The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 12-14-2019, 02:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.



Even if Andrew had had a son, or if James had taken his title of Prince James of Wessex, their respective children would not have been princes/princesses anyway. George V already dealt with that issue in 1917 when he decided great-grandchildren of a sovereign in male line are styled only as children of a duke in the peerage of the UK.


King William's "HRH cousins" (akin to the the Gloucesters and the Kents) will be Beatrice and Eugenie (and, under normal circumstances, James and Louise who nonetheless didn't take their titles). King Charles on the other hand doesn't have any HRH cousin because, by an accident of fate, Queen Elizabeth II had no brothers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:31 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Even if Andrew had had a son, or if James had taken his title of Prince James of Wessex, their respective children would not have been princes/princesses anyway. George V already dealt with that issue in 1917 when he decided great-grandchildren of a sovereign in male line are styled only as children of a duke in the peerage of the UK.


King William's "HRH cousins" (akin to the the Gloucesters and the Kents) will be Beatrice and Eugenie (and, under normal circumstances, James and Louise who nonetheless didn't take their titles). King Charles on the other hand doesn't have any HRH cousin because, by an accident of fate, Queen Elizabeth II had no brothers.
If Elizabeth had had brother she wouldn't be queen and Charles most likely wouldn't be the future king (assume that the hypothetical brother would have children).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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

Lady Louise is Louise Mountbatten-Windsor as she is the grandchild from the marriage of Philip Mountbatten and Elizabeth Windsor and as long as she is not given another title, that's her name according to LP by the queen.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:40 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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?
No, that is not what I was saying. My take is that it was queen Elizabeth's intention not to 'get ahead' of the legislation.

Quote:
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.
Yes, to the first part: I do think that she is open to children of a female heir's heir being entitled to HRH (but that was not the specific situation she dealt with). No, to the second part: I don't see how limiting her current 'ruling' to the Cambridge children would achieve that in the future female heir's heir's children would become HRH; as that would still require additional LPs, just like now.

Given the situation at the time of her decision, she decided to deal with the current situation and made that not a 'personal decision for this specific situation' but a general rule for all future eldest son's of the prince of Wales (which I prefer; otherwise it seems a special rule because of William while it is a rule for those in his situation).

If in the future the situation arises that there is a female heir of the prince (or princess) of Wales that is about to have children in the lifetime of his/her monarch grandparent, surely additional LPs will be issued. That will be several decades from now at the earliest if it happens (first chance: William still being the monarch when his great-grandchild is born to an eldest daughter to George). It seems more likely that by that time the BRF has started to adopt the practice of abdication, so it could very well never happen.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,636
Actually, before posting, I wanted to double check and make sure I stated Louise's name and title properly. According to the British Royal Family's website at https://www.royal.uk, Louise is listed as Lady Louise Windsor.

I was pretty sure beforehand too that it was Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor but will go with what the BRF's website refers to her as.
__________________
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
  #286  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:49 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If Elizabeth had had brother she wouldn't be queen and Charles most likely wouldn't be the future king (assume that the hypothetical brother would have children).

True, but Charles would still have HRH cousins anyway, although he himself would not be a prince, much less king. That is what I meant.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 12-14-2019, 05:13 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
True, but Charles would still have HRH cousins anyway, although he himself would not be a prince, much less king. That is what I meant.
Good point, although those HRH-cousins might not have had any HRH-cousins if there had been just one brother.

If Elizabeth would have had a brother (with children), Charles would probably have been 'prince Charles of Greece and Denmark' - as I see little reason why Philip in that case would have been forced to give up his royal titles - or if they had decided that it would still be needed, Philip would have been given an earl-title (like Mary's and Margaret's husband) and Charles would up until today use his father's secondary title; and all others just Lords and Ladies (or The Hon. or just commoners; just like Margaret's children and grandchildren).
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 12-14-2019, 06:08 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually, before posting, I wanted to double check and make sure I stated Louise's name and title properly. According to the British Royal Family's website at https://www.royal.uk, Louise is listed as Lady Louise Windsor.



I was pretty sure beforehand too that it was Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor but will go with what the BRF's website refers to her as.


She might be referred to as just Windsor but legally she’s Mountbatten-Windsor. The CC and the website have interchanged peoples surnames and styles frequently.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 12-14-2019, 07:09 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually, before posting, I wanted to double check and make sure I stated Louise's name and title properly. According to the British Royal Family's website at https://www.royal.uk, Louise is listed as Lady Louise Windsor.

I was pretty sure beforehand too that it was Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor but will go with what the BRF's website refers to her as.
The CC always uses Mountbatten-Windsor for Louise as did the programme for William's wedding.

The website, which is not an official document as such, uses the shorter version while the CC and the wedding programme used the full version of her name. The CC and the wedding programme of the future King are official documents.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 12-14-2019, 07:13 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,636
Great! Thanks all. Now I know *for sure* its Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor!

(happily checking off her "learn something new today" box.
__________________
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
  #291  
Old 12-14-2019, 09:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
No, that is not what I was saying. My take is that it was queen Elizabeth's intention not to 'get ahead' of the legislation.

[...]

Given the situation at the time of her decision, she decided to deal with the current situation and made that not a 'personal decision for this specific situation' but a general rule for all future eldest son's of the prince of Wales (which I prefer; otherwise it seems a special rule because of William while it is a rule for those in his situation).

If in the future the situation arises that there is a female heir of the prince (or princess) of Wales that is about to have children in the lifetime of his/her monarch grandparent, surely additional LPs will be issued. That will be several decades from now at the earliest if it happens (first chance: William still being the monarch when his great-grandchild is born to an eldest daughter to George). It seems more likely that by that time the BRF has started to adopt the practice of abdication, so it could very well never happen.

Thanks! I think I can now apprehend your point of view (namely, you were saying that Queen Elizabeth's letters patent in 2012 made a general rule for children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, but left it to future monarchs to sort out the situation of children of the heiress apparent of the Prince of Wales, or children of the heir/heiress apparent of the heiress apparent, if and when one of these situations arise).

However, I would say that the letters patent of 2012 also made/confirmed the "general rule" that children of an heiress apparent of the Prince of Wales (or children of the heir/heiress apparent of the heiress apparent) will not be Prince/Princess. Even if the 2012 LPs do not explicitly declare it, the fact remains that they were not made eligible under the 2012 LPs and therefore, under the existing framework of the letters patent of 1917, they are ineligible to be Prince/Princess.

A future monarch could certainly issue new letters patent to change this, but a future monarch could also issue new letters patent to change the rule for the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. As such, I cannot see a reason why only one of these rules should be seen as a general rule. If the fact that children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be Prince/Princess for the time being is a general rule, then (in my opinion) the fact that children of an heiress apparent will not be Prince/Princess for the time being is also a general rule.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Yes, to the first part: I do think that she is open to children of a female heir's heir being entitled to HRH (but that was not the specific situation she dealt with). No, to the second part: I don't see how limiting her current 'ruling' to the Cambridge children would achieve that in the future female heir's heir's children would become HRH; as that would still require additional LPs, just like now.

I agree with your second part; limiting the letters patent to the Cambridge children would not have achieved that. But it would at least have avoided the making of a different general rule for children of an heiress apparent than for children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

It is also worth mentioning that under the letters patent, the general rule for children of eldest sons applies even when the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is not his heir apparent. Had Charlotte been born first, George would have ceased to be in the direct line of succession in 2015 when the Succession to the Crown Act came into effect, but under the current rules, his children would still be Prince/ss from birth, even if born in Charles' lifetime (while Charlotte's children would become Prince/ss only when their mother became Queen).
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 12-14-2019, 11:37 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Thanks! I think I can now apprehend your point of view (namely, you were saying that Queen Elizabeth's letters patent in 2012 made a general rule for children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, but left it to future monarchs to sort out the situation of children of the heiress apparent of the Prince of Wales, or children of the heir/heiress apparent of the heiress apparent, if and when one of these situations arise).

However, I would say that the letters patent of 2012 also made/confirmed the "general rule" that children of an heiress apparent of the Prince of Wales (or children of the heir/heiress apparent of the heiress apparent) will not be Prince/Princess. Even if the 2012 LPs do not explicitly declare it, the fact remains that they were not made eligible under the 2012 LPs and therefore, under the existing framework of the letters patent of 1917, they are ineligible to be Prince/Princess.

A future monarch could certainly issue new letters patent to change this, but a future monarch could also issue new letters patent to change the rule for the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. As such, I cannot see a reason why only one of these rules should be seen as a general rule. If the fact that children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be Prince/Princess for the time being is a general rule, then (in my opinion) the fact that children of an heiress apparent will not be Prince/Princess for the time being is also a general rule.






I agree with your second part; limiting the letters patent to the Cambridge children would not have achieved that. But it would at least have avoided the making of a different general rule for children of an heiress apparent than for children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

It is also worth mentioning that under the letters patent, the general rule for children of eldest sons applies even when the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is not his heir apparent. Had Charlotte been born first, George would have ceased to be in the direct line of succession in 2015 when the Succession to the Crown Act came into effect, but under the current rules, his children would still be Prince/ss from birth, even if born in Charles' lifetime (while Charlotte's children would become Prince/ss only when their mother became Queen).
You are making assumptions not in evidence. A lack of something does not necessarily have meaning.

Queen Elizabeth do not address the issue of the titles a first born female heir’s children because it did not need to be addressed at that time. If George has a daughter first, the monarch will address the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 12-15-2019, 12:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
You are making assumptions not in evidence. A lack of something does not necessarily have meaning.

Queen Elizabeth do not address the issue of the titles a first born female heir’s children because it did not need to be addressed at that time. If George has a daughter first, the monarch will address the situation.
Not addressing future situations would have been fine, but the letters patent of 1917 and 2012 do address the situation of a firstborn female heir's children; they collectively establish that such children are not eligible to be Prince/ss.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 12-15-2019, 01:58 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Not addressing future situations would have been fine, but the letters patent of 1917 and 2012 do address the situation of a firstborn female heir's children; they collectively establish that such children are not eligible to be Prince/ss.
Becsuse a firstborn daughter has never yet been the heir apparent. It will probably happen someday now that absolute primogeniture is the rule of succession in the UK, but only since 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 12-15-2019, 01:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
I just realized that it would have been rather awkward (apart from it being premature) if the queen had established in the 2012 LPs that children of the eldest child of the Prince of Wales would be HRH and prince(ss); given that no such provision is in place for children of a female heir.

As the queen clearly takes care of these things as a situation arises, and while the situation arose for her own children, her father made it a 'personal' rule instead of a general one.

I am in full agreement with O-H Anglophile that the queen not extending the LPs prematurely to the eldest child's instead of eldest son's children of the prince of Wales, does not in any way imply that she would not want children of a female heir or female heir's heir to carry the same style and dignity.

She dealt with the situation under the law at that time, which also meant that the situation of an elder sister being the heir and her children being denied the style and dignity while those of a younger brother being granted those, was not yet legally possible. Of course, now it is, so, if she was to issue LPs now (but she won't as there is no practical reason to do so), she might have worded it differently.

Probably there is already an agreement that Charles will issue more encompassing LPs based on the new law just as was done in 1917, arranging all that needs to be arranged all at once.

However, we are getting rather far away from the main topic, so we should probably take this discussion to the British titles and styles thread.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 12-15-2019, 05:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Becsuse a firstborn daughter has never yet been the heir apparent. It will probably happen someday now that absolute primogeniture is the rule of succession in the UK, but only since 2013.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
She dealt with the situation under the law at that time, which also meant that the situation of an elder sister being the heir and her children being denied the style and dignity while those of a younger brother being granted those, was not yet legally possible. Of course, now it is, so, if she was to issue LPs now (but she won't as there is no practical reason to do so), she might have worded it differently.
If I am understanding the two of you correctly, we are effectively in agreement that Queen Elizabeth's rules in her 2012 LPs intentionally gave preference to the children of male heirs.

As both of you pointed out, male preference was in accord with the rules of succession at that time (even if the introduction of gender-neutral succession was in progress). I suppose the question is, given that gender-neutral succession has been passed into law, whether she would want a future monarch to issue new, gender-neutral rules. I still have doubts that she would want that, but from reading your thoughts I can see that her intentions are more indeterminate than they originally seemed to me.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 12-16-2019, 01:47 PM
Claire's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,331
Everything was put in place long ago - with good reason. I am honest glad that Edward and Sophie made the decision years ago.
I was recently asked if Sophie can inherit the title of Duchess of Edinburgh if Edward passes before Princess Charles becomes king. Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 12-16-2019, 01:51 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,636
No. If Edward passes before Charles becomes king, the title of Duke of Edinburgh is actually held by Charles when Philip passes (presuming he passes before Charles). It reverts to the Crown to be recreated for someone else down the line when Charles becomes King.
__________________
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
  #299  
Old 12-16-2019, 01:57 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Everything was put in place long ago - with good reason. I am honest glad that Edward and Sophie made the decision years ago.
I was recently asked if Sophie can inherit the title of Duchess of Edinburgh if Edward passes before Princess Charles becomes king. Any thoughts?
Theoretically they could make her Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right but I don't see that happening. If they would want to preserve the title within Philip's direct family, it would be more logical to make James the new Duke of Edinburgh (but even that I would doubt) - because that seems to be the main purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 12-16-2019, 02:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 646
Just my opinion - Prince Edward may not get the Duke of Edinburgh from King Charles, and that's why HM gave him another Earldom of Forfar. The next Duke of Edinburgh may well be Prince Louis, to be recreated by King William.
__________________

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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names british royal family buckingham palace canada carolin cht coronavirus cpr duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise queen maud resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress settings spain stuart thailand thai royal family videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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