Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Denville]

We know that of course but it's about perception.

I'm certainly not aware of any groundswell of opinion to increase their number!

No of course no one wants to increase the numbers. but even if Charles decided to give HRH to every one of his cousins that would not mean that they were receiving any money from the state. I think however he wont add to the numbers, and possibly in the future only the children of the heir to the throne will have HRH

 

[Durham]

No of course no one wants to increase the numbers. but even if Charles decided to give HRH to every one of his cousins that would not mean that they were receiving any money from the state. I think however he wont add to the numbers, and possibly in the future only the children of the heir to the throne will have HRH

Yes I agree that's very likely & I think for the best.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think however he wont add to the numbers, and possibly in the future only the children of the heir to the throne will have HRH

Yes I agree that's very likely & I think for the best.

But if that is the case, what was the meaning of the "George V convention" comment and the gazetting of the birth?

 

[Durham]

But if that is the case, what was the meaning of the "George V convention" comment and the gazetting of the birth?

Maybe Charles thinks that limiting HRH/prince is a good idea but he doesn't actually want his own grandson to be affected so he'll leave things the way they are for now.

I think Archie would be best of without the heightened public interest that comes with the style/title. I think the York women would have been best off without it as well but that's just my opinion.

Maybe Charles is happy for future monarchs to introduce the change instead.

 

[KellyAtLast]

If Charles is serious about slimming down the monarchy he should start with his own line. He's the one that goes on and on about wanting limited members of royals but he doesn't have the guts to implement it to his own descendants. It would be unfair to take away titles from adults who has been serving the crown for decades. He should start with the Archie and any future child that the Sussex have. Archie is still a baby he will not feel the difference. That way the Sussex can raise Archie as a private person(like they wish him to be) and to fend for himself and not feel entitled to royal benefits when he grows up. He should make like the King of Sweden and do it now that the grandkids are still young.

 

[JR76]

If Charles is serious about slimming down the monarchy he should start with his own line. He's the one that goes on and on about wanting limited members of royals but he doesn't have the guts to implement it to his own descendants. It would be unfair to take away titles from adults who has been serving the crown for decades. He should start with the Archie and any future child that the Sussex have. Archie is still a baby he will not feel the difference. That way the Sussex can raise Archie as a private person(like they wish him to be) and to fend for himself and not feel entitled to royal benefits when he grows up. He should make like the King of Sweden and do it now that the grandkids are still young.

Charles has never gone on and on about slimming down the Royal family. To my knowledge he's never mentioned it in public at all. Even if he does nothing and Archie becomes a prince that'll still be a case of slimming down since his nephew and nieces won't have an active role in the family. I dare say that neither was Archie expected to be a working royal even before his parents took a step back from official duties. You mention the King of Sweden but all his grandchildren retain both royal titles and their duchies. The only thing that has changed is the removal of their styles as hrh and making their royal titles personal and not inheritable.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Charles has never gone on and on about slimming down the Royal family. To my knowledge he's never mentioned it in public at all. Even if he does nothing and Archie becomes a prince that'll still be a case of slimming down since his nephew and nieces won't have an active role in the family. I dare say that neither was Archie expected to be a working royal even before his parents took a step back from official duties. You mention the King of Sweden but all his grandchildren retain both royal titles and their duchies. The only thing that has changed is the removal of their styles as hrh and making their royal titles personal and not inheritable.

It appears (see the links here) that, like the King's sisters who concluded unequal marriages, the grandchildren's title of Princess/Prince of Sweden was removed and they carry "only" the title of Princess/Prince.

Luxembourg and Belgium have implemented an almost identical system: Children (as well as grandchildren in Belgium) of heirs to the throne are Princess/Prince of Belgium/Luxembourg, while titled members outside this direct line are "only" Princess/Prince with their father's last name.

But I feel that the British system is superior in its clarity - one either is a royal Princess/Prince or carries no royal title whatsoever. What is apparently not clear, at least to the British public, is (as KellyAtLast mentioned) what benefits a British royal Prince/Princess can expect to receive on the basis of being a Prince/Princess.

 

[Somebody]

It appears (see the links here) that, like the King's sisters who concluded unequal marriages, the grandchildren's title of Princess/Prince of Sweden was removed and they carry "only" the title of Princess/Prince.

