Rumour that the King won't make Edward Duke of Edinburgh

[PrincessJanet]

Allegedly as part of the King's desire for a slimmed down monarchy.

I would have thought that the Royal Family could really do with the Wessexes as working royals. If they slim down so far in a few years they'll soon beonly the Cambridges available.

Their point was that they should receive them at birth - that was never the case. Having said that, it is pretty ludicrous for them to use them now considering that their parents have totally stepped away from life in the RF.

And yet he's managed to have the Counsellors of State rejigged at speed

That was needed constitutionally. Otherwise in circumstances such as the PoW having flu whilst the King and Queen are off on a royal tour, then another working royal would be needed for various function, and much better Anne or Edward than adding Beatrice to the list of working royals. It's often behind-the-scenes stuff, like presentation of diplomatic credentials, Privy Council issues, and at least once the formal sign-off of the dissolution of Parliament. And for the bigger ticket things, it's normal to have two of them doing it (which would mean Beatrice and Andrew, and I don't think anyone wants to see the latter anywhere near those sorts of issues)

All of which could wait until those overseas return or the flu-ridden one recovers, but it's easy to see why, for some in particular, delay would be undesirable.

No, because their children do have titles, and had them from birth. Meghan and Harry choose not to use them.

They weren’t entitled to the titles of Prince and Princess from birth, however, as they were not the grandchildren of a Monarch. Meghan says she was told that the Letters Patent of George VI was to be changed to mean it would no longer apply to their children once Charles became King. He is King now though, and no new Letters Patent has been issued. So so far, none of what Meghan and Harry said would happen is correct.

@Serenster So they are going to have Prince and Princess titles?

Why on earth do you think I would know the answer to that? 😂

@Serenster so you don't know then if Meghan and Harry were correct when they said that the rules would be changed and their children would never be Prince or Princess? We are just waiting to see.

And neither do you know, despite saying 'So Harry and Meghan were correct when they said they were told their children would not receive titles?' upthread!

Incredibly disingenuous post. It was a question based on what another poster said.

The thread title suggests that this thread should have been about Edward and Sophie who have put in many years of service to the monarchy. Suddenly, it has shifted to whether a phony American who is passionately anti-monarchy and did less than a year of active service should get a look in on the wider matter.

Just like the Wessex children, they already have them.

The Wessex parents chose that they should not be used for their DC whilst minors (and the one that is of age shows no sign of adopting it now its her call).

Just as the Wessexes opted for their DC to have the title/styles of the children of an Earl, the Sussexes could have chosen for their DC to have those of the children of a Duke (eldest boy using a subsidiary title and all boys being Lord, all girls being Lady). But they opted not to do that.

It's actually their call right now, and the silence suggests they do not want their DC to be Prince and Princess (technically also already HRH, but as parents not using that, I just don't see how the DC would). What has led to that decision, and whether the King influenced it, can only be speculation.

We are talking about whether Archie and Lilibet will be Prince and Princess. Harry and Meghan said they were told they would not be. Lots in MN and elsewhere called them liars. I am just wondering whether what they said will be proven to be true.

That's what Edith was saying - as grandchildren of the monarch, they are formally HRH Prince & Princess. But it seems their parents have elected not to use those titles, or the lower ones they're also entitled to.

What Meghan actually said on the topic:

Meghan: But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . .  You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.

Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.

Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . . 

Oprah:  . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?

Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

In relation to the bits in this passage I’ve underlined :

• Firstly, Archie at this time was not a grandchild of the sovereign. He was a great-grandchild. As such, under the existing rules he had no entitlement to be given the title of Prince.

• Secondly, at the time Archie was born, the Queen had four grandchildren who were not titled as a Prince or Princess (Peter, Zara, Louise and James). So even though he wasn’t the grandchild of a sovereign yet, even when he was he wouldn’t be the first example of a grandchild of a Sovereign not being titled Prince.

• Thirdly - the granting of royal titles is entirely at the discretion of the Sovereign. George V’s Letters Patent “de-Princed” a number of people who had previously held the title.

• Fourthly, if the George V Letters Patent was changed by King Charles, that would be published in the London Gazette. No changes have been published, so the Letters Patent still stand.

So far we have Meghan being incorrect about everything I’ve underlined in the passage above.

We also know that neither the Royal family website, nor Neghan and Harry themselves, have made any move to style their children as Prince or Princess. Perhaps it as as Omid Scobie tweeted when he announced Archie’s name - that they had forgone titles, as expected, to give him the the most normal life.

In relation to your bullet points:

1. To me it reads pretty clear that Meghan was talking about the titles that her DC would receive once Charles was King. Also, the rules were changed for William's younger DC to be princes and princesses from birth. If relations hadn't broken down and the Fab Four had panned out as initially intended, I don't think anyone would have had a problem with the same change being made for Harry's DC.
2. Louise and James are princess and prince and could choose to use those titles any time they wish (just as is now the case for Archie and Lili (sp)), the titles were never removed they just chose not to use them. Anne's DC don't have titles because sexism - their position doesn't apply to Harry's DC because he's male.
3. I think she's right to point out that Charles removing a title from the first family member of colour would be a questionable decision.
4. No one is saying otherwise.

They are currently Prince and Princess. H and M have clearly chosen not to use them, just as they chose not to use the Dumbarton title for Archie.

No changes have been made to LP’s.

As I understood it from her own sources, she rejected Dumbarton because of the "dumb" within the word, not because she was anti-titles in general.

Would Lili not be entitled to Lady? They don't use that either.

Although who could blame them with the Dumb thing.

The Dumb thing never even occurred to most people until she pointed it out.
It gets curiouser because Archie is often short for ArchiBALD so I would have expected her to steer clear of the name upon the basis that most of H's male family members are just that so there is more than a slight chance .. !

Occurred to me at the time of their marriage!

And he's not called Archibald so they did steer clear of it

Narrowly avoided a double whammy 😆

Louise and James are princess and prince and could choose to use those titles any time they wish

I seriously doubt that they would use the titles without the King's consent, which is highly unlikely to be given. At the time the decision was announced that Edward's children would be styled as children of an earl, there was no mention or discussion around the notion that it would only be until they were adults, and then they could choose to be known as HRH. Effectively, they really don't have a choice in the matter.

Also there is no requirement that Archie would have to use the subsidiary title. He could be known as Lord Archie.

I think it has been known for a while that Charles would like to issue new LPs to reduce the number of HRHs. He may still do that. He's only been king for less than three months. Meghan may turn out to be right in what she understood to be the case.

Sophie herself has said that they have the titles and could use them as adults.

“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.”

To ban them from using them Charles would have to change the LP’s as they are entitled (not that I think they have any intention of using them).

I know that Sophie has said it. I just think she left out the part about "with the King's agreement."

To me it reads pretty clear that Meghan was talking about the titles that her DC would receive once Charles was King. Also, the rules were changed for William's younger DC to be princes and princesses from birth. If relations hadn't broken down and the Fab Four had panned out as initially intended, I don't think anyone would have had a problem with the same change being made for Harry's DC.

Actually I think some people would have had a problem.

From the birth of Edward's kids, or even back to the 1970s when Captain Mark Phillips turned down a peerage, the trend has been towards fewer secondary royals holding royal titles.

As has been explained before, the change to the 1917 Letters Patent was made because, had Charlotte been born first, she would have been mere 'Lady Charlotte', while George would have been Prince George, even though she outranked him. The same logic doesn't apply to Harry's children, so there was really no reason for them to be prince or princess while being only great grandchildren of the monarch. Changing the law to do so would have gone against the general trend of 'streamlining' seen across European monarchies, and would not have been a popular move.