The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3101  
Old 05-10-2017, 01:56 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 49
Is it possible for a prince/princess to renounce their royal titles? E.g. if Prince Harry wanted to just become Harry Windsor, how would he go about doing it?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3102  
Old 05-10-2017, 02:00 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfisa View Post
Is it possible for a prince/princess to renounce their royal titles? E.g. if Prince Harry wanted to just become Harry Windsor, how would he go about doing it?
It is possible, I imagine an act of parliament would have be drawn up stripping them and heirs if necessary of their titles and position. Henry would then become Henry Mountbatten-Windsor I assume. It would be quite a lengthy process I would have thought.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3103  
Old 05-10-2017, 02:03 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfisa View Post
Is it possible for a prince/princess to renounce their royal titles? E.g. if Prince Harry wanted to just become Harry Windsor, how would he go about doing it?
They can renounce their styles/not use them just as Louise and James are doing. They are Their Royal Highnesses Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex but are not using them. Harry could, if he really wanted, drop the HRH.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #3104  
Old 05-10-2017, 06:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Louise and James are actually different as the Queen's will has been made known and that will is that they aren't actually HRHs at all. (This topic comes up for discussion every so often so I wrote to BP and asked them directly and that was the answer I was given - that The Queen's will is all that is needed which is what has happened in this case. It was also all that was needed for William to be known officially as the Duke of Cambridge - the LPs weren't issued until May 2011 but his official title was used from 29th April).

For Harry he can do one of two things - simply announce that he no longer wishes to be known as Prince Henry and ask the public to respect his request but that wouldn't be official. He could ask parliament to pass the necessary legislation for himself and/or his children. Parliament would probably say 'too much of a waste of our time' given the fact that he is so low in the line of succession (if it was William it would be a different matter as he is 2nd in line and the heir apparent to the heir apparent) but Harry is 5th.

The easiest way for Harry to remove himself and his children from the line of succession would be for him to marry without have HM's consent - then it is automatic. If he didn't want to remove his children's rights he could simply convert to Roman Catholicism and he is out but his children remain in. In those cases however he would still be HRH Prince Henry of Wales and his wife HRH Princess Henry of Wales while the children would be Lord and Lady (following the example of Prince Michael) until such time as Charles is King when they would be HRH Prince/Princess xxxx/yyyy - but of nothing as Harry wouldn't have a title in his own right and if he does marry without consent I can't see HM giving him a title although Charles may do so - but possibly only a life peerage and probably only an Earldom or even a Viscountcy.

The next question is 'why would he want to give it up'? It doesn't compel him to do anything. He has no real responsibilities unless he wants to do so. He doesn't get an income as a result of having those styles. He is still a commoner, could stand for election for the House of Commons, could get a real job if he wanted to do so (but having been unemployed now for nearly two years many employers would probably baulk at the idea of employing someone who walked out of a job with no other job lined up other than the occasional appearance).
Reply With Quote
  #3105  
Old 05-10-2017, 06:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 122
Wait, lets say the Queen dies in a couple of years, and for some random reason Louise wants to start using her title and style of HRH and princess as a grandchild of the monarch. Does that mean she cant do that.
Reply With Quote
  #3106  
Old 05-10-2017, 06:36 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
I recently read something and find it a bit puzzling. Perhaps someone could tell me if this is correct.

Some heredity peers are ranked higher than others is a given but withing the hereditary titles such as duke, some dukes are ranked higher than other dukes. Take for instance, Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer is ranked higher than Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster. The "of" is the difference. This does not apply to royal dukes I'm presuming.

Methinks that in order to really understand the ins and outs of British titles and styles, I should have started learning as an infant.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3107  
Old 05-10-2017, 06:39 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I recently read something and find it a bit puzzling. Perhaps someone could tell me if this is correct.

