The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:09 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
But that is not the case now, so the law should be altered to reflect changing times.
Don't forget to forbid princesses to marry foreigners. Or you will have british prince Johnny Boone Pickens VII from Texas or british prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-19-2013, 11:10 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Don't forget to forbid princesses to marry foreigners. Or you will have british prince Johnny Boone Pickens VII from Texas or british prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
That makes no sense.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-19-2013, 02:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
The answer is very simple. The female line grandchildren inherit titles from their fathers.
It was hard to imagine british princess's husband without a title.
It denied royal status to some grandchildren and not others based on the gender of their royal parent - titles don't come into it but being royal does.

Regardless of whether Andrew or Edward had been given titles when they married under the 1917 LPs their children were going to be royal but Anne's children aren't royal - and that wouldn't change whether or not Mark or Anne had had a title.

The following might make clear the sexist nature of the 1917 LPs -

Princess Mary married the son of Earl of Harewood so her children took titles from their father but were NOT royal - not HRH Prince/Princess while her brothers who married the daughters of Earls had children who were HRH Prince/Princesses.

That is sexist - the spouses were children of Earls - the same rank in the UK but the children weren't royal or were royal based on the gender of the child of George V who was their parent.

Going further - Charles and Anne needed special LPs to be born as HRH Prince/Princess because even though Charles was about to be 2nd in line to the throne his descent from a woman meant he wasn't automatically royal. Move on a generation to when William was about to be born as 2nd in line - no special LPs needed as his descent was through a male.

Even The Queen had to do something to ensure that a girl born to William and Kate was born as an HRH Princess as only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was automatically a Prince - turned out George was a boy so not needed but without the special LPs to cover all of William's children a girl would have been born Lady xxxxx Mountbatten-Windsor instead of a Princess.

The 1917 LPs are sexist and aimed at treating some grandchildren of a monarch differently to other grandchildren of a monarch based on the gender of the royal parent.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-19-2013, 02:40 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It denied royal status to some grandchildren and not others based on the gender of their royal parent - titles don't come into it but being royal does.

Regardless of whether Andrew or Edward had been given titles when they married under the 1917 LPs their children were going to be royal but Anne's children aren't royal - and that wouldn't change whether or not Mark or Anne had had a title.

The following might make clear the sexist nature of the 1917 LPs -

Princess Mary married the son of Earl of Harewood so her children took titles from their father but were NOT royal - not HRH Prince/Princess while her brothers who married the daughters of Earls had children who were HRH Prince/Princesses.

That is sexist - the spouses were children of Earls - the same rank in the UK but the children weren't royal or were royal based on the gender of the child of George V who was their parent.
Then again, the LP of 1917 were right on the money as far as women were concerned. At that time, women weren't even allowed to vote. Women over 30 were allowed to vote starting in 1918. In 1928, women got voting equality with men.

We've come a long way since then.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-26-2014, 06:05 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 404
I am still surprised the situation regarding titles for female line grandchildren wasn't reformed at any point in the last 60 years.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-26-2014, 06:48 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I am still surprised the situation regarding titles for female line grandchildren wasn't reformed at any point in the last 60 years.

I find your comment here particularly entertaining given your argument that the monarchy needs to be downsized under Charles.

The BRF isn't known for being progressive - monarchies as a whole tend not to be - and thus typically makes changes in response to a current need instead of a potential future need. There hasn't really been need in the past 60 years to address the titles of the female-line grandchildren.

During George VI's reign the issue was addressed when the then Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with her first child and LPs were issued to create any children she has royals. Similarly, at her marriage her husband was created an HRH, if not actually a Prince. George's other daughter didn't marry or have children during his lifetime, so we can't say that he didn't intend on doing similar for her when it came up - reactionary, instead of progressive.

When Margaret did marry and have children it wasn't decided that her husband or children needed to be royals - although her husband was raised into the nobility, to give him an equal status to previous husbands of a daughter of the monarch. Given just who Margaret was and elements of her personal life, I would think that making her husband and children royals wouldn't have been a good long term investment for the BRF.

Of the Queen's children only one of them was female - meaning that for the bulk of her children there was no need to change the rules. And for Anne... Well, when Anne married she didn't see any need for her husband or children to have any titles. For all we know they could have discussed creating Mark and the Phillips children's royals but decided against it.

This was also in the 70s, when the issue of equal primogeniture just seemed to be beginning. Since then, what need has there been to change things? Now that equal primogeniture is becoming a big thing in European realms, Britain is still in a position where any changes would be proactive instead of reactionary - in contrast to everyone else, whose changes are in a reaction to young, female royals in the direct line.

Ask yourself, who would be affected by a change? Princess Margaret's children, who are in (or almost in) their 50s and Princess Anne's children, who are in their 30s. There are no other living female line grandchildren of a monarch, and these 4 have already established themselves as non-royals and aren't likely to appreciate suddenly being royals and having much more expected of them (not to mention more of a loss of privacy).

This issue will be addressed, but not until it actually needs to be - likely not until William's reign, if he has daughters.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-26-2014, 08:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,793
I suspect that the issue will be addressed to create fewer royals altogether - the children of the monarch and the grandchildren through the heir to the throne only - so William's children but not Harry's and then George's but not the children of his siblings and so on. That seems to be what the British public want - fewer in each generation not more.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 04-23-2016, 07:39 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 117
I figured the only way we could actually be sure if Louise and James can still obtain HRH's/prince(ess) of the blood royal. This would come about after the queen's death and at the coronation of Charles. They would enter at the procession of the princes and princesses blood royal. Or this could mean that they just use those courtesy titles but still have the precedence and rank of a prince/princess.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 08-15-2016, 09:56 AM
HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Windsor, United Kingdom
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia View Post
I thought that there had been a change in law after Lady Louise was born but I looked into it and no, there wasn't.
I suppose its a little like Camilla, she really is Princess of Wales although she is styled as Duchess of Cornwall just as after Charles becomes King she will be Queen but styled as Princess Consort. You can do anything when you're Royal!!
That may change. Camilla hopefully will become Queen. Charles has hinted at it in recent years!

So when Louise and James reach 18. Could they technically style themselves at HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex if they desired?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It denied royal status to some grandchildren and not others based on the gender of their royal parent - titles don't come into it but being royal does.

Regardless of whether Andrew or Edward had been given titles when they married under the 1917 LPs their children were going to be royal but Anne's children aren't royal - and that wouldn't change whether or not Mark or Anne had had a title.

The following might make clear the sexist nature of the 1917 LPs -

Princess Mary married the son of Earl of Harewood so her children took titles from their father but were NOT royal - not HRH Prince/Princess while her brothers who married the daughters of Earls had children who were HRH Prince/Princesses.

That is sexist - the spouses were children of Earls - the same rank in the UK but the children weren't royal or were royal based on the gender of the child of George V who was their parent.

Going further - Charles and Anne needed special LPs to be born as HRH Prince/Princess because even though Charles was about to be 2nd in line to the throne his descent from a woman meant he wasn't automatically royal. Move on a generation to when William was about to be born as 2nd in line - no special LPs needed as his descent was through a male.

Even The Queen had to do something to ensure that a girl born to William and Kate was born as an HRH Princess as only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was automatically a Prince - turned out George was a boy so not needed but without the special LPs to cover all of William's children a girl would have been born Lady xxxxx Mountbatten-Windsor instead of a Princess.

The 1917 LPs are sexist and aimed at treating some grandchildren of a monarch differently to other grandchildren of a monarch based on the gender of the royal parent.
It's a fact that in the Royal world and among commoners, only men can pass their titles and names on which is why the children of Princess Anne don't have Royal titles for example, despite being grandchildren of the Sovereign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Someone just asked a question and I hadn't ever thought about it before. Will Louise and James be allowed to vote when they become 18? If we are to believe they are legally HRH, then they are not allowed to vote?

Am I right in saying that any of those in the BRF who are titled HRH have no ability to vote?
Technically ALL members of the royal family can vote, even the Queen. But she doesn't execute this right as she wants to be truely impartial. We don't know whether other royals vote in secret, they have the right to, but they most likely do not especially if they are a future king like Charles and William. Of course some royals do have political views, that they have to try and essentially forget. The Duchess Of Cambridge before becoming Royal, had likely voted before!
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:03 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 573
You missed the children of the Earl of Wessex, who are male line grandchildren who are just not using their titles. The titles have not been removed from them. New can of worms.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,470
The statement from BP regarding the Wessex children makes no mention of them 'just not using their titles'.

It says they will have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl. That's it. They have never been referred to as HRH is any official documents.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:20 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
You missed the children of the Earl of Wessex, who are male line grandchildren who are just not using their titles. The titles have not been removed from them. New can of worms.
Indeed under the rules laid down by George V (I think that is right) the Earl of Wessex's children are legally Prince James, Viscount Severn, and Princess Louise of Wessex - they don't use their titles, but there is nothing in statute to prevent them using them either!
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:23 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The statement from BP regarding the Wessex children makes no mention of them 'just not using their titles'.

It says they will have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl. That's it. They have never been referred to as HRH is any official documents.
So what happens if/when the Earl of Wessex becomes the Duke of Edinburgh?
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:28 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,859
The Royal Family Order (RFO) and other Royal Orders and Decorations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camsterlaird View Post
So what happens if/when the Earl of Wessex becomes the Duke of Edinburgh?

Louise stays the same. James upgrades his courtesy title from Viscount Severn to Earl of Wessex.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
So what happens if/when the Earl of Wessex becomes the Duke of Edinburgh?
Lady Louise's title will be unaltered, and James will become the Earl of Wessex.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:31 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
You missed the children of the Earl of Wessex, who are male line grandchildren who are just not using their titles. The titles have not been removed from them. New can of worms.

Not missed, deliberately excluded.

The issue of the Wessex children's titles has been extensively debated on these forums by many (including myself). Whether or not they have royal titles and simply use lesser titles is unclear because of the way the Queen announced that they would be styled as the children of an Earl instead of as British royals.

I tend to think that the vagueness was deliberate to allow their status to change in the future if ever desired, but I think for now they are not officially considered members of the BRF and instead enjoy a status similar to Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camsterlaird View Post
So what happens if/when the Earl of Wessex becomes the Duke of Edinburgh?
If Edward gains a dukedom, Louise stay a lady and James is earl.

The BP statement regarding Edward and Sophie was for any future children. It was issued before Louise and James were even in the picture.

It's not like Louise was born and the palace said HRH Princess Louise of Wessex will be called 'Lady' but retains her HRH.

BP said any future children will have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl. Period.

We can't read the Queen's mind, nor can we read anything into the statement. It's not ambiguous. It's clear as a crystal and we have to take the statement as is.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:39 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
If Edward gains a dukedom, Louise stay a lady and James is earl.

The BP statement regarding Edward and Sophie was for all future children. It was issued before Louise and James were even in the picture.

It's not like Louise was born and the palace said HRH Princess Louise of Wessex will be call 'Lady' but retains her HRH.

BP said all future children will have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl. Period.

We can't read the Queen's mind, nor can we read anything into the statement. It's not ambiguous. It's clear as a crystal and we have to take the statement as is.
Well that as it may be I will continue to, personally, regard them as Prince James and Princess Louise ... probably means my invite to the Garden Party will be "lost in the post".
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 117
The BP release only said courtesy titles for children of an Earl, and made no mention about when Edward becomes DofE. This could be seen as deliberate to see what happens in the future regarding the family or just an act of common sense. So we cannot make assumptions.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 01-07-2017, 05:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,470
The Dukedom of Edinburgh is a future possibility for Edward. Not carved in stone. The statement on any future children addressed the fact he's an earl.

But since you gain titles and not lose them, Edward would still retain his current peerage if granted a dukedom. So Louise stays a Lady no matter what. James would have an option I suppose between viscount and earl.

Edit: Although Earl of Wessex is not a subsidiary title. Were he created a duke he'd be HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Earl of Wessex.

James stays a Viscount then.
__________________

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 571 07-14-2017 03:04 AM
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
albania best gown september 2016 best outfit best summer outfit 2016 birthday catherine middleton style crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit eveningwear crown princess victoria hats denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge fashion poll general news jewels kate king abdullah ii king abdullah in new zealand king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander monarchy new zealand nobel nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week picture of the week december prince charles princessanne princess beatrice princess mary princess mary current events princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess sofia queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen mathilde hats queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania evening dresses queen rania fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to spain succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats visit to canada zog


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises