Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Do Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor have any claim to the British throne?
Executive Summary
Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten‑Windsor are both in the official British line of succession as grandchildren of King Charles III, giving them a hereditary claim to the throne, though far down the list and subject to change as other family members have children. The legal basis for that claim is settled by succession law and historic letters patent; in practice their positions, titles, and public roles are shaped by parental choices, royal household practice, and political reality [1] [2] [3].
1. What supporters and records actually claim — plain facts about their place in line
Archie and Lilibet are explicitly listed in public records as members of the succession: official and secondary lists have placed Archie ahead of Lilibet, with both following their father, Prince Harry, in the order. The official Royal Family succession list recognizes them as heirs, which establishes a formal hereditary claim; multiple public sources have published their positions at various times, reflecting births and subsequent family changes [1] [4]. These listings are not ceremonial only: succession status is a legal designation rooted in statute and established practice. The commonly reported difference in ordinal position between sources reflects timing — some reports predate births or later adjustments — but the core claim that both children are in the line is consistent across the record [5] [6].
2. Why succession law gives them a claim — the legal scaffolding
The hereditary claim rests on established rules: male‑line grandchild status under the 1917 letters patent and statutory reforms that govern succession. Under rules issued by George V and updated succession statutes, grandchildren of a sovereign born in lawful wedlock are in the order of succession, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 changed gender preference rules but kept the basic hereditary framework intact. Sources note the letters patent and resulting entitlement to princely styles for male‑line grandchildren of a sovereign; that legal scaffolding is why Archie and Lilibet are named on official lists and widely reported as sixth/seventh or seventh/eighth at different times [2] [3]. These legal instruments determine eligibility; they do not compel the exercise of any title or public duty.
3. Titles, public style, and the gap between legal claim and daily reality
Possessing a place in the succession is distinct from using a title or performing royal duties. Archie and Lilibet’s legal status does not force them into public roles or authoritative duties, and their parents have chosen limited public royal engagement. Reports note that although letters patent would entitle them to prince/princess styles as grandchildren in the male line, the family has made different choices about how those styles are used in practice, affecting public perception of their status [2] [4]. The distinction matters: a hereditary claim is a legal fact, whereas title usage, schooling, security, and public functions are administrative and personal decisions shaped by the palace, the parents, and political considerations.
4. How official lists and media reports differ — timing, sources and occasional inconsistencies
Public reporting occasionally shows variant ordinal numbers for Archie and Lilibet because different outlets used different reference points or publication dates. Some media pieces published soon after births or royal changes placed Archie seventh and Lilibet eighth, while later or updated listings show them sixth and seventh; these differences reflect updates to official lists and births in other branches of the family, not contradictions in principle [6] [7]. The Royal Family’s own succession list provides the baseline, while encyclopedias and news outlets may lag or use archived snapshots. That creates short‑term confusion but does not alter the underlying legal reality that both are eligible by descent [1] [3].
5. What matters going forward — practical prospects and political context
Being in the succession is a durable legal fact but a shifting practical prospect: their places will move as other royals have children, and whether they participate in formal royal life will affect how the public and institutions treat their claims. Political changes to succession law would require parliamentary action across the UK and Commonwealth realms; absent that, only births, deaths, and changes in marriage or religion that violate longstanding requirements would materially alter eligibility. Coverage and commentary about Archie and Lilibet sometimes carry agendas—either to underscore continuity of the monarchy or to highlight a modern, private life for the Sussex children—so readers should note the difference between legal position and public role when assessing claims [4] [6].