Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[kalnel]

But it's a "right" that can be taken away so is it really best viewed as an award or a privilege that can be revoked?

It's interesting that the LPs use the phrase "at all times hold & enjoy" because that suggests permanence but monarchs can undo the LP's of previous monarchs at will so these titles etc are not set in stone at all but subject to review &/or removal/abeyance.

Maybe George v did not understand this? Although I would imagine he did because his own LPs of 1917 deprived male line gt grandsons of British monarchs from being HH/prince - which up until that point had been their "right".

I think letters patent are as permanent as anything under the law. The British monarch uses them to appoint the great officers of state, the judiciary, the church leaders, key military leaders, royal household officials, key academics, and so on.

George V (and his advisors) certainly understood the purpose. He used them to change the name of the royal house, remove the German titles from his family members, and refocus the use of titles.

Just as his letters patent overwrote previous laws, new ones could overwrite his.

If Charles wanted, he could limit titles to William's line only, although it probably wouldn't be worth the media backlash when the Sussexes and their supporters responded. I imagine he'd much prefer Harry to announce that the kids aren't using their titles, just as Edward did.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Also, if HM The King finds his youngest grandchildren being styled Prince and Prince problematic, he could always write letters of patent removing them of those styles. Similarly, if the British government found that HRH The Duke of Sussex and, by extension, HRH The Duchess of Sussex holding those titles problematic, there would be a strong push (not a lackluster one like last year) to remove them.

There are many descendants of defunct monarchies that still style themselves as princes and princesses that are still respected as such, even when they have little to no connection to those former monarchies, oftentimes not even living within those areas anymore. I don't understand why HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex, toddlers whose future is completely broad and might even lead them to being working members of the BRF, would need more dedication and loyalty to the monarchy that gave them those titles than many other, older individuals in the exact same position.

Some of those deposed royals do some representative and charitable works in certain communities like the former Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin royals so the situation is not comparable. Also some of them lived outside their country of origin because they were politically by communists or politically opposing enemies or the U.S.S.R. In Germany, titles are part of last names that’s all. Some families are respected for their conduct, others are not.

 

[Fijiro]

At the time of their birth, Charles and Anne were not entitled to be styled Prince and Princess because they were female line grandchildren of the Monarch, so in 1948 George IV issued a Letter Patent for the children of Princess Elizabeth of Edinburgh (later QE2) and Duke of Edinburgh to be styled as Prince and Princess.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Some of those deposed royals do some representative and charitable works in certain communities like the former Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin royals so the situation is not comparable.

Not comparable to whom?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's interesting that the LPs use the phrase "at all times hold & enjoy" because that suggests permanence but monarchs can undo the LP's of previous monarchs at will so these titles etc are not set in stone at all but subject to review &/or removal/abeyance.

Maybe George v did not understand this? Although I would imagine he did because his own LPs of 1917 deprived male line gt grandsons of British monarchs from being HH/prince - which up until that point had been their "right".

"At all times hold and enjoy" was a stock phrase which had been employed in many previous letters patent and royal warrants, beginning under Queen Victoria, concerning H(R)H/prince(ss) titles.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

I would say it ought to be read as "the individuals so designated enjoy this title full-time", as opposed to only being able to enjoy it on special occasions such as coronations and garden parties .

At the time of their birth, Charles and Anne were not entitled to be styled Prince and Princess because they were female line grandchildren of the Monarch, so in 1948 George IV issued a Letter Patent for the children of Princess Elizabeth of Edinburgh (later QE2) and Duke of Edinburgh to be styled as Prince and Princess.

The 1948 letters patent was issued the month before Charles' birth.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I've seen several comments that stated it was unfair that the children of TRH The Sussexes would be called Prince and Princess but not the children of TRH The Edinburghs. I never understood it since the latter couple decided themselves that their children wouldn't have princely titles.

