Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

I said I believed the BRF would eventually stop using hereditary peerages. After all, the royal families of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg do just fine without them. And even within the BRF the practice is now limited to sons of the monarch or future monarch. Antony Armstrong-Jones was given a peerage but Angus Ogilvy, Mark Phillips, and Jack Brooksbank weren't. And members of the BRF are no longer expected to marry into titled families (Catherine Middleton & Meghan Markle, for example).

Why not? Because titles and hereditary peerages simply aren't as important than they once were. It's simply the way the world is progressing.

Hereditary titles of nobility are still ordinarily given out in countries like Belgium or Spain. In the Netherlands, Queen Beatrix gave hereditary titles to his son, Friso, and to Prince Constantijn's children. The title might survive if Claus-Casimir has male offspring. Ditto for the title of Count of Monpezat that will probably survive via at least one (and possibly more than one ) of Queen Margrethe II's grandsons.

 

[Gawin]

A thought came to mind now in regards to this, would this be the next step in getting rid of the monarchy all together now?

I don't think so. There's a difference between a monarch whose power is largely symbolic, versus a monarchy/aristocracy with actual political power. The UK has chosen to keep the monarchy (and the aristocracy) but strip them of their power. This allows the UK to keep the heritage/traditions they are proud of, but also become more democratic by transferring more power to the electorate.

The BRF survived the loss of their political power. I certainly don't think they'd collapse if they no longer had peerage titles. Princess Anne does just fine without one.

 

[Osipi]

No Problem if the future 10th Earl Spencer will have no sons as he has also a younger brother. Only if the younger brother also has no sons the Title will become extinct-

Y'know, I'd totally forgotten about Edmund as he's not mentioned too much.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The UK has finally rejected rule by a hereditary aristocracy, following in the footsteps of the USA, where it was rejected when our government was formed in the 1780s. At that time it was quite a revolutionary concept.

Not fully. There are 92 seats left in the House of Lords (currently 12% of the chamber) for which only hereditary peers are eligible.

 

[Gawin]

That's true, thank you for pointing that out. The hereditary peers still have some political power. But only a vestige, compared to the past. The British have been chipping away at the power of the House of Lords since the 1911 Parliament Act.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

There was some talk here back in Oct. and Nov. about the Queen issuing (or not issuing) new letters patent for the children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex re: HRH and Prince/Princess.

Some people pointed out that the 2012 LP's for the Cambridge children were issued (only) 4 weeks after Catherine's pregnancy (with George) was announced. When the four week mark was passed after Meghan's pregnancy with no announcement of LP's, talk died down and I believe many thought that no LP's would therefore be issued.

I however think that there's a reasonably good chance that new LP's could be issued today. Here's my thinking: While most people focused on the elapsed time between the announcement of the pregnancy and the issuance of the LP's; I took note more of the date. The Cambridge children LP's were issued December 31, 2012 (although not gazetted until January 8, 2013). Perhaps it was a little New Year's gift from Her Majesty to William and Catherine? A sort of internal family New Year's honours list.

Today being December 31, 2018, perhaps The Queen will issue (has issued) the same for Harry and Meghan. Of course that's if they even want it and if such LP's will ever be issued.

The above of course is just some idle New Year's eve musing but it wouldn't surprise me if it came to pass. Of course even if it did, we probably won't hear about it for another week or two when the LP's are gazetted.

I personally feel that if the Sussex children will eventually be HRH and Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King (which is what will happen if nothing else is proactively announced), then The Queen and family would probably want them to be royal from birth. If they decided to go the route of the Wessex children, then an announcement should be made sooner rather than later to avoid having them born without HRH, getting it briefly and then having it stripped.

Well, that's my two cents.

Happy New Year to all and all the best for a royally terrific 2019!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There was some talk here back in Oct. and Nov. about the Queen issuing (or not issuing) new letters patent for the children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex re: HRH and Prince/Princess.

Some people pointed out that the 2012 LP's for the Cambridge children were issued (only) 4 weeks after Catherine's pregnancy (with George) was announced. When the four week mark was passed after Meghan's pregnancy with no announcement of LP's, talk died down and I believe many thought that no LP's would therefore be issued.

