The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 -

[Tatiana Maria]

I can't see an issue with the statement given by the palace source to The Times. Here it is again for context.

However, they [Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet] will not be HRHs. A palace source said: “The use of the style HRH would come through their father and the Duke of Sussex’s HRH is in abeyance.”

Sources close to the Sussexes pointed out that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still have their HRHs even though their parents no longer have theirs. The palace argues that that is because they already had their HRHs when their parents lost theirs.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...2023-nppf8tc7v

While the article does say "lost theirs [HRHs]" in regard to the Duke and Duchess of York, that was not the word used by the palace source. The phrases used by the palace source themself are "the use of the style" (my emphasis) and "abeyance". The word "abeyance" means suspension, not removal. As a comparison, a "peerage in abeyance" is not a peerage which has been stripped, it is a peerage which continues to exist but currently cannot be used as a title (for reasons I won't elaborate on here as they are irrelevant to the HRH issue).

So I don't see this as any more objectionable than the announcements that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the Duke of York would refrain from using their HRHs. It does not affect their "technical" HRH status under the 1917 LPs but it makes clear they are expected not to use their HRH.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Time needs to move on. No need to keep them in the family. Within a generation or two they etop being royal anyway. For life is enough.

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

The monarch is a role that people are born, or not so, to inherit. To go on creating and passing down titles and ever creating royal dukedoms with no inheritance to go with it is pointless. The titles can be taken up again and again by people in that position. The monarchy is a job. In any case if Harry passes down his to Archie looks like thst may be the last.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

It's also a style, not a title.

HRH is both a style and a title, and also an attribute. See the infamous 1917 Letters Patent:

"Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour"

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...ocs.htm#1917_2

Originally Posted by Durham

The 1917 LPs are not set in stone. They could have been changed at any time in the last six months as everyone well knows. Some sort of wording could have allowed for the late queen's cousins to have remained HRHs for life if that was a concern.

And the fact of the matter is that without changing the LPs, the King deliberately continued to refer to his younger son's children as Master and Miss for six months after the 1917 Letters Patent said they became HRH Prince and Princess (it was clearly deliberate because documents which updated the titles of other members of the Royal Family did not update the titles of the Sussex children). Thus, it was an active decision made by the King to change how he referred to his grandchildren, which is why it made headline news.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

Peerages, or "titles of nobility" in other countries, can, however, be created for life only. In fact, in the United Kingdom, other than the peerages created for members of the Royal Famiy, all new peerages since the 1980s have been life peerages. In Belgium, on the other hand, both hereditary and life titles of nobility are still routinely created by the King every year.

The Kings of Sweden have a long-standing tradition of conferring life duchies on princes (and since the 1980s, also princesses) of the Royal House. More recently, it has become customary also for the King of Spain to grant the use of life ducal titles to infantes/infantas (the Spanish equivalent to prince/princess other than the Crown Prince/Crown Princess), even though Spain also has a hereditary peerage system.

So, apparently, the European monarchs have no objection to non-hereditary titles.

[Meee]

Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion

My supposition is that Prince Archie's and Princess Lilibet's HRH are in abeyance along with their parents until that is no longer the case or they decide to use it as adults rather than not given altogether.

This, although I wouldn’t rule out the option for the children to use HRH being dependent upon Harry’s coming out of abeyance, as they do inherit the titles from him and a link in the chain is effectively broken. The Sussexes agreed not to use HRH when they stepped back, so their decision would be binding on their children, as the children are minors. Archie was not entitled to HRH when his father agreed not to use his. He lost the opportunity to be HRH, rather than a style that was already his. Potentially dodgy ground though, if the LPs remain unchanged. The RF envisaged Princesses marrying into foreign Royal Families, but not Princes leaving the country.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were adults before their father was required to not use his HRH, and had already gained it by right as male line grandchildren of the monarch before that point. The complete opposite of the Sussex children.

Changes are now needed before Charlotte and Louis are of age, so that they both pass it on or neither do. The older sister not being able to pass on HRH when succession is gender neutral is nuts. I suspect it may have been restricted to the heir’s line at this point had Charles had a third son like his parents, but the racism allegation would never go away if he had, given that only Harry’s children would be affected immediately.

[American Observer7]

Originally Posted by Durham

How do you know this?

So do you think that the debate about limiting styles/titles over the last twenty odd years has been a media concoction? Is there any merit in limiting styles/titles or should the system just continue with no reform?

Or are Archie & his sister somewhat more special & deserving than Louise & James?

A news report addressed it, CNN. And a royal watcher
got confirmation from BP and put it on twitter what their style is and their titles. Also, don't you think if the King had any intention of stripping those children of their titles he would have done so long ago?

