Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[camelot23ca]

The thing I don’t like about making things contingent on working royal status is that it leaves too many things open to interpretation. I think the working royal vs not was the best way to sort out the situation with Harry and Meghan, but isn’t a good long term solution, and would actually increase the likelihood of conflict in future generations.

I would say that, starting with the descendants of King Charles, HRH Prince/Princess is for children of the monarch and children of the Prince/Princess of Wales. All other grandchildren of the monarch, whether in the male or female line, will not be given any sort of royal style/title. So basically treat the younger male siblings the way the way their sisters are already treated.There’s no reason for Archie, Lili, and the future children of Charlotte OR Louis to be Princes and Princesses, let alone HRH. If they want to work out a way to give them all some sort of lifetime courtesy title or style, great.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

The thing I don’t like about making things contingent on working royal status is that it leaves too many things open to interpretation. I think the working royal vs not was the best way to sort out the situation with Harry and Meghan, but isn’t a good long term solution, and would actually increase the likelihood of conflict in future generations.

I would say that, starting with the descendants of King Charles, HRH Prince/Princess is for children of the monarch and children of the Prince/Princess of Wales. All other grandchildren of the monarch, whether in the male or female line, will not be given any sort of royal style/title. So basically treat the younger male siblings the way the way their sisters are already treated.There’s no reason for Archie, Lili, and the future children of Charlotte OR Louis to be Princes and Princesses, let alone HRH. If they want to work out a way to give them all some sort of lifetime courtesy title or style, great.

Exactly, agree 100%
The distinction should be family of the heir/heiress to the throne, not working royal, what can change any time.
It's the only way in a modern, slimmed down monarchy.

[Sister Morphine]

They should make a distinction between the Royal Family and the Royal House. The Royal House consists of the sovereign, their spouse, their children, their children's spouses, and the children of the heir. So, right now that would be:

Charles
Camilla
William
Catherine
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Meghan

The Royal Family would consist of all those people, but then Harry and Meghan's kids, Charles's siblings, their spouses, and their kids, and then the extended family. Only the Royal House gets the HRH and Prince/Princess. Everyone else is either Lord/Lady or Master/Miss depending on if their father has a title or not.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

They already are Prince and Princess and became that the moment Charles ascended to the throne. Stripping them of their titles now because they don't live in the UK would be akin to stripping Eugenie of hers since she's moving to Portugal.

No it wouldn’t be comparable to the York girls at all. For one thing they are male line granddaughters of the late Queen Elizabeth II and received their titles and style of HRH and Princess under the letters patent of 1917. Secondly, Eugenie didn’t receive her titles due to being a descendant of Charles, (which she isn’t, unlike Charles’s sons).

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Meee

The Sun (so a pinch of salt until confirmed by the King) are reporting that the Sussex children will be Prince and Princess but without HRH.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/198105...et-hrh-status/

I had expected them not to be HRH on the basis that their parents, including their Royal parent, had agreed not to use them as part of the arrangements when they left their roles and moved abroad.

It reads as though working Royals only will have HRH, which seems a good way of resolving the question of styles and titles. In this way, HRH can be stripped from those that are not working royals without that person losing the Prince or Princess title that they had had for all of their lives. Depending on how it was written it might resolve the issue of sexism in the titles as they stand (it could become all grandchildren of a Sovereign are entitled to Prince/Princess, if that is their/their parents’ wish) and HRH is conferred upon becoming a working Royal if not in the direct line of succession. That way if George were only to have one child for example, it could be granted to some of the children of Charlotte or Louis if William or George wished, without them all having it. It stands to reason that Royals further from the throne may become working Royals if there are fewer members in a generation (similar to the way The Queen had asked Alexandra to perform Royal duties.)

That's quite complicated, isn't? So maybe they should only use the HRH when doing Royal duties and not when they are living as private citizens? But that's how they can arrange their private life anyway, no? Maybe it's just me but the effort in finding rules for members of the king's family to have a Royal style or not is very strange in a way.


