Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[Marengo]

Snipes at the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been removed, as some posters ignored the premesis of this thread and abused this platform to engage in their own personal crusade.

Posts about the general state of the British monarchy have been removed as well.

Aparently it is difficult for members to discuss this topic without rudeness. That means we will be forced to take disciplinary measures against those posters who do so in this thread.

 

[Toledo]

Re the kids' titles - I'm confused with what I read. My understanding was they asked the Queen not to give their first child, Archie, a title so he won't have the pressure associated with it from the press. But, does this request also applies to his sister?

And per 1917 decree they are both entitled to be called Princes. But my confusion part II is if the request not to give (Archie) a title also overrules the 1917 tradition as an option and not a mandatory one. Like they now have the option not to accept the traditional King's grandchildren princely titles?

I think the intention to copy what worked out for Princess Anne children was good, but somehow backfired on them because the media that wants them to be titled and currently in the USA news the headlines are creating all sort of nonsense stories about it.
Really confusing and considering if the kids will have a say on it when they reach adulthood. At that time King Charles might not be around and this will be a decision for King William to tackle.

 

[HRHHermione]

Archie and Lilibet: Style and Titles

Re the kids' titles - I'm confused with what I read. My understanding was they asked the Queen not to give their first child, Archie, a title so he won't have the pressure associated with it from the press. But, does this request also applies to his sister?

And per 1917 decree they are both entitled to be called Princes. But my confusion part II is if the request not to give (Archie) a title also overrules the 1917 tradition as an option and not a mandatory one. Like they now have the option not to accept the traditional King's grandchildren princely titles?

I think the intention to copy what worked out for Princess Anne children was good, but somehow backfired on them because the media that wants them to be titled and currently in the USA news the headlines are creating all sort of nonsense stories about it.
Really confusing and considering if the kids will have a say on it when they reach adulthood. At that time King Charles might not be around and this will be a decision for King William to tackle.

In their interview with Oprah, they claimed that the palace didn’t want their children to have titles. In actuality, it sounds like they were guided towards using the styles of a Duke’s children- so their children would be following the precedent set by Sophie and Edward for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. That probably would have been best for the kids- otherwise they get all the drawbacks of press attention without the future roles as working royals.

I very much doubt that Archie and Lilibet will be styled as Prince/Princess. I think it was up in the air before the Sussex couple moved and when they were still senior working royals. Now that they are not working royals, it wouldn’t make sense for anyone.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Under the rules set down by George V in 1917 Archie and Lilibet are now HRH Prince/Princess as male line grandchildren of a monarch.

Whether they will ever use that styling we will have to wait and see.

They could have been using styles since birth as the children of a Duke so Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet. If the Sussex's really didn't want to use Earl of Dumbarton for Archie they could have opted for Lord as he is also a male line great-grandchild of a monarch and they are entitled to Lord/Lady e.g. Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor (Prince Michael of Kent's children).

Whether King Charles is going to actually issue new Letters Patent to change the qualifications we will have to wait and see. The rumours have been around for some time that he would like to do so limiting HRH to the children of the heir apparent and not to the children of younger siblings.

 

[FigTree]

Re the kids' titles - I'm confused with what I read. My understanding was they asked the Queen not to give their first child, Archie, a title so he won't have the pressure associated with it from the press. But, does this request also applies to his sister?

And per 1917 decree they are both entitled to be called Princes. But my confusion part II is if the request not to give (Archie) a title also overrules the 1917 tradition as an option and not a mandatory one. Like they now have the option not to accept the traditional King's grandchildren princely titles?

I think the intention to copy what worked out for Princess Anne children was good, but somehow backfired on them because the media that wants them to be titled and currently in the USA news the headlines are creating all sort of nonsense stories about it.
Really confusing and considering if the kids will have a say on it when they reach adulthood. At that time King Charles might not be around and this will be a decision for King William to tackle.

Media don’t care about the titles. When it originally happened they just went: whatever. It was Meghan and Harry who made an issue of it on Oprah with the claims that something which was never their right was denied to them because of race.

It’s an issue Charles has to think about and make uniform. But with Archie and Lilibet in the USA and it not really mattering anyway, the first people truly affected by changes will be William’s grandkids.

 

[susiewong]

I dont think he will do anything till after Harry's book is published and a decision to strip him of his title or keep will be made them.

 

[Curryong]

I don’t believe anybody is suggesting that King Charles is considering taking Harry’s dukedom away. A decision by Charles is likely to be made about Archie and Lilibet’s titles as Prince/Princess in the next few months though. At the moment they are automatically Prince and Princess, but we will have to wait and see if that is confirmed.

 

[FigTree]

I dont think he will do anything till after Harry's book is published and a decision to strip him of his title or keep will be made them.

We are not discussing that but the royal family have never, and will never - except for certain characters, acted in haste.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I dont think he will do anything till after Harry's book is published and a decision to strip him of his title or keep will be made them.

Charles can't strip Harry's peerage titles i.e. Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. That requires an Act of Parliament and traditionally has only been done for someone who has committed treason.

Charles could remove the HRH Prince styles via Letters Patent as they aren't a peerage title but it is highly unlikely he would do so as he would probably have to remove HRH Prince/Prince from everyone other than William and George or be seen as a petty and vindictive man.

 

[Lee-Z]

imo whatever K.Charles decides, the main difficulty will be to not make it look like a reaction to H&M recent comments on the RF.
It should very clearly be an objective and well-reasoned decision, that is to the benefit of the monarchy and countries K.Charles is monarch of.

Imo it will require a very well thought out strategy to announce whatever is going to be changed..

 

[Alison H]

When Archie was born, Harry and Meghan chose for him to be Master Archie rather than the Earl of Dumbarton. They also kept things low key by only giving him two names: royal children usually have at least three. Now they've apparently done a U-turn and want him and Lilibet to be Prince and Princess. They are entitled to that under the 1917 Letters Patent. We'll see.

 

[Denville]

When Archie was born, Harry and Meghan chose for him to be Master Archie rather than the Earl of Dumbarton. They also kept things low key by only giving him two names: royal children usually have at least three. Now they've apparently done a U-turn and want him and Lilibet to be Prince and Princess. They are entitled to that under the 1917 Letters Patent. We'll see.

the children are prince and Princess now, but it sseems odd if thier parents want them to use those titles in hte US.

 

[ladongas]

It’s quite difficult to make choices about the future of a toddler. One doesn’t wish to preclude things which may be advantageous later in life. Just because no one is going to say, ‘Prince Archie, be careful on the Jungle Gym!’, doesn’t mean that being Prince Archie in later life won’t be an advantage. When he’s an adult, he can make the choice for himself.

 

[Denville]

Unless he comes to live in the UK- I cant see any advantage. but its up to Charles to discuss wiht H and Meghan.

 

[Lilyflo]

In the interest of a slimmed down monarchy, I don't think the grandchildren of monarchs should be HRH or Prince/Princess unless they are the children of the heir. It would be helpful IMO if Harry & Meghan voluntarily agreed to this so that it could become a precedent via letters patent.

 

[capri]

It’s quite difficult to make choices about the future of a toddler. One doesn’t wish to preclude things which may be advantageous later in life. Just because no one is going to say, ‘Prince Archie, be careful on the Jungle Gym!’, doesn’t mean that being Prince Archie in later life won’t be an advantage. When he’s an adult, he can make the choice for himself.

If the children will have the titles prince and princess, Royal Family or the government should pay for their security. Otherwise, this will be their parents' duty. That's why Harry and Meghan persist for the titles.

 

[Denville]

If the children will have the titles prince and princess, Royal Family or the government should pay for their security. Otherwise, this will be their parents' duty. That's why Harry and Meghan persist for the titles.

