Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 2: May 2004-October 2005

[branchg]

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.

 

[branchg]

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).

 

[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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[wlb825]

its baby Wessex

 

[Elspeth]

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.

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.

 

[Frothy]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[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!

 

[Frothy]

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.

 

[Frothy]

Iowabelle

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

 

[Incas]

I found this picture of newborn Lady Louise on eBay, from a PDV magazine. Don't think I have seen it before.

 

[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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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!

 

[iowabelle]

Iowabelle



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

Maybe it would be a sign of the forward-thinking of the House of Windsor! (Wouldn't that be unique?) And a sign that the monarchy is in tune with the people, instead of the aristocrats. (I know, now I'm sounding like I'm a French revolutionary.)

 

[Warren]

More on Louise & Titles

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

We do! (plaintive cry)
Which is why we are still discussing the denial of the HRH to Lady Louise, although legally under Letters Patent she is a Princess of the United Kingdom with the style of Royal Highness.

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.

I think this an unlikely reason as it implies that only perfect physical specimens will be allowed the Royal dignity; ie even a minor (and perhaps temporary) physical imperfection is enough to disqualify a child from their legal birthright. I don't think the Windsors are that harsh!
.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm not sure they even knew about the defect when her name was announced.

 

[branchg]

Maybe it would be a sign of the forward-thinking of the House of Windsor! (Wouldn't that be unique?) And a sign that the monarchy is in tune with the people, instead of the aristocrats. (I know, now I'm sounding like I'm a French revolutionary.)

I agree. And, after all, Peter and Zara Philips hold no titles or royal dignities and they seem to be doing just fine without it.

 

[zeap]

I agree. And, after all, Peter and Zara Philips hold no titles or royal dignities and they seem to be doing just fine without it.

Oh really? Zara Phillips might not have a royal title, but she gets more press than William at times- and enjoys it!

However you are right about Peter... He seems to be doing fine without it, so the situation is two-fold I guess..

 

[kelly9480]

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.

What else was there for a royal princess to do in those days? Work wasn't an option, so that left marriage, motherhood, and duties -- exactly what Alexandra did.

 

[iowabelle]

I think this an unlikely reason as it implies that only perfect physical specimens will be allowed the Royal dignity; ie even a minor (and perhaps temporary) physical imperfection is enough to disqualify a child from their legal birthright. I don't think the Windsors are that harsh!
.

I agree. We all hope that Louise's eye condition can be fixed. If not, Louise won't be the first royal with a visible physical issue (consider Princess Christina of the Netherlands). I don't think that people would be cruel to her either on account of it.

My personal belief is that, given Edward's difficulty being taken seriously since he has an HRH and the accusations that he has used it for personal gain, Edward and Sophie might have decided to spare their children the burden of an HRH so that they can have more personal freedom.

 

[Frothy]

It's not to do with being "deprived of" or "not allowed" the Royal dignity. It may have been a decision Sophie and Edward took to protect Louise from the extra scrutiny that comes with an HRH.

The Queen is not about depriving people of titles. She apparently offered Anne to create her children Prince/ss under new letters patent, but Anne declined. She offered Diana an HRH in her own right. She permitted the dowager duchess of Gloucester to style herself 'Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester' as though Alice were a princess of the blood!

Many RF members prefer the privacy for themselves or their children of no titles; Anne and Edward seem to be two of those.

 

[Elspeth]

What else was there for a royal princess to do in those days? Work wasn't an option, so that left marriage, motherhood, and duties -- exactly what Alexandra did.

Princess Alexandra was in the same position that many other women were in who didn't have the option of royal duties. At the time she married, it wasn't usual for women to have careers; marriage and motherhood were the norm, and she could presumably have devoted herself to her family and to local charity work like other upper-class ladies. Before her marriage she was involved in private charity work and part-time nursing, IIRC.

I'm just saying that this business about there not being enough other royal ladies sounds like an excuse. There were quite enough other royal ladies to be going on with.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, it'll be interesting to see if Lady Louise does decide to start using her title at some point. Or if she starts being known as HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh if her father is granted the Edinburgh title in the future.

 

[Frothy]

Iowa

And a sign that the monarchy is in tune with the people, instead of the aristocrats. (I know, now I'm sounding like I'm a French revolutionary.)

LOL! But I don't think you understand the British mind. The British are not Americans - we like titles; we like that we have a monarchy and an aristocracy. We like that Paul McCartney gets knighted. We follow the Honours list twice a year with great interest, it's front-page stuff.

The people like having an aristocracy and they like titles. Anne's children only don't have them because titles and arms pass through (usually) men. There's something I'd like to see changed.

 

[Frothy]

HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh

A gorgeous title and it is good if the RF has some uniquely Scots titles.