Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[Gawin]

Thank you, this is the type of situation that should be avoided in the future. Right now I see the BRF in a transitional stage in terms of titles & roles for younger royals. But if Charles, or William, or whoever, decides a new model will be followed, new Letters Patent should be formulated to avoid confusion, ruffled feathers, or concerns that some grandchildren are being treated unfairly. After all, the current LP in force was issued one hundred years ago and formalized George V's own effort to streamline the monarchy.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Something for royal anoraks here, in a press release from Buckingham Palace today, the Earl and Countess of Wessex's daughter was styled as Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1026469482829623297

I refuse to be called an anorak, ?

 

[Denville]

Something for royal anoraks here, in a press release from Buckingham Palace today, the Earl and Countess of Wessex's daughter was styled as Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1026469482829623297

I refuse to be called an anorak, ?

What else would she be called?

 

[JR76]

Something for royal anoraks here, in a press release from Buckingham Palace today, the Earl and Countess of Wessex's daughter was styled as Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1026469482829623297

I refuse to be called an anorak, ?

Yet another proof of the fact that Louise does not and will never carry a royal title

 

[Iluvbertie]

She is always referred to as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor by the palace because that is her title.

On the rare occasions her name has appeared in the CC is it always as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Osipi]

Something for royal anoraks here, in a press release from Buckingham Palace today, the Earl and Countess of Wessex's daughter was styled as Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1026469482829623297

I refuse to be called an anorak, ?

I thought an anorak was a type of raincoat.

 

[Claire]

anorak

(ˈænəˌræk) n1. (Clothing & Fashion) a warm waterproof hip-length jacket usually with a hood, originally worn in polar regions, but now worn for any outdoor activity
2. informal derogatory a socially inept person with a hobby considered by most people to be boring

 

[wyevale]

an anorak was a type of raincoat.

'Tis, but [in common parlance] it represents a dullard, presumably because 'minority interest' types like 'trainspotters', are habitually attired in them...

 

[Claire]

I think that Louise used the surname Windsor - informally. But for formal items Mountbatten Windsor. But I see they still haven't decided if it is hyphenated or not?

 

[Osipi]

Thanks for the clarifications on the word anorak.

(gleefully checks off her "learn something new everyday" box as she heads to another thread)

 

[Mbruno]

I think that Louise used the surname Windsor - informally. But for formal items Mountbatten Windsor. But I see they still haven't decided if it is hyphenated or not?

The legal family name of all male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth II who are not HRHs is Mountbatten-Windsor. That was decided by Letters Patent issued by the Queen.

Louise, as a granddaughter of a British sovereign in paternal line, should have been an HRH and, accordingly, have no last name, but the Queen and her parents decided otherwise.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She is always referred to as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor by the palace because that is her title.

On the rare occasions her name has appeared in the CC is it always as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

A press release from BP on the occasion of her christening says otherwise,
https://www.royal.uk/announcement-christening-lady-louise-windsor

She is referred to as Lady Louise Windsor. No Mountbatten in there. In fact the three press releases on the royal.gov website all list her as Lady Louise Windsor. Including the announcement of the Flower Girls and Page Boys for William and Catherines wedding.

https://www.royal.uk/update-maid-honour-and-bridesmaids-best-man-and-page-boys
https://www.royal.uk/family-photographs-earl-and-countess-wessex-lady-louise-windsor

I can only find her in the CC once in 2016 when they went to Bristol Zoo, she is listed as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor then.

 

[Ish]

She is always referred to as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor by the palace because that is her title.

On the rare occasions her name has appeared in the CC is it always as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

Might want to tell whoever runs the BP Twitter and Instagram accounts that. Both referred to Louise as “Lady Louise Windsor” over the weekend.

 

[Kataryn]

Maybe they see how much leeway the other Ladies First Name Windsor get in their current life and want to have that for Louise, too. The Mountbatten is such a signal there. I don't now but wonder if the Ladies of the Londonderry-family really use the whole Vane-Tempest-Steward-name for themselves? No wonder Lady Annabel married a guy callede "Goldsmith" then...

