The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3661  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:16 PM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
...

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.

...
If this is true, then I would expect Harry and Meghan's children to never become HRHs. Otherwise, hypocrisy thy name is Charles.

The same goes for all those in the public / on this board who would like the Yorks to be stripped of their titles, but want them for the Sussex children. The Sussex children are the next generation's Yorks.

I personally would be side-eyeing any decision to make the Sussex children HRHs ahead of 'schedule' when there are two individuals who were legally entitled to the HRH with a higher position (male-line grandchild of monarch vs. male-line great-grandchild of monarch) that didn't receive it.
__________________

__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
Reply With Quote
  #3662  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:26 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
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?
There was a need to announce on Edward's wedding because the current rules (i.e., grandchildre in maleline are HRH) were not to be applied. There was no need to announce anything on Harry's wedding as for the moment the rules are clear. They will not be HRH as they aren't children or grandchildren of the monarch in the male line nor great grandchildren by the heir of the heir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JessRulz View Post
If this is true, then I would expect Harry and Meghan's children to never become HRHs. Otherwise, hypocrisy thy name is Charles.

The same goes for all those in the public / on this board who would like the Yorks to be stripped of their titles, but want them for the Sussex children. The Sussex children are the next generation's Yorks.

I personally would be side-eyeing any decision to make the Sussex children HRHs ahead of 'schedule' when there are two individuals who were legally entitled to the HRH with a higher position (male-line grandchild of monarch vs. male-line great-grandchild of monarch) that didn't receive it.
Exactly, as long as Louise and James aren't HRH, Harry's children shouldn't be HRH either.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3663  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:29 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,173
I think the most important thing to remember in this discussion is that no matter what is done or isn't done whether it be the Queen or Charles, personal feelings and familial relationships play no part in it.

These are/will be official decisions made by the monarch as to how it pertains to the monarchy itself in the UK. Letters patent aren't issued on a whim even though they reflect the monarch's will and pleasure and is their right to issue them as they see fit.

We'll see what happens with the approaching birth of Harry and Meghan's first child and I know, and its just me and my opinion, that whatever is decided will have taken a lot of thought, discussion between all involved and consideration before a final decision is reached.

I also believe that when it comes to Edward and Sophie's children, the Queen took into consideration the request made by the couple themselves not to have their children styled as anything other than the children of an Earl. From what I understand, it was Edward's request to be created the Earl of Wessex. It was not the Queen that has stripped their future children of something they had every right by letters patent to have but it was the Queen that acceded to the wishes of the parents in this matter. Eventually, James, Viscount Severn will inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title but it will cease to be a royal dukedom upon when it merges with the Crown and is available for recreation.
__________________
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
  #3664  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:31 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,407
Legally James and Louise ARE HRH...they can use the title tomorrow. Their parents have chosen for them to not use it.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3665  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:39 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,478
I think the BRF should take a page from other royal houses. In Denmark, only children of the heir are HRH, while the children of the others are Prince/ees without the HRH designation. In the Netherlands, same treatment for children of the heir while children of the others are not. JMHO
Reply With Quote
  #3666  
Old 10-20-2018, 12:09 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
We'll see what happens with the approaching birth of Harry and Meghan's first child and I know, and its just me and my opinion, that whatever is decided will have taken a lot of thought, discussion between all involved and consideration before a final decision is reached.

I also believe that when it comes to Edward and Sophie's children, the Queen took into consideration the request made by the couple themselves not to have their children styled as anything other than the children of an Earl. From what I understand, it was Edward's request to be created the Earl of Wessex. It was not the Queen that has stripped their future children of something they had every right by letters patent to have but it was the Queen that acceded to the wishes of the parents in this matter. Eventually, James, Viscount Severn will inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title but it will cease to be a royal dukedom upon when it merges with the Crown and is available for recreation.
I am sure decisions aren't made lightly. So, surely the queen considered the precedent that would be creating by withholding the HRH from her potential grandchildren.

