The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Prince Harry and Prince William

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1281  
Old 09-17-2016, 09:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
The change in LPs suggested for Edward's children though wouldn't only have affected Beatrice and Eugenie but - Richard, Edward, Alexandra and Michael who are HRHs' by virtue of being the children of the 3rd and 4th sons of the monarch.

I do think though that a change will come so that only the heir and the heir's children and heir's heir's children are HRH while all other grandchildren will be untitled or have the styles of children of a peer. I can even see no peerages given, in time, to younger sons as the very concept of hereditary peers is no longer really accepted in the UK.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1282  
Old 09-17-2016, 09:38 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The change in LPs suggested for Edward's children though wouldn't only have affected Beatrice and Eugenie but - Richard, Edward, Alexandra and Michael who are HRHs' by virtue of being the children of the 3rd and 4th sons of the monarch.

I do think though that a change will come so that only the heir and the heir's children and heir's heir's children are HRH while all other grandchildren will be untitled or have the styles of children of a peer. I can even see no peerages given, in time, to younger sons as the very concept of hereditary peers is no longer really accepted in the UK.
I suppose the new LP could have been worded in a way that it would apply to Queen Elizabeth II's and future monarchs' grandchildren only, and not to George V's grandchildren (references to George VI's grandchildren are not required as Princess Margaret's children were not HRHs already under the current rule).

If a change comes, it will signify a change on how the Royal Family is viewed, i.e. HRH status will be linked to "work status" to use Rudolph's argument, and not to a birthright linked to bloodline or membership of a family. That would be in line with the new concept of royals as "public servants" fullfilling a contract with the nation, rather than the top of the pyramid in a class sytem that also included the hereditary nobility and where rank was determined by the family to which one belonged , rather than work or merit.

In other words, it could be more revolutionary than it seems on the surface.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1283  
Old 09-18-2016, 04:07 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't see how it will protect them at all.
Because if they don't have titles and don't do engagements they're private citizens which makes life a lot easier.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Andrew was never as popular as the Wales boys.

He was when he was their age, comparing a 50+ year old divorcee to his two young nephew doesn't match.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Nobody can know it for sure as we are talking about future events here.

I agree so as customary when talking about future events we don't state what we don't know as fact.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1284  
Old 09-18-2016, 04:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
I can remember back to Andrew's teen years and his twenties. Andrew was really feted when he came back from the Falklands War. He was photographed with a rose between his teeth, in his uniform. Someone must have given him the flower! Andrew was certainly regarded as the most good looking of the Queen's children.

However, I can't remember the paps and media following his nightlife or his girlfriends much, apart from Koo. Maybe he didn't go out to clubs much, maybe my memory's fading, but I can't remember a fandom. Of course Andrew's youth was pre Internet/Twitter age, and that really makes a difference.
Reply With Quote
  #1285  
Old 09-18-2016, 05:00 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
It went wrong with the likes of Koo Stark and Sarah Ferguson. The association with them did not do favour Prince Andrew. By hindsight a less spectacular loudmouthed partner would have helped Andrew to become a same silent force behind the throne, like his sister Anne.
Reply With Quote
  #1286  
Old 09-18-2016, 05:04 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 236
I'm expecting any children the married Harry has will be titled as per the current LP. They will be the grandchildren of one future King and the only blood nieces/nephews of the other.

While I was a bit surprised at Edward (and Sophie) choosing the lesser as formal titles for their children, it was a different situation in some ways. Being the fourth not the second sibling, so moving rapidly down the pecking order and there being a mix of titled and non titled off-spring in the family anyway.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #1287  
Old 09-18-2016, 06:12 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
I'm expecting any children the married Harry has will be titled as per the current LP. They will be the grandchildren of one future King and the only blood nieces/nephews of the other.

While I was a bit surprised at Edward (and Sophie) choosing the lesser as formal titles for their children, it was a different situation in some ways. Being the fourth not the second sibling, so moving rapidly down the pecking order and there being a mix of titled and non titled off-spring in the family anyway.
The children of Edward and Sophie will become children of a royal Duke (alike the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St Andrews). I can understand the choice for that. A duke is the higest rank in the British peerage, so the children remain in the highest echelons of society. Imagine that Prince Henry takes the same road as his uncle Edward and imagine he will become Duke of Clarence, Earl of Athlone. The "sideline royal family" would look like this:

HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Clarence
Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Athlone

HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh
Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex

HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
Lord Nicholas Windsor, Earl of St Andrews

I can see the systematic in this. In such a scenario they are -de facto- limiting the persons who are a Prince of the United Kingdom to those not furtherer related to a Sovereign than two degrees of consanguinity. De jure it remains three degrees of consanguinity. That Prince Henry is the second son is not very relevant. Princess Margaret was also a second child. Princess Anne was also a second child.
Reply With Quote
  #1288  
Old 09-18-2016, 06:36 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,633
All in all, I do think the situation with Edward and the Duke of Edinburgh title is something special that has been planned specifically as a way for a father to hand down to his son not only the title but the involvement of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme which Edward is very much involved in now. As it stands right now, if Philip were to die before the Queen, Charles would inherit Philip's title and then on becoming King, it would revert to the Crown. This plan is a way for Philip's title to continue on through the Wessex line.

With Harry, I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens over the years. He's nowhere even close to getting married (that we know of) let alone having kids. I think we can pretty much count on Harry being created a duke upon his marriage. Anything after that is anybody's guess.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1289  
Old 09-18-2016, 06:43 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Nobody can know it for sure as we are talking about future events here. One thing we do know though is that the British care a lot about precedent and, as I said, not styling Harry's children as HRHs during Charles' reign would be unprecedented. Edward's case was already an oddity , but Edward is the monarch's third son, not the second like Andrew or Harry. In fact, assuming Charles is king and William doesn't have any more children, Harry's firstborn will be born fifth in line to the throne. By contrast, Louise was already 8th when she was born , and James is now 10th and Louise 11th.
It just would not happen IMO. Harry would hardly want his children to be treated as less important than they should be in terms of status.
I dont believe that Edward wanted to be an earl, it was problaby a decision taken at the time of low popularity for the RF, in the years after Diana's death.
He was the fourth child and third son, and there were several people ahead of him in the line, so there was only the slimmest possibliity that he woudl ever be king..
that's usually how changes happen.. Firs they happen with the outside people in the RF, usually cousins etc. George V decided to stop the titles going on and on... so that prince Michael's chidlren are merely Lord and Lady First name Windsor.
Minor members of the RF like the Earl of Harewood, got divorces, well before the Monarch's own children were allowed to divorce..
So for Edward to have a lower rank than was usual for a monarch's son on his marriage.. was the way that changes usually happen.

However I believe it also had a lot to do with the fact that in the few years after Diana had died, the RF had had a big blow ot its popularity and they were seen as needing to simplify things and have less ceremony and grandeur and talk about titles and precedence
So Ed was only made Earl of Wessex and his children we were told weren't going to use the titles Prince or Princess. However a door was left open, in that its expected that when Philip goes, Edward will get the title of Duke of Edinburgh and possibly then his children will start to use the Royal titles. At any rate Im sure Edward was not too happy to get a lesser title..
And for Harry who is much higher in the ranking system, to take a lesser title on his marriage or to have his children merely Viscount nad Lady, would be very very unlikely to happen.
He will be the equivalent of the Duke of York, as the monarch's second son. he wont be let off royal duties, and his children will problaby be pulled into them too.
It hasn't happened with Beatrice and Eugenie because there are still plenty of people to do the job, and they aren't very popular because of Fergie and Andrew's own scandals. But they are still HRH and Princesses becuase that's' their birthright as the children of the Queen's second son.
Reply With Quote
  #1290  
Old 09-18-2016, 06:44 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The
H

I can see the systematic in this. In such a scenario they are -de facto- limiting the persons who are a Prince of the United Kingdom to those not furtherer related to a Sovereign than two degrees of consanguity. De jure it remains three degrees of consanguity. That Prince Henry is the second son is not very relevant. Princess Margaret was also a second child. Princess Anne was also a second child.
they are women. They dont transfer a title to thier children.
Reply With Quote
  #1291  
Old 09-18-2016, 06:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I ca
However, I can't remember the paps and media following his nightlife or his girlfriends much, apart from Koo. Maybe he didn't go out to clubs much, maybe my memory's fading, but I can't remember a fandom. Of course Andrew's youth was pre Internet/Twitter age, and that really makes a difference.
He was fairly popular, but not I think as much covered by the papers as Charles was, during his dating years. By the time Andrew got to the dating years, Charles was married and Diana was the mega popular star of the show.. and her two little darling boys.
So Although he was liked and his courtships (if you could call them that) were followed I dont think he was mega popular. He was good looking, he had been in the war, but he was also seen as arrogant and too full of himself and not very bright. He married Sarah and she was very popular for a bit, but Andy was off on naval service and I think he wasnt as well liked by the public or press as she was during her first years.
She was a lively attractive young woman, who was based in London, he was a rather dull man who was based at sea...

Then Sarah shot herself in the foot and ended up out of the family and Andrew seemed to disappear from any real coverage. He was getting older, and fatter. He wasn't in the Navy, and he was connected with Sarah who was now very much disliked. He seems ot have embarked on a bachelor lifestyle with a lot of young women, but it did not get much coverage. So I think the same thing could happen to Harry if he's seen as still messing around iwht a lot of women and not settling into anything as he gets older.
Reply With Quote
  #1292  
Old 09-18-2016, 07:06 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I dont believe that Edward wanted to be an earl, it was problaby a decision taken at the time of low popularity for the RF, in the years after Diana's death.
He was the fourth child and third son, and there were several people ahead of him in the line, so there was only the slimmest possibliity that he woudl ever be king..
By all accounts I've seen, it was Edward and Sophie that requested the decision as to titles and styles with the understanding that eventually Edward would be created the Duke of Edinburgh. The story goes that Edward chose Wessex from a favorite movie of his, "Shakespeare in Love", which had a character named the Earl of Wessex.

This choice had nothing whatsoever to do with Diana's death or the popularity of the BRF. It was an arrangement made within the family with the monarch's approval. This basically could happen with Harry also if he felt strongly about something.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1293  
Old 09-18-2016, 07:19 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
I've never heard of this. It seems pretty ridiculous that Edward would choose a title out of a film.. for goodness sake??
Im sure if he did do that the queen would have told him not to be so stupid. What next?

And why would Edward want to have a lesser title on his marriage than his brothers had received? I think he would see it as a slight.. and probalby was only pacified by knowing that he woudl eventually be Duke of Edinburgh.
Reply With Quote
  #1294  
Old 09-18-2016, 07:47 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
they are women. They dont transfer a title to thier children.
Unless a special remainder has been created. HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught née Alexandra MacDuff was able to pass the Dukedom of Fife to her nephew James Carnegie.

Lady Patricia Knatchbull née Mountbatten, the Countess Mountbatten of Burma, Baroness Romsey, Dowager Lady Brabourne, will be able to pass her Mountbatten and Romsey peerages to her son, Lord Nicholas Knatchbull, the 8th Baron Brabourne.
Reply With Quote
  #1295  
Old 09-18-2016, 07:53 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Unless a special remainder has been created. HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught née Alexandra MacDuff was able to pass the Dukedom of Fife to her nephew James Carnegie.

Lady Patricia Knatchbull née Mountbatten, the Countess Mountbatten of Burma, Baroness Romsey, Dowager Lady Brabourne, will be able to pass her Mountbatten and Romsey peerages to her son, Lord Nicholas Knatchbull, the 8th Baron Brabourne.
In certian circumstances yes, a woman can inherit a peerage- or transfer a peerage, but it is the exception rathter than the rule as you know.
However I dont know of any Princesses transferring theri royal rank to their children. Anne was offered a peerage for Mark, which they refused. But her children would not have a princely rank.
Reply With Quote
  #1296  
Old 09-18-2016, 08:02 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The children of Edward and Sophie will become children of a royal Duke (alike the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St Andrews). I can understand the choice for that. A duke is the higest rank in the British peerage, so the children remain in the highest echelons of society. Imagine that Prince Henry takes the same road as his uncle Edward and imagine he will become Duke of Clarence, Earl of Athlone. The "sideline royal family" would look like this:

HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Clarence
Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Athlone

HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh
Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex

HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
Lord Nicholas Windsor, Earl of St Andrews

I can see the systematic in this. In such a scenario they are -de facto- limiting the persons who are a Prince of the United Kingdom to those not furtherer related to a Sovereign than two degrees of consanguinity. De jure it remains three degrees of consanguinity. That Prince Henry is the second son is not very relevant. Princess Margaret was also a second child. Princess Anne was also a second child.
I don't understand your point. Prince Harry's children will be related to King Charles III (or George VII) by two degrees of consanguinity just like George and Charlotte. In fact, their degree of consanguinity to Charles will be the same as their cousins'.

Anyway, I go back to my previous point. Being a prince, at least in the past, had nothing to do with the amount of work one does or the number of public engagements one has, but rather with membership of the Royal House (royalty, as I said, was just a part of the class system, like nobility). "Grandchldren " on the other hand was just a cutoff point used to mark where the Royal House ended and the distinction between male and female line was in accordance with the old patrilineal concept that the monarch's grandchildren in female line belonged to their father's family rather than the royal family.

To me, the Dutch post-Beatrix are the ones who are being inconsistent. Prince Constantijn's children were members of the Dutch Royal House when they were born as they were related to Queen Beatrix by two degrees of consanguinity. Yet, they were not made princes or princesses, which is odd, as a member of the Royal House should be either king/queen or prince/princess (or equivalent like infante/infanta).

Note though that the Dutch law on membership of the Royal House allows the monarch, by royal decree, to extend membership of the Royal House exceptionally to any person who is the line of succession (Art. 4) and those aforementioned people can still be made Prince/Princess of the Netherlands (Art. 8(e)).
Reply With Quote
  #1297  
Old 09-18-2016, 08:05 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I've never heard of this. It seems pretty ridiculous that Edward would choose a title out of a film.. for goodness sake??
Im sure if he did do that the queen would have told him not to be so stupid. What next?

And why would Edward want to have a lesser title on his marriage than his brothers had received? I think he would see it as a slight.. and probalby was only pacified by knowing that he woudl eventually be Duke of Edinburgh.
It was commonly reported at the time of the marriage including during the commentary on the marriage.

I remember watching the wedding with my family and we commented on that story as we had watched that exact movie the day before and felt that it would be a good title to see re-established even suggested that Edward might become Duke of Wessex at his wedding as he was keen on the theatre. We were half right.

It was reported at the time that he chose to be an Earl with the understanding that IF the title is available then he will be created Duke of Edinburgh when both The Queen and Philip have died as it has to merge with the crown first and that can only happen when Charles is King and when Philip is also deceased.

Of course if a tragedy were to happen and Charles, William and George were all to predecease Philip then the Edinburgh title would pass to Harry and Charlotte would become Queen and thus the Edinburgh title wouldn't be available for Edward.
Reply With Quote
  #1298  
Old 09-18-2016, 09:00 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The York girls were popular as children - they were girls and there were pictures of them lots of times. Andrew was very popular in his 20s and 30s and his girls were seen as even adding to his popularity.

But then then they grew up and they weren't the most beautiful of princesses and the public decided that only the Wales boys should be liked - because they are Diana's sons.
No, I think it helped but it wasn't the primary reason. It was more to do iwht the fact that Will and Harry are in the line to be king.
They are the sons of thte next king.. Bea and Eugenie are only the daughters of a second son and one who was getting less and less popular.
Fergie became so unpopular that her daughters were to an extent sharing in that lack of popularity. They didn't get much coverage, and sicne they grew up, neither of them has shown any signs of wanting to do anyting very much. It seems like they doa few engagements here and there and dabble in jobs the way a lot of rich girls do. They dont have to work, so there's a story that they are getting some new job and then before you know it, they've taken 20 holidays in a year and are moving on to the next job..

Will and Harry aren't IMO as active as they could be, but they are more active than the York girls. They have had their careers mapped out, whereas B and Eug have nothing planned.. Will and Harry both knew that they'd have a spell in the Military and then a gradual move towards royal work.. and that means a certain amount of press coverage and popularity.. Harry was a soldier and that made him noticed and popular.
If Beatrice or Eugenie did anything worth noticing them for, such as taking a serious interest in the arts for example, maybe getting intot film production or the like, they woudl get coverage for that.. but they dont do anything that is really publicity friendly.
I certainly dont know of anyone who dislikes them, but they are not much thought of.
Reply With Quote
  #1299  
Old 09-18-2016, 09:01 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It was commonly reported at the time of the marriage including during the commentary on the marriage.

I

Edward.
sorry Commentary by whom?
Reply With Quote
  #1300  
Old 09-18-2016, 09:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
sorry Commentary by whom?
The TV people who were doing the commentary we watched in Australia of the wedding - don't remember the names after all these years - don't even remember which channel it was on but whoever was commenting on the wedding from St George's were the people reporting it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince harry, prince william, styles and titles


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





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince harry princess beatrice hats princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats prince sverre queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats time travel women deliver conference


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises