Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's decision to allow their children to use royal titles is "no wonder" after they traded off their own royal heritage, a historian has said.
It was revealed today that the couple has begun to use the titles prince and princess for their children Archie and Lilibet.
Harry and Meghan’s youngsters became a prince and princess when King Charles acceded to the throne, but have remained a plain "master" and "miss" on the Buckingham Palace website for the past six months.
The Palace confirmed the site's line of succession list will now be updated to reflect the change after a spokesperson for the Sussexes publicly referred to Lili as a princess for the first time on Wednesday when announcing news of her christening.
Harry and Meghan are understood to be keen to not deny their children their birthright but to allow them the chance to decide for themselves when they are older whether to drop or keep using the titles.
And according to royal historian Dr Tessa Dunlop, it proves that despite Harry's attacks against his family and the British monarchy, the titles are "priceless".
She told the Mirror: "For those of you in any doubt that Harry remains at his core a monarchist, here's the proof: his daughter Lilibet has just been christened Princess Lilibet Diana in California.
"The Sussexes have subsequently confirmed that they intend to use the titles of prince and princess for their son Archie and daughter Lilibet.
"A long way from home, the couple's self-imposed exile has apparently served to remind them of the value of Britain's monarchy, especially in the USA.
"Harry and Meghan have justified their decision on the basis that they're keen not to deny their children their birthright.
"In many ways the move is predictable. If the couple had really wanted to cut free of The Firm they would have shed their own Duke and Duchess privilege. Not a chance.
"They understand in the slippery world of Californian celebrity, brands (especially brands with a tinge of monarchical magic) are priceless.
"Least we are in any doubt, Harry has made his recent millions trading off his royal heritage. No wonder he is keeping his children's options open."
Meanwhile, Tessa also believes it was "highly unlikely" that Charles would not grant his grandchildren the titles - even though the news may not go down well with some.
She added: "For some this news may stick in the throat. After all, hardworking Edward, the Earl of Wessex, has two children who don’t use their prince and princess titles.
"But crucially the Wessexes are operating within the fold, they have no need to hawk after a princely tag for their offspring.
"In contrast, for newcomer Meghan, rank always mattered. Lacking a labyrinthine knowledge of royal titles and prerogatives she suggested in her Oprah interview that son Archie was denied the title prince because he was mixed race, inferring the then decision went against protocol.
"She was wrong. Archie and Lilibet were automatically Prince and Princess only when their grandfather Charles became King under a rule established by George V in 1917.
"Rumours suggested that Charles might have withdrawn this right from his grandchildren with a Letters Patent. That was always very unlikely.
"Such an act would be highly provocative and at the moment the mood music in the palace is one of conciliation.
"The King has just invited the Sussexes to the Coronation. History also plays its part. The abdicated King, Edward VIII, never got over the Royal Family's subsequent refusal to grant his wife Wallis Simpson an HRH title, relations remained estranged until the end of his life.
"Charles, a mild-mannered man, man, doesn't want that. He's keen to build bridges with his youngest son, not burn them down."
Tessa Dunlop is the author of Elizabeth and Philip, the story of young love, marriage and monarchy, by Headline Press.
