Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

[Tatiana Maria]

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

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19810592/harry-meghan-archie-lilibet-hrh-status/

The Sun is a sorry source of reference. It's nothing more than a gossip rag! Charles does not have issue any Letters of Patent to grant Archie and Lilibet those titles. It's automatic now. Letters of Patent will only be ssued to revoke those titles from Archie and Lilibet. To date, Charles has not done anything and I doubt he will.

The Sun isn't even good enough to use as liner in a birdcage. If they said the sky was blue, I'd step outside to check. Knowing this, I don't see much point in debating an article they printed about anything to do with the Sussexes or their children. People really ought to wait until there's a more reputable source.

The report by Matt Wilkinson which was called a "sorry source of reference" and "[not] even good enough to use as liner in a birdcage" proved to be more accurate than any of the speculations in this thread. The Duke and Duchess and the Palace did in fact announce, as Mr. Wilkinson reported six months earlier, that Archie and Lilibet would be known as Prince and Princess but, like their parents, would not use their HRH.

The first report about the announcement can be read here:
https://people.com/royals/meghan-ma...ghter-princess-lilibet-christened-california/

Later reports with further briefings can be found here:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...oct-2022-apr-2023-a-49644-74.html#post2536412

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I read an article in todays Times that Buckingham Palace removed the HRH from Meghan and Harry on their website. They mentioned Meghan's was removed first.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-japan-sports-summit-2023-2qbhfh5bw

I haven't been following the recent updates, but most of the HRHs were already removed from the Duke and Duchess's biographies much earlier. The archived versions can be searched on the Wayback Machine.

Part of the family agreement in January 2020 was that the Sussexes would cease using their HRHs.

"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

 

[Heavs]

The report by Matt Wilkinson which was called a "sorry source of reference" and "[not] even good enough to use as liner in a birdcage" proved to be more accurate than any of the speculations in this thread. The Duke and Duchess and the Palace did in fact announce, as Mr. Wilkinson reported six months earlier, that Archie and Lilibet would be known as Prince and Princess but, like their parents, would not use their HRH.

The first report about the announcement can be read here:
https://people.com/royals/meghan-ma...ghter-princess-lilibet-christened-california/

Later reports with further briefings can be found here:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...oct-2022-apr-2023-a-49644-74.html#post2536412

Well it makes sense that if their parents cannot use their HRH and BP is cleaning up any stray references to them as HRH on the website even from events when they were HRH (which is not the same at removing it) that they also cannot use it.

No sense in having BP, Archewell or Netflix announce things with "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex". Doesn't really work but I guess a lot of people won't realise the difference.

 

[kalnel]

I can't read the Times article, but I don't think anything on the website has changed in the past two weeks. I happened to look up Harry on the website two weeks ago, and I noticed that it did not refer to him as HRH then.

But, I'm not sure how accurate the site is anyway. For instance, it refers to William and Kate's children this way: "They have three children; a son, George Alexander Louis, born on 22 July 2013, a daughter, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, born on 2 May 2015, and a son, Prince Louis Arthur Charles, born on 23 April 2018."

Makes it sound like only Louis has a title!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I can't read the Times article, but I don't think anything on the website has changed in the past two weeks. I happened to look up Harry on the website two weeks ago, and I noticed that it did not refer to him as HRH then.

The latest archived version of June 29 read:

In 2016, His Royal Highness underwent a public HIV test at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital to raise awareness and promote how easy it is to get tested, as part of his on-going efforts to eradicate stigmas associated with HIV/AIDS.

His Royal Highness attended the 2016 International AIDS Conference in Durban, where he spoke of how "HIV remains among the most pressing and urgent of global challenges" and the importance of educating and empowering young people in the fight against the virus.

[...]

Their Royal Highnesses joined forces again in 2014 to showcase their support at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and the Tour de France Grand Depart in Yorkshire. And due to his involvement with the Rugby Football Union, he was asked to be President of the 2015 Rugby World Cup.

