by The Laird o’Thistle
March 8, 2021

There is plenty of uproar in the worldwide media today over the interview of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast last night in the U.S. While I have no intention of wading into any issues and allegations involved in the interview, there are some factual bits concerning honorifics and titles that may be helpful in sorting out what was said.

One of the headline grabbers today has been about young Archie not being a “Prince” or an HRH. That is true. But, that is because of some royal streamlining rules put in place as long ago as 1917, during the reign of the Queen’s grandfather, King George V.

According to those rules, the honorific of being “His/Her Royal Highness” by birth, and the title “Prince” or “Princess” (of Wales, Cambridge, York, Kent, etc.), pertains to the children and grandchildren of the sovereign “in the male line.” While a special exception has been granted for three of the Queen’s great-grandchildren – Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis – that is specifically because they are the children of the heir’s heir in direct succession… that is, because their father will one day be King… as someday will Prince George, assuming that the monarchy continues.

The Duke of Sussex is the Queen’s grandson, via Prince Charles, and thus automatically an HRH (though not currently using the honorific) and a Prince. His children are not yet grandchildren of the sovereign, and thus not automatically entitled [sic] to be HRH or Prince/Princess. When Prince Charles eventually becomes King, they too will automatically become HRHs and Prince and Princess of Sussex… unless they choose to not assume the status, as has been the choice of Prince Edward for his family.

In looking at other members of the current royal family, among the Queen’s other grandchildren (besides William and Harry), only Beatrice and Eugenie are titled “HRH” and “Princess” – statuses their father insists they retain. Princess Eugenie’s new son, however, is simply August Brooksbank with no other title. As noted, Prince Edward’s children… though entitled to do so… are more simply James, Viscount Severn (more on courtesy titles in a moment) and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. Princess Anne’s children, under the old “male-line” rule and at her insistence years ago, have no royal titles. The late Princess Margaret’s children, the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto, are not royal either. Their titles derive from the one granted to their late father.

The other “HRH” Princes and Princess by birth are Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester), Prince Edward (Duke of Kent), Prince Michael of Kent, and Princess Alexandra (Lady Ogilvy). They are all grandchildren of George V, through their fathers. None of their children or descendants are of “royal” status. The descendants of George V’s daughter, Princess Mary (Countess of Harewood), have no royal status.

The other somewhat confusing issue in play is that of courtesy titles. The custom is that when a Peer holds several titles, their direct line heir can their secondary titles (etc.) as a courtesy title. That is why the son of Prince Edward, who is Earl of Wessex, is called Viscount Severn… Edward’s secondary title. The best known instance is the current Earl of Snowdon, who was known as Viscount Linley from the day of his birth up until his father’s death in 2017. Similarly, the Duke of Gloucester’s son is the Earl of Ulster; and the Duke of Kent’s eldest is the Earl of St. Andrews.

As Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan’s son Archie already has every right to be known as the Earl of Dumbarton, Harry’s secondary title. Every indication has been that it has been their choice to not do so, and for him to simply be known as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

So, while there is certainly a case to be made for a revision of the rule concerning who is or isn’t an “HRH” and “Prince” or “Princess” by birth – especially in regard to the restriction to the “male line” – the issue with the Sussexes is not one of being denied something, but of not being granted an exception as was done for Prince William’s children. And, it may be argued that the rationale that exists for the young Cambridges does not exist for the young Sussexes… especially given Prince Charles’s long-expressed intention (well before the Sussex wedding) to “downsize” the working royal family when he succeeds as King.

As for the tangentially related issue of extending official police protection to the Queen’s grandchildren and their families, the rule of thumb is that it applies to “working” members of the Royal Family, and extends to the family of immediate heirs such as the Cambridge children. Until leaving the UK, Harry was covered… unlike his first cousins Beatrice, Eugenie, and so on. (Long-time Royal watchers will recall the vocal protestations raised by Prince Andrew when protection was withdrawn from Beatrice and Eugenie in 2011.) Those to whom government-funded protection does not apply have to make private arrangements, sometimes with the financial assistance of other family members.

Yours aye,

Ken Cuthbertson – The Laird o’ Thistle

March 8, 2021

Postscript: After completing the column, it occurred to me that in 1948 an earlier exception to the “male line” rule had to be made by King George VI, for the children of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip, granting the status of “HRH” and the style of “Prince or Princess” to their children, in anticipation of the birth of Prince Charles. It applied for both Prince Charles and Princess Anne at their births. Otherwise they would have been known as the Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten.