Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[Ghost]

It is weird in English (maybe in Romanian too?), but placing a definite article before a title like Prince is actually standard in languages like French, Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish.

I wonder if this particular usage of "The Prince Harry" by the British is due to French influence.

Hmmm…Excellent perspective.. Romanian is a latin language also so it is normal to articulate the noun. The article is attached at the end of the word: prince = prinț, the prince = prințul. And it is normal to articulate it for Michael of Kent also.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is worth mentioning that it was only Queen Elizabeth II (and now King Charles III) who reserved "The Prince" and "The Princess" to children of the monarch. Prior to her reign, "The" and "the" were also used for more junior princes and princesses.

For illustration, note the official references at the jubilee of 1897 to grandchildren of Queen Victoria as, for example

Her Royal Highness The Princess Victoria of Wales

or

Her Highness The Princess Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34632/page/1693

 

[Tatiana Maria]

According to anonymous sources who are quoted by royal reporter Kate Mansey in The Times, and who appear to be close (or claiming to be) to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, their two children began to be known by the names Archie Sussex and Lilibet Sussex when they became Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

Quoting from the article:

Rather than being known as the Mountbatten-Windsors, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet had been known as Archie Sussex and Lilibet Sussex since the coronation, a source said — in the same way that Harry was known as Captain Wales when he was in the army.
​

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e-lilibet-children-name-royal-title-cnvf7d9jf
https://archive.ph/1l2I9


For those unfamiliar with it, this is longstanding convention for British princes and princesses and British peers and peeresses, all of whom have legal surnames in theory but, by tradition, do not use them.

Outside of legal settings (where, for obvious reasons, legal names are used), princes(ses) and peer(esse)s who must or choose to use a surname in certain contexts (such as schooling or business) typically assume the territorial designations from their titles as their unofficial "surname".

For example, the late Earl of Snowdon used Antony Snowdon as his professional name, and his son, then Viscount Linley, began his career as David Linley. The then Prince William and Prince Henry of Wales and the then Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of York held jobs as William Wales, Harry Wales, Beatrice York, and Eugenie York. (Prince Edward, who was The Prince Edward and had no territorial designation when he embarked on his professional career, used Edward Windsor until he became Earl of Wessex and then switched to Edward Wessex.)



A further title-related comment from an unidentified "source ":

Their foundation and production company are called Archewell, inspired by their four-year-old son’s name. However, the new website [sussex.com] is thought to be intended to be inclusive of both children.

After publishing his autobiography Spare, which detailed a childhood of being treated as a less-important “spare” to the “heir”, Prince William, the Sussexes are said to be keen not to discriminate against their own second-born, two-year-old Lilibet.

A source said: “The reality behind the new site is very simple — it’s a hub for the work the Sussexes do and it reflects the fact the family have, since the King’s coronation, the same surname for the first time. That’s a big deal for any family. It represents their unification and it’s a proud moment.”
​

It would be interesting to know how the source who claims "After publishing his autobiography Spare, which detailed a childhood of being treated as a less-important “spare” to the “heir”, Prince William, the Sussexes are said to be keen not to discriminate against their own second-born, two-year-old Lilibet" would explain that:

1) the Sussexes accepted a hereditary peerage with a standard male-only succession, which they were well aware would discriminate not only against any second-born son, but against any daughter, even if firstborn? Lilibet cannot inherit the dukedom whereas Archie can, and that would still be the case even if Lilibet were the elder child.

2) the Sussexes accepted a princely title for their children which their daughter Lilibet will lose part of (specifically, she will lose the "of Sussex") if and when she marries and be unable to share with her spouse, while their son Archie will keep the full title for life and share it with any female spouse he might have, who will become Princess Archie of Sussex?

 

[kalnel]

(Prince Edward, who was The Prince Edward and had no territorial designation when he embarked on his professional career, used Edward Windsor until he became Earl of Wessex and then switched to Edward Wessex.)

As a British prince, Edward was born with the territorial designation Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I suppose he also would have been Prince Edward of Edinburgh.

(But he did not have a dukedom, so he had no territorial designation associated with that title.)

 

[HRHHermione]

I really don’t understand the purpose of having Archie and Lilibet use princely titles and territorial designations if the intent is for them to be raised privately in the U.S. without any hierarchical issues related to birth order.

It’s one of the choices the Sussex couple has made that I find most confusing.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I really don’t understand the purpose of having Archie and Lilibet use princely titles and territorial designations if the intent is for them to be raised privately in the U.S. without any hierarchical issues related to birth order.

It’s one of the choices the Sussex couple has made that I find most confusing.

I agree, especially since Mountbatten-Windsor is the established "personal surname" used for male descendants of QEII. They live in a country that does not recognise royal titles for their citizens, or for even foreign citizens, like many other countries.

I wonder if they have legally changed Archie's and Lili's surname from Mountbatten-Windsor to Sussex....

 

[Erin9]

I really don’t understand the purpose of having Archie and Lilibet use princely titles and territorial designations if the intent is for them to be raised privately in the U.S. without any hierarchical issues related to birth order.

