Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[O-H Anglophile]

So it was told to me that Anne's children couldn't be Prince or Princess because they didn't come from a male heir line. Let's just say for arguments sake that the Queen only had one child, Anne, and Anne in turn only had one child, Zara. That would make Anne 2nd in line to the throne and Zara next. Would Zara be a Princess at birth then? Or would she not have any title until she became Queen? Man this is exhausting...lol. ?

So before Elizabeth became Queen her children were not considered Prince or Princess?

It is possible that should Anne have been the Queen's only child and heir, that the Queen would have issued Letters Patent been granted Peter and Zara the titles of Prince and Princess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_prince

"On 22 October 1948, George VI issued letters patent allowing the children of his daughter Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and son-in-law Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to assume princely titles and the style Royal Highness;[8] they would not have been entitled to them ordinarily, as grandchildren in the female line, until their mother ascended the throne as Queen Elizabeth II. Thus the current Prince of Wales was styled HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh until his mother's accession. Otherwise the children would have been styled Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten, respectively."

If you have more questions about titles we should take this to the appropriate thread.

Edit-post has been moved to appropriate thread by mod.

 

[Somebody]

And a secondary question for you. You said Zara couldn't have been a princess because she isn't the daughter of a prince. So then why are Edward's children not prince and princess? Aren't they Lord and Lady...or something along those lines?

See, all of the above.

In addition, I would add that especially in the UK not all children of princes are princes/princesses themselves. What I was trying to point out, is that it's the father that children do or do not receive a title from. So, someone's mother being a princess is irrelevant for style or title.

According to the LP (which as you've seen by now is not strictly applied) only children and grandchildren in de male-line are Royal Highnesses and prince(sse)s. So, for example, the children of the dukes of Gloucester (HRH prince Richard) and Kent (HRH prince Edward) and of (HRH) prince Michael of Kent are lords and ladies even though their fathers are princes - but they are great-grandchildren of a monarch, so one generation 'too far'. The eldest sons of the royal dukes using their fathers' secondary titles as courtesy titles.

In many other countries it's not limited to a degree of kinship - all children of princes are princes and princesses (if they meet other requirements that might apply for example regarding 'valid' marriages); of the current reigning houses Liechtenstein is an example of a princely family with a lot of princes and princesses (of Liechtenstein) with various degrees of kinship to the current Fürst.

 

[Somebody]

So it was told to me that Anne's children couldn't be Prince or Princess because they didn't come from a male heir line. Let's just say for arguments sake that the Queen only had one child, Anne, and Anne in turn only had one child, Zara. That would make Anne 2nd in line to the throne and Zara next. Would Zara be a Princess at birth then? Or would she not have any title until she became Queen? Man this is exhausting...lol. ?

If Anne would be the eldest sibling and not had any brothers, she would have been first in line to the throne; and as such her husband surely would have been given a title/peerage (most likely a royal dukedom) - not accepting one would not have been an option; and a Letters Patent would have been created to ensure the style of royal highness for their children. This exact scenario played out with the queen, who was the eldest of two siblings and no brothers. Philip had to relinquish his Greek titles to be made HRH Duke of Edinburgh upon marriage. Both Charles and Anne started their lives as HRH prince(ss) X of Edinburgh.

In the same way Anne's children would have been royal highnesses from birth; with the title of prince(ss) and suffix deriving from their father. For example if Mark Phillips had been made 'Duke of London', they would have been 'HRH prince Peter of London' and 'HRH princess Zara of London'. (Oh wait, in your example, there wouldn't be a prince Peter)

So before Elizabeth became Queen her children were not considered Prince or Princess?

They were; because their grandfather issued Letters Patent ensuring that his grandchildren by his heir would be royal highnesses and he elevated their father to a royal dukedom - which of course happened as he married the first in line to the throne. Charles and Anne derived their title from their father, that's why they were 'prince(ss) of Edinburgh'. Only when their mother became queen they started to derive their title from their mother as children of the monarch they were styled as 'The prince(ss) X'.

 

[MissPeach77]

If Anne would be the eldest sibling and not had any brothers, she would have been first in line to the throne; and as such her husband surely would have been given a title/peerage (most likely a royal dukedom) - not accepting one would not have been an option. This exact scenario played out with the queen, who was the eldest of two siblings and no brothers. So, it just what happened with the current duke of Edinburgh and therefore, with Anne herself. Philip had to relinquish his Greek titles to be made HRH Duke of Edinburgh upon marriage. Both Charles and Anne started their lives as prince(ss) X of Edinburgh.

In that way Anne's children would have been titled from birth; with the suffix deriving from their father. For example if Mark Phillips had been made 'Duke of London', they would have been 'HRH prince Peter of London' and 'HRH princess Zara of London'. (Oh wait, in your example, there wouldn't be a prince Peter)

They were; because their father was elevated to a royal dukedom - which of course happened as he married the first in line to the throne. Charles and Anne derived their title from their father, that's why they were 'prince(ss) of Edinburgh'. Only when their mother became queen they started to derive their title from their mother as children of the monarch they were styled as 'The prince(ss) X'.

Okay, it is all finally starting to make sense. Thank you for educating me! I'm sure you will see me around the threads with many more questions as I try to figure this whole British monarchy out...lol.

 

[Somebody]

Okay, it is all finally starting to make sense. Thank you for educating me! I'm sure you will see me around the threads with many more questions as I try to figure this whole British monarchy out...lol.

It may seem rather complicated at first but there is some logic to it; although in recent years lots of exceptions have been made, so if you are just starting to figure things out it might be hard to understand what's the rule and what's the exception to the rule (which might be the start of some kind of 'new normal'. But all of that makes it interesting and gives us lots of food for thought and discussion

 

[Iluvbertie]

The courts never ruled on whether he is legally an HRH or not, so I don’t think there is a definite answer to that question.

I would think that the reply I received from Buckingham Palace is a 'definite answer' especially as that was the very question I asked.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The abovementioned Letters Patent, as well as numerous others, may be read here:
Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

 

[maria-olivia]

What did Zara said during her interview at the Duke and Duchess of Malborough horse competition ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

So before Elizabeth became Queen her children were not considered Prince or Princess?

Under the 1917 Letters Patent children of a daughter of the monarch aren't automatically a Prince or Princess whereas the children of a son of the monarch is.

The then Princess Elizabeth was less from a month from giving birth when George VI issued the Letters Patent to create the soon to be born child the designation of HRH Prince/Princess. That applied to all of the children of the Princess Elizabeth.

Had he not done so then Charles and Anne would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth and Anne as Lady Anne Mountbatten.

As a result of the Letters Patent they were born as TRH Prince Charles and Princess Anne of Edinburgh.

The Queen did something similar in 2012 when she extended George V's rule for great-grandchildren. Under George V's rules only Prince George would have been born a Princess while Charlotte and Louis would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

As the various governments that were affected had agreed that a first born child, regardless of gender, would become the monarch there was the possibility that a future monarch would be born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor while a younger brother would be born as HRH Prince George of Cambridge (my example is assuming Charlotte and George were born in the reverse order). As it is the new LPs only apply to the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and not the eldest child of the Prince of Wales so it will need to be fixed again in the future (if George's first born child is a girl then this Letters Patent won't cover the children of that girl whereas if George has a boy first then they will).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Okay, it is all finally starting to make sense. Thank you for educating me! I'm sure you will see me around the threads with many more questions as I try to figure this whole British monarchy out...lol.

Miss Peach ...

The rules around who is and who isn't a Prince or Princess in the UK are largely governed by a series of rules set down in 1917 by George V in a document referred to as Letters Patent or LPs for short on this forum.

Under those rules the following are HRH Prince/Princess:

1. Children of the monarch - Andrew and Edward (I will come back to Charles and Anne shortly)

2. Male line grandchildren of a monarch - Elizabeth (the Queen - born to the second son of George V), Richard (now Duke of Gloucester - born to the third son of George V), Edward, Alexandra and Michael (the current Duke of Kent and his siblings - born to the fourth son of George V), William, Harry (born to the 1st son of Elizabeth II), Beatrice and Eugenie (born to the 2nd son of Elizabeth II); and the deceased Princess Margaret and Prince William of Gloucester

3. The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George

Now to the additions or changes to these rules:

1. In 1948 George VI issued LPs to ensure that the soon to be born baby and any subsequent siblings would be born HRH Prince/Princess - Charles and Anne

