This is fascinating. I really enjoyed reading your analysis. The retroactive possibility definitely helps make all the Sussex drama a bit more clear. Thanks Jane!
Another thing to consider is that one of Charles’ goals is to slim down the monarchy. Not conferring his grandchildren from Harry HRHs would help achieve this.
Also note that the Royal Family website has updated the line of succession and still refers to them as “Master” and “Miss.”Though, in fairness, PW is still referred to as the DoC. https://www.royal.uk/succession
As of Saturday, the website is updated with the Wales’ new titles, with no change to the Sussex children’s titles - supporting the analysis that there will not be a retroactive change in title.
I thought I'd expand on your article Jane as George V had four sons who lived to adulthood: David, King Edward, Bertie (who became King George VI), Prince George, Duke of Kent, and Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. All married and had children after the 1917 Letters Patent so you would assume that their titles and those of their children conform to the Letters Patent.
The current Duke of Kent, whose also Prince Edward, son of George, is a Prince because he is the grandson of a monarch through the male line. He was born in 1935, a year before the old king died. His sister is Princess Alexandra, granddaughter of a monarch through her father although she was born after her grandfather died and her uncle became king. And Prince Michael of Kent is also a a grandson through the male line although he too was born after George V died. None of their children are princes or princesses; I think the males are styled as Earls and the females are Lady. Lady Helen Taylor is one who comes to mind. They would all be descendants of a monarch through the male line but they are great grandchildren, not grandchildren.
To me, this is where it gets dicey in terms of Harry. Harry's children are now the grandchildren of the monarch, children of the male line. On paper, they are the same "status" as the Princes Kent and Gloucester and Princess Alexandra. However, the different is that both Archie and Lilibet were born while their grandfather was still a Prince of Wales, not a King. Is that why you mention "retroactively"? If they had been born when Charles was King they would automatically have been Prince and Princess and now it's too late?
Interesting analysis! Thank you for your detailed & insightful coverage.
I don’t remember the press release regarding the Wessexes’s children. However, I do remember a June 2020 Sunday Times interview with Sophie. In the article, Sophie discussed Louisa & James’s titles. She said, "We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living. Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it's highly unlikely."
This may simply be spin, but I interpreted the statement to mean Edward & Sophie chose to use less vaunted titles. Of course, I thought the Queen & the Duke of Edinburgh wanted Edward to inherit his father’s title, which is why he received an earldom when he married.
Imo, the decision on the children was mutually agreed upon by the Queen and the Wessexes. Emphasis on the Queen. Not to undermine the Wessexes who I think are doing a fine. job.
I'm not sure the Palace will ever clarify that George V's Letters Patent doesn't confer HRH status retroactively, which I agree with you it doesn't. I also agree it has already been settled within the family and Archie and Lilly will continue to be Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. I'm sure the Sussexes would prefer it to look that they've declined styles and titles for their children and for the Palace the issue will not arise again whilst Charles is alive. The press doesn't need to know the reason why the Sussex children haven't assumed titles.
Most everything Meghan claimed in the Oprah interview was so garbled and vague, perhaps intentionally, hard to know what she meant but at the time I thought the only thing that made sense was they were upset the Queen had issued Letters Patent conferring HRH and princely status on all Cambridge children but the same wasn't going to hold for their children even after Charles became King.
I think Meghan and Harry’s particular animus for Charles is more related to his part in denying them the half in/out status they wanted and money, the title issue tertiary.
Thank you for this explanation! The Letters Patents of 1917 and 2012 predate H&M, but given the zeitgeist, I fear that there are many who will not understand or will pretend not to understand.
1) While you are correct that the Royals have excellent lawyers and new Letters Patent can be issued, "shall have and at all times hold" is not ambiguous.
2) The Queen didn't announce that Edward and Sophie's children wouldn't be styled as HRH from birth. Edward and Sophie did. It was specified at the time that their children were entitled to it but that they would let the children decide for themselves when they were adults.
3) The statement "We have no precedent to guide us, because this scenario has never happened before," is factually incorrect. Yes, George V's son Edward VIII abdicated and was childless. Yes, George V's son George VI had only daughters. But George V also had HRH Princess Mary (who couldn’t transmit her title) and sons HRH Prince Henry and HRH Prince George a.k.a. HRH the Duke of Gloucester and HRH the Duke of Kent.
a) HRH Prince Henry (HRH the Duke of Gloucester) begat HRH Prince William (who predeceased his father) and HRH Prince Richard who succeeded his father as HRH the Duke of Gloucester. Duke Richard begat a boy and two girls who are styled as the children of a Duke (Earl of Ulster, Lady Davina and Lady Rose) and none of whom are styled as HRH or prince/princess. Duke Richard's only son will succeed him as Duke of Gloucester but NOT as HRH the Duke of Gloucester.
b) HRH Prince George (HRH the Duke of Kent) begat HRH Prince Edward, HRH Princess Alexandra and HRH Prince Michael. HRH Prince Edward succeeded his father as HRH the Duke of Kent and begat two boys and a girl who are styled as the children of a duke (Earl of St. Andrews, Lady Helen and Lord Nicholas) and none of who are styled as HRH or prince/princess. Duke Edward's elder son will succeed him as Duke of Kent but NOT as HRH the Duke of Kent. Princess Alexander married a commoner and her two children have no title or style. Prince Michael has two children who are styled as Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella. Lord Frederick's two daughters have no title or style. Lady Gabriella is childless.
All of which is in to-the-letter compliance with George V’s Letters Patent of 1917 and which offers precedent aplenty.
1) While you state your first rebuttal with confidence, you don't actually make an argument. I am not even certain what you are disagreeing with.
2) I think you may not understand what I meant by "no precedent." You just listed for me all manner of royal styling intricacies and examples of how the Letters Patent have been followed, but you you did not show me a precedent for the situation we have today: a monarch ascending to the throne with a male child's children without HRHs. We are looking for a precedent, i.e., an example of the *same* situation happening before and how it was handled. And there is none. Whatever other complicated scenarios exist within the royal family, and I grant you there are legion, this narrow scenario has not taken place. That is the material point.
Re: 1), adding "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..." back to the quote might help. "ANY Sovereign" means existing or future. "SHALL have" does not mean MIGHT have. 2) The Letters Patent have been followed to the letter in the past. Of course, the reasoning behind allowing Charles to marry Camilla and to marry her in a town hall will never see the light of day either. I'm definitely not saying the rules can't be fudged, just that they would have to be fudged (or changed).
Ok, that's a good counterpoint, but I disagree. While "any sovereign" certainly means the rules apply to existing and future, I don't think you can draw a shifting status from that. You can argue that, but it certainly is not plainly in the text. My reading is that royal status is determined by your status in relation the *current* sovereign at your birth. The sovereign is the fixed point that determines where you fall and whether you are an HRH. I don't think Archie and Lily automatically become HRHs now, just like Beatrice and Eugenie undoubtedly aren't losing their HRHs now they are more removed. When the royals have wanted a child not entitled to HRH status at birth to hold that status, they have issued new Letters to coincide with their birth, e.g., Princess Anne and Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. The Queen and Charles obviously decided not to issue Letters Patent for the Sussex children when they were born, which suggests they don't think they will ever be HRHs, i.e., they don't consider the status to automatically apply retroactively. I think we will find that the Palace has interpreted the Letters Patent this way.
Thank you, Deborah and Jane, for the great explanation. I think I understand now that the issue is that H & M said at the time of Archie’s birth that he wouldn’t have a title—they didn’t say “he may have a title sometime in the future….” Meghan implied in the Oprah interview that they were pressured to say that was their wish but it wasn’t. We see a clash between what is in the law, and what was written at the time, and what is whispered about behind the scenes about what is actually so; such a common occurrence in our world nowadays. I still think the best thing for the RF to do, while Meghan wields the ability to say her piece in the media, is for the RF to refer any issues about Archie and Lili to their parents. I felt that by saying so little about “Harry and Meghan” in his speech, that might be Charles’ position going forward. Goodbye and good luck, wish you well and all that but you are overseas, not here.
