For years, public debate has swirled around the royal status of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s children, Archie Harrison and Princess Lilibet Diana.

The conversation often blends royal protocol, century‑old rules, press statements, and social media rumor.

This article breaks down what is documented about titles and succession, what Buckingham Palace has formally acknowledged, how church rites intersect with royal tradition, and which claims remain unverified.

What Is Officially Documented

The British monarchy’s public recordkeeping—royal family website updates, Court Circular notes, and official gazettes—offers traceable milestones.

Separately, U.K. law defines the line of succession, and palace style guidance determines how titles are used and reflected online.

Births.
Archie was born in May 2019 in the United Kingdom.
Lilibet was born in June 2021 in California.
Titles.
After the accession of King Charles III in 2022, the children of the son of the sovereign were eligible to be styled Prince and Princess under the 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V.
In March 2023, the Sussexes publicly referred to their daughter as “Princess Lilibet Diana” in a statement concerning her christening, and the royal family’s official website later updated both children’s entries to “Prince Archie of Sussex” and “Princess Lilibet of Sussex.”
Line of succession.
The official line of succession has included Archie and Lilibet since their births, reflecting established constitutional practice.
Publicly accessible succession lists have continued to place Archie and Lilibet behind their father, Prince Harry.
Residence and role.
Prince Harry and Meghan stepped back from their roles as working members of the royal family in 2020.
That change affected public duties and funding, not their positions in the line of succession or the children’s eligibility for styles after Charles’s accession.

The 1917 Letters Patent and How Titles Work

The 1917 Letters Patent standardized who is entitled to the styles Prince and Princess.
They generally apply to children of the sovereign, children of the sovereign’s sons, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a provision that has since been modernized for gender equality in succession, though styles are still governed by the 1917 instrument unless otherwise amended).

Trigger for eligibility.
When Charles became King, Archie and Lilibet, as the children of the sovereign’s son, came within scope to be styled Prince and Princess.
No separate “approval” is needed for that eligibility.
Use versus entitlement.
Families sometimes defer using a style or title for personal reasons, but entitlement stems from the Letters Patent unless explicitly altered by a new royal instrument.
Records.
The Palace website is not a legal registry, but it is the primary public‑facing record for styles and family listings.
Updates to this site typically follow internal review and confirmation.

Birth Certificates, Records, and the Meghan Name Change

A point of confusion has been the amendment to Archie’s birth certificate, where Meghan’s full legal name was replaced with “Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.”
This change was documented in public records and later drew statements from representatives of the Sussexes and palace aides.

What the record shows.
Meghan’s legal given names were removed and replaced by her HRH style and title on Archie’s U.K. birth certificate, an unusual but not unprecedented administrative update within royal contexts.
What it does not prove.
This amendment does not affect Archie’s legitimacy, his eligibility for titles, or his place in the line of succession.
There is no public legal guidance suggesting that a parent’s style on a birth certificate determines a child’s royal status.
Conflicting explanations.
Representatives for Meghan indicated she did not request the change, while palace sources disputed that characterization at the time.
No authoritative adjudication was issued to resolve that disagreement.

Christening, the Church of England, and Why It Matters (and Doesn’t)

Royal christenings often occur in the Church of England, symbolically tying a child into the national church, with photographs and public interest following.
However, in legal and constitutional terms, christening is not a condition for succession or title entitlement.

Archie.
Archie’s christening took place in the U.K. and was publicly acknowledged by the royal household, with photographs released.
Lilibet.
Lilibet was baptized in California, with the Sussexes referring to it as a “christening.”
The ceremony did not occur in England, and it was not publicly recorded as a Church of England event.
From a constitutional standpoint, lack of a Church of England christening does not remove a child from the succession or title eligibility set by the 1917 Letters Patent.
The Crown and the Church.
The monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and royal ceremonies commonly involve the Church, but civil law governing succession does not require an Anglican baptism for a child to be in line.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 eliminated disqualification for marriage to a Roman Catholic, while retaining the bar on a sovereign being a Roman Catholic; it does not mandate christening for heirs more broadly.

Claims That Are Not Substantiated

Public conversation has included more dramatic assertions, including suggestions that Buckingham Palace “erased” Archie and Lilibet from the line of succession, removed them from official records, or finalized secret documents permanently denying their royal identities.
There is no official documentation in the public domain supporting these claims.

Line of succession.
Archie and Lilibet continue to appear on publicly referenced succession lists.
There has been no formal announcement removing them from succession.
Official website listings.
Following the 2023 updates, the children have remained listed as Prince and Princess on the royal family’s website.
There has been no subsequent public reversal.
“Permanent removal” orders.
In the U.K. constitutional system, a change of the magnitude described would require clear, formal action and would be reflected in authoritative records or announcements.
No such changes have been published.

How Royal Silence Works in Practice

The royal household often declines to respond to day‑to‑day speculation, allowing official documents, the Court Circular, and website updates to serve as the public record.
This approach can create space for rumors to proliferate, but it also means that changes—when they do occur—are reflected in the formal record rather than in reactive statements.

Strategic non‑comment.
Silence is not confirmation.
When a change is made, it is typically visible in updated titles, notices, or entries.
Reading the record.
For observers, the most reliable guideposts are official gazettes, the Royal Family website, church notices, and Parliament’s legislative record for any constitutional adjustments.

What Americans Should Know About “Titles” Versus “Roles”

For U.S. readers, it helps to separate titles from jobs.
A style like Prince or Princess is a matter of British royal protocol and historical instruments.
A “working royal” role is a job within the institution, involving public duties and taxpayer‑funded support.

The Sussexes’ status.
Harry and Meghan stepped back from working roles in 2020.
That decision changed their public duties and funding, not the constitutional fact of their marriage, parenthood, or the children’s eligibility for titles after Charles’s accession.
Children’s titles.
Once eligible under the 1917 Letters Patent, the children’s styles were updated publicly in 2023.
Whether they participate in royal events is a separate question from whether they possess a style.

Why This Story Keeps Returning

Royal narratives persist because they sit at the intersection of tradition, public fascination, and limited official commentary.
Minor administrative edits—like a certificate amendment or a website update—can take on outsized meaning in the absence of detailed explanations.

Media dynamics.
A lack of granular palace commentary encourages speculation, especially on social platforms.
But the durable markers—succession lists, titles on the official site, and legislative records—remain the most dependable signals.
Evolving family circumstances.
As the royal family changes over time, updates to titles, roles, and public profiles can occur, often with minimal fanfare.
Clear, formal updates, not anonymous claims, are what establish new facts.

Key Takeaways

Archie and Lilibet are publicly styled as Prince and Princess since 2023, consistent with the 1917 Letters Patent following King Charles III’s accession.
Both children remain in the publicly referenced line of succession.
A christening in the Church of England is customary for royal optics but is not a legal requirement for succession or title entitlement.
The amendment to Archie’s birth certificate, while unusual, does not affect legitimacy, entitlement to a style, or succession.
There is no publicly available, authoritative documentation that Buckingham Palace has “removed” Archie and Lilibet from royal identity, stripped their titles, or erased them from official records.
In royal practice, substantive changes appear in formal records and official updates rather than through rumor or unnamed “insider” accounts.

Bottom Line

Amid renewed speculation, the status signals that matter—official titles on the royal family’s website and established placement in the line of succession—continue to reflect Archie and Lilibet as Prince and Princess and as members of the succession.
Absent a new royal instrument, legislative change, or a formal palace announcement reflected in authoritative records, claims of their removal from royal identity are not supported by the documented public record.