The only ones who would have been HRH currently are Louise and James. We still have to see what happens to Archie (I have argued that he shouldn't be HRH as long as Louise and James aren't - otherwise I'd be fine with it).
Theoretically, it could be that Meghan just really doesn't like the sound of 'Earl of Dumbarton' and therefore prefers for him to be known as Archie but they could be fine with 'HRH prince Archie of Sussex'. We'll have to see what happens when Charles ascends the throne.
I dont see what James and Louise have to do with Archie. The York girls are also grandchildren of the queen (and not children of the heir) and yet they have titles. Edward CHOSE for his children not to have a title, other then that of the kids of an Earl. Archie's title should not be dictated by what his Great Uncle chose for his children.
I doubt they 'dont like the title given'. It's likely they are just happy calling their son by his name. In natural time he will be the grandson of the king and he will be entitled to be Prince Archie.
I imagine that if Charles issues letters patent amending just who is entitled to the HRH honorific, it will be effective from that date forward and not retroactive. Just gradually slimming down who holds the HRH should it be the King and his heir and family. the only person in question would be a daughter if Harry and Meghan have one before Charles is king. They may even go the way they have with Archie.
Agreed. Highly doubtful Charles will see the need to 'strip his family' of their titles.
There is no need. HRH doesn't come with money, power or anything. It doesn't save the royal family, or tax payers, money by eliminating those with a title. The reality is its too late to simplify the life of the York girls by 'removing their title'. Whether they have the title officially or not, they will be known as the York princesses. Their life is what it will be, too late to turn back the clock on that one.
I don't get the whole concern about 'too many HRH' anyways. I sometimes wonder if people think there is a dollar amount attached to every HRH. And its too costly to have them. Other then security, not true.
Reality for tax payers, beyond security: You will pay just as much money for 5 royals as you do 16. The sovereign's grant isn't going to reduce with the number of royals going down. All you do is you get Less work for the same amount of money. Less royals mean less events.
The family slims down naturally anyways. The Kents and Gloucesters will pass on and their children are private citizens. The queen and Philip as well. Edward's children are private citizens, and the York girls are and can't pass on their titles either.
In twenty years we will have:
Charles/Camilla
Kate/William
Harry/Meghan
Anne
Edward/Sophie
Andrew
That's already far less then we have now as working royals. The Cambridge kids aren't likely to take on full time royal duties until their late twenties like their dad and Uncle Harry. And by then William is likely king. And his aunts and uncles may very well have retired or slowly started to. Anne at the very least will.