Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet

[Snog]

Do you think Prince Charles will bestow titles on Harry's children when he becomes king?

I don’t think she is, @Maireas - she would only be a princess if she had been created one by Letters Patent, when she married Prince Harry, and I don’t think that happened - in fact I’m sure it didn’t.

She's a princess by marriage, Princess Harry. She's not Princess Meghan as she is not a princess in her own right. See Princess Michael.

I thought so. A 'Princess of the United Kingdom'?

Anyway, to repeat what pp have said, when Charles is king, Archie and Lilibet will be prince and princess. That's from the 1917 letters patent.
They currently could be styled the Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet, but their parents choose not to so style them.

Yep.

Also, Diana was never "Princess Diana". She was a princess - the Princess of Wales, but not in her own right.
After divorce, she was Diana, Princess of Wales, but it understandably got shortened in the press.

Technically, it's not his choice
They'll get the titles by right.

I think it would be odd to accept the titles Prince and Princess for their kids as it seems to me (not that I've followed it all that closely) they don't seem to want to be in the royal family. So why would they accept the titles? They don't have HRH themselves anymore, do they? If they want to be private citizens then surely having their children have the titles throws them back into the royal family spotlight? Happy to be corrected!

An interesting point, @KatherineofGaunt .
On Charles' accession those will be their titles, but it may be that their parents choose not to use them. They're not using the current courtesy titles, so that figures.

I thought the point was that the rules were changed so that all of William's children would be princes and princesses from birth. Before the change, only George would've been a prince, and Charlotte and Louis would've had to wait until Charles was King.

The same change wasn't made for Harry's children (and I'm not saying I disagree with that, it probably was the right call), and then the lack of title (which was a choice) was linked to provision of security. Even though security should be provided according to need rather than title, they had enormous media attention, and credible threats were made against Harry for daring to marry a woman who wasn't white.

I don't necessarily agree with Harry and Meghan on everything (or much at all) but I do think (much like the wedding in the garden) they've been willfully misinterpreted.

It would probably be Prinny Di were she alive today

Meghan could indeed call herself Princess Henry if she chose to (and Kate Princess William, Sophie Princess Edward etc.) What she cannot do is call herself Princess Meghan, as that style is only for use by blood royals.

However, because the monarch usually bestows a title on their child or grandchild on their marriage, the wife tends to use the female form of the title rather than a man’s name - hence the duchesses of Cambridge, Sussex, York etc.

Princess Michael is something of an anomaly because, as the second son, Prince Michael didn’t get an inherited dukedom - and as he gave up his place in line to the throne to marry a Catholic divorcee, there was obviously no impetus to give him a new courtesy title. Therefore she’s Princess Michael because that’s the only title she’s entitled to use.

I think that the problem is the longevity of HM. The great grandchildren are not entitled, only the eldest son of the son of the heir. Only George was actually entitled to be a prince currently, but it made sense to have his siblings with equal titles.
That Archie and Lilibet didn't get included in this extension may be what Meghan and Harry are upset about
Although they could use the current courtesy titles.

I think it would be great if Lilibet became president, then she'd be President Princess Lilibet!

It will be interesting to see what happens once Charles is King. The Sussexes would be legally entitled to announce that their children will now be Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Doing so straightaway might not look great from an optics point of view, however.

By the same token, on accession Charles would be entitled to amend the Letters Patent to mean that only those in the direct line of succession are so titled. Doing so as one of his first acts would also not look good, however, given a direct allegation has been made that the only reason for such a change would be the mixed race of the affected grandchildren. And even if that’s not the case, taking such a step after the Sussexes had announced they intend to use the titles (if they did) would be well-nigh impossible, I would have thought.

It’s an interesting question of who will blink first. I expect the Palace staff would be hoping they can have a moratorium where no-one makes any announcement so the parties can figure out what will be done. Whether that will happen, though, is anyone’s guess.

Short answer: no, he won't.

Yes, I think your first paragraph is pretty much what I said in my original post. I was happy to believe Sarahconnor1 though, assuming that, if I was right, someone would be along to say so.

Yes, I see Princess Michael is somewhat different; interesting info, thanks.

Hi @Serenster - good points.
However, the moment that Charles becomes king, Archie and Lilibet will be prince and princess, before Charles has any chance to issue Letters Patent.
So I think it's not that he will create them, it's just that he won't take them away.

No, I'd have thought he'll change the rules that only the children of the direct heir get to be princes.

It's better for the kids and Edward already voluntarily did it with his kids, so Harry won't be able to claim that he is being especially victimised.

If they were living in the UK w/in the royal family it might be different, but they will not want a californian prince and princess, because it would dilute the royal brand quite dramatically.

Meghan is already Princess Henry and that will remain.

Archie would be Earl something and Lili lady - they are already entitled to that because Harry is a Duke.

I think he will take them away on the grounds of modernisation.

It will be fairly easy to do because H&M won't spring to use them, because that wouldn't be cool, so it won't feel like anything is being taken away.

There is no way the palace will want a prince and princess growing up in California.

Would they want to give them more ammunition for accusations though? We shall see.

Titles aside I reckon Charles and William will not be happy with Harry's Oprah style telling stuff about your family to earn money type things - so even if they ( D&D Sussex ) get titles they look to me more like the Duke of Windsor or Fergie - using titles to earn money or a nice living. & correct - Harry cannot be not Prince Harry & it would take parliament to take the Dukedom away from him. But it depends how much those titles give them I suppose . Friends of mine in America don't give a hoot about them - but hey ho

They'll suffer that. The Edward precedent really helps. The fact that everyone wants a slimmed down monarchy really helps. The fact that Archie and Lili will never be working royals (and there's a precedent for that with both Andrew and Edward's kids) really helps, as does the fact that if you aren't a working royal a royal title is a PITA.

Weighed against all these brilliant excuses is the screaming horror of having Californian members of the Royal Family - and TBF that isn't just a stuffy palace POV, it would be very odd and off brand.

Charles won't even have to rush because H&H won't jump to use them, so it can be down calmly and quietly, and - anyway - I don't imagine Harry would want his kids to use royal titles. I wouldn't if I were him.

I find the whole title thing fascinating
I personally hope they do become prince and princess.

I’m sure I read they didn’t like the ‘dumb’ part of that title🙊