Which has now been modified to:

In 2016, The Duke underwent a public HIV test at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital to raise awareness and promote how easy it is to get tested, as part of his on-going efforts to eradicate stigmas associated with HIV/AIDS.

The Duke of Sussex attended the 2016 International AIDS Conference in Durban, where he spoke of how "HIV remains among the most pressing and urgent of global challenges" and the importance of educating and empowering young people in the fight against the virus.

[...]

Their Royal Highnesses joined forces again in 2014 to showcase their support at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and the Tour de France Grand Depart in Yorkshire. And due to his involvement with the Rugby Football Union, he was asked to be President of the 2015 Rugby World Cup.

For whatever reason, "His Royal Highness" was removed but "Their Royal Highnesses" is still there.

Personally, I saw no issue with the leftover "His Royal Highness"'s, as they referred to events of 2016 when Prince Harry still used his HRH. In fact, the amended page is less accurate, as it gives the impression that Prince Harry was already Duke of Sussex in 2016.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

(...) But, I'm not sure how accurate the site is anyway. For instance, it refers to William and Kate's children this way: "They have three children; a son, George Alexander Louis, born on 22 July 2013, a daughter, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, born on 2 May 2015, and a son, Prince Louis Arthur Charles, born on 23 April 2018."

Makes it sound like only Louis has a title!

Or that Louis' first name is Prince Prince Prince

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am very curious to read this part of the book for myself:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...rince-Princess-titles-Omid-Scobie-claims.html

I have always been baffled by the fact that they wanted their kids to have Prince/Princess titles even though they plan to raise them in the U.S. as private citizens, and even though they themselves have no intention of being working royals ever again. I am even more baffled by the idea that it should have been addressed immediately upon the King’s ascension and downright perplexed that they don’t understand how their kids are different than the Wales kids.

Reinforces again that Harry doesn’t think much about other people’s experiences because if he did, he’d recognize that James and Louise were treated very differently to him and his brother and so were Peter and Zara- but it’s not because they mattered less as grandchildren, just that their place in the public Royal family was different.

From the link:

Eventually, the official changes were made on the Buckingham Palace website, but the delay in doing so reportedly led the Sussexes to compare themselves to the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children.

A friend of Harry and Meghan's told Scobie the couple 'see the way their children are treated differently' to Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, which is 'hard to feel comfortable with'.​

It is indeed perplexing that the Sussex cadet branch's children being treated differently than the children of the senior line is "uncomfortable", while the Sussex children being treated differently (with greater privilege) than the untitled Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall, who are in the exact same position as they are (that is, children of a monarch's second child), due simply to sexism (if Prince Harry were Princess Henrietta, this discussion would not be happening regardless of her husband's race) is apparently comfortable, according to the friend.

If they didn’t like the territorial designations, they probably could have asked for a different one.

Yes, given that Queen Elizabeth II resurrected a thousand year old earldom for her son Edward just because he liked the sound of it when it was used in a then-recent popular movie, it is hard to believe she would not have granted an alternative earldom, if her grandson and his then fiancee had disliked Dumbarton.

 

[Lori138]

The Act to strip the Sussexes of their titles has been introduced in the House of Commons.

Duke and Duchess of Sussex could be stripped of royal titles under MP’s Bill (telegraph.co.uk)

Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Amendment Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The links haven't appeared in your post, but here is the link to the bill.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3582

For context, it should be noted that this is a Private Members' Bill, meaning that it does not have the support of the Government, and more specifically a Presentation Bill, meaning that there will be no opportunity to discuss it in Parliament, and it has effectively no chance to become law.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Is there a way to actually read the bill? Thanks for the link but I couldn’t figure out how to read the proposed bill. Even if it doesn’t stand a chance, I do think it makes a statement. What do UK forum members think? Thanks!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is there a way to actually read the bill? Thanks for the link but I couldn’t figure out how to read the proposed bill.

I'm no expert, but I think it is normal for the text of a Presentation Bill not to be published. (I suppose there's technically no need in that case, since nobody will be actually talking about it in Parliament.) If it is eventually published, it will be added to that page.

 

[Alison H]

As much as I think most people would back this Bill, there just won't be enough parliamentary time for it to be read, especially with a general election due next year.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I'm no expert, but I think it is normal for the text of a Presentation Bill not to be published. (I suppose there's technically no need in that case, since nobody will be actually talking about it in Parliament.) If it is eventually published, it will be added to that page.

Thanks So much!

 

[Iluvbertie]

There has been a private members bill awaiting a 2nd reading which would return to the Sovereign the power to strip titles (introduced by an MP from York and targeted at Andrew) but although it was scheduled for a 2nd reading at least three times it has now lapsed as it never made it to a 2nd reading before time ran out. The same will probably happen with this. It also happens every so often with a bill to give equal inheritance rights to the daughters of peers (the current one on that issue has also lapsed as it didn't get to a 2nd reading in time).

Private Members' bills rarely make it to law unless it also has government support.

The interesting thing with this bill, for me, is that that bill targeted specific actions by those stripped of their titles - fighting against Britain in WWI and it ceased to be an operative bill at the end of WWI. Making an amendment to an existing law should be a bit easier but it actually isn't and the circumstances regarding Harry aren't anywhere near the same as in 1917.

 

[Lori138]

The links haven't appeared in your post, but here is the link to the bill.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3582

For context, it should be noted that this is a Private Members' Bill, meaning that it does not have the support of the Government, and more specifically a Presentation Bill, meaning that there will be no opportunity to discuss it in Parliament, and it has effectively no chance to become law.

Thanks for reposting with the link, I will try and repost the story as well.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...uke-sussex-bob-seely-bill-strip-royal-titles/

 

[HRHHermione]

There has been a private members bill awaiting a 2nd reading which would return to the Sovereign the power to strip titles (introduced by an MP from York and targeted at Andrew) but although it was scheduled for a 2nd reading at least three times it has now lapsed as it never made it to a 2nd reading before time ran out. The same will probably happen with this. It also happens every so often with a bill to give equal inheritance rights to the daughters of peers (the current one on that issue has also lapsed as it didn't get to a 2nd reading in time).

Private Members' bills rarely make it to law unless it also has government support.

The interesting thing with this bill, for me, is that that bill targeted specific actions by those stripped of their titles - fighting against Britain in WWI and it ceased to be an operative bill at the end of WWI. Making an amendment to an existing law should be a bit easier but it actually isn't and the circumstances regarding Harry aren't anywhere near the same as in 1917.

It also seems to me that it wouldn’t be in the long-term best interests of the family to give the public the impression titles can be stripped whenever someone is disapproved of. Nearly all of them go through cycles of unpopularity, some for more valid reasons than others, and it would be a cudgel against them pretty quickly for no real gain.

 

[EllieCat]

It also seems to me that it wouldn’t be in the long-term best interests of the family to give the public the impression titles can be stripped whenever someone is disapproved of. Nearly all of them go through cycles of unpopularity, some for more valid reasons than others, and it would be a cudgel against them pretty quickly for no real gain.

Yes, a very valid point. It could end up being a slippery slope.

 

[doro]

Would Harry being a Henry Markle?

 

[Queen Alfarita]

Would Harry being a Henry Markle?

Pretty sure this isn't a serious question, but I'll still respond.

By law he would be HRH Prince Henry (of Windsor) and even if he loses his dukedom he wouldn't lose his princely title.

 

[Durham]

Pretty sure this isn't a serious question, but I'll still respond.

By law he would be HRH Prince Henry (of Windsor) and even if he loses his dukedom he wouldn't lose his princely title.

Royal styles & titles (HRH prince/princess) are entirely within the gift of the monarch. As such they can be awarded or retracted at will. So Harry can lose the title of prince if The King so decided. Peerages, dukedoms etc, cannot be removed by the monarch.

None of this is likely to happen however. And even if it did he was born the younger son of a duke (Cornwall) so he's Lord Harry M-W anyway if he still wanted to use a title.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

Pretty sure this isn't a serious question, but I'll still respond.

By law he would be HRH Prince Henry (of Windsor) and even if he loses his dukedom he wouldn't lose his princely title.

'Windsor' is the name of the royal house to which he belongs - it is not part of his title.

He is properly HRH The Duke of Sussex, although he has agreed not to use the HRH. If he didn't have his dukedom, he would be HRH The Prince Henry.

 

[Queen Alfarita]

Royal styles & titles (HRH prince/princess) are entirely within the gift of the monarch. As such they can be awarded or retracted at will. So Harry can lose the title of prince if The King so decided. Peerages, dukedoms etc, cannot be removed by the monarch.

None of this is likely to happen however. And even if it did he was born the younger son of a duke (Cornwall) so he's Lord Harry M-W anyway if he still wanted to use a title.

Yes, I confused the LP as parliamentary law. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Queen Alfarita]

'Windsor' is the name of the royal house to which he belongs - it is not part of his title.

He is properly HRH The Duke of Sussex, although he has agreed not to use the HRH. If he didn't have his dukedom, he would be HRH The Prince Henry.

I put 'of Windsor' in parenthesis for a reason.

 

[Mbruno]

I put 'of Windsor' in parenthesis for a reason.

British princes with the style of HRH do not normally use a family name. If, for any reason, Harry had to use a family name, her legal family name would be Mountbatten-Windsor, rather than "of Windsor".

As other posters have said, if he ceased to be the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel, he would be named simply "HRH The Prince Henry Charles Albert David " in UK documents like passports for example.

 

[Queen Alfarita]

British princes with the style of HRH do not normally use a family name. If, for any reason, Harry had to use a family name, her legal family name would be Mountbatten-Windsor, rather than "of Windsor".

As other posters have said, if he ceased to be the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel, he would be named simply "HRH The Prince Henry Charles Albert David " in UK documents like passports for example.

I already know this.

Like I said, I put it in parenthesis for a reason.

 

[Mbruno]

I already know this.

Like I said, I put it in parenthesis for a reason.

The style "Prince Henry of Windsor" would be used by the son of a King's son who was titled Duke of Windsor, in the same way as "Prince Archie of Sussex" (grandson of King Charles III and son of the Duke of Sussex).

 

[Ghost]

I “think” it would be Prince Henry Mountbatten Windsor (no “of something”). The only one I can think of is Prince Michael of Kent, being the second son of the duke of Kent. But I cannot believe Harry would want or be permitted to call himself “of the United Kingdom” or “of Lancaster”, his father being the king of UK and the duke of Lancaster.

 

[Queen Claude]

As the son of the monarch, without a dukedom, Harry would be His Royal Highness The Prince Henry / Harry(?).

Prince Michael is not the son of a monarch, so his title includes the territorial designation of his father, so he is His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent.

 

[Ghost]

As the son of the monarch, without a dukedom, Harry would be His Royal Highness The Prince Henry / Harry(?).

Prince Michael is not the son of a monarch, so his title includes the territorial designation of his father, so he is His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent.

Yes, I forgot the “The”, thank you! It sounds bizzare without HRH. “Ladies and gentlemen, the next award will be presented by The Prince Harry.”

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, I forgot the “The”, thank you! It sounds bizzare without HRH. “Ladies and gentlemen, the next award will be presented by The Prince Harry.”

It is weird in English (maybe in Romanian too?), but placing a definite article before a title like Prince is actually standard in languages like French, Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish.

I wonder if this particular usage of "The Prince Harry" by the British is due to French influence.