So will Royal Polo Baby Sussex have a prince or princess title or what?

Prince Harry and Meghan Duchess of Sussex visit to Sussex

Everyone is so excited for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their Royal Polo Baby. Royal Polo Baby is due sometime in spring 2019, and here’s hoping that 2019 is not full of constant trash like 2018. Meghan and Harry’s romance, engagement, wedding and pregnancy are basically the only positive stories coming out of this fakakta year, honestly. But people have already started to wonder: will Royal Polo Baby Sussex have a title and what kind of title it will be?

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s child will be seventh-in-line to the British throne. The child will come behind his or her father Prince Harry in the line of succession, bumping his uncle, the Duke of York, further down the line into eighth place. However the child will not be given the title of prince or princess unless the Queen steps into change the rules. Instead a son would be styled the Earl of Dumbarton, while a daughter would be Lady (first name) Mountbatten-Windsor.

[From The Daily Mail]

People Magazine also has a story about how Royal Polo Baby will likely not “inherit” the Duke of Sussex title, which… I mean, that makes sense. The titles are bestowed on the children and grandchild of the monarch by the monarch. If the Queen wants Meghan and Harry’s babies to have prince/princess or duke/duchess titles, she’ll be the one to bestow those titles. And if she doesn’t, King Charles probably will. When Charles becomes king, almost everyone’s titles will change anyway, right? And my guess is that Baby Sussex will be a prince or princess in the end. Baby Sussex will be the grandchild of the King (Charles) and I genuinely think Harry will want the same title structure for his kids as what William’s kids have. I think Charles will want that too.

The Duchess of Sussex attended the opening of 'Oceania' at the Royal Academy of Arts

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red and WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

102 Responses to “So will Royal Polo Baby Sussex have a prince or princess title or what?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Clare says:

    Personally I think it would be naive for Harry to want the same title ‘structure’ or anything else for his children, as William and Kate’s kids. Harry’s children will pretty much be Beatrice and Eugenie to George, Charlotte and Louis – why set them up for a lifetime of being told they’re not senior or special (like Williams kids) by their uncle and Joe public like Andrew has done to his girls?

    I hope they accept their status with grace and raise their kids to be ‘normal’ – not just in terms of privacy but in expectations.

    Also I’m not sure the prince/ess title is automatic for the monarchs grandchildren, neither Anne for Edwards children are styled as such. I do hope Harry’s bubba is given the title though – if only so we have a bi-racial Prince/princess

    • DC Cliche says:

      Yes, but Eugenie and Beatrice received the Princess title at birth because they were grandchildren of the monarch via their father, which is what the Sussex kids will be one day. George, Charlotte, and Louis had to receive a special letters patent from the Queen to be titled Prince/Princess from birth, since they’re great-grandchildren. The only reason the Sussexes wouldn’t be from the jump is that the Queen is still alive, and they’ll be prince/princess when Charles is King anyways, so I’m 98 percent sure they’ll get the title from birth. Edward’s children are technically prince/princess because of that rule, but they declined a title since they were so far down, and Anne’s kids could have been given an exception, but she too denied it because of the same reason.

      And Harry and William seem to like each other, unlike Charles/Andrew (who barely grew up together, given the age gap)

      • Clare says:

        DC – yes but Charles shtick about slimming down the monarchy (which the general public don’t disagree with, given the enormous cost to taxpayers to support them), would apply also to Harry’s children eventually. I’m just saying it would be naive for him and Meghan to demand/expect the same title structure/treatment for his children as ‘grandchildren of the queen’ when they will forever be destined to be ‘junior’ royals. I think it would be wise to forgo the loftiest titles, as Edward and Sophie have done, and give the kids a chance at a ‘normal’ life instead of setting them for a lifetime of hoping for their uncles favour.

        As a U.K. taxpayer, I for one, am not keen on another generation of royals to support – as much as I prefer Meghan particularly to all the other royals.

    • Becks1 says:

      Edward’s children are not prince/princess because I think they declined those titles. (Edward and Sophie declined them.) I think they could have been prince/princess (maybe Edward would have to be a duke though?)

      • Clare says:

        Becks, Edward is formally Prince Edward, and Earl of Wessex – not a Duke.

        Also I wasn’t clear in my post – I meant to say the queens granchildren don’t have to be prince/ess, not that they aren’t entitled to it (their parents can forgo, as Edward and Anne have done).

      • Tina says:

        There are stories that Edward was promised the Duke of Edinburgh title after Philip dies. It will be interesting to see if that happens. (Anne didn’t have the right to give her children titles as she is a woman – she and Mark turned down a title for him).

      • Becks1 says:

        Right, that’s why I said I wasn’t sure if he would have to be a duke for the kids to be prince/ss, but someone noted above that James and Louise technically are, they just don’t go by those titles.

      • aaa says:

        Edward’s children are not HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James because Edward and Sophie did not want it and the Queen agreed. It was enough that they were male line grandchildren of the monarch and has nothing to do with Edward being an Earl. The reason Edward is an Earl and not a Duke is because Edward is expected to become the Duke of Edinburgh.

    • dietcokehead says:

      Unless The Queen issues new letters patent as she did for the Cambridge kids, Harry’s kids will be styled as the children of a duke. Then, once Charles is King, everyone’s titles will shift a little and Harry’s kids will be prince/princess anyway.

    • mint says:

      Like you, I also hope that Meghan and Harry will decline further titles for their children. They will never be working royals anyway, so why need a Prince/ Princess title. I would much rather see them go to school, work a job, and do something with their life, than hang around a polo field all year long

      • PrincessK says:

        How do you know they will never be working royals? Do you think that George and Charlotte and Louis and their parents will be able to carry out all of the engagements without any back up, once William is King?

      • mint says:

        1. People are fond or have become fond of the Queen (before the 2000s not so much). She is an institution. But I dont think a lot of people want Charles or William as King, so who knows if the monarchy survives once the Queen has passed. Maybe the UK becomes a Republic.
        2, If Charles becomes King, he made it clear, that he wants a slim monarchy, because the taxpayer is fed up with supporting everyone in line of the Throne. A slim monarchy also means lesser engagements to carry out- So I am quite sure that the Cambridge Kids and their future families will be enough. Also people want to see the mainplayers. They dont get excited when the 15th in line to the Throne shows up to cut the ribbon.
        3. If you are not in direct line to the Throne (become King or Queen), there will always be a point, where the focus shifts and more junior royals will fade out of the royal fold. That happened to Andrew and his family, Edward and his family, Anne and her family and eventually it will happen to Harry and his family. The Cambridge kids will grow up, will hit the London Party scene, will eventually marry and have kids on their own- they will be the main attraction then.
        4. Harry always struggled with being in the spotlight and being a royal. That he could not choose a job for himself- his life was determined even before he was born. So maybe he wants his kids to be free in what they are doing.

    • Eliza says:

      After all the comments this weekend about how Eugenie and Bea should not be enjoying perks of the crown as granddaughters to monarch (neices/cousins of future monarchs), not sure the greatgrandchild (grandchild/neices/cousins of future monarchs) would be appropriate to go out of their way to give.

      Upon Charles becoming king they will become prince(ss) so they might just give them early to avoid confusion (I don’t see them turning down anything). They will get titles. I have no doubt. But down the line with 3 Cambridge babies, their spouses, and then H&MMs baby/ies and their spouse(s) it will be a lot of HRHs in that generation and definitely not a slimmed down monarchy.

    • PrincessK says:

      Well I want them to be styled HRH, and it seems that people are saying that this will happen automatically once Charles becomes King. These children are very important symbolically as introducing more African heritage into this family. Both the Queen and Charles really love Harry and they have all probably decided what will happen. They will not leave it to chance.

      • Tina says:

        Charles becoming king won’t override the parents’ wishes about how the children should be styled. Technically James and Louise are entitled to be HRHs and prince and princess right now, as grandchildren of the monarch. But their parents’ wishes control. I do agree that this will be decided by the Queen, Charles, Harry and Meghan long before she has the baby in any event.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Actually, TQ doesn’t have to do anything now, no letters of patent are needed. now. They just have to wait. When Charles becomes king, Harry’s kids, being in the direct male line, will automatically become HRHs.

  2. Melly says:

    And we all know Charles adores Meghan, so he would defiantly give their kid a fancy title. Earl of Dumbarton is the worst name ever. Who would want their kid to have a title is THAT was the title? Jeez….

    (PS I’m SO happy Polo Baby is catching on. I need the lightheartedness of Royal Polo Baby of Sussex to cope better with the shit storm that is everything else in the world)

    • Shijel says:

      I would, if it meant that my kid is getting absolutely obscene wealth and privileges to go with it, thank you very much.

    • CooCooCatchoo says:

      Earl of Dumbarton sounds like a terrible Harry Potter character lol!

      I predict that the Queen will issue Letters Patent to make the baby a Prince or Princess. Not only does she adore Harry and Meghan, I think she realizes the significance of their child being the first PoC born into the modern BRF. I suspect that it would mean a great deal to many people around the world, including PoC within Her Majesty’s Commonwealth. If the Queen offers, I hope Harry and Meghan accept.

    • Noodles says:

      I really hope they don’t accept titles. By accepting a title, you’re buying into the whole idea that status matters. I thought Meghan was an advocate for equality and there is nothing equal about being born with a title. I understand it in terms of history and tradition for those directly in line for the throne but this child isn’t and Princess Anne was very forward thinking and humble by taking the direction that she did. I’d have a lot of respect for them if they said thanks but no thanks but I think that secretly Meghan and Harry care more about titles and status than they would like us to believe.

      • Holly says:

        Dude … she married into the royal family where there are centuries of structure. That doesn’t all go out the window because she’s an American who believes in equality. She has to find (and has found so far) ways in include her beliefs in ways that fit (and benefit) the monarchy.

        Declining titles for her children doesn’t do that.

      • Noodles says:

        @ Holly – How does declining titles not show a belief in equality? I think accepting titles when titles are really not necessary, speaks volumes of the opposite. Marrying into the royal family and accepting a title of her own, I can understand but there is no pre-determined rule that says these kids must have titles.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Titles of some kind are standard inheritance through the male line. Not through the female line which is part of why Anne’s kids don’t have titles. Mark would have had to accept a title first as Anne cannot pass any titles to them herself.

  3. Abby says:

    Lady Mountbatten-Windsor would be cool. NO to Earl of Dumbarton. I mean, no! hahahah.

  4. Carol says:

    Depends on the future plans Harry has for the kids. The Princess Royal did NOT want titles for her children. They are all Phillips. She didn’t want any competition for them withing the Royal Family. Smart woman.

    • PrincessK says:

      People keep on saying that but not giving them titles has not made a blind bit of difference. They attend ALL the social occasions…Sandringham, Trooping of the Colour, Ascot, Balmoral activities and they all appear to love being seen as part of the royal family and the many endorsements they get from it. They also have a share of the wealth too, so it makes not a jot of difference. But people keep going on and on about how wonderful that Anne turned down titles. Really?

      • Tina says:

        I think the excesses of Eugenie’s wedding, and all that Andrew insists that she and Beatrice are entitled to as “blood princesses” of the United Kingdom makes Anne’s and Edward’s decisions seem very sensible.

  5. Tina says:

    Royal Polo Baby will inherit the Duke of Sussex title if it’s a boy, but not if it’s a girl. After a certain time, it will no longer be a royal dukedom. For example, right now the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are HRH, as they are grandchildren of George V, but when their sons inherit the titles, they will not be royal dukes and the dukedoms will become ordinary dukedoms, like the Duke of Devonshire or the Duke of Westminster.

  6. Beach Dreams says:

    Hmm, I actually lean towards Harry not wanting the prince/princess title for baby Sussex. I think he and Meghan are quite aware of where their child(ren) will be in the grand scheme of the monarchy, and I’m also sure they’ve been watching how people have reacted to Andrew and his children. This weekend’s wedding alone is a good hint of how the public see royalty beyond the immediate and higher ranking heirs. Royals like Zara and Peter Philips have the best of both worlds too.

    • Clare says:

      Exactly this!

    • Birdix says:

      And I wonder how much of this (eventual) decision will be rooted in his own experience—how the title affected him, his mother, etc.

      • wha1ever says:

        I think Diana loved having the Princess of Wales title. Apparently there were serious discussions of downgrading her title to Diana, Duchess of Cornwall after the divorce and she wasn’t happy about that. It didn’t happen in the end, probably only saved by the fact that she was the mother of the future King.

    • KK2 says:

      Yes, and Meghan may have an American’s skepticism of, or at least disinterest in, inherited titles. I don’t know. I always found it funny that the stereotype of Americans seems to be that they are easily impressed by titles, but I do not think that is true, certainly not of my (& Meghan’s) generation. Probably it was true 50-60 years ago. We are impressed by wealth (earned is cooler than inherited, but any wealth will do). Titles, meh. We don’t have them here and don’t really “get” them. So whatever thoughts Harry has on it, my suspicion is that Meghan DGAF.

      • Dixiebells says:

        I agree @kk2 I think Americans find them a bit weird. Maybe interest through the mid 20th century but since then? I don’t feel like we’re into it other than the main king queen prince princess etc.

        It’s an interesting cultural observation and perhaps this isn’t as true as I perceive it so one of my British friends please correct me but it feels like Americans are more impressed by wealth and celebrity as a stand in for an aristocracy. I think someone like Beyoncé is considered by many to be at that level in a way given her wealth, image etc. it’s not totally comparable as obviously she gained that from being a singer/performer but it feels like a type of person Americans are more into than a titled person. I don’t know do Brits have similar level celebrities that take up a comparable cultural space? I’m very tired so maybe am just blabbering at this point lol.

        I think Meghan will go with whatever Harry prefers on this tbh. I’m not sure she’s radical feminist enough to rock the boat on this issue and seems to be making such an effort to mesh with her new in laws.

    • FredsMother says:

      Whaaaat? Of course they must be given HRH and Prince/Princess titles. Black woman over here….definitely want the little boy or girl with the black, slave, African, blood flowing through their veins to be styled Prince or Princess. Not feeling like putting into words why…. but just how I feel…. Suspect some others from the Black Commonwealth countries may feel the same too…like when the President Obama became president…just couldn’t wait to say (Black) President Obama….I’ll be thrilled for the little Black Prince or Black Princess of the Commonwealth. LOl…waiting for the posters who will let me know the baby will only be mostly white/barely black….lol.

      • Natalie S says:

        That’s how I feel too. There’s more context to this than what Prince Edward or Princess Anne did.

      • IlsaLund says:

        Agree. Just think of the symbolism of a British royal prince/princess with African heritage…..especially in light of Britain’s colonial rule over so many African nations.

      • MrsBump says:

        Commonwealth African here, and frankly i couldn’t give a damn whether the baby is a prince(ss) or not.

        I think Meghan and Harry are adorable but they and their progeny (will) inhabit such a rarefied world that their impact on our lives will be negligible. And those who mention that the Sussex baby will be barely black aren’t completely wrong.. sadly i don’t think Meghan would be Duchess of Sussex had she had a darker complexion, though it won’t stop the racist Daily Mail pack from hounding her, but anyone with a darker skin like mine, knows she has benefited from her lighter skin privilege.

        So, for me, this is nothing like when Obama won, and i felt such hope for the world. Here im just happy for her the way i’d feel about any celebrity.

      • Incognita says:

        Exactly FredsMother! I too am a Black woman and definitely want the baby to be styled as a little Prince or Princess. It would mean a lot to me to see that child having the same perks and status as his (or her) cousins. To be honest, I get so annoyed when others try to downplay Meghan’s black ancestry as if it is less than her white side. I am excited at the prospect of a person of color being a descendant of the Queen of the United Kingdom for goodness sake!

  7. Dee says:

    Polo baby!! Love it!

  8. Lolo says:

    I thought I read somewhere that it’s only guaranteed to the children and grandchildren of the monarch. Then again when the rules were made it wasn’t like any monarch often saw their great-grandchildren. I would think that since Harry and Meg’s kids will one day be the grandchildren of a monarch (Charles) they will be styled as Prince/Princess from birth if that’s what Meg and Harry want. The Queen can just wave her magic wand and make it so…no one is going to argue with her.

    • Dixiebells says:

      It feels like that’s some of the issue here. That the “rules” haven’t exactly kept up with longer lifespans etc. but also in reading through some of the title drama from past generations it seems like the HRH protocols were always being changed and adjusted given how the family looked at any given time with marriages and divorces and babies etc… It kind of feels like behind closed doors everyone just basically says if they want it for their kids or not and then they set paperwork accordingly tbh.

  9. Maddie23 says:

    If Harry and William are going to drone on and on about wanting normal lives, seems like Harry could actually prove this by not giving his kids a useless title like a prince or princess.

    • OriginalLala says:

      they like to drone on about wanting a normal life only when it’s to complain about the media! When it comes to the privileges they enjoy, they rarely complain ;)

    • Hikaru says:

      When they say “normal life” what they mean is the life of their uber rich friends who get to enjoy all the luxury with none of the obligations or public scrutiny, not normal life as we plebs live it.

    • PrincessK says:

      It is not ‘useless’ its tradition and that is why so many of us are overjoyed by the fact that a new royal baby is coming, otherwise this thread would not exist. Thousands of women are presently expecting lovely babies but this one is more interesting to us because its father is a Prince, its grandfather heir to the throne and its great granny is the most famous monarch the world. Don’t underestimate the place of British royalty in the world, it is top of the first division.

      • KK2 says:

        Are you British? I could see British people being excited for this reason. For the rest of us, it’s just another celebrity. We care inordinately about celebrity pregnancies in general, and royal celebrities tend to give you less info (via instagram, snapchat, pap photos, magazine profiles) than other celebrities, making them somewhat more interesting. But that’s it. I don’t care that the kid’s great grandma is the queen. I was just as excited about Serena Williams’s pregnancy, and Beyonce’s. No titles there. I have had minimal excitement about any of Kate’s pregnancies (except maybe the first… I don’t remember) because she’s boring, even though her kids have better titles or whatever. This is just my view from America.

      • AG-UK says:

        Not all people in the UK care about Royals/titles and such. I am American but lived here since 2000 and not bothered nor my in-laws who are British and husband too. Not many I know even discuss them. Someone at work said oh the wedding in May they said what wedding?

    • Noodles says:

      Absolutely. William to be fair, didn’t really have a choice with his kids since his eldest will one day (possibly) be monarch. Harry and Meghan on the other hand do have a choice. They want to seem as though they’re normal, equal and inclusive. They want to appear as though they understand the unfairness of birth rights (which should be close to Meghan’s heart given her own family background) but I do think they might be hypocritical and 25 years from now they’ll be the ones demanding their prince or princess has all the perks that their Cambridge cousins have. To them, that will be equality.

  10. Becks1 says:

    So will George become Duke of Cambridge? Will that happen when Charles becomes king? I know that William becomes Duke of Cornwall when Charles ascends, but not automatically prince of wales, right? Does he keep the Cambridge title too, or does it revert to the crown, or to George?

    I think they will make Harry and Meghan’s child a Prince/princess, just because they would be entitled to that once Charles is king (I think, right?) so it makes sense to begin as you mean to go on. Unless they have no desire for their child to have a prince/ss title ever. It would be a good precedent for the future too (George’s kids get the titles, but not Louis’, etc.)

    • Tina says:

      Cornwall and Lancaster are unusual dukedoms in that they are tied to the Prince of Wales and monarch respectively. Other dukedoms are inherited in the usual way. So technically, William will remain Duke of Cambridge when he becomes Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall. William might permit George to use Duke of Cambridge as a courtesy title (like James uses Viscount Severn, which is one of Edward’s titles, as a courtesy title).

      Given that Harry and Meghan’s eldest son will be Duke of Sussex, they may give the daughter(s) and younger son(s) Prince and Princess titles. But I suspect they will go with Edward and Sophie’s approach, giving the younger children titles of “Lady” etc.

  11. Digital Unicorn says:

    And what may I ask is wrong with the title ‘Earl of Dumbarton’? Its a perfectly good title and a nice town in Scotland.

    Signed slightly annoyed Scottish person

    • Birdix says:

      I can see how that would be annoying! I know nothing about Dumbarton (heading to google) but it’s too easy to shorten it to the Earl of Dumb, or if you felt particularly cheeky, the Earl of Dumbasston :)

    • LizB says:

      Not Scottish, but I think it’s fine.

    • Amelie says:

      It’s just so unfortunate the word “Dumb” is in it. It just doesn’t sound nice though the place may be lovely.

    • Mego says:

      I live in a part of Nova Scotia which is heavily steeped in Scottish culture so Earl of Dumbarton sounds like a great title to me.

  12. Sam says:

    During the Queens reign,I think they will be Lord and Lady unless the Queen releases a letter patent to have he/she styled as HRH
    When Prince Charles take up the throne,they get bumped to Prince and Princess.I think Harry can refuse if he wants them to get bumped up to HRH or stay as Lord/Lady

  13. Chef Grace says:

    I just want them to have a healthy polo baby. Title be damned.
    That baby is going to be so cute!

  14. Alexandria says:

    With Brexit IMHO ( and even tho I love them both) they should not give their kids a HRH title. Lord and Lady are enough. This may stand them in good stead. There’s nothing to stop their
    kids from pursuing charity or philanthropy work without a HRH title. I wouldn’t be surprised if WK have 4-5 kids in total, there will be enough royals to do the royal work once they are adults (whatever royal work means).

    • notasugarhere says:

      If W&K have more than 3? I think only the first two would be working royals and the rest would be expected to go earn a living. Originally it was only Charles/Diana, Andrew/Fergie, and Anne. Anne’s husband(s) and Edward/Sophie weren’t working royals. Even after the Andrew/Fergie divorce, E&S were not expected to be working royals and weren’t for the first few years of their marriage.

  15. Cee says:

    The Queen changed the rules for the Cambridge children, too. Only the eldest son of the POW’s eldest son is entitled to the HRH Prince title. She changed that just before George was born to ensure the child would get that title regardless of gender, and took it a step further to include all future children of William.

    Even if she doesn’t do the same for the Sussex child(ren), as soon as Charles becomes King they will automatically become HRH Princes/esses of the UK.

  16. Nikki says:

    Y’all have not watched enough Disney movies or read enough fairy tales; EVERYONE should have a princess title!! Of course, I literally have a (toy) crown in my closet, since I am a Queen on every birthday…and Mother’s Day….and Valentine’s Day…and when I watch Game of Thrones…etc.

  17. Eribra says:

    More importantly, Al Roker said this morning that his royal title would be Sir Beef of Loin and i can’t stop laughing about it.

  18. Avisitor says:

    What a ridiculous pejorative “polo baby” is. If a boy, he will be the Earl of Dumbarton; if a girl, she will be styled “Lady (insert name) Mountbatten Windsor.

  19. notasugarhere says:

    I’ll guess the Queen will issue new letters patent to make this child prince/princess. We’ll see if I’m wrong in 6 months.

    • sid says:

      I’ll be wrong with you if it ends up that the Queen doesn’t issue the letters. I think she will for a number of reasons. And I don’t think Charles’s desire for a slimmed down monarchy precludes that.

    • Mego says:

      I am thinking yes to HRH and strong possibility they will be working Royals as Charles only has two sons – I am not sure his direct descendants will have the luxury of being non working royals if Charles wants to exclude others from the royal working fold. They will need some boots on the ground. Be interesting to see how it unfolds.

      • Bluthfan says:

        Yeah that’s my take as well. There won’t be enough working royals otherwise

      • notasugarhere says:

        W&K have three kids already. That makes for 9 working royals during Charles’s reign. That’s more than needed without adding in any Sussex kids.

      • Becks1 says:

        @nota I agree that they wont be working royals. And I think H&M are smart enough that they will raise their kids to NOT Expect to be working royals – that’s part of the issue with B&E it seems like – they (or Andrew) always anticipated being working royals so the adjustment has been a bit rocky. But I expect Harry and Meghan to raise the child/ren with no such expectations (much like I assume Sophie and Edward are raising their kids.)

      • Pinky says:

        Depends on how long Charles reigns for (look at the pattern from Victoria’s long reign – admittedly in an era of much poorer healthcare – Edward only lasted 10 years after his mother died). The Cambridge kids wouldn’t be working royals before they finished university so say 15-20 years from now at a minimum.

      • Tina says:

        Harry’s children won’t be old enough to make a difference when the crunch time hits. Crunch time will be when the Queen dies and/or the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra (who are all very old) retire. Two-thirds of the total 3,500 engagements done in 2017 were done by people older than the UK retirement age. Either William, Kate, Meghan and Harry will have to step up their game considerably (not likely) or they are simply going to do much less. We’ll see if the media is as sycophantic then.

    • Princessk says:

      I am also willing to bet money that Harry’s children will be styled HRH by the Queen. She is getting old, she clearly adores Harry and wants to see the British monarchy persist. The monarchy will be slimmer. Charles only had two kids the Queen had four, and eight grandkids.

  20. Casi says:

    Melly, I loved the Polo Baby comment in the other thread and am happy Kaiser ran with it. Shout out to you for coming up with it!

  21. Citresse says:

    My prediction is a girl. And she will be HRH Princess Alexandra, a non working royal.

  22. Ann says:

    I have to be honest. The thought of hearing about this constantly for the next six months is not overly appealing.

    • Vanessa says:

      Honestly if you don’t care about this article why did bother you even A reading the article B write out a snarky comment avoided Meghan and harry stories for the next six months then. Why are spending your time writing petty comments on a story that you claim you’re not interested in

      • ladida says:

        because you can be interested in a topic while simultaneously not wanting to hear about it everyday for six months.

  23. TheOtherSam says:

    My prediction: no Letters Patent from the Queen, the child is Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor (Earl Dumbarton if a boy) for a few years. The minute Charles becomes King he/she is automatically elevated to HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. That will happen soon enough given the Queen’s age – but no one is rushing for this to occur.

    The Queen made exceptions for Charlotte and Louis because their older sib, George, had right to be HRH Prince George. It would have been awkward to have two younger siblings styled Lord/Lady in the same family, even if only for a few years until Charles is King. It’s not as awkward to have cousins styled differently, and there’s precedent with the Wessexes.

    Who said the child won’t inherit the Sussex dukedom? If male the child will automatically inherit that title when Harry passes. A given, unless something awful happens and his father is made Prince of Wales or something else in the intervening years.

    • notasugarhere says:

      No, the Letters Patent was issued before W&K had their first child, in case they had a daughter and not a son. It was in the middle of the debate about passing laws to remove primogeniture inheritance to the throne.

      “The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.”

      • TheOtherSam says:

        Correct Nota, my error, it was issued before George’s birth. But I stand by my reasoning that despite that LP for the Cambridge kids, there likely won’t be one for the Sussex child/ren. There is already precedent for cousins in the Royal Family to have different stylings (see: Lady Louise and James). It’s not a big deal here.

        Harry and Meghan’s child or children will be elevated to HRH Prince/Princess soon enough. No one is pressing for that event since it means the Queen’s death. And I’m predicting they will keep the elevated titles, and not opt to keep a ‘lower styling’ as the Wessexes have done.

        Charles wants a slimmer Royal Family but he is a traditionalist and I’m guessing will want to see all of his grandkids eventually be HRHs (Harry and Meghan be willing as well).

      • notasugarhere says:

        The difference is because of Edward possibly getting Philip’s title in the future. Otherwise he was tapped to be Duke of Cambridge and his kids were to be HRH originally.

        It is a big deal for some. Why plan to have them change titles when Charles is king, when HM is 92 and could pass at any time. Makes more sense to have it from the get-go, as the interim position is likely to be short.

        Plus, optics-wise I’m still going with HRH from the get-go.

  24. ladida says:

    Interesting article, thanks for writing.

  25. David says:

    Maybe wishful thinking, but what about Spencer for a boy? Alexandra, Maud, or Alice for a girl.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I think Charles Spencer would make too much of a proud fuss about it if they did. Harry seems to get along with his Spencer aunts and cousins, but his grasping Uncle is another issue.

  26. Helen says:

    I read somewhere that Andrew actually had to ask his mother to attribute the “Princess” titles to his daughters.

    I really don’t think Harry will have to ask his grand-mother, or father if it comes to that!

  27. Beach Dreams says:

    I mean, how soon (or later) they plan their family is really none of your business or any of ours. And I doubt these two care about the public reaction, they’re focused on their growing family above all else. Ask Will and Kate if they cared about the lukewarm reaction after the third pregnancy announcement, or if Will cared about how hypocritical he looked criticizing Africa for overpopulation (inaccurately at that) while his wife was carrying number 3.

  28. Himmiefan says:

    I’m surprised they didn’t wait until the start of the new year to begin trying since they do need some time just as a couple. But, to each his or her own. As to speculation, these pages have been full of it. I hope this ends the “Meghan is sooooo old to have a baby” ridiculous talk.

  29. notasugarhere says:

    Get. Over. It. Not everyone needs a decade to decide who is the one or when to start a family.

  30. Case says:

    I personally would want at least a year of marriage just as a couple, but a lot of people are eager to start having children, especially if they’re a little older. It’s understandable, and of course, to each their own.

  31. maxine ducamp says:

    I don’t think it’s unusual for people of their age to move a little faster in the courtship/marriage/start a family department. For one, at that age, with more life and relationship experience, you hopefully know yourself better and what you’re looking for in a relationship and a partner. It’s not 100% that it will work out but little in life is. Secondly, if you’re getting married in your mid-30s or later and want to start a family, time isn’t on your side and unfortunately, at least as far as I am aware, there’s no guarantee to know if you’ll be able to get pregnant easily until you actually try. For all we know–and it’s not really our business–they may have thought that it would take them at least a year of trying to get pregnant and it was a happy surprise for them that Megan was able to conceive so quickly.

  32. Noodles says:

    This is true but being so quick doesn’t seem entirely sensible. Babies have a huge impact on your life and relationship, which in their case is still pretty new. Then again, I guess with her age they probably didn’t want to wait and I’m sure they’ll have nannies so it’s not like for the rest of us.

  33. Vanessa says:

    These comments freaking ridiculous now people are having problem with the timeline of how Harry And Meghan decided to started a family . First it’s was Meghan age now it’s how they shouldn’t accept titles for their kids even though it’s been a long standing tradition in royal life why should Harry and Meghan kids been any different from the rest of the family.

  34. notasugarhere says:

    Exactly Vanessa. This is their relationship at their speed. The timing and titles are only an excuse for what has been spun about these two from certain corners (or from under certain rocks) for two years.

  35. IlsaLund says:

    Weren’t there people predicting the marriage wouldn’t last and Harry would come to his senses and realize the mistake he’d made marrying Meghan? Guess this pregnancy news has some folks really upset cause it doesn’t jibe with how they believe Harry and Meghan should live their lives.