The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1301  
Old 09-18-2016, 08:09 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I
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). "G
T

N(Art. 8(e)).
that's true and I dont think it has changed ,in the eyes of the British RF. Being a prince/ss is a rank, and not to do with whether you do the "charity and other royal work". And I think for the moment it will stay that way.
Perhaps in another 20 years, it will be like
"If you are not intending to get on the duty roster, you will just be "Lady Mary Mountbatten Windsor", and lead a relatively ordinary life..and not be a royal (though of course you'll stil be a member of the Royal family). (nad hopefully the press wont chase you TOO much).
.. but if you are intending to do the royal duties, you'll be HRH Princess Mary.. and have the usual honours that go with that.
But right now, I think that regardless of whether Harry becomes a full time royal or not, and teh same with his children, he will still be HRH P Harry and they will be HRH prince/princess X of Sussex...
and whether Bea and Eugenie ever do royal duties or not, they are still HRH Princesses B and Eug of York..and always will be.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 09-18-2016, 08:47 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,468
Before 1917, who was a prince or princess was more or less determined by custom and whim.

It wasn't until George V that we get the template that is used today. I don't think it's a stretch to say that after a 100 years maybe the Letters Patent need to amended to reflect the society of the 21st century.

We don't know Harry's view. He may take a practical and pragmatic view and say because his children won't be major players in the Firm, it makes more sense to not have them as royal highnesses. To give them greater freedom to chart their own course.

But regardless, Harry's children will still have their place of precedence and still be in the line of succession.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 09-18-2016, 10:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,197
How do we know Harry's children won't be major players in the family 'firm'? William only has one sibling and may well seek some help as the years go on.

George has only one sibling, at the moment. The Cambridges might have another child, they might not. Charlotte may be married and living overseas in another thirty to thirty five years or just not want to participate in Royal duties. We don't know.

When George becomes King and looks around for some help with his duties, who, besides his then elderly Uncle (and Aunt) is there going to be? If George has adult children when he becomes King, all well and good. If he hasn't any or they're too young, it's going to be mighty lonely, and extremely busy, at the top.
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 09-18-2016, 12:36 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Because if they don't have titles and don't do engagements they're private citizens which makes life a lot easier.



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



.

Them being private citizens would not matter. They will still be of very great interest to the media and public.


Not comparing Andy now to the Wales boys now. I'm talking about that the comparable ages. Andrew has never had the level of interest that the Wales boys have.

I remember when Andrew was younger.

LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 09-18-2016, 12:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,448
It probably won't keep the press at bay but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Harry tries to keep them from having (or at least using) HRH status. It would certainly help the children lead more private lives, none of the Queen's grandchildren have completely private lives but Zara and Peter do so much more than W&H and B&E do, for starters people can moan about their HRH status.
Personally if I was Harry I would want to do anything to keep my kids lives as private as possible, you're right it might not work but who would blame him for trying.
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 09-18-2016, 12:55 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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'.

[...].
So is Edward, he is also related to a Sovereign within two degrees of consanguinity. According the current LP Edward's children are entitled to be HRH Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom but instead become children of a (royal) Duke. My point was that if for Henry the same path is followed, de facto the title HRH Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom becomes limited to royals whom are closely related to a Sovereign. De jure nothing changes. After all Lady Louise and Lord James are, de jure, still entitled to be a Prince or Princess indeed.

That was the point I tried to make: the monarchy making the circle of Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom narrower by not changing the LP but in practice treating children of junior Princes as sons and daughters of a (royal) Duke indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 09-18-2016, 01:40 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Them being private citizens would not matter. They will still be of very great interest to the media and public.


Not comparing Andy now to the Wales boys now. I'm talking about that the comparable ages. Andrew has never had the level of interest that the Wales boys have.

I remember when Andrew was younger.

LaRae
What I meant was being private citizens offers a lot more protection for Henry's children against the prying paps. William and Catherine have to go through so much red tape in regards to pictures printed of the children. I never said there wouldn't be interest in Henry's children, of course there will be, but not having titles will make their lives a lot easier IMO.

In their age Charles and Andrew were probably as popular as William and Henry. Only difference now is we have instant technology at our finger tips. The press are a lot more disrespectful of royal boundaries than they were previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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.
At any rate Im sure Edward was not too happy to get a lesser title..
Again, have you seen the guy you're talking about in interviews? I imagine all he cares about for his future children is that they are happy and healthy. It's so clear from Henry's numerous interviews that he hates his title and the burden it puts on him. Why would he wish that on his children when he could avoid it?

As I write below I believe Edward wanted to be an Earl, he will eventually be a Duke so he and Sophie took the decision to make the most of the family time they have and focus on their children. With a dukedom, they'd both have been pushed to do more.


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.
Here is an article from RoyalCentral an incredibly knowledgable royal reporter.
Why Is Prince Edward An Earl, Not A Duke? – Royal Central

Here is a Telegraph article relating to the same story;
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph

A fact in The Sunday Post when he turned 50;
39. On his wedding day the Queen gave Edward the title Earl of Wessex. He had he picked up on the title while watching the film Shakespeare in Love in which Colin Firth plays a character with that name.


Evidently The Queen didn't tell him it was not so stupid, because he has the title. Prior to the creation for Edward, Wessex was last created in the 11th Century. It has no royal lineage at all.

It's evident that Edward asked for a "lesser" title because he is the third son, and youngest child and was well aware when he married that he and his children wouldn't be needed. The title has allowed him to be with his family as they grow up and has allowed James and Louise to have a quiet upbringing. Whilst they are lower down in succession, there is interest in them because they are young royals.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 09-18-2016, 02:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Again, have you seen the guy you're talking about in interviews? I imagine all he cares about for his future children is that they are happy and healthy. It's so clear from Henry's numerous interviews that he hates his title and the burden it puts on him. Why would he wish that on his children when he could avoid it?

As I write below I believe Edward wanted to be an Earl, he will eventually be a Duke so he and Sophie took the decision to make the most of the family time they have and focus on their children. With a dukedom, they'd both have been pushed to do more.




Here is an article from RoyalCentral an incredibly knowledgable royal reporter.
Why Is Prince Edward An Earl, Not A Duke? – Royal Central

Here is a Telegraph article relating to the same story;
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph

A fact in The Sunday Post when he turned 50;
39. On his wedding day the Queen gave Edward the title Earl of Wessex. He had he picked up on the title while watching the film Shakespeare in Love in which Colin Firth plays a character with that name.


Evidently The Queen didn't tell him it was not so stupid, because he has the title. Prior to the creation for Edward, Wessex was last created in the 11th Century. It has no royal lineage at all.

It's evident that Edward asked for a "lesser" title because he is the third son, and youngest child and was well aware when he married that he and his children wouldn't be needed. The title has allowed him to be with his family as they grow up and has allowed James and Louise to have a quiet upbringing. Whilst they are lower down in succession, there is interest in them because they are young royals.

The point where I believe we differ is in the definition of "royal". To me, a "royal" by definition must be necessarily a king/queen, or prince/princess, or something equivalent to that (grand duke, infante, etc.). A relative of the monarch who is not a prince/princess or equivalent is not a royal to me. In my opinion, it was wrong, unprecedented and against the law to deprive James and Louise of royal status.
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 09-18-2016, 02:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,468
There is no statute or Act of Parliament governing royal styles and titles in Britain. It's a matter of common law.

It may have been unprecedented with James and Louise but it's not against the law. Since Queen Victoria's time the ability to confirm or limit royal styles has been the Sovereign's personal prerogative.

There are many reasons Harry may not want his children with grand royal titles. He only needs to look to his cousins to see the benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 09-18-2016, 03:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The point where I believe we differ is in the definition of "royal". To me, a "royal" by definition must be necessarily a king/queen, or prince/princess, or something equivalent to that (grand duke, infante, etc.). A relative of the monarch who is not a prince/princess or equivalent is not a royal to me. In my opinion, it was wrong, unprecedented and against the law to deprive James and Louise of royal status.
They are royal. Just they dont use their royal titles. I dont think it is a big deal for them, because they are well down the line of succession and I dont think it is expected that they wil be doing royal duties. And George V clearly felt that it was silly to allow every distant relative to a King to be called Prince/ss and cut it back. Good idea.
But Harry's children will be very close to the throne.. so they will be Princes etc and he will be A royal duke
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 09-18-2016, 04:06 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,858
The closest Harry's first child will be to throne is fifth baring some sort of disaster. Peter Philips was once fifth in line too. Any future children from the Cambridges and then their grandchildren will push Harry and his line further away from the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 09-18-2016, 04:30 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
They are royal. Just they dont use their royal titles. I dont think it is a big deal for them, because they are well down the line of succession and I dont think it is expected that they wil be doing royal duties. And George V clearly felt that it was silly to allow every distant relative to a King to be called Prince/ss and cut it back. Good idea.
But Harry's children will be very close to the throne.. so they will be Princes etc and he will be A royal duke
Nothing is written in stone. Can't check the "Royal Titles and Styles" manual for the ins and outs of a royal prerogative. Harry could request to be created the Earl of Ginger and Beer and his son X, Viscount Pretzel (just an example. I'm craving a ginger beer right now) and should the monarch (Queen or Charles) agree with Harry's request, it would be done.

Probably will not happen as we've seen William requesting not to be a duke and it was denied but it wouldn't surprise me one bit that when Charles comes to the throne, only the Monarch and Consort, heir apparent and wife/husband and children and then the oldest child of the heir apparent will be HRH.

One big reason that we're overlooking here as far as royal titles and styles go too is that there has been a major change in the line of succession. With Anne as the second child of a monarch, she could not pass down any kind of title to her children. In the future, if George only has girls, the eldest girl will be heir apparent because of the change in ruling of primogeniture. Instead of all the muddle if daughters then can pass royal titles down through the matriarchal line, it would be much simpler and more streamlined to define a "royal" by proximity to the throne rather than by blood lineage.

Just a few thoughts.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 09-18-2016, 06:27 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The closest Harry's first child will be to throne is fifth baring some sort of disaster. Peter Philips was once fifth in line too. Any future children from the Cambridges and then their grandchildren will push Harry and his line further away from the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
In 1819 Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent was born fifth in line to the throne. While the circumstances were a little unprecedented, they did happen.
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 09-18-2016, 07:09 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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..
Princess Eugenie has been steadily employed since shortly after she graduated from university. Her first job was with an art auction company in New York, and now she works full-time at a gallery in London. Two jobs only, and she went straight from one to the other.

Princess Beatrice does not a have steady employment record, but she does do a lot more charity work that is not reported on by the mainstream press. We here at TRF learn about some of these thanks to members who scour local papers for stories - such as her work with the dyslexic charity and the theater company in York. She may, and I say may because none of us know her, want to do more and has been turned down. Those who have actually met her at these events report that she is an absolutely lovely young woman, well-prepared, friendly and interested in the work. She may, again, want to marry and be a stay-home mum. We don't know.

As far as "holidays" go, a closer look at dates show that most of the "holidays" reported on by the Daily Mail and similar papers are actually weekends - maybe a bit more posh than most of us regular folks can enjoy but not that out of the ordinary for those with a little more disposable income and/or well-to-do friends.

Beatrice and Eugenie pay for the "sins" of their parents. They can't win: if they don't have a full-time job that meets with the approval of the press they're "spongers off the public" and if they have jobs they're "taking them away" from "someone who actually needs one." Some of the comments under the latest "Eugenie to marry" stories are vicious -and some of the kinder ones state that at least she'll get off the public payroll. Of course, neither Eugenie or Beatrice have ever been ON the public payroll, but facts never get in the way of a good (non) story...
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 09-18-2016, 09:30 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 372
Quote:
Beatrice and Eugenie pay for the "sins" of their parents. They can't win: if they don't have a full-time job that meets with the approval of the press they're "spongers off the public" and if they have jobs they're "taking them away" from "someone who actually needs one." Some of the comments under the latest "Eugenie to marry" stories are vicious -and some of the kinder ones state that at least she'll get off the public payroll. Of course, neither Eugenie or Beatrice have ever been ON the public payroll, but facts never get in the way of a good (non) story...
This is so true and so indicative of today's society in that people feel they can say whatever they like online, mean and hateful things about somebody they've never met. It's just so wrong; i feel for them. All they ever do is smile nicely for the camera; they seem very nice girls, Eugenie works full time as far as i can see, and i believe Beatrice would have been happy going Royal work, but that does not appear to be happening.

Re Prince Harry; i believe his children will be Prince and Princesses. I see no problem with having Prince/Princesses doing the job, or not doing the job (if they are not required). I would like to see (though I doubt this would ever happen) all the grandchildren of a Monarch to be Prince/cesses. Then the style would drop off at the greatgrandchildren level. Just like the non-Royal Dukes have their children styled as Lord and Ladies, but only one of them will actually take on the Dukedom.

Should the styles Prince/esses end up as being only for working members of the Firm, rather than where they stand in conjunction with the Monarch, then those who marry in and do the job should also be Prince/esses usuing their own names (e.g. Princess Sophie).

Anyway, I like Harry and hope all goes well for him.
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 09-18-2016, 10:04 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,268
As per the current LPs, if Harry has (legitimate) children during the reign of the Queen they will be styled as the children of a Duke - Lord and Lady [Given Name] Mountbatten-Windsor. It's only during Charles' reign that they'll become HRH Prince and Princess [Given Name] of [Territory].

A lot can happen between now and then. Something could happen to prevent Charles from becoming King. Something could prevent Harry from having legitimate children. A repeat of the feelings that were present during the 90s could happen that would cause Harry to chose to have his children styled as the children of a Duke instead of as Royals (a lot of Edward's decision had to do with the times and the mood of the public). The Queen could live to be 120, and Harry's teenage or adult children could not want to change their titles and ask to remain Lords and Ladies.
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 09-18-2016, 10:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,197
Yes, and Charles could come to the throne in the next few years, after Harry has married and become Duke of Sussex. Charles could then decide that all his grandchildren, including Harry's offspring, should be HRHs.
Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 09-18-2016, 10:44 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,858
As King, all of Charles's grandkids would be entitled to be HRH Prince/Princess because he only has sons. Harry can just choose for his kids not to use the HRH like his uncle did.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 09-18-2016, 10:46 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,445
Anything could happen. That's the beauty of the royal prerogative. I think a lot depends on Charles and how much he wants to change things or how much he wants things to stay as traditions have dictated. He's not talking so we have no clue.

I think this all is part and parcel of a Confucius curse. "May you live in interesting times".
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 09-19-2016, 08:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
There is no statute or Act of Parliament governing royal styles and titles in Britain. It's a matter of common law.

It may have been unprecedented with James and Louise but it's not against the law. Since Queen Victoria's time the ability to confirm or limit royal styles has been the Sovereign's personal prerogative.

There are many reasons Harry may not want his children with grand royal titles. He only needs to look to his cousins to see the benefit.

The Queen cannot overrule Letters Patent from a former sovereign by a court circular. That is unlawful.
__________________

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
albania beatrice (1986- ) best gown september 2016 best outfit best outfit september 2016 biography birthday crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion cymry denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of cambridge fashion duke of cambridge english books far-right fashion poll french jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander maxima in australia and new zealand monarchy multiple births new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 paris picture of the week prince charles prince felix princess charlene daytime fashion princess charlene fashion princess mary princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion princess mary style princess sofia queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen mathildes outfits queen mathilde visits jordan queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen rania in new zealand september 2016 silva state visit succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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 03:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises