The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3841  
Old 11-06-2018, 03:56 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
I wouldn't be surprised to see Harry and Meghan continue the trend started by Edward and Sophie and decide against the HRH for their child and to see this lead to only children of monarchs (and not grandchildren) using HRH in the future. Which would make sense IMO.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3842  
Old 11-06-2018, 06:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 592
Personally, in the whole schene of HRHs I don't mind the current system.
To have only the children of William as HRH puts them on a pedestal and it's not a bad thing to have others of similar HRH status around children. What harm can it do for Harry's children to have HRH once Charles is KIng? There is no negative issue with Beatrice and Eugenie having had the same status as the Wales as they grew up.
(Louise and James were further down anyway so I see why their parents decided the way they did but if they were HRH; no problem.) Wouldn't they feel like they belonged to the same family? Doesn't it just identify/tag the obvious relationship to the monarch? HRH doesn't preclude them from earning their own living.

Similarly, there is no problem with the Gloucesters and the Kents having had HRH.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3843  
Old 11-06-2018, 07:02 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 500
Quote:
Personally, in the whole schene of HRHs I don't mind the current system.
To have only the children of William as HRH puts them on a pedistal and it's not a bad thing to have others of similar HRH status around children. What harm can it do for Harry's children to have HRH once Charles is KIng? There is no negative issue with Beatrice and Eugenie having had the same status as the Wales as they grew up.
(Louise and James were further down anyway so I see why their parents decided the way they did but if they were HRH; no problem.) Wouldn't they feel like they belonged to the same family? Doesn't it just identify/tag the obvious relationship to the monarch? HRH doesn't preclude one from earning their own living.

Similarly, there is no problem with the Gloucesters and the Kents having had HRH.
I agree with you totally, King of the jungle!
Reply With Quote
  #3844  
Old 11-06-2018, 07:08 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 4,703
It would be good for the children of Harry and Meghan to be titled Prince/Princess. Without the HRH, some might consider them as inferior to their first cousins, the Cambridge children.
Reply With Quote
  #3845  
Old 11-06-2018, 07:47 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,438
Personally, I think children have to learn as they grow older that someone would be "inferior" to them. It doesn't come naturally. The days also of just about anyone looking at another person and believing that they're better or superior or rate higher because of status (or for any other reason) are just about over. The Cambridge kids and the Sussex kids will grow up as cousins and all of them will be taught as their parents were taught on how the monarchy works and helping other people is a good way to be.

Both William and Harry want their kids to grow up in as normal of a household that they can and I would bet my last dog treat here that while young, these kid's ideal princess would be Elsa in "Frozen".
__________________
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
  #3846  
Old 11-06-2018, 08:08 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saz83 View Post
I wouldn't be surprised to see Harry and Meghan continue the trend started by Edward and Sophie and decide against the HRH for their child and to see this lead to only children of monarchs (and not grandchildren) using HRH in the future. Which would make sense IMO.

IMHO, if Harry and Meghan didn't want their children as HRH's, they would have made this known at the time of their wedding - the same way Edward and Sophie did.
Reply With Quote
  #3847  
Old 11-06-2018, 08:31 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 8,603
You forget that as the fourth child Edward fully intended to continue his career as indeed did Sophie. Having an HRH Prince didn't, or more important hadn't, caused any problem for Edward. Who could have guessed that they would hit the big brick wall after their wedding" Result: two more working royals.

And it is as well to remember the "intent" to bestow the title of Duke of Edinburgh after his death. I am not sure how it will affect their children. Basically, it is worth going the BRF way and let things play out the way they do because nobody knows what the future holds and you can live in the now or spend the now worrying about what the future may hold.

I think the decision as to whether their child will be born HRH is up to HM and she may feel that a degree of parity will be essential as William will have to rely more on Harry and Meghan to a greater degree than Charles ever did for no other reason than numbers.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #3848  
Old 11-06-2018, 08:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 5,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
IMHO, if Harry and Meghan didn't want their children as HRH's, they would have made this known at the time of their wedding - the same way Edward and Sophie did.
Edward and Sophie didn’t make it known. The Queen did.

I still think that Queen, Charles, and William would not have a problem with Harry’s children having the status of HRH, but I can’t say that’s what I see as what the couple will want. And given the situation, I think they would respect the wishes of the parents.
Reply With Quote
  #3849  
Old 11-06-2018, 09:33 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Edward and Sophie didn’t make it known. The Queen did.

I still think that Queen, Charles, and William would not have a problem with Harry’s children having the status of HRH, but I can’t say that’s what I see as what the couple will want. And given the situation, I think they would respect the wishes of the parents.

This was reported days before Edward's and Sophie's wedding



"...In a modernising touch, the couple's children will not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, "but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl".
The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding...."


It was the personal wishes of the couple. The Queen agreed and let her Will be known.



If Harry and Meghan wanted their children to be "like the Wessex's", AND the Queen agreed, it would have been announced at the same time as Harry's Dukedom and her Will would have been known.