I however think that there's a reasonably good chance that new LP's could be issued today. Here's my thinking: While most people focused on the elapsed time between the announcement of the pregnancy and the issuance of the LP's; I took note more of the date. The Cambridge children LP's were issued December 31, 2012 (although not gazetted until January 8, 2013). Perhaps it was a little New Year's gift from Her Majesty to William and Catherine? A sort of internal family New Year's honours list.

Today being December 31, 2018, perhaps The Queen will issue (has issued) the same for Harry and Meghan. Of course that's if they even want it and if such LP's will ever be issued.

The above of course is just some idle New Year's eve musing but it wouldn't surprise me if it came to pass. Of course even if it did, we probably won't hear about it for another week or two when the LP's are gazetted.

I personally feel that if the Sussex children will eventually be HRH and Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King (which is what will happen if nothing else is proactively announced), then The Queen and family would probably want them to be royal from birth. If they decided to go the route of the Wessex children, then an announcement should be made sooner rather than later to avoid having them born without HRH, getting it briefly and then having it stripped.

Well, that's my two cents.

Happy New Year to all and all the best for a royally terrific 2019!

I agree that New Year's eve or New Year's day would be a reasonable date for the issuance (or replacement) of letters patent if that is intended. However, an announcement regarding the Cambridge children being princes and princesses (

https://twitter.com/x/status/275680933762453504

) was made on the date of the pregnancy announcement (December 3, 2012), four weeks prior to the issuance of the Letters Patent on New Year's eve, so the timing of the announcement (if any) this time will differ from the Cambridges regardless of what may happen.

Happy New Year!

 

[Curryong]

I know this isn't the correct thread and I'm very sorry for this, but I can't use the Search button any more.

A couple of friends were discussing Meghan's pregnancy the other day and the fact that, if the Queen doesn't issue LPs, a son would be Earl Dumbarton. Now, that's fine as it is Harry's subsidiary title and so, following custom his son will receive it. However, Earl Dumbarton is also Harry's title when in Scotland.

Therefore, Scottish commentators describing a visit to Scotland by the Sussex family years into the future might well begin with 'The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with the Countess, followed by the Earl of Dumbarton.' A bit awkward?

 

[Dman]

Im really hoping we’ll be seeing a princess or prince of Sussex born this spring. I’m really hoping for that, Curryong.

 

[Osipi]

Interesting to say the least. I'm going to take your scenario and put how I think it would go. Lets name the son Moe for this exercise.

I think if it was reported it might go like this. "The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with The Countess, followed by Moe, Earl Dumbarton. It would differentiate between Harry's title with "The" and use the courtesy use of his father's secondary title for his son, Moe.

I might be totally off base with this but its my initial reaction. ?

 

[muriel]

My sense is that the Sussex children will not be given the HRH.

> This is a matter that will have been discussed within the family by now, and it is possible that H&M will choose to follow the path of the Wessex family

> Whilst the Sussex children will be entitled to be HRH under the 1917 LPs when Charles is King, and if that is indeed the route that H&M want to go down, my view is that the HRH should be granted at birth using new LPs.

> However, if in time Harry's children are not expected to be core working members of the Firm (quite like the York girls in the current set up), I can see the argument for Harry to request that they go down the Wessex route and do not have the HRH at all. The children will then be free to develop lives for themselves outside the Firm, yet be part of the family, like Peter and Zara are.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Exactly.

There has been recent speculation in the media:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...e-harry-royal-family-news-royal-baby-due-date

I think a lot of the commentary in this article is OTT speculation and inaccurate too regarding titles. It's my understanding that since Prince William's children are not currently the grandchildren of a monarch, the Queen had the LP issued in advance of Charlotte's birth so that all of William's children would be known as HRH Prince/Princess prior to Prince Charles acceding to the throne. Prince George had access to the title already since he is in direct line of succession to the throne. It makes sense to me that the LP action was taken in advance for William's additional offspring.

The article fails to mention the fact that Prince Andrew's children were given the HRH title. They were entitled to it by virtue of being born grandchildren of a reigning monarch (Andrew also preferred it for his children -- he surely could have declined if he wished).

We already know that Prince Harry is not keen on having been saddled with the title of 'Prince' as a teenager, therefore he may not want it for his children. Whether Harry and Meghan want HRH for their children or not, they are not entitled to HRH upon birth, unless Prince Charles is King, or unless LP are issued which I find unlikely (for the reasons already cited by @muriel). The question is whether any changes might be made regarding titles for the Sussex children when Charles inherits the throne. I do not think any changes will be made, and likely no announcement regarding titles until the baby is born and styled either ______ Earl of Dumbarton or Lady ________ Mountbatten-Windsor.

The thing about all of this is that especially the American media has no clue nor savvy about understanding the ins-and-outs of British royal titles. There has been and will continue to be numerous errors published and erroneous pontificating by the tabloids and talking heads. As we can see by now, that is not unusual when it comes to the media wrapping their heads around British royal family happenings and traditions.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Interesting to say the least. I'm going to take your scenario and put how I think it would go. Lets name the son Moe for this exercise.

I think if it was reported it might go like this. "The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with The Countess, followed by Moe, Earl Dumbarton. It would differentiate between Harry's title with "The" and use the courtesy use of his father's secondary title for his son, Moe.

I might be totally off base with this but its my initial reaction. ?

If Harry is in Scotland with his son, using the courtesy title, then Harry wouldn't also use it so it would be The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, accompanied by the Earl Dumbarton walked towards the crowd ...'

That is the way they have done it with the Gloucesters and Kents who don't use their secondary titles in Scotland or Northern Ireland because their sons and grandsons are known by those titles.

I know this isn't the correct thread and I'm very sorry for this, but I can't use the Search button any more.

A couple of friends were discussing Meghan's pregnancy the other day and the fact that, if the Queen doesn't issue LPs, a son would be Earl Dumbarton. Now, that's fine as it is Harry's subsidiary title and so, following custom his son with receive it. However, Earl Dumbarton is also Harry's title when in Scotland.

Therefore, Scottish commentators describing a visit to Scotland by the Sussex family years into the future might well begin with 'The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with the Countess, followed by the Earl of Dumbarton.' A bit awkward?

The Duke of Kent hasn't used his Scottish title - Earl of St Andrews since he had his son who uses it. Nor has the Duke of Gloucester used his Northern Irish title since he had a son to use it.

That would be the same for Harry. He simply wouldn't use the Scottish title - just as Andrew doesn't use Earl of Inverness anymore, even though he doesn't have a son to use it.

If the Queen doesn't issue any new Letters Patent, then Harry would be The Duke of Sussex in both England and Scotland.

Im really hoping we’ll be seeing a princess or prince of Sussex born this spring. I’m really hoping for that, Curryong.

If the reports of Charles wanting a smaller royal family are true then he has to start with his own family. He can't object to the size of the royal family when the only way to add to it is via his branch and with three HRH grandchildren already it looks like the BRF will expand under his leadership rather than shrink as he reportedly wants it to do.

The best way for him to actually reduce the size of the BRF is to have Harry follow Edward's lead and to not have his children ever styled as HRH and then at some point in the future - either Charles or William issue new LPs stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of HRH and restricting it to the children of the heir apparent only. That won't happen during the Queen's reign, nor I suspect while her cousins are still alive but I can see it happening either late in Charles' reign or early in William's especially when his second child is a girl who can't pass it on while the third child can despite their places in the line of succession.

 

[M. Payton]

Im really hoping we’ll be seeing a princess or prince of Sussex born this spring. I’m really hoping for that, Curryong.

I for one would love to see a healthy baby be the child a boy or girl. Titles are less importance then being healthy.....wanting a prince or princess shows the importance of what is important, a healthy baby or title........

 

[Osipi]

The article fails to mention the fact that Prince Andrew's children were given the HRH title, but that's because they were entitled to it by virtue of being born grandchildren of a reigning monarch (Andrew also preferred it for his children -- he surely could have declined if he wished).

Just one little significant factor here. By letters patent, Andrew's daughters were automatically princesses because they were born as granddaughters of a reigning monarch in the male line.. Anne's children were just as much grandchildren of a reigning monarch but were of a female line so they were not born prince/princesses.

I don't think it ever occurred to Andrew to have things happen any way but how they've always happened. It wasn't a question of preference at all.

If I'm not mistaken, it was Edward that first rocked the boat and requested that he children be known as the children of a Duke rather than an HRH.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Until Edward's request was announced in 1999 no one questioned the right of the York princesses to be exactly that.

I remember the joy that was expressed when Beatrice was born as there was a 'little princess to go with Diana's two princes'. People were glad to have a baby princess.

Then came the 90s and the questioning about the entire royal family and the way it functions and who should be royal and who shouldn't and its size and cost etc.

By the early part of the 2000s people were asking why Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses and not Louise and James and many made the erroneous suggestion (and belief) that Andrew demanded HRH for his children totally ignoring the fact that they are the children of the second son. The Queen was the child of the second son. In the Queen's generation there are also princes and a princess from the third and fourth sons but I do think the days of the younger children passing on royal status may have ended with Edward's decision going to be the norm (now watch the Queen issue the LPs for Harry's children overnight).

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Thanks as always for your wise input, @Iluvbertie.

Just one little significant factor here. By letters patent, Andrew's daughters were automatically princesses because they were born as granddaughters of a reigning monarch in the male line....

Yes, I know. That's exactly what I meant, though I may have expressed it awkwardly in my previous post. And okay, to be fair to Andrew, it wasn't a question of preference, just a matter of course that didn't require discussion. ?

If Prince Charles were already King, Prince Harry's children would 'automatically' be entitled to be styled HRH Prince/Princess too. But for the reasons previously cited, and despite any automatic entitlement if Charles were King, it's not certain the Sussex children would or will ever be styled HRH.

Talking about the ins-and-outs of these British monarchy styles/titles/traditions is like saying 'Supercalifragilistic' very fast 20 times in succession. ?

 

[Terri Terri]

I sincerely hope that Harry and Meghan's children DO NOT have HRH Prince/Princess titles. I think that it will be far easier for them to grow up being able to do whatever they want in life while still having the benefit of royal connections.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I sincerely hope that Harry and Meghan's children DO NOT have HRH Prince/Princess titles. I think that it will be far easier for them to grow up being able to do whatever they want in life while still having the benefit of royal connections.

Right, a la Viscount Severn, Lady Louise, Zara and Peter Phillips and their offspring.

However, the tabloid press and the less than royally knowledgeable U.S. media will buzz about the Sussex children not having HRH Prince/Princess titles. The tabloid press is already cluelessly and nonsensically braying about lack of HRH titles somehow being a snub. So silly and pointless. As someone mentioned earlier in the Sussex baby thread (possibly it was you Terri Terri), the most important thing is that the baby be healthy and grow up happy and fulfilled.

 

[Terri Terri]

Yes, we can expect the usual 'SBUB' stories if they do go the non-title route.

 

[tommy100]

Personally I think it is better they don't have titles, having HRH means they will automatically have a heap of expectations placed upon them. I think Harry the Queen and Charles will all be aware of the way the media have treated the York girls and if we are honest with the Cambridge's having 3 children already they is likely to be little need for the Sussex children to undertake public duties in time. I honestly think its easier for this child not to have a title, my understanding is that when Charles becomes King the child would become Prince/Princess anyway (although if i were Harry and Meghan I would be pushing for that not to happen).

 

[MaiaMia_53]

By consensus, most of us are suspecting it's not going to happen for reasons already discussed.

 

[Biri]

And in the next generation only Prince George's children will be HRH Prince/Princess?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Just one little significant factor here. By letters patent, Andrew's daughters were automatically princesses because they were born as granddaughters of a reigning monarch in the male line.. Anne's children were just as much grandchildren of a reigning monarch but were of a female line so they were not born prince/princesses.

I don't think it ever occurred to Andrew to have things happen any way but how they've always happened. It wasn't a question of preference at all.

Until Edward's request was announced in 1999 no one questioned the right of the York princesses to be exactly that.

I remember the joy that was expressed when Beatrice was born as there was a 'little princess to go with Diana's two princes'. People were glad to have a baby princess.

Were there any questions in the media before her birth about Prince Andrew's children potentially not being HRH either by request or by changes to the rules of 1917?

Did anybody speculate, prior to the birth Princess Anne's children, that they might be granted the HRH?

The tabloid press is already cluelessly and nonsensically braying about lack of HRH titles somehow being a snub. So silly and pointless.

What are the reasons alleged by the tabloid(s) in question for the snubbing (from the tabloid's point of view) of the Phillips, Wessex, Armstrong-Jones, Gloucester, Kent, and Ogilvy children?

my understanding is that when Charles becomes King the child would become Prince/Princess anyway

Under the rules of the 1917 Letters Patent, but the Letters Patent could be changed or repealed. Considering the introduction of gender equality in the inheritance of the crown in 2015, it is long overdue.

 

[Madame Verseau]

I would like to see Baby Sussex get HRH because the child will be a grandchild of a future monarch. And HRH or not the baby makes history as a child of African American heritage will be a legal successor to the British throne. There will be interest in Baby Sussex no matter his/her place in the line of succession .

 

[MaiaMia_53]

... What are the reasons alleged by the tabloid(s) in question for the snubbing (from the tabloid's point of view) of the Phillips, Wessex, Armstrong-Jones, Gloucester, Kent, and Ogilvy children?...

As usual, it was just a bit of dog-whistling and making things up by the tabloid press. See the article I linked in my post #3 if you are interested in reading. They obviously don't give any reasons. They just used the words 'royal snub' in the headline to get the clicks.

 

[alvinking]

The Duke of Kent hasn't used his Scottish title - Earl of St Andrews since he had his son who uses it. Nor has the Duke of Gloucester used his Northern Irish title since he had a son to use it.

That would be the same for Harry. He simply wouldn't use the Scottish title - just as Andrew doesn't use Earl of Inverness anymore, even though he doesn't have a son to use it.

If the Queen doesn't issue any new Letters Patent, then Harry would be The Duke of Sussex in both England and Scotland.

This is factually wrong. When in Scotland, the Duke of York is addressed as HRH The Earl of Inverness, just like when the Prince of Wales is in Scotland, he is addressed as HRH The Duke of Rothesay, Prince William is addressed as HRH The Earl of Strathearn, and Prince Harry is addressed as HRH The Earl of Dumbarton. It may seem small and unimportant but it is important for the people of Scotland. Even their Coat of Arms change in Scotland although the variations may be subtle for the untrained eyes. Even today some in Scotland are not over the Queen Elizabeth II, she is Queen Elizabeth I in scotland since Queen Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scots.

 

[ACO]

They will do what is best for their children and the monarchy. Though as the children of Harry and Meghan, they will never have normal lives. Title or not. So the suggestion that not being HRH will be easier on them rings false to me. I am not expecting HRH but I won't be surprised either way. I do agree up-thread that if the plan is for them to be HRH when Charles becomes King then they should just do it at birth.

 

[Somebody]

I would like to see Baby Sussex get HRH because the child will be a grandchild of a future monarch. And HRH or not the baby makes history as a child of African American heritage will be a legal successor to the British throne. There will be interest in Baby Sussex no matter his/her place in the line of succession .

The baby having African American heritage should not in any way influence a decision on whether s/he will be a royal highness. Neither in a negative nor in a positive way. As long as Louise and James, who are grandchildren in maleline of the current monarch, aren't royal highnesses, Harry's children shouldn't be either imo.

In addition, while I understand the BRF is considered more important than other monarchies, the Liechtenstein princely family already has a biracial prince who is 7th in line to the throne (the same spot baby Sussex will have). The Danish have two princes from partly Asian descent who were born 3rd and 4th in line. And the BRF has children of Maori descent in their midst. So, whilst it's not common, it is certainly no exception that members of European royal families are ethnically diverse.

 

[Mbruno]

I know this isn't the correct thread and I'm very sorry for this, but I can't use the Search button any more.

A couple of friends were discussing Meghan's pregnancy the other day and the fact that, if the Queen doesn't issue LPs, a son would be Earl Dumbarton. Now, that's fine as it is Harry's subsidiary title and so, following custom his son will receive it. However, Earl Dumbarton is also Harry's title when in Scotland.

Therefore, Scottish commentators describing a visit to Scotland by the Sussex family years into the future might well begin with 'The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with the Countess, followed by the Earl of Dumbarton.' A bit awkward?

The Duke of Cambridge is not called the Earl of Strathearn in Scotland, so I wouldn't expect the Duke of Sussex to be called the Earl of Dumbarton either.