Luxembourg and Belgium have implemented an almost identical system: Children (as well as grandchildren in Belgium) of heirs to the throne are Princess/Prince of Belgium/Luxembourg, while titled members outside this direct line are "only" Princess/Prince with their father's last name.

But I feel that the British system is superior in its clarity - one either is a royal Princess/Prince or carries no royal title whatsoever. What is apparently not clear, at least to the British public, is (as KellyAtLast mentioned) what benefits a British royal Prince/Princess can expect to receive on the basis of being a Prince/Princess.

The alternative would be to have a 'lesser' princely (or nobility) title. The king of Sweden would probably have liked to create his grandchildren 'prince(ss) Bernadotte' (like previous princes were created as part of the Luxembourgish nobility) but he cannot do that. The Dutch and the Luxembourg houses have/had that practice with 'prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau' being the 'family title' - at least for one generation (now they've been demoted to 'count(ess)'), while 'prince(ss) of the Netherlands' was only for the children of the heir. In Luxembourg it's 'of Luxembourg' vs 'of Nassau'. In Belgium they could use 'of Belgium' vs 'of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha'.

However, the British system is rather different, so this solution wouldn't work for them.

 

[Denville]

Charles has never gone on and on about slimming down the Royal family. To my knowledge he's never mentioned it in public at all. Even if he does nothing and Archie becomes a prince that'll still be a case of slimming down since his nephew and nieces won't have an active role in the family. I dare say that neither was Archie expected to be a working royal even before his parents took a step back from official duties. You mention the King of Sweden but all his grandchildren retain both royal titles and their duchies. The only thing that has changed is the removal of their styles as hrh and making their royal titles personal and not inheritable.

It is not up to Charles.. And since Harry was always intended to be a working royal, i think there's a perfectly good case for Archie to have HRH. he does nto have to use it if he doesn't want to, as an adult.. and if he's not a working royal, he wont be getting any money.. so what is the difference

 

[JR76]

It is not up to Charles.. And since Harry was always intended to be a working royal, i think there's a perfectly good case for Archie to have HRH. he does nto have to use it if he doesn't want to, as an adult.. and if he's not a working royal, he wont be getting any money.. so what is the difference

It will be up to Charles when he becomes king.

 

[Denville]

It will be up to Charles when he becomes king.

Yes but he's not King yet. I believe that yes he does want to cut down the number of working royals and just confine It to his own sons and that he would not want ALL their children to be following in royal duties. But Giving HRH to Archie would not mean that A was going to be a wroking royal. There is no correlation between the honours and doing royal duties.

 

[JR76]

Yes but he's not King yet. I believe that yes he does want to cut down the number of working royals and just confine It to his own sons and that he would not want ALL their children to be following in royal duties. But Giving HRH to Archie would not mean that A was going to be a wroking royal. There is no correlation between the honours and doing royal duties.

It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes. You seem to believe that this is not the case. We'll just have to wait and see what happens when that day comes.

 

[Denville]

It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes. You seem to believe that this is not the case. We'll just have to wait and see what happens when that day comes.

I don't think he will, no. But that's because (a) I think that Harry may well have said that he doesn't want Archie to be HRH... and also well now, the 2 of them are not working royals and an HRH is not going to be any use to Archie in california. But Charles is traditionally minded, and so is the queen so possibly they would like for Archie to have HRH.. However they're not gogn to go against the wishes of his parents.

 

[winifred]

Yes but he's not King yet. I believe that yes he does want to cut down the number of working royals and just confine It to his own sons and that he would not want ALL their children to be following in royal duties.

As has been said there is NO evidence that Charles has ever said he wants a slimmed down monarchy. If he became King today, do you really believe he would say to those outside his direct line who have given lifelong service, that's it, you're out. Of course not. He knows that natural wastage is going to slim down the working royals anyway.

There are currently 13 working royals, ie getting paid to carry out public duties for the Crown:- The Queen (94), Philip (98. Included because he does still receive a "pension"), The Duke of Kent (84), Princess Alexandra (83), Duke of Gloucester (75), Duchess of Gloucester (73), Prince Charles (71), Duchess Camilla (72), Princess Anne (69), Prince Edward (56), Countess Sophie (55), Prince William (37), and Duchess Kate (38).

