Robert Lacey: It’s ‘quite likely’ that the Sussexes will ‘forfeit’ their HRH titles in 2021

Britain's Prince Harry (L) and his fiancee US actress Meghan Markle (R) visit Nechells Wellbeing Centre to join Coach Core apprentices taking part in a training masterclass in Birmingham, central England on March 8, 2018.  Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visited Birmingham to learn more about the work of two projects which support young people from the local community. The Coach Core apprenticeship scheme was designed by The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry to train young people aged 16 - 24 with limited opportunities to become sports coaches and mentors within their communities.

It already seems like the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are making plans to stay in America for the next year. The only real reason they have to return to the UK in 2021 will be for the trial in Meghan’s lawsuit against the Mail, which is tentatively set for, like, next November. I’m sure there will be talk about whether Meghan and Harry will return for Trooping the Colour, or Ascot, or the palace garden parties next summer. But yeah… they just seem over it. But don’t forget this: the royal family is gleefully holding the “one year review” over their heads. This “one year review” was the Queen’s idea and Prince Charles’ idea – Harry wanted to just get everything done and dusted last March, but the senior royals insisted on a cooling off period for a year, which was designed as (what amounted to) a hope that Harry would dump his wife and child and find a way to return to the UK. Well, the Windsors and the sycophants have been sharpening their knives and planning out what additional “punishments” they’ll hand down to Harry and Meghan for the one-year review. The thing is, there’s not much left to take from H&M. Besides their titles.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle may lose their royal titles as soon as next March and there are a few indicators this could happen, an expert has said. It’s unlikely that the Queen will directly strip the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of their royal titles because this could damage both the couple’s reputation and the Crown’s, which Queen Elizabeth has promised to protect, reports The Express.

When Harry and Meghan stepped down from their royal duties in March this year, it was reported the Queen said she would review their position in a year’s time. This review is coming up in March 2021. If the couple were to lose their royal titles, it would mean they are formalised as private citizens. They could no longer be referred to as Royal Highnesses.

Royal expert and author Robert Lacey has said that if the review decides the couple cannot remain working royals, then it is “quite likely” they will lose or forfeit their HRH titles, as reported previously in The Express. Mr Lacey explained: “The way it is presented at the moment is that they are HRH but they choose not to use it, it doesn’t say that they are banned from using it. If this develops in the future, I think it will be presented in the same way – they choose not to be royals anymore. That doesn’t mean they give up their titles.”

He added that the Queen has bestowed these titles upon them, and that the world is full of people who have British titles and are still free to do what they like. In other words, Harry and Meghan may just hold the titles but never really use them, especially since they are already well-known by so many around the world.

Nigel Cawthorne, also a royal author, said he doesn’t believe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would ever give up their titles of their own accord because that could be seen as very offensive to the Queen. He told The Express: “I don’t think there is the slightest chance that the Sussexes will give up their titles. They were a wedding present by the Queen to the married couple and it would be a very ungrateful gesture to relinquish these titles as it would, in effect, be a snub to Harry’s grandmother the Queen.”

[From The Daily Mirror]

I think these royal experts are conflating different issues. Back in March of this year, the Queen basically told Harry and Meghan that they can’t brand themselves “royal” (as in, Sussex Royal) and they can’t use their HRH titles for business. Lacey seems to be saying that in March 2021, the removal of the HRHs could be formalized to some degree, which… I also think will likely happen. What I don’t think will happen is that the Queen will make any move to remove the Sussex titles. It will be very much like what happened to Diana post-divorce – her HRH royal style was removed, and she became Diana, Princess of Wales in divorce. Harry and Meghan’s “divorce” from the toxic Windsor clan will likely have them styled as Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, with no HRHs. It’s trickier too, because Harry is a “blood prince” and there’s really nothing short of an act of Parliament which can change that.

The Queen and Meghan The Duchess Of Sussex open the Mersey Gateway Bridge today, the bridge goes between Runcorn and Widnes in Cheshire.

Trooping the Colour 2019, the Queen's Birthday Parade

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

162 Responses to “Robert Lacey: It’s ‘quite likely’ that the Sussexes will ‘forfeit’ their HRH titles in 2021”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kalana says:

    How would they justify letting Princess Michael or Prince Andrew keep theirs while taking it away from the Sussexes? Andrew was essentially fired but still allowed to keep his. Princess Michael was never a working royal and uses her HRH in commercial ventures. Diana left the family in a legal sense.

    I don’t think they would remove it from others to justify doing it to the Sussexes but I wonder of the Queen will create a different designation.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      Let’s not forget the York Princess, also “blood” Princesses. If they try and strip Harry (“blood” Prince), then why can those women still use theirs for every single thing they choose to? Pushy PM actually uses HRH on the book jacket of the books she puts out! (Ex of the book cover:

      H&M ARE like Diana: they don’t NEED the title to make a difference (like her brother said in her eulogy). Honestly… I’d kind of like to SEE the BRF try this with H&M…. and let it blow all of them up once and for all!

      • Myra says:

        Yes, I was thinking about the Yorks, as well. Both girls are not working royals. I believe both are in employment and they still retain the HRH, which they use freely. Diana was a HRH by marriage so it sort of makes sense why she lost hers after the divorce. Since Sarah retained the Duchess of York title after her divorce to Andrew, it would not make sense for Harry to lose his.

        I think Harry and Meghan should not offer to give up anything beyond what was agreed this year. Let the Queen look petty if she wants to follow the advice of her racist courtiers.

    • equality says:

      Eugenie and Beatrice also have HRH and are not working royals. Diana isn’t comparable because she was only married-in royalty; Harry was born into the family.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        Harry and Meghan don’t need the HRH ‘brand’. In today’s world and with the way things are going, their titles are more like an albatross around their necks. Luckily in them choosing not to use their titles, they’ve been able to build up the just Harry and Meghan brand to great effect. They have the kind of appeal the other royals wish they had and a commercial nous that will serve them well.

    • Moxylady says:

      Look. They are in America now. Those petty jerks can take whatever the hell away but bottom line – Americans aren’t going to understand it or care and will continue to use it. Maybe the shitty racist crowd won’t but they are all busy with other shit like spreading covid and crying about confederate statues ans trying to burn down democracy

    • Moxylady says:

      All they have to do is give one interview – the interviewer uses the hrh titles and calls them both prince and princess. Harry explains that they can’t use those titles. 100% the interviewer says – you will always be hrh ans prince and princess to us.
      And that’s that.

  2. Sofia says:

    Legally, their titles won’t be taken. It requires an act of parliament which will create a mess and precedent the BRF and peerage don’t want i.e. removing titles for no real reason. Plus if they lose their titles because they’re not working royals, it opens to everyone else losing their titles too which could then lead to “what’s the point of having titles if nobody is allowed to have them?”

    They might stop using The Duke/Duchess of Sussex as they currently do but legally, they’ll remain HRH The Duke/Duchess of Sussex

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I’d kind of like them to say, MAKE US! If it is LEGALLY their title, they are ENtitled to use it (while I don’t think thetr’d be that petty, I would “poke the bear” 😄). I think though, they’ll just ¯_(ツ)_/¯ and do a “whatevah!”, and go about doing what they’ve been planning on doing.

      Whatever the BRF does, will still make H&M come out “looking good” to the rest of the world, the Davids against a crumbling, vengeful Goliath. Have to say, while I don’t think Charles will do anything else to them, I have to wonder what PwBT and KFQ will try and exact out of jealousy, if the RF makes up it to them.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        Or, OR they could allow them to be part-time Senior Royals as they requested before. There’s that. And I’m with you: Make me. Pry my title out of my cold dead hands and watch me run to the producers of The Crown so fast….

      • lanne says:

        I think the time for them accepting a part time situation has passed. If they go back to the RF, the RF will do everything they can to sabotage their Netflix deal and any projects they undertake. The only way they can go back is with protection from William and Charles.

      • Enny says:

        Honestly, I think Diana felt this way, too. She had no way of knowing she’d die so young, and When William became incandescent with rage over her interviews and lifestyle, I think she realized that the real threat to her ongoing livelihood was not Charles (with whom she’d mended many fences by the time of her death), but her own son. She knew what kind of man he’d be, and that he wouldn’t hesitate to hang his own mother out to dry. Harry and Meghan likely realize the same – it doesn’t matter what Petty Betty does, or what Charles might do to soften the blow when he’s king – the real threat is the PwT, and it’s best not to rely on him for money or prestige, because he will give a masterclass on petty and arbitrary when he finally gets the chance.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I wouldn’t trust Charles and William as far as I could throw them.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Actually, it does not take an act of Parliament, it is entirely discretionary on the part of the monarch. The monarch can bestow the HRH and other titles at will, and can take them away at will. Only “custom and tradition” dictates they should not be taken away once bestowed, but the Queen absolutely has the power to take the titles away at any time. In 1917, George V issued letters to somewhat regulate the custom of titles, but any monarch can bestow/rescind titles at will simply by printing a written statement to that effect.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        So QEII could take away the title “Duke of Westminster” from Hugh Grosvenor even though she did not grant that title to him????

      • Nic919 says:

        The HRH could be rescinded by another letters patent but it won’t be since she would have to remove it from others as well. This isn’t a divorce as was the the case with Diana and Fergie, but removing it from a blood royal.

        As for the dukedom, it cannot be so easily removed once bestowed. There would need to be an act of parliament as there has been in every case where titles have been removed from men, usually deemed traitors. Again a high bar to meet here.

      • Sofia says:

        Like Nic says it won’t happen because it’ll fuck with everyone else’s HRH and set a precedent. Who’s to say George won’t get mad at Louis and Charlotte in let’s say 50 years or something and tries to take their HRH’s away? And again, people will ask why Andrew still has is when he’s been accused of an actual crime while the Sussexes have been accused of… taking money from Netflix

  3. Darla says:

    Really, you think after The Crown’s latest season they will be so stupid as to repeat what they did to Diana? I guess we’ll see, but if they know what’s good for them, they will leave the titles be.

    • Kalana says:

      A very easy form of getting good press would be to turn around and show support at the one year review. The press is starting to want that now. The public would also eat it up.

    • Lauren says:

      I’m convinced that they would be that stupid. Here we are with them treating Meghan as they did Diana. I hope that if the Sussex’s titles were to go a bigger can of worms would be opened. The Yorks, Essexs, Kents and so on.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Everything they’ve done so far to Harry and Meghan has been a repeat of what was done to Diana.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      As Margaret says (in the show): “This family keeps making the same mistake, over and over.” So yeah…I think they WILL keep on the wheel, and repeat what they did to Diana. Anyone with any spirit that marries in, that they can’t subjugate, they will try and destroy.

    • HK9 says:

      Yes, they are indeed that stupid.

    • Harper says:

      If Will gets a vote it’s gone. Don’t forget, he’s a new generation committed to “being that stupid.”

  4. Snuffles says:

    So…business as usual. 🤷🏽‍♀️

  5. tee says:

    What will be the justification, given other non-working royals still have the HRH styling and seemingly get to use it liberally?

    Or will justification not be required bc the RF gets to set the media narrative?

    • Amy Bee says:

      The justification would be that they left the family.

      • Chelsea says:

        They didnt leave the family; they are financially independent. The Wessexes were given titles even though they werent full time working royals at the time of their wedding and the York girls and their father are not working royals but still HRH. Also: in addition Princess Michael of Kent being able to use HRH on the cover of her books her soon who left the UK to move to California with his wife who ironically is an actress still retains the title of Lord. So, no there is no real precedence for this.

    • Nic919 says:

      There is no justification that bears scrutiny when examining the actions of other “non working” royals.

  6. Liz says:

    Am I missing something? He’s specifically saying they’re not losing their titles in the last sentence. As Kaiser said though, it seems like there’s a conflation between the HRHs and the Dukedom.

    “The way it is presented at the moment is that they are HRH but they choose not to use it, it doesn’t say that they are banned from using it. If this develops in the future, I think it will be presented in the same way – they choose not to be royals anymore. That doesn’t mean they give up their titles.”

    • BayTampaBay says:

      HRH = is a “style” of address

      Duke = is a hereditary title in the Peerage.

      You can be a Duke and not be a HRH, like the Duke of Fife

      You can be an HRH and not hold a peerage, like Prince & Princess Michael of Kent.

      • Liz says:

        Right but he’s says, “The way it is presented at the moment is that they are HRH but they choose not to use it…If this develops in the future, I think it will be presented in the same way…[it] doesn’t mean they give up their titles.”

        So he’s not saying they’re going to give up or have their style or titles revoked at all. He’s just saying they’ll likely be asked/choose to continue to not use HRH.

  7. Alexandria says:

    Go ahead and try. Don’t forget about the other HRHs if you have brains!

  8. Faye says:

    I believe Harry and Meghan don’t give a damn about HRH and agree that they’re keeping their Dukedom so not to offend the Queen.

  9. Harla says:

    Just to clarify the HRH is an honorific not a title. The Dukedom is the title and could only be taken away by an act of parliament which as was stated above, they really don’t want to open that can of worms.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    I think if the whole thing wasn’t messy, the Royal Family would strip them of their titles i.e. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I think they will be stripped of the HRH status like Diana and they will have to give up the patronages with a royal connection. These will be the Rugby patronages for Harry, the ACU and National Theatre for Meghan and quite possibly the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust. I suspect that Harry and Meghan will not use the Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles after the one year review.

    • Jegede says:

      I agree with everything you said except the last line.

      I think they’ll remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in the public domain.

      God knows if Andrew & Sarah – with far more, er, egregious activities 🤐 – can still be publicly refereed to as the Duke & Duchess of York, some 20 years on, why not Harry and Meghan?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Jegede – I believe that the ‘Royal Family” really does not want to open this can of dangerous decaying worms. However, the commentariat of The Daily Fail continues to gift the “Royal Family” with can-openers and, just to get their point across, cases of medieval strength “Woop-Ass”.

    • CC2 says:

      It’s kind of odd to picture Harry referring to himself as Harry MW. Name recognition is important and people know him as Harry or Prince Harry. Nobody cares about the royals enough to know their last name and Meghan would most likely stick to Markle, but for some reason I’m guessing she would prefer not to actively use that last name thanks to her dad. But hey, Markle is just as much of her name than it is for him and she built a career from that name.

      Just harry and meghan only works if they’re used together.

  11. BABSORIG says:

    Can the Sussexes just give up these titles just like that though?

    • CC2 says:

      They can choose to simply not type it down, just like they did for HRH

    • anotherlily says:

      The titles are Harry’s. Meghan’s titles are those of the wife of a Prince and Duke. Harry can choose not to use his titles, however the dukedom is hereditary and he cannot remove Archie’s right to inherit the title. Archie has a place in the line of succession which also cannot be removed. He will move up to 6th in line when his grandfather is King and will remain 6th in line probably for at least 20 years until William’s children marry and start producing their own children. When Charles is King, Archie will be HRH unless Charles issues new Letters Patent restricting HRH style to the children of his immediate heir. This has happened in other European monarchies.

      Edward’s children are legally HRH. The Wessexes decided to raise their their children without using HRH style but with the titles deriving from Edward’s earldom. His daughter, Lady Louise is approaching 18 and can, if she wishes, choose to use her HRH and be known as Princess Louise.

      I’m sure the Sussexes will continue to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and that Harry will also continue to be referred to as Prince Harry. They are not going to become Mr and Mrs Mounbatten-Windsor.

  12. ABritGuest says:

    Taking HRH if they don’t return as working royals won’t make sense as long as non working royals HRH Princess Eugenie, Princess Beatrice, Princess Michael of Kent are walking around. And whilst HRH Prince Andrew is too although clearly the Queen is trying to manoeuvre for him to return

    So I think these commentators want them to volunteer to drop them as they don’t want the Queen to look bad but want the Sussexes to continue to be punished for moving beyond the firm’s control and press access. I really hope the Sussexes don’t volunteer to drop HRH, titles or anything else. They haven’t done anything warranting ‘punishment’ and these commentators& haters should just have to deal.

    • Amy Bee says:

      But Harry and Meghan having their HRH and titles, is being used by the British Media to justify the continued harassment and “reporting” on them. As with repaying the money for Frogmore, Harry and Meghan may feel if they voluntarily give up the titles or stop using them in public it would leave the press with no justification on reporting on them or intruding in their lives.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Yeah but that’s BS because they don’t go after other non working HRHs etc like this. They never had justification for the intrusive press& harassment even when they were publicly funded& don’t have justification since they stopped getting public funding. They just continue because they get clicks/sales& they want to punish them for their lawsuits & cutting off access etc.

        And the Fail claimed the Netflix deal makes them even bigger public figures worthy of ‘scrutiny’. So they will continue to harass etc as long as it’s a profitable business model & Sussexes dropping titles won’t stop that.

        That’s why I don’t want them to comply with anything press or commentators are trying to bully them about next. Paying back Frogmore should have put line in the sand. If they drop titles, next press will want wedding security, tours, working royal wardrobe costs etc back. They already started that angle when they reported on the costs of the Southern Africa tour & mentioned Queen’s bailout and their Netflix deal. Giving in to these demands in attempt to get press to back off etc won’t stop new demands.

      • lanne says:

        There’s nothing they can do to make the tabloid media back off of them. They would probably claim they have the right to Harry’s blood because he’s a “blood prince.”

        Their sense of ownsership toward these people is frightening and disgusting. Someone needs to tell them that royal family does not equal personal slave. While any wife of Harry’s would likely come under scrutiny, the ownership they try to show toward Meghan and Harry is beyond vile. In their eyes, Meghan has joined a space so “exhalted” that she should spend her life doing nothing but showing gratitude–and the only way to show gratitude is to let them inside her life in any way they want to. It’s the cost of admission. and one that she should feel “lucky” to pay. Nothing will turn them from that attitude. Now, she must be “punished” for “luring Harry away.” That’s how they justify their intrusion, no matter how far it goes, even if it kills her, Archie, and even Harry. The media will feel justified that she “deserved it.” They are the ultimate abusive partner saying “if I can’t have you, no one can have you.” Even if they returned to the royal family, nothing can stop it. The royals won’t protect them, so why should they come back? The royals have literally nothing to offer them. Their best protection comes from their own resiliency and their own devices.

        There’s no bottom to it. There’s nothing they won’t do, no low that the brit media won’t stoop to. For the rest of their lives, HM will have to make sure that no one has cut the brake lines of their cars, no one has planted listening devices in their homes, and that no one is befriending them to turn around and sell them out. They have an obsessive stalker who is bound and determined to destroy their lives by any means necessary. This doesn’t mean they can’t have a happy and fulfilling life–they absolutely can, but they have this grim reality to face. They win this war by living their lives on their own terms. They just can’t ever, for one moment, underestimate their opponent, or forget that the goal of the media is to destroy them.

  13. Guest says:

    Lol. Go ahead. Its going to be hilarious watching the the royal family and press still justify why Andrew still has his titles.

  14. Lizzie says:

    I think the queen wanted to do this originally but was worried it would be viewed as too harsh. She put it off for a year to gauge the public’s reaction. IMHO the review was never about wanting Harry back, it is too further penalize him. The rf has certainly not acted as if they want him back.

    • Sofia says:

      I don’t know. This is a woman who thinks her son’s interview went well and he’s done nothing wrong so wants to bring him back or at least, supports him coming back. Despite the public reaction to said son being very negative. I think if she wanted to remove the titles, the idea would have been floated in The Times/Telegraph just like the whole “Andrew has a plan to come back” was

    • Amy Bee says:

      The one year review was also royal permission to the press to continue to report on Harry and Meghan and intrude in their lives.

  15. JT says:

    The royals should just move on like H&M did. The constant back and forth over titles, being blindsided by news, and outrage over this couple making their own money is making the RF look ridiculous. If they claim that Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, act like it damn it. Stop talking about them. Focus on the “real” royals and be done with it. H&M are moving forward with their lives and making future plans and here are the royals basically stuck in limbo, whining over the same sh*t they’ve been whining about since Harry and Meghan got married. W&K are begging people to pay attention to them, so RR need to do their jobs and write about them. Damn. I hope H&M just stop using all of the titles all together and who cares if the queen feels snubbed, she’s a big girl.

    • equality says:

      Yes, I think the BM is irony-impaired: “H&M are irrelevant and don’t sell papers” splashed across their front pages.

    • S808 says:

      This is where I’m at. If they’re really so irrelevant then shut up and move on. Why waste time on this?

      • truthSF says:

        Because they’re not irrelevant! Instead, since they’ve stepped down from being senior working members of the firm, they have become exceedingly more popular worldwide!

        And with the firm and RR having no access to the Sussexes, they’ve also become very unpredictable (and exciting). Because everything they predicted the Sussexes would do has turned out to be completely false.

  16. Amanda says:

    As they should – nothing to see here. Just the next step in the independence process.

  17. Ainsley7 says:

    Without the HRH, Harry and Meghan would still be The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The wife loses the “The” in the divorce. It’s the aristocratic version of keeping your husband’s last name after the divorce, but allows the husband to remarry without duplicate titles. If Camilla used Princess of Wales and Diana was still alive, they would be Camilla, The Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales.

    They can’t really remove the HRH without changing the rules around who gets to be one. Harry has it because he was born the son of a son of the Queen. Sophie and Edward’s kids are HRH’s too they just don’t use them. Stripping Harry would ultimately mean they would have to restrict HRH’s to direct heirs or something. That would also strip all the other grandchildren of their HRH. Beatrice and Eugenie are not going to want to give them up. It’s why the duke of Windsor was allowed to keep his. They literally couldn’t take it away without changing the rules and stripping other people’s titles. Like, Archie isn’t HRH Prince Archie now, but he will get the title when Charles is King. There is precedent for the wife of an HRH not being made an HRH with Wallis, but I can’t see them taking it away from Meghan.

    The dukedom is a whole other issue. Only parliament can take that away. I don’t see them doing that. The House of Lords certainly wouldn’t be in favor or removing titles without a very good reason.

    • JT says:

      It is so petty that the queen hasn’t shut down the conversations about Harry and Meghan losing titles knowing that it most likely can’t be done and if they did do it, then it would affect everyone else too. Does she know or anybody in that damn family know the can of worms they are opening by allowing this conversation to continue? As I keep saying, who is advising them? If they are going to take the titles take them, if not shut this down. It’s the royals who can’t get their act together not H&M. Their lack of PR skills is truly baffling, considering how much money they spend on propaganda.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Petty Betty is like what Phil said about Anne, with the inclusion of: “If it doesn’t bark, eat hay, or fart, she isn’t interested”.

        She is FAMOUS for sticking her head in the sand and not doing ANYTHING unless she is pushed to the wall. To me, IMO, she is a very cold woman, literally lacking that “emotion chip” as her character said in The Crown.

      • CC2 says:

        Exactly. I will start to respect them a little again if they clarified at the review by saying that they don’t have to work as royals to have royal titles.

        Unfortunately they are too busy gloating at the idea that Harry/Meg are worried because they’re idiots and they think the monarchy is that relevant.

      • Ann says:

        I agree with that but I also think at this point she’s kind of out of it? I mean, she’s over 90. Her mind doesn’t work as well as it used to, and she’s never been a keen intellect anyway. I think part of this is rather malicious intent, but part is just mental confusion and forgetfulness.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      I can’t remember were I read it, but I believe that using the woman’s name and then comma indicates the divorce. As in, if Diana were still alive it would be:
      The Princess of Wales (is Camilla…no need to use her name and a comma because the ‘The’ indicates she is THE (current) POW)
      Diana, Princess of Wales (is Diana, divorced but retaining the use of the POW)

      And Meghan is just ‘The Duchess of Sussex.’ Not Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. Because there is no other DOS.

      Anyway, as I said, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure this is the way the titles should be written.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think “formally” it is: HRH Meghan, The Princess Harry, The Duchess of Sussex, The Countess of Dumbarton.

        However, I could be wrong.

      • Becks1 says:

        No, duchess of Sussex comes before Princess Harry. Harry is HRH The Duke of Sussex and Meghan is HRH The Duchess of Sussex and then all the other titles after that.

    • Sofia says:

      But the Wallis thing is not really a precedent because she was never given a HRH in the first place so there was nothing to take away. Meghan has been given a HRH.

    • Becks1 says:

      This is my question about this whole discussion. CAN the queen just “take away” HRH without changing the rules about who gets one? Maybe she could take it from Meghan, but Harry is entitled to it by birth. He’s not entitled to it because he’s a working royal, or because the Queen likes him. He’s entitled to it because he’s a grandson in the male line of the monarch.

      And she’s not going to take the titles. That would also set a precedent that the peerage doesnt want. Hell Edward was given a title even though he wasnt meant to be a FT working royal. And no one was discussing whether he should no longer be HRH as far as I recall.

      We are already seeing them using the titles less and less, I think the only reason they still use them at all is because Harry Mountbatten-Windsor is kind of a mouthful, and no one knows who that is anyway, lol. Everyone knows who “Harry and Meghan” are. So at this point, even if they stopped using the titles, it really wouldn’t make a difference. They’ve established their brand now.

      • Sofia says:

        Meghan was granted her HRH because she’s married to a (male) HRH. Hence why Princess Michael is HRH because she’s married to a HRH. So I don’t think HM can take it away because it was not specially granted, if that makes sense. It’s sort of like the royal version of “Mrs”.

        But I could be very wrong.

  18. Melissa says:

    I wonder what names they use in the US for official purposes. In the UK they’re allowed to fill out paperwork (like Archie’s birth certificate) with their names listed as “Harry, Duke of Sussex” and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” but there’s no way of doing that in the US. I wonder if they all use Mountbatten-Windsor, since that’s Archie’s name. I think it would be cute if they do, and I also wonder if it warms Phil’s heart at all to have someone, somewhere who’s related to him finally using his name, lol

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      That IS Archie’s legal name. Man, I feel for the child, having to learn how to spell the whole thing when he gets into Kindergarten!! 😊

      While I don’t know if it’d work here, when Harry and W were kids, they were in school (and military) as Harry Wales, William Wales. Might Archie be able to be registered in school as Archie Sussex?? Or would that only happen in Britain?

      • molly says:

        George apparently goes by George Cambridge at school. (It was on his backpack at the first day of school.)
        Archie is Mountbatten-Windsor, the default name royals can use if they don’t want to use the royal titles. Edward and Sophie’s daughter is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (just goes by Windsor), although she could have technically been called Princess Louise had her parents wished.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Actual, according to British protocol and precedent, it should be in Archine Dumbarton in the UK. However, Harry and Meghan did not want to raise Archie with a courtesy title as all other Dukes in the UK normally do.

        I think in the USA, for legal documents, the name is Archie, Meghan and Henry Windsor-Mountbatten. “Sussex” is a title and not a legal name in the USA.

      • Becks1 says:

        Well, had Archie been a prince, he probably would have used Sussex the same way George uses Cambridge and W&H used Wales growing up. William also has lesser titles and George does not use those.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “George does not use those.”

        I thought that was because George was a prince of the UK as you stated.

        IIRC, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, Earl of Snowdon’s son David was always referred to as David Linley due to his courtesy title of Viscount Linley.

    • Chaine says:

      This whole discussion just exposes how ridiculous the whole system of titling is, especially given they’ve both moved to the United States where anyone can call themselves whatever the F they want and the rest of us can introduce them as whatever the F we want. What’s the Queen going to do, file a lawsuit against everyone who says “Hello, your Royal highness” to Meghan?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “This whole discussion just exposes how ridiculous the whole system of titling is”


      • Ann says:

        I have always found it laughable. I mean, I kind of care about Harry and Meghan’s titles being taken ONLY because it might for Harry because it would be his own grandmother and family slighting him, doing something they perceive as very important. But otherwise, JFC, who can keep track of this stuff?

    • GuestwithCat says:

      I wonder about Phil, too. In the one and only photo we see of him looking at Archie, he looked genuinely delighted. At his age and station, he’s not obligated to look delighted about anything, yet there he was.

      And when Harry and Meghan mentioned at their first photo call with Archie that they ran into Phil on the way into the hall, they both seemed genuinely happy to have done so. So Phil must have said something nice to or about Archie.

      As far as we can tell, Phil hasn’t had any part in anything bad that’s been done to them or not done for them so far. We know he made some rude remarks about Meghan’s profession and we know he’s a racist, classist old fart. But even a racist classist old fart can feel a bit of something for their own kin, especially kin that was named with a nod of respect to them.

  19. Belli says:

    The fuss about the one-year-review feels like after you escape an abusive ex, but thet’re telling everyone you’ll come back and talk because they still have the good egg whisk.

    Harry and Meghan aren’t bothered about the review. I can see them legally giving up the HRH titles in a Frogmore-esque “screw you, I don’t even care, have it if you’re so bothered about it” move.

    Removing the Duke and Duchess titles by act of parliament is a can of worms that the royals do not want to open. The aristocracy would fight that move with everything they had. Removing a title for obvious treason one thing, pettily taking it back for moving to America is another and the other nobles are going to push back against setting that precedent HARD.

    But let’s say they did and the Duke and Duchess titles were taken away. I don’t think Meghan’s haters have clued in yet that that would make her Princess Meghan. Technically a lesser title, but that would have them spitting nails. They would be incandescent. With rage.

    And Harry’s a prince by birth. It wasn’t given to him, like the dukedom. That can’t be taken from him for anything.

    • JT says:

      I just want H&M to preemptively shoot down the review and tell the press and RF what is already clear: they aren’t coming back to royal work. Yes there will be outrage, but guess what, there is always outrage. The mistake of creating a storm in a teacup over nail polish and avocados means that the impact of said storm means nothing. The RF are always upset and always threatening things so H&M controlling their narrative and beating to the punch will only benefit themselves. The queen has no actual control of them just the semblance of it, so Harry and Meghan should just shatter that illusion to the press and public.

      • Nyro says:

        I’d love to see them debut their production company and then drop a trailer or two from their Netflix projects right before the review. Lol

    • Harla says:

      While I think Princess Meghan sounds lovely, technically she would be Princess Henry of Wales or maybe Sussex. Since she was not born a royal (although I believe she’s more regal than any of the royals) she wouldn’t be a Princess in her own right.

      • Becks1 says:

        She would be princess Henry but let’s remember that Diana was never Princess Diana, and that is how she is still referred to this day. I think here in the US we would seize on Princess Meghan and not care if its “correct.”

      • Harla says:

        @Becks1, Yeah the world wouldn’t care about the “correctness “ but the British tabloids would lose their minds, constantly trying to correct everyone. That in its self would make it worth it. 😂

    • lanne says:

      Meghan would be titled as the Princess Henry just like Brooch bitch is the Princess Michael (I think her name’s Marie something but her husband’s name is Michael). That’s why some folks call her OfMichael.

    • Becks1 says:

      Re: your last sentence – the british press and the anti-Sussex brigade isn’t going to be happy until Harry starts going by Mr. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor. And that’s not going to happen because he’s always going to be a prince, they cant take that away.

    • Shadeau says:

      She would not be “Princess Meghan”. If all the titles were taken away, she would be entitled to call herself “Princess Harry” (or Henry). Princess Michael of Kent’s actual name is Marie Christine; she takes the title “Princess Michael” from her husband, Prince Michael.

      • molly says:

        The court of public opinion if often far stronger than any official title. Princess Diana wasn’t technically a princess, but that’s what everyone knows her to be. Some American outlets tried a similar thing with “Princess Kate”. I think eventually stopped because enough people kept correcting them, but unless you know about blood royals blah blah, royal is royal to you.

      • Kalana says:

        People magazine stopped when Meghan joined the family. They didn’t want to call her Princess Meghan. I think since Sussexit, they’ve used the term Princess Kate in at least one new article.

      • Shadeau says:

        True! I’m not sure “Princess Meghan” would become a thing at this point, though.

      • molly says:

        @Kalana- You’re right, they stopped when Meghan came. They do still put “Princess Kate” in the metadata though. Lots of people are still using it as a search term.

    • Thirtynine says:

      To be honest, I’d be surprised if Harry even went back for the one year review. He was willing to leave with the shirt on his back if he had to, to get Meghan and Archie out of there, and nothing the BRF have done since then offers any indication that there will be anything positive to come of it. He has all his ducks in a row, Frogmore is sorted, his finances are organised, he has acquired a new home, and is making efforts to carve out a new role in a new country. What is to go back for? After the bit of spite with the military appointments and the wreath, it is clear that every opportunity is being taken to punish him, and nothing will surprise him now. I think he’s more likely to zoom in and say, well, you do you. I’m out.

  20. MegJ says:

    How will it look in X amount of years when the son, brother and uncle of the next 3 Kings of England has no title? The royals would be stupid to remove Harry’s titles! (Which means they’ll probably do it and then complain about the negativity they cop when it backfires).

  21. Louise177 says:

    I think it’s very likely they won’t be able to use their titles like they can’t use HRH. I think The Queen does want to take away their titles but she can’t justify it when Andrew has his.

  22. nettie says:

    I think if this happens it is purely vindictive. It would make the RF look awful. Why give Netflix more juicy episodes if they are so worried about it!

    • betsyh says:

      Oh please let The Crown seasons continue and cover the Sussexit and Jeffrey Epstein/Prince Andrew years.

  23. Nyro says:

    They barely would have gotten away with stripping their titles six months ago. But now? Post-Crown Season 4? Nope. Not with the ghost of Diana resurrected for a new generation. And not with Andrew running around with credible rape allegations against him. If they try anything with the titles, they’re done. I firmly believe George won’t ever be king. But if they strip Harry of his HRH, not even William will sit on that throne.

  24. Nic919 says:

    Harry gets his HRH through the 1917 letters patent so it can’t be removed from him unless they change that. And as others have said, excluding him but not the other non working HRHs is not going to work.

  25. Bettyrose says:

    If they settle permanently in the U. S. and become important public figures here… I feel like at some point they’ll need to choose a last name. We don’t have titled aristocracy here and especially if Meghan runs for office or something they have to become Harry and Meghan Windsor or whatever. (I think they should go with Ragland to honor the one side of the family they’re still close to but I know that’s unrealistic).

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      @BettyRose Ragland-Windsor would be great!

    • molly says:

      Their son is already Mountbatten-Windsor, so I assume they’ll go with that.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I like Glücksburg myself which is Philip’s real surname.

    • WintryMix says:

      I’m not sure they need a surname to be important public figures. Look at Cher, Madonna, Pink, Sting, etc. “Prince Harry and Meghan” is plenty. You’re right that a surname would be needed on a ballot–but I think there’s zero chance Meghan would opt into the limitations and constraints of being an elected official compared with the freedom to influence public opinion that she has now. It just wouldn’t offer her anything.

      • CC2 says:

        She won’t run for office, but those one namers are famous because those are all unique names. Harry or Meghan are common first names and their name recognition will take a hit whenever they do solo work.

        For example Brad & Angelina are relevant enough, but once you refer to them Brad/Angelina, it gets really tricky. “Produced by Brad” will just confuse people.

        Meghan is lucky she as Markle since that’s how everyone refers to her today, but Harry would face some issues imo.

      • VS says:

        @CC2 — you are right, Madonna, Pink, Sting, Beyonce, Oprah are pretty unique names

        but if I say Michelle, Serena, Meghan, Angelina, Brad, Amal……..who would you first think about?

        George Clooney is a special case, same with David B and Victoria B…..they went by their last name so their first name won’t ring a bell to most people

      • bettyrose says:

        Well, her editorial really got me thinking. I can see her doing a lot more of that kind of thing, less personal more mission driven types of articles, and somehow 30 years from now, if they’ve mostly worked in the U.S. and not as royals, a byline by the Duchess of Sussex will seem pretty anachronistic.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I think Spencer-Ragland would be great. But they probably don’t need surnames.

  26. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    I think that the Queen is cold (remember – no ‘empathy chip’) and stupid enough to do such a thing.
    Make no mistake: she’s an old tyrant. She holds the reins ruthlessly in her grasp. Penis with Teeth and Buttons are in such good favour because they dance and curtsey in her orbit. They have no value to her except from the ways in which they can serve her.
    The Queen never, ever thinks that she is in the wrong. She believes absolutely that the moment the Archbishop of Canterbury anointed her with chrism during her coronation she became imbued with special powers from the Almighty. She has been trained and groomed to believe that all those who are not her and do not possess monarchical titles are subjects, including those who have married into her family, are inferior. Famously cold and slow to see the point, she has become hellbent on breaking Harry and Meghan to heel. They’ve ‘defied’ her, after all. They left an institution that is hellishly abusive to its own – say what you want about Charles, but he had a horrific childhood – after excruciating abuse, and they’ve wronged her in so doing. She takes this personally. She does not see the ‘human’ aspect. All life should be in service to the Crown, because HER life has been spent in service to the Crown. She believes that one should put one’s chin up and face the world with one’s head held high — and those who don’t are weak. But because Harry is ‘blood’ he would have been forgiven – eventually – if he had been chastened enough – eventually.
    Someone like Meghan could never have worked because she was brought up to believe in personal freedom and integrity, and not as part of the class-riddled nonsense that is British society. (I say this as a Brit.) And the Queen is absolutely stupid enough to handle her as poorly as she handled Diana, because Meghan didn’t ‘get’ it – her entire role was as a representative of the monarch. No personality and particularly no Star Power, because that is not what the Royals DO.
    I can see old Brenda (urged on by PWT) enthused with the idea of stripping them both of their HRHs. I can see her toying with the idea of trying to have the Dukedom removed (which would bring the monarchy down, so bring it). I’m just hoping that of all the vile things she’s done – particularly by omission, in not putting out one single supportive statement in favour of Meghan (but of course she didn’t, because that would mean Meghan might get a ‘bit too big for her boots’ and be emboldened to show her lovely personality) – she actually does do this one. Because Gens X-Z will definitely say F— the monarchy and insist on a referendum to get the whole bunch of chinless wonders out.
    The happiest day of my life will come when Andrew (not to mention all the other hangers-on) is shown being evicted. I wonder where Kate will keep her coatdresses?

    • lanne says:

      I think this is excellent analysis but there is one consideration. How much is a 94 year old really all there? This pettiness could be the work of the couriers who have “deified” themselves by proxy in her name, while she dodders off in a corner mumbling about her dogs and horses. (Courtiers tend to fancy themselves “plue royale que le roi” after all). I wonder if she is basically just a figurehead now (I’m not convinced that Prince Philip isn’t just a Weekend at Bernies style prop at this point). They wheel her out to wave at the public, then park her in front of the TV the rest of the time. Can a 94 year old really run an institution like the Firm? I would think a person that old who still has their faculties would be less intransigent and capable of reflection. And if the Queen has lost her faculties, would the public even be told? So many of their actions seem strange and counterproductive–I wonder if that’s because old Bett is no long up to the job, and a bunch of 70 year old racists in gray suits are really running the show, acting like it’s still 1952–instead of trying to run the show for a young queen, they may very well be running the show for a very old Queen.

      • windyriver says:

        Um, speaking as someone whose extended family has been blessed with a number of 90+ years olds over the years (along with several of their 90+ year old friends), you’d be surprised at how sharp people can continue to be well into advanced age.

        I think you need to recalibrate your thinking about “how much is a 94 year old really all there”.

        As far as “a person that old” being “less intransigent and capable of reflection” – well, they’d have to have been capable of reflection in the first place. I haven’t seen anyone in my family who’s changed in any significant way as they’ve grown older (except for being more grateful at how much time they’ve been given). In TQ’s position, head of the Church, supposedly anointed by the Almighty, deferred to above everyone else her entire life, able to have any desire fulfilled – why would she be reflecting on anything?

        The pettiness very well could be the work of courtiers, but that’s been the case for a long time – remember Diana’s grey men – because the courtiers have so much power. Remember how Harry couldn’t even make an appointment with his grandmother? TQ adopted (continued?) a model long ago where they don’t get involved in issues below a certain level. That’s one reason the Firm has been so poorly run over the years, continuing to make obviously stupid decisions, with the various households unregulated and competing against each other. People have commented more than once, if this were an actual business, they’d have been out of business a long time ago.

        I suspect TQ is just fine mentally; she’s only doing what she’s always done, staying one step removed, sticking her head in the sand, letting others do the dirty work. Meghan is being treated the same way Diana was years before. Every indication, including her extensively toxic and screwed up family, is that TQ is a generally cold and not particularly nice or sympathetic person. Don’t know that I agree with @Andrew’s Nemesis above, that she’s rubbing her hands with glee thinking about what else she can do to stick it to Harry and Meghan, but she’s certainly done nothing to stop anyone else doing it, or talking about doing it.

      • lanne says:

        I’m sorry if I insulted older people @windyriver. Point taken. It’s wrong of me to assume she has lost her faculties. Perhaps it would have been better for me to just question if the public would be told if she, indeed, had become impaired due to age–and then the onus would be on the courtiers, not on her. And what I said about Prince Phillip was totally mean spirited–I’ll own that. Someone snarked on Celebitchy that Phillip looks like he died 5 years ago, so I guess I was snarking on that snark.

        I also completely agree with you about their intransigence and general incompetence. There are defintely industries where important people fail up, not down, and the RF Firm is certainly one. If their product was anything other than themselves, they would have been put out of business long ago.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        @lanne i agree. Betty is not running the show. the courtiers and regent charles are calling the shots. betty and phillip are happily retired.

      • windyriver says:

        @lanne, it’s not so much that it’s an insult, certainly not a personal one – but that it’s a stereotype (like, the remark about sitting in front of the tv). Most of all, though, it’s not necessarily accurate for many of the people in their 80′s and 90′s today. And you’re not the only one who’s made such comments before on CB, so it’s a general observation, not directed at you in particular.

        And it lets TQ off easy, to assume what’s going on is about declining mental facilities, so therefore her not having responsibility. As I said, from all appearances, she’s behaving as she always has, the Firm is running as poorly as it always has, with the courtiers still having too much influence. The difference is, the world around the RF has changed, and they’ve failed to change with it. And with social media, it’s not so easy to shove things under the carpet, no matter how well you can manipulate the press – like Andrew, like Will’s gardening, like Kate’s reaction at the CW church service, like the issue with Harry’s wreath. And like trying to drive out the only biracial member of the family, and thinking people don’t see it’s exactly what they did with Diana years before.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if TQ is semi-retired, and Charles is primarily in charge. But the Firm keeps chugging along the same as it always has – and that’s the problem.

      • Ann says:

        I think it could be a combination. My grandmother passed at 96, and in many ways was sharp as a tack until her last day. She was also kind of a brittle one, though she had a soft side. But she was not the one my father turned to for emotional support. My point is, QE2 might be very much aware of what she is doing and/or wants to do to punish Harry, but she is still not likely to be as nimble in carrying it out as she was thirty years ago. That said, I think in some ways she was never very nimble anyway. Just enough to put people in their place.

  27. Cecilia says:

    Is that even possible? Harry is a born prince. Shouldn’t he be removed from the line of succession if they want to remove their HRH?

  28. one of the Marys says:

    I laugh at the wording “if the review decides the couple cannot remain working royals” My God these people are delusional. *Harry & Meghan* have decided they are no longer working royals. And on that note I hope they do not voluntarily give up anything else. The way they style themselves now and continue to engage in their causes indicates, to me, how they want to go forward. So it’s on the royal family to change that. If the royal family dare to further punish them I hope H&M do not meet them half way by volunteering anything! Let the royal family do the heavy lifting of announcing any changes and taking any public and/or international reaction that comes of it. Own it

  29. aquarius64 says:

    Archie is heir to the dukedom. Take that away from a child and watch the backlash.

    • Godwina says:

      I’m just wondering about a backlash from who though.

      If the RF, the pro-monarchy crowd, and the UK press are so racist (which they are), they likely don’t want Archie in the in-crowd anyway.

      And the anti-monarchists (or indifferent folks who just like Megan in a pretty dress) probably won’t care enough, because lines of succession don’t matter to them or fully squick them out.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        I agree with Godwina. Who would kick up a fuss, certainly not anyone in Britain who has the power to make a lick of difference. The BRF has the press, themselves and the Government on their side not to mention the Aristocrats who sides with them. The British people watched Meghan be savaged for more than 3 yrs in their print media, radio media and television media without raising a single protest in a post MeTo era. I think that the BRF can do whatever they like to these two and besides so hemming and hawing from social media and the press outside Britain, it won’t matter. Hopefully, H/M are prepared to welcome any eventuality regarding titles and whatnot.

  30. Oh says:

    Why Harry accepted those titles in the first place?? (Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel)…He always hated being a prince. Don’t get me wrong, I love the sussexes but those titles are so ridiculous

    • Godwina says:

      Yup. If he jets–truly yeets himself and his kid(s) from the monarchy–it might actually help destabilise the institution even more. Right now it feels like he’s clinging to what he can cling to For the Good of the Firm.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I suspect he had no choice but to accept those titles, just like he had to have a Royal Wedding. Word is he wanted a small, private wedding and the Palace insisted that it should be public. Having it in Windsor was probably a compromise.