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Peerages, or "titles of nobility" in other countries, can, however, be created for life only. In fact, in the United Kingdom, other than the peerages created for members of the Royal Family, all new peerages since the 1980s have been life peerages. In Belgium, on the other hand, both hereditary and life titles of nobility are still routinely created by the King every year.

The Kings of Sweden have a long-standing tradition of conferring life duchies on princes (and since the 1980s, also princesses) of the Royal House. More recently, it has become customary also for the King of Spain to grant the use of life ducal titles to infantes/infantas (the Spanish equivalent to prince/princess other than the Crown Prince/Crown Princess), even though Spain also has a hereditary peerage system.

So, apparently, the European monarchs have no objection to non-hereditary titles.

Footnote on the title of Duke/Duchess in Spain. They often comes with Grandeza/Greatness. And that second style places them higher in the peeking order. For example, King Juan Carlos grandchildren from his daughters' don't have tittles, they have Grandeza.

And even though Spain is no global power like centuries ago, the tradition was the people with Dukedoms, etc. being Grandes of Spain are considered royal cousins of a monarch. That is as in equal ranking to marry into royalty or the equivalent of mediatized German nobles. In rank theory, being a Duke in Spain is higher than the equivalent or serene princes in other monarchies and right below royal princes.

King Juan Carlos also set the precedent he can remove titles of relatives out of spite. When his first cousin and longtime rival, the Duke of Cadiz died, he prevented his son Luis Alfonso to inherit the title.

In this case in the UK, King Charles needs to set new rules for good, to determine which titles from the royal house will be recyclable as lifetime only, and which would be passed on to the children. And most important, to define working royal within this limitation. If you are not a working royal, nor an UK resident, the title should return to the crown.

[American Observer7]

Archie and Lilibet have HRH as well. Their father's status does not impact their right to have it and use it.

If the children did not have it or were not allowed to use it, Harry and BP would have said something via a spokesperson.

Charles supposedly has agreed to do BBC interview soon. I hope he puts the HRH issue to rest in regards to Archie and Lilibet.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by American Observer7

Archie and Lilibet have HRH as well. Their father's status does not impact their right to have it and use it.

If the children did not have it or were not allowed to use it, Harry and BP would have said something via a spokesperson.

Charles supposedly has agreed to do BBC interview soon. I hope he puts the HRH issue to rest in regards to Archie and Lilibet.

They don't live in the UK. Don't represent the UK. Have very little or nothing to do with the family. They are just titles with no relevance whatsoever.

There are loads of old Russian and Italian etc running around. No one cares. May look good to get you in with the society and the WASPs but utterly rutherless and just dressing. So HRH or not. It barely matters.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by American Observer7

Archie and Lilibet have HRH as well. Their father's status does not impact their right to have it and use it.

If the children did not have it or were not allowed to use it, Harry and BP would have said something via a spokesperson.

Charles supposedly has agreed to do BBC interview soon. I hope he puts the HRH issue to rest in regards to Archie and Lilibet.

Although they technically have the HRH, I agree with other posters that, as their parents have agreed voluntarily not to use HRH publicly, the children won't use it either. And I don't expect the Palace to refer to them as HRH, as they don't refer to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as TRH / HRH either.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Charles has shown that Harry can disrespect him, his heir, the institution, and the country and He will do nothing about it. On the contrary he will award them for the misbehavior. What does this say to the members of th family who do their jobs without making attempts to cash in on their titles?! I have lost a lot of respect for this man.

Why should Archie and Lili be punished for the "crimes" of their parents?

In my opinion, stripping them of their titles (for that is what it would have been) could've been argued if the intention was to slim down the monarchy. Stripping them of his grandchildren of their titles to punish their parents, that would've made me lose respect for Charles.

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

As a former historian, I disagree with you Look at Sweden. They've excelled using a system of non-hereditary titles for years and it holds no impact on the hereditary practice of the monarchy.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

Why should Archie and Lili be punished for the "crimes" of their parents?

In my opinion, stripping them of their titles (for that is what it would have been) could've been argued if the intention was to slim down the monarchy. Stripping them of his grandchildren of their titles to punish their parents, that would've made me lose respect for Charles.



As a former historian, I disagree with you Look at Sweden. They've excelled using a system of non-hereditary titles for years and it holds no impact on the hereditary practice of the monarchy.

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by American Observer7

A news report addressed it, CNN. And a royal watcher
got confirmation from BP and put it on twitter what their style is and their titles. Also, don't you think if the King had any intention of stripping those children of their titles he would have done so long ago?

He couldn’t focus on that because the possible controversy of it and the allegations and innuendos that the Sussexes put against him.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s.

Sorry for being nitpicky, but the last Swede to be ennobled was explorer Sven Hedin in 1902

[Denville]

I dont think that Charles ever wished to remove the HRH nad Prince titles from H's children, but he does not want to add any further HRHs etc to the RF. However, he thought that Harry woudl be a wroking royal. But Meghan raising the race issue meant that he had to tread very carefully. NO matter what he did, he would be liable to criticism from his son and wife. If he had announced soon as he became king that the children were HRH and Prince/ss, H could have retorted that he did not want his kids dragged into the RF with its genetic pain...if he had issued a statement or LP saying that they were not to be known as Prince etc, he would of course be liable to be accused of racism as Meghan had done 2 years ago. so he did nothing, and waited to see what they came up with. and we can see, they want the chidlren to be royally titled even though they are living in a republic where the titles will mean nothing.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Time needs to move on. No need to keep them in the family. Within a generation or two they etop being royal anyway. For life is enough.

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

As a former historian, I disagree with you Look at Sweden. They've excelled using a system of non-hereditary titles for years and it holds no impact on the hereditary practice of the monarchy.

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people [...]

Are you saying that the discontinuation of ennoblements in Sweden disproves that Sweden's monarchy is a hereditary system?

Or are you saying that it is acceptable to give life duchies to Swedish royals but unacceptable for British royals because Swedes are no longer ennobled but Britons still are?

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by FigTree

They don't live in the UK. Don't represent the UK. Have very little or nothing to do with the family. They are just titles with no relevance whatsoever.

There are loads of old Russian and Italian etc running around. No one cares. May look good to get you in with the society and the WASPs but utterly rutherless and just dressing. So HRH or not. It barely matters.

I’m more concerned about Harry and his children’s - no matter their titles- place in the line of succession. With the ways in which Harry has made it crystal clear what he thinks of the institution, is that not grounds to remove him and his children from the line of succession? He is such a hypocrite and it galls me that he is in line to inherit the top role in an institution he has done nothing but deride and try to destroy. It doesn’t matter that William and his children are before him. It’s the principle of the the thing for me.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Sweden is a very different case and stopped ennobling people in the 1880s. Lili and Archie aren’t being punished for anything, they never grew up having the titles and live in America, a republic so what reason do they need for the titles?

I fail to see a correlation between the discontinuation of ennoblements and the fact that Sweden is still a fully functioning hereditary monarchy in spite of giving its members non-hereditary dukedoms.

Whether we like it or not, those titles were Archie and Lili's to use from 8 September 2022. XeniaCasaraghi argues that Charles shouldn't have allowed them to use their titles because of their parents. To that I ask, why should Archie and Lili be held accountable for the actions of their parents?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Toledo

And even though Spain is no global power like centuries ago, the tradition was the people with Dukedoms, etc. being Grandes of Spain are considered royal cousins of a monarch. That is as in equal ranking to marry into royalty or the equivalent of mediatized German nobles. In rank theory, being a Duke in Spain is higher than the equivalent or serene princes in other monarchies and right below royal princes.

Interesting. Clearly conceptions changed over time, as in the 19th century the marriage of Infanta Luisa Teresa and the Duke of Sessa was treated as unequal.

Originally Posted by Meee

Changes are now needed before Charlotte and Louis are of age, so that they both pass it on or neither do. The older sister not being able to pass on HRH when succession is gender neutral is nuts.

Well said, though I am not holding out high hopes.

Originally Posted by Meee

I suspect it may have been restricted to the heir’s line at this point had Charles had a third son like his parents, but the racism allegation would never go away if he had, given that only Harry’s children would be affected immediately.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, Prince George and Prince Louis will pass on their royal titles while Prince Archie cannot. Following the same logic as the original allegations, King William can once more be accused of racism in a few decades on the grounds of Archie's children being treated as inferior to George's and Louis's children (unless the mothers of George and Louis's children are multiracial or of a different race).

Originally Posted by American Observer7

If the children did not have it or were not allowed to use it, Harry and BP would have said something via a spokesperson.

The palace's media briefing did indicate that the children would not use HRH, and a Sussex source responded to that statement in the Times. See the links here.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...st2536412.html

Originally Posted by American Observer7

[...] Also, Charles never had any intention whatsoever of issuing Letters of Patent to take those titles away. [...]

Originally Posted by Durham

How do you know this?

Originally Posted by American Observer7

A news report addressed it, CNN. And a royal watcher
got confirmation from BP and put it on twitter what their style is and their titles. Also, don't you think if the King had any intention of stripping those children of their titles he would have done so long ago?

I think Durham might have been asking for a source confirming that King Charles has never had any intention of issuing new letters patent. Clearly he has no such intentions now, but that is not the same as saying he has never had the intention (intentions can change).