The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2921  
Old 05-25-2016, 11:48 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Norham, United Kingdom
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
Thanks for that. We know exactly what happened. The powers that be were determined to deny Wallis Simpson the title of HRH. They only way they could do this was to lie about what the law said - and so they did. I have no axe to grind either way, although it does get up my nose when people lie in order to deprive someone of something they are entitled to. It wasn't right and that's it. I don't care whether the person doing the wrong happened to be the King, although, in my book, it makes it worse when people abuse a position of power in this way - and with their own brother!!! 'Nothing is settled until it is settled right.' (Rudyard Kipling)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2922  
Old 01-31-2017, 06:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Let's not forget that the Succession to the Crown Act says that the monarch's consent to marriages of the first six persons in line to the throne must be declared in a meeting of the Privy Council, meaning it has to be ratified in practice by the government. If the government opposed the marriage, then my understanding is that the Queen would be forced to deny consent.

In any case, Harry could still marry without consent. The only legal effect would be that he and his descendants from the marriage would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In principle, unlike in Sweden, Denmark or the Netherlands, I believe the the exclusion from the line of succession would not affect his royal titles and styles. Prince Michael of Kent for example was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married Marie Christine (who is Catholic); nevertheless, he never lost his HRH status as a grandson of a British sovereign in male line.
I think this is very interesting question.


This situation didn't exist before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
Prince Michael of Kent was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married a Catholic, but his children still were in the line of succesion.

But now marriage without consent means that a royal and his/her all descendants (not only from the marriage) would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In this case the royal would be dead from the succession point of view.

And we have Edward VIII case:
Quote:
On 14 April 1937, Attorney General Sir Donald Somervell submitted to Home Secretary Sir John Simon a memorandum summarising the views of Lord Advocate T. M. Cooper, Parliamentary Counsel Sir Granville Ram, and himself:
1.We incline to the view that on his abdication the Duke of Windsor could not have claimed the right to be described as a Royal Highness. In other words, no reasonable objection could have been taken if the King had decided that his exclusion from the lineal succession excluded him from the right to this title as conferred by the existing Letters Patent.
After abdication Edward became "dead" from the succession point of view and lost all his titles.

I believe that nobody in government discussed this situation.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2923  
Old 01-31-2017, 07:33 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
I think this is very interesting question.


This situation didn't exist before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
Prince Michael of Kent was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married a Catholic, but his children still were in the line of succesion.

But now marriage without consent means that a royal and his/her all descendants (not only from the marriage) would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In this case the royal would be dead from the succession point of view.

And we have Edward VIII case:
After abdication Edward became "dead" from the succession point of view and lost all his titles.

I believe that nobody in government discussed this situation.
He only had one title to lose - that of King. All titles are returned to the crown when heir becomes king.

This is the mechanism by which, when Charles becomes king, Edward can be made Duke of Edinburgh (new creation)
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2924  
Old 01-31-2017, 07:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,664
Just an addition to the last point - Charles can only create Edward Duke of Edinburgh if he himself has inherited the title first and so both The Queen and Philip have to be dead. It is therefore possible for Charles to be King and not be able to create Edward as DoE if Philip is still alive.
Reply With Quote
  #2925  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:01 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 558
That is correct. Charles will only be the DoE if his father dies before his mother, and will only be the DoE until her death.
Reply With Quote
  #2926  
Old 02-01-2017, 02:26 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
He only had one title to lose - that of King. All titles are returned to the crown when heir becomes king.
After recent wave of abdication in Europe we see two main scenarios:
1) Albert II and Juan Carlos have retained, by courtesy, the title and style of King;
2) Beatrix reverted to her title before her inauguration - a princess.

But Edward lost his king's title. And he lost Royal Highness style as king's son. It was 3rd way.
Reply With Quote
  #2927  
Old 02-01-2017, 02:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,664
Edward remained HRH The Prince Edward after his abdication adding the title of Duke of Windsor to that. The HRH was denied to Wallis but Edward did retain it.
Reply With Quote
  #2928  
Old 02-01-2017, 03:27 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Edward remained HRH The Prince Edward after his abdication adding the title of Duke of Windsor to that. The HRH was denied to Wallis but Edward did retain it.
It was discussed. As a result George re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke of Windsor.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
Reply With Quote
  #2929  
Old 02-01-2017, 03:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,664
He didn't 'reconfer' but confirmed that Edward always held those titles.
Reply With Quote
  #2930  
Old 02-01-2017, 04:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
I think this is very interesting question.


This situation didn't exist before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
Prince Michael of Kent was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married a Catholic, but his children still were in the line of succesion.

But now marriage without consent means that a royal and his/her all descendants (not only from the marriage) would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In this case the royal would be dead from the succession point of view.

And we have Edward VIII case:
After abdication Edward became "dead" from the succession point of view and lost all his titles.

I believe that nobody in government discussed this situation.
Not really, Edward VIII ceased to be King, which is an office more so then a title, but he remained an HRH after his abdication. So he was still a royal even ithough his descendants had no succession rights.
Reply With Quote
  #2931  
Old 02-01-2017, 06:47 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,778
Questions about British Styles and Titles

With the Royal Marriage Act if you married someone without consent, the marriage was invalid so any children would be illegitimate. That scenario neither the parter or children could hold a royal title.

Now, with the new law. The marriage is valid but the Royal and his/her descendants are out of the succession.

So let's say Harry in Vegas goes horribly wrong and gets married to a Hooters waitress while partying in a drive thru wedding chapel. He is out of the line of succession now. However in theory, Hooters waitress is now HRH Princess Henry of Wales.

The Queen could issue LPs taking the HRH Prince from Harry leaving the couple Mr and Mrs Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Because of U.K. Common law where the wife takes the husband title, she can't take Princess Henry without Harry also losing his Prince.

Prince Michael's children still had succession rights when their father didn't because they were Anglican. If Michael is treated as "dead" when he marries a Catholic his children should not have any succession rights even if they are Anglican. So out of the succession does seem like totally dead.

So if every someone goes against the royal consent in the top 6, it's new ground and who knows if they keep or lose titles. They kept the requirement in for a reason.
Reply With Quote
  #2932  
Old 02-01-2017, 07:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
It was discussed. As a result George re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke of Windsor.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
I agree. It's clear from the discussions between the king's private secretary and the various government officials that Edward ceased to be royal be virtue of his abdication.

The Home Secretary writes
Quote:
As the style and title of Royal Highness has hitherto invariably attached to members of the Royal Family who were within the line of succession, or their wives, there would be a remarkable anomaly if persons outside the succession equally enjoyed it. Even if the Duke, in view of his former position, retained the title by express direction from the King as the fountain of honour, it is presumably within the legal powers of the Sovereign to direct that no other person shall derive such style and title from the Duke, whether by tie of marriage or descent.
The Lord Chamberlain asked the question whether on abdication the Duke became “Prince Edward” or “Edward Windsor”.

The Attorney General said that there were different views on this point, but he himself was inclined to the view that the effect of the abdication was that the Duke was turned into a private citizen.

The Home Secretary writes to the Prime Minister

Quote:
I attach a draft of Letters Patent which, if issued by The King, would have the effect of securing that, upon the marriage of Mrs. Simpson to the Duke of Windsor, the new Duchess would not become "Her Royal Highness". You will see that the document is so drawn as to confirm, or reaffirm, the right of the Duke to be a Royal Highness; the effect of his abdication was to remove him from the line of Royal succession and, therefore, he might have been regarded as himself losing the title. The King in this document formally authorises the title so far as His Brother is concerned and, at the same time, expressly directs that it will not be enjoyed by anyone claiming through him.
Geoffrey Ellis, Counsel to the Crown in Peerage and Honours, writes

Quote:
The abdication of King Edward VIII and the Act confirming the same (1 Ed. 8. c.3.) removes the ex-King, as if dead, from the line of succession, and moreover declares his children also, if any, cut out of the succession. The ex-King is, therefore, simply a private subject of the Crown, who by implication has also lost the right to style himself H.R.H. His children, if any, being expressly excluded from the succession would not be entitled to the style and title of H.R.H. [added: It may be noted that the original letters patent of Q. Victoria show the royal intent to be for "certain members of the Royal Family being in lineal succession to the Crown."]
In the end I think it's clear that Edward didn't automatically 'downgrade' to HRH upon abdication but only enjoyed the use of the style by direct expression from the king.
Reply With Quote
  #2933  
Old 02-01-2017, 07:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
With the Royal Marriage Act if you married someone without consent, the marriage was invalid so any children would be illegitimate. That scenario neither the parter or children could hold a royal title.

Now, with the new law. The marriage is valid but the Royal and his/her descendants are out of the succession.

So let's say Harry in Vegas goes horribly wrong and gets married to a Hooters waitress while partying in a drive thru wedding chapel. He is out of the line of succession now. However in theory, Hooters waitress is now HRH Princess Henry of Wales.

The Queen could issue LPs taking the HRH Prince from Harry leaving the couple Mr and Mrs Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Because of U.K. Common law where the wife takes the husband title, she can't take Princess Henry without Harry also losing his Prince.

Prince Michael's children still had succession rights when their father didn't because they were Anglican. If Michael is treated as "dead" when he marries a Catholic his children should not have any succession rights even if they are Anglican. So out of the succession does seem like totally dead.

So if every someone goes against the royal consent in the top 6, it's new ground and who knows if they keep or lose titles. They kept the requirement in for a reason.
Was consent required to marry a roman catholic? Prince Micheal remained a royal highness, so being removed from the succession, at least in his case did not remove his HRH. Was it because he had permission to marry?
Reply With Quote
  #2934  
Old 02-01-2017, 08:22 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Was consent required to marry a roman catholic? Prince Micheal remained a royal highness, so being removed from the succession, at least in his case did not remove his HRH. Was it because he had permission to marry?
Prince Michael's case was different. He had consent from the Queen to get married (othewise his marriage under the old Royal Marriages Act would have been invalid and his children would have been illegitimate in the UK). He was removed from the line of succession because the Act of Settlement said that any person in the line of succession who married a Catholic could not succeed to the Crown. That provision has been repealed retroactively BTW by the Succession to the Crown Act and Prince Michael is now back in the line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #2935  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:27 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,778
But what is unclear is what happens when a royal marries without consent. Harry keeping his HRH Prince, his wife becoming a HRH Princess, kids becoming in time HRHs Prince/Princess while remaining out of the line of succession seems doesn't really seem likely a punishment for going around the consent law. Especially since Harry and his descendants were likely never going to be on the throne. The Queen could issue LPs taking Harry's royal status and titles away.
Reply With Quote
  #2936  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:04 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,229
The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.

If Harry were to marry without consent of the monarch now, he would be removed from the Succession and his children would never be in the Succession by law. That same law says nothing about titles, therefore Harry would remain HRH Prince Henry of Wales and his wife HRH Princess Henry of Wales unless Parliament chose to strip him of his titles. Their children would be styled as the children of a Prince, as per the 1917 LPs; so Lord/Lady Xxx Mountbatten-Windsor during the Queen's reign and Prince/Princess Xxx during Charles', William's, and George's reigns.

Charles could make it known that the children of Prince and Princess Henry of Wales will remain styled as the children of a Prince, instead of as Princes/Princesses themselves, at the start of his reign, but even then it would be hard to say that the children don't have the titles if they were born during the Queen's reign; the difference her between these hypothetical children and the Wessex children is that with the Wessex's the statement was made by the monarch long before the children were born. That's a bit harder to do with Harry's hypothetical children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Was consent required to marry a roman catholic? Prince Micheal remained a royal highness, so being removed from the succession, at least in his case did not remove his HRH. Was it because he had permission to marry?


At the time of Prince Michael's wedding, consent was required for all marriages to be valid, regardless of whether or not the person marrying would remain in the succession.

There has never been a link between being an HRH and being in the line of succession; many people are not HRHs and are in the line of succession. Fewer people are HRHs and are not in the succession, and I actually believe up until his restoration Michael was the only person in the family to be an HRH and not be in the succession. Princess Michael was not the only Catholic HRH, as the Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism after her marriage.

If Prince and Princess Michael hadn't had permission to marry, their marriage wouldn't have been valid; Michael wouldn't have been stripped of any titles or his place in the succession, but his wife wouldn't have legally been his wife, and his children would have been illegitimate. This is what happened with the "wives" of the children of George III.
Reply With Quote
  #2937  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:14 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.

If Harry were to marry without consent of the monarch now, he would be removed from the Succession and his children would never be in the Succession by law. That same law says nothing about titles, therefore Harry would remain HRH Prince Henry of Wales and his wife HRH Princess Henry of Wales unless Parliament chose to strip him of his titles. Their children would be styled as the children of a Prince, as per the 1917 LPs; so Lord/Lady Xxx Mountbatten-Windsor during the Queen's reign and Prince/Princess Xxx during Charles', William's, and George's reigns.

Charles could make it known that the children of Prince and Princess Henry of Wales will remain styled as the children of a Prince, instead of as Princes/Princesses themselves, at the start of his reign, but even then it would be hard to say that the children don't have the titles if they were born during the Queen's reign; the difference her between these hypothetical children and the Wessex children is that with the Wessex's the statement was made by the monarch long before the children were born. That's a bit harder to do with Harry's hypothetical children.

If, however, Charles never became king, Harry's children would be only Lord/Lady [name] Mountbatten-Windsor forever , unless they got some other title later, wouldn't they ? In other words, they would be great-grandchildren of a former sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II), but they wouldn't be grandchildren of any sovereign (as Elizabeth's successor would be their uncle William instead of their grandfather).
Reply With Quote
  #2938  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:45 AM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
If, however, Charles never became king, Harry's children would be only Lord/Lady [name] Mountbatten-Windsor forever , unless they got some other title later, wouldn't they ? In other words, they would be great-grandchildren of a former sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II), but they wouldn't be grandchildren of any sovereign (as Elizabeth's successor would be their uncle William instead of their grandfather).
in that case i would think the situation would be handled like the children of peers who the queen gave them the style they would get if their father succeed the title .
Reply With Quote
  #2939  
Old 02-01-2017, 12:21 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.
.
The queen can't issue LP stripping a person of his peerage or baronetage title, but she can strip of the style and title of Royal Highness. It's her right (see Sarah, Duchess of York).
Reply With Quote
  #2940  
Old 02-01-2017, 12:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.

If Harry were to marry without consent of the monarch now, he would be removed from the Succession and his children would never be in the Succession by law. That same law says nothing about titles
Of course she can. She is the only person in the realm with the authority to do so.

You're maybe conflating peerages with royal styles and titles. Peerages require an act of parliament to 'strip' someone but not HRH/prince/ss

When it comes to royal styles, 'The Queen can giveth and The Queen can taketh away'

What some have been discussing is if Harry for whatever reason didn't seek/get permission to marry and marries anyway. Would there be some sort of 'punishment' for lack of better word.

By statute he would be excluded from the line of succession but titles are the prerogative of the sovereign.

Although a different set of circumstances, Edward VIII's abdication made him in the words of Geoffrey Ellis 'A Private citizen of the crown, who by implication has also lost the right to style himself H.R.H.'


Would Harry's exclusion from the line of succession be viewed as him becoming a 'private citizen of the crown and therefore not entitled to style himself HRH'

Ultimately it would be up to the Queen (or Charles) to decide.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, kate, queenmother, 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 1572 05-22-2017 05:42 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 49 05-21-2017 04:02 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 01:39 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 749 06-29-2016 06:02 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit birthday coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria daytime fashion death denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall eveningwear duke of cambridge elia zaharia fashion poll hereditary grand duchess stéphanie jew jewels king abdullah ii king abdullah ii in new york 2016 king abdullah in new zealand king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince carl philip prince charles princess eugenie eveningwear princess marie princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia princess sofia eveningwear princess victoria queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen silvia royal september 2016 state visit succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara uae nature


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 05:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises