Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to sincerely believe that any decision that Harry and Meghan come to when it comes to their children and titles, that it will be joint decision made by the both of them, together with HM, The Queen and The Prince of Wales, for the good of their children.

We have to remember too that Anne, although the daughter of a monarch and The Princess Royal, does not according to the way things work, have the ability to pass titles on in her family as that happens in the male line only. The Queen offered to grant Mark Phillips a title that he could pass on to his children but both Anne and Mark declined the offer and hence their children were Mr. and Miss.

With Harry being The Duke of Sussex, his children will naturally be in the male line of descent and the eldest son will be entitled to use Harry's subsidiary title of Earl of Dumbarton while his younger children will be Lords and Ladies. Should Harry and Meghan request that the children forever more be titled and styled as children of a Duke, it will be more in line of following Edward and Sophie's example.

No matter how the loaf of bread is sliced, the Sussex children will never be Mr. and Miss only. It just remains to be seen how it pans out in the future with the HRH Prince/ss honorifics.

@Jacqui: I believe there was an article posted in the Sunday Times that purported that Harry and Meghan wish their children not to be HRH Prince/ss. With the source being "someone close to the couple", it isn't being regarded as a credible source at this time.

Another thought along the lines of Meghan's thinking when it comes to titles and her children. If Meghan really was that adamant about not liking titles, I think she would have either a) not married Harry or b) wanted to be styled as something other than The Duchess of Sussex which is very much a title. It wouldn't make sense for her to want no titles for her children when she's taken one on herself. :D
 
Last edited:
m

@jacqui: I believe there was an article posted in the Sunday Times that purported that Harry and Meghan wish their children not to be HRH Prince/ss. With the source being "someone close to the couple", it isn't being regarded as a credible source at this time.

I don't recall that article saying they won't have a title at all. In fact, it said nothing of titles. Just that they won't seek a royal role for their children because they want to raise the children as normal as possible.
 
Good point and sharp eagle eye there. You're right. I guess people, like me, just naturally come to the conclusion that one way to remove their children from the "royal" fishbowl would be to adjust their titles accordingly or as many have pointed out, we're once again faced with the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie scenario where they're royal but not working royals. :D
 
We don't know. That's the reason why the issue keeps coming up. Andrew's children are HRHs but not working royals. Edward's children aren't even HRHs. So we're all waiting to see what the plan is for Harry's. According to the 1917 Letters Patent they will be Earl/Lord/Lady at birth and HRH when Charles becomes King but the monarch can override the LP as the Queen did with Edward's children and William's too. Stay tuned along with the rest of us....


It is not really about "working royals" as there are plenty of royals around with a HRH without any public role. It is the desire, in this time of 7/7 and 24/24 public scrutiny, to keep "The Firm" under control, to avoid undesirable situations. Maybe a desire to go to a situation in which being a HRH Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom means a close bond to the (future) Sovereign.

King George V once limited the group to descendants no futherer related to a Sovereign than three degrees of consanguity. It is a possibility that King Charles III wants to limit it more: to two degrees of consanguity, which effectively means: children of a King and children of a Heir are always HRH Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom.

A Lady Louise Smith in a scandal has another "load" than HRH Princess Louise of Wessex in a scandal. Matter of perception and expectation.
 
Last edited:
Let's back up a little bit, who leaked the news about their children not having title at all?

Roya Nikkah reported this news citing an insider source:

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will not seek any official royal role for their first child. They hope he or she will grow up to have what Harry has described as 'a relatively normal life,' according to a source who knows the couple.

'That word normal looms very large for Harry and Meghan when it comes to their child’s future,' the source added. The couple, who are taking Australia by storm on their first overseas tour, will become parents next year. Their baby will be seventh in line to the throne but there are no plans to give it a royal title.

Harry and Meghan are understood to have considered emulating the approach of the Princess Royal and 'follow the Zara and Peter Phillips route,' the source said. Princess Anne turned down royal titles for her children, who built independent careers with significantly reduced exposure to public scrutiny. Harry's desire to shield his children also coincides with his father’s wish for a 'slimmed-down' monarchy that focuses on the direct line of succession to the throne.

Meghan, 37, who is thought to be about four months pregnant, will continue to carry out a full programme of official engagements until the birth, and will announce her first patronages in the new year. But the couple will postpone a visit to America scheduled for the first half of next year."

This could obviously be false information. Certainly, there's no official confirmation. And it's not really clear that M&H are considering no titles at all. I just wouldn't be surprised if Harry is truly against the HRH Prince/Princess designation for his children, particularly since LP would have to be issued for it to happen upon birth. And then, Harry would likely feel why bother to extend royal titles once his father becomes king. So a decision is surely going to be made definitively before their first child is born.
 
Last edited:
They don't have to do anything before the children are born. They aren't going to have no titles ala Peter and Zara but titles like Louise and James as he is a peer of the realm. Even if he wasn't a peer and had remained simply Prince Henry and Meghan had become Princes Henry their children would still be Lord and Lady as seen with the children of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

If he decides to say nothing before they are born he will need to say something before his grandmother dies or his children automatically become HRH when she dies.

Saying nothing ever means they will be HRH unless Charles predeceases the Queen as then they will never be the male line grandchildren of a monarch and so could remain simply as the children of a Duke.

I expect an announcement from Harry before the child is born if he is going down the route of his children never being HRH so Her Majesty can make Her Will known as she did for Louise and James and so deny it to them forever.
 
Its very possible that Harry and Meghan will go the way Edward and Sophie did with their children but... and its a big but... they will still be titled as children of a peer. Just not HRH Prince/ss.

I don't see any way that the Sussex children would have no titles at all. Just perhaps no "royal" titles. Children of dukes are children of peers. ?

As mentioned before in the thread, Anne and Mark didn't turn down "royal" titles. They turned down a peerage title the Queen offered to Mark before their children were born. It was the same with the Earl of Snowden and Princess Margaret's children are titled as son and daughter of a peer with David Linley inheriting his father's title upon his death.

Everything in that article is pure speculation. "A source close to the couple" isn't very credible at all and there's been no real credible source that even points to what Charles wants as far as a "slimmed down monarchy". Its all plausible and may happen but nothing written in stone and fact as of yet. ?
 
I don't care if Harry's kids are plain Mr and Miss ...they will never have a life of anonymity because of who their parents/grandparents are. There's so much interest still in them ('the boys') and William's children..it will be the same with Harry's.


LaRae
 
I don't recall that article saying they won't have a title at all. In fact, it said nothing of titles. Just that they won't seek a royal role for their children because they want to raise the children as normal as possible.

True, I just read it. They can still have HRH and not take on active royal duties like their parents.

The article said nothing about titles. Nothing has been decided or if it has it has not been announced.
 
They can still have HRH and not take on active royal duties like their parents.


Yes but please remember that new Letters Patent would need to be created for the Sussex children to have a royal title from birth. According to the 1917 Letters Patent, they could be elevated to the styles of HRH and the titles of Prince/Princess of Sussex when their grandfather's reign begins and if that is their parents' wish. If the 1917 Letters Patent are followed from birth then the eldest son would be Earl Dumbarton, daughter(s) would be Lady____Mountbatten-Windsor and any other son(s) Lord______Mountbatten-Windsor.



A royal title is a possibility but unless QEII chooses to create a new Letters Patent, it would be awhile before the Sussex children acquire one.
 
Yes but please remember that new Letters Patent would need to be created for the Sussex children to have a royal title from birth. According to the 1917 Letters Patent, they could be elevated to the styles of HRH and the titles of Prince/Princess of Sussex when their grandfather's reign begins and if that is their parents' wish. If the 1917 Letters Patent are followed from birth then the eldest son would be Earl Dumbarton, daughter(s) would be Lady____Mountbatten-Windsor and any other son(s) Lord______Mountbatten-Windsor.

A royal title is a possibility but unless QEII chooses to create a new Letters Patent, it would be awhile before the Sussex children acquire one.

Technically, the LP of 1917 doesn't say anything about their parents' wish. King Charles would have to make an announcement of his will to override it.
 
? Yes I am aware that the 1917 Letters Patent say nothing regarding a parents' wish. That is why I added this part
and if that is their parents' wish
to my original statement. ?
I am acknowledging that the parents might choose that their children would not have a royal title much like the Wessexes have done for Louise and James.
 
Yes but please remember that new Letters Patent would need to be created for the Sussex children to have a royal title from birth. According to the 1917 Letters Patent, they could be elevated to the styles of HRH and the titles of Prince/Princess of Sussex when their grandfather's reign begins and if that is their parents' wish. If the 1917 Letters Patent are followed from birth then the eldest son would be Earl Dumbarton, daughter(s) would be Lady____Mountbatten-Windsor and any other son(s) Lord______Mountbatten-Windsor.



A royal title is a possibility but unless QEII chooses to create a new Letters Patent, it would be awhile before the Sussex children acquire one.


While there are a lot of people who are named Windsor in the UK without any connection to Royality, the last name of "Mountbatten-Windsor" is as clear a sign as a Royal style would be. So I don't see the sense in not going for the rank tradition bestows of the children, either from birth or by Charles' ascent. The "Blood Royal" is either something special or it is not.

A MIss Mountbatten-Windsor will stick out in school just like HRH Princess First name of Sussex will.So to be really "private", they'd have to rid the children of the "Mountbatten", too.

It is strange, but I always feel that the Wessex-kids were brought up too conservative. Lady Louise and James Severn appear always to be very shy and are giving off a vibe of being High Ranking Persons. While Bea and Eugenie never were like that. But maybe that's just my imagination.
 
Wouldn’t they use Sussex as William & Harry used Wales?
 
But James and Louise don’t use Wessex, they use Mountbatten Windsor/Windsor I believe. If they have no HRHs they won’t use Sussex I would assume.
 
But James and Louise don’t use Wessex, they use Mountbatten Windsor/Windsor I believe. If they have no HRHs they won’t use Sussex I would assume.

Yes, a territorial designation is used as a surname only when it is part of a title held by the person who uses it. The Duke of Westminster for example would sign as Westminster, but his younger sons or daughters would use their family name. (Grosvenor).

Likewise, Harry’s children would use Sussex as last name in school only if they were HRHs and, in that case, they would probably sign with their first name only and no surname. Otherwise, his eldest son could sign Dumbarton while the other children would sign Mountbatten-Windsor.
 
Wouldn’t they use Sussex as William & Harry used Wales?

Not is they aren't royal.

Louise and James use Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor.

Anne's children used Philips while Margaret's used Armstrong-Jones.

Only those with HRH use their father's territorial designation as a surname such as Wales or York.

If Harry's children are Earl of Dumbarton, Lady xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor or Lord yyyy Mountbatten-Windsor they will use the Mountbatten-Windsor or shorten it to Windsor for school although all official documents have to have the full surname.

If they are royal and use HRH then they will use Sussex.
 
Well, their baby, if a son, will certainly have a title when born. He will be the Earl of Dumbarton, and eventually the Duke of Sussex. If it's a girl she will be Lady ---- as the daughter of a Duke.

As for the baby being a Prince or Princess, we won't know until its birth, or until Charles becomes King. It's well known that Harry has at times considered being a Prince a bit of a burden. However, whether his children become HRHs will be up to the Queen or King Charles, in consultation with Harry and Meghan, of course.
 
It's on the same level as those idiots saying "they" said if it's a boy they'll call him Philip or a girl Mary or in tribute to the US, Madison or Jesse.
 
I believe the 'no title' speculation this time around comes from an 'insider source' article by Roya Nikkah who quoted her source as saying that Harry & Meghan considered even going the route of Princess Anne to not give their offspring any titles.