It’s one of the choices the Sussex couple has made that I find most confusing.

It’s been made pretty clear over the years imo how important titles and styles are to them. They’d be using HRH now if they could. So, I’m not surprised it’s trickled down to their kids. Regardless of where they live. Or the fact their kids have barely even been to the UK. And are estranged from a lot of their family.

It doesn’t make sense to me either- especially when they have tried so hard to make themselves appear to be the informal down to earth royals. This demonstrates loudly otherwise. But- I think one of the more consistent things about the Sussexes is how contradictory they are on many things.

 

[ACO]

I mean Archie and Lili are grandchildren of the current monarch. People love to dismiss them (even say they don’t exist). I don’t fault Harry and Meghan for not denying them their so called birthright after all that.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Also, if HM The King finds his youngest grandchildren being styled Prince and Prince problematic, he could always write letters of patent removing them of those styles. Similarly, if the British government found that HRH The Duke of Sussex and, by extension, HRH The Duchess of Sussex holding those titles problematic, there would be a strong push (not a lackluster one like last year) to remove them.

There are many descendants of defunct monarchies that still style themselves as princes and princesses that are still respected as such, even when they have little to no connection to those former monarchies, oftentimes not even living within those areas anymore. I don't understand why HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex, toddlers whose future is completely broad and might even lead them to being working members of the BRF, would need more dedication and loyalty to the monarchy that gave them those titles than many other, older individuals in the exact same position.

 

[Somebody]

I really don’t understand the purpose of having Archie and Lilibet use princely titles and territorial designations if the intent is for them to be raised privately in the U.S. without any hierarchical issues related to birth order.

It’s one of the choices the Sussex couple has made that I find most confusing.

The titles of their children are part of their royal brand, so, very consistent with their behavior in general imho.

 

[Erin9]

The titles of their children are part of their royal brand, so, very consistent with their behavior in general imho.

It is. And after over 4 years in the US it is still all that sets them apart. It’s all they have. The front page of their new website reminded us of their titles 3 times. There wasn’t much on the page- but that was there.

So of course the so called down to earth royals want their kids to be Prince/ess- unlike the youngest grandchildren of the late monarch- James and Louise.

Harry and Meghan to me are excellent examples of- just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. They clearly don’t like visiting the UK. They’ve made a lot of money and gotten a lot of PR whining about the institution, the family- but they WILL cling to the titles for themselves and their kids.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Also, if HM The King finds his youngest grandchildren being styled Prince and Prince problematic, he could always write letters of patent removing them of those styles. Similarly, if the British government found that HRH The Duke of Sussex and, by extension, HRH The Duchess of Sussex holding those titles problematic, there would be a strong push (not a lackluster one like last year) to remove them.

There are many descendants of defunct monarchies that still style themselves as princes and princesses that are still respected as such, even when they have little to no connection to those former monarchies, oftentimes not even living within those areas anymore. I don't understand why HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex, toddlers whose future is completely broad and might even lead them to being working members of the BRF, would need more dedication and loyalty to the monarchy that gave them those titles than many other, older individuals in the exact same position.

I doubt the children will be working royals at any point. The children live primarily in America a country that does not acknowledge the use of titles so it’s pointless for them to be using them unless they think they’ll get VIP perks for it. The titles have nothing to do with dedication.

 

[Claire]

So in totality -

1. The children do not get the family surname but claim the titles. So we are divorce from the family but we will take prestigious royal linage.
2. We will not use the HRH - but we will tell the people and press at Invictus to roll out the red carpet and call us, HRH.
3. Titles mean nothing to us - but we will use them everywhere we seem fit.

 

[Mirabel]

There are many descendants of defunct monarchies that still style themselves as princes and princesses that are still respected as such, even when they have little to no connection to those former monarchies, oftentimes not even living within those areas anymore.

I disagree that they are respected.
Maybe in Europe, but not in the USA.
Often such titles are treated with mockery. I remember reading that Jackie Kennedy's sister Lee titled herself Princess Radziwell, or something similar, and people used to laugh at her behind her back.

 

[Durham]

I doubt the children will be working royals at any point. The children live primarily in America a country that does not acknowledge the use of titles so it’s pointless for them to be using them unless they think they’ll get VIP perks for it. The titles have nothing to do with dedication.

Absolutely. They are the children of a younger son so they have no future representing the monarchy. That would be the same if they lived in the UK.

They would have been better served following the then Wessex example. The York princesses (through no fault of their own) have been lumbered with their titles imo. It does them no good.

 

[Somebody]

Absolutely. They are the children of a younger son so they have no future representing the monarchy. That would be the same if they lived in the UK.

They would have been better served following the then Wessex example. The York princesses (through no fault of their own) have been lumbered with their titles imo. It does them no good.

I wonder whether they intentionally tried to avoid the Wessex scenario by refusing to use the styles of Lord Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet when they were entitled to them.

 

[Durham]

Maybe they did. It was clearly important to the parents that their children had their "birthright". Even though of course it is no such thing.

 

[Somebody]

Maybe they did. It was clearly important to the parents that their children had their "birthright". Even though of course it is no such thing.

But they refused their children's 'birthright' as the LPs were quite clear that they were Lord and Lady from birth

 

[Durham]

Yes I see what you mean. I'm still of the opinion that they were holding out for what they considered the styles & titles of sufficient rank for their children. Lord & lady just weren't grand enough so best to be untitled until their grandfather was monarch.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Didn't TRH The Edinburghs decide themselves that they would rather their children be styled as the children of an earl rather than a royal prince? Hasn't Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor had the ability, since she became an adult, to refer to herself as HRH Princess Louise of Wessex/HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh as a legal princess of the United Kingdom? So why would HRH The Duke of Sussex referring to his children by their legal titles be seen as a slight against his uncle, aunt, and cousins?

 

[Durham]

Yes.

According to the duchess yes.

Who's said it's a slight?

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Yes.

According to the duchess yes.

Who's said it's a slight?

I've seen several comments that stated it was unfair that the children of TRH The Sussexes would be called Prince and Princess but not the children of TRH The Edinburghs. I never understood it since the latter couple decided themselves that their children wouldn't have princely titles.

Me personally? I don't have a problem that TRH The Edinburghs don't use their children's princely titles, or that HRH The Princess Royal and Mark Phillips chose not to accept an earldom for the latter and kept their children untitled, or that HRH The Duke of York and HRH The Duke of Sussex openly embrace their children's legal right to be styled Prince or Princess. It's their children and their choice.

 

[Hallo girl]

The children are entitled to use them now as their grand father is King, and not before his accession.

 

[Durham]

Is it a legal right? I'm not sure that it is.

But yes they can choose whatever. Entirely up to them as things stand. But the children of any younger son having royal styles/titles doesn't make an awful lot of sense these days.

And if younger sons then why not the children of daughters as well? The whole system is ripe for reform.

 

[kalnel]

Is it a legal right? I'm not sure that it is.

But yes they can choose whatever. Entirely up to them as things stand. But the children of any younger son having royal styles/titles doesn't make an awful lot of sense these days.

And if younger sons then why not the children of daughters as well? The whole system is ripe for reform.

It's the Sussex children's (and the Wessex children, etc.) right to bear the title HRH Prince/Princess as male-line grandchildren of the sovereign under the 1917 Letters Patent: https://debretts.com/royal-family/letters-patent-and-the-law/the-ruling-of-1917/

 

[HenRach Dominion]

From my very little research, it looks like letters patent are viewed as stature law, or at least the monarch's legal instrument, but I will have to defer to someone who knows more about British law.

 

[Kenya]

I've seen several comments that stated it was unfair that the children of TRH The Sussexes would be called Prince and Princess but not the children of TRH The Edinburghs. I never understood it since the latter couple decided themselves that their children wouldn't have princely titles.

I don't think anyone has brought up the Edinburghs to suggest it's unfair that Louise and James are not prince and princess. I believe people have brought it up to contrast Edward and Sophie's choices from Harry and Meghan's. Edward and Sophie, realizing their children were never going to be close to the throne, chose not to impose the burden of prince and princess titles on their kids, leaving it up to decide when they reached 18 whether they wanted to lead royal lives. By contrast, Harry -- who has complained bitterly about the Institution and how much being a spare negatively impacted his life -- and Meghan have chosen to give their children the prince and princess titles even though they rank even below spares, will never be working royals, and don't even live in the country in which their titles are relevant. IMO, it's fair to make the comparisons.

 

[Durham]

It's the Sussex children's (and the Wessex children, etc.) right to bear the title HRH Prince/Princess as male-line grandchildren of the sovereign under the 1917 Letters Patent: https://debretts.com/royal-family/letters-patent-and-the-law/the-ruling-of-1917/

But it's a "right" that can be taken away so is it really best viewed as an award or a privilege that can be revoked?

It's interesting that the LPs use the phrase "at all times hold & enjoy" because that suggests permanence but monarchs can undo the LP's of previous monarchs at will so these titles etc are not set in stone at all but subject to review &/or removal/abeyance.

Maybe George v did not understand this? Although I would imagine he did because his own LPs of 1917 deprived male line gt grandsons of British monarchs from being HH/prince - which up until that point had been their "right".

 

[Durham]

From my very little research, it looks like letters patent are viewed as stature law, or at least the monarch's legal instrument, but I will have to defer to someone who knows more about British law.

Me too.

 

[Alison H]

Maybe George V did not understand this? Although I would imagine he did because his own LPs of 1917 deprived male line gt grandsons of British monarchs from being HH/prince - which up until that point had been their "right".

It hadn't been an issue previously. There hadn't been any legitimate male line great grandsons of monarchs until the future Edward VIII was born whilst Queen Victoria was still alive. I think he just intended it as a one off change to meet a change in circumstances ... although I suppose that doing anything once sets a precedent for it to be done again.

Yes, they have the force of statute law.