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
 
  #2101  
Old 07-08-2013, 04:53 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Greater London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketmom View Post
I apologize for being dense, but I still don't understand why the great grand child of a monarch will be a prince or princess, but the grandchildren - Louise and James - are not. Is it because Edward is not a Duke? Do only Duke's children get to be princes or princesses? I know this has been discussed, it's just my stupidity at work here.
I think the only children of a duke who are styled as Princes/Princesses are the grandchildren/great-grandchildren of the monarch (eg. Eugenie, Beatrice and Baby Cambridge) as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester's children are Lords and Ladies (although I could be wrong).
__________________

__________________
"She is a little angel and like her name, she brings sunshine even on cloudy days. From the bottom of our hearts, we would like to thank each and every one of you for your lovely best wishes for our daughter. She feels very loved". HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hlsingland and Gstrikland on her daughter, HRH Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland.
Join my new group!
Reply With Quote
  #2102  
Old 07-08-2013, 05:25 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
The style HRH Prince/Princess is governed by the 1917 Letters Patent of George V and the 2013 LPs of QEII.

Under those LPs the following people are HRH Prince/Princess:

The children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward
The male-line grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Michael, Alexandra
The wives of any male HRHs - Camilla, Sophie, Kate, Brigitte, Katherine, Marie-Christine
The children of William - Baby C and any others (under the 1917 LPs only a son would have been HRH but The Queen gave HRH to ALL of William's children - but not Harry's who will get it on her death and the accession of Charles unless new LPs are issued when necessary).

The question of Louise and James and why they don't use HRH has nothing to do with Edward's title but to do with the fact that at the time of his marriage he requested that any children been styled as the children of an earl. There has been some debate as to whether the fact that The Queen approved this decision was enough for them to lose it forever or whether they still have it but don't use it.

The children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't HRH Prince/Princesses because they are the great-grandchildren of the monarch - which is why Harry's children, born in the present reign won't have HRH Prince/Princess but will move up when Charles becomes King - unless Harry follow's Edward's lead and leaves them without the titles.

Peter and Zara, along with Margaret's and Mary's children in the previous generations, don't have HRH for the simple reason that they are descendents through a female.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2103  
Old 07-08-2013, 05:53 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Yes, but the 1996 Letters Patent make it clear that a former wife of a Prince of the UK is not entitled to the rank of HRH upon divorce. Since the style and rank is entirely within the gift of The Sovereign, Letters Patent are not necessary in any case to withhold or confer it.
Can you cite the letters patent please? I see nothing clear about it in:
"The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996, to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness."
It does not mention any princes of the United Kingdom. It simply mentions relatives of the Sovereign in various degrees, and omits younger sons of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2104  
Old 07-08-2013, 06:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
The males she mentions are the same ones mentioned in the 1917 LPs so she is saying that the wives who are entitled to HRH under the 1917 LPs who divorce will lose that title.

If the scenario of a second son of Prince William - the only ones covered by her LPs - were to divorce she would issue new LPs to cover that scenario but the chances of that happening are extremely remote so there is no need to do so. The chances of a second child reaching adulthood in the present reign is very slim so why cover a scenario that will probably never happen?
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2105  
Old 07-08-2013, 06:15 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't HRH Prince/Princesses because they are the great-grandchildren of the monarch - which is why Harry's children, born in the present reign won't have HRH Prince/Princess but will move up when Charles becomes King - unless Harry follow's Edward's lead and leaves them without the titles.

Peter and Zara, along with Margaret's and Mary's children in the previous generations, don't have HRH for the simple reason that they are descendents through a female.
I have wondered if Harry will choose to not have his children styled as HRH, in order to slim down the Monarchy. I feel that Charles, when he becomes King, will issue new LP's limiting the HRH style to only the children of the heir to the throne, be it male or female, that way Harry's children wont be entitled to the style.

Although Edward's choice to not have his children styled as HRH was said to be "his choice", I do feel that perhaps Charles had a bit of say in it as well. Maybe the Queen swayed Edward's choice to not have HRH children, in a way to reduce the number of HRH's in the future.
__________________
"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
  #2106  
Old 07-08-2013, 06:18 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
I do think that the intention is to reduce the HRHs by simply not having the children of the younger sons use it to the point it becomes the expectation without issuing LPs stopping it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2107  
Old 07-08-2013, 06:27 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,582
Not being called HRH does not slim down the monarchy, IMO. IT is those who are paid to undertake royal duties - that is what is referred to as "slimming down.

Lady Louise isn't using HRH, is still royal and could, if required carry out royal duties in the future.

HRH Princess Beatrice of York is an HRH, is royal and does not carry out royal duties.

IT is the cash that is (excuse the pun) king in this debate about a slimmer BRF.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2108  
Old 07-08-2013, 06:32 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I do think that the intention is to reduce the HRHs by simply not having the children of the younger sons use it to the point it becomes the expectation without issuing LPs stopping it.
I agree Iluvbertie - and I also think it has much to do with the number of children the Royal siblings have. With the Queen having four children, I thought Edward's choice was wise. Had she had fewer children, her various grandchildren might have been in a different situation.

That said, for the MAIN LINE to have more children and so be able to centralize the thought that "it might be you who reigns" allows sibs to take a different tack in parenting - a much more relaxed line, maybe.

I hope Wills and Harry have or will talk about this - as it should make the next generation transition much more amiable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2109  
Old 07-08-2013, 11:41 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
...IT is the cash that is (excuse the pun) king in this debate about a slimmer BRF.
As the monarch pays the members of her family to do royal duties there is no cost to the taxpayers. Charles and whoever follows him will have to decide who he/she wishes to support and make sure that all other people are well aware that they have to support themselves and that is all.

The Sovereign Grant - will be the same whether there is one or 101 doing royal duties - and whether or not there is even a monarch as that is the cost of the official duties of the Head of State.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2110  
Old 07-09-2013, 12:19 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I do think that the intention is to reduce the HRHs by simply not having the children of the younger sons use it to the point it becomes the expectation without issuing LPs stopping it.
I agree the future will be a slimmed down monarchy with less HRHs. And I think Harry's children will not be HRH even after Charles becomes King. Once William has one or two children, the succession is secured.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2111  
Old 07-16-2013, 01:00 PM
Princess B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NA, Spain
Posts: 177
I think Harry's children will be HRH's.

The monarchy will eventually be slimmed down.

Queen Victoria had 8/9 children all HRH and passed down the male line. KGV had 4/5 children, all males passed on titles, KGVI had 2 daughters of which only QEII has passed on titles whose male descendants have passed on titles ( excluding the Earl of Wessex).

Look at the monarchy since QV's time it has slimmed down.

Lets consider the family 20 years later-

The Queen, DoE, Gloucester's and Kents would have passed away.

Only Prince Charles' ( then king) siblings will be HRH and Prince Andrews daughters who won't be able to pass them on.

Prince Williams children (I'm guessing he won't have more than 2-3), the Duchess of Cambridge, Harry, his wife and children (2-3) will be HRH's.

Another 20 years from then-

William an Harry's families and Princess Beatrice and Eugenie. There may be 1 or 2 of Charles' siblings or their spouses alive but it's unlikely or they'll be really old and would pass away soon.

So during Williams reign it seems like there will be 15-20 HRH's max.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2112  
Old 07-16-2013, 01:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrpolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124


That's exactly what I think. The Royal Family will be slimmed down naturally, there's no need to take titles and styles away.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2113  
Old 07-16-2013, 04:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
Currently the HRHs are:

Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Spophie, Anne, Richard, Brigtte, Edward, Katherine, Michael, Marie-Christine, Alexandra and a soon to be Baby Cambridge - a total of 20.

In 20 years there will probably be: Charles (84), Camilla (85), William (51), Kate (51), 2 children (20 and say 18), Harry (48), a spouse c40), 2 children (c10 and 8), Andrew (73), Beatrice (44), Eugenie (42), Edward (69), Sophie (68), Anne (82), Richard (87), Brigtte (86), Michael (91), Marie-Christine (88) - a total of 21 - so an increase not a decrease if Harry's kids are HRHs.

Add another 20 years and we will probably have something like: William (71), Kate (71), 2 kids (40 and 38) and 4 grandkids (16, 14, 12, 10), (if the eldest is a girl it will also pass on the HRH as the heiress apparent while a younger girl won't - so I am suggesting 4 grandkids with HRH - a girl first and then a boy) Harry (68), spouse (60), 2 kids (30 and 28), Andrew (93), Beatrice (65), Eugenie (62), Edward (89) and Sophie (87) - a total of 17.

That is hardly a reduction over 40 years with Wiliam only having 2 kids and each of them having 2 along with Harry having 2.

I am assuming of course that The Queen's children have similar longevity to Philip and herself and that Andrew doesn't remarry a much younger woman and have more children - who would also be HRHs (and I still think that is a possibility for Andrew - I can see him marrying a women 20 or so years his junior and having two more children, particularly ttrying for a son to inherit York)

I do think some people don't realise how young the Gloucester are as one suggestion has them gone in 20 years - they are only a year or 3 older than Camilla and Charles as are the Michaels of Kent. These cousins of The Queen may be the same generation but they are nearly 20 years younger having been born in the war years - gap is similar to that between Peter and Zara to Louise and James who are closer in age to Peter's children despite being the same generation as Peter.

