The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1561  
Old 05-22-2017, 12:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,328
Ah, yes. That's different. The Duke of Sussex's children were illegitimately born because the Royal Marriages Act invalidated his marriage (likewise with William IV's children).
Prince Michael of Kent is a better comparison - his children are legitimate therefore hold the titles granted to them under the 1917 LPs - as the children of a British prince who themselves do not hold their own titles, they're styled as Lord/Lady. They're actually in the succession to, as despite their father's (former) removal and their mother's religion, they were raised in the CoE and were never barred from the succession.

The sons and grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are also examples; the Earl of St Andrews has married a Catholic and was temporarily removed from the succession, but still has his courtesy title. Lord Nicholas converted to Catholicism and was removed from the succession, but still has his courtesy title.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1562  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:08 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,024
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

Prince Michael isn't the same scenario either because the Queen did approve his marriage per the Royal Marriage Act because Freddie and Gabrielle were still in the line of succession because they aren't Catholic.

With the law change, if you went ahead without approval Harry would lose in succession rights, then kids wouldn't have any succession rights. Plus the titles and who is a HRH is all down to the monarch. So the same monarch that didn't approve the marriage can issue LPs to turn HRH Prince Harry of Wales to Mr Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Not to mention kick him out of KP and cut off funding of his activities.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1563  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Prince Michael isn't the same scenario either because the Queen did approve his marriage per the Royal Marriage Act because Freddie and Gabrielle were still in the line of succession because they aren't Catholic.

With the law change, if you went ahead without approval Harry would lose in succession rights, then kids wouldn't have any succession rights. Plus the titles and who is a HRH is all down to the monarch. So the same monarch that didn't approve the marriage can issue LPs to turn HRH Prince Harry of Wales to Mr Harry Mountbatten Windsor.
That is precisely the point. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 per se does not affect royal styles and titles; the only effect of marriage without consent under the act is the forfeiting of succession rights. On the other hand, the current LPs regulating royal titles and styles do not tie them to succession rights. In fact, Prince Michael (temporarily) lost his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic, but remained an HRH and his wife was still styled HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

If Harry and his future children lost their succession rights, I don't see in principle any reason why the Queen, or Charles (when he is king), would also want to strip them of their titles by special LPs.
Reply With Quote
  #1564  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:20 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,024
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

If Queen and Charles were happy with who the royal was going to marry, then it would be approved. The permission being needed is basically to stop a royal doing something stupid like getting drunk somewhere and marrying a stripper. The Queen or Charles is not going to want the Stripper Princess out on the BP balcony.
Reply With Quote
  #1565  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
If Queen and Charles were happy with who the royal was going to marry, then it would be approved. The permission being needed is basically to stop a royal doing something stupid like getting drunk somewhere and marrying a stripper. The Queen or Charles is going to want the Stripper Princess out on the BP balcony.

It is not that simple. As I mentioned in another thread, quoting the official explanatory notes for the Succession to the Crown Act (from legislation.gov.uk), the practice under the Royal Marriages Act was that government ministers were supposed to be previously informed of proposed marriages of people close to the Crown and the Queen was supposed to seek formal advice from her ministers before granting her consent. Under the new act, the explanatory notes say that the government expects the aforementioned practice to continue, meaning the government will previously consider any proposed bride for Harry and will then advise the Queen on the suitability of the marriage. I believe that kind of vetting goes beyond simply preventing him from marrying a stripper in Vegas.
Reply With Quote
  #1566  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,690
A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


The act is quite clear. It's the consent of the Sovereign that is required. Once the consent has been obtained then she declares it to the Privy Council .

It is The Queen, not the government which gives consent.
Reply With Quote
  #1567  
Old 05-22-2017, 04:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


The act is quite clear. It's the consent of the Sovereign that is required. Once the consent has been obtained then she declares it to the Privy Council .

It is The Queen, not the government which gives consent.

Again, please read the official explanatory notes to the act on legislation.gov.uk, which I quote below.

Quote:

19.Subsection (1) provides that any of the first six people in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty prior to their marriage. This effects a substantial decrease from the number of people affected by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The recent practice under that Act is for Ministers to be informed of a proposed marriage of a person close in the succession to the Throne, and to have the opportunity of giving formal advice to Her Majesty as to whether consent should be given. The Government expects this practice to continue.

Source: Succession to the Crown Act 2013
As I said before, I don't think the government cares (too much) about whom Harry marries (as Harry is relatively unimportant as 5th in line), but the practice is very clear: Meghan, or any other person whom Harry chooses as his bride, will be vetted by the government and the government will advise the Queen as to whether that person is suitable or nor before the Queen decides to consent to the union or not.
Reply With Quote
  #1568  
Old 05-22-2017, 04:44 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,396
Somehow I think this is just "in writing" and not in practice. It's for The Queen to decide and that's quite clear.

And beside that, who cares?!
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1569  
Old 05-22-2017, 04:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,477
Why would the Queen refuse Harry consent anyway? There is nothing in Meghan's past or present that would cause such a thing to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #1570  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:09 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Why would the Queen refuse Harry consent anyway? There is nothing in Meghan's past or present that would cause such a thing to happen.
well, you know--she's "American" and an actress...
Reply With Quote
  #1571  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:20 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,946
Harry has American blood already from his mother's side...and a number of noble families have Americans in their bloodlines. That's a non-issue.

At least some of the BRF are known for their ability to mimic and act, love of acting.

The divorce is another non-issue thanks to Charles.


I don't think there's anything that we know about that would bar approval from the Queen for the marriage.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:33 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Harry has American blood already from his mother's side...and a number of noble families have Americans in their bloodlines. That's a non-issue.

At least some of the BRF are known for their ability to mimic and act, love of acting.

The divorce is another non-issue thanks to Charles.


I don't think there's anything that we know about that would bar approval from the Queen for the marriage.


LaRae
I agree with you, my comment was sarcasm. That's why I included the laughing emoticon.
Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:42 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I agree with you, my comment was sarcasm. That's why I included the laughing emoticon.
Yes I caught that...I was heading them off at the pass...cause you know what's going to be said next.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 06-06-2017, 04:21 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 6
I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).
Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 06-06-2017, 04:49 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Burke, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicomte de Valjean View Post
I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).
Your right, Duke of Ross is nice. But I think Duke of Clarence is better.
Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 06-06-2017, 05:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicomte de Valjean View Post
I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).
I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.
Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 06-06-2017, 07:24 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Burke, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.
I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.
Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 06-06-2017, 07:28 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitty1224 View Post
I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.
Let;s not go in that juvenile direction again, the last time the thread was shut down by the mods.
Reply With Quote
  #1579  
Old 06-06-2017, 08:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,477
Id really, really rather Harry have Sussex than Clarence, whatever fun the DM has with it! Previous Dukes of Clarence were killed in the Tower, died from pneumonia in their twenties or were crass idiots with at least ten illegitimate children like the future William IV. It's been quite an unlucky Dukedom.
Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 06-06-2017, 09:24 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,946
I think all the dukedom's have had their share of bad luck.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince harry, prince william, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (2 members and 7 guests)
Furienna, Osipi
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 best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe letizia monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria


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 02:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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