Beatrice and Eugenie 'should give up HRH styles like Sussexes', former Lib Dem MP claims
Beatrice and Eugenie 'should give up HRH styles like Sussexes', former Lib Dem MP claims
Dorothy Reddin Thu, October 8, 2026 at 7:26 AM UTC
0
Eugenie and Beatrice | Source: INSTAGRAM/@PRINCESSEUGENIE
Norman Baker, the former Liberal Democrat minister, has mounted a defence of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex following their decision to step back from official duties, arguing that individuals born into the Royal Family must have the right to resign and pursue private careers.
Speaking exclusively to GB News ahead of the publication of his new book, Royal Mint, National Debt: The shocking truth about the royals’ finances, Mr Baker praised Prince Harry and Meghan for forging an independent path after agreeing in 2020 to stop using their HRH styles in any official or public capacity.
However, he directed criticism toward non-working royals who continue to retain and use their HRH styles, including Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.
Defending the decision commonly referred to as "Megxit," Mr Baker said: "Being a member of the Royal Family is not something you choose; you're born into it, and you must have the right to, in inverted commas, resign and then do something else. It can't be a life sentence. If you want to go away and do something else, you should be entitled to do that."
Addressing the reality of post-royal commercial life, he noted that departing the working monarchy naturally involves a built-in public profile: "Harry and Meghan are no longer undertaking royal duties, but it's inevitable they will trade on their connections.
"They can't not trade on their connections because they exist, and the same with Beatrice and Eugenie. I don't begrudge them their operations and their working events, or the working environment they've created."
However, Mr Baker drew a firm distinction between those who have surrendered their formal styles and those who carry out commercial activities while keeping their titles, aiming at the York sisters.
"The reality is that Beatrice and Eugenie still retain their HRH titles, and really, if they want to go and work in the private sector or do their own thing, that for me is fine - as Harry and Meghan have done. But they can't have one foot in the camp of the Royal Family and one foot in the camp of private enterprise for themselves," Mr Baker claimed.
He added: "They're either working royals, or they're not working royals. If they're not working royals, they shouldn't have HRH titles. If you want to go away and do something else, you should be entitled to do that."
Offering a counterargument on the constitutional mechanisms surrounding royal titles and private enterprise, Robert Hazell, Emeritus Professor of Government and the Constitution at University College London, outlined the legal precedent for removing royal designations.
When asked about the constitutional basis for HRH status and whether private commercial activity has any direct bearing on it, Professor Hazell told the People's Channel: "HRH status is granted by Letters Patent, and can be withdrawn, as happened with Princess Diana in 1996."
Turning to public funding and personal security, Mr Baker called for independent evaluations for secondary royals, arguing that taxpayer protection should not be treated as a perk of birthright.
Advertisement
Meghan and Harry | Source: GETTY
"There needs to be an assessment of security on a case-by-case basis," Mr Baker claimed.
"Clearly there needs to be security for the King and Camilla, and there needs to be security for William and Catherine and their children.
"But for everybody else, there should be an assessment made professionally and independently as to what security level is appropriate, if any, for other members of the Royal Family. Obviously, Harry and Meghan have made a big thing about that for themselves."
Highlighting past allocations of protection, he remarked: "Security has been provided in the past, certainly for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's children when they were at university and going around the world and enjoying themselves.
"There was never any threat to them, as far as we know. Those I've spoken to in the security business tell me it was almost like a status symbol for them at the particular time.
"Minor royals that many Britons have never heard of were getting security cover when people didn’t even know who they were. So it's got to be done on a case-by-case basis. Of course, there mustn't be any risk.
"Some should be entitled to automatic security, and of course, everyone else whom a threat emerges against them should be properly protected, but that shouldn't include every single member of the Royal Family who happens to have a Prince or Princess attached to their name."
Round-the-clock police protection for Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie was removed in 2011 following a review by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) and concerns raised by then-Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson.
GB News has contacted Beatrice and Eugenie's Assistant Private Secretary for comment.
The Home Office does not comment on its decision-making regarding the Royal Family and taxpayer-funded security.
A spokesman has previously said: "The UK government's protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.
"It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals' security."
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter
Source: “AOL Entertainment”
