Letters Patent Issued (Dec 31, 2012): All Cambridge Children to be Princes/Princesses

[sophie25]

If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign will they be prince/princess? I read somewhere things were getting changed so they would just be lord/lady.

 

[HRHHermione]

If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign will they be prince/princess? I read somewhere things were getting changed so they would just be lord/lady.

If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign, they are automatically prince/princess as children of the son of the monarch.

I honestly don't see any reason why that should change. Now, if Harry wishes, he can have his children styled with a lesser title, like the Wessex family has chosen to do, but that's up to Harry and his future wife.

 

[NGalitzine]

As things currently stand as male line granchildren of the monarch Harry's children would be HRH Prince or Princess if born during the reign of Charles III. All these things are of course subject to change.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As William was promoted from a commoner Prince to a peer Duke on his wedding day Catherine is known as The Duchess - the wife of a peer - rather than Princess William - the wife of a commoner.

The only wife of a HRH Prince to use the style of Princess is Princess Michael - the lowest ranked of all those wives because the others have more senior titles to use.

The current Duchess of Gloucester started her married life as Princess Richard of Gloucester but then her father-in-law died and she became The Duchess of Gloucester.

Princess is the default position for a wife whose husband has nothing better to offer - such as being a peer.

As for the new LPs - I note that they apply to the 'eldest son of the Prince of Wales' which to me means that the next time this happens and the heir is a girl they will have to be issued again to cover that possibility.

I think issuing the LPs this early in the pregnancy suggests that she has done this to cover the possibility of a girl not that she knows that it is - particualarly as they were issued at the 3 month or so mark of the preganancy.

I don't see any need for new LPs to cover any children of Harry. They will probably be following the styling of Edward and not using the HRH anyway, even if entitled to do so - particularly given the negative press that Beatrice and Eugenie get for having it even though they are the children of the second son - the same position that Harry's future children will be in at some time in the future - the children of the second son. Of course he first of all has to find a woman who wants to marry him, give up her career, her privacy and live in the straightjacket of the royal family.

 

[branchg]

I guess we all realise that the Cambridges already know if it is going to be a child or twins...

I think The Queen would have issued the same Letters Patent regardless of whether Catherine may be carrying twins. Prior to 1917, the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales enjoyed the rank of HRH under Letters Patent issued in 1898 by Queen Victoria.

Wait a moment it says "all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". Does this Letters Patent then only apply to Prince William's children or automatically also to future generations like his grandchildren?

The change is applicable to all future children of the eldest son of a Prince of Wales. If it was limited to William only, the LP would be worded differently "all children of HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge, etc.".

If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign will they be prince/princess? I read somewhere things were getting changed so they would just be lord/lady.

Currently, they would. But I predict they will not hold royal rank and use the style of children of a Duke ("Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor"), similar to James and Louise Wessex.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Oh, thank heavens! I was so afraid we were going to have another "Lady Diana" come July 1st ......

 

[Artemisia]

A silly question but please do remember English is not my first language.

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?

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I think it means from now on from the wording and now just Will but I guess I'd have to look at the wording of other Letters Patent to be clear.
If it were just Will I think she'd say all children born to the Duke of Cambridge.

 

[Stefan]

The Wording of the 1917 LP was also the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales and not a Prince of Wales.

 

[Artemisia]

I see. Thanks Stefan and GracieGiraffe.

Based on the wording, I have to change my opinion and agree with those who think the changes will be applicable to the children of all eldest sons of the Princes of Wales in future, unless and until new Letters Patent are issued.

 

[Kit]

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.

 

[Dman]

I think this is just for William & Catherine's children.

 

[Princess Robijn]

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).)

 

[Kit]

I assume this as well Princess Robijn!

 

[cepe]

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.

 

[EIIR]

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.

 

[branchg]

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.

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.

 

[padams2359]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

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

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[padams2359]

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.

 

[LauraS3514]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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?

 

[Jessgan]

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?

 

[NGalitzine]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[NGalitzine]

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.