Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[Heavs]

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.

But that link specifically says that LPs were not issued, that the Sovereigns Will in this matter was all that was necessary. That that will can be LPs, statements, press releases, verbal agreements etc.

At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent. The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases (see the documents concerning the style of the Duke of Windsor's wife and issue, in particular the view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed", and the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"). How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial.

The mention of LPs there concerns William's children.

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.

Indeed, as has been frequently discussed Sophie herself said a couple of years ago that her children would be able to decide for themselves on their 18th birthdays. It was a big surprise at the time. Which if true suggests that HMTQ was at least open to the idea at one point, unlikely as it was to happen. All that was released about future children at the time of their marriage was the press release.

As it is Heraldica suggests that all Charles needs to do is to keep referring to the Sussex littles as Master and Miss and it is so. Unless I'm missing something?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

(...) 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.

Laughable to you maybe. And that's fine. To me there's a distinct difference between pointedly making sure two specific people have their titles removed and ensuring those two people just never got it in the first place. As for the negative connotations @HighGoalHighDream mentions, they don't come out of nowhere and they're tied to the action rather than the word(s). Removing someone's titles – no matter if they've only held them for less than 3 weeks – implies repercussions for wrongdoing. That perception would only be enhanced if Archie and Lili are the only ones who are stripped retroactively when there is a handful of people in the same situation as them who'd get to retain theirs.

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.

If that indeed was the case, I'm surprised by the overlap of the people who ferociously defend Edward's right to the Dukedom of Edinburgh because it allegedly was QEII's wish he would get it and the people who think it's perfectly fine to strip Archie and Lili of their titles even though it allegedly was QEII's wish they'd retain them

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

Surprise to me as it definitely seemed like you were trying to say that there's some major difference in the situations of the York and Sussex siblings when in factuality there is not.

 

[Winnie]

Actually, it was the extreme wish of the Late Duke of Edinburgh that his youngest son Edward be given his title on his death. But it is still given only at the wish of the now King. If the Queen had wanted it to be given immediately, she had many months to accomplish or push for it immediate upon her death. I have come to the conclusion that King Charles III has for many months [even years] diagramed exactly how and who he wants in "the firm" and their titles including the HRH titles. I am sure he talked it over with the Queen and probably Camilla to get their viewpoint. He will certainly want and must receive absolute trust, decorum and loyalty from them at all times. They will be honored with the HRH titles as working royals. No non full time working royals should be given the HRH titles from now on with his slimmed down firm. I agree that even Princess Royal Anne, only ges full protection when working for the crown on an event. That should be true for all. She has no problem with that. Bravo JMO

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Actually, it was the extreme wish of the Late Duke of Edinburgh that his youngest son Edward be given his title on his death. But it is still given only at the wish of the now King. If the Queen had wanted it to be given immediately, she had many months to accomplish or push for it immediate upon her death. I have come to the conclusion that King Charles III has for many months [even years] diagramed exactly how and who he wants in "the firm" and their titles including the HRH titles. I am sure he talked it over with the Queen and probably Camilla to get their viewpoint. He will certainly want and must receive absolute trust, decorum and loyalty from them at all times. They will be honored with the HRH titles as working royals. No non full time working royals should be given the HRH titles from now on with his slimmed down firm. I agree that even Princess Royal Anne, only ges full protection when working for the crown on an event. That should be true for all. She has no problem with that. Bravo JMO

<sidebar>

The wish was that Edward would be given the Edinburgh title "in due course," which was always after the death of Phillip and The Queen. New creations of dukedoms are not created when a dowager is living, and The Queen was the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh. In the same way, we would not see a new Duke of York created if Andrew was deceased while his daughters, Princesses of York, are living. Even if The Queen made her wish known that Edward receive the title immediately after her death, I would still call these weeks immediately. Her tombstone has just been laid.

For more of this nit-pickiness, join us on the British Titles thread.

</sidebar>

 

[yukari]

(...)

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.)

The thing is none of those said parents ever sat down in a talkshow insinuating that their children were deprived of their titles due to their skin colour/mixed heritages. And the "public" who watched that talk show may not even aware that those monarchies you've mentioned even exist, more so those reform.

 

[Sunnystar]

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.

My guess is that all of the royals who are not currently working or retired from working are going to lose their HRH but be allowed to remain Prince/Princess of the UK. We're basically going to get the Swedish model in this new LP.

Right after the death of Elizabeth II, @Claire reported that she'd heard there were three LPs ready to be issued at the appropriate time (she guessed that these were one officially creating William as PoW, one for the Edinburgh dukedom, and one addressing the HRH Prince/Princess issue). This article sort of tracks with the notion of codifying a restriction on the use of the HRH for working royals while still recognizing that these people are grandchildren of the monarch.

My only hope is that if Charles does issue a new LP regarding the HRH Prince/Princess usage, that it is gender neutral. I'm not sure how to go about that, perhaps only applying the gender neutral aspect to those in the line of succession born after the change to absolute primogeniture in Oct 2011.

 

[American Observer7]

First posters said that Archie and Lilibet should wait until Charles became King for them to become HRH Prince and Princess and now that has happened there are further excuses to not give those to them. Until Charles officially changes the rule in place since 1917, The Sussex children are today, right this minute, HRH, Prince Archie Harrison of Sussex and HRH, Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex.

And Charles will not issue any patents preventing those children from using those titles as It will send the wrong message. And he'd be risking the children wanting nothing to do with him when they are fully able to understand all this.

Charles has two sons and was heir to the throne. What was done for William's children should have been done for Harry's children the day they were born. The fact that it was not and that we are even having this discussion when the titles are automatic now, also looks very bad. If Harry had married someone else, none of this would be an issue. And it's wrong. It's a shame!

 

[Moran]

Princess Margaret was the monarch's daughter. What was done for Elizabeth's children wasn't done for hers, aka the HRH exception was for the direct line.

The argument that Harry and his children were the only ones so hard done because an exception for the direct line of succession to which he doesn't belong wasn't made for him doesn't hold water, IMO.

 

[Sophronisba]

If Harry had married someone else, none of this would be an issue. And it's wrong. It's a shame!

It's not clear to me that this is true at all. There have been conversations about Charles wanting to shrink the Royal Family since before Harry ever met Meghan, and a smaller monarchy with fewer titles is in line with what has happened in the rest of Europe. And of course, the Wessex children don't use their titles.

At this point I think the best solution is a compromise in which the children keep the titles but don't use them or the HRH as long as Harry and Meghan are non-working royals living in the U.S. But I don't think this is about who Harry married, and certainly not about Meghan's race.

 

[Sunnystar]

And Charles will not issue any patents preventing those children from using those titles as It will send the wrong message. And he'd be risking the children wanting nothing to do with him when they are fully able to understand all this.

Who do you think it's sending the wrong message to? Surely not the UK public. And why would his grandchildren want nothing to do with him when they are "fully able to understand all this" unless they are told by others in their lives that this was a deliberate slight? Why wouldn't they, instead, feel as Zara & Peter Phillips do about not having any titles growing up giving them a level of freedom their cousins with titles lacked?

 

[American Observer7]

Princess Margaret was the monarch's daughter. What was done for Elizabeth's children wasn't done for hers, aka the HRH exception was for the direct line.

The argument that Harry and his children were the only ones so hard done because an exception for the direct line of succession to which he doesn't belong wasn't made for him doesn't hold water, IMO.

[…]HRH doesn't apply to Princess Margaret's children as they are from the female line. Archie and Lilibet are from the male line. This common knowledge and there another excuse.

 

[Moran]

HRH doesn't apply to Princess Margaret's children as they are from the female line. Archie and Lilibet are from the male line. This common knowledge and there another excuse.

HRH didn't apply to the Duke of Sussex' children because they weren't the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. An exception was made for the direct line, just like in QEII and Princess Margaret's case.

You know that QEII's children were also from a female line, right?

 

[Sister Morphine]

HRH didn't apply to the Duke of Sussex's children because they weren't the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. An exception was made for the direct line, just like in Princess Margaret's case.

You know that QEII's children were also from a female line, right?

Elizabeth's children before she ascended the throne were HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Anne because of their father, not their mother. The day before the wedding, George VI granted him the style His Royal Highness, along with granting him the titles of Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. This was done so that the future queen's children would have a princely style and title from birth, otherwise, they'd have been Earl Marioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten. Also, I feel it was probably done to honor the fact that Philip was born with a princely style and title, but had to relinquish that to marry Elizabeth. I wouldn't call any of that an "exception".

After she became queen, her two younger children automatically became HRH because they were the sovereign's children.

 

[Erin9]

My guess is that all of the royals who are not currently working or retired from working are going to lose their HRH but be allowed to remain Prince/Princess of the UK. We're basically going to get the Swedish model in this new LP.



Right after the death of Elizabeth II, @Claire reported that she'd heard there were three LPs ready to be issued at the appropriate time (she guessed that these were one officially creating William as PoW, one for the Edinburgh dukedom, and one addressing the HRH Prince/Princess issue). This article sort of tracks with the notion of codifying a restriction on the use of the HRH for working royals while still recognizing that these people are grandchildren of the monarch.



My only hope is that if Charles does issue a new LP regarding the HRH Prince/Princess usage, that it is gender neutral. I'm not sure how to go about that, perhaps only applying the gender neutral aspect to those in the line of succession born after the change to absolute primogeniture in Oct 2011.

The Swedish model is a good one imo. Though I think it only impacted very young children who really didn’t know it had happened anyway.

 

[Moran]

Elizabeth's children before she ascended the throne were HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Anne because of their father, not their mother. The day before the wedding, George VI granted him the style His Royal Highness, along with granting him the titles of Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. After she became queen, her two younger children automatically become HRH because they were the sovereign's children.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1948

George VI issued a Letters Patent specifically for Elizabeth and Philip's children in 1948. If it was an automatic thing due to Philip being a HRH, there would have been no need. He did it for his heir.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Elizabeth's children before she ascended the throne were HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Anne because of their father, not their mother. The day before the wedding, George VI granted him the style His Royal Highness, along with granting him the titles of Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. After she became queen, her two younger children automatically become HRH because they were the sovereign's children.

Incorrect.

They were HRH because in October 1948 George VI issued Letters Patent giving HRH Prince/Princess styles to all of the children of HRH The Princess Elizabeth.

Philip being made an HRH had no bearing on his children as that didn't give him the right to pass on that style to any children.

Had George VI not issued the Letters Patent he did in October 1948 - shortly before Prince Charles was born Charles would have been born Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth. The style he would have received from Philp was Earl of Merioneth as the heir to the Edinburgh titles.

Charles wasn't a 'male line grandchild of a sovereign of the UK' but a female line grandchild of a sovereign of the UK.

 

[yukari]

My guess is that all of the royals who are not currently working or retired from working are going to lose their HRH but be allowed to remain Prince/Princess of the UK. We're basically going to get the Swedish model in this new LP.

Right after the death of Elizabeth II, @Claire reported that she'd heard there were three LPs ready to be issued at the appropriate time (she guessed that these were one officially creating William as PoW, one for the Edinburgh dukedom, and one addressing the HRH Prince/Princess issue). This article sort of tracks with the notion of codifying a restriction on the use of the HRH for working royals while still recognizing that these people are grandchildren of the monarch.

My only hope is that if Charles does issue a new LP regarding the HRH Prince/Princess usage, that it is gender neutral. I'm not sure how to go about that, perhaps only applying the gender neutral aspect to those in the line of succession born after the change to absolute primogeniture in Oct 2011.

And let's say the rumour about Prince(ss) but no HRH is true, what would be their style/how they'd be addressed? Would BRF revive "Serene Highness" or "Highness" again (so back to pre-George V era)? Or would they be addressed as " Your Grace" like typical Duke/Duchess?

 

[Prinsara]

And let's say the rumour about Prince(ss) but no HRH is true, what would be their style/how they'd be addressed? Would BRF revive "Serene Highness" or "Highness" again (so back to pre-George V era)? Or would they be addressed as " Your Grace" like typical Duke/Duchess?

Underage royals are not addressed as anything but "Name" or "Prince(ss) Name", iirc. Not in the UK. So there would be some time to figure it out.

 

[Mbruno]

Elizabeth's children before she ascended the throne were HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Anne because of their father, not their mother. The day before the wedding, George VI granted him the style His Royal Highness, along with granting him the titles of Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. This was done so that the future queen's children would have a princely style and title from birth, otherwise, they'd have been Earl Marioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten. Also, I feel it was probably done to honor the fact that Philip was born with a princely style and title, but had to relinquish that to marry Elizabeth. I wouldn't call any of that an "exception".
.

That is actually incorrect. Prince Philip could not have transmitted his HRH style to his children since he was not a son of a British sovereign. Separate Letters Patent were issued in 1948 to guarantee that the children of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh would have "the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names", and that was obviously done not because of Philip, but because Princess Elizabeth was the heiress presumptive to the Crown.

