Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[cepe]

further to Lumutqueen's question/point

Is it a case that LPs must be issued to create a new title - as with the Cambridges, but not required if something is not to be used or taken away (as possibly with the Wessexes) ?

And is it that in reality no one knows re the Wessexes

 

[Ish]

LPs don't have to be issued to have something not used - they weren't issued to make Camilla not use Princess of Wales - but it's debatable whether or not they have to be issued for a title to be taken away.

Personally, I think this was done so as to be deliberately vague on the issue so that if the Wessexes ever change their mind on the matter, Louise or James could end up using the higher titles without a public uproar. As it stands now, with us being able to debate the matter, If Louise went to her Granny and said she wanted to be a Princess then the Queen could make an announcement that it is her will that Louise be known as a Princess, because of course she always was one - and the fact that this debate has been going on for the past 10 years means that we can't really say she wasn't a Princess.

As for whether or not it's simply sexism that the Phillips don't have titles while the Wessexes and Yorks do, I disagree. For starters, it isn't sexism because when Mark Phillips was offered a title he turned it down. That reason is why Zara is not a Lady. Secondly, in the extent that titles are basically an extension of a family name, there's the argument that within the English speaking world, legitimately born children get typically get their surname from their father. Thus, when John Smith and Jane Doe have a child, it's more likely to have Smith as a surname than Doe. Titles aren't all that different, and by extension they are no more sexist than surnames. The BRF has, in the past, made measures to allow for a monarch's grandchildren to have titles - be they Royal or Noble - but in the case of the Phillips the lack of titles is owing to a decision made by their parents.

As to whether the titles should be limited so that the children of the younger sons of a monarch don't automatically become royals... Personally, I don't see the need. While I can understand the argument from the perspective of the royal parent not wanting their children to themselves be royal - and I think in the case of Edward an Sophie we can see this decision having been made - because of the expectations placed upon the children, but I don't see why there's this huge need to "slim down" the monarchy. It won't change the cost of the monarchy that much - certainly not while the children are growing up or living with their royal parents - but it will have the potential of limiting the royal duties performed. The Kents and Gloucesters continue to perform duties that the Wessexes likely never will, because the Kents and Gloucesters are royal while the Wessexes are (in name at least) not.

While the Wessex children, and even likely the Yorks, not doing duties may not change things too much, by the time William is on the throne and George is starting his family the numbers will be hugely different - once the Queen, her husband, her cousins, and her children (and daughters-in-laws) are gone the BRF will be William, Kate, Harry, his spouse, their children, and the Yorks and Wessexes. That's at most what? 12 people? And how many of them will be full time royals? How many of them will do the 3000+ engagements that the BRF now does? How many of them will travel to the other realms or Commonwealth Nations? Or represent Britain and the BRF abroad in general? And that's assuming that the Yorks and Wessexes count as royals at that point, let alone Harry's children.

 

[sndral]

Thinking ahead by one generation of the Queen's grandchildren:
Peter - if his father had accepted an earldom then Savanna and Isla would have become ladies when Peter succeeded to the title, but as Mark Phillips declined they are Misses.
Zara - if her father had accepted the Earldom she would have been a lady, as he didn't she is a Miss. In either case her children would be Miss or Mr..
William - all children prince or princess.
Harry - unless made a Duke or Earl all children Miss or Mr.(?)
Beatrice - all children Miss or Mr.
Eugenie - all children Miss or Mr.
Louise - all children Miss or Mr.
James - daughter Lady when he succeeds to his father's title and son subsidiary title.
Do I have all of this right?

 

[Ish]

All of Harry's children will be Lords or Ladies at a minimum - either they will be the children of a Prince (and thus Lord/Lady), the children of a Royal Duke (and thus Lord/Lady), or the male-line grandchildren of the monarch (and thus Prince/Princess).

 

[Iluvbertie]

As for whether or not it's simply sexism that the Phillips don't have titles while the Wessexes and Yorks do, I disagree. For starters, it isn't sexism because when Mark Phillips was offered a title he turned it down.

That ignores the very sexist nature of the 1917 LPs - why should the male line grandchildren be royal but not the female line grandchildren?

Had the 1917 LPs said that ALL grandchildren, regardless of the gender of the child of the monarch, then Peter and Zara would have been born a Prince and Princess - regardless of whether or not Mark had accepted a title in his own right.

 

[cepe]

Ish, thank you so much for your detailed response ( post#154). i have been thinking for some time that titles were an extension of surnames but I could not have expressed it as well as you.

really great post.

 

[MAfan]

Thinking ahead by one generation of the Queen's grandchildren:
Peter - if his father had accepted an earldom then Savanna and Isla would have become ladies when Peter succeeded to the title, but as Mark Phillips declined they are Misses.
Zara - if her father had accepted the Earldom she would have been a lady, as he didn't she is a Miss. In either case her children would be Miss or Mr..
William - all children prince or princess.
Harry - unless made a Duke or Earl all children Miss or Mr.(?)
Beatrice - all children Miss or Mr.
Eugenie - all children Miss or Mr.
Louise - all children Miss or Mr.
James - daughter Lady when he succeeds to his father's title and son subsidiary title.
Do I have all of this right?

Harry's children would be Mr or Miss during the Queen's reign, but would become HRH Prince/Princess after the accession of Charles. This only if Harry isn't given a Dukedom. If he is given a Dukedom by the Queen, during her reign his children would be Lord/Lady X Moutbatten-Windsor (except the eldest son, who would use a subsidiary title) and they would become HRH Prince/Princess after Charles' accession.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not quite - the 1917 LPs allow for the children of younger grandsons to be also Lord and Lady e.g. Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor have the Lord/Lady because their father is a male-line grandson of a monarch, even though a younger son and not the heir to the title - so Harry's children would also be Lord or Lady whether he has a title or not - as the children of the younger son of a son of the monarch.

 

[Spheno]

That ignores the very sexist nature of the 1917 LPs - why should the male line grandchildren be royal but not the female line grandchildren?

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

But that is not the case now, so the law should be altered to reflect changing times.

 

[Spheno]

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

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[royal-blue]

I am still surprised the situation regarding titles for female line grandchildren wasn't reformed at any point in the last 60 years.

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

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.

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

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?

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.

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!

 

[padams2359]

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.

 

[Rudolph]

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.

 

[Camsterlaird]

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!

 

[Camsterlaird]

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?

 

[Skippyboo]

The Royal Family Order (RFO) and other Royal Orders and Decorations

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.

 

[wyevale]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Rudolph]

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.

 

[Camsterlaird]

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".

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

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.

 

[Rudolph]

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.