The story that H&M refused a title for Archie is bs, because the kid wasn't entitled to any titles anyway. At best he could've been called Earl Dumbarton as curtesy (no "HRH"!), didn't make him an earl though (ie it's a curtesy thing and A wouldn't be an actual title holder had they decided to go with the system as it is)!
The real story on A's title will come when Charles becomes king, because the law is that the monarch's male line descendants are entitled to be called "prince" and the "HRH" style (up to grandchild only, even the Cambs needed a special letters patent so that Char & Louis could be prince/ss, I think even for George the special rule had to be created).
They also can't take and give back a title just like that, because for taking titles away parliament needs to get involved. It's a whole other hassle.
I think someone who speculated that the Windsors aren't taking things (titles, money) away from Harry, is so H has an easier return in case of a divorce, is right.
The duke of Edinburgh title is reserved for Edward Wessex, which is why he's "only" an earl so far.
Markle redesigned her engagement ring with the same 3 stones H had set in them, but she put in tiny chip diamonds to make it an eternity band. The side stones are still Diana's and Liz doesn't really have access to her jewellery, it's all been given to Harry and Will.
Murks has after all worn other pieces of Diana's jewellery, more significant than two tiny diamonds (although overall no significant/important or big pieces, except the aquamarine ring).
Markle's redesign of her engagement ring makes it look like a copy of the one Engelson gave her, makes me think she chose that ring as well.
Btw, Murky doesn't have any title whatsoever, she's only a duchess as curtesy because her husband is a duke, he's the one who has a title.
Titles are treated akin to surnames (for wives), hence why Sarah is Sarah, Duchess of York. When she was married, she was (Sarah,) The Duchess of York. So it's usually clear who the wife is of a current title holder.
I don't know whether letters patent could be created to hinder M from using "duchess of Sussex" post divorce, but the trouble is that it would set a precedent and might affect others in the future (like taking away the "HRH" after Sarah).
I doubt M could get too much money from H in case of a divorce, because his money is held in trust and he is the sole beneficiary. A common way to ensure that divorces don't bankrupt the rich.
Sarah York got very little after her divorce due to this type of system (she got only part of Andy's pension which is a pittance and a great sum with the aim that she buys herself a place, however she wouldn't have been able to keep the place afloat, so she put that money in trust for Bea & Eug and moved in with Andy).
In case of a divorce M wouldn't be called or known as "Lady" as someone suggested in the thread before this, as "Lady" is a title in itself and you have to meet certain criteria in order to be called that (eg be a duke's or earl's daughter, hence why Diana was "Lady Diana", the only title she held on her own).
Thought I'd add what I know after reading for so long and mentally taking part!
My thoughts exactly