Some heredity peers are ranked higher than others is a given but withing the hereditary titles such as duke, some dukes are ranked higher than other dukes. Take for instance, Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer is ranked higher than Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster. The "of" is the difference. This does not apply to royal dukes I'm presuming.

Methinks that in order to really understand the ins and outs of British titles and styles, I should have started learning as an infant.
All dukes are ranked higher than any earl.
Reply With Quote
  #3108  
Old 05-10-2017, 07:01 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
Ack!

Big faux pas on my part finding examples. Lets try again. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer and Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester.

Definitely a double dosage of caffeine kind of day here.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3109  
Old 05-10-2017, 07:13 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Ack!

Big faux pas on my part finding examples. Lets try again. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer and Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester.

Definitely a double dosage of caffeine kind of day here.
Spencer is ranked higher. He is an earl in the peerage of the of Great Britain. Leicester is an earl in the peerage of of the United Kingdom.
Reply With Quote
  #3110  
Old 05-10-2017, 07:19 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
Thanks Spheno. Therefore the "of" designation makes no difference. That's what I wanted to know.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3111  
Old 05-10-2017, 07:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,722
Basically peerages are ranked by seniority, with the English ones created pre 1801 ranked above Scottish Peerages, Irish peerages and those of Great Britain/UK.
Scroll down to Peerages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde...United_Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #3112  
Old 05-10-2017, 11:00 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Ack!

Big faux pas on my part finding examples. Lets try again. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer and Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester.

Definitely a double dosage of caffeine kind of day here.
Not a faux pas, just a misunderstanding.

The precedence of peers is determined in a few ways:
  1. Order of Rank; i.e. a Duke is always higher than an Earl. Ranking goes:
    1. Dukes
    2. Marquesses
    3. Earls
    4. Viscounts
    5. Barons
    6. Baronets
  2. Order of Peerage; a Duke in the Peerage of England is higher than one in the Peerage of Scotland. Ranking goes:
    1. England (before 1707)
    2. Scotland (before 1707)
    3. Ireland (before 1801)
    4. Great Britain (between 1707 and 1801)
    5. United Kingdom (since 1801)
  3. Order of Creation within a Peerage: a Duke created today is higher than a Duke created tomorrow
The exception within Dukedoms is that all Royal Dukes are higher than all non-royal Dukes, with the Duke of Cornwall/Duke of Rothesay having the highest precedence. Likewise, Edward takes his precedence from being a royal, not an Earl.
Reply With Quote
  #3113  
Old 05-11-2017, 12:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalHighness 2002 View Post
Wait, lets say the Queen dies in a couple of years, and for some random reason Louise wants to start using her title and style of HRH and princess as a grandchild of the monarch. Does that mean she cant do that.

No - the 'Queen's Will' covers all monarchs not just QEII.

It is no difference to a LP. Any LP issued by QEII will still operate under Charles and William etc.
Reply With Quote
  #3114  
Old 05-11-2017, 12:14 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Not a faux pas, just a misunderstanding.

The precedence of peers is determined in a few ways:
  1. Order of Rank; i.e. a Duke is always higher than an Earl. Ranking goes:
    1. Dukes
    2. Marquesses
    3. Earls
    4. Viscounts
    5. Barons
    6. Baronets
  2. Order of Peerage; a Duke in the Peerage of England is higher than one in the Peerage of Scotland. Ranking goes:
    1. England (before 1707)
    2. Scotland (before 1707)
    3. Ireland (before 1801)
    4. Great Britain (between 1707 and 1801)
    5. United Kingdom (since 1801)
  3. Order of Creation within a Peerage: a Duke created today is higher than a Duke created tomorrow
The exception within Dukedoms is that all Royal Dukes are higher than all non-royal Dukes, with the Duke of Cornwall/Duke of Rothesay having the highest precedence. Likewise, Edward takes his precedence from being a royal, not an Earl.
It should be noted that the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent take precedence as 'royals' but when the current holder dies the successor will take their precedence based on the date of creation of the title by George V for his sons (March 28th, 1928 for Gloucester and 12th October, 1934 for Kent). That will see them drop to the lowest ranked amongst the dukes.
Reply With Quote
  #3115  
Old 05-11-2017, 01:05 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
No - the 'Queen's Will' covers all monarchs not just QEII.



It is no difference to a LP. Any LP issued by QEII will still operate under Charles and William etc.

But what if during the reign of Charles, it is his will that the children of the new Duke of Edinburgh use their royal titles?

I will always suspect that the way the Wessex children's titles have been addressed was done with deliberate vagueness on the issue of whether they hold royal titles and just do not use them, or not. So that if a time comes when their titles may change there's a loophole, so to speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It should be noted that the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent take precedence as 'royals' but when the current holder dies the successor will take their precedence based on the date of creation of the title by George V for his sons (March 28th, 1928 for Gloucester and 12th October, 1934 for Kent). That will see them drop to the lowest ranked amongst the dukes.


True - at that time, the Dukedoms will cease to be royal.
Reply With Quote
  #3116  
Old 05-11-2017, 01:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
But what if during the reign of Charles, it is his will that the children of the new Duke of Edinburgh use their royal titles?
He would have to issue new LPs or let it be known that the King's will is that they use them.

As the reports are that he wants a smaller royal family I doubt very much that he will want that to happen at all but would rather that Beatrice and Eugenie voluntarily ask to give up their HRHs. I can actually see him issuing new LPs to further restrict HRHs rather than having any extension to those who have never used it.

Quote:
I will always suspect that the way the Wessex children's titles have been addressed was done with deliberate vagueness on the issue of whether they hold royal titles and just do not use them, or not. So that if a time comes when their titles may change there's a loophole, so to speak.
The letter I received back from BP when I asked was very clear - they are definitely not HRH and that is an end of it. It was made clear to me that there is no possibility of them taking them up at some later point as The Queen's Will has been made known on the issue and that is an end of it - no HRHs for Louise and James and thus they are not a Prince or Princess - now or in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #3117  
Old 05-11-2017, 04:19 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,408
So just to clarify for my own knowledge, "The Queens Will" has actually stripped Louise and James of their HRHs? For me personally that doesn't seem right.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3118  
Old 05-11-2017, 04:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
That is what I was told when I wrote and asked BP. All that is required for a person to gain or lose a title within the royal family is for The Queen's Will to be made known and the Queen has done that with regard to Louise and James.

I believe that she didn't want to actually issue new LPs to stop them as to do that would have meant stripping HRHs from her cousins and Beatrice and Eugenie but that in time the intention is that only the children of the heir will have HRH. That wasn't in the letter but my interpretation of the reply I received.

The letter said that Louise and James are not HRHs as The Queen's Will, that they aren't holders of that styling, has been made known via the announcement made on Edward's wedding day.

The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.

Blah Blah Blah (I had three other questions on behalf of a student doing a major research project for school which I also added and they were answered as well).
Reply With Quote
  #3119  
Old 05-12-2017, 01:48 AM
JSH JSH is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 33
I agree with Lumutqueen. It is one thing for Louise and James to not use royal titles. To not have them at all is another thing altogether and not at all right. The wording of the announcement at the time of Edward's marriage clearly said that it was the Queen's will that his children not use royal titles. It did not say that they don't have them. So this letter from BP is going further than the announcement did IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #3120  
Old 05-12-2017, 03:16 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
This letter is actually confirming what is meant by 'The Queen's Will'.

Many people don't understand that 'The Queen's Will' has the same official status as say Letters Patent.

The wording in 1999 was The Queen's Will not LPs but in reality it is the same thing.
__________________

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 1896 11-14-2017 06:35 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 750 10-25-2017 04:30 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 02:39 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
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events cymry denmark duchess of brabant earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia italy iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon monarchy news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion 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 casual outfit queen silvia soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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