The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4021  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This precedent though would not become apparent until now with Harry and Meghan expecting their first child. It wouldn't have affected William and Kate's children as, due to the Queen's longevity, there was an heir to the heir to the heir to the throne (that's more heirs than William has on his head) and HM, The Queen put into motion the changes that created the Law of Succession Act of 2015. There then, was good reason to also issue letters patent that the grandchildren of the heir to the heir to the throne would be born HRH.
If the Law of Succession Act had not already been well under way when William and Kate were expecting George, I don't know that the Queen would have done anything about William's children all being HRH. As it stood from the Letters Patent of 1917, William's eldest son would be a Prince and HRH. That was from when sons were before daughters in succession rights.

"and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince" Letters Patent 1917

As it turns out William's first child was a boy, but had Charlotte been born first, although she would be the heir before any of her younger brothers, she would not have been a HRH or Princess (until her grandfather became King)--but her eldest younger brother would. That is why the Queen issued the amendment in 2012, elevating all of William's children.

This issue is not at play for Harry's children.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4022  
Old 01-07-2019, 03:15 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I doubt that George V ever considered the idea of a Princess marrying a man who didn't have a title in his own right.
I'd just like to add that Patricia of Connaught married Captain Alexander Ramsay in 1919. Upon marriage she received permission by Royal warrant to relinquish her title and style of HRH and Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and was later known by the style of Lady Patricia Ramsay, but retained her place in the Order of Succession and her membership of the Royal family. At subsequent coronations she was accorded all the honours of a Princess of the blood and it's said that The Queen still treats her daughter-in-law The Lady Saltoun as a member of the extended Royal family.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4023  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:01 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
If the Law of Succession Act had not already been well under way when William and Kate were expecting George, I don't know that the Queen would have done anything about William's children all being HRH. As it stood from the Letters Patent of 1917, William's eldest son would be a Prince and HRH. That was from when sons were before daughters in succession rights.

"and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince" Letters Patent 1917

As it turns out William's first child was a boy, but had Charlotte been born first, although she would be the heir before any of her younger brothers, she would not have been a HRH or Princess (until her grandfather became King)--but her eldest younger brother would. That is why the Queen issued the amendment in 2012, elevating all of William's children.

This issue is not at play for Harry's children.
While I agree that the changes to the succession laws were perhaps part of the reason for the 2012 LPs, I'm not sure that's the entire story.

All William's children would have eventually become HRH and Prince/Princess when (if) Charles became King and I think the Queen would have therefore wanted them to be so from birth. Just like Queen Victoria, through the 1898 LPs, "bumped up" (the future King) George V's children from HH to HRH (which they would have received upon Victoria's death as per the 1864 LPs). Similarly, George VI made Elizabeth's (future) children HRH and Prince/Princess through the 1948 LPs (which they would have received when their mother acceded, according to the 1917 LPs).

It's stated in the above quote and has been stated in this thread before that the changes to the succession law were the sole reason for the 2012 LPs and I just think there was a little more to it than just that.

It's for this reason that I think there's a chance (perhaps slight) that new LPs could be issued for Harry's kids. If they are going to eventually be HRHs, I think the Queen would want that from birth.

More likely, I believe, is that they won't ever be HRHs and in that case I think a statement should be issued like the Wessex statement of 1999, to clarify things.

One final thought re: the 2012 LPs. If the entire reason was the change to the succession laws, the Queen could have issued LPs to say:

"...and the eldest living child of the eldest child of the Prince of Wales shall have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess..." emphasis my own.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #4024  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 484
If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?
Reply With Quote
  #4025  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:29 PM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?
The Crown does not "have custody of their children", H & M will.

If you are alluding to any potential divorce, the English courts will have jurisdiction on the matter. As they will be quite far down the line of succession, it is unlikely any arrangements for the "Crown" to have custody will need to be put in place.
Reply With Quote
  #4026  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro
If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?


Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The Crown does not "have custody of their children", H & M will.

If you are alluding to any potential divorce, the English courts will have jurisdiction on the matter. As they will be quite far down the line of succession, it is unlikely any arrangements for the "Crown" to have custody will need to be put in place.
No, I was not alluding to divorce, (I hope it doesn't happen).
I was just wondering in case of out of country travels, since they're not HRHs do parents need permission to take them out of the country for travels.
Reply With Quote
  #4027  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:09 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro
If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?




No, I was not alluding to divorce, (I hope it doesn't happen).
I was just wondering in case of out of country travels, since they're not HRHs do parents need permission to take them out of the country for travels.
It's grey area. Maybe Harry and Meghan are their children's custodiants, but maybe the queen is their custodian. We don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #4028  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:22 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 256
It was once speculated that Andrew and Fergie wanted their daughter to go to Aiglon in Switzerland which obviously never happened but it was reported at the time that they would need HM's permission for her granddaughters to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #4029  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,299
The Queen, as the monarch, can refuse to allow the children in the line of succession to do certain things such as leave the country. This law goes back to George II and make no reference to being HRHs - just line of succession.

What this would mean is that if Harry and Meghan were to divorce, she wouldn't get custody at all as that would have to remain with Harry (or jointly shared as happened with Charles and Diana; Andrew and Fergie and Anne and Mark). Had those divorces contested custody the Queen would have had final custody and not the parents.

She does have to give consent for them to be taken out of the country and for final decisions, such as education.
Reply With Quote
  #4030  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:56 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen, as the monarch, can refuse to allow the children in the line of succession to do certain things such as leave the country. This law goes back to George II and make no reference to being HRHs - just line of succession.

What this would mean is that if Harry and Meghan were to divorce, she wouldn't get custody at all as that would have to remain with Harry (or jointly shared as happened with Charles and Diana; Andrew and Fergie and Anne and Mark). Had those divorces contested custody the Queen would have had final custody and not the parents.

She does have to give consent for them to be taken out of the country and for final decisions, such as education.
There must be a limit to that because surely the queen cannot order the Norwegian royals around just because they are in line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #4031  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:33 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,110
Questions about British Styles and Titles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
There must be a limit to that because surely the queen cannot order the Norwegian royals around just because they are in line of succession.

I believe the stance the BRF has typically taken is that those who are descended from women who married into foreign royalty no longer fall under the same restrictions as those who are not.

So, the Norwegians, being descended from Maud of Wales, who married into the NRF, no longer have to follow the rules that those descended from Maud’s siblings, as none of them married into foreign royalty.

This is why the Hanovers continued to ask the Queen for permission to marry (prior to the recent changes), as they technically haven’t married into a foreign royal house.
Reply With Quote
  #4032  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,299
The Hanoverians are descended from a British Princess who married into a foreign royal house as they are descended from the Empress Frederick and therefore did not need to ask for permission. That they chose to do so is probably because they felt like it but they were certainly exempt.

The Norwegians, like the Swedes, Danes and Spanish were also descended from a British princess who married into a foreign royal house and were equally exempt.

The rules, about custody, only apply to the BRF and not the other royal families and only to the descendants of the reigning monarch not to the entire 6000+ in the line of succession,
Reply With Quote
  #4033  
Old 01-08-2019, 06:39 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Hanoverians are descended from a British Princess who married into a foreign royal house as they are descended from the Empress Frederick and therefore did not need to ask for permission. That they chose to do so is probably because they felt like it but they were certainly exempt.

The Norwegians, like the Swedes, Danes and Spanish were also descended from a British princess who married into a foreign royal house and were equally exempt.
I guess that to the Hannoverians their agnatic descent from the Kings of the United Kingdom goes before their descent from Princess Victoria. Especially when one considers their use of the title Prince/ss of the United Kingdom.
To my knowledge neither the Swedes nor the Danes have asked permission since Margareth of Connaught married Gustav Adolf of Sweden-Norway nor have the Norwegians asked permission since Maud of York married Carl of Denmark.
Reply With Quote
  #4034  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen, as the monarch, can refuse to allow the children in the line of succession to do certain things such as leave the country. This law goes back to George II and make no reference to being HRHs - just line of succession.

What this would mean is that if Harry and Meghan were to divorce, she wouldn't get custody at all as that would have to remain with Harry (or jointly shared as happened with Charles and Diana; Andrew and Fergie and Anne and Mark). Had those divorces contested custody the Queen would have had final custody and not the parents.

She does have to give consent for them to be taken out of the country and for final decisions, such as education.
That is interesting, Is there an specific act of Parliament regulating those matters or is it an unwritten convention ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I believe the stance the BRF has typically taken is that those who are descended from women who married into foreign royalty no longer fall under the same restrictions as those who are not.

So, the Norwegians, being descended from Maud of Wales, who married into the NRF, no longer have to follow the rules that those descended from Maud’s siblings, as none of them married into foreign royalty.

This is why the Hanovers continued to ask the Queen for permission to marry (prior to the recent changes), as they technically haven’t married into a foreign royal house.
Would the restrictions apply though to the Lascelles or Fife (Carnegie) families for example ?
Reply With Quote
  #4035  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:51 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That is interesting, Is there an specific act of Parliament regulating those matters or is it an unwritten convention ?
Custody of royal grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

But we don't know exact situation with royal great-grandchildren. Of course king Charles will be legal custodian of all Harry's children.
Reply With Quote
  #4036  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Custody of royal grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

But we don't know exact situation with royal great-grandchildren. Of course king Charles will be legal custodian of all Harry's children.
Thanks for the clarification ! So we are talking about a court ruling rather than an act of Parliament and, apparently, it applies only to the monarch’s grandchildren and no further than that. In theory, Harry’s children would not be covered by the ruling until Charles ascended the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #4037  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:11 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Thanks for the clarification ! So we are talking about a court ruling rather than an act of Parliament and, apparently, it applies only to the monarch’s grandchildren and no further than that. In theory, Harry’s children would not be covered by the ruling until Charles ascended the throne.
We need to know exact wording of this court ruling, to know modern legal interpretation of this ruling and precedents. It's too early to make any conclusions.
Reply With Quote
  #4038  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:41 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Custody of royal grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

But we don't know exact situation with royal great-grandchildren. Of course king Charles will be legal custodian of all Harry's children.
... and William's children, too, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #4039  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:04 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
We need to know exact wording of this court ruling, to know modern legal interpretation of this ruling and precedents. It's too early to make any conclusions.
There is no legal modern interpretation to be known. The rules has been used many time legally. Like it was discussed in another thread. There was no legal custody settlements for the children during the divorce, of Anne, Charles, and Andrew, only private agreements between the parties. Diana's will stated that she wanted her brother Charles Earl spencer and one of her sisters to be legal Guardians of her children, this stipulation was overruled and the Queen appointed Sir john Major as a legal guardian of William and Harry. It is he and his team who dealt with all financial matters regarding Diana's succession
Reply With Quote
  #4040  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:24 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is online now
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,219
Is there a reason that the Prime minister was choosen? Would that mean that if W&C would divorce now, that PM May would be a guardian?
__________________

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 archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian royal family castles countess of snowdon countess of wessex crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher denmark discussão duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of sussex family search felipe vi foundation french royalty friendly city germany greece hamdan bin mohammed harry head of the house henry v house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha jack brooksbank jerusalem kiko king philippe letter lineage lithuanian castles marriage meghan markle memoir monaco royal monarchism monarchy official visit pakistan palaces patronages prince charles prince harry princess anne queen mathilde rania of jordan romanov family royal tour rumania russian imperial family shakespeare sharjah siblings south africa spanish history state visit sweden swedish royalty trump usa valois viscount severn



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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