The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3461  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:34 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Yes, and it would be even more confusing if Andrew remarried. We'd have THE Duchess of York and Sarah, Duchess of York.
What would be even more awkward is if Andrew passes away, and the Duke of York title is given to someone else before Sarah passes. Don't think it'd be done, but technically, the Duke of York title would be available to give to someone else as soon as the current hold passes away without a male heir.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3462  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
At the end of the day I think it is Harry who will decide if his children are HRH or not, He has a great relationship with his Pa, and Charles won't do anything Harry does not want
I agree. I don't think this would be the issue that Charles takes on. Especially if he plans to fight for Camilla as Queen. Likely for William to decide as he has more children. Charles, as monarch, would likely respect his son's wishes in regards to if a statement similar to that for the Wessex's children would be released. I'm in the camp that this is what Harry would want for any children, but we shall see.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3463  
Old 05-31-2018, 11:07 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
Is it true that if a Queen Dowager remarries they remain a Queen as once they are a Queen they are a Queen for life?
No, she would take on their new husband's name or title (if he has one.) If they had a son or daughter who was an heir to the throne they would still be acknowledged as the mother of course, but they themselves would no longer be Queen Dowager.
Reply With Quote
  #3464  
Old 05-31-2018, 01:09 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
If you look at the 1917 Letters Patent, they essentially had to clear the same sort of hurdle. In the middle of it is buried this clause:

"excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors"

Essentially saying,"everyone who has a title already gets to keep it, but these new rules apply going forward."

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Then why did Alistair of Connaught lose his style of HH Prince of Connaught?
Because Alastair was never formally granted the style of HH Prince.

Quote:
Alastair Arthur was born in 1914, the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught (grandson of Queen Victoria) and Princess Alexandra, duchess of Fife (granddaughter of King Edward VII). He was the first great-grandson of Queen Victoria in male line to be born in the United Kingdom. His birth registration (see a copy here) designates him as a "Prince". Several contemporary references (Kelly's Handbook, Whitaker's Peerage) style him as prince.

Sometime in late 1916, the duchess of Connaught asked the Earl Curzon to look into the style of her grandson, the infant Alastair. Curzon contacted the Lord Chancellor discreetly, avoiding Buckingham Palace (he wrote that "The King is indifferent [?] rather hostile, having always been rather jealous of the Connaughts"). The Lord Chancellor replied on Jan 11, 1917 that "it would be in accordance with usage that the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught should be styled 'Prince' and 'Highness'" but cautioned that no step should be taken without consulting the king.

Presumably such consultation took place, and on March 23, 1917, the king's private secretary indicated to the home Office that "His Majesty's wish is that he should be styled "His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught". A warrant was prepared to carry out HM's wishes, but before it could be issued the king, considering the changes he was about to make in these matters, asked that the question stand over for the present. (see files LCO 2/7299 and HO 45/18980).

By the terms of the letters patent of 1917, Alastair was not allowed the style of Prince or the style of Highness, since none had been granted to him formally. Burke's Peerage ("The Princes of Great Britain", 1963 edition, pp xxvii-xxxii) considers this to be an injustice. It is not clear that this result was initially intented: Lloyd George's instructions of Aug 29 on the drafting of the letters patent, when coming to the 3d generation from the sovereign, give as example: " Thus in the event of further children being born to Prince and Princess Arthur of Connaught, they would he Lords or Lady...Windsor" (emphasis added), suggesting that Alastair Arthur was not expected to be styled Lord Alastair Arthur Windsor. (see HO 144/22945). But the article of the Times of June 20, 1917 announcing the changes that would be implemented by the Letters Patent of 1917 states that "should he succeed his grandfather and father, he will be Duke of Connaught, but not his Highness nor his Serene Highness".
Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
The quote above leaves out a few key words which I've highlighted below:

"And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked."

save as aforesaid refers to the previous sentence: "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour."

That statement took the HRH away from Alastair of Connaught and the children of Charles Duke of Albany & Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, all great-grandchildren of a Sovereign.
Loonytick was quoting the clause following after the "save as aforesaid" statement. The clause made an exception for family members not included in the "save as aforesaid" statement provided that they held their styles, titles or attributes in pursuance of Letters Patent. Those descendants (e.g. Queen Victoria's female-line granddaughters HH Princess Helena Victoria and HH Princess Marie Louise and King Edward VII's female-line granddaughter HH Princess Maud of Fife) retained their styles.
Reply With Quote
  #3465  
Old 05-31-2018, 03:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,147
Tatiana Marie, thank you for the clarification. This is much more confusing than I realized.

Is the following a correct interpretation?

Queen Victoria's Letters Patent (1864) limited the HRH to children and grandchildren of the Sovereign. She later extended it to the children of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales (meaning the children of the Duke of York, later George V).

Because of that Alastair Arthur of Connaught, as the great-grandson of a Sovereign, was never entitled to the HRH.

He was sometimes referred to as Prince by custom and it was believed by some that custom also entitled him to the HH, just as the Duke of York's children seem to have been HH Prince/ss before being upgraded to HRHs.

Quote from "Who is a 'prince'?" - Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain:

"Nevertheless, a custom was clearly emerging: all male-line descendants were styled Prince/ss; children of the sovereign and the sovereign's eldest son were Royal Highnesses, all others were Highnesses. The Letters Patent of 1864, which only deal directly with the style of Royal Highness, state the custom in the preamble: "Princes and Princesses of [the] Royal Family descended from and in lineal succession to the Crown as now established by law all bear the style and title of Highness".

But George V's Letters Patent (1917) tightened things up by:
  • eliminating Highness and Serene Highness completely.
  • defining which members of the RF were entitled to the HRH and clarifying that only the HRHs could also be a Prince/ss.
  • defining which members were entitled to the style and title of children of a Duke.

Alastair Arthur fell in the last category, not only under the terms of LP but also because he was the son of the Duchess of Fife. As such, he was entitled to a courtesy title, Earl of Macduff. Otherwise he would have been Lord Alastair Windsor.

I assume the status of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's children was equally unclear but never became an issue because they used their German titles.
Reply With Quote
  #3466  
Old 05-31-2018, 07:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,970
The Letters Patent of 1864 were issued in order to extend the HRH to male-line grandchildren in law (it had already been extended in practice), the furthest it had ever been extended. As noted in the Heraldica summary,

Quote:
[The style of prince] was extended further and further over time as cases arose. Only in 1917 was this movement of extension reversed, and the style restricted.

[…]

The grandchildren in male line of George III (other than children of the Prince of Wales) were called princes and princesses, but only styled Highness until 1830. The change to Royal Highness seems to originate with William IV (see Garter's memorandum), and was formalized by the letters patent of 1864 (see PRO HO 45/8933/2, letter of C. B. Phipps to the Lord Chancellor, Jan 21, 1864: "The Queen is quite decided as to the propriety of extending the title of Royal Highness to all grandchildren, being the children of sons of a Sovereign."

The other parts of your interpretation I agree with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Quote from "Who is a 'prince'?" - Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain:

[...]
The Letters Patent of 1864, which only deal directly with the style of Royal Highness, state the custom in the preamble: "Princes and Princesses of [the] Royal Family descended from and in lineal succession to the Crown as now established by law all bear the style and title of Highness".
While this was the case in 1864, at the time of Alastair's birth (1914) there were Tecks and Battenbergs who were considered part of the British Royal Family and were in lineal succession to the British Crown, but bore only their German style and title of HSH Prince/ss of Teck or Battenberg.

Alastair was the first legitimate great-grandchild of any British Sovereign who was not the grandchild of a Prince of Wales and who bore no foreign princely title at birth. Because of this, in my opinion, there was really no precedent in Britain.

That being said, the references to Alastair as a prince before King George V made his will known were in line with the continental European custom. The other royal families of Europe in the 1910s, other than Spain, extended the rank of prince/ss to all legitimate descendants of any sovereign in male line, unless excluded (due to descending from an unequal marriage for example).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I assume the status of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's children was equally unclear but never became an issue because they used their German titles.
The children of Duke Charles Edward were apparently styled HH in Germany, but on what authority I don't know. Under the house law of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the princes and princesses of the ducal house (excepting the eldest son of the Duke) were entitled to only HSH. Princes and princesses of the Kohary line received HRH and HH from foreign sovereigns, but to my knowledge, these elevations and the British Letters Patent were inapplicable to Charles Edward's children.
Reply With Quote
  #3467  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

The children of Duke Charles Edward were apparently styled HH in Germany, but on what authority I don't know. Under the house law of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the princes and princesses of the ducal house (excepting the eldest son of the Duke) were entitled to only HSH. Princes and princesses of the Kohary line received HRH and HH from foreign sovereigns, but to my knowledge, these elevations and the British Letters Patent were inapplicable to Charles Edward's children.
Thank you!

I suspect Charles Edward's children were HH based on his own authority. Although as Duke of Coburg Charles Edward was only an HH and his children HSHs (oldest son excepted), under his grandmother Queen Victoria's Letters Patent he was also an HRH. He probably believed his children were therefore HHs, based on custom, just as the children of the Duke of York were presumably HHs before Queen Victoria elevated them to HRH.

But of course George V's Letters Patent removed any claim to the HH his children may have had although they continued to use it.
Reply With Quote
  #3468  
Old 06-01-2018, 03:26 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I agree. I don't think this would be the issue that Charles takes on. Especially if he plans to fight for Camilla as Queen. Likely for William to decide as he has more children. Charles, as monarch, would likely respect his son's wishes in regards to if a statement similar to that for the Wessex's children would be released. I'm in the camp that this is what Harry would want for any children, but we shall see.
When i said, Harry will decide, we should read between the lines and see Meghan will decide. If everything remain the same, once Charles is the monarch, I don't see Meghan depriving her children of something that is legally theirs. I am not saying she is a gold digger or a social climber, but after everything she has gone through in the press because of who she is and her background
"She is american, she is divorced, she is mixed, she is not a real princess, she will never be Princess Meghan; she is a social climber, she shouldn't be the wife of Harry blah blah blah etc etc"
I am pretty sure she will make the point to shut people up for good that her children are real Blood Princes/Princesses of the UK. This would finally complete the circle and cement her status as a royal in an unquestionable manner, regardless of what all the naysayers say.
Reply With Quote
  #3469  
Old 06-01-2018, 03:35 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
When i said, Harry will decide, we should read between the lines and see Meghan will decide. If everything remain the same, once Charles is the monarch, I don't see Meghan depriving her children of something that is legally theirs. I am not saying she is a gold digger or a social climber, but after everything she has gone through in the press because of who she is and her background
"She is american, she is divorced, she is mixed, she is not a real princess, she will never be Princess Meghan; she is a social climber, she shouldn't be the wife of Harry blah blah blah etc etc"
I am pretty sure she will make the point to shut people up for good that her children are real Blood Princes/Princesses of the UK. This would finally complete the circle and cement her status as a royal in an unquestionable manner, regardless of what all the naysayers say.
I think it'll be a joint decision made by both Meghan and Harry. I really don't see Meghan as the type of person that would even consider having to "shut people up". She's comfortable with who she is and has learned a long time ago to shut out the "noise" not worth listening to. She doesn't have to prove anything to anybody.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3470  
Old 06-03-2018, 10:10 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,396
The Peerage Page refers to Henry Charles Albert David Windsor as 1st Duke of Sussex. He was created 1st Duke of Sussex. How can this be when Prince Augustus Frederick was a Duke of Sussex?
Reply With Quote
  #3471  
Old 06-03-2018, 10:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,147
Harry is the 1st Duke of a new creation. He didn't inherit the title from Augustus.
Reply With Quote
  #3472  
Old 06-03-2018, 10:20 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
The Peerage Page refers to Henry Charles Albert David Windsor as 1st Duke of Sussex. He was created 1st Duke of Sussex. How can this be when Prince Augustus Frederick was a Duke of Sussex?
He is the first Duke of Sussex for this creation. Every time there is a new creation, the amount of Dukes will obviously start over because it was not continuous transfer to the next duke, and there are also new titles in play, such as Earl of Dumbarton. So in this case, Harry was given the second creation of the title Duke of Sussex, and is the first duke of the new creation.
Reply With Quote
  #3473  
Old 06-03-2018, 11:32 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,014
Its the same with all peerages, royal and regular peerages. Its based on the creation. Andrew is the 1st Duke of York, even though the title has been held 10 previous times (he is the 8th creation). Edward will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh, even though the title was his father's, because it will have to be re-created for him. Charles will (if he outlives his father) be 2nd Duke, until he becomes king.
Reply With Quote
  #3474  
Old 06-04-2018, 01:28 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
The Peerage Page refers to Henry Charles Albert David Windsor as 1st Duke of Sussex. He was created 1st Duke of Sussex. How can this be when Prince Augustus Frederick was a Duke of Sussex?
He 1st because it was a new creation. To be the 2nd etcetera, you need to inherit the title.
Reply With Quote
  #3475  
Old 06-04-2018, 01:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
When i said, Harry will decide, we should read between the lines and see Meghan will decide. If everything remain the same, once Charles is the monarch, I don't see Meghan depriving her children of something that is legally theirs. I am not saying she is a gold digger or a social climber, but after everything she has gone through in the press because of who she is and her background
"She is american, she is divorced, she is mixed, she is not a real princess, she will never be Princess Meghan; she is a social climber, she shouldn't be the wife of Harry blah blah blah etc etc"
I am pretty sure she will make the point to shut people up for good that her children are real Blood Princes/Princesses of the UK. This would finally complete the circle and cement her status as a royal in an unquestionable manner, regardless of what all the naysayers say.
And when I said Harry, I have no doubt his wife will have equal part in that decision. And I actually don’t see Meghan wanting that title for her children either. It’s more of a burden than anything else when they are private citizens. Doesn’t change the fact that they are members of the family, just gives them more freedom from people feeling like they have a right to them.

As for whatever some want to say about whether or not Meghan should be a member of royal family or HRH. Bottom line is that she is. Although she is not Pricess Meghan just like none of the other royal brides are princesses in their own rights unless they were born a blood princess. As for anything else, they can feel whatever they feel, it has no effect on her status and reality. So whatever to them.
Reply With Quote
  #3476  
Old 06-04-2018, 01:52 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,426
Basically, I think the best example given to understand how creations are numbered is the one that Countessmeout gave with the Duke of Edinburgh title.

Although its possible that Charles will inherit his father's title and be the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, when that title reverts to the crown and recreated again for Edward, Edward will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh with the possibility of his son, James, inheriting the title and being the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

When you see someone like Diana's brother who is now the 9th Earl Spencer, you realize how long that title has been passed down in the Spencer family unbroken.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3477  
Old 06-04-2018, 02:16 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Basically, I think the best example given to understand how creations are numbered is the one that Countessmeout gave with the Duke of Edinburgh title.

Although its possible that Charles will inherit his father's title and be the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, when that title reverts to the crown and recreated again for Edward, Edward will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh with the possibility of his son, James, inheriting the title and being the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

When you see someone like Diana's brother who is now the 9th Earl Spencer, you realize how long that title has been passed down in the Spencer family unbroken.
As far as peerages go, Earl Spencer isn't even a long one. The Duke of Northumberland (on its third creation) is on its 12th Duke. They were raised to dukes from Earl of Northumberland. The 19th Duke of Somerset. 18th Marques of Winchester. 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury.

You look at say some of the Scottish titles you have things like the 24th Countess of Sutherland, 21st Lady Saltoun, 18th Earl of Huntley, 16th Duke of Hamilton.
Reply With Quote
  #3478  
Old 06-04-2018, 02:45 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,426
With listing all the peerages that have been around for far longer than the one Charles Spencer holds just makes me appreciate more just how much the hereditary peerage means to those that do hold titles that have been passed down from what almost seems like antiquity.

Perhaps to the ordinary person today (especially those that are outside the UK), titles such as Duke, Earl, Baron and such may seem anachronistic but for those that actually have that lineage and an unbroken line back to the first ancestor that was granted the title, its a very strong and remarkable heritage to have and be a part of.

Thanks Countessmeout!
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3479  
Old 06-04-2018, 09:32 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalHighness 2002 View Post
He is the first Duke of Sussex for this creation. Every time there is a new creation, the amount of Dukes will obviously start over because it was not continuous transfer to the next duke, and there are also new titles in play, such as Earl of Dumbarton. So in this case, Harry was given the second creation of the title Duke of Sussex, and is the first duke of the new creation.
All of these explanations about the new creation of a title have been very helpful!
Reply With Quote
  #3480  
Old 06-04-2018, 10:33 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,426
Now you know why TRF is my go to place to check off my "learn something new everyday" box.
__________________

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


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
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-27-2019 12:04 AM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 782 10-28-2019 08:29 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 04:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 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
administrator aristocracy belgian royal belgian royal family chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex dutch royal family dutch royals family search french royalty future future wife of prince hussein germany house of bernadotte house of grimaldi israel jerusalem jumma kent kiko king philippe lithuania lithuanian palaces mbs meghan markle monaco royal monarchist monarchy mountbatten netflix nobel prize norway history official visit pakistan popularity potential areas prince charles prince daniel prince harry princely family of monaco princess benedikte pronunciation qe2 queen mathilde queen paola rania of jordan romanov family rown spanish royal startling new evidence state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish history thailand trump united kingdom valois visit from sweden windy city


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×