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.
Could Archie or Lilibet legally use HRH or princely titles after the 2020 Letters Patent change?
Executive Summary
The core legal rule is the 1917 Letters Patent: HRH and princely styles attach by birth to certain male-line descendants unless a later Letters Patent or statute changes that. Analysts differ on whether Archie and Lilibet already became or can become HRH/princes automatically when Charles became sovereign, and whether the monarch could or would issue a new Letters Patent to restrict or affirm their styles [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What people are claiming — the competing narratives that matter
Commentators split into two clear claims: one camp argues Archie and Lilibet are not automatic HRHs without an affirmative grant from Charles (this view stresses the 1917 patent’s restrictive intent and practical limits on the royal household), while the other camp contends they are entitled by birthright as grandchildren once Charles became King, and thus may use princely styles absent a change [1] [2] [5]. The first narrative emphasizes the 1917 Letters Patent’s purpose to limit HRH proliferation and points to family precedent—Sophie and Edward’s children choosing not to use HRH—as evidence of flexibility and the need for an explicit grant [1]. The opposing narrative emphasizes literal reading of the 1917 and subsequent adjustments, arguing that until Charles issues a different letters patent, the children’s entitlement stands and parents can elect usage [2] [3].
2. Legal backbone: what the Letters Patent actually say and why it matters
The 1917 Letters Patent by King George V set the baseline: children of the sovereign, children of the sovereign’s sons, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales receive HRH and title automatically; female-line grandchildren were explicitly excluded by design [4]. Queen Elizabeth’s later practice and the 2012 Letters Patent tailored styles for William’s children, showing the Crown can alter who receives styles by issuing a new Letters Patent [6]. Analysts point out that the letters patent are royal instruments with legal effect, but they also note the Crown has historically exercised discretion and issued clarifying documents, meaning the rules are neither entirely fixed nor purely administrative [7] [6].
3. The disputed role of the 2020 “change” and how commentators interpret it
Analysts disagree about any so‑called 2020 change: some articles suggest a 2020 move—often referenced in commentary—as evidence of evolving practice but not a definitive override of 1917 provisions, leaving room for differing interpretations of Archie’s and Lilibet’s status [7] [8]. One line of coverage interprets the post‑accession period (2022 onward) as functionally granting entitlement to male‑line grandchildren, meaning Archie and Lilibet would become eligible with Charles as sovereign; another emphasizes that public statements and family choices (for example, the Sussexes using “Princess Lilibet”) reflect social usage rather than binding legal conferral [2] [5]. The tension here is textual entitlement versus lived practice—legal entitlement does not always equate to public or palace acceptance.
4. Who controls titles in practice — monarch, ministers, or family choice?
Experts stress that while the sovereign issues Letters Patent, ministerial advice or statute can also shape titles in practice; removal or restriction would likely involve formal advice or legislation, not unilateral family fiat [9]. The examples cited—Edward and Sophie’s children opting not to use HRH, and debates about slimmed‑down monarchy—show both the Crown’s authority and the political logic that governs who is expected to carry out public duties and therefore use styles [1] [6]. Commentators also highlight that public perception and intra‑family relationships (for example, Harry’s relationship with Charles) influence whether styles are publicly recognised or used on official platforms [2] [5].
5. Recent developments and signals — what dates and actions reveal
Reporting from 2022–2023 documents immediate post‑accession ambiguity: when Charles became King in 2022, some outlets noted Archie and Lilibet’s eligibility while palace listings initially kept them as Master/Miss; later public usage by the Sussexes (referring to their daughter as Princess Lilibet) and press reports indicate a practical assertion of title by the parents even as formal palace positions remained cautious [3] [5] [7]. More recent commentary through 2025 underscores that no definitive new Letters Patent removing or affirming their HRH status had been published in the record supplied, and that any formal change would likely be deliberate and public because it has constitutional and reputational consequences [8] [9].
6. Bottom line — what is settled and what remains open
Factually, the 1917 framework gives the Crown means to grant or restrict HRH and princely styles; readers should understand that Archie and Lilibet’s status sits at the intersection of written entitlement, royal discretion, and family/political choice. Analyses differ: some insist a fresh grant from Charles would be required to formalise HRH usage, others treat their status as emergent by birthright pending no new patent—both positions rest on legitimate readings of the letters patent and on different weights given to precedent and practice [1] [2] [4]. The remaining open question is procedural: whether a formal Letters Patent or ministerial/statutory intervention will be issued to clarify their styles, and that outcome will decide whether the current ambiguity becomes settled law or enduring practice [9] [8].