In 20 years time, by which time George MIGHT be a full-time royal (but probably not) the first 4 will almost certainly have died, the next 4 will be in their 90s, princess Anne 89, Edward and Sophie mid-seventies and only William and Kate still in middle-age. Realistically, the numbers will be reduced to 4 or 5, until George, Charlotte and Louis come of age and marry.

Even if Charlotte and Louis become working royals, their children won't be, so the numbers are never likely to go back to the 16 we had before Andrew, Harry and Meghan left.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes. You seem to believe that this is not the case. We'll just have to wait and see what happens when that day comes.

Charles won't confer titles as they will be automatic. The instant Charles becomes King, Archie becomes HRH Prince Archie.

Charles will have to strip Archie, and any siblings, of their HRH Prince/Princess styling rather than the other way round (just as he will have to strip Camilla of HM The Queen styling ... although Blair said that will take legislation).

 

[Iluvbertie]

As has been said there is NO evidence that Charles has ever said he wants a slimmed down monarchy. If he became King today, do you really believe he would say to those outside his direct line who have given lifelong service, that's it, you're out. Of course not. He knows that natural wastage is going to slim down the working royals anyway.

There are currently 13 working royals, ie getting paid to carry out public duties for the Crown:- The Queen (94), Philip (98. Included because he does still receive a "pension"), The Duke of Kent (84), Princess Alexandra (83), Duke of Gloucester (75), Duchess of Gloucester (73), Prince Charles (71), Duchess Camilla (72), Princess Anne (69), Prince Edward (56), Countess Sophie (55), Prince William (37), and Duchess Kate (38).

In 20 years time, by which time George MIGHT be a full-time royal (but probably not) the first 4 will almost certainly have died, the next 4 will be in their 90s, princess Anne 89, Edward and Sophie mid-seventies and only William and Kate still in middle-age. Realistically, the numbers will be reduced to 4 or 5, until George, Charlotte and Louis come of age and marry.

Even if Charlotte and Louis become working royals, their children won't be, so the numbers are never likely to go back to the 16 we had before Andrew, Harry and Meghan left.

There are TWO people who get paid to carry out official duties - The Queen and Philip.

The others have their official expenses covered and that is all - they don't get paid to do duties. They have to live off their personal wealth or an allowance from The Queen, from either the Duchy of Lancaster or her personal wealth.

 

[JR76]

As has been said there is NO evidence that Charles has ever said he wants a slimmed down monarchy. If he became King today, do you really believe he would say to those outside his direct line who have given lifelong service, that's it, you're out. Of course not. He knows that natural wastage is going to slim down the working royals anyway.

There are currently 13 working royals, ie getting paid to carry out public duties for the Crown:- The Queen (94), Philip (98. Included because he does still receive a "pension"), The Duke of Kent (84), Princess Alexandra (83), Duke of Gloucester (75), Duchess of Gloucester (73), Prince Charles (71), Duchess Camilla (72), Princess Anne (69), Prince Edward (56), Countess Sophie (55), Prince William (37), and Duchess Kate (38).

In 20 years time, by which time George MIGHT be a full-time royal (but probably not) the first 4 will almost certainly have died, the next 4 will be in their 90s, princess Anne 89, Edward and Sophie mid-seventies and only William and Kate still in middle-age. Realistically, the numbers will be reduced to 4 or 5, until George, Charlotte and Louis come of age and marry.

Even if Charlotte and Louis become working royals, their children won't be, so the numbers are never likely to go back to the 16 we had before Andrew, Harry and Meghan left.

Saying that Charles wants to streamline the monarchy does not automatically mean that he will kick out his cousins and siblings. I believe that, as you say, he will nature take it's course. I also believe that once Charles becomes king atleast Edward and Alexandra will go into retirement since he has said that there's no way he'd stop performing his duties as long as the Queen are doing hers. The Gloucesters and Anne will probably be around for as long as Charles is on the throne and I can see the Wessexes working into the reign of William where their support will be needed at least until George and his siblings are old enough.

 

[JR76]

Charles won't confer titles as they will be automatic. The instant Charles becomes King, Archie becomes HRH Prince Archie.

Charles will have to strip Archie, and any siblings, of their HRH Prince/Princess styling rather than the other way round (just as he will have to strip Camilla of HM The Queen styling ... although Blair said that will take legislation).

Yes, I know but my English fails me sometimes. I do expect that to happen. I can't see that Archie and possible siblings will have much use of royal styles and titles given the sort of life his/their parents are seemingly planning for at the moment.

