The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Step Back as Senior Royals: January 2020

[Cathy-PA USA]

Representation for the Queen

"By law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign's spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21." https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state

With neither Prince Harry nor Prince Andrew currently approved to act on Her Majesty's behalf, this is an genuinely untimely and complicated kerfuffle. There's a real lack of necessary backup for the Queen at 93.

See the history of appointed representatives at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State

 

[Osipi]

No Bea and Eug are HRH full stop but don't use is it at work. Like the Cambridges at school. Harry and Meghan cannot use it anywhere. Also, only because I have ever a thing about women and the automatic assumption they change their names when they marry. Eugenie works under her own name. Eugenie York

Thanks for the clarification. Its actually what I was trying to say but failed. I believe that not being able to use HRH or any allusion to their "royal" status pertains only to their professional and business ventures. Within the family, they'd still be referred to as HRH Prince Henry, The Duke of Sussex and HRH The Duchess of Sussex should, by chance they'd be listed in the court circular (which they probably won't very much at all going into the future).

Effectively, Harry and Meghan and Andrew all are ousted from the "Firm" but still retain their titles and place in the line of succession. Their professional ventures (for example if Andrew opened a professional golf school) cannot and will not bear any connection of "royalty" to it.

 

[Betsypaige]

Maybe thats one the reasons it will be reviewed in a year, if by then they are earning more money than Charles gives them maybe he will feel happy to pull the plug on giving them so much.

Could be...I’m glad that this will all be reviewed in a year; adjustments can always be made that benefit all parties.

I think it has more 5o do with the fact that he doesn't want them commercially exploiting themselves. I mean Harry is wealthy enough to never need another dime but unfortunately he probably spends a lot of money too.

Yeah, I think I mentioned that much earlier - or so it seems like it was a long time ago, lol...

Osipi, I agree with a lot of what you said. Of course they’re not being banished, but the 3000 miles separating them is not insignificant. Harry will barely ever see his father and brother, and Archie will never really get to know his grandfather, uncle and cousins...

 

[miss whirley]

"By law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign's spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21." https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state

With neither Prince Harry nor Prince Andrew currently approved to act on Her Majesty's behalf, this is an genuinely untimely and complicated kerfuffle. There's a real lack of necessary backup for the Queen at 93.

See the history of appointed representatives at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State

That's one of the things I'm most curious about that hasn't been addressed. Though if Harry ends up living mostly in N. America he wouldn't qualify as CoS.

The Queen doesn't travel much anymore so it's not a big deal now. But it will become a much bigger deal in the reigns of Charles and William

 

[poppy7]

Thanks for the clarification. Its actually what I was trying to say but failed. I believe that not being able to use HRH or any allusion to their "royal" status pertains only to their professional and business ventures. Within the family, they'd still be referred to as HRH Prince Henry, The Duke of Sussex and HRH The Duchess of Sussex should, by chance they'd be listed in the court circular (which they probably won't very much at all going into the future).

Effectively, Harry and Meghan and Andrew all are ousted from the "Firm" but still retain their titles and place in the line of succession. Their professional ventures (for example if Andrew opened a professional golf school) cannot and will not bear any connection of "royalty" to it.

There will be no court circulars so for all intents. He is no longer HRH

 

[Mbruno]

I don’t think not using HRH and Prince was a Sussex choice. I think it was part of the terms they ultimately agreed to.

They could be on the balcony with other members of the family at Trooping, but they wouldn’t ride in the carriages like they did the past two years.
I’m skeptical we will see them, but you never know.

On a more frivilous note, we may never see Meghan wearing a tiara again. They may not even attend Charles' coronation.

Effectively, Harry and Meghan and Andrew all are ousted from the "Firm" but still retain their titles and place in the line of succession. Their professional ventures (for example if Andrew opened a professional golf school) cannot and will not bear any connection of "royalty" to it.

Andrew's situation is not exactly the same as he is still HRH The Duke of York, or HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York.


I guess the courtiers didn't know how to handle Harry and Meghan's title as it was a new situation whereas the British court likes to operate on precedent and gets lost in the face of novelty. In the end, I think they applied the closest precedent they knew, which was to deal with it as if it were a case of divorce from the family (hence the style "Henry, Duke of Sussex"), even though it is not really the case.

 

[poppy7]

That's one of the things I'm most curious about that hasn't been addressed. Though if Harry ends up living mostly in N. America he wouldn't qualify as CoS.

The Queen doesn't travel much anymore so it's not a big deal now. But it will become a much bigger deal in the reigns of Charles and William

I ask this earlier. It doesn't matter now but both Andrew and Harry will be removed. Next on list is the Yorks.

Once Charles becomes King. Presume it will be William, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Anne. Louise won't be far off 21 then I guess either. Does Camilla become One?

 

[titiromi]

This esqualated quickly �� I have not followed the story and to now see Harry not being royal anymore, how sad for us royal watchers. I hope this was his wish and that he is satisfied.

 

[Gawin]

There is another story out now that says any commercial ventures will need to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain. I haven’t seen the source yet so not sure if there is anything to it.

Thanks, on a related issue use of the Sussex Royal trademark supposedly hasn't been ironed out yet.

 

[duchessrachel]

I don’t know about Prince Phillip being devastated. Livid? Perhaps. Disappointed? Most certainly. Phillip gave up a career he loved and devoted his life to duty in support of his wife, the Queen. I very much doubt he very happy with Harry.

Livid is the word that comes to my mind.

 

[Kataryn]

As for Charles' coronation? Both Harry and Meghan would still attend as the son and daughter-in-law of the monarch, wear the appropriate dress as stated for coronations with even coronets and swearing fealty to King Charles. We've had no coronations in the British monarchy since 1953 so Charles may change some things such as the tiaras and coronets and robes etc... we'll see.

Not sure if Meghan can swear fealthy to king Charles without loosing her US-American citizenship? And what then? When Boris Johnson swore his oath of allegiance to the queen, he lost his US-passport as well, IIRC...But he was still British, while Meghan would be????

 

[Blog Real]

This was childish on the part of Prince Harry, to say the least.
So he quits his job in the Royal Family just to have, supposedly, more freedom, and who knows why else.
This is a lack of respect for the Queen, her father and her brother, who needed their help in royal duties more than ever.
Prince Harry has always known what his obligations were and that all privileges he owes are due to his position in the royal family and the monarchy.
I don't even bring Meghan into this story, because she knew very well what she was getting into when she married him ....
These two are a disappointment and if they want to leave the Royal Family to do so ... but when the news is over I want to see what they will do ....
The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge now have more work than they had so far.
With the Queen increasingly fragile because of her age, much of the work will fall on the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge and the Queen's other children.
But the monarchy goes on even after all this!

 

[Somebody]

I don’t see how Meghan and Harry have really lost out in this. Apart from repaying back the money from Frogmore which I doubt they actually will find it all, it reckon Charles will help but regardless they still get independence (which they wanted), they get to step away from the Royal life (which they wanted) and they won’t be funded by the Soverign Grant (which they wanted).
In regards to the HRH, they can’t use it in commercial terms, but still get to be called HRH and use it and haven’t lost their place in succession or hierarchy.
(…)

They didn't want to step away from royal life. They wanted to continue doing part-time royal gigs; especially trips.

So yes, they got part of what they wanted: 'being independent' but it came at a much greater cost than they anticipated.

Thanks for the clarification. Its actually what I was trying to say but failed. I believe that not being able to use HRH or any allusion to their "royal" status pertains only to their professional and business ventures. Within the family, they'd still be referred to as HRH Prince Henry, The Duke of Sussex and HRH The Duchess of Sussex should, by chance they'd be listed in the court circular (which they probably won't very much at all going into the future).

The BP statement doesn't distinguish between royal and non-royal work with regards to their style; it just plainly states that they will no longer use their titles:

The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

 

[Osipi]

There will be no court circulars so for all intents. He is no longer HRH

Actually, they still are HRH. They're not going to be using it. To say they're not HRH means they've been stripped of that similar to Diana and Sarah were on their divorces. That didn't happen.

""The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."

Of course they'd not be included in the court circular for work they do. They're no longer associated with the "Firm" and its the Queen that decides what goes in or doesn't as work done to represent herself and the monarchy.

 

[Kataryn]

3. What assets does Charles have that do not come from the Duchy of Cornwall. All his personal savings and investments come from the money he made from the Duchy.

As a grandson of a king and his dowager queen he inherited from both of them. Money he did not need to finance his life but could invest. As one of his sons, Harrywould have gotten part of it anyways, so he now gets it. Probably the queen gave him part of his share of her inheritance as well. And now that Harry and Meghan can live in privacy, they won't need so much money.

 

[miss whirley]

I ask this earlier. It doesn't matter now but both Andrew and Harry will be removed. Next on list is the Yorks.

Once Charles becomes King. Presume it will be William, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Anne. Louise won't be far off 21 then I guess either. Does Camilla become One?

I'm not sure Andrew or Harry will be officially removed. If that was the plan it would have been announced. As long as they are still in the line of succession they are still CoS. The only thing that would disqualify Harry as if he lived primarily in N. America.

Under King Charles, assuming Harry living mostly in N. America, the CoS would be Camilla, William, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie. If Charles lives long enough for George's 21st birthday, then George will replace Eugenie. 21-year-old Charlotte would replace Beatrice and so on.

 

[Somebody]

I think M & H did win much of what they desired:

a. Keep Titles (I doubt anyone will care that much about HRH)

b. Still Funded by Charles

c. Retain Frogmore cottage

d. Retain some patronages (The ones they want)

e. Release from Royal duties

f. Security most likely to be paid by the public

I don't think they would agree.
A. They are no longer considered royals (even though they formally seem to remain HRHs as the announcement doesn't state they were stripped of their titles) nor working members of the royal family/representing the queen.
B. Nothing has been confirmed or denied on this issue.
C. Yes, after paying for the renovations and starting to pay rent (apparently; the latter wasn't in the official statement)
D. This surely was important to them - although some patronages might want to drop them.
E. They only wanted partial release but got a complete release: no representation of the queen at all after/from Spring.
F. Again, nothing has been confirmed. While I assume they will at least for the time being; surely their security costs will be reviewed quite regularly and they are unlikely to keep their current security forever.

Apparently they’re not using The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. As they’re not longer representing the Queen, they are Henry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Why would they prefer to use something that is incorrect and not in anyway in line with Henry and Meghan’s commitment to “uphold the values of Her Majesty”.

The fact that the statement specifically removes their use of the HRH, they’re not going use Prince and Princess. Seeing as one comes with the other...

The statement itself while also referencing 'The Sussexes' (as the queen did in last week's statement), this time als includes a reference to 'The duke and duchess of Sussex'. However, it seems additional information from BP is that they intend to use Harry (not Henry), THE duke of Sussex and Meghan, THE duchess of Sussex. In that way having a version of their own, as the 'the' would not be included in case of a divorce (which this styling is most closely resembling).

 

[Cathy-PA USA]

I ask this earlier. It doesn't matter now but both Andrew and Harry will be removed. Next on list is the Yorks.

Once Charles becomes King. Presume it will be William, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Anne. Louise won't be far off 21 then I guess either. Does Camilla become One?

Spouses, eventually Camilla and then Kate, will become Counselors of State for Charles and William as they advance to their new roles as monarch.

Beatrice and Eugenie are next up in the current time and under current law.
While Charles might have a hard look at that, it sounds very solid and hard to change even if he really, really wishes it to.

Anne and Edward have probably passed their time, they were Counselors of State when they were higher in the succession but were both replaced by William, then Harry.

Edward has probably gotten too far down the chain to ever return in the role. Archie also, most likely, will be too far removed in the succession to be appointed by the time he turns 21.

 

[Mbruno]

They didn't want to step away from royal life. They wanted to continue doing part-time royal gigs; especially trips.

So yes, they got part of what they wanted: 'being independent' but it came at a much greater cost than they anticipated.



The BP statement doesn't distinguish between royal and non-royal work with regards to their style; it just plainly states that they will no longer use their titles:

The BP statement is rather illogical, however. It says that the Duke and Duchess will no longer use their HRH style as "they are no longer working members of the Royal Family", but neither are Prince Michael, the York girls, or , currently, even Prince Andrew. Nevertheless, they have all kept the HRH style and the titular dignity of Prince/Princess prefixed to their names.

The inconsistency in my opinion is that no British legal document since the Victorian age (or indeed no legal document in any surviving European kingdom that I know of) has ever linked HRH style or the dignity of Prince to any form of "working status". Instead, being an HRH or a Prince has been consistently linked to proximity of blood to a sovereign or the heir to the Crown, sometimes distinguishing, however, between male and female line (as the UK does).

Linking HRH or princely status to "official work" is a novelty, which, again, apparently is not being applied consistently, but rather on a somewhat ad hoc basis.

In Harry and Meghan's case, I suppose the real issue is to prevent them from being identified as official representatives of the Queen or the Crown while acting as unsupervised free agents. Stripping them of the HRH makes that association less likely than if they were "HRH Prince/Princess xxx".

 

[Somebody]

On another note, about their private patronages, I would think the Commonwealth Trust President/Vice President would have to go. It seems to me that one is an official position representing the Queen.

Good point. It makes sense that Commonwealth related roles are a form of 'representing the queen'. I assume all of this will be clarified over the weeks and months to come. I assume they wanted to at least release this statement setting out the ground rules, so Harry could return to his wife and child.

there is no review in a year. The official announcement makes no mention of this...

There are many things that are not included in the official statements by either the queen or BP but I am sure much more was agreed upon by H&M and the BRF than is shared with us/the general public.

 

[Somebody]

The BP statement is rather illogical, however. It says that the Duke and Duchess will no longer use their HRH style as "they are no longer working members of the Royal Family", but neither are Prince Michael, the York girls, or , currently, even Prince Andrew. Nevertheless, they have all kept the HRH style and the titular dignity of Prince/Princess.

The inconsistency in my opinion is that no British legal document since the Victorian age (or indeed no legal document in any surviving European kingdom that I know of) has ever linked HRH style or the dignity of Prince to any form of "working status". Instead, being an HRH or a Prince has been consistently linked to proximity of blood to a sovereign or the heir to the Crown, sometimes distinguishing, however, between male and female line (as the UK does).

Linking HRH or princely status to "official work" is a novelty, which, again, apparently is not being applied consistently, but on a rather ad hoc basis.

In Harry and Meghan's case, I suppose the real issue is to prevent them from being identified as official representatives of the Queen or the Crown while acting as unsupervised free agents. Stripping them of the HRH makes that association less likely than if they were "HRH Prince/Princess xxx".

I agree. I assume the queen noticed that this time a different approach was required to make sure that Harry and Meghan don't 'live off' their royal status while earning big money by promoting their own royal brand. Had they taken a different approach in which their 'royal background' would not be the main driver for their professional income, she might have come to a different conclusion.

 

[Betsypaige]

On a more frivilous note, we may never see Meghan wearing a tiara again. They may not even attend Charles' coronation.

Do you really think this is a possibility? Things would have had to have deteriorated incredibly badly between Harry and Charles...and even if they had, imagine how it would look for him ? For Meghan also?

 

[Gawin]

In Harry and Meghan's case, I suppose the real issue is to prevent them from being identified as official representatives of the Queen or the Crown while acting as unsupervised free agents. Stripping them of the HRH makes that association less likely than if they were "HRH Prince/Princess xxx".

This is a quote from tomorrow's Sunday Times, which supports your view:

"Harry and Meghan will retain their royal titles but they will not be allowed to use them to drum up commercial profits. They will be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The implied threat is that if the lines are blurred their HRHs could yet be stripped from them."

 

[tommy100]

What the Sussexes wanted
What they got​

“…to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen”
“…they understand they are required to step back from Royal duties”
“While they can no longer formally represent The Queen…”
“…they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.”

“The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will continue to use Frogmore Cottage – with the permission of HM – as their official residence as they continue to support the Monarchy,”
“The Duke & Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home”.

“Welcome to Sussex Royal, the source of factual information and details relating to the works and structure of Their Royal Highnesses The Duke & Duchess of Sussex”
“The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles…”

“…as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge…”
“While they can no longer formally represent The Queen…”
“…they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.”

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I think the HRH issue is simple. All these many years later, one of the things most remembered about Diana is how the cruel Queen stripped her of her HRH and how her young son comforted his crying mother by vowing to give it back to her. Announcing that Harry and Meghan were losing their own HRH style would create an onslaught of comparison and an army of people saying that the family was treating Harry's wife like they treated his mother. How could they do this to the little boy walking behind the coffin?

The Queen has effectively taken away the HRH will wisely avoiding the outcry that would have come from Diana's son's wife losing HRH "just like Diana." Instead, she's offered an explanation that will make sense to most people and sent a clear message without drawing unnecessary angst. Make no mistake-- for all intents and purposes, the HRH is gone.

 

[Osipi]

Linking HRH or princely status to "official work" is a novelty, which, again, apparently is not being applied consistently, but rather on a somewhat ad hoc basis.

In Harry and Meghan's case, I suppose the real issue is to prevent them from being identified as official representatives of the Queen or the Crown while acting as unsupervised free agents. Stripping them of the HRH makes that association less likely than if they were "HRH Prince/Princess xxx".

I get the impression that the "use" of HRH or anything related to "royal" is a term of their going into "business" for themselves totally separate from the monarchy's "Firm".

It would, at least to me, be similar to having a son of Bill and Melinda Gates break totally with the family firm, Microsoft. With leaving that corporation totally, the kid is banned and forbidden to "use" anything that could or would have the illusion of being linked to Microsoft and everything Microsoft holds and promotes. That person, although always and forever will be the son of Bill and Melinda Gates, business wise, he couldn't "cash in" on that connection. The kid has to stand on his own two feet with his own business venture.

Of course the "Firm" is going to keep a close eye on anything that Harry and Meghan "promote" in the future to protect the "Firm" as it will be impossible to expect the general public to see Harry and Meghan's business ventures separate from being members of the British Royal Family.

There is also no guarantee that whatever Harry and Meghan venture into will be a successful venture. It may go belly up within a short amount of time and they'll think "well we tried but it didn't work". Then again, they may be very successful on their own. Time will tell.

 

[poppy7]

I think the HRH issue is simple. All these many years later, one of the things most remembered about Diana is how the cruel Queen stripped her of her HRH and how her young son comforted his crying mother by vowing to give it back to her. Announcing that Harry and Meghan were losing their own HRH style would create an onslaught of comparison and an army of people saying that the family was treating Harry's wife like they treated his mother. How could they do this to the little boy walking behind the coffin?

The Queen has effectively taken away the HRH will wisely avoiding the outcry that would have come from Diana's son's wife losing HRH "just like Diana." Instead, she's offered an explanation that will make sense to most people and sent a clear message without drawing unnecessary angst. Make no mistake-- for all intents and purposes, the HRH is gone.

No one would care if Meghan lost HRH. No one cared when Diana did. She was divorced. No one really cares Harry has. I think people outside the UK think people care about these things. They don't. The royals exist to,promote the country try and raise money. If they aren't doing that. They are no use.

 

[Mbruno]

This is a quote from tomorrow's Sunday Times:

"Harry and Meghan will retain their royal titles but they will not be allowed to use them to drum up commercial profits. They will be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The implied threat is that if the lines are blurred their HRHs could yet be stripped from them."

Another reason why the HRH was not formally stripped from them may be to have a fallback in case, let's say, Harry and Meghan get a divorce and Harry wants back in. Just speculation on my part of course.


In addition, legally taking away the HRH from a prince of the blood would be quite unprecedented by contemporary standards. The closest situation I can think of is the deprivation of the royal titles and styles of the Windsors' German relatives during World War I, but that was done by an act of Parliament and they had to be certified first as enemy combatants.


In any case, I don't see much difference between the HRH being legally taken from Harry or Harry being de facto prevented (by a "divorce settlement") from using it publicly. I take the notion that he is voluntarily relinquishing the use of the HRH with a grain of salt.

 

[poppy7]

Another reason why the HRH was not formally stripped from them may be to have a fallback in case, let's say, Harry and Meghan get a divorce and Harry wants back in. Just speculation on my part of course.


In addition, legally taking away the HRH from a prince of the blood would be quite unprecedented by contemporary standards. The closest situation I can think of is the deprivation of the royal titles and styles of the Windsors' German relatives during World War I, but that was done by an act of Parliament and they had to be certified first as enemy combatants.


In any case, I don't see much difference between the HRH being legally taken from Harry or Harry being de facto prevented (by a "divorce settlement") from using it publicly. I take the notion that he is voluntarily relinquishing the use of the HRH with a grain of salt.

The royals were a bit like the Russian royals then. Everyone and their granny was a prince or princess. Thanks to all Victoria's descendent hanging around. It was right to clip it.

 

[csw]

This is all so sad. I think posting the info on their website before an arrangement was finalized with the queen was foolish. I wonder though if they included their intention to continue to represent and support Her Majesty because they didn't want her to feel they were abandoning her and that it was an attempt not to be disrespectful. I know it doesn't seem so on the surface. I think they are both a bit naive and definitely ill-advised but I hope they're not heartless. Although that seemed like they were grabbing at having it all, maybe they were just truly trying to say they would still do their duty in some capacity.