Strictly speaking, although Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, they have still kept the York appellation, whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi.
But any criticism will do where Harry?s concerned, won?t it? [...] So what does the media want?
I think what people took issue with was the idea that Charles (or whoever) would want to change the LP for the grandchild(ren) of mixed racial background. They have every right to do whatever they want but you have to admit if that had occurred many would have questioned why...
You sure? I think many would question why it would start with Archie. There is a reason why many reacted the way they did. Right or wrong, it is a valid question.
But unless Charlotte married a Prince or a Peer (quite unlikely IMO) her children wouldn’t receive any titles anyway.
Can you point to an example where "the media", or anyone, criticized Prince Harry for keeping his surname instead of being Mr. Markle? I have never seen this criticism even from his detractors. His cousins Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, on the other hand, have been subjected to criticism on social media for keeping their maiden names professionally rather than being Mrs. Brooksbank and Mrs. Mapelli Mozzi.
Take a look at the criticisms of Harry using his Dukedom of Sussex title and the title of Prince (which he was born with) in his two new jobs (even though they are on CVS on the two company/organisation sites and therefore probably not written by himself) for examples of what I have written about.
Strictly speaking, although Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, they have still kept the York appellation, whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi.
But any criticism will do where Harry?s concerned, won?t it? [...] So what does the media want?
It seems my question was unclear. This is the comment to which it was directed (and I have edited the quote in my previous post to be clearer).
Neither Beatrice and Eugenie have dukedoms, and neither of them use their Princess titles, or any other titles, in their jobs. Thus, your comment "But any criticism will do where Harry's concerned, won't it?", with the implication that Beatrice and Eugenie had done the same as Harry without receiving criticisms, could only be referring to their use of York as their surname instead of their spouses' surnames, which you in fact referred to:
"whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi."
My question then is: When did Prince Harry receive criticism for using Sussex instead of Markle as his professional surname (as opposed to using his titles of Prince or Duke professionally)?
However, Harry has never used Mountbatten Windsor. He has at times used ‘of Wales’ and ‘Sussex’. As he was born a Prince and was given a dukedom by the Queen it’s not as if he is assuming something that wasn’t rightfully his.
Other people have objected to his doing so, but I can’t see why he isn’t entitled to use either ‘Sussex’ as other Peers, royal and otherwise, do, or the Prince title he was born with in all sectors of his life. Don’t see why he has to adopt the name of Mr Mountbatten Windsor when he isn’t in order to satisfy others who assert he’s trading off his name.
Why would Harry be using Markle either professionally or in his private life? Markle is his wife’s maiden and professional name.
Except the custom is, in Britain at least, and Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice are all British, that for centuries women have taken their husbands’ names on marriage, not the other way around. I’m not aware of any British men who hold titles who have assumed their wives maiden names after marriage in their professional lives. Perhaps you know of some?
Strictly speaking, although Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, they have still kept the York appellation, whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi.
But any criticism will do where Harry?s concerned, won?t it? [...] So what does the media want?
However York is not a surname for either Beatrice or Eugenie in the usual sense of the word. ‘Of York’ maybe.
However, Harry is not Harry Sussex, but Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. I believe he can go by Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, but I doubt his passport and other legal documents use that name. This is why I am neutral about him choosing to continue to identify himself as the Duke of Sussex- it is his legal name.
His legal name isn't legally recognized in his new place of residence, though. I am very sure he's not filling out his IRS or immigration paperwork as "The Duke of Sussex". And as a duke, he is "Sussex" as per UK custom, so "Harry Sussex" would be an acceptable alternative. Anything would seem more palatable than grandstanding on a title from a system he fled, dislikes, and disparages.
I would have said that Harry Windsor would be better. In the US, there isn't the tradition of titles. and even calling himself Harry Sussex isn't relaly what happens in the US. In England it IS acceptable for a peer to use his title as his signature or for royal kids to use their parents title as a temporary surname.. such as William going by William Wales or Beatrice being Beatrice York. But why do it in the US and why do it at ALL when you have gone on tv and attacked your family, its traditions, and complained that being a prince and a British royal wasn't what you wanted out of life and you are rejecting it.
oh come, there's nothing wrong with calling himself Harry, that's what he's alwasy been known as...and it si a well known diminutive of Henry.If we start to be picky this way, he should be Henry Windsor, as Harry is just his nickname... And if he was so against all connections to the British Royal family, he could have asked King Constantine and queen Margarethe to restore his titles of "Greece and Denmark" and go by Henry Greece-Denmark. A lot of people in the US are named after the places their ancestors came from...
Well that would be insane if Harry started trying to use titles that don't even legally exist anywhere anymore. But there's absolutely no need for him to do that even hypothetically and drag even more people into this mess and start a diplomatic incident.
Nothing is being legally taken away from him or even unofficially taken away. The Queen simply asked them not to use HRH in their private commercial ventures. Which they aren't but are sailing close to the wind by plastering DDOS everywhere they can, which is surely not in the spirit of what they agreed to and doesn't make any sense considering they themselves have said about the BRF and its existence and lifestyle.
The Greek Royal Family simply use "Greece" when they need a surname. e.g. Theodora is "Theodora Greece" in her acting career.
I would have said that Harry Windsor would be better. In the US, there isn't the tradition of titles. and even calling himself Harry Sussex isn't relaly what happens in the US. In England it IS acceptable for a peer to use his title as his signature or for royal kids to use their parents title as a temporary surname.. such as William going by William Wales or Beatrice being Beatrice York. But why do it in the US and why do it at ALL when you have gone on tv and attacked your family, its traditions, and complained that being a prince and a British royal wasn't what you wanted out of life and you are rejecting it.
Interesting. You can only disclaim an inherited peerage, not one you were created.
Interesting. You can only disclaim an inherited peerage, not one you were created.
No she didn't. Edward VII created his British born female line grand daughters princesses but as HH not HRH. And his son George V did not agree with the decision which is why his daughters's sons were not princes.
No other British monarchs have done this.