The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3701  
Old 10-20-2018, 04:58 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I would amend this statement to read that they will do what is best for the monarchy going into the future.
Well that is what I meant. They will do what is best for their future. Everything else is secondary. Always has been, always will be.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3702  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:22 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen View Post
Also, when James inherits the dukedom his father will receive in the future. That dukedom will become non-royal? Is that correct?
It will cease to be a royal dukedom once Edward passes and James inherits the Duke of Edinburgh title. Edward, as a son of a monarch will be HRH, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh until he passes. He will go from The Prince Edward to just Prince Edward when Charles becomes King.
__________________

__________________
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
  #3703  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:36 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It will cease to be a royal dukedom once Edward passes and James inherits the Duke of Edinburgh title. Edward, as a son of a monarch will be HRH, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh until he passes. He will go from The Prince Edward to just Prince Edward when Charles becomes King.
Not to be rude, but actually he will retain the 'The' even after his mother passes. Royals hold the highest degree of relation to a monarch they ever had throughout their lives, which is why once the Queen dies Beatrice , for example, will still retain the coronet of a grandchild of the monarch. Such was also the case for Princess Margaret who was The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon until her death.
Reply With Quote
  #3704  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
In that case, she could've just changed it to oldest child rather than all children.
If she'd only done that then the following scenario would have been possible: Baby Cambridge #1 is a daughter. Because of the new gender-blind succession law, she is the heir and will not be displaced by a younger brother. Because of the Queen's new LP she is also an HRH. Baby #2 is also a girl. She is heir #2 and will not be displaced by a younger brother. But under the terms of the 1917 LP she isn't an HRH. Baby #3 is a boy. But as the oldest son he is an HRH under the terms of the 1917 LP, with a higher rank than his second sister even though she is ahead of him in the line of succession. I suspect the Queen and her advisors had this in mind when she granted the HRH to all of William's children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen View Post
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.
I agree. I would like to see Harry's children with the HRH & become working members of the Royal Family. But I'd also like to see Beatrice and Eugenie as working members too and apparently that isn't going to happen. So as you point out, just let Harry's children be Earl or Lord/Lady for now and they'll automatically become HRH when Charles becomes King. If Charles or Harry or the advisors don't want that to happen, at least this approach will give them more time to sort it all out before a decision needs to be made.
Reply With Quote
  #3705  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It will cease to be a royal dukedom once Edward passes and James inherits the Duke of Edinburgh title. Edward, as a son of a monarch will be HRH, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh until he passes. He will go from The Prince Edward to just Prince Edward when Charles becomes King.
No he won't.

He will always be 'The Prince Edward' as he will always be the child of a monarch.

Princess Margaret was HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon to the day she died.

The use of the word 'The' simply means the person was, at some stage, the child of a monarch and is not restricted to the children of the current monrach.

Of course Edward won't use 'The Prince Edward' as he has a substantive title and so is HRH The Earl of Wessex. The only child of the Queen who uses The Prince style is Charles when in Scotland where he is HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay while everywhere else he is HRH The Prince of Wales (or in Cornwall HRH The Duke of Cornwall and in Chester HRH The Earl of Chester).
Reply With Quote
  #3706  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:01 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,055
Yaaaay! I can now check off my "learn something new everyday" box for today. I love it when I'm totally wrong and have so many people that are more well informed on things around to correct me.

OK. I got it. Edward will remain The Prince Edward until his death. He'll never lose that. Got it and committed it to memory.
__________________
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
  #3707  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,386
I had a lot of fun when doing some research when at university into the various titles of the BRF and how they change.

Now that I am starting work on my PhD into the BRF (sorry title not clear yet and I do still have 7 years ahead of me as I am doing this part-time as I head towards retirement) I am glad I have these titles clear in my head as it does help with the further research.
Reply With Quote
  #3708  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I agree. I would like to see Harry's children with the HRH & become working members of the Royal Family. But I'd also like to see Beatrice and Eugenie as working members too and apparently that isn't going to happen. So as you point out, just let Harry's children be Earl or Lord/Lady for now and they'll automatically become HRH when Charles becomes King. If Charles or Harry or the advisors don't want that to happen, at least this approach will give them more time to sort it all out before a decision needs to be made.
The tricky thing about not making a decision right now is there are other issues when Charles succeeds. If they just let things be as is, then it has to be decided the kids will be HRHs when Charles becomes king. I truly believe, despite what was said before, Charles will do his best to make Camilla Queen rather than Princess Consort. While I think Camilla has certainly earned it, it won’t be a popular decision overall. Does he really want to strip his younger son’s children of HRH while making Camilla Queen? And I realize people like to use Andrew’s popularity when the girls are born against Harry. But Andrew didn’t become so unpopular because his nephews grew up. The Yorks became royal pariahs because of Andrew’s and Fergie’s scandals and bad decisions over the years. While had his share of mistakes in his youth, he’s unlikely to get involved in some of the scandals his uncle has gotten involved in over the years.
Reply With Quote
  #3709  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:24 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
If she'd only done that then the following scenario would have been possible: Baby Cambridge #1 is a daughter. Because of the new gender-blind succession law, she is the heir and will not be displaced by a younger brother. Because of the Queen's new LP she is also an HRH. Baby #2 is also a girl. She is heir #2 and will not be displaced by a younger brother. But under the terms of the 1917 LP she isn't an HRH. Baby #3 is a boy. But as the oldest son he is an HRH under the terms of the 1917 LP, with a higher rank than his second sister even though she is ahead of him in the line of succession. I suspect the Queen and her advisors had this in mind when she granted the HRH to all of William's children.
While I agree with the above post, I suppose the Queen could have granted HRH and Prince/Princess to only the eldest living child of William.

That would have the effect of superseding (part of) the 1917 LPs as opposed to adding to those LPs and leaving them still in full effect.

Of course in fact the 2012 LPs did supersede (part of) the 1917 LPs just in a different way than I described above, namely by granting HRH and Prince/Princess to all of William's children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post

...

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.

...
Actually, The Succession to the Crown Act was (first) enacted in 2013 and among its provisions it amended The Act of Settlement and repealed The Royal Marriages Act of 1772.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #3710  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:42 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,055
Its a mega check mark day so far. Thanks for that correction.
__________________
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
  #3711  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
Actually, The Succession to the Crown Act was (first) enacted in 2013 and among its provisions it amended The Act of Settlement and repealed The Royal Marriages Act of 1772.
The Succession to the Crown Act wasn't gazetted into effect until 2015 - after it had passed all the requirements in the other realms.

Australia was the last to pass it in March 2015 after it had passed all of the State government legislatures.

It may have passed in the UK in 2013 but it wasn't in force until it received the Royal Assent and was gazetted and neither of those things happened until 2015.

It didn't repeal the RMA by the way - it modified it.
Reply With Quote
  #3712  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
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
I agree with both of your points.
There is no need for the Queen to do anything as this child and any future children wil naturally become HRH when their grandfather becomes King.

I agree about Harry’s children being needed to be working Royals. By the time they are adults natural attrition will have slimmed the ranks considerably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
While I agree with the above post, I suppose the Queen could have granted HRH and Prince/Princess to only the eldest living child of William.

That would have the effect of superseding (part of) the 1917 LPs as opposed to adding to those LPs and leaving them still in full effect.

Of course in fact the 2012 LPs did supersede (part of) the 1917 LPs just in a different way than I described above, namely by granting HRH and Prince/Princess to all of William's children.
But the 1917 letters patent would still have been in effect-it was an all of William’s children situation since the rules of succession changed.
Reply With Quote
  #3713  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:34 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 660
They become HRH when QE2 dies. If Harry refuses the offer, which will be in private, of them being HRH in the future, they announce it now. She may wait to let Charles do it.
Reply With Quote
  #3714  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:36 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Succession to the Crown Act wasn't gazetted into effect until 2015 - after it had passed all the requirements in the other realms.

Australia was the last to pass it in March 2015 after it had passed all of the State government legislatures.

It may have passed in the UK in 2013 but it wasn't in force until it received the Royal Assent and was gazetted and neither of those things happened until 2015.

It didn't repeal the RMA by the way - it modified it.
As far as The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 goes, of course I agree with you but that's not the issue. I simply said it was enacted in 2013, which it was (and not amended then) as was stated in an earlier post. The fact that it came into effect at the start of March 26, 2015 (London, UK time) is fascinating to people like us but not germane to this particular discussion.

As far as the RMA, it was indeed repealed (and that word is specifically used in the text of the Succession to the Crown At 2013.) The Succession to the Crown Act, among its various provisions, prescribes the consent required for royal marriages going forward but this is part of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Look up the two acts and the consents given at Privy Council. The Royal Marriages Act is now repealed and the last consent under it was given in early 2015 shortly before it was repealed (when the Succession to the Crown Act went into effect).

Prince Harry's consent was the first and so far the only consent to be given under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

Look it up; it's pretty straightforward!
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #3715  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
They become HRH when QE2 dies. If Harry refuses the offer, which will be in private, of them being HRH in the future, they announce it now. She may wait to let Charles do it.
I think if they decide in private they will not, it'll be announced now. See my post about concerns when Charles becomes king and the likelihood that he's going to want Camilla as Queen. NOT a good time to announce both issues. Although, can the Queen's Will apply to something that won't happen until she passes?
Reply With Quote
  #3716  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:46 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
But the 1917 letters patent would still have been in effect-it was an all of William’s children situation since the rules of succession changed.
I don't get your point. If the 2012 LPs said "only the eldest living child of the eldest son of the Prince Of Wales" then that would by definition supersede part of the 1917 LPs just as the 1917 LPs superseded part of the 1898 LPs (which gave it to all children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales).

Since the rules of succession changed (or were about to on March 26, 2015) the 2012 letters patent could have read, as I said above "only the eldest living child of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales."

That child under the new succession law would be heir apparent to the heir apparent to the heir apparent no matter the gender and would have the HRH Prince/Princess.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point O-H Anglophile
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #3717  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:55 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I agree with both of your points.
There is no need for the Queen to do anything as this child and any future children wil naturally become HRH when their grandfather becomes King.

I agree about Harry’s children being needed to be working Royals. By the time they are adults natural attrition will have slimmed the ranks considerably.

The other day I sat down and added all the ages up (plus 25) years...William will have almost no one other than Harry/Meghan. None of his cousins are working royals. His aunts/uncles will all be between 70 and 100 years of age!

So he might have his children (mid 20's or so) ...I think they would be hard pressed to meet their obligations without enlisting The Sussex child(ren).


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3718  
Old 10-20-2018, 09:05 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
"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.
William's kids did not have to wait and neither should Harry's. I am not debating this any longer.

Because Meghan is their mother is the reason they should wait is what I think is behind the reasoning.
Reply With Quote
  #3719  
Old 10-20-2018, 09:14 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
William's kids did not have to wait and neither should Harry's. I am not debating this any longer.

Because Meghan is their mother is the reason they should wait is what I think is behind the reasoning.
It has absolutely nothing to do with who the mother is and more to do with this child being a great grandchild of a monarch and a grandchild of the heir apparent to the throne. It has everything to do with the monarchy and nothing to do with personal feelings or any genetics surrounding this expected little person other than the genetics as it relates to the monarch of the UK.

Legitimate question here. How many previous monarchs have actually faced this predicament before with great grandchildren? We know that there have been no one that has reigned as long as HM, The Queen has and there's been no heir apparent that has been in the wings to be monarch longer than Charles has. The British monarch is facing situations that they've really never had any precedence for and with that in mind, its a confusing time on just how to really handle things.

At least that's how I see it.
__________________
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
  #3720  
Old 10-20-2018, 09:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,938
The Sunday Times


The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will not seek any official royal role for their first child. They hope he or she will grow up to have what Harry has described as “a relatively normal life”, according to a source who knows the couple.

“That word ‘normal’ looms very large for Harry and Meghan when it comes to their child’s future,” the source added.

The couple, who are taking Australia by storm on their first overseas tour, will become parents next year. Their baby will be seventh in line to the throne but there are no plans to give it a royal title.

Harry and Meghan are understood to have considered emulating the approach of the Princess Royal and “follow the Zara and Peter Phillips route”, the source said. Princess Anne turned down royal titles for her children, who built independent careers with significantly reduced exposure to public scrutiny.

Harry, 34, has said in the past that combining a private life with an official role is a “tricky balancing act”. He has said of his battles to cope with the death of his mother Diana, Princess of Wales: “I didn’t want to be in the position I was in.”

His desire to shield his children also coincides with his father’s wish for a “slimmed-down” monarchy that focuses on the direct line of succession to the throne.

Meghan, 37, who is thought to be about four months pregnant, will continue to carry out a full programme of official engagements until the birth, and will announce her first patronages in the new year. But the couple will postpone a visit to America scheduled for the first half of next year.
__________________

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 aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian royal belgian royal family countess of snowdon countess of wessex crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex family search french royalty friendly city future wife of prince hussein general news germany greece head of the house house of bernadotte house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau jerusalem kiko king philippe lady louise mountbatten-windsor lithuania lithuanian palaces marriage mbs meghan markle monaco royal monarchist monarchy monogram mountbatten nobel prize norwegian royal family official visit pakistan potential areas prince charles prince daniel prince harry princely family of monaco prince peter princess benedikte princess royal qe2 queen mathilde queen paola rania of jordan romanov family rown rumania shakespeare south africa south korea spanish royal state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish history trump valois visit from sweden


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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