex kids.

Charles has never hidden the fact that he wants to slim down the monarchy and I think that's a very solid idea but I also think the manner in which he does it matters. As I said, if I was the parent of two children who were the only ones to potentially have their titles taken away retroactively (in spite of having two cousins in the exact same position who'd be permitted to retain their titles), I too would feel some type of way about it. Certainly I'd think H&M would be entitled to question why only their children need to have their titles stripped when the matter very easily could've been resolved preemptively by ensuring they never would've been entitled to those titles in the first place.

The York girls received their HRH titles due to their father being a son of the Queen, and Archie and Lili have just currently become grandchildren of the current monarch. The York girls didn’t receive or need to receive titles from Charles to become or receive HRH titles and styles. Moreover the Sussex children don’t live in the U.K and will have no need for the titles.

The Sussex kids too received their titles du to their father being a son of the monarch. Eugenie doesn't live in the UK. Neither Beatrice nor Eugenie are working royals so they do not have any "need" for their titles. I don't understand the point you're attempting (and failing) to make? The only difference between the two pair of siblings is that the Yorks have held their titles for much longer than the Sussexes.

 

[Erin9]

That's what I thought too.

Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all.

Agreed. I like that they just left things with the Sussexes as is on the website.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Re the kids' titles - I'm confused with what I read. My understanding was they asked the Queen not to give their first child, Archie, a title so he won't have the pressure associated with it from the press. But, does this request also applies to his sister?

No reason was officially announced for the Duke and Duchess's decision not to accord any of the available traditional courtesy titles (Earl of Dumbarton, Lord Kilkeel, Lord Mountbatten-Windsor) to their son at the time of his birth. The statement released by the palace in 2019 simply read:

“While there are courtesy titles that Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could apply to their son, they have chosen not to give him a “courtesy title” at this time. So he will be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.”​

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html

There was no statement from either the palace or the parents on the courtesy title issue when Lilibet was born, as far as I recall.

Indeed, I don’t envy Charles this decision. It’s a shame that he didn’t have a third child like the now Waleses. Whatever is changed in the future Louis won’t feel singled out by it because it will also apply to Charlotte’s children.

If the change is made in their generation, then Louis's children will be the only ones affected. Under the current system, women (other than a queen regnant) are already denied the right to pass HRH and Princess titles to their children.

Parliament can only take away titles of nobility, but they have never done so except in cases of treason. the monarch is the only one who can take away an HRH.

My understanding is that the unwritten constitutional convention binds the monarch to follow the advice of the government, thereby allowing Parliament to overrule the will of the King on any matter, in theory.

In reality, of course, there is no chance of Parliament interfering with the titles (even peerages) of the royal family at any point in the foreseeable future.

Certainly I'd think H&M would be entitled to question why only their children need to have their titles stripped when the matter very easily could've been resolved preemptively by ensuring they never would've been entitled to those titles in the first place.

If the unconfirmed comments of Robert Lacey can be believed, it was not resolved preemptively because Elizabeth II wanted to preserve the children's future royal status. If what Mr. Lacey says is the truth, then Charles was powerless to take preemptive action, as the Prince of Wales could not overrule the reigning Queen.

BP has been asked this and their answer was that no new info would be provided until after the official mourning period ends. That ends on Monday, so we shall see if they will continue to stall when the press asks, because they will.

I didn't know that.

See the palace's earlier statements here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...bet-style-and-titles-49576-2.html#post2492091

 

[Sunnystar]

Honestly, if Beatrice & Eugenie are fine with losing the HRH and being styled as the daughters of a duke, then Charles COULD issue an LP that strips the HRH Prince/Princess style & title from all descendants of Elizabeth II. We don't really know how they feel about it - just that their dad lobbied hard for them, especially Beatrice, to become working royals. So, it stands to reason that Andrew might be miffed if his daughters lost their HRH Princess style & title, but that doesn't mean his daughters actually agree.

And, this whole idea that stripping two toddlers of a style & title they've had for less than 3 weeks is somehow more wrong than QEII issuing an LP that made would have prevented them from ever getting the style/title in the first place once she died is sort of laughable. Their parents already made a stink about it 18 months ago, so whatever Charles does now isn't going to change the spin that Meghan and Harry are going to put on it, and it won't change the British public's opinion of, or support for, him as their King.

There absolutely is a path for Charles to take, if he wants to strip them of the HRH Prince/Princess style. I suppose it remains to be seen what he does, but I won't be surprised if something happens sooner rather than later.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Honestly, if Beatrice & Eugenie are fine with losing the HRH and being styled as the daughters of a duke, then Charles COULD issue an LP that strips the HRH Prince/Princess style & title from all descendants of Elizabeth II. We don't really know how they feel about it - just that their dad lobbied hard for them, especially Beatrice, to become working royals. So, it stands to reason that Andrew might be miffed if his daughters lost their HRH Princess style & title, but that doesn't mean his daughters actually agree.

And, this whole idea that stripping two toddlers of a style & title they've had for less than 3 weeks is somehow more wrong than QEII issuing an LP that made would have prevented them from ever getting the style/title in the first place once she died is sort of laughable. Their parents already made a stink about it 18 months ago, so whatever Charles does now isn't going to change the spin that Meghan and Harry are going to put on it, and it won't change the British public's opinion of, or support for, him as their King.

There absolutely is a path for Charles to take, if he wants to strip them of the HRH Prince/Princess style. I suppose it remains to be seen what he does, but I won't be surprised if something happens sooner rather than later.

Thank you, Sunnystar. This has baffled me during this whole discussion.

Yes, technically, the Sussex children would be stripped of their HRHs. But the term "stripped of" has heavy connotations. It is used all but exclusively with a negative connotation when the person to whom it is applied has done something deserving of having some achievement or honor taken away, like Lance Armstrong being stripped of his Tour de France titles or Andrew being stripped of his military appointments. The connotation is that Charles is doing something shameful to these two innocent children. We are adding a lot of emotional baggage to this conversation that just isn't there.

The reality is that Charles will simply be removing the HRH (if he does so) from two children who have no idea what it means, have never used it, have two parents who don't use it, and live somewhere where it has no practical application.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

You make a good point, thank you. (For those just joining the discussion, we were discussing this article: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19810592/harry-meghan-archie-lilibet-hrh-status/)

There are however other reasons why I find Mr. Wilkinson's claim that Archie and Lilibet will be Prince and Princess without the HRH to be believable.

To begin with, the details are original. Before the publication of the article, only a small minority of royal watchers suggested the children would be Prince and Princess but not HRH; most assumed it was a binary decision between HRH Prince/ss of Sussex and remaining free of royal titles. Moreover, I have read a great deal of speculation about the Sussex children's future titles, and Mr. Wilkinson's article is the first and only place where I have seen the suggestion that King Charles will issue letters patent to confer (not strip) royal titles for the Sussex children. Clearly, the article is not just borrowing from other media or royal watchers' narratives.

In addition, the claim about Archie and Lilibet's future titles is stated definitively. There seems to be a tendency to generalize everything printed in so-called "tabloid" newspapers as having little credibility, but in most cases, the alleged examples of untrue stories about royals were never passed off as true stories by the tabloids in the first place. Typically, they were presented as unconfirmed theories ("could be...") or rumors ("are said to have..."), or were merely the claims of a party whom the "tabloid" reporter quoted without necessarily endorsing her or his opinion. There are examples of these in the Sun article itself:

"The Sussexes are said to have pointed out [...]

"A source said: “Harry and Meghan [...]"
​

By way of contrast, the claim concerning the Prince and Princess titles isn't hedged or merely quoted from an anonymous source, but reported as a fact. It has also been repeated in at least one subsquently published article, which shows that Mr. Wilkinson is standing by his story.

"THE Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s children will not get HRH status from King Charles III — but they will be prince and princess. [...]

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."
​

Time will tell, and I would be very pleased to be wrong about children of younger sons continuing to be elevated above children of daughters for yet another generation, but personally I am expecting there will be a Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet within the next few weeks, unless the King and/or the Sussexes have a last-minute change of heart.

 

[Denville]

THey ARE P Archie and Pss lilibet,

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I don't get the feeling from H&M that it matters to them to keep the connection with the RF intact (if they are, they are going about in a very peculiar way), but i will change my mind if the content of podcasts, interviews and books will drastically change over the next time.

if i were K.Charles, i wouldn't change anything concerning to the Sussexes, no stripping of titles, letting them keep the titles and styles they have now due to the Letters patent in 1917.
But make a very clear statement in general that taxpayers money and organised security are only given to working royals, this is no surprise nor change to any of the other family members.

Then in private have a business meeting with the Sussexes (not just an informal chat), to make them understand when and in what situation security and money is giving to them and when they have to arrange it themselves, and make them very clear (and have them sign something to confirm their understanding) that these are not related to whatever titles they may have.

...and for any public complaints H&M will come up with in the future stick with "recollections may vary" and "are house is always open to discuss the matter in private"

I think since the court case with RAVEC, most people who have been following are aware now that only working royals receive full-time protection. Charles won’t change the titles so I agree with you on that. Why should Charles have a discussion with them on these things? I think these things were already made clear to them but they see otherwise.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Thank you, Sunnystar. This has baffled me during this whole discussion.

Yes, technically, the Sussex children would be stripped of their HRHs. But the term "stripped of" has heavy connotations. It is used all but exclusively with a negative connotation when the person to whom it is applied has done something deserving of having some achievement or honor taken away, like Lance Armstrong being stripped of his Tour de France titles or Andrew being stripped of his military appointments. The connotation is that Charles is doing something shameful to these two innocent children. We are adding a lot of emotional baggage to this conversation that just isn't there.

The reality is that Charles will simply be removing the HRH (if he does so) from two children who have no idea what it means, have never used it, have two parents who don't use it, and live somewhere where it has no practical application.

I have been trying to say this multiple times, but it’s not clear.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

No, in that case the Sussex kids would be affected in much the same way that potential future kids of Louis would be affected: Once their respective grandfather ascend(ed) to the throne, they'd never receive any princely titles to begin with.

But since the matter wasn't dealt with before QEII died, Archie and Lili have been legally entitled to use their princely titles since 8 September 2022 which changes the situation completely. Whether you think it's a good or a bad idea to take away their titles, there's no denying that implementing changes that retroactively strip the Sussex kids specifically of the titles they now legally hold, will only directly affect the Sussex kids.

Charles has never hidden the fact that he wants to slim down the monarchy and I think that's a very solid idea but I also think the manner in which he does it matters. As I said, if I was the parent of two children who were the only ones to potentially have their titles taken away retroactively (in spite of having two cousins in the exact same position who'd be permitted to retain their titles), I too would feel some type of way about it. Certainly I'd think H&M would be entitled to question why only their children need to have their titles stripped when the matter very easily could've been resolved preemptively by ensuring they never would've been entitled to those titles in the first place.



The Sussex kids too received their titles du to their father being a son of the monarch. Eugenie doesn't live in the UK. Neither Beatrice nor Eugenie are working royals so they do not have any "need" for their titles. I don't understand the point you're attempting (and failing) to make? The only difference between the two pair of siblings is that the Yorks have held their titles for much longer than the Sussexes.

The answer is at the end of your comment.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Precisely. The difference between stripping adults nearing middle age of a title which has been part of their social identity throughout their lives (I am referring more to the 'Princess' than the 'HRH'), and stripping an infant and toddler of a title they have never used, are unaware of, and have only theoretically held for a few weeks is self-evident to me.

It also seems to be self-evident to other European monarchs and governments, as they have all left the titles of adult members as they were, even as they deprived new generations of children of their "birthright" titles:

Spain: The 1987 royal decree stripped the HRH from the future children of Infantas Elena and Cristina (unlike other European monarchies, Spanish royal women traditionally passed on their HRH to their children when the marriage was dynastic and the husband was born or naturalized a Spanish subject), but permitted existing recognized HRHs (the Duke of Cádiz, the Princesses of the House of Borbón, etc.) to remain HRH.

