It has been stated here a few posts back that Harry is no longer the Duke of Sussex. That is incorrect. He is. And Meghan is the Duchess of Sussex as his wife. As I posted before, she is entitled to be called that and to take that styling.
I do think Meghan should not be able to use her title and Harry just be able to use Prince Harry. That way they can day what they want.
Hereditary peers have always been involved in politics as , until 1999, they were automatically members of the British Parliament ( via the House of Lords). Harry is not an ordinary peer though; he is a royal Duke. His title in the peerage cannot be separated from his dignity of Prince and princes are not supposed to be political.
I am not sure, but did the Duke of Kent or the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of York ( the present holders of the title , I mean) ever vote in the House of Lords when they were members ? Again, since 1999, they are no longer members of the House.
Perhaps the question is whether the US recognizes their titles. If the Sussexes plan to stay here, this would be the big question.
This reminds me of the hullabaloo over Camilla being called the PoW ...ppl have it in their minds that she is not the PoW, that the Queen didn't 'give' her that title etc etc. Similar issue with the Queen Consort that has popped up more recently....legally Camilla is the PoW since her husband is the PoW. As pointed out Lord knows how many times ..the wife takes the female version of her husband's titles (if she wants).
So much bad info out there online about the Sussexes titles (and Camilla's).
LaRae
Under British law Harry would have to have given up using Duke of Sussex within one year of being created as such.
The interesting thing with this reform of the House of Lords is that is also included one additional clause - a new creation of an hereditary peerage was also entitled to keep their seat in the Lords. Kent and Gloucester didn't qualify as they inherited their titles but Philip (Edinburgh), Charles (Chester), Andrew (York) and Edward (Wessex)were all newly created for them. When the reforms happened all of them immediately disclaimed that right ... Edward had never taken his seat.
British law does not obligate a peer to use his title; there are peers who have not legally disclaimed (which is what must be done within the one-year window) or been deprived of their peerages, but have nonetheless chosen not to use the title.
This question has been discussed and thrashed out before in several other threads on the Forum.
However, Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and has not been forced to drop her title because of her residence there. Several other members of royal houses have lived in the US and retained their titles. There's been no evidence that Harry wishes to acquire American citizenship.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/swedens-princess-madeleine-moving-florida-1132834
Provided they are not claiming she has been legally deprived of the title, which would indeed be very wrong, I think that in informal conversation it is acceptable to say "she is not the Princess of Wales" given that she is not using it. After all, it is likewise technically "bad info" from the legal point of view to refer to Queen Letizia as "the Queen of Spain" or Queen Máxima as "the Queen of the Netherlands", but royal watchers do so often and it attracts no complaints.
That is interesting. If I understand it correctly, peerage titles are used in personal documents like British passports. If a peer chooses not to use his title, does he have to ask for the title not to be included in his passport, or is it the other way around, i.e., those who want to include titles in documents have to ask for it?
Andrew should lose his title too. As long as they have their titles and the HRH people who don't know that much about the situation are going to assume they are speaking for the queen.
The Queen obviously doesn't share your opinion about the Dukedoms of her son and grandson. Perhaps you should take it up with her.
But that would be incorrect, she IS the Princess of Wales, regardless if she uses the title or not.
LaRae
In that case, would you agree that it is also incorrect to say "Queen Letizia is the Queen of Spain"?
In Camilla's case, I think it is not wrong, but inappropriate to call her the Princess of Wales as a decision has been made that she would not use that title and the decision was official (as official IMHO as the decision that James and Louise would not be prince/princess).
Except the PM announced in parliament that Camilla would be the Princess of Wales and just not use that title.
She also uses Countess of Chester - a title Charles gained at the exact same time as he gained Prince of Wales. The Chester title goes with the Wales one. She can't be Countess of Chester and not also be Princess of Wales.
They announced, at the engagement that she wouldn't use Princess of Wales - not that she wouldn't be Princess of Wales ... a different thing.
Nor technically in Italy since they abolished it in 1946. Edo doesn't use a courtesy title socially or for business, preferring to use Mr Mapelli Mozzi
so she might use HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Mapelli Mozzi as her sister does.
Indeed! Quite a few of the royalty experts who have been quoted saying that the title is not recognized in the UK appear to have forgotten that it is not recognized in Italy, either (and that Edo himself has never used it).
That is true but couldn't it still be applied by courtesy, in the same way that we see members of defunct royal and noble families such as the Greeks, Italians and etc. use theirs?
Is Princess Beatrice now a countess?
The engagement is announced between Tod, son of Mr and Mrs Michael Yeomans, of Winchester, Hampshire, and Natalia, stepdaughter of the late Mr Christopher Shale and daughter of Mrs Christopher Shale, of Over Worton, Oxfordshire, and Count Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi, of La Garde Freinet, France.
They didn't call his father "Count" on the official engagement announcement either, just Mr. Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi.
However, he used Count in the official announcement of his daughter's engagement in The Telegraph in 2012:
So either he stopped using it or BP decided "Mr" would be more appropriate. Either way, Bea is unlikely to use "Countess".
The style of Mr Mappelli-Mozzi is in accordance with UK law while the style of Count Mappelli-Mozzi isn't. It's as simple as that. It's the same as how William Parente, the owner of Wellbeck Abbey, is styled as plain Mr Parente and not as the Prince of Castel Viscardo.
The style of Mr Mappelli-Mozzi is in accordance with UK law while the style of Count Mappelli-Mozzi isn't. It's as simple as that. It's the same as how William Parente, the owner of Wellbeck Abbey, is styled as plain Mr Parente and not as the Prince of Castel Viscardo.
Is Princess Beatrice now a countess?
Only according to her new father-in-law Alessandro. He insisted that is in fact exactly what she is once she marries his son.
I wonder if he attended the wedding this morning?
We will have to wait and see how Beatrice is referred to in the Court Circular or other official announcements from the Palace.
I understand Eugenie was initially still referred to as "Princess Eugenie of York" even after she had married, but the Palace has now adopted "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank". In Beatrice's case, since her husband appears to be known as Mr Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi in the UK, I assume she will be known as Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi too.
Incidentally, Wikipedia has already dropped "of York" from the title of Beatrice's Wikipedia entry.
Only according to her new father-in-law Alessandro. He insisted that is in fact exactly what she is once she marries his son.
I wonder if he attended the wedding this morning?
But as others pointed out, Buckingham Palace has used other titles which are not recognized by UK (or any other country's) law, for example for the defunct royal family of Greece, whose titles have been abolished in Greece.