The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4341  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:29 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
No they aren't using their courtesy titles in everyday life. They don't style themselves as Earl of ... or Marquess of ... they are just using the name part of the courtesy title as a surname & styling themselves more in line with the rest of society, which is probably more comfortable professionally.
Exactly, they use their courtesy title for a surname. So, by using that name they are clearly presenting themselves as the heirs to their father's title. They are not pretending to be just 'any family member' within their family but a future peer/head of the family. H&M instead told us to pretend that their son is just some random family member of the family Mountbatten-Windsor, while he is the heir to the Dukedom of Sussex.

Quote:
H&M have decided not to use the Sussex courtesy titles for their son - they haven't explained their reasons but perhaps thinking ahead to school, they prefer the surname Mountbatten-Windsor to Dumbarton (I suspect the Duke of Edinburgh isn't complaining). As we haven't been told that Archie is barred from inheriting the Sussex Dukedom, I imagine in future he'll be able to style himself with the courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton or just call himself Archie Dumbarton or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor when he's old enough to decide for himself. Until then, his parents are deciding and the surname Mountbatten-Windsor is unlikely to put him at any disadvantage whatsoever.
They have not only decided not to use the subsidiary title (which might indeed be because of the specific associations that some might have with Dumbarton) but even to abolish the use of Lord/Lady. While perfectly logical in private life, this baby is a member of the royal family, so why demote his status in formal communication? I am sure George isn't called 'prince George' by his parents nor at school but in official communication he will still be 'HRH prince George of Cambridge'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
Well, if Archie uses—not just on the odd legal document, but truly uses—the Mountbatten-Windsor name, and if he goes on to have children, Prince Philip has the legacy of the family name created for him living on for generations. That’s not nothing.

Andrew and Edward’s kids aren’t going to pass it on, given that the only male in that bunch will inherit a title. Prince Louis will likely end up a Duke one day. So Archie and any potential future siblings are the first possibility since the name was created ~40 years ago.
Both Archie and James are to inherit their father's titles, so no difference between the two of them in that respect. Although H&M might want you to forget, Archie is still the heir to the dukedom of Sussex (and therefore, his eldest son (yes, getting ahead of things for a newborn) will be entitled to the courtesy title of 'Baron Kilkeel' and later 'Earl of Dumbarton' until he one day will inherit the dukedom himself).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4342  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
No they aren't using their courtesy titles in everyday life. They don't style themselves as Earl of ... or Marquess of ... they are just using the name part of the courtesy title as a surname & styling themselves more in line with the rest of society, which is probably more comfortable professionally.

H&M have decided not to use the Sussex courtesy titles for their son - they haven't explained their reasons but perhaps thinking ahead to school, they prefer the surname Mountbatten-Windsor to Dumbarton (I suspect the Duke of Edinburgh isn't complaining). As we haven't been told that Archie is barred from inheriting the Sussex Dukedom, I imagine in future he'll be able to style himself with the courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton or just call himself Archie Dumbarton or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor when he's old enough to decide for himself. Until then, his parents are deciding and the surname Mountbatten-Windsor is unlikely to put him at any disadvantage whatsoever.
Will the courtesy title be used in his passport and birth certificate though ?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4343  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Exactly, they use their courtesy title for a surname. So, by using that name they are clearly presenting themselves as the heirs to their father's title. They are not pretending to be just 'any family member' within their family but a future peer/head of the family. H&M instead told us to pretend that their son is just some random family member of the family Mountbatten-Windsor, while he is the heir to the Dukedom of Sussex.

They have not only decided not to use the subsidiary title (which might indeed be because of the specific associations that some might have with Dumbarton) but even to abolish the use of Lord/Lady. While perfectly logical in private life, this baby is a member of the royal family, so why demote his status in formal communication? I am sure George isn't called 'prince George' by his parents nor at school but in official communication he will still be 'HRH prince George of Cambridge'.
They don't use the title. They use the designation. If it's someone who doesn't know they have a title, their name, or what they use as last name, wouldn't give it away.

