The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 06-06-2020, 04:38 PM
Claire's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,133
I have always seen it differently. Louise and James are technical prince and princess but their parents decided that they were not going to use it. Parental wishes and Queen agreement.

At 18, they became legal adults and can by right be HRH Princess Louise, HRH is only used at 18 and onwards. Maybe a letter patent would removed it by then , who knows.
I doubt they will but time will tell.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 06-06-2020, 04:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 651
As I understand it, Louise and James are entitled to the HRH style as male line grandchildren of the monarch, under the letters patent of 1917, but Edward and Sophie decided that they shouldn't use it. The 1999 announcement's not very well-put - I wouldn't say that the Queen awards or doesn't award the style in the case of people covered the letters patent. If you take "given" to mean "used" rather than "awarded", it sort of makes sense, though.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 06-06-2020, 04:54 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I have a subscription and am able to read the entire article.

It is written by Christina Lamb, who accompanied the Countess on her tour of South Sudan in March. A week after their return, she also interviewed Sophie at Bagshot Park where the question regarding the children was asked:

"How does she try to give the children a normal life? She laughs as we look around the enormous house. “What’s normal? They go to a regular school [they both attend top independent schools]. They go to friends for sleepovers and parties. At weekends we do lots of dog walking and stay with friends. I guess not everyone’s grandparents live in a castle, but where you are going is not the important part, or who they are. When they are with the Queen, she is their grandmother.

“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.”"
Thanks! So, she wasn't specifically asked about it but volunteered to provide this piece of information nonetheless. Maybe she wanted to clarify this issue as she herself noticed that the public thought otherwise?
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 06-06-2020, 05:17 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
At 18, they became legal adults and can by right be HRH Princess Louise, HRH is only used at 18 and onwards. Maybe a letter patent would removed it by then , who knows.
I doubt they will but time will tell.
I doubt they will either. I'm sure they're better off without it. The letters patent are going to have be reformed one way or the other anyway. As things stand Louis' children would be HRH & Charlotte's wouldn't. Makes no sense.
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 06-06-2020, 05:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
.................
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 06-06-2020, 10:20 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
(...)
"Should not be given the style" can denote "should not be addressed as", so the interview does not actually contradict the announcement if one assumes the language is a bit archaic.
Agree.

For one, their titles will definitely change. The first half of 1999 announcement is that Edward will get his father's dukedom after it merged with the crown. Hence the second part, naturally as an Earl his chidren will have the courtesy titles as the children of an Earl.
But then what will happen after he's a Duke? Surely Louise and James will also have the right to have the courtesy titles as the children of a Duke, right? Whether they use or not is different matter (case point, David still use Linley instead of Snowdon).

Now about HRH Prince(ss). I always wonder whether the second part about the children's title is there partly because Edward is an Earl and post George V, none of monarch's grandchildren whose children of an Earl were prince or princess but of course it's also because they're from female lines (Mary and Margaret's children).

Even after reading iluvebertie's reply in BRF Titles thread about LP, Warrant, and Will, honestly I still find it strange that if it supposes to be permanent (removing Louise's and James's right of prince/ss title), The Queen only put it as a Will. She and George VI issued LP to grant prince/ss titles to (the then princess) Elizabeth's and William's children which essentially making exempt of George V's LP, both only apply for one specific person. Okay, in both case, it's granting titles and not removing it. But then we have George V's LP which essentially removes the rights of royal titles of the future monarch's grandchildren from female line and great-grandchildren (other than the first grandchildren of PoW), making a change of Victoria's LP. So it's LP for LP. So maybe Sophie is right because when Louise (and later James) is 18, Edward already get the promised dukedom because most likely Philip and The Queen are no longer around.

But still, King Charles might choose to keep it that way (no prince/ss titles) especially if they're not working royals or might even go further by making it as predecent and issuing LP stating that monarch's younger children would be earl instead of duke and no HRH prince/ss for their children (in the name of slimming down). Still, even if they can, I don't think Louise and James will care much about royal titles and they might opt to not have it (less headache).
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 06-07-2020, 02:18 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,379
I have always interpret that James and Louise Wessex just are not styled with the title which is rightfully theirs. The same with Archie Sussex, whom is not styled as Earl Dumbarton or a Lord, by voluntary choice.

Saying "just call me XYZ, that is fine" by personal preference, is not the same as losing the legal position. See David Armstrong-Jones, whom prefers to continue the style David Linley despite being the Earl of Snowdon.
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 06-07-2020, 02:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Agree.

For one, their titles will definitely change. The first half of 1999 announcement is that Edward will get his father's dukedom after it merged with the crown. Hence the second part, naturally as an Earl his chidren will have the courtesy titles as the children of an Earl.
But then what will happen after he's a Duke? Surely Louise and James will also have the right to have the courtesy titles as the children of a Duke, right? Whether they use or not is different matter (case point, David still use Linley instead of Snowdon).

Now about HRH Prince(ss). I always wonder whether the second part about the children's title is there partly because Edward is an Earl and post George V, none of monarch's grandchildren whose children of an Earl were prince or princess but of course it's also because they're from female lines (Mary and Margaret's children).


Even after reading iluvebertie's reply in BRF Titles thread about LP, Warrant, and Will, honestly I still find it strange that if it supposes to be permanent (removing Louise's and James's right of prince/ss title), The Queen only put it as a Will. She and George VI issued LP to grant prince/ss titles to (the then princess) Elizabeth's and William's children which essentially making exempt of George V's LP, both only apply for one specific person. Okay, in both case, it's granting titles and not removing it. But then we have George V's LP which essentially removes the rights of royal titles of the future monarch's grandchildren from female line and great-grandchildren (other than the first grandchildren of PoW), making a change of Victoria's LP. So it's LP for LP. So maybe Sophie is right because when Louise (and later James) is 18, Edward already get the promised dukedom because most likely Philip and The Queen are no longer around.

But still, King Charles might choose to keep it that way (no prince/ss titles) especially if they're not working royals or might even go further by making it as predecent and issuing LP stating that monarch's younger children would be earl instead of duke and no HRH prince/ss for their children (in the name of slimming down). Still, even if they can, I don't think Louise and James will care much about royal titles and they might opt to not have it (less headache).
George V used the 'monarch's will' to give HRH to the wives of HRHs. That is permanent but the same mechanism was used as was used to remove HRH from the Wessex children. The 'monarch's will' have the same force and there are very good reasons for doing it that way. If the Queen stripped the Wessex children via LPs she would also have had to do so for the York Princesses along with the Duke of Gloucester and the Kent's.

I suspect in time that the LPs denying HRH status to all children other than those of the heir apparent will come - but not while those with HRH now are alive - so probably in George's reign but in the meantime the fathers will simply ask the monarch to use 'the monarch's will'. Mothers won't need to do so as HRH doesn't pass via females so in time we will have the situation, under the existing rules where Louis' children are HRH but not Charlotte's.

I think, when Charles becomes King, he will announce very quickly that Harry's children will be known as the children of a Duke (no change for daughters in that) and then William will do the same thing for Louis' children and when the last of the current HRHs via younger children dies whoever is the King will issue the LPs to formalise the situation that, by then will probably have been the case for three or four generations anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 06-07-2020, 06:28 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
George V used the 'monarch's will' to give HRH to the wives of HRHs. That is permanent but the same mechanism was used as was used to remove HRH from the Wessex children. The 'monarch's will' have the same force and there are very good reasons for doing it that way. If the Queen stripped the Wessex children via LPs she would also have had to do so for the York Princesses along with the Duke of Gloucester and the Kent's.
George VI was able to issue LP that only apply to Elizabeth's children and not affect Margaret's. Elizabeth II issued LP that only apply to William's children but not Harry's, so it's possible to issue one that only apply to Edward's children. And doesn't it make it more interesting then, because it can also mean that both LPs are actually not necessary if monarch's Will is enough to make an exemption from the previous LP. I will not go further because this will be the wrong thread for it.

But one thing that's similar between HRH for the wives and titles for Wessexes' kids: both are conditional. The wives get theirs because they're the wives (but there's possibility of them re-marry and obviously they will lose it if re-marry non-royal, hence title change), while for the Wessexes Edward will later get the dukedom so they'll no longer "just" the children of an Earl. Or does this 1999 Will also mean that they'll still be referred as children of an Earl even after their father becomes a Duke because the Will said so?

Again, this is only my opinion, I'm not saying I'm right nor I'm trying to pick an argument with anyone.
Honestly, I think Louise and James should thank their parents (and grandmother) for them not having royal titles .
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 06-07-2020, 06:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
George V used the 'monarch's will' to give HRH to the wives of HRHs. That is permanent but the same mechanism was used as was used to remove HRH from the Wessex children.
You may be thinking of when George VI used the monarch's will to deny HRH to the wife of HRH The Duke of Windsor. The issue during the reign of George V was whether British law automatically gave HRH to wives of HRHs. The authorities concluded that it did, and King George V merely made the announcement in order to clarify the issue for the public.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If the Queen stripped the Wessex children via LPs she would also have had to do so for the York Princesses along with the Duke of Gloucester and the Kent's.
No, she would not. Unlike peerages, there is no settled law restricting the monarch's prerogative to confer or strip HRH from her descendants. It is traditional to have a consistent system where children of one younger son have the same titles as children of other younger sons, but there is no law making this a requirement.
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 06-07-2020, 08:17 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Thanks! So, she wasn't specifically asked about it but volunteered to provide this piece of information nonetheless. Maybe she wanted to clarify this issue as she herself noticed that the public thought otherwise?
maybe so, but the initial announcement and the clarification from BP seemed to indicate that they did NOT "have the HRH and not use it.." It was that they did not have it. THat does not mean that they could not be conferred with it later on but earlier information seems to contradict Sophie's statement.
Im sure that staff at BP who answer letters and put info on the website may make mistakes due to pressure of work at times but I find it hard to believe that they wold have gotten it wrong or if they did, they would not correct it..I know they got Meg and Harry's titles wrong in Jan/February but they were probably under a lot of pressure then and they did correct it...
Its possible that privately, Sophie has learned that the children "will be able to be called HRH at a later date" so she said that..
__________________

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 01:51 AM
About the Wessex family iowabelle Forum Announcements and Admin 4 01-31-2008 04:39 PM
Possible names for the new Lord or Lady Wessex Beck The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 252 01-04-2008 12:07 PM
Earl and Countess of Wessex Current Events 2: September 2003-May 2004 Alexandria Current Events Archive 137 05-28-2004 01:15 PM




Popular Tags
american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones belgian royal bridal gown canada chittagong coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up danish history dna dubai dutch dutch royal family edo family tree fantasy movie future genealogy hill house of bernadotte house of saxe-coburg and gotha imperial household introduction italian royal family japan jumma kent king salman languages list of rulers mail monaco history mountbatten nepal nepalese royal family netflix nobel 2019 northern ireland norwegian royal family prince charles prince daniel prince dimitri princess chulabhorn princess dita queen maud royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown saudi arabia serbian royal family settings spain spanish royal startling new evidence stuart swedish history swedish royal family thailand thai royal family tips tracts united kingdom visit from sweden von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×