The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 03-20-2018, 04:20 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If Harry and Meghan were to have children before Charles ascends the throne they wouldn't be HRH. So, it would seem rather unfair if Charles would elevate his grandchildren to HRH / prince(ss) and leave his niece and nephew as Viscount (earl) and lady upon the creation of their father as Duke of Edinburgh. So, I am curious to see what will happen. IMO it would be fair to treat the grandchildren of a monarch equally, at least from that moment on.
Charles wouldn't have to "elevate" his grandchildren - HRH would be automatic as H&M's children would be the grandchildren of the Monarch (GV LP 1917).
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-20-2018, 04:27 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Charles wouldn't have to "elevate" his grandchildren - HRH would be automatic as H&M's children would be the grandchildren of the Monarch (GV LP 1917).
Yes, I know that he doesnn't have to do anything but he could easily make it known that they won't be known as such just like his niece and nephew. If he doesn't do so it would only be fair to make Louise and James HRHs as well. It would be hard to claim that he is downsizing if that only applies to non-descendants.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 03-20-2018, 04:40 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,333
Sophie and Edward have agreed with HMQ that their children would not have HRH. With hindsight it is a good decision IMO.

I think that being "HRH" is not necessarily a good thing if you are not undertaking royal duties. In the UK many people associate HRH with having access to public money. This persists regardless of the facts. That is the main reason behind the poor public opinion of Beatrice and Eugenie.

Louise and James - like the children of Dukes of Kent and Gloucester - can choose their own path with little interest from the media
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 03-20-2018, 04:49 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Sophie and Edward have agreed with HMQ that their children would not have HRH. With hindsight it is a good decision IMO.

I think that being "HRH" is not necessarily a good thing if you are not undertaking royal duties. In the UK many people associate HRH with having access to public money. This persists regardless of the facts. That is the main reason behind the poor public opinion of Beatrice and Eugenie.

Louise and James - like the children of Dukes of Kent and Gloucester - can choose their own path with little interest from the media
If that is the new line; probably the queen should make it known that from now on only children of monarchs and direct heirs will be HRHs. Much easier than needing to explain it for each individual case. In that case Louise and James are the trail blazers of the new policy.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 03-20-2018, 05:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If Harry and Meghan were to have children before Charles ascends the throne they wouldn't be HRH.
They wouldn't (probably won't) be HRHs when they were (are) born, but, all things staying the same, they would (will) be HRHs when Charles ascended (ascends) the throne. No further action by King Charles III or George VII would be necessary.

The only scenario where Harry and Meghan's children would remain non-HRHs under current rules would be if they were born during Queen Elizabeth II's reign (which is likely), but Charles never ascended the throne (i.e the Crown passed from the Queen directly to William, which is very unlikely).

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
I think that being "HRH" is not necessarily a good thing if you are not undertaking royal duties. In the UK many people associate HRH with having access to public money. This persists regardless of the facts. That is the main reason behind the poor public opinion of Beatrice and Eugenie.
Don't all children of the sovereign have access to public money to a certain extent in the sense that they, at least indirectly, get money from the Queen and her money comes from the Sovereign's grant ? When Andrew and Edward get some fraction of public money, their children indirectly get it too, whether they are HRHs or not. The lines are rather blurred to me even though, technically, only the Queen and the PoW have clear sources of funding set up for them.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 03-20-2018, 05:36 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They wouldn't (probably won't) be HRHs when they were (are) born, but, all things staying the same, they would (will) be HRHs when Charles ascended (ascends) the throne. No further action by King Charles III or George VII would be necessary.

The only scenario where Harry and Meghan's children would remain non-HRHs under current rules would be if they were born during Queen Elizabeth II's reign (which is likely), but Charles never ascended the throne (i.e the Crown passed from the Queen directly to William, which is very unlikely).
Yes, exactly. I know very well how it works as I've explained it to others several times (probably also while those people didn't need that explanation ). The more likely scenario would be for the monarch to make known that Harry's children won't be HRHs even if their grandfather becomes king (however, it would be best if that happens before Charles ascends the throne otherwise they would be HRH for a little while which just confuses things).

However, my point was that if they are born as non-HRH (i.e., if Elizabeth still is queen), they would become HRH when Charles ascends the throne. IMO it is unfair if they would become HRHs while Louise and James don't - if Harry's children receive the style of HRH, I would very much hope that Louise and James get theirs when the ducal title is bestowed on Edward. They are in exactly the same position (more correctly, Louise and James were born as grandchildren of the monarch in male line; Harry's children might be a generation further down at first), so the argument that has been used (not by the BRF but by royal watchers) that not awarding them HRH prince(ss) is to reduce the size of the royal family wouldn't be valid any longer IF Harry's children would not receive the same treatment.

Just pleading equality between Harry's potential and Edward's children in terms of titles once Charles is king.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 03-20-2018, 06:01 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post

Now professor's personal opinion seems a bit different in his view that Charles will be very strict in exactly who get high titles and in what "rank" as he wants only a smaller royal clan to get government money and only those who do work for him will receive a stipend only for that occasion, not a yearly salary. He also believes that lesser royals should be able to work at a proper job at whatever if they desire.

Now that is what is being taught at Princeton. Someone on this forum should ask the sitting head of Oxford History Dept or another recognized huge university in England their historical facts on this subject. It would put to rest the proper law and not an opinion.
Who in the BRF gets a yearly salary? No one that I know of. AFAIK the Queen has money from the Lancaster Duchy, Charles has money from the Cornwall Duchy. The Queen covers expenses for her children (other than Charles) and cousins when they perform Royal Duties, Charles cover expenses for his sons and daughter-in-law.
I thought the Sovereign Grant was funding for the Royal Household and covers events like State Dinners, upkeep of the palaces, official travel and staffing.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 03-20-2018, 06:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They wouldn't (probably won't) be HRHs when they were (are) born, but, all things staying the same, they would (will) be HRHs when Charles ascended (ascends) the throne. No further action by King Charles III or George VII would be necessary.

The only scenario where Harry and Meghan's children would remain non-HRHs under current rules would be if they were born during Queen Elizabeth II's reign (which is likely), but Charles never ascended the throne (i.e the Crown passed from the Queen directly to William, which is very unlikely).



Don't all children of the sovereign have access to public money to a certain extent in the sense that they, at least indirectly, get money from the Queen and her money comes from the Sovereign's grant ? When Andrew and Edward get some fraction of public money, their children indirectly get it too, whether they are HRHs or not. The lines are rather blurred to me even though, technically, only the Queen and the PoW have clear sources of funding set up for them.
Sovereign Grant is to cover the official expenses only - no private expenses are covered at all from that source. So the children and cousins have expenses involved in undertaking their royal work covered - but that is standard in any job isn't it - expenses associated with the job are paid for by the employer.

The Queen and Charles both have a private source of income - the Duchies - when they share with their families. This money is also from taxpayers - but in the same way that say the Duke of Devonshire's income comes from the lands he owns or the Duke of Westminster gets his from rental income from his properties. The Queen also has the income from Sandringham and Balmoral.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 03-21-2018, 01:29 AM
JSH JSH is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
So you don't agree with BP who told me that they are not HRHs as The Queen's Will has been made known.

I actually wrote and asked whether they were HRHs who weren't using them and they said 'no they weren't ever HRHs as The Queen's Will was made known in 1999 that they weren't to have those styles.'
That is correct. I choose to believe that whoever wrote that response did so off the cuff and without researching the issue.

I believe that the Queen's will gave permission for the Wessex children to not use their HRH and instead be styled as the children of an Earl. And that that is all it did. The announcement did not explicitly say that the children would not be HRHs and so I can't say that it does.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 03-21-2018, 02:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,636
We have to remember that with the Wessex children, the titles and styles that were made known as the Queen's will was at the *request* of the children's parents. With Harry and Meghan, they may choose to ask the Queen (and perhaps later on, Charles) as monarch to honor their wishes that their children not be styled as HRH and prince and princess.

With the Queen's family, we've seen parental wishes honored. Anne and Mark declined a title offered that would give their children titles. Sophie and Edward specifically petitioned the monarch for assent as to how they wanted their children titled and styled. Andrew and Sarah chose to keep things the way they were and their girls were titled and styled as princesses.

We do not know what Harry and Meghan's thoughts are on this matter. Most likely they have discussed this matter with the Queen and Charles and whatever happens, in the long run, I believe it will be Harry and Meghan's decision as to how their children are titled and styled unless Charles, as King, decides to enact his own prerogatives in the matter which will be his right to do so.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 03-21-2018, 02:32 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I would say that is only half true. The UK Parliament is sovereign, so it can override any royal prerogative by law. In fact, just recently, the royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament has been abolished.

What the professor probably meant is that, currently, no royal titles and styles are regulated by law in the United Kingdom except for the titles and styles of the sovereign him/herself. In the absence of an Act of Parliament , the titles of the members of the Royal Family fall within the royal prerogative.
You are probably correct as I was trying to relate his talk but we were talking just about titles being awarded and as of this minute proper titles can not be given out by Parliament but only by sitting King/Queen. I am sure he is correct though and Charles has quite a good deal of impute into titles at this stage of his life. I personally have the feeling that slowly but surely Charles' master plan for his reign is being set in motion and that the Queen is fully aware and approves of what might be changed or else those she does not agree with will be accomplished after Charles is King. Quite an interesting subject.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 03-21-2018, 08:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH View Post
That is correct. I choose to believe that whoever wrote that response did so off the cuff and without researching the issue.

I believe that the Queen's will gave permission for the Wessex children to not use their HRH and instead be styled as the children of an Earl. And that that is all it did. The announcement did not explicitly say that the children would not be HRHs and so I can't say that it does.
According to an archived page from the Royal Family's website the Wessex children were never given the HRH. So it's not that they don't use it, they don't have it because it was never given to them.

"At the time of their wedding it was decided, with the couple's agreement, that any children they had should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl."

https://web.archive.org/web/20081021...t/Page5590.asp

It's also stated on the 19 June 1999 edition of BBC NEWS:

"In a modernising touch, the couple's children will not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, "but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl"."

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

Also, an announcement from the Associated Press on 19 June 1999:

"With the couple's agreement, the queen decided that any children they have would not be given titles of His or Her Royal Highness, but instead would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl, the palace said."
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 03-21-2018, 09:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,071


On June 19, 1999, the Palace made the following announcement:

Quote:
Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

Here is the above-mentioned letter from Buckingham Palace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
That is what I was told when I wrote and asked BP.

[...]

The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.

[...]
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 03-21-2018, 01:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If that is the new line; probably the queen should make it known that from now on only children of monarchs and direct heirs will be HRHs. Much easier than needing to explain it for each individual case. In that case Louise and James are the trail blazers of the new policy.
I agree. At first glance letting the parents decide seems like a fair policy. But as time goes on it could become haphazard and willy-nilly. What if Royal Child #2 doesn't want his/her children to have the HRH but Royal Child #3 does?

So it would make sense to do as you suggest and create a new rule - "only children of monarchs and direct heirs will be HRHs."
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 03-21-2018, 04:02 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,108
What is being overlooked in this debate is the state of the monarchy when this decision was made, as well as the people who made it.

In 1999, Edward was the last of the Queen’s children to marry and the only one likely to have children (Charles and Andrew being divorced, and Anne pushing 50). Thus the decision to have Edward’s children not use the style and title of Prince/Princess had no impact on his elder siblings children, whose titles had long ago been established.

In 1999 Edward and Sophie were not full time working royals, nor were they planning on becoming working royals - both had private careers that they wanted to continue to pursue.

And finally, in 1999, the BRF was still recovering from the more tumultuous era that was the 90s, with the marital scandals and the unpopularity that followed them.

In choosing to not have their children titled/styled as the children of a Prince, but rather as the children of an Earl, Edward and Sophie were taking wise steps to protect their future children from some of the public scrutiny that the Wales and York children had received, while also garnering public approval.

Given the circumstances under which the decision was made, there was absolutely no need for HM to change the LPs regarding titles, or to make any rule that expanded beyond Edward’s children. Nor is there any need for the Queen to change the LPs now - doing so would only strip the Queen’s cousins of their titles, disregarding the decades of service to the crown most of them have done, and the Yorks. Harry’s children will not be born with titles, and if it’s the desire to not have the children of younger sons be HRHs then they can make a similar announcement to the Wessexes’ announcement either when Harry and Meghan marry, or when Charles becomes King.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 03-21-2018, 04:22 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
I don't think anyone is suggesting to strip current HRHs of their styles. My main question is whether the Wessex example should have consequences for Harry's children (if he'll have them).

The problem with the solution of announcing that they won't be HRH only when Charles becomes king is that they will be HRH from the moment the queen dies, so even if it would be announced shortly afterwards it would be a demotion for any children they may have at that time.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 03-21-2018, 06:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I don't think anyone is suggesting to strip current HRHs of their styles. My main question is whether the Wessex example should have consequences for Harry's children (if he'll have them).
That was my thought as well. If any changes are made they would wait for the next reign and would only affect the next generation (Harry's children). If Charles does in fact want a more "streamlined" monarchy this would be a step in that direction.

I don't think we can view this topic only in light of the circumstances surrounding Edward and Sophie's decision. For example, Andrew's daughters are HRHs but if the rumors are true he wasn't allowed to decide if they would also be full-time working royals. If that's the path Charles and his advisers decide to follow - the children of the monarch's younger children won't be working royals - then why should they even be HRHs in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier for them to make their own way in the world without the publicity surrounding a royal title?

I also don't think the BRF can continue with the "let the parents decide and we'll make an announcement" model. It's too willy-nilly. Once again, Andrew wasn't allowed to decide if his daughters would be working royals or not. So if Charles wants to streamline the monarchy, fine no problem, but in my opinion the end result should be consistently applied and formalized (a new LP, for example).
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 03-21-2018, 08:02 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,035
I don't think "let the parents decide and we'll make an announcement" model's been in effect for a while.

JMO, and off topic, but I think either her Majesty or her courtiers have chatted with each of the Queen's children well before the birth of any child about preferences. I also personally believe that Charles and his courtiers sent appropriate messages to let his sibs know he preferred no HRH in their offspring. I have always imagined that this was a conversation he and Anne had, possibly even at Anne's instigation about her children. And that set the tone. Edward agreed and Andrew did not.
Anne is not stupid and she could do the math and envision how finances would play out with 4 sibs having multiple HRH children over time. Equally, Anne is smart enough to weigh full time royal status against her children being able to choose a life.
IMO, it's completely not surprising from my POV that Andrew's girls are HRHs but have no FT Royal status. Andrew won the battle through the Queen and lost that war with Charles.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 03-21-2018, 08:28 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
I have always imagined that this was a conversation he and Anne had, possibly even at Anne's instigation about her children. And that set the tone. Edward agreed and Andrew did not.
Anne is not stupid and she could do the math and envision how finances would play out with 4 sibs having multiple HRH children over time. Equally, Anne is smart enough to weigh full time royal status against her children being able to choose a life.
But Anne's children were never entitled to the title and style of HRH Prince/ss of the UK under the 1917 Letters Patents as female-line grandchildren of the monarch, so that conversation is not likely to have happened. The only titles that could have been granted would have been bestowed on Mark Philips and his children would have gained courtesy titles, with Peter using his subsidiary title.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 03-21-2018, 08:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,888
Andrew's children were born in 1988 and 1990 - before the War of the Wales and the downturn in popularity of the BRF that followed.

In the late 80s and early 90s it was believed that the York girls would eventually become full-time royals. My friends, who know them, have said that Beatrice wasn't told she wasn't to be a full-time royal AFTER her gap year on leaving school - which is why her degree and her work interests don't match. Eugenie was told at the same time and so was able to choose more carefully both her school subjects and then her uni degree. The person who drove that idea though was William not Charles.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
lady louise, lady louise mountbatten-windsor, louise mountbatten-windsor, styles and titles, viscount severn


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Countess of Wessex Jewellery Josefine Royal Jewels 659 01-02-2020 02:51 AM
About the Wessex family iowabelle Forum Announcements and Admin 4 01-31-2008 05:39 PM
Possible names for the new Lord or Lady Wessex Beck The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 252 01-04-2008 01:07 PM
Earl and Countess of Wessex Current Events 2: September 2003-May 2004 Alexandria Current Events Archive 137 05-28-2004 02:15 PM




Popular Tags
abdication american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen chittagong commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dubai duke of sussex facts games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hill history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels norway prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tracts tradition uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×