Seward: Removing the Sussexes’ titles would really confuse the Americans

For years now, whenever the royalists want a quick anti-Sussex headline, they dust off the “should Prince Harry and Meghan’s titles be removed” conversation. Nevermind that it never goes anywhere, nevermind that it would likely take a government intervention to remove the titles, nevermind that Harry actually offered to “give back” the Sussex titles when he and Meghan Sussexited in 2020. The royalists and the actual monarchy want to continue to hold the titles over Harry and Meghan’s heads, like removing the titles is some big threat or punishment. As I’ve said for a while now, the real issue is that the monarchy uses those titles as THEIR tie to Harry and Meghan, as their claim of ownership over H&M. In recent months, even the royalists acknowledge that the title-removal talk is a huge trap, but that hasn’t stopped King Charles and Prince William from talking about it constantly. Well, Ingrid Seward has some thoughts and she’s giving one explanation I haven’t heard verbalized before.

Meghan Markle would be known as Princess Henry if she loses her title as the Duchess of Sussex, according to a royal expert. Ingrid Seward, editor in chief of Majesty Magazine, told The Royal Beat that it’s unlikely Meghan, 42, and Prince Harry, 39, will be stripped of their royal titles by King Charles III, even though they quit their royal duties in 2020.

“I don’t think anything will happen to the titles because, if they lose their titles, Harry is still a prince of the blood and Meghan instead of being the Duchess of Sussex, [would] be Princess Henry,” Seward said, according to The Mirror.

“That really would [confuse the Americans],” she added. “I think [it’s] probably best just to leave it because it looks unkind, it looks unnecessary.”

Prince Harry was born Prince Henry Charles Albert David, but he obviously goes by Harry. So, if Meghan lost her title as Duchess of Sussex, she would technically be called Princess Henry, since it’s royal tradition that a princess takes an official title with her husband’s name. The same rule applies for Kate Middleton, who was technically known as Princess William — but is referred to as the Princess of Wales or the Duchess of Cambridge — when she married Prince William in 2011.

However, as Seward pointed out, Harry and Meghan will likely be known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex forever.

“The Queen gave them the titles, let them keep them – they’re going to be ‘H and M’ anyway,” she said. “I think the best thing is to leave them, ignore them, and let them get on with it – which is really what the Palace and the Royal Family are doing.”

[From Page Six]

“That really would [confuse the Americans].” I mean… she’s actually right, but I can’t believe Seward is admitting that “what will the Americans call H&M” is a factor in the monarchy’s discussions. People Magazine and other American outlets already conflate titles and create shorthand names for royal women, as we do on this blog as well, mostly as a space issue in headlines. “The Duchess of Cambridge” became Duchess Kate, then the Princess of Wales became Princess Kate. It’s easier to refer to them as “the Sussexes” too – less complicated, and it’s simply their “brand” and celebrity name.

Also, there’s a hidden reason for why the titles will not be removed – it’s an admission that the titles are arbitrary, that the Special Royal Blood Club isn’t real, and if titles can be removed on a whim, why have those whims never been extended to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

106 Responses to “Seward: Removing the Sussexes’ titles would really confuse the Americans”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Agnes says:

    Those insular British reporters will never understand how much we Americans loathe the Monarchy and all of its faux glory. I wish PH would get American citizenship and cut the cord.

    • Chica says:

      Didn’t Americans get rid of monarchy in war of independence? Isn’t the Constitution a repudiation of monarchy?

      • Lizzie says:

        I think it was mostly about taxes.

      • Murphy says:

        Yeah it was more so about taxation without representation.
        If they despised monarchy so much they wouldn’t have offered to make George Washington the new King (he chose to be a president instead)

      • Lise says:

        Eh – it wasn’t really mostly about taxes. A series of tax acts precipitated the Revolution – but it was just as much about sovereignty. Colonists did not have representation in the Parliament that enacted the tax acts. This was also at the time that conversation about citizenship v subjecthood was gaining traction in the collective mind of the 18th century socio-political world. The tax acts represented the essential facet of an emerging American identity that no longer saw themselves as inferior (in social and economic terms) from the “mother country.”

        So, yes, the Revolution was a repudiation of the monarchy, the concept of blood royal (however unequal the actual colonial society at the time). The Founders were adamant that there would be no noble titles granted.

        Anyway – all this to say that the British media do not understand the American disregard for monarchy. They have this weird, false idea that we will care whether H&M have titles. We’ll still call them Prince Harry and Meghan, because that is how they were first introduced to the public. We find it interesting in a sort of side show way, but we do not ultimately care about titles. They have no meaning in our society. I find the British media’s preoccupation with what the Americans think is more interesting anyway for their inability to understand a cultural system that is not so based on clearly demarcated class structure.

        This was a bit of a tangent, but I am a historian that specializes in the 18th century, particularly the American and French Revolutions and I could not help myself.

      • EmpressCakey says:

        Yes, “all men are created equal” was definitely a rejection of monarchy. The idea that a king and the nobility were “higher” and deserved more respect, status, etc was fully rejected. Americans wanted to be citizens, not subjects.

      • BeanieBean says:

        To add to @Lise’s excellent comment, from the Constitution:

        Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

        So yes, it’s not just about taxation without representation.

      • Sweet says:

        Yes, it was not nearly just about taxes. The Constitution created something unique in Western history at that time – a balance of power and an agreed-upon peaceful regular transfer of power. Hence, you have three branches of government, each with checks and balances. It was a conscious repudiation of the monarchy and of the Parliamentary system. So, it was narrowly about taxation without representation and widely to try and make sure that money and land were not arbitrarily concentrated in the hands of the few aristocrats who did not earn it.

      • Oh come on. says:

        Heh the American colonists wanted to get rid of the British King for all the reasons listed, plus most of them were slavers who were worried the British Crown might be too respectful of Indigenous sovereignty, and might abolish slavery. The Founders didn’t all want the same thing: some of them wanted GW to become king; Alexander Hamilton, first secretary of the treasury, argued (unsuccessfully) that the cabinet positions should be inherited by male promogeniture. Let’s not paint an overly rosy picture of why the American colonists were upset enough to found a new government.

        But contemporary Americans are pretty united in having no respect for monarchy as a system of government.

      • aftershocks says:

        True. I will also say that although it’s the royal titles that first grab the public’s attention and help provide the Sussexes with a unique platform, it’s who they are as kind, caring humans, and what they do with the platform they have that makes a huge difference. In other words, the appeal of royal celebrity wears thin and dissipates unless there is something substantive, worthwhile and interesting that exists behind the public-facing royal facade.

      • Lise says:

        I’m not painting a rosy picture of the Founders, but I think that it is important to note the difference in the relationship of the colonists with the institution of monarchy itself at the time. Each colony’s government had some self-government, which Westminster decided to overrule and *that* triggered the opposition to the Tax Acts. It was the denial of sovereignty – which is a separated but related issue to male primogeniture (which was the default for government policy and property rights, inheritance – throughout Western Europe). It wasn’t a stretch for Hamilton to even support this notion – though it wasn’t entirely common either.

        This is also a separate but related issue to the desire to preserve slavery. Many of the members of the Continental Congress and then the Constitutional Convention were slavers (about half), which is reflected in the issue of slavery itself at the time of the Revolution. It was more important to some colonies than others. The South certainly had the vast majority of slaves. The North’s slave population was between 1-4%; some colonies were banning slavery during the Revolutionary War years. Abolition was emerging as a cause in Britain, but it was almost non-existent in the early 1770s. Moreover, aristocrats, MPs and even the Crown itself held “interests” in plantations in the West Indies; they weren’t going to abolish it in the colonies themselves. They abolished it in England – placing the visual of slavery at a remove from the home country so as to keep profiting from it out of sight.

        The 1619 Project – which I have generally enjoyed – makes some journalistic assumptions about historical cause surrounding the Revolution that I can’t entirely agree with. It is certainly possible that some slavers worried about abolition. However, there is not a lot of primary evidence that supports the assertions – though there is some secondary circumstantial evidence. My issue is that such an assertion imbibes the British abolition societies with more cultural power than they had at that moment in time and thus a sheen of abolition to the British side in the Revolution which it also didn’t have. The Founders were not heroes in this respect and neither were the British.

        Though I do agree with you that there is a tendency sometimes to look at the Founders through rose-colored glasses. I mean, there is an almost Founders Vogue that pops up every now and then in American culture.

      • Tanisha says:

        It was also about slavery. Britain was working to abolish slavery and the Americans didn’t want to give that up either. It was making them money. So there’s that as well.

      • Lise says:

        Britain itself was not working to abolish slavery at the time. Let’s not paint Parliament with a rosy hue either. There were certain court cases (Somerset, 1772 ; Knight v Wedderburn, 1774-1778 – and the Knight case pertained to Scotland only), but it was not Parliament nor Britain as a whole. British abolition societies did not gain traction until the 1780s.

        The British government no more wanted to get rid of slavery than the colonies/early American government because it was just as much a profit-making venture for them. They outlawed the slave trade, not slavery within the empire; and it was found that it was cheaper to ‘produce’ slaves through the children of existing slaves than to bring them from Africa. Yes, there were some abolitionists within Britain, but it was not the British government at this time.

      • GrnieWnie says:

        The Constitution is not about the monarchy, but let’s be clear: the Declaration of Independence is. The famous phrase “all men are created equal” is absolutely a repudiation of the monarchy (I don’t know why any scholar sees it as a paradox, given slavery?? Hello!!). That wasn’t a statement about the equality of the races, but the equality of all men as democratic subjects. It was a rejection of the divine right of kings, of the notion that a monarch was God’s chosen, and an affirmation that all men are equal – not divided into royalty and commoner, or God’s chosen vs the rest.

      • Isabella says:

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
        Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

        The revolution was about ridding the U.S. of kings and queens, establishing a democratic republic with a written constitution, run by people who were elected, not born into the system. Imagine Charles and Camilla calling the shots. Dear God.

        The revolution was in 1776. Britian didn’t abolish slavery until 1885. And Britain had slave colonies all over the world, not just in the U.S. The effects are felt to this day, in all of them.

      • Fortuona says:


        By 1885 Britain had spent 50 years fighting Slavery at that point with the African Squadrons and then moved to Africa’s East coast and fought the Muslim slavers

        They banned the Slave Trade in 1807 and in th colonies since 1833 . People confuse paying off all of the Slave Holders in the 1830’s by taking out massive loans to do it which was the start of the National Debt ( and also funded a squadron off of Africa’s Western Coast to do it ) which they eventually paid off about 10 years ago
        So Cumberbitches family for example got paid out in 1835 and not in 2015 at which point there had been at least a dozen collapses of government , trading companies that went bust , 2 World Wars and several world wide depressions

      • Nic919 says:

        Canada was a British colony and it had slavery far longer than most want to admit. Even though the slave trade was banned in the 1830s it did not automatically free all slaves north of the U.S. border once that law was passed.

        So the British pretending they were better on the issue is utter bs. I am not as familiar with what went down in the Caribbean, but I am sure it was not an immediate transition to all slaves being free.

        Besides the Americans kept it officially for another 30 years, but the British profited from owning slaves in the plantations and kept getting paid for losing their “property” until the 1990s.

      • Fortuona says:


        Nobody was being paid in the 1990’s . UK Gov and took out massive loans to pay all the planters off in 1835 what was being paid was the loans and the interest on in that was held up by paying for 2 global wars

        It is where the original National Debt came from

        Canada had the grand total of 1500 Black slaves out of the 4200 in 1833 who were freed and the other 2800 were Pawnees held by the tribes and the 1833 Act was already a gonner in Canada as they had all signed the Act Against Slavery from 1795 till 1819 in all the Canadian Provinces
        In the Caribbean the Government in the UK then ran it via the Governors until independance

      • Parsley says:

        On the 1808 comment:
        the US abolished international slave trade in 1808. That possibility is opened up in the Constitution which guaranteed it could not be abolished till then. The law passed in 1807 with an activation date of January 1, 1808.

    • Nicole says:

      Loathe is a bit strong, but I do concur that I truly do not understand the concept of Royalty. Sadly, I think watching Bridgerton has helped me to understand land and titles a LITTLE BIT more. But the reality is as Americans we broke free from the concept of Aristocracy when we had the Revolutionary War. While our own system is problematic as well, there is at least the “notion” of class mobility. This Royalty collusion with papers and the societal hierarchy is something I truly just don’t understand.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      Agnes, I think we do and we don’t. We certainly loathe the idea of having someone to rule over us, but Americans seem to love trying to make people into prince/princesses. JFK Jr was often called America’s prince and there’s an obsessive desire by many to want to be a Disney Princess etc.

      • Parsley says:

        Too true, Sussexwatcher, on the obsession with Disney princesses. 😆
        Sometimes I think this has to do with the long dresses they wear as much as anything else!

    • Bean says:

      Technically- it’s Prince Harry AND Princess Meghan. She was made a Princess in Nigeria.

      • harpervalleypta says:

        Oh that would be *awesome* if the common style becomes to refer to Meghan by her Nigerian titles.

        But of course the racists in UK would never admit the validity of royal titles outside of Europe.

      • jazzbaby1 says:


    • StarWonderful says:

      Hear hear!

  2. Pinkosaurus says:

    If they do introduce that legislation, I hope a Labour government also gets rid of Andrew’s’s title and HRH and, oh, how about finally listening to Wales and stop calling the heir the Prince of Wales?

    • Tursitops says:

      That’s just logic and crazy talk. Next you’ll be suggesting that people don’t have to BOW to other, normal, carbon-based humans, or that people who derive their funding from the public purse should have to disclose their finances, and not be allowed special court treatment such as sealing their wills.

      It’s funny how anarchy and monarchy are such similar words, non?

    • Fortuona says:

      Or Lord of the Isles ,Great Steward of Scotland and Duke of Rothesay

  3. Speaking as an American. I would not be confused as long as there is a Harry or Meg in there I would know who they are.

    • Skyline says:

      I tend to think that “Princess Henry” would mainly make Americans laugh. It would make the British system look dated, as it is. Imagine the late-night takes!

  4. ML says:

    Confusing Americans?!
    No: 1. It requires an Act of Parliament. 2. As stated—Prince Andrew. 3. Lots of nobility with titles don’t want this precedent.

    • rosa mwemaid says:

      Which party wants to be accused of racism if they take the Sussexes but not the Yorks. It was racism that drove the Sussexes out of the country and it is racism that is driving this campaign as well, meanwhile Andrew gets his mum to pay of his convenience.

      • Oh come on. says:

        Hehe I don’t think either of the two main parties contending for power is all that worried about being accused of racism? Given that Sunak is campaigning on being cruel to immigrants and refugees, and Starmer is shameless about trying to make Labour’s few Black and Brown MPs feel as unwelcome as possible in the party.

  5. Nanny to the Rescue says:

    I don’t think removing their titles would affect how they are addressed by most media (except the British). Does anybody really care about princes and princesses as “political” entities? Harry will always be Prince Harry because that’s his “famous” name, not because he’s a prince.

    • SamuelWhiskers says:

      Yes exactly. And they can maybe strip their Ducal titles but they can’t strip the title of Prince because Harry is and will always be the son of a monarch. I might be wrong but I think stripping their Sussex title would mean Meghan’s title officially defaults to Prince Henry of Wales (because I assume removing their Sussex title means Harry goes back to being a Wales??) and the last thing they want is 2 Princesses of Wales running around. I might be wrong and it would make her Princess Henry of Sussex but I know removing ducal means they revert to their second highest title which in Meghan’s case would be Princess Henry.

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        He was only a Wales when he his father was POW, now he is Prince Henry the son of the King, Meghan is now a princess in her own right and can be called Princess Meghan, and there is nothing the RF or the government can do about that, thanks to the Nigerian Kings. Which is more than Kate. Kate can only be The Princess of Wales or Princess William. Princess Kate is wrong.

      • Nanny to the Rescue says:

        I don’t know what happens with their titles if one gets removed, but eventough they are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, I mostly see them mentioned as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Those are the most recognisable names to most of the public, so they get used a lot.

        But in my eyes, that takes nothing from them, like the Sussex title doesn’t add anything to them. It’s just a title, and one of value only in the country they have fled.

      • Afken says:

        Harry wouldn’t be wales now that his father is king. He’d be The Prince Henry of the United Kingdom and Meghan would take the feminine equivalent Princess Henry of the United Kingdom. Their children are “of Sussex” as they have the territorial suffix due to Harry and Meghan’s current title. If they were to be stripped though, I think they’d be “of the United Kingdom” as well.

      • SamuelWhiskers says:

        Thank you for clarifying!

        I’m sure the last thing the BRF wants is for Meghan to officially hold the title Princess of the United Kingdom!

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        It’s actually her job description on Archie’s birth certificate, the same for Kate on her children’s birth certificates.

      • aftershocks says:

        Yeah, @Afken, Harry’s name wouldn’t revert back to Wales, as King Charles III is no longer the Prince of Wales. Neither would Harry’s formal title of address include ‘of the United Kingdom.’ That is more in reference to a job title or official dilpomatic status. Probably, the correct form of address, in respect to titles, would be ‘The Prince and Princess Henry of Windsor,’ since Harry’s father, Chuck, currently presides over the House of Windsor. Who knows? Who cares, really? 🤷🏽‍♀️ We already adoringly regard Haz and Meg as the glamorous, lovestruck Duke & Duchess of Montecito’s gorgeous, infinite oodles of bathrooms, Riven Rock estate! 🌴🌴 🌄 🌈

      • Nic919 says:

        Harry became HRH The Prince Henry when Charles became king. Nothing else is added if we don’t include the sussex dukedom.

        Just as Andrew is HRH The Prince Andrew and Edward is HRH The Prince Edward when they were born, as their mother was Queen.

    • Proud Mary says:

      Yes, Harry will always be Prince Harry, therefore with title removal, Meghan will become “Princess Henry of Wales.” And American will opt for the short form “Princess of Wales..” A black princess of wales, we can’t have that! And I’m surprise that Kaiser neglected to mention this as the real reason the titles will not be removed.

      But I think an even more salient issue involves the royal rota rats coming to grips with the fact that all the stripping of patronages, and all the noise and vicious attacks have not turned the international community against Harry and Meghan. So what’s a gal like Angry Sewage to do but cry over her bottle of “strip them of the titles.”

      • SussexWatcher says:

        Proud Mary, they’re not ‘of Wales’ anymore. When Chuckles became king, Harry became The Prince Henry and Meghan became The Princess Henry. And the children became Prince Archie of Sussex/Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

        I agree with others that confusing Americans isn’t why the title won’t be removed (since even royal “experts” and publications like People can’t currently get their titles correct -calling Harry, Prince Henry instead of The Prince Henry). It’s because then they’d have to remove the pedo’s and any other titled person could be at risk of losing their title on the whim of the monarch/parliment.

      • Nanny to the Rescue says:

        @ SussexWatcher – Wait, THE is part of their titles? And Harry becomes Henry, why? Does he count as all grown up all of a sudden – not because of his age like in normal systems, but because he’s the son, not the grandson, of the monarch? All of this is silly. (Sorry, Brits.) I think he’ll always remain Prince Harry to most people.

      • SussexWatcher says:

        Nanny – I think the The addition is to show they are the children of the monarch and not just any Prince Henry. He’s THE Prince Henry. And also maybe because they no longer have a location designation (like Harry did when Chuckles was PoW and Harry was Prince Henry/Harry of Wales). I could be totally wrong about that though because I just did a quick search and now can’t find supporting information! But that was my understanding of the titles. E.g. before becoming king, Chuckles was The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, etc.

        Henry is his legal name so that’s why his title is technically The Prince Henry, even though he goes by Prince Harry since birth.

      • Magdalena says:

        @Nanny to the Rescue: Yes, that is correct. “The” is part of their titles. That is why the Wilkipedia entries are incorrect. “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” actually means that she is divorced from H. That is why it’s Sarah, Duchess of York and no longer “The Duchess of York” (even though she signed her name as the latter years after she and Andrew divorced). THE Duchess of Sussex is the wife of the Duke. That’s why Buckingham Palace had to backtrack after they first put out that M would be known as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” when they stepped back. They corrected this to “Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex” because that THE is a very important signifier. It irks me to no end how many so-called reporters and “experts” on the American side keep writing “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” as though they are incapable of doing basic research – even though the Sussexes’ own websites and Meghan’s letters and their spokespeople always include the “THE” in their correspondence.

        And yes, SussexWatcher is correct regarding the prefix “The” being attached to the children of the monarch, though I could have sworn that this prefix was also used for Harry while he was the grandchild of the monarch.

      • Nic919 says:

        The prefix The is only for the children of the monarch. If it was used before it was in error.

    • Chantal1 says:

      +1 to Prince Harry being his famous name (and bc he’s one of Princess Diana’s sons).

  6. Elizabeth Bowman says:

    These people are so dedicated to being hateful! Who cares?!? This is obsessive at this point. The titles discussion has been had ad nauseum. They really have nothing to contribute other than “durrr Meghan bad durrr.”

  7. SamuelWhiskers says:

    It absolutely wouldn’t. Most people wouldn’t even notice and would continue to call them Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (the same way everyone always called his mother ‘Princess Diana’ when that was a title the press and public bestowed on her, never her legal or official title) and the minority who even noticed would think the BRF were being petty and would ask Qs as to why Harry has his title stripped and not Andrew.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, most every article calls her Meghan Markle.

    • Chrissy says:

      Totally agree. The general public call them Prince Harry and Meghan Markel anyway. Or just Harry and Meghan. (shrug)

  8. aquarius64 says:

    The one thing I see about not removing the Sussex titles is they is no due process. The sovereign can take a title away on a whim. The last time titles were taken was during World War l, where the titleholders were colluding with enemies of the UK, Germany. IMO that’s just cause; but you have no such evidence with Harry and Meghan. Charles and William open up a Pandora’s Box with Andrew’s titles on the block and you know he threatened Charles and William if they come for his titles. It also exposes members of the aristocracy, including members of the House of Lords. All parties have not thought this through.

  9. equality says:

    Does she really think that Americans care what actual titles are? We use whatever titles we want for whomever we want. It doesn’t take any monarch’s intervention or Parliament.

  10. Brassy Rebel says:

    I’m an American and not that easily confused by titles—I reject them all. Sometimes to avoid repetition I refer to H&M as the Sussexes, but that’s as close as I ever get to using a royal title. To me, you can’t be a republican and go around throwing royal titles about. They’re just Charles, Camilla, William etc., as far as I’m concerned. I’m looking forward to the day that’s all they are to everyone in Great Britain.

  11. Lau says:

    I wonder how they would react if Harry decided to take Meghan’s name instead. They would probably collectively lose their minds and then publish a thousand articles explaining how Meghan controls Harry.

  12. Molly says:

    When British papers run stories about the US Supreme Court, they don’t capitalize it. They say “United States supreme court.” Because it’s not THEIRS, they don’t have to go through all the pomp and being proper about it.

    Same way when Americans talk about the UK royals. We’ll call them whatever we feel like. No one’s obligated to use the exact title or respect their pomp when we’re not from there.

  13. Whyforthelove says:

    Nah it would not confuse me at all. We will just call them by their name. Other prominent names we use, George Washington, Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson… we do OK with names thanks Ms Seward

  14. MsIam says:

    Ingrid is so full of sh*t that someone should send her a case of Milk of Magnesia. From America. “I think the best thing is to leave them, ignore them, and let them get on with it – which is really what the Palace and the Royal Family are doing.” Oh really? And how many “invitation to Balmoral” stories are you and your media cronies planning to write this summer Ingrid? Along with the occasional “incandescent with rage” screeds. Anything to keep from writing about #WhereisKate?

  15. ShazBot says:

    “I think the best thing is to leave them, ignore them, and let them get on with it – which is really what the Palace and the Royal Family are doing.”

    So close! It is the best thing, but the Palace and RF are definitely not doing that.

    • Sue says:

      And even if by some miracle the Palace and the RF actually do stop commenting about H&M and just let them get on with their lives we all know the toxic British media is never going to let that happen. A lot of the stories may be coming from palace sources but most of them are just pure speculation as the media cannot let a single bloody day go by without printing something, anything, about H&M.

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        They can’t afford not to print something the DE and the DMs best earners.

    • Proud Mary says:

      When was the last time you heard Sewage speak about any royals other than the Sussexes? Even when she mentions the others it’s in passing while vomiting some nonsense about H&M. She will be out of a job if she doesn’t talk about them. What else would talk about, “where’s Kate?” There’s clearly a palace embargo on that topic!

    • Debbie says:


  16. Farallon says:

    At this point, Duke, Duchess, and even Sussex are more like sobriquets than titles. He’s Prince Harry in UK media but they are known as Harry and Meghan around the world. And it’s true the monarchy needs them to retain their titles in order to have a reason to fixate on their every move.

  17. bisynaptic says:

    They’re catching on to the fact that their chauvinistic naming conventions will not go over well, with the bulk of the American public. We will probably end up just calling her “Princess Meghan”.

  18. Jais says:

    Americans would find it weird to call Meghan, Princess Henry of Wales so they’d probably just call her Princess Meghan. Until I started paying attention to all this stuff with Harry and Meghan, I would’ve thought that princesses were ranked higher than duchesses. So whether Meghan is called a duchess or not isn’t that big of a deal in America, but her being a princess can’t change and that’s what matters. It’s the Disney-effect. For the average person who doesn’t know much about the monarchy’s titles, she married Prince Harry so we think she’s a princess except for some reason the Brits keep calling call her a duchess😂

    • rosa mwemaid says:

      Sussex is a royal duchy, as is Cambridge, York, Clarence, Lancaster, etc. Clarence isn’t used any longer, due to the D of C being found guilty of treason in 1478.

      • Teagirl says:

        Clarence was used again but as a double peerage, Clarence & St Andrews and Clarence and Avondale. i think the holders were sons or grandsons of Q Victoria.
        One of them, the Avondale one I think, was suggested to be Jack the Ripper!

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        Never heard of them before, been reading about the Avondale one, Interesting,

  19. Ali says:

    I would love the sussexes to renounce their titles. Send them back to the salty isle and shut them up.

    • The Hench says:

      Actually that would be hilarious. They could announce that they have decided to go with the titles accorded by birthright and now wish to be known only as Prince and Princess – which are, in fact, more senior in aristo terms than Duke and Duchess.

