Why I Think Archie and Lily Are Not Prince and Princess

If you are confused about whether Archie and Lily are automatically Prince and Princess now that Charles is king, you are not alone. No one really knows yet. A lot of outlets are assuming now that Charles is king and Harry is the son of the monarch that Harry’s children automatically become HRHs under the 1917 Letters Patent. But every good lawyer knows that legal documents are open to interpretation…and the royals have good lawyers. After some thought, I believe that at some point down the road the Palace will clarify that the 1917 Letters Patent are not retroactive, that Archie and Lily did not automatically become royal, and that Charles is not going to confer HRH status on them.

If you have been following the royals for a while, you know that in 1917 King George V issued Letters Patent expressly to clarify and limit the HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) royal status.  

This is the relevant portion of the text:

George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting: Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Her Reign declare her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned  And whereas we deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared  Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms 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 prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour… [emphasis added] 

George V limited HRH status to (1) the children of the monarch; (2) at the second generation (the grandchildren), to children of the male line; and (3) at the third generation, to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. So, as you can see, George V wanted to keep the HRHs (princes and princesses) in the family, and only to those persons with a close connection to the throne.

You can see these rules in practice in the BRF today. Anne was born the daughter of the reigning monarch and therefore was born an HRH—a royal princess. But, as a female child of the monarch, her children (Zara and Peter) were not entitled to HRH status according to the 1917 Letters Patent.  Anne and her husband declined other titles, but Zara and Peter were never entitled to HRH status. Contrast that to Andrew’s daughters (Beatrice and Eugenie), both of whom are HRHs. 

There is a plot twist with Edward’s children. As the children of a male child of the monarch, they would be HRHs just like Beatrice and Eugenie, but instead they are styled as children of an earl.  The Queen decided at the time Edward married Sophie that their children would not be styled HRH.  There is an interesting British constitutional question about whether the Wessex children are legally HRHs, but just not using their HRHs (as Harry and Meghan are not using theirs, even though they retain their royal status), or if the Queen’s press release at the time of their parents’ marriage legally withdrew their HRH status. I am inclined to agree with the constitutional argument that supports the latter position—they are not legally HRHs. Regardless, the point is that as the children of a male child of the monarch, they would have been HRHs, but according to the pleasure of the sovereign at the time of their birth, they either do not use them, or legally never had them.  

At the third generation, only Kate’s first-born son would have been entitled to HRH status at birth. In December of 2012, the Queen issued new Letters Patent to make all children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge HRHs at birth. All William and Kate’s children will be the children of the monarch, and it is in keeping with the dignity of the Crown to grant them that status.

Letters patent are not issued willy-nilly. Harry was obviously going to marry at some point and presumably have children. Had the Queen wanted Harry’s children to be HRHs at birth, she could have included them in the Letters Patent she issued for William’s children. She could have had the language drafted to say all the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales, or all the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales in the male line.  She did not. That was long before Meghan or any question of race was in the mix. 

The press and public have assumed that once Charles becomes king, as he did yesterday, Archie and Lily automatically become HRHs—Prince and Princess—because they are now grandchildren of the monarch. People think he would need to affirmatively take their new status away. But that is an assumption. We have no precedent to guide us, because this scenario has never happened before. George V’s first son was Edward VIII who abdicated in favor of his brother George VI, Queen Elizabeth’s father. As the grandchild of a male, Elizabeth and Margaret were born royal according to the 1917 Letters Patent. So we have never seen this part of the 1917 Letters Patent in action until now.

Legally, it actually makes more sense that Charles would need to affirmatively confer the status if he wants to raise these grandchildren to HRHs. The 1917 Letters Patent was clearly legal document that intended to limit. The king was seeking to narrow the number of people entitled to HRH status. It would defeat that purpose if all those children born non-royal—whatever their state in life—suddenly became royal princes and princesses.

Meghan reported to Oprah that there was a disagreement about titles when Archie was born. It sounded like Charles explained to Harry and Meghan that Archie and Lily could not be HRHs immediately, and maybe that he suggested he would affirmatively take that status away when he became king. But I now think the likely reality is the Sussexes were told their children would not get Letters Patent to make them HRHs at birth and that Charles would not issue Letters Patent when he was king, either. That is to say, the Palace has already privately determined that HRH status cannot be retroactive.

Will Charles issue Letters Patent now? I don’t think so.

According to Meghan, this dispute took place before the Sussexes stepped back from royal duties. If Charles didn’t think that Meghan and Harry’s children should be HRHs when their parents were still working royals, it is hard to believe that he wants them to be HRHs now that Harry and Meghan have left the firm and are raising their children in America. This would also explain Meghan and Harry’s particular animus for Charles.

In sum, I think we are going to find out that HRH status is not retroactive. It does not materialize automatically. You are born an HRH or it must be affirmatively conferred. And Charles is not planning to confer it. His comment during his address to the nation today was loving, but underscored Harry and Meghan’s new life “overseas.” When Harry and Meghan cannot use their own HRHs—an effective stripping—it makes very little sense to suddenly have a new little Prince and Princess of Montecito.

There are a lot of media outlets calling Archie and Lily HRHs right now, and I am sure that the last thing Charles and William want is to derail this time of mourning to dredge up the Sussex drama. So don’t expect a clarification from the Palace soon (although who knows!). But my bet is this is already quietly settled within the family, and in time the Palace will simply clarify that the Letters Patent don’t confer HRH status retroactively. As I say, it makes the most sense legally to effectuate the purpose of the document; it makes the most sense logically; and it makes the most sense in this particular case when the parents have sworn off royal life and aren’t permitted to use their HRHs.

I could be completely wrong, but I am placing my chips on this bet. It is the cleanest and simplest way for the Palace to deal with this thorny problem. Just interpret it quietly away.