Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Lumutqueen]

If they wanted the treatment of children of an earl they could still be at the balcony as members of the family (just like others without any title or those that are styled comparable to them) but by accepting this prominent placein a carriage at the cost of royal highnesses, such as the Gloucesters, the message is quite clear they want to be treated as royals (with a limited role like TRH Beatrice and Eugenie) which Louise isn't because of her grandmothers decision. So, i am just advocating for consistency; either make them royal highnesses or treat them according to their status, i.e. 'not royal' like their cousins Peter and Zara and many second cousins, such as Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor, the Earl of Saint Andrews and many others within the family.

I disagree with the boldness Sophie is a HRH as well, daughter in law to The Queen, Louise is the Queens titled granddaughter. I don't see how accepting an invitation, if that's what it is, means they are putting themselves in a prominent position. I think what we're taking out of the equation here is proximity to The Queen regardless of title. Her Majesty has all her titled children and grandchildren in the carriage procession, I see no reason why she would replace her granddaughter and her rumoured favourite daughter in law with her cousins. It makes no sense. Sophie is unlikely to ride if Louise is out so that takes them both away and leaving Edward by himself. It's family after all.

Zara and Peter Philips are not royal, the line Anne used is something like they just happen to have The Queen as their grandmother. They participate in these events as private citizens. In my view, you also cannot compare The Earl of St Andrews, The Queens second cousin (that may not be 100% accurate as I don't know how cousins word) to The Queens grand-daughter. He's so far removed from the main core of the royal family that we see him perhaps twice a year.

The decision for Louise and James not be HRHs were taken by Edward and Sophie and agreed by HM. HM apparently took away their birthright which for me I don't think sat right with her and still doesn't. I strongly believe that Sophie and Edward deprived them of their HRHs simply to stop the consistent onslaught of press that they would have gotten, look at the treatment Beatrice and Eugenie have received through their adult life, it is constant. Louise and James have been afforded that privacy. However what is quite clear is that one day Edward is going to be DOE, and whatever happens to Louise and James they're going to move more in the for front of the RF. Beatrice and Eugenie are unlikely to step up, else they would have by now. Perhaps Louise and James are going to fill the gap, they will be on the only "of age" royals for a long time before George and Charlotte start to pick up the reigns. If and when it comes to that stage we will see Louise and James take that decision for themselves, as opposed to have a decision made for them before they were born.

 

[Somebody]

I would really like to see Louise and James become royal highnesses as that is the style they would normally have received and the way they are currently treated is consistent with that style. However, if it has been decided that children of younger children of a monarch from now on will no longer be royal highnesses (which should become clear if H&M have children and Charles ascends the throne) that's at least consistent with the decision made for Louise and James; although I still think it would have been wiser to introduce such a new policy for a new generation instead of applying different 'rules' between cousins.

 

[Lumutqueen]

will no longer be royal highnesses (which should become clear if H&M have children and Charles ascends the throne)

If The Queen is on the throne when H&M have children, unless new LPs are issued like with William and Catherine, they children won't have HRHs and be styled as Lady XXX of Sussex and XXX, Earl of Dumbarton. If Charles is on the throne HRHs are automatic. So what will be telling is if they refuse in the reign of The Queen, because I then don't see the children getting HRHs when their grandfather comes to the throne.

 

[Mbruno]

ll.

Zara and Peter Philips are not royal, the line Anne used is something like they just happen to have The Queen as their grandmother. They participate in these events as private citizens. In my view, you also cannot compare The Earl of St Andrews, The Queens second cousin (that may not be 100% accurate as I don't know how cousins word) to The Queens grand-daughter. He's so far removed from the main core of the royal family that we see him perhaps twice a year.

He is The Queen's first cousin once removed. He is a second cousin to The Queen's children.

As I said before, I agree with you on the Gloucesters not riding on a carriage whereas the Wessexes do. Somebody's point was, however, on why Louise can ride on a carriage while Peter or Zara can't. Officially, neither Louise nor Peter is "royal" if, by "royal", we mean only people who have an HRH style. There are only two logical explanations then: either, as Somebody claimed, Louise is de facto treated as an HRH (as a male line granddaughter of the sovereign even though she is not officially styled as such), or, more likely, she was riding on the carriage simply because her mother, who is an HRH and daughter-in-law of the Queen, was too. I don't think Louise would be on a carriage by herself as Beatrice and Eugenie were, if her mother were not with her.


