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.
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
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.
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.
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(?)
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?
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
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.
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.
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(?)
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.