The Netherlands: The 2001 royal decree denied all royal titles to the future children of Princes Constantijn and Johan Friso, but the children of Princess Margriet were permitted to remain HH Princes of Orange-Nassau.

Luxembourg: The 1995 royal decree took away the title Prince or Princess of Luxembourg from the future children of Prince Guillaume, but the children of Prince Robert retained it.

Note also that, as has been debated over and over in the discussions about the Wessex children's titles, some experts contend that the Sovereign's will legally supersedes any letters patent, and from that point of view, Archie and Lilibet might never have been Prince and Princess after all, if that is what Charles willed at the moment of his accession.








As far as the public goes, the concern that a change which immediately affects only one couple's children would seem maliciously and pointedly directed at them doesn't seem to be borne out in the reactions to previous title reforms.

Prince Constantijn's children in the Netherlands, Prince Guillaume's children in Luxembourg, and Prince Sverre Magnus in Norway are or were for a time the only persons affected by the stripping down of titles in those monarchies. But if the discussions on TRF are any indication, very few people wonder about what made Constantijn's children different from Margriet's children, Guillaume's children different from Robert's children, or Sverre Magnus different from Märtha Louise (who kept her HRH until she began working). There don't appear to have been any accusations of pointed malice towards Constantijn and Laurentien, Guillaume and Sibilla, or Sverre Magnus or his parents.

(I am aware that those children did not have a two-week period of being technical HRHs under a letters patent, but that is separate from the argument I am addressing.)

I agree with your comments here. Thank you for the best way of putting it.

 

[Denville]

It will still be stripping them of titles which they have a right to, at present and they are babies, they have done nothing to merit losing them. if they or their parents choose to accept that they have the titles but say they will not use them, that's another matter.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The answer is at the end of your comment.

The length of time the York girls have had the HRH doesn't matter a whit when discussing whether the Sussex kids should have it or not. That particular drum has been beaten to death now.

 

[Saragli]

It's unfortunate the BRF has left this as such a gray area but it seems like Her Late Majesty wanted to leave room for interpretation and flexibility. After all royal titles really just indicate a familial closeness to a monarch - its only recently that some have started to view them as "job titles". I do believe Prince Harry treasures his title as part of his heritage and probably wants his kids to have that heritage as well. Unfortunately with their move to California and dabble in "Hollywood" - the impression comes off that the titles seem more important as part of their brand.

Their are plenty of successful examples the BRF can follow i.e. the York's who carry their titles with dignity publicly when required and appreciate/treasure them - but built a successful, quiet private life that doesn't tarnish them. The Wessex's who are still technically HRH Prince/ss but do not use them. The Swedish model of allowing the grandkids of KCIII to be Prince/Princess but without the HRH. Or like the Dutch, where the kids would be Prince/ss but not of the 'U.K" removing some sort of duty binding them to the nation but acknowledging their heritage.

Sadly with all the bad blood and drama, any outcome and decision will leave someone unhappy and be deeply scrutinized. I feel for the King. I do hope the King and PoW are in talks about issuing new LP that affect the PoW's children moving forward where the spouses of their kids, regardless of gender, receive equal status but only the children of the heir or heirs heir are HRH and Prince/ss.

 

[Mbruno]

r brand.

Their are plenty of successful examples the BRF can follow i.e. the York's who carry their titles with dignity publicly when required and appreciate/treasure them - but built a successful, quiet private life that doesn't tarnish them. The Wessex's who are still technically HRH Prince/ss but do not use them. The Swedish model of allowing the grandkids of KCIII to be Prince/Princess but without the HRH.

It goes even further than that. Madeleine's children are princesses/prince, and even duchesses/duke, without the HRH, but they don't use those titles in Florida. Those are titles they use when they are in Sweden, visiting for example "their" duchies as Prince Nicolas did recently. And that makes sense: the titles have a meaning (even a legal one) in Sweden, but they mean nothing and are of no use in the US, unless, like Harry and Meghan, you want to make a brand out of them and monetize your titles.

To be fair, I am pretty sure very few people in the US would know who Madeleine and her children are, or even that Sweden is a monarchy. Harry and Meghan, on the other hand, are highly visible, well-known celebrities. Most people are aware that Harry is Queen Elizabeth II's grandson, Charles and Diana's son, and a British prince, and that Meghan is his wife, so the two situations are not directly comparable. But still, it begs the question: why are Archie's and Lilibet's titles so important to the Sussexes when H&M themselves wanted their children to be styled as Master and Miss, and not as children of a duke when they were born, and what are they going to do with their titles anyway in California?

I agree with many posters that the Louise/James precedent is probably the best solution in this case, i.e., let Archie and Lilibet be legally entitled to the title, but let their parents agree that the kids will voluntarily not use it. And then make any comprehensive legal changes apply only to people born after Charles' accession, like Louis' children.

 

[Alison H]

I agree with many posters that the Louise/James precedent is probably the best solution in this case, i.e., let Archie and Lilibet be legally entitled to the title, but let their parents agree that the kids will voluntarily not use it. And then make any comprehensive legal changes apply only to people born after Charles' accession, like Louis' children.

I would think that that's what Charles is hoping for, but it depends whether Harry and Meghan are agreeable to the idea. Removing a title or style, whether that's from Archie and Lilibet or Beatrice and Eugenie or anyone else, does smack of punishment for wrongdoing, so I think he'd be reluctant to do that.

 

[Heavs]

But still, it begs the question: why are Archie's and Lilibet's titles so important to the Sussexes when H&M themselves wanted their children to be styled as Master and Miss, and not as children of a duke when they were born, and what are they going to do with their titles anyway in California?

I agree with many posters that the Louise/James precedent is probably the best solution in this case, i.e., let Archie and Lilibet be legally entitled to the title, but let their parents agree that the kids will voluntarily not use it. And then make any comprehensive legal changes apply only to people born after Charles' accession, like Louis' children.

Once it became clear that Harry and Meghan DID want HRH Prince/ss titles for their children after Oprah, I saw some speculation that they decided not to use Lord Archie (if they didn't like Dumbarton) because it lessened the chances of Charles agreeing to let them be HRH in his reign. The argument would be that they already had Louise/James comparable titles so no need to upgrade them. Whereas if Archie "had nothing" so to speak it would be easier to convince Charles that as a King's grandson in the male line and son of working royals (at the time) that he should HRH. Because the announcement said "chosen for him to be Master Archie Harison Mountbatten-Windsor at this time" rather than make it clear it was for life or until he inherited Harry's title. It was only speculation of course but it seemed somewhat plausible as to why no "Lord Archie" but yes to HRH.

 

[Fijiro]

He's also pragmatic. He doesn't have to remove any style or title just make it known that it is his will that they not be used.

Similar to the Wessex children.

Except in the case of the Wessex a letter patent was issued before their marriage, that Edward would be an Earl not a Duke, and that their children would be named as children of an Earl.
See section that deals with The children of the Earl of Wessex
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Wessex

So right now the Sussex children have the HRH titles. If their grandfather wants to take those title away, he will probably need to put out a letter patent.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Except in the case of the Wessex a letter patent was issued before their marriage, that Edward would be an Earl not a Duke, and that their children would be named as children of an Earl.
See section that deals with The children of the Earl of Wessex
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Wessex

...except the source you linked says the opposite of what you said. QEII didn't issue any Letters Patent changing the styles or titles of the future Wessex children. It said that she decided, in accordance with Edward and Sophie's wishes, that their children would be titled and styled as the children of an earl. It also said that the sovereign doesn't need to issue Letters Patent, if they don't choose to.

The only grandchildren she has issued any Letters Patent for were William's kids.