 

[Sunnystar]

And let's say the rumour about Prince(ss) but no HRH is true, what would be their style/how they'd be addressed? Would BRF revive "Serene Highness" or "Highness" again (so back to pre-George V era)? Or would they be addressed as " Your Grace" like typical Duke/Duchess?

They aren't addressed with any style in the Swedish model. They are simply Prince and Princess. So, my default would be they don't need any style. Or, if you must, then go with something pretty generic like "The Honourable."

 

[LauraS3514]

Actually, it was the extreme wish of the Late Duke of Edinburgh that his youngest son Edward be given his title on his death. But it is still given only at the wish of the now King. If the Queen had wanted it to be given immediately, she had many months to accomplish or push for it immediate upon her death. I have come to the conclusion that King Charles III has for many months [even years] diagramed exactly how and who he wants in "the firm" and their titles including the HRH titles. I am sure he talked it over with the Queen and probably Camilla to get their viewpoint. He will certainly want and must receive absolute trust, decorum and loyalty from them at all times. They will be honored with the HRH titles as working royals. No non full time working royals should be given the HRH titles from now on with his slimmed down firm. I agree that even Princess Royal Anne, only ges full protection when working for the crown on an event. That should be true for all. She has no problem with that. Bravo JMO

Elizabeth II could NOT have created her son Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh after Philip's death as that title was inherited by Prince Philip's eldest son - the then Prince of Wales. Upon Charles's accession to the throne, it merged with the crown, and is only now available for re-creation - i.e. Prince Charles was the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh of that creation but Prince Edward could be the 1st Duke of the new creation.

 

[Heavs]

First posters said that Archie and Lilibet should wait until Charles became King for them to become HRH Prince and Princess and now that has happened there are further excuses to not give those to them. Until Charles officially changes the rule in place since 1917, The Sussex children are today, right this minute, HRH, Prince Archie Harrison of Sussex and HRH, Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex.

And Charles will not issue any patents preventing those children from using those titles as It will send the wrong message. And he'd be risking the children wanting nothing to do with him when they are fully able to understand all this.

Charles has two sons and was heir to the throne. What was done for William's children should have been done for Harry's children the day they were born. The fact that it was not and that we are even having this discussion when the titles are automatic now, also looks very bad. If Harry had married someone else, none of this would be an issue. And it's wrong. It's a shame!

Why should what was done for William's children have been done for Harry's? That was done so if Charlotte was born first that she wouldn't be Lady Charlotte the heir whilst her younger brother was HRH Prince George Not The Heir. It made sense with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

That doesn't apply to Harry's children. Harry and Meghan themselves have made no statements to indicate that they think it's unfair that Archie will inherit Duke of Sussex but Lili won't for example.

The discussion on whether titles are automatic has been going on since long before Harry and Meghan met. See the link to Heraldica with talk of "Louise cannot be legally deprived of her rightful titles without LPs being issued" "yes, she can" discussion.

Like many posters I would suggest that Charles and others simply keep referring to Archie and Lili as they are now, no "stripping" measures.

Yes, I think that if Harry had married someone else it would also have come up, as it has done in all continental European monarchies. Again, it was showing many years before Harry and Meghan married with the Wessexes.

I personally think Lady Sarah Chatto has one of the more enviable places in the BRF and seemingly a happy life "outside" and she has never been HRH.

 

[Alison H]

Harry is not the direct heir. William is. That makes a very big difference. As other people have said, what was done for the Queen's children was not done for Princess Margaret's, nor indeed for Princess Anne's. Whom Harry married makes absolutely no difference.

 

[wbenson]

Today's Sunday Times (archive link) has a story on this matter.

Harry, 38, and Meghan, 41, are prevented from using the HRH style since stepping back from official royal life in 2020, but that does not affect their children’s titles. It is understood Harry and his father had a “brief discussion” in the days after the Queen’s death, when the King asked if it was something Harry wanted for his children.
Harry is understood to have expressed his desire to let his children decide when they are older, and to have emphasised that would only be possible if they were allowed to retain their titles now. The conversation is understood to have ended unresolved, and to have left the Sussexes dismayed.

 

[FigTree]

I think do nothing and say, like the Wessex children, they have the right to be known by a Duke’s children title and when they get to 18 or 21 they can decide for themselves if the want to use a Prince and a Princess title but without the HRH.

