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.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Harry and Meghan continue the trend started by Edward and Sophie and decide against the HRH for their child and to see this lead to only children of monarchs (and not grandchildren) using HRH in the future. Which would make sense IMO.
 
Personally, in the whole schene of HRHs I don't mind the current system.
To have only the children of William as HRH puts them on a pedestal and it's not a bad thing to have others of similar HRH status around children. What harm can it do for Harry's children to have HRH once Charles is KIng? There is no negative issue with Beatrice and Eugenie having had the same status as the Wales as they grew up.
(Louise and James were further down anyway so I see why their parents decided the way they did but if they were HRH; no problem.) Wouldn't they feel like they belonged to the same family? Doesn't it just identify/tag the obvious relationship to the monarch? HRH doesn't preclude them from earning their own living.

Similarly, there is no problem with the Gloucesters and the Kents having had HRH.
 
Last edited:
Personally, in the whole schene of HRHs I don't mind the current system.
To have only the children of William as HRH puts them on a pedistal and it's not a bad thing to have others of similar HRH status around children. What harm can it do for Harry's children to have HRH once Charles is KIng? There is no negative issue with Beatrice and Eugenie having had the same status as the Wales as they grew up.
(Louise and James were further down anyway so I see why their parents decided the way they did but if they were HRH; no problem.) Wouldn't they feel like they belonged to the same family? Doesn't it just identify/tag the obvious relationship to the monarch? HRH doesn't preclude one from earning their own living.

Similarly, there is no problem with the Gloucesters and the Kents having had HRH.

I agree with you totally, King of the jungle!
 
:previous: Personally, I think children have to learn as they grow older that someone would be "inferior" to them. It doesn't come naturally. The days also of just about anyone looking at another person and believing that they're better or superior or rate higher because of status (or for any other reason) are just about over. The Cambridge kids and the Sussex kids will grow up as cousins and all of them will be taught as their parents were taught on how the monarchy works and helping other people is a good way to be.

Both William and Harry want their kids to grow up in as normal of a household that they can and I would bet my last dog treat here that while young, these kid's ideal princess would be Elsa in "Frozen". :D
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see Harry and Meghan continue the trend started by Edward and Sophie and decide against the HRH for their child and to see this lead to only children of monarchs (and not grandchildren) using HRH in the future. Which would make sense IMO.


IMHO, if Harry and Meghan didn't want their children as HRH's, they would have made this known at the time of their wedding - the same way Edward and Sophie did.
 
:previous: You forget that as the fourth child Edward fully intended to continue his career as indeed did Sophie. Having an HRH Prince didn't, or more important hadn't, caused any problem for Edward. Who could have guessed that they would hit the big brick wall after their wedding" Result: two more working royals.

And it is as well to remember the "intent" to bestow the title of Duke of Edinburgh after his death. I am not sure how it will affect their children. Basically, it is worth going the BRF way and let things play out the way they do because nobody knows what the future holds and you can live in the now or spend the now worrying about what the future may hold.

I think the decision as to whether their child will be born HRH is up to HM and she may feel that a degree of parity will be essential as William will have to rely more on Harry and Meghan to a greater degree than Charles ever did for no other reason than numbers.
 
IMHO, if Harry and Meghan didn't want their children as HRH's, they would have made this known at the time of their wedding - the same way Edward and Sophie did.

Edward and Sophie didn’t make it known. The Queen did.

I still think that Queen, Charles, and William would not have a problem with Harry’s children having the status of HRH, but I can’t say that’s what I see as what the couple will want. And given the situation, I think they would respect the wishes of the parents.
 
Edward and Sophie didn’t make it known. The Queen did.

I still think that Queen, Charles, and William would not have a problem with Harry’s children having the status of HRH, but I can’t say that’s what I see as what the couple will want. And given the situation, I think they would respect the wishes of the parents.


This was reported days before Edward's and Sophie's wedding



"...In a modernising touch, the couple's children will not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, "but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl".
The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding...."


It was the personal wishes of the couple. The Queen agreed and let her Will be known.



If Harry and Meghan wanted their children to be "like the Wessex's", AND the Queen agreed, it would have been announced at the same time as Harry's Dukedom and her Will would have been known.


As it stands, Harry and Meghan's children will have be known HRH Prince/ss xx of Sussex when Charles ascends the throne, unless Letters Patent are issued stating otherwise.
 
IF the rumours are true that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to be seen as 'walking the walk' and not just 'talking the talk'.

He has already made it clear that the York girls are surplus to requirements as working royals.

There are only four HRHs in their generation and already two are regarded as too many for the needs of the family.

With William already having three children Charles is well on the way to having more HRH grandchildren than the Queen has.

Only a fool wouldn't realise the problems the York girls are having because they are HRHs but not working royals. They are despised and have been almost all their lives.

Although when they were born there was no question of them not being HRH but the mid-90s that decision was being questioned and is certainly questioned largely in the vocal media and its supporters.

That would be the future for Harry's children if they are HRH.

There was no necessity for any announcement at the time of Harry's wedding in the same way as there was at Edward's as Edward's children would automatically be HRH unless something was said but Harry's are not automatically going to be HRH.

The longer it takes for any announcement from The Queen the more it looks likely that she isn't going to be issuing the LPs and so they will be Lord/Lady from birth with the eldest son known as the Earl of Dumbarton (now watch HM issue the LPs in the next 24 hours).

Going back to 2012 it was announced on the 3rd December that Kate was expecting. The Queen issued the new LPs giving HRH to all of William's children on 31st December - or nearly four weeks later.

It is now approaching that four week mark since the announcement and Meghan is further along in the pregnancy than Kate was when it was announced she was expecting. Of course the Queen could issue the LPs at any time but I am simply showing a 'timeline' of events.
 
York Princesses’ problems are not their HRH status. There are a lot of foolishness that came from their parents over the years. No one has done the same thing to Princess Alexandra or Dukes of Kent and Gloucester. Charles supposedly doesn’t see York princesses necessary as working royals, but I don’t recall him asking Beatrice and Eugenie to give up their titles. The Queen has 6 grandchildren from her sons, and Charles will have 4 after this child. Charles and William also will not have cousins that are working royals. Add in the fact that people started having children later over time, I doubt Princess Anne will be carrying out the same number of engagements in 20-25 years, or Charles for that matter. Andrew will be 78 in 20 years, and Edward will be in his 70s as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IF the rumours are true that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to be seen as 'walking the walk' and not just 'talking the talk'.

He has already made it clear that the York girls are surplus to requirements as working royals.

There are only four HRHs in their generation and already two are regarded as too many for the needs of the family.

With William already having three children Charles is well on the way to having more HRH grandchildren than the Queen has.


I absolutely agree. I was truly shocked that there was no announcement when Harry was bestowed his Dukedom that his children would not bear HRH when the time comes. I would have expected that wording stating that "in consultation with the Queen, HRH The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry and Miss Markle, the children of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be styled...".

Charles is a hypocrite. Stating that there is no need for Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals, hints at slimming down the monarchy etc and then being quiet on ALL his grandchildren being, at some stage, HRHs is hypocritical and it's only a matter of time until the media make this a field-day.



Only a fool wouldn't realise the problems the York girls are having because they are HRHs but not working royals. They are despised and have been almost all their lives.

Although when they were born there was no question of them not being HRH but the mid-90s that decision was being questioned and is certainly questioned largely in the vocal media and its supporters.

That would be the future for Harry's children if they are HRH.


If I were in Harry and Meghan shoes, I would do anything possible to ensure my children would not be HRHs, especially the abuse the York sisters have had to endure.



There was no necessity for any announcement at the time of Harry's wedding in the same way as there was at Edward's as Edward's children would automatically be HRH unless something was said but Harry's are not automatically going to be HRH.

The longer it takes for any announcement from The Queen the more it looks likely that she isn't going to be issuing the LPs and so they will be Lord/Lady from birth with the eldest son known as the Earl of Dumbarton (now watch HM issue the LPs in the next 24 hours).


I agree with the first part of your comment here, since Edward is the son of the monarch etc. However, as you stated previously, if the Queen and Charles are serious about slimming-down HRHs and working royals, it should have been done at the time of the wedding. This would have also sent a clear message to the media and the opponents of the Royal Family.
 
I absolutely agree. I was truly shocked that there was no announcement when Harry was bestowed his Dukedom that his children would not bear HRH when the time comes. I would have expected that wording stating that "in consultation with the Queen, HRH The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry and Miss Markle, the children of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be styled...".

Charles is a hypocrite. Stating that there is no need for Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals, hints at slimming down the monarchy etc and then being quiet on ALL his grandchildren being, at some stage, HRHs is hypocritical and it's only a matter of time until the media make this a field-day.
Did I miss the part where Beatrice and Eugenie lost their HRH status?

And honestly, if the intention is for children of younger child of the monarch to be only addressed as children of Duke/earl/whatever going forward, then issue a LP and make it equal for everyone in that situation. Otherwise, how is THAT not hypocritical?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And honestly, if the intention is for children of younger child of the monarch to be only addressed as children of Duke/earl/whatever going forward, then issue a LP and make it equal for everyone in that situation. Otherwise, how is THAT not hypocritical?

I believe that that is what the Queen believes will happen - but not while any of her HRH cousins, who with one exception have been working royals for most of their adult lives.

To issue such LPs now would mean the Duke of Kent, aged 83 for instance would be stripped of that HRH he has held all his life.

The start is the way Edward's children were stripped of the HRH - by making known The Queen's Will.

By saying nothing now for Harry's children they will be born in the same way as Edward's - the children of a peer of the realm.

They will then issue a statement to say they will stay that way when Charles becomes King - so again using 'the monarch's will'.

When all the current HRHs who are cousins of The Queen have passed then they will issue the LPs and Beatrice and Eugenie will lose HRH.

Remember too that under the existing LPs Louis's children will be automatically HRH while Charlotte, who is ahead of him in the line of succession, won't - a perfect reason for new LPs but now for another 20 or so years.

If Harry's children have HRH then though it could be much harder to do it and the pressure will be for Charlotte's children and thus all girls children to be HRHs ... which could be interesting as Anne's children will only be in their 50s so suddenly we have the situation where Peter becomes an HRH or Earl Snowdon - equally the female line grandchild of a monarch.

They could so easily solve this problem by issuing LPs stating that only the heir apparent's children, in each generation, born on, or after 1st January 2001 will be HRH. That would allow those born before that date to keep it and only William's born after would hold it instead of the pig's breakfast they are creating by not doing something.
 
Last edited:
Like you said, she could’ve easily done it and not make it retroactive, but she didn’t.

And we have to keep in mind that Charles, in my opinion, is likely to make Camilla Queen despite what was said when they got married. The PR optics of this can go either way paired with denying the status of Sussex child(ren) their HRH status given by exist LP.
 
Last edited:
Did I miss the part where Beatrice and Eugenie lost their HRH status?
I never stated that Beatrice and Eugenie should or have lost their titles. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote....

And honestly, if the intention is for children of younger child of the monarch to be only addressed as children of Duke/earl/whatever going forward, then issue a LP and make it equal for everyone in that situation. Otherwise, how is THAT not hypocritical?
Exactly my point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is interesting to look at the examples of those who were not entitled to HRH at birth but were expected to become HRH later (Charles and Anne, Charlotte and Louis). Letters patent were issued both times to make them HRH from birth. I may be wrong but I believe if the intention is for them to take HRH in the future then we will see letters patent issued to make them so from birth.
 
I think it is interesting to look at the examples of those who were not entitled to HRH at birth but were expected to become HRH later (Charles and Anne, Charlotte and Louis). Letters patent were issued both times to make them HRH from birth. I may be wrong but I believe if the intention is for them to take HRH in the future then we will see letters patent issued to make them so from birth.

Charlotte and Louis did not exist and George hadn’t been born yet when the LP that elevated them to HRH were issued.

William’s first born son was always going to be an HRH because of the 1917 LP.

But if Charlotte had been born first she would not have been an HRH despite being the heir to the throne, yet her first younger brother would have been. That is why the new LP were issued for William’s children.
 
Same for Elizabeth's children. One of her children was going to be the future king or queen, so they wanted to make sure that child was born as a HRH.
 
If Elizabeth's first child was a girl, she would have been heir presumptive though and not heir apparent. If Charles was born second, he would preempt Anne as heir apparent. Until 2013, Anne followed all her brothers (and their children) and that's still the order in the line of succession.

If Charlotte had been born first, with the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013, Charlotte would have been heir apparent.

Even should Harry and Meghan decide that their children (with the Queen's approval) not have the HRH styling, their place in the line of succession to the crown would remain the same as if they had the HRH and be sandwiched between William's family and Andrew's family. Edward's children are listed in the line of succession ahead of the Princess Royal.

The HRH is not a title or a designation but rather a form of address.
 
If Elizabeth's first child was a girl, she would have been heir presumptive though and not heir apparent. If Charles was born second, he would preempt Anne as heir apparent. Until 2013, Anne followed all her brothers (and their children) and that's still the order in the line of succession.

Exactly, that's why I wrote 'one of her children' because at that point they had no clue whether her eldest child would be the future sovereign: yes, if a boy, and if a girl she would have become queen if all siblings were sisters.

But we're getting very much off-topic.
 
I think there is a reason why nobles always keep their highest title, even if they don't use it all the time. Examples like Michael Ancram show how you can use part of your title just the way you need it in your life: Born Michael Kerr, Earl of Ancram, he became a politician under the name Michael Ancram and even used this name when he inherited the title of the Marquess of Lothian at the death of his father. It was made easier by the fact that he has no son, so there is no new Earl of Ancram at the moment.

Depending of the situation, he was known as Mr. Michael Ancram (he as a lawyer thought it might irritate the judges in court that they had to call him My Lord, so worked under that name, he used that name as long as he sat in the Commons as MP)

Michael Lord Ancram, his inherited style, later The Marquess of Lothian (after his father's death).


Michael Kerr, Lord Kerr of Monteviot, (when he became a lifetime peer as Baron Kerr of Monteviot and entered the House of Lords, he retired from the Commons in 2010 and was created a lifetime peer in November 2010 - out of courtesy his highest title as Marquess of Lothian is used in parliament, even though he does not sit as Lord Lothian in the Lords).


So I can see Charles, who grew up in the era of a "mystical monarchy", loving the idea of being a benevolent father and grand-father surrounded by his Queen, princely sons, his daughters-in -law and grandchildren. While these grandchildren could just cease to use their Royal titles if they so chose. Eugenie works as "Eugenie York" for Hauser & Wirth (this did not change after her wedding) and if she wanted to, she could work, travel and even socialize as Mrs. Brooksbank. And just like that, prinely children of Harry could work as Mr. Sussex or even Mr. Windsor if they wanted. While Lady Louise can never be a princess, even if she wanted it, eg on marrying a foreign prince or British Lord.
 
Last edited:
Personally, in the whole schene of HRHs I don't mind the current system.
To have only the children of William as HRH puts them on a pedestal and it's not a bad thing to have others of similar HRH status around children. What harm can it do for Harry's children to have HRH once Charles is KIng? There is no negative issue with Beatrice and Eugenie having had the same status as the Wales as they grew up.
(Louise and James were further down anyway so I see why their parents decided the way they did but if they were HRH; no problem.) Wouldn't they feel like they belonged to the same family? Doesn't it just identify/tag the obvious relationship to the monarch? HRH doesn't preclude them from earning their own living.

Similarly, there is no problem with the Gloucesters and the Kents having had HRH.
I am in complete agreement with you.
 
Why are some faulting Charles for the Queen’s failure to issue LPs regarding Harry’s future children? Last I checked Charles cannot issue LPs and the Queen is not mentally infirm and is quite capable of making her own decisions in matters such as these.
As it stands now Harry’s children will not be born HRH. Whether they become HRHs when Charles ascends the thrown is a decision the Queen may have chosen to let Charles make at the appropriate time.

In the case of Edward and Sophie they intended to continue working in private business and not become full time royals when they married and thus asked the Queen to style their children differently than their children would otherwise have been styled at birth. In doing so they created a situation which made the Yorks the odd ones as the only HRH non working royals of their generation. After the Wessex’s private careers imploded they became working royals, who’s to say if they had known how drastically their plans would change if they would have gone the Earl/future duke non HRH children route they took. Indeed, it’s possible the original plan was for the Yorks to become working Royals but the Wessex situation changed that.
During the Queen’s 90 plus years she has never acted impulsively, she has taken a wait and see approach. Harry’s children will not be born HRH, a decision by Charles that they should not become HRHs can be made by his own LPs when he is able to express his will once he is King if that’s what he, Harry, and Meghan want at that time.
A lot could change in the decade+ we all hope the Queen still has to live. If Charles were to predecease his mother Harry’s children would never become HRHs thus a decision would never have to be made unless William chose to issue LPs elevating them.
Better, IMO, to not make a statement about far future events/plans than to make a statement and then when things change have to change your position. One hopes Charles has learned that lesson with the ‘Camilla will not be Queen’ statement which may have to be retracted in the future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those babies should be HRH’s through an issued LP. I really do think so. Especially being the grandchildren of the future King. These kids, both Cambridge and Sussex, will be the working faces of the new monarchy going into the future.
 
Last edited:
Edward and Sophie didn’t make it known. The Queen did.

I.

IMO they accepted the queen's decision They didn't want to be working royals, and they didn't get a ducal title... I don't believe it was their choice for their children not to be HRH, and I doubut if Harry and M will want their children not being HRH
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those babies should be HRH’s through an issued LP. I really do think so. Especially being the grandchildren of the future King. These kids, both Cambridge and Sussex, will be the working faces of the new monarchy going into the future.

Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.
 
And I don't think that Harry and Meghan will want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess either.
 
IMO they accepted the queen's decision They didn't want to be working royals, and they didn't get a ducal title... I don't believe it was their choice for their children not to be HRH, and I doubut if Harry and M will want their children not being HRH

Edward didn't get a ducal title because he'll be made Duke of Edinburgh once that becomes available. It's a nice touch to have Prince Philip's title passed on to one of his sons.

As for Meghan and Harry. My suspicion is that they wouldn't. Just look at the struggle Harry had with his own role and status, and then look at their wedding. It was a beautiful wedding, but it was about as pared back as one can get. And it is in keeping with who they are.
 
Right now, in the here and now, I think the most important "titles" that Harry and Meghan will hold dear are "Mummy" and "Papa" or "Daddy" and they'll be able to say "my son" or "my daughter". :D
 
Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.

The difference is timing. That's important too. Right now, the Queen's cousins are still quite active. They likely wouldn't be around, or still working, in 25 years' time. Charles and Anne aren't likely to be going at the same speed then either. I expect Andrew and Edward will slow down as well as they'll be in their 80s. While we are currently experiencing a bulge of working royals, it's going to significantly slim down through attrition in 25 years to far fewer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom