Due Diligence Interview Questions To Protect You As Well As Us! 1: Fill & Download for Free

Short version: We turn over every stone, and keep turning before, during, and after an investment is made.Long version: I perform hedge fund due-diligence (DD) for family office and institutional investors so this topic is quite near and dear to me. I’m proud to have steered our clients away from several funds that turned out to either be fraudulent or blew up for operational reasons. We’re dealing with allocation sizes in the tens of millions so the stakes are obviously very high. I’ll try to be as detailed as possible but this will really only scratch the surface at best.There are several objectives to hedge fund DD (and it’s not all about making sure the manager isn't a Madoff.) It helps to recognize from the outset that each hedge fund is first and foremost a business, and for businesses to be successful they need to have a differentiated product, a repeatable process for creating that product, and as a potential client you need to evaluate your own need for the product. In other words, what is the manager's differentiating 'edge' (see Nate Anderson's answer to As a fund manager, what’s the best response to, "What is your edge?" when asked by a potential investor? I talk about the differentiated strategy approach and team experience. I’m not sure there’s a genuine structural edge in the investment business.), what is the process for exploiting that edge, and how does it fit into your portfolio?To answer these questions investors must gain a deeper understanding of all of the following: (a) the strategy, (b) the investment process, (c) the people involved in the fund, (d) the ‘business’ operations of the fund, and (e) the performance track-record.Initial ReviewTypically, the DD process starts with an initial document review to glean the basics and see if its worth taking the meeting. I generally start with the tearsheet, presentation, and recent investor letters. Every investor has their own limiting criteria, but depending on the investor some will pass right away due to factors such as:Size of the fund. Some investors want the sense of ‘safety’ from a large fund, while others prefer smaller funds due to their higher return potential. (My diligence is generally focused on smaller funds, which may have higher operational risk, so the research burden tends to be higher.)Undifferentiated strategy or an unfavorable strategy for the market environment.Lack of a track record. Many institutions and investors require 3 years of track-record or a ‘portable’ track record from a manager's previous firm in order to get comfortable with their historical ability to perform. Again, I have some investors who are comfortable being 'day-1' money which raises the due-diligence threshold.Poor relative or absolute historical performance.High volatility or large drawdowns.Poor quality of investor communication. The only thing that differentiates a 'black-box' from a transparent fund is communication. If the communication from managers is sparse or uninformative it is tough to get comfortable with a strategy. We generally like to see monthly performance updates with quarterly commentary. Anything more frequent may mean the manager is spending too much time writing, and anything less means we are in the dark for too long.Lack of credible third-party service providers (auditor, independent fund administrator, prime broker, legal counsel.) Third-party service providers are the checks and balances on a manager's operations. Investors do not get compensated for taking on unnecessary operational risks, so if we don't see auditors, administrators, and prime brokers in place we will pass immediately.MeetingIf the manager passes our initial document review we'll take a meeting. The first meeting(s) are usually the standard pitch, a walk-through of the presentation, and a high-level Q&A. Though we'll have an idea going in on what we want answered and what we'd like to discuss, we let the manager start with their pitch and always end up free-forming after a while. The idea is to get a sense of the manager, personality, and to probe on different areas of interest or concern and get a sense of whether it holds up.If the strategy, performance, fund structure, and people all pass the initial smell test and merit further interest, due-diligence begins in earnest. An initial document list is requested which generally includes:Marketing materials:Investor letters since inception. These give us a sense of the quality of communication, investment ideas, research, and insight into the manager’s personality and approach.Relevant PR such as interviews, press releases, and published articles.Due-diligence questionnaire aka the ‘DDQ’. This is a key document that asks 100+ detailed questions about the fund. The AIMA (Alternative Investment Management Association) version is the most common DDQ. We review the DDQ provided by the manager and compare it with the AIMA DDQ to see if the manager deleted any questions from the list. Usually, when a question is missing from a DDQ it's because it was irrelevant to the strategy, but sometimes a deleted question can be HIGHLY relevant and show what questions the manager doesn’t want to answer. (Here's a random completed DDQ off Google in case you’d like to get a sense of what that document looks like: Page on opcvm360.com)Research samples. Again these give us a sense of the depth and focus of the investment process.Legal:Private Placement Memorandum. This is the legal doc outlining key terms of the fund. This is generally where all the nuances on fees and fund structure are found. See How do you describe, calculate, and interpret management and incentive fees and net-of-fees returns to hedge funds? for more detail on nonsense to be aware of surrounding hedge fund fees.Subscription documents. We review to make sure everything is consistent with the PPM.Partnership agreements. These detail terms of the business structure and can also detail nuances of the fund structure.State certificate of organization/LP certificate/state registration doc, IRS W-9 tax ID form. These are mostly just confirmatory documents.Other:Audits since inception. The independent auditor’s report is of critical importance, as it will reconcile assets, portfolio balances, performance, and often provide insights on portfolio construction, liquidity of underlying assets, and back-office protocols.Independent prime brokerage report as of last completed audit. This allows us to see even more detail on the portfolio from the time of last audit and allows us to reconcile the audit with the actual portfolio. If anything doesn’t line up with the audit it means either we or the auditor are missing something.Reference list. They will all obviously be glowing references, but the choice of references can be very important. Who they leave out of the reference list is often more instructive than who is included. That being said, sometimes good information can be found through the references.Service provider contact information. We verify the relationship with each service provider, and perform due-diligence on the service providers to get an understanding of the terms and length of the relationship with the fund.Any external or internal risk reports. These give us a sense of how they measure risk, what risks they control for, and how they fall within those parameters.Regulatory registration documents such as form ADV for advisers. This is more confirmatory information but can also show critical pieces of information such as assets under management as of a particular date, key principals, number and type of clients, and compliance with the law.Once the document review is completed, you’ll likely have a better understanding (and many new questions) about key issues surrounding the 3 P’s: people, process & performance. The next step is to dig on areas of interest or concern to learn more on each of these three areas.PeopleOne of my favorite stories on manager due-diligence came from a well-known investor who passed on a hedge fund because of a raincoat:The investor wanted to get to know the manager better, so they agreed to go on a hike. Halfway up the mountain it began to downpour. Unfortunately, the manager hadn’t checked the forecast and spent the latter part of the hike completely drenched. The (dry) investor realized at that point that the manager was a little too focused on the adventure ahead of him and not at all focused on managing the predictable risks along the way. The investor passed due to concerns over risk management.We haven’t passed on any managers over rain gear, but I think the point is relevant. In poker, you must observe everything about a player; betting patterns, style of play, tolerance for risk, and personality. You piece together an understanding of the person from the data in order to get a sense of their tendencies. The same applies to due-diligence on people. Fortunately we have a lot more data to work with than at a poker table:Background checks. We use a service that looks for criminal, regulatory, and civil infractions, including Anti-Money-Laundering checks on all principals and key employees of a prospective firm.Regulatory checks. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has a very comprehensive database of brokers and investment adviser firms that shows whether individuals or firms have had any regulatory infractions, their registration status, whether they’ve had any arbitration awards issued against them, and the full employment record of registered individuals (among other things). It also ties into the SEC database which is often relevant for larger firms. All of this is obviously extremely valuable background information. One little trick we use is to match up the employment record of the principal with the bio in their marketing materials. Often they will leave firms out of their bio if they had a bad experience there, though they'll include it on their regulatory filings. It may bring up points that require further digging: BrokerCheck: Research Brokers & Investment AdvisersBack-channel reference checks. This is probably one of the hardest things to do effectively, particularly for industry outsiders, but this can be a source of absolutely critical information. This is the scuttlebutt; the “I’ll talk to my guy who worked in this manager’s Deutsche Bank division when he was a portfolio manager...” This approach is often how you get the ‘real’ story behind a manager.Regular ol’ reference checks. You have to cut through the glowing praise and ask the right questions to really get a sense of the truth, but these can be helpful.Direct interviews with the manager. This doesn’t have to be a cross examination but during the meetings there should be a component of confirmatory questions along with getting a sense of the manager’s personality, background, and approach.Google. (Never underestimate!) I was asked by a family office to diligence a manager and I googled the manager before anything. Past investors had posted on a forum that the manager lost 90%+ of their money by making risky bets then doubling down when the original bets didn’t work out.Skin in the GameAlso worth noting is that it's incredibly important to know that the manager has invested in their own fund, and that they are risking their assets alongside yours. Most investors want to know what percentage of the manager's liquid net worth is in the fund, and will often request documents to prove it.Operational and Investment ProcessNow that you understand more about the people you’re working with, you want to understand the structure and processes that constrain them.A hedge fund, like any other business, creates a product (a portfolio). In order to generate consistent portfolio performance you need to understand the sausage factory, including both the investment process AND the operational processes in place.I know what you’re thinking—operations are boring. The sexy stuff is how people come up with their brilliant investment ideas. Unfortunately, the operations and business side of the fund are not trivial matters; research has shown that over half of all hedge fund blow-ups occur due to operational issues that have nothing to do with the investment process. As unappealing as it is to try to figure out the nuances of how Net Asset Value is calculated and reconciled with the fund administrator, it’s even less appealing to lose a billion dollars because you didn’t take the time. (Yes, turning over every stone means turning over the ugly ones too.)I’ve seen institutional investors pass on funds for reasons which may not be immediately obvious problems to a new hedge fund investor. Below are some examples. If you can think through the issues or potential issues with each real-life scenario below then you are off to a good start:A small fund required a single signatory on cash transfers.A fund had legal entities for their marketing, deal sourcing, and investment divisions of the firm.A large, well-known fund has used a big-4 firm as their auditor since inception, and worked with several offices of the firm over the course of their relationship.The same fund in #3 managed their fund administration internally.A fund was down 3% one month.A fund had rehypothecation agreements in place with their Prime Broker, a major, well-respected Wall St. bank.I imagine some of the above might not even sound like English. So what does it mean and why were these all problems for the prospective investors?Single signatory. Like any other business, embezzlement can be a problem for hedge funds. Requiring a single signatory to move cash, particularly for a small fund, means that a founder/key employee can potentially loot the place without limits. It’s not unheard of for a business owner to get served divorce papers then decide it's time for an early retirement in a tropical, non-extradition friendly country. On a less major scale, an employee may embezzle smaller amounts systematically over time. Hedge funds generally have much higher asset liquidity than traditional businesses, and therefore cash stewardship is of utmost importance. For these reasons, institutions usually require double signatories on cash transfers, often with one signatory being a credible, independent fund administrator.Multiple legal entities. Separate legal entities are put in place to limit liability (and potentially transparency) between entities. Whenever a manager puts legal shields in place between different operational aspects of a fund the investor should have a very clear understanding of why that is the case. In this case the reasons didn’t pass the smell test, and were likely in place to obscure important information for investors.Using several offices of the same accountant. Accountants understand the concept of multiple legal entities all too well. For example, each office of PWC may have its own separate legal entity which protects the greater organization and other offices from shared liability. In other words, working with 3 different offices of the same firm can be like working with 3 completely different firms. Another fact about accountants: If they find a problem with a fund (or a company) they will often resign rather than report their suspicions. In this particular example, 3 offices of the same accounting firm resigned over the course of the life of the fund. Unfortunately, most investors just thought: "Well, the manager has used a credible firm since inception, therefore it’s all kosher." Wrong.In-sourced administration. Approximately 90% of all hedge fund frauds would be eliminated through use of a credible outside fund administrator to manage valuation, NAV reporting, subscriptions/redemptions, and the back-office functions of a hedge fund. Madoff (again) in-sourced his administration. He couldn’t have reasonably pulled off his fraud had he used a credible outside administrator.Fund down 3% in a month. This by itself isn’t a problem. Some funds have high volatility and +/- 5% or more in a month isn’t unusual. The problem was that this particular fund’s investment strategy was expected to generate a slow, consistent half percent a month. A drawdown in one month of 3% in the context of that strategy was a red flag. The next month the fund was down 9% and subsequently lost another 20% before shutting down.Rehypothe-what?? Rehypothecation is when the fund lends their securities to their prime broker. The broker can then use the securities as collateral to lend against, and will generally pay the fund a small fee in return, which helps lower the fund’s brokerage expenses. Here’s bottom line: When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, this small distinction determined who 'owned' the assets. It was the difference between blow-up or solvency for many funds. (Literally billions were lost or saved over this nuanced operational detail.)In addition to operational processes, the investor must understand the investment processes in order to get a sense of how the fund’s portfolio is constructed. How does the manager source ideas, and what does their own research consist of? What kind of risks does the fund take? Risks such as currency, security, sector, market, interest rate, volatility, and countless other risks can be a part of the portfolio construction process. How does the manager make sure they are adequately compensated for those risks? How do these risks fit into the investor’s broader portfolio? Professional portfolio managers must account for all of these factors with the funds they invest.Performance.On every disclaimer on every document you will read from a hedge fund it will say: "Past performance is not indicative of future results." I'm generally not a fan of legalese but this bit should be taken as gospel. Historical returns are in the past, and without understanding them in the context of the strategy, the risks taken, and the changing nature of the strategy in the market then those returns are meaningless. Statistics lie. At the very least they can mislead: Did you know that the Vatican City has 5.9 Popes per square mile? True fact.Lets go through another quick example. If a manager tells you “we returned 100% last year.” Are you:(a) Excited(b) Interested(c) Skeptical/unsure(d) Overwhelmed by feelings of inferiority over your own lousy returnsIf the answer is anything other than lots of ‘c’ with a little bit of ‘b’ then you need to learn more about what performance means. (If your answer is ‘d’ I suggest yoga.)Performance needs to be understood in context. What risks did you take to make 100%? What is the volatility an investor can expect on those kinds of returns? (No matter how great your returns are, you only need to lose 100% once to wipe it all out.) Statistics like Sharpe ratios, maximum drawdown, correlation, and volatility can only really be helpful in the context of the market and the strategy that contributed to that performance.I once met with a manager who returned 142% in 2009 and 55% in 2010. Those were eye-popping returns, and they had all the right service providers and statistical ratios to ‘prove’ how credible and great they were.The manager told me that their whole strategy was to analyze momentum price signals, because “when you focus on one thing all day you get pretty good at it.” They were a complete black box as far as their model and their investment process, but the manager shared one aspect of the model: “When the market goes up we are able to capture those returns, but as soon as the market starts to drop, the model shuts down in order to mitigate any losses.” Classic baloney. (Explanation: Unless you know whether the market will continue to go down or up you can't determine when to turn the model on or off. He was basically implying that they could perfectly predict the direction of future price action in the market.)I passed on the fund, and it literally blew up the next month. (To be fair, I didn’t realize it would blow up so soon, though I did know that it would inevitably blow up with those returns coupled with no credible explanation of how they produced them or why they would persist.) The moral is that it's hard to find an edge and generate consistent returns, and historical performance (whether good or bad) has to be understood in full context.OverallThis overview really just scratches the surface but hopefully the framework and actionable tips are helpful. Many institutions view their due-diligence process as proprietary, but personally I’d rather see all investors have a deeper understanding of the process. It’s bad for the industry when charlatans run around with impunity, and quality diligence helps lift the entire profession. Most hedge fund managers are good people (honestly), but even among good people there can be a lot of average performers and undifferentiated strategies. A good due-diligence process can be both informative and collaborative-- in addition to learning about the managers our DD process often leads to operational improvements among funds we work with.Take your time, and don’t be afraid to ask even seemingly stupid or awkward questions. The best questions are often a little bit awkward. Always keep in mind that the next stone you turn over could be the difference between gaining or losing everything. If a manager seems reticent to provide information or answer your questions its generally a sign of what the relationship will look like going forward. Investments in hedge funds are ultimately partnerships and the good managers will understand and appreciate your need to learn before investing. Good luck!

Judge for yourself based on things that can’t be disputed. For example:1.- Republican members of the house are claiming that the impeachment process was unfair and that democrats did not give Trump due process. But actually, what really has happened is that Democrats in the house did not conduct an impeachment at first, they conducted an INQUIRY, as in “let’s find out if there is any evidence for the accusations to decide if we bring articles of impeachment”. During this inquiry, Republican members of the house DID participate and had access to question witnesses. Nothing shady there. It is actually what has to be done to make the decision based on facts and not just simple accusations. They were conducting this in a secure location to avoid witnesses from influencing each other’s testimony and to avoid witness intimidation, which is pretty normal as well. So, the complaint of “no due process “ is not valid because it was not a trial, it was just fact finding, and the White House could have participated or conducted its own investigation, and the investigation from the House had Republican representation.2.- The Republican defense is that they did not get to call their witnesses. Well, they can’t call the whistleblower and expect him/her to be outed in public view. This is against the whistleblower protections which are necessary for people to be able to come forward when they have evidence or concerns of wrongdoing. Calling the whistleblower to testify and then complain because he/she doesn’t is just a tactic to muddy the waters and have a way to cry foul when they don’t want to admit the truth. The Republicans on the other hand could have called their own witnesses like Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. They not only didn’t, they blocked them from complying with subpoenas. It is clear they had no intention in finding out the truth, or they would have encouraged the witnesses to testify. Even Trump was invited to testify and tell his version of the story, which he chose not to do. They did however complain that they wanted to call Biden and Schiff…. And then they go ahead and complain the Democrats only had second hand witnesses…. Neither Schiff nor Biden were on the call, and they have absolutely no information on this complaint, what can they possibly add to the investigation? This is just an attempt to distract the public through smearing the investigation and Biden, which was Trump’s intention in the first place. Even if we want to believe that Biden did something wrong during Obama’s term and that Schiff was somehow involved in the whistleblower bringing forward the complaint, that still does not make it OK for Trump to hold the aid in exchange for a public smear campaign of Biden from the President of Ukraine, which has been corroborated by all of the witnesses and by Mulvaney, and even by Giuliani… again, this seems like just smoke and mirrors to convince their base of something inmaterial to the accusations.3.- Another argument from the republicans to call this inquiry and impeachment a sham is that all of the information is coming from second hand witnesses. But they are the ones blocking the first hand witnesses (Mulvaney, Bolton, etc.) Also, Sondland is NOT a second hand witness, he had direct contact with Trump. To discredit his testimony as “you just assumed” is really insulting his intelligence. Any reasonable person would have made the same assumptions, if we can’t expect our ambassadors and government officials to read between the lines we are setting a really low bar for their intelligence. Also, it is really insulting to expect the public to buy that argument.4.- When republicans say that the money was withheld legally and for good reasons because of Trump’s concerns for corruption in Ukraine, again that does not match actual facts. Sondland testified that Trump wanted Ukraine’s President to say on a public interview that he was going to investigate the Bidens, and that was enough to release the military aid, and set up an official meeting between the two presidents. This shows that Trump was more interested in a public smear campaign of Biden than in investigating corruption. Now republicans are trying to discredit Sondland’s testimony because if Trump didn’t say directly that he would release the aid and have the meeting if there was a public statement, then it is just Sondland’s wrong interpretation and Trump is innocent of wrongdoing. But the White House was working on setting the interview, they had selected a news channel, and a date. So, their argument is just so obviously false that it really takes a child or a very gullible person to believe it. Also, there are emails that show the aid was held by Trump himself hours after the “do us a favor” call. Trump asked about the status of the aid a month before the call, and only after the call he instructed the aid be withheld. This does not seem to be an honest anti-corruption concern, but that is just MHO.5.- Republicans are also saying that the Democrats have been wanting to impeach Trump since day one. This may be true for some Democrats, but it certainly isn’t true for Pelosi. She resisted bringing a formal impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment until there was a credible whistleblower complaint that would have been a dereliction of the House’s duties not to launch an investigation to see if the complaint had any merits. She did, and it turned out that several diplomats and government officials corroborated the whistleblower complaint. Most of these diplomats and government officials were appointed by Trump. The White House tried to avoid the investigation of the complaint by not allowing witnesses with first hand knowledge to testify and by not providing the documents requested by the house. This is why one of the articles of impeachment is obstruction of congress. But now republicans are saying, as I explained above, that this is a sham because no witnesses with first hand knowledge had testified, but we know that is because they were blocked by Trump.6.- Republicans are also saying that this is the shortest impeachment in the history of our country, but the investigation has actually been longer than that of Clinton.7.- Republicans are also saying that there is no crime because the aid was finally released, without the need for any investigations or public statement. But they are not mentioning that this was done after the story went public and they realized they had no choice but to release it. Here is why this is important. If Trump was worried about corruption, why release the funds after the story went public? He could have come forward and said, “yes, I am holding the aid until there is credible assurances that there is no more corruption in Ukraine“ or something of that sort. Instead, he just released the aid to avoid the bad optics. Withholding the aid and requesting “a favor” is already wrong, it is basic bribery. It may not be defined as such in criminal law, but it does not have to be. The fact that the scheme ended up not working does not make it any less wrong. Also, it is a fact that Congress conditioned the release of the aid upon Ukraine passing the Department of Defense’s and the State Department’s due diligence tests in terms of anti-corruption efforts. Months before trump’s “perfect telephone call” and his withholding the aid both the Department of Defense and the State Department signed off on releasing the aid certifying that the Ukraine was in compliance with the anti-corruption efforts requirement.8.- Republicans are also saying that there is nothing wrong here because Ukraine‘s President said he didn’t feel pressured. This is just absurd. You are telling the guy “if you don’t play ball with us, we will not give you the support you need against Russia” and now you expect him to come and say publicly that he felt pressured by you? He knows that the consequences of going against this particular POTUS like that are not going to be good. This is just like accusing a victim of rape for not reporting the abuse. This is just how the power dynamics work in human nature. The President of Ukraine was willing to go on public television to say he would open an investigation that he knew was a political hit, just so that he can get the aid, it is safe to assume he is also willing to declare publicly that he felt no pressure.9.- Republicans are also trying to convince us that they had legitimate reasons to try to find out the Biden and Bursima corruption accusations. What they are not mentioning is that their source is a prosecutor from Ukraine named Lutsenko, who they claimed gave Ambassador Yovanovitch a “Do not Prosecute” list, who has since then admitted that he made it all up. Also, it has been reported that Parnas, the guy that Giuliani was using to investigate the Biden and Burisma “corruption “ was actually paid by a Russian oligarch, which would mean that once again the Trump campaign is being speared by Russian efforts to help him get elected, this time to pay for a defamation campaign against his main rival… something of value anyone?10.- McConnell and Graham are saying publicly that there is no chance that Trump will lose this impeachment trial in the senate, already telling the result of the trial. That is the definition of a rigged trial. McConnell also said he will not allow Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, and still will claim that there are no testimonies of first hand witnesses. Just to be clear, the senate is supposed to be an independent branch of government and it should hold the White House in check, instead it is acting as Trump’s personal lawyer.11.- Lastly, it is also a fact that Democrats know removing Trump through impeachment with a Republican controlled senate was impossible, and some Democrat members of the house also know that this may end up costing them their jobs, but they felt compelled to vote in favor of impeachment anyway. They stand to gain nothing from this, but their conscience. This is after all their job, even if the senate and the White House decides to betray theirs and the public is duped to believe the Russian propaganda, at least they will know they were not complicit in the US turning into a dictatorship. This is more than can be said of the GOP.It seems that this whole thing has one main beneficiary, Trump’s favorite dictator Mr. Putin. Weaker new Ukraine President that can’t say he counts with unwavering support on the US, is forced to negotiate with what seems to be Trump’s Master from a position of weakness and political ridicule, in the meantime Trump gets impeached, while the US democratic process is seen like a compromised sham, and the country is divided by a band of people crying foul, and what looks like a group of ostriches that refuse to get their heads out of the hole in the ground they stuck it in since 2016.So, these are the facts, they are undisputable, and everything else is just spin, and attempts to distract and confuse.Edit:A number of comments made on my answer pointing that Trump’s impeachment was unfair because he was not given “due process rights” and that the Democrats changed the rules. The truth is that Trump was given every protections afforded to Nixon and Clinton during their impeachment processes, but unlike Nixon and Clinton, this White House refuse to take them because instead they chose to stonewall it. Here is a good link to show this:https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Presidential%20Protections%20Chart.pdf

Here is what I think.I will be the first to admit that everyone has different thoughts and we all may be right or we all may be wrong. Or, like blind squirrels, we may find a nut once in a while. Everyone may have an opinion and we can share opinions, but debate is really not necessary. BNBR reigns on Windsor Watch and you are welcome to share opinions in that manner. Name calling and derogatory comments are not compliant with Quora policy and will be deleted. That said, here is my take for what it is worth.(Be advised that bold italics throughout are my emphasis.)She is no longer officially Meghan Markle, although she often sees herself that way. I will always be Leslie Hitchcock as my birth certificate says, but officially my Marriage Certificate changed that. I am Leslie Colleen Friedrich since 1972 so that is the name on my drivers’ license and passport. I think she could have retained her maiden name if she wished, but she did not or it would have been announced by the Palace.Despite this, she has not been stripped of her courtesy titles as Harry’s wife, nor has she given them up. She is officially HRH The Duchess of Sussex who agreed not to use her HRH/Duchess title when doing personal business. A year ago when they stepped back, the Palace designated her style as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.”To me, this is a confusing and misleading style because it is also the style assigned to a divorced wife of a British Prince. She is obviously not the divorced wife of a British Prince. She is still married to a British Prince.Why can’t she just be The Duchess of Sussex since Harry is still The Duke of Sussex?There is no other Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Just don’t use HRH in personal, business dealings. Moving on.Controversy over Archie’s skin color:My granddaughter is going to give birth to our first great grandchild in September. The baby will be mixed race. We are all wondering what the baby will look like because that is what everyone does as they wait for a new baby to be born into the family. It is the most normal thing in the world. It does not mean anyone is racist.My granddaughter is hoping for a girl (she is not prejudiced against boys) and expects a light skinned child because she is white and her partner is a wonderful young man who happens to be of mixed race and is very light skinned.I warned her about expecting anything - boy, girl, eye color, any feature including skin color. One never knows how far back into the past the baby’s inherited traits will go. It’s called genetics and we don’t get to choose. It was all decided in an instant when the strongest sperm out of millions (billions?) won the race at conception. You can decide on names, but for everything else you must wait until your surprise package is delivered.I said it does not matter what the baby looks like because you will fall instantly in love the second your child is placed in your arms. You can wonder now - completely normal; and hope - also completely normal - that he/she has daddy’s smile or your eyes, but do not expect anything except to be in awe of God’s creation and to fall so deeply and irrevocably in love with this tiny human being that you will protect your little one with your very life, if necessary.Her little miracle - our first great grandchild - is due in September and I am over the moon. She also wants me with her in delivery to be her Lamaze coach. I am deeply honored and thrilled to accept and be present to welcome our first great grandchild into this world.I don’t think it is unusual for any family, including the Royal family, to wonder about what their new little additions will look like. That is normal.Controversy over Archie’s title or lack of title:I also think that either Meghan does not understand about the baby’s title or it was poorly explained to her. She made such a vague reference to “George V or George VI” making the rules and she had no understanding at all about The Peerage. The Peerage has its own history and rules. The Queen may raise someone up to the Peerage, but HM is not able to change Peerage rules, protocol, and traditions as her Royal Prerogative.Archie automatically, under Letters Patent 1917, becomes HRH Prince Archie when his grandfather ascends the Throne. (Royal Prerogative).Archie automatically becomes The Duke of Sussex - a Peerage title - when Harry dies. (Peerage rules).Archie’s first born son will inherit the title from his father. However, the Royal Dukedom granted Harry by his grandmother, The Queen and “font of all honors” ceases to be a Royal Dukedom in the future (Peerage rules):The titles can be inherited but cease to be called "royal" once they pass beyond the grandsons of a monarch. As with any peerage, once the title becomes extinct, it may subsequently be recreated by the reigning monarch at any time. [1][1][1][1]I know there are more authoritative sources on The Peerage. But Wikipedia provides an easily understood framework to build on for those, like me, who did not grow up with and are not well acquainted with Peerages. We Americans who care about such things are self-taught. Try reading sources like these first:Peerage BasicsPeerage Basics For a quick intro, see John Hopfner's brief primer on titles . A peer of the realm is one who holds one (or more of five possible) title(s) of nobility and the estate(s) bestowed upon him or his direct ancestor by the monarch. Although other members of his family might be addressed by "Lord This" and "Lady That," none of them are peers; their titles are all courtesy titles , including his wife's (although she is usually called a "peeress") (1) .  A duke or duchess is addressed as "Your Grace" by social inferiors, and as "Duke" or "Duchess" by social equals (1a) (unfortunately I have not been able to discover what exactly "social equal" means).  All other peers and peeresses are called by "Lord" or "Lady" prefixed to the title, for example, Lord Spencer or Lady Thatcher. The five titles, in descending order of precedence, or rank, are: Duke Marquess (or, in the French and Scottish spelling, Marquis) Earl Viscount Baronets and Knights are not peers. As you'd expect from the ranking, dukes have always been the rarest British noble title. There have never been more than 40 non-royal dukedoms in being at any one time, and ordinarily there have been fewer than that. Today there are about 25 of them. (3) Barons, being the lowest rank of nobility, have usually been the most numerous of the five degrees. The next most numerous dignity has usually been that of Earl; Marquesses and Viscounts have always been comparatively less numerous, though not so rare as the dukes. In 1818, however, there were more earls than barons. There were 25 non-royal dukes, 31 marquesses, 212 earls, 69 viscounts, and 193 barons. These numbers include 21 peeresses in their own right : six countesses and 15 baronesses, but they do not include subsidiary titles ( i.e. , only the highest-ranking title held by the peer is counted). (4) D M E V B Total English 18 17 95 20 106 261 Scottish 6 2 44 2 22 76 Irish 1 12 73 47 65 198 Total 25 31 212 69 193 535 Peers sit in the House of Lords. On 26th January 1996 the House of Lords (excluding Irish peers, whose peerages do not confer a right to a seat in the House of Lords) was composed as follows (5) : Hereditary Peers (Excluding the 12 hereditary peers of the first creation) 757 (16 of whom are women) Life Peers and hereditary peers of the first creation ("created peers") 391 (67 of whom are women) Law Lords 24 (none of whom are women) Archbishops and Bishops 26 (none of whom are women) Total 1198 Only a peer may be said to hold a title "in his/her own right." All other titles are courtesy titles (6) . There are five types of peerages in Great Britain: peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom (7) . This makes a great difference in precedence , and in some cases, privilege . The higher the rank, the more likely it is that the peer holds several peerages , which may be distributed throughout the five peerages, depending upon their dates of creation. Historically, rhttps://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles02.html[2][2][2][2] andStyles of the members of the British royal familyhttps://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htmwhich statesThese styles and titles were, until comparatively recently (1917), governed mostly by sometimes ambiguous custom. They have remained part of the royal prerogative, and their conferral does not necessitate the formal advice of government. [3][3][3][3]andARISTOCRACY IN ENGLAND, RANK AND TITLERank and Title The population of England is divided into peers and commoners. There are five hundred and eighty-nine of one class and thirty-five millions of the other. The nobility, however, was at one time even more restricted in numbers. At the close of the Wars of the Roses there were twenty-nine peers left in England, and at the death of Elizabeth, in 1603, there were still only fifty-nine. In the present year of our Lord about six hundred men, with their immediate families, constitute the aristocracy of England. The orders of nobility are five: Dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. In every instance the eldest son succeeds by right of birth to the rank and titles of his father; but all the children of a peer are titled, and their precedence is strictly defined. Nevertheless they are commoners in the eye of the law; their titles are by courtesy only, and in official documents the eldest son of the Duke of Argyll is described as "John Campbell, commonly called the Marquis of Lome." I once heard a very eminent man, himself a member of the aristocracy, deride the notion that the son of an English earl was noble. "That's what they call a nobleman!" said this son and brother and uncle of earls. The wives of peers are all peeresses, and are styled duchesses, marchionesses, countesses, viscountesses, and baronesses. There are also several peeresses in their own right, for in certain families, in default of sons, the dignity descends to daughters. Should there be more than one daughter, they are co-heirs and the title remains in abeyance until only one survives. She then becomes a peeress in her own right, and transmits the succession to her eldest son. I knew such a lady, married to a commoner, and he took her family name, so that their son, who would succeed, might inherit the greater name; for no peeress can by marriage confer any rank on an ignoble husband. He remains a commoner, and upon the death of his wife will be a commoner still, though his son becomes a peer. He is not even a dowager. The dignity of Lord Great Chamberlain is hereditary in one of these families, and sometimes descends to females. It was recently in abeyance between two old ladies who together constituted the Lord Great Chamberlain of England. They were, however, allowed to depute one individual to act for both, on certain state occasions when this important functionary attends the Queen. Scotch and Irish peers, as such, have no admission to the House of Lords, but there are twenty-eight representative Irish peers, elected by their fellows for life, who sit in that assembly, and six-teen Scotch lords, elected for a single Parliament. Very many of the nobility of Scotland and Ireland, however, are also peers of the United Kingdom, and therefore members, in their own right, of the House of Lords. Altogether there are about one hundred and forty peers without seats in the Upper Chamber. In all other respects their rights and privileges are the same as those of othehttp://www.avictorian.com/aristocracy_title.html[4][4][4][4] before jumping toBurke’s PeerageBurke’s Peerage was established in London in 1826 by John Burke and has become the definitive guide to the genealogy and heraldry of the Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Landed Gentry of the United Kingdom, the historical families of Ireland and the Commonwealth of Nations, the Imperial, Royal and Mediatised families of Europe and Latin America, the Presidential and distinguished families of the United States, the ruling families of Africa and the Middle East and other prominent families worldwide.https://www.burkespeerage.com[5][5][5][5] orDebrett's Peerage | British periodicalDebrett’s Peerage, guide to the British peerage (titled aristocracy), first published in London in 1802 by John Debrett as Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Debrett’s Peerage contains information about the royal family, the peerage, Privy Counsellors, Scottish Lords of Session, baronets,https://www.britannica.com/topic/Debretts-Peerage[6][6][6][6]The Queen could have made Archie an HRH Prince from birth - as she did for Charlotte and Louis - but she did not and I do not believe it was for racist reasons. She has not done it for all of her great grandchildren, only for two and for a very specific reason.More likely, it’s because HM believes that exceptions to Letters Patent should be rare even though she has the power to change them all with her own Letters Patent. It’s about continuity instead of entirely reinventing the wheel with each new Monarch.More likely, it’s because HM knows that Charles wants to streamline the Royal family further so it would not help to add HRHs left and right now especially if they automatically become HRH under present rules in the future. This applies to Archie.I do see a historical parallel or precedent here that does apply to William’s children and not Harry’s, but again, it has nothing to do with race. It actually happened with HM’s children.George VI took action (with Letters Patent) to ensure that his heir’s children (Elizabeth’s children) would be HRH Prince/Princess from birth. As children of a Monarch’s daughter - in the female line because there was no male line from George VI - Elizabeth’s children, like Archie, would not qualify at birth under Letters Patent 1917 to be HRH Prince/Princess.George VI did not think it was acceptable for a future Monarch - who turned out to be his grandson, Charles - to not hold the title of HRH Prince/Princess from birth. He could have done nothing and Charles and Elizabeth’s other children would automatically become HRH The Prince/ The Princess when their mother ascended the Throne. George VI used his Royal Prerogative to make this exception before Charles and Anne were born.Elizabeth II did the same for all of William’s children ensuring that all his children, as children of a future Monarch who would automatically become HRH The Prince/ The Princess when their father ascends the Throne, would be HRH Prince/Princess from birth. According to George V’s Letters Patent 1917, only George - eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales - should be HRH Prince from birth. Elizabeth II issued new Letters Patent to modify this.These are historical examples of the few exceptions made since George VI. The exception for Edward’s and Sophie’s children was granted at their request. The exception that Elizabeth II made for William’s children is similar to the exception that George VI made for HM’s children while she was still HRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh. As you read these exceptions, note that Charles was born November 14, 1948:[1]On 22 October 1948, George VI issued letters patent allowing the children of his daughter Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and son-in-law Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to assume princely titles and the style Royal Highness;[8] they would not have been entitled to them ordinarily, as grandchildren in the female line, until their mother ascended the throne as Queen Elizabeth II. Thus the current Prince of Wales was styled HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh until his mother's accession. Otherwise the children would have been styled Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten, respectively.Queen Elizabeth II issued letters patent, dated 22 February 1957, creating Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[9] Prince Philip had been born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, titles he renounced upon going through the naturalisation process, unaware that he was already a British subject by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705.On the wedding day of The Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones, it was announced by Buckingham Palace that the Queen, in agreement with their wishes, had declared that their children would be styled as children of an earl, and not as Princes of the United Kingdom with the style Royal Highness.On 31 December 2012, Queen Elizabeth II declared that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, at that time Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, would have the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness.[10]Accordingly, the Duke's eldest son, born on 22 July 2013, is styled His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge. His daughter, born on 2 May 2015, is styled Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. His second son, born on 23 April 2018, is styled His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge. [2]I see by this that Monarchs have infrequently addressed special circumstances they believe should be changed. It is the Monarch’s Royal Prerogative. They are infrequent because if they were not the Royal Family would, again, become too large as was the case prior to 1917.Finally, Archie from birth, could have been Earl Dumbarton and addressed as Lord Dumbarton per the workings of The Peerage. (His sister who will be born this summer could be Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, but if Harry and Meghan are consistent , it won’t happen.)Harry and Meghan decided, and the Queen respected their wishes by declaring, that Archie would be styled Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.As a great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II,[17]Mountbatten-Windsor is seventh in the line of succession to the British throne. Although not a Prince or entitled to the style of Royal Highness as a great-grandchild of the sovereign, as heir apparent to his father's Dukedom of Sussex, Earldom of Dumbarton, and Barony of Kilkeel, he is customarily entitled to use Prince Harry's senior subsidiary title Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy.[17][18] However, it was reported that the Duke and Duchess decided instead that he would be styled as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor,[19][20] in accordance with their wish that he grow up as a private citizen.[21][22] [7][7][7][7]My gut tells me that not being HRH Prince immediately was not acceptable to Meghan. If Archie could not be HRH Prince immediately, she did not want him to be Earl Dumbarton. I think part of her strong reaction was her connection of his title to security being provided for him. There is a disconnect here somewhere because if Harry and Meghan had remained working Royals then Archie would have had security protection as I previously discussed. But he could not be HRH Prince at birth. Exceptions were made for children whose parents will become Monarchs at some future date - Elizabeth and William - not Harry.Palace courtiers and advisors:Layers in an hierarchy rarely help enhance communication. In any conflict or disagreement there are likely misunderstandings and miscommunications on both sides which are compounded by layers in the hierarchy of the institution, in this case, “The Firm.”If the palace courtiers were giving Meghan and Harry biased, incomplete, or wrong information on titles why not ask Charles, or ultimately, the Queen herself?HM has a personal, Senior advisor for these questions:Garter Principal King of ArmsArms Name Dates of office [nb 1] Notes Ref William Bruges By September 1417 [nb 2] – 9 March 1450 The son of Richard Bruges, Lancaster King of Arms , Bruges was appointed Chester Herald in 1398, making him part of the household of Henry, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester (later Henry V ); he was employed by Henry IV between 1407 and 1410. [13] In 1413, he was appointed Guyenne King of Arms [14] and travelled with the King on his campaign at Agincourt in 1415; he was entrusted with a number of diplomatic responsibilities and bore the title Aquitaine King of Arms interchangeably with Guyenne. [13] As Garter, he officiated at Henry V's funeral and was frequently occupied with diplomatic missions under Henry VI . He attended the English heralds' first chapter meeting in 1421 and was responsible for drafting the first armorial of the Order of the Garter in 1430. [13] [14] John Smert 3 April 1450 – before 6 July 1478 The parentage and origins of John Smert are not known, although he did hold land in Gloucestershire and was possibly a lawyer. He married a daughter of William Bruges, Garter, and may have been the Guyenne King of Arms mentioned in 1444 and sent on diplomatic duties in 1449; he was certainly Guyenne by the time he was appointed Garter. Smert was employed on a number of diplomatic missions, including his attendance at Princess Margaret 's marriage to Charles the Bold of Burgundy in 1468 and a Garter mission to Burgundy the following year. [15] [15] John Wrythe (or Writhe) 6 July 1478 – March or April 1504 The ancestry of John Wrythe is not known, but he was likely the son of William Wrythe , a receiver of the Duke of Somerset and briefly Member of Parliament for Cricklade . [16] A draper and citizen of London, the younger Wrythe was also said to have been Antelope and Rouge Croix Pursuivant , but this is dismissed by modern scholars; he was definitely Faucon Herald by 1474 and was appointed Norroy King of Arms in 1477. [17] He took part in the funeral of Edward IV and coronation of Richard III , who confirmed him as Garter in 1483, but he resigned on 4 January 1485. He resumed his office at the accession of Henry VII , which was confirmed by a patent of 13 February 1486. [17] [16] Wrythe was sent on diplomatic missions to Scotland, Ireland, Brittany, Calais, Burgundy and Maximillian I of the Holy Roman Empire. [17] He produced a "magnificent" book containing many pedigrees and drawings of arms belonging to Knights of the Garter. [16] [18] Sir Thomas Wrythe alias Wriothesley 26 January 1505 – 15 November 1534 The elder of son John Wrythe, Garter, Wriothesley was made Wallingford Pursuivant and entered the service of Prince Arthur and then Prince Henry . [19] As Garter, he attended Henry VIII at Thérouanne, the Field of the Cloth of Gold and Calais, and was sent on Garter missions to the Duke of Urbino , Philip of Castile , Ferdinand of Austria and Francis I of France . Otherwise, he concerned himself with domestic matters including the funhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_Principal_King_of_ArmsThis current Garter’s name is Thomas Woodcock. He advised HMTQ that Harry and Meghan should not use the word “Royal” in their branding so they had to discontinue “Sussex Royal.” [8][8][8][8]He is the principal adviser to the sovereign of the United Kingdom with respect to ceremonial and heraldry, with specific responsibility for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and, with the exception of Canada, for Commonwealth realms of which the Queen is Sovereign. [9][9][9][9]Meghan worked closely with this man and his office when her official coat of arms was created.My gut tells me Meghan and Harry did ask the Queen about Archie’s title who then queried her Senior advisor - The Garter. I think Meghan - unaware and not caring about British history and tradition - did not like the answers. If Megan did not like the answers, then that caused problems for Harry.Why didn’t Meghan want to know more about the extremely unique family into which she was marrying?I am amazed that Meghan did not want to know more about “what she was getting into” when marrying into the British Royal Family. I find that incredulous especially since she admitted she did not know, as an American, anything about the Royal family.Could a huge amount of stress and pain, on both sides, been avoided if she had just done her due diligence - homework - and asked a million questions, as I would have done, before marrying into an institution that goes back well over 1,000 years?What did Princess Grace do?Could a large amount of pain and stress been avoided if Meghan were provided a private course with “Debrett's (/dəˈbrɛts/[2]) . . . a British professional coaching company, publisher and authority on etiquette and behaviour,[3]founded in 1769 . . . “? [10]As a Northwestern graduate she would be completely capable of taking a class like this, but was she interested and was it offered?Or if she had taken such a class, would it have “not looked good?”Getting this information from a neutral source might have helped her understand the title issue for Archie was not a personal sleight.Security Protection for ArchieI do not blame her at all for fiercely wanting to protect her child.As Senior Royals, why would her protection and Harry’s protection be pulled?Wouldn’t the baby also be protected by their security detail?Was security really an issue while they were still Senior Royals?Or did this only become an issue when they stepped back from their jobs as Senior Royals and moved to Canada?Unclear.And didn’t Charles pay for security for all of them, at first, after they stepped back and moved to Canada?Charles did not leave them high and dry when this all started over a year ago.Refused medical care for suicidal thoughts and depressionThere is no way The Firm should have NOT allowed her to get the help she needed with her anxiety and depression.It would “look bad?”How bad would it look if a pregnant Royal Duchess committed suicide causing the loss of a top ten heir to the Throne?A courtier’s decision, not The Queen’s?HM needs to investigate this and make necessary changes. It seems - to me, and I have no proof other than anecdote - that Palace courtiers are often more snobbish then The Queen herself. They seem to protect their own positions and self-interests more than anything.Haven’t we seen evidence of that historically over the centuries as advisors all jockey to be closest to the Monarch to enhance their own prestige and power?Why else would anyone want to be Groom of The Stool, the King’s most prestigious advisor? [11]How hard would it be to get Meghan private treatment in England or Switzerland?Challenging, difficult maybe, but not impossible if they took the time to develop an appropriate cover story if they were so worried about what it “looked like.” If they could not figure out a plan, I’m sure MI6 would have helped develop one, if asked.The interview creates more questions than it answers!For me - who has been quite neutral regarding Meghan, and I am still not a fanatic either way - the whole interview raises more questions than it dispels. We are probably not getting the whole story from either side. And we probably never will. I’m not even sure we even should.This is a private, family matter that does not need to be fodder for the tabloids. One definite criticism I have of Harry and Meghan is by doing this interview they made it the fodder of the tabloids they hate so much. That makes no sense. This move was either a desperate last resort and cry to get the attention of their family OR a calculated and intentional move. I really do not know which it is. I suspect it is a little of both.One should be very careful about what they say they know about Meghan or Harry or The Firm because we don’t know anything. We have only perceptions based on limited knowledge and information and rumors are not facts.What are the true motives for doing this interview? What is “the rest of the story?”I think Meghan is trying to be honest about all of this and trying to be forthcoming. I am not sure she is succeeding. We certainly heard her point of view as she wanted to reveal it. But I still suspect Meghan’s motives based on what she has told us. All of this could have been resolved behind closed doors with Harry and her in-laws, if the ultimate goals were safety for her child and understanding how the Monarchy and titles actually work.Harry is caught in the middle. He naturally wants to protect his wife and child from malicious gossip and death threats. I have no doubt these were real. He is caught between knowing how the Monarchy works and “what Meghan wants, Meghan gets.” That’s fine if he is just talking about what he can provide for her. I’m not sure he is being very rational if he thinks that “what Meghan wants, Meghan gets” applies to The Monarchy or The Firm.Social media lauds Oprah Winfrey as the best interviewer ever. I don’t.Many now hail Oprah Winfrey as the best interviewer of all time. Her interviews are very entertaining and I give her well deserved an kudos for that. She knows her medium and what will sell, i.e. what will attract a large audience. She has an extraordinary business mind.But I do not see her as an unbiased interviewer especially in this instance. She is Meghan’s friend and she clearly could not overcome that bias.I am also very unimpressed that Oprah did not do her due diligence. Even if Meghan did not understand George V’s Letters Patent of 1917, Oprah should have.How is that not needed background research for conducting such an interview?Doesn’t this information help the interviewer select and frame questions?Isn’t this what puts everything in context if you don’t have an agenda?I don’t think Oprah thought it was important to do background on how the Royal Family and The Monarchy works. Her ignorance was worse than Meghan’s. Her goal was not to educate with this interview; it was to sensationalize. I guess that’s not a problem if you are taking a side. But, I think it’s a definite problem for an interviewer to conduct an unbiased interview.The whole interview smacks of not getting at the facts on both sides, but wanting to sway opinions in one direction only. This is actually the same way “unbiased moderators” have conducted Presidential debates of late.For those, like me, who would like the whole truth and nothing but, it was a very disappointing interview. I have at least 20 more questions now; more questions instead of fewer. Although I don’t like, love or dislike or hate Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, because I don’t know her, it is getting harder for me to give her and Harry the benefit of the doubt.Am I right or wrong in my opinions?I honestly don’t know. But, that’s what I think.After watching the interview, I am more confused than ever with 24 more questions for Harry, Meghan, HMTQ, her advisors, Charles, or are some just rhetorical?You decide.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Question Asked and Answered: What are your thoughts on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah? Thank you for asking this question, Natasha Wright, and for submitting it to Windsor Watch. [12][12][12][12]Footnotes[1] Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom[1] Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom[1] Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom[1] Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom[2] Peerage Basics[2] Peerage Basics[2] Peerage Basics[2] Peerage Basics[3] Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain[3] Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain[3] Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain[3] Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain[4] ARISTOCRACY IN ENGLAND, RANK AND TITLE[4] ARISTOCRACY IN ENGLAND, RANK AND TITLE[4] ARISTOCRACY IN ENGLAND, RANK AND TITLE[4] ARISTOCRACY IN ENGLAND, RANK AND TITLE[5] Burke’s Peerage[5] Burke’s Peerage[5] Burke’s Peerage[5] Burke’s Peerage[6] Debrett's Peerage | British periodical[6] Debrett's Peerage | British periodical[6] Debrett's Peerage | British periodical[6] Debrett's Peerage | British periodical[7] Archie Mountbatten-Windsor[7] Archie Mountbatten-Windsor[7] Archie Mountbatten-Windsor[7] Archie Mountbatten-Windsor[8] Meghan and Harry should not use Sussex Royal title, says senior adviser to Queen Elizabeth II[8] Meghan and Harry should not use Sussex Royal title, says senior adviser to Queen Elizabeth II[8] Meghan and Harry should not use Sussex Royal title, says senior adviser to Queen Elizabeth II[8] Meghan and Harry should not use Sussex Royal title, says senior adviser to Queen Elizabeth II[9] Garter Principal King of Arms[9] Garter Principal King of Arms[9] Garter Principal King of Arms[9] Garter Principal King of Arms[10] Debrett's[11] What is a Groom of the Stool? by Sarah Bryson - The Tudor Society[12] Natasha Wright[12] Natasha Wright[12] Natasha Wright[12] Natasha Wright