Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
...

Charles allegedly wants a smaller royal family but by allowing Harry's children HRH it won't be getting smaller but larger. There are rumours he would like to see the York girls actually lose their HRH and he was involved in the discussions about Edward's children.

...

If this is true, then I would expect Harry and Meghan's children to never become HRHs. Otherwise, hypocrisy thy name is Charles.

The same goes for all those in the public / on this board who would like the Yorks to be stripped of their titles, but want them for the Sussex children. The Sussex children are the next generation's Yorks.

I personally would be side-eyeing any decision to make the Sussex children HRHs ahead of 'schedule' when there are two individuals who were legally entitled to the HRH with a higher position (male-line grandchild of monarch vs. male-line great-grandchild of monarch) that didn't receive it.
 
Ish, I am sorry but apples and oranges. I stand by what I have stated and I bet odds the Queen will do this for Harry. When Edward married, it was announced that his kids would receive titles of an Earl. Nothing was announced at Harry's wedding either before or after.

Why do you all want Harry and Meghan's kids short-changed? Why should they have to wait when they don't have to?

There was a need to announce on Edward's wedding because the current rules (i.e., grandchildre in maleline are HRH) were not to be applied. There was no need to announce anything on Harry's wedding as for the moment the rules are clear. They will not be HRH as they aren't children or grandchildren of the monarch in the male line nor great grandchildren by the heir of the heir.

If this is true, then I would expect Harry and Meghan's children to never become HRHs. Otherwise, hypocrisy thy name is Charles.

The same goes for all those in the public / on this board who would like the Yorks to be stripped of their titles, but want them for the Sussex children. The Sussex children are the next generation's Yorks.

I personally would be side-eyeing any decision to make the Sussex children HRHs ahead of 'schedule' when there are two individuals who were legally entitled to the HRH with a higher position (male-line grandchild of monarch vs. male-line great-grandchild of monarch) that didn't receive it.

Exactly, as long as Louise and James aren't HRH, Harry's children shouldn't be HRH either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the most important thing to remember in this discussion is that no matter what is done or isn't done whether it be the Queen or Charles, personal feelings and familial relationships play no part in it.

These are/will be official decisions made by the monarch as to how it pertains to the monarchy itself in the UK. Letters patent aren't issued on a whim even though they reflect the monarch's will and pleasure and is their right to issue them as they see fit.

We'll see what happens with the approaching birth of Harry and Meghan's first child and I know, and its just me and my opinion, that whatever is decided will have taken a lot of thought, discussion between all involved and consideration before a final decision is reached.

I also believe that when it comes to Edward and Sophie's children, the Queen took into consideration the request made by the couple themselves not to have their children styled as anything other than the children of an Earl. From what I understand, it was Edward's request to be created the Earl of Wessex. It was not the Queen that has stripped their future children of something they had every right by letters patent to have but it was the Queen that acceded to the wishes of the parents in this matter. Eventually, James, Viscount Severn will inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title but it will cease to be a royal dukedom upon when it merges with the Crown and is available for recreation.
 
Last edited:
Legally James and Louise ARE HRH...they can use the title tomorrow. Their parents have chosen for them to not use it.


LaRae
 
I think the BRF should take a page from other royal houses. In Denmark, only children of the heir are HRH, while the children of the others are Prince/ees without the HRH designation. In the Netherlands, same treatment for children of the heir while children of the others are not. JMHO
 
We'll see what happens with the approaching birth of Harry and Meghan's first child and I know, and its just me and my opinion, that whatever is decided will have taken a lot of thought, discussion between all involved and consideration before a final decision is reached.

I also believe that when it comes to Edward and Sophie's children, the Queen took into consideration the request made by the couple themselves not to have their children styled as anything other than the children of an Earl. From what I understand, it was Edward's request to be created the Earl of Wessex. It was not the Queen that has stripped their future children of something they had every right by letters patent to have but it was the Queen that acceded to the wishes of the parents in this matter. Eventually, James, Viscount Severn will inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title but it will cease to be a royal dukedom upon when it merges with the Crown and is available for recreation.

I am sure decisions aren't made lightly. So, surely the queen considered the precedent that would be creating by withholding the HRH from her potential grandchildren.

What is the evidence that Edward and Sophie wanted their children not to be HRH and not the other way around? The scenario that it was brought up by others that given the not that BRF-friendly times in the 90's it would be better for any children not to be HRH to me seems at least as likely a scenario.

Given that the Duke of Edinburgh will most likely be recreated for Edward that new creation will also be a royal dukedom as Edward is royal. Whether it ceases to be a royal dukedom after one or two generations depends on whether James remains as is or is made a HRH (which seems unlikely but if Harry's children are to be HRH, I sincerely hope that Louise and James will also get theirs).
 
I think the BRF should take a page from other royal houses. In Denmark, only children of the heir are HRH, while the children of the others are Prince/ees without the HRH designation. In the Netherlands, same treatment for children of the heir while children of the others are not. JMHO

On the other hand: Both in Sweden and Belgium all grandchildren are Royal Highnesses. In Liechtenstein all legitimate male line descendants (independent of the generation) share the same style and title. Luxembourg has separate titles and related styles for the main line and collateral lines.

So, which example should be followed?
 
Well, until Eugenie's wedding, I would've said the days of child(ren) of younger child(ren) of the monarch having HRH are over and the York princesses are no different than the Queen's other grandchildren without HRH, but apparently not. Even if you are a private individual, as long as you have the HRH, still the same pomp and pagentry and publicity for a wedding. So, I don't see why Sussex child(ren) shouldn't be HRHs.
 
Last edited:
Given that the Duke of Edinburgh will most likely be recreated for Edward that new creation will also be a royal dukedom as Edward is royal. Whether it ceases to be a royal dukedom after one or two generations depends on whether James remains as is or is made a HRH (which seems unlikely but if Harry's children are to be HRH, I sincerely hope that Louise and James will also get theirs).

Thanks for the correction on Edward and being a royal dukedom when the title of Duke of Edinburgh is recreated for him. I guess Edward got lost in the shuffle of thoughts going through my brain. :D

The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking its very possible that the idea of a "slimmed down monarchy" and HRH titles being just for the main line could have started formulating back even before Edward and Sophie married and its wasn't only Charles involved in it. It was pretty well looked like the York branch wasn't going to continue on in the male line (although Andrew could still remarry and have a son but I'd never bet my last gummy Lifesaver on it). Perhaps we're now witnessing a slow transition to the "slimmer" monarchy and I really do have a feeling that Harry and Meghan will prefer to keep their children titled as children of a Duke.

Whatever their titles are in the future, I don't think it will have much bearing on those that work for the "Firm". They will either work to support the monarchy under Charles and William or they'll have their own private lives or they'll be able to balance both. Who knows what things will be like 25-30 years from now.
 
Because the York princesses were given their titles before a new precedent was set... Eugenie's wedding befitted a royal princess.

As one of the vocal opponents of the way this wedding was handled, I would think you would prefer to avoid such weddings in the future by not giving Harry's children the HRH.

Personally, I am fine either way as long as it is consistent; or all maleline grandchildren by younger sons HRH (which would mean that Harry's children will become HRH upon their grandfather becoming king - Louiseand James can become HRH when their father re eives the Duke of Edinburgh title) or none (sooner or later something would need to be communicated to make sure that it is clear that Harry's children aren't and won't become HRH in the future).
 
Last edited:
Since any children of Harry & Meghan automatically become HRH once Charles becomes King there really isn’t a need to do anything. New letters patent need to be issued for that not to happen. In the case of William’s children there was a reason to make all William’s children HRH from their birth—reasons explained in earlier posts.

When Edward & Sophie married they intended to hold down jobs and live a relatively private life. It made some sense in that scenario for their children not to be HRH. For several reasons that plan didn’t work out. If everyone knew then what they know now, different decisions might have been made.
 
Last edited:
For all we know, Eugenie and Jack could have really preferred a destination wedding on Necker Island but because of the family she was born into, it was expected that a royal princess would have a royal wedding. We don't really know.

Regardless of titles, the family of the monarch of the UK is always going to draw interest (both good and bad). Its a price to pay for being public and well known figures.

It will be interesting to watch how things develop over the years. At least it promises some really interesting royal watching eh? :D
 
Because the York princesses were given their titles before a new precedent was set... Eugenie's wedding befitted a royal princess.

As one of the vocal opponents of the way this wedding was handled, I would think you would prefer to avoid such weddings in the future by not giving Harry's children the HRH.

As someone that supports the slimmed down version of monarchy, I've always previously stated that I don't believe any potential Sussex children would have HRH or RPOs or carry out public engagements. However, clearly the Queen isn't as into slimmed down monarchy as I thought. For those that were supporting of another full on royal wedding, I'm sure they would support having one or more of such weddings in 20-30 years. And if the Queen truly intended the reduced title for any child born to a younger child of a monarch going forward, she would've issued an LP, so that's really up to debate if she intended for the decision to affect any future cases.
 
Last edited:
Did William's children have to wait? The rule applies to his kids too. - No! Why should Harry's.?



The Queen will do the same for Harry. Just watch!



Ish, I am sorry but apples and oranges. I stand by what I have stated and I bet odds the Queen will do this for Harry. When Edward married, it was announced that his kids would receive titles of an Earl. Nothing was announced at Harry's wedding either before or after.

Why do you all want Harry and Meghan's kids short-changed? Why should they have to wait when they don't have to?
It wasn't necessary to make an announcement at the time of the wedding because under the terms of the 1917 Letters Patent, Harry's children won't automatically become HRHs until Charles becomes King. No decision or announcement needs to be made until then. That wasn't true of Edward's children who, without the announcement at the time of his wedding, would have automatically been HRHs at birth.

Not giving them the HRH isn't necessarily shortchanging them. Harry ,& Meghan may want their children to live ordinary not royal lives, just as Princess Margaret and Princess Anne's children have been able to do. It 's difficult to lead an ordinary life, out of the limelight, and go to work everyday if you have a royal title. Waiting until Charles becomes King gives Harry and Meghan more time to think it over.
 
It wasn't necessary to make an announcement at the time of the wedding because under the terms of the 1917 Letters Patent, Harry's children won't automatically become HRHs until Charles becomes King. No decision or announcement needs to be made until then. That wasn't true of Edward's children who, without the announcement at the time of his wedding, would have automatically been HRHs at birth.

Although no announcement was made on the day of the Cambridge wedding either. Not saying I think the Queen will issue new LP, but I wouldn't use that as saying she wouldn't.
 
Why do you all want Harry and Meghan's kids short-changed? Why should they have to wait when they don't have to?

Now that I've had time to mull this over, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps those that live with and carry the royal titles sees them a bit differently than we do.

Us common folks grew up from childhood with the ideas implanted in our ways of thinking that princes and princesses are somewhat very special and live in castles and wear tiaras and wonderful jewels and get to participate in all the pomp and circumstances and perfect that "royal wave" to the people.

Perhaps those that are born into the titles and grow up under the expectations of what a prince and princess are supposed to do and be like and some even have their life work cut out for them since the day they are born. Like Charles. When most men of 70 years old are retired and enjoying golf courses and fishing or being a couch potato, Charles has yet to step into the most demanding role of his lifetime. They have a lot of restrictions. They cannot throw a coat over their pajamas and hop in the car and go to a fast food drive through at 3 am in the morning undetected. Their RPO has to be with them and there's a chance they'll be spotted by a stalking paparazzi just waiting for that shot. Total privacy in life, perhaps to those that are royal, is akin to something people have that they wish they had. Like us commoners thinking how nice it would be to attend formal receptions and wear designer clothes and glittering tiaras. The grass is always greener kind of thing.

Its very possible that when looking at whether or not to have their kids be titled HRH Prince/ss, they are going to be more apt to see those titles as a onus on a child's back rather than think its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, I'm thinking that in this regard, they wouldn't be anywhere near being short changed but rather given a chance for more personal freedom in life, ability to pave the roads of their own lives as they want to and of course, have all the blessed freedoms we, as ordinary people, have.

Now, if it wasn't a 45 minute trip round trip, I would jump into my car and go to the Mickey D's drive through in town for a shake. Tonight I'm counting my freedom to do so as a blessing. Ah well... maybe tomorrow. :D
 
Legally James and Louise ARE HRH...they can use the title tomorrow. Their parents have chosen for them to not use it.

The view stated by Buckingham Palace is that the Wessex children are not legally HRHs, and that it was the decision of the Queen, with the consent of the parents.


The letter from Buckingham Palace which a member of this board shared in this thread stated:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.​

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-156.html#post1984176


The announcement on the wedding day:

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.​


However, clearly the Queen isn't as into slimmed down monarchy as I thought. For those that were supporting of another full on royal wedding, I'm sure they would support having one or more of such weddings in 20-30 years.

I think the belief of the Queen and the public that there continues to be a difference between HRHs and private individuals makes it more plausible, not less, that they would support slimming down the number of individuals who will be HRH. Without any differences, most would see no reason not to have hundreds of HRHs as Luxembourg will.
 
Last edited:
We forget the public too much, I think. The British still support their monarchy and even though the media was overly critical about the York princesses, they still reported about them because people want to know about them. As for Harry and Meghan's kids: it's just beginning, the intense public interest in the couple but I don't think it will wane. Plus the Sussex-kids will be the grandchildren of Diana as well and I can't see them being denied their Royal titles once Charles becomes king. I don't think the public will stand for it, plus it will be a bit of a balm to the countries' soul when HM dies - "at least we have new princes and princesses with descend from Diana". I can be wrong here but I am so sure the tabloids will try to stir the pot of Camilla becoming queen. It wouldn't do at the same time to deny Diana's grandchildren their legal Royal title. IMHO, of course.
But let's see what the peopl more in the know at BP, Clarence House and KP decide.
 
If people do care about a future of the monarchy, they should support a limitation. One only needs to look at the York princesses to see that their life would be easier and under less scrutiny.

A Lady Eugenie Brooksbank will slowly fade away but Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie will always be of prominence. Under King George this Eugenie will still wander around as a HRH and a Princess because she is a daughter to a brother of The King's grandfather.

It is simply not sustainable to have an endless royal family. People who have a heart for the monarchy should support a limited royal family, for the very existence of it in this 21st Century. They should support Harry's eldest son becoming the Earl of Dumbarton and his other children Lord/Lady [name] of Sussex. Exactly alike Edward's children, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise of Wessex.
 
Last edited:
Legally James and Louise ARE HRH...they can use the title tomorrow. Their parents have chosen for them to not use it.


LaRae

Not according to Buckingham Palace.

As I have shown earlier in this thread I wrote to BP and asked that very question.

The answer back was that as 'The Queen's Will' had been made known they were not entitled to HRH - now or ever in the future.

There are three ways for the monarch to change titles:

1. The most commonly used - Letters Patent
2. Less commonly used - Royal Warrant
3. Rarely used but done in this case - making known 'The Queen's Will'. This can be done via a press release, an official statement, in a speech etc but all that has to be done is for her will to be made known for a title to be issued or denied. In this case it was used to deny the style of HRH to her grandchildren.
 
Although no announcement was made on the day of the Cambridge wedding either. Not saying I think the Queen will issue new LP, but I wouldn't use that as saying she wouldn't.
No announcement was made at the ,Cambridge wedding because no announcement was necessary. William and Kate were married in 2011. The Succession to the Crown Act, which effectively stated that their firstborn child would be the heir. regardless of gender, wasn't passed until 2013. That's when the Queen issued Letters Patent stating all of William ,& Kate's children would be HRHs, not just the oldest son. Otherwide, if their oldest child had been a daughter, she would be the heir but not an HRH, but their oldest son would be an HRH but not the heir. The situation with Harry and Meghan's children is completely different.
 
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.

I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.
 
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.



I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.


I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but popularity is a fickle thing.
For example we shouldn’t forget how for many years Andrew was the celebrated war hero while Sarah was seen as a breath of fresh air.
The couple was very popular and seen as more easygoing and less stuffy that the Waleses.
Things can change quickly.
 
No announcement was made at the ,Cambridge wedding because no announcement was necessary. William and Kate were married in 2011. The Succession to the Crown Act, which effectively stated that their firstborn child would be the heir. regardless of gender, wasn't passed until 2013. That's when the Queen issued Letters Patent stating all of William ,& Kate's children would be HRHs, not just the oldest son. Otherwide, if their oldest child had been a daughter, she would be the heir but not an HRH, but their oldest son would be an HRH but not the heir. The situation with Harry and Meghan's children is completely different.

In that case, she could've just changed it to oldest child rather than all children.
 
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.

I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.

It is simply not workable. Under King George VII somewhere in 2051 there is still a HRH Princess Beatrice and a HRH Princess Eugenie around. Who are they, people ask in 2051. Answer : " Eh... They happen to be daughters to one of the brothers to the grandfather of King George VII".

Saying it is already an illustration how remote this is. In other monarchies like Norway, Spain, the Netherlands they want a situation that someone who is a Princess of Norway, an Infanta of Spain, or a Princess of the Netherlands is always someone with a close bond to a (future) monarch.

I understand the Prince of Wales is thinking about downsizing and indeed, this is very wise. Limit Princes and Princesses of the UK to children of a monarch or a heir. Then there is a clearly defined lean and mean Royal House inside the wider royal family.
 
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.

I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.

as far as I know this marriage is not uninque….. one of the Lichtenstein princes is married to a woman of colour and they have a child.. and there are probably others...

I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but popularity is a fickle thing.
For example we shouldn’t forget how for many years Andrew was the celebrated war hero while Sarah was seen as a breath of fresh air.
The couple was very popular and seen as more easygoing and less stuffy that the Waleses.
Things can change quickly.

They were but only for a very short time.. now they are so unpopular that there is a certain amount of feeling against their 2 daughters.. who are HRH's..WHo can say, perhaps Meghan and Harry will be a lot less popular in a few years time....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is simply not workable. Under King George VII somewhere in 2051 there is still a HRH Princess Beatrice and a HRH Princess Eugenie around. Who are they, people ask in 2051. Answer : " Eh... They happen to be daughters to one of the brothers to the grandfather of King George VII".

Saying it is already an illustration how remote this is. In other monarchies like Norway, Spain, the Netherlands they want a situation that someone who is a Princess of Norway, an Infanta of Spain, or a Princess of the Netherlands is always someone with a close bond to a (future) monarch.

I understand the Prince of Wales is thinking about downsizing and indeed, this is very wise. Limit Princes and Princesses of the UK to children of a monarch or a heir. Then there is a clearly defined lean and mean Royal House inside the wider royal family.

Yes, but the relationship of Harry's children to King George VII will be much closer than the example above of Beatrice and Eugenie in 2051. They will be George's first cousins, and as he will be only a few years older than them and likely to live a long life, they may well not be any further from the King than first cousinship their entire lives.
 
It is simply not workable. Under King George VII somewhere in 2051 there is still a HRH Princess Beatrice and a HRH Princess Eugenie around. Who are they, people ask in 2051. Answer : " Eh... They happen to be daughters to one of the brothers to the grandfather of King George VII".

Saying it is already an illustration how remote this is. In other monarchies like Norway, Spain, the Netherlands they want a situation that someone who is a Princess of Norway, an Infanta of Spain, or a Princess of the Netherlands is always someone with a close bond to a (future) monarch.

I understand the Prince of Wales is thinking about downsizing and indeed, this is very wise. Limit Princes and Princesses of the UK to children of a monarch or a heir. Then there is a clearly defined lean and mean Royal House inside the wider royal family.

Most people wouldn't know who Princess Alexandra or Prince and Princess Michael was unless they looked it up. I think Meghan and Harry's kid(s) will be Princes/Princesses simply because Charles only has the two kids, whereas there were four royals born in his generation.
 
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but popularity is a fickle thing.
For example we shouldn’t forget how for many years Andrew was the celebrated war hero while Sarah was seen as a breath of fresh air.
The couple was very popular and seen as more easygoing and less stuffy that the Waleses.
Things can change quickly.

Correct though Andrew and Sarah caused their own downfall. Who knows what they could have achieved had they not been a colossal joke to many. So in that regard you are 100% correct. We have seen how "popularity" shifts so that should never be the basis of anything.

That said, I won't be surprised either way. They did it for the Cambridge children so they could all have the same title. It made sense. The Sussex children might get the treatment if they want all of Charles's grandchildren to just be HRH from birth since they will receive it anyways. Or they might just wait.

They will do what it best for all.
 
In that case, she could've just changed it to oldest child rather than all children.
Yes but the fact still remains that an announcement wasn't made at the time of the wedding because no announcement was needed at that point in time. The Succession to the Crown Act changed that. As the children of a future monarch, the Cambridge children simply aren't comparable to Edward's or Harry's. There was always an expectation that they would be HRHs, either now or later.

I'd be surprised if ,the Queen stepped in and gave Harry's children the HRH at birth rather than allowing the terms of the 1917 LP play out, meaning they aren't HRHs until Charles becomes King. That gives Harry, Meghan, Charles and the other decision makers more time to work out what they want for Harry's children. If they want the HRH no announcement is necessary, they become HRHs automatically when Charles becomes King. An announcement is only necessary if they decide against it, just as an announcement regarding William's children wasn't necessary until the Succession to the Crown Act complicated their status under the terms of the 1917 LP That fact that the Queen went a step further and applied her decision to all the Cambridge children makes no difference. As we know from her decision regarding Edward's children, the same rules don't necessarily apply to the children of younger sons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom