Harry & Meghan change their surname

[Gottseidank]

… from Mountbatten-Windsor to ‘Sussex’.
Apparently it’s to strengthen their brand.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-meghan-sussex-archie-lilibet-children-name-royal-title-cnvf7d9jf

I actually know the answer to this! A Prince by birth is a higher title than a hereditary Duke (the royal family is at the top of the aristocracy) BUT a royal duchy is higher than a born prince because it’s a gift directly from the monarch.
…
…
…BUT a higher title than a royal Duke is the Prince of Wales as he is heir apparent.

So in order of importance it goes Prince > Duke > Prince > Duke lol

The protocol on royal titles is archaic and let's face it, no ordinary person knows any of it. You'd have to have a special interest or work for the palace to have a hope of getting it right.

They've moved to the US. The US doesn't have our rules on royal titles as they don't have a royal family.

They're no longer working royals. So, they're not bound by the rules in many ways. They're supposed to be ordinary people. Sort of.

Ordinary people change their names all the time by deed poll. When it comes to name changing, the concept is generally legal as long as people still know who you are.

They could change their names by deed poll to something utterly random and bizarre and everyone would still know who they were. So... it doesn't really matter.

And having Sussex as a surname sounds perfectly reasonable. Well, apart from the fact where they have left the UK and yet want to be named after a piece of the UK, but horses for courses. Maybe they just like the way it sounds - it's only two syllables, so quite neat.

Yes, Archie’s son would just be a Duke like the Duke of Norfolk.

The next Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will be non royal dukes as well

I sincerely hope that's not true.

He is quoted as saying that .,

Sir and Ma’am ? OMG !!!

Just one link
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1866984/meghan-markle-maam-name-invictus-games/amp

I hope their quote that they are directly attributing to someone is more accurate than their statement that Harry and Meghan were “stripped” of their HRHs.

agreeing on not using them and being stripped of titles are very different things.

I read the sir ma’am here
https://fraservalleytoday.ca/2024/02/13/prince-harry-wife-meghan-visit-b-c-this-week-in-one-year-lead-up-to-invictus-games-2/

'll give the "new" boss some credit - my last ever conversation with her was her acknowledging that perhaps she should have listened to me after all!

Love this - I bet that was very satisfying 😀

I still fondly remember the day when the organisation I was working at ended up on the front page of the FT, the WSJ and the Mail all at once. That was…fun 🤣

I agree that the Whistler visit (and their Invictus appearances generally) have something of the ersatz royal tour about them.

At least they haven’t posed standing on the slopes in skis (I suspect Meghan isn’t much of a skier)

Apparently the Invictus instagram admins have a full time job moderating and deleting comments about H&M.

thanks. its very confusing

I have some sympathy they need to promote themselves, they need to promote the Invictus games and the need to do this without over shadowing the charity . There has just been so much attention with Charles visit, NFL, new website, names and titles, accusations of expenses, they’ve started to cross the line of making invictus about them or irrelevant. Harry annoys me at times but I honestly believe Invictus keeps him sane, he would be devastated to loose his link with it. There surname or any other of the current dramas is taking away from Invictus. All too much in two weeks

The mistake he made was asking them how he should address them.

I don't give a toss what surname they want to be known by.
I would prefer Prince Harry not to be called a prince anymore, and for Archie and Lilibet not to be a prince/princess, because they have effectively left the royal family.
My knowledge of royal protocol is negligible however, so I'm guessing Harry was born a prince, and can't have that title taken off him?
But I do think they should no longer have the right to be called the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk. They would presumably have to have those titles taken off them, as pigs might fly before they give them up voluntarily.
They have, as I said, left the royal family and are not working royals. Therefore they do not merit their titles.
But they want to keep them because of the kudos and status it gives to them and their brand, which of course is totally hypocritical given what Harry has said about his family.
And before anyone accuses me of being anti Meghan, I'm actually a Republican and I'm anti the royal family as a whole!

They change everything. I’ve lost count of how many titles, websites, charity endeavours and work streams they have. There’s zero continuity or expertise just a rapidly changing public image which can’t seem to stick to anything.

@JSMill - I really hope that's a made up story .... fucking joke if not!! WTAF have either of them ever done to be addressed as sir or ma'am
Twats - they should be addressing these soldiers sir or madam ffs

While their children were Mountbatten-Windsor when born, the couple are often called the Sussexes in the media and online so I don’t see the big deal tbh.

They could have used Dumbarton instead of Sussex.

No, that is Archie's courtesy title. Although they never used it.

There's a lot of people in this country who wouldn't feel a bit odd in the 21st century referring to our working royals as sir or
ma'am if they met them. However I think most people do respect that they have official roles and there is an etiquette involved. However there is absolutely no reason why H and M who have no official role should be addressed in that way. They had agreed not to use their HRH titles but this is a sneaky way of clutching onto that status.

The fact is if they care about equality as much as they claim they do they wouldn’t be using titles at all. In fact they would use their platform to publicly denounce such things, and make an example of themselves. Making the children a Prince and Princess ‘because it’s their birth right’ was laughably at odds with everything they virtue signal about privilege and inequality in children.

With the sir ma’am in the article it say he asked how to address them, so this might not be directly from them, I’m ex military and have met a few people other than officers who fall into the sir/maam category. Usually briefed on the correct way but more often than not it’s followed with “call me xyz”

Sir and ma'am are normal in the States as a polite form of address. It's everyday language.