The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3641  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:13 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
That's why I pointed out that if there would be an issue it would be before William's children become working members of the Firm. In this scenqrio i would guess they will be xalled upon at an earlier age than William and Harry. Enlisting the help of Harry's children is still pointless as they are younger. So, if this is the concern, it would argue for Beatrice and Eugenie to get involved. Not for Harry's children to be involved.

None of the grandchildren of Charles would be involved until they are out of college/military service so we are looking at the end of Charles's reign before it's likely to happen. William will need more support...that is when Harry's children, who will be in similar ages of his own, will come into it as they arrive at the right ages/time frames.

During Charles' reign there will be (assuming in good health) the same basic group we have now. His siblings, wife and children...seeing no indications at all they plan to bring Eugenie or Beatrice into the working 'group'.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3642  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
What would be the wrong message? Imo it would send the wrong message if LPs are issued to make great grandchildren HRH prince(ss) while her grandchildren who were entitled to that style never received it.
Think about Meghan’s ancestry and you will see the wrong message it would send.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Do you realize how old they are now and how old, if alive, they would be when William is King?

William is going to rely on his brother and his children (William's) and possible need Harry's to fill in as well.

LaRae
And think about when George is King-his brother and sister (and possibly their spouses) won’t be enough Royals to do everything. He’ll need his cousins, just as the Queen did.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3643  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:31 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,066
Just an odd thought. Reading through this thread and catching up, I notice there is a lot of discussion about the future and "working royals" and how it pertains to the titles of various people.

The thought I had is that its very possible as we zoom into the future, that it will be possible for, lets say, the main line of the BRF (such as Charles, William and William's children) eventually will be the only line that carries the titles of Prince/Princess but what is to stop the "Firm" from having working royals that support the monarchy that have titles such as "The Duke of Sussex, Ambassador to the Commonwealth" or "Lord (name) Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton" or "Lady (name) Mountbatten-Windsor"?

Its *not* a requirement whatsoever that working royals for the "Firm" bear the HRH status at all. Things may look totally different when the time comes for the Cambridge children and the Sussex children to take their places in adult royal society.
__________________
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
  #3644  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:38 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,111
We’re getting off topic here. This thread is for the discussion of British Styles and Titles, not for the discussion of precedence, who is/is not a working royal, or the future of the BRF under Charles or William. Each of these topics has their own threads. Let’s get back on topic, please.
Reply With Quote
  #3645  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:40 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Think about Meghan’s ancestry and you will see the wrong message it would send.
I still don't get it but if it's due to race that's dumb. It has nothing to do with that and those that always think that it affects what happens to the Sussexes need to do some research into why the child will not be HRH without the Queen's intervention under her reign.
Reply With Quote
  #3646  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:44 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,066
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that as this pregnancy advances, we're going to see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex request of the Queen that their children be titled and styled as children of a Duke and not be HRH Prince/ss of the UK.

In all cases, be it Anne or Edward or Harry, I believe the decisions were made based on the parent's wishes with consideration by the monarch. We'll see as the time of the impending birth approaches.
__________________
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
  #3647  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
And I am sure the queen was smart enough to consider the precedent she was setting.
If the Queen intended it to be a precedent, or decided children of the younger children of monarch should not be HRHs going forward, she would have just issued an LP.
Reply With Quote
  #3648  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:48 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,348
I keep going back and forth about what Harry/Meghan will do. I can make a case for either side <G>


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3649  
Old 10-17-2018, 01:03 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 468
I don’t think there’s any point in making Baby Sussex a Prince/princess right now. The child will have that title when Charles is King. Just wait...it makes things more complicated for future generations and younger siblings such as if Charlotte or Louis have children.

Meghan has experienced racism and criticism and some want to see the Queen dispel that by doing extra stuff, but the Queen likes Sophie and Kate and has shown her acceptance of Camilla. They’ve all received extreme criticism and breaches of their privacy. I don’t see what the purpose would be. It’s the unfortunate road every royal bride has to walk. I just think there are bigger considerations. Harry and Meghan really shouldn’t get an special treatment.

Also it’s entirely understandable for William’s children to be elevated to HRH as he will be King one day. Harry is not in the same position and shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s not a slight just reality.

Whether or not Harry and Meghan will want HRH for their children is an interesting discussion. I’m not sure. Harry does not seem to be overly positive about the “perks” of being a royal. He has tried to live a pretty normal life and been rather dimissive of the press. I can see him not wanting that for his children.
Reply With Quote
  #3650  
Old 10-17-2018, 01:14 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,066
When it comes to HM, The Queen, after 66 years on the throne, I think she's more than able to differentiate between being the monarch and being a mother/grandmother/great grandmother and acts accordingly.

Issuing LPs and determining the titles and styles of her family is part of her role as a monarch and, I believe, she acts accordingly. Of course she listens and takes her family's wishes into consideration but in making a decision, it is solely as a monarch. Not to make a statement. Not to "lay down the law". Not to influence public opinion. Not to show favoritism or any other reason than what is best for the British monarchy as she sees fit.

I have to say that, IMO, in all the years that Elizabeth has been Queen, she's done a remarkable job and hasn't put a foot wrong yet. She's written the book on "How to be a Monarch". She takes her role and her duty very seriously and her decisions as a monarch reflect this.
__________________
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
  #3651  
Old 10-17-2018, 01:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,347
I have the feeling that each generation attributes less importance to titles in Real Life. It is not enough to be a Lord to be successful in business life and a lot of men who have a right to a title prefer not to use it anymore. Plus the law is more and more considering it to be a matter of family, nopt birth - eg adopted daughters and sons of the aristocrazy are officially allowed to use courtesy titles deriving from their parents, just like blood children.

OTOH being a working Royal is something special and while the public has difficulties with elevated titles for people who don't work for their country (like Beatrice and Eugenie), They surely want them for working Royals because this gives more importance to the actual work the members of the Royal family do.

So IMHO it would be good to allow Baby Sussex to be HRH right from birth (no need to have that discussion later when Charles ascends the throne, as the outcome will be the same and in parallel with the discussion if Camilla is the new queen or not it could really lead to enforce the hand of the new souverain to put down his family in rankl Only because the papers will write that there is a public outcry. Plus it is not nice to gain something so obviously from the death of the beloved queen. Yes, Charles and Camilla will be souverain and wife, but in case Baby Sussex is already a HRH, the rest stays the same for the public, for I don't think Charles will create William immediately as Prince of Wales.



So to connect the social standing of the children of the beloved couple of Sussex to HM's death would be unwise IMHO.

As for them having an easier life without it: I don't know. Eugenie and Beatrice survived being princesses at university and if they had been more interested in a certain topic, they could now work anywhere in that field.

Just think of some of the Thai princesses who are from a family who are considered to be god-like in their country and still they became professors at university and are internationally recognized for their scientific work.

So I doubt that being HRH would be a problem in the future for the Sussex-kids, they could decide to be known as just Mr. and Miss Mountbatten-Windsor and later probably Dr. Mountbatten-Windsor if they so chose. But to elevate them nowadays from Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windor to HRH, so their work for the RF is better received by their people is surely a psychological problem.
IMHO, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #3652  
Old 10-17-2018, 03:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
Harry and Meghan might forgo the titles all together.
VERY few people in this country would be happy with plain Mr/Ms for the children of the Sussexes.. Lord/Lady would be [just] OK, but you can imagine who would get the blame...???
We don't want our ancient system of nomenclature wiped out [thank you very much]..
Reply With Quote
  #3653  
Old 10-17-2018, 03:51 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
VERY few people in this country would be happy with plain Mr/Ms for the children of the Sussexes.. Lord/Lady would be [just]OK, but you can imagine who would get the blame...???

We don't want our ancient system of nomenclature wiped out [thank you very much]..

Two or maybe three different issues here....

One, while many in the UK might be very happy to have a title, Harry is in a unique position in actually having a title. He might very well see the life his cousins have lead vs the life he has lead and have an idea about what he wants for his children based on that. Zara/Peter have had very different experiences from Beatrice/Eugenie because of the lower profile their lack of titles brings. Or Harry might want his children to have the titles because it’s their “birthright”. Likewise, Meghan... isn’t British. And wasn’t raised with British ideas of nobility. So she might have very different opinions on whether or not her children should have titles.

Second, the Sussex children are never going to be plain Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs. Their father is a Duke, so even if they aren’t made HRHs, they’ll be styled as the children of a Duke. They might very well one day chose to use Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs professionally (or Dr or some other title), but they’ll always be at minimum Lord/Lady.

