Questions About Titles

[hrhcp]

A.C.C.  Posted: Sep 20th, 2003 - 10:02 pm
Titles are not taken away from you.

All around, that is not true.
Sir Anthony Blunt lost his "Sir" when it came out publicly that he had been a spy for Russia, and this despite the fact that Blunt had been the Queen's Surveyor? of Pictures for the longest time.

In Canada, a former lawyer for a sports organization lost his Order of Canada because of legal misdeeds for which he was convicted.

However, for persons who are born into a Royal Family, I believe you might be correct.

[A.C.C.]

That is what I meant. I was referring to The Queen's grandchildren.

[Splodger]

By letters patent Edwards children are entitled to be Prince/Princess however there was a decission made not to give their children these honours. However regardless of these honours, they will be Lady and Lord respectivly as this is standard for noble children of that rank. If the couple have a son, he will one day become Earl of Wessex. I also remember reading somewhere that upon Prince Phillips death, Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh.

[A.C.C.]

But The Queen has to issue another letters patent to say that the new baby will not be a Royal Highness or a princess. She, again, is entitled to that because she is a grandchild of the monarch through the male line. If what you are saying was true, then the Duke of York's two daughters would not be princesses, they would be lady's, and this is not the case.

[hrhcp]

Splodger  Posted: Nov 23rd, 2003 - 6:10 pm

I also remember reading somewhere that upon Prince Phillips death, Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh.

That is correct.

A.C.C.  Posted: Nov 23rd, 2003 - 6:47 pm

But The Queen has to issue another letters patent to say that the new baby will not be a Royal Highness or a princess. She, again, is entitled to that because she is a grandchild of the monarch through the male line. If what you are saying was true, then the Duke of York's two daughters would not be princesses, they would be lady's, and this is not the case.

Letters patent ... is that officially proclaimed ?
I mean if it is publicly announced, like I read today, that Edward's daughter will be a Highness something, then surely some "OK" has been received (already) from the Palace?

As I gather it, the fact of Andrew's daughters being Princesses raised a lot of fuss ... so the difference with Edward's daughter.

[TOMMIX]

Originally posted by King Christian@Nov 23rd, 2003 - 10:32 pm

That is correct.

No, that is not exactly correct. Please refer to a previous posting of mine which explains this situation.
http://www.lestribunesroyales.com/forums/i...=40&#entry46847

[Britters]

The way I have come to understand titles, is that all grandchildren of a monarch are given rights to the titles HRH, and Prince/Princess, which would explain why Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are indeed Princess'
If/When Prince Philip passes on, and Andrew receives the title, Duke of Edinburgh, for that title to continue on with his daughters when he passes on, the reigning monarch at the time would have to bestow that title upon them, (Duchess of Edinburgh), but that is a long way off and I seem to be getting a head of myself!
Edward and Sophie's baby is currently a Princess, as I understand the rules, because the Queen has yet to issue the letters of Patent.

[Fireweaver]

Actually, the Dukedom of Edinburgh would go to Prince Charles when Prince Philip dies. So when Charles becomes king, the Dukedom merges with the crown, and Charles is free to give it to his brother, Edward, like his parents wished.
Dukedom's normally go to the oldest son, and most royal peerages in England don't go to daughters anyway, unless they're specificially made so the daughters can inherit (See the Countess of Mountanbatten Pama).

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by Fireweaver@Nov 24th, 2003 - 2:26 pm
Actually, the Dukedom of Edinburgh would go to Prince Charles when Prince Philip dies. So when Charles becomes king, the Dukedom merges with the crown, and Charles is free to give it to his brother, Edward, like his parents wished.

I didn't realize that Charles would actually get the Duke of Edinburgh title first. :( At the time of Edward and Sophie's wedding, when it was announced that they would be the Earl and Countess of Wessex, I thought that it was said that upon Prince Phillp's death, Edward would automatically inherit the title of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Now, as Fireweaver says, it would pass through Charles first and be up to him to bestow this title to his brother. Could Charles pass on this, declining the wishes of the Queen, and give it to one of his sons?

OR, if the Queen is still reigning when Prince Phillip dies, would it be up to Charles at all to decide who gets the Duke of Edinburgh title?

[Raia]

Originally posted by TOMMIX+Nov 24th, 2003 - 12:30 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TOMMIX @ Nov 24th, 2003 - 12:30 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-King Christian@Nov 23rd, 2003 - 10:32 pm

That is correct.

No, that is not exactly correct. Please refer to a previous posting of mine which explains this situation.
http://www.lestribunesroyales.com/forums/i...=40&#entry46847 [/b][/quote]
King Christian is right. Tommix if you read about why edward was given a the lesser title of earl you would of understood that it was because he was to become Duke of Edinburgh when his father died. it was on paper signed by the queen. when philip dies it will not go straight to charles because the queen has said it isnt its to go to edward.
Just because you have a PhD in British history doesnt mean you know it all about the royal family and the titles.

[Fireweaver]

Tommix is right. The Queen can't change who inherits the peerage unless it reverts to the crown. However, since it's an inheritable peerage, and Prince Philip has sons, the eldest (charles) inherits. However, when Charles becomes King, it reverts back to the crown, and thus can be given out again.

[Splodger]

Actualy the Queen can change who inherits the title. Letters Patent governs usual inheritance of a title, however by decree of the Monarch it can be changed. For example Countess Mountbatten-Burma would not have inherited the title as she was a woman, however the Queen gave permission for her to do so as her father was a great friend of the family and Prince Phillips Uncle.

[btsnyder]

On the death of the Duke of Ediburgh, will the Earl and Countess of Wessex then be know as/referred to as the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh?

[TOMMIX]

Originally posted by Raia@Nov 24th, 2003 - 4:06 pm
Just because you have a PhD in British history doesnt mean you know it all about the royal family and the titles.

Pardon me, but I am an expert in this particlular subject. The legal aspects of the granting of British titles, the issuance of Letters Patent and Royal Warrants are well within my field of expertise.
The facts that I previously stated concerning the Edinburgh title are correct and congruous with the original granting of that particular title. If you choose not to agree with me that is your prerogative.
I do not pretend to know EVERYTHING about the British Royal Family. Nobody can know everything. I like to think that my lifes work has given me some degree of knowledge concerning them, but most assuredly I do not know everything.

Please read what this authoritative website has to say about this subject-
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#edinburgh2

[moosey60]

Calm down Tommix! I believe that you're right. It's always up to a nice hearty healty argument. *cough* :flower: Moving on: What was the "fuss" with Beatrice and Eugenie being princesses?

[hrhcp]

TOMMIX&nbsp; &nbsp; Posted: Nov 24th, 2003 - 12:30 pm

No, that is not exactly correct. Please refer to a previous posting of mine which explains this situation.

I based my answer on - if I recall correctly - reading authoritive websource like the Monarch's webpage.

TOMMIX&nbsp; Posted: Nov 24th, 2003 - 9:12 pm
Pardon me, but I am an expert in this particlular subject.

Even though my clients might call me an expert, I sure don't label myself by that word, for the simple reason that (the definition of) "X" is "an unknown quantity" and "spurt" is "a drip under pressure".

If anything, I am might be an "authority", and I've found that the arguments intensify in inverse proportion to the available knowledge. :flower:

[Splodger]

With Regards to HRH The Earl of Wessex:

Quoted from The British Monarchy's Wepage
http://www.royal.gov.uk

"Upon his marriage to Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999, he was created The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn; at the same time it was announced that His Royal Highness will eventually succeed to the title of The Duke of Edinburgh."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page417.asp

At the time of their wedding it was decided, with the couple's agreement, that any children they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl.

Accordingly, their daughter is known as The Lady Louise Windsor.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page476.asp

[Splodger]

Question for Tommix

Thought you might be able to help answer this one. What did Prince George of Denmark become upon Queen Anne's succession. I assume until her succession in 1702 she was Anne, Princess George of Denmark; however when she became Queen, did George remain a Prince of Denmark or was he given a British title?

[Alexandra]

Originally posted by Alexandria@Apr 11th, 2003 - 9:00 pm
And Andrew has always been the Duke of York.

:flower: Oh, Alexandria, sorry to say, but here you made a little mistake.

Prince Andrew has not always been Duke of York! He got the title when he married. :flower:

Oh, now I saw, that samitude had already corrected the matter. :flower:

[moosey60]

What was the fuss when Beatrice and Eugenie got the title "Princess"? Someone said this before...