What royal‑protocol issues arose around the announcement and styling of Archie and Lilibet?
Executive summary
Royal‑protocol friction around Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet has focused on three intertwined flashpoints: whether and when they were to be styled prince/princess under century‑old rules, how those styles were announced and recorded (including passport and christening usages), and how security and family decisions have shaped — and been shaped by — those protocol choices [1] [2] [3].
1. Birth announcements and the first protocol signal: no hospital photocall
The way the Sussex children’s births were handled set an early tone for protocol disputes: Archie’s 2019 birth was announced later by Buckingham Palace rather than via the traditional hospital photocall, and Lilibet was born in California in 2021 after the couple had relocated — facts that distanced the family from normal palace procedures and framed later arguments about whether full royal protocol should apply [3].
2. The legal mechanics: the 1917 letter patent and entitlement to titles
At the heart of the debate is a 1917 letter patent from King George V that defines which descendants are automatically entitled to princely styles; that document historically limited use of prince/princess and HRH to certain grandchildren, a rule modified by later letters patent for William’s children — a technicality repeatedly cited in coverage to explain or contest whether Archie or Lilibet “should” have been princes or princesses [4] [1].
3. Styling vs. styling‑announcements: Master/Miss, passport entries and the christening moment
Before Lilibet’s christening, reportage records that the children had sometimes been styled informally as Master Archie and Miss Lilibet, and that the family only began publicly using Prince and Princess titles around Lilibet’s christening in 2023, a move critics said belatedly formalized styles that protocol already allowed and which also surfaced in British passport documentation disputes that prompted legal pressure from the Sussexes [3] [2] [5].
4. Passports, palace reluctance and competing explanations
Vanity Fair reported “reluctance” around issuing passports that included the children’s royal styles and quoted a source alleging the King initially did not want them to carry the HRH designation, while subsequent government passport issuance followed GDPR‑related legal pressure from the Sussexes — a sequence that has been interpreted as either bureaucratic caution or palace resistance depending on the outlet [2].
5. Security, visits and how protection policy became protocol
Practical protocol — who may travel where and under what protection — has been inseparable from styling fights: Prince Harry has repeatedly cited lack of U.K. security as a barrier to bringing his family home, and RAVEC (the Royal and VIP Executive Committee) reviews of threat levels have been reported to constrain whether Archie and Lilibet can visit, turning a security risk assessment into a proxy for family protocol disputes [6] [7].
6. Future use of titles and the limits of palace control
Observers note that while the children technically gained entitlement to princely styles when Charles became monarch, there is debate over whether future monarchs or senior royals will allow the styles to be used as working royal designations; commentators point out that titles cannot be removed except by act of Parliament, but senior royals can ask that styles not be used — a distinction that fuels speculation about how William’s eventual decisions could “tidy up” the royal narrative [8] [9].
7. Media framing, competing agendas and what the sources reveal
Coverage across tabloid and royal‑insider outlets frames the same facts differently: some reports emphasize palace reluctance and “removal from the narrative,” others stress legal and security justifications; sources include Vanity Fair (documenting passport reluctance), mainstream explanations of the 1917 rules, and various tabloid pieces that may carry implicit agendas to inflame family drama, so each claim must be read against where it originates [2] [4] [10].
Conclusion
The protocol controversies around Archie and Lilibet therefore are less about a single rule breach and more about overlapping technicalities (letter patents and passports), choices about public styling and timing (christening and name usage), and operational realities (security and travel) — all amplified by partisan media narratives that reflect differing institutional and personal agendas rather than a neat, unilateral “protocol violation” [1] [2] [6].