The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3681  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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.
No announcement was made at the ,Cambridge wedding because no announcement was necessary. William and Kate were married in 2011. The Succession to the Crown Act, which effectively stated that their firstborn child would be the heir. regardless of gender, wasn't passed until 2013. That's when the Queen issued Letters Patent stating all of William ,& Kate's children would be HRHs, not just the oldest son. Otherwide, if their oldest child had been a daughter, she would be the heir but not an HRH, but their oldest son would be an HRH but not the heir. The situation with Harry and Meghan's children is completely different.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3682  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:06 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 461
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.

I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3683  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:34 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.



I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.

I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but popularity is a fickle thing.
For example we shouldn’t forget how for many years Andrew was the celebrated war hero while Sarah was seen as a breath of fresh air.
The couple was very popular and seen as more easygoing and less stuffy that the Waleses.
Things can change quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #3684  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:45 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
No announcement was made at the ,Cambridge wedding because no announcement was necessary. William and Kate were married in 2011. The Succession to the Crown Act, which effectively stated that their firstborn child would be the heir. regardless of gender, wasn't passed until 2013. That's when the Queen issued Letters Patent stating all of William ,& Kate's children would be HRHs, not just the oldest son. Otherwide, if their oldest child had been a daughter, she would be the heir but not an HRH, but their oldest son would be an HRH but not the heir. The situation with Harry and Meghan's children is completely different.
In that case, she could've just changed it to oldest child rather than all children.
Reply With Quote
  #3685  
Old 10-20-2018, 12:48 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.

I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.
It is simply not workable. Under King George VII somewhere in 2051 there is still a HRH Princess Beatrice and a HRH Princess Eugenie around. Who are they, people ask in 2051. Answer : " Eh... They happen to be daughters to one of the brothers to the grandfather of King George VII".

Saying it is already an illustration how remote this is. In other monarchies like Norway, Spain, the Netherlands they want a situation that someone who is a Princess of Norway, an Infanta of Spain, or a Princess of the Netherlands is always someone with a close bond to a (future) monarch.

I understand the Prince of Wales is thinking about downsizing and indeed, this is very wise. Limit Princes and Princesses of the UK to children of a monarch or a heir. Then there is a clearly defined lean and mean Royal House inside the wider royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #3686  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.

I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.
as far as I know this marriage is not uninque….. one of the Lichtenstein princes is married to a woman of colour and they have a child.. and there are probably others...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but popularity is a fickle thing.
For example we shouldn’t forget how for many years Andrew was the celebrated war hero while Sarah was seen as a breath of fresh air.
The couple was very popular and seen as more easygoing and less stuffy that the Waleses.
Things can change quickly.
They were but only for a very short time.. now they are so unpopular that there is a certain amount of feeling against their 2 daughters.. who are HRH's..WHo can say, perhaps Meghan and Harry will be a lot less popular in a few years time....
Reply With Quote
  #3687  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is simply not workable. Under King George VII somewhere in 2051 there is still a HRH Princess Beatrice and a HRH Princess Eugenie around. Who are they, people ask in 2051. Answer : " Eh... They happen to be daughters to one of the brothers to the grandfather of King George VII".

Saying it is already an illustration how remote this is. In other monarchies like Norway, Spain, the Netherlands they want a situation that someone who is a Princess of Norway, an Infanta of Spain, or a Princess of the Netherlands is always someone with a close bond to a (future) monarch.

I understand the Prince of Wales is thinking about downsizing and indeed, this is very wise. Limit Princes and Princesses of the UK to children of a monarch or a heir. Then there is a clearly defined lean and mean Royal House inside the wider royal family.
Yes, but the relationship of Harry's children to King George VII will be much closer than the example above of Beatrice and Eugenie in 2051. They will be George's first cousins, and as he will be only a few years older than them and likely to live a long life, they may well not be any further from the King than first cousinship their entire lives.
Reply With Quote
  #3688  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is simply not workable. Under King George VII somewhere in 2051 there is still a HRH Princess Beatrice and a HRH Princess Eugenie around. Who are they, people ask in 2051. Answer : " Eh... They happen to be daughters to one of the brothers to the grandfather of King George VII".

Saying it is already an illustration how remote this is. In other monarchies like Norway, Spain, the Netherlands they want a situation that someone who is a Princess of Norway, an Infanta of Spain, or a Princess of the Netherlands is always someone with a close bond to a (future) monarch.

I understand the Prince of Wales is thinking about downsizing and indeed, this is very wise. Limit Princes and Princesses of the UK to children of a monarch or a heir. Then there is a clearly defined lean and mean Royal House inside the wider royal family.
Most people wouldn't know who Princess Alexandra or Prince and Princess Michael was unless they looked it up. I think Meghan and Harry's kid(s) will be Princes/Princesses simply because Charles only has the two kids, whereas there were four royals born in his generation.
Reply With Quote
  #3689  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:32 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but popularity is a fickle thing.
For example we shouldn’t forget how for many years Andrew was the celebrated war hero while Sarah was seen as a breath of fresh air.
The couple was very popular and seen as more easygoing and less stuffy that the Waleses.
Things can change quickly.
Correct though Andrew and Sarah caused their own downfall. Who knows what they could have achieved had they not been a colossal joke to many. So in that regard you are 100% correct. We have seen how "popularity" shifts so that should never be the basis of anything.

That said, I won't be surprised either way. They did it for the Cambridge children so they could all have the same title. It made sense. The Sussex children might get the treatment if they want all of Charles's grandchildren to just be HRH from birth since they will receive it anyways. Or they might just wait.

They will do what it best for all.
Reply With Quote
  #3690  
Old 10-20-2018, 01:39 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
In that case, she could've just changed it to oldest child rather than all children.
Yes but the fact still remains that an announcement wasn't made at the time of the wedding because no announcement was needed at that point in time. The Succession to the Crown Act changed that. As the children of a future monarch, the Cambridge children simply aren't comparable to Edward's or Harry's. There was always an expectation that they would be HRHs, either now or later.

I'd be surprised if ,the Queen stepped in and gave Harry's children the HRH at birth rather than allowing the terms of the 1917 LP play out, meaning they aren't HRHs until Charles becomes King. That gives Harry, Meghan, Charles and the other decision makers more time to work out what they want for Harry's children. If they want the HRH no announcement is necessary, they become HRHs automatically when Charles becomes King. An announcement is only necessary if they decide against it, just as an announcement regarding William's children wasn't necessary until the Succession to the Crown Act complicated their status under the terms of the 1917 LP That fact that the Queen went a step further and applied her decision to all the Cambridge children makes no difference. As we know from her decision regarding Edward's children, the same rules don't necessarily apply to the children of younger sons.
Reply With Quote
  #3691  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:10 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Yes but the fact still remains that an announcement wasn't made at the time of the wedding because no announcement was needed at that point in time. The Succession to the Crown Act changed that. As the children of a future monarch, the Cambridge children simply aren't comparable to Edward's or Harry's. There was always an expectation that they would be HRHs, either now or later.

I'd be surprised if ,the Queen stepped in and gave Harry's children the HRH at birth rather than allowing the terms of the 1917 LP play out, meaning they aren't HRHs until Charles becomes King. That gives Harry, Meghan, Charles and the other decision makers more time to work out what they want for Harry's children. If they want the HRH no announcement is necessary, they become HRHs automatically when Charles becomes King. An announcement is only necessary if they decide against it, just as an announcement regarding William's children wasn't necessary until the Succession to the Crown Act complicated their status under the terms of the 1917 LP That fact that the Queen went a step further and applied her decision to all the Cambridge children makes no difference. As we know from her decision regarding Edward's children, the same rules don't necessarily apply to the children of younger sons.
Of course, you will...
Reply With Quote
  #3692  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:17 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,308
Realistically...Charles will likely be King within the next 10 years. It wouldn't surprise me if the Queen did nothing and just let the natural progression take place. Harry's kids don't need HRH at this point..assuming Harry/Meghan even want that for their children.

I do think it's possible Harry's children will be working royals when they are of age.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3693  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Because of who their father is and how popular he is, those children will never be able to live a normal life. Second, this is marriage is unique and this will be the first biracial royal child and it would send the wrong message if they are not granted HRH titles.

I bet the Queen will step in. Just watch.

"Race" has no bearing on who is an HRH. The only criterion that matters is degree of kinship to a sovereign of the United Kingdom or, in the case of William's children, to the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales.


When Charles is king, Harry's children will be HRHs as grandchildren of a sovereign in male line. There is no reason to anticipate that outcome while the Queen is still alive.
Reply With Quote
  #3694  
Old 10-20-2018, 02:45 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
as far as I know this marriage is not uninque….. one of the Lichtenstein princes is married to a woman of colour and they have a child.. and there are probably others...

Several royal families have interracial marriages. The Liechtensteins are one and members of the Habsburg family have married ladies of both African and Thai ancestry.
Lady Davina Windsor married Gary Lewis who’s a Maori.
Prince Joachim of Denmark married Alexandra Manley who’s partly of Chinese ancestry.
Here’s a list that have collected many of the interracial marriages of members of the royal families of the world and the European aristocracy
https://www.nettyroyalblog.nl/engage...ial-marriages/
Reply With Quote
  #3695  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:24 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
They will do what it best for all.
I would amend this statement to read that they will do what is best for the monarchy going into the future.

Its not about sending messages or recognizing the popularity of a person or a couple or even a PR stunt. What it *is* about is what the face of the monarchy will look like as transitions happen and Charles, then William are monarchs.

When letters patent are issued, it affects everything and are the will and pleasure of the monarch. Permanently for the most part. Biggies that involve Parliament are huge changes and don't come that often. We see the Act of Settlement still in effect from 1701. The Succession to the Crown Act was changed and amended in 2013. The Royal Marriage Act of 1772 also was amended in 2013.

Should letters patent (or the will of the monarch) become known that affects Harry and Meghan's first born child, it will be a will that will affect every child that is to come that is in the position of Harry and Meghan's first born for years to come unless a monarch issues new letters patent or makes their will known. I don't think it would be worded to be as personalized as the letters patent that were issued at the time of Edward's marriage and pertained solely to his family but it would change forevermore that all great grandchildren of a monarch in the main line of succession would have the HRH Prince/ss honorifics.

I have to know that these kind of issues were unthinkable up until this point in British history where we have a monarch that is 92 years young and still going strong and about to welcome her eighth great grandchild into the fold. So many things in Elizabeth's reign are record breaking that most likely will never be surpassed again.
__________________
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
  #3696  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:37 PM
Kaizen's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Third Rock From the Sun, United States
Posts: 42
Aren't Louise and James legally HRH? But they just go by Lady/Viscount?

Is it possible for them in the future to choose to go by HRH Prince/princess when they are older? For example, would James' future spouse also be an HRH when they get married?
Reply With Quote
  #3697  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:40 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen View Post
Aren't Louise and James legally HRH? But they just go by Lady/Viscount?

Is it possible for them in the future to choose to go by HRH Prince/princess when they are older? For example, would James' future spouse also be an HRH when they get married?
Its been explained in full in post #3677. One of our members wrote to Buckingham Palace about this matter and the explanation is given in full in the post I've mentioned.

They are not legally HRH and will never be.
__________________
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
  #3698  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:54 PM
Kaizen's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Third Rock From the Sun, United States
Posts: 42
Their children will be HRH when Charles becomes king.

Due to the Letters Patent of 1917; none of Harry's grandchildren will be HRH. I see no reason why his children shouldn't. I think it would be wise to let the child be styled as Lady/Earl of Dumbarton. Once Charles ascends, they will probably get an upgrade. We just have to wait and see.
Reply With Quote
  #3699  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Of course, you will...
Yes, because it would be out of character for the Queen to finalize a decision that doesn't even need to be made until after her death. She's a very sensible person. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Reply With Quote
  #3700  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:56 PM
Kaizen's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Third Rock From the Sun, United States
Posts: 42
Also, when James inherits the dukedom his father will receive in the future. That dukedom will become non-royal? Is that correct?
__________________

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 781 10-08-2019 04:50 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 886 04-11-2019 05:26 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 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
alqasimi archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy armenia bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian belgian royal family castles charles of wales countess of wessex crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke 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 head of the house henry v house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha kiko king salman lady louise mountbatten-windsor lithuanian castles meghan markle memoir monaco christening monaco history monarchism monogram naples nobel 2019 official visit palaces prince harry prince of wales prince peter princess benedikte princess margaret princess royal qe2 rania of jordan royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia saxony south africa spain spanish history state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty valois


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:46 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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