The answer will be no and it’s at least 15 years when a lot could have changed. Why would two Americans choose to use them when they are of age. Hopefully they will have had a wonderful, peaceful childhood in California and will both be making strides at that time to build their own lives.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem with continuing to allow the children to decide when they are older is that one day someone who qualifies under the 1917 LPs will decide to insist on taking on HRH even though for a couple of generations that hasn't been the case for the children of younger siblings of the heir apparent/monarch.

It would have been better if The Queen had addressed this issue going forward in 2012 by, instead of increasing the number of those eligible, also ensuring that the children of younger siblings never had the expectation of having the HRH Prince/Princess styling.

Having not dealt with the long term issue it is now down to Charles and it does need to be cleared up with - the 1917 LPs will be applied with no exception and no ability to 'opt out of using the title or removing the right to have the title.

 

[FigTree]

The problem with continuing to allow the children to decide when they are older is that one day someone who qualifies under the 1917 LPs will decide to insist on taking on HRH even though for a couple of generations that hasn't been the case for the children of younger siblings of the heir apparent/monarch.

It would have been better if The Queen had addressed this issue going forward in 2012 by, instead of increasing the number of those eligible, also ensuring that the children of younger siblings never had the expectation of having the HRH Prince/Princess styling.

Having not dealt with the long term issue it is now down to Charles and it does need to be cleared up with - the 1917 LPs will be applied with no exception and no ability to 'opt out of using the title or removing the right to have the title.

I doubt any one would decide to take the title once they are of age and have had a ‘normal life.’ It looks all fun when you are 5 and dream of being a Princess but when you are approaching adulthood and you have watched what has happened to those public faces in the media then the answer would be no.

You may like a nice Lord and Lady title if you are feeling posh but not the big guns.

In any case these will be the last. I have no doubt it won’t even be an option for Louis and or Charlottes children.

If that article is true then Harry really doesn’t understand how is children will think when older. And he the one who always said he would give up his title. I am amused.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I doubt any one would decide to take the title once they are of age and have had a ‘normal life.’ It looks all fun when you are 5 and dream of being a Princess but when you are approaching adulthood and you have watched what has happened to those public faces in the media then the answer would be no.

You may like a nice Lord and Lady title if you are feeling posh but not the big guns.

In any case these will be the last. I have no doubt it won’t even be an option for Louis and or Charlottes children.

If that article is true then Harry really doesn’t understand how is children will think when older. And he the one who always said he would give up his title. I am amused.

It shows a lot of Prince Harry's understanding of how royal titles and peerages work. Many on this forum has a lot more understanding than the once Number Three in the line of succession himself.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[…]HRH doesn't apply to Princess Margaret's children as they are from the female line. Archie and Lilibet are from the male line. This common knowledge and there another excuse.

From the point of view of those who believe that all male lines - but not female or mixed-sex lines - should be allowed to pass down their royal titles, the Duke of Sussex is being treated unfairly, but so is the Earl of Wessex, as well as the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Prince Michael of Kent, whose children are not even "technical" Princes and Princesses, unlike the children of Sussex or Wessex.


This is not intended to single out the above comment, as it is the most popular argument in general: It is ironic that explicit sexism is the most common argument for why the Duchess of Sussex's children are entitled to royal titles.

If that indeed was the case, I'm surprised by the overlap of the people who ferociously defend Edward's right to the Dukedom of Edinburgh because it allegedly was QEII's wish he would get it and the people who think it's perfectly fine to strip Archie and Lili of their titles even though it allegedly was QEII's wish they'd retain them

If I am understanding correctly, you are suggesting it ought to be the other way around (as you don't mention surprise at the overlap in that direction). I am open to arguments for that position, but I understand and agree with those who accord more importance to a public and express agreement between the then Prince of Wales and both of his parents, with a clear justification discussed by the Earl of Wessex in an interview last year, than on an unconfirmed report from Robert Lacey which does not indicate the basis for the wish and alleges that the Prince of Wales never agreed to carry it out. (Of course, that is not to dismiss the other concerns, outside of the wishes of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh, which are applicable to either or both issues.)

As for the negative connotations @HighGoalHighDream mentions, they don't come out of nowhere and they're tied to the action rather than the word(s). Removing someone's titles – no matter if they've only held them for less than 3 weeks – implies repercussions for wrongdoing. That perception would only be enhanced if Archie and Lili are the only ones who are stripped retroactively when there is a handful of people in the same situation as them who'd get to retain theirs.

There will always be differing perceptions, but generally speaking I think we can be reassured that the public is not inclined to perceive 3-year-olds as wrongdoers, looking at the reactions to Crown Prince Carl Philip of Sweden being stripped of his Crown Prince title as an infant, or the grandchildren of King Carl XVI Gustaf being stripped of their HRHs at the ages of 5 and under. In both cases there were some negative reactions, but the critics did not perceive the young children as being punished for wrongdoing.

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.

It is an aspect to consider when the York women's title situation is brought up as a point of comparison, or when there are suggestions that the women be stripped of their princess titles as part of the hypothetical general reform.

Surprise to me as it definitely seemed like you were trying to say that there's some major difference in the situations of the York and Sussex siblings when in factuality there is not.

The comment quoted another post which mentioned factual differences ("major" is subjective):

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.

The thing is none of those said parents ever sat down in a talkshow insinuating that their children were deprived of their titles due to their skin colour/mixed heritages.

Indeed, which suggests that the accusations are rooted in the parent's insinuation, not the fact of only one set of children being immediately affected. (Especially since, in the British royal family, other sets of royal children have also been deprived of royal titles.)

And the "public" who watched that talk show may not even aware that those monarchies you've mentioned even exist, more so those reform.

Yes, but as previously mentioned, not even royal watchers on forums such as these, where the other monarchies are discussed, have made any accusations of malice against the other parents (even in the case of hypothetical future Danish reforms, where the biracial members of the family would be the first ones affected).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This might belong elsewhere but are the letters patent of 1917 open to interpretation?

Are the Sussex children HRH's etc? Is that for certain? Their father was not the son of a monarch at the time of their birth. The fathers of William/Richard Gloucester & Michael Kent were the sons of a former monarch.

Are there any precedents that can prove this either way?

Prince Harry is the first younger son of a Prince of Wales since the 1917 Letters Patent (also the first ever, I think) whose children were born during the reign of their great-grandparent.

The letters patent contain no expression such as "at the time of their birth":

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 [...]​

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2

<sidebar>

The wish was that Edward would be given the Edinburgh title "in due course," which was always after the death of Phillip and The Queen. New creations of dukedoms are not created when a dowager is living, and The Queen was the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh. In the same way, we would not see a new Duke of York created if Andrew was deceased while his daughters, Princesses of York, are living. Even if The Queen made her wish known that Edward receive the title immediately after her death, I would still call these weeks immediately. Her tombstone has just been laid.

For more of this nit-pickiness, join us on the British Titles thread.

</sidebar>

Elizabeth II could NOT have created her son Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh after Philip's death as that title was inherited by Prince Philip's eldest son - the then Prince of Wales. Upon Charles's accession to the throne, it merged with the crown, and is only now available for re-creation - i.e. Prince Charles was the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh of that creation but Prince Edward could be the 1st Duke of the new creation.

To add to LauraS3514's post, that is the only reason why the Dukedom of Edinburgh was not available during Elizabeth's lifetime, as there is no custom against recreating a royal dukedom during the dowager's or surviving daughters' lifetime. See this post for more information:

If I understand you correctly, you are addressing a very particular situation in which:

1) A royal peerage reverts to the crown because the peer lacks a male heir, not because the peer becomes king,

2) the peer is survived by family members who are or formerly were named with the territorial designation of the peerage, and

3) at least one of these family members is still living when a subsequent royal dukedom is created.


That situation has only happened for two peerages in the history of the British royal family: Cumberland and Connaught.

The dukedom of Cumberland reverted to the crown in 1790. The next creations of royal dukedoms happened in 1799 when Princes Edward and Ernest Augustus were made dukes. The widowed Duchess of Cumberland was alive at that time, but Prince Ernest Augustus was created Duke of Cumberland.

The dukedom of Connaught reverted to the crown in 1943. The remaining family members who were or had been "of Connaught" were Princess Arthur of Connaught and Lady Patricia Ramsay (who had dropped her title when she married). The only subsequent creation of a royal dukedom to happen during either of their lifetimes was for Philip in 1947. Of course, he was created Duke of Edinburgh and not Duke of Connaught, but in view of the Ireland situation, Connaught probably would not have been under consideration even if Princess Arthur and Lady Patricia had both passed away before 1947.

So it doesn't seem possible that there could be an existing convention against recreating a royal peerage while the daughters are alive, since the peerage was recreated in one of the two precedent cases. But it is possible that a convention could develop in the future.