The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1641  
Old 11-21-2012, 01:04 AM
McKeen's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 61
That sounds reasonable to me. It's hard for me to imagine that Charles would strip the HRH just because he doesn't like them. But with the change to an eldest child inheriting the throne regardless of gender perhaps a change would be to have only the children of the heir apparent and monarch be HRH instead of letting male line grandchildren have it, i.e. Andrew's daughters are princesses and Anne's children have no titles.

I wonder if this will change with the change to the oldest child rather than oldest son being able to inherit the throne?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1642  
Old 11-21-2012, 03:07 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by McKeen View Post
I wonder if this will change with the change to the oldest child rather than oldest son being able to inherit the throne?
That's a thought that came to me recently too. Up until now, the bloodline of the royal house has been male line descent. Would equal primogeniture of the heir apparent also mean that the matriarchal line be just as valid as the patriarchal line?
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1643  
Old 11-21-2012, 04:28 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by McKeen

That sounds reasonable to me. It's hard for me to imagine that Charles would strip the HRH just because he doesn't like them. But with the change to an eldest child inheriting the throne regardless of gender perhaps a change would be to have only the children of the heir apparent and monarch be HRH instead of letting male line grandchildren have it, i.e. Andrew's daughters are princesses and Anne's children have no titles.
Equal primogeniture has yet to be signed into law.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1644  
Old 11-21-2012, 08:56 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Being a Royal Highness means you are expected to carry out public duties on behalf of The Sovereign as a working member of the family. The reality is Beatrice and Eugenie are not going to be doing that in the future.

The public's expectations have evolved to a general consensus that the senior members of the family who are serving should be supported. Everyone else should be living their own lives without any indirect cost to the taxpayers.

In line with that, the family should be downsized in terms of HRH to reflect the new realities.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1645  
Old 11-21-2012, 01:02 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 840
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH. They may be "advised" to completely lower their "profile" and they will most likely never be "working royals". So even with HRH, they will be practically living like Peter and Zara.
If "reforms' are really needed, Charles should start with his own family. He should limit HRH Prince(ess) to only William's kids, and not Harry's kids. Because harry's kids are going to be Beatrice and Eugenie of next generation..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1646  
Old 11-21-2012, 01:36 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
...I think Charles will deprive them simply because he doesn't like Andrew all that much and apparently has little time for the girls or Sarah - if various reports are to believed he called them 'twits' or something else equally unsavoury (twits in case you don't know is a colloquial term meaning 'idiot' - hardly flattering).
I dont understand why so many people are hell-bent to 'believe' that Charles hates his brothers, their wives and kids, and thinks they are useless. Is there any 'authentic' source for that (not inside' ones)? just because he doesnt kiss them or hug them or paste a broad smile or adoring look in front of media, doesnt mean he hates them.
And why Charles..Is may be very much the Queen's idea to downstream the royal family..She herself did it in Diamond Jubilee..She must have advised Charles to plan for future,,
Why do we mix Business and Family?
Giving HRH, getting on balcony, giving KG/KT/GCVO, Civil List is all business. Anyone in his place has to bring reforms, for the institution to survive.
Dealing with your family, siblings, nieces their lives is all personal family thing.
The latter need not be announced/exhibited in front of media..
I am surprised so many mix up these two, making charles someone who cant love anyone or who hates everyone and planning to torture them when he becomes King..attributing all negativity to him..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1647  
Old 11-21-2012, 02:20 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH.
Sorry, but there is a question of stripping them of their titles. You cannot say for certain that there isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
I dont understand why so many people are hell-bent to 'believe' that Charles hates his brothers, their wives and kids, and thinks they are useless.
Nobody has ever said that Charles hates his brothers, or their children or that he thinks they are useless. You will find no reports to confirm this theory, neither will you find anything where Charles stated he wished to scale down the monarchy. Everything comes from 'senior figures' and 'sources'. But on an official ceremony like the Diamond Jubilee, and you only see William, Catherine and Henry on the balcony - would you think otherwise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
And why Charles..Is may be very much the Queen's idea to downstream the royal family..She herself did it in Diamond Jubilee..She must have advised Charles to plan for future,,
And many people say that the appearances at the Diamond Jubilee were ideas given to The Queen by Charles, who several say is 'running the show'. I don't see what Charles has to plan for, of all the futures in the world his is almost set out for him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
Why do we mix Business and Family?
You do realise which family you are referring to don't you? In royal families, business and family mix all the time. Their job is their title, which they get as a family, simply by being born. If the 90s showed anyone anything is that royal family life definitely mixes, heavily with business. Taking away someone's HRH, someone who's lived with it all their lives, is a big deal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
I am surprised so many mix up these two, making charles someone who cant love anyone or who hates everyone and planning to torture them when he becomes King..attributing all negativity to him..
Could you please show me where anyone suggested that Charles would torture his nieces when he becomes King? Where did anyone say he can't love anyone?


As male line grandchildren, Beatrice and Eugenie are entitled to their titles. So let them keep them. These are provisions set out in 1917, and in the years to come the royal family is going to shrink and shrink until only 5 people are left to do the job of 15.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1648  
Old 11-21-2012, 02:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Nobody has ever said that Charles hates his brothers, or their children or that he thinks they are useless. You will find no reports to confirm this theory, neither will you find anything where Charles stated he wished to scale down the monarchy.
Actually if you read back a couple of pages you will find posters who claim that Charles does feel his brothers are useless and his nieces are twits, but you are correct I have never seen any indication of that from Charles himself or read of any such claims from his staff.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1649  
Old 11-21-2012, 02:53 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,400
I think The Prince of Wales love his sibilings and truly appreciate their contribution to the work of the "Firm." I also think he love and adore his nieces. I think The Queen is the one that really wanted to present the future of the Monarchy in her Jubilee year. I also think we may see this same thing for her Coronation celebrations next year.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1650  
Old 11-21-2012, 02:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,354
I don't see that it is anything to do with the public what titles a person holds - and HRH Prince/Princess is simply a title.

They aren't supported by the public so it is none of the public's business if they are called Lady Beatrice/Lady Eugenie or Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie - they are still titles and they get them from their father.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1651  
Old 11-21-2012, 03:13 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Actually if you read back a couple of pages you will find posters who claim that Charles does feel his brothers are useless and his nieces are twits, but you are correct I have never seen any indication of that from Charles himself or read of any such claims from his staff.
Thansks NGalitzine..I did find such posts thats why I said. I could have quoted all of them but didnt know how to quote more than one post. Lumutqueen in simply pouncing on me..

And Lumutqueen..here are some clarifications..

Not mixing business and family..I mean that because Charles doesnt give his brothers KT or make his nieces working royals, doesnt mean he doesnt like them..Both are different..Got it?

And regarding reforms, whatever they may be, what I say is Charles may not be fully responsible. Queen and DoE would have thoroughly discussed with him what all is going to happen once they pop off, and put forth their views and suggestions. The trimming of family on Balcony might very well be their own idea as much as we think its Charles'.

You are not getting that point because a few pages back people were just mixing up things saying Charles will downgrade them just because he doesnt like them and all..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1652  
Old 11-21-2012, 03:20 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish

Not mixing business and family..I mean that because Charles doesnt give his brothers KT or make his nieces working royals, doesnt mean he doesnt like them..Both are different..Got it?
Actually, I don't. Because Charles can't do either of the things you suggest whether he wishes to or not.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1653  
Old 11-21-2012, 07:30 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
I think it will be the same as the Kents and the Gloucesters. An apartment in a palace in exchange for royal appearances here and there. It will be the status quo. The K&Gs were once in the same positions. They are no longer directs, and their children are not Royal. Charles is still very much into some traditions. He has two children, like his grandfather, and the Royal family was small. It ebbes and flows in size. A thousand years people, it all repeats itself, but survival is the utmost. I am sure in the last few hundred years, the monarchy was not asked to limit numbers digging in the Privy Purse.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1654  
Old 11-21-2012, 07:49 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH. They may be "advised" to completely lower their "profile" and they will most likely never be "working royals". So even with HRH, they will be practically living like Peter and Zara.
If "reforms' are really needed, Charles should start with his own family. He should limit HRH Prince(ess) to only William's kids, and not Harry's kids. Because harry's kids are going to be Beatrice and Eugenie of next generation..
That's exactly what a lot of people on this forum are saying.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1655  
Old 11-21-2012, 08:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH. They may be "advised" to completely lower their "profile" and they will most likely never be "working royals". So even with HRH, they will be practically living like Peter and Zara.
If "reforms' are really needed, Charles should start with his own family. He should limit HRH Prince(ess) to only William's kids, and not Harry's kids. Because harry's kids are going to be Beatrice and Eugenie of next generation..
Well it would not be without some precedence. HH Prince Alistar of Connaught lost his rank as a British prince under the 1917 Letters Patent and became Lord MacDuff. Although George V did not officially remove the style and title from HH Princess Maud of Fife he simply decided that on her marriage she should become known as Lady Carnegie. Something similar could happen to Beatrice and Eugenie on their marriages, becoming Lady Beatrice Smith and Lady Eugenie Jones even if their husbands are not titled themselves. There are always ways around things if the monarch wants it to happen. One thing about the British monarchy is that it is very adaptable which is likely why it has survived so long.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1656  
Old 11-21-2012, 08:37 PM
kbk kbk is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toruń, Poland
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Well it would not be without some precedence. HH Prince Alistar of Connaught lost his rank as a British prince under the 1917 Letters Patent and became Lord MacDuff.
Interesting is that when Alastair was born, his status and title was not obvious for many. So there were certain projects to regulate the King's first cousin once removed's status and title through a Letters Patent. There were sugggestions made to the King that he should confirm in there Alastair's status and title of Prince, the same what he did with the children of the Duke of Brunswick, for whom he confirmed their titles and status of British princes as male-line descendants of George III. But, the said 1917 changes put the question of personal Letters Patent on Alastair away and he became stripped of his status by limiting it to only two (plus the eldest of the PoW's eldest).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Although George V did not officially remove the style and title from HH Princess Maud of Fife he simply decided that on her marriage she should become known as Lady Carnegie.
But the Letters Patent of 1917 you are referring to did not implicate the Princess Louise's daughters' styles and titles. Their royal status came from their grandfather Edward VII's decision and George V did not take any actions to remove or alternate his father's will on that. He did not like it that the Fife girls were given royal status while being female-line descended from a monarch and he even did not want to allow his nieces to wear Princesses' robes at his coronation. Are you sure it was under his pressure that Maud of Fife chose to not use her princely title and royal style after her marriage to Lord Carnegie? Maybe she just wanted it? Patricia of Connaught did the same.

And anyway, both Maud of Fife and Patrcia of Connaught formally remained Princesses of the UK and their status was unchanged. It was a matter of style and address only. Do we think of the same for a potential removal of the York girls' royal status?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1657  
Old 11-21-2012, 08:57 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,319
reform is not required - evolution is doing the job instead. The Kents and Glos. have something like 10-15 years left; Anne about 20; Andrew 25; Sophie and Edward - about 25-30. But all of these reducing in capacity over those time scales. Thse will not be "replaced" by their children. So the family will reduce.

Charles will not, I think, take any drastic action. New LPs will depend on the marriages/off-spring of William and Harry. Lots of children by both is a different future and requirement to, say, Harry or William not having any children. The scale of this will see whether or not Harry's children would be Prince/Princeess

If neither have any children then HRH Princess Beatrice and her children take a position centre stage. So all options should remain available
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1658  
Old 11-21-2012, 09:00 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Exactly. Natural Selection.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1659  
Old 11-22-2012, 09:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
During the funeral for the Queen Mother, Garter styled her as the "Most high, most mighty and most excellent Princess Elisabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother"

Is this the usual formal style for a deceased queen consort or did HM specially grant her mum this style for her funeral?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1660  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
It was granted by The Queen as the correct style would have been The Princess Albert. But since she granted her two aunts the courtesy of using their names, of course she would certainly do the same for her mother when reciting her styles and titles at her funeral.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:20 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]