The Phillips Children and Titles

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by lyndaW

Personally I think Princess Anne should have let them be "Titled" when they were born, and then when they reached age 21 it could and should have been their decision if they wished to keep the title. I just don't think it was fair of Anne to make that decision.....its obviously a moot point at this late date

Thing is, it takes a bit of effort to renounce a title. It's actually much simpler--and, honestly, better for them as children--to not grant a title at birth, and grant one later if everyone wants to.

[branchg]

If Peter wants a title, I'm sure The Queen would love to grant him one. After all, he is her eldest grandson and Anne's only son.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens on his wedding day.

[Lady Marmalade]

Stranger things have happened.. Edward was made an Earl instead of a Royal Duke when he was married, a mild surprise to many, as usually the sons of a sovereign are made Dukes...but we never know.... Shall have to wait and see. The wedding seems to be grander than we all originally thought. I heard the Queen is providing an open carriage for the ride from St. George's to Frogmore House.....imagine the pictures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HRHEarlofGwynedd]

Edward was created an Earl for his wedding, but will become The Duke of Edinburgh after Prince Philip. After Philip dies The Prince of Wales becomes Duke of Edinburgh and the title will merge with the Crown when Charles becomes King. He will then grant the title to the Earl of Wessex.

[principessa]

If Mark Phillips hadn't decide to resign a royal title at his marriage how would he and his children be titled? And how would be Timothy Laurence called after getting a royal title?

[Melania]

I also think that Edward's son(s) and grandsons will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (if he does indeed have any male grandchildren)... and not just William's and Harry's children and grandchildren.

Am I correct? Edward is male-line child of Prince Philip as well, so he should be able to use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Melania

I also think that Edward's son(s) and grandsons will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (if he does indeed have any male grandchildren)... and not just William's and Harry's children and grandchildren.

Am I correct? Edward is male-line child of Prince Philip as well, so he should be able to use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

Technically, Edward's children are HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign. His children are being styled Lord/Lady Windsor at their parents request, but they have the right to be HRH under the 1917 Letters Patent.

The surname "Mountbatten-Windsor" will apply to The Queen's descendants who are not HRH.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by branchg

Technically, Edward's children are HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign. His children are being styled Lord/Lady Windsor at their parents request, but they have the right to be HRH under the 1917 Letters Patent.

The surname "Mountbatten-Windsor" will apply to The Queen's descendants who are not HRH.

No, the queen granted them the right to not be called HRH and prince/princess.

More info from: Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain


The children of the Earl of Wessex

On June 19, 1999, at the time of Prince Edward's wedding, it was announced that The Queen had decided, with the agreement of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children of their marriage should not be given the style of His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl (see the press release from Buckingham Palace).


At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent. The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases (see the documents concerning the style of the Duke of Windsor's wife and issue, in particular the view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed", and the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"). How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial.



(End of quote)

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

No, the queen granted them the right to not be called HRH and prince/princess.

The Queen did no such thing. She simply announced her Wessex grandchildren would be styled as the children of an Earl, which they are, rather than HRH as male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign.

They still have the right to be HRH Prince/Princess of the UK automatically, unless specific letters patent are issued denying them that right, as was done in 1937 before The Duke of Windsor married. Otherwise, Wallis would automatically have become HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor with marriage to HRH The Prince Edward.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by branchg

The Queen did no such thing. She simply announced her Wessex grandchildren would be styled as the children of an Earl, which they are, rather than HRH as male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign.

They still have the right to be HRH Prince/Princess of the UK automatically, unless specific letters patent are issued denying them that right, as was done in 1937 before The Duke of Windsor married. Otherwise, Wallis would automatically have become HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor with marriage to HRH The Prince Edward.

Of course the queen did. Or isn't the "style " what people are actually "called", no matter what they are?

From the press release of BP:

"The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl. "

Which means BTW that a second son of prince Edward would simply be The Honorable Mr. X Mountbatten-Windsor.

[Arncliffe]

From how I see it, the press have elevated the couple on the occasion of their marriage. This morning's 6-very-cold-2nd-day-of-winter-am-news in Sydney had a lead story about the royal wedding.

So those with bitter and twisted comments about WAGS should know their place and should be pleased to know that a business brain is in line to enjoy the Gatecombe inheritance.

[inka7]

I can understand that the two gave an exclusive interview to Hello! before the wedding and made money on that. In this way, they have a chance to finance the wedding party, honeymoon, future life together etc. on their own. I even think they should have asked for more. After all, Autumn and Peter are throwing a party for the Queen and should not borrow money or have the expenses covered by someone else.

If exclusive wedding picture rights were sold or not - I cannot say.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Of course the queen did. Or isn't the "style " what people are actually "called", no matter what they are?

From the press release of BP:

"The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl. "

Which means BTW that a second son of prince Edward would simply be The Honorable Mr. X Mountbatten-Windsor.

What I meant is The Queen was simply announcing they would use courtesy styles as the children of an Earl, rather than a son of The Sovereign.

It does not mean they do not have the right to assume their styles as HRH Prince/Princess of the UK if they choose to do so in the future. Only letters patent can take that away.

[Mermaid1962]

Right. If Edward and Sophie's children were referred to as Prince/Princess, then we'd have a real right to see pictures and know more about them. People--not everyone, of course--are practically demanding pictures of Lady Louise; but until she's able to make the decision for herself to appear in public, she's under her parents' protection.

[branchg]

Her parents were very clear they, like Princess Anne, wanted their children to grow up without the burden of titles and royal rank. However, until new letters patent are issued changing the 1917 criteria, they have the right to assume their royal rank and styles once they become adults.

It is likely, however, that new letters patent will eventually be issued to "downsize" the royal family, possibly when Charles becomes King, to restrict the style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK to the children of The Sovereign and the eldest child of the heir to the throne.