The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 03-07-2017, 05:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,310
My confusion was because Edward will be created Duke of Edinburgh by a separate patent from his existing earldom.

It was for this reason that I thought he would use both titles and James would carrying on with Viscount Severn.

But you're both correct. James will use Earl of Wessex.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 03-19-2018, 01:31 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Will the Wessex kids be made HRH in the future?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 03-19-2018, 01:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 3,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosena6 View Post
Will the Wessex kids be made HRH in the future?
I don't think so, but they should. It is their birth right, which was taken from them.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 03-19-2018, 04:01 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosena6 View Post
Will the Wessex kids be made HRH in the future?
It depends on how you view the current situation. Personally for me they are HRHs but they do not use their titles. There was never any legislation produced to formally take their birthright away from them.

Others believe, and have produced evidence to the fact, that The Queens Will is enough to mean they have been stripped of their HRH birthright.

What we can 99% assume is that when their father ultimately becomes Duke of Edinburgh their titles will change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't think so, but they should. It is their birth right, which was taken from them.

Again, it depends if you believe it has been “taken” from them. Edward and Sophie made a decision for their children before they were born, a decision personally I think was right for them. Their position in line to the throne means HRHs weren’t necessary, they were never going to be working royals, and you just have to look at the flak and intrusion Beatrice and Eugenie have faced to see what Louise and James could have got/get. When a member of the royal family has an HRH, the public/press have the belief that they have a “right” to know that person inside and out. Their information is our information. Sophie and Edward have spared their children from that intrusion.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 03-19-2018, 04:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't think so, but they should. It is their birth right, which was taken from them.
Their 'birth right' was not taken from them.

The decision was made before they were born at the request of their parents and with the Queen's permission.

All that is needed for titles to be given or removed is that The Queen's Will is made known which it was in this case.

I wrote to BP to check this fact and had it confirmed by the palace itself - they aren't not and never will be HRHs without another monarch reversing what The Queen has made known to be her Will.

The intention, as I understand it, is to eventually move to only the children of the heir apparent being HRHs but the Queen didn't want to issue LPs to strip her cousins or Beatrice and Eugenie of HRHs but the intention is that eventually children of younger children will not pass on HRH at all. It is all part of the transition to a smaller royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 03-20-2018, 02:27 AM
JSH JSH is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
It depends on how you view the current situation. Personally for me they are HRHs but they do not use their titles. There was never any legislation produced to formally take their birthright away from them.

Others believe, and have produced evidence to the fact, that The Queens Will is enough to mean they have been stripped of their HRH birthright.

What we can 99% assume is that when their father ultimately becomes Duke of Edinburgh their titles will change.
.
For me as well, James and Louise are HRHs but do not use their titles.

When Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh James's courtesy title will change, but Lady Louise will still be Lady Louise.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 03-20-2018, 02:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH View Post
For me as well, James and Louise are HRHs but do not use their titles.

When Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh James's courtesy title will change, but Lady Louise will still be Lady Louise.
So you don't agree with BP who told me that they are not HRHs as The Queen's Will has been made known.

I actually wrote and asked whether they were HRHs who weren't using them and they said 'no they weren't ever HRHs as The Queen's Will was made known in 1999 that they weren't to have those styles.'
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 03-20-2018, 04:15 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
So you don't agree with BP who told me that they are not HRHs as The Queen's Will has been made known.

I actually wrote and asked whether they were HRHs who weren't using them and they said 'no they weren't ever HRHs as The Queen's Will was made known in 1999 that they weren't to have those styles.'
This. Their HRH never existed for it to be "stripped"..

If you want to argue, the new succession laws should include peerage. IMHO, if Prince Edward is made DoE, it's Louise's birthright to inherit the title after her father, not James.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 03-20-2018, 04:56 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,855
Not quite sure how you can say their HRHs never existed to be stripped as the are male line grandchildren of a monarch therefore by law entitled to HRHs.

Also unless it’s specified in the new issue that Louise can inherit, she won’t.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 03-20-2018, 05:26 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Not quite sure how you can say their HRHs never existed to be stripped as the are male line grandchildren of a monarch therefore by law entitled to HRHs.
I think the statement that the Wessex children never had the HRH to begin with might have stemmed from the fact that the Queen's will in the matter was decided at the time of Edward and Sophie's marriage before any children were born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
If you want to argue, the new succession laws should include peerage. IMHO, if Prince Edward is made DoE, it's Louise's birthright to inherit the title after her father, not James.
The equal primogeniture ruling was amended in the Succession to the Crown Act in 2013. It deals only with matters pertaining to the line of succession. From what I've seen, the British Peerage is handled by a totally different set of laws and acts.
__________________
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 03-20-2018, 05:40 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Not quite sure how you can say their HRHs never existed to be stripped as the are male line grandchildren of a monarch therefore by law entitled to HRHs.

Also unless it’s specified in the new issue that Louise can inherit, she won’t.
All titles are the monarch's prerogative. How the monarch chooses to announce the issuing or removal of a title is up to the monarch to decide and can be by a number of means:

1. Letters Patent
2. Press Release
3. Verbal Announcement
4. Royal Warrant

It makes no difference how it is announced. The fact that it is announced makes it the case and in the case of the Wessex children it was by press release and that was enough - The Queen's Will was made known - they aren't HRH.

As a result they were never entitled to HRH as it was announced in 1999 that they wouldn't have that styling. They can't be stripped of a right they never had.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 03-20-2018, 06:07 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,855
As we have previously discussed this matter, my sentiments are the same. I disagree that The Queens Will is enough to strip them of something that was given to them by law.

BP might have wrote to saying such, but I don’t see it as enough. Just because they aren’t “styled” as such, does not mean they are not entitled to it.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 03-20-2018, 06:49 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
As we have previously discussed this matter, my sentiments are the same. I disagree that The Queens Will is enough to strip them of something that was given to them by law.B.
Actually, royal styles and titles aren't given by law. They are the prerogative of the Sovereign.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 03-20-2018, 06:56 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
As we have previously discussed this matter, my sentiments are the same. I disagree that The Queens Will is enough to strip them of something that was given to them by law.

BP might have wrote to saying such, but I don’t see it as enough. Just because they aren’t “styled” as such, does not mean they are not entitled to it.
They weren't given it 'by law' but by George V making a decision and announcing it by one means that was available to him. He didn't consult anyone and just announced it. He chose to use LPs. The Queen chose another means but still it is her prerogative and nothing to do with 'law' or the PM or the government - her decision and hers alone.

You can decide to argue against BP and many experts who have also stated - throughout the 20th century (especially with the Wallis Simpson case and her HRH - again 'the King's Will' was all that was needed to deny her HRH - no LPs stripping her of a title - just an announcement from the King that she wouldn't have it - that The Queen's Will isn't enough but you are incorrect.

That is all that is needed as there is no legislation issued on these matters.

LPs aren't laws - just a piece of paper issued by the monarch putting in writing their will. They don't need to put them in writing though.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 03-20-2018, 07:24 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,855
Okay, we can respectively disagree on the matter.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 03-20-2018, 12:22 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Actually, royal styles and titles aren't given by law. They are the prerogative of the Sovereign.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain
According to the English Government History professor at Princeton University in NJ, you are absolutely correct. The law has no power over titles. They are only the Sovereign's wishes. They can not be changed by politicians or sitting party. He also believes that once Edward become DoE that only his wife will change official titles and that the children's titles will be changed only by KING Charles, if he wants them changed. It is not an automatic thing no matter what anyone else thinks. This was agreed to prior to the marriage of the Wessexs. It was what the Queen and Charles wanted and all agreed to. Now he also said that the Queen has the option to change her mind, even on her death bed if they feel she is still mentally fit. The York daughters will not have titled children unless Charles wants them to have, which seems very unlikely. This is only a titled thing and nothing takes away from family relations. Only Andrew's girls have royal princess titles now of the grandchildren which Andy and Fergywanted and Queen ok'd.

Now professor's personal opinion seems a bit different in his view that Charles will be very strict in exactly who get high titles and in what "rank" as he wants only a smaller royal clan to get government money and only those who do work for him will receive a stipend only for that occasion, not a yearly salary. He also believes that lesser royals should be able to work at a proper job at whatever if they desire.

Now that is what is being taught at Princeton. Someone on this forum should ask the sitting head of Oxford History Dept or another recognized huge university in England their historical facts on this subject. It would put to rest the proper law and not an opinion.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 03-20-2018, 01:19 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 582
Francois Velde includes his sources so it's not really accurate to say this is his opinion.

For example, he includes documents from the following:

#1 Garter:
"In regard to styles given in the Acts of Parliament cited, it should be remarked that the authority upon which they proceed are the styles given in Royal messages from the Crown transmitted to the House of Commons for making the necessary provisions for the respective parties, and therefore must be considered as emanating from the Sovereign."
National Archives HO/45/8933

#2 [Robert] Finlay, the Lord Chancellor:
"I think it would be in accordance with usage that the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught should be styled'"Prince" and "Highness" . This however would be subject to the pleasure of His Majesty as the fountain of Honours and no step should be taken without submitting the matter for the consideration of H .M."
LCO 2 7299

#3 A note prepared by Finlay's secretary, who quotes from Halsbury Laws of England Vol.VI. p.375 S.V. Constitutional Law):

(d) that the matter is one for the regulation of the reigning Sovereign - a proposition which might be arrived at aliunde, for "the King is the source of all titles of honour, distinctions, and dignities".
LCO 2 7299

Here is a link to the 1909 edition of Halsbury's The Laws of England (the only edition I could find freely available on the internet, the current online edition appears to require a subscription).


"550. With regard to the royal power and authority, the Sovereign is the supreme executive officer in the State; he is the head of the Church, the Law, the Navy, and the Army, and the source of all titles of honour, distinction, and dignities…."

https://archive.org/stream/lawsofeng...e/374/mode/2up
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 03-20-2018, 01:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 3,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post
According to the English Government History professor at Princeton University in NJ, you are absolutely correct. The law has no power over titles. They are only the Sovereign's wishes.
I would say that is only half true. The UK Parliament is sovereign, so it can override any royal prerogative by law. In fact, just recently, the royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament has been abolished.

What the professor probably meant is that, currently, no royal titles and styles are regulated by law in the United Kingdom except for the titles and styles of the sovereign him/herself. In the absence of an Act of Parliament , the titles of the members of the Royal Family fall within the royal prerogative.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-20-2018, 02:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I would say that is only half true. The UK Parliament is sovereign, so it can override any royal prerogative by law. In fact, just recently, the royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament has been abolished.

What the professor probably meant is that, currently, no royal titles and styles are regulated by law in the United Kingdom except for the titles and styles of the sovereign him/herself. In the absence of an Act of Parliament , the titles of the members of the Royal Family fall within the royal prerogative.
That's a very good point. And as the documents on Francois Velde's website point out - not his personal opinion - according to current law the "Sovereign is the the source of all titles of honour, distinction, and dignities…."

Consequently, QE II has every right to withhold the HRH from her Wessex grandchildren. Her wish is law in that matter, unless and only unless Parliament takes that power from her.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-20-2018, 03:13 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post
According to the English Government History professor at Princeton University in NJ, you are absolutely correct. The law has no power over titles. They are only the Sovereign's wishes. They can not be changed by politicians or sitting party. He also believes that once Edward become DoE that only his wife will change official titles and that the children's titles will be changed only by KING Charles, if he wants them changed. It is not an automatic thing no matter what anyone else thinks. This was agreed to prior to the marriage of the Wessexs. It was what the Queen and Charles wanted and all agreed to. Now he also said that the Queen has the option to change her mind, even on her death bed if they feel she is still mentally fit. The York daughters will not have titled children unless Charles wants them to have, which seems very unlikely. This is only a titled thing and nothing takes away from family relations. Only Andrew's girls have royal princess titles now of the grandchildren which Andy and Fergywanted and Queen ok'd.
If Harry and Meghan were to have children before Charles ascends the throne they wouldn't be HRH. So, it would seem rather unfair if Charles would elevate his grandchildren to HRH / prince(ss) and leave his niece and nephew as Viscount (earl) and lady upon the creation of their father as Duke of Edinburgh. So, I am curious to see what will happen. IMO it would be fair to treat the grandchildren of a monarch equally, at least from that moment on.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
lady louise, lady louise mountbatten-windsor, louise mountbatten-windsor, styles and titles, viscount severn


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Countess of Wessex Jewellery Josefine Royal Jewels 603 06-19-2018 06:53 PM
About the Wessex family iowabelle Forum Announcements and Admin 4 01-31-2008 04:39 PM
Possible names for the new Lord or Lady Wessex Beck The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 252 01-04-2008 12:07 PM
Earl and Countess of Wessex Current Events 2: September 2003-May 2004 Alexandria Current Events Archive 137 05-28-2004 01:15 PM




Popular Tags
archduchess marie astrid book camilla ceremony china chris o'neill crown princess victoria current events dutch royal family england family fashion felipe vi general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia interests iñaki urdangarín juan carlos king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia meghan markle news nobel nobel prize piromallo porphyria prince charles prince daniel prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess alexandra princess alexia princess claire princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria public image queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding spanish jewels spanish royal family events state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family tiara tony armstrong-jones van belgië victoria wedding ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises