Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[Osipi]

Or there's the possibility that when Louise and James reach the age of 18, they could petition the monarch to reinstate their HRH formally. The Queen made her will known and that is what BP referred to in Iluvbertie's letter. Its within the realm of possibility then too that Charles (or William) could make *his* will known when the time comes.

Just sounds logical to me.

 

[Gawin]

Sophie answered a question when doing an interview for The Sunday Times and she herself mentions that their children can choose to use their HRH style we 18 if they wish. I imagine her understanding of the titles is better than us and she says that they do actually have the titles, they chose to not use them but they can if they want.


“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.” The Countess of Wessex

Yes, I just read that interview myself, thanks for posting this.

“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.”

"Can Sophie, Countess of Wessex, steady the royal ship?" by Christina Lamb, The Sunday Times, June 6, 2020.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And thank you for providing the source, Gawin.

I still wonder about the alleged earlier interview(s), but it is good to have one verified source.


I can see why the Buckingham Palace staff would have interpreted it differently, as the official announcement in 1999 was phrased as follows:

"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."​

In my opinion, "should not use" would more understandably communicate what the Countess tells in the interview than "should not be given". But I suppose "style" in this statement may mean its proper definition of "how one is addressed".

It is also interesting that the Countess apparently believes her children do not need the Queen's permission to use HRH titles, unless the Queen has already given her permission.

 

[Somebody]

I was hoping someone could provide a little more context for her comment; what question did she answer? What was said prior to this fragment and directly following it?

Based on Molly's post I already found the interview but as I am not a subscriber, it only shows the first few lines.

 

[Durham]

I wonder why it was mentioned at all . I thought this was a settled matter. Could the countess have made a mistake?

 

[Gawin]

I was hoping someone could provide a little more context for her comment; what question did she answer? What was said prior to this fragment and directly following it?

Based on Molly's post I already found the interview but as I am not a subscriber, it only shows the first few lines.

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.”"

 

[Lumutqueen]

I wonder why it was mentioned at all . I thought this was a settled matter. Could the countess have made a mistake?

Of all people the Countess would know her children’s titles.

Personally I have always doubted that the queens will was as finite as letters patent, but that’s not the way the information given at the time wasn’t correct. We will never know I guess.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

It's an interesting idea that Sophie would necessarily know more about this than the person who answered the letter. Sophie may have studied this a great deal, or it may be of minimal interest to her. The person who answered the letter may have no expertise in this area and may have made a hasty guess, or may be among the foremost experts whose say represents the final authority.

Sarah has referred to her daughters incorrectly as The Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in at least one interview when asked what exactly was the correct way to refer to them (many years ago). Frankly, I get the sense that they put considerably less thought into these things than those of with a particular interest in it do. It matters little, or not at all, to the realities of their lives.

 

[Durham]

Of all people the Countess would know her children’s titles.

Well you would think so I suppose. All the same it's very odd having an annoucement all those years ago & now this interview seemingly contradicting it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder why it was mentioned at all . I thought this was a settled matter. Could the countess have made a mistake?

It is allegedly not the first time she has said it, though as I stated above I have not seen the earlier interviews and the quoted interview was only published today.

Of all people the Countess would know her children’s titles.

There are a number of cases in other royal families where a member of the family asserts that they, or their spouse or children, have a title which the monarch or the law says that they do not have. As the Countess of Wessex is by all appearances close to her mother-in-law, I do not believe that has happened here, but it is not impossible for a royal not to "know their children's titles".

Well you would think so I suppose. All the same it's very odd having an annoucement all those years ago & now this interview seemingly contradicting it.

"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.

 

[Claire]

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.

 

[Alison H]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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?

 

[Durham]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

.................

 

[yukari]

(...)
"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).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[yukari]

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 ?.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

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.

 

[Denville]

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..

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

Interesting interview I think its also highly unlikely that we'll see HRH Princess Louise of Wessex or HRH Prince James of Wessex ,though I could be wrong.

I hope they use the titles and are allowed to. As said before, the perfect moment is when their dad is the Duke and their mom is the Duchess!

 

[Durham]

I hope they use the titles and are allowed to. As said before, the perfect moment is when their dad is the Duke and their mom is the Duchess!

I don't think there's much appetite in the UK for relatives of the monarch to have these styles apart from the direct line. The days of a large royal family are drawing to a close. And I think that's for the best.

I also think both Louise & James would be better off without them. They would have more normal lives with less media intrusion.

 

[JSH]

I doubt either Louise or James will ever use their HRHs and I think that's a pity. They are completely entitled to do so. I personally don't think that title or lack thereof would make any difference at all in media interest in them. But, bottom line, I am ecstatic to have confirmed that they DO have HRHs.

 

[AC21091968]

Like other posters have mentioned, given the little chance of Louise and James becoming working royals, I don't think they will be using their HRHs (when they turn 18), even though there are legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex. This happens they are children of the son of the monarch, based of Letters Patent.

The choice of using HRH at age 18 was from a Sunday Times interview with Countess of Wessex

“We try to bring them up with the understanding that they are very likely to have to work for a living. Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but it’s highly unlikely.”​

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=22278

https://people.com/royals/queen-eli...ill-work-for-a-living-mom-sophie-wessex-says/

 

[MsJulie]

I would like to see James and Louise use their titles in the future, but I am glad that they have been given the choice by their parents and that the Queen agreed too. Watching the children grow up, James appears to be shy and I could see him just wanting to fade in the background. Louise I think, might like to follow her Aunt Zara into the horse competition, but I don’t think she cares about a title. Aunt Zara didn’t. Louise and James appear to be very polite, unspoiled, happy young people. I never have seen them pull any shenanigans when in public. Grandma and Grandpa along with Mom and Dad must be very proud.

 

[Durham]

I doubt either Louise or James will ever use their HRHs and I think that's a pity. They are completely entitled to do so. I personally don't think that title or lack thereof would make any difference at all in media interest in them. But, bottom line, I am ecstatic to have confirmed that they DO have HRHs.

I think I'd use the word honoured or privileged rather than entitled but I take your point.

Without researching further I'm pretty sure that there's far more media interest in the daughters of the D of Y than in the children of The Princess Royal. I would presume that this has much to do with the fact that they have royal status. Although their parent's notoriety may well play a part. So in the weird logic of the British media the princesses would be "fair game" in a way that Peter & Zara (& Louise & James) are not.

 

[Claire]

Look personally I feel that King Charles will be removing the HRH from anyone except Prince William and his children. So it will be a race - will HRH Lady Louise turn 18 before or after the emergence of King Charles.

 

[Prinsara]

Assuming Edward gets the Edinburgh title(s) James might likely be Earl Merioneth and not Viscount Severn. The HRH Prince/ss thing won't make a difference there.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Assuming Edward gets the Edinburgh title(s) James might likely be Earl Merioneth and not Viscount Severn. The HRH Prince/ss thing won't make a difference there.

The most likely courtesy style would be Earl of Wessex, as that would be the oldest of his father's earldoms. But of course it would be up to James.

If he were to use HRH Prince, that would typically mean not using any other courtesy title. The current Duke of Gloucester was simply HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester before succeeding to the dukedom.

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.

The legal position of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is a bit different as he would technically hold no title even if he were referred to by his father's earldom by courtesy.

David is styled as Earl of Snowdon on the website of the royal house.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf