The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2021  
Old 03-30-2013, 12:48 AM
Daphoenyx's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rosario, Argentina
Posts: 148
Oh ok now I understand, thanks! I am somewhat familiar with peerages but absolutely NOT with knights of any order, so...

I looked at his page on Wikipedia and I could see that at some point he became a "Sir"... Thus his wife a "Lady"... Makes sense!
__________________

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2022  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:08 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Given that his peerages (1947) and princely title (1957) were created by Letters Patent so it would have taken an Act of Parliament to remove them, so in the event of divorce and remarriage I believe he would have continued to be HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and his new wife would have become HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh although I suppose it would have been possible to remove the HRH since that is a style and not a title and the Duchess of Windsor would be a sort of precedent for not having HRH and we know the Queen removed the HRH from Diana and Sarah.
His peerage would require an act of Parliament to remove, but I think his princely status could be taken away by further letters patent. It happened to Prince Alastair of Connaught and several German princes in 1917.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #2023  
Old 03-30-2013, 07:01 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425

You are absolutely right.
Princely styles and titles are entirely at the will of the Sovereign who can grant, and revoke, them at any time. No Acts of Parliament are required.
Reply With Quote
  #2024  
Old 03-30-2013, 11:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
His peerage would require an act of Parliament to remove, but I think his princely status could be taken away by further letters patent. It happened to Prince Alastair of Connaught and several German princes in 1917.
Most definitely, yes. The style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is entirely within the gift of The Sovereign and can be granted or revoked at any time. It is merely a style and status, not a title.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2025  
Old 03-30-2013, 12:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
With regard to Louise and James there are two interpretations - one that they still are HRHs and the other that all that is needed to change the situation is that the Queen's will be made known - which it has been - and so they aren't so entitled anymore. As they are highly unlikely to ever use the HRH we will probably never know the true situation there.
The announcement of The Queen's will is sufficient for them to use their current styles, rather than the one they are automatically entitled to under Letters Patent. Since they are minors, their parents' wishes take precedence.

I suspect the 1917 Letters Patent will have been modified by the time they are legally adults, so they will no longer have the right to the HRH status.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2026  
Old 03-30-2013, 12:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The announcement of The Queen's will is sufficient for them to use their current styles, rather than the one they are automatically entitled to under Letters Patent. Since they are minors, their parents' wishes take precedence.

I suspect the 1917 Letters Patent will have been modified by the time they are legally adults, so they will no longer have the right to the HRH status.
I believe Lady Louise and Viscount Severn will have the right to choose, when they become adults, if they want to be a Princess and a Prince.

But I believe they'll choose to stay just as children of an Earl. Eventualy, the Earl of Wessex will become the Duke of Edinburgh, and they'll become children of a Duke.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2027  
Old 03-30-2013, 12:28 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,555
I don't think Louise and James will ever use their HRH styles and title. They are being raised out of the spotlight and as rhey grow up and become of age, they will be aware of the issues their cousins Beatrice and Eugenie have had with their HRH style and issues with the press. They will see how "easy" they themselves have it (all the fortune of being sovereign's grandchildren, but no problems with HRH style).
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #2028  
Old 03-30-2013, 12:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
I would not be surprised if Charles III issued new Letters Patent limiting the HRH to the children of the monarch and of the heir apparent. Not necessarily removing the HRH from the those who had the HRH at the time but going forward.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2029  
Old 03-30-2013, 12:58 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,555
^^^^ I think Charles will do that, thus limiting the size of the British Royal Family which in the long run will not necessarily be a bad thing. I can't see many future heir apparent's having more than 3 children (the Queen had 4, 3 of which were boys therefore a natural increase in HRH style), so that will be another way of limiting the size of the family.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #2030  
Old 03-30-2013, 01:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
I would prefer to see King George VII limiting the HRH to children of the Monarch and children of the Heir to Throne, and granting the HH to children of the younger sons, like in the Danish Royal Family.

But in fact, I don't think any change is necessary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2031  
Old 03-30-2013, 01:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
I would prefer to see King George VII limiting the HRH to children of the Monarch and children of the Heir to Throne, and granting the HH to children of the younger sons, like in the Danish Royal Family.

But in fact, I don't think any change is necessary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2032  
Old 03-30-2013, 04:49 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The announcement of The Queen's will is sufficient for them to use their current styles, rather than the one they are automatically entitled to under Letters Patent. Since they are minors, their parents' wishes take precedence.

I suspect the 1917 Letters Patent will have been modified by the time they are legally adults, so they will no longer have the right to the HRH status.

As I said - there are two interpretations in existence, and this matter has been extensively debated on this board - I see no reason to argue it again.

Your interpretation is one of the two in existence (and the one that I agree with) but, as BrazilianEmpire says in the post after yours there is a different interpretation (with which I don't agree).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2033  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:08 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
May I ask what the two different interpretations are? Royal styles and titles are a matter of Royal Prerogative and not open to interpretation. HM can change styles and titles as she pleases and HM may express her will and pleasure in whatever way she deems appropriate. Letters Patent being just one of the ways, as is a press release, Royal Warrant or verbal decree. I can provide examples if need be.
Here's the explanation -

Lady Louise Windsor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2034  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:16 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post

Lady Louise is not a princess by virtue of the fact HM made her will and pleasure know publicly on this.
That's one interpretation of it.

The other is that she is because LPs haven't been issued stating otherwise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2035  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
Lady Louise is not a princess by virtue of the fact HM made her will and pleasure know publicly on this.
I don't think Her Majesty has said that Lady Louise isn't a Princess, she simply said she would be titled as the daughter of an Earl.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2036  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:19 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
Lady Louise is not a princess by virtue of the fact HM made her will and pleasure know publicly on this.
Lady Louise is a Princess by virtue of the fact she's the daughter of a male line child of the Monarch. Edward and Sophie, with permission from The Queen, to make their childrens lives easier, requested they use the titles and styles of children of an Earl not a Princes until they are old enough to choose for themselves.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #2037  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
HM is not bound by the 1917 LPs and she can change them as often as she likes.
Can you say when the Queen said that the Wessex children aren't a Prince and a Princess?

She simply said that they would be titled as children of an Earl. That doesn't means that they aren't a Prince and a Princess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2038  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:40 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
HM is not bound by the 1917 LPs and she can change them as often as she likes.
What? The Letters Patent still exist and it's instruction are still in use by the royal family. To change or alter anything in the 1917 LPs, HM has to issue a new once, just like she did last year for Cambridge babies to be.

The passage from the 1917 LP's in regards to royal titles;

Quote:
Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.
Therefore Lady Louise Windsor should be known of Princess Louise of Wessex. However like previously mentioned, with permission from The Queen, Louise and James use the styles of children of an Earl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
At the funeral of the Queen Mother, HM styles he mother as a princess without LPs. Using her royal prerogative and will and pleasure, the Queen Mother is a princess.
The same with Alice of Gloucester, no LPs were needed to elevate her to princess (and indeed no reason was given at all) and the Queen simply exercised her Royal Prerogative and made her a princess
From her husband death in 1952 to her death in 2002, The Queen Mother's title was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Where's the Princess?

The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester was allowed to style herself Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester because she didn't want to use the title Dowager. It was basically like just putting Princess in front of your name and it was allowed because she had been married to a Prince.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #2039  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:49 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,365
Thank you Lumutqueen. I struggle with some of this but I couldn't understand that a Sovereign would, willy nilly, override the wishes of the predecessors unless, of course, circumstances had changed. And with the changes to primogeniture about to be enact ed in the UK, then the recent LPs were a necessity.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2040  
Old 03-30-2013, 05:59 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
HM made her will and pleasure know that James and Louise will not be HRH.

James and Louise are not HRH and prince/ss, the Queen made her will know that they will be styled as the children of a non-royal earl.
No she didn't. She didn't say anything along those lines. She allowed her two grandchildren to be styled as children of Earl's rather than of a Prince to ease their growing up life. She never deprived them of their birth right titles to be known as Prince and Princess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
Current sovereigns are not bound by previous LPs, they are only a guideline and the current king or queen can change or alter any previous LPs as much and as often as they like.
You're wrong. If HM is not bound by previous LP's then why last year did she have to issue new ones in regards to the styles and titles of the children of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge? Because the 1917 LPs would only allow for a first born son to be HRH and other children would be styled Lord and Lady. The Queen saw fit to remedy this by issuing new ones.

HM can issue new ones when she likes, like she did last year, but she is still bound by old ones.

Could I inquire as to where you are getting all these incorrect facts from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by littleboo View Post
Why does HM have to use a legal document to exercise her royal prerogative? Can anyone answer me this?
Letter's Patent formalise things, they are a record of what each Monarch has organised. They have existed in one form or another since 1201. Such as the 1917 LPs which set out the conditions for royal titles. It's a message left for future monarchs to understand how things should be done.

In today's world The Queen exercises her royal prerogative in line with her governments wishes. She doesn't act alone anymore.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 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 diana duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern 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 pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola 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 02:07 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]