The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2901  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:53 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,054
He may have been extremely popular with the masses however, you have to remember the fact the up until that cruise the "masses" of the UK and Commonwealth had no idea that Wallis existed.

The cruise blew it out of the water and suddenly The King, I mean Our King is cavorting around with a divorcee. An American divorce to be exact, they're having an illicit affair and she's still married to her second, yes that's right, her second husband . . . no, he wasn't on the cruise!

Everything has its time and place, and in 1936 England divorcees were both a rarity and an oddity and, more importantly, they were not received in polite society. Up until the cruise, the government managed to muzzle the press and while America was gaga over the fact that the King of England was 'dating' an American woman, his subjects hadn't a clue.

As to pomposity and rigidity, this was just the way society was in the 30's and 40's, and, although the war brought an avalanche of divorce petitions and subsequent decrees, divorced women were still not treated well at all levels of society.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2902  
Old 05-24-2016, 06:52 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
There are arguments on both sides of course - though I don't like to admit it. You see I'm a rottweiler for the underdog.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2903  
Old 05-24-2016, 09:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamM View Post
I don't think you can have read the linked paper. The King could use the royal prerogative to deprive Edward of his title of HRH, but what he could not do was to deprive Wallis of the title of HRH if Edward was an HRH - because, under the Common Law, which the monarch cannot override, Wallis took the rank, title and style of her husband. So, since Edward was undeniably an HRH from birth and did not (and could not) renounce that title, Wallis took the title HRH on her marriage to him. If you read the paper, you will see that the experts agree on this. PS The monarch is most definitely not the fount of all honour in this country. It's an interesting story but a long one.
On his abdication, the King became Edward Windsor, constitutionally speaking, he was dead.

Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney General said it was his opinion the King became a private citizen when he abdicated.

Clearly the sovereign has the prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles and it's precisely common law that gives him/her the prerogative.

In fact, when the Queen issued the Letters Patent of 1996 to deal with former wives, the Letters Patent of 1937 dealing with the Duke of Windsor were specifically mentioned in the preamble as precedent for her will and pleasure.

Parliament has never contested the sovereign's prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles.
Reply With Quote
  #2904  
Old 05-25-2016, 08:36 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
On his abdication, the King became Edward Windsor, constitutionally speaking, he was dead.

Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney General said it was his opinion the King became a private citizen when he abdicated.

Clearly the sovereign has the prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles and it's precisely common law that gives him/her the prerogative.

In fact, when the Queen issued the Letters Patent of 1996 to deal with former wives, the Letters Patent of 1937 dealing with the Duke of Windsor were specifically mentioned in the preamble as precedent for her will and pleasure.

Parliament has never contested the sovereign's prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles.
1. Edward was born an HRH. He did not lose this on his abdication.
2. Using the royal prerogative, the King could have removed this title from him but he didn't.
3. Edward therefore remained an HRH.
4. Under Common Law Wallis became an HRH on her marriage to him. It is this operation of the Common Law that the King had no power to over-rule; that is, if Edward was an HRH then his wife became an HRH.

That's all there is to it. All the points you raise are either wrong, irrelevant or unsubstantiated. All my points are explained in my paper.
Reply With Quote
  #2905  
Old 05-25-2016, 08:47 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamM View Post
1. Edward was born an HRH. He did not lose this on his abdication.
2. Using the royal prerogative, the King could have removed this title from him but he didn't.
3. Edward therefore remained an HRH.
4. Under Common Law Wallis became an HRH on her marriage to him. It is this operation of the Common Law that the King had no power to over-rule; that is, if Edward was an HRH then his wife became an HRH.

That's all there is to it. All the points you raise are either wrong, irrelevant or unsubstantiated. All my points are explained in my paper.
Actually, as I have read recently here in these forums, HRH is not a title but a form of address such as Your Grace, Your Excellency or Your Majesty. When Edward abdicated, his brother created him The Duke of Windsor. The mechanics of common law made Wallis The Duchess of Windsor.

