HRH Prince Archie Harrison 0f Sussex and HRH Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex

[Price21210]

Will Sussex be their last names? How does that work?

@Timeforchangeithink you wrote "I thought H&M had given up ( their ) titles."

Hardly !!
Isn't that their claim to fame, opens doors and cheque books for them ?

But why didn’t they use the styles they were originally entitled to as great grandchildren of the monarch? Earl and Lady? They wanted to hold out for the much more Disney sounding Prince and Princess. They are entitled to be styled as such and I for one don’t think the titles should be removed, but does it not smack of hypocrisy to say the things they have about the monarchy and still want the styles? And it has nothing to do with who Harry married. They as a couple have stepped back from the monarchy and roundly slagged it off. Why do they even want the titles? It would be the same whoever he had married if they had done the same thing. The fact it is Meghan has absolutely nothing to do with it no matter how much you want to make it so.

For some weird reason, I was thinking of Whitney Houston's. 'The greatest love of all'.

Harry would have probs married Chelsy Davy if she'd have had him. (Not saying anything against Meghan, just that he'd have been married and therefore out of circulation years earlier.)

As to the children not having titles because they're biracial, what a load of hogwash.

If I am wrong, then apologies.

It was in yesterday's Express. Apparently Harry & Meghan are furious that Charles won't let the children have HRH titles. The ban seemingly has been extended to the children after HRH title was taken away from H& M when they became non-working Royals.

Do we believe any of this?

Not idea but tbh anything coming out of the Express is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong. If they said it was raining I'd be popping outside to check and probably finding the sun shining.

As to the children not having titles because they're biracial, what a load of hogwash.

I don’t think that Charles is refusing them HRH because of race, (or maybe I want to think better of him), but I do think there are people that don't want the children to have HRH because of race. It’s been about race for some people since the ‘straight outta Compton’ and ‘exotic’ days early in all this. That media thinks it’s okay to print that stuff tells me they believe there is some market for it.

But to claim the children didn't have titles because of their race is wrong and damaging.

What randoms who don't want them to have titles think is irrelevant.

I think you are absolutely right, and it's clear that the Queen's grandchildren whose parents refused titles, Zara etc , get much less press and public attention, and are much less famous, than the ones like Princess Beatrice whose parents chose to take the titles for them.

So clearly, if the Sussexes think this is bad and want to protect them from that, the obvious solution would be to refuse the titles.

However, they're in a bit of a quandary now as they realise that their personal earning power and status is based on them having royal titles. They don't want an ordinary life for themselves or their kids. They want a glitzy, mega millions life where people lend them mansions and private jets.

They realise the Royal titles bring cachet and prestige and power, and that's why they've taken for the kids.

Personally, I'm all for Charlie's "slimming down" exercise. There are far too many hangers-on prancing about

I actually think it would be a good idea if all the titles were bestowed by the monarch for the lifetime of the person, and not passed down, returning to the Crown on that person's death, as Charles has set up the DoE to do.

And titles should only be given to working members of the Royal family, and to life peers in the House of Lords, who are actually serving the monarch and the British public.

If you choose to step down from that job or are fired (hello Andrew) then the titles should be taken away too.

Absolutely this! I like having a monarchy but it should be to serve the country and the public not themselves.

Yes, I agree with you and @pasta56. A constitutional monarchy which provides the Head of State must provide stability, or it is acting against the best interests of the country it is supposed to serve.

The monarchy is fucked.

Font of all Royal/Peerage Titles & Precedent
www.burkespeerage.com/home.php

Lilibet & Archie are HRH as follows George V 1917 Letters Patent

Normally I’d have agreed that’s a top source however they have the titles of the Wales children wrong on that very page…

They are not “The Prince” and “The Princess” as that only happens when you’re the child of the monarch.

William and Harry became “The” when Charles became king. George, Charlotte and Louis are not “The”.

I never understood the ‘the’.
I know when Philip does, he was penned as ‘The Prince Philip’ in the death announcement.
When is someone ‘The Prince X’ rather than just ‘Prince X’?

The “The” signifies that you are the child of the monarch.

So, for example - William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie were all given HRH Prince Firstname or HRH Princess firstname at birth as grandchildren of the monarch.

When Charles became King William and Harry became HRH The Prince William and HRH The Prince Henry.

Philip was created as HRH The Prince Philip when the Queen made him a Prince.

Whatever about the titles the names are bloody awful. Archie Harrison and Lilibet Diana? Sound like the children of C list popstars.

There's a substantial difference in the press coverage of Anne's and Edward's children compared to Andrew's and Charles' and it's hard not to notice that the children with titles were much more in the public eye and open to criticism than the ones whose parents chose to have a less public upbringing for their children.

Except Archie and Lili only received their titles last week and have been a focus since birth.

And titles should only be given to working members of the Royal family, and to life peers in the House of Lords, who are actually serving the monarch and the British public.

The House of Lords only serve themselves and should be first to go.

Except Archie and Lili only received their titles last week and have been a focus since birth.

No they didn’t. They automatically became Prince and Princess on the Queen’s death. And they already had titles, Earl and Lady that they could have used. Last week was the first time their parents decided to use their titles for them.

Except Archie and Lili only received their titles last week and have been a focus since birth.
Largely because their parents have chosen to spend a huge amount of time courting the press, doing press interviews, suggesting that their children didn't have titles due to racism (rather than because they were great grandchildren who only became entitled to the prince/princess titles when Charles became King), then releasing books, then moaning some more about titles, privacy and security.

Harry and Meghan, for whatever reason, have chosen a very public life for their family. Other royals have shown it's possible to have a reasonably private personal life, raise their children out of the public eye and perform royal duties/attend public family engagements.

Is there really any need to.be so nasty about the names of two.very small children?
You lot really do need to have a word with your selves ,🙄
I.assume you think the Queen had very poor taste too.as she often referred to.her self as Lilibet?

They really haven't ,the general public rarely get to see Archie and Lilibet,William and Kate's children are in show far more .

'The House of Lords only serve themselves and should be first to go.'

Obvious you haven't a clue what the HOL do.