It’s time for the King to follow Denmark’s example on Harry and Meghan’s titles, argues Richard Eden

For years, Britain’s Royal Family has often appeared to look down on its European counterparts. Yet when it comes to managing the size and role of a modern monarchy, Richard Eden argues that King Charles III may have something important to learn from them.

The example he has in mind is Denmark, where Queen Margrethe II made a highly controversial decision before her abdication: four of her grandchildren lost their titles as prince and princess.

The move caused an angry reaction from her younger son, Prince Joachim, and distress among the children involved. Margrethe nevertheless stood by her decision, saying difficult choices were sometimes necessary if the monarchy was to adapt to changing times.

Eden argues that Charles now faces a comparable choice involving his younger son, Prince Harry.

Harry and Meghan have stepped away from royal duties, yet they continue to hold the titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, also retain their royal titles. The question, in Eden’s view, is whether the King should now consider the same kind of reduction in titles that Margrethe introduced in Denmark.

The European monarchies Britain has often underestimated

Eden begins with a familiar contrast between Britain’s monarchy and the royal houses of continental Europe.

European monarchs have regularly travelled to Britain for major occasions, including royal weddings, while Britain has not always returned the gesture at the same level. More often, Prince Edward has represented the Royal Family at overseas royal weddings rather than the monarch or heir.

The Scandinavian monarchies have also sometimes been treated dismissively in Britain. Their relatively informal approach has earned them the nickname “bicycling monarchies”, especially when compared with Britain’s horse-drawn carriages, palaces and elaborate ceremonial traditions.

But while researching the latest edition of his YouTube programme, Eden’s Royals, Eden says he was struck by how much Charles could learn from one of those supposedly less grand European monarchies.

His focus was Denmark, whose royal family has several striking similarities to Britain’s.

Queen Elizabeth II reigned for a record-breaking 70 years. Her third cousin, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, was also a long-serving and widely respected monarch, remaining on the throne for 52 years.

There was, however, one major difference between their reigns.

Margrethe did not remain Queen until her death. On New Year’s Eve in 2023, at the age of 83, she announced in a televised address to the Danish nation that she would abdicate.

It was an extraordinary decision. No Danish sovereign had voluntarily stepped down to make way for a younger generation of royals in almost 900 years. The announcement was particularly surprising because Margrethe had previously made clear that she regarded being monarch as a lifelong responsibility.

Her elder son, King Frederik X, 58, succeeded her. He is married to the Australian-born Queen Mary, 54.

But before Margrethe handed over the throne, she had already taken another decision that deeply upset her younger son.

Margrethe’s decision that shocked her family

In September 2022, Margrethe announced that the four children of Prince Joachim would no longer be styled as prince or princess from the beginning of the following year.

The decision affected Prince Nikolai, Prince Felix, Prince Henrik and Princess Athena.

They were not stripped of every connection to the royal family. They retained their titles as counts and countess of Monpezat, while their form of address changed to “excellencies”. They also retained their places in the Danish line of succession.

Margrethe explained that the purpose was to give her four grandchildren greater freedom to shape their own lives without the special expectations and obligations associated with formal membership of the Danish Royal House.

In her view, reducing the number of people carrying princely titles was part of preparing the monarchy for the future.

The decision was painful for Prince Joachim.

He had not been involved in the kind of public controversies that have surrounded Harry, yet he reacted angrily when the change was announced.

“We are all very sad,” Joachim said publicly. “It’s never fun to see your children being mistreated like that. They themselves find themselves in a situation they do not understand.”

His eldest son, Nikolai, who was 23 at the time, also said he was “in shock” and “very confused as to why it has to happen like this”.

Margrethe nevertheless refused to reverse course.

In a subsequent statement, she acknowledged that she had underestimated how deeply the decision had affected her younger son and his family. At the same time, she maintained that it was her duty as Queen to ensure that the monarchy kept pace with the times.

She described the decision as necessary future-proofing and said that difficult decisions would sometimes have to be made, even when finding the right moment was difficult.

Why Eden sees a different situation with Prince Harry

For Eden, the Danish example is particularly relevant because he believes the circumstances surrounding Prince Harry are considerably more serious.

Prince Joachim remained part of the Danish royal succession and had not abandoned his public duties in the way Harry did. By contrast, Harry stepped away from royal responsibilities and moved overseas with Meghan.

Yet Harry and Meghan have retained the Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles bestowed on them by Queen Elizabeth II when they married in 2018. The official Royal Family website continues to list them as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and confirms that they stepped back as working members of the Royal Family in January 2020.

Their children have also retained their royal titles. The Royal Family’s official website identifies them as Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

That leaves the British monarchy in a position that Eden considers difficult to reconcile with the approach taken by Margrethe.

The Danish Queen was prepared to accept an immediate family backlash in order to reduce the number of grandchildren carrying princely titles. Charles, by contrast, has made no comparable move against his younger son.

The Counsellor of State question

There is another issue Eden highlights: Harry’s position as a Counsellor of State.

The role exists to allow designated members of the Royal Family to undertake certain official duties if the monarch is temporarily unable to do so because of illness or absence abroad.

Harry remains among the people legally eligible for the position. The official Royal Family website confirms that Counsellors of State can perform many routine duties of the Sovereign, although some important constitutional functions cannot be delegated.

Rather than removing Harry from the legal framework altogether, the King expanded the pool of people who could serve as Counsellors of State by enabling his sister, Princess Anne, and brother, Prince Edward, to take on the role.

That made it less likely that Harry would need to be called upon.

For Eden, however, the broader question remains: why should someone who has stepped away from royal duties continue to retain so many of the formal benefits and distinctions associated with royal status?

That question becomes even more significant, he argues, when Harry and Meghan’s titles are considered alongside their continued use of royal titles for their children.

Titles, royal status and the Sussexes

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were given their titles by Queen Elizabeth II on their wedding day in May 2018. Harry’s official titles include Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel, while Meghan is Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel.

Those titles have remained in place despite the couple’s decision to leave their roles as working members of the Royal Family.

That arrangement is fundamentally different from Denmark’s 2022 decision, where Margrethe deliberately separated her grandchildren from the formal princely titles while preserving their family connection and places in the succession.

The Danish model therefore provides a useful comparison, even though the two royal families are not dealing with identical circumstances.

Margrethe’s decision demonstrated that a monarch can make an unpopular change to royal titles despite knowing that members of the family will be hurt or angry.

She accepted that personal consequences could not be allowed to override what she considered the long-term needs of the institution.

A choice that would inevitably cause family tension

Eden’s argument is ultimately that Charles should be willing to accept the same kind of family tension that Margrethe faced.

The Danish Queen knew that changing her grandchildren’s titles would cause pain. Prince Joachim made his anger clear, and Nikolai spoke openly about his confusion. Margrethe later acknowledged that she had underestimated the emotional impact on her younger son and his family.

Yet she still concluded that the monarchy’s future had to come first.

Eden sees a parallel with Charles and Harry.

The King would almost certainly face a difficult personal consequence if he removed Harry and Meghan’s titles. It would be a decision involving his own son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren.

But from Eden’s perspective, that is precisely why the Danish example matters. Margrethe showed that a monarch can distinguish between personal relationships within a family and the institutional question of how the monarchy should be structured.

The issue is not simply whether Harry and Meghan should retain a title. It also concerns the wider relationship between royal status and royal duties.

Harry and Meghan are no longer working members of the Royal Family. At the same time, they continue to carry titles granted by the late Queen Elizabeth II, while Archie and Lilibet are officially styled Prince and Princess.

For Eden, that combination gives the Sussexes continuing links to the institution even though they no longer perform the duties associated with being working royals.

The question of royal privileges

Eden also connects the question of titles with the Sussexes’ long-running dispute over security arrangements.

After moving overseas, Harry and Meghan lost the automatic, round-the-clock police protection they had previously received in connection with their status as working royals. They have sought to regain that level of protection.

Eden argues that the continued retention of royal titles and other formal distinctions strengthens the Sussexes’ position as they seek to restore those arrangements.

His central point is therefore not simply about names and forms of address. It is about how the monarchy defines the privileges, responsibilities and institutional status that come with being part of the Royal Family.

The official Royal Family website makes clear that Harry and Meghan stepped back as working members of the institution in 2020, while also continuing to identify them by their royal titles and their children as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

That leaves Charles facing a question that his mother never had to confront in quite the same way.

Following the Danish example

Britain’s monarchy has long presented itself as distinct from the smaller and more informal royal houses of Europe. The Danish experience, however, suggests that there can be value in adopting some of their methods.

Margrethe II was willing to make a deeply unpopular decision involving her own family because she believed the monarchy needed to adapt. Her decision did not remove her grandchildren from the succession or sever their relationship with the royal family. Instead, it changed the titles and formal status they would carry into adulthood.

Eden believes Charles could take a similar approach with Harry and Meghan.

It would be an uncomfortable step and one that would undoubtedly upset the King’s younger son. But, in Eden’s view, the Danish precedent shows that a monarch does not have to avoid difficult decisions simply because they will cause family conflict.

The broader question is whether the British monarchy should continue allowing former working royals to retain the same prominent titles and royal associations, or whether those distinctions should be reconsidered when their relationship with the institution changes.

For Eden, the answer is clear: Charles should look to his European relatives, accept the personal cost of a difficult decision, and place the long-term interests of the monarchy ahead of the discomfort that would inevitably follow.