The Mail: Maghan to run for US president

There's a clause in the constitution of the US which states you can't be elected President while/if ever held a position of Royalty/Upper class title in another country. e.g. Markle is now the Duchess of Sussex so is disqualified from running.

computer says no

Are them there computers looking to take over our world?

No there isn't.

The United States is precluded from creating noble titles and Federal Officials are prohibited from accepting foreign honours without Congressional approval whilst in office.

An Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire ran for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008

Stephen Hawking said yes

Can you confirm if Her Royal Highness is considered to be holding any royal or nobility title herself?

When did the Prof say that?

(Sadly he's dead)

I will not click on links for security reasons....

However, if you would like to post a written message then please feel free to do so.

You can just take my word for it, then.

Yes. She holds both a royal title and noble titles in her own right.

To illustrate:-

Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Between 1974 and her death in 2004 she was the widow of the then Duke of Gloucester.

If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have a son who marries and the Duke then dies, her title will be Her Royal Highness Princess Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

If the Duke of York marries a different woman, his former wife will remain Sarah, Duchess of York (she unlike the Princess of Wales was stripped of her HRH title on divorce).

Diana, Princess of Wales was also stripped of her HRH style on divorce.

But for both of them, they managed to be called "Duchess of York" and "Princess of Wales" still only as a courtesy. It's similar to how Obama, Clinton, the Bushes, and Carter all still enjoy the title "President" even though they have left office. On top of that, if the Duke of Sussex is somehow stripped of his title, the Duchess would also automatically lose hers, without getting hers stripped off as well. Furthermore, despite the duchy of Sussex being a heredity duchy, the Duchess herself could not pass her title on to her child, if the child was not the Duke's.

So taking all of these into account, is she really having the titles "in her own right"? I did see Wikipedia saying even though the wife is not a peer herself, the courtesy title remains a "legal title" (unsourced).

Diana, Princess of Wales was also stripped of her HRH style on divorce.

But for both of them, they managed to be called "Duchess of York" and "Princess of Wales" still only as a courtesy. It's similar to how Obama, Clinton, the Bushes, and Carter all still enjoy the title "President" even though they have left office. On top of that, if the Duke of Sussex is somehow stripped of his title, the Duchess would also automatically lose hers, without getting hers stripped off as well. Furthermore, despite the duchy of Sussex being a heredity duchy, the Duchess herself could not pass her title on to her child, if the child was not the Duke's.

So taking all of these into account, is she really having the titles "in her own right"? I did see Wikipedia saying even though the wife is not a peer herself, the courtesy title remains a "legal title" (unsourced).

It is what it is.

Despite the fact that taxpayers paid for most of the 'wedding' costs, we just have to accept it.

It is what it is (was).

Yes you are right.



The title of a wife of a peer isn't quite a courtesy title in the way that the child of a peer's title is. For example, a peer's wife had until 1948 the right of trial by the House of Lords (e.g. the Countess of Bristol, bigamously Duchess of Kingston).

Whilst you are right that stripping a peer of his title, strips his wife of it, a peer cannot prevent his ex-wife from using it (this was litigated about 100 years ago). Moreover, whilst the attainder of a peerage deprives the peer and his wife of the title I am not convinced that it deprives his mother e.g. the widow of the previous holder, of it. Was Princess Helena accorded the title Dowager Duchess of Albany after her son had been deprived of the title?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Helena_of_Waldeck_and_Pyrmont

Update Earl Cowley v Countess Cowley

per Lord Macnaughten:-

"It was conceded, and I suppose rightly conceded, that there was nothing in her position as the divorced
wife of Earl Cowley to deprive her either of the title or the privileges which she had acquired as his wife. Then she married a commoner, and thereupon she lost her right to the title of Countess and the privileges of peerage"

per Lord Lindley:-

"When in 1895 her husband became Earl Cowley she acquired an estate for life in his dignity. That has
been the law ever since Coke's time, and it is not, I believe, disputed. Her life estate was not determinable on the death of her
husband, but was determinable on a second marriage with a commoner. So long as her life estate in the Earldom was undertermined she was entitled to the honour and dignity of a peeress and to the name attached to it. In 1897 the Countess Cowley obtained a divorce from her husband; but, although the divorce dissolved her marriage, it did not determine her life estate in the peerage which she had acquired. There is no principle of common law, nor is there anything in the Divorce Act, which produces any such result. The case of Fendall v. Goldsmid goes far to shew that so far as name is concerned the Countess was entitled to continue after the divorce to use the name and style which she had previously acquired the right to use. In July, 1898, however, Lady Cowley married a commoner, and it seems clear that, although she did not lose the position to which whe was entitled by birth, her life estate in the dignity which she had acquired by marriage ceased. All the authorities are clear upon that point."

Some authorities suggest that Diana and Fergie legally retain the title HRH but that seems to be a misunderstanding of the Cowley case. A peerage is treated as being a piece of property but the title HRH is held at the discretion of the sovereign. The 2nd Duke of Connaught lost his HRH in 1917 simply because of a change in policy.

Then, can Her Royal Highness in theory renounce her titles whilst staying married to HRH The Duke of Sussex, who does not renounce his titles? It's a moot point, of course, since as you've pointed out, that's not what the US constitutional amendment requires.