Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Lumutqueen]

Yes.



https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html

B. Child Born in Wedlock [6]



[...]



3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent [9]



A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:



•One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and

​

•The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.​

I don’t think that’s going to be so for the children of a member of the royal family. There will be all sorts of issues.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don’t think that’s going to be so for the children of a member of the royal family. There will be all sorts of issues.

But how would an exception be pursued, given that the British royal family has no jurisdiction over American citizenship law?

 

[Mbruno]

But how would an exception be pursued, given that the British royal family has no jurisdiction over American citizenship law?

In any case, I am pretty sure the Sussex kids will renounce their US citizenship as adults. Even a politician like Boris Johnson did it. I would expect a prince or princess of the United Kingdom to do the same.


Meghan IMHO, unless she gets an early divorce (which is unlikely), will probably renounce her US citizenship too.


BTW, I think there is a special forum for this topic, isn't there ?

 

[Lumutqueen]

But how would an exception be pursued, given that the British royal family has no jurisdiction over American citizenship law?

I don’t think it’s a case for an exception, I don’t think they’ll hold dual citizenship from birth. There is I imagine a legal way around this for royals that we don’t know about.

 

[Fijiro]

I don’t think it’s a case for an exception, I don’t think they’ll hold dual citizenship from birth. There is I imagine a legal way around this for royals that we don’t know about.

The American citizenship law, the Sussex child(ren) will have dual- British/American citizen(s) by birth through their mother who is an American citizen at the time of their birth. He/she/they can renounce their American citizenship by their 18th birthday. Since they'll probably not be prince/princess or working royals, they'll probably keep it.

 

[Somebody]

I don’t think it’s a case for an exception, I don’t think they’ll hold dual citizenship from birth. There is I imagine a legal way around this for royals that we don’t know about.

But wouldn't that count as an exception. The easiest way would have been to grant Meghan British citizenship so she could renounce her American citizenship. As they explicitly stated she would not do that but follow the normal procedure the logical consequence is that her children will be American as well.

Related to this issue, I still think she should have been granted citizenship based on the fact that from the moment she got married she was expected to represent the UK. So, on what passport is she currently travelling? The UK cannot give her a diplomatic passport and she does not occupy an American position that would qualify for a diplomatic passport either. Nonetheless, I expect her to be travelling on a diplomatic passport somehow, so if that is indeed the case the messags of 'all normal procedure apply to her as well, no exceptions are made' is misleading. As a member of the royal family she enjoys certain privileges, so best to be open about it instead of conceal it.

 

[jacqui24]

I don’t think it’s a case for an exception, I don’t think they’ll hold dual citizenship from birth. There is I imagine a legal way around this for royals that we don’t know about.

It’s unlikely. Prince Albert renounced his US citizenship as an adult since Princess Grace remained a US citizen. Baby Sussex will be a US citizen from birth unless they now all of sudden decides to fast track Meghan’s British citizenship and have her renounce her US citizenship before birth. I highly doubt this would happen, but that’s why some of us though her citizenship would be granted at the time of marriage. Given her age, I would expect dual citizenship for any children they might have. Which isn’t a bad thing for them when they get older in terms of leading a private life.

The US law doesn’t care if someone is a foreign royal or not. It applies to everyone that falls into these categories. And by the requirements outlined, any Sussex children would be US citizens from birth.

In any case, I am pretty sure the Sussex kids will renounce their US citizenship as adults. Even a politician like Boris Johnson did it. I would expect a prince or princess of the United Kingdom to do the same.


?

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. It would depend on where they choose to lead their lives and what is the best solution for their lives. Boris Johnson renounced his US citizenship because of tax implications. However, none of us know if it’s a guarantee that Sussex child(ren) would chose to live in UK as adults.

 

[Fijiro]

Case in point - Princess Madeleine of Sweden is married to a British/American citizen - their three children, who are titled Prince and Princesses of Sweden, have dual citizenship.

It’s unlikely. Prince Albert renounced his US citizenship as an adult since Princess Grace remained a US citizen. Baby Sussex will be a US citizen from birth unless they now all of sudden decides to fast track Meghan’s British citizenship and have her renounce her US citizenship before birth. I highly doubt this would happen, but that’s why some of us though her citizenship would be granted at the time of marriage. Given her age, I would expect dual citizenship for any children they might have. Which isn’t a bad thing for them when they get older in terms of leading a private life.

The US law doesn’t care if someone is a foreign royal or not. It applies to everyone that falls into these categories. And by the requirements outlined, any Sussex children would be US citizens from birth.

I imagine Prince Albert had to renounce his US Citizenship to become the reigning monarch of the Principality of Monaco. I wonder if his sisters kept theirs.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I wouldn't rule out that the Sussex children NOT renouncing their US citizenship. In 30+ years time, it is very probable that William and Catherine are King and Queen, George is the Prince of Wales and Charlotte, Louis, Harry and Meghan would be working as senior royals. Then including spouses of George, Charlotte and Louis, the requirement for the Sussex chuildren to be full-time Royals wouldn't be a necessity. Holding a US citizenship would be advantageous.

As we have discussed extensively in the Swedish royal forums, Princess Madeleine's children won't remain princes/princesses of Sweden if they don't move back to Sweden permanently by the time they are of school age. They are not required to give up their dual citizenship, but the Swedish Act of Succession requires that they be "raised in the realm".

No, Princess Madeleine's children will be removed from the Line of Succession if they are not raised in Sweden. They will still keep their titles.

 

[jacqui24]

Whereas it is true that US law doesn't care if a private citizen is a foreign royal , my understanding of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the US constitution (the so-called "Emoluments Clause") is that , unless authorized by the Congress, the Sussex children, as foreign princes, will be automatically barred from [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]holding "any Office of Profit or Trust under the United States" even if they remain US citizens. Is that correct ?
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Anyway, I stand by my previous statement: as long as the Sussex children remain princes/princesses of the United Kingdom, it is inconceivable to me that they will not renounce their US citizenship as adults.[/FONT] [/FONT]

Whether or not they can hold office has nothing to do with if they’ll be US citizen from birth. That’s another discussion entirely. I imagine the issue of if a royal so closely related to the monarch, even one that does not carry out engagement, should be permitted to run for political office would be much more of an issue. In US, their titles aren’t recognized but used as a curtesy. And I’m not understanding why they can’t keep their dual citizenship as adults if they wish. Their mother carries out work representing the monarch not even as a dual citizen, but solely a US citizen. And they will spend the first 18 years of their lives with dual citizenship.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Off-topic, but all Princes of Sweden in the past who were excluded from the line of succession also lost their princely titles and their duchies.


Second, the actual text of the Act of Succession (English translation here ) does not in fact say that being raised overseas implies losing succession rights (in the same way as leaving the Church of Sweden or marrying without consent explicitly do). What it says is simply that "princes and princesses of the Royal House are [...] brought up in the realm". The logical implication is that being brought up in the realm is a necessary condition to be a prince or princess of Sweden and, accordingly, that being raised overseas causes one to lose the title.

The difference is that they lost their titles due to their morganatic marriage. The 1980 changes in the Act of Succession abolished that rule. The Act also only discussed membership in the line of succession, not titles. And this is where the grey area commences. Madeleine's children may have their (and their descendent's) membership removed, but still keep their titles if they are deemed not brought up in the realm. Unless tested, we will not know what the outcome is. We wait with bated breath......

Whether or not they can hold office has nothing to do with if they’ll be US citizen from birth. That’s another discussion entirely. I imagine the issue of if a royal so closely related to the monarch, even one that does not carry out engagement, should be permitted to run for political office would be much more of an issue. In US, their titles aren’t recognized but used as a curtesy. And I’m understanding why they can’t keep their dual citizenship as adults if they wish. Their mother carries out work representing the monarch not even as a dual citizen, but solely a US citizen. And they will spend the first 18 years of their lives with dual citizenship.

How would the American public react is a Sussex child, who is the niece/nehew of the King of England, wanting to be a President of the US? Would that make American citizens uneasy?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

How would the American public react is a Sussex child, who is the niece/nehew of the King of England, wanting to be a President of the US? Would that make American citizens uneasy?

I think that unless the Sussex child came to the U.S. for college and stayed to work as an adult, there would be a slim to none chance of them being accepted as a presidential candidate. And their citizenship would be highly scrutinized and questioned.

 

[jacqui24]

I think that unless the Sussex child came to the U.S. for college and stayed to work as an adult, there would be a slim to none chance of them being accepted as a presidential candidate. And their citizenship would be highly scrutinized and questioned.

There is requirement for US President to have lived in US for a certain number of years. But I think it’s a bit much to discuss what if a child has not even been born yet runs for President. The discussion only started as the child will be US citizen from birth and throughout their childhood. There is no way around it.

 

[Mbruno]

There is requirement for US President to have lived in US for a certain number of years. But I think it’s a bit much to discuss what if a child has not even been born yet runs for President. The discussion only started as the child will be US citizen from birth and throughout their childhood. There is no way around it.

Necessary requirements to be eligible to the office of President of the United States:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](5) No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]I suppose the boldfaced part pretty much rules out the Sussex kids unless they move to the US as adults. [/FONT]

 

[MaiaMia_53]

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.

Yes, but then your highlighted comments about the Wessex children really don't have any direct bearing on the way the Duke & Duchess of Sussex's children will be styled. That was a mutual decision made by HM the Queen along with Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, on behalf of Louise and James. Reported in Royal Musings:
"Several years ago, in an interview, their mother, Sophie, told a reporter that she knew that her kids were royal, despite their style."

When Prince Charles becomes King, the Sussex children will be entitled to the HRH styling (similar to the entitlement the Wessex children have). But the general consensus is that Charles will issue a LP when he ascends the throne further clarifying and leaving no doubt that only the eldest progeny of the eldest progeny in direct line to the throne will be styled HRH.

Clearly the reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with the background and heritage of any royal spouse. And in any case, there's every reason to believe that Harry specifically does not want to burden his children with a title he himself chafed at. I'm sure the Sussexes would like their children to lead private lives as much as possible, and not have to shoulder the burdens of royal status. It's enough that they will be part of the British royal family and have a considerable measure of stature and access.

Observations in your last paragraph are obviously true, but those facts are not widely known or celebrated. A lot of people know about Princess Grace, but few people know about Princess Angela of Liechtenstein (formerly Angela Brown, Panamanian-born & New York City bred). Her maiden name is ironically very descriptive of her skin color too. Her son, Prince Alfonso, in looks, reminds me a lot of my own brother when he was a teenager.

It's funny that you mention Princess Angela, as I was going to point out how her title demonstrates that the way royals and royal spouses are styled differs among other European royal houses. The same for Monaco's former Princess Grace, and now Prince Albert's wife, Princess Charlene. Neither Angela, Grace, nor Charlene of Monaco are blood royal princesses, but they are able to use Princess in front of their given names.

Here's the Royal Musings article that discusses LP and titles changes adjusted within the British monarchy across the years:
Royal Musings: What was George V thinking?

 

[alvinking]

Her name is not Charlotte but Charlene SMH

 

[Somebody]

Yes, but then your highlighted comments about the Wessex children really don't have any direct bearing on the way the Duke & Duchess of Sussex's children will be styled. That was a mutual decision made by HM the Queen along with Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, on behalf of Louise and James. Reported in Royal Musings:
"Several years ago, in an interview, their mother, Sophie, told a reporter that she knew that her kids were royal, despite their style."

Formally it doesn't but as I have stated time and time again in my opinion it should have a direct bearing (which is why I used the modal 'should' and 'imo'). It is unfair and inconsistent to grant Harry and Meghan's children the HRH-style as long as Harry's cousins who are in exactly the same position (children of a younger son) don't have that same style.

When Prince Charles becomes King, the Sussex children will be entitled to the HRH styling (similar to the entitlement the Wessex children had). But the general consensus is that Charles will issue a LP when he ascends the throne further clarifying and leaving no doubt that only the eldest progeny of the eldest progeny in direct line to the throne will be styled HRH.

Clearly the reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with the background and heritage of any royal spouse. And in any case, there's every reason to believe that Harry specifically does not want to burden his children with a title he himself chafed at. I'm sure the Sussexes would like their children to lead private lives as much as possible, and not have to shoulder the burdens of royal status. It's enough that they will be part of the British royal family and have a considerable measure of stature and access.

I am fully aware that they are entitled to the HRH-style as soon as Charles ascends the throne but it is only right if either all male-line grandchildren of a monarch share that style or if the new rule applies to all who were born after that new rule was introduced (so I don't advocate for stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their style). What will happen remains to be seen but as long as they are consistent I am ok with it (not that my opinion matters ?)

Observations in your last paragraph are obviously true, but those facts are not widely known or celebrated. A lot of people know about Princess Grace, but few people know about Princess Angela of Liechtenstein (formerly Angela Brown, Panamanian-born & New York City bred). Her maiden name is ironically very descriptive of her skin color too. Her son, Prince Alfonso, in looks, reminds me a lot of my own brother when he was a teenager.

It's funny that you mention Princess Angela, as I was going to point out how her title demonstrates that the way royals and royal spouses are styled differs among other European royal houses. The same for Monaco's former Princess Grace, and now Prince Albert's wife, Princess Charlotte. Neither Angela, Grace, nor Charlotte of Monaco are blood royal princesses, but they are able to use Princess in front of their given names.

Here's the Royal Musings article that discusses LP and titles changes adjusted within the British monarchy accross the years:
Royal Musings: What was George V thinking?

Yes, it's always interesting to see how traditions and practices differ among royal families. And it shows that we must be careful to apply the practices of one country to another. Another really important difference is whether a title is only passed on to the eldest son or to all (male-line) members of the family. The UK and Spain seem to practice the first and many other countries/traditions the second.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Her name is not Charlotte but Charlene SMH

Thanks for the correction. I always get Charlene's name mixed-up. She's the former Zimbabwaian-South African swimmer, with blond good looks similar to that of Princess Grace.

 

[Osipi]

It is unfair and inconsistent to grant Harry and Meghan's children the HRH-style as long as Harry's cousins who are in exactly the same position (children of a younger son) don't have that same style,

Its all a matter of perspective too. Perhaps Harry and Meghan would feel its unfair and inconsistent in not being allowed to withhold the HRH style from their children like Edward and Sophie were allowed to do.

To us, being a HRH and a Prince or Princess sounds like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow whereas to some of those HRHs that have borne the title and style for their entire lives, feel like its a giant millstone around their necks.

I state "allowed" rather than "granted" because its my understanding that Edward and Sophie wanted the HRH rescinded and the Queen assented to their request.

 

[jacqui24]

I am fully aware that they are entitled to the HRH-style as soon as Charles ascends the throne but it is only right if either all male-line grandchildren of a monarch share that style or if the new rule applies to all who were born after that new rule was introduced (so I don't advocate for stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their style). What will happen remains to be seen but as long as they are consistent I am ok with it (not that my opinion matters ?)
.

A new “rule” was not introduced. Her Majesty didn’t change the LP for future generations. Only the Wessex children.

 

[Rudolph]

But it does set a precedent. I said in a previous post that it’s unlikely there’ll be an announcement regarding Harry’s kids.

Meghan’s due date is known to HM and it’s unlikely she’d wait until the last minute if she was to change the custom.

With the Cambridge children the announcement came 6 months out.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Formally it doesn't but as I have stated time and time again in my opinion it should have a direct bearing (which is why I used the modal 'should' and 'imo'). It is unfair and inconsistent to grant Harry and Meghan's children the HRH-style as long as Harry's cousins who are in exactly the same position (children of a younger son) don't have that same style.

The topic of British styles and titles is interesting. And it's cool learning about it (even though it's very difficult to follow). Clearly, there are reasons why titles and styles have changed over the years. The British monarchy has a lot of convoluted reasoning too. Endlessly fascinating, but usually there's a reason behind the old-fashioned unwritten rules, traditions, and protocol, re the difficult to understand granting of styles and titles. Often monarchs in the past made decisions at will, and sometimes unaccountably.

In any case, re your highlighted comments, I have to laugh, because whether it's fair or not, what's decided has little to do with observers on the sidelines. ? Probably Louise and James don't mind in the least.

I am fully aware that they are entitled to the HRH-style as soon as Charles ascends the throne but it is only right if either all male-line grandchildren of a monarch share that style or if the new rule applies to all who were born after that new rule was introduced (so I don't advocate for stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their style). What will happen remains to be seen but as long as they are consistent I am ok with it (not that my opinion matters ?)

Right, none of our opinions on the topic matter in the least, though it's fun chatting about it, learning more about it, and then later having to brush up on it again. The distinctions continue to baffle and stump the U.S. media. I'm bracing for the error-strewn commentary that will come out once baby Sussex is born.

If you read the linked Royal Musings blog in my earlier post, the writer/researcher seems to feel certain that Charles will release the LP further restricting the current HRH style entitlement when he ascends the throne. But you know, anything is possible. It's not up to any of us. Plus, the Queen had four children and Edward is the youngest. Prince Charles only has two sons.

As we know, Princess Anne's children could have been given lesser titles such as Viscount for Peter and Lady for Zara had Anne agreed for her first husband to be granted pre-wedding with a title (i.e., Earl of) in the way that Princess Margaret allowed/ desired for Tony Armstrong-Jones (Earl of Snowden). Zara and Peter seem perfectly well-adjusted and happy without any titles.

Another really important difference is whether a title is only passed on to the eldest son or to all (male-line) members of the family. The UK and Spain seem to practice the first and many other countries/traditions the second.

Right. Reminds me of the country house series, "Secrets of..." In particular, the episode on Chatsworth House. The current Duke of Devonshire reflected on how the British primogeniture practice was intended to ensure property would not be split up between siblings, thereby protecting and securing the intact passing down of estates to the oldest surviving son or male line relative.

The Duke of Devonshire indicated that he did not think the inheritance rule was fair to his two daughters. However, he and his wife spoke to their son and two daughters and decided it was best for the son (and oldest sibling) to inherit the house and the family estate, as tradition dictates. He said his daughters completely understand, and that his son also understands and accepts the burden of responsibility for managing and preserving the family's legacy/ estate.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Reported in Royal Musings:
"Several years ago, in an interview, their mother, Sophie, told a reporter that she knew that her kids were royal, despite their style."

[...]

Here's the Royal Musings article that discusses LP and titles changes adjusted within the British monarchy across the years:
Royal Musings: What was George V thinking?

It would be interesting to read the exact words of the Countess of Wessex's interview. Reporters and a member of this forum have been directly told by Buckingham Palace that the Queen's Will was all that was necessary to withhold the HRH status from Louise and James under British law. Perhaps the Countess was pointing out that her children were members of the Royal Family in spite of not holding HRH status?

Meghan’s due date is known to HM and it’s unlikely she’d wait until the last minute if she was to change the custom.

With the Cambridge children the announcement came 6 months out.

In my personal opinion, the timing of the British royal family's announcements and letters patent about royal styles is too inconsistent to predict on that basis (and as others have mentioned, in the British monarchy, even the decisions themselves are oddly inconsistent).

The gazette notices regarding the creations of the York, Wessex, Cambridge, and Sussex dukedoms and earldom were posted on the day of the marriage with Prince Andrew, the week after the marriage with Prince Edward, the month after the marriage with Prince William, and two months after the marriage with Prince Harry, respectively.

The announcement regarding the Wessex children was made on their parents' wedding day (June 19, 1999). Letters patent were never issued, the Queen's Will being all that was needed, per Buckingham Palace.

The announcement regarding the Cambridge children was made on the date of the pregnancy announcement (December 3, 2012). The letters patent were issued four weeks later (December 31, 2012) and gazetted over a week past the announcement (January 8, 2013).

Another really important difference is whether a title is only passed on to the eldest son or to all (male-line) members of the family. The UK and Spain seem to practice the first and many other countries/traditions the second.

Since 2006, Spanish titles are passed on to the eldest child, whether a daughter or a son.
http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-18869

 

[Rudolph]

The announcement regarding the Wessex children was made on their parents' wedding day (June 19, 1999). Letters patent were never issued, the Queen's Will being all that was needed, per Buckingham Palace.

The announcement regarding the Cambridge children was made on the date of the pregnancy announcement (December 3, 2012). The letters patent were issued four weeks later (December 31, 2012) and gazetted over a week past the announcement (January 8, 2013).

The Queen is a traditionalist. There’s no need to elevate Harry’s children. King George V knew what he was doing in 1917.

As for the Wessex children, for the 1000th time, it’s HM and HM alone who decides who’s royal.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

More than likely, as has been discussed ad nauseam, the Sussex children will receive and retain Earl (Lord)/Lady titles and not be elevated upon Charles' ascendance to the throne. Still the fact remains to date, that once Charles inherits the throne, the Sussex children are entitled to be styled HRH, just as the Wessex offspring are.

Likely when Her Majesty has passed on, His Majesty will be of one and the same mind regarding matters of styles/titles for the immediate and extended members of the British royal family.

I find it highly unlikely the Sussex children will be styled HRH Prince/Princess, nor do I believe Harry has ever desired it at all for his children, quite the contrary. That Harry's offspring with Meghan are healthy, happy, well-adjusted, kind and fulfilled humans who will be able to live as normal a life as possible, is surely the main priority.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Queen is a traditionalist. There’s no need to elevate Harry’s children. King George V knew what he was doing in 1917.

I agree it is probable that Queen Elizabeth II thinks of herself as a traditionalist. In this case, upholding the tradition set by King George V would elevate Harry's children in due course. However, many of Elizabeth's decisions, including the styles of princesses of the blood after marriage to commoners, the Wessex family, and the Cambridge children, did not uphold the traditions of George V.

As for the Wessex children, for the 1000th time, it’s HM and HM alone who decides who’s royal.

Indeed that is the explicit position of the Queen and Buckingham Palace, as explained in the link above.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

But it does set a precedent. I said in a previous post that it’s unlikely there’ll be an announcement regarding Harry’s kids.

Meghan’s due date is known to HM and it’s unlikely she’d wait until the last minute if she was to change the custom.

With the Cambridge children the announcement came 6 months out.

Because if George had been a girl, Georgina would not have been HRH and Princess but been the heir apparent, yet her eldest younger brother Charlie would have been HRH and Prince per the Letters Patent of 1917-i.e. "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales...shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess..."

This was not a situation George V ever anticipated, therefore he did not address it. Cirumstances changed and the Queen addressed the situation.

 

[Rudolph]

Because if George had been a girl, Georgina would not have been HRH and Princess but been the heir apparent, yet her eldest younger brother Charlie would have been HRH and Prince per the Letters Patent of 1917-i.e. "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales...shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess..."

This was not a situation George V ever anticipated, therefore he did not address it. Cirumstances changed and the Queen addressed the situation.

But what I’m saying is, if HM decides to elevate Harry’s kids we’d probably would have heard about it by now. If Meghan is 6 months pregnant, why the wait.

Who knows what Charles’ reign will bring. But it’s my vibe Harry’s kids will never be HRH.

 

[Mbruno]

Since 2006, Spanish titles are passed on to the eldest child, whether a daughter or a son.
http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-18869

I think Somebody's point was not so much about gender, but rather about titles descending by primogeniture (which is/was the English, French and Spanish custom), or being transmitted from birth to all descendants in male line, which, I guess, was the German custom (?) and influenced in turn the Low Countries and the Scandinavian realms. Starting in the 19th century, however, there have been also titles of nobility in Belgium, Sweden or the Netherlands for example that are transmitted only by primogeniture.



In the case of Spain, male-preference primogeniture had always been the norm (unlike in England or France, an eldest daughter could inherit titles from her father if she had no brothers). The 2006 law changed the default to equal primogeniture as you mentioned, but it is also possible (and indeed quite common) for a grandee who holds multiple titles to distribute his/jer subsidiary titles among his/her younger children during his/her lifetime. That is a way to circumvent primogeniture in practice so that younger children are not left titleless as in England. The "redistribution" of titles during someone's lifetime must be approved by the King though.

 

[Mbruno]

Because if George had been a girl, Georgina would not have been HRH and Princess but been the heir apparent, yet her eldest younger brother Charlie would have been HRH and Prince per the Letters Patent of 1917-i.e. "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales...shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess..."

This was not a situation George V ever anticipated, therefore he did not address it. Cirumstances changed and the Queen addressed the situation.

The Queen went one step further though, didn't she ? Following your reasoning, she could have simply decreed that "the eldest living child of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales" would be a prince/princess with the HRH style, but, instead, she decided that all children of the eldest son of the PoW should hold that titular dignity, which wasn't necessary.



If the point is actually dealing with the consequences of the introduction of equal primogeniture in the succession to the Crown, then I guess the 1917 LPs will have to be changed after all as it will be awkward if Louis' children become HRHs when Charlotte's children, who will be higher in the line of succession, are not princes/princesses. On the other hand, giving out HRH to all grandchildren of the monarch (in both paternal and maternal line) would have the inconvenience of possibly increasing the number of HRHs over time , which is why Charles may well consider limiting HRH to the heir's children only as some posters here are suggesting.