As it stands, Harry and Meghan's children will have be known HRH Prince/ss xx of Sussex when Charles ascends the throne, unless Letters Patent are issued stating otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #3850  
Old 11-06-2018, 09:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,164
IF the rumours are true that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to be seen as 'walking the walk' and not just 'talking the talk'.

He has already made it clear that the York girls are surplus to requirements as working royals.

There are only four HRHs in their generation and already two are regarded as too many for the needs of the family.

With William already having three children Charles is well on the way to having more HRH grandchildren than the Queen has.

Only a fool wouldn't realise the problems the York girls are having because they are HRHs but not working royals. They are despised and have been almost all their lives.

Although when they were born there was no question of them not being HRH but the mid-90s that decision was being questioned and is certainly questioned largely in the vocal media and its supporters.

That would be the future for Harry's children if they are HRH.

There was no necessity for any announcement at the time of Harry's wedding in the same way as there was at Edward's as Edward's children would automatically be HRH unless something was said but Harry's are not automatically going to be HRH.

The longer it takes for any announcement from The Queen the more it looks likely that she isn't going to be issuing the LPs and so they will be Lord/Lady from birth with the eldest son known as the Earl of Dumbarton (now watch HM issue the LPs in the next 24 hours).

Going back to 2012 it was announced on the 3rd December that Kate was expecting. The Queen issued the new LPs giving HRH to all of William's children on 31st December - or nearly four weeks later.

It is now approaching that four week mark since the announcement and Meghan is further along in the pregnancy than Kate was when it was announced she was expecting. Of course the Queen could issue the LPs at any time but I am simply showing a 'timeline' of events.
Reply With Quote
  #3851  
Old 11-06-2018, 09:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 5,562
York Princesses’ problems are not their HRH status. There are a lot of foolishness that came from their parents over the years. No one has done the same thing to Princess Alexandra or Dukes of Kent and Gloucester. Charles supposedly doesn’t see York princesses necessary as working royals, but I don’t recall him asking Beatrice and Eugenie to give up their titles. The Queen has 6 grandchildren from her sons, and Charles will have 4 after this child. Charles and William also will not have cousins that are working royals. Add in the fact that people started having children later over time, I doubt Princess Anne will be carrying out the same number of engagements in 20-25 years, or Charles for that matter. Andrew will be 78 in 20 years, and Edward will be in his 70s as well.
Reply With Quote
  #3852  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:09 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
IF the rumours are true that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to be seen as 'walking the walk' and not just 'talking the talk'.

He has already made it clear that the York girls are surplus to requirements as working royals.

There are only four HRHs in their generation and already two are regarded as too many for the needs of the family.

With William already having three children Charles is well on the way to having more HRH grandchildren than the Queen has.

I absolutely agree. I was truly shocked that there was no announcement when Harry was bestowed his Dukedom that his children would not bear HRH when the time comes. I would have expected that wording stating that "in consultation with the Queen, HRH The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry and Miss Markle, the children of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be styled...".

Charles is a hypocrite. Stating that there is no need for Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals, hints at slimming down the monarchy etc and then being quiet on ALL his grandchildren being, at some stage, HRHs is hypocritical and it's only a matter of time until the media make this a field-day.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Only a fool wouldn't realise the problems the York girls are having because they are HRHs but not working royals. They are despised and have been almost all their lives.

Although when they were born there was no question of them not being HRH but the mid-90s that decision was being questioned and is certainly questioned largely in the vocal media and its supporters.

That would be the future for Harry's children if they are HRH.

If I were in Harry and Meghan shoes, I would do anything possible to ensure my children would not be HRHs, especially the abuse the York sisters have had to endure.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

There was no necessity for any announcement at the time of Harry's wedding in the same way as there was at Edward's as Edward's children would automatically be HRH unless something was said but Harry's are not automatically going to be HRH.

The longer it takes for any announcement from The Queen the more it looks likely that she isn't going to be issuing the LPs and so they will be Lord/Lady from birth with the eldest son known as the Earl of Dumbarton (now watch HM issue the LPs in the next 24 hours).

I agree with the first part of your comment here, since Edward is the son of the monarch etc. However, as you stated previously, if the Queen and Charles are serious about slimming-down HRHs and working royals, it should have been done at the time of the wedding. This would have also sent a clear message to the media and the opponents of the Royal Family.
Reply With Quote
  #3853  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:13 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 5,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
I absolutely agree. I was truly shocked that there was no announcement when Harry was bestowed his Dukedom that his children would not bear HRH when the time comes. I would have expected that wording stating that "in consultation with the Queen, HRH The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry and Miss Markle, the children of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be styled...".

Charles is a hypocrite. Stating that there is no need for Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals, hints at slimming down the monarchy etc and then being quiet on ALL his grandchildren being, at some stage, HRHs is hypocritical and it's only a matter of time until the media make this a field-day.
Did I miss the part where Beatrice and Eugenie lost their HRH status?

And honestly, if the intention is for children of younger child of the monarch to be only addressed as children of Duke/earl/whatever going forward, then issue a LP and make it equal for everyone in that situation. Otherwise, how is THAT not hypocritical?
Reply With Quote
  #3854  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
And honestly, if the intention is for children of younger child of the monarch to be only addressed as children of Duke/earl/whatever going forward, then issue a LP and make it equal for everyone in that situation. Otherwise, how is THAT not hypocritical?
I believe that that is what the Queen believes will happen - but not while any of her HRH cousins, who with one exception have been working royals for most of their adult lives.

To issue such LPs now would mean the Duke of Kent, aged 83 for instance would be stripped of that HRH he has held all his life.

The start is the way Edward's children were stripped of the HRH - by making known The Queen's Will.

By saying nothing now for Harry's children they will be born in the same way as Edward's - the children of a peer of the realm.

They will then issue a statement to say they will stay that way when Charles becomes King - so again using 'the monarch's will'.

When all the current HRHs who are cousins of The Queen have passed then they will issue the LPs and Beatrice and Eugenie will lose HRH.

Remember too that under the existing LPs Louis's children will be automatically HRH while Charlotte, who is ahead of him in the line of succession, won't - a perfect reason for new LPs but now for another 20 or so years.

If Harry's children have HRH then though it could be much harder to do it and the pressure will be for Charlotte's children and thus all girls children to be HRHs ... which could be interesting as Anne's children will only be in their 50s so suddenly we have the situation where Peter becomes an HRH or Earl Snowdon - equally the female line grandchild of a monarch.

They could so easily solve this problem by issuing LPs stating that only the heir apparent's children, in each generation, born on, or after 1st January 2001 will be HRH. That would allow those born before that date to keep it and only William's born after would hold it instead of the pig's breakfast they are creating by not doing something.
Reply With Quote
  #3855  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 5,562
Like you said, she could’ve easily done it and not make it retroactive, but she didn’t.

And we have to keep in mind that Charles, in my opinion, is likely to make Camilla Queen despite what was said when they got married. The PR optics of this can go either way paired with denying the status of Sussex child(ren) their HRH status given by exist LP.
Reply With Quote
  #3856  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:50 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Did I miss the part where Beatrice and Eugenie lost their HRH status?
I never stated that Beatrice and Eugenie should or have lost their titles. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
And honestly, if the intention is for children of younger child of the monarch to be only addressed as children of Duke/earl/whatever going forward, then issue a LP and make it equal for everyone in that situation. Otherwise, how is THAT not hypocritical?
Exactly my point.
Reply With Quote
  #3857  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:54 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
I think it is interesting to look at the examples of those who were not entitled to HRH at birth but were expected to become HRH later (Charles and Anne, Charlotte and Louis). Letters patent were issued both times to make them HRH from birth. I may be wrong but I believe if the intention is for them to take HRH in the future then we will see letters patent issued to make them so from birth.
Reply With Quote
  #3858  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saz83 View Post
I think it is interesting to look at the examples of those who were not entitled to HRH at birth but were expected to become HRH later (Charles and Anne, Charlotte and Louis). Letters patent were issued both times to make them HRH from birth. I may be wrong but I believe if the intention is for them to take HRH in the future then we will see letters patent issued to make them so from birth.
Charlotte and Louis did not exist and George hadn’t been born yet when the LP that elevated them to HRH were issued.

William’s first born son was always going to be an HRH because of the 1917 LP.

But if Charlotte had been born first she would not have been an HRH despite being the heir to the throne, yet her first younger brother would have been. That is why the new LP were issued for William’s children.
Reply With Quote
  #3859  
Old 11-07-2018, 07:09 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,939
Same for Elizabeth's children. One of her children was going to be the future king or queen, so they wanted to make sure that child was born as a HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #3860  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:20 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,438
If Elizabeth's first child was a girl, she would have been heir presumptive though and not heir apparent. If Charles was born second, he would preempt Anne as heir apparent. Until 2013, Anne followed all her brothers (and their children) and that's still the order in the line of succession.

If Charlotte had been born first, with the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013, Charlotte would have been heir apparent.

Even should Harry and Meghan decide that their children (with the Queen's approval) not have the HRH styling, their place in the line of succession to the crown would remain the same as if they had the HRH and be sandwiched between William's family and Andrew's family. Edward's children are listed in the line of succession ahead of the Princess Royal.

The HRH is not a title or a designation but rather a form of address.
__________________

__________________
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
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
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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 01:39 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
aif belgian bonaparte british royal family britishroyals clothes crown crown prince hussein's future wife current events dailyfail daughter daughters denmark duchessofsussex duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of sussex earl of wessex forum french revolution friendly city future wife of prince hussein genealogy general news gordon greece harry headship iñaki urdangarín juan carlos kiko lady louise mountbatten-windsor lineage meghan markle member monogram northampton osborn patronages prince harry prince laurent prince of belgium prince peter princess beatrice princess benedikte princess claire princess eugenie princess royal prince william public image qe2 queen elisabeth queen elizabeth quizz rania of jordan royal royal ladies sarah ferguson savoy saxony siblings state visit surname tradition united kingdom wedding windsor castle windy city ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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