Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Marengo

Administrator
Site Team
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
27,471
City
São Paulo
Country
Brazil
257px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_%28Tudor_crown%29.svg.png

Arms of The United Kingdom

Welcome to the thread Questions about British Styles and Titles, Part 2

Commencing September 1st, 2022

The previous thread can be found here

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***
 
Last edited:
If Charles issues new LPs as you suggest, there are two possibilities:

  1. The Letters Patent apply only to people who are born after they are issued, in which case Archie and Lilibet are not affected.
  2. The Letters Patent apply to all, in which case Archie and Lilibet are stripped of the HRH, but so are Beatrice, Eugenie, and the Queen's paternal first cousins.

Option #1 won't have any practical consequence until Charlotte or Louis have children. Option # 2, on the other hand, is something that I don't think Charles would do.

To circumvent the unintended consequences of Option #2, Charles' LPs would have to include an exemption for people who are already HRHs under Queen Elizabeth II's reign, but, in that case, the only affected living persons would be Archie and Lilibet, and Meghan would have a stronger argument.

That makes me conclude that royal titles reform probably won't be implemented until William is King and William's grandchildren will be first persons to whom the new rules will apply.

A clean solution imho (as I've stated before) is to apply it to everyone born AFTER the change in the line of succession. As from that moment on, it might be considered illogical that while older sisters are ahead in the line of succession to their younger brothers - the children of the brothers will be titled while those of the sisters will not.

Alternatively (but that would be a bit more random) they apply it from Edward's children onwards, as they never used their HRH prince(ss) style and title, so there is no reason to 'restart' it with Harry's children.

I think Charles will apply any new rules to all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II. That would leave her cousins as HRHs but remove HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie and Archie and Lilibet (who would both have gained it the instant the Queen dies/abdicates ... yes I know she won't abdicate but it still needs to be said so people are sure when Archie and Lilibet become HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex). I also don't think the Queen is in favour of reducing those eligible anyway. She has actually increased those eligible to those eligible under the 1917 rules. If she supported Charles on a reduction in HRHs she would have done so when she issued the 2012 rules ... and I do think it was a mistake to not do so then.

This sounds correct, as you so often are about protocol and history. It does seem like a missed opportunity now, because it’s going to be one more difficult thing for Charles to navigate.

Iluvbertie's suggestion would be a reasonable solution as well. In that case HRH Princess Beatrice, mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi would become Lady Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi and HRH Princess Eugenie, mrs. Jack Brooksbank would become Lady Eugenie Brooksbank. Less complicated and still elegant :flowers:
 
If Charles issues new LPs as you suggest, there are two possibilities:

  1. The Letters Patent apply only to people who are born after they are issued, in which case Archie and Lilibet are not affected.
  2. The Letters Patent apply to all, in which case Archie and Lilibet are stripped of the HRH, but so are Beatrice, Eugenie, and the Queen's paternal first cousins.

Option #1 won't have any practical consequence until Charlotte or Louis have children. Option # 2, on the other hand, is something that I don't think Charles would do.

To circumvent the unintended consequences of Option #2, Charles' LPs would have to include an exemption for people who are already HRHs under Queen Elizabeth II's reign, but, in that case, the only affected living persons would be Archie and Lilibet, and Meghan would have a stronger argument.

That makes me conclude that royal titles reform probably won't be implemented until William is King and William's grandchildren will be first persons to whom the new rules will apply.

If the new rules are first applied to King William's grandchildren, the children of Prince Louis will be the only affected persons at the time. If Louis or his children's mother makes the same argument, then I suppose the reform will need to be postponed yet again - until a generation comes where a younger son and the mother of his children are both content with the change.


[...] I also don't think the Queen is in favour of reducing those eligible anyway. She has actually increased those eligible to those eligible under the 1917 rules. If she supported Charles on a reduction in HRHs she would have done so when she issued the 2012 rules ... and I do think it was a mistake to not do so then.

Elizabeth seems to have preferred reducing titles in the family to increasing them, e.g., she has ceased offering peerages to husbands of princesses.
If you meant the 2012 letters patent, many have argued that her hand was forced, as it would not have been acceptable to the public for a firstborn daughter to be a mere Lady while her younger brother was born a Prince.

That being said, biographer Robert Lacey states he was informed that Elizabeth is indeed opposed to amending the 1917 letters patent.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-could-allow-archie-24362551

Speaking to the Times, he explains: "It is clear to me that the Queen and her advisers have discussed this issue at the highest level, and that the future royal status of Archie and Lili is not in jeopardy in her lifetime.​


Iluvbertie's suggestion would be a reasonable solution as well. In that case HRH Princess Beatrice, mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi would become Lady Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi and HRH Princess Eugenie, mrs. Jack Brooksbank would become Lady Eugenie Brooksbank. Less complicated and still elegant :flowers:

It would be highly atypical by royal standards, at least in Europe, for royal titles to be stripped from adult royals through no action of their own (such as contracting a marriage without approval). In fact, I cannot think of a precedent in a European monarchy. (ETA: George V of the UK set a precedent - thank you to FigTree.) Of course, if it were to happen, it would not be the first unusual title-related action taken by a British monarch.
 
Last edited:
If the new rules are first applied to King William's grandchildren, the children of Prince Louis will be the only affected persons at the time. If Louis or his children's mother makes the same argument, then I suppose the reform will need to be postponed yet again - until a generation comes where a younger son and the mother of his children are both content with the change.




Elizabeth seems to have preferred reducing titles in the family to increasing them, e.g., she has ceased offering peerages to husbands of princesses.
If you meant the 2012 letters patent, many have argued that her hand was forced, as it would not have been acceptable to the public for a firstborn daughter to be a mere Lady while her younger brother was born a Prince.

That being said, biographer Robert Lacey states he was informed that Elizabeth is indeed opposed to amending the 1917 letters patent.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-could-allow-archie-24362551

Speaking to the Times, he explains: "It is clear to me that the Queen and her advisers have discussed this issue at the highest level, and that the future royal status of Archie and Lili is not in jeopardy in her lifetime.​




It would be highly atypical by royal standards, at least in Europe, for royal titles to be stripped from adult royals through no action of their own (such as contracting a marriage without approval). In fact, I cannot think of a precedent in a European monarchy. Of course, if it were to happen, it would not be the first unusual title-related action taken by a British monarch.

Well George V did it hughly…although you could say hand was forced.

I don’t think Charles would stripe his nieces but it has to start with someone and really they are an anomaly now too as the other cousins either have no title or a lesser one.

He can easily change it for his descendants and any change needs to apply to all non heir grandchildren or the monarch…children of sons and daughters. How then if it was applied retroactively could it avoid affecting all other 6 grandchildren of the Queen. Which would essentially interfere with what grown people have lived their life as by giving titles to those that probably don’t want them or taking them complete away from others doesn’t seem fair.

Best do it from his descendants. Does that mean H and M would kick off…probably? But the children live in the USA, and are likely always too at least until they are 18 when they may choose to study in the UK and what good are their titles there? Yes I know P. Madeleine’s children live in the USA currently and have titles but it seems different as they are still actively entwined with the family. Harry and Meghan refused titles for their children. They should continue to do that. Makes no sense for an untitled person to suddenly become a Prince or Princess.

Going forward all grandchildren off the monarch who aren’t children of the heir should either all be untitled or have titles of a Duke. Regardless of gender of parent. A lot of other royal houses do the same.

Since these will be Charles grandchildren. Start with Archie and Lili…has to start with someone and may mean they may actually use a title or have the right to. Because as said it has to start with someone. And to do it to the descendants of his mother when the nation is mourning her death, and people will take it as an existential event, would seem daft and bonkers. He can start with his own.
 
Last edited:
Archie and Lili already have titles - Lord and Lady twice over - as male line great-grandchildren of a monarch and as the children of a Duke. Archie could be using Earl of Dumbarton and eventually will inherit all of his father's peerage titles - Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
 
Archie and Lili already have titles - Lord and Lady twice over - as male line great-grandchildren of a monarch and as the children of a Duke. Archie could be using Earl of Dumbarton and eventually will inherit all of his father's peerage titles - Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

I know but they don’t use them. Why on earth would they start with being a Prince and Princess. It makes no sense. Their parents choose not to use titles, they should continue to and it should change for all of Charles descendants.

That’s another thing…peerages in the royal family. No need. Titles should apply to you and you only. They aren’t the landed gentry, there is nothing that goes with that title and eventually the holders become ordinary people with ordinary jobs. Probably wealthy but not above UMC. Seems daft. Charles should change that too.
 
Last edited:
Archie and Lili already have titles - Lord and Lady twice over - as male line great-grandchildren of a monarch and as the children of a Duke. Archie could be using Earl of Dumbarton and eventually will inherit all of his father's peerage titles - Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

Strictly speaking they dont as yet have titles. Archie can use Earl of Dumbarton and Lili could use Lady Lili, but these are courtesy titles and Arche wont be Duke of Sussex till Harry is gone.
 
Somebody wrote:


A clean solution imho (as I've stated before) is to apply it to everyone born AFTER the change in the line of succession. As from that moment on, it might be considered illogical that while older sisters are ahead in the line of succession to their younger brothers - the children of the brothers will be titled while those of the sisters will not.

Alternatively (but that would be a bit more random) they apply it from Edward's children onwards, as they never used their HRH prince(ss) style and title, so there is no reason to 'restart' it with Harry's children.
Yes, that could be a possibility, but it would still give the impression that Archie and Lilibet are being specifically targeted since they would be the only ones immediately affected in terms of losing the titles they will automatically gain when Charles ascends the throne.


I agree that it would be odd for Charlotte's children to be untitled and, conversely, for Louis' children to be HRHs, when Charlotte and her descendants are ahead of Louis and his descendants in the line of succession. The logical solution to avoid title inflation is obviously for George's children only to be princes/princesses.



But, if the issue only arises in connection with William's future grandchildren, I don't see a practical reason to make changes now that will extend also to Archie and Lilibet and look like they are meant to punish the Sussexes.
 
Somebody wrote:


Yes, that could be a possibility, but it would still give the impression that Archie and Lilibet are being specifically targeted since they would be the only ones immediately affected in terms of losing the titles they will automatically gain when Charles ascends the throne.


I agree that it would be odd for Charlotte's children to be untitled and, conversely, for Louis' children to be HRHs, when Charlotte and her descendants are ahead of Louis and his descendants in the line of succession. The logical solution to avoid title inflation is obviously for George's children only to be princes/princesses.



But, if the issue only arises in connection with William's future grandchildren, I don't see a practical reason to make changes now that will extend also to Archie and Lilibet and look like they are meant to punish the Sussexes.
In the case of Harry’s kids, in all honesty, it shouldn’t matter they are burning their bridges and have accused the family of not granting titles anyways so no matter. Those kids will probably live in America most of their lives so need for titles.
 
Somebody wrote:


Yes, that could be a possibility, but it would still give the impression that Archie and Lilibet are being specifically targeted since they would be the only ones immediately affected in terms of losing the titles they will automatically gain when Charles ascends the throne.

I agree that it would be odd for Charlotte's children to be untitled and, conversely, for Louis' children to be HRHs, when Charlotte and her descendants are ahead of Louis and his descendants in the line of succession. The logical solution to avoid title inflation is obviously for George's children only to be princes/princesses.

But, if the issue only arises in connection with William's future grandchildren, I don't see a practical reason to make changes now that will extend also to Archie and Lilibet and look like they are meant to punish the Sussexes.

The reasoning would not be related to targeting anyone in particular. And whatever happens (even if others would loose existing titles) I have no doubt Charles will be accused of the worst things if it would (also) apply to his grandchildren. I personally don't see a good reason to NOT make the changes now if that is where they are heading just because some will make unfair accusations otherwise.

Of all the non-direct heir grandchildren the last ones actively using HRH and princess were born over 30 years ago. So, while that practice officially still exists, in practice it would be 'revived' if his youngest grandchildren start using these titles while the queen's youngest grandchildren don't.
 
Well George V did it hughly…although you could say hand was forced.

Good point, thank you! Then there is a precedent in the British royal family. I would not say George V's hand was forced: he was certainly facing calls to discard the German last names, but there was no public pressure to demote princes to nonroyal marquesses and earls.


The reasoning would not be related to targeting anyone in particular. And whatever happens (even if others would loose existing titles) I have no doubt Charles will be accused of the worst things if it would (also) apply to his grandchildren. I personally don't see a good reason to NOT make the changes now if that is where they are heading just because some will make unfair accusations otherwise.

I think you make a point which should not be forgotten. With all respect, I do not see any foundation for the common assumption that King Charles could escape accusations of racism by stripping royal titles from additional branches of the family together with the Sussex children. As I pointed out many times before: Archie's lack of a princely title at birth already has incited accusations of racism, notwithstanding the numerous other children in the royal family born without a royal title. Likewise, the other aspects of the family's lives in the UK which have been cited as examples of racism (such as, for example, the lack of publicly funded security for their children in the future) are also experienced by other members of the royal family. Given that "other royals are equally (or more) affected" has not quashed racism accusations in any other case, I cannot see why it would be expected to do so in this one.

Continued application of the 1917 letters patent will likely only delay the issue for one generation. Unless Archie remains childless or George's or Louis's future children also have African ancestry, the same accusations could be made about Archie's children being denied the royal titles accorded to George's and Louis's children.
 
Last edited:
Under the 1917 rules though Archie's children aren't entitled to any royal titles. Like the Duke of Gloucester's, the Duke of Kent's, and Prince Michael of Kent's children they will be male line great-grandchildren of a monarch and so not entitled to HRH.

George's children will be HRH's from birth using the 2012 LPs assuming Charles is King when that happens. If by some chance The Queen is still the monarch when George becomes a father of a legitimate child then she will, no doubt, extend HRH to those children.

Louis' children won't be HRH's until William is King - like Archie won't be until Charles is King.
 
Good point, thank you! Then there is a precedent in the British royal family. I would not say George V's hand was forced: he was certainly facing calls to discard the German last names, but there was no public pressure to demote princes to nonroyal marquesses and earls.




I think you make a point which should not be forgotten. With all respect, I do not see any foundation for the common assumption that King Charles could escape accusations of racism by stripping royal titles from additional branches of the family together with the Sussex children. As I pointed out many times before: Archie's lack of a princely title at birth already has incited accusations of racism, notwithstanding the numerous other children in the royal family born without a royal title. Likewise, the other aspects of the family's lives in the UK which have been cited as examples of racism (such as, for example, the lack of publicly funded security for their children in the future) are also experienced by other members of the royal family. Given that "other royals are equally (or more) affected" has not quashed racism accusations in any other case, I cannot see why it would be expected to do so in this one.

Continued application of the 1917 letters patent will likely only delay the issue for one generation. Unless Archie remains childless or George's or Louis's future children also have African ancestry, the same accusations could be made about Archie's children being denied the royal titles accorded to George's and Louis's children.
They already accuse them of bad things anyways so IMO, it doesn’t really matter because even though the BRF have not quickly thought to restrict the titles, they are still being seen as the “r” word and in any case, they should restrict because Archie and his sister live in America where titles aren’t acknowledged and Harry and Meghan aren’t going to be working royals any time soon so. Archie may or may not be a Prince until Charles becomes King so those people making accusations don’t know what they are talking about, plus the security issue isn’t something the BRF has any control over so those detractors can make all the noise they want.
 
Last edited:
Continued application of the 1917 letters patent will likely only delay the issue for one generation. Unless Archie remains childless or George's or Louis's future children also have African ancestry, the same accusations could be made about Archie's children being denied the royal titles accorded to George's and Louis's children.

Under the 1917 rules though Archie's children aren't entitled to any royal titles. Like the Duke of Gloucester's, the Duke of Kent's, and Prince Michael of Kent's children they will be male line great-grandchildren of a monarch and so not entitled to HRH.

Yes, that is why I said that continuing to apply the 1917 rules will not eliminate the issue of racism accusations but merely delay it by a generation: Archie will not be denied royal titles under the 1917 rules, but his children will (and thus the Sussexes' male-line grandchildren will be treated differently than the Cambridges' male-line grandchildren).
 
That would only be by people who are too dumb to understand the 1917 rules laid down by George V.
 
That would only be by people who are too dumb to understand the 1917 rules laid down by George V.
Some people can’t take basic facts even if google was in front of them. Oh well.
 
This is a response to a post that was in the Sussex thread that I started drafting yesterday but the thread closed. However, since this post being quoted and the response are about titles and styling, this is the appropriate thread. There is a portion I kept in for context / clarity, but did a strike through to not encourage responses to that section in this thread, although it is still titles and styles related but may engender responses that are not.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but regarding the contentious issues of HRH Prince and Princess Titles for Archie and Lili I still believe they will not receive them.
I think that was brought up during the pregnancy, and completely rattled the Sussex's . Another example of them, AND now their children not being on the same footing as the Cambridges. I think that also led the name 'Archie'. Prince Archie ? Certainly not a typical upper class or royal name in the least.
I don't believe The Sussex Titles being pulled will happen, which is a sadly popular opinion on comment sections on social media outlets.

But, behind close doors I believe the document has been prepared to restrict the allocation of 'new' HRH Royal Titles. That had previously restricted these titles to Male line Grand children of the Sovereign, that had been the convention dating back to Elizabeth's grandfather King George V
by Letters Patent. I believe all the current HRH Princely Titles will be 'grandfathered in' .....no pun intended ! No one will lose them.
Its just a new way forward. And it will be popular with most in the UK for sure. Charles and William (by extension ) don't care how it plays ( if at all really ) in America
Funny enough, George got the idea from his own Uncle, Tsar Alexander lll, who himself threw out settled convention and mandated by edict that only the Children and male line Grand children of the Tsarnaev would be Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses. In the extended Romanov Family, that did cause quite a stir too.
So, with the already well known wishes of Charles to streamline The Firm and modernize it, I believe the decision was made not to have The Sussex Children by HRH Prince and Princess. It has evidently. worked out quite well for Louise and James Wessex. I think that is an example that King Charles lll will use.
And this was well before all the never ending drama of The Sussex's leaving and ongoing litany of complaints and allegations too, again the Family and the Institution too !
On top of Charles's wishes on the matter, I believe the UK People would be very upset too should the perpetually aggrieved American raised Sussex Children receive Royal Titles.
I will quite happy eat my words if wrong ! With salt and pepper too !
[-]I agree that I think that it was communicated to the Sussexes that it was expected that their children would not be publicly known as HRH Prince / Princess. I will go a step further and postulate that this set up dates back to the discussions before the Wessexes got married and that the Wessex children were not intended to be a one-off situation, and Harry was likely made aware well before his marriage that the "wish" of the next monarch be that his children not have the HRH Prince / Princess title and styling. I suspect that things went sideways when it truly sank in that the Sussex children will be treated differently than the Cambridge children.[/-]

Here's the thing, the only way that the Sussex children will not be entitled to the HRH Prince/ss title and styling will be for action to be taken during Queen Elizabeth II's reign. If it is taken during Charles' reign, then they will be retroactively stripped of their titles. I understand that there may be different reactions in the UK versus the US but you also have to factor in the Realm / Commonwealth. While it is a foregone conclusion that when The Queen passes, that nations that are currently part of the realm will choose to no longer have the British monarch be its head of state, presumably all involved want that transition to take place with little or no rancor, and I think that titles and styling of the Sussex children could become a cause of rancor.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is going to be fallout / negativity regarding the title and styling of the Sussex children, whether it is Charles removing the title of styling, or the Duke and Duchess of Sussex choosing to refer to their children by the title and styling laid out in the 1917 LP. The question is who is going to take the hit, will it be Charles by retroactively removing their titles and styling, or the Sussexes making it known that their children can / should be referred to as HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lilibet, despite them being based in the U.S., the parents feeling that the institution is deeply flawed, has treated them badly and they disconnected from it. Although if the Sussexes make it know that their children should continue to be referred to in the same manner as was noted on their birth announcements, that would put the kibosh on things.
 
While it is a foregone conclusion that when The Queen passes, that nations that are currently part of the realm will choose to no longer have the British monarch be its head of state, presumably all involved want that transition to take place with little or no rancor, and I think that titles and styling of the Sussex children could become a cause of rancor.

Wow! That is a pretty big statement to make that it is a foregone conclusion that all the realms (including Canada, Australia and NZ) would transition to become republics on the death of the Queen. Is there something you know that is not in the public domain?
 
This is a response to a post that was in the Sussex thread that I started drafting yesterday but the thread closed. However, since this post being quoted and the response are about titles and styling, this is the appropriate thread. There is a portion I kept in for context / clarity, but did a strike through to not encourage responses to that section in this thread, although it is still titles and styles related but may engender responses that are not.


[-]I agree that I think that it was communicated to the Sussexes that it was expected that their children would not be publicly known as HRH Prince / Princess. I will go a step further and postulate that this set up dates back to the discussions before the Wessexes got married and that the Wessex children were not intended to be a one-off situation, and Harry was likely made aware well before his marriage that the "wish" of the next monarch be that his children not have the HRH Prince / Princess title and styling. I suspect that things went sideways when it truly sank in that the Sussex children will be treated differently than the Cambridge children.[/-]

Here's the thing, the only way that the Sussex children will not be entitled to the HRH Prince/ss title and styling will be for action to be taken during Queen Elizabeth II's reign. If it is taken during Charles' reign, then they will be retroactively stripped of their titles. I understand that there may be different reactions in the UK versus the US but you also have to factor in the Realm / Commonwealth. While it is a foregone conclusion that when The Queen passes, that nations that are currently part of the realm will choose to no longer have the British monarch be its head of state, presumably all involved want that transition to take place with little or no rancor, and I think that titles and styling of the Sussex children could become a cause of rancor.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is going to be fallout / negativity regarding the title and styling of the Sussex children, whether it is Charles removing the title of styling, or the Duke and Duchess of Sussex choosing to refer to their children by the title and styling laid out in the 1917 LP. The question is who is going to take the hit, will it be Charles by retroactively removing their titles and styling, or the Sussexes making it known that their children can / should be referred to as HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lilibet, despite them being based in the U.S., the parents feeling that the institution is deeply flawed, has treated them badly and they disconnected from it. Although if the Sussexes make it know that their children should continue to be referred to in the same manner as was noted on their birth announcements, that would put the kibosh on things.
I don’t think it would matter, the realms that want to be republics will do so for their own reasons and it would be bound to happen, not because of the Sussexes rants. I think the BRF should remove it before Charles become King. The Sussexes are nonentities constitutionally as they are not first born heirs so I highly doubt any of the realms will seriously consider them as their reason for removing any future monarch as their head of state.
 
I don’t think it would matter, the realms that want to be republics will do so for their own reasons and it would be bound to happen, not because of the Sussexes rants. I think the BRF should remove it before Charles become King. The Sussexes are nonentities constitutionally as they are not first born heirs so I highly doubt any of the realms will seriously consider them as their reason for removing any future monarch as their head of state.
I did not state that the Sussexes will be the reason that a country will choose to leave the realm, when I stated "While it is a foregone conclusion that when The Queen passes, that nations that are currently part of the realm will choose to no longer have the British monarch be its head of state" I was in no way thinking or intending to imply that the motives to remove the monarch as head of state will be Sussex related. The motives/intentions to leave the realm long precede the Sussex relationship. However what I am stating is that if the current monarch does not change the 1917 LP, and I think that it is unlikely that she will, then the Sussex children will become, upon her death, HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lilibet, and if Harry and Meghan, directly or indirectly show that they feel that their children should be referred by these titles and the next monarch issues LPs that will result in the Sussex children being stripped of the titles, then it may cause rancor and cast a pall on the what is hoped to be an orderly and amicable transition.

Wow! That is a pretty big statement to make that it is a foregone conclusion that all the realms (including Canada, Australia and NZ) would transition to become republics on the death of the Queen. Is there something you know that is not in the public domain?
I did not state that all of the nations will leave the realm after The Queen passes. However I did not put a modifier like "some" or "several" and apologize if it led to misinterpretation.
 
It's an awkward situation. No-one foresaw Harry and Meghan jumping ship, and I don't think anyone would have had an issue with their children being HRH Prince and Princess if they'd continued to become full time working royals. Whatever's done now will be difficult. It's a no-win situation.

Of course, it'll be completely hypocritical if, having rejected the titles of Earl and Lady for their children, Harry and Meghan accept Prince and Princess, but those two are a law unto themselves.

No-one wants to see a row over Archie and Lili's titles overshadow the start of a new reign. And, of course, Archie and Lili themselves are completely innocent in all of this.
 
I don't think anyone would have had an issue with their children being HRH Prince and Princess if they'd continued to become full time working royals.

The Duke of York was a full-time working royal until 2019, as was his wife during the marriage, and according to informed posters both were popular at one time. That has not prevented years (decades?) of discussion amongst the British media and royal watchers about whether their daughters would or should be stripped of their princessly titles.

Even if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had remained full-time official working members and universally beloved by the public, the public pressure to "cut costs" by "slimming down" would make the likelihood of their children becoming working royals remote, which in turn would make it controversial for them to be given the privilege of being Prince and Princess, as seen with the York sisters.

Speaking for myself, the 1917 rules' systematic sexism alone makes their continued application objectionable: If Archie and Lilibet were the children of a British princess and her biracial American husband, they would remain untitled - even if there were accusations of racism - solely because their parent of royal birth was a woman and not a man.


[...] if Harry and Meghan, directly or indirectly show that they feel that their children should be referred by these titles and the next monarch issues LPs that will result in the Sussex children being stripped of the titles, then it may cause rancor and cast a pall on the what is hoped to be an orderly and amicable transition.

It would seem the events you describe have already come to pass: The Duchess indeed made clear in her Oprah interview in 2021 that she felt her child should be referred to by a princely title, and there was indeed rancor which cast a pall.
 
As has already been touched on, a compromise might be to stress the precedent of the Wessex children.

So issue a statement that just like the youngest male line grandchildren of Elizabeth ii the children of H&M, despite being the grandchildren of the new monarch, will continue to be known by non royal titles but with the option of them using their princely status after 18 if they choose to be working members of the rf. Which of course they won’t be.

So no complaints about being treated differently.

Then issue new letters patent keeping royal status only for children of the monarch & those in direct line.

Failing that just cut the Gordian Knot & damn the consequences.
 
Last edited:
As has already been touched on, a compromise might be to stress the precedent of the Wessex children.

So issue a statement that just like the youngest male line grandchildren of Elizabeth ii the children of H&M, despite being the grandchildren of the new monarch, will continue to be known by non royal titles but with the option of them using their princely status after 18 if they choose to be working members of the rf. Which of course they won’t be.

So no complaints about being treated differently.

Then issue new letters patent keeping royal status only for children of the monarch & those in direct line.

Failing that just cut the Gordian Knot & damn the consequences.

As far as I know, none of the LPs on titles and styles of the Royal Family that have been issued since the reign of Queen Victoria mention being a "working royal" as a condition to be a prince/princess or an HRH. Those titles/styles have been traditionally tied solely to a particular degree of kinship with Sovereigns of the United Kingdom.

Personally I would not recommend associating "working royal status" with royal titles and styles not least because it is possible that, in the future, as it already happens in other countries, not all children of the monarch will necessarily be full-time working royals anyway.

The solution of restricting princely status to children of the monarch and children of the heir only, with no reference to any kind of "working status", is fair in my opinion and has been already proven to work in other monarchies that have adopted it such as the Netherlands and Spain. However, I still do not see why the new rules would have to affect any living person who is already (or, in the case of Harry and Meghan's children, will be already) HRHs under the old rules.

Again, in the Netherlands and in Spain for example, when princely status was restricted by law or royal decree, the corresponding legal instruments had legacy clauses that preserved the titles of living persons under previous rules.
 
Last edited:
Speaking for myself, the 1917 rules' systematic sexism alone makes their continued application objectionable: If Archie and Lilibet were the children of a British princess and her biracial American husband, they would remain untitled - even if there were accusations of racism - solely because their parent of royal birth was a woman and not a man.

Too right. It is well past it’s due for change.
 
As far as I know, none of the LPs on titles and styles of the Royal Family that have been issued since the reign of Queen Victoria mention being a "working royal" as a condition to be a prince/princess or an HRH. Those titles/styles have been traditionally tied solely to a particular degree of kinship with Sovereigns of the United Kingdom.

Personally I would not recommend associating "working royal status" with royal titles and style not least because it is possible that, in the future, as it already happens in other countries, not all children of the monarch will necessarily be full-time working royals anyway.

The solution of restricting princely status to children of the monarch and children of the heir only, with no reference to any kind of "working status", is fair in my opinion and has been already proven to work in other monarchies that have adopted it such as the Netherlands and Spain. However, I still do not see why the new rules would have to affect any living person who is already (or, in the case of Harry and Meghan's children, will be already) HRHs under the old rules.

Again, in the Netherlands and in Spain for example, when princely status was restricted by law or royal decree, the corresponding legal instruments had legacy clauses that preserved the titles of living persons under previous rules.

To remove titles from people who have lived with them all their lives would be cruel. Archie and Lili have never used ones they are entitled too. Following the death of the Queen the UK will be in a bit of a self identity state itself. She is the only monarch most of the population have ever known. No one will care about Archie and Lili. And actually the 12 year olds I teach, when we went through the royal family during the jubilee celebrations, didn’t understand what Harry was doing in an educational PowerPoint, because he left and wasn’t royal anymore. So really no one will really care about them and Harry will be forgotten about the upcoming generations. They only care about Charlotte anyway, all they want to know about the kids. Her and the Queen. No interested in much else.

But going forward there should be no titles except for the heirs children and children of sons and daughter should be treated exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
Too right. It is well past it’s due for change.

The 1917 rules are "sexist" by today's standards, but, from a historical perspective, they were in line with the standard in Europe at the time, which was that princesses did not transmit princely status to their children. The UK, like a few other monarchies like Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, was actually historically progressive in terms of allowing women to succeed to the Crown when most European kingdoms/empires had strictly agnatic succession.

Honestly I don't see a pragmatic reason to change the rules for anyone who was born before equal primogeniture was introduced in the succession to the Crowns of the UK and the Commonwealth realms. Archie and Lilibet of course were born after 2011, but gender inequality does not apply to them as they already descend from the Queen in paternal line and their children will not be princes or princesses under the 1917 rules anyway. The issue will come up again only when Princess Charlotte has children of her own, so there is no need to address it before that.

If the UK eliminated gender discrimination now, but did not simultaneously restrict HRH status eligibility, the unintended (?) consequence would be to make Peter, Zara, the Earl of Snowdon, and Sarah Chatto HRHs, which would go against an alleged desire to have fewer rather than more HRHs in the Family. But, for other reasons which I discussed before, restricting HRH eligibility now is also undesirable, so the optimal solution is to change nothing until William has grandchildren. At least that is my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The 1917 rules are "sexist" by today's standards, but, from a historical perspective, they were in line with the standard in Europe at the time, which was that princesses did not transmit princely status to their children. The UK, like a few other monarchies like Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, was actually historically progressive in terms of allowing women to succeed to the Crown when most European kingdoms/empires had strictly agnatic succession.

Honestly I don't see a pragmatic reason to change the rules for anyone who was born before equal primogeniture was introduced in the succession to the Crowns of the UK and the Commonwealth realms. Archie and Lilibet of course were born after 2011, but gender inequality does not apply to them as they already descend from the Queen in paternal line and their children will not be princes or princesses under the 1917 rules anyway. The issue will come up again only when Princess Charlotte has children of her own, so there is no need to address it before that.

If the UK eliminated gender discrimination now, but did not simultaneously restrict HRH status eligibility, the unintended (?) consequence would be to make Peter, Zara, the Earl of Snowdon, and Sarah Chatto HRHs, which would go against an alleged desire to have fewer rather than more HRHs in the Family. But, for other reasons which I discussed before, restricting HRH eligibility now is also undesirable, so the optimal solution is to change nothing until William has grandchildren. At least that is my opinion.
I don’t think the issue will be Princess Charlotte, but maybe George if he has a first born daughter.
 
As has already been touched on, a compromise might be to stress the precedent of the Wessex children.

So issue a statement that just like the youngest male line grandchildren of Elizabeth ii the children of H&M, despite being the grandchildren of the new monarch, will continue to be known by non royal titles but with the option of them using their princely status after 18 if they choose to be working members of the rf. Which of course they won’t be.

So no complaints about being treated differently.

Then issue new letters patent keeping royal status only for children of the monarch & those in direct line.

Failing that just cut the Gordian Knot & damn the consequences.


As far as I know, none of the LPs on titles and styles of the Royal Family that have been issued since the reign of Queen Victoria mention being a "working royal" as a condition to be a prince/princess or an HRH. Those titles/styles have been traditionally tied solely to a particular degree of kinship with Sovereigns of the United Kingdom.

Personally I would not recommend associating "working royal status" with royal titles and styles not least because it is possible that, in the future, as it already happens in other countries, not all children of the monarch will necessarily be full-time working royals anyway.

Durham was not discussing LPs, though, but the 1999 announcement regarding the Wessex children, which was associated by the royal spokeswoman with "the likely future circumstances of their children".

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/royal_wedding/373120.stm

In a modernising touch, the couple's children will not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, "but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl".

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.​

The 1917 rules are "sexist" by today's standards, but, from a historical perspective, they were in line with the standard in Europe at the time, which was that princesses did not transmit princely status to their children.

Of course this form of sexism is standard in Europe, in 2022 as well as 1917, and on every other continent also, but being the standard self-evidently does not reduce the sexism.


Archie and Lilibet of course were born after 2011, but gender inequality does not apply to them as they already descend from the Queen in paternal line and their children will not be princes or princesses under the 1917 rules anyway.

It applies to them, or rather to their father, because if they descended from the Queen maternally instead of paternally no one would be discussing the possibility of their becoming Prince and Princess in the next reign. It would be taken for granted that they would remain Master and Miss, like Peter and Zara Phillips.
 
Back
Top Bottom