I agree with everything, but Sophie and Edward. After the way ahead group meetings in the late 90s before Edward and Sophie's engagement, that the future wouldn't need more working royals. Gone are the days of weeks long trips to other parts of the world on behalf of The Crown. However, they felt a Princess Alexandra of Kent, as wonderful as she is wouldn't be needed. AND if they had to have real jobs like Beatrice and Eugenie, it's this push/pull of perceptions and scrutiny by the public and press. So the decision was made to informally not use the titles for Edward's children and I think retroactively giving them up for Bea and E was discussed, but of course Andrew had a fit. I wish they made it official change in the 90s OR at the time of William's marriage and we wouldn't have RACISM accusations from Meghan. People like to say Diana helped modernize the Monarchy, but I think the Queen Mother dying and not having mummy's displeasure was a bigger modernizer. Anyway, see text from Sophie and Edward's wedding announcement of titles. I assume Edward will get Duke of Edinburgh title once the funeral is over and some time. I know there was squawking that Charles had changed his mind last year, but I don't think he would go against his parent's wishes.
The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.
The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.
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.
My question is why do they want all this are they keen for their children to be the only HRH in their class at an American school? The Wessex kids have never taken up their entitlement to be prince and princess coz their parents recognise it’s irrelevant to their future
Was Anne “born the daughter of the reigning monarch and therefore was born an HRH—a royal princess?” I think she may have been born under her grandfather’s reign. Not sure if that changes anything here, though. She may have been born HRH anyway(?)
Looked into this more after your inquiry. As the child of a daughter of a reigning monarch, Anne would not have been given an HRH title, but this was preemptively resolved before her birth in 1950 when letters patent were issued on 22 October 1948 granting HRH titles to any children of Princess Elizabeth and Philip.
Fascinating analysis. It sounds like King Charles is not planning to have Harry and Meghan return to the royal fold. Maybe Harry if he gets divorced. I am looking to your next post. Also thank you for the live stream of the Wales and Sussex.
This is fascinating. I really enjoyed reading your analysis. The retroactive possibility definitely helps make all the Sussex drama a bit more clear. Thanks Jane!
Another thing to consider is that one of Charles’ goals is to slim down the monarchy. Not conferring his grandchildren from Harry HRHs would help achieve this.
Would this mean that if Harry and Meghan were to have another baby that that child would automatically be an HRH?
If Charles were to interpret the Letters Patent to mean grandchildren born during a monarch's reign, then I think technically yes.
Wow.
Also note that the Royal Family website has updated the line of succession and still refers to them as “Master” and “Miss.”Though, in fairness, PW is still referred to as the DoC. https://www.royal.uk/succession
As of Saturday, the website is updated with the Wales’ new titles, with no change to the Sussex children’s titles - supporting the analysis that there will not be a retroactive change in title.
I thought I'd expand on your article Jane as George V had four sons who lived to adulthood: David, King Edward, Bertie (who became King George VI), Prince George, Duke of Kent, and Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. All married and had children after the 1917 Letters Patent so you would assume that their titles and those of their children conform to the Letters Patent.
The current Duke of Kent, whose also Prince Edward, son of George, is a Prince because he is the grandson of a monarch through the male line. He was born in 1935, a year before the old king died. His sister is Princess Alexandra, granddaughter of a monarch through her father although she was born after her grandfather died and her uncle became king. And Prince Michael of Kent is also a a grandson through the male line although he too was born after George V died. None of their children are princes or princesses; I think the males are styled as Earls and the females are Lady. Lady Helen Taylor is one who comes to mind. They would all be descendants of a monarch through the male line but they are great grandchildren, not grandchildren.
To me, this is where it gets dicey in terms of Harry. Harry's children are now the grandchildren of the monarch, children of the male line. On paper, they are the same "status" as the Princes Kent and Gloucester and Princess Alexandra. However, the different is that both Archie and Lilibet were born while their grandfather was still a Prince of Wales, not a King. Is that why you mention "retroactively"? If they had been born when Charles was King they would automatically have been Prince and Princess and now it's too late?
Interesting analysis! Thank you for your detailed & insightful coverage.
I don’t remember the press release regarding the Wessexes’s children. However, I do remember a June 2020 Sunday Times interview with Sophie. In the article, Sophie discussed Louisa & James’s titles. She said, "We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living. Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it's highly unlikely."
