The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4281  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,460
Any changes to the present rules, whether to confer princely status on the child during the present reign or to withhold princely status from the child during the next reign, could also be applied with a simple announcement (as in the case of the Wessex children) instead of new Letters Patent.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4282  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Any changes to the present rules, whether to confer princely status on the child during the present reign or to withhold princely status from the child during the next reign, could also be applied with a simple announcement (as in the case of the Wessex children) instead of new Letters Patent.

I am not sure it is possible to confer the titular dignity of Prince/Princess on someone (on his/her own right) without Letters Patent.



The reverse is possible following the Wessex children's precedent although many people (rightfully) question the validity of a simple announcement to overrule LPs that are technically still in force.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4283  
Old 05-06-2019, 01:33 PM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I suspect as it was designed to have an effect on William's children the wording was chosen to reflect that so as to not have any unintended consequences. The Queen seems to favour IMO not changing the rules completely and just dealing with specific cases in turn.

I would hope personally that we will see a change by the time George and Charlotte are old enough to have children - will we see another Princess not being able to pass on HRHs to her children while her brothers can?
I went back and doublechecked the dates: the Queen issued letters patent regarding the HRH status for William's kids (and those of any future eldest son of a Prince of Wales) while the discussion was underway to do away with male primogeniture but before it was decided and enacted. So she may have felt that writing a gender-neutral version of the LP could be construed as a sideways meddling in the political process that decided that issue.

As others have said, if the BRF want to adapt it to be eldest child, there's plenty of time to do so since the next possible need for clarification is at least two decades, if not three, in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #4284  
Old 05-06-2019, 01:57 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't see them doing it...when Charles is King, Baby Sussex will get the HRH.
Under current rules that would happen, but we don't know that it will. H&M, along with Prince Charles, may desire otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #4285  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
I went back and doublechecked the dates: the Queen issued letters patent regarding the HRH status for William's kids (and those of any future eldest son of a Prince of Wales) while the discussion was underway to do away with male primogeniture but before it was decided and enacted. So she may have felt that writing a gender-neutral version of the LP could be construed as a sideways meddling in the political process that decided that issue.

As others have said, if the BRF want to adapt it to be eldest child, there's plenty of time to do so since the next possible need for clarification is at least two decades, if not three, in the future.
I agree with your point about the 2012 letters patent being issued before gender-neutral primogeniture was actually enacted in 2015 (the decision was made at the Commonwealth summit of 2011).

But there was a third option of issuing Letters Patent specifically for the Cambridge children, which would have been equally appropriate under male-preference and gender-neutral primogeniture, and for which there was even a precedent with Elizabeth's own children in 1948.

The British Royal Family chose to bypass that option in favor of issuing Letters Patent that would apply not only to the Cambridges, but children of future eldest sons of Princes of Wales (even eldest sons whose sisters are heiresses apparent).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I am not sure it is possible to confer the titular dignity of Prince/Princess on someone (on his/her own right) without Letters Patent.



The reverse is possible following the Wessex children's precedent although many people (rightfully) question the validity of a simple announcement to overrule LPs that are technically still in force.

But under the position of Buckingham Palace that a simple announcement overrules the Letters Patent to withhold the titular dignity of Prince/ss, wouldn't the opposite action be equally valid? And it seems that children and grandchildren of British kings were addressed as Prince and Princess for centuries without any Letters Patent conferring that titular dignity.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain
Reply With Quote
  #4286  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:11 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Under current rules that would happen, but we don't know that it will. H&M, along with Prince Charles, may desire otherwise.
Yes but at this point that is what will happen and that's what I am going by unless they notify us otherwise.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #4287  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:06 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 180
It is possible that when Charles becomes King George VII, if Andrew dies, since he has no male heirs, the Dukedom of York will go to Harry, since Harry is the second son of the British monarch, the Duke of York.

If that is the case:

Prince William, Dukes of Cornwall, Cambridge and Prince of Wales
Prince Harry, Dukes of Sussex and York

The new Earl of Dumbarton will get the York title if Harry passes, since Harry would be the first Duke of York to have a male heir.
Reply With Quote
  #4288  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:51 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 10,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
It is possible that when Charles becomes King George VII, if Andrew dies, since he has no male heirs, the Dukedom of York will go to Harry, since Harry is the second son of the British monarch, the Duke of York.