Note that I haven't included Louise and James into the above lists because they don't use the HRH but if they are added then there are 2 more in each count.

I have also obviously come up with fictional ages for Harry's spouse and children but that is simply to put some sort of idea in there - he may never marry, or marry a woman closer in age or older or....

I have also only assumed 2 children for each of William and Harry but they could decide on more which would add numbers or fewer in which case the numbers might be lower. I have also given only 2 children to William's 2 children but again that could change between 0 and whatever.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2114  
Old 07-16-2013, 07:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,324
In the 20 yrs scenario, only Charles and Camilla as King and Queen plus Ed & Sophie would be working royals maybe Anne and Andrew. The Kents and Gloucesters will stop duties.

William, Kate and Harry plus Blonde Haired Harry Wife will be the only working royals of that generation. Depending on the amount of kids the Cambridges have ( I don't think their will be a 10 yr gap between kids. They need to pop out the kids before William becomes Prince of Wales. 2015 for baby c 2) Harry's kids may need to Hrh to do royal duties when they to age 25 or so as the royals as the queens children die off.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2115  
Old 07-16-2013, 07:48 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Currently the HRHs are...a total of 20.
In your scenario, should you add 2 to account for William or Harry having boys and in order to have the grandchildren Wiilliam or harry's son (s)would presumably have a wife. If you assume that each has one boy and one girl, there would be 2 more wives. Also, Let's say the soon to be baby C is a girl who would be a Queen, it is not out of the question to think that her husband would be made an HRH at some point (think Prince Phillip). This would put the estimate right back at 20. That just seems to be the magic number, give or take a few.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2116  
Old 07-17-2013, 08:46 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 760
I was wondering why is The Wife of a King known as a Queen Consort but the Husband of a Queen is known as a Prince and not a King Consort?

For example George V, George VI and Edward VIII wives (Alexandra, Mary and Elizabeth) were known as Queen (Consort) but Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth husbands (Albert and Philip) were known as Prince (Consorts).

I suppose it have to do with the fact that Kings outranks Queens and so there husbands are known as prince consorts and not King to prevent them from outranking their wives the Queen Regent.

Both Mary I and Mary II Spouses (Philip, William) were both kings as they ruled together with their respective spouse.

Same with Queen Juliana if the Netherlands who husband was a prince and not a King.
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #2117  
Old 07-17-2013, 08:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
In the normal course of events a King is higher in rank than a Queen so the husbands of Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth remained as Princes when their wives became Queen (or the case of Philip was created a Prince 5 years later - yes I know he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark but he gave up that title and so needed to be recreated as a Prince in 1957).

Only Albert has ever been The Prince Consort as an official title while George of Denmark and Philip have been just Prince Consorts - but not an official title - just like a Queen Consort isn't an official title.

Why Philip II of Spain was a King in his own right and so able to keep that title.

William was different again - as Stadholder he was the effective Head of State but he was also 3rd in line in his own right so making him joint monarch with right of keeping the throne after Mary's death prevented a situation whereby he would have been Consort, cousin and then King in his own right. There is also the view that Mary insisted on him having that position believing that a man should be the head of the family and that she couldn't be in anyway below him (an old-fashioned Christian idea but prevalent at the time) and the fact that William did arrive in England at the head of an army

Can't continue this now as have to go to work
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2118  
Old 07-17-2013, 09:51 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,354
The thing with Philip and William III was that they were both kind of special examples.

Philip (who wasn't yet King of Spain. He married Mary in 1554 and became King of Spain in 1556) was a king in his own right (his father gave him Naples and his claim to Jerusalem just to ensure that he was a king), and kind of used his gender in order to elevate his position in England. The Marriage Act basically made it so that they were co-reigning, despite him having no claim to the English throne whatsoever.

It's this behaviour that can be seen as having influenced later queens (and their governments). Not wanting to be rules by her husband, Elizabeth I never married. Not wanting the German consort of the queen to rule, Victoria's government wouldn't let her make him king.

The debate on Mary and William can be seen two ways. It's important here to remember that the pair of them were usurping the throne from Mary's father (and William's uncle). One side of the argument here is that Mary insisted that her husband be made her co-ruler because of his gender and wouldn't accept the throne unless that was done. The other is that because it was a usurpation what was really wanted (by the government) was a male ruler who could provide more stability in the backlash that was to follow, but they needed to have legitimacy in the reign via a Stuart monarch, it was only in the combination of both William and Mary that they were able to do such.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2119  
Old 07-22-2013, 11:34 PM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 145
I'm sure this has been discussed/covered already, but is the baby technically/granted by courtesy the title HRH The Earl of Strathearn?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2120  
Old 07-22-2013, 11:38 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,244
That's not the custom, and the only thing governing courtesy titles is custom, so no.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
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
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 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
belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 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]