The 100-year-old protocol that suggests Harry and Meghan's children Archie and Lilibet should have titles

It would seem not a week can go by without Prince Harry and Meghan Markle being at the centre of a right royal cause celebre. This week, the drama stems from the private christening of Princess Lilibet Diana and the sudden addition of royal titles bestowed upon both herself and the now Prince Archie.

Of course, the news has spurred much debate about the addition of the HRH titles, with many criticising the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for complaining about what they considered their children’s “birthright” despite their much public, at times acrimonious split from the Royal family after seceding from Royal duties.

For many, that privilege should have been deprived from King Charles III’s grandson and granddaughter, given the fact that Meghan has numerous times discussed her distaste for Royal protocol and regulations. But on the flip side of that, what Meghan and Harry have spoken about, through representatives at this stage, is in itself part of a royal protocol that was made as far back as 1917 - long before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

There is also a growing call that it is unfair the likes of Zara Tindall and Paul Phillips, the daughter and son of Prince Anne, don’t have royal titles despite the 1917 Letters stating that they are entitled to be referred to as Prince and Princess. But a little digging around will ultimately show the reasons “why” the pair haven’t been bestowed those titles.

Peopleworld has dusted off our history books as we go back to the reign of King George V, with an additional visit to Edward VIII along the way, to clarify why Princess Lilibet Diana and Prince Archie should be entitled to their Royal titles and the opportunities that come along with it when they become adults.

How can Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana be bestowed royal titles?

This matter comes down to a series of edicts by then King George V regarding, amongst other matters, the topic of how royal titles would be bestowed upon new members of the Royal family.

In what is now known as the 1917 Letters Patent, George V wrote that “the children of the sons of any such Sovereign….shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.”

This meant that at the time of Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana’s birth, they could assume secondary titles such as Earl of Dumbarton, in the case of Prince Archie. However, this protocol kicked in after the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the ascension of King Charles III to the throne.

That King Charles III was now the reigning monarch, with his sons Harry and Prince William being the sons of the new Sovereign, meant that the 1917 Letters would now allow Harry and Meghan’s children to be bestowed the Prince and Princess title. It is, as representatives for the Sussexes rightfully stated, the children’s “birthright.”

Despite Harry and Meghan eschewing Royal life by stepping away from their duties and the support being a titled royal would offer, it would be unfair for their children to be deprived of what they are entitled to. It’s perhaps one of the few pieces of Royal protocol that Meghan is happy to follow - for the benefit of Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana.

What royals are entitled to titles but have decided against them?

Though there has been much outrage among royalists about Harry and Meghan stepping down from their roles, they are hardly the first to volunteer away their HRH titles, let alone be stripped of those titles.

Perhaps the most well-known situation involving a voluntary stepping away from a Royal title is that of Edward VIII, the queen’s uncle. He was set to marry Wallis Simpson, who was twice divorced, but British monarchs who were heads of the Church of England were not allowed to remarry divorcees if their ex-spouse was still living. Edward VIII, therefore, abdicated the throne in 1936 leading King George VI to take the throne - and then Elizabeth II shortly afterward.

Princess Anne also volunteered against Zara Tindall and Peter Phillps receiving HRH titles in an effort for them to live “normal lives,” while divorces led to the HRH removal for both Princess Diana and Sarah Ferguson after their respective splits from Kings Charles III and Prince Andrew. This edict was created on August 21 1996, stating that the wife of a member of the royal family loses the right to the style of HRH in the event of their divorce however are entitled to a “courtesy title,” such in the case as Diana, Princess of Wales.

There is also a stripping of a title and patronages due to bringing the Royal family into disrepute; this is the reason why despite still holding the title Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth removed his HRH title and additionally ensured he would no longer have any royal military affiliations or charitable patronages. He is still known as the Duke of York, a title gifted to him by his mother on his wedding day, and is still a prince of the United Kingdom.

But I thought Harry and Meghan seceded from the Royal family. Why the U-Turn? 

This has been ultimately the bone of contention for a lot of royalists and the throng of Harry/Meghan detractors - that they have decided to walk away from royal life, what right should they have to complain about the ‘birthright’ being deprived of Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana?

But if you look past who the parents are, and focus on the well-being of the children themselves, it becomes more apparent they are acting as parents, rather than “entitled celebrities.” There are several commissions that Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana will benefit from, especially when they reach their adult years.

By virtue of being granted HRH titles, it means should the pair wish to partake in philanthropic activities in the future that those charities would automatically receive royal patronage - allowing those charities to receive additional status in their endeavours by association with a family member with a Royal title.

There is also the level of security that titled royals are assured in their positions; something that Harry and Meghan have noted before was an issue when they first stepped away from their Royal duties. With such a level of scrutiny on the couple already from baying paparazzi, one can only imagine when the Prince and Princess reach their teenage and young adult years, the press attention on the pair could be insurmountable. Who are we to begrudge parents from safeguarding their children’s future?