Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Terri Terri]

Back on topic....I honestly believe that Harry and Meghan will just want their children to have the titles of children of a Duke and no more. I don't think that they want their children with HRH Prince/Princess titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If she wanted it going forward, it would’ve been an easy announcement to change it for everyone going forward. It was specifically for the Wessex children. Andrew was a bachelor at that point. There was no guarantee that he wouldn’t remarry and have more children. Well, I suppose he’s still in that situation.

I don't think any definite conclusions regarding what Queen Elizabeth wanted in 1999 for potential future children of Harry or Andrew can be made from the fact that she used a press release instead of Letters Patent to make her will known for the Wessexes' future children. Many of the choices she has made in connection with titles have been made known without using Letters Patent.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think any definite conclusions regarding what Queen Elizabeth wanted in 1999 for potential future children of Harry or Andrew can be made from the fact that she used a press release instead of Letters Patent to make her will known for the Wessexes' future children. Many of the choices she has made in connection with titles have been made known without using Letters Patent.

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


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


EDIT: I forgot to mention William's children's titles, which were also bestowed by LPs.

 

[Rudolph]

Starting 13 July 1974, The court circular refers to the dowager Duchess of Gloucester as "Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester". No Letters Patent were ever issued.

In 1981 she was granted a new coat of arms.

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

A. Colin Cole
Garter King of Arms
Let this be recorded
Norfolk EM

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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


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


EDIT: I forgot to mention William's children's titles, which were also bestowed by LPs.

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

If a decision to continue applying the rules or traditions that were in force also qualifies as a decision (from my point of view, it does), then there are many additional examples, including the one you mentioned (Princess Royal) and the one Rudolph quoted in the previous post.

 

[Mbruno]

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

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



When it comes to making someone a prince/princess in his/her own right, or granting a peerage, LPs are needed. Likewise, in my point of view, to strip someone who would otherwise be an HRH from his/her princely status, LPs should be required, as the Queen did with divorced wives of princes. That is why the decision that was made regarding James and Louise is irregular and probaby defective.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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



When it comes to making someone a prince/princess in his/her own right, or granting a peerage, LPs are needed. Likewise, in my point of view, to strip someone who would otherwise be an HRH from his/her princely status, LPs should be required, as the Queen did with divorced wives of princes. That is why the decision that was made regarding James and Louise is irregular and probaby defective.

I lean towards thinking that Queen Elizabeth categorizes princely status as a matter of what someone is called, not as equivalent to a peerage (see the letter Iluvbertie received from Buckingham Palace). However, we can certainly limit the examples to decisions making someone a prince or princess in their own right or denying princely status to someone who would have it under the former rule. There are then only two or three examples (of Elizabeth's decisions, with or without Letters Patent) left: the Wessex children, the Cambridge children, and perhaps Prince Philip. (The situation of princes divorcing their wives was new, and there was no set precedent.) From my point of view, there is still not enough basis to come to a definite conclusion about what Queen Elizabeth intended for Harry's children in 1999.

 

[muriel]

But the decision for someone who has only foreign nationality to be a working royal with royal privileges has already been fully accepted by the British public. In light of that, I would expect dual British-foreign nationality for grandchildren who are not working royals to be accepted as well.

I don't quite see is as that. Meghan's lack of British nationality is a transitional situation, and it has been made clear that she will be applying for naturalisation, following the law of the land. It will take a few years, but that is only because that is the law.

Note: If the Mods believe this conversation, ins o far as it relates to citizenship, needs to be elsewhere, please feel free to move it, thank you.

 

[royal-blue]

I would personally be in favour of limiting prince/princess titles to just the children of the direct heirs. There is already a very large British Royal Family and if the Sussexes produces more baby princes and princesses it will grow even further. Harry and Meghan may be young and glamorous now, but so were Andrew and Fergie when they first married. Harry and Meghan's child/ren will be in exactly the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie are now, and they are often seen in a negative way, as are there parents. A smaller royal family would be a positive thing, in my opinion.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interestingly, for the moment, Princess Eugenie of York seems to have been given permission not to add Mrs. Jack Brooksbank onto her name (for instance, see the recent press release about the exhibition of the wedding outfits:
Wedding outfits of HRH Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack...). It will be interesting to see whether that will change once she and her husband have children, but if not, I can imagine Princess Beatrice being treated in the same way.

@Tatiana Maria about Eugenie's title. Officially on legal papers she may be Princess Eugenie of York, Mrs. Brooksbank but most places just use Princess Eugenie of York. I imagine it would be the same for Beatrice. Case in point, how often do we really hear Princess Margaret referred to as Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden?

That's an interesting possibility. One can't say with certainty without having seen her legal papers, but my personal speculation would be that due to British royals usually having no need to use a legal last name even in official paperwork (other than marriage registries), she would use Mrs. Jack Brooksbank/Mrs. Brooksbank only if she begins to be styled as such.

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

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

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_6.pdf

THE ROYAL FAMILY
[...]
Their Royal Highnesses Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy
[...]​

Of course, the name/title change that the ITV reporter heard rumors of has not been clarified, so Eugenie might adopt the "Mrs." style at a later time.

 

[Osipi]

I thought of a way to figure it all out but unfortunately, its not a way that would be easy to find. We know Eugenie works and most likely, the answer would lie in the name on her paycheck. I'm trying to remember what I've read about how the York princesses were referred to at their places of employment. I vaguely recall Beatrice being known as Beatrice York.

Its very possible that Eugenie's paycheck is issued to Eugenie Brooksbank. ?

 

[Kataryn]

At Hauser & Wirth's home page she is still referred to as Eugenie York, director.

https://www.hauserwirth.com/contact/11332?title=Eugenie York&jp=Director

 

[Osipi]

Thanks for finding that. Its a good indication that she retains using "York" even after her marriage. Its not uncommon at all these days for a woman to continue using her maiden surname after marriage. I reverted to my maiden surname upon divorce and hyphenate it still in a few places after my remarriage.

 

[LauraS3514]

I decided to look back to see what the numbers of active members were 10 and 20 years ago:

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

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

.

Just a couple of things to add about the start of The Queen's reign: The Princess Royal (Princess Mary) was still quite active until her unexpected death in 1965. And I remember Princess Margaret being quoted as saying something like they "couldn't wait" until Princess Alexandra was old enough to help out. The family actually had to scramble a bit in the early to mid -1960s as so many of the women took maternity leaves, some at the same time!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Although Eugenie and Beatrice would need permission to drop the HRH or the Princess part of their identity, surely, as grown women, it is entirely down to their own choice whether they take their husband's surname or not?

Even today, with some exceptions, the British monarchy generally does not seem to give most women that choice.

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

In some cases, even women who asked to use their own forename instead of their husband's forename (e.g. Ms. Jane Smith instead of Mrs. John Smith) have been refused.

A reader sent Sidelines this reply to a request for an application form: "Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot does not acknowledge the title Ms ... a married woman applying for herself should indicate her husband's forename."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/18/gender.uk1​

Further, although the Queen has apparently given Princess Eugenie permission not to use her husband's surname (new information can be found here: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2206491), by her declaration in 1960 (at least according to the general interpretation of it), Eugenie had no choice but to change her legal surname to her husband's, for the reason that the declaration does not allow women to keep the legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor after marriage or to pass it to their children:

Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."​

 

[Roslyn]

Even today, with some exceptions, the British monarchy generally does not seem to give most women that choice.

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

In some cases, even women who asked to use their own forename instead of their husband's forename (e.g. Ms. Jane Smith instead of Mrs. John Smith) have been refused.

A reader sent Sidelines this reply to a request for an application form: "Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot does not acknowledge the title Ms ... a married woman applying for herself should indicate her husband's forename."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/18/gender.uk1​

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

Further, although the Queen has apparently given Princess Eugenie permission not to use her husband's surname (new information can be found here: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2206491), by her declaration in 1960 (at least according to the general interpretation of it), Eugenie had no choice but to change her legal surname to her husband's, for the reason that the declaration does not allow women to keep the legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor after marriage or to pass it to their children:

Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."​

That statement of HM's "will and pleasure" was made nearly 60 years ago. A lot has changed in society since then, and in HM's own family. I think the wording is loose enough to permit a fair bit of wriggle room. It provides an exception for female descendants who marry and it is arguable that it allows them to use whatever name they want to use. I do, however, believe that Eugenie would want to use Jack's surname.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Could children of Princess Eugenie and Jack use the surname of Brooksbank-Mountbatten or the surname of Mountbatten-Brooksbank?

 

[Ista]

Whether this child ends up with an HRH or not (and unless I missed the announcement, we have no idea either way) s/he will exposed to the press over and over again.

 

[Rudolph]

Whether this child ends up with an HRH or not (and unless I missed the announcement, we have no idea either way

We do have an idea. As it stands today there's no HRH. Unless the Queen wants to surprise us, we can count on no royal titles.

 

[Ista]

We do have an idea. As it stands today there's no HRH. Unless the Queen wants to surprise us, we can count on no royal titles.

Thanks for the info, I guess I missed the announcement.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

We do have an idea. As it stands today there's no HRH. Unless the Queen wants to surprise us, we can count on no royal titles.

When did the Queen say Harry & Meghan's child(ren) would not automatically become HRH when their grandfather becomes King?

 

[Rudolph]

When did the Queen say Harry & Meghan's child(ren) would not automatically become HRH when their grandfather becomes King?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the post. The children won't be royal during the current reign, there's been no announcement for Charles' reign

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

When did the Queen say Harry & Meghan's child(ren) would not automatically become HRH when their grandfather becomes King?

She didn't. It's all speculation by some that the Sussex child(red) will not receive HRH.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

She didn't. It's all speculation by some that the Sussex child(red) will not receive HRH.

The poster I quoted flatly said "As it stands today there's no HRH. Unless the Queen wants to surprise us, we can count on no royal titles"
implying knowledge that any Sussex children would never be HRH.

We know unless new LP are issued, the Sussex children will become HRH when their grandfather becomes King, so to say now there will be "no HRH" is wrong.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the post. The children won't be royal during the current reign, there's been no announcement for Charles' reign

Thank you for the clarification on your statement.

 

[Oona]

In several articles on Wikipedia there's a long explanation of the development of who can be called HRH Prince or Princess. To cut it short, Queen Victoria declared that the children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign would be called HRH Prince or Princess followed by their first name. In 1917 George V added that the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales would be called the same way.

Queen Elizabeth's father only had daughters so he had to issue a declaration bestowing the HRH Princess title to her and her children. Her children, of course, are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward.

Charles' wife Diana was an HRH Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until her divorce, when that was stripped from her though she was still officially called Princess Diana. His wife Camilla is technically an HRH Princess but forgoes that title, out of respect for public feeling for Diana I think. She goes by Duchess of Cornwall, one of the lesser titles her marriage to Charles grants her. Charles' sons William and Harry are both HRH Princes.

Anne married an untitled man who refused the Earldom offered him so her children were born without titles.

Andrew's children are HRH Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice.

Edward requested that his children not be given HRH Prince or Princess titles so they are known as a Viscount and Lady.

Now the great grandchildren: HRH Prince William is the oldest son of Charles, Prince of Wales. William's oldest son is George and normally only he would called HRH Prince George, but the Queen issued a declaration to give all his siblings the HRH title.

This must be getting really confusing.

But if you can get all this straight (and it took me awhile to do it) you see that HRH Prince Harry passes that title to his wife Meghan, who would be called HRH Princess Harry, but as grandson of Queen Elizabeth, he won't pass the HRH title on to his children when they're born. It only goes from her to GRANDCHILDREN.

They might get it when Charles becomes King, but he's said he wants to slim down the monarchy, and I suspect that means he won't extend the HRH title to Harry's children. (This is only my speculation, but I'm guessing he's perfectly okay with that.)

This must have been such a long, boring read. But maybe someone will find it useful someday.

 

[jacqui24]

It’s not that if Charles wants to extend it to the Sussex children. They’ll automatically have it unless an announcement is made of them not having it. My guess is that the Sussexes themselves would prefer their children to lead lives much like the Wessex children. Frankly, Harry himself questioned if he wants this life. I doubt he’d want it for his children.

 

[Somebody]

In several articles on Wikipedia there's a long explanation of the development of who can be called HRH Prince or Princess. To cut it short, Queen Victoria declared that the children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign would be called HRH Prince or Princess followed by their first name. In 1917 George V added that the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales would be called the same way.

In addition, greatgrandchildren in male line were highnesses.

Queen Elizabeth's father only had daughters so he had to issue a declaration bestowing the HRH Princess title to her and her children. Her children, of course, are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward.

Elizabeth and Margaret were royal highnesses from birth. So, no hrh had to be bestowed on them by their father. Soecial regulations were indeed needed for Elizabeth's children.

Charles' wife Diana was an HRH Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until her divorce, when that was stripped from her though she was still officially called Princess Diana. His wife Camilla is technically an HRH Princess but forgoes that title, out of respect for public feeling for Diana I think. She goes by Duchess of Cornwall, one of the lesser titles her marriage to Charles grants her. Charles' sons William and Harry are both HRH Princes.

Diana was never officially called "princess Diana". Not during nor after her marriage.

The title Duke of Cornwall is the title automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir, so a rather important title. William will be duke of Cornwall before becoming prince of Wales (the latter not even sure but depending on his father).

Anne married an untitled man who refused the Earldom offered him so her children were born without titles.

Andrew's children are HRH Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice.

Edward requested that his children not be given HRH Prince or Princess titles so they are known as a Viscount and Lady.

Now the great grandchildren: HRH Prince William is the oldest son of Charles, Prince of Wales. William's oldest son is George and normally only he would called HRH Prince George, but the Queen issued a declaration to give all his siblings the HRH title.

This must be getting really confusing.

Not at all. It's rather consistent except for Edward's children not being royal highnesses.

Important to note is that the queen decided that all children of the heir's heir would be royal highnesses before it was known that their first child was a son. In this way the queen avoided the potential situation that the future queen was born with a lower title than her younger eldest brother.

But if you can get all this straight (and it took me awhile to do it) you see that HRH Prince Harry passes that title to his wife Meghan, who would be called HRH Princess Harry, but as grandson of Queen Elizabeth, he won't pass the HRH title on to his children when they're born. It only goes from her to GRANDCHILDREN.

They might get it when Charles becomes King, but he's said he wants to slim down the monarchy, and I suspect that means he won't extend the HRH title to Harry's children. (This is only my speculation, but I'm guessing he's perfectly okay with that.)

This must have been such a long, boring read. But maybe someone will find it useful someday.

I am glad that it all makes sense to you now and I agree with your assessment about it being more likely that Harry and Meghan's children won't be royal highnesses even in the next reigns. Although it is not about Charles extending it to his grandchildren but about him actively withholding it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles' wife Diana was an HRH Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until her divorce, when that was stripped from her though she was still officially called Princess Diana. His wife Camilla is technically an HRH Princess but forgoes that title, out of respect for public feeling for Diana I think. She goes by Duchess of Cornwall, one of the lesser titles her marriage to Charles grants her. Charles' sons William and Harry are both HRH Princes.

Diana was never Princess Diana. Only a Princess born as a Princess in the UK can use Princess and their own names e.g. Princess Anne, Princess Charlotte etc.

Wives of British princes use their husband's names so Diana was Princess Charles.

Fortunately for her Charles had higher titles than simply Prince for her to use 'Prince of Wales', 'Earl of Chester','Duke of Cornwall', 'Duke of Rothesay' etc. Diana, like Camilla, could use the feminine form of all of these titles - so Princess of Wales, Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay etc. The only one of these titles Camilla has not used is Princess of Wales but she is entitled to do so. As she uses Countess of Chester she has also to be Princess of Wales as both Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester were given to Charles in the same Letters Patent.

Diana was stripped of HRH at the time of her divorce,which is also when Sarah lost HRH. Sarah had remained HRH from the time of her own divorced until Diana's divorce.

After their divorces they followed the custom in the UK and used their own names with the feminine form of their husband's senior title so HRH The Princess of Wales became Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York became Sarah, Duchess of York.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The title Duke of Cornwall is the title automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir, so a rather important title. William will be duke of Cornwall before becoming prince of Wales (the latter not even sure but depending on his father).

[...]

Important to note is that the queen decided that all children of the heir's heir would be royal highnesses before it was known that their first child was a son.

Just for specification:

The duchy of Cornwall and its ducal title are automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir when the heir is also the eldest son of the monarch. In any other situation, the duchy of Cornwall reverts to the monarch.

The Letters Patent of 2012 provided that "all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales" would be Royal Highnesses. Should Prince George's firstborn child be a girl, she will be the future Queen, but her husband and children will not automatically be royal during the reigns of King William and King George. Her younger brother will merely be a "spare", but his wife and children will automatically be Royal Highnesses, even if his children are born during their great-grandfather's reign.

 

[Somebody]

Just for specification:

The duchy of Cornwall and its ducal title are automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir when the heir is also the eldest son of the monarch. In any other situation, the duchy of Cornwall reverts to the monarch.

Thanks, it's indeed more specific based on the situation that the expectation has been that it's the male line that will carry on the crown.

The Letters Patent of 2012 provided that "all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales" would be Royal Highnesses. Should Prince George's firstborn child be a girl, she will be the future Queen, but her husband and children will not automatically be royal during the reigns of King William and King George. Her younger brother will merely be a "spare", but his wife and children will automatically be Royal Highnesses, even if his children are born during their great-grandfather's reign.

Good point! My guess would be that Elizabeth worded it this way given the current situation. I assume that if George's eldest child is a girl, new Letters Patent will change that to the children of the eldest child of the prince (or princess) of Wales will be royal highnesses and at the same time revoking the rule for children of the 'eldest son'.