2. In 1999 The Queen announced that the children of her third son would not be HRH Prince/Princess but styled as the children of an earl - Louise and James (I have personally written to BP to check on whether this means they are never going to be HRH Prince/Princess and been told that is the case)

3. In 2012 The Queen extended HRH Prince/Princess to all of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - Charlotte and Louis (George was covered by the 1917 rules)

With the exception of the Queen herself under the 1948 LPs all those who are HRH Prince or Princess are the children of a son of the monarch. None of the other children of the daughters of a monarch since 1917 have been royal - the two sons of Princess Mary, the two children of Princess Margaret and the two children of Princess Anne. Princess Mary married a many who became an Earl so her children were titled via their father (this is the Harewood branch of the family although they are rarely seen at royal events these days). Princess Margaret insisted on the Queen giving her husband a title so that her children would be Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah while Princess Anne refused a title for herself, her husband or her children - all of which reportedly were offered.

 

[Mbruno]

According to Buckingham Palace, the announcement that Prince Edward's children would not be Princess and Prince was legally binding.

The Queen's recent prorogation order , made under royal prerogative, was also thought to be legally binding until the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled otherwise.



Even though royal titles and styles are a royal prerogative, there is a legitimate question in law as to whether "the significance of the Queen's pleasure" by a press release can override letters patent from a previous sovereign. The courtiers might think so, but they are not a court of law, so their opinion doesn't immediately warrant any conclusion about the legal right of James and Louise to be styled HRHs or not.



Again, a definitive answer to that question would only be given if the matter was brought before the courts, who can rule on the extent of the royal prerogative in law and on the proper manner to exercise the prerogative. In practice, however, I doubt James or Louise will ever sue the Crown for the right to use a princely title and, since nobody else besides them would have an interest in the matter which could be recognized by the courts, I am afraid we will never know for sure.


PS: If you read I Luv Bertie's post above, it is worth noting that all changes to rules on royal titles and styles in the 20th century and in the 21st century so far (1917, 1948, 2012 , also Prince Philip's title in 1957) were/have been made by LPs except the odd 1999 decision that James and Louise would not be HRHs, which was announced by a press release.

 

[Spheno]

PS: If you read I Luv Bertie's post above, it is worth noting that all changes to rules on royal titles and styles in the 20th century and in the 21st century so far (1917, 1948, 2012 , also Prince Philip's title in 1957) were/have been made by LPs except the odd 1999 decision that James and Louise would not be HRHs, which was announced by a press release.

It worths to add Letters Patent dated 21 August 1996, which stripped of Diana and Sarah HRH titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Queen's recent prorogation order , made under royal prerogative, was also thought to be legally binding until the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled otherwise.



Even though royal titles and styles are a royal prerogative, there is a legitimate question in law as to whether "the significance of the Queen's pleasure" by a press release can override letters patent from a previous sovereign. The courtiers might think so, but they are not a court of law, so their opinion doesn't immediately warrant any conclusion about the legal right of James and Louise to be styled HRHs or not.



Again, a definitive answer to that question would only be given if the matter was brought before the courts, who can rule on the extent of the royal prerogative in law and on the proper manner to exercise the prerogative. In practice, however, I doubt James or Louise will ever sue the Crown for the right to use a princely title and, since nobody else besides them would have an interest in the matter which could be recognized by the courts, I am afraid we will never know for sure.

I agree with your analysis of the theoretical possibility of a legal challenge, but as you said, in practice, Queen Elizabeth's announced decisions will remain in effect unless and until there is a ruling from a court or other authority in law that overrides them (just as "her" prorogation order did bind Parliament in practice, barring it from convening, until the Supreme Court ruling was announced).

PS: If you read I Luv Bertie's post above, it is worth noting that all changes to rules on royal titles and styles in the 20th century and in the 21st century so far (1917, 1948, 2012 , also Prince Philip's title in 1957) were/have been made by LPs except the odd 1999 decision that James and Louise would not be HRHs, which was announced by a press release.

Iluvbertie's post discussed the rules of who is and is not a royal Princess/Prince under the 1917 Letters Patent. But there have been other changes to royal styles and titles which were made by announcement only, including the latest decision that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor would not "enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms" as set out in the 1917 Letters Patent.

Miss Peach ...

The rules around who is and who isn't a Prince or Princess in the UK are largely governed by a series of rules set down in 1917 by George V in a document referred to as Letters Patent or LPs for short on this forum.

Under those rules the following are HRH Prince/Princess:

1. Children of the monarch - Andrew and Edward (I will come back to Charles and Anne shortly)

2. Male line grandchildren of a monarch - Elizabeth (the Queen - born to the second son of George V), Richard (now Duke of Gloucester - born to the third son of George V), Edward, Alexandra and Michael (the current Duke of Kent and his siblings - born to the fourth son of George V), William, Harry (born to the 1st son of Elizabeth II), Beatrice and Eugenie (born to the 2nd son of Elizabeth II); and the deceased Princess Margaret and Prince William of Gloucester

3. The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George

Now to the additions or changes to these rules:

1. In 1948 George VI issued LPs to ensure that the soon to be born baby and any subsequent siblings would be born HRH Prince/Princess - Charles and Anne

2. In 1999 The Queen announced that the children of her third son would not be HRH Prince/Princess but styled as the children of an earl - Louise and James (I have personally written to BP to check on whether this means they are never going to be HRH Prince/Princess and been told that is the case)

3. In 2012 The Queen extended HRH Prince/Princess to all of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - Charlotte and Louis (George was covered by the 1917 rules)

With the exception of the Queen herself under the 1948 LPs all those who are HRH Prince or Princess are the children of a son of the monarch. None of the other children of the daughters of a monarch since 1917 have been royal - the two sons of Princess Mary, the two children of Princess Margaret and the two children of Princess Anne. Princess Mary married a many who became an Earl so her children were titled via their father (this is the Harewood branch of the family although they are rarely seen at royal events these days). Princess Margaret insisted on the Queen giving her husband a title so that her children would be Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah while Princess Anne refused a title for herself, her husband or her children - all of which reportedly were offered.

Interestingly, the Letters Patent do not set out different rules for legitimate and illegitimate children, so, unless there is a law I am not aware of which would override the LP, a child born out of wedlock to Prince Louis of Cambridge during William's reign would automatically be HRH Prince/Princess unless another change was made.

 

[MissPeach77]

When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?

 

[Pranter]

Would of just depended if they made it 'retroactive'.

In Sweden this actually happened...Prince Carl Phillip was the heir until they changed the law which then made his sister Victoria become the Crown Princess since she was born first.



LaRae

 

[Osipi]

When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?

Actually the changes with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is retroactive only back to October 28, 2011. If Charles and Diana had a daughter for their eldest child ahead of William and Harry, William would still be the heir apparent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Interestingly, the Letters Patent do not set out different rules for legitimate and illegitimate children, so, unless there is a law I am not aware of which would override the LP, a child born out of wedlock to Prince Louis of Cambridge during William's reign would automatically be HRH Prince/Princess unless another change was made.

The Letters Patent in 1917 didn't need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children as illegitimate children didn't have inheritance rights then. Even now they can't inherit peerages or be in the line of succession to the Crown - and descendants of such an illegitimate child is also permanently excluded from the succession e.g. the descendants of Benjamin George Lascelles - eldest son of the Earl of Harewood. As he was born before his parents' marriage he can't inherit his father's titles nor is he in the line of succession to the throne.

The line of succession would be so much longer if the descendants of illegitimate children were included in addition to a lack of certainty e.g. if illegitimate children were allowed to inherit imagine the chaos if it turned out that Charles had a son older than William but that son didn't prove his case until Charles was on his deathbed ... William is about to become King and this person comes our of nowhere and claims the throne.

If Louis were to have an illegitimate child that child would not be HRH Prince/Princess at all. Every time the British parliament has changed the rights of illegitimate children they have specifically excluded the rights to titles and the line of succession.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?

Actually the changes with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is retroactive only back to October 28, 2011. If Charles and Diana had a daughter for their eldest child ahead of William and Harry, William would still be the heir apparent.

None of the changes (correction: succession changes) were technically retroactive, but the elimination of male preference applied to those born after October 28, 2011. Please see my complete answer in the British Line of Succession thread.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?

There was talk when Diana was expecting William that if the baby was a girl they would change the law ... I remember it clearly and know that there was discussion at my place of work about it with the men being opposed to the idea while the women were supportive.

The first children, in the UK, where the older daughter stays ahead of her younger brother are the children of Lady Davina Lewis and her ex-husband Gary Lewis - Senne and Tane Lewis. They were the first born AFTER October 2011 and so Senne stays ahead of her younger brother Tane.

The Earl of Wessex's children are Louise born first and then James but because they were born before October 2011 James is ahead of Louise in the line of succession - just as Anne and her children are behind her younger brothers and their children and Princess Mary's (George V's daughter) line is behind that of her two younger brothers.

Charlotte is the highest in the line of succession not affected at the moment but she isn't the first.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Letters Patent in 1917 didn't need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children as illegitimate children didn't have inheritance rights then.

I am certain it was not King George V's intention to allow illegitimate children the status of Prince/Princess, but as far as I can see, that is the effect of his Letters Patent in the 21st century.

Even now they can't inherit peerages or be in the line of succession to the Crown - and descendants of such an illegitimate child is also permanently excluded from the succession [...]

Yes, I am aware. But the 1917 Letters Patent do not limit the status of HRH Prince/Princess to children who have rights to inherit peerages or the throne. Prince Michael of Kent was excluded from inheriting the throne by marrying a Catholic (before the Succession to the Crown Act), but the Letters Patent allowed him to remain HRH Prince. The Princess Royal is not in line to the Dukedom of Edinburgh because of her gender, but the Letters Patent allow her to be HRH Princess.

If Louis were to have an illegitimate child that child would not be HRH Prince/Princess at all. Every time the British parliament has changed the rights of illegitimate children they have specifically excluded the rights to titles and the line of succession.

The British legislative acts which I have read specify that they do not grant illegitimate children any additional rights to titles or the throne, but nor do they remove any existing rights. For example, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 states that "nothing in the provisions [...] affects the succession to any dignity or title of honour" (48(7)), but it does not say anything to restrict rights to titles of honour which an individual may already enjoy.

 

[alvinking]

It worths to add Letters Patent dated 21 August 1996, which stripped of Diana and Sarah HRH titles.

Letters Patent dated 8 March 1937, the former king Edward VIII is created Duke of Windsor

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937, confer the style of HRH to the Duke of Windsor and exclude his wife and descendants if any

Will of the Monarch
On 10 June 1974, After the death of her husband HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, his widow is allowed to use the title and style HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (HRH Princess First Name as if she was a blood princess)instead of adopting HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester
. The Queen allowed her aunt to adopt this title, in part to avoid confusion with her daughter-in-law, the new and actual Duchess of Gloucester (Birgitte Eva van Deurs wife of HRH Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester)

 

[Osipi]

Letters Patent dated 8 March 1937, the former king Edward VIII is created Duke of Windsor

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937, confer the style of HRH to the Duke of Windsor and exclude his wife and descendants if any.

These letters patent really stand out for anyone that has read about the life and times of the Duke of Windsor after his abdication. He remained bitter about his wife not having the HRH honorific. Wallis was The Duchess of Windsor with no HRH so was styled as "Her Grace". Kind of sad to hold a grudge like that for so long.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

A
And if Edward is made 'Duke of Edinburgh', the line will be rather short:
1. Viscount Severn (who most likely will be known as 'Earl of Wessex' by that time)

Not if James has a son. The James's son (or grandson from his son) will become Duke of Edinburgh in due course.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am certain it was not King George V's intention to allow illegitimate children the status of Prince/Princess, but as far as I can see, that is the effect of his Letters Patent in the 21st century.



Yes, I am aware. But the 1917 Letters Patent do not limit the status of HRH Prince/Princess to children who have rights to inherit peerages or the throne. Prince Michael of Kent was excluded from inheriting the throne by marrying a Catholic (before the Succession to the Crown Act), but the Letters Patent allowed him to remain HRH Prince. The Princess Royal is not in line to the Dukedom of Edinburgh because of her gender, but the Letters Patent allow her to be HRH Princess.




The British legislative acts which I have read specify that they do not grant illegitimate children any additional rights to titles or the throne, but nor do they remove any existing rights. For example, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 states that "nothing in the provisions [...] affects the succession to any dignity or title of honour" (48(7)), but it does not say anything to restrict rights to titles of honour which an individual may already enjoy.

So you agree - illegitimate children don't have the rights to titles - they didn't 'already enjoy' them and no new legislation has given it to them.

As they didn't have any rights to titles or the throne and they can't be given additional rights under any subsequent acts.

You also have explained why Prince Michael kept his status as a Prince when he married and lost his place in the line of succession - he could have an 'existing right' removed.

This terminology is clear - illegitimate children do not have the rights of inheritance to titles or the Crown and as such an illegitimate child born as the grandchild of a monarch can't be a Prince or Princess.

Thank you for proving my argument.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So you agree - illegitimate children don't have the rights to titles - they didn't 'already enjoy' them and no new legislation has given it to them.

As they didn't have any rights to titles or the throne and they can't be given additional rights under any subsequent acts.

[...]

This terminology is clear - illegitimate children do not have the rights of inheritance to titles or the Crown and as such an illegitimate child born as the grandchild of a monarch can't be a Prince or Princess.

Thank you for proving my argument.

We agree that illegitimate children do not have rights of inheritance to peerage titles or the Crown.

However, I don't see that as proof for an argument, one way or the other, regarding their rights to princely titles, since princely titles are not governed by the same rules as peerage titles or the Crown. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.

You also have explained why Prince Michael kept his status as a Prince when he married and lost his place in the line of succession - he could have an 'existing right' removed.

I am not sure I understand your explanation, but my explanation was that Prince Michael kept his status as a Prince when he lost his right of succession because the two rights are governed by different sets of rules.

 

[Somebody]

Not if James has a son. The James's son (or grandson from his son) will become Duke of Edinburgh in due course.

Of course, I was talking about what would currently be the line. If he has several sons or male-line (great)grandchildren all of them well be incorporated but so far Edward would only have one successor the title. Just like Harry currently has only one for the Sussex dukedom.

 

[PTampon]

Title

When Andrew dies, who is the new Duke of York?

 

[Zonk]

Unless the law changes (i.e. Beatrice can inheirt the Dukedom, which I doubt that will happen), I believe the title merges with the Crown so that a future King William can possibly bestow it on his 2nd son, Prince Louis or it lays in wait for a future King George and his sons.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Andrew dies, who is the new Duke of York?

The Duke of York title, as created for Andrew, has the normal remainder 'heirs male of the body'. That means that without a son the title becomes extinct and is available for regrant by the King of the day. It isn't the 'done thing' however to recreate a title if there is someone alive still using the 'of xxx' designation so while the York Princesses are alive the normal convention is that the title isn't recreated.

When both George VI and Prince Andrew were created Duke of York the 'of York' princes/princesses had moved up to the titles 'The Prince/Princess' as their fathers had become The King.

There is also a move - going on now for about 20 years - to give the daughters of peers of the realm equality with the sons of peers. If that were to happen then Beatrice would inherit the York title.

The other option is for Her Majesty to actually reissue the Letters Patent to change 'heirs male' to one of 'heirs male, in lieu of heirs male heirs female' - giving preference so sons over daughters or to go with 'heirs of the body' leaving out the term 'male'. Had she been inclined to go that way I suspect she would have done so last year with the Sussex title but as she didn't I don't see her doing it for York.

The most likely outcome is that York will become extinct and after both Beatrice and Eugenie die a new Duke of York will be created. Note that Eugenie has become HRH Princess Eugenie OF YORK, Mrs Jack Brooksbank and I would expect Beatrice to do the same thing - keep the 'of York' as part of her name and title. Alexandra - the only other princess in this situation dropped the use of 'of Kent' when she married.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Unless the law changes (i.e. Beatrice can inheirt the Dukedom, which I doubt that will happen), I believe the title merges with the Crown so that a future King William can possibly bestow it on his 2nd son, Prince Louis or it lays in wait for a future King George and his sons.

A title only 'merges with the Crown' when the title holder also becomes the King e.g. when Charles becomes King the Edinburgh title will, at some time, 'merge with the Crown' as the holder of the Edinburgh title and the holder of the Crown are the same person.

Other titles go extinct.

While Beatrice and Eugenie continue to use 'or York' it wouldn't be the done thing to create someone else as Duke of York. It would also be confusing.

I do think, therefore, that York may have to wait for George or even for his child's second son.

Of course Andrew could remarry and have a son.