The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3821  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Yes but please remember that new Letters Patent would need to be created for the Sussex children to have a royal title from birth. According to the 1917 Letters Patent, they could be elevated to the styles of HRH and the titles of Prince/Princess of Sussex when their grandfather's reign begins and if that is their parents' wish. If the 1917 Letters Patent are followed from birth then the eldest son would be Earl Dumbarton, daughter(s) would be Lady____Mountbatten-Windsor and any other son(s) Lord______Mountbatten-Windsor.

A royal title is a possibility but unless QEII chooses to create a new Letters Patent, it would be awhile before the Sussex children acquire one.
Technically, the LP of 1917 doesn't say anything about their parents' wish. King Charles would have to make an announcement of his will to override it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3822  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,133
Yes I am aware that the 1917 Letters Patent say nothing regarding a parents' wish. That is why I added this part
Quote:
and if that is their parents' wish
to my original statement.
I am acknowledging that the parents might choose that their children would not have a royal title much like the Wessexes have done for Louise and James.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3823  
Old 10-23-2018, 12:46 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Yes but please remember that new Letters Patent would need to be created for the Sussex children to have a royal title from birth. According to the 1917 Letters Patent, they could be elevated to the styles of HRH and the titles of Prince/Princess of Sussex when their grandfather's reign begins and if that is their parents' wish. If the 1917 Letters Patent are followed from birth then the eldest son would be Earl Dumbarton, daughter(s) would be Lady____Mountbatten-Windsor and any other son(s) Lord______Mountbatten-Windsor.



A royal title is a possibility but unless QEII chooses to create a new Letters Patent, it would be awhile before the Sussex children acquire one.

While there are a lot of people who are named Windsor in the UK without any connection to Royality, the last name of "Mountbatten-Windsor" is as clear a sign as a Royal style would be. So I don't see the sense in not going for the rank tradition bestows of the children, either from birth or by Charles' ascent. The "Blood Royal" is either something special or it is not.

A MIss Mountbatten-Windsor will stick out in school just like HRH Princess First name of Sussex will.So to be really "private", they'd have to rid the children of the "Mountbatten", too.

It is strange, but I always feel that the Wessex-kids were brought up too conservative. Lady Louise and James Severn appear always to be very shy and are giving off a vibe of being High Ranking Persons. While Bea and Eugenie never were like that. But maybe that's just my imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #3824  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:25 AM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 660
Wouldn’t they use Sussex as William & Harry used Wales?
Reply With Quote
  #3825  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:14 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 20,060
But James and Louise don’t use Wessex, they use Mountbatten Windsor/Windsor I believe. If they have no HRHs they won’t use Sussex I would assume.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3826  
Old 10-23-2018, 06:46 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
But James and Louise don’t use Wessex, they use Mountbatten Windsor/Windsor I believe. If they have no HRHs they won’t use Sussex I would assume.
Yes, a territorial designation is used as a surname only when it is part of a title held by the person who uses it. The Duke of Westminster for example would sign as Westminster, but his younger sons or daughters would use their family name. (Grosvenor).

Likewise, Harry’s children would use Sussex as last name in school only if they were HRHs and, in that case, they would probably sign with their first name only and no surname. Otherwise, his eldest son could sign Dumbarton while the other children would sign Mountbatten-Windsor.
Reply With Quote
  #3827  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
Wouldn’t they use Sussex as William & Harry used Wales?
Not is they aren't royal.

Louise and James use Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor.

Anne's children used Philips while Margaret's used Armstrong-Jones.

Only those with HRH use their father's territorial designation as a surname such as Wales or York.

If Harry's children are Earl of Dumbarton, Lady xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor or Lord yyyy Mountbatten-Windsor they will use the Mountbatten-Windsor or shorten it to Windsor for school although all official documents have to have the full surname.

If they are royal and use HRH then they will use Sussex.
Reply With Quote
  #3828  
Old 10-28-2018, 05:08 AM
carlota's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 7,909
apparently harry and meghan do not want a title for their firstborn:

https://www.hola.com/realeza/casa_in...o-primer-hijo/
__________________
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization.
http://www.humanesociety.org
Reply With Quote
  #3829  
Old 10-28-2018, 05:47 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,786
Well, their baby, if a son, will certainly have a title when born. He will be the Earl of Dumbarton, and eventually the Duke of Sussex. If it's a girl she will be Lady ---- as the daughter of a Duke.

As for the baby being a Prince or Princess, we won't know until its birth, or until Charles becomes King. It's well known that Harry has at times considered being a Prince a bit of a burden. However, whether his children become HRHs will be up to the Queen or King Charles, in consultation with Harry and Meghan, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #3830  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:12 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlota View Post
apparently harry and meghan do not want a title for their firstborn:

https://www.hola.com/realeza/casa_in...o-primer-hijo/
You cannot rely on these magazines for that type of info.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3831  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:21 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 8,929
It's on the same level as those idiots saying "they" said if it's a boy they'll call him Philip or a girl Mary or in tribute to the US, Madison or Jesse.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #3832  
Old 10-28-2018, 04:47 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,636
I believe the 'no title' speculation this time around comes from an 'insider source' article by Roya Nikkah who quoted her source as saying that Harry & Meghan considered even going the route of Princess Anne to not give their offspring any titles.

However, the difference with Anne is that she simply decided she didn't want her husband to have a courtesy title (and that could have been for different reasons),which meant her children wouldn't either.

With H&M, they have titles, so their children will inherit titles. I think what Roya Nikkah essentially was referencing is H&M are probably set against their children ever being given HRH Prince/Princess which are royal titles, whereas Earl/Lord/Lady are not specifically royal titles. Therefore, when Charles ascends to the throne, H&M apparently do not want their children to receive HRH Prince/Princess designation(s) to which he/she would then be entitled to receive.
Reply With Quote
  #3833  
Old 10-28-2018, 05:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
That article was based on the quote that normalcy is a big word for the couple right now, and they want to raise their baby as normal as possible and will not seek a royal role for their children. The title situation wasn't in quotes. Although, based on my knowledge of the couple, I would be surprised if they didn't go with the Wessex route.
Reply With Quote
  #3834  
Old 10-28-2018, 05:42 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,636
Right, they want their future children to grow up as normally as possible. I think a part of Meghan's appeal for Harry beyond her beauty, brilliance, grace, their interests in common and her spirited, loving personality, is that she also had a very normal, working class upbringing, but with manners, class, nurturing parents and the best possible education.

Of course, we'll find out if anything unusual will happen when it happens, but I agree that Harry felt burdened with the royal HRH Prince designation. He's said as much in past interviews. It wasn't until he realized the impact his status could make for the welfare of others, that his angst lessened and his sense of purpose increased. It will probably be enough for H&M that their children will inherit nobility titles. I don't see them going out of their way to change their children's Earl/Lord/Lady entitlement.
Reply With Quote
  #3835  
Old 10-28-2018, 06:41 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 4,914
When a peer disclaims his title, his wife loses her title too. Do children of these ex-peers retain their precedence as well as styles and courtesy titles?
Reply With Quote
  #3836  
Old 10-28-2018, 08:49 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
When a peer disclaims his title, his wife loses her title too. Do children of these ex-peers retain their precedence as well as styles and courtesy titles?

Yes, it seems they do. Disclaimer of a Peerage


"The Earl Marshal has been advised by Mr G. D. Squibb, QC, Norfolk Herald Extraordinary, that in his view the children of a disclaiming Peer retain their precedence as the children of a Peer and the same has been expressed by the Lord Lyon King of Arms.

"While, therefore, it is open to any child of a disclaiming Peer to say that he or she no longer wishes to be known by the courtesy title hitherto accorded him or her, in those cases where such children wish still to be accorded their courtesy titles the Earl Marshal and his Officers will so accord them."
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #3837  
Old 10-29-2018, 07:46 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 4,914
In August 1307, before Gaveston even set foot in the kingdom, Edward II made him Earl of Cornwall. Cornwall was a royal earldom. How did Edward II have the right to bestow it?
Reply With Quote
  #3838  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:19 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
In August 1307, before Gaveston even set foot in the kingdom, Edward II made him Earl of Cornwall. Cornwall was a royal earldom. How did Edward II have the right to bestow it?

1. Because he was king and had every right to grant just about whatever titles he wanted to whoever (with some exceptions)
2. With some exceptions, there aren’t actually rules about who can have a title. A peerage is only “royal” if the person who holds it is royal. There is nothing to prevent a monarch from bestowing a title that was once held by a royal upon someone who is not a royal (or vis versa) provided it’s available to be recreated.

The only exceptions are the titles associated with the monarch or the heir apparent, which have specific rules governing when they can be created/who can use them.
Reply With Quote
  #3839  
Old 10-30-2018, 07:34 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 4,914
Was not the title Earl of Cornwall intended for one of Dowager Queen Marguerite's (Edward I's second wife) sons?
Reply With Quote
  #3840  
Old 10-31-2018, 01:13 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,110
It is said that it was intended for Thomas of Brotherton, the elder son of Edward I and Margaret. But there was nothing requiring Edward II to follow through with that titleage after his father’s death; Thomas hadn’t been created Earl of Cornwall and there was no rule that required the title to go to him. Instead it went to Gaveston, and Thomas was created Earl of Norfolk.
__________________

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 779 06-28-2019 02:26 AM
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
administrator alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian belgian royal belgian royal family castles christian ix crown crown prince hussein's future wife current events cyprus denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of wessex foundation french revolution friendly city future future wife of prince hussein genealogy general news germany greece harry headship house of bourbon kiko king king philippe lady louise mountbatten-windsor lithuanian palaces meghan markle memoir monaco royal monarchist monarchy monogram mountbatten naples netflix official visit patronages potential areas prince charles prince harry princess anne princess eugenie princess margaret qe2 queen mathilde rania of jordan relationship royal royal children russian imperial family savoy saxony south africa south korea spanish history state visit state visit to denmark swedish royalty united kingdom viscount severn



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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