Therefore, using the royal prerogative, Edward was still His Royal Highness, The Duke of Windsor but the HRH was not granted to The Duchess of Windsor. In divorce, both Sarah, Duchess of York and Diana, Princess of Wales lost their HRH because of the royal prerogative of HM, The Queen yet legally kept the style denoting that both women were, at one time, married to the title holders (Andrew and Charles).
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2906  
Old 05-25-2016, 08:58 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually, as I have read recently here in these forums, HRH is not a title but a form of address such as Your Grace, Your Excellency or Your Majesty. When Edward abdicated, his brother created him The Duke of Windsor. The mechanics of common law made Wallis The Duchess of Windsor.

Therefore, using the royal prerogative, Edward was still His Royal Highness, The Duke of Windsor but the HRH was not granted to The Duchess of Windsor. In divorce, both Sarah, Duchess of York and Diana, Princess of Wales lost their HRH because of the royal prerogative of HM, The Queen yet legally kept the style denoting that both women were, at one time, married to the title holders (Andrew and Charles).
I think we need to work through this step by step.

1. Was Edward an HRH at birth?
2. Did he lose that rank, title and style on abdication? If so, how?

Whatever you call it, it is either something to which a person can be entitled in law (and so potentially not entitled in law) or it isn't. If the latter then anyone can properly call themselves 'HRH' (because it has no legal status) and that is the end of the discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #2907  
Old 05-25-2016, 09:03 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
When Edward abdicated he ceased to be royal. HM, HRH or otherwise. The issue was though, when Edward gave his abdication speech, the King told the BBC he should be announced as his 'HRH Prince Edward'. This was a public statement and to go back on it was thought to be punitive. The public may not like it.

So this is basically what happened. You're correct that under common law a wife takes her husbands rank and styles but royal styles have always been the prerogative of the sovereign going back to Queen Victoria.

When Edward abdicated he was no longer in the line of succession and there has never been an HRH not in the line of succession other than spouses of an HRH.

The King's ministers said if the sovereign can grant the style of HRH, the sovereign can limit the style of HRH

So the Letters Patent issued state that even though my brother abdicated and even though by abdicating he is no longer in the line of succession or royal, I am willing to grant to him personally the 'style, title or attribute' of royal highness but it will be for him only. Not for his wife or any children.

Why should people be expected to curtsey to a woman who can't become Queen?

That the King had the prerogative to do it is unquestionable, it was more a matter of politics. Edward was still popular and the new King didn't want the public to think he was being vindictive. So he allowed his brother to use HRH personally but not for anyone in his family
Reply With Quote
  #2908  
Old 05-25-2016, 09:21 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
When Edward abdicated he ceased to be royal. HM, HRH or otherwise. The issue was though, when Edward gave his abdication speech, the King told the BBC he should be announced as his 'HRH Prince Edward'. This was a public statement and to go back on it was thought to be punitive. The public may not like it.

So this is basically what happened. You're correct that under common law a wife takes her husbands rank and styles but royal styles have always been the prerogative of the sovereign going back to Queen Victoria.

When Edward abdicated he was no longer in the line of succession and there has never been an HRH not in the line of succession other than spouses of an HRH.

The King's ministers said if the sovereign can grant the style of HRH, the sovereign can limit the style of HRH

So the Letters Patent issued state that even though my brother abdicated and even though by abdicating he is no longer in the line of succession or royal, I am willing to grant to him personally the 'style, title or attribute' of royal highness but it will be for him only. Not for his wife or any children.

Why should people be expected to curtsey to a woman who can't become Queen?

That the King had the prerogative to do it is unquestionable, it was more a matter of politics. Edward was still popular and the new King didn't want the public to think he was being vindictive. So he allowed his brother to use HRH personally but not for anyone in his family
If Edward was, in law, an HRH before the abdication then there must have been some legal step taken to remove that title from him. Can you point me to that legal step? The only actual legal step that I know of is His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. Can you tell me where in this Act Edward's title of HRH was removed?
Reply With Quote
  #2909  
Old 05-25-2016, 09:45 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamM View Post
If Edward was, in law, an HRH before the abdication then there must have been some legal step taken to remove that title from him. Can you point me to that legal step? The only actual legal step that I know of is His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. Can you tell me where in this Act Edward's title of HRH was removed?
I can think of a perfect example. Lets take The Earl of Wessex and the plan that, in time, he will be created The Duke of Edinburgh. Now, things have to happen before this can occur. 1.) Both HM, The Queen and the present Duke of Edinburgh have to pass away. 2.) When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown including the title of Duke of Edinburgh (which he would inherit if his father dies before his mother). He is no longer The Prince Charles, The Duke of Cornwall or the Prince of Wales or any of his previous titles and styles that he now holds. It is Charles' prerogative as the monarch then to created The Duke of Edinburgh title for Edward.

Now all this has been done. Charles decides to abdicate and retire with Camilla to the far reaches of Antarctica to raise Emperor penguins. All his titles and styles he held as King (Duke of Lancaster etc) are inherited by William leaving Charles without anything. It would be up to William to decide just what his father's titles and styles would be. Could be anything William chooses.

The kicker is that when Edward VIII became King, all his princely titles reverted to the Crown. He only held those that a King would have.

At least this is how I understand it.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2910  
Old 05-25-2016, 10:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamM View Post
If Edward was, in law, an HRH before the abdication then there must have been some legal step taken to remove that title from him. Can you point me to that legal step? The only actual legal step that I know of is His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. Can you tell me where in this Act Edward's title of HRH was removed?
The abdication was a one off. There was no provision for it in the constitution and King George V's LP of 1917 made no provision for it. That the son of King George V would be neither Prince of Wales nor sovereign was unthinkable.

He went from being HRH The Prince of Wales to HM King Edward VIII. He abdicates, so now what? Like I said there is no provision for it in the constitution. No statue as to what becomes of a King who gives up the throne.

There was a lot of back and forth. Some thought he should be a royal highness, some thought he was nothing but a private citizen.

In the end though, on the advice of the government, it was decided that because no HRH has ever not been in the line of succession and Edward by Act of Parliament was no longer in the line of succession, the grant of HRH to Edward was a 'gift' to be enjoyed only by himself for the reasons I already stated.

The Queen used basically the same logic in 1996. Because people who are royal highnesses are either in the line of succession or the spouse of a royal highness in the line of succession, former wives would no longer be HRH as they were no longer the wife of a prince in the line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #2911  
Old 05-25-2016, 10:42 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I can think of a perfect example. Lets take The Earl of Wessex and the plan that, in time, he will be created The Duke of Edinburgh. Now, things have to happen before this can occur. 1.) Both HM, The Queen and the present Duke of Edinburgh have to pass away. 2.) When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown including the title of Duke of Edinburgh (which he would inherit if his father dies before his mother). He is no longer The Prince Charles, The Duke of Cornwall or the Prince of Wales or any of his previous titles and styles that he now holds. It is Charles' prerogative as the monarch then to created The Duke of Edinburgh title for Edward.

Now all this has been done. Charles decides to abdicate and retire with Camilla to the far reaches of Antarctica to raise Emperor penguins. All his titles and styles he held as King (Duke of Lancaster etc) are inherited by William leaving Charles without anything. It would be up to William to decide just what his father's titles and styles would be. Could be anything William chooses.

The kicker is that when Edward VIII became King, all his princely titles reverted to the Crown. He only held those that a King would have.

At least this is how I understand it.
'When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown'

What are your authorities for this? It is true that peerages merge with the Crown, though not the Dukedom of Rothesay for instance (which is a feudal title, not a personal peerage). But I know of nothing which says that all titles, styles and so on will merge with the Crown. More importantly, the Letters Patent of 1864 say that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'. There is nothing here which says that a person ceases to be an HRH when he succeeds to the throne. The title might be submerged but it is not subsumed. So, we have specific words which say that a person will be an HRH 'at all times'.
Reply With Quote
  #2912  
Old 05-25-2016, 11:08 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamM View Post
'When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown'

What are your authorities for this? It is true that peerages merge with the Crown, though not the Dukedom of Rothesay for instance (which is a feudal title, not a personal peerage). But I know of nothing which says that all titles, styles and so on will merge with the Crown. More importantly, the Letters Patent of 1864 say that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'. There is nothing here which says that a person ceases to be an HRH when he succeeds to the throne. The title might be submerged but it is not subsumed. So, we have specific words which say that a person will be an HRH 'at all times'.
A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V.

This was known as the 1917 Letters Patent and is one of the most quoted letters patent by royal commentators. The exact order of the letters patent exclusively reserved the right of the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ – the effect of this order is still felt today and in order to ensure Prince William’s child becomes a Prince/Princess, a special order by Her Majesty The Queen was instituted 2013 Letters Patent, granting the style of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess to all children of Prince William, regardless of gender. Had this not have happened, under the 1917 letters patent, the first son would be a Prince, but any other children would be Lords and Ladies.

History Of Royal Titles: HRH and Prince/Princess – Royal Central
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2913  
Old 05-25-2016, 11:24 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V.

This was known as the 1917 Letters Patent and is one of the most quoted letters patent by royal commentators. The exact order of the letters patent exclusively reserved the right of the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ – the effect of this order is still felt today and in order to ensure Prince William’s child becomes a Prince/Princess, a special order by Her Majesty The Queen was instituted 2013 Letters Patent, granting the style of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess to all children of Prince William, regardless of gender. Had this not have happened, under the 1917 letters patent, the first son would be a Prince, but any other children would be Lords and Ladies.

History Of Royal Titles: HRH and Prince/Princess – Royal Central

You say 'A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V' and that the letters patent of 1917 say that the title HRH will be borne by ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ So your second statement contradicts your first statement. Edward was a child of the sovereign and was therefore an HRH according to the letters patent of 1917. These letters patent do not say that the title is lost when a person becomes king/queen. The person may also have a higher title but that is another matter. These letters patent of 1917 also say (like the letters patent of 1864) that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'.
Reply With Quote
  #2914  
Old 05-25-2016, 11:25 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V.

This was known as the 1917 Letters Patent and is one of the most quoted letters patent by royal commentators. The exact order of the letters patent exclusively reserved the right of the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ – the effect of this order is still felt today and in order to ensure Prince William’s child becomes a Prince/Princess, a special order by Her Majesty The Queen was instituted 2013 Letters Patent, granting the style of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess to all children of Prince William, regardless of gender. Had this not have happened, under the 1917 letters patent, the first son would be a Prince, but any other children would be Lords and Ladies.

History Of Royal Titles: HRH and Prince/Princess – Royal Central
Actually that reminds me the following is incorrect.
Quote:
1. Edward was born an HRH. He did not lose this on his abdication.
Edward and his siblings were not born HRH, they were born HH, they became HRHs when their grandfather became King.

ETA:
Correction, according to Wikipedia Edward and his siblings became HRHs in 1898 via a Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria, this was three years before their grandfather became King. The three youngest children of George and Mary were born after 1898 and they were born HRHs.
Reply With Quote
  #2915  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
The Letters Patent of 1937 make it clear that only people in the lineal line of succession are royal highness. The LP of 1864 also make clear it is used by people in the line of succession.

Edward was no longer in the line of succession. Therefore his use of the style had to be granted by the King.

No one is legally entitled to be a royal highness. It comes from the sovereign's will and pleasure. The sovereign is not bound by previous Letters Patent. They serve as a template but can be changed at anytime and for any reason.

No monarch had ever abdicated, so there was nothing either in statute or common law that tells us what becomes of this person.

We can't rewrite history. In 1937 King George VI made his will and pleasure known by Letters Patent that his brother Edward, not withstanding the Act of Abdication, shall enjoy the style of royal highness and neither his wife nor any children could claim through him.

Everything else, although interesting doesn't really matter. And to button this up, Wallis was not a royal highness which is basically all i was trying to say anyway lol
Reply With Quote
  #2916  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:08 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamM View Post
You say 'A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V' and that the letters patent of 1917 say that the title HRH will be borne by ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ So your second statement contradicts your first statement. Edward was a child of the sovereign and was therefore an HRH according to the letters patent of 1917. These letters patent do not say that the title is lost when a person becomes king/queen. The person may also have a higher title but that is another matter. These letters patent of 1917 also say (like the letters patent of 1864) that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'.
OK. One more example taken from the Independent

"HRH stands for His/Her Royal Highness, a style associated with princes and princesses of the United Kingdom – that is to say with the children of sovereigns and the children of the sons of sovereigns. That is the general rule, established by George V, though there are exceptions. Most, but by no means all, of the people you think of as members of the Royal Family are Royal Highnesses. The Queen is not. She is Her Majesty – HM, as in HM Government, HM Revenue and Customs and so on."

Errors & Omissions: HRH? Her Majesty the Queen would not have been amused | Errors & Omissions | News | The Independent
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2917  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:09 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Edward was an HRH from birth under the letters patent of 1864 whereby the children of the sons of the sovereign were granted the title.

[Sorry, my mistake. It seems that Edward did not become an HRH until the death of Queen Victoria, at which point he qualified as a son of the son of the sovereign.]
Reply With Quote
  #2918  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:19 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
OK. One more example taken from the Independent

"HRH stands for His/Her Royal Highness, a style associated with princes and princesses of the United Kingdom – that is to say with the children of sovereigns and the children of the sons of sovereigns. That is the general rule, established by George V, though there are exceptions. Most, but by no means all, of the people you think of as members of the Royal Family are Royal Highnesses. The Queen is not. She is Her Majesty – HM, as in HM Government, HM Revenue and Customs and so on."

Errors & Omissions: HRH? Her Majesty the Queen would not have been amused | Errors & Omissions | News | The Independent
Sorry, it is not enough to just quote someone else's opinion. The Queen is HM (they got that bit right) but she is also an HRH - the letters patent of 1864 and 1917 say so quite specifically; they say that HRHs will bear their title of HRH 'at all times'. As an exercise of the royal prerogative, you will have to find either a later exercise of the royal prerogative cancelling the effect of the 1864 and 1917 letters patent in this respect or an Act of Parliament. You can argue that, logically, a person cannot be an HM and an HRH at the same time but we are not concerned with what we might think is logical; we are concerned with what the law says (the law being the letters patent, which amount to statute law). The letters patent say that Edward was an HRH 'at all times'. You need to find some other law that cancels/over-rides this.
Reply With Quote
  #2919  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamM View Post
Edward was an HRH from birth under the letters patent of 1864 whereby the children of the sons of the sovereign were granted the title.
As entertaining it has been to go back and forth over all of this HRH stuff and Letters Patent and common law and whatnot, I am by no means a legal eagle or even a UK citizen and what I have stated is just what I have learned from various sources.

One thing I did find is that the back and forth over this generated a lot of discussion back at the time of the abdication also and I happened to find archives of the correspondences regarding the Letters Patent of King George VI in regards to his brother.

Enjoy

The drafting of the letters patent of 1937

The actual verbatim Letters Patent of George VI on May 27, 1937.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/brit..._docs.htm#1937
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2920  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:40 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Letters Patent of 1937 make it clear that only people in the lineal line of succession are royal highness. The LP of 1864 also make clear it is used by people in the line of succession.

Edward was no longer in the line of succession. Therefore his use of the style had to be granted by the King.

No one is legally entitled to be a royal highness. It comes from the sovereign's will and pleasure. The sovereign is not bound by previous Letters Patent. They serve as a template but can be changed at anytime and for any reason.

No monarch had ever abdicated, so there was nothing either in statute or common law that tells us what becomes of this person.

We can't rewrite history. In 1937 King George VI made his will and pleasure known by Letters Patent that his brother Edward, not withstanding the Act of Abdication, shall enjoy the style of royal highness and neither his wife nor any children could claim through him.

Everything else, although interesting doesn't really matter. And to button this up, Wallis was not a royal highness which is basically all i was trying to say anyway lol
This is not correct. Neither the letters patent of 1864 or those of 1917 make any reference to the line of succession in the operative words (the words which grant the right); they simply refer to children, sons and so on. The 1864 letters patent refer to the people who currently (in 1864) already enjoyed the title HRH; it then goes on to say what will happen thereafter. Thus, the only reference to those in lineal succession was to WHAT APPLIED IN THE PAST (BEFORE 1864). After 1864 the people specified bore the title HRH whether they were in lineal succession to the throne or not. If you are in any doubt about this, can I refer you to the words iin the 1864 letters patent which say 'henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared'. It says 'hereinafter'- the words lineal succession appear before and are therefore not 'hereinafter' and so do not form part of the operative words of the letters patent.

PS 'Lineal' means by right of blood. By right of blood Edward was still in the line of succession; in fact, by right of blood he was and remained King. LEGALLY he was removed from the line of succession but this did not change his status by right of blood (because by right of blood means, in effect, by right of blood alone - not by legal right). The law cannot alter the fact of someone's heredity, only the rights arising from that heredity.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1353 11-17-2016 02:00 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 38 09-17-2016 06:06 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 749 06-29-2016 07:02 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 05:24 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's fashion coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events denmark royal family duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander march 2016 member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine hats princess marie princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde's daytime fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises