The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:49 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 364
Prince Michael runs his own consultancy company and he didn't "expect" the Queen to provide him with a home. He owns his own home in Gloucestershire. The Queen gave him and his family permission to live at Kensington Palace. If she had the right to do this there isn't an issue. If however she didn't have the right then the fault lies with her as I don't know many people who wouldn't take up such an offer.
__________________

__________________
  #182  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Under prima genitor rules it is Prince Michael’s older brother, The Duke of Kent, who carries out official duties which are included in the Court Circular. Prince Michael’s sister, Princess Alexandra, was asked by the Queen to undertake such duties because of a lack of female members of the family during the 1960s.

Oh, blimey, that's stretching it a bit. The Queen, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, the Duchess of Gloucester (Princess Alice, not the present one), the Duchess of Kent, and Princess Marina were all active in the 1960s. I wonder what the real reason was.
__________________

__________________
  #183  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Does this mean that people who were princes and princesses when they were children of the sovereign lose their titles when their parent dies and the sovereign is one of their siblings? Or just that the title wouldn't pass to all grandchildren of the sovereign like it does now?
No, the children of the Sovereign (or a former Sovereign) would remain HRH and a prince/princess for their lifetime. The eldest grandchild and their eldest child would be entitled to the HRH and prince/princess, but all other grandchildren would not hold the rank of Royal Highness and are likely to be granted a peerage instead.
__________________
  #184  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly9480
The only royals on the Civil List are EIIR and Philip. She pays for the rest of them (except the Wales branch) from her pocket.
This was one issue in the past, but the other problem is anyone who is HRH is entitled to royal protection officers from Scotland Yard, which is paid for by the taxpayers.

Another thorn is the need to house extended members of the family in Crown Estate properties such as Kensington Palace, which could instead be deployed to generate more revenue for the Exchequer by renting it out at market rates.

Even though the Queen is now bearing the cost herself for royals like Prince and Princess Michael, the Sovereign's fortune will rapidly dissipate if the money is used to support a huge royal family and their Households in the future.

All of these issues are the reason why it is inevitable a downsizing will occur before the Queen's death. They will want to deal with it before the next generation starts having children.

It was reported the Queen was ready to issue new letters patent in 2001, but Prince Andrew remains adamantly opposed to Eugenie and Beatrice losing their titles of princess and rank of Royal Highness. I still think though Andrew will have no choice but to accept reality at some point (perhaps when the girls marry).
__________________
  #185  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:45 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I don't think so. Andrew was reported to have said it was just 'spiteful' to attempt to take away the girls' dignity. There is no way any change will downgrade any existing Prince/ss of the blood. That has happened only twice in history, with the abdication and with HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught and then at her request.

The Princesses are not at all bothersome, since, as girls, they do not pass on any titles anyway. It is to be hoped that their father will limit the pernicious influence of their mother, no doubt responsible for the debacle of the Tatler photos. But they will die the Princesses they are born.

What happens to the next generation is a moot question.
__________________
  #186  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I don't think so. Andrew was reported to have said it was just 'spiteful' to attempt to take away the girls' dignity. There is no way any change will downgrade any existing Prince/ss of the blood. That has happened only twice in history, with the abdication and with HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught and then at her request.

The Princesses are not at all bothersome, since, as girls, they do not pass on any titles anyway. It is to be hoped that their father will limit the pernicious influence of their mother, no doubt responsible for the debacle of the Tatler photos. But they will die the Princesses they are born.

What happens to the next generation is a moot question.
But, again, it becomes more difficult then to justify styling Louise "The Lady Windsor" when she is legally "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" under the present law. New letters patent will have to be drawn up at some point to address the inconsistency. Why should Beatrice and Eugenie be allowed to retain their style and title, but Louise cannot?

If you start making it up as you go along, the role of the Sovereign as the fount of honour becomes meaningless and the Crown is diminished.
__________________
  #187  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:57 PM
wlb825's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Temple Hills, United States
Posts: 154
its baby Wessex
__________________
SMILE SMILE AND SMILE SOME MORE!!!
  #188  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:29 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
But, again, it becomes more difficult then to justify styling Louise "The Lady Windsor" when she is legally "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" under the present law. New letters patent will have to be drawn up at some point to address the inconsistency. Why should Beatrice and Eugenie be allowed to retain their style and title, but Louise cannot?
Well, to be honest I think it's already difficult to justify it, but then Prince Edward's earldom is already a bit of a departure so I think there really has been some make-it-up-as-you-go-along involved. If Edward had married soon after Andrew and before the popularity and cost-effectiveness of the family became such an issue, I assume he'd have been given a dukedom too. Maybe this stuff about possibly getting the Edinburgh title sometime in the future would have applied then too, but to me it seemed a bit of an excuse for giving Edward a lower title for the sake of keeping a lower profile or whatever the thinking was.