I don't think either that the distinct treatment that Peter and Louise get is explained by Louise having a courtesy style of "Lady" (note really a title) and Peter having none. If Anne had married an earl, or if Mark Phillips had accepted an earldom, Peter and Zara would have been styled as James and Louise are, but, still, I don't think that would have given them a more prominent role at Trooping or any other royal event.


I don't remember what happened before Anne start riding as a colonel. Did she ever appear with her children on a carriage ? If not, then I guess we must accept that maternal and paternal lines are indeed treated differently, whether the children are HRHs or not.

 

[Somebody]

I disagree with the boldness Sophie is a HRH as well, daughter in law to The Queen, Louise is the Queens titled granddaughter. I don't see how accepting an invitation, if that's what it is, means they are putting themselves in a prominent position. I think what we're taking out of the equation here is proximity to The Queen regardless of title. Her Majesty has all her titled children and grandchildren in the carriage procession, I see no reason why she would replace her granddaughter and her rumoured favourite daughter in law with her cousins. It makes no sense. Sophie is unlikely to ride if Louise is out so that takes them both away and leaving Edward by himself. It's family after all.

Zara and Peter Philips are not royal, the line Anne used is something like they just happen to have The Queen as their grandmother. They participate in these events as private citizens. In my view, you also cannot compare The Earl of St Andrews, The Queens second cousin (that may not be 100% accurate as I don't know how cousins word) to The Queens grand-daughter. He's so far removed from the main core of the royal family that we see him perhaps twice a year.

The decision for Louise and James not be HRHs were taken by Edward and Sophie and agreed by HM. HM apparently took away their birthright which for me I don't think sat right with her and still doesn't. I strongly believe that Sophie and Edward deprived them of their HRHs simply to stop the consistent onslaught of press that they would have gotten, look at the treatment Beatrice and Eugenie have received through their adult life, it is constant. Louise and James have been afforded that privacy. However what is quite clear is that one day Edward is going to be DOE, and whatever happens to Louise and James they're going to move more in the for front of the RF. Beatrice and Eugenie are unlikely to step up, else they would have by now. Perhaps Louise and James are going to fill the gap, they will be on the only "of age" royals for a long time before George and Charlotte start to pick up the reigns. If and when it comes to that stage we will see Louise and James take that decision for themselves, as opposed to have a decision made for them before they were born.

The queen has four royal grandchildren and four non-royal grandchildren. Louise and James are not royal nor are they titled, so in that way comparable to Peter and Zara who aren't royal nor titled either. James uses a courtesy title as if his father was a non-royal earl and Louise is styled (not titled) as a daughter of a (non- royal) earl. And I don't see why Sophie wouldn't ride just because her non-royal daughter would not be invited for a carriage procession that has always been limited to royals.

The main thing the Earl of St Andrews and Lady Louise have in common is that they are non-royal male-line descendants of a monarch. The earl of St Andrews will evently be a peer and Louise is just a lady like many other children of peers in the UK. The main difference is of course that her grandmother is the current monarch, which she has in common with other non-royal cousins Peter and Zara, while the Earl of St Andrews greatgrandfather was a monarch many decades ago.

Moreover, I don't see a reason at all why Louise and James would have a more prominent position when their uncle is king compared to when their grandmother is king (they'll move down from 2nd to 3rd degree relationship to the monarch). It is clear that Charles' nieces and nephews are not needed/called upon for royal duties, so if his royal nieces only attend the occassional event, why expect his non-royal niece and nephew to surpass their more prominent cousins to pick up lots of royal duties (not that they can decide that as that is up to the monarch; the only thing someone within the firm who was called upon could possibly do is refuse).

 

[Lumutqueen]

He is The Queen's first cousin once removed. He is a second cousin to The Queen's children.

I don't remember what happened before Anne start riding as a colonel. Did she ever appear with her children on a carriage ? If not, then I guess we must accept that maternal and paternal lines are indeed treated differently, whether the children are HRHs or not.