 

[Denville]

Charles won't confer titles as they will be automatic. The instant Charles becomes King, Archie becomes HRH Prince Archie.

Charles will have to strip Archie, and any siblings, of their HRH Prince/Princess styling rather than the other way round (just as he will have to strip Camilla of HM The Queen styling ... although Blair said that will take legislation).

He can announce that Archie will not be HRH, just as the queen did with Edward's children.

 

[Denville]

Saying that Charles wants to streamline the monarchy does not automatically mean that he will kick out his cousins and siblings. I believe that, as you say, he will nature take it's course. I also believe that once Charles becomes king atleast Edward and Alexandra will go into retirement since he has said that there's no way he'd stop performing his duties as long as the Queen are doing hers. The Gloucesters and Anne will probably be around for as long as Charles is on the throne and I can see the Wessexes working into the reign of William where their support will be needed at least until George and his siblings are old enough.

Of course not. The cousins are getting older, have heatlh problems and are not going to go on forever. Charles has IMO been planning for a gradual slim down.. so that in the future there' wont be so many royals performing duties.. but hes not going to brutally insist that his cousins give up working as long as they are willing and able to do so. But his plans IMO were to put the major load of work in the future on his 2 sons and their wives and tha plan has now gone pear shaped.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It appears (see the links here) that, like the King's sisters who concluded unequal marriages, the grandchildren's title of Princess/Prince of Sweden was removed and they carry "only" the title of Princess/Prince.

Luxembourg and Belgium have implemented an almost identical system: Children (as well as grandchildren in Belgium) of heirs to the throne are Princess/Prince of Belgium/Luxembourg, while titled members outside this direct line are "only" Princess/Prince with their father's last name.

But I feel that the British system is superior in its clarity - one either is a royal Princess/Prince or carries no royal title whatsoever. What is apparently not clear, at least to the British public, is (as KellyAtLast mentioned) what benefits a British royal Prince/Princess can expect to receive on the basis of being a Prince/Princess.

The alternative would be to have a 'lesser' princely (or nobility) title. The king of Sweden would probably have liked to create his grandchildren 'prince(ss) Bernadotte' (like previous princes were created as part of the Luxembourgish nobility) but he cannot do that. The Dutch and the Luxembourg houses have/had that practice with 'prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau' being the 'family title' - at least for one generation (now they've been demoted to 'count(ess)'), while 'prince(ss) of the Netherlands' was only for the children of the heir. In Luxembourg it's 'of Luxembourg' vs 'of Nassau'. In Belgium they could use 'of Belgium' vs 'of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha'.

In Sweden and Belgium, a Princess/Prince title does not need to include the princess's/prince's surname. For children who are not "of Sweden/Belgium" they simply use "Prince Alexander" and "Princess Anna Astrid", but the children retain their family names "Bernadotte" and "of Austria-Este (Habsburg-Lorraine)", respectively. (The latter is not "of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha" as in Belgium surnames are almost always inherited in male line; the Saxe-Coburg name will likely be used for the children of Prince Laurent's sons).

So, the kings of Sweden and Belgium had no need to create a separate title of "Prince Bernadotte" or "Princess of Austria-Este" (although I disagree with the belief that the king of Sweden could not do that).

However, the British system is rather different, so this solution wouldn't work for them.

Theoretically, I don't see why it could not; the children of the heirs could be "of the United Kingdom/of Great Britain" and the others could either be "of York/of Kent" or "(Mountbatten-)Windsor". However, Britain already makes the distinction by using "Duke of [dukedom]" for sons of heirs versus "Prince X of [paternal dukedom]" for other princes.

It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes.

But that's because (a) I think that Harry may well have said that he doesn't want Archie to be HRH...

The Sussexes have never publicly alluded to wishing that their child not receive a royal title. As for unofficial stories of what they have said privately, the story is that they have given their blessing for Archie to become a prince.

I would find it difficult to understand why palace sources unofficially communicated to the press that Archie would become a prince, if that was not the true intention.

 

[Denville]

In Sweden and Belgium, a Princess/Prince title does not need to include the princess's/prince's surname. For children who are not "of Sweden/Belgium" they simply use "Prince Alexander" and "Princess Anna Astrid", but the children retain their family names "Bernadotte" and "of Austria-Este (Habsburg-Lorraine)", respectively. (The latter is not "of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha" as in Belgium surnames are almost always inherited in male line; the Saxe-Coburg name will likely be used for the children of Prince Laurent's sons).

