Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[Gawin]

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

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Okay, we can respectively disagree on the matter.

 

[Winnie]

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.

 

[Gawin]

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/lawsofenglandbei06hals#page/374/mode/2up

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Gawin]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[cepe]

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.

Charles wouldn't have to "elevate" his grandchildren - HRH would be automatic as H&M's children would be the grandchildren of the Monarch (GV LP 1917).

 

[Somebody]

Charles wouldn't have to "elevate" his grandchildren - HRH would be automatic as H&M's children would be the grandchildren of the Monarch (GV LP 1917).

Yes, I know that he doesnn't have to do anything but he could easily make it known that they won't be known as such just like his niece and nephew. If he doesn't do so it would only be fair to make Louise and James HRHs as well. It would be hard to claim that he is downsizing if that only applies to non-descendants.

 

[cepe]

Sophie and Edward have agreed with HMQ that their children would not have HRH. With hindsight it is a good decision IMO.

I think that being "HRH" is not necessarily a good thing if you are not undertaking royal duties. In the UK many people associate HRH with having access to public money. This persists regardless of the facts. That is the main reason behind the poor public opinion of Beatrice and Eugenie.

Louise and James - like the children of Dukes of Kent and Gloucester - can choose their own path with little interest from the media

 

[Somebody]

Sophie and Edward have agreed with HMQ that their children would not have HRH. With hindsight it is a good decision IMO.

I think that being "HRH" is not necessarily a good thing if you are not undertaking royal duties. In the UK many people associate HRH with having access to public money. This persists regardless of the facts. That is the main reason behind the poor public opinion of Beatrice and Eugenie.

Louise and James - like the children of Dukes of Kent and Gloucester - can choose their own path with little interest from the media

If that is the new line; probably the queen should make it known that from now on only children of monarchs and direct heirs will be HRHs. Much easier than needing to explain it for each individual case. In that case Louise and James are the trail blazers of the new policy.

 

[Mbruno]

If Harry and Meghan were to have children before Charles ascends the throne they wouldn't be HRH.

They wouldn't (probably won't) be HRHs when they were (are) born, but, all things staying the same, they would (will) be HRHs when Charles ascended (ascends) the throne. No further action by King Charles III or George VII would be necessary.

The only scenario where Harry and Meghan's children would remain non-HRHs under current rules would be if they were born during Queen Elizabeth II's reign (which is likely), but Charles never ascended the throne (i.e the Crown passed from the Queen directly to William, which is very unlikely).

I think that being "HRH" is not necessarily a good thing if you are not undertaking royal duties. In the UK many people associate HRH with having access to public money. This persists regardless of the facts. That is the main reason behind the poor public opinion of Beatrice and Eugenie.

Don't all children of the sovereign have access to public money to a certain extent in the sense that they, at least indirectly, get money from the Queen and her money comes from the Sovereign's grant ? When Andrew and Edward get some fraction of public money, their children indirectly get it too, whether they are HRHs or not. The lines are rather blurred to me even though, technically, only the Queen and the PoW have clear sources of funding set up for them.

 

[Somebody]

They wouldn't (probably won't) be HRHs when they were (are) born, but, all things staying the same, they would (will) be HRHs when Charles ascended (ascends) the throne. No further action by King Charles III or George VII would be necessary.

The only scenario where Harry and Meghan's children would remain non-HRHs under current rules would be if they were born during Queen Elizabeth II's reign (which is likely), but Charles never ascended the throne (i.e the Crown passed from the Queen directly to William, which is very unlikely).

Yes, exactly. I know very well how it works as I've explained it to others several times (probably also while those people didn't need that explanation ). The more likely scenario would be for the monarch to make known that Harry's children won't be HRHs even if their grandfather becomes king (however, it would be best if that happens before Charles ascends the throne otherwise they would be HRH for a little while which just confuses things).

However, my point was that if they are born as non-HRH (i.e., if Elizabeth still is queen), they would become HRH when Charles ascends the throne. IMO it is unfair if they would become HRHs while Louise and James don't - if Harry's children receive the style of HRH, I would very much hope that Louise and James get theirs when the ducal title is bestowed on Edward. They are in exactly the same position (more correctly, Louise and James were born as grandchildren of the monarch in male line; Harry's children might be a generation further down at first), so the argument that has been used (not by the BRF but by royal watchers) that not awarding them HRH prince(ss) is to reduce the size of the royal family wouldn't be valid any longer IF Harry's children would not receive the same treatment.

Just pleading equality between Harry's potential and Edward's children in terms of titles once Charles is king.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

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.

Who in the BRF gets a yearly salary? No one that I know of. AFAIK the Queen has money from the Lancaster Duchy, Charles has money from the Cornwall Duchy. The Queen covers expenses for her children (other than Charles) and cousins when they perform Royal Duties, Charles cover expenses for his sons and daughter-in-law.
I thought the Sovereign Grant was funding for the Royal Household and covers events like State Dinners, upkeep of the palaces, official travel and staffing.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They wouldn't (probably won't) be HRHs when they were (are) born, but, all things staying the same, they would (will) be HRHs when Charles ascended (ascends) the throne. No further action by King Charles III or George VII would be necessary.

The only scenario where Harry and Meghan's children would remain non-HRHs under current rules would be if they were born during Queen Elizabeth II's reign (which is likely), but Charles never ascended the throne (i.e the Crown passed from the Queen directly to William, which is very unlikely).



Don't all children of the sovereign have access to public money to a certain extent in the sense that they, at least indirectly, get money from the Queen and her money comes from the Sovereign's grant ? When Andrew and Edward get some fraction of public money, their children indirectly get it too, whether they are HRHs or not. The lines are rather blurred to me even though, technically, only the Queen and the PoW have clear sources of funding set up for them.

Sovereign Grant is to cover the official expenses only - no private expenses are covered at all from that source. So the children and cousins have expenses involved in undertaking their royal work covered - but that is standard in any job isn't it - expenses associated with the job are paid for by the employer.

The Queen and Charles both have a private source of income - the Duchies - when they share with their families. This money is also from taxpayers - but in the same way that say the Duke of Devonshire's income comes from the lands he owns or the Duke of Westminster gets his from rental income from his properties. The Queen also has the income from Sandringham and Balmoral.

 

[JSH]

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.'

That is correct. I choose to believe that whoever wrote that response did so off the cuff and without researching the issue.

I believe that the Queen's will gave permission for the Wessex children to not use their HRH and instead be styled as the children of an Earl. And that that is all it did. The announcement did not explicitly say that the children would not be HRHs and so I can't say that it does.

 

[Osipi]

We have to remember that with the Wessex children, the titles and styles that were made known as the Queen's will was at the *request* of the children's parents. With Harry and Meghan, they may choose to ask the Queen (and perhaps later on, Charles) as monarch to honor their wishes that their children not be styled as HRH and prince and princess.

With the Queen's family, we've seen parental wishes honored. Anne and Mark declined a title offered that would give their children titles. Sophie and Edward specifically petitioned the monarch for assent as to how they wanted their children titled and styled. Andrew and Sarah chose to keep things the way they were and their girls were titled and styled as princesses.

We do not know what Harry and Meghan's thoughts are on this matter. Most likely they have discussed this matter with the Queen and Charles and whatever happens, in the long run, I believe it will be Harry and Meghan's decision as to how their children are titled and styled unless Charles, as King, decides to enact his own prerogatives in the matter which will be his right to do so.

 

[Winnie]

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.

You are probably correct as I was trying to relate his talk but we were talking just about titles being awarded and as of this minute proper titles can not be given out by Parliament but only by sitting King/Queen. I am sure he is correct though and Charles has quite a good deal of impute into titles at this stage of his life. I personally have the feeling that slowly but surely Charles' master plan for his reign is being set in motion and that the Queen is fully aware and approves of what might be changed or else those she does not agree with will be accomplished after Charles is King. Quite an interesting subject.

 

[Gawin]

That is correct. I choose to believe that whoever wrote that response did so off the cuff and without researching the issue.

I believe that the Queen's will gave permission for the Wessex children to not use their HRH and instead be styled as the children of an Earl. And that that is all it did. The announcement did not explicitly say that the children would not be HRHs and so I can't say that it does.

According to an archived page from the Royal Family's website the Wessex children were never given the HRH. So it's not that they don't use it, they don't have it because it was never given to them.

"At the time of their wedding it was decided, with the couple's agreement, that any children they had should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl."

https://web.archive.org/web/20081021104848/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5590.asp

It's also stated on the 19 June 1999 edition of BBC NEWS:

"In a modernising touch, the couple's children will not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, "but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl"."

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

Also, an announcement from the Associated Press on 19 June 1999:

"With the couple's agreement, the queen decided that any children they have would not be given titles of His or Her Royal Highness, but instead would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl, the palace said."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On June 19, 1999, the Palace made the following announcement:

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

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.

Here is the above-mentioned letter from Buckingham Palace.

That is what I was told when I wrote and asked BP.

[...]

The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.

[...]

 

[Gawin]

If that is the new line; probably the queen should make it known that from now on only children of monarchs and direct heirs will be HRHs. Much easier than needing to explain it for each individual case. In that case Louise and James are the trail blazers of the new policy.

I agree. At first glance letting the parents decide seems like a fair policy. But as time goes on it could become haphazard and willy-nilly. What if Royal Child #2 doesn't want his/her children to have the HRH but Royal Child #3 does?

So it would make sense to do as you suggest and create a new rule - "only children of monarchs and direct heirs will be HRHs."

