Not entirely fair as since the birth of Lady Louose they have been pretty much making it up anyway. The Cambridge kids are different.
Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1
- Thread starter Meee
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Not entirely fair as since the birth of Lady Louose they have been pretty much making it up anyway. The Cambridge kids are different.
Things change. When Beatrice and Eugenie were born, no-one suggested that they shouldn't be HRH Princess. I'm trying to think what the reaction was when Louise was born, whether or not people were surprised that she wasn't known as HRH Princess as well. So much changed in the interim period. No-one was at all surprised that Andrew and Sarah married at Westminster Abbey but, by the time Edward and Sophie got married, I think the mood had turned in favour of things being less elaborate and expensive.
Last edited:
Moonmaiden23
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,735
- City
- Los Angeles
- Country
- United States
What if one or both of the Sussex children wants to live in the UK and embrace that part of their heritage instead of the American one(once they come of age) ?
It could happen.
Iluvbertie
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,527
- City
- Bathurst
- Country
- Australia
No one was surprised when Louise wasn't HRH from birth as it had been announced, in 1999, that any children of Edward and Sophie would be styled as the children of an Earl and not as HRH Prince/Princess.
What if one or both of the Sussex children wants to live in the UK and embrace that part of their heritage instead of the American one(once they come of age) ?
It could happen.
They are free to but I don't think titles will be part of this. I'm sure if the titles are there they can decide to use them at any point when they are adults...I don't know if it's a straight choice at 18. I forget what the Wessexes situation is.
I don't know if they are likely to ever move to the UK and have that tight knit relationship with the family. They could certainly move and build a bond with them.
Who knows what will happen though its a long wat off.
What does that mean?
What if one or both of the Sussex children wants to live in the UK and embrace that part of their heritage instead of the American one(once they come of age) ?
It could happen.
They are entitled to be known as HRH P Archie etc.. so if they really wanted say to come to school in the UK and use their royal titles they could do so. Or they could follow the example of the Wessexes and be known at School as Archie Dumbarton and Lady Liliy MW
Last edited by a moderator:
Louise and James may be entitled to such titles but are titled as children of Earls. Harry's use none. They are are alll basically doing what they want anyway. Only thing that seems out if bounds is titling up so to speak.
American Observer7
Nobility
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 500
- City
- Washington DC
- Country
- United States
Until Charles changes the Patents to prevent usage, the Sussex children are HRH Prince Archie Harrison of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex and no amount of excuses made or comparisons made to argue the point will not change a thing. The titles are automatic.
Charles will not make any changes because it would further damage his relationship with Harry and likely permanently.
Charles will not make any changes because it would further damage his relationship with Harry and likely permanently.
Last edited by a moderator:
What if one or both of the Sussex children wants to live in the UK and embrace that part of their heritage instead of the American one(once they come of age) ?
It could happen.
Even if he is not styled as a Prince, Archie is entitled to be known by the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton in the UK and, if he survives his father, he will be the Duke of Sussex. Nothing can change that short of an act of Parliament, which is not going to happen. Likewise, even if Lilibet is not styled as a Princess, she is entitled to be known as Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor in the UK.
The Sussex children will never be working royals and would never be expected to be so even if their parent were still working royals living in the UK. The days when children of younger sons or daughters of monarchs were working royals are over judging from the precedents already set in Queen Elizabeth II's reign with Beatrice, Eugenie, James, and Louise. So, if Archie or Lilibet move to the UK, they will still have private lives and careers outside the Royal Family. But, of course , they will always be King Charles III's grandchildren and in the line of succession to the Crown, and will be given a social status in the UK which is in accordance with that position. Again, that is independent of whether they are titled Prince/Princess or not.
Note that social status does not translate necessarily into greater material comfort or wealth. Archie and Lilibet would enjoy official precedence in the UK that they don't have in the US, but their parents, at least for now, make much more money in the US than the income they would get as working royals in the UK (just compare the Sussexes' home in Montecito to their modest Frogmore Cottage at Windsor).
Last edited:
IT has been made clear that Edwards' children are entitlted to be HRH and can take that up when they are 18, if they wish to, but from birth it was made clear that they would be known as the children of an Earl. Harry's children were not HRH at birth but they also had the right to use H's second title, and For Lili to be Lady Lillibet.. but Harry and Meg chose not to use those titles for them. It is not that different to say Beatrice being known as Beatrice York at work.... she and Eugenie are HRH's but they dont go into the office and expect people to curtsy and call them Your R Highness... at the water cooler. THat's just normal off duty behaviour.. it does not mean that they dont have the titles, just they dot have to use them all the time.
yes we know they are Prince and Princess. However Charles COULD if he wanted to, take that away. As the king he is the fount of honours and can remove or bestow them. He can't take away a peerage however.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,160
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
Again, quoting the "exclusive" story from Matt Wilkinson in The Sun on September 15:
Several members pointed out that the claim that the King will issue letters patent to confer prince and princess titles on his grandchildren does not seem to make any sense.
If one accepts the view that King George V's letters patent of 1917 remain in force until repealed by a new letters patent, then the 1917 letters patent automatically conferred prince and princess titles on Archie and Lilibet at the moment of their grandfather's accession, and no new letters patent are needed to confer those titles.
Even if one accepts the point of view that the Sovereign's will is all that is necessary, the King has no obvious reason to have overturned the existing letters patent by his Will, if they are already in accordance with his alleged wishes that all his male-line grandchildren be prince and princess.
However, after reading another article in the Sun a few days afterwards, as well as Durham's question earlier in the thread, I think there is some (arguable) logic to the claims about new letters patent. The September 19 article says:
His Majesty, has agreed to issue letters patent to confer Archie will receive the title of prince in the future, alongside his sister Lilibet who will receive the title of princess.
However, Meghan and Harry's baby boy will not be called His Royal Highness - thanks to his great-great-grandparent.
King George V introduced a rule in 1917 which means their baby would need special permission from the King to receive HRH status.
Only the eldest son of the Queen's first born, King Charles, is entitled to be a HRH - no younger sons or daughters.
[...]
Despite Royal protocol, in December 2012, before Prince William and Kate Middleton had their first born Prince George, the Queen used the Letters Patent so she could give all of their children an HRH title.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8150244/baby-archie-royal-title/
This second article was not written by the same author as the original "exclusive", and it is unclear if it is credible or not.
But, putting the Sun's stories together, I think this is what the Sun is claiming is going to happen: A statement is issued which makes the dubious claim that the 1917 rules only entitle children who met the criteria (child or male-line grandchild of a sovereign, or the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) at the time of their birth, and that others who were "only" great-grandchildren at the time of their birth (Charlotte and Louis, Archie and Lilibet) need fresh letters patent to receive royal titles, such as those issued for Charlotte and Louis in 2012. The statement continues and says that the King has decided to issue letters patent for Archie and Lilibet as well, but because they are not expected to become working royals, their letters patent will include only Prince and Princess but not HRH. (Again, this is not my personal prediction. It is what I think the Sun is alleging will happen.)
If (and it is a big if) the Sun's prediction is accurate, it would be very questionable from the legal point of view (I don't see any evidence for the "only at birth" interpretation of the 1917 letters patent), but I suppose the advantage would be that Archie and Lilibet would ostensibly never have been stripped of anything, but rather had titles specially gifted to them by their grandfather which they would otherwise never have received.
"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."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19810592/harry-meghan-archie-lilibet-hrh-status/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19810592/harry-meghan-archie-lilibet-hrh-status/
Several members pointed out that the claim that the King will issue letters patent to confer prince and princess titles on his grandchildren does not seem to make any sense.
If one accepts the view that King George V's letters patent of 1917 remain in force until repealed by a new letters patent, then the 1917 letters patent automatically conferred prince and princess titles on Archie and Lilibet at the moment of their grandfather's accession, and no new letters patent are needed to confer those titles.
Even if one accepts the point of view that the Sovereign's will is all that is necessary, the King has no obvious reason to have overturned the existing letters patent by his Will, if they are already in accordance with his alleged wishes that all his male-line grandchildren be prince and princess.
However, after reading another article in the Sun a few days afterwards, as well as Durham's question earlier in the thread, I think there is some (arguable) logic to the claims about new letters patent. The September 19 article says:
His Majesty, has agreed to issue letters patent to confer Archie will receive the title of prince in the future, alongside his sister Lilibet who will receive the title of princess.
However, Meghan and Harry's baby boy will not be called His Royal Highness - thanks to his great-great-grandparent.
King George V introduced a rule in 1917 which means their baby would need special permission from the King to receive HRH status.
Only the eldest son of the Queen's first born, King Charles, is entitled to be a HRH - no younger sons or daughters.
[...]
Despite Royal protocol, in December 2012, before Prince William and Kate Middleton had their first born Prince George, the Queen used the Letters Patent so she could give all of their children an HRH title.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8150244/baby-archie-royal-title/
This second article was not written by the same author as the original "exclusive", and it is unclear if it is credible or not.
But, putting the Sun's stories together, I think this is what the Sun is claiming is going to happen: A statement is issued which makes the dubious claim that the 1917 rules only entitle children who met the criteria (child or male-line grandchild of a sovereign, or the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) at the time of their birth, and that others who were "only" great-grandchildren at the time of their birth (Charlotte and Louis, Archie and Lilibet) need fresh letters patent to receive royal titles, such as those issued for Charlotte and Louis in 2012. The statement continues and says that the King has decided to issue letters patent for Archie and Lilibet as well, but because they are not expected to become working royals, their letters patent will include only Prince and Princess but not HRH. (Again, this is not my personal prediction. It is what I think the Sun is alleging will happen.)
If (and it is a big if) the Sun's prediction is accurate, it would be very questionable from the legal point of view (I don't see any evidence for the "only at birth" interpretation of the 1917 letters patent), but I suppose the advantage would be that Archie and Lilibet would ostensibly never have been stripped of anything, but rather had titles specially gifted to them by their grandfather which they would otherwise never have received.
Last edited:
SirGyamfi1
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
- Messages
- 2,422
- City
- Add
- Country
- United Kingdom
If you are insinuating what I think you are insinuating, you couldn’t be more wrong. His choice of bride wouldn’t have mattered whatever her origins because Harry is a junior cadet in the succession not the senior most son. Also at the time William had his first two children, Harry wasn’t married or had any children but it was important for letters patent William’s children because no one knew the gender of the children until they were born. It doesn’t matter if Charles had two sons or two daughters they would never be treated the same in that regard.
If the children of younger sons continue to be given royal status then the children of daughters will also have to be treated the same or the system will be brought into disrepute now that we have absolute primogeniture.
That means potentially even more HRH's.
A start on reform has to be made somewhere doesn't it?
This is precisely why whatever The King decides someone will cry foul.
An interesting scenario. Someone asked what such princes would be called. I would guess they would just be addressed as prince. It all sounds rather continental to British ears.
And isn't the sovereign's wishes in this sort of matter "the law" so to speak. So it therefore follows that it can't be legally questionable?
That means potentially even more HRH's.
A start on reform has to be made somewhere doesn't it?
This is precisely why whatever The King decides someone will cry foul.
An interesting scenario. Someone asked what such princes would be called. I would guess they would just be addressed as prince. It all sounds rather continental to British ears.
And isn't the sovereign's wishes in this sort of matter "the law" so to speak. So it therefore follows that it can't be legally questionable?
Last edited by a moderator:
The LPs of 1917 apply to children of sons of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom. The moment Charles III became King, Archie and Lilibet became children of the son of a Sovereign, so I think it is difficult to argue that the 1917 rules do not apply to them. There is nothing in the wording of the LPs that says that the condition of being the children of the son of a Sovereign has to be satisfied at the moment of birth, and interpreting the text that way is a stretch in my humble opinion, but the Sun may be right if that is what the Palace told them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,452
- City
- Hermosa Beach
- Country
- United States
A number of posts have been deleted. This thread is about the styles and titles of the Sussex children. It’s not a place to discuss the reasons why people may, or may not like Meghan.
Let’s also stop insinuating that racism is behind Charles’ decision regarding the titles. As a reminder, here is one of the rules of the Sussex threads.
As such, the following aspects are considered off-topic going forward: Accusations or inference of racism towards the subject, other members, or the media
You can find the rest of the rules, here.
Let’s also stop insinuating that racism is behind Charles’ decision regarding the titles. As a reminder, here is one of the rules of the Sussex threads.
As such, the following aspects are considered off-topic going forward: Accusations or inference of racism towards the subject, other members, or the media
You can find the rest of the rules, here.
Unless I’ve misread it, that Sun article makes no sense at all. “Confer with” isn’t even proper English, and it seems to be saying that only the eldest son of Charles should have the style of HRH, meaning that Harry should never have been HRH. It’s utter nonsense!
I didn't read The Sun's original article, but, if I understood what Tatiana Maria has said, I believe the argument that The Sun is making is that the 1917 and 2012 LPs apply only to people who met the conditions therein when they were born. So, Prince William's children would be covered by the 2012 rules, because they were children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales at the time of their birth, but Prince Harry's children would not, because they were not yet children of a son of a Sovereign of the United Kingdom when they were born.
The principle of applying the rules only at the time of birth has not been invoked before, as far as I know, in relation to the LPs of 1917 or 2012, but that would be a possible loophole to deny Archie and Lilibet any royal title or style. But, if The Sun is right and the Sussex kids don't have any royal title under existing LPs, issuing new LPs to give them a title (Prince/Princess without HRH) would go against the rumored intention of slimming down the number of Princes/Princesses, so I don't think it would make sense.
Last edited:
American Observer7
Nobility
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 500
- City
- Washington DC
- Country
- United States
The Sun is a sorry source of reference. It's nothing more than a gossip rag! Charles does not have issue any Letters of Patent to grant Archie and Lilibet those titles. It's automatic now. Letters of Patent will only be ssued to revoke those titles from Archie and Lilibet. To date, Charles has not done anything and I doubt he will.
Last edited:
The Sun article again brings up this idea that being called Prince or Princess confers a right to state-provided security. I just don't understand where this is coming from. Do Harry and Meghan think that Prince and Princess Michael and Prince Alexandra have 24 hour top-level security provided by the state? As has been pointed out umpteen times, Beatrice and Eugenie have to provide their own security, and even Princess Anne and the Wessexes only have security when they're on official duties.
American Observer7
Nobility
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 500
- City
- Washington DC
- Country
- United States
The security is needed only when Archie and Lilibet are I the UK. Now when they are home with their parents they have private security and only that should used and paidvby their parents.
But, even when they're in the UK, whether they're called Prince and Princess, Master and Miss or Earl and Lady won't make any difference to whether or not they get state-funded security provided. Why is there this idea that having the title of Prince and Princess carries some automatic right to security? Only the King, the Queen and the Waleses get security provided when not on royal duties.
Where has this idea that there is a link between titles and security come from? Is it another of Harry and Meghan's lies, or is it something that they genuinely believe? if so, do they honestly not know who does and doesn't have security provided for them? It just makes no sense.
Where has this idea that there is a link between titles and security come from? Is it another of Harry and Meghan's lies, or is it something that they genuinely believe? if so, do they honestly not know who does and doesn't have security provided for them? It just makes no sense.
I don't follow the argument. If they have private security in California, why can't they hire private security in the UK too? Is (armed) private security illegal in the United Kingdom?
Besides, as long as Archie and Lilibet stay in the Windsor estate while they are in the UK, they are already automatically protected since the estate is secured. The same would be true if they were at Balmoral over the summer or at Sandrigham for Christmas.
Prinsara
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 5,411
- City
- A place to grow
- Country
- Canada
Yes, I believe it is, considering most members of the police don't have firearms. They are incredibly strictly controlled in the UK. You would not be able to just hire random armed people because you could afford them; that's why the assessments of threat levels exist for public security.
Lilyflo
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,882
- City
- England
- Country
- United Kingdom
Yes it's illegal.
The Sunday Times appears to disagree with The Sun's interpretation of the 1917 LPs and claims Archie and Lilibet's titles are automatic upon their grandfather's accession.
Sister Morphine
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 3,526
- City
- The Land of 10,000 Starbucks
- Country
- United States
The Sun isn't even good enough to use as liner in a birdcage. If they said the sky was blue, I'd step outside to check. Knowing this, I don't see much point in debating an article they printed about anything to do with the Sussexes or their children. People really ought to wait until there's a more reputable source.
SirGyamfi1
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
- Messages
- 2,422
- City
- Add
- Country
- United Kingdom
We all know that security and titles aren’t really linked, but some people still think that. It’s possible that it is something Harry believes that he is entitled to because he’s never lost state-funded security until now. From that, it can be understood that he just takes things for granted and probably hasn’t considered that not all members of the BRF get security like he used to get.
Last edited:
Toledo
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,171
- City
- Amsterdam, Upstate NY
- Country
- United States
I'm asking a question that might seem silly, but I don't know the answer. Prince Phillip was a Prince of Greece and Denmark on his own, thus:
Can these Greek/Danish Princely titles be carried over the male line to Charles-->William & Harry and their respective children? In this thread's subject, to Harry's children?
I'm thinking of the Romanov tradition that after a certain generation the male line goes from Grand Duke + Romanov to Prince + Romanov surname.
Philip gave up his titles to marry Elizabeth. Thereby becoming Philip Mountbatten. He was a number of years later made a Prince again.
Blog Real
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 14,133
- City
- Lisboa
- Country
- Portugal
Not. Prince Philip did not pass these titles on to his children, so his grandchildren don't have these titles either.
This must have happened because Prince Philip had married a person from a ruling family who was, at the time, heir to the throne.
Philip relinquished these titles before marrying, and only afterwards was he made Duke of Edinburgh.
Similar threads
- Sticky
