Recent content by JSH

I don't see any connection between the cases you state. In the Wessex and Sussex case the Letters Patent of 1917 hold because there has been nothing to contradict them. In the case of the Cambridge children the Letters Patent of 2012 does contradict those of 1917 and they are newer so they...

It seems to me that both the York princesses are more popular now than in a long time. A whole lot of people are very interested in them. The media I don't know about, if that is what you were referring to.

Totally agree.

Putting the Duke of Edinburgh title on hold would not be a tribute to Pr. Philip but rather a slap in the face. This plan to give it to Edward was specifically made so that Pr. Philip's title would go to one of his sons. As a titled aristocrat it is extremely important that a man's title be...

1) I don't believe royals are viewed as above the every day person. They are people who have a specific job to do. 2) Speak for yourself. I am across the pond and I know enough to know that they are far more than tourist attractions. 3) In Britain taxes pay for royal security and nothing...

I simply find it unbelievable that a person employed by the royals would know more many years after the fact more than a person who was intimately and personally involved in the title decision at the time it was being made. That makes no sense. It makes far more sense to me that the three...

According to the Countess of Wessex (who would certainly know the facts), her children ARE HRHs, they just don't use that designation. Archie is not at all, for the time being.

I very much hope that the Countess has not contracted the virus and that this time of isolation is nothing more than a boring interlude.

I doubt either Louise or James will ever use their HRHs and I think that's a pity. They are completely entitled to do so. I personally don't think that title or lack thereof would make any difference at all in media interest in them. But, bottom line, I am ecstatic to have confirmed that they...

It is entirely possible that the Sussexes don't have Archie use his courtesy title now in order to avoid confusion when Charles becomes king and Archie drops any courtesy title and takes up his HRH Prince title.

It is wonderful what the York family is doing to support NHS. I wholeheartedly applaud them! It is NOT a "public relations effort".

I, for one, see the Princess Royal's engagements in the media, so they don't go unnoticed being mentioned only in the Court Circular. Maybe they aren't splashed on front pages, but they ARE reported on. Same for the others outside of the Wales branch.

Sons of royal peers don't use subsidiary titles if they have a title of their own, namely HRH Prince xxx. This only came up with Archie because he has no title of his own (yet).

I disagree with that as well. There have been rumors that the Sussexes DO intend for Archie to become an HRH in time. And there is some logic to not having him use a courtesy title in that case. So that there is no confusion when he changes from one title to another. If Archie used Lord...

While it is true that the Wessex vs Sussex case would be inconsistent, the case of the Wessex children, IMO, was a one-time special case at their parents' request. I don't think anyone involved ever wanted it to be used as a precedent setting case.