Thanks for the cousin bit, I never know what makes you removed from someone.

Peter and Zara have never been in a carriage, they have only ever been on the balcony. Anne was appointed Regimental Colonel in Chief in 1998. The only photos I can find are really old ones, 1980s ones.

The queen has four royal grandchildren (eaily recognizable as they are royal highnesses) and four non-royal grandchildren. Louise and James are not royal nor are they titled, so in that way comparable to Peter and Zara who aren't royal nor titled either. James uses a courtesy title as if his father was a non-royal earl and Louise is styled (not titled) as a daughter of a (non- royal) earl. And I don't see why Sophie wouldn't ride just because her non-royal daughter would not be invited for a carriage procession that has always been limited to royals.

Moreover, I don't see a reason at all why Louise and James would have a more prominent position when their uncle is king compared to when their grandmother is king (they'll move down from 2nd to 3rd degree relationship to the monarch). It is clear that Charles' nieces and nephews are not needed/called upon for royal duties, so if his royal nieces only attend the occassional event, why expect his non-royal niece and nephew to surpass their more prominent (by their style and title and position in line to the throne) cousins to pick up lots of royal duties (not that they can decide that as that is up to the monarch).

The main thing the Earl of St Andrews and Lady Louise have in common is that they are non-royal male-line descendants of a monarch. The earl of St Andrews will evently be a peer and Louise is just a lady like many other children of peers in the UK. The main difference is of course that her grandmother is the current monarch, which she has in common with other non-royal cousins Peter and Zara, while the Earl of St Andrews greatgrandfather was a monarch many decades ago.

I'm tired now frankly (insert sleepy emoticon).

I disagree that Louise is not royal, I also disagree that you can compare The Earl of St Andrews and Louise simply as male line grandchildren of a monarch, especially considering George's great-grandfather is no longer on the throne. Everything including their lack of titles around the wessex children is subjective so i think like me i'm putting this subject to bed.

 

[Somebody]

If The Queen is on the throne when H&M have children, unless new LPs are issued like with William and Catherine, they children won't have HRHs and be styled as Lady XXX of Sussex and XXX, Earl of Dumbarton. If Charles is on the throne HRHs are automatic. So what will be telling is if they refuse in the reign of The Queen, because I then don't see the children getting HRHs when their grandfather comes to the throne.

I am not sure what there is to refuse in the reign of the queen but I might be misunderstanding. They will be styled according to existing LPs. When Charles ascends the throne they will become royal highnesses according to the same LPs. So, if they don't want that to happen, an announcement could made at some point that their children will remain styled the way they are even 'now' independent of Charles ascending the throne. If they want the children to be royal highnesses in the future no announcement or new LPs are necessary as that is taken care of by the existing ones, the only risk is that Charles doesn't ascend the throne because in that case they will never be grandchildren of a monarch so they wouldn't be male line grandchildren but only greatgrandchildren of a monarch and therefore not be entitled to a royal style nor title.

I'm tired now frankly (insert sleepy emoticon).

I disagree that Louise is not royal, I also disagree that you can compare The Earl of St Andrews and Louise simply as male line grandchildren of a monarch, especially considering George's great-grandfather is no longer on the throne. Everything including their lack of titles around the wessex children is subjective so i think like me i'm putting this subject to bed.

Looks like we are at the heart of our different points of view. I guess we will not come to an agreement if the basic disagreement is about who is a royal: in my definition: (royal) highnesses (and her majesty of course); not sure about your definition but it looks like it is all children and male line grandchildren of the current monarch (or a monarch?) but not male line great grandchildren (or are male line great grandchildren of a current monarch also royal?) regardless of their actual status/title.

 

[Mbruno]

I am not sure what there is to refuse in the reign of the queen but I might be misunderstanding. They will be styled according to existing LPs. When Charles ascends the throne they will become royal highnesses according to the same LPs. So, if they don't want that to happen, an announcement could made at some point that their children will remain styled the way they are even 'now' independent of Charles ascending the throne. If they want the children to be royal highnesses in the future no announcement or new LPs are necessary as that is taken care of by the existing ones, the only risk is that Charles doesn't ascend the throne because in that case they will never be grandchildren of a monarch so they wouldn't be male line grandchildren but only greatgrandchildren of a monarch and therefore not be entitled to a royal style nor title.

Frankly, this anomaly of James and Louise not being princes/HRHs when grandchildren of sovereigns in male line have always been so (since the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty) is simply ridiculous IMHO, especially when, in practice, they are given the rank and precedence of grandchildren in male line as someone pointed out.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

Frankly, this anomaly of James and Louise not being princes/HRHs when grandchildren of sovereigns in male line have always been so (since the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty) is simply ridiculous IMHO, especially when, in practice, they are given the rank and precedence of grandchildren in male line as someone pointed out.

Now this I agree with.

I am not sure what there is to refuse in the reign of the queen but I might be misunderstanding. They will be styled according to existing LPs. When Charles ascends the throne they will become royal highnesses according to the same LPs. So, if they don't want that to happen, an announcement could made at some point that their children will remain styled the way they are even 'now' independent of Charles ascending the throne. If they want the children to be royal highnesses in the future no announcement or new LPs are necessary as that is taken care of by the existing ones, the only risk is that Charles doesn't ascend the throne because in that case they will never be grandchildren of a monarch so they wouldn't be male line grandchildren but only greatgrandchildren of a monarch and therefore not be entitled to a royal style nor title.

Genuine question as I don’t know this; if they have children in the reign of The Queen and nothing happens no LPs and the children are titled as children of a royal duke. Then are they automatically elevated when Charles ascends the throne? I was assuming not which is why then refusing new LPs in the reign of The Queen meant the decision was final.

 

[Somebody]

My understanding is that they will indeed be elevated just like other titles change at that exact same moment:

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge become The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge and their children will be 'prince(ss) George/Charlotte/Louis of Cornwall and Cambridge'.

Charles and Camilla seize to have all titles they hold now.

Had Harry still been prince Harry of Wales, he would have changed from being 'of Wales' to being 'the prince Henry'. If they for example at that moment in time have a daughter called Alice and a son called Albert, their children are known as 'Lady Alice Mountbatten-Windsor' and 'earl of Dumbarton' in the queen's reign and will turn into HRH princess Alice of Sussex and HRH prince Albert of Sussex when their grandfather ascends the throne. If they have a third child during Charles' reign, she would for example be born as HRH princess Alexandra of Sussex. It would be illogical if her older brother and sister would have a non-royal style for life just because they were born while their grandfather was not yet king.

Frankly, this anomaly of James and Louise not being princes/HRHs when grandchildren of sovereigns in male line have always been so (since the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty) is simply ridiculous IMHO, especially when, in practice, they are given the rank and precedence of grandchildren in male line as someone pointed out.

Exactly. If they truly had been treated differently, it was still a change rather than an anomoly (if continued with Harry's children) but now they are treated as if they were royal highnesses; quite ridiculous indeed. Imo their title should be made to align with their position. Glad that you were able to word it in a way that we can all agree on as that was my point from the start.

The way they are treated should be in line with their title: either they are royal highnesses as male line grandchildren of the monarch and are treated as such or the original intend is respected: meaning they are not royal and therefore not treated as such (but treated as other non-royal male line descendants (such as all great granchildren of monarchs). Now they are treated as if they are royal while the queen and their parents decided way back that they wouldn't be, which is reflected in the way they are styled, it is this inconsistency that I don't agree with.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I agree it is a strange situation, the Earl and Countess of Wessex's children being known as Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, rather than Princess Louise and Prince James.

However, at the time the decision was made, there was no intention of Edward and Sophie being working Royals. They both had careers and intended to continue with those careers. Only when it became obvious that their closeness of relationship to the Queen made that impractical did they give up their careers and began working for the Royal Family.
So now, they all seem to be operating under the same terms as they would have without that announcement of "the Queen's will."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think there existed other motives for the decision, as children's titles and styles generally have no influence on their royal parents' careers.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I think there existed other motives for the decision, as children's titles and styles generally have no influence on their royal parents' careers.

That is not what I said.



But the Wessexes lives would have been quite different if Sophie and Edward had continued their careers and the Prince/Princess titles would have been a distraction.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is not what I said.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. There have been speculations that the decision about the Wessex children's titles was due to their parents not being working royals and continuing their careers at the time, and that was what my previous comment applied to.

 

[Osipi]

Methinks that they're going to need wider paper in order to get the full title on the official letterhead for communications.

 

[Mbruno]

Anyway, I don't think that someone needs to be treated a special way or deserves more than others just because he or she was born in this family or another.

Isn't that what hereditary monarchy is based on though ? I mean, treating certain people in a special way just because they were born in a particular family ?

Thus, the York girls should not be treated or accorded anything else/more than their Phillips cousins just because they are descended in male-line from the Queen. The gender preference does not even apply any more to the order of succession. They should be, though, only if they were performing official duties on behalf of the Sovereign and working for the monarchy. Or maybe also when in the direct line to the throne, with a real possibility to succeed one day. But they don't. Are not. In fact, they are simply the Queen's granddaughters and their status of princesses of blood is archaic and meaningless today. At least for the people. I'm sure that their Grandma loves them, though

Let's compare different European monarchies as far as titles of the monarch's grandchildren are concerned:

1. Belgium and Sweden: all grandchildren of the King are princes/princesses and HRHs.
2. Denmark: all grandchildren of the Queen are princes/princesses, but only the heir's children are HRHs; the Queen's younger son's children are HHs.
3. The UK: the Queen's grandchildren in male line are HRHs (except Prince Edward's children for obscure reasons to be honest); otherwise, grandchildren in female line are untitled, unless they inherit a title from their father. The children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are princes/princesses and HRHs too.
4. The Netherlands and Spain: only the heir's children are now HRHs (princes/princesses in the Netherlands and infantes/infantas in Spain); children of the monarch's other children are not HRHs, but belong to the nobility or are treated as such: they are counts/countesses in the Netherlands (the counts being able to pass on their title to the next generation) and, in Spain, they are accorded the rank and style of a grandee, but do not transmit that rank to their descendants.

In conclusion then, it seems to me that:

• Beatrice and Eugenie's dignity is not unusual by European standards and by no means excessive. In fact, it is the same dignity as that of the children of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, or of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine, and only marginally higher than that of Prince Joachim's children.
• The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway, and Norway has an extremely slimmed-down monarchy.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

...

• The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway.

The Queen respected the wishes of her daughter, the Princess Royal, with relation of titles to her grandchildren. Peter and Zara have not suffered at all from being title-less - at the end of the day they are still in the line of succession and are very much included in major Royal events. I have to applaud Princess Anne in having the foresight and strength to be the first daughter of a Monarch to giveway to titles.


As for Eugenie's wedding - it all sounds lovely and in line to the wishes of the happy couple. As many have attested - haters are going to hate....

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen respected the wishes of her daughter, the Princess Royal, with relation of titles to her grandchildren. Peter and Zara have not suffered at all from being title-less - at the end of the day they are still in the line of succession and are very much included in major Royal events. I have to applaud Princess Anne in having the foresight and strength to be the first daughter of a Monarch to giveway to titles.

I think I am talking about a more structural issue that has nothing to do with Anne's or the Queen's will per se. Anne's children would have titles (or differentiated styles) if their father were titled as, in the past, children of British princesses had titles because their mothers married crown princes, kings, emperors, grand dukes, sovereign dukes/princes, or simply British peers. They would not get their titles or styles from their mother though, or from their condition of grandchildren of the Queen. That is the point which I find unfair compared to the practice for example in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, or even in the Netherlands.



Call me old-fashioned, but I think all grandchildren of a sovereign (in male or female line) should have a special rank/style (not necessarly an HRH, but maybe an HH or some noble rank) for the sole reason that they are the monarch's grandchildren, and independently of their father holding any title.


I hope I made myself clearer now.

 

[EllieCat]

Call me old-fashioned, but I think all grandchildren of a sovereign (in male or female line) should have a special rank/style (not necessarly an HRH, but maybe an HH or some noble rank) for the sole reason that they are the monarch's grandchildren, and independently of their father holding any title.


I hope I made myself clearer now.

You did, to me, and I totally agree with you.

 

[Somebody]

In conclusion then, it seems to me that:

• Beatrice and Eugenie's dignity is not unusual by European standards and by no means excessive. In fact, it is the same dignity as that of the children of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, or of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine, and only marginally higher than that of Prince Joachim's children.
• The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway, and Norway has an extremely slimmed-down monarchy.

Clearly times are changing and that's what is currently reflected in the titles.

I am not so sure that Peter and Zara's lack of titles is too harsh. If we compare them to others whose princess mother married a commoner in the seventies, Sweden comes up as an example. The Magnusson cousins not only lack a title but are even excluded from the line of succession. Comparing the Phillipses with children that were born decades later (Madeleine's) isn't a fair comparison imo. The case of Astrid's children is also very specific. Had Philip married younger, I don't think they would have been princes of Belgium as this was part of introducing them as possible heirs to avoid Laurent becoming king. The eldest held only their father's titles from birth.

The children of the Luxembourg princesses are titled only because their fathers are. In the Netherlands Margriet's children received a personal title but we'll have to wait and see what happens in Alexia and Ariane's case. In general the tendency seems to be less(er) titles. Juliana did have untitled grandchildren as well by her youngest daughter Christina.

In Liechtenstein, titles are exclusively passed on in male-line. Hans-Adam's 7 grandchildren by his only daughter are not titled while all his other grandchildren are.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Clearly times are changing and that's what is currently reflected in the titles.

I am not so sure that Peter and Zara's lack of titles is too harsh. If we compare them to others whose princess mother married a commoner in the seventies, Sweden comes up as an example. The Magnusson cousins not only lack a title but are even excluded from the line of succession. Comparing the Phillipses with children that were born decades later (Madeleine's) isn't a fair comparison imo. The case of Astrid's children is also very specific. Had Philip married younger, I don't think they would have been princes of Belgium as this was part of introducing them as possible heirs to avoid Laurent becoming king. The eldest held only their father's titles from birth.

The children of the Luxembourg princesses are titled only because their fathers are. In the Netherlands Margriet's children received a personal title but we'll have to wait and see what happens in Alexia and Ariane's case. In general the tendency seems to be less(er) titles. Juliana did have untitled grandchildren as well by her youngest daughter Christina.

In Liechtenstein, titles are exclusively passed on in male-line. Hans-Adam's 7 grandchildren by his only daughter are not titled while all his other grandchildren are.

I find Mbruno's comparisons to be fair, as neither the children of Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson, nor the children of Princess Astrid of Belgium until 1991, nor the children of Princess Christina of the Netherlands, were in the line of succession. In addition, the marriage of Princess Christina of Sweden was declared unequal and the marriage of Princess Christina of the Netherlands did not obtain consent from parliament. He also stated that his comparisons were the major European monarchies (excluding Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and Monaco).

I'm not sure if Princess Astrid's eldest only held his father's titles from birth. Amedeo was (in Belgium) Prince Amedeo, Archduke of Austria-Este until 1991, when he became Prince Amedeo of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este, whereas his father was "only" Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este until 1995 (see the discussion in the royal titles in Belgium thread).

Isn't that what hereditary monarchy is based on though ? I mean, treating certain people in a special way just because they were born in a particular family ?



Let's compare different European monarchies as far as titles of the monarch's grandchildren are concerned:

1. Belgium and Sweden: all grandchildren of the King are princes/princesses and HRHs.
2. Denmark: all grandchildren of the Queen are princes/princesses, but only the heir's children are HRHs; the Queen's younger son's children are HHs.
3. The UK: the Queen's grandchildren in male line are HRHs (except Prince Edward's children for obscure reasons to be honest); otherwise, grandchildren in female line are untitled, unless they inherit a title from their father. The children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are princes/princesses and HRHs too.
4. The Netherlands and Spain: only the heir's children are now HRHs (princes/princesses in the Netherlands and infantes/infantas in Spain); children of the monarch's other children are not HRHs, but belong to the nobility or are treated as such: they are counts/countesses in the Netherlands (the counts being able to pass on their title to the next generation) and, in Spain, they are accorded the rank and style of a grandee, but do not transmit that rank to their descendants.

In conclusion then, it seems to me that:

• Beatrice and Eugenie's dignity is not unusual by European standards and by no means excessive. In fact, it is the same dignity as that of the children of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, or of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine, and only marginally higher than that of Prince Joachim's children.
• The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway, and Norway has an extremely slimmed-down monarchy.

The lack of royal styles or titles for grandchildren of a monarch in collateral lines of the Norwegian, Spanish, and Dutch royal families is also rather new. When Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were born, every individual in the order of succession to the Norwegian, Spanish, and Dutch thrones was a Prince(ss) and/or a Royal Highness.

They would not get their titles or styles from their mother though, or from their condition of grandchildren of the Queen. That is the point which I find unfair compared to the practice for example in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, or even in the Netherlands.

And perhaps, compared to Norway too. It may be that if Crown Prince Haakon had a younger brother, his children would have been untitled like the children of Princess Märtha Louise.

 

[Osipi]

Where did Eugenie and Jack go?

 

[kbk]

Isn't that what hereditary monarchy is based on though ? I mean, treating certain people in a special way just because they were born in a particular family ?

(That's why I am a republican!

Anyway, to the point (but off-topic, I know, I know...): the hereditary status is more about the succession to the throne and not styles, titles and dignities. We treat special someone because he/she will be the Sovereign one day but why should we anyone else? Just because they are descended from a Sovereign but does not play any official role in the monarchy?

Let's compare different European monarchies as far as titles of the monarch's grandchildren are concerned: [...]

I wasn't talking anything about the York girls' titles. I understand that that's the current law and practice in the UK, granting them their status and titles (mind the Wessexes, though...).


As I said, the Princess should follow an example a low-scale wedding of a minor prince not expected to work for the Firm, who Prince Richard was back in the days.

 

[Mbruno]

(That's why I am a republican!

Anyway, to the point (but off-topic, I know, I know...): the hereditary status is more about the succession to the throne and not styles, titles and dignities. We treat special someone because he/she will be the Sovereign one day but why should we anyone else? Just because they are descended from a Sovereign but does not play any official role in the monarchy?

Well, my point was that, in all current European kingdoms, close members of the monarch's family, other than his/her spouse and his/her heir, have special titles and/or styles. In fact, the status of the York girls is not different from that of other grandchildren of a sovereign who are in the line of succession to the thrones of some other countries ( I added the qualification in italics to respond to Somebody's counter-examples about countries that have or had agnatic succession).



The abnormal situation, if any, is not that of the York girls, but rather of Princess Anne's kids, who are alone with Princess Märtha Louise's girls in being plain "Mr/Ms". I don't dispute that Peter and Zara are probably perfectly fine with not having titles, or that they didn't need titles to have successful careers, but that doesn't change my mind that it is unfair anyway.



On the other hand, the situation of Eugenie's possible future children is different. As great-grandchildren of the monarch not in direct line to the throne, the case for their having titles of the Royal House (as opposed to titles inherited from their father) is much weaker.

 

[kbk]

A hypothetical question: the 2nd Duke of Whatever acceeds to the throne through his mother, Jane Doe, but he also holds the Dukedom which he inherited from his father, John Doe. I assume the Dukedom is merging with the crown the moment he becomes King? Is it absolute and cannot pass to anyone? What about a situation when he has a daughter only, who succeeds him in the Crown but cannot inherit the Dukedom. Will it pass to his younger brother or is it already extinct because of its merge with the Crown and the brother needs to be given a new dukedom (re-creation)?

Or when the said King, former 2nd Duke, has only one son, who changed his religion and became Catholic, thus losing his rights to the throne. He cannot inherit the throne but what about the Dukedom? I assume the Dukedom needs to be re-created for him, if the King wants it to be passed on to the next generation. But maybe I'm wrong?

 

[wbenson]

A hypothetical question: the 2nd Duke of Whatever acceeds to the throne through his mother, Jane Doe, but he also holds the Dukedom which he inherited from his father, John Doe. I assume the Dukedom is merging with the crown the moment he becomes King? Is it absolute and cannot pass to anyone? What about a situation when he has a daughter only, who succeeds him in the Crown but cannot inherit the Dukedom. Will it pass to his younger brother or is it already extinct because of its merge with the Crown and the brother needs to be given a new dukedom (re-creation)?

Yes, it's absolute. The dukedom ceases to exist when it merges in the crown. It can never be inherited again once that happens.

A committee of the House of Lords heard a claim on the matter (relating to a peerage held by William IV) and ruled that a peerage becomes extinct when it would be held by the sovereign.

 

[Osipi]

I think a pretty good example of how this works is to actually look at Prince Philip's title of The Duke of Edinburgh. Philip was created the DoE by George VI at the time of his marriage to Princess Elizabeth. As it was a new creation, Philip is the 1st Duke of Edinburgh.

Now, the intention is that eventually Philip's dukedom will pass to his son Edward. The remainder of Philip's title is that it passes to the eldest son who is Charles. Should Philip die before his wife, Charles will also hold the title of the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh. Once both Philip and Elizabeth have passed on, the title of DoE reverts to the Crown. It is then that Charles would honor his parents' wishes and create Edward as The Duke of Edinburgh. As it is a new creation of the title, Edward would also be the 1st DoE in its 2nd creation. It would therefore be his son, James, that would inherit that title upon Edward's death as the 2nd DoE and so on down the line.

Any male holding a duchy that becomes King automatically has the duchy and its title revert back to the Crown to be granted in a new creation (with the exception of being the Duke of Lancaster as that's a duchy specific to a monarch. Queen Elizabeth is actually the Duke of Lancaster).

Now, another example would be if Johnny Spencer had two sons. Upon his death, the eldest son, Charles would inherit the title. If Charles only had daughters and the remainder to the title were specific to males, if Charles died with only daughters, the title then would go to the second son (we'll call him Jake) and continue on down through his line. Should Jake die with no sons, the title would then revert to the Crown and become extinct.

Remainders for daughters are few and far between at this time but have been known to happen. Case in point was Patricia Mountbatten, daughter of Louis Mountbatten (Uncle Dickie), Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Lady Mountbatten succeeded to her father’s title through a special remainder, granted by George VI in 1946, to allow the earldom to pass for one generation through the female line to her eldest son, Lord Romsey.

Hope this helps.

ETA: I'm not 100% positive on the Duke of Edinburgh being the 1st creation of the title for Philip.

 

[Somebody]

Philip's totle is the third creation of the Duke of Edinburgh title. So, Edward's will be the fourth.

Previous holders were:

 

[kbk]

Thank you both for your answers, guys. I thought so! ?

Osipi, I think the most remarkable example of a special remainder meant for the female heirs is that of the Duke of Marlborough's. It is nearly impossible to die out, pretty like the line of succession to the British throne itself.

I quote:

1. The heirs-male of the 1st Duke's body lawfully begotten;
2. his eldest daughter and the heirs-male of her body lawfully begotten;
3. his second and other daughters, in seniority, and the heirs-male of their bodies lawfully begotten;
4. his eldest daughter's oldest daughter and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten;
5. his eldest daughter's second and other daughters, in seniority, and the heirs-male of their bodies lawfully begotten
6. all other daughters of his daughters, in seniority, and the heirs-male of their bodies lawfully begotten;
7. and other descendants into the future in like fashion, with the intent that the Marlborough title never become extinct

 

[Kataryn]

ETA: I'm not 100% positive on the Duke of Edinburgh being the 1st creation of the title for Philip.

From Wikipedia:
Dukes of Edinburgh, erste Verleihung (1726)

• HRH Prinz Friedrich Ludwig, Duke of Edinburgh (1707–1751)
• HRH Prinz Georg, Duke of Edinburgh (1738–1820) (wurde 1760 König)

Dukes of Gloucester und Edinburgh (1764)

• HRH Prinz William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (1743–1805)
• HRH Prinz William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (1776–1834) (Titel erloschen)

Dukes of Edinburgh, zweite Verleihung (1866)

• HRH Prinz Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh (1844–1900) (Titel erloschen)

Dukes of Edinburgh, dritte Verleihung (1947)

• HRH Prinz Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (* 1921)

Titelerbe (Heir Apparent) ist der älteste Sohn des aktuellen Titelinhabers, Charles, Prince of Wales (* 1948).