When stories about tiny royals reach the kind of fever pitch that fills tabloids and timelines, it’s tempting to accept drama as fact. That temptation is especially powerful when the institution in question — the monarchy — has a long habit of making quiet decisions that have loud consequences. But for readers who want to separate theater from truth, the key questions are straightforward: What do the rules actually say about who is a prince or princess? What has Buckingham Palace officially done, and what has it not done? And finally, what would it take — legally and politically — for the Crown to change Archie and Lilibet’s status?

This article answers those questions. Where claims are unverified, I’ll say so. Where official documents or reputable reporting exist, I’ll cite them. The result is less shock and more clarity: the kind of thing you might expect if a royal historian and a legal analyst had a civil conversation in a tea room.

The short headlines (verified)

• The legal framework that largely governs who is styled “His/Her Royal Highness” (HRH) and who is a prince or princess in the UK traces back to a 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V. That instrument limited automatic princely styles to the children of the sovereign, the children of the sovereign’s sons, and a narrowly defined eldest grandson.

• Queen Elizabeth II issued a separate Letters Patent in 2012 that extended the title of prince/princess and HRH to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (i.e., to ensure William’s younger children would be princes/princesses). Letters Patent are the long-established legal vehicles by which the sovereign can set and adjust royal styling.

• While Archie (born 2019) and Lilibet (born 2021) are in the line of succession, public references to their styling have evolved. In early 2023 Buckingham Palace publicly indicated its intention to update the family website to reflect Archie and Lilibet’s princely styles “in due course” — a modest administrative step but not a sweeping constitutional proclamation. That reporting was widely covered at the time.

• Major changes to who is in the line of succession or to formal royal status can be done by the sovereign — in practice through Letters Patent and ministerial advice — but some things (for example removing a person from the line of succession) would require parliamentary action and, for realms beyond the UK, the agreement of the Commonwealth realms. In short: the sovereign has substantial levers over titles, but there are legal and political constraints.

Those are the bedrock facts. Everything else worth knowing flows from how those rules operate and how the palace has behaved in practice.

A quick primer: Letters Patent, 1917 and what it means

A Letters Patent is a formal instrument of the Crown; historically it has been used for everything from granting peerages to defining royal styling. The 1917 Letters Patent, issued by King George V during World War I, substantially narrowed the automatic assignment of the style “Royal Highness” and the title “Prince/Princess” for reasons of public optics and cost. It remains the canonical legal text that defines most automatic princely styles today. If the monarch wants to expand or restrict who gets these styles, the sovereign does so by issuing further Letters Patent. Revisions are rare but do happen — the 2012 Letters Patent mentioned above is a recent example.

That matters because it shows the Crown has both the historical means and a precedent for adjusting who gets what title. It does not, however, mean such adjustments are merely administrative; they are deeply political, symbolically charged, and often require careful ministerial counsel.

The public record on Archie and Lilibet: what the palace has actually said

Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born in May 2019; Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor arrived in June 2021. Their births were publicly announced by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the couple have used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in formal circumstances.

In March 2023 — after some years of public speculation and press coverage — Buckingham Palace made clear that the royal website would be updated to reflect Archie and Lilibet’s titles “in due course.” Multiple reputable outlets archived that statement and noted the palace intent to amend public materials; that administrative choice stopped short of an extraordinary pronouncement about permanent status changes. In short: the palace has acknowledged the children and has taken modest steps to reflect styling in official communications, but there has been no recent public document showing a sweeping “erasure” or permanent removal.

Two additional points in the public record are relevant:

Security and travel dynamics. Since stepping back from senior royal duties in 2020, Harry and Meghan have faced ongoing disputes with the U.K. government about police protection and related logistics. Reporting over 2024–2025 described the couple’s ongoing concerns about safe return visits and the practical consequences for how often and in what capacity their children might visit the UK. These operational realities shape any discussion about titles and public roles; they do not, however, change legal entitlement on their own. citeturn0news31
Precedent around title removal. The palace has tools to remove or alter styling (Letters Patent) and has at times updated public biographies or stripped honors and titles from adult royals in response to reputational crises. But removing someone’s place in the line of succession is more complicated and would typically require parliamentary statute. The distinction is important: titles and honors can be adjusted by the Crown; the order of succession is a matter of statute and constitutional practice.

Rumors vs. reality: why stories that claim “the Crown erased them” keep appearing

When a rumor circulates that the palace has “finally erased” Archie and Lilibet from the royal record, three dynamics are usually at work:

Confusion about administrative updates. A change to the royal family website, the use of a style by the palace in messaging, or a tweak in public biographies can be amplified into a claim of permanent legal removal even though those are largely administrative actions. The law and constitutional practice do not change with a copy edit.
Misunderstanding of Letters Patent and succession law. Many readers assume the sovereign can instantly “erase” someone from the order of succession or permanently revoke their place in history by fiat. The truth is more nuanced. The sovereign can alter titles and styles by Letters Patent; changing succession requires legislative machinery and, likely, consultation with Commonwealth realms. That procedural complexity prevents midnight purges.
The viral appetite for decisive drama. A tidy narrative — “palace acts, kids disappear” — is more clickable than the messily bureaucratic reality. Social platforms reward certainty and spectacle, so half-checked claims spread faster than patient updates from credible outlets.

When a claim about “permanent erasure” lacks primary-source documents (for example an official Letters Patent published under the Great Seal), responsible reporters and editors mark it as rumor. And when those documents do appear publicly, reputable outlets treat them as the authoritative basis for reporting. Until that point, readers should treat grand claims with skepticism.

What could happen, legally and politically?

Let’s run through the realistic range of palace options, from least to most legally fraught:

• Administrative presentation changes. The Crown can update websites, press releases, and biographies to reflect styles or to remove them. That is a matter of PR and records management, and it does not require legislation. Many of the small headline movements around titles are administrative.

• Letters Patent altering styles. If the monarch and government decided to change who is styled HRH or who is a prince/princess, the sovereign could issue a Letters Patent to that effect. That instrument would be a lawful means to change styling, but it would be politically explosive and would likely be accompanied by careful ministerial counsel and public explanation. citeturn0search4

• Legislation to change the succession. Removing a person from the order of succession would require an Act of Parliament. If the removal has cross-realm implications (e.g., affecting monarchs or titles in other Commonwealth realms), it would require broader consultation. This is legally possible but constitutionally heavyweight and therefore unlikely to be used casually. citeturn0search13

So while the Crown has ways to modify titles, it cannot — at least not cleanly and unilaterally — erase children from succession without clear statutory backing. That legal reality is what keeps many dramatic rumors from morphing into sudden constitutional change.

Why the palace sometimes prefers silence — and how silence gets misread

Monarchies are institutions built on precedent, ritual, and, crucially, careful language. When the palace is quiet, it is often for strategic reasons: legal counsel, ministerial advisement, risk assessment, or a desire to let events settle. Silence helps preserve options. But silence also invites speculation. In the internet era, a long pause is often read as a decision by omission. That’s why ambiguous moments around births, baptisms, and website edits become fertile ground for rumor.

The smarter reading of silence is that institutions tend to move slowly because they have to weigh symbolism, law, and public reaction. The less informed reading is that silence equals conspiracy.

How to spot a claim worth believing (a short checklist)

Is there a primary document? Letters Patent, Acts of Parliament, or official Royal Household publications matter.
Does the report cite named official spokespeople or gazetted documents? Anonymous sourcing is sometimes legitimate; but major constitutional changes are rarely announced first via anonymous leaks.
Are multiple reputable outlets reporting the same document? Corroboration from major international outlets is a positive sign.
Does the claim conflate administrative updates with legal acts? If the story treats a website edit as a legal erasure, be skeptical.

The human dimension: the children, the family, and the politics

Beyond technicalities, there is a human element here. Archie and Lilibet are small children whose lives are shaped as much by security, schooling, and family choices as by titles. Whether they carry HRH before their names matters to some institutions and to some ceremonial roles — but it is also separate from what really shapes a child’s life: parental care, community, and stability. That truth warrants some restraint from sensational headlines that reduce children to political tokens.

Bottom line

The monarchy has the legal tools to alter styles and titles; precedent shows the Crown can and does use those tools. But changing the order of succession or “erasing” someone from royal history is not a light administrative edit. It entails constitutional, parliamentary, and political complexity.

At the present time the authoritative record does not show a secret Buckingham Palace instrument that permanently strips Archie and Lilibet’s recognition in the way the viral claim describes. What we do have are historical rules (1917 Letters Patent), later clarifications (2012 Letters Patent), administrative references by the palace to updating public materials in 2023, and ongoing practical complications tied to the Sussexes’ unique position since 2020. Readers should follow official documents and reputable outlets for confirmation, and treat breathless claims of “final orders” without documentary backing as rumor until proven otherwise.