Maybe we will find out what the Court of king Charles III. thinks about it when we get some official notice?


But I could understand that citizens of Britain are quite befuddled with all of that. There are "His/Her Grace"-style holders, lots of "His Lordship", "Her Ladyship" around, why can't there be lots of "HRH" when they are closely related to the monarch and considered Royals? You just can't put Royal babies in the category of working/non-working Royals, you can't just strip titles off people who have held them (though you can confer them!). Saying that, I think it was wrong of the Belgian king to not maked the wife of a HRH Prince of Belgium to the same in the female form, but let her just be a "Princess" with her own maiden name! That sounds so wrong.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

Exactly, agree 100%
The distinction should be family of the heir/heiress to the throne, not working royal, what can change any time.
It's the only way in a modern, slimmed down monarchy.

I agree as well. Except that I would prefer the grandchildren to be styled as Lords and Ladies, just like the great-grandchildren in male line are now (see for example Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella). Given that children of dukes and marquesses are styled as lord and ladies and daughters of earl are ladies as well, I am inclined to make sure that children of princes (and princesses - although that would be a change but consistent with the new rules of succession) share the same style.

So, children of monarch or direct heir(s): HRH prince(ss)
grandchildren of monarch: lord/lady
great-grandchildren of monarch: following normal nobility rules - so depending on whether their parents are titled or not

How to go about previous generations is the question... imho it could either be applied to Elizabeth II's descendants, to Charles descendants or (my preference) to those born after the change in succession.

N.B. Just realized that currently both James' as well as Archie's (future) children will be entitled to the style of Lord/Lady as great-grandchildren of a monarch in male-line (independent of any title they themselves hold).

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

No it wouldn’t be comparable to the York girls at all. For one thing they are male line granddaughters of the late Queen Elizabeth II and received their titles and style of HRH and Princess under the letters patent of 1917. Secondly, Eugenie didn’t receive her titles due to being a descendant of Charles, (which she isn’t, unlike Charles’s sons).

Right... And so did Archie and Lili the moment Charles ascended to the throne. This is not a discussion of whether or not the Sussex children should or should not become Prince and Princess as they already are – it's a discussion of whether or the titles they're currently fully entitled to use should be either stripped or modified.

[Meee]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

They should make a distinction between the Royal Family and the Royal House. The Royal House consists of the sovereign, their spouse, their children, their children's spouses, and the children of the heir. So, right now that would be:

Charles
Camilla
William
Catherine
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Meghan

The Royal Family would consist of all those people, but then Harry and Meghan's kids, Charles's siblings, their spouses, and their kids, and then the extended family. Only the Royal House gets the HRH and Prince/Princess. Everyone else is either Lord/Lady or Master/Miss depending on if their father has a title or not.

It seems wrong to include Meghan, who is not a blood royal and chose to leave, while excluding Anne and Edward who were born royal and are working royals. Charles will likely need Edward and Sophie as he gets older, bridging the gap until William’s children have finished their education. There is only so much that William and Catherine can do without anyone else to share the load.

Anne in particular seems unlikely to be downgraded by The King.

The Royal House/Royal Family definition would make it simpler to understand. I would say it should go down to Louis, who along with Charlotte would cease to be part of it upon marriage (like Beatrice and Eugenie now use their husbands’ names rather than ‘of York’, and become their own household, and like Harry’s family are now the Sussexes rather than ‘of Wales.’) Anyone born into the Royal House would retain their HRH for life and have the option of being a working royal (but not the spouse unless they are the heir, as in Princess Anne’s example.) There are always going to have to be slight changes if there aren’t enough working royals, or there are too many.

If the Wales title continues (petition today) presumably spares who grew up ‘of Wales’ and were not the Princess Royal would still have to be granted a dukedom as Harry was.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

Right... And so did Archie and Lili the moment Charles ascended to the throne. This is not a discussion of whether or not the Sussex children should or should not become Prince and Princess as they already are – it's a discussion of whether or the titles they're currently fully entitled to use should be either stripped or modified.

A part of me thinks this is another reason everything should have been agreed in writing as it was with the Wessexes, as someone said above. Right now it’s legitimate to say that Archie and Lilibet are entitled to the style and to argue that as the agreement didn’t include that their children should not use the style (as they didn’t have it at the time) they should be HRH. They didn’t have a choice in where their parents live or what they do for a living. You might argue the spirit of the agreement was that their choice would be binding on their children, or it could also be argued that a catholic’s children are not excluded from the succession if they are not catholic themselves, so they could use a title that their parents have agreed not to use.

I simply argue that if Archie and Lilibet receive the title when the King makes an announcement on the future of titles, nobody should be retrospectively stripped. And if titles are not slimmed down, anyone living who didn’t receive a title because of their Royal parent was female should be entitled. (I don’t expect them to use it, but Meghan has always championed women being empowered and I think it’s important that there is consistency.)

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

They should make a distinction between the Royal Family and the Royal House. The Royal House consists of the sovereign, their spouse, their children, their children's spouses, and the children of the heir. So, right now that would be:

Charles
Camilla
William
Catherine
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Meghan

The Royal Family would consist of all those people, but then Harry and Meghan's kids, Charles's siblings, their spouses, and their kids, and then the extended family. Only the Royal House gets the HRH and Prince/Princess. Everyone else is either Lord/Lady or Master/Miss depending on if their father has a title or not.

The UK has never made distinction between "Royal House" and "Royal Family" and I'm not sure they should start now and complicate things even further. Especially as many of those currently within the "working royals" wouldn't be part of the "Royal House" and those living in California would be.

And I certainly don't support stripping the Duke and Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester of their HRHs after 70 years of faithful service.

From what Meghan and Harry themselves said on Oprah it seems that they were indeed informed that any children they might have would have a Wessex style title. Something which displeased them as they've said publicly. They claim it is about security but it is pretty clear that is factually incorrect and that they both care deeply about position and titles despite their claims otherwise. See: Harry's Better Up bio page for example.

They've since made it a big public issue and any attempt to get it in writing that they disagreed with would probably have currently been announced as "they made me sign away my children's birth right which means they don't care about them (XYZ accusations here)! I didn't realise what I was signing!"

A huge part of me says "really, children being brought up in Windsor don't have HRH Prince/ss, seem happy and have the best of both worlds why on Earth do two Californian children need titles except for publicity?"

The other part of me says, let them have them and show the world that it's not "the Institution" or hierarchy in general that the Sussexes hate, it's that they aren't at the top of the pile.

[FigTree]

They shouldn’t have these titles. It would be completely irrational. They aren’t in direct line. Their parents are non working. They are normal people living in America. I’ve said it before the titles would be useful to them like the Romanovs and Italian Princes who dined out on it in WASP society. And if Charles gives it to them I will see it as I sign he doesn’t have the backbone to make the hard decisions with those closet to him.

And a I don’t just mean them. Charlotte and Louis children, if they have them, should have a lesser title or non at all.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

Right... And so did Archie and Lili the moment Charles ascended to the throne. This is not a discussion of whether or not the Sussex children should or should not become Prince and Princess as they already are – it's a discussion of whether or the titles they're currently fully entitled to use should be either stripped or modified.

Maybe the children will be treated like their parents, who officially kept the HRH style, but agreed not to use it publicly. Archie and Lilibet won't have many opportunities to use their titles and styles if they grow up in America anyway. I can't imagine them enrolling in school in California under the name HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Sussex for example.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by Meee

I simply argue that if Archie and Lilibet receive the title when the King makes an announcement on the future of titles, nobody should be retrospectively stripped. And if titles are not slimmed down, anyone living who didn’t receive a title because of their Royal parent was female should be entitled. (I don’t expect them to use it, but Meghan has always championed women being empowered and I think it’s important that there is consistency.)

Do correct me if I've completely missed something in the flurry of news this past week but I'm quite positive the only two people who currently face potentially being retroactively stripped of their titles are Archie and Lili.

If Charles wishes to introduce changes that would make princely titles inheritable in the direct line only, he can just as easily do that starting from the next generation. Especially as it seems highly unlikely he will have more grandchildren at this point so he can most likely do it without having to strip anyone of their titles. Alternatively, he can introduce them retroactively. It's not like the likes of Beatrice and Eugenie have much to use their titles for either The idea of pointedly creating new LPs to ensure two of his grandchildren specifically be included in these changes... I can't say I wouldn't feel some type of way about that if I was in H&M's place. Do them all, do none or do it for the future, I say.

As for your final suggestion, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance on the subject of Archie and Lili's titles and while I have no doubt Meghan would agree with you, I think it's a bit rich to think she has any type of say on that matter.

[Fem]

I think the decision in this matter was already made, and have been thinking that when the line of succession was updated for the Prince and Princess of Wales (and their children), while Archie and Lilibet stayed as they are.

It's not the 80s anymore. Combining the (lack of) popularity of Meghan and Harry in the UK and the mood in the country, giving them the HRH and titles would be a huuuge mistake. Their parents chose to walk away, they don't get to keep the perks for themselves or for their children.

Besides, why would their parents want titles for them, when being the part of the RF brought them so much pain and misery?

[HighGoalHighDreams]

The one thing I feel confident of is that whatever is announced, one camp will announce it as a decision made with the blessing of the other.

"The King has agreed in agreement with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex..." or "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, together with King Charles, have decided that..."

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

"His Majesty has agreed to issue letters patent to confer the prince and princess titles on his two grandchildren — who live with their parents in Montecito, California."

The part about "issue letters patent" cannot be the case, since the current George V letters patent have already conferred prince and princess titles on them as male-line grandchildren of the monarch. Perhaps the writer meant issuing letters patent to remove the HRH, although I cannot see why that would be necessary either. The January 2020 "family agreement" for the Sussexes not to use their HRHs could simply be extended to their children.

It remains to be seen how much Mr. Wilkinson's exclusive got correct (or not), but there is one scenario under which "issuing [new] letters patent" to confer titles on Archie and Lilibet becomes plausible: The King could choose to replace the 1917 Letters Patent with a 2022 Letters Patent setting out more restrictive general rules, under which children of younger sons would no longer be entitled to be Prince and Princess, but then issue letters patent specially conferring Prince and Princess on the Sussexes' children, to make a personal exception for them. (To be clear, I am not saying that this will happen, only that it is one of the possibilities.)

Originally Posted by Sionevar

Existing LPs notwithstanding, I honestly don't see why the children should even have the title of Prince and Princess at this point in their lives. They are a baby and a toddler, aren't the children of the direct heir, are living outside of the UK, and are unlikely to ever serve as working royals. IMO, Charles should follow the Wessex example, leave them as Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet for the time being.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

They already are Prince and Princess and became that the moment Charles ascended to the throne. Stripping them of their titles now because they don't live in the UK would be akin to stripping Eugenie of hers since she's moving to Portugal.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

It's not like the likes of Beatrice and Eugenie have much to use their titles for either

I must agree with Sionevar that a baby and a toddler who have held purely theoretical titles for a couple of weeks are at a very different point in their lives, titlewise, than 32- and 34-year-old adults who have been addressed and known by the title socially throughout their adult lives. Removing the royal title from Princesses Beatrice or Eugenie would be more analogous to removing it from Prince Harry.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

As for your final suggestion, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance on the subject of Archie and Lili's titles and while I have no doubt Meghan would agree with you, I think it's a bit rich to think she has any type of say on that matter.

There have been many instances where Queen Elizabeth II gave her family members a say in title matters: As an example, the decision for Archie and Lilibet not to use their customary courtesy titles during the Queen's reign was officially stated as being the decision of their parents. The comments of the King's spokesman (which I will post in a moment) suggest that the Duchess (and Duke) of Sussex will continue to have a say under King Charles III.

Originally Posted by Somebody

Given that children of dukes and marquesses are styled as lord and ladies and daughters of earl are ladies as well, I am inclined to make sure that children of princes (and princesses - although that would be a change but consistent with the new rules of succession)

In a way, it could be also seen as consistent with the rules of the peerage, since children of peeresses in their own right traditionally enjoy the same courtesy titles as children of male peers.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Fem

I think the decision in this matter was already made, and have been thinking that when the line of succession was updated for the Prince and Princess of Wales (and their children), while Archie and Lilibet stayed as they are.

The King's spokesman explained the lack of update a few days ago:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ion-order.html

The King's spokesman said the monarch had announced William and Kate's titles as the Prince and Princess of Wales, and expressed his love for Harry and Meghan in his address to the nation on Friday.

'While the website was updated for the Waleses, clearly updating love on a website doesn't quite work so we've not quite done that but clearly he does love them. We will be working through updating the website as and when we get information,' he said on Saturday.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/197689...ildren-titles/

Asked whether Archie and Lilibet would take the titles of prince and princess, [the King's spokesman] said: "At the moment, we're focused on the next ten days and as and when we get information, we will update that website."

More recently, he stated (apparently in answer to the "tense discussions" report) that title discussions and announcements are unlikely to occur before the end of the mourning period on September 26:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-mourning.html

And yesterday [September 14] a spokesman for King Charles said it was ‘unlikely’ that any announcement would be made until at least September 26, when the period of royal mourning ends.

They told the Daily Mail: ‘The King is focused on the mourning period so it is unlikely [any announcement would be made] on other titles during that period.

‘The future is an amazing thing. I am sure that at some point there will be discussion, but not during the royal mourning period.’

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The King's spokesman explained the lack of update a few days ago:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ion-order.html

The King's spokesman said the monarch had announced William and Kate's titles as the Prince and Princess of Wales, and expressed his love for Harry and Meghan in his address to the nation on Friday.

'While the website was updated for the Waleses, clearly updating love on a website doesn't quite work so we've not quite done that but clearly he does love them. We will be working through updating the website as and when we get information,' he said on Saturday.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/197689...ildren-titles/

Asked whether Archie and Lilibet would take the titles of prince and princess, [the King's spokesman] said: "At the moment, we're focused on the next ten days and as and when we get information, we will update that website."

More recently, he stated (apparently in answer to the "tense discussions" report) that title discussions and announcements are unlikely to occur before the end of the mourning period on September 26:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-mourning.html

And yesterday [September 14] a spokesman for King Charles said it was ‘unlikely’ that any announcement would be made until at least September 26, when the period of royal mourning ends.

They told the Daily Mail: ‘The King is focused on the mourning period so it is unlikely [any announcement would be made] on other titles during that period.

‘The future is an amazing thing. I am sure that at some point there will be discussion, but not during the royal mourning period.’

Yes, I saw that. That's also something that makes me think the decision was made in case of Archie and Lilibet - because they were updating the website and didn't do it for them.

If they were following current LPs their titles would be automatic. Prince Charles became HM King Charles III and in that moment we should be talking about HRH Prince Archie/HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex. Just the fact of needing an announcement or a decision in this matter means they are/were not planning on following the current LPs.

And if the reports are true and someone is indeed making a fuss about it, wouldn't be the first time they do so. But giving the Sussex children titles would be a huge mistake, if that was to happen.

[Sun Lion]

If Her Majesty was in anyway a buffer, this is a new Reign and Charles wants to build an historic legacy that he won’t allow to be tarnished.

I think he said it in his first speech really, his blueprint for both sons and their families.

[Sister Morphine]

As for the Sussex little ones, style them like the children of a non-royal duke. That way they have something, but not what they'd have if their parents were still senior working royals.

[Marengo]

This thread is not about the Duke of York and neither is it about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.