However, the difference with Anne is that she simply decided she didn't want her husband to have a courtesy title (and that could have been for different reasons),which meant her children wouldn't either.

With H&M, they have titles, so their children will inherit titles. I think what Roya Nikkah essentially was referencing is H&M are probably set against their children ever being given HRH Prince/Princess which are royal titles, whereas Earl/Lord/Lady are not specifically royal titles. Therefore, when Charles ascends to the throne, H&M apparently do not want their children to receive HRH Prince/Princess designation(s) to which he/she would then be entitled to receive.
 
That article was based on the quote that normalcy is a big word for the couple right now, and they want to raise their baby as normal as possible and will not seek a royal role for their children. The title situation wasn't in quotes. Although, based on my knowledge of the couple, I would be surprised if they didn't go with the Wessex route.
 
:previous: Right, they want their future children to grow up as normally as possible. I think a part of Meghan's appeal for Harry beyond her beauty, brilliance, grace, their interests in common and her spirited, loving personality, is that she also had a very normal, working class upbringing, but with manners, class, nurturing parents and the best possible education.

Of course, we'll find out if anything unusual will happen when it happens, but I agree that Harry felt burdened with the royal HRH Prince designation. He's said as much in past interviews. It wasn't until he realized the impact his status could make for the welfare of others, that his angst lessened and his sense of purpose increased. It will probably be enough for H&M that their children will inherit nobility titles. I don't see them going out of their way to change their children's Earl/Lord/Lady entitlement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When a peer disclaims his title, his wife loses her title too. Do children of these ex-peers retain their precedence as well as styles and courtesy titles?
 
When a peer disclaims his title, his wife loses her title too. Do children of these ex-peers retain their precedence as well as styles and courtesy titles?


Yes, it seems they do. Disclaimer of a Peerage


"The Earl Marshal has been advised by Mr G. D. Squibb, QC, Norfolk Herald Extraordinary, that in his view the children of a disclaiming Peer retain their precedence as the children of a Peer and the same has been expressed by the Lord Lyon King of Arms.

"While, therefore, it is open to any child of a disclaiming Peer to say that he or she no longer wishes to be known by the courtesy title hitherto accorded him or her, in those cases where such children wish still to be accorded their courtesy titles the Earl Marshal and his Officers will so accord them."
 
Last edited:
In August 1307, before Gaveston even set foot in the kingdom, Edward II made him Earl of Cornwall. Cornwall was a royal earldom. How did Edward II have the right to bestow it?
 
In August 1307, before Gaveston even set foot in the kingdom, Edward II made him Earl of Cornwall. Cornwall was a royal earldom. How did Edward II have the right to bestow it?


1. Because he was king and had every right to grant just about whatever titles he wanted to whoever (with some exceptions)
2. With some exceptions, there aren’t actually rules about who can have a title. A peerage is only “royal” if the person who holds it is royal. There is nothing to prevent a monarch from bestowing a title that was once held by a royal upon someone who is not a royal (or vis versa) provided it’s available to be recreated.

The only exceptions are the titles associated with the monarch or the heir apparent, which have specific rules governing when they can be created/who can use them.
 
Was not the title Earl of Cornwall intended for one of Dowager Queen Marguerite's (Edward I's second wife) sons?

It would be good for the children of Harry and Meghan to be titled Prince/Princess. Without the HRH, some might consider them as inferior to their first cousins, the Cambridge children.

Queen Anne's daughter Mary, born in 1685, was styled "the Lady Mary".
Queen Anne's daughter Anne Sophia, born in 1686, was styled "the Lady Anne Sophia".
Why did not these daughters each have the title of Princess?

If a peeress in her own right has a second title, may her oldest son use his mother's second title as his courtesy title?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is said that it was intended for Thomas of Brotherton, the elder son of Edward I and Margaret. But there was nothing requiring Edward II to follow through with that titleage after his father’s death; Thomas hadn’t been created Earl of Cornwall and there was no rule that required the title to go to him. Instead it went to Gaveston, and Thomas was created Earl of Norfolk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom