Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, precisely. The issue was whether the monarch would need to go through Parliament to hypothetically remove HRH and Prince.


Here is the Titles Deprivation Act and the Order in Council naming the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the Duke of Cumberland, and the Duke of Brunswick. I agree with those who read the Act to cover all British dignities.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/deprivation1917.htm

Of course, the usage of the Titles Deprivation Act and the Letters Patent of 1917 on the British Royal Family's German relatives had no practical effect, as they and their descendants continued to call themselves HRH and HH until this day (even if those predicates were also legally abolished in Germany in 1919).

 

[Denville]

Yes, precisely. The issue was whether the monarch would need to go through Parliament to hypothetically remove HRH and Prince.


H 1919).

No, she wouldn't. She took away the HRH's of Diana and sarah York without going through Parliament...

 

[wyevale]

Meghan Duchess of Sussex, is the title she would hold [until any remarriage] should she Divorce...

Interestingly EVEN the Duchess of Windsor was 'her Grace'. Meghan. Duchess of Sussex hasn't that...

 

[Lumutqueen]

No, she wouldn't. She took away the HRH's of Diana and sarah York without going through Parliament...

If you go back and read other posts, Spheno and I were having a discussion in regards to who removes HRH's.

Tatiana Maria, has provided information in regards to how the Deprivation Act works in the Monarchs right to remove.

The Queen can remove HRHs and the title Prince/ss, without parliament. However the 1917 Deprivation act shows that parliament can do it as well.

 

[wyevale]

To me it would have been better for HMQ to issue a new Patent accelerating the inheritance of the Sussex titles to Lord Dumbarton and granting the peerage of Duke of Windsor to Harry for life, establishing that title as the designation used for resigned Royals in the future.

 

[wyevale]

I can't think of any instance in British history where the holder of a peerage is called Harry, Duke of Sussex (for example), just as if he was a widow or a divorced woman.

Truly weird.

 

[Denville]

To me it would have been better for HMQ to issue a new Patent accelerating the inheritance of the Sussex titles to Lord Dumbarton and granting the peerage of Duke of Windsor to Harry for life, establishing that title as the designation used for resigned Royals in the future.

I don't believe that Harry would want his son to have a peerage. They haven't even used the courtesy title for him.. and he may grow up a Canadian citizen and a peerage would hardly be suitable...
I don't suppose the queen would like the idea of Duke of Windsor, which is a somewhat tainted title, going to her grandson.. whom she loves in spite of probably being very upset with him.

 

[miss whirley]

I can't think of any instance in British history where the holder of a peerage is called Harry, Duke of Sussex (for example), just as if he was a widow or a divorced woman.

Truly weird.

It is weird. But I guess they are really driving home the point that Harry has divorced himself from the BRF. It's telling how they view him.

 

[Denville]

It is weird. But I guess they are really driving home the point that Harry has divorced himself from the BRF. It's telling how they view him.

Or perhaps they dotn want to say he is "his Grace the DUke of Sussex".. when he is still HRH... if they are taking on a more informal role, Harry DUke of Sussex seems OK

 

[miss whirley]

Or perhaps they dotn want to say he is "his Grace the DUke of Sussex".. when he is still HRH... if they are taking on a more informal role, Harry DUke of Sussex seems OK

They could just say The Duke of Sussex but they aren't. He's being styled as a divorced/widowed woman. It's odd.

 

[Osipi]

It is weird. But I guess they are really driving home the point that Harry has divorced himself from the BRF. It's telling how they view him.

With the family and the "Firm" so tightly woven together, its easy to think that, for all purposes, Harry has divorced from the family but that isn't so. Within the family, he's still Prince Henry, The Duke of Sussex. That's totally internal within the family and totally separate from the "Firm". As far as the "Firm" is concerned, there is absolutely no real or imagined link between the work the "Firm" does which is serve the people and Harry's future endeavors. He's divorced from the "Firm".

They may all still get together in the future for holidays and family occasions and have a grand old time with each other but as far as the family "business", Harry is persona not grata. Same with Andrew. Its been done to preserve the integrity of the "Firm" and what it does. In the words of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, "you're not coming".

In the respect of wanting to have their cake and eat it too, its ended up more like that souffle that had the oven door slammed on it. Deflated beyond repair.

 

[Denville]

They could just say The Duke of Sussex but they aren't. He's being styled as a divorced/widowed woman. It's odd.

not a big deal IMO. If he is goig to be based in America/Canada,they will thnk of him as Harry.. and he'll be more informally known....

 

[miss whirley]

not a big deal IMO. If he is goig to be based in America/Canada,they will thnk of him as Harry.. and he'll be more informally known....

Yeah, I doubt America/Canada care about Sussex at all. In N. America they'll be called Meghan Markle and Harry, formerly known as Prince Harry.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No, she wouldn't. She took away the HRH's of Diana and sarah York without going through Parliament...

Harry is and remains a prince of the blood royal, a prince of the Realm, a prince by Letters Patent of George V.

Lady Diana Spencer and Ms Sarah Ferguson became a HRH and a princess by virtue of their marriage. This consequently ended with their divorces. An incomparable situation.

Harry is still a HRH. Harry is still a Prince of the United Kingdom. Harry and his issue still are successors to the throne (unlike Edward, The Duke of Windsor).

What essentially happens here is that the Queen takes nothing away at all. Just - at the couple's request, not usage of the royal title, style, dignity and form of address which usually should be theirs. That is all.

In theory Harry can come back as HRH The Duke of Sussex if he wants to be a "fulltime royal" again to support his father or his brother.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

To me it would have been better for HMQ to issue a new Patent accelerating the inheritance of the Sussex titles to Lord Dumbarton and granting the peerage of Duke of Windsor to Harry for life, establishing that title as the designation used for resigned Royals in the future.

I can't think of any instance in British history where the holder of a peerage is called Harry, Duke of Sussex (for example), just as if he was a widow or a divorced woman.

Truly weird.

Interesting idea re: Duke of Windsor. Not sure HM could change the Dukedom of Sussex though.

Different times and circumstances require creative thinking. They are divorced- from being British royalty.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

With the family and the "Firm" so tightly woven together, its easy to think that, for all purposes, Harry has divorced from the family but that isn't so. Within the family, he's still Prince Henry, The Duke of Sussex. That's totally internal within the family and totally separate from the "Firm". As far as the "Firm" is concerned, there is absolutely no real or imagined link between the work the "Firm" does which is serve the people and Harry's future endeavors. He's divorced from the "Firm".

Maybe, maybe not. The Queen has said he is Harry, Duke of Sussex. Her will has been made known-same as Edwards’s children. I don’t think within the family Louise is Princess Louise.

 

[wyevale]

Deflated beyond repair.

As [it gives me NO pleasure to say], l predicted..

 

[Mbruno]

I don't believe that Harry would want his son to have a peerage. They haven't even used the courtesy title for him.. and he may grow up a Canadian citizen and a peerage would hardly be suitable...

As a matter of fact, although that may sound odd, Canada and in fact also Australia have a long-standing policy of opposing the conferral of peerages or knighthoods on their citizens, see for example


Canadian titles debate


and, most recently, the court case of Black vs. Chrétien .


In a way, Canada is even more radical in its opposition to foreign titles than the US, where there is no legal impediment for citizens (other than public officers) to accept foreign honors (they simply aren't legally recognized in the States).


The bottom line is that titles, even if legally recognized in the UK, would be of little value for Archie either in Canada or in the US, so he might as well forget about it if he is raised in North America.

 

[Gawin]

What essentially happens here is that the Queen takes nothing away at all. Just - at the couple's request, not usage of the royal title, style, dignity and form of address which usually should be theirs. That is all.

I'm skeptical this was done "at the couple's request." I think it was done at the Queen's insistence. Just as Andrew didn't "ask" to step back from public duties.

 

[Alison H]

The press use whatever they want . Diana was always, incorrectly, referred to as "Princess Diana". The Duchess of Cambridge is still often referred to as "Kate Middleton". First names tend to be used for pretty much everyone apart from the Queen, these days. However, officially he's Henry, Duke of Sussex, because that's what the Queen said.


When talking about medieval royal dukes, it's Richard of York, George of Clarence, Richard of Cornwall, etc, which actually sounds quite nice, but that's not done any more!

 

[Erin9]

I'm skeptical this was done "at the couple's request." I think it was done at the Queen's insistence. Just as Andrew didn't "ask" to step back from public duties.

I have no doubt that this is the price they are paying for independence. It wasn’t their request. It was a consequence.

One thing about that ill thought out website- we know what they actually wanted.

They could have sold the end result as being exactly what they truly desired, but that ship has sailed imo.

 

[Eskimo]

Or perhaps they dotn want to say he is "his Grace the DUke of Sussex".. when he is still HRH... if they are taking on a more informal role, Harry DUke of Sussex seems OK

I think it is a conscious effort to distance their commercial endevours from the monarchy. Henry, Duke of Sussex is much more distanced from royal connections than say HRH The Duke of Sussex or even The Duke of Sussex.

 

[soapstar]

A number of off-topic comments about Princess Michael’s books have been deleted.

 

[Kataryn]

The bottom line is that titles, even if legally recognized in the UK, would be of little value for Archie either in Canada or in the US, so he might as well forget about it if he is raised in North America.

That's not true: once Harry dies, Archie can inherit his titles and use them. He can even inherit the title of Prince of the Uk and the style/address HRH and use it in the US:


The U.S. cannot grant titles of nobility, and foreigners who are naturalized must renounce all titles, but there is nothing that prevents a U.S. citizen from inheriting a title from abroad and using it as he pleases, unless it leads him or her to pledge alliegance to a foreign power, a case which could be grounds for loss of citizenship. Examples of US citizens holding British titles include the 5th Earl of Wharcliffe (Richard Alan Montagu Stuart Wortley, of Cumberland ME; his eldest son is viscount Carlton), and Sir John Dunbar, Bt, who was succeeded in August 1993 by his son Sir Michael Dunbar, 14th Bt, a colonel in the US Air Force.


(source: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm - Nobility in the US)


So as long as Meghan and Archioe do not pledge allegience to the British queen or king, they can stay US-Americans and Archie can use any titles he inheritsOn his birth, he was just Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, so any title he gets afterwards can be used on him and by him.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Palace sources have confirmed that Henry and Meghans titles are "under review", as someone finally realised Meghan was referred to via the divorced style of the title.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1219317988731641857

 

[Osipi]

I really think the perfect solution for Harry and Meghan, seeing as they want to go "professional" and into "business" and earn their own money, the way to go would be to present themselves as Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. No alluding to anything pertaining to titles and styles and status with the royal family and the UK for business purposes.

Didn't Edward bill himself as Edward Windsor when he had his own production company? That would be a good precedent.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Palace sources have confirmed that Henry and Meghans titles are "under review", as someone finally realised Meghan was referred to via the divorced style of the title.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1219317988731641857

It is awfully difficult to believe the official story that none of the members of the Royal Family or the Court who participated in the talks realized how divorced wives are styled until this moment. Indeed, it would be a reasonable assumption to think that Sarah, Duchess of York was the very precedent they applied to this case. It is the most recent example of a royal duchess/duke ceasing to use their HRH (even if in her case it was due to having it formally removed).

I cannot see what problems could originate from the usage of "Harry, Duke of Sussex" and "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as Buckingham Palace formerly announced. Since the couple would formally retain their rank, there would be no trouble with precedence.

There is surely some other unknown factor which is influencing the reconsideration. Have there, perhaps, been indications that members of the public want them to continue using HRH?

I really think the perfect solution for Harry and Meghan, seeing as they want to go "professional" and into "business" and earn their own money, the way to go would be to present themselves as Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. No alluding to anything pertaining to titles and styles and status with the royal family and the UK for business purposes.

Didn't Edward bill himself as Edward Windsor when he had his own production company? That would be a good precedent.

Wasn't that before he was bestowed with his peerages? While he was HRH The Prince Edward, he had little choice but to use either Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor as his title did not contain a territorial designation which he could use as a professional name. For a British peer, with or without HRH, the customary usage would be to bill himself for example Edward Wessex or Harry Sussex if he chooses not to use his title for business purposes - although he could certainly choose to use Harry Mountbatten-Windsor instead.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That's not true: once Harry dies, Archie can inherit his titles and use them. He can even inherit the title of Prince of the Uk and the style/address HRH and use it in the US:


The U.S. cannot grant titles of nobility, and foreigners who are naturalized must renounce all titles, but there is nothing that prevents a U.S. citizen from inheriting a title from abroad and using it as he pleases, unless it leads him or her to pledge alliegance to a foreign power, a case which could be grounds for loss of citizenship. Examples of US citizens holding British titles include the 5th Earl of Wharcliffe (Richard Alan Montagu Stuart Wortley, of Cumberland ME; his eldest son is viscount Carlton), and Sir John Dunbar, Bt, who was succeeded in August 1993 by his son Sir Michael Dunbar, 14th Bt, a colonel in the US Air Force.


(source: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm - Nobility in the US)


So as long as Meghan and Archioe do not pledge allegience to the British queen or king, they can stay US-Americans and Archie can use any titles he inheritsOn his birth, he was just Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, so any title he gets afterwards can be used on him and by him.

ALL peers are expected to swear allegiance to a new monarch at their coronation. It is a major part of the coronation service ... remember the images of Philip kneeling before the Queen at hers.

William and Harry will both be expected to swear such allegiance at Charles' coronation and Harry at William's.

Whether Archie would use his title won't change the fact he will hold it and his male line heirs until there are none.

 

[DuchessMia]

ITA, Tatiana Maria. While they are in the UK, they are HRH, but for business purposes and outside the UK, they are the Mountbatten-Windsors, like Archie. They technically haven’t been stripped of their HRH. Just advised to not use it for profit.

 

[Mbruno]

ITA, Tatiana Maria. While they are in the UK, they are HRH, but for business purposes and outside the UK, they are the Mountbatten-Windsors, like Archie. They technically haven’t been stripped of their HRH. Just advised to not use it for profit.

They have been advised not to use it AT ALL. Even inside the UK. And they won't be referred to with the HRH by the Court. That is the deal.