Years ago a member of the Irish peerage was a senior detective based at Scotland Yard. He didn't use his title for obvious reasons, and hadn't since joining the police force.
On the other hand a title might be OK if you worked for one of those old, prestigious businesses in the West End, a wine merchants, for example.
However, it certainly made no difference to Zara's equestrian career. And let's not forget that her mother competed in the Olympics, and was a Princess.
Yes, we know. But the question for several posts has been would having a title been a hindrance or help to Zara in her professional career, and I think most have agreed it wouldn't have made any difference. Along the way other people's titles came into it.
In reality having a title wouldn't have been a hinderance to either child. The children of aristocrats have normal lives every day. Even royal related ones.
Has being the children of the Earl Snowden stopped Sarah and her brother, now the Earl from normal lives? No. Sarah has had success in the art world and her brother in furniture making.
The children of the Duke of Kent? No. Earl of St Andrews managed a career in diplomacy and now non-profit despite his title, and his wife a historian. Helen is an art dealer.
The children for Prince Michael of Kent? No. Freddie works for JPMorgan and Lady Gabriella works as a writer and was studying or her PHD in anthropology.
The children of the Duke of Gloucester? No.Alexander was a career soldier and now works in business. Lady Rose is an art assistant in movies.
There are plenty of non royal aristocrats who hold every day jobs as well as their titles as well.
Zara's life would be no different, and Peter's highly unlikely, if their father had a title. They would still be private citizens who appeared at the rare royal event like Trooping.
Even without a title they are publically known as Anne's kids. There is no escaping that. If their mother hasn't hindered their career, a title wouldn't.