The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 01-09-2013, 05:30 PM
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 741
Not sure if it really applies to future generations. What if the eldest son has an elder sister who will become Queen because of Equal Primogeniture? Then the children of the future Queen would not be Prince and Princess as long as they are grandchildren of the PoW whereas the children of her younger brother would bear the title and therefore outrank her children. Hypothetically of course but it could happen.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-09-2013, 05:36 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,789
I think this is just for William & Catherine's children.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-09-2013, 05:37 PM
Princess Robijn's Avatar
Super Moderator
Blog Editor
Picture of the Month Representative - Denmark
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 2,557
I assume the Queen is unwilling to make such a statement (as stating the oldest child of the Prince of Wales) without the law being changed. (as opposed to trying to change the law, which is what they are currently doing (and are very likely to succeed).)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-09-2013, 05:50 PM
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 741
I assume this as well Princess Robijn!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-09-2013, 05:57 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,435
There is only ever one Prince of Wales so the does apply. A Prince of Wales implies that she means anyone of many.

This is an amendment to the LP of 1917 which mentioned the "son of" so all she has done is make an amendment to include all children which covers all eventualities (ie twins). Nothing else has changed so it does not apply to Harry whilst she is Queen. When Charles becomes King, everyone moves up and Harry's children are prince/princesses but whether he uses those titles is another matter.

Sorry if I'm repeating stuff but I'm having probs with my computer.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-09-2013, 06:03 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
I think in future this whole thing should, and probably will be, simplified. We should just say that any children of the monarch are HRH Prince/Princess, as are the children of the heir to the throne. Everyone else gets Lord/Lady titles if they want one.

I also feel that when women marry a prince, they should automatically become Princess X in their own right. Same goes for an untitled male marrying an heir to the throne. The reason Kate is still often referred to by her maiden name is that 'Duchess of Cambridge' doesn't have nearly the same name recognition as 'Kate Middleton'. Camilla would also benefit because if she was Princess Camilla then the media etc. wouldn't refer to her as Camilla Parker Bowles nearly so often, which was the name by which most people knew her.

This whole thing is just unnecessarily complicated IMO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-09-2013, 06:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
If the Letters Patent meant all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales from now on, wouldn't the wording be "children of the eldest son of a Prince of Wales" and not "children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales"? Doesn't the latter imply a specific (current) Prince of Wales?
No, because there is only "The" Prince of Wales at any one time. The LPs apply to the current and future holder of that title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit View Post
Not sure if it really applies to future generations. What if the eldest son has an elder sister who will become Queen because of Equal Primogeniture? Then the children of the future Queen would not be Prince and Princess as long as they are grandchildren of the PoW whereas the children of her younger brother would bear the title and therefore outrank her children. Hypothetically of course but it could happen.
You are correct. In the case of the eldest child of the POW being female, the 2012 Letters Patent as currently worded would not apply and this would have to be addressed by issuing new Letters Patent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-09-2013, 07:05 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
George V had several children, he was planning ahead to keep the RF from exploding down the line. George VI only had two, so the Kents and the Gloucesters are seeing those HRH titles going away. QE2 had four children, which gave her several grandchildren who she loves, and like George V, she needs to steer the Firm where it needs to go. She is not concerned about titles for William's grandchildren. Things will change, and that will be Charles's concern. She knows what she needs to do give Charles a defined Royal Family as she was given.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-09-2013, 07:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
However it doesn't cover the future possibility of the grandchildren of an heiress presumptive who won't be The Prince of Wales - simply because she will be a Princess and not a Prince.

It also doesn't cover the idea that the heir may not be created Prince of Wales anyway e.g. if William isn't created Prince of Wales and he becomes a grandfather in his father's reign then there will need to be new LPs.

These LPs could have been better worded in my opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-09-2013, 07:57 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,892
As we've seem in the current reign, LP are not difficult to issue as they are at the discretion of the monarch. Most likely when Charles ascends the throne, he will have to issue LPs for 1) creating a heiress apparent The Princess of Wales in her own right (if needed) and 2) the LPs just now issued to change to eldest child of The Prince/Princess of Wales. Perhaps HM somewhere in the back of her mind thought this is something that might give Charles practice when he becomes King.

Depending on how old Charles is when he does become King, there really is a good chance that William will not be created Prince of Wales. If the longevity in the family continues (for example: Charles becomes monarch at 74), he may realize that it will only be a short reign before William is King and decide to let things stand as they are. With William's eldest child perhaps close to 20 when his/her father becomes monarch, establishing that child as Prince/Princess of Wales creates once again a role to fill with the example of Charles to follow. I do really think that Charles has redefined the meaning of Prince of Wales.

All of this discussion has really made me realize just how much things could change in Charles' reign. The process has already begun and gradually, things will be exactly as what is needed for a modern yet traditional constitutional monarchy for the 21st century.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-09-2013, 08:26 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
If Charles becomes King at 74 he could still have a reign of 20+ years given the longevity in his family (when Charles is 74 his mother would be nearly 97).

William could easily have another 40 years to wait and be approaching 70 himself with grandchildren of his own on the way or already here by the time he ascends the throne.

LPs aren't that hard to issue but why not get it right the first time rather than leave it to be done again in the future?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-09-2013, 08:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
I think in future this whole thing should, and probably will be, simplified...
AS usually EIIR. you cut right to the chase and make this issue as clear as crystal. The arm chair politicians on the other hand make things as clear as mud. Thanks for another excellent comment
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-09-2013, 08:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
The Queen is addressing today's reality, not every possible future scenario. Since Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth nations have agreed William's children will be in succession in birth order without preference to the male gender, Letters Patent have been issued in conformity with that change.

No one knows what the future will bring to the monarchy and future situations will be addressed as they come up.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-09-2013, 10:01 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
QE2 will never speak publicly for doing anything, but I think this is a sign to the commonwealth that this is the direction the palace wishes to go, and they will quickly follow suit.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-10-2013, 12:48 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 213
I agree that the new LP is a stop-gap to cover just William's children until new rules come about in Charles' reign, otherwise this new LP could have stated something like this: "...the children of the eldest child of the Heir or Heiress Apparent." That would have covered every possibility.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-10-2013, 12:57 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
I agree that the new LP is a stop-gap to cover just William's children until new rules come about in Charles' reign, otherwise this new LP could have stated something like this: "...the children of the eldest child of the Heir or Heiress Apparent." That would have covered every possibility.
but couldn't be stated that way yet as its not been put through and formally ratified by all the commonwealth parliaments correct?
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:03 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puchong, Malaysia
Posts: 12
I'm sorry, I still couldn't grasp the concept that prince William is a commoner prince. To me, he's royal and a prince. When he was created a duke, why did he used the duke title? Isn't a duke lower than a prince?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:28 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
In the UK the only people who are not commoners are the monarch and the peers. So even QEII before she came to the throne was a commoner while Philip as Duke of Edinburgh was a peer and not a commoner. William was also a commoner until he too became a peer of the realm as Duke of Cambridge.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:28 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessgan View Post
I'm sorry, I still couldn't grasp the concept that prince William is a commoner prince. To me, he's royal and a prince. When he was created a duke, why did he used the duke title? Isn't a duke lower than a prince?
Actually if you really get into it, you find out that a title of Duke outranks a title of Prince in some cases. A Duke is a peer. A Prince is not. Its still confusing to me too. A Prince could not sit in the House of Lords but a Duke as a peer could. As Prince of Wales, Charles couldn't sit in the House of Lords but as the Duke of Cornwall... he could. (It would never happen though as close as he is to being the monarch and add in the royal factor)..

The difference is the Royal part methinks. One can be a Duke and not be royal but in the UK, all Princes are royal. Royal designates to many as representing the Crown. Dukes, Dames, Knights, Earls and Sirs are esteemed peers of the UK.

Somebody help me out here? The more I type, the more I get comfuzzled.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-10-2013, 01:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
As I said in my post above yours in the UK we have only the Monarch and the Peers of the Realm (dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons) who are not commoners. Everyone else is a commoner. Kinghts/Dames/Baronets are not peers of the realms so they are also commoners.
The style of HRH and the titular dignity of Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom are essentially courtesy designations for members of the royal family but unless they also hold a peerage of their own (Cornwall/York/Wessex/Gloucester/Kent/Cambridge) they remain commoners.
The same goes for the younger children of ordinary peers who may enjoys various styles and courtesy titles (Viscount Linley, Viscount Althrop, the Marquess of Worcester etc) but remain commoners because they themselves do not hold a peerage of their own.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Queen Victoria's Children" (January 2013) - Three-part BBC 2 series Dman The Electronic Domain 37 05-15-2014 07:34 AM
Duke of Cambridge current events 1: 29 April 2011 - 31 December 2013- wbenson Current Events Archive 905 01-01-2014 12:01 PM
Number of Royal Children RoyalEnquirer Royal Chit Chat 210 10-04-2013 09:40 PM
Duchess of Cambridge current events 2: 1 February 2012 - 5 January 2013 Zonk Current Events Archive 1905 01-05-2013 07:37 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events Thread 2: 1 December 2011 - 1 April 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 887 04-03-2012 10:16 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

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

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]