Titles of the Edinburgh 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/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html​

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

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

[...] 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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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).

 

[Kataryn]

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/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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.

 

[Osipi]

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. ?

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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).

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Osipi]

Great! Thanks all. Now I know *for sure* its Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor!

(happily checking off her "learn something new today" box.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

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).

 

[O-H Anglophile]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

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.

 

[Claire]

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?

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Fijiro]

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.