Lady Louise 2: December 2003 - October 2005 - Page 7

kelly9480 · #**121** 06-28-2005, 11:45 AM

If the belief was that Edward should eventually get Edinburgh, because he's the only one bothered with the Edinburgh Award Scheme, it made sense that he gets and earldom for now. He couldn't get a dukedom and then get Edinburgh, too, because that would give him more than Andrew. And if he got a marquissate, that would give him higher subsidiary titles than his brothers, also not desirable. It makes sense.

The having Louise raised as a Lady allows them to fight for her privacy. If she was raised as a princess, they'd have a hard time keeping her out of the public eye and out of the press. They can truly claim that she is a private citizen and entitled to all the protections that status provides her. If she decides to embark upon public life when she gets older, the option remains, but she can always opt out and lead a private life, kind of like Anne's children. BEatrice and Eugenie don't have this option, and William and Harry certainly don't.

Andrew didn't fight for anything, because having Beatrice and Eugenie drop their Princess titles was only mooted as an idea, and was never fully considered.

Claire · #**122** 06-28-2005, 02:22 PM

There was a lot more that went into the consideration for Edward's title than simply that he works with the DOE Awards. It seems Edward didn't want any title, upon his wedding when they are normally handed out. Which went down really well with Prince Charles and the Labour government that want to get away with the royals other than the immediate royal family having Prince, Princess and Duke titles.
However the Queen was unhappy as she believed that this idea would be interpretted as a snub by the media and she reminded Edward that this would leave Sophie of having the unfortunate title of Princess Edward. So he relunctuantly aggreed to the Earldom of Wessex. Edward is an avid historian understands the histrical importance of the Earldom. In many ways it is the most historical title in England and outdates even that the title of King.

And it is not as if Edward and Sophie are the first royals to request that their children not have a royal title - Princess Maragret and Princess Anne have realise that it is more than a hinderance today than a benefit.

james · #**123** 06-28-2005, 05:51 PM

The difference is that Louise would automatically have become a Princess whilst the children of Princesses automatically assume the status of their father so Princesses Anne and Margaret's children would never have been Royal anyway. It has never been tradition to interfere with this precedence. Even George V's only daughter Princess Mary didn't have Royal children. They took the status of their father who was an Earl. This is why I never understand why Princess Anne is held up as an example for not giving her children Royal titles as it was never an option in the first place.

Oppie · #**124** 06-28-2005, 06:12 PM

Mark Philips was offered an earldom, which they turned down. That would have made her children Lord/Lady. Margaret's husband was made the Earl of Snowden because he of who he was marrying

james · #**125** 06-28-2005, 06:16 PM

Yes I know. I didn't say Anne's children couldn't have had a title I said there was never the option of a "Royal" title so you can't compare her with Prince Edward as Claire has.

Oppie · #**126** 06-28-2005, 06:55 PM

Sorry I misunderstood you I thought when you met titles you were also referring
to Lord/Lady

Hey I'm still a newbie

Georgia · #**127** 06-28-2005, 08:06 PM

I think it was a very good decision by Edward for Lady Louise not to be a Princess. For people like me who are monarchists and who believe in the continuing line of our Royal Family it is imperative that todays Royal Family is in touch with what British people want and believe.
Many Brits don't like 'the hangers on' which is what the Queen's cousins are today. Princess Anne and more so Edward have had the forsight to realise that their children will one day be the cousins of the monarch.
They too I imagine only want the Royal family to go on and survive through the generations and by their children not taking up Royal duties it skims down the Royal Family.
Here in Britain we have never done things right now and today! Change takes a while with us Brits but it does happen and I think Edward should be applauded for putting the Royal Family first and his aspirations for his daughter second.

CATS · #**128** 06-28-2005, 11:32 PM

Didn't they at one time give all children/grandchildren of the monarch the title prince/princess?

moosey60 · #**129** 06-29-2005, 10:11 AM

Doesn't Louise have a choice whether she wants to be princess on her 18th birthday? They just wanted to protect her in her childhood. I agree, it was a very wise decision.

branchg · #**130** 07-07-2005, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james

The difference is that Louise would automatically have become a Princess whilst the children of Princesses automatically assume the status of their father so Princesses Anne and Margaret's children would never have been Royal anyway. It has never been tradition to interfere with this precedence. Even George V's only daughter Princess Mary didn't have Royal children. They took the status of their father who was an Earl. This is why I never understand why Princess Anne is held up as an example for not giving her children Royal titles as it was never an option in the first place.

First, Louise IS a princess of the UK with the title and style of HRH. It is automatically hers under letters patent issued by George V in 1917. Unless the Queen issues new letters patent governing the issue, there is no question on the matter. Like Camilla, the Queen has given her assent for Louise to be known by a different style and title than the one she is automatically entitled to have under letters patent.