I don't think anyone has brought up the Edinburghs to suggest it's unfair that Louise and James are not prince and princess. I believe people have brought it up to contrast Edward and Sophie's choices from Harry and Meghan's. Edward and Sophie, realizing their children were never going to be close to the throne, chose not to impose the burden of prince and princess titles on their kids, leaving it up to decide when they reached 18 whether they wanted to lead royal lives. By contrast, Harry -- who has complained bitterly about the Institution and how much being a spare negatively impacted his life -- and Meghan have chosen to give their children the prince and princess titles even though they rank even below spares, will never be working royals, and don't even live in the country in which their titles are relevant. IMO, it's fair to make the comparisons.

Even if some royal watchers consider the disparate treatment of the Edinburgh and Sussex children unfair, I think that is a justifiable view to take (though not the only justifiable view).

First of all, irrespective of the reasons for the respective decisions, the end result is that two sets of children in precisely the same position in regards to their royal descent (legitimate children of a monarch's legitimate younger son) as well as their place in the monarchy (no official role expected) are titled differently - and the Edinburgh siblings are titled differently from those in the same position who came before and after them, so it is not a systematic change.

Further, royal watchers will naturally come to their own interpretations of the behind-the-scenes influences and plans behind each decision. As a general reminder, the public statements released on the 1999 decision read as follows:

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...ews/title_of_hrh_the_prince_edward/40309.html

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.

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie​

Some royal watchers interpret the statements to mean that Edward and Sophie had a purely personal desire to have low-key titles for their children and made a request to Queen Elizabeth II to which she agreed, without any expectation that it would affect the tradition of male-line grandchildren being Princes and Princesses for future generations. This is a valid theory, most strongly supported by the phrase "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones", particularly the word "personal".

However, other royal watchers interpret the statements to mean that Queen Elizabeth II (possibly with the influence of the then Prince Charles) had decided that going forward, only children born to future monarchs should be born as Princesses and Princes. Per this interpretation, the references to Edward and Sophie's "agreement" and "clear personal wish" would not mean that the idea originated with them, but would be phrases intended to emphasize that they were enthusiastic about the plan, to hopefully fend off undesirable speculation about (for example) the queen maliciously denying them their children's "birthright". This is also a valid theory, and is supported by the wording "The Queen [has] decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones" and the justification that the lack of Princess and Prince titles was "appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children". Since the "future circumstances" of Edward's children (being non-working royals) were also likely to be the same for Harry's children and the children of future younger sons, the decision would by the same logic be equally "appropriate" for those future generations.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Not comparable to whom?

I was saying that it’s not comparable to the Sussexes who are the topic of this thread.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Even if some royal watchers consider the disparate treatment of the Edinburgh and Sussex children unfair, I think that is a justifiable view to take (though not the only justifiable view).

First of all, irrespective of the reasons for the respective decisions, the end result is that two sets of children in precisely the same position in regards to their royal descent (legitimate children of a monarch's legitimate younger son) as well as their place in the monarchy (no official role expected) are titled differently.

Further, royal watchers will naturally come to their own interpretations of the behind-the-scenes influences and plans behind each decision. As a general reminder, the public statements released on the 1999 decision read as follows:

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...ews/title_of_hrh_the_prince_edward/40309.html

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.

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie​

Some royal watchers interpret the statements to mean that Edward and Sophie had a purely personal desire to have low-key titles for their children and made a request to Queen Elizabeth II to which she agreed, without any expectation that it would affect the tradition of male-line grandchildren being Princes and Princesses for future generations. This is a valid theory, most strongly supported by the phrase "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones", particularly the word "personal".

However, other royal watchers interpret the statements to mean that Queen Elizabeth II (possibly with the influence of the then Prince Charles) had decided that going forward, only children born to future monarchs should be born as Princesses and Princes. Per this interpretation, the references to Edward and Sophie's "agreement" and "clear personal wish" would not mean that the idea originated with them, but would be phrases intended to emphasize that they were enthusiastic about the plan, to hopefully fend off undesirable speculation about (for example) the queen maliciously denying them their children's "birthright". This is also a valid theory, and is supported by the wording "The Queen [has] decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones" and the justification that the lack of Princess and Prince titles was "appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children". Since the "future circumstances" of Edward's children (being non-working royals) were also likely to be the same for Harry's children and the children of future younger sons, the decision would by the same logic be equally "appropriate" for those future generations.

The circumstances weren’t just about Sophie and Edward’s choices, but about the state of the monarchy in the 90s.

 

[TLLK]

Some of those deposed royals do some representative and charitable works in certain communities like the former Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin royals so the situation is not comparable. Also some of them lived outside their country of origin because they were politically by communists or politically opposing enemies or the U.S.S.R. In Germany, titles are part of last names that’s all. Some families are respected for their conduct, others are not.

Thank you for pointing out this fact SirGyamfi. Some of these Central and Eastern royal families were fortunate to escape at the end of World War II.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There are many descendants of defunct monarchies that still style themselves as princes and princesses that are still respected as such, even when they have little to no connection to those former monarchies, oftentimes not even living within those areas anymore. [...]

Some of those deposed royals do some representative and charitable works in certain communities like the former Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin royals so the situation is not comparable. [...]

Not comparable to whom?

I was saying that it’s not comparable to the Sussexes who are the topic of this thread.

HenRach Dominion was specifically referring to "descendants of defunct monarchies [who have] little to no connection to those former monarchies". So, your "deposed royals [who] do some representative and charitable works in certain communities like the former Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin royals" are not comparable to the situation which was the topic of HenRach Dominion's comment.

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.

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

The circumstances weren’t just about Sophie and Edward’s choices, but about the state of the monarchy in the 90s.

The statement about "likely future circumstances" was issued in 1999 and referred to children who did not yet exist, so the phrase "likely future circumstances" could not be referring to the circumstances of the 1990s.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

HenRach Dominion was specifically referring to "descendants of defunct monarchies [who have] little to no connection to those former monarchies". So, your "deposed royals [who] do some representative and charitable works in certain communities like the former Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin royals" are not comparable to the situation which was the topic of HenRach Dominion's comment.






The statement about "likely future circumstances" was issued in 1999 and referred to children who did not yet exist, so the phrase "likely future circumstances" could not be referring to the circumstances of the 1990s.

Yes I know what he was talking about because I addressed him first about his point. The point I was making was that despite some of the defunct (who are not the topic of this thread) royals not having connection to the monarchy prior to abolishing of the respective monarchies and i gave other reasons addressing his post. At the end of the day, titles particularly in reigning royal families are not so much about proximity in relation to the monarch, but also doing duties representing the monarchy something the persons concerning this thread don’t do, but are so willing to use it especially in a country that does not legally recognise them. It also be argued that in some respective countries that stopped being monarchies for whatever reason also don’t recognise titles or have outright banned them, however because some families have retained some level of respect in some communities so their titles are mentioned out of courtesy in spite of the differing circumstances.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Also, if HM The King finds his youngest grandchildren being styled Prince and Prince problematic, he could always write letters of patent removing them of those styles.

Legally, you are quite correct, but in terms of public relations, the Duchess of Sussex's 2021 comment in which she strongly implied that not giving a princely title to her son would be motivated by racism, and it being believed by many vocal members of the public (in spite of the evidence of the 1917 letters patent, the 1999 statements, and the decades of reports about "slimming down"), would make that option politically costly for King Charles III. It is also quite possible that she or her husband or their representatives would have issued even stronger comments in the same vein if the King had issued new letters patent.

“They didn't want him to be a prince,” the Duchess told Oprah Winfrey, “which would be different from protocol ... we have in tandem the conversation of, ‘He won't be given security. He’s not going to be given a title.’ And also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/08/revealed-plans-slim-monarchy-have-skewed-race-row/​

Similarly, if the British government found that HRH The Duke of Sussex and, by extension, HRH The Duchess of Sussex holding those titles problematic, there would be a strong push (not a lackluster one like last year) to remove them.

I think the threshold would have to be much higher than "problematic" before the government would begin to meddle with Prince or Princess titles, which have been left to the monarch's personal discretion up to now. Even on the topic of revoking peerage titles, which is generally accepted as being the purview of Parliament and not the monarch, the government has declined to revoke peerages even from peers convicted of serious crimes. Personally, I don't believe the government sees the situation of people convicted of sexual assault being peers as unproblematic, but instead recognizes the can of worms that revocation would open.

There are many descendants of defunct monarchies that still style themselves as princes and princesses that are still respected as such, even when they have little to no connection to those former monarchies, oftentimes not even living within those areas anymore. I don't understand why HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex, toddlers whose future is completely broad and might even lead them to being working members of the BRF, would need more dedication and loyalty to the monarchy that gave them those titles than many other, older individuals in the exact same position.

I agree with you that there are certain double standards (not only in relation to titles) in the way that many royal watchers frame narratives around members of reigning families compared to members of former reigning families. Just for clarification, those double standards existed long before the Sussexes' marriage and are not limited to the British royalty discussions (for a similar example on titles, recall the years of outrage over Princess Madeleine of Sweden's children being titled).

Having said that, I think that usually, the standards which royal watchers tend to apply to members of reigning families are the healthier ones (if anyone wishes for me to elaborate, I suggest we take it to a different thread).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I mean Archie and Lili are grandchildren of the current monarch. People love to dismiss them (even say they don’t exist). I don’t fault Harry and Meghan for not denying them their so called birthright after all that.

Being grandchildren of the monarch is not the reason why Archie and Lili have the "birthright" to Prince and Princess titles. If that were the case, Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall would have the same "birthright", being grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II.

Their "birthright" is rooted in their royal-born parent being a male child of a monarch, and his lineage thus being treated as superior to equally closely related royal women's lineage.

The relevant section of the Letters Patent of 1917 reads:

It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess​

I am not sure what you mean by "People love to dismiss them". My guess is that you are referring to comments about their irrelevance to the future working activities of the monarchy, which I would call a realistic prediction rather than dismissal. This (as well as the existence of the social media conspiracy theories you also mentioned) is unlikely to be affected by their usage of titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A "source close to the couple" apparently sent a comment to multiple news outlets on the topic of title usage:

A source close to the couple has dismissed criticism of the Duke and Duchess’ use of their titles in America, stating: “Sussex is their surname and family name. That is a fact.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/02/13/harry-meghan-archewell-website-new-sussex-com/
​

In the family agreement announced January 18, 2020, the only restriction on titles that was included was on usage of the couple's HRH titles.

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

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0​

 

[Somebody]

A "source close to the couple" apparently sent a comment to multiple news outlets on the topic of title usage:

A source close to the couple has dismissed criticism of the Duke and Duchess’ use of their titles in America, stating: “Sussex is their surname and family name. That is a fact.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/02/13/harry-meghan-archewell-website-new-sussex-com/
​

In the family agreement announced January 18, 2020, the only restriction on titles that was included was on usage of the couple's HRH titles.

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

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0​

The source close to the couple must be mistaken. Sussex is not their surname but the territorial designation of Harry's peerage that they according to the custom among British nobility use as their family name. Harry's surname and that of the children is 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. We don't know for sure what Meghan's surname is (did she change it to M-W or is she legally still Markle?).

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

The source close to the couple must be mistaken. Sussex is not their surname but the territorial designation of Harry's peerage that they according to the custom among British nobility use as their family name. Harry's surname and that of the children is 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. We don't know for sure what Meghan's surname is (did she change it to M-W or is she legally still Markle?).

Unless they've legally changed the kids surname to Sussex. I wouldn't put it past them

 

[Alison H]

William and Harry used Wales as a surname at school, as do William's children now. George used Cambridge previously. The Duchess of Kent sometimes goes as Mrs Kent. So, from that point of view, using Sussex follows the custom of the Royal Family. But saying that "Sussex is their surname" is nonsense. Their surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

"Mountbatten-Windsor" sticks out like a sore thumb, and is hardly the same as being called Phillips, but that's beside the point!

 

[muriel]

William and Harry used Wales as a surname at school, as do William's children now. George used Cambridge previously. The Duchess of Kent sometimes goes as Mrs Kent. So, from that point of view, using Sussex follows the custom of the Royal Family. But saying that "Sussex is their surname" is nonsense. Their surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

"Mountbatten-Windsor" sticks out like a sore thumb, and is hardly the same as being called Phillips, but that's beside the point!

I really do not think the use of Sussex as a surname for the children is a big thing. As you pointed out, William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James have all used Wales, York and Wessex respectively.

I have no doubt the use of sussex.com and Meghan's (and not H&M's) coat of arms on the website are H&M's attempt to improve their position commercially. On this too, I think it is fine. Sussex is part of their title, so they can use it, though I am surprised the UK government does not hold the sussex.com address.

That said, the irony is not lost on me that H&M, have systematically and consistently criticised H's royal heritage, but assiduously hold on to titles to try and improve their commercial marketability. I am sure their target audience can see this glaring contradiction clearly, and if anything, this will have a negative impact on their brand.
I do not k

 

[Hallo girl]

William and Harry used Wales as a surname at school, as do William's children now. George used Cambridge previously. The Duchess of Kent sometimes goes as Mrs Kent. So, from that point of view, using Sussex follows the custom of the Royal Family. But saying that "Sussex is their surname" is nonsense. Their surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

"Mountbatten-Windsor" sticks out like a sore thumb, and is hardly the same as being called Phillips, but that's beside the point!

It appears that they, or their staff, just always appear to miss the mark. Sussex is not their surname, but having said that as ALISON H points out royal children have always used their title as the second name at school etc.

 

[shady lady]

So what do the people of Sussex think of the rebrand and name change? Here are a couple of articles that offer some views from people who actually live there:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-new-website-reaction-Chichester-Sussex.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/02...while-archie-and-lilibet-get-sussex-surnames/

Strangely enough, I almost moved to West Sussex last year to be closer to family; it's an area I know pretty well. I had actually found a flat and viewed it and was ready to go, I even planned to put a sign in the window which said #NotMyDukeAndDuchess but for personal reasons I decided to stay in Devon.

Having now lived and worked in Devon for over 35 years (and the widow of a Plymothian or "Janner" to boot) I've decided to change my name to Shady Devon

 

[victor1319]

William and Harry used Wales as a surname at school, as do William's children now. George used Cambridge previously. The Duchess of Kent sometimes goes as Mrs Kent.

Hmm, but Prince William used Wales as a surname in a desperate attempt to sound more 'common". His "nom de guerre" was meant to let folks forget, what he really is.

I wonder, if the same is the case with this Sussex thingy. Is it not rather meant to strenghten the 'Sussex brand", Prince and Duke and Duchess and all that...?

To me it looks rather like the opposite of what Prince William did. It looks like an attempt to lift the status, not like an attempt to appear relatable common.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Unless they've legally changed the kids surname to Sussex. I wouldn't put it past them

If they have made legal changes to their children's names, it is more likely that they changed them to His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex and Her Royal Highness Princess Lilibet of Sussex. The couple had their own names entered as

His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex (later amended to His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex)
Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (later amended to simply Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex)

in their son's registration of birth in England, and as

The Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness
Rachel Meghan Markle

in their daughter's birth certificate in California (which asks for the parents' "birth name").

 

[ACO]

I just see it as having them all seen the same, Harry nor Meghan were ever Mountbatten-Windsor. They are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex or the Sussexes. So now they are all the Sussexes. The way the William, Katevand their kids were all the Cambridges and now the Waleses. It’s their chose, I don’t really understand what the issue is about a family wanting the same name,

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I just see it as having them all seen the same, Harry nor Meghan were ever Mountbatten-Windsor. They are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex or the Sussexes. So now they are all the Sussexes. The way the William, Katevand their kids were all the Cambridges and now the Waleses. It’s their chose, I don’t really understand what the issue is about a family wanting the same name,

Since 1960, Mountbatten-Windsor has been the legal surname of all male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, other than daughters who have married, who take their husbands' surnames. This includes Princes William and Harry and their children.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1960

Legal documentation in which princes and princesses have used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor can be found on pages 28-29 of the following thread:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...enship-and-religious-conversion-43937-28.html

(Continued in the following post.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Social usage is a separate matter from the legal surname, just as being called Prince Harry does not change the fact that the prince's legal first name is Henry, not Harry.

To repeat what I said earlier: This is longstanding convention for British princes and princesses and British peers and peeresses, all of whom have legal surnames in theory but, by tradition, do not use them.

Outside of legal settings (where, for obvious reasons, legal names are used), princes(ses) and peer(esse)s who must or choose to use a surname in certain contexts (such as schooling or business) typically assume the territorial designations from their titles as their unofficial "surname".

For example, the late Earl of Snowdon used Antony Snowdon as his professional name, and his son, then Viscount Linley, began his career as David Linley. The then Prince William and Prince Henry of Wales and the then Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of York held jobs as William Wales, Harry Wales, Beatrice York, and Eugenie York. (Prince Edward, who was The Prince Edward and had no territorial designation in the title he was using when he embarked on his professional career, used Edward Windsor until he became Earl of Wessex and then switched to Edward Wessex.)

 

[Somebody]

It seems we all agree that they are following a British royal custom, the statement made was that Sussex IS their surname and that is objectively incorrect.

It seems that among the nobility, while the peer indeed uses his/her designation, his/her children use the family's legal surname unless they are using a subsidiary title.

 

[Durham]

It seems we all agree that they are following a British royal custom, the statement made was that Sussex IS their surname and that is objectively incorrect.

It seems that among the nobility, while the peer indeed uses his/her designation, his/her children use the family's legal surname unless they are using a subsidiary title.

Exactly.

So for the children (minus eldest son) of the Duke of Norfolk for example it's Lord/Lady X Howard not Lord/lady X Norfolk.

As to the debate about "right, birthright" upthread :

His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught was deprived of his "birthright" as a male line great grandson of a British monarch when his highness/prince status disappeared with the George v's LP.

 

[Hallo girl]

Hmm, but Prince William used Wales as a surname in a desperate attempt to sound more 'common". His "nom de guerre" was meant to let folks forget, what he really is.

I wonder, if the same is the case with this Sussex thingy. Is it not rather meant to strenghten the 'Sussex brand", Prince and Duke and Duchess and all that...?

To me it looks rather like the opposite of what Prince William did. It looks like an attempt to lift the status, not like an attempt to appear relatable common.

I would not agree it was a desperate attempt to appear relatable common but I would agree it was a way to find a level playing field when in school or workplace. Nobody wants a staff badge saying HRH The Prince of !!!!’ or the kiddies coat peg with HRH princess ….

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As to the debate about "right, birthright" upthread :

His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught was deprived of his "birthright" as a male line great grandson of a British monarch when his highness/prince status disappeared with the George v's LP.

King George V apparently never considered Alastair to have a "birthright" to Highness/Prince status, even before he issued his 1917 Letters Patent.

Alastair's father wrote that Alastair was a "Prince" on Alastair's birth registration in 1914. But when Alastair's grandmother consulted the Government and King for their advice 2.5 years later (!), she was told that that no step should be taken without consulting the King, and it was decided that the King would need to issue a warrant for Alastair to be styled as Prince.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Connaught

This of course happened before the King issued his November 1917 letters patent which clarified and limited the entitlement to Prince/Princess status.

 

[Durham]

Thank you for the link. I have come across it before.

It suggests to me that George v understood that by convention/natural justice Alastair was a prince but that he was not overly concerned with how the boy was styled. Otherwise I think he wouldn't have been prepared to formally acknowledge it before events overtook the rf in 1917.