I don't see why Louise can't retain her style and title and decide to use them if she decides she wants to when she comes of age. I think what people are saying is that she'll choose not to take the HRH Princess Louise title, but that's a lot different from not having the choice in the first place. I really think that removing the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie would cause a lot of bad feeling with the public, who would probably see it as an insult to Prince Andrew and the Duchess of York. Whatever they do decide to do in terms of slimming the monarchy shouldn't apply retroactively. If they remove Beatrice and Eugenie's HRH, there's no reason not to remove all the Gloucester and Kent HRHs too, since we're also dealing with grandchildren of a monarch.


Quote:
If you start making it up as you go along, the role of the Sovereign as the fount of honour becomes meaningless and the Crown is diminished.
I think they started doing that at the time King George VI decided to play fast and loose with precedent and the law and effectively decree that his elder brother had entered into a morganatic marriage. That sent the message that if something is considered expedient, tradition, precedent and even the law can go to pot. I think the Queen would be well advised to be conservative in whatever she decided to do, and to just live with the fact that Beatrice and Eugenie are HRH even if, like Prince Michael, they aren't called upon to perform public duties and aren't subsidised by public money. As William and Harry get married and start families, it'll become less important anyway.
__________________
  #189  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:40 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
Why should Beatrice and Eugenie be allowed to retain their style and title, but Louise cannot?

If you start making it up as you go along, the role of the Sovereign as the fount of honour becomes meaningless and the Crown is diminished.
Well, quite. Which was my point originally on the precedence thread. The RF is making a total dog's breakfast of titles. Reform should happen all at once and cleanly. Camilla's, Edward's, and Louise's titles are all disastrous.

The reason that Bea and Eugenie will be allowed to retain their titles is that they already have them and use them, and are known to the public as Princesses. Most people in the UK have no idea that Louise is technically a Princess. Also, there was no consent from Andrew to downgrade his daughter but Edward did consent.

As Elspeth says, changes will come in the future, not retroactively. Nobody will be stripped of a title they currently hold. Louise only hyper-technically is a Princess. Nobody knows her as such, and the Queen as fount of honour has decreed she shall not use the style. I believe there is a case to be made that the Queen's wishes supercede the letters patent, but that's a whole nother debate :). If Louise is stripped of a title she does not hold in a practical sense, nothing will happen.

If a Royal Highness falls alone in a forest... does anybody hear it? or something

BTW, I think Louise may have been styled a Lady since her parents were aware of her birth defect. In order to avoid the spotlight and cruel ridicule, they may have preferred to give up the royal dignity for her.

The RF should immediately make Edward a Royal Duke, Camilla Princess of Wales (ie known as such), Louise a Princess, and announce changes to cover the next generation, of which the sole heirs have no wives. Then titles should change going forward.

It won't happen, but the reform has been utterly botched so far IMO.
__________________
  #190  
Old 08-18-2005, 06:37 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
No, the children of the Sovereign (or a former Sovereign) would remain HRH and a prince/princess for their lifetime. The eldest grandchild and their eldest child would be entitled to the HRH and prince/princess, but all other grandchildren would not hold the rank of Royal Highness and are likely to be granted a peerage instead.
Since the Royal Family is determined to modernise itself, why bother giving the spare grandchildren titles at all? It's not necessary, Norway has done perfectly well without them.
__________________
  #191  
Old 08-18-2005, 07:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
These are all very good points. And the fact is, as of today, there has been no change in the Letters Patent of 1917 and the current rules still apply. Patience and time may be a better solution since the next generation after the Queen and her cousins will not be entitled to be a prince/princess or a Royal Highness.

That still leaves the problem of Edward's children not being styled appropriately, but maybe the thinking is he will have several peerages to pass on if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn, etc; for his children to inherit under new rules. Given that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice will eventually marry and may choose to reliniquish their royal rank and style, it may be a non-issue.

Right now, only a son of Prince William would be entitled to be a Royal Highness under the 1917 letters patent, so it all may work itself out in the end. It becomes a bigger problem once Charles becomes King because then all of his grandchildren, being in the male line, become a Royal Highness and prince/princess of the UK automatically.

New letters patent could still be issued with a proviso that any current Royal Highness and prince/princess of the UK, including a widow, would retain their style and dignities for life. I still think it is better to address the notion now, rather than later to avoid any controversy. If not, then leave it as is.
__________________
  #192  
Old 08-18-2005, 07:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think they started doing that at the time King George VI decided to play fast and loose with precedent and the law and effectively decree that his elder brother had entered into a morganatic marriage. That sent the message that if something is considered expedient, tradition, precedent and even the law can go to pot.
Well, this is very true, but given the shock and dismay of the Abdication and public opposition to Wallis, it was perhaps inevitable George VI felt he had to deny royal rank to the Duke's wife and descendants to preserve the standing of the monarchy. It did create an unfortunate precedent for a morganatic marriage, but it was approved by the Prime Minister and Parliament at the time.

As the fount of honour, the King could certainly deny any honours or rank he wanted to, just as his father did with certain German relatives during World War I with the Titles Deprivation Act.
__________________
  #193  
Old 08-18-2005, 08:00 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I don't know why you think marriage would induce the Princesses of York to surrender their titles?

That has happened only once in history (Patricia of Connaught) and would be pretty newsworthy, no? Princess Alexandra and the Princess Royal married men without any sort of title, and the question of relinquishing their HRH never came up.

Why would it with the Yorks?

The only way I can see them relinquishing using the HRH is if they marry heirs to the thrones of other countries and become Queens - a highly unlikely scenario, alas!
__________________
  #194  
Old 08-18-2005, 08:01 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
New letters patent could still be issued with a proviso that any current Royal Highness and prince/princess of the UK, including a widow, would retain their style and dignities for life. I still think it is better to address the notion now, rather than later to avoid any controversy. If not, then leave it as is.
I completely agree.
__________________
  #195  
Old 08-18-2005, 08:04 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Iowabelle

Quote:
Since the Royal Family is determined to modernise itself, why bother giving the spare grandchildren titles at all? It's not necessary, Norway has done perfectly well without them.
Well, the UK has an excellent aristocracy. It seems wrong that children and grandchildren of mere marquises and non-royal dukes should get courtesy titles whereas the grandchildren of a monarch just be Mr. Windsor. Also, think of the resentment, I'm Joe Bloggs and my brother is a Prince!

Throw 'em a bone, for goodness sake
__________________
  #196  
Old 08-18-2005, 08:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,692
I found this picture of newborn Lady Louise on eBay, from a PDV magazine. Don't think I have seen it before.
__________________
  #197  
Old 08-18-2005, 09:41 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 364
I agree with Branchg. The York Princesses are under a real threat (title-wise). It is 99.9% certain that new letters patent will be drawn up and for their own sake they had better hope their grandmother and not their Uncle Charles does it. I think this because I don't believe the Queen would strip them of their existing titles even if she did formalise Louise's title of "Lady". Charles on the other hand has very definate ideas of who should hold Royal titles and I don't think his York neices figure in his plans. He has made it clear the Royal Family will revolve around only him and his sons when he is King and unlike the Queen I don't think he would give a fig for Andrew's opinion.
__________________
  #198  
Old 08-18-2005, 09:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I don't know why you think marriage would induce the Princesses of York to surrender their titles?

That has happened only once in history (Patricia of Connaught) and would be pretty newsworthy, no? Princess Alexandra and the Princess Royal married men without any sort of title, and the question of relinquishing their HRH never came up.

Why would it with the Yorks?

The only way I can see them relinquishing using the HRH is if they marry heirs to the thrones of other countries and become Queens - a highly unlikely scenario, alas!
Well, I'm not saying Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie would reliniquish their titles, but given the likelihood they will marry someday and have children who take their name from their father, the girls may choose to do so. After all, their mother no longer holds royal rank and they live in a different world than Patricia of Connaught did.

It may not be that important to them as it is to Prince Andrew, who is known to be rather pompous and is a stickler for protocol. They would still be royal regardless of their style or title anyway.
__________________
  #199  
Old 08-18-2005, 09:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by james
I agree with Branchg. The York Princesses are under a real threat (title-wise). It is 99.9% certain that new letters patent will be drawn up and for their own sake they had better hope their grandmother and not their Uncle Charles does it. I think this because I don't believe the Queen would strip them of their existing titles even if she did formalise Louise's title of "Lady". Charles on the other hand has very definate ideas of who should hold Royal titles and I don't think his York neices figure in his plans. He has made it clear the Royal Family will revolve around only him and his sons when he is King and unlike the Queen I don't think he would give a fig for Andrew's opinion.
This is what I'm saying. I think it is inevitable new letters patent will be issued and I believe the York girls will relinquish their styles upon marriage. The Queen is going to be in a very difficult position if Sophie and Edward have additional children, so she really has no choice but to be consistent.
__________________
  #200  
Old 08-18-2005, 10:23 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incas
I found this picture of newborn Lady Louise on eBay, from a PDV magazine. Don't think I have seen it before.
Never saw that before, Incas. Thank you!

What a good picture!
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
lady louise, lady louise mountbatten-windsor, louise mountbatten-windsor


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
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM
Birth of Lady Louise 8 Nov 2003, and Christening Alexandria The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 314 03-31-2007 08:23 PM
Prince William current Events 13: October - December 2006 Avalon Current Events Archive 185 12-08-2006 07:26 AM
Portuguese state visit to Belgium: 18-20 October 2005 Hannelore Royal Family of Belgium 52 02-05-2006 12:31 PM
King Harald And Queen Sonja News: December 2002 - November 2003 Alexandria Current Events Archive 58 11-06-2003 11:31 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman palace pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]