The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5461  
Old 01-13-2021, 04:58 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 401
Did we ever establish that the decision to refer to Harry and Meghan as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was a "mistake?" (This is an honest question.)

As far as I know, it was announced that they would be referred to that way, and many people pointed out that they "could not" be referred to this way because that was the correct (style? manner of referring to?) a woman divorced from The Duke of Sussex. Of course, that is quite correct.

But as far as I know, just because that is the way a divorced Duchess of Sussex would be referred to, this is no reason it could not also refer to this particular situation, which is unprecedented. Now, it may not be the most sensitive thing to do- referring to Meghan the same way she would be referred to if she were divorced from Harry, and Harry the way he would be if in some world the title belonged to his wife and he divorced her- but that is not grounds for saying it was wrong or a mistake. Just perhaps that it should be reconsidered and something more sensitive thought of. Unless, of course, there was some acknowledgement that a mistake had been made.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5462  
Old 01-13-2021, 05:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,238
Isn't she Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex? Wasn't that what they (the palace) came up with?

Hence the annoying way journalists (& not just them) confuse "The" & "the" when writing about the couple.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5463  
Old 01-13-2021, 05:16 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 101
Bear in mind the situation at the time of the Wessex marriage. In 1999, William and Harry were just coming of age, with Beatrice and Eugenie right behind them. Four HRH grandchildren. Edward and Sophie were destined to work at paying jobs, and there was no immediate (or otherwise) plan for them to join The Firm. So by the same reckoning neither would their children.
And there was an underlying movement to "slim down" the monarchy. So it made sense that the children not be styled in a way that would imply they would be working royals. Fast forward 10 years. Beatrice and Eugenie are told to get "real jobs", that they are no longer needed. Then another 10 years. Andrew is benched and Harry and Meghan are making a fast exit from The Firm. It wouldn't surprise me if at least one of the Wessex children is being considered to take on some royal work. Louise has accompanied her mother on the occasional engagement and seems to enjoy it. (I don't know if James has or not.) If this happens, I can see Lady Louise transforming into HRH Princess Louise and fulfilling her duties with aplomb. JMO
Reply With Quote
  #5464  
Old 01-13-2021, 05:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Did we ever establish that the decision to refer to Harry and Meghan as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was a "mistake?" (This is an honest question.)

As far as I know, it was announced that they would be referred to that way, and many people pointed out that they "could not" be referred to this way because that was the correct (style? manner of referring to?) a woman divorced from The Duke of Sussex. Of course, that is quite correct.

But as far as I know, just because that is the way a divorced Duchess of Sussex would be referred to, this is no reason it could not also refer to this particular situation, which is unprecedented. Now, it may not be the most sensitive thing to do- referring to Meghan the same way she would be referred to if she were divorced from Harry, and Harry the way he would be if in some world the title belonged to his wife and he divorced her- but that is not grounds for saying it was wrong or a mistake. Just perhaps that it should be reconsidered and something more sensitive thought of. Unless, of course, there was some acknowledgement that a mistake had been made.
There was somewhat of an acknowledgement of a mistake. Buckingham Palace apparently told Sky News that it "believe[d] that was said erroneously", which is slightly more equivocating than if they had simply stated that it was erroneous.

https://news.sky.com/story/royal-rev...woman-11913741

However, in the event that the Palace reconsidered after being surprised by accusations of insensitivity, it is doubtful that they would acknowledge that openly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Isn't she Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex? Wasn't that what they (the palace) came up with?

Hence the annoying way journalists (& not just them) confuse "The" & "the" when writing about the couple.
The Palace now refers to her as The Duchess of Sussex.

https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex

She herself has at times used Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex commercially.
Reply With Quote
  #5465  
Old 01-13-2021, 05:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Did we ever establish that the decision to refer to Harry and Meghan as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was a "mistake?" (This is an honest question.)

As far as I know, it was announced that they would be referred to that way, and many people pointed out that they "could not" be referred to this way because that was the correct (style? manner of referring to?) a woman divorced from The Duke of Sussex. Of course, that is quite correct.

But as far as I know, just because that is the way a divorced Duchess of Sussex would be referred to, this is no reason it could not also refer to this particular situation, which is unprecedented. Now, it may not be the most sensitive thing to do- referring to Meghan the same way she would be referred to if she were divorced from Harry, and Harry the way he would be if in some world the title belonged to his wife and he divorced her- but that is not grounds for saying it was wrong or a mistake. Just perhaps that it should be reconsidered and something more sensitive thought of. Unless, of course, there was some acknowledgement that a mistake had been made.
Good point. I think that the staff at BP were probably snowed under with work at that particular time and if that way of referring to Meghan etc was wrong by the usual standards.. it is due to pressure of work. ANd since it was an unprecedented situation there may not have been great clarity on how the couple should be referred to, when they were n ot allowed to use their HRH...
Reply With Quote
  #5466  
Old 01-13-2021, 06:02 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,509
IF there is no clarity the easy option is NOT to answer the question until you know what it is (going to be) - or tell that it 'hasn't been decided yet'. Blaming 'it was so busy and unprecedented' is not a convincing argument that BP never makes mistakes; implying that we should trust 100% whatever they say answering any other question.
Reply With Quote
  #5467  
Old 01-13-2021, 06:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
IF there is no clarity the easy option is NOT to answer the question until you know what it is (going to be) - or tell that it 'hasn't been decided yet'. Blaming 'it was so busy and unprecedented' is not a convincing argument that BP never makes mistakes; implying that we should trust 100% whatever they say answering any other question.
Im sure they were under pressure from the Press who were agog with excitement over the issue of Harry and Meghan leaving and I'm sure they were getting questions from the public as well...
Not answering questions right then was not an option and its quite possible they made a mistake in their haste. However for someone on the BP staff writing a reply to a written enquiry on an issue that had been decided years before, and getting it wrong seems much more unlikely to me. Of course people in offices make mistakes at times.. but I think it is much more likely that staff might make a mistake at a time of crisis, when they had been working very hard, and been chased up by the Press about the Harry issue....than someone writing a reply to a routine question, at a time of no particular crisis....
Reply With Quote
  #5468  
Old 01-13-2021, 09:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
If this happens, I can see Lady Louise transforming into HRH Princess Louise and fulfilling her duties with aplomb. JMO
I very much doubt that Louise would be asked to step up when there are two ladies who have been princesses since birth ahead of her in the line of succession.

It is clear that Beatrice and Eugenie aren't going to be asked having already been told they are not wanted or needed. If the 9th and 10th in the line of succession aren't wanted or needed why would the current 13th who will be 14th very soon?
__________________

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 787 09-23-2020 04:21 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-27-2019 12:04 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 04:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names british royal family buckingham palace canada carolin cht coronavirus cpr duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise queen maud resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress settings spain stuart thailand thai royal family videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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