I There are parts of that statement that don't even make any sense, it just comes across as a badly written rant. He also loves writing 'the princesses' and 'as gradaughters of the Queen' just incase any of us had forgotten. I dread to think what Charles will make of this. I think he will be livid that his name is being brought up in this statement as I don't think for one second he's been consulted before it's gone out.
I don't understand your problem with the way Andrew refers to his daughters. If they were Bea and Genie Brown they would be loved daughters, but what Andrew is stressing when he refers to them as 'Princesses' is that they are royal and that's the excuse the paps give for playing fast and loose with the truth about his family. It is because they are HRH Princesses that they are of interest!
As to your comment about Andrew's brother Charles being livid, well obviously you buy into the tabloid slime about there being little love between the royal family siblings, etc. ad nauseum. We "know" no such thing and only hear of such things via the tabloids.
I wonder what Prince Edward and Princess Anne think of all this. Anne specifically didn't want her children to have titles - which I think suits them fine - and Edward was happy for his children to have lesser titles. And Lady Sarah Chatto is also the granddaughter of a monarch, but there was never any talk of her husband having a title. It does seem to be an issue confined to the Yorks.
Actually, in this you are wrong. When Princess Margaret married Antony Armstrong-Jones there were concerns that her children would not have a title. So, he was created Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley, of Nymans in the County of Sussex, thus his son became Viscount Linley and his daughter, Lady Sarah.
Princess Anne and Mark Phillips opted for the status quo and Mark did not take a title and so Peter and Zara, HM's grandchildren hold no title. Prince Edward, in a break from tradition, was created Earl of Wessex on his marriage to Sophie but HM made it known that she wishes him to inherit his father's title, Duke of Edinburgh. Presumably, Louise and James will become known as prince and princess at that time (although 1917 Letters of Patent designate them as such already).
Personally I don't think a parent should make that decision for his/her children.
If they don't want a title when they come of age, fine; but why not give them a choice?
In the event, the parents did not make a decision for their children. Anne and Mark could have accepted the gift of a grace and favour title and earldom, they chose not to. HM made the decision to create Edward the first Earl of a child of a monarch since Tudor times. Albeit with an eye to the future, to ensure that her husband's title lives on.
After Philip's death the nature of the title devolves back to the sovereign so I believe that HM is certain this will happen either at her hand or, should she predecease him, at King Charles, thus ensuring that the title will live on with Edward's son James his heir.
In the event, no children were denied their rightful inheritance.
.