Second, whether someone has a royal title or style has nothing to do with their status as a member of the royal family. Peter and Zara Philips remain royal, for example, as the children of a princess of the blood royal and are in the line of succession for the throne. Similarly, the late Princess Margaret's children are also royal and in line.

Third, regardless of her children's wishes, the Queen can grant titles and honors to any of her grandchildren at any time as the Sovereign. She could make Peter a Duke with the style of HRH if she felt like it. Such matters are within her perogative as the fount of honour.

branchg · #**131** 07-07-2005, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire

There was a lot more that went into the consideration for Edward's title than simply that he works with the DOE Awards. It seems Edward didn't want any title, upon his wedding when they are normally handed out. Which went down really well with Prince Charles and the Labour government that want to get away with the royals other than the immediate royal family having Prince, Princess and Duke titles.
However the Queen was unhappy as she believed that this idea would be interpretted as a snub by the media and she reminded Edward that this would leave Sophie of having the unfortunate title of Princess Edward. So he relunctuantly aggreed to the Earldom of Wessex. Edward is an avid historian understands the histrical importance of the Earldom. In many ways it is the most historical title in England and outdates even that the title of King.

And it is not as if Edward and Sophie are the first royals to request that their children not have a royal title - Princess Maragret and Princess Anne have realise that it is more than a hinderance today than a benefit.

This is also incorrect. The Queen, Prince Charles, Prince Philip and Prince Edward all agreed prior to his marriage to Sophie that it would be appropriate for him to be granted an Earldom at this time, rather than a royal dukedom. This was to address the issue of Sophie not having to carry the title "Princess Edward" but also to allow both of them to continue their commercial activities, which was unusual for a child of the Sovereign. This was a suitable compromise at the time, however, events later proved that Sophie and Edward were unsuited to carry out commercial activities and had to relinquish them for the sake of the Crown.

The Dukedom of Edinburgh automatically passes to Charles, as the eldest son, upon the death of Prince Philip. Assuming Charles has not yet ascended the throne when this event occurs, he would retain the titles of his father until he became King. At that time, all of his titles, with the exception of Duke of Cornwall, would merge with the Crown. He would then re-grant the dukedom of Edinburgh to Edward as Sovereign.

branchg · #**132** 07-07-2005, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosey60

Doesn't Louise have a choice whether she wants to be princess on her 18th birthday? They just wanted to protect her in her childhood. I agree, it was a very wise decision.

She does, as confirmed by Sophie when asked this very question at the time of her birth. Sophie stated it was Louise's right to assume her title of Princess with the style of HRH in the future.

ElisaR · #**133** 07-07-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

The Dukedom of Edinburgh automatically passes to Charles, as the eldest son, upon the death of Prince Philip. Assuming Charles has not yet ascended the throne when this event occurs, he would retain the titles of his father until he became King. At that time, all of his titles, with the exception of Duke of Cornwall, would merge with the Crown. He would then re-grant the dukedom of Edinburgh to Edward as Sovereign.

This point is very interesting. Now I understand because they stated that Edward will assume the Dukedom of Edinburgh on the death of both his parents.

**Lady Jennifer** · #**134** 07-13-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

She does, as confirmed by Sophie when asked this very question at the time of her birth. Sophie stated it was Louise's right to assume her title of Princess with the style of HRH in the future.

Didn't know that. Very interesting!

libradoll · #**135** 07-13-2005, 01:11 PM

all this is VERY interesting............i don't know how they themselves keep everything straight!

Claire · #**136** 07-13-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

She does, as confirmed by Sophie when asked this very question at the time of her birth. Sophie stated it was Louise's right to assume her title of Princess with the style of HRH in the future.

This statement was reported in the Daily Mirror. Buckingham Palace later issued a statement saying the article was untrue, Sophie never made the statement and pointed to the statement made after the Wessex's wedding that there children would be titled as children of an Earl.

branchg · #**137** 07-13-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire

This statement was reported in the Daily Mirror. Buckingham Palace later issued a statement saying the article was untrue, Sophie never made the statement and pointed to the statement made after the Wessex's wedding that there children would be titled as children of an Earl.

Well, regardless of whether Sophie's comment was made or not, Louise has the right, as a male-line grandaughter of the Sovereign, under present Letters Patent to be a princess of the UK with the style of HRH. When she turns 18, she can assume her rightful style and title if she wants to.

Unless the Queen issues new letters patent (which may happen in the future) changing her grandfather's 1917 letters patent, Louise is already HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, but is known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor at the request of her parents. Legally, she is HRH and a princess.

corazon · #**138** 07-13-2005, 08:16 PM

any louise's photo new?

kelly9480 · #**139** 07-14-2005, 11:02 AM

They haven't released photos of her since her birth, and she doesn't seem to leave Bagshot much, so it's unlikely there will ever be many pics of her while she's still this young.