If that is the case:

Prince William, Dukes of Cornwall, Cambridge and Prince of Wales
Prince Harry, Dukes of Sussex and York

The new Earl of Dumbarton will get the York title if Harry passes, since Harry would be the first Duke of York to have a male heir.
While the Duke of York is traditionally held by the second son of the monarch, it is not automatic. Its not like the Princess Royal, when one dies, the next one fills the role. Harry has already been given his peerage, he will not be given a second one.

Nor is it likely Andrew will die before his brother being a good 11 years younger. Yes, it could happen, but bit morbid to think about it.

The only question is who will be next Duke of York, either Louis or George' second son.

If Andrew is alive when Louis gets married, Louis will be given a different title. Or they may pull a Duke of Edinburgh, and give Louis a lesser title like Edward, intending him to be made Duke of York when Andrew dies. Or they may choose to leave the title vacant for some, in respect to Andrew's daughters.

In that case, if George has a second son, the title will likely go to him one day. The title will simply remain vacant for some years.
Reply With Quote
  #4289  
Old 05-07-2019, 12:12 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
It is possible that when Charles becomes King George VII, if Andrew dies, since he has no male heirs, the Dukedom of York will go to Harry, since Harry is the second son of the British monarch, the Duke of York.



If that is the case:



Prince William, Dukes of Cornwall, Cambridge and Prince of Wales

Prince Harry, Dukes of Sussex and York



The new Earl of Dumbarton will get the York title if Harry passes, since Harry would be the first Duke of York to have a male heir.

This is incredibly unlikely and is based on a fallacy.

The title Duke of York has fairly standard Salic law inheritance rules - that is it is inherited by the male, male-line descendants of the first Duke of that creation, and at such time as there are no more male descendants the title becomes extinct. It is not, as is commonly believed, inherited by men due to some relationship to the monarch, or due to their being the second son.

Andrew is the first Duke of York of this creation, limiting his successors to his own descendants. And as he has no sons, he has no heir. This means that when Andrew dies, unless he remarries and has a sin before then, the title Duke of York will become extinct. It will not be inherited by any of his brothers’ sons or grandsons.

It is possible that in Charles reign the title will be recreated, although it’s still somewhat unlikely. Really, Andrew would have to predecease his elder brother (and remember, Charles is 12 years older, making this unlikely). I also wouldn’t expect it to happen if Sarah is still alive and using the title Duchess of York, or if Beatrice and Eugenie are still using “of York” - which, despite her marriage, Eugenie is still using the territorial designation.

If it is created again in Charles’ reign, it’s not likely to be created for Harry. Harry already has a Dukedom, and it is very uncommon in the modern era for royals who aren’t the heir apparent to have two dukedoms (it hasn’t happened, I believe, since the reign of Queen Victoria). Instead, what is more likely to happen is the title will be given to Louis, either during Charles’ reign or William’s, depending on when he marries and the availability of the title at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #4290  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:14 AM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Any changes to the present rules, whether to confer princely status on the child during the present reign or to withhold princely status from the child during the next reign, could also be applied with a simple announcement (as in the case of the Wessex children) instead of new Letters Patent.
Interesting thought I hadn't considered. Well, I've considered the latter, just not the former, which actually does seem equally possible, particularly if the Queen wants to treat this as a special case instead of issuing new Letters Patent. Indeed, seems quite similar to what we saw with the Wessex children.
Reply With Quote
  #4291  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:14 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 480
I read that Harry has decided that his son shouldn't use the subsidiary title of Earl of Dunbarton, does this mean that Archie is still the earl but not using the title, or is he not an earl at all?
Reply With Quote
  #4292  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:19 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,525
The Earl of Dumbarton is Harry's title. The eldest son has the right to use a secondary title of his father's as a courtesy. For example, James, the son of The Earl of Wessex uses his father's secondary title of Viscount Severn as a courtesy.

Archie could use his father's secondary title of Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy but he doesn't hold the title himself. The word "The" is what makes a difference.
__________________
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
  #4293  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I read that Harry has decided that his son shouldn't use the subsidiary title of Earl of Dunbarton, does this mean that Archie is still the earl but not using the title, or is he not an earl at all?

He was never the Earl. Harry is. He will only be the Earl if he survives his father. The heir to a Duke may use one of his father's subsidiary titles nly as a courtesy title, but the title is not his.
Reply With Quote
  #4294  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,460
Some reporters have stated that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH Prince at the time his grandfather becomes King. Are those reporters simply looking at the letters patent of 1917, or has the Palace itself confirmed that the 1917 letters patent will be followed for the Sussex children, unlike the Wessex children?
Reply With Quote
  #4295  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:33 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,525
As it stands now, when Charles becomes King, his grandchildren all are entitled to HRH Prince/ss. As no "will of the monarch" has been made known to state otherwise, that is what will happen.
__________________
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
  #4296  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Some reporters have stated that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH Prince at the time his grandfather becomes King. Are those reporters simply looking at the letters patent of 1917, or has the Palace itself confirmed that the 1917 letters patent will be followed for the Sussex children, unlike the Wessex children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
As it stands now, when Charles becomes King, his grandchildren all are entitled to HRH Prince/ss. As no "will of the monarch" has been made known to state otherwise, that is what will happen.
Yes, I understand that if Charles became King right at this moment, Archie would become legally HRH Prince. However, as you implied, the will of the monarch can decide otherwise.

Thus, my question was if the reports that Archie will become a Prince are based (only) on the letters patent, or if they are based on explicit confirmation from the Palace that the eventual King Charles does not intend to decide otherwise and he intends the letters patent to be followed.
Reply With Quote
  #4297  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:50 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Yes, I understand that if Charles became King right at this moment, Archie would become legally HRH Prince. However, as you implied, the will of the monarch can decide otherwise.

Thus, my question was if the reports that Archie will become a Prince are based (only) on the letters patent, or if they are based on explicit confirmation from the Palace that the eventual King Charles does not intend to decide otherwise and he intends the letters patent to be followed.
Right now, Charles cannot make "his will known" or decide. Only the monarch can hold that right to make "her will known" in these matters.

The Queen is content so far with the way things are. Nothing would have been announced (even the name of the child) if it didn't have HM's blessing to do so. Until a monarch deems that Archie will not carry the HRH Prince honorific, it stands that he will be once Charles is 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
  #4298  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:08 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,460
I understand the point you are making, but in my question I wasn't addressing the legalities. I am asking what, if anything, the Palace has explicitly said to reporters about the baby's eventual title when Charles becomes King.
Reply With Quote
  #4299  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I understand the point you are making, but in my question I wasn't addressing the legalities. I am asking what, if anything, the Palace has explicitly said to reporters about the baby's eventual title when Charles becomes King.
The palace can't say a thing at all. Charles isn't King yet and thats the point. As far as we know, the whole thing about Charles wanting to "slim down the monarchy" is pure rumor. There is nothing concrete on record of him stating that.

I think what a lot of people seem to remember, like I do, is that there used to be what was called the "Way Ahead" group. The senior members of the BRF sat down with advisors and courtiers and would map out a plan for the future. Its a reason why we have the code name "London Bridge" with the plans intact for when the Queen passes. When Diana died, they used the plan called Operation Tay Bridge, for the Queen Mum, to model Diana's funeral on.

The "Firm" and the BRF take the monarchy seriously and there's a lot that goes on that we never get an inkling of. Its why I believe that there's a lot going on right now under our noses to assure that the transition between reigns happens smoothly. For all we know, the "slimming down of the monarchy" could have had its roots in the 90s and is being slowly executed over time.

Royal reporters really don't know what the inner workings of the monarchy are like. They know what they have been told or get bits a pieces from "leaks".

Of course, I'm no expert but its 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
  #4300  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The palace can't say a thing at all. Charles isn't King yet and thats the point. As far as we know, the whole thing about Charles wanting to "slim down the monarchy" is pure rumor. There is nothing concrete on record of him stating that.
I don't think there is a restriction that forbids the palace from saying anything to reporters before Charles is King, should they wish. After all, the palace at one time made a statement about the future title of the Duchess of Cornwall, even if they have now reneged on that statement.

In this case, it is not clear to me whether or not the palace did say something to the reporters, and thus, I am asking in this forum.
__________________

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 767 Today 04:15 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
archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig birthday celebration bracelets british royal family charles of wales christian ix clothes countess of wessex crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher dailyfail daughter daughters denmark discussão duchess of sussex duchessofsussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex family search felipe vi forum french royalty germany hamdan bin mohammed head of the house jack brooksbank jerusalem juan carlos king letter meghan markle member mohammed vi monaco christening monarchism nelson mandela bay northampton official visit patron prince harry prince laurent princess beatrice princess claire princess royal public image queen elizabeth royal royal ladies royal tour rumania sarah duchess of york sarah ferguson siblings spain state visit sweden the crown tradition trump valois viscount severn windsor castle windy city



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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