This is not the case. Non working royals do not get security paid for by the tax payer. Even some working royals now only get it when they are working. So there is no reason for any of H's family to get it.

 

[muriel]

In the interest of a slimmed down monarchy, I don't think the grandchildren of monarchs should be HRH or Prince/Princess unless they are the children of the heir. It would be helpful IMO if Harry & Meghan voluntarily agreed to this so that it could become a precedent via letters patent.

That is absolutely correct, IMO. H&M should voluntarily decline titles for their children as E&S did. The Sussex kids are not going to be working royals, there is no reason for them to be titled.

 

[muriel]

If the children will have the titles prince and princess, Royal Family or the government should pay for their security. Otherwise, this will be their parents' duty. That's why Harry and Meghan persist for the titles.

This is not the case. Non working royals do not get security paid for by the tax payer. Even some working royals now only get it when they are working. So there is no reason for any of H's family to get it.

The issue of titles and security are not entwined, other than perhaps, in the mind of Meghan. The determination of who gets security is made by the Home Office, and titles have nothing to do with it. The Kents and Gloucesters do not have security, nor to Beatrice & Eugenie.

 

[Denville]

yes i know but not everyone knows this.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the children will have the titles prince and princess, Royal Family or the government should pay for their security. Otherwise, this will be their parents' duty. That's why Harry and Meghan persist for the titles.

Having HRH doesn't mean security for anyone.

Most HRHs' don't have 24/7 security paid for by the government or the royal family. The only royals that have government paid security are the King, Queen Consort, Prince and Princess of Wales and their children. The precedent is that as they get older Charlotte and Louis will lose 24/7 security in time as well. Anne and Edward and other working royals only have security when undertaking an official duty and others either pay for it themselves of don't have any at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is absolutely correct, IMO. H&M should voluntarily decline titles for their children as E&S did. The Sussex kids are not going to be working royals, there is no reason for them to be titled.

Edward and Sophie didn't 'decline titles for their children'. They decided they would be styled as the children of an Earl rather than have the style HRH.

In time James will have a title - when he inherits his father's titles but until then he is styled as the heir apparent to his father's titles by using Viscount Severn.

 

[Denville]

Edward and Sophie didn't 'decline titles for their children'. They decided they would be styled as the children of an Earl rather than have the style HRH.

In time James will have a title - when he inherits his father's titles but until then he is styled as the heir apparent to his father's titles by using Viscount Severn.

true but Harry's children have the same situation. Archie can use Ld Dumbarton and he will become DUke of Sussex in due course.

 

[ladongas]

So grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line are automatically Prince or Princess? Is there a lawful way to remove those designations, once ‘earned’? Since no public money is expended on children with those titles, why should anyone care?
Or is it just malice toward their parents? At any rate, some consideration of the implications of their places in the line of succession might be justified.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line are automatically Prince or Princess? Is there a lawful way to remove those designations, once ‘earned’? Since no public money is expended on children with those titles, why should anyone care?
Or is it just malice toward their parents? At any rate, some consideration of the implications of their places in the line of succession might be justified.

The only ways these styles can be removed is via Letters Patent issued by the monarch or via legislation by parliament.

It is nothing to do with malice towards their parents as this idea has been floating around now for about 30 years, including the idea of stripping the York princesses of the HRH Princess styles and is the reason why Edward didn't give his children HRH. He didn't want his children to grow up with it and then have it removed once Charles was King.

What implications are there about their place in the line of succession? Most of the over 5000 in that line don't have HRH including Princess Anne's children and most also don't live in the UK, starting with the King of Norway. In addition most aren't British citizens either.

Currently the only ones in the LoS with British HRHs:

William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie, Lilibet, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra. Alexandra is currently 56th in the LoS so of the first 56 only 17 have HRH and four of them don't use it. The person who is 10th in line has no HRH and isn't eligible for it under the existing rules. When Peter Philips was born he was 5th and didn't have HRH. When the current Earl Snowdon was born he was also born 5th.

 

[Lilyflo]

So grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line are automatically Prince or Princess? Is there a lawful way to remove those designations, once ‘earned’?

My understanding is that HMK could remove HRH but I'm not sure about Prince/Princess - someone else here will know the details.

Since no public money is expended on children with those titles, why should anyone care?

I think it's the perception of a large royal family, which the public doesn't want. The titles HRH or Prince/Princess feed the assumption that the royal family have lots of 'hangers-on'.

Or is it just malice toward their parents? At any rate, some consideration of the implications of their places in the line of succession might be justified.

It's not malice on my part as I'd prefer it if Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie relinquished their royal titles too and that the Wessex children never start using theirs. The line of succession issue would be solved if they ever became the children of the heir as they'd then be Prince and Princess.

 

[Alison H]

Yes, styles and titles can be removed. Just as George V made the 1917 rules: Charles III can make new ones. We're not talking about the laws of the Medes and the Persians: there's always the option for change.

However, no-one's removed the right of Louise and James to be HRH Princess and Prince, and no-one removed the right of Camilla to be Princess of Wales. The decision was just made that they wouldn't. That's more the case here. The trend, not only in the UK but also elsewhere, notably Sweden, is towards fewer members of the Royal Family being HRH Prince/Princess, and towards that only being full time working royals. It's not a question of malice, it's a question of whether or not it's really appropriate for two children who will probably play no part in royal life, and whose family have distanced themselves both physically and metaphorically from royal life, to hold those styles and titles.

Harry and Meghan opted against Archie being the Earl of Dumbarton and Lilibet being Lady Lilibet. It seems hypocritical and illogical that, from what reports say, they now want them to go from being Master and Miss to being HRH Prince and Princess. The security argument's being used by the press, but it's not right: Beatrice and Eugenie do not get their security funded by the state. But it may be that the media speculation's wrong.

 

[Meee]

Harry and Meghan opted against Archie being the Earl of Dumbarton and Lilibet being Lady Lilibet. It seems hypocritical and illogical that, from what reports say, they now want them to go from being Master and Miss to being HRH Prince and Princess. The security argument's being used by the press, but it's not right: Beatrice and Eugenie do not get their security funded by the state. But it may be that the media speculation's wrong.

When I originally heard that Beatrice and Eugenie were no longer entitled to taxpayer funded security, I read that the decision had been made that they would be stripped when they finished their education. There seemed to be some logic in that, in that the security would be for working royals and they were not going to be working royals. Looking more recently, it seems that they were both stripped in 2011 (which was the year that Beatrice graduated, so that was probably where the original version came from.) Whereas Eugenie still had a year at university to do with no security.

Meghan may have heard the story as originally presented and assumed that HRH = security while in education. Then it would be the best part of two decades before she and Harry had to concern themselves with paying for security for their two children or going without it. With all due respect to Meghan, attention to detail doesn’t seem to be her forte as she wasn’t sure whether the LPs were George V or George VI when presenting it to Oprah as the reason her children should be titled.

 

[xenobia]

I think that the King should make a deal with the Sussexes: The kids HRH are removed, but they are still prince and princess. To compensate, they get RPO's when the kids are in the UK for visits, at least until they are 18. That seems like a fair deal to me.

 

[Denville]

The only ways these styles can be removed is via Letters Patent issued by the monarch or via legislation by parliament.

It is nothing to do with malice towards their parents as this idea has been floating around now for about 30 years, including the idea of stripping the York princesses of the HRH Princess styles and is the reason why Edward didn't give his children HRH. He didn't want his children to grow up with it and then have it removed once Charles was King.

.

I think it is very unlikely that Charles would remove an HRH from anyone who has it, and I know of no evidence that Edward didn't want his children to have HRH because Charles might take it away. Can you pllease point to any such evidence?