And if we are to talk about demotion, he's certainly not the first one in the BRF to have a lower title than he's entitled to. If it's such a big deal, where do we draw the line? What is consider acceptable? Just the peerage, or HRH? As for official communication, I'm not sure how much communication there will be for the child until he is old enough to decide for himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Both Archie and James are to inherit their father's titles, so no difference between the two of them in that respect. Although H&M might want you to forget, Archie is still the heir to the dukedom of Sussex (and therefore, his eldest son (yes, getting ahead of things for a newborn) will be entitled to the courtesy title of 'Baron Kilkeel' and later 'Earl of Dumbarton' until he one day will inherit the dukedom himself).
I don't think they are trying to make people forget Archie will one day be Duke of Sussex just because they aren't using a courtesy title. I doubt Meghan and Harry went hmm, I wonder what will make people forget my child is my heir. Come on.
Reply With Quote
  #4344  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Exactly, they use their courtesy title for a surname. So, by using that name they are clearly presenting themselves as the heirs to their father's title. They are not pretending to be just 'any family member' within their family but a future peer/head of the family. H&M instead told us to pretend that their son is just some random family member of the family Mountbatten-Windsor, while he is the heir to the Dukedom of Sussex.
Harry and Meghan said no such thing. They simply stated they have chosen not to use a courtesy title for their son. At no point did they instruct the public to pretend their son isn't the heir to a Dukedom. Is Camilla pretending she isn't married to the Prince of Wales by choosing not to use that title?
Reply With Quote
  #4345  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
There are rules for the way titles are shown in British passports . For example:


1) Duke


Personal Details Page (Surname Field): Duke of (Title)


Observation: The Holder is His Grace (forenames and family surname) Duke of (Title)



2) Eldest son (heir) of a Duke


Personal Details Page (Surname Field): (Courtesy Title)



Observation: The Holder is (forenames and family surname), (Courtesy Title)



Note that "The" and honorary prefixes (like "The Most Honourable" or "The Right Honourable") are not used with a courtesy title and won't appear on a passport for the eldest son of a Duke for example.


3) Younger son of a Duke


Personal Details Page (Surname Field): Lord (First Name) Surname



Observation: The Holder is Lord (forenames and surname)




Link: https://assets.publishing.service.go...-passports.pdf




So it looks like courtesy titles are officially recognized in the UK.
Thank you for posting this. Just to clarify, I did not mean to suggest that courtesy titles were not recognized in official documents. The point I was trying to make was that, as far as I was aware, legal peers (and royals) were not required to list a legal surname in their official documents, while courtesy peers were thus required; at least, that was how Debrett's former website stated it.

But the link you kindly posted clearly indicates that under the current passport rules, even legal peers are listed with a family name. Does this imply that royals are likewise now required to list their legal family name in their passports?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
They don't use the title. They use the designation. If it's someone who doesn't know they have a title, their name, or what they use as last name, wouldn't give it away.
Yes, but most of the courtesy peers who do not use their titles in everyday life use them nevertheless for formal communications. Use of the designation from their courtesy title as their informal last name suggests that they do use the full title when appropriate. For instance, until he inherited his father's peerages, Buckingham Palace consistently referred to Princess Margaret's son by the courtesy title of Viscount Linley, even though he used David Linley as his professional name (his legal last name being Armstrong-Jones).
Reply With Quote
  #4346  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 311
Found this on Twitter. I was thinking the same thing.

Quote:
It’s seems that the non-usage of the Dumbarton title for little Archie is quite controversial and frankly I’m not sure what to think of it but maybe his parents wanted to avoid the inevitable nicknames that come with it going forward? He will grow older and kids can be mean.
Reply With Quote
  #4347  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:31 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
I continue to be confused by the hoopla over a baby not having a courtesy title. A courtesy title. I could see if we had serious reason to believe that Archie wouldn't eventually become Duke of Sussex but we don't.

It's also quite odd to see some object so strongly to no courtesy title but are perfectly fine, even advocating, for no HRH title when Archie becomes entitled to it. What am I missing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlo View Post
Found this on Twitter. I was thinking the same thing.
That may very well be the reason. It's certainly one of the reasons I don't that it isn't being used.
Reply With Quote
  #4348  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
It is a possibility that the parents did not want the name Dumbarton for their son, but there are likely to be further reasons behind the decision, as there were alternatives that would also have avoided using the Dumbarton name, such as requesting a different earldom before the marriage (Queen Elizabeth reportedly would have given Prince Edward the dukedom of Cambridge, but assented to his personal request), using Prince Harry's second courtesy title Baron Kilkeel, using Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, or using Archie Mountbatten-Windsor at school but formally referring to him as Earl of Dumbarton.
Reply With Quote
  #4349  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:58 PM
Rena M.'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Kraków, Poland
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I suppose it's possible Harry & Meghan don't want their oldest child to be treated/styled/etc. any differently than any future children. No courtesy title for the younger sons (and definitely no courtesy title for any daughters) so let's not have Archie use one either. But that doesn't explain why they don't at least call him Lord Archie since all the children can be Lord/Lady.
Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...
__________________
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, "Bigoted Brits will be infuriated and unforgiving. I am already getting emails about how “the woman will pollute the bloodline” and stain national purity" https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnis...tional-family/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzAp5IhyL4
Reply With Quote
  #4350  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:03 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
I continue to be confused by the hoopla over a baby not having a courtesy title. A courtesy title. I could see if we had serious reason to believe that Archie wouldn't eventually become Duke of Sussex but we don't.

It's also quite odd to see some object so strongly to no courtesy title but are perfectly fine, even advocating, for no HRH title when Archie becomes entitled to it. What am I missing?

That may very well be the reason. It's certainly one of the reasons I don't that it isn't being used.
I am happy to explain: I care about consistency. It is not consistent to pretend Archie is a 'master' when in fact he is a Lord and should normally be addressed as Earl of Dumbarton.

No longer awarding HRH to grandchildren of a monarch who are not children of the heir('s heir) is fine with me IF applied consistently. So, given that the Wessex children aren't HRH, imo Harry's children shouldn't become HRH either when Charles' ascends the throne (unless Louise and James retroactively receive HRH as well; as it seems nowadays Louise is treated as if she were an HRH).

If Harry and Meghan would have asked for a life-peerage instead of a hereditary peerage, it would be more consistent than having a child start his life without any style to finally end up one of the higher ranking peers (as a duke; although last created for now; in the end he and his descendants will end up before James (Viscount Severn) and Louis (HRH prince Louis of Cambridge) as the Edinburgh dukedom will need to be recreated for Edward; and Louis will need his own dukedom) within the peerage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rena M. View Post
Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...
If that's the case he should have asked the queen NOT to award him a dukedom. By accepting one (and a hereditary one) he was personally responsible for having another dukedom created within the peerage of the UK which might live on forever (as long as he has male-line descendants and the system is not abolished).

Had he not accepted a dukedom, his children would still be entitled to be styled as Lord and Lady but the next generation would in fact be mere masters and misses but that's not what he did. He accepted for himself (and a direct heirs) a peerage with all that comes with it to not yet a year later ask the world to pretend for his son that he didn't - while continuing to use his peerage (and rightly so).

Well, the only thing this might do is indeed create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down.
Reply With Quote
  #4351  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:13 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rena M. View Post
Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...
That would be sort of ridiculous when the very foundation of monarchy is precisely elevating an arbitrary family chosen a long time ago above all others in the country and even giving that family the monopoly of the office of Head of State by order of primogeniture.

In other words, Harry cannot represent the monarchy and , at the same time, stand for any of what you said in your first paragraph as monarchy is exactly the opposite of all that. Modern Kings may have surrendered the actual governing of their kingdoms to democratically elected politicians with limited mandates, but monarchy itself will never be democratic or compatible with equality or meritocracy.
Reply With Quote
  #4352  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:15 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rena M. View Post
Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...
Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc.

If so, then why did he accepted the dukedom? Maybe he should give up his title and privileges and go live a private life.
Reply With Quote
  #4353  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:23 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am happy to explain: I care about consistency. It is not consistent to pretend Archie is a 'master' when in fact he is a Lord and should normally be addressed as Earl of Dumbarton.

No longer awarding HRH to grandchildren of a monarch who are not children of the heir('s heir) is fine with me IF applied consistently. So, given that the Wessex children aren't HRH, imo Harry's children shouldn't become HRH either when Charles' ascends the throne (unless Louise and James retroactively receive HRH as well; as it seems nowadays Louise is treated as if she were an HRH).

If Harry and Meghan would have asked for a life-peerage instead of a hereditary peerage, it would be more consistent than having a child start his life without any style to finally end up one of the higher ranking peers (as a duke; although last created for now; in the end he and his descendants will end up before James (Viscount Severn) and Louis (HRH prince Louis of Cambridge) as the Edinburgh dukedom will need to be recreated for Edward; and Louis will need his own dukedom) within the peerage.
This doesn't quite add up given that consistency was already broken with the Wessex children. And it's just odd to use them as the standard now when Harry and Edward are not comparable. Edward was in a much different position at the time it was decided his children would not be styled as HRH. If a comparison must be made then it should be between Harry and Andrew. Both second sons with one already having daughters with HRH titles. That's stronger than what you're arguing imo.
Reply With Quote
  #4354  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rena M. View Post
Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...
The "royal source" who announced to royal correspondents that Prince Harry and Meghan had decided against using a courtesy title for their son used the words "at this time" and strongly suggested that Archie would be elevated to HRH and Prince in his grandfather's reign, so the expectation at present is that Archie will eventually hold the highest hereditary title available to him.

See the tweets in this post: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2220171
Reply With Quote
  #4355  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:34 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

Well, the only thing this might do is indeed create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down.
I hardly think not using a courtesy title for the 7th in line to the throne is going to bring down the monarchy.

As for the system of hereditary peerages, would that be a bad thing? In 2019 why are there hereditary titles? What great service to the nation has Charles Spencer or Jamie Spencer-Churchill done to entitle them to be called your Lordship or Your Grace?

If we are going to have a peerage at all, why should it not be simply a life peerage so that the only person ennobled is the person who has earned it rather than their descendants 200 plus years later. Knighthoods, even lowly MBEs can be stripped if someone does something disreputable. With hereditary peerages, the holder can go to jail (I'm looking at you Baron Brocket and your Grace the Duke of Marlborough) and retain his title.

I am having a hard time understanding why in 2019 people are getting hot under the collar about titles for someone else's child.
Reply With Quote
  #4356  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:35 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If that's the case he should have asked the queen NOT to award him a dukedom. By accepting one (and a hereditary one) he was personally responsible for having another dukedom created within the peerage of the UK which might live on forever (as long as he has male-line descendants and the system is not abolished).

Had he not accepted a dukedom, his children would still be entitled to be styled as Lord and Lady but the next generation would in fact be mere masters and misses but that's not what he did. He accepted for himself (and a direct heirs) a peerage with all that comes with it to not yet a year later ask the world to pretend for his son that he didn't - while continuing to use his peerage (and rightly so).

Well, the only thing this might do is indeed create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down.
Create a scandal? I very much doubt that. And I don't think this is the reason Harry declined a courtesy title for his son either.
Reply With Quote
  #4357  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:36 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If that's the case he should have asked the queen NOT to award him a dukedom. By accepting one (and a hereditary one) he was personally responsible for having another dukedom created within the peerage of the UK which might live on forever (as long as he has male-line descendants and the system is not abolished).

Had he not accepted a dukedom, his children would still be entitled to be styled as Lord and Lady but the next generation would in fact be mere masters and misses but that's not what he did. He accepted for himself (and a direct heirs) a peerage with all that comes with it to not yet a year later ask the world to pretend for his son that he didn't - while continuing to use his peerage (and rightly so).

Well, the only thing this might do is indeed create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down.
Really?!!! The monarchy survived the loss of its political power, the madness of King George, the American Revolution, George IV & Queen Caroline, World War I, Edward VIII & Mrs. Simpson, World War II, the Charles & Diana fiasco followed by the Andrew & Sarah fiasco, Charles's marriage to Camilla (the infamous "other woman") but Harry & Meghan's decision not to call their son by a courtesy title might create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down??????????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am happy to explain: I care about consistency. It is not consistent to pretend Archie is a 'master' when in fact he is a Lord and should normally be addressed as Earl of Dumbarton.

No longer awarding HRH to grandchildren of a monarch who are not children of the heir('s heir) is fine with me IF applied consistently. So, given that the Wessex children aren't HRH, imo Harry's children shouldn't become HRH either when Charles' ascends the throne (unless Louise and James retroactively receive HRH as well; as it seems nowadays Louise is treated as if she were an HRH).

If Harry and Meghan would have asked for a life-peerage instead of a hereditary peerage, it would be more consistent than having a child start his life without any style to finally end up one of the higher ranking peers (as a duke; although last created for now; in the end he and his descendants will end up before James (Viscount Severn) and Louis (HRH prince Louis of Cambridge) as the Edinburgh dukedom will need to be recreated for Edward; and Louis will need his own dukedom) within the peerage.
Considering that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is the Queen's first great-grandchild in the male line who is not also the child of a future King, there really isn't any *consistency* to compare this to.

I can't believe the hysteria over not using a *courtesy* title! This decision wouldn't have been made without the Queen's permission. If she's willing to go along with it why can't we?
Reply With Quote
  #4358  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978


If I am reading this discussion correctly, I think that comment was a reference to the earlier comment saying that Prince Harry is unable to renounce his own title because it would be "triggering of a big scandal".

I think all of those who have participated in this discussion would agree with you that hysteria is unwarranted.

In regards to "going along with" the Queen's decisions on styles and titles, many of the recent decisions (Princess Consort, Wessex children, and so forth) have been debated in this thread. Recently, I myself stated the opinion that it would have been better to issue Letters Patent specifically for the Cambridge children in 2012 than to issue Letters Patent which will grant the HRH to the children of a younger brother of an heiress apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #4359  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:41 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I can't believe the hysteria over not using a *courtesy* title! This decision wouldn't have been made without the Queen's permission. If she's willing to go along with it why can't we?
I agree, and also, what if we're all straining at gnats based on a sentence of ten words, and they have no firm intention for the child not to be called Earl of Dumbarton at appropriate moments? He's less than a week old, he's not getting an entry in the Court Circular or an invitation to a state banquet in the near future.
Reply With Quote
  #4360  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:43 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
One of the numerous royal reporters who stated that Archie will become a Prince in the next reign, Victoria Murphy, says the information indeed came from "a royal source".
On any potential future title for Archie, a royal source says that "on the change of reign the George the V convention would apply". Suggests that Archie could use the title Prince when it is available to him
However, she subsequently clarified that it was not clear if the Prince title would actually be used.

Therefore it seems it will be the Sussex family's choice as to what the Sussex children will be called in the next reign, but the intention from the future King Charles is for them to become legally princes and princesses even if they never use the title - which is strange because Buckingham Palace's stance is that the decision for the Wessex children means they are not even legally princess and prince.

Robert Jobson in the Evening Standard appears to be quoting the same "royal source/senior source", but implies he has been given confirmation that the Prince title will be used.

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.

[…]

Buckingham Palace has said on the matter of titles, “While there are courtesy titles that Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could apply to their son, they have chosen not to give him a “courtesy title” at this time. So he will be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I remember when Lady Louise was born and there were reports that Charles felt it was a good opportunity to establish conformity regarding the titles of his brothers children ie to change Beatrice and Eugenie's titles to those of Lady as well. The POW allegedly felt that it was best to 'tidy things up' whilst the girls were young teenagers as holding the HRH whilst having no real future role in the family would cause problems for them later. Andrew reportedly went berserk, ran to the Queen and the matter was dropped. IF that actually occured then I think it was a sensible suggestion on Charles' part. The title situation in the BRF is all over the place and Archie having no title at all has made it even more confusing.
However, if the reports you mentioned were true, the future King wanting royal titles to be denied to the children of the present Queen's younger sons really would be inconsistent with wanting royal titles for the children of his own younger son, considering that Prince Harry's children will be in exactly the same position during their grandfather's reign as the position Prince Andrew's and Prince Edward's children are in during their grandmother's reign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I agree, and also, what if we're all straining at gnats based on a sentence of ten words, and they have no firm intention for the child not to be called Earl of Dumbarton at appropriate moments? He's less than a week old, he's not getting an entry in the Court Circular or an invitation to a state banquet in the near future.
The official website calls Archie "Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" in the same list where James is mentioned as Viscount Severn. Seeing this and the use of the formal titles Master/Mr/Miss/Mrs in the list, along with the announcement "The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time", the intention seems to be that, for the time being, Archie will not be mentioned as Earl of Dumbarton even in formal announcements.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×