Will Lilibet, daughter of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, do what George Washington didn’t?

Just over 240 years ago, George Washington emphatically turned down a bizarre proposal sent by a colonel—called the ‘Newburgh letter’—to become the King of the United States of America, with the army backing him to set up and run an ‘energetic’ constitutional monarchy. Had he succumbed back then to that entreaty there may have been a House of Washington—or some other ‘royal’ American family— to rival the lustre of Britain’s House of Windsor in the US. As Washington did not agree, US had to content itself instead with a slew of Americans who married royalty rather than royal-born Americans, such as Princess Grace of Monaco, Gyalmo Hope Cook of Sikkim and Queen Noor of Jordan. There was one American-born king—Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand— but he never really lived in US. Now the US finally has a resident American-born Princess, all thanks to the efforts of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Given the very strongly democratic (and republican!) character of US history, this should hardly be a matter for celebration; more so as George III, an ancestor of this American royal, was the ruler President Washington and company fought against to gain independence. Moreover, barring a highly unlikely mass tragedy in the House of Windsor, there is little chance of an American-born royal occupying George III’s throne in an empire-strikes-back sort of way. Prince Archie Harrison of Sussex (which sounds rather like the Fresh Prince of Belair) is not born in US but Princess Lilibet Diana of Sussex is. That makes it a first of sorts for the predominantly German origin British royal family, although the daughter of a royal cousin—Lord Frederick Windsor, son of Prince Michael of Kent—was born there too and her mother is also an actress, just like Lilibet’s. But they are too far down the royal pecking order for the US to care. When Lilibet was born, the princess tag was implicit but impeded by a royal proclamation that restricted the use of the title to the grandchildren of the monarch (who at that time was the original Lilibet, aka Queen Elizabeth II), not great-grandchildren. The latter could only get it by special dispensation, as happened in the case of the children of the then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. But with the ascension of her grandfather last September Lilibet became a princess. Now Princess Lilibet ties with Princess Lenore of Sweden as ninth in line to the thrones of their grandfathers, King Charles III and King Carl VI Gustav. But Lenore is moving back to Stockholm with her family after stints in New York and Florida; London is not on the cards for Lilibet yet. And the royal prefixes for the kids are said to be compensation for the Sussexes being barred from using HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles after stepping back from royal duties. Actually, US fairly bristles with born bluebloods; unfortunately, most of them have grandiose titles that no longer come with any kingdom or crown attached! No wonder Harry and Meghan count themselves as a (royal) cut above the many princes and princesses of ‘Greece and Denmark’ floating around the US, not to mention Yugoslavia. Obscure German, Italian and central European principalities also contribute landless royals to ranks of American high society. At least Indian royalty who still use their traditional titles can boast of a castle(-cum-hotel) or two, though they no longer rule even nominally. As the Indian government formally abolished all hereditary princely titles in 1972, their royal status is now a private affair –acknowledged by others of their ilk and those who wish to accord them these honorifics. That their titles rake in tourist dollars for democratic India, however, gives their old feudal indulgences relevance. The Britain royals do much the same, clocking hundreds of manhours of public service (read, appearances at events ranging from farm and hospital visits to film premieres) for the low ‘pay’ that forced the Sussexes to seek greener pastures Stateside. People in government and industry tacitly acknowledge that without the glitter of royalty, tourists—especially from the US—may not be willing to come to the UK at all, so the House of Windsor earns its keep, so to speak. But even primarily self-serving royalty has a lingering cachet in US. That is why the commercially aware Duke and Duchess of Sussex wanted the titles of Prince and Princess of Sussex (the one in UK, not New Jersey, Delaware or Virginia) for the youngest residents of their Californian palace at Montecito, especially with Frogmore Cottage in Windsor now out of bounds. They know that any other title—say the Count of Montecito—would not have the same brand value. The Sussexes’ predicament is not unusual, though. Scions of many royal houses in Europe—the ones that still have kingdoms, not just titles—are having their HRH prefixes and princely titles chopped or curtailed as monarchies try to become more ‘streamlined’. As these royals no longer walk about with crowns and ermine robes, and many claim to want to live ordinary lives, dropping princely titles should not be such a wrench. Inexplicably, though, it is. Presumably, ‘stripping’ royals of their HRHs amounts to ordering them to be mere mortals, not people to whom others lower down in the hierarchy have to bow and curtsey even in the 21st century. Clearly these days this privilege is as hard to forgo for those born royal as those who gain their HRHs by marriage. They must have forgotten that Princess Diana’s star power remained undimmed despite being divested of the HRH prefix; or maybe they lack her chutzpah. So this is a perfect opportunity for HRH-less Harry and Meghan to reach out to similarly dispossessed and despairing royals round the world: it is good to know that one is not alone when fighting battles, right? Acceptable solutions may not be in their hands, but they could all have a cathartic heart-to-heart, with cameras to record it for the benefit of the wider world. It would be informative for commoners to understand why life without royal prefixes is such a torment. Washington had no children and not much by way of an extended family that can be tapped for claimants’ to the US throne. But, tellingly, in the two centuries since the Newburgh letter, his country has seen people crowned kings and queens of various fields—including primetime TV—signalling a fascination for the title that their first president rejected. Now there’s a bonafide American-born British royal, that too of mixed race, who can become a people’s princess! The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed are personal. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.