Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

No, George V's Letters Patent (1917) limit the HRH to the following:
(1) The monarch's children
(2) The children of the monarch's sons
(3) The oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [I goofed in my earlier post when I said this royal would have an HH]. The other grandchildren of the monarch's sons would not be HRH. They would have the style and dignity of children of a Duke (Lords and Ladies).

Before the birth of Prince George the Queen issued new Letters Patent granting the HRH to ALL of William's children. Otherwise George would be HRH Prince George but his siblings would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis (following #3 above).

Likewise, unless new Letters Patent are issued, Harry's children will be Lord and Ladies (his oldest son will also have the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton). Once Charles becomes King they will be entitled to the HRH as children of the monarch's son (#2 above).

I hope this makes sense!

My impression was that Frelinghighness meant grandchildren BY sons of the monarch instead of grandchildren OF sons of the monarch - as the examples given were about Beatrice and Eugenie vs Zara and Peter. And that is consistent with how it works as you explained in your post above.

 

[Gawin]

My impression was that Frelinghighness meant grandchildren BY sons of the monarch instead of grandchildren OF sons of the monarch - as the examples given were about Beatrice and Eugenie vs Zara and Peter. And that is consistent with how it works as you explained in your post above.

My mistake.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, and she and could have covered that scenario by making the *oldest* child an HRH regardless of sex, but instead she covered all bases by making *ALL* the Cambridge children HRH.

Apparently Queen Elizabeth wanted to give preference to sons over daughters even in her 2012 letters patent, since they state that the children "of the eldest son" (rather than "of the eldest child") "of The Prince of Wales" (rather than "of The Prince or The Princess of Wales / of The Prince of Wales or the Heiress Apparent") will enjoy the style of HRH Prince or Princess.

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.​

Making only the oldest child HRH regardless of sex would have been inconsistent with the preference for sons. I suppose the question is why she chose to maintain male preference in the 2012 Letters Patent.

My understanding is that the main issue was that, previously, great-granchildren of a sovereign in male line were also normally princes too, but with the style only of HH rather than HRH. George V issued those LPs to limit the number of princes/ princesses.

Yes, but I think the question was why he had a desire to limit the number of princes and princesses. In the year 1917, the convention in almost all the royal houses of Europe was that all descendants of equal marriages in male line enjoyed princely styles. There were dozens of Archdukes of Austria and Princes of Prussia, for example.

Personal vendetta against the Connaughts? I doubt that very much.

In 1917 Britain was fighting a war against the Central Powers (including Germany), the BRF had just renounced its German styles and titles (taking Windsor as the name of the Royal house) and stripped enemy combatants (even cousins) of their British titles.

At that time it was also unclear whether distant male-line descendants of a sovereign were HRHs or merely HHs (by distant I mean great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc.). Follow the link below for a discussion: Victoria, Edward VII, George V (to 1917)

George V apparently decided it was a good time to (1) end the confusion by defining who was entitled to the HRH/HH, and (2) slim the BRF royal family down by (a) limiting the HRH to the children of the sovereign & the children of the sovereign's sons, and (b) limiting the HH to the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [oops - editing this because I was mistaken - under the LP the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales is an HRH. George V phased the HH out]

I suspect he didn't want a repeat of 1917 when he was confronted by the fact that an enemy combatant, the Duke of Brunswick, was also a Prince of the UK, as a male-line great-great-grandson of George III, despite the fact that his family hadn't lived in the UK in 80 years.

Good idea! But I believe you meant to write in the third paragraph "whether distant male-line descendants of a sovereign were HHs" rather than "whether [they] were HRHs or merely HHs" - as shown by the discussion to which you provided the link, it had already been established that they were not HRHs automatically. Queen Victoria's letters patent in 1898 granted HRH status to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales, but not to other great-grandchildren in male line.

 

[Somebody]

Apparently Queen Elizabeth wanted to give preference to sons over daughters even in her 2012 letters patent, since they state that the children "of the eldest son" (rather than "of the eldest child") "of The Prince of Wales" (rather than "of The Prince or The Princess of Wales / of The Prince of Wales or the Heiress Apparent") will enjoy the style of HRH Prince or Princess.

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.​

Making only the oldest child HRH regardless of sex would have been inconsistent with the preference for sons. I suppose the question is why she chose to maintain male preference in the 2012 Letters Patent.

My impression is that it mainly reflected the current situation. As it was clearly about William's children for now this sufficed. I am sure it will be changed by the then monarch if that would be needed as some point in the future.

Theoretically, changing it to the eldest child would not reflect the situation that for anyone born before October 2011 male-preference still applies (so even if William would have had an older sister: he would have been the future heir and not the eldest child).

 

[tommy100]

I suspect as it was designed to have an effect on William's children the wording was chosen to reflect that so as to not have any unintended consequences. The Queen seems to favour IMO not changing the rules completely and just dealing with specific cases in turn.

I would hope personally that we will see a change by the time George and Charlotte are old enough to have children - will we see another Princess not being able to pass on HRHs to her children while her brothers can?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My impression is that it mainly reflected the current situation. As it was clearly about William's children for now this sufficed. I am sure it will be changed by the then monarch if that would be needed as some point in the future.

Theoretically, changing it to the eldest child would not reflect the situation that for anyone born before October 2011 male-preference still applies (so even if William would have had an older sister: he would have been the future heir and not the eldest child).

I suspect as it was designed to have an effect on William's children the wording was chosen to reflect that so as to not have any unintended consequences. The Queen seems to favour IMO not changing the rules completely and just dealing with specific cases in turn.

I would hope personally that we will see a change by the time George and Charlotte are old enough to have children - will we see another Princess not being able to pass on HRHs to her children while her brothers can?

I agree it would have sufficed to deal only with William's children for the moment. Had that been Elizabeth's intention, however, it would have been even less complicated to issue Letters Patent designating William and Catherine by name, exactly as her father did for her and Philip in 1948:

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.​

Instead, she chose generic wording and further chose not to amend the letters patent after the new rules of succession entered into force (in 2015). Therefore, unless a future monarch decides otherwise, the children of a future heiress apparent will not enjoy the style of HRH, but the children of her younger brother will.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

It's a fact of life Harry has known from day one. The Cambridge children are different from Harry's children.

Even little Prince Louis has his birthday marked by bell ringing at Westminster Abbey. Harry doesn't get that on his birthday.

His children will be fortunate to live a relatively low key life.

Ah yes, it's pretty cool that all children are different from one another, even royal and 'not-so-royal' children.

The Sussexes' children will enjoy the lifestyle, status, and privileges of royal 'provenance' without the gnarly headaches attached to a strict life of royal duties. They will be able to live a fairly normal existence and have a measure of freedom to choose their own paths in life. I can see Harry grinning from ear-to-ear about that set of circumstances being in place for his offspring.

 

[sndral]

...
Instead, she chose generic wording and further chose not to amend the letters patent after the new rules of succession entered into force (in 2015). Therefore, unless a future monarch decides otherwise, the children of a future heiress apparent will not enjoy the style of HRH, but the children of her younger brother will.

It’ll be awhile before the issue needs to be resolved since the next 3 monarchs - Charles, William and George - are males. The first possible time for it to be an issue is if George has a daughter first.
I hadn’t thought about this but different scenarios arise:
When Charles is King he creates William POW. George has a daughter first while his father is POW - she’d be HRH per QEII’s 2011 LPs since she’d be a child of the POW’s eldest son. Her children would not be HRH if born during Charles reign - but that’s 50 years away & I doubt Charles will live to 120.
When William is King he creates George as POW. George has a daughter first (a future Queen) she’s an HRH as a male line grandchild of the Monarch as are her brothers. That daughter’s children will not be born HRH (nor will her brother’s children be born HRH - just like Harry’s child at present) - so William may be the one who has to issue new LP in that scenario for George’s daughter’s children.
When George is King w/ a firstborn daughter as the future Queen. Her children, like Princess Anne’s, would not be HRHs, as they are not male line grandchildren, nor are they the children of the eldest son of the POW, however, her younger brother’s children would be HRHs as male line grandchildren.
I tend to think that in 30 or so years if George has a girl first there will be adjustments enabling her to be POW and to have access to the Duchy of Cornwall funds during George’s reign in addition to making sure that her children are HRH from birth.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It’ll be awhile before the issue needs to be resolved since the next 3 monarchs - Charles, William and George - are males. The first possible time for it to be an issue is if George has a daughter first.
I hadn’t thought about this but different scenarios arise:
When Charles is King he creates William POW. George has a daughter first while his father is POW - she’d be HRH per QEII’s 2011 LPs since she’d be a child of the POW’s eldest son. Her children would not be HRH if born during Charles reign - but that’s 50 years away & I doubt Charles will live to 120.
When William is King he creates George as POW. George has a daughter first (a future Queen) she’s an HRH as a male line grandchild of the Monarch as are her brothers. That daughter’s children will not be born HRH (nor will her brother’s children be born HRH - just like Harry’s child at present) - so William may be the one who has to issue new LP in that scenario for George’s daughter’s children.
When George is King w/ a firstborn daughter as the future Queen. Her children, like Princess Anne’s, would not be HRHs, as they are not male line grandchildren, nor are they the children of the eldest son of the POW, however, her younger brother’s children would be HRHs as male line grandchildren.
I tend to think that in 30 or so years if George has a girl first there will be adjustments enabling her to be POW and to have access to the Duchy of Cornwall funds during George’s reign in addition to making sure that her children are HRH from birth.

In the second scenario (George is the Prince of Wales), the future Queen's (first) younger brother's children would be HRH by the 2012 letters patent as the brother would be the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. (If there were additional younger brothers, the children of the remaining brothers would, as you described, be elevated to HRH when George ascended the throne.)

True, a future monarch can easily resolve the issues via new letters patent. But if Queen Elizabeth had wished to do so, she could have prevented the issue from occurring at all by issuing the 2012 letters patent either specifically for William and Catherine's children (much like the specific letters patent for her own children in 1948) or by using gender-neutral wording. It seems apparent that her choice of a male-preference rule that would affect future generations as well as William's children was intentional.

 

[sndral]

In the second scenario (George is the Prince of Wales), the future Queen's (first) younger brother's children would be HRH by the 2012 letters patent as the brother would be the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. (If there were additional younger brothers, the children of the remaining brothers would, as you described, be elevated to HRH when George ascended the throne.)
...

Hum... that’s an interesting twist, and I doubt that result would be desired by the RF to have children of an ancillary line born RH when the direct line are not born so. I was surprised that the Queen chose not to go gender nuetral as well.

 

[Gawin]

Apparently Queen Elizabeth wanted to give preference to sons over daughters even in her 2012 letters patent, since they state that the children "of the eldest son" (rather than "of the eldest child") "of The Prince of Wales" (rather than "of The Prince or The Princess of Wales / of The Prince of Wales or the Heiress Apparent") will enjoy the style of HRH Prince or Princess.

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.​

Making only the oldest child HRH regardless of sex would have been inconsistent with the preference for sons. I suppose the question is why she chose to maintain male preference in the 2012 Letters Patent.





Yes, but I think the question was why he had a desire to limit the number of princes and princesses. In the year 1917, the convention in almost all the royal houses of Europe was that all descendants of equal marriages in male line enjoyed princely styles. There were dozens of Archdukes of Austria and Princes of Prussia, for example.




Good idea! But I believe you meant to write in the third paragraph "whether distant male-line descendants of a sovereign were HHs" rather than "whether [they] were HRHs or merely HHs" - as shown by the discussion to which you provided the link, it had already been established that they were not HRHs automatically. Queen Victoria's letters patent in 1898 granted HRH status to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales, but not to other great-grandchildren in male line.

Yes, you are correct. The HH was under debate not the HRH and George V's LP did away with the HH. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Gawin]

I agree it would have sufficed to deal only with William's children for the moment. Had that been Elizabeth's intention, however, it would have been even less complicated to issue Letters Patent designating William and Catherine by name, exactly as her father did for her and Philip in 1948:

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.​

Instead, she chose generic wording and further chose not to amend the letters patent after the new rules of succession entered into force (in 2015). Therefore, unless a future monarch decides otherwise, the children of a future heiress apparent will not enjoy the style of HRH, but the children of her younger brother will.

Thank you for your very perceptive points! It's odd that the Queen didn't issue LPs dealing specifically with the Cambridge children. But I suppose it's in keeping with the males only peerages she has created for members of her family. I personally hope Sussex baby is a boy so a daughter doesn't have to see a younger brother inherit a title she is barred from.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Should the new Earl of Dumbarton be called His Royal Highness Prince______of Sussex?

I think they should.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Not unless the queen issues Letters Patent ,we should know more about the new Earl of Dumbarton over the next few days.

 

[Osipi]

I think if the Queen was going to issue LPs for the new baby, she already would have done so. I am seriously of the opinion that both Harry and Meghan are going to prefer to keep their children titled and styled as children of a Duke.

