![Princess Lilibet as a baby with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and brother Archie](/https/www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/royal-family/2023/03/09/TELEMMGLPICT000281418990_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqDED8W8nT5gQ4SRyNA7YCbJsxFkfY0lSjs3JnSAie75o.jpeg?imwidth=680)
What’s the reason behind Harry and Meghan calling Lilibet ‘princess’?
When they have been so critical of the institution to which the titles belong why would the Sussexes want to accept them for their children?
![Princess Lilibet as a baby with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and brother Archie](/https/www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/royal-family/2023/03/09/TELEMMGLPICT000281418990_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqDED8W8nT5gQ4SRyNA7YCbJsxFkfY0lSjs3JnSAie75o.jpeg?imwidth=680)
When the subject of their children’s titles was raised during the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan did not seem entirely sold on the benefits of being a prince or princess.
“I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad,” the mother-of-two told the US chat show host in March 2021.
“And from my experience, a lot of pain,” she added.
Asked whether Archie being called a prince was important to her, the Duchess replied: “I’ve always just still been Meghan, right? So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.”
Yet she went on to describe her dismay at what she claimed were attempts by Buckingham Palace to change the George V “convention” while she was pregnant with Archie “because they didn’t want him to be a prince”.
Baulking at “the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be”, Meghan suggested it would be for her children to decide whether or not they would take their titles.
“It’s not their right to take it away,” she insisted of the so-called palace men in grey suits, adding: “It’s not our decision to make, right? I… wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.”
![Princess Lilibet on her first birthday](/https/www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/royal-family/2023/03/09/TELEMMGLPICT000298847224_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqrbV8E1vvGHaBNJhAQrBCabVXDNOJOgeDCVk0CMyD3uk.jpeg?imwidth=350)
On Wednesday, the world received confirmation that the choice had indeed been made with the release of a statement from the Sussexes’ spokesman which read: “I can confirm that Princess Lilibet Diana was christened on Friday, March 3 by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Rev John Taylor.”
It appears unlikely that at the age of three and one respectively, Archie and Lilibet will have taken the decision for themselves. So it is Harry and Meghan who have chosen for their children to be known as prince and princess. But why, when they have been so critical of the institution to which those titles belong? And what effect will it have on the King’s plans for a slimmed-down monarchy?
George V’s oft-quoted letters patent of 1917 stipulates that the grandchildren of a monarch automatically become prince and princesses at birth along with the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. (Queen Elizabeth II refined this in 2012 to cover all the living children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales – hence why Charlotte automatically became a princess and Louis a prince). Similarly, Archie and Lilibet automatically became a prince and princess when Charles III ascended the throne upon his mother’s death on September 8, 2022 (although they cannot use their HRH style as their father’s is in abeyance).
The King could have only changed that by issuing a second letters patent stripping them of their titles which, despite briefings to the contrary, the palace insists he never had any intention of doing. Sources close to the Sussexes suggest that they made it known to the Firm before Christmas that their children were going to take their titles. As a second statement released on behalf of the couple later on Wednesday stressed: “The children’s titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.” Harry and Meghan are thought to have been somewhat put out that the Royal family’s website had not been updated earlier.
Royal sources claim they were waiting for a formal announcement by the couple.
As such, the line of succession still referred to the Sussex children as Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor until it was updated on Thursday (March 9) following the LA christening announcement.
According to one well-placed insider, the royal powers that be were aware the “Princess Lilibet” statement was coming because it followed internal “discussions”.
It is not known whether these conversations extended beyond the different parties’ press offices to become a topic of family discourse but whatever the nature of the talks – the Sussexes’ decision does have implications for the future of the monarchy.
For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities?
Whatever the reason behind Harry and Meghan’s decision-making, their children are a cut above celebrity in America, where in the absence of a class system there is a hierarchy of fame and fortune.
But as Dr Craig Prescott, a lecturer in Law at Bangor University, has pointed out: “If they believe that this may benefit Archie and Lilibet in the future, is it worth the cost of an increased public profile?
“Do they risk becoming curiosities: an American Prince and an American Princess?”
Having fiercely guarded their children’s privacy, as well as their personal security, Harry and Meghan do not appear to have fully accounted for the fact that Archie and Lilibet may wish to live lives well out of the public eye. To coin a Sussex expression, how on earth will royal titles enable them to find their freedom?
![The Earl and Countess of Wessex](/https/www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/royal-family/2023/03/09/TELEMMGLPICT000298718715_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwSX5rhseiWKOo9p9OQ-ymek.jpeg?imwidth=350)
Princess Anne declined her late mother’s offer of titles for her children Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall, later revealing in an interview: “I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles.”
As such Peter, 45, and Zara, 41, have been free to pursue careers of their own – unburdened by the constraints of working royal life.
Despite Queen Elizabeth II’s 2012 tweak, the letters patent of 1917 remains inherently sexist in only applying to the children of sons of the sovereign and any daughters. The King might want to iron out that chink in due course, with Charlotte in mind as well as his hard-earned reputation as a royal moderniser.
Might he also be minded to overhaul the whole system to ensure the likes of George, Charlotte and Louis combine careers with royal duties? That would certainly help to avoid the “spare to the heir” syndrome that has plagued generations of royals – including his own warring sons. The children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex are similarly entitled to be a prince or princess but Edward and Sophie declined this in favour of courtesy titles – Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn.
The Countess has subsequently said it is “highly unlikely” that will change, amid suggestions the couple will become the next Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.
What’s interesting about the Sussexes’ decision is it aligns them with their fellow non-working royal the Duke of York whose daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have titles though rarely use them.
Referring to his girls as “blood princesses” Prince Andrew would often try to pull rank by claiming they needed extra security in a similar vein to Meghan’s Archie-must-have-a-title-for-his-own-protection claim on Oprah.
Yet some may question the wisdom of being associated with the behaviour of arguably the least popular prince in the House of Windsor.
![Eugenie and Beatrice both carry the title of Princess but rarely use it](/https/www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/royal-family/2023/03/09/TELEMMGLPICT000298468498_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwbq5v-5dkpJ2hEWYppeJOq0.jpeg?imwidth=350)
Not so much a pre-emptive strike, as a calculated move to reaffirm their children’s place in the palace pecking order, the timing of the Princess Lilibet announcement is interesting – coming just a week after reports emerged that the Queen Consort’s grandchildren will take a leading role in the Coronation on May 6.
With a save the date email having already been sent to their Montecito home, does the decision to take the titles mean we will not only be seeing Harry and Meghan at Westminster Abbey but Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet? Don’t bank on it.
Summing up the consensus behind palace walls, one royal insider remarked: “The thinking is that only Harry will come.” With Archie turning four on the day of the ceremony, Meghan and the children have the perfect get-out-of-Coronation-free card.