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        And Meghan doesn’t have to be Princess Henry thanks to the Nigerian Kings, she can be Princess Meghan.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      I loathe monarchy (I couldn’t stomach bowing and curtseying — ugh) … but I don’t think H&M should reject their titles.

      Meghan is the first member of the royal family whom we know is biracial. The Sussex kids should remain in the line of succession, titles and all. If people are going to buy the whole birthright nonsense, Lili and Archie should keep their birthrights, too.

      • Square2 says:

        I don’t think Monachy & Royals have any roles in this modern era around the world. However The BRF & BM & a lot of Brits are such racists, l want Meghan, A & L, who have black blood, forever recorded in the BRF historical records. Yes, I’m petty.

      • rosa mwemaid says:

        Wife of George III, Known as the black Queen Grandmother of Queen Victoria. Also there is Philippa of Hainault, Wife of Edward III though to be Moorish, but I can’t see how. Edward III is reputed to be an ancestor of both Kate and Meghan.

  20. Pork Belly says:

    And taking away the Sussexes’ titles creates a precedent, as in first H&M now what about the pedophile brother of the King.

  21. Amy Bee says:

    “there’s a hidden reason for why the titles will not be removed – it’s an admission that the titles are arbitrary, that the Special Royal Blood Club isn’t real, and if titles can be removed on a whim, why have those whims never been extended to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York?”

    This is the real reason why the titles will never be removed and why the Palace rejected Harry’s offer to give up the titles. Plus, I think the Royal Family wants to keep the link with Harry and Meghan so that they can get some of their shine and so that the press could continue to report on them. It’s why the British press insist on calling Harry and Meghan’s visit to Nigeria, a royal tour. They want to say that Harry and Meghan were only successful because of their connection to the family.

    • Teagirl says:

      Currently titles can only be removed when treason is proved. IIRC certain peers were treated so in WW1. I think the govt has to do it, not the monarch.
      Interestingly enough there is a bill in the UK parliament to change how titles are removed. The description says “A Bill to give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch on their own initiative or following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament; and for connected purposes.”
      It appears to have been tabled in 2022/2023 but is still in review somewhere.

      • Interestingly, too, I think that was a Labour bill.

        Here’s a bit where it seems very focused on Andrew and even other peerages and. Russian oligarch, hence why it will probably never pass lol. From Rachael Maskell’s website, the bill:

        “ Currently, there is no mechanism for a title to be removed, meaning that despite much public outcry Prince Andrew has continued to carry his Duke of York title, even after many of his other titles have been removed by the Queen.
        The Bill will address a deficiency in the law and enabling this titles to be removed. This legislation would also address widespread concern about the inability to remove peerages from those who have been convicted of criminal offences, and also concern that a Russian Oligarch has been able to sit in the Lords following the award of a Peerage by the Prime Minister.

        A survey by York Press earlier this year showed that 80% of local residents wanted the association of Andrew, the current Duke of York to be disassociated with our city, not least due to the ambassadorial role that it carries. This April, City of York Council, removed his Freedom of the City.”

      • sevenblue says:

        They are never gonna give that power to the monarch. The people who are gonna vote for it want titles themselves, so setting an easy mechanism to remove titles can affect them too. A future monarch who wants to meddle with the work of those elected representatives can threaten their titles. They are never gonna have that.

  22. Oh come on. says:

    Yeah, if they did that, most Americans would be confused. Confused why the Brits think most Americans would even hear about it if H&M’s titles were removed, and confused why we should care what those dried-out husks overseas call them.

  23. Gabby says:

    Ingrid needs to ease up on the cocktails and f*ck all the way off. Americans see clearly what is going on over there. We see that the pallid and useless BRF adds no value for UK taxpayers and we are grateful to be free of it. As are the Sussexes.

    That seems to be the new RF and BM message…..anyone who likes, does business with, or welcomes H&M only does so because they are “confused”. Nigeria, Netflix, America, any other countries. All confused because the Sussexes are acting as “faux” royals. Please. Get your own house in order.

  24. BeanieBean says:

    ‘Confuse the Americans’??? C’mon, we’re not that dumb! And why oh why would what we think have any bearing on an action the monarchy, or Parliament, takes? They didn’t take our thoughts into consideration when they chose an election date this year–July 4th! FREEDOM!!

    • kirk says:

      Merely Seward’s attempt to ingratiate herself with “the Americans.” As if, girl.
      Choice of election day is also ??? Sunak.

  25. Saucy&Sassy says:

    I’ve often thought they should just change the last name for all four of them. They have established Sussex as part of their brand, so make it Sussex. Frankly, I always enjoy being a bit condescended to as an American. NOT. I think we understand enough. What you’re not saying and should be is that the Americans will call them whatever we choose to. The British Monarchy does not have a say in the US.

    The only thing I can say about the title “Princess Henry” is that of course they have to show ownership of the woman by the man. Old white men have made the rules to suit themselves.

    • Localady says:

      If they arbitrarily as their whims blew tried yet again to mess w her and called M ‘Princess Henry’ I betcha we’d hear her amazingly protective hubs refer to himselfdeprecatingly as ‘Prince Meghan’, with LOVING humor 💕

      Flip marriage ‘ownership’ to women and a Localady may just choose to walk down the aisle onna these days.

  26. TN Democrat says:

    Removing the Sussex title is beyond William and Charles’s scope of power and the aristocrats that control them won’t tolerate the status quo being disrupted. Yanking the Sussex title would start a domino effect the landed lords, earls and dukes know better than to start. Seward is the sewer of rota rats. All Harry did was leave and refuse to allow himself and his family to be sacrificed so Camiila and Will-not could recieve good PR. Andrew, Charles, Camilla and Will-not actually have dark deeds in their past. Harry left 4 and a half years ago. Move on to the sorry lot left and cover the cost versus benefit of the monarchy.

  27. Freddy says:

    The UK tabloids have never called Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex or Duchess Meghan–they still call her Meghan Markle. Just as they never call Catherine the Princess of Wales–they still call her Kate Middleton. Which, as a “confused” American, is rude on both counts.

  28. Quara says:

    I know it won’t ever happen, but I do giggle at the thought that should the Sussex titles ever be removed, Harry could officially take on “Markle” as his last name.

  29. Izzy says:

    LMAO no, Miss Sewer, it wouldn’t confuse us. We would understand it for exactly the petty, churlish, nasty move it is.

    And we would still call Meghan our Queen and Harry “Good King Henry.”

  30. tamsin says:

    I don’t know why the UK has to have this not exactly rational way of designating titles. Europeans make their married ins princesses or princes, eg Princess Mary of Denmark, or Prince Daniel of Sweden. Princess Michael is the only one who has to use the awkward title because Prince Michael has no other title. I don’t think Prince Philip became Prince until the Queen acceded to the throne. Duke of Edinburgh was a title given to him by King George VI because Philip had to give up all of his titles upon marriage to Elizabeth.

    • Fortuona says:

      It is not just Prince Michael it is also their sister in Princess Alexandria because their Grandad was king , the Duke of Gloucester was Prince Richard until his elder brother then father died and the reason the Queen was Princess Elizabeth before her uncle gave they throne up

      Anne and Edward did not want their kids to be titled or we wouls have another 4 princes/princess’ in the UK

      It was an Act of Patent passed under George V that is to blame for it as you could not have ‘princes’ outside of the close family

  31. Glossop says:

    Lise, love your comments! Anyone who thinks that the British were ready to abolish slavery in 1700s is naïve. All you have to do is look at British India even as late as the early 20th century. There was plenty of slavery in India at the hands of the Brits – who have always always and always only ever been about grabbing loot from wherever they can and they’ve been quite successful at it until about 75 years ago.

  32. monlette says:

    It would confuse some Brits too. I have seen a few who think Catherine is eligible to be regent and Anne has a better shot at becoming monarch than Harry does.

  33. Dierski says:

    Americans don’t care much for titles – everyone I know refers to them as ‘Harry & Meghan’ and probably don’t even know what their official titles are. Americans don’t give two shts about monarchy.

  34. blueberry says:

    I don’t really care about the titles but just in a nosy/curious way want to know what little Archie and Lili write on their schoolwork. Like what’s their normal last name. (The other kids too I guess?)

    • sevenblue says:

      I think it was reported before that the children are using Sussex as their surname. Isn’t that the traditional way? Harry used Wales as his surname when he was on the army and his father was the Prince of Wales. So, there is nothing different.

    • aftershocks says:

      Archie and Lili used ‘Mountbatten Windsor’ until very recently, when their surnames officially changed to ‘Sussex.’ (I believe this occurred after grumpy old absent grandpa, Chuck, finally allowed the kids’ royal titles to be publicly acknowledged on the royal firm’s website). Obviously, ‘Sussex’ has much fewer letters, and it’s much easier to vocalize and to write out! Also, it’s helpful for them all in unifying use of one surname, for children and parents. ♾️