We just have to wait and see what develops.

 

[Mbruno]

Should the new Earl of Dumbarton be called His Royal Highness Prince______of Sussex?

I think they should.

He will be called HRH Prince xxx of Sussex when Charles is King, unless he changes the present rules. No need to rush then.

 

[Pranter]

I don't see them doing it...when Charles is King, Baby Sussex will get the HRH.


LaRae

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Any changes to the present rules, whether to confer princely status on the child during the present reign or to withhold princely status from the child during the next reign, could also be applied with a simple announcement (as in the case of the Wessex children) instead of new Letters Patent.

 

[Mbruno]

Any changes to the present rules, whether to confer princely status on the child during the present reign or to withhold princely status from the child during the next reign, could also be applied with a simple announcement (as in the case of the Wessex children) instead of new Letters Patent.

I am not sure it is possible to confer the titular dignity of Prince/Princess on someone (on his/her own right) without Letters Patent.



The reverse is possible following the Wessex children's precedent although many people (rightfully) question the validity of a simple announcement to overrule LPs that are technically still in force.

 

[loonytick]

I suspect as it was designed to have an effect on William's children the wording was chosen to reflect that so as to not have any unintended consequences. The Queen seems to favour IMO not changing the rules completely and just dealing with specific cases in turn.

I would hope personally that we will see a change by the time George and Charlotte are old enough to have children - will we see another Princess not being able to pass on HRHs to her children while her brothers can?

I went back and doublechecked the dates: the Queen issued letters patent regarding the HRH status for William's kids (and those of any future eldest son of a Prince of Wales) while the discussion was underway to do away with male primogeniture but before it was decided and enacted. So she may have felt that writing a gender-neutral version of the LP could be construed as a sideways meddling in the political process that decided that issue.

As others have said, if the BRF want to adapt it to be eldest child, there's plenty of time to do so since the next possible need for clarification is at least two decades, if not three, in the future.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I don't see them doing it...when Charles is King, Baby Sussex will get the HRH.

Under current rules that would happen, but we don't know that it will. H&M, along with Prince Charles, may desire otherwise.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I went back and doublechecked the dates: the Queen issued letters patent regarding the HRH status for William's kids (and those of any future eldest son of a Prince of Wales) while the discussion was underway to do away with male primogeniture but before it was decided and enacted. So she may have felt that writing a gender-neutral version of the LP could be construed as a sideways meddling in the political process that decided that issue.

As others have said, if the BRF want to adapt it to be eldest child, there's plenty of time to do so since the next possible need for clarification is at least two decades, if not three, in the future.

I agree with your point about the 2012 letters patent being issued before gender-neutral primogeniture was actually enacted in 2015 (the decision was made at the Commonwealth summit of 2011).

But there was a third option of issuing Letters Patent specifically for the Cambridge children, which would have been equally appropriate under male-preference and gender-neutral primogeniture, and for which there was even a precedent with Elizabeth's own children in 1948.

The British Royal Family chose to bypass that option in favor of issuing Letters Patent that would apply not only to the Cambridges, but children of future eldest sons of Princes of Wales (even eldest sons whose sisters are heiresses apparent).

I am not sure it is possible to confer the titular dignity of Prince/Princess on someone (on his/her own right) without Letters Patent.



The reverse is possible following the Wessex children's precedent although many people (rightfully) question the validity of a simple announcement to overrule LPs that are technically still in force.

But under the position of Buckingham Palace that a simple announcement overrules the Letters Patent to withhold the titular dignity of Prince/ss, wouldn't the opposite action be equally valid? And it seems that children and grandchildren of British kings were addressed as Prince and Princess for centuries without any Letters Patent conferring that titular dignity.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain

 

[Pranter]

Under current rules that would happen, but we don't know that it will. H&M, along with Prince Charles, may desire otherwise.

Yes but at this point that is what will happen and that's what I am going by unless they notify us otherwise.



LaRae

 

[Westfield Bakery]

It is possible that when Charles becomes King George VII, if Andrew dies, since he has no male heirs, the Dukedom of York will go to Harry, since Harry is the second son of the British monarch, the Duke of York.

If that is the case:

Prince William, Dukes of Cornwall, Cambridge and Prince of Wales
Prince Harry, Dukes of Sussex and York

The new Earl of Dumbarton will get the York title if Harry passes, since Harry would be the first Duke of York to have a male heir.

 

[Countessmeout]

It is possible that when Charles becomes King George VII, if Andrew dies, since he has no male heirs, the Dukedom of York will go to Harry, since Harry is the second son of the British monarch, the Duke of York.

If that is the case:

Prince William, Dukes of Cornwall, Cambridge and Prince of Wales
Prince Harry, Dukes of Sussex and York

The new Earl of Dumbarton will get the York title if Harry passes, since Harry would be the first Duke of York to have a male heir.

While the Duke of York is traditionally held by the second son of the monarch, it is not automatic. Its not like the Princess Royal, when one dies, the next one fills the role. Harry has already been given his peerage, he will not be given a second one.

Nor is it likely Andrew will die before his brother being a good 11 years younger. Yes, it could happen, but bit morbid to think about it.

The only question is who will be next Duke of York, either Louis or George' second son.

If Andrew is alive when Louis gets married, Louis will be given a different title. Or they may pull a Duke of Edinburgh, and give Louis a lesser title like Edward, intending him to be made Duke of York when Andrew dies. Or they may choose to leave the title vacant for some, in respect to Andrew's daughters.

In that case, if George has a second son, the title will likely go to him one day. The title will simply remain vacant for some years.

 

[Ish]

It is possible that when Charles becomes King George VII, if Andrew dies, since he has no male heirs, the Dukedom of York will go to Harry, since Harry is the second son of the British monarch, the Duke of York.



If that is the case:



Prince William, Dukes of Cornwall, Cambridge and Prince of Wales

Prince Harry, Dukes of Sussex and York



The new Earl of Dumbarton will get the York title if Harry passes, since Harry would be the first Duke of York to have a male heir.

This is incredibly unlikely and is based on a fallacy.

The title Duke of York has fairly standard Salic law inheritance rules - that is it is inherited by the male, male-line descendants of the first Duke of that creation, and at such time as there are no more male descendants the title becomes extinct. It is not, as is commonly believed, inherited by men due to some relationship to the monarch, or due to their being the second son.

Andrew is the first Duke of York of this creation, limiting his successors to his own descendants. And as he has no sons, he has no heir. This means that when Andrew dies, unless he remarries and has a sin before then, the title Duke of York will become extinct. It will not be inherited by any of his brothers’ sons or grandsons.

It is possible that in Charles reign the title will be recreated, although it’s still somewhat unlikely. Really, Andrew would have to predecease his elder brother (and remember, Charles is 12 years older, making this unlikely). I also wouldn’t expect it to happen if Sarah is still alive and using the title Duchess of York, or if Beatrice and Eugenie are still using “of York” - which, despite her marriage, Eugenie is still using the territorial designation.

If it is created again in Charles’ reign, it’s not likely to be created for Harry. Harry already has a Dukedom, and it is very uncommon in the modern era for royals who aren’t the heir apparent to have two dukedoms (it hasn’t happened, I believe, since the reign of Queen Victoria). Instead, what is more likely to happen is the title will be given to Louis, either during Charles’ reign or William’s, depending on when he marries and the availability of the title at the time.

 

[Abbigail]

Any changes to the present rules, whether to confer princely status on the child during the present reign or to withhold princely status from the child during the next reign, could also be applied with a simple announcement (as in the case of the Wessex children) instead of new Letters Patent.

Interesting thought I hadn't considered. Well, I've considered the latter, just not the former, which actually does seem equally possible, particularly if the Queen wants to treat this as a special case instead of issuing new Letters Patent. Indeed, seems quite similar to what we saw with the Wessex children.

 

[royal-blue]

I read that Harry has decided that his son shouldn't use the subsidiary title of Earl of Dunbarton, does this mean that Archie is still the earl but not using the title, or is he not an earl at all?

 

[Osipi]

The Earl of Dumbarton is Harry's title. The eldest son has the right to use a secondary title of his father's as a courtesy. For example, James, the son of The Earl of Wessex uses his father's secondary title of Viscount Severn as a courtesy.

Archie could use his father's secondary title of Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy but he doesn't hold the title himself. The word "The" is what makes a difference.

 

[Mbruno]

I read that Harry has decided that his son shouldn't use the subsidiary title of Earl of Dunbarton, does this mean that Archie is still the earl but not using the title, or is he not an earl at all?

He was never the Earl. Harry is. He will only be the Earl if he survives his father. The heir to a Duke may use one of his father's subsidiary titles nly as a courtesy title, but the title is not his.