So, the kings of Sweden and Belgium had no need to create a separate title of "Prince Bernadotte" or "Princess of Austria-Este" (although I disagree with the belief that the king of Sweden could not do that).




Theoretically, I don't see why it could not; the children of the heirs could be "of the United Kingdom/of Great Britain" and the others could either be "of York/of Kent" or "(Mountbatten-)Windsor". However, Britain already makes the distinction by using "Duke of [dukedom]" for sons of heirs versus "Prince X of [paternal dukedom]" for other princes.





The Sussexes have never publicly alluded to wishing that their child not receive a royal title. As for unofficial stories of what they have said privately, the story is that they have given their blessing for Archie to become a prince.

I would find it difficult to understand why palace sources unofficially communicated to the press that Archie would become a prince, if that was not the true intention.

Archie will become a prince/hrh once Charles is King.. but Charles can announce that like Edwards children, he wont be an HRH. And at the time of Archie's brith, assuming the Sussexes weren't thinking seriously then of leaving the RF, I don't believe they would be happy with the idea of his being HRH PRince Archie. They are not even using the normal courtesy title for a Dukes son so why would they want him to have a royal style. And if they are living in the USA, I don't know if they'll want him to be HRH...

 

[muriel]

The Sussexes have never publicly alluded to wishing that their child not receive a royal title. As for unofficial stories of what they have said privately, the story is that they have given their blessing for Archie to become a prince.

I would find it difficult to understand why palace sources unofficially communicated to the press that Archie would become a prince, if that was not the true intention.

Under the current arrangements set out in the Geoge V Letters Patent, as explained upthread, Archie will become an HRH when Charles is King. The Palace briefings you allude to above would have, at best, confirmed the current arrangements.

Given the steps taken this year by H&M, the likelihood of Archie becoming a working member of the BRF is remote. So it does not quite matter whether H&M bless any title or not, it is really irrelevant now, IMO.

 

[Durham]

Theoretically, I don't see why it could not; the children of the heirs could be "of the United Kingdom/of Great Britain" and the others could either be "of York/of Kent" or "(Mountbatten-)Windsor". However, Britain already makes the distinction by using "Duke of [dukedom]" for sons of heirs versus "Prince X of [paternal dukedom]" for other princes.

I think I'm correct in thinking that although of York, Kent etc are indeed used these are just naming customs or conventions brought in by the Hanoverians. Every British prince/princess is officially of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So in that sense the way other royal houses differentiate titles which you explained really clearly wouldn't make any sense here.

 

[Denville]

I think I'm correct in thinking that although of York, Kent etc are indeed used these are just naming customs or conventions brought in by the Hanoverians. Every British prince/princess is officially of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So in that sense the way other royal houses differentiate titles which you explained really clearly wouldn't make any sense here.

Yes that's right IMO, they are all princes of the UK.. but its a naming convention that they use their father's title as a distinction ie "Princess Beatrice of York" or Princess charlotte of Cambirdge...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think I'm correct in thinking that although of York, Kent etc are indeed used these are just naming customs or conventions brought in by the Hanoverians. Every British prince/princess is officially of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So in that sense the way other royal houses differentiate titles which you explained really clearly wouldn't make any sense here.

Yes that's right IMO, they are all princes of the UK.. but its a naming convention that they use their father's title as a distinction ie "Princess Beatrice of York" or Princess charlotte of Cambirdge...

The British royal family has been extremely inconsistent on the issue of an official territorial designation, as Heraldica explains.

When we speak of the title of Prince, is there a territorial designation attached to it? Not necessarily. In the letters patent and warrants that define or grant the title, it is described as a "titular dignity prefixed to their respective Christian names", a formulation that does not allow for the addition of any territorial designation when the title is properly used.

[...]

Actual practice shows little consistency in the matter. The expression "prince of Great Britain" appears under the Hanoverians (e.g., the styles of the prince of Wales in 1714, 1729, 1751) and that of "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" under Victoria and George V (e.g., the styles of the prince of Wales in 1841 and 1911). Yet the 2nd duke of Albany is called "born prince of Great Britain and Ireland" in the royal consent to his marriage. Princess Frederica of Hanover is called "princess of Great Britain and Ireland", while the members of the next generation of Cumberlands (1900-13) are called "born prince(ss) of Great Britain and Ireland". But Ernst August, in 1951, is called "prince of Great Britain". Army lists of the 1910s and 1920s list Prince Henry W.F.A. (son of the king, future duke of Gloucester) as "Prince of Great Britain".

The letters patent of Nov. 30, 1917, which grant the title of prince explicitly to children of a sovereign and children of sons of a sovereign, specify no territorial designation.

But you are correct that there is no differentiation, in this respect, between the direct and cadet lines.

As I said, I am not advocating that the British royal family follow the example of other royal houses and differentiate in this way (especially since there is already an existing tradition of differentiating by only granting dukedoms to the direct line). But I also don't see the concept as less sensible for the British royal family than for any other European royal family.

And at the time of Archie's brith, assuming the Sussexes weren't thinking seriously then of leaving the RF, I don't believe they would be happy with the idea of his being HRH PRince Archie. They are not even using the normal courtesy title for a Dukes son so why would they want him to have a royal style.

The couple have never publicly mentioned the reasons for declining the normal courtesy title for a Duke's son, so it cannot be assumed that it would also apply to a royal style. For example, suppose that they disliked the sound of "Earl of Dumbarton": This would have no impact on their feelings about the sound of "Prince Archie".

 

[Denville]

The British royal family has been extremely inconsistent on the issue of an official territorial designation, as Heraldica explains.




But you are correct that there is no differentiation, in this respect, between the direct and cadet lines.

As I said, I am not advocating that the British royal family follow the example of other royal houses and differentiate in this way (especially since there is already an existing tradition of differentiating by only granting dukedoms to the direct line). But I also don't see the concept as less sensible for the British royal family than for any other European royal family.




The couple have never publicly mentioned the reasons for declining the normal courtesy title for a Duke's son, so it cannot be assumed that it would also apply to a royal style. For example, suppose that they disliked the sound of "Earl of Dumbarton": This would have no impact on their feelings about the sound of "Prince Archie".

If they dislike the Earl of Dumbarton, thten it wasn't a good idea to give it..because normally, it would be expected that their eldest son wuodl be known by that title...
I can quite understand that they may have feared headlines like "Dumbo", but there were surely other secondary titles Harry could have been given.

 

[Excalibur]

He can announce that Archie will not be HRH, just as the queen did with Edward's children.

It would not surprise me in the least if the plan for Archie was to allow him to receive his proper titles and styles in due course, but to not formally use them. As an adult, he could choose to adopt the title and style in the unlikely event he would be needed as a working royal, or renounce it altogether and remain a private citizen. This would form some sort of middle-ground between the Wessex children and the Cambridge children. JMO.

 

[Durham]

It would not surprise me in the least if the plan for Archie was to allow him to receive his proper titles and styles in due course, but to not formally use them. As an adult, he could choose to adopt the title and style in the unlikely event he would be needed as a working royal, or renounce it altogether and remain a private citizen. This would form some sort of middle-ground between the Wessex children and the Cambridge children. JMO.

I think he'd be better of like the Wessex children but I've said already that I don't see the point of any cadet lines having royal styles. With the possibility (probability?) of living his life as an American, even more reason not to have the baggage of royal styles I would have thought.

In the next generation will the children of both Charlotte & Louis be HRH etc. It would seem weird not to treat their children in the same way since Charlotte's offspring would be higher in the succession than those of Louis. If giving dukedoms to the monarch's sons is to continue (which I hope it doesn't) then what about the monarch's daughters? Would such dukedoms then be created to the "heirs general" or "heirs male". What about Charlotte's husband?

This is all hypothetical I know but these questions will arise if the system stays unreformed.

 

[KellyAtLast]

It would not surprise me in the least if the plan for Archie was to allow him to receive his proper titles and styles in due course, but to not formally use them. As an adult, he could choose to adopt the title and style in the unlikely event he would be needed as a working royal, or renounce it altogether and remain a private citizen. This would form some sort of middle-ground between the Wessex children and the Cambridge children. JMO.

This sounds like the half in half out scenario that Harry and Meghan wanted in January. Get all the privileges keep using their titles but pick and choose the responsibilities and live mostly abroad. Only in this case Archie gets the full title and style, be raised in the USA and never take on royal engagements for the crown because his parents want him to be a private person.