What is the evidence that Edward and Sophie wanted their children not to be HRH and not the other way around? The scenario that it was brought up by others that given the not that BRF-friendly times in the 90's it would be better for any children not to be HRH to me seems at least as likely a scenario.

Given that the Duke of Edinburgh will most likely be recreated for Edward that new creation will also be a royal dukedom as Edward is royal. Whether it ceases to be a royal dukedom after one or two generations depends on whether James remains as is or is made a HRH (which seems unlikely but if Harry's children are to be HRH, I sincerely hope that Louise and James will also get theirs).
Reply With Quote
  #3667  
Old 10-20-2018, 12:13 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
I think the BRF should take a page from other royal houses. In Denmark, only children of the heir are HRH, while the children of the others are Prince/ees without the HRH designation. In the Netherlands, same treatment for children of the heir while children of the others are not. JMHO
On the other hand: Both in Sweden and Belgium all grandchildren are Royal Highnesses. In Liechtenstein all legitimate male line descendants (independent of the generation) share the same style and title. Luxembourg has separate titles and related styles for the main line and collateral lines.

So, which example should be followed?
Reply With Quote
  #3668  
Old 10-20-2018, 12:30 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Well, until Eugenie's wedding, I would've said the days of child(ren) of younger child(ren) of the monarch having HRH are over and the York princesses are no different than the Queen's other grandchildren without HRH, but apparently not. Even if you are a private individual, as long as you have the HRH, still the same pomp and pagentry and publicity for a wedding. So, I don't see why Sussex child(ren) shouldn't be HRHs.
Reply With Quote
  #3669  
Old 10-20-2018, 12:52 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Given that the Duke of Edinburgh will most likely be recreated for Edward that new creation will also be a royal dukedom as Edward is royal. Whether it ceases to be a royal dukedom after one or two generations depends on whether James remains as is or is made a HRH (which seems unlikely but if Harry's children are to be HRH, I sincerely hope that Louise and James will also get theirs).
Thanks for the correction on Edward and being a royal dukedom when the title of Duke of Edinburgh is recreated for him. I guess Edward got lost in the shuffle of thoughts going through my brain.

The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking its very possible that the idea of a "slimmed down monarchy" and HRH titles being just for the main line could have started formulating back even before Edward and Sophie married and its wasn't only Charles involved in it. It was pretty well looked like the York branch wasn't going to continue on in the male line (although Andrew could still remarry and have a son but I'd never bet my last gummy Lifesaver on it). Perhaps we're now witnessing a slow transition to the "slimmer" monarchy and I really do have a feeling that Harry and Meghan will prefer to keep their children titled as children of a Duke.

Whatever their titles are in the future, I don't think it will have much bearing on those that work for the "Firm". They will either work to support the monarchy under Charles and William or they'll have their own private lives or they'll be able to balance both. Who knows what things will be like 25-30 years from now.
__________________
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
  #3670  
Old 10-20-2018, 12:55 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,500
Because the York princesses were given their titles before a new precedent was set... Eugenie's wedding befitted a royal princess.

As one of the vocal opponents of the way this wedding was handled, I would think you would prefer to avoid such weddings in the future by not giving Harry's children the HRH.

Personally, I am fine either way as long as it is consistent; or all maleline grandchildren by younger sons HRH (which would mean that Harry's children will become HRH upon their grandfather becoming king - Louiseand James can become HRH when their father re eives the Duke of Edinburgh title) or none (sooner or later something would need to be communicated to make sure that it is clear that Harry's children aren't and won't become HRH in the future).
Reply With Quote
  #3671  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,247
Since any children of Harry & Meghan automatically become HRH once Charles becomes King there really isn’t a need to do anything. New letters patent need to be issued for that not to happen. In the case of William’s children there was a reason to make all William’s children HRH from their birth—reasons explained in earlier posts.

When Edward & Sophie married they intended to hold down jobs and live a relatively private life. It made some sense in that scenario for their children not to be HRH. For several reasons that plan didn’t work out. If everyone knew then what they know now, different decisions might have been made.
Reply With Quote
  #3672  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:01 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,173
For all we know, Eugenie and Jack could have really preferred a destination wedding on Necker Island but because of the family she was born into, it was expected that a royal princess would have a royal wedding. We don't really know.

Regardless of titles, the family of the monarch of the UK is always going to draw interest (both good and bad). Its a price to pay for being public and well known figures.

It will be interesting to watch how things develop over the years. At least it promises some really interesting royal watching eh?
__________________
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
  #3673  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Because the York princesses were given their titles before a new precedent was set... Eugenie's wedding befitted a royal princess.

As one of the vocal opponents of the way this wedding was handled, I would think you would prefer to avoid such weddings in the future by not giving Harry's children the HRH.
As someone that supports the slimmed down version of monarchy, I've always previously stated that I don't believe any potential Sussex children would have HRH or RPOs or carry out public engagements. However, clearly the Queen isn't as into slimmed down monarchy as I thought. For those that were supporting of another full on royal wedding, I'm sure they would support having one or more of such weddings in 20-30 years. And if the Queen truly intended the reduced title for any child born to a younger child of a monarch going forward, she would've issued an LP, so that's really up to debate if she intended for the decision to affect any future cases.
Reply With Quote
  #3674  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:44 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Did William's children have to wait? The rule applies to his kids too. - No! Why should Harry's.?



The Queen will do the same for Harry. Just watch!



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?
It wasn't necessary to make an announcement at the time of the wedding because under the terms of the 1917 Letters Patent, Harry's children won't automatically become HRHs until Charles becomes King. No decision or announcement needs to be made until then. That wasn't true of Edward's children who, without the announcement at the time of his wedding, would have automatically been HRHs at birth.

Not giving them the HRH isn't necessarily shortchanging them. Harry ,& Meghan may want their children to live ordinary not royal lives, just as Princess Margaret and Princess Anne's children have been able to do. It 's difficult to lead an ordinary life, out of the limelight, and go to work everyday if you have a royal title. Waiting until Charles becomes King gives Harry and Meghan more time to think it over.
Reply With Quote
  #3675  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:03 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
It wasn't necessary to make an announcement at the time of the wedding because under the terms of the 1917 Letters Patent, Harry's children won't automatically become HRHs until Charles becomes King. No decision or announcement needs to be made until then. That wasn't true of Edward's children who, without the announcement at the time of his wedding, would have automatically been HRHs at birth.
Although no announcement was made on the day of the Cambridge wedding either. Not saying I think the Queen will issue new LP, but I wouldn't use that as saying she wouldn't.
Reply With Quote
  #3676  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:04 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Why do you all want Harry and Meghan's kids short-changed? Why should they have to wait when they don't have to?
Now that I've had time to mull this over, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps those that live with and carry the royal titles sees them a bit differently than we do.

Us common folks grew up from childhood with the ideas implanted in our ways of thinking that princes and princesses are somewhat very special and live in castles and wear tiaras and wonderful jewels and get to participate in all the pomp and circumstances and perfect that "royal wave" to the people.

Perhaps those that are born into the titles and grow up under the expectations of what a prince and princess are supposed to do and be like and some even have their life work cut out for them since the day they are born. Like Charles. When most men of 70 years old are retired and enjoying golf courses and fishing or being a couch potato, Charles has yet to step into the most demanding role of his lifetime. They have a lot of restrictions. They cannot throw a coat over their pajamas and hop in the car and go to a fast food drive through at 3 am in the morning undetected. Their RPO has to be with them and there's a chance they'll be spotted by a stalking paparazzi just waiting for that shot. Total privacy in life, perhaps to those that are royal, is akin to something people have that they wish they had. Like us commoners thinking how nice it would be to attend formal receptions and wear designer clothes and glittering tiaras. The grass is always greener kind of thing.

Its very possible that when looking at whether or not to have their kids be titled HRH Prince/ss, they are going to be more apt to see those titles as a onus on a child's back rather than think its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, I'm thinking that in this regard, they wouldn't be anywhere near being short changed but rather given a chance for more personal freedom in life, ability to pave the roads of their own lives as they want to and of course, have all the blessed freedoms we, as ordinary people, have.

Now, if it wasn't a 45 minute trip round trip, I would jump into my car and go to the Mickey D's drive through in town for a shake. Tonight I'm counting my freedom to do so as a blessing. Ah well... maybe tomorrow.
__________________
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
  #3677  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:34 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Legally James and Louise ARE HRH...they can use the title tomorrow. Their parents have chosen for them to not use it.
The view stated by Buckingham Palace is that the Wessex children are not legally HRHs, and that it was the decision of the Queen, with the consent of the parents.


The letter from Buckingham Palace which a member of this board shared in this thread stated:
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.
Questions about British Styles and Titles


The announcement on the wedding day:
Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
However, clearly the Queen isn't as into slimmed down monarchy as I thought. For those that were supporting of another full on royal wedding, I'm sure they would support having one or more of such weddings in 20-30 years.
I think the belief of the Queen and the public that there continues to be a difference between HRHs and private individuals makes it more plausible, not less, that they would support slimming down the number of individuals who will be HRH. Without any differences, most would see no reason not to have hundreds of HRHs as Luxembourg will.
Reply With Quote
  #3678  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,350
We forget the public too much, I think. The British still support their monarchy and even though the media was overly critical about the York princesses, they still reported about them because people want to know about them. As for Harry and Meghan's kids: it's just beginning, the intense public interest in the couple but I don't think it will wane. Plus the Sussex-kids will be the grandchildren of Diana as well and I can't see them being denied their Royal titles once Charles becomes king. I don't think the public will stand for it, plus it will be a bit of a balm to the countries' soul when HM dies - "at least we have new princes and princesses with descend from Diana". I can be wrong here but I am so sure the tabloids will try to stir the pot of Camilla becoming queen. It wouldn't do at the same time to deny Diana's grandchildren their legal Royal title. IMHO, of course.
But let's see what the peopl more in the know at BP, Clarence House and KP decide.
Reply With Quote
  #3679  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:26 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,727
If people do care about a future of the monarchy, they should support a limitation. One only needs to look at the York princesses to see that their life would be easier and under less scrutiny.

A Lady Eugenie Brooksbank will slowly fade away but Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie will always be of prominence. Under King George this Eugenie will still wander around as a HRH and a Princess because she is a daughter to a brother of The King's grandfather.

It is simply not sustainable to have an endless royal family. People who have a heart for the monarchy should support a limited royal family, for the very existence of it in this 21st Century. They should support Harry's eldest son becoming the Earl of Dumbarton and his other children Lord/Lady [name] of Sussex. Exactly alike Edward's children, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise of Wessex.
Reply With Quote
  #3680  
Old 10-20-2018, 04:37 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Legally James and Louise ARE HRH...they can use the title tomorrow. Their parents have chosen for them to not use it.


LaRae
Not according to Buckingham Palace.

As I have shown earlier in this thread I wrote to BP and asked that very question.

The answer back was that as 'The Queen's Will' had been made known they were not entitled to HRH - now or ever in the future.

There are three ways for the monarch to change titles:

1. The most commonly used - Letters Patent
2. Less commonly used - Royal Warrant
3. Rarely used but done in this case - making known 'The Queen's Will'. This can be done via a press release, an official statement, in a speech etc but all that has to be done is for her will to be made known for a title to be issued or denied. In this case it was used to deny the style of HRH to her grandchildren.
__________________

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: 3 (0 members and 3 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
archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bangladesh belgian royal belgian royal family birthday celebration crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of sussex dutch royal family family search felipe vi foundation french royalty friendly city future future wife of prince hussein general news germany greece hamdan bin mohammed headship hill house of bernadotte jerusalem king salman lithuania lithuanian palaces meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco history monaco royal monarchism mountbatten netflix nobel prize norway history official visit pakistan prince charles prince daniel prince harry princess benedikte princess margaret qe2 rown royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia savoy saxony south africa spain spanish history state visit state visit to denmark sweden tracts trump valois visit from sweden


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:45 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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