    • Cecilia says:

      Because it’s tradition and his right as the child of a (future) monarch.

  31. Zut alors says:

    So this discussion has me curious as to what name(s) Meghan has on her passport. Is she still using her American passport or does she no longer require one as Duchess of Sussex?

    • Harla says:

      I believe that the only person who doesn’t need a passport is the Queen, the rest of the family does.

  32. molly says:

    I feel like Meghan is pretty IDGAF about all this title stuff. (Harry probably cares though.)

    Can’t use HRH? Whatever. Take away the The after the comma? Who cares.

    So long as The Firm stops leaking stories and being completely complicit in the attempted destruction of her life, sure, whatever, just keep me updated.

    This title crap came into her life 2.5 years ago, and it doesn’t seem too hard to walk away from that too.

  33. jferber says:

    Does that mean Harry won’t be called Prince Harry anymore? He IS a prince. He is the son of Charles and Diana. Such f-ckery.

    • Queen Meghan's Hand says:

      No, he will always be Prince Henry (that’s his actual name) or Harry as he is known. The QUEEN and her miserable colleagues want to take away their His/Her Royal Highness which only really matters in the royal court. If The QUEEN tries to remove the couple’s actual Dukedom that will require an act of Parliament. I don’t think it is possible to strip Harry of his Prince title as long as the monarch is recognized because he was born into the family and not bestowed as a Prince.
      Everybody calls them Prince Harry and Meghan anyway. The fact that they did not title their son leads me to believe they don’t give a rat’s booty.

      • Ann says:

        He’ll always be Prince Harry to me and I think to many people. And I say this as an American who has never really been interested in the Royals, unlike many of my fellow US citizens who seem besotted with them. I was witness to the whole Charles/Di saga and kind of watched Harry and William grow up. She was Princess Di. He’s Prince Harry….or sometimes just Harry, but the Prince part is implied. They can strip him of his title but not his person. IDK, he seems like a prince to me. In the best way possible.

  34. L4frimaire says:

    I don’t know why they keep drawing this out. Why do they keep focusing on everything the Sussexes do. The thing is royal family should have used this time to define what exactly the roles and responsibilities are of royals once they are lower down in the succession and the government should have set who in BRF would be on the public payrolls. Seriously should only be Liz and Chuck. Take his HRH, take her HRH, whatever, keep the HRH but don’t use it . Whatever the BRF do, it’s just to personally attack this couple.

  35. Amelie says:

    Prince Edward/Duke of Windsor didn’t lose his HRH when he abdicated and married Wallis Simpson (she never got an HRH), so I don’t see why Harry and Meghan would either. I doubt they will go down that route, because it will only draw comparisons to Andrew and his dealings with Epstein. Harry and Meghan haven’t been involved in any criminal behavior that we know of. Punishing them for stepping down as senior royals, when one of those people is a POC, will only seem out of touch and racist. They’ve already agreed not to use the HRH publicly or to use the word royal. What else is there left to do? And now with the fourth season of The Crown and all the backlash with Diana’s storyline, I don’t think they want to go down that path at all.

    I doubt Harry and Meghan care very much though. Whether they are titled or not, people will continue to be interested in them.

  36. TheOriginalMia says:

    This is such a non-story. I mean…we know they aren’t going to strip Harry & Meghan of their titles because Parliament has better things to do. They aren’t going to take away their HRHs because then the York sisters, the Kents and Andrew would lose theirs as well. The thing that’s funny to me is Harry & Meghan truly don’t need their titles or HRH. People know them by their names, like Diana. Their cache is in their names, not their titles, but do carry on British media.

  37. souperkay says:

    I hope petty betty does so Harry can become styled as Harry Markle, just drop the mountbatten windsor altogether

  38. Mel says:

    I agree with Amy Bee. H and M can silence their critics that they want to benefit from their royal connections if they cease using their titles, thereby proving that they didn’t need them (the titles) anyway. Probably the extent to which H and M want to be politically active in the future will have some bearing on the results of the review. Since the royals wish to be apolitical, they likely want to make the distinction that H and M’s choices are not a reflection of the position of the RF. Sadly I think that the media love discord and the victimization narrative will cling to H and M, which doesn’t serve them in the long run if they want to be seen as more than tabloid fodder.

  39. Lemons says:

    I never want them to give up their titles. It would just be another way for racists to celebrate that, in the end, a black woman cannot be HRH and cannot be British royalty. They would love that.

    I can just see Princess Michael lording it over her now.

    • Amy Bee says:

      The racists won’t celebrate, they would be outraged that Harry and Meghan gave up their titles, thus disrespecting the Queen. Harry and Meghan have done everything they wanted them to do and the response has always been anger not joy.

  40. lanne says:

    The RF is Streisanding all over the place. Every time they yap about the Sussexes, they keep Harry and Meghan in the minds eye of the public. The spectre of Harry and Meghan is going to dog everything they do, every tour they take (I expect those are going to be curtailed big time even after covid due to Brexit), every project, real or fake. If they are smart, they will tell the media to back off the Sussexes. We saw how Kate rushed her typo laden “5 questions” survey response on the day Meghan’s NY times editorial dropped. They need to stop trying to compete and realize that they occupy different spaces. Market themselves as the “steady steadfast British royals” and send them out to shake hands in every small town in England once Covid is over. The problem is that Cambridges WANT Harry and Meghan’s celebrity, and they are jealous that they don’t have it and can’t get it. Any “punishment” they try to inflict on the Sussexes will backfire in a big way.

    Their PR people should be downplaying the one year review, not playing it up. Come up with a face-saving compromise (they continue to have, but not use HRH, but continued to be called by their peerage titles) some “we’re all still family” blah blah and take the air out of any sails filling up in anticipation of some big showdown. A big showdown can only have a net harm to the RF–Harry and Meghan have nothing to lose. Or cancel the 1 year review all together and state that “we have an acceptable agreement and we wish our beloved grandson/son/brother and his family the best and we are all family blah blah. Make a show of welcoming them to Trooping the Color with smiles and kisses on the cheek like the out of town relatives they are. The only way to make people believe the Crown is dramatized is by showing the opposite (even if it isn’t true). William should be able to grit his teeth and kiss his sister in law on the cheek for the sake of his own damn future. Maybe even drop some horseshit about “The Fab 4″–magazines in the US and the commonwealth will eat that up. It doesn’t even have to be real. But they need to stop treating Harry and Meghan like the Prodigals crawling home seeking mercy because that’s just not the case.

    • Lemons says:

      That makes too much sense and is way too intelligent for the Windsors.

    • Lexistential says:

      Is it really the BRF calling the plays, or is it the courtiers in collusion with the reporters and media reps? For all we know, it might not be the Royals themselves calling these shots about Harry and Meghan, but courtiers acting like (very bad) media strategy generals and they’re the ones whipping up this fight to:

      1) “Punish” Harry and Meghan (and make the monarchy look relevant to some and stupid to the rest of us) .

      2) Keep their jobs and paychecks so that they still appear relevant to the Royals?

      (I generally think that the BRF has terrible people instincts, and they’re also stuck with an equally terrible staff of courtiers with over-the-top instincts and who are terrified to lose their jobs and relevance.)

  41. Mac says:

    I think that the queen shouldn’t make this move. Now, the brouhaha over the Crown will probably have died down a bit by March (the one year review) but there is equally no guarantee that Harry and Meghan won’t wake up one morning, she pees on a stick, the result is positive, and someone “leaks” that “It’s a girl!” I know I might be reaching a little, but that is all it would take: “Coldhearted Lilibet Strips Great Grandchild Of Birthright, Goes After Pregnant Meg After A Miscarriage!” It would look awful, truly awful, for them if the Royals were stupid enough to let Meghan be pregnant a second time and give her pr ammo to remind everyone how they treated her with the first pregnancy.

    Further, Harry is the son of a future king. Even if he were stripped of title now, that does not mean Charles cannot reinstate it after his mother has passed. On top of that, Parliament (not necessarily the Tories) might tap its foot with Elizabeth and say, “Nuh uh. Rules is rules. Henry Charles Albert David, son of the Prince of Wales, a man we can expect to be king within the next 15 years.. Royal at BIRTH. The other titles derive from HIS. We also still have that letter from the Labour Party, mostly female MP’s, the ones who stood by your granddaughter-in-law when you and yours would not. Would you like it if we republished it? Are you fool enough to bring the topic of stripping titles into the public forum when your son Andrew has so much scandal clinging to him? -Careful, Lillibet. You don’t want the Crown to become more like a reality show version of House of Cards.

  42. jferber says:

    Thanks, Queen Meghan’s Hand. You explained it perfectly.

  43. Julia K says:

    The Queen is not in the loop. William is driving this whole review business. Charles just smiles and nods. It remains to be seen just how much revenge still exists.

  44. Mia says:

    For what it’s worth, this is what it says on the royal family site about Meghan’s titles:

    The Duchess’ official titles are The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel.

    Personally I think this whole system is cumbersome and dumb, but it was fun to give their website a click only for Meghan lol

    • Ann says:

      That’s what I like about Meghan. It’s cumbersome and dumb but somehow when it comes to her it becomes a bit more fun.

  45. Liz version 700 says:

    They can seriously brand themselves as Meghan and Harry or H&M and no change in their status will be noticed. The Royal family doesn’t understand the people they are appealing to don’t give two cents about the Royal title. The loss of it had no effect on Diana and will have even less of an effect on H&M but you do you Royal family. Keep on Incandescenting on

  46. Linu says:

    Removing HRH titels (or even prince/princess titels from “blood” princes/-esses) does not require an act from parliament. And even if it would, it would simply be an “rubber stamp”, as the parliamanet would do as suggested by the Queen. The king of Sweden removed the HRH titels as well as honorary “prince” titel from his sons (blood princes) when they married commoners. They were simply adressed as “Mr”. In Scandinavia HRH titels gained trough marriage are removed the very second the divorce is legalized. Norwegian princess Märtha-Louise abstained her HRH titel in order to pursue economical activities. Later on she was commanded to refrain from using her princess titel (gained by birth) in commercial activities (she initially opposed this but was forced to obey due to public opinion). It would be unthinkable for a member of scandinavian royal families to use titels in private economic endeavours the way Harry and Meghan are.

    • anotherlily says:

      British constitutional monarchy has different rules to Sweden. It would require the consent of both Houses of Parliament and there would need to be a finding of something akin to treason against Prince Harry.

      HRH is not a title. It is a status denoting a Prince or Princess. The dukedom of Sussex was bestowed on Harry on his marriage just as the Cambridge dukedom was bestowed on William. These are hereditary titles. This is why they were bestowed on marriage. A marriage is the founding of a new branch of the family. Archie is a member of the royal family and will grow up as the grandson of a King. He is currently 7th and will become 6th in line to the throne where he will remain until William’s children have their own offspring.

    • Antonym says:

      @Linu – Harry and Meghan aren’t using HRH titles in private economic endeavors

    • Sofia says:

      1) They aren’t using their HRHs at all

      2) Sweden is not the UK. Please do not use another country’s constitution/rules/precedent to dictate what another country will do.

  47. Chelsea says:

    This article seems to be conflating two different issues. Lacey is talkjng about their HRH titles which Harry got from birth and can not be easily taken from him while the other guy seems to be talking about the Dukedom, Baron, etc titles that he was given on their wedding day. Harry and Meghan have already agreed to stop using HRH and they havrnt since they left. I think Robert is right that I doubt they will try to fight for use of it because they obviously havent needed it this year but i also think the other guy is right that they won’t give up the Dukedom as it was given to them by the Queen and i doubt she or Charles are genuinely even thinking of taking it from them. (Also it would take an act of parliament to formally strip him of his Dukedom so i dont see that happening as there would be questions of why the same isnt being done for Andrew).

  48. Likeyoucare says:

    No matter what the family did to Harry and Meghan, Harry will still be loyal to the crown and country. He had been trained since he is born and was a soldier.
    He will not throw away his tittle out of respect and loyalty.

    But he will not use it because of how much the tittle had hurt and harm his little family. He will just let the RF monkeys Jump up down shrieking about the title.

  49. Dee Kay says:

    I think it would be cool if H+M stopped using royal titles and started living as Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. Archie already is living under this name, no title. Everyone will know what that last name means, the history and the relationship to an outdated foreign institution, and it will be a cool new family line, a cadet house but free of the primary house.

  50. qtpi says:

    The treatment of Diana and Meghan makes it clear the royal side of this family belongs in the dustbin of history. Seriously. Let it all die with the Queen. So dated.

  51. Kalana says:

    This reminds me a little of The Forsyth Saga. William is a man of property and Harry is Jolyon.

  52. 2cents says:

    “ It would be unthinkable for a member of scandinavian royal families to use titels in private economic endeavours the way Harry and Meghan are.”- Linu.

    Linu, interesting that the scandinavian royals look at this differently than the Dutch royals. Recently fully titled HRH, Prince Bernhard jr. (full cousin of King Willem-Alexander) was in the news. He (as other titled members of the Dutch royal family) is allowed to exploit private commercial activities. He has a real estate business that owns 350 Dutch properties which are rented out. Now a leftist political party proposed a “Prince Bernhard” – wealth tax for all owners with more than 5 properties. Of course he’s not happy that his name is attached to this for populist sentiments.

  53. OK says:

    Legally speaking as long as Harry is an HRH the queen holds all the cards on every single one of his titles and styles, she can revoke them at will without any need for parliament to become involved.

    When the HRH laws were reviewed in 1917, which clarified and gave parliament the power to revoke titles, a separate law was add which gave the Monarch the sole prerogative regarding all titles and styles owned by an HRH. The law was drafted to prevent any anti monarchy government from taking titles away from members of the royal family on a political whim .

    If Harry should have the HRH officially taken from him by the Queen issuing letters patent then it would actually mean she could not then removes his other titles as they no longer come under her prerogative and would need parliament to remove them. Which would only ever happen if he was charged with serious crimes against the nation.

    • Sofia says:

      Thing is, it sets a precedent and it opens the floor for let’s say a future labour government to say “okay let’s get rid of Andrew and his daughter’s HRH since they’re not working royals. You’ve already removed Harry and Meghan’s so there’s now a precedent set”. Might not happen in Elizabeth’s reign but I’m sure Charles would be much willing to listen to the government on that matter.

      This is more a case of “this is what they can do in theory but they aren’t going to do it realistically”. I think Ingrid Seward (who does not like the Sussexes at all) has apparently also said titles aren’t going anywhere. As has Penny Junor. Even the rota has quietened down about it because they probably realised the BRF aren’t going to do anything.

      I think they’ll be told to no longer use the Ducal titles but legally removing them + their HRH is a can of worms the BRF won’t want to open

  54. Flying Fish says:

    Strip Elizabeth, Philip, Charles, William and Kate’s of their titles and what would they be left with?
    If Harry and Meghan’s titles are taken away, then H&M should give up their associations with the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth countries should walk.