Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Osipi]

What you've posted about Edward and Sophie and the decisions made back then in the 90s shows clear assent for the go ahead of their wishes within the BRF.

We know that Edward will eventually inherit his father's title of The Duke of Edinburgh once it reverts to the Crown. Edward and Sophie actively focus on his father's work, the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme. This, to me, seems like careful planning to ensure that scheme continues and this is back in the 90s.

Its now 2019 and we're seeing changes that perhaps we don't understand yet but I have to believe that there's a purpose in it all and it fits into a monarchy in the future.

I'd rather look forward to Archie's first words. Will he call Harry "Daddy" or "Papa or maybe "Giggles" cuz Daddy laughs a lot or even have a beard scare him (my oldest was so very afraid of anyone with a beard. Don't ask me why).

We need to remember this is a family and not only a monarchy with rules and regulations and all the protocols and ins and outs of what the public sees.. HM, The Queen is known as "Granny" and "Gan-Gan". I'm willing to bet that Archie will call HM, The Queen something else than avow to be her (or Charles' ) liege man of life and limb'. He'll have to learn his alphabet first. Eventually he'll learn the word liege.

 

[Mbruno]

The message on the day of the Wessex wedding stated that the decision was the Queen's.

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.​

True, however it is worth mentioning that per the then spokeswoman, the decision was based upon the circumstances of the future Wessex children rather than the circumstances of Prince Edward and Sophie:

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding.​

I believe the original poster was referring to the rules of the 1917 letters patent, not the rules of the peerage. There would be no confusion if Archie had been born as the son of a non-royal duke in the British peerage, since it is established that following the rules of courtesy titles is not mandatory for the children of normal peers (a number of peers' children have chosen not to use them).

How common is it for children of peers not to use their courtesy titles ? Are there sons of dukes who are not referred to by their courtesy titles or prefixes in the usual directories/guides to the peerage ?

The LPs of 1917 say that grandchildren of sons of a sovereign ( who are not princes or princesses themselves) are styled as children of a Duke in the peerage . If courtesy titles are not mandatory then for children of a normal Duke, which they aren’t, I suppose they’are not mandatory either for Archie under the LPs. It is just odd that the subsidiary title is not used, because there is no point to it and breaks
With tradition and common practice in the peerage.

On your previous point that Princes have been created without LPs in UK , that is true, but, since LPs started to be used to define who is a Prince and who is not, all new creation of HRHs were done by LPs , including Eluzabeth’s children before she was Queen, Philip, and now Charlotte and Louis. So, if any new category of Princes were to be created outside the rules of 1917 as recently amended by QE2, I am pretty sure LPs would be used too.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Some reporters have stated that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH Prince at the time his grandfather becomes King. Are those reporters simply looking at the letters patent of 1917, or has the Palace itself confirmed that the 1917 letters patent will be followed for the Sussex children, unlike the Wessex children?

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.

How common is it for children of peers not to use their courtesy titles ? Are there sons of dukes who are not referred to by their courtesy titles or prefixes in the usual directories/guides to the peerage ?

I would be interested in that also. I am afraid I don't know, but here is an interview with a daughter of an earl which discusses her reason for not using a courtesy title, which seems potentially relevant to some others in her position.

Female British Aristocrats Fight for Birthright Equality

 

[Lilyflo]

How common is it for children of peers not to use their courtesy titles ? Are there sons of dukes who are not referred to by their courtesy titles or prefixes in the usual directories/guides to the peerage ?

Directories & guides to the peerage are almost certainly going to include courtesy titles but not all the holders use them in everyday life.

For example:
William Cavendish is the son of The Duke of Devonshire - courtesy titles are Marquess of Hartington & previously Earl of Burlington but he doesn't use them, preferring to be known as Bill Burlington. He's a photographer.

Charles Beauclerk is the son of The Duke of St Albans - courtesy title is the Earl of Burford but he never uses it and just calls himself Charles Beauclerk.

Arthur Wellesley is the son of The Duke of Wellington - courtesy titles are the Marquess of Douro & the Earl of Mornington. He never uses the Douro title & professionally (finance & business) calls himself Arthur Mornington.

George Spencer-Churchill is the son of The Duke of Marlborough - courtesy titles are Marquess of Blandford and Earl of Sunderland. He doesn't use his title when he plays polo or models clothing (he's done both as George Spencer-Churchill & George Blandford) & on Instagram he uses George Blandford & George Spencer-Churchill.

Henry Fitzalan-Howard is the son of The Duke of Norfolk - courtesy title is Earl of Arundel but he just called himself Henry Arundel in his motor racing days.

Alexander Windsor is the son of The Duke of Gloucester - courtesy title is the Earl of Ulster but he has referred to himself as Alex Ulster professionally.

Edward Windsor is the grandson of The Duke of Kent - courtesy title is Baron Downpatrick but he just calls himself Eddy Downpatrick professionally. He'll become the Earl of St Andrews when his Grandfather dies & eventually Duke of Kent - interesting to see if he changes his everyday name then.

There are several examples of Earl's sons not using their courtesy titles but I'll just include the following two for interest:

The Queen's cousin Thomas Anson, 5th Earl of Lichfield didn't use his title professionally & instead used the name Patrick Lichfield throughout his photographic career.

The Queen's nephew David Armstrong-Jones, was Viscount Linley & is now 2nd Earl of Snowdon but hasn't used his titles professionally & instead has always used the name of David Linley.

So little Archie could call himself a variety of names in his professional career (whatever that might be). He could remain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor or become Archie Dumbarton & eventually Archie Sussex. He can decide for himself in 20 years or so when he starts doing whatever it is he wants to do.

 

[Winnie]

I am 100% sure that future King Charles knows exactly what and when all his grandchildren's titles will be during his reign. Likewise his siblings children, if any changes will be needed. He knows what he wants done eventually and why. Queen will approve now to a certain extent but she also knows eventually Charles or William can change even if another "law" is required for the change. She is 93 but still extremely sound. She will pick her battles and win very nicely in her own stern way at times mostly behind closed doors and no business of the public. She is still the "BOSS" and they might push her buttons at times and annoy her to bits, but she will get her way. I will miss her when the time comes, which I hope is not for many years.

 

[sophie25]

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.

 

[loonytick]

Directories & guides to the peerage are almost certainly going to include courtesy titles but not all the holders use them in everyday life.

So it sounds like Harry and Meghan saying we're not going to make active use of our child's courtesy title seems like a thing that's actually not unheard of amongst the British titled. Especially, it seems, those in certain lines of work.

I was doing some looking around yesterday and couldn't really come up with the right search terms to figure out the actual day to day use of titles, but of course did find many guides to the standards for how courtesy titles, etc. work (Debrett's, etc.). Reading through them, I was struck by several of them saying that, generally speaking, the norm is that you don't decline in status. A lady who marries a non-titled man will generally still be referred to as a lady (Lady Sarah Chatto, for example).

So perhaps the thinking in the BRF at this point is that it's simpler to set up a situation where little Archie M-W may later decide that, yes, it does make sense to start using the Earl of Dumbarton title than it is for him to potentially end up needing to go the route of the current Earl of Snowdon and train people to stop using the title and think of him as simply Archie M-W.

 

[victor1319]

Forgive me for asking...

as this was probably already discussed, but I can't find it:

So, the name of Prince Harry is not Duke of Sussex, but Mountbatten Windsor?

Unlike in Germany, where the titles are part of the name?

And when Prince William served as a pilot under the name William Wales, then this was his "nom de guerre"? His real name is William Mountbatten Windsor (Duke of Cambridge)?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

as this was probably already discussed, but I can't find it:

So, the name of Prince Harry is not Duke of Sussex, but Mountbatten Windsor?

Unlike in Germany, where the titles are part of the name?

And when Prince William served as a pilot under the name William Wales, then this was his "nom de guerre"? His real name is William Mountbatten Windsor (Duke of Cambridge)?

Mountbatten-Windsor is the (unused) legal surname of both William and Harry; Cambridge and Sussex are the "surnames" which tradition prescribes for everyday use.

I posted the following earlier in another thread:

Both British princes(ses) and British peers technically have legal surnames but do not use them, except as part of any legal documents in which they desire to use a surname (for example, as stated on the official website of the monarchy , Princess Anne used the name Mountbatten-Windsor in her marriage registry). They are not required to use a surname in British legal documents.

Since royals and peers generally do not use their legal surnames, per convention they use the territorial designations in their titles as pseudo-surnames, if they desire to be known with a surname outside of legal documents. Princess Eugenie of York is known in her art career as Eugenie York, though her legal surname is probably Brooksbank. The queen's nephew the Earl of Snowdon is known in his career as David Snowdon, though his legal surname is Armstrong-Jones.

Precedent would suggest that if the Sussex child had been styled Earl of Dumbarton, he would have been known as "Archie Dumbarton" at school. However, since he would not be a peer legally (the Earldom of Dumbarton legally belongs to his father) and is not yet a prince, his legal documents would still have needed a surname, which would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Denville]

It would be rather bipolar to call him Master Archie instead of Lord Dumbarton and then later make him HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. There is no logic to it.

he will automatically become Prince Archie when Chalres is king unless Charles expliciltly says he wont be ..but for the moment If Meg and Harry just want him to be known as Master Archie, tehr'es nothing to stop them doing it. I agree that it is silly but Im not unduly surprised.

 

[ladongas]

“What else do the simple folk do?

...They sit around and wonder what royal folk would do.”

From the musical Camelot...

 

[Lilyflo]

The queen's nephew the Earl of Snowdon is known in his career as David Snowdon, though his legal surname is Armstrong-Jones.

He still uses David Linley for his furniture business (as it's so entwined with that name probably) but David Snowdon for his role at Christie's.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It would be rather bipolar to call him Master Archie instead of Lord Dumbarton and then later make him HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. There is no logic to it.

he will automatically become Prince Archie when Chalres is king unless Charles expliciltly says he wont be ..but for the moment If Meg and Harry just want him to be known as Master Archie, tehr'es nothing to stop them doing it. I agree that it is silly but Im not unduly surprised.

It is true that in law, the decision concerning courtesy titles for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor belongs to Queen Elizabeth, and the decision concerning how he is known in the next reign will belong to King Charles.

But royal sources have apparently said to reporters that the decision not to use a courtesy title was made by his parents, and that it will be Archie's or his parents' choice whether to use the Prince title when the time comes. The suggestion seems to be that both decisions are or will be in reality made by the parents, even though in a legal sense they are/will be made by the monarch.

He still uses David Linley for his furniture business (as it's so entwined with that name probably) but David Snowdon for his role at Christie's.

Thank you for that clarification. I have wondered why a few aristocrats simultaneously use different names, so perhaps that is the explanation.

 

[Lilyflo]

Thank you for that clarification. I have wondered why a few aristocrats simultaneously use different names, so perhaps that is the explanation.

I know it's quite tricky these days because so many of them have careers now rather than just running the family estate. So a young entrepreneur or artist might begin his career with one surname (eg taken from the 2nd courtesy title) & then become entitled to the 1st courtesy title but decide not to change his professional name because he's built his career/reputation/brand on it. If at some later point in life he inherits the Earldom/Dukedom with a family estate, he might drop his career to focus on estate management & start using the peerage name but in social circles he might still prefer to be known as his earlier name.

As I'm sure you know, some peerages don't have subsidiary titles to use as courtesy titles eg the Earl of Devon doesn't. The family name is Courtenay and as heir he was styled Lord Courtenay but in his legal career he just used Charles Courtenay & also worked in the US where he met his American actress wife (who was surprised to learn her boyfriend Charlie was heir to an Earldom with a castle too!) He's Earl of Devon now & the family moved over from the US a few years ago to take on the castle & estate (which is in my home county of Devon & beautifully situated on an estuary but I digress...)

 

[Somebody]

Directories & guides to the peerage are almost certainly going to include courtesy titles but not all the holders use them in everyday life.

For example:
William Cavendish is the son of The Duke of Devonshire - courtesy titles are Marquess of Hartington & previously Earl of Burlington but he doesn't use them, preferring to be known as Bill Burlington. He's a photographer.

Charles Beauclerk is the son of The Duke of St Albans - courtesy title is the Earl of Burford but he never uses it and just calls himself Charles Beauclerk.

Arthur Wellesley is the son of The Duke of Wellington - courtesy titles are the Marquess of Douro & the Earl of Mornington. He never uses the Douro title & professionally (finance & business) calls himself Arthur Mornington.

George Spencer-Churchill is the son of The Duke of Marlborough - courtesy titles are Marquess of Blandford and Earl of Sunderland. He doesn't use his title when he plays polo or models clothing (he's done both as George Spencer-Churchill & George Blandford) & on Instagram he uses George Blandford & George Spencer-Churchill.

Henry Fitzalan-Howard is the son of The Duke of Norfolk - courtesy title is Earl of Arundel but he just called himself Henry Arundel in his motor racing days.

Alexander Windsor is the son of The Duke of Gloucester - courtesy title is the Earl of Ulster but he has referred to himself as Alex Ulster professionally.

Edward Windsor is the grandson of The Duke of Kent - courtesy title is Baron Downpatrick but he just calls himself Eddy Downpatrick professionally. He'll become the Earl of St Andrews when his Grandfather dies & eventually Duke of Kent - interesting to see if he changes his everyday name then.

There are several examples of Earl's sons not using their courtesy titles but I'll just include the following two for interest:

The Queen's cousin Thomas Anson, 5th Earl of Lichfield didn't use his title professionally & instead used the name Patrick Lichfield throughout his photographic career.

The Queen's nephew David Armstrong-Jones, was Viscount Linley & is now 2nd Earl of Snowdon but hasn't used his titles professionally & instead has always used the name of David Linley.

So little Archie could call himself a variety of names in his professional career (whatever that might be). He could remain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor or become Archie Dumbarton & eventually Archie Sussex. He can decide for himself in 20 years or so when he starts doing whatever it is he wants to do.

So, all but one use their courtesy title. It is indeed common that the courtesy title is used as a kind of surname in combination with their first name instead of using Marquess/Earl of/Lord ... in daily life.

Clearly Harry and Meghan's decision is an exception to the rule.

The only one in this list not using his title (Charles Beauclerk, earl of Burford) is doing that as a political statement. So, what statement are H&M trying to make?

 

[Mbruno]

Mountbatten-Windsor is the (unused) legal surname of both William and Harry; Cambridge and Sussex are the "surnames" which tradition prescribes for everyday use.

I posted the following earlier in another thread:

Both British princes(ses) and British peers technically have legal surnames but do not use them, except as part of any legal documents in which they desire to use a surname (for example, as stated on the official website of the monarchy , Princess Anne used the name Mountbatten-Windsor in her marriage registry). They are not required to use a surname in British legal documents.

Since royals and peers generally do not use their legal surnames, per convention they use the territorial designations in their titles as pseudo-surnames, if they desire to be known with a surname outside of legal documents. Princess Eugenie of York is known in her art career as Eugenie York, though her legal surname is probably Brooksbank. The queen's nephew the Earl of Snowdon is known in his career as David Snowdon, though his legal surname is Armstrong-Jones.

Precedent would suggest that if the Sussex child had been styled Earl of Dumbarton, he would have been known as "Archie Dumbarton" at school. However, since he would not be a peer legally (the Earldom of Dumbarton legally belongs to his father) and is not yet a prince, his legal documents would still have needed a surname, which would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

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.g...t_data/file/118562/observations-passports.pdf




So it looks like courtesy titles are officially recognized in the UK.

 

[Lilyflo]

So, all but one use their courtesy title. It is indeed common that the courtesy title is used as a kind of surname in combination with their first name instead of using Marquess/Earl of/Lord ... in daily life.

Clearly Harry and Meghan's decision is an exception to the rule.

The only one in this list not using his title (Charles Beauclerk, earl of Burford) is doing that as a political statement. So, what statement are H&M trying to make?

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.

 

[loonytick]

So, what statement are H&M trying to make?

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.

 

[crm2317]

Would Viscount Severn not pass on the Mountbatten-Windsor name to his sons?

 

[Iluvbertie]

James' children will be Mountbatten-Windsor and if he has a son then the name will continue.

George's line will also pass it down via a second son as will Louis' and Archie's via any sons.

Daughter's will have it as a maiden name - as Louise does today - but give it up on marriage.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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'.

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).

 

[Mbruno]

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 ?

 

[jacqui24]

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?

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.

 

[Gawin]

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?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.g...t_data/file/118562/observations-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?

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).

 

[Marlo]

Found this on Twitter. I was thinking the same thing.

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.

 

[Abbigail]

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?

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Rena M.]

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...

 

[Somebody]

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.

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.