 

[Ish]

It’s actually not uncommon at all for members of the British nobility to flip flop on the issue of double (or trip or quadruple) barrelled names. Some use all names, some only use one; some hyphenate, some use a space. The Spencer-Churchill Family is a great example of this; some of them use Spencer-Churchill (like the current Duke of Marlborough’s Family), while others just use Churchill (like Winston Churchill), and I believe others have used Spencer Churchill in the past.

 

[Iluvbertie]

A press release from BP on the occasion of her christening says otherwise,
https://www.royal.uk/announcement-christening-lady-louise-windsor

She is referred to as Lady Louise Windsor. No Mountbatten in there. In fact the three press releases on the royal.gov website all list her as Lady Louise Windsor. Including the announcement of the Flower Girls and Page Boys for William and Catherines wedding.

The formal documents such as the CC uses Mountbatten-Windsor for the wedding https://www.royal.uk/court-circular...te]=29/04/2011&date[max][date]=29/04/2011&id= as did the formal 'order of service' for the wedding https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ges-wedding-the-Order-of-Service-in-full.html

The royal.gov.uk site uses both formal and informal names e.g. Prince Harry not always Prince Henry but the CC always used Prince Henry and now Duke of Sussex while other parts of the monarch website uses the less formal Prince Harry.

The Queen made the decision that the descendants surnames were Mountbatten-Windsor (the same surname William and Kate used during their French court case where they weren't allowed to use titles but had to use an actual surname).

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Legally Louise is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. She is referred to as Lady Louise Windsor as a shortened form.

 

[Denville]

Yet another proof of the fact that Louise does not and will never carry a royal title

It does not prove that she will NEVER carry a royal tittle. it is just that for the present, her parents and the queen have agreed that she's titled as the daughter of an earl.../.

 

[LauraS3514]

It’s actually not uncommon at all for members of the British nobility to flip flop on the issue of double (or trip or quadruple) barrelled names. Some use all names, some only use one; some hyphenate, some use a space. The Spencer-Churchill Family is a great example of this; some of them use Spencer-Churchill (like the current Duke of Marlborough’s Family), while others just use Churchill (like Winston Churchill), and I believe others have used Spencer Churchill in the past.

I seem to remember reading that the late Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother before her marriage called herself "Lady Elizabeth Lyon" instead of the more formal "Bowes-Lyon." The Strathmore family reportedly preferred the short form as they felt that "Bowes" was forced on them in a marriage contract whereas "Lyon" was their ancient surname.

 

[jacqui24]

It does not prove that she will NEVER carry a royal tittle. it is just that for the present, her parents and the queen have agreed that she's titled as the daughter of an earl.../.

Unless the Wales line and York line both end up on the same plane and it goes down, she likely won't carry a royal title in UK. And given how unlikely it is for all those people to be on a plane together, I'd say it's pretty safe Louise won't ever have a royal title. The other alternative is if she marries a foreign prince, but that's also unlikely given the way things have worked out for this generation. It's a decision her parents and grandmother made. And I do think she's better off as a private citizen as a result.

 

[Rudolph]

And even for the sake of argument she goes from Lady Louise to Princess Louise, nothing changes.

She keeps the same precedence. She doesn’t gain any rights or privileges. The only thing that’d be different is the increase interest and scrutiny in being a ‘princess’.

The Yorks talked about how difficult it is to be ‘royal’ and yet expected to work for a living in ther Vogue interview.

Louise is no doubt thankful she not a royal highness.

But anyway, royal styles and titles are solely at the discretion of The Queen. She stated clearly Louise and James are not HRH.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This was reported days before Edward's and Sophie's wedding



"...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".
The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding...."


It was the personal wishes of the couple. The Queen agreed and let her Will be known.

Thank you, this is an interesting statement. On bbc.co.uk, the report is dated June 19, 1999, the royal wedding day.

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

Then the Palace indeed made known in 1999 that the Wessexes personally wished for their children not to be given the style Royal Highness (while telling in the official announcement that the decision was made by the Queen).

This statement also affirms that the decision was determined by the likely future circumstances of the children, not the circumstances of the parents.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Oh, this is exactly what I came on to ask. With all the stories of Andrew saying that Bea and Eugenie should have a working royal role because they are the only "blood princesses" I want to know why that is. I know Zara doesn't have a title because her father didn't have one but why isn't Louise a "blood princess"? I can't believe there's a whole thread.

 

[Blog Real]

Oh, this is exactly what I came on to ask. With all the stories of Andrew saying that Bea and Eugenie should have a working royal role because they are the only "blood princesses" I want to know why that is. I know Zara doesn't have a title because her father didn't have one but why isn't Louise a "blood princess"? I can't believe there's a whole thread.

Perhaps it was an option of the Earls of Wessex not to give the title of princes to their children.
Archie doesn't have the title of prince either.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Archie is a GREAT-grandchild of the monarch and not a grandchild. As such Archie was not entitled, yet, to HRH under the 1917 rules but Louise and James would have been if The Queen hadn't issued the statement to deny them that status.

Archie will be eligible to be HRH when Charles becomes King and the announcement back in May was that he 'may' become HRH Prince Archie when that day comes.

Even Charlotte and Louis weren't entitled to HRH under the 1917 rules but The Queen issued new LPs in 2012 to give HRH Prince/Princess to all of William's children and not just the eldest son.

 

[Fijiro]

At the time of their birth, even Prince Charles and Princess Anne were not entitled to be HRH Prince/Princess according to the 1917 Letters Patent, but in 1948 King George VI issued letters patent allowing Prince Charles and Princess Anne to be styled as Prince/Princess.

Since the BRF don't seem to strictly follow the 1917 Letters Patent, they need to update it to reflect the current changes. Because if Charles becomes King and reigns for long, Prince George of Cambridge might need a LP for his daughters and second son to be styled Prince/Princess, since they'll be the King's great-grandchildren.

.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The rules work fine for occasions when the heir apparent is clearly a male.

The Queen's 2012 LPs did say the 'children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' so George's children are already covered assuming that he becomes a father while William is Prince of Wales.

I do think Charles is planning new LPs to basically only have the children of the heir apparent in each generation as HRH - no cousins essentially. He probably doesn't want to strip the Kents and Gloucesters of their HRHs although he wouldn't care about stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of theirs so he has to move carefully. Maybe he will have to compromise and allow the York girls to keep HRH but no other children of younger children of the monarch get HRH going forward.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Perhaps it was an option of the Earls of Wessex not to give the title of princes to their children.
Archie doesn't have the title of prince either.

Well ILoveBertie said it best but Archie didn't qualify for a "prince" title. And my understanding is if they'd given him a lesser title he would be ineligible to become a prince. So they waited wanting the better title. I'm not putting it very well but something like that.

 

[Osipi]

There is absolutely no restrictions on Archie becoming a Prince of the UK once his grandfather becomes King. Actually, right now, Archie could use his father's secondary title of Earl of Dumbarton similar to how James uses his father's secondary title of Viscount Severn. The Sussexes have decided that Archie will not be known as that though.

Eventually though, the Wessex children will be titled and styled as children of a Duke with James in line to inherit the title of Duke of Edinburgh from his father. Louise will remain Lady Louise Windsor (until marriage of course). I believe also that once Edward is created The Duke of Edinburgh, James will then use his father's secondary title of Earl of Wessex.

To understand how the whole things is going to work with the Duke of Edinburgh title and it eventually being created for Edward, there's an entire thread on that subject too.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html

 

[Denville]

Well ILoveBertie said it best but Archie didn't qualify for a "prince" title. And my understanding is if they'd given him a lesser title he would be ineligible to become a prince. So they waited wanting the better title. I'm not putting it very well but something like that.

No, he woudnt be ineligible to become a prince. Once Charles becomes King, Archie as a grandchild in the male line will be a prince. (Unless it is decided that he will not be known as an HRH and Prince as has happened with the Wessex children....