A photo showing a gift basket with a card reading “with the compliments of HRH The Duchess of Sussex” has sparked debate about royal title usage. Critics claim this violates Meghan and Prince Harry’s agreement not to use their HRH titles after stepping down as working royals in January 2020.
However, a spokesperson for the couple clarified they haven’t broken any agreement as this was a private note. The 2020 agreement with Queen Elizabeth specified the Sussexes “will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the royal family,” but this didn’t remove the titles – it only restricted their use.
As explained in the January 2020 announcement, the Duke and Duchess “formally retain their titles of ‘His/Her Royal Highness’ but no longer actively use their ‘HRH’s” in official capacity.
Sources close to the couple noted that “this was only a private use of the title and was for a gift given more than a year ago.” Their spokesperson further clarified: “While they do not publicly use ‘HRH,’ this was a personal gift, and their titles remain.”
This situation highlights the distinction between possessing royal titles and their public usage, a nuance often overlooked in royal coverage.
Perhaps in reaction to the private gift using H.R.H, The Daily Beast’s recent claim that Prince William plans to strip Harry and Meghan of their HRH titles upon becoming king relies on questionable sources and misrepresents royal protocols. The article primarily cites anonymous “friends of William” and “former courtiers” without verifying their credibility. It also mischaracterizes the 2020 Sandringham Agreement, which established that the Sussexes would not use their HRH titles publicly but legally retain them – a crucial distinction often overlooked.
While former politician Norman Baker suggests a monarch could revoke HRH status via “royal fiat,” no precedent exists for such action without divorce or gross misconduct. Even Princess Diana retained “Princess of Wales” as a courtesy title after her divorce.
The suggestion that William could unilaterally remove titles oversimplifies constitutional complexities. Any such action would likely require formal Letters Patent and could risk significant public backlash given the couple’s global profile.
Over on social media, people criticize the hypocrisy of the Royal Family, especially as Camilla got Queen Camilla from Queen Consort which is what Queen Elizabeth wanted.
FACT-CHECKING THE CLAIMS:
1. “Meghan Markle can’t use HRH—she was stripped of it.”
False. Meghan was not “stripped” of the HRH title. She and Prince Harry voluntarily agreed not to use their HRH styles in public after stepping down as senior working royals. The 2020 agreement between the Sussexes and the Palace made this clear: the titles remain theirs, but are not to be used in formal contexts. The style is dormant, not revoked.
Example: Prince Andrew still retains the HRH title legally, but does not use it publicly following his own controversies. The same applies to Meghan and Harry.
2. “Camilla is now Queen, not Queen Consort.”
True, but context matters. While Camilla was originally styled as Queen Consort, upon King Charles III’s coronation, the Palace transitioned to calling her “Queen Camilla”—a precedent based on historical and ceremonial practice. Previous wives of monarchs were also styled “Queen” without the word “Consort” in daily usage (e.g., Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother), though they were legally Queen Consorts.
Important distinction: This doesn’t mean Camilla is a sovereign monarch. The term “Queen” in this context simply denotes the wife of a reigning king.
3. “Only working royals deserve titles.”
Misleading. Titles are based on lineage and law, not employment status. Many royals with HRH or peerage titles (like the Duke of Kent or Prince Michael of Kent) are not full-time working royals. Title entitlement is not a matter of how many days someone “works” for the Crown.
4. “Meghan Markle is grifting off the monarchy.”
This is a subjective opinion, not fact. Meghan and Harry are legally allowed to use the titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex, which were granted by Queen Elizabeth II and are not dependent on being working royals. Usage of those titles in their branding is within the scope of what other royals have done (e.g., Princess Michael of Kent, Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York). Meghan has her own business and brand. She does not need the Royal Family.
5. “Diana would have been Queen Consort.”
Correct in principle. Had Princess Diana remained married to Charles and he became king, she would have been styled “Queen” as a Queen Consort. However, she lost the HRH style after their divorce in 1996 and thus would not have been styled Queen Diana had Charles ascended while they were divorced.
WHAT’S DRIVING THE OUTRAGE?
- Residual anger about “Megxit” and the perception that Meghan “abandoned” royal duties.
- Race and gender bias, often under the surface but exposed in language that questions her legitimacy, education, or class.
- Selective understanding of royal protocol, reinforced by tabloid misinformation.
- Misinformation loops, where people repeat incorrect claims (e.g., “she was stripped of her title”) until they’re accepted as fact.
FINAL CLARITY:
- Meghan is legally still the Duchess of Sussex and technically retains the HRH style, though she does not use it publicly.
- Camilla is Queen by custom and ceremony, though her legal status is Queen Consort.
- Public usage of titles doesn’t determine legitimacy—law, letters patent, and royal decree do.
celebchai.com 