 

[Ish]

What is being overlooked in this debate is the state of the monarchy when this decision was made, as well as the people who made it.

In 1999, Edward was the last of the Queen’s children to marry and the only one likely to have children (Charles and Andrew being divorced, and Anne pushing 50). Thus the decision to have Edward’s children not use the style and title of Prince/Princess had no impact on his elder siblings children, whose titles had long ago been established.

In 1999 Edward and Sophie were not full time working royals, nor were they planning on becoming working royals - both had private careers that they wanted to continue to pursue.

And finally, in 1999, the BRF was still recovering from the more tumultuous era that was the 90s, with the marital scandals and the unpopularity that followed them.

In choosing to not have their children titled/styled as the children of a Prince, but rather as the children of an Earl, Edward and Sophie were taking wise steps to protect their future children from some of the public scrutiny that the Wales and York children had received, while also garnering public approval.

Given the circumstances under which the decision was made, there was absolutely no need for HM to change the LPs regarding titles, or to make any rule that expanded beyond Edward’s children. Nor is there any need for the Queen to change the LPs now - doing so would only strip the Queen’s cousins of their titles, disregarding the decades of service to the crown most of them have done, and the Yorks. Harry’s children will not be born with titles, and if it’s the desire to not have the children of younger sons be HRHs then they can make a similar announcement to the Wessexes’ announcement either when Harry and Meghan marry, or when Charles becomes King.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think anyone is suggesting to strip current HRHs of their styles. My main question is whether the Wessex example should have consequences for Harry's children (if he'll have them).

The problem with the solution of announcing that they won't be HRH only when Charles becomes king is that they will be HRH from the moment the queen dies, so even if it would be announced shortly afterwards it would be a demotion for any children they may have at that time.

 

[Gawin]

I don't think anyone is suggesting to strip current HRHs of their styles. My main question is whether the Wessex example should have consequences for Harry's children (if he'll have them).

That was my thought as well. If any changes are made they would wait for the next reign and would only affect the next generation (Harry's children). If Charles does in fact want a more "streamlined" monarchy this would be a step in that direction.

I don't think we can view this topic only in light of the circumstances surrounding Edward and Sophie's decision. For example, Andrew's daughters are HRHs but if the rumors are true he wasn't allowed to decide if they would also be full-time working royals. If that's the path Charles and his advisers decide to follow - the children of the monarch's younger children won't be working royals - then why should they even be HRHs in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier for them to make their own way in the world without the publicity surrounding a royal title?

I also don't think the BRF can continue with the "let the parents decide and we'll make an announcement" model. It's too willy-nilly. Once again, Andrew wasn't allowed to decide if his daughters would be working royals or not. So if Charles wants to streamline the monarchy, fine no problem, but in my opinion the end result should be consistently applied and formalized (a new LP, for example).

 

[AdmirerUS]

I don't think "let the parents decide and we'll make an announcement" model's been in effect for a while.

JMO, and off topic, but I think either her Majesty or her courtiers have chatted with each of the Queen's children well before the birth of any child about preferences. I also personally believe that Charles and his courtiers sent appropriate messages to let his sibs know he preferred no HRH in their offspring. I have always imagined that this was a conversation he and Anne had, possibly even at Anne's instigation about her children. And that set the tone. Edward agreed and Andrew did not.
Anne is not stupid and she could do the math and envision how finances would play out with 4 sibs having multiple HRH children over time. Equally, Anne is smart enough to weigh full time royal status against her children being able to choose a life.
IMO, it's completely not surprising from my POV that Andrew's girls are HRHs but have no FT Royal status. Andrew won the battle through the Queen and lost that war with Charles.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

I have always imagined that this was a conversation he and Anne had, possibly even at Anne's instigation about her children. And that set the tone. Edward agreed and Andrew did not.
Anne is not stupid and she could do the math and envision how finances would play out with 4 sibs having multiple HRH children over time. Equally, Anne is smart enough to weigh full time royal status against her children being able to choose a life.

But Anne's children were never entitled to the title and style of HRH Prince/ss of the UK under the 1917 Letters Patents as female-line grandchildren of the monarch, so that conversation is not likely to have happened. The only titles that could have been granted would have been bestowed on Mark Philips and his children would have gained courtesy titles, with Peter using his subsidiary title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Andrew's children were born in 1988 and 1990 - before the War of the Wales and the downturn in popularity of the BRF that followed.

In the late 80s and early 90s it was believed that the York girls would eventually become full-time royals. My friends, who know them, have said that Beatrice wasn't told she wasn't to be a full-time royal AFTER her gap year on leaving school - which is why her degree and her work interests don't match. Eugenie was told at the same time and so was able to choose more carefully both her school subjects and then her uni degree. The person who drove that idea though was William not Charles.