This may simply be spin, but I interpreted the statement to mean Edward & Sophie chose to use less vaunted titles. Of course, I thought the Queen & the Duke of Edinburgh wanted Edward to inherit his father’s title, which is why he received an earldom when he married.
Imo, the decision on the children was mutually agreed upon by the Queen and the Wessexes. Emphasis on the Queen. Not to undermine the Wessexes who I think are doing a fine. job.
I'm not sure the Palace will ever clarify that George V's Letters Patent doesn't confer HRH status retroactively, which I agree with you it doesn't. I also agree it has already been settled within the family and Archie and Lilly will continue to be Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. I'm sure the Sussexes would prefer it to look that they've declined styles and titles for their children and for the Palace the issue will not arise again whilst Charles is alive. The press doesn't need to know the reason why the Sussex children haven't assumed titles.
Most everything Meghan claimed in the Oprah interview was so garbled and vague, perhaps intentionally, hard to know what she meant but at the time I thought the only thing that made sense was they were upset the Queen had issued Letters Patent conferring HRH and princely status on all Cambridge children but the same wasn't going to hold for their children even after Charles became King.
I think Meghan and Harry’s particular animus for Charles is more related to his part in denying them the half in/out status they wanted and money, the title issue tertiary.
Thank you for this explanation! The Letters Patents of 1917 and 2012 predate H&M, but given the zeitgeist, I fear that there are many who will not understand or will pretend not to understand.
Some points:
1) While you are correct that the Royals have excellent lawyers and new Letters Patent can be issued, "shall have and at all times hold" is not ambiguous.
2) The Queen didn't announce that Edward and Sophie's children wouldn't be styled as HRH from birth. Edward and Sophie did. It was specified at the time that their children were entitled to it but that they would let the children decide for themselves when they were adults.
3) The statement "We have no precedent to guide us, because this scenario has never happened before," is factually incorrect. Yes, George V's son Edward VIII abdicated and was childless. Yes, George V's son George VI had only daughters. But George V also had HRH Princess Mary (who couldn’t transmit her title) and sons HRH Prince Henry and HRH Prince George a.k.a. HRH the Duke of Gloucester and HRH the Duke of Kent.
a) HRH Prince Henry (HRH the Duke of Gloucester) begat HRH Prince William (who predeceased his father) and HRH Prince Richard who succeeded his father as HRH the Duke of Gloucester. Duke Richard begat a boy and two girls who are styled as the children of a Duke (Earl of Ulster, Lady Davina and Lady Rose) and none of whom are styled as HRH or prince/princess. Duke Richard's only son will succeed him as Duke of Gloucester but NOT as HRH the Duke of Gloucester.
b) HRH Prince George (HRH the Duke of Kent) begat HRH Prince Edward, HRH Princess Alexandra and HRH Prince Michael. HRH Prince Edward succeeded his father as HRH the Duke of Kent and begat two boys and a girl who are styled as the children of a duke (Earl of St. Andrews, Lady Helen and Lord Nicholas) and none of who are styled as HRH or prince/princess. Duke Edward's elder son will succeed him as Duke of Kent but NOT as HRH the Duke of Kent. Princess Alexander married a commoner and her two children have no title or style. Prince Michael has two children who are styled as Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella. Lord Frederick's two daughters have no title or style. Lady Gabriella is childless.
All of which is in to-the-letter compliance with George V’s Letters Patent of 1917 and which offers precedent aplenty.
1) While you state your first rebuttal with confidence, you don't actually make an argument. I am not even certain what you are disagreeing with.
2) I think you may not understand what I meant by "no precedent." You just listed for me all manner of royal styling intricacies and examples of how the Letters Patent have been followed, but you you did not show me a precedent for the situation we have today: a monarch ascending to the throne with a male child's children without HRHs. We are looking for a precedent, i.e., an example of the *same* situation happening before and how it was handled. And there is none. Whatever other complicated scenarios exist within the royal family, and I grant you there are legion, this narrow scenario has not taken place. That is the material point.
Re: 1), adding "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..." back to the quote might help. "ANY Sovereign" means existing or future. "SHALL have" does not mean MIGHT have. 2) The Letters Patent have been followed to the letter in the past. Of course, the reasoning behind allowing Charles to marry Camilla and to marry her in a town hall will never see the light of day either. I'm definitely not saying the rules can't be fudged, just that they would have to be fudged (or changed).
Ok, that's a good counterpoint, but I disagree. While "any sovereign" certainly means the rules apply to existing and future, I don't think you can draw a shifting status from that. You can argue that, but it certainly is not plainly in the text. My reading is that royal status is determined by your status in relation the *current* sovereign at your birth. The sovereign is the fixed point that determines where you fall and whether you are an HRH. I don't think Archie and Lily automatically become HRHs now, just like Beatrice and Eugenie undoubtedly aren't losing their HRHs now they are more removed. When the royals have wanted a child not entitled to HRH status at birth to hold that status, they have issued new Letters to coincide with their birth, e.g., Princess Anne and Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. The Queen and Charles obviously decided not to issue Letters Patent for the Sussex children when they were born, which suggests they don't think they will ever be HRHs, i.e., they don't consider the status to automatically apply retroactively. I think we will find that the Palace has interpreted the Letters Patent this way.
Thank you, Deborah and Jane, for the great explanation. I think I understand now that the issue is that H & M said at the time of Archie’s birth that he wouldn’t have a title—they didn’t say “he may have a title sometime in the future….” Meghan implied in the Oprah interview that they were pressured to say that was their wish but it wasn’t. We see a clash between what is in the law, and what was written at the time, and what is whispered about behind the scenes about what is actually so; such a common occurrence in our world nowadays. I still think the best thing for the RF to do, while Meghan wields the ability to say her piece in the media, is for the RF to refer any issues about Archie and Lili to their parents. I felt that by saying so little about “Harry and Meghan” in his speech, that might be Charles’ position going forward. Goodbye and good luck, wish you well and all that but you are overseas, not here.
I agree with everything, but Sophie and Edward. After the way ahead group meetings in the late 90s before Edward and Sophie's engagement, that the future wouldn't need more working royals. Gone are the days of weeks long trips to other parts of the world on behalf of The Crown. However, they felt a Princess Alexandra of Kent, as wonderful as she is wouldn't be needed. AND if they had to have real jobs like Beatrice and Eugenie, it's this push/pull of perceptions and scrutiny by the public and press. So the decision was made to informally not use the titles for Edward's children and I think retroactively giving them up for Bea and E was discussed, but of course Andrew had a fit. I wish they made it official change in the 90s OR at the time of William's marriage and we wouldn't have RACISM accusations from Meghan. People like to say Diana helped modernize the Monarchy, but I think the Queen Mother dying and not having mummy's displeasure was a bigger modernizer. Anyway, see text from Sophie and Edward's wedding announcement of titles. I assume Edward will get Duke of Edinburgh title once the funeral is over and some time. I know there was squawking that Charles had changed his mind last year, but I don't think he would go against his parent's wishes.
The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.
The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.
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.
My question is why do they want all this are they keen for their children to be the only HRH in their class at an American school? The Wessex kids have never taken up their entitlement to be prince and princess coz their parents recognise it’s irrelevant to their future
Great analysis and one that I think makes sense in how all the parties have acted.
Was Anne “born the daughter of the reigning monarch and therefore was born an HRH—a royal princess?” I think she may have been born under her grandfather’s reign. Not sure if that changes anything here, though. She may have been born HRH anyway(?)
Thanks for the analysis, by the way! Love your posts!
Looked into this more after your inquiry. As the child of a daughter of a reigning monarch, Anne would not have been given an HRH title, but this was preemptively resolved before her birth in 1950 when letters patent were issued on 22 October 1948 granting HRH titles to any children of Princess Elizabeth and Philip.
Thank you! That makes sense. I appreciate you looking into it!
I couldn't agree more with your analysis.
Fascinating analysis. It sounds like King Charles is not planning to have Harry and Meghan return to the royal fold. Maybe Harry if he gets divorced. I am looking to your next post. Also thank you for the live stream of the Wales and Sussex.