The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4141  
Old 02-23-2019, 01:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I fully agree. The only somewhat reasonable explanation imo is that this is how the queen wanted it going forward. So, given that the latest decision was to not grant princely titles to children of the younger son, that should be continued -especially keeping in mind the new gender neutral rules- (or completely reversed).
If she wanted it going forward, it would’ve been an easy announcement to change it for everyone going forward. It was specifically for the Wessex children. Andrew was a bachelor at that point. There was no guarantee that he wouldn’t remarry and have more children. Well, I suppose he’s still in that situation.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4142  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post
Countessmeout, you make very good points as things stand now. I truly believe that Charles and the Queen have talked over all of your points in detail and probably the Queen is agreeing with the future King's ideas and wishes. Charles wants a much smaller "Royal" presence during his reign. He wants to cut down the cost drastically.

The British royal family is the only truly self-funded royal family among the major European RFs. The need to "cut down the cost drastically" is far less clear then in the UK than in some other kingdoms.



I also agree with Countesmeout. The Sussexes will likely have a high profile in Charles's reign and in the early years of William's reign. It is unlikely that Harry and Meghan's kids will have a life as private as the Wessex children have today for example.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4143  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:39 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,619
What is happening here? This thread is all over the place.

Let's get back on topic...styles and topics...not citizenship, baby shower, diplomatic status, etc.

ETA: These off topic posts have been deleted. If you wish to discuss Meghan's citizenship, please do so here Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion.

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #4144  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,537
Back on topic....I honestly believe that Harry and Meghan will just want their children to have the titles of children of a Duke and no more. I don't think that they want their children with HRH Prince/Princess titles.
Reply With Quote
  #4145  
Old 02-23-2019, 03:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
If she wanted it going forward, it would’ve been an easy announcement to change it for everyone going forward. It was specifically for the Wessex children. Andrew was a bachelor at that point. There was no guarantee that he wouldn’t remarry and have more children. Well, I suppose he’s still in that situation.
I don't think any definite conclusions regarding what Queen Elizabeth wanted in 1999 for potential future children of Harry or Andrew can be made from the fact that she used a press release instead of Letters Patent to make her will known for the Wessexes' future children. Many of the choices she has made in connection with titles have been made known without using Letters Patent.
Reply With Quote
  #4146  
Old 02-23-2019, 03:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I don't think any definite conclusions regarding what Queen Elizabeth wanted in 1999 for potential future children of Harry or Andrew can be made from the fact that she used a press release instead of Letters Patent to make her will known for the Wessexes' future children. Many of the choices she has made in connection with titles have been made known without using Letters Patent.



Which ones exactly ? Philip's title of Prince of the United Kingdom, Charles's title of Prince of Wales, Antony Armstrong-Jones's title of Earl of Snowdon, Andrew's, William's and Harry's ducal titles, and Edward's earldom were all bestowed by Letters Patent. I am not sure if Princess Royal counts as a title, but, while it is not granted by LPs, it requires a royal warrant, I think.


Are you maybe referring to the decision on Camilla's title/style or lack thereof ?


EDIT: I forgot to mention William's children's titles, which were also bestowed by LPs.
Reply With Quote
  #4147  
Old 02-23-2019, 04:13 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,843
Starting 13 July 1974, The court circular refers to the dowager Duchess of Gloucester as "Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester". No Letters Patent were ever issued.

In 1981 she was granted a new coat of arms.

“The armorial bearings of Her Royal Highness Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester as widow of His Royal Highness the late duke have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen this being intimated to Garter King of Arms in a letter from Buckingham Palace dated 27 Oct 1981, The said armorial bearings are those of His Royal Highness the late duke of Gloucester impaling the paternal arms of Her Royal Highness as previously depicted in the marital arms entered in I80 page 196 save that they are marshaled upon a lozenge ensigned by Her Royal Highness’s coronet and supported by the supporters borne and used by His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester in his lifetime.”

A. Colin Cole
Garter King of Arms
Let this be recorded
Norfolk EM
Reply With Quote
  #4148  
Old 02-23-2019, 05:29 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Which ones exactly ? Philip's title of Prince of the United Kingdom, Charles's title of Prince of Wales, Antony Armstrong-Jones's title of Earl of Snowdon, Andrew's, William's and Harry's ducal titles, and Edward's earldom were all bestowed by Letters Patent. I am not sure if Princess Royal counts as a title, but, while it is not granted by LPs, it requires a royal warrant, I think.


Are you maybe referring to the decision on Camilla's title/style or lack thereof ?


EDIT: I forgot to mention William's children's titles, which were also bestowed by LPs.
Limiting examples to her decisions taken without Letters Patent that departed from the former rules or traditions, the decisions on how to style Margaret, Alexandra, Camilla, and Eugenie upon their respective marriages, the widow of the first Duke of Kent since her son's marriage, and the widow of King George VI after her daughter had become Queen would also qualify.

If a decision to continue applying the rules or traditions that were in force also qualifies as a decision (from my point of view, it does), then there are many additional examples, including the one you mentioned (Princess Royal) and the one Rudolph quoted in the previous post.
Reply With Quote
  #4149  
Old 02-23-2019, 06:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Limiting examples to her decisions taken without Letters Patent that departed from the former rules or traditions, the decisions on how to style Margaret, Alexandra, Camilla, and Eugenie upon their respective marriages, the widow of the first Duke of Kent since her son's marriage, and the widow of King George VI after her daughter had become Queen would also qualify.

None of those examples seem to do with titles or dignities though. Margaret, Alexandra and Eugenie were all princesses by birth and Camilla is a princess by marriage. Whether they are called by their maiden style, e.g, "of York" or by their husbands' titles is not a matter that is regulated by LPs. In fact, there is nothing in the 1917 LPs for example saying that a King's grandchild in male line should be "of Kent", or "of York", or "of Gloucester" after the territorial designation of their fathers' ducal titles. That is just a custom which, I suppose, must have been inspired by the French practice of calling the petits-enfants de France "d'Artois", "d'Orléans", etc. after their fathers' peerages.



When it comes to making someone a prince/princess in his/her own right, or granting a peerage, LPs are needed. Likewise, in my point of view, to strip someone who would otherwise be an HRH from his/her princely status, LPs should be required, as the Queen did with divorced wives of princes. That is why the decision that was made regarding James and Louise is irregular and probaby defective.
Reply With Quote
  #4150  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
None of those examples seem to do with titles or dignities though. Margaret, Alexandra and Eugenie were all princesses by birth and Camilla is a princess by marriage. Whether they are called by their maiden style, e.g, "of York" or by their husbands' titles is not a matter that is regulated by LPs. In fact, there is nothing in the 1917 LPs for example saying that a King's grandchild in male line should be "of Kent", or "of York", or "of Gloucester" after the territorial designation of their fathers' ducal titles. That is just a custom which, I suppose, must have been inspired by the French practice of calling the petits-enfants de France "d'Artois", "d'Orléans", etc. after their fathers' peerages.



When it comes to making someone a prince/princess in his/her own right, or granting a peerage, LPs are needed. Likewise, in my point of view, to strip someone who would otherwise be an HRH from his/her princely status, LPs should be required, as the Queen did with divorced wives of princes. That is why the decision that was made regarding James and Louise is irregular and probaby defective.
I lean towards thinking that Queen Elizabeth categorizes princely status as a matter of what someone is called, not as equivalent to a peerage (see the letter Iluvbertie received from Buckingham Palace). However, we can certainly limit the examples to decisions making someone a prince or princess in their own right or denying princely status to someone who would have it under the former rule. There are then only two or three examples (of Elizabeth's decisions, with or without Letters Patent) left: the Wessex children, the Cambridge children, and perhaps Prince Philip. (The situation of princes divorcing their wives was new, and there was no set precedent.) From my point of view, there is still not enough basis to come to a definite conclusion about what Queen Elizabeth intended for Harry's children in 1999.
Reply With Quote
  #4151  
Old 02-24-2019, 01:57 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post


But the decision for someone who has only foreign nationality to be a working royal with royal privileges has already been fully accepted by the British public. In light of that, I would expect dual British-foreign nationality for grandchildren who are not working royals to be accepted as well.
I don't quite see is as that. Meghan's lack of British nationality is a transitional situation, and it has been made clear that she will be applying for naturalisation, following the law of the land. It will take a few years, but that is only because that is the law.

Note: If the Mods believe this conversation, ins o far as it relates to citizenship, needs to be elsewhere, please feel free to move it, thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #4152  
Old 03-06-2019, 06:40 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 485
I would personally be in favour of limiting prince/princess titles to just the children of the direct heirs. There is already a very large British Royal Family and if the Sussexes produces more baby princes and princesses it will grow even further. Harry and Meghan may be young and glamorous now, but so were Andrew and Fergie when they first married. Harry and Meghan's child/ren will be in exactly the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie are now, and they are often seen in a negative way, as are there parents. A smaller royal family would be a positive thing, in my opinion.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #4153  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:07 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Interestingly, for the moment, Princess Eugenie of York seems to have been given permission not to add Mrs. Jack Brooksbank onto her name (for instance, see the recent press release about the exhibition of the wedding outfits:
Wedding outfits of HRH Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack...). It will be interesting to see whether that will change once she and her husband have children, but if not, I can imagine Princess Beatrice being treated in the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
@Tatiana Maria about Eugenie's title. Officially on legal papers she may be Princess Eugenie of York, Mrs. Brooksbank but most places just use Princess Eugenie of York. I imagine it would be the same for Beatrice. Case in point, how often do we really hear Princess Margaret referred to as Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden?
That's an interesting possibility. One can't say with certainty without having seen her legal papers, but my personal speculation would be that due to British royals usually having no need to use a legal last name even in official paperwork (other than marriage registries), she would use Mrs. Jack Brooksbank/Mrs. Brooksbank only if she begins to be styled as such.

If she does use Mrs. Jack Brooksbank/Mrs. Brooksbank on legal papers only, if would still differ somewhat from the precedents of princesses Margaret (after her husband became an Earl), Anne (before becoming Princess Royal), and Alexandra. As you pointed out, their style was/is usually shortened to Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, and Princess Alexandra, but these princesses were/are also formally identified as "Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon", "Princess Anne, Mrs, Mark Phillips", and "Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy" in the Court Circular, the Gazette, and the official website, for example.

Unlike Princess Eugenie, Alexandra also gave up her territorial designation "of Kent" when she married, whereas her brother Michael, being male, was permitted to retain it.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/f...l_family_6.pdf
THE ROYAL FAMILY
[...]
Their Royal Highnesses Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy
[...]
Of course, the name/title change that the ITV reporter heard rumors of has not been clarified, so Eugenie might adopt the "Mrs." style at a later time.
Reply With Quote
  #4154  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:17 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,975
I thought of a way to figure it all out but unfortunately, its not a way that would be easy to find. We know Eugenie works and most likely, the answer would lie in the name on her paycheck. I'm trying to remember what I've read about how the York princesses were referred to at their places of employment. I vaguely recall Beatrice being known as Beatrice York.

Its very possible that Eugenie's paycheck is issued to Eugenie Brooksbank.
__________________
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
  #4155  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:35 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,332
At Hauser & Wirth's home page she is still referred to as Eugenie York, director.

https://www.hauserwirth.com/contact/...rk&jp=Director
Reply With Quote
  #4156  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:46 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,975
Thanks for finding that. Its a good indication that she retains using "York" even after her marriage. Its not uncommon at all these days for a woman to continue using her maiden surname after marriage. I reverted to my maiden surname upon divorce and hyphenate it still in a few places after my remarriage.
__________________
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
  #4157  
Old 03-31-2019, 08:56 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I decided to look back to see what the numbers of active members were 10 and 20 years ago:

Jan 2009: 13 (excluding the Cambridges, Sussexes and adding the duke of Edinburgh & duchess of Kent)
Jan 1999: 11-12 (excluding Camilla, the Wessexes, the Cambridges, the Sussexes; and adding the duke of Edinburgh, duchess of Kent, Queen-mother, princess Margaret; I am not sure how active the Queen Mother was aged 99)

Going back to the start of her reign:
The queen started with 7 active members (not counting queen Mary who passed away a year later): herself, the duke of Edinburgh, the queen-mother, the princess Margaret and the duke and duchess of Gloucester and the dowager duchess of Kent as active members.
She purposefully enlarged that number to include 3 more members in the next 10 years, raising the number to about 10 (as expected:) the duke of Kent and therefore also the duchess of Kent, and (not-necessarily expected:) princess Alexandra.

.
Just a couple of things to add about the start of The Queen's reign: The Princess Royal (Princess Mary) was still quite active until her unexpected death in 1965. And I remember Princess Margaret being quoted as saying something like they "couldn't wait" until Princess Alexandra was old enough to help out. The family actually had to scramble a bit in the early to mid -1960s as so many of the women took maternity leaves, some at the same time!
Reply With Quote
  #4158  
Old 04-04-2019, 03:17 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Although Eugenie and Beatrice would need permission to drop the HRH or the Princess part of their identity, surely, as grown women, it is entirely down to their own choice whether they take their husband's surname or not?
Even today, with some exceptions, the British monarchy generally does not seem to give most women that choice.

In the British Royal Family's press releases, the Court Circular etc., married women are generally styled with their husbands' forenames and surnames, e.g. Mrs. John Smith, and my understanding is that British women rarely choose to be styled in this manner when given a choice.

In some cases, even women who asked to use their own forename instead of their husband's forename (e.g. Ms. Jane Smith instead of Mrs. John Smith) have been refused.
A reader sent Sidelines this reply to a request for an application form: "Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot does not acknowledge the title Ms ... a married woman applying for herself should indicate her husband's forename."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20.../18/gender.uk1



Further, although the Queen has apparently given Princess Eugenie permission not to use her husband's surname (new information can be found here: Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?), by her declaration in 1960 (at least according to the general interpretation of it), Eugenie had no choice but to change her legal surname to her husband's, for the reason that the declaration does not allow women to keep the legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor after marriage or to pass it to their children:
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."
Reply With Quote
  #4159  
Old 04-04-2019, 07:19 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Even today, with some exceptions, the British monarchy generally does not seem to give most women that choice.

In the British Royal Family's press releases, the Court Circular etc., married women are generally styled with their husbands' forenames and surnames, e.g. Mrs. John Smith, and my understanding is that British women rarely choose to be styled in this manner when given a choice.

In some cases, even women who asked to use their own forename instead of their husband's forename (e.g. Ms. Jane Smith instead of Mrs. John Smith) have been refused.
A reader sent Sidelines this reply to a request for an application form: "Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot does not acknowledge the title Ms ... a married woman applying for herself should indicate her husband's forename."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20.../18/gender.uk1
That Guardian article was from 2000. Ascot finally moved into the 21st Century in 2016 and now women can use their own forenames: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ra...re-badges.html I'm not sure how they would react if one of the rash creatures wanted to wear a nametag bearing a surname which was not the same as her husband's.


Quote:
Further, although the Queen has apparently given Princess Eugenie permission not to use her husband's surname (new information can be found here: Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?), by her declaration in 1960 (at least according to the general interpretation of it), Eugenie had no choice but to change her legal surname to her husband's, for the reason that the declaration does not allow women to keep the legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor after marriage or to pass it to their children:
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."
That statement of HM's "will and pleasure" was made nearly 60 years ago. A lot has changed in society since then, and in HM's own family. I think the wording is loose enough to permit a fair bit of wriggle room. It provides an exception for female descendants who marry and it is arguable that it allows them to use whatever name they want to use. I do, however, believe that Eugenie would want to use Jack's surname.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #4160  
Old 04-04-2019, 10:00 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,003
Could children of Princess Eugenie and Jack use the surname of Brooksbank-Mountbatten or the surname of Mountbatten-Brooksbank?
__________________

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
archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy belgian royal belgian royal family bracelets castles charles of wales countess of wessex crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events danish royalty denmark discussão duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of sussex dutch royal family felipe vi foundation french revolution friendly city future genealogy general news germany greece headship jerusalem kiko king salman lady louise mountbatten-windsor lithuania lithuanian palaces meghan markle memoir monaco christening monaco history monaco royal monarchism monogram mountbatten netflix nobel 2019 nobel prize official visit pakistan prince harry prince peter princess margaret princess royal rania of jordan rown royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia savoy saxony south africa spain spanish history state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish royalty trump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:43 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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