Thirdly, people who are looking to make something out of Harry and Meghan’s children being titled anything less than HRHs are just looking for reasons to be offended. If the Sussex children aren’t elevated during the Queen’s reign, it will have nothing to do with any snubbing or reflection on Meghan’s acceptance into the RF, but rather be a part of the bigger plan for the BRF. Long before Harry met his future wife people speculated about whether or not his children would be HRHs and what future changes to the way members of the monarch’s family are titled will come as the reign changes. The current LPs that are in place come from 1917, and thus we’re made well before Meghan entered the scene.
Reply With Quote
  #3654  
Old 10-17-2018, 03:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 485
It makes little sense, in my opinion, for a non working royal to have an HRH or be a prince/ss.

There are already a very large number of HRHs, including Beatrice and Eugene who lead mainly private lives.

I think Harry's children would benefit from from copying the Wessex children.
Reply With Quote
  #3655  
Old 10-17-2018, 04:03 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
VERY few people in this country would be happy with plain Mr/Ms for the children of the Sussexes.. Lord/Lady would be [just] OK, but you can imagine who would get the blame...???
We don't want our ancient system of nomenclature wiped out [thank you very much]..

wyevale what do you think, will the Queen issue new LP's...hearing anything in your circles?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3656  
Old 10-18-2018, 02:00 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 463
I don't know why this is even being discussed because I'd bet odds that the Queen will step in and issue a Patent making this child and any future children of Harry's as HRH and a Prince or Princess. She did it for William and she'll do it for Harry.

It would not look good not to do it because of Meghan and not doing could look as if she is favoring one grandson over the other.
Reply With Quote
  #3657  
Old 10-18-2018, 02:29 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,111
But they’re not the same at all.

She issued LPs when Kate was pregnant because regardless of the gender of the child, that child was going to be the heir apparent and one day monarch, but the 1917 LPs only allowed for the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be titled, not any other children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Favouritism also has nothing to do with it. The plain and simple fact is that William and his children are more important to the monarchy than Harry and his children; William is the eldest and the heir apparent. It’s just like Charles and his children (and grandchildren) are more important than Anne, Andrew, and Edward’s children and grandchildren. George is more important than Charlotte or Louis. It’s a fact of monarchy. It doesn’t mean that the Queen favours one grandchild over the other, but that one grandchild has a role that the other doesn’t.

And Meghan has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter who Harry had married, this debate would be happening. Harry could have married a Scandinavian princess and there would still be a debate about whether or not the Queen was going to issue new LPs to elevate the titles of his children.
Reply With Quote
  #3658  
Old 10-18-2018, 04:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I don't why this is even being discussed because I'd bet odds that the Queen will step in and issue a Patent making this child and any future children of Harry's as HRH and a Prince or Princess. She did it for William and she'll do it for Harry.

It would not look good not to do it because of Meghan and not doing could look as if she is favoring one grandson over the other.
She did it for William's children for one reason and one reason only - if the first born child had been a girl she would have been 3rd in line to the throne behind her father and grandfather with no chance of being replaced by a younger brother but under the existing Letters Patent a first born daughter would have been born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor while a second child who was a boy would have been HRH Prince George of Cambridge. With the changes to the law regarding who would be the monarch it was unacceptable for a first born girl not to have been royal while a younger brother would have been.

Had she intended on issuing the LPs for Harry she could have done so at the time.

In addition - do we know whether or not Harry wants his children burdened the way his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie have been. Only a month or so ago they talked about how hard it could be for them as Princesses but having to earn their own way in the world. Harry's children will be the same as them - even less important as William has three children not two.

It makes more sense for Harry to make a similar announcement to the one Edward made and thus set up the issuing of new LPs limiting HRH to the children of the heir apparent in each generation only sooner rather than later. They could date them for any child born on or after the turn of the century - 1st January, 2001 and thus no one with HRH would lose it but no one who is without it now could gain it.

Remember, in the next generation George and Louis' children will eventually be HRHs but not Charlotte so why not settle this question now rather than wait?

If the rumours that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to start with his own descendants not with his brothers or be seen as a hypocrite.
Reply With Quote
  #3659  
Old 10-19-2018, 08:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine View Post
I don’t think there’s any point in making Baby Sussex a Prince/princess right now. The child will have that title when Charles is King. Just wait...it makes things more complicated for future generations and younger siblings such as if Charlotte or Louis have children.

Meghan has experienced racism and criticism and some want to see the Queen dispel that by doing extra stuff, but the Queen likes Sophie and Kate and has shown her acceptance of Camilla. They’ve all received extreme criticism and breaches of their privacy. I don’t see what the purpose would be. It’s the unfortunate road every royal bride has to walk. I just think there are bigger considerations. Harry and Meghan really shouldn’t get an special treatment.

Also it’s entirely understandable for William’s children to be elevated to HRH as he will be King one day. Harry is not in the same position and shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s not a slight just reality.

Whether or not Harry and Meghan will want HRH for their children is an interesting discussion. I’m not sure. Harry does not seem to be overly positive about the “perks” of being a royal. He has tried to live a pretty normal life and been rather dimissive of the press. I can see him not wanting that for his children.
Did William's children have to wait? The rule applies to his kids too. - No! Why should Harry's.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She did it for William's children for one reason and one reason only - if the first born child had been a girl she would have been 3rd in line to the throne behind her father and grandfather with no chance of being replaced by a younger brother but under the existing Letters Patent a first born daughter would have been born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor while a second child who was a boy would have been HRH Prince George of Cambridge. With the changes to the law regarding who would be the monarch it was unacceptable for a first born girl not to have been royal while a younger brother would have been.

Had she intended on issuing the LPs for Harry she could have done so at the time.

In addition - do we know whether or not Harry wants his children burdened the way his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie have been. Only a month or so ago they talked about how hard it could be for them as Princesses but having to earn their own way in the world. Harry's children will be the same as them - even less important as William has three children not two.

It makes more sense for Harry to make a similar announcement to the one Edward made and thus set up the issuing of new LPs limiting HRH to the children of the heir apparent in each generation only sooner rather than later. They could date them for any child born on or after the turn of the century - 1st January, 2001 and thus no one with HRH would lose it but no one who is without it now could gain it.

Remember, in the next generation George and Louis' children will eventually be HRHs but not Charlotte so why not settle this question now rather than wait?

If the rumours that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to start with his own descendants not with his brothers or be seen as a hypocrite.
The Queen will do the same for Harry. Just watch!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
But they’re not the same at all.

She issued LPs when Kate was pregnant because regardless of the gender of the child, that child was going to be the heir apparent and one day monarch, but the 1917 LPs only allowed for the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be titled, not any other children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Favouritism also has nothing to do with it. The plain and simple fact is that William and his children are more important to the monarchy than Harry and his children; William is the eldest and the heir apparent. It’s just like Charles and his children (and grandchildren) are more important than Anne, Andrew, and Edward’s children and grandchildren. George is more important than Charlotte or Louis. It’s a fact of monarchy. It doesn’t mean that the Queen favours one grandchild over the other, but that one grandchild has a role that the other doesn’t.

And Meghan has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter who Harry had married, this debate would be happening. Harry could have married a Scandinavian princess and there would still be a debate about whether or not the Queen was going to issue new LPs to elevate the titles of his children.
Ish, I am sorry but apples and oranges. I stand by what I have stated and I bet odds the Queen will do this for Harry. When Edward married, it was announced that his kids would receive titles of an Earl. Nothing was announced at Harry's wedding either before or after.

Why do you all want Harry and Meghan's kids short-changed? Why should they have to wait when they don't have to?
Reply With Quote
  #3660  
Old 10-19-2018, 09:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,387
There were very good reasons for making the announcement for William's children.

The law was about to change to allow birth order to be the only criteria for the monarch.

Had William's first born child been a girl, and no new LPs issued, then that girl - the future Queen would have been born Lady xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor. A younger brother, however, would have been born as HRH Prince yyyyy of Cambridge.

It wouldn't have made sense for the future monarch to not be born as HRH while the younger sibling was. That is why the Queen issued to new Letters Patent covering all of William's children.

Harry's children will not be the future monarch.

Charles allegedly wants a smaller royal family but by allowing Harry's children HRH it won't be getting smaller but larger. There are rumours he would like to see the York girls actually lose their HRH and he was involved in the discussions about Edward's children.

There is no reason for HM to issue new LPs to cover Harry's children. There was for William's. That doesn't mean she won't but just that the is no reason to do so.
__________________

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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 782 10-28-2019 08:29 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 886 04-11-2019 06:26 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 alqasimi aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian royal family chittagong countess of snowdon countess of wessex crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch history french revolution friendly city general news germany greece headship henry v house of bernadotte house of glucksburg house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma kiko king philippe lady louise mountbatten-windsor lithuania marriage mbs meghan markle monaco royal monarchist monarchy monogram naples nobel prize norwegian royal family official visit palaces potential areas prince charles prince harry princely family of monaco princess benedikte queen mathilde queen paola rania of jordan romanov family savoy saxony shakespeare south africa south korea spanish royal state visit sweden swedish history united kingdom usa valois


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×