Titles of the Wessex Children

[Rudolph]

And even for the sake of argument she goes from Lady Louise to Princess Louise, nothing changes.

She keeps the same precedence. She doesn’t gain any rights or privileges. The only thing that’d be different is the increase interest and scrutiny in being a ‘princess’.

The Yorks talked about how difficult it is to be ‘royal’ and yet expected to work for a living in ther Vogue interview.

Louise is no doubt thankful she not a royal highness.

But anyway, royal styles and titles are solely at the discretion of The Queen. She stated clearly Louise and James are not HRH.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava

This was reported days before Edward's and Sophie's wedding



"...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".
The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding...."


It was the personal wishes of the couple. The Queen agreed and let her Will be known.

Thank you, this is an interesting statement. On bbc.co.uk, the report is dated June 19, 1999, the royal wedding day.

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

Then the Palace indeed made known in 1999 that the Wessexes personally wished for their children not to be given the style Royal Highness (while telling in the official announcement that the decision was made by the Queen).

This statement also affirms that the decision was determined by the likely future circumstances of the children, not the circumstances of the parents.

[QueenMathilde]

Oh, this is exactly what I came on to ask. With all the stories of Andrew saying that Bea and Eugenie should have a working royal role because they are the only "blood princesses" I want to know why that is. I know Zara doesn't have a title because her father didn't have one but why isn't Louise a "blood princess"? I can't believe there's a whole thread.

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

Oh, this is exactly what I came on to ask. With all the stories of Andrew saying that Bea and Eugenie should have a working royal role because they are the only "blood princesses" I want to know why that is. I know Zara doesn't have a title because her father didn't have one but why isn't Louise a "blood princess"? I can't believe there's a whole thread.

Perhaps it was an option of the Earls of Wessex not to give the title of princes to their children.
Archie doesn't have the title of prince either.

[Iluvbertie]

Archie is a GREAT-grandchild of the monarch and not a grandchild. As such Archie was not entitled, yet, to HRH under the 1917 rules but Louise and James would have been if The Queen hadn't issued the statement to deny them that status.

Archie will be eligible to be HRH when Charles becomes King and the announcement back in May was that he 'may' become HRH Prince Archie when that day comes.

Even Charlotte and Louis weren't entitled to HRH under the 1917 rules but The Queen issued new LPs in 2012 to give HRH Prince/Princess to all of William's children and not just the eldest son.

[Fijiro]

At the time of their birth, even Prince Charles and Princess Anne were not entitled to be HRH Prince/Princess according to the 1917 Letters Patent, but in 1948 King George VI issued letters patent allowing Prince Charles and Princess Anne to be styled as Prince/Princess.

Since the BRF don't seem to strictly follow the 1917 Letters Patent, they need to update it to reflect the current changes. Because if Charles becomes King and reigns for long, Prince George of Cambridge might need a LP for his daughters and second son to be styled Prince/Princess, since they'll be the King's great-grandchildren.

.

[Iluvbertie]

The rules work fine for occasions when the heir apparent is clearly a male.

The Queen's 2012 LPs did say the 'children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' so George's children are already covered assuming that he becomes a father while William is Prince of Wales.

I do think Charles is planning new LPs to basically only have the children of the heir apparent in each generation as HRH - no cousins essentially. He probably doesn't want to strip the Kents and Gloucesters of their HRHs although he wouldn't care about stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of theirs so he has to move carefully. Maybe he will have to compromise and allow the York girls to keep HRH but no other children of younger children of the monarch get HRH going forward.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

Perhaps it was an option of the Earls of Wessex not to give the title of princes to their children.
Archie doesn't have the title of prince either.

Well ILoveBertie said it best but Archie didn't qualify for a "prince" title. And my understanding is if they'd given him a lesser title he would be ineligible to become a prince. So they waited wanting the better title. I'm not putting it very well but something like that.

[Osipi]

There is absolutely no restrictions on Archie becoming a Prince of the UK once his grandfather becomes King. Actually, right now, Archie could use his father's secondary title of Earl of Dumbarton similar to how James uses his father's secondary title of Viscount Severn. The Sussexes have decided that Archie will not be known as that though.

Eventually though, the Wessex children will be titled and styled as children of a Duke with James in line to inherit the title of Duke of Edinburgh from his father. Louise will remain Lady Louise Windsor (until marriage of course). I believe also that once Edward is created The Duke of Edinburgh, James will then use his father's secondary title of Earl of Wessex.

To understand how the whole things is going to work with the Duke of Edinburgh title and it eventually being created for Edward, there's an entire thread on that subject too.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...tle-24343.html

[Denville]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

Well ILoveBertie said it best but Archie didn't qualify for a "prince" title. And my understanding is if they'd given him a lesser title he would be ineligible to become a prince. So they waited wanting the better title. I'm not putting it very well but something like that.

No, he woudnt be ineligible to become a prince. Once Charles becomes King, Archie as a grandchild in the male line will be a prince. (Unless it is decided that he will not be known as an HRH and Prince as has happened with the Wessex children....

[princess carmen]

I don't see Charles being willing to strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their titles I think he does care and loves his nieces.

[Tatiana Maria]

The exact words of the (unofficial) announcement concerning Archie's future title once his grandfather becomes king were:

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/m...-a4137941.html

It may be safely assumed that "the George V convention" indicates the 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V.

Originally Posted by Fijiro

Since the BRF don't seem to strictly follow the 1917 Letters Patent, they need to update it to reflect the current changes. Because if Charles becomes King and reigns for long, Prince George of Cambridge might need a LP for his daughters and second son to be styled Prince/Princess, since they'll be the King's great-grandchildren.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The rules work fine for occasions when the heir apparent is clearly a male.

The Queen's 2012 LPs did say the 'children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' so George's children are already covered assuming that he becomes a father while William is Prince of Wales.

Indeed, but Queen Elizabeth also considered it fine for the children of a female heir apparent not to be entitled to be HRH. At the time she issued the 2012 letters patent, she had no way of knowing the Duke of Cambridge was expecting a son rather than a daughter. Moreover, the letters patent are worded to apply to all future occasions and not only to the Cambridge children (or grandchildren).

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by princess carmen

I don't see Charles being willing to strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their titles I think he does care and loves his nieces.

Out of benevolence, prudence and politesse any change will be done with respect to existing arrangements.

I can see King Charles restricting the title Prince (Princess) with the prefix HRH to children of a Sovereign and children of a Heir (and their spouses), as done in many monarchies. But never retroactively out of respect for decisions by another Sovereign. In the most unlikely situation, if applied retroactively under King Charles, it would be a clean-up of HRH's:

Children of a Sovereign (Charles & Elizabeth)
HRH The Prince of Wales & HRH The Princess of Wales
HRH The Duke of Sussex & HRH The Duchess of Sussex
HRH The Princess Royal & Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence
HRH The Duke of York
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh & HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh

Children of a Heir (William)
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales
HRH Prince Louis of Wales

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Fijiro

At the time of their birth, even Prince Charles and Princess Anne were not entitled to be HRH Prince/Princess according to the 1917 Letters Patent, but in 1948 King George VI issued letters patent allowing Prince Charles and Princess Anne to be styled as Prince/Princess.

Since the BRF don't seem to strictly follow the 1917 Letters Patent, they need to update it to reflect the current changes. Because if Charles becomes King and reigns for long, Prince George of Cambridge might need a LP for his daughters and second son to be styled Prince/Princess, since they'll be the King's great-grandchildren.

.

The LPs issued by Queen Elizabeth II that made William's children princes/princesses would also cover George's children as they would be the children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales (in this case, William, assuming he becomes Prince of Wales). So no new LPs are needed.


Anyway, it is not impossible, however, that, when George has children of his own, William might be already the King .

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Indeed, but Queen Elizabeth also considered it fine for the children of a female heir apparent not to be entitled to be HRH. At the time she issued the 2012 letters patent, she had no way of knowing the Duke of Cambridge was expecting a son rather than a daughter. Moreover, the letters patent are worded to apply to all future occasions and not only to the Cambridge children (or grandchildren).

However, at that time the change in the succession law wasn't final yet, so it might have been a deliberate decision to deal with the current situation (a male heir of the prince of Wales) instead of anticipating that all countries would approve (even though that was expected - as they reached an agreement in 2011; still the various countries had to go through their own processes to approve the change).

[O-H Anglophile]

Since, even if George’s first child is a girl, it will be 50 years from now before that hypothetical daughter has children, I don’t think making sure those heirs are titled was high on the list of concerns. King William or King George will deal with it, if necessary.
All the Queen did was make sure that a possible first born daughter/future Queen of William’s was a Princess since her possible eldest brother/first born son of William’s WOULD be a Prince. That would have been a ridiculous situation.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Somebody

However, at that time the change in the succession law wasn't final yet, so it might have been a deliberate decision to deal with the current situation (a male heir of the prince of Wales) instead of anticipating that all countries would approve (even though that was expected - as they reached an agreement in 2011; still the various countries had to go through their own processes to approve the change).

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

[...] I don’t think making sure those heirs are titled was high on the list of concerns. King William or King George will deal with it, if necessary.

As Somebody pointed out, the decision not to issue gender-neutral letters patent could be seen as consistent with the then existing succession laws. However, if Queen Elizabeth meant for her decision to apply only to the Cambridge children and not to children of future female heirs, why would she not issue letters patent which would cover only the Cambridge children? That would be easier to do, and in fact was done by her father with Elizabeth's children in 1948.

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Since, even if George’s first child is a girl, it will be 50 years from now before that hypothetical daughter has children, [...]

The 2012 letters patent were issued while the Duchess of Cambridge was pregnant, and it was not known that they were expecting a boy; there was a public announcement that the parents did not learn the sex in advance.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

As Somebody pointed out, the decision not to issue gender-neutral letters patent could be seen as consistent with the then existing succession laws. However, if Queen Elizabeth meant for her decision to apply only to the Cambridge children and not to children of future female heirs, why would she not issue letters patent which would cover only the Cambridge children? That would be easier to do, and in fact was done by her father with Elizabeth's children in 1948.

I don't think Elizabeth intended it to only apply to the Cambridge children. In addition, I don't see how a ruling specifically for the Cambridge children would be 'easier' than her current decision: extending this ruling to all future comparable cases. And if the need arises with a female heir, it will be addressed in due time.

For now, I am glad that she made general LP as consistency is key in my book and they have been far from consistent in the last decades. Had the new law been in effect, she might have had issued different LP.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't think Elizabeth intended it to only apply to the Cambridge children. In addition, I don't see how a ruling specifically for the Cambridge children would be 'easier' than her current decision: extending this ruling to all future comparable cases. And if the need arises with a female heir, it will be addressed in due time.

For now, I am glad that she made general LP as consistency is key in my book and they have been far from consistent in the last decades. Had the new law been in effect, she might have had issued different LP.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. Do you agree, then, that Elizabeth's intention was that children of a future female heir should not be entitled to be HRH?

Since I believed you were arguing that she was open to children of a female heir being entitled to be HRH, I meant that she could have easily issued letters patent which would carry out that intention, by making them apply only to the Cambridge children.

[Osipi]

Its occurred to me that right now, at this time, when we think about it, things will naturally progress that does slim down the HRH Prince/ss honorific.

Out of all of Elizabeth and Philip's four children, only the descendants of the heir (Charles) will continue on with the titles and styles of HRH Prince/ss.

Anne's children do not have titles at all. Andrew's children cannot pass on royal titles when they marry and have their own children and Edward, with the assent of HM, The Queen, have his children titled and styled as children of an Earl (and eventually, a Duke). This eliminates the HRHs of "cousins" to the monarch like the Gloucesters and the Kents in the future.

I think this may have been a plan in the works for a very long time and we're gradually seeing the changes over time. Its my understanding too that the amending to the Law of Succession to do away with primogeniture applies only to the heir to the throne and would make a first born daughter heir apparent rather than heir presumptive.