Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[Lady Ann]

Thanks, MaFan I was not sure since he was a male line if he could pass the title or not....

 

[king of scotland]

I don't think Charles will issues new Letters of Patent, neither do I think William will either once he is Kings, maybe William's son/daughter who comes after him might.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Yes, they are running around but let's face it. Who is going to be doing any work on behalf of the Royal Family.

My point is eventually it will get to the soverign's immeadiate family without Charles having to anything. James and Louise most likely will not do anything but show up for family functions (much like Zara and Peter). In 15 years, it will just be William and Henry producing HRH's. Once the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Prince Michael die, the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St. Andrews will just be Your Grace.

I think it will be necessary to still have several HRH's representing the Crown in the public. The Hon So-and-So or Lord/Lady X Y dont have as much prestige, so to speak.

Why will the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St. Andrew's be demoted to His Grace standard? They are descended from George V are they not?

 

[auntie]

I think it will be necessary to still have several HRH's representing the Crown in the public. The Hon So-and-So or Lord/Lady X Y dont have as much prestige, so to speak.

Why will the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St. Andrew's be demoted to His Grace standard? They are descended from George V are they not?

Yes, but the law is that HRH goes only untill the granson of a monarch, which the Dukes of Kent and Glouscter are, and their sons are not. The same with Prince Harry if he marries and has children whilst EII will be alive they will be Lord/Lady and not Prince/ess as only the children of the eldest son of the prince of Wales get to be Prince/ess. Unless Charles does something to intervene. Even Charles himself when he was born to a Daughter of a king and son of a Duke, was meant to be called Lord...and george VI issued a patent letter to style him and Anne HRH, untill he becomes son of a monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think it will be necessary to still have several HRH's representing the Crown in the public. The Hon So-and-So or Lord/Lady X Y dont have as much prestige, so to speak.

Why will the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St. Andrew's be demoted to His Grace standard? They are descended from George V are they not?

They are descendents of George V but...

the HRH only goes as far as the male-line grandchildren and they are male-line great-grandchildren of George V.

Both their fathers are HRH because they are grandchildren of George V.

The 1917 Letters Patent gives the HRH to:

the children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward

the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line - William and Harry of Wales, Beatrice and Eugenie of York, Louise and James of Wessex, Richard of Gloucester, Edward, Alexandra and Michael of Kent. The first six are male-line grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II and the other four are male-line grandchildren of George V

and

the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (namely William's eldest son - if born in the present reign).

From there William and Harry's children will eventually have the HRH (when Charles becomes King) but none of the other HRHs above can pass it down further (if course if Andrew remarries and has more children or Edward has more children those children would also be HRH).

William's eldest son, born in the present reign would also be HRH but no other children at the moment. They would be raised to HRH when Charles becomes King. Harry's children will only become HRH when Charles becomes King and if Charles predeceases the Queen Harry's children won't be HRH at all.

 

[Alison20]

Surely it is traditional in the case of a title jumping a generation (because the son has predeceased his father) to give the children of the younger brothers the same titles they would have had if the father had succeeded? In other words, if Charles preceased the Queen, when William came to throne any children Harry had would be granted the titles they would have had if Charles had come to the throne.

It certainly happens in the British nobility. There are many such cases there, and so I can't see why it wouldn't happen in the Royal Family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Surely it is traditional in the case of a title jumping a generation (because the son has predeceased his father) to give the children of the younger brothers the same titles they would have had if the father had succeeded? In other words, if Charles preceased the Queen, when William came to throne any children Harry had would be granted the titles they would have had if Charles had come to the throne.

It certainly happens in the British nobility. There are many such cases there, and so I can't see why it wouldn't happen in the Royal Family.

It would require LPs to be issued. Under the present LPs they wouldn't get it.

 

[agogo]

Why not to use Prince and Princess titles?

Is this to reduce the titled royals, and the civil list?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is this to reduce the titled royals, and the civil list?

It makes no difference to the Civil List as there are only two recipients of the Civil List - the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh. All the rest of the royals are funded by the Queen from her personal fortune.

Reducing the size of the royal family has been discussed for many years and it appears to be starting with Louise and James but there are still really HRH but are using a lesser title like Camilla is really The Princess of Wales but is using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that it's more to give the Wessex children the change to live a more normal life, because they'll likely have to earn their own money some day and not do public duties. Edward and Sophie seem to be keen to protect their children from the kind of expose that their Wales and York cousins have had. I believe that only the Queen receives money from the civil list now, and the expenses of junior members of the family (i.e. not Prince Charles) are paid by her.

Is this to reduce the titled royals, and the civil list?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is this to reduce the titled royals, and the civil list?

They have titles Lady and Viscount, which come with being children of and Earl.
But it's just to give them a greater chance of a normal life, IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Anne's husband, Cpt. Mark Philips, declined the Queen's offer of an earldom when he married Anne, which meant his children would carry no titles.

When Edward and Sophie had children, they requested they be styled as the children of an earl (as Edward is the Earl of Wessex), rather than the children of a prince (which they legally are anyway). They wanted to lessen the burdens on them that come with a royal title, such as their cousins the Wales' and Yorks'. They are still legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex and when they're 18, if they choose to revert to their legal title, they can. Or they can continue to remain as they are. It's up to them at that point.

Do you have a link from an official source that they can revert to being HRH at 18? The only official source I have ever seen is the Queen giving permission for them to be known as the children of an Earl and I have come across an interpretation that that means that they aren't legally able to be HRH as the Queen's will is all that is needed - not necessary to issue LPs in other words.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Do you have a link from an official source that they can revert to being HRH at 18? The only official source I have ever seen is the Queen giving permission for them to be known as the children of an Earl and I have come across an interpretation that that means that they aren't legally able to be HRH as the Queen's will is all that is needed - not necessary to issue LPs in other words.

They are legally HRH Prince/Princess of Wessex. While in their minority, their parents wish them to be styled as the children of an earl. When in their majority, common sense tells me that if they choose to use their legal titles, they would be able to.

This is no different than Camilla choosing to be styled as The Duchess of Cornwall rather than the Princess of Wales, which she is legally entitled to. Just because that's not the style she's using doesn't mean she couldn't legally use it at some point (although it's highly unlikely).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am asking for official links that say this. It is one thing for people to continually repeat this but the only thing I can find is that the Queen has given her consent for them to be known as the children of an Earl but nothing that says, officially, that they can take up the HRH at 18. I have seen reports that actually say the opposite - that the Queen's permission is the same as saying they no longer have it.

I want an official link to say they can be HRH at 18 - not wikipedia or news reports but something on an official website.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I wouldn't know where to start to search for something like that, besides.......I'm not doing your homework for you. If you want to find that information, you can do that yourself.
Also, please try to come across less demanding next time. Your last sentence reeks of you barking an order to me.

 

[branchg]

Do you have a link from an official source that they can revert to being HRH at 18? The only official source I have ever seen is the Queen giving permission for them to be known as the children of an Earl and I have come across an interpretation that that means that they aren't legally able to be HRH as the Queen's will is all that is needed - not necessary to issue LPs in other words.

The will of The Sovereign can be expressed through a Royal Warrant, Letters Patent, an announcement or a confirmation. However, the rule of law still applies to the Crown.

The Letters Patent of 1917, which is an instrument of law, currently governs the style, title and rank of those in the lineal descendant of The Sovereign. As such, any person who meets the criteria defined in these Letters Patent is entitled to such rank and style, unless The Sovereign states otherwise.

As male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign, Louise and James are automatically entitled to the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. At the request of their parents, The Queen agreed they could use the style of children of a Peer instead, which they are already entitled to do since they are the children of an Earl.

Because she did not issue Letters Patent or a Royal Warrant changing her grandfather's guidelines, both James and Louise do indeed have the right to assume their royal styles as adults. If The Sovereign disagrees, it must be made official, as it was for The Duchess of Windsor when George VI issued Letters Patent stating Edward's wife and descendants would not be entitled to share his royal rank or style.

The general expectation is Charles intends to downsize the royal family after the death of The Queen by restricting the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK to the children of The Sovereign and the children of the eldest son of The Sovereign. So, it's more likely this was the intent regarding Edward and Sophie's children not using their royal styles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wouldn't know where to start to search for something like that, besides.......I'm not doing your homework for you. If you want to find that information, you can do that yourself.

Also, please try to come across less demanding next time. Your last sentence reeks of you barking an order to me.

I originally asked for an official link and you simply repeated what everyone has been saying but you did not provide the link I asked for so I stated again what I wanted.

If you are simply going to repeat rumours I am not interested. I have been hearing these rumours for 10 years but the only thing official is that the Queen is allowing them to be styled as the children of an Earl. Nowhere does anything official say that they can revert to HRH at 18 - I have actually researched this quite a bit which is why I asked for a link as I haven't been able to find one. I have come across a report from a constitutional lawyer who says that the Queen's will has been made known and thus they aren't not entitled to become HRH in the future but what I am looking for is an actual official statement to that effect.

If you couldn't provide the link that was asked for why did you respond by repeating what you had already said. You originally said

When Edward and Sophie had children, they requested they be styled as the children of an earl (as Edward is the Earl of Wessex), rather than the children of a prince (which they legally are anyway). They wanted to lessen the burdens on them that come with a royal title, such as their cousins the Wales' and Yorks'. They are still legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex and when they're 18, if they choose to revert to their legal title, they can. Or they can continue to remain as they are. It's up to them at that point.

and my reply to that post was to ask for a link

Do you have a link from an official source that they can revert to being HRH at 18? The only official source I have ever seen is the Queen giving permission for them to be known as the children of an Earl and I have come across an interpretation that that means that they aren't legally able to be HRH as the Queen's will is all that is needed - not necessary to issue LPs in other words.

Then all you do is repeat what you have already said - in other words you totally ignored my post and just repeated the oft repeated rumours.

They are legally HRH Prince/Princess of Wessex. While in their minority, their parents wish them to be styled as the children of an earl. When in their majority, common sense tells me that if they choose to use their legal titles, they would be able to.

but you didn't do what I asked - provide a link.

That was my original question.

I didn't ask you do to my research. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself. That is the problem. In doing the research I haven't come across anything official but just the same 'common sense' ideas which are contradicted by consitutional experts who argue that once the Queen's will is known that is that.

If you can't provide the link asked for in future please don't reply to my posts and I will do the same to yours - if you ask for a link and I can't I will ignore your posts.

I am sorry if it sounded like a demand. It was meant to re-iterate the original question I asked you that you are unable to answer.

Thank you for confirming that you can't answer the question.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The will of The Sovereign can be expressed through a Royal Warrant, Letters Patent, an announcement or a confirmation...

Actually that is the whole point - there are constitutional experts who claim that her will is all that is needed - no LPs or Warrants etc just her will. That is why I am asking for an official link and not just a regurgitating of the same argument. I know these arguments. I am trying to find the official confirmation that this is the case rather than that of the constitutational experts who claim that once the Queen's will is known that is the end of it.

 

[branchg]

In theory, they would retain the right to assume their princely style and rank as adults because the 1917 Letters Patent states they are entitled to it. This assumes, of course, that new Letters Patent are not issued by The Sovereign changing the guidelines, which is very likely to happen before they turn 18.

In practice, The Queen announced it is the express wish of Edward and Sophie their children not hold royal rank due to their future circumstances of being far from the line of succession. As such, she stated they would be styled as the children of an Earl instead. Therefore, they are Lady Louise and James, Viscount Severn and no letters patent is necessary at this time.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am obviously beating my head against a brick wall here. I am aware of these arguments but... there is nowhere where this is officially stated and that is what I am looking for.

The constitutional experts by the way are two gentlemen who have both sat on the Australian High Court. I was having dinner with them with my father, who was a colleague of both of them in their working days, and this topic came up for discussion. They both argued that what you are saying is not the case at all. They both said the same thing - that once the Queen made known her will with regard to their titles they lost the right to be HRH unless there was some official statement to that effect.

As no one can provide any link to such an official statement I will stick with their interpretation - that the Queen's will has overridden the LPs of 1917. They have both ruled on constitutional matters here in Australia and argued matters before the Courts and Privy Council in Britain and won so they know their stuff.

 

[texankitcat]

Rather than beating your head (and everyone else's) against the wall, why don't YOU provide a link of an official reference rather than some unknown colleagues of your father who are allegedly experts on the constitution. If the Letters Patent aren't good enough for you, then the burden of proof is on you - not everyone else.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Rather than beating your head (and everyone else's) against the wall, why don't YOU provide a link or some other official reference rather than some unknown friends of your family who are allegedly experts on the constitution that gave your their interpretation. If the Letters Patent aren't good enough for you, then the burden of proof is on you.

I have simply asked for an official line that confirms the interpretation but no one can provide one and everyone keeps quoting the LPs which I know fully.

As no one can provide a link the each has to have their own interpretation and I will stick with the one I have from two respected experts whom I know and you can continue to believe what you wish.

It isn't that the LPs aren't good enough. It is the very fact that there are interpretations (and precedents with Princesses Marina and especially Alice of Gloucester) where the Queen's will has overridden the LPs.

Had no one replied, especially by simply repeating the same thing over and over again I would have had no need to beat my head but it seems that no one can help me but all they can do is repeat the same stuff but without the link to an official site that supports their interpretation.

As you also can't even supply a link to an official site that says simply - they are really HRH and can take those titles at age 18 (surely if that were the case then it would be on the Monarchy's own site - but it isn't), nor is it on any site relating to titles and how they are issued etc.

All everyone does is quote the LPs but that has never been the issue. The issue has been - where has there ever been an official announcement that they can take up HRH at 18. Simple answer - there hasn't been so whether or not they can is open for interpretation.

As the Queen set a precedent by allowing her aunts to use Princess own name despite the 1917 LPs by simply saying so there is every reason to interpret that by the same means she has removed the right to HRH from the Wessex children.

 

[texankitcat]

Hold the fort right there. I didn't say anything on the subject other than the burden of proof is on YOU based on your insistence that everyone else is wrong.

 

[yvr girl]

As the Queen set a precedent by allowing her aunts to use Princess own name despite the 1917 LPs by simply saying so there is every reason to interpret that by the same means she has removed the right to HRH from the Wessex children.

I'm not sure you can use the Queen's aunts as an example. They were both married to sons of the King. They were British princesses by marriage. Marina was a princess in her own right. The Queen allowed them to be known by their given names rather than as 'Dowager Duchess..." The LP of 1917 only limit who is an HRH. They don't mention how a widowed princess is addressed.

Does anyone know if there was an announcement about how Marina and Alice were to be addressed? My guess is that they were simply referred to my their Christian name, Duchess of X in the Court Circular.

 

[windsorgirl]

I found the following footnote on heraldica.org

"The children of the Earl of Wessex

On June 19, 1999, at the time of Prince Edward's wedding, it was announced that The Queen had decided, with the agreement of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children of their marriage should not be given the style of His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl (see the press release from Buckingham Palace).

At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent.* The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice).* The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases (see the documents concerning the style of the Duke of Windsor's wife and issue, in particular the view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed", and the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown").* How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."

It can be found here:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Wessex

If I read this correctly (and if this is a reputable source, which I do not know), it sounds like the Queen's decision regarding the titles of the Wessex children DOES supersede the Letters Patent 1917. Thoughts?

 

[branchg]

It is open to interpretation, as many constitutional matters are in the Westminster parliamentary system, as the intent of The Queen in announcing the wishes of Edward and Sophie with regard to their children's styles and the lack of conformity with existing Letters Patent governing the matter, is unclear.

The only way to test the matter would be if James or Louise came of age and announced they will start using their princely styles and royal rank. Assuming the 1917 Letters Patent were still in force, the question would be whether The Queen's announcement legally removed their rights without a formal royal warrant or new letters patent. And whether The Sovereign objects, which I highly doubt would be the case.

So, it's semantics either way.

 

[Claire]

I asked this exact question to the Buckingham Palace minions and they almost verbatim quoted me that statement. Which made me wonder if they get this question often. It made me wonder if they expect (as they don't really know) that the children will never requested to use there titles. They are adamant that the Queen's will supersedes a letter patent. However what if the will of King Charles and King William differs with hers. Although I kind of doubt that.
However could something be included into the re-creation of the Duke of Edinburgh tiles or the proposed Equal Succession legislation that might legally and ultimately lear up this confusion?

 

[branchg]

The Sovereign is the fount of honours and it has clearly been established the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is entirely at the will of the Crown. It is a courtesy title signifying place and precedence to The Sovereign.

So the Wessex children could assume their royal styles if The Sovereign has no objection. If not, they remain styled by courtesy as children of a Peer, which they are.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hold the fort right there. I didn't say anything on the subject other than the burden of proof is on YOU based on your insistence that everyone else is wrong.

I have never said anyone else's interpretation is wrong. I have simply asked for a link to an official announcement that Louise and James can take HRH at 18.

I have never disputed the LPs of 1917. I have pointed out that there is an interpretation that says that the announcement in 1999 supersedes the LPs of 1917 and that therefore they don't have that right.

All I have ever asked for is a link to an official site that says this - not that it is wrong or right.

 

[Frideswide]

Why don't you write to the Queen and ask her?