Are Archie and Lilibet in line to the British throne and what are their positions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Archie Mountbatten‑Windsor and his sister Lilibet are members of the legal line of succession to the British throne: Archie is sixth and Lilibet is seventh in line, directly after their father Prince Harry (fifth) and the senior Cambridge/Wales line (first through fourth) [1] [2]. That placement is a matter of established succession law and current family genealogy, though styling (titles) and public presentation of those positions have been the subject of separate disputes and website updates [3] [4].
1. Current positions in the line of succession — clear numbers, widely reported
Multiple authoritative listings and mainstream outlets place Prince Harry as fifth, Prince Archie as sixth and Princess Lilibet as seventh in the order of succession: official and widely used compilations list William and his three children first through fourth, Harry fifth, Archie sixth and Lilibet seventh [1] [2] [5]. Newsweek, People, BritRoyals and other line‑of‑succession trackers consistently report Archie sixth and Lilibet seventh following King Charles’s accession, which moved everyone one step closer after Queen Elizabeth II’s death [2] [6] [7].
2. Why they are in line — the legal architecture that places them there
Succession is governed by statute and descent — principally the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and later inter‑realm agreements that modernised rules — and those instruments make the eligible heirs the Protestant, legitimate descendants of Sophia of Hanover in a defined order, which places the Duke of Sussex and his children in the current sequence [1] [8]. The Perth Agreement and subsequent domestic legislation removed male‑preference for those born after 2011 and altered other technicalities, but did not exclude Harry or his children from the line; that legal framework is why both Archie and Lilibet sit where they do [1].
3. Titles, styling and public presentation — a separate row about “Prince/Princess” usage
The siblings’ formal placement in the line is distinct from debates over their use of princely titles: public reporting recorded an earlier period when the royal website listed Archie and Lilibet as “Master” and “Miss” rather than styling them as prince and princess, prompting questions about official recognition and presentation even while their succession positions remained sixth and seventh [3] [4]. Subsequent updates and statements — including references to Archie as “Prince Archie” and to Lilibet as “Princess Lilibet” in some official pages and media coverage — have clarified styling for many outlets, though coverage shows this was as much a communications and protocol tussle as a change in succession standing [4] [9].
4. What can change their positions — births, acts of Parliament, religion and statutory rules
Their numerical ranking is not fixed forever: births in senior lines (for example, children of Prince William or his descendants) would slot ahead of Harry and therefore push Archie and Lilibet further down; conversely, only an Act of Parliament could remove or reorder the eligible pool in any material sense, and religious or legitimacy rules embedded in statute also remain determining factors [1] [8]. Reporting repeatedly underscores that succession is a function of family descent within a legal framework and that the list can be altered only by legislative change or additional births within the family [1] [8].
5. Limitations, disputes and final assessment
The facts about Archie and Lilibet’s places in the succession are straightforward in publicly available succession lists — sixth and seventh respectively — but there are separate, sometimes heated disputes over styling, public recognition and family protocol that do not alter their legal order of succession [2] [3] [4]. No source consulted claims the children are excluded from succession; the principal caveats are that rankings move over time with new births and that legal changes to succession would require formal parliamentary action and, in practice, agreement across the Commonwealth realms [1] [8].