The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3501  
Old 06-09-2018, 03:36 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
At the minute we know exactly what's happening to titles for the children. Louise and James are styled as that of an Earl, it is unknown if their titles will change when their father inherits the DOE title.
What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of the children of an earl though I'm a bit unsure if James title will change. Normally he'd be styled with the courtesy title of Earl of Wessex if Edward had inherited the ducal title directly from Philip. Could it be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3502  
Old 06-09-2018, 03:41 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of an earl. Regarding if James title will change I'm not sure. Normally had Edward inherited the ducal title directly from Philip, James would be styled with the courtesy title Earl of Wessex. Though I wonder if it'll be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?


I guess it depends if the new DOE comes with the courtesy titles it currently has? Then I guess James would be Earl of Merioneth and Viscount Severn perhaps?
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3503  
Old 06-09-2018, 03:41 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of an earl. Regarding if James title will change I'm not sure. Normally had Edward inherited the ducal title directly from Philip, James would be styled with the courtesy title Earl of Wessex. Though I wonder if it'll be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?

Prince Philip's subsidiary title as DoE is Earl of Merioneth if I am not mistaken. If Edward had inherited the title directly from his father, then I believe James would be called Earl of Merioneth by courtesy. Since the title will be recreated though for Edward, it is possible that he will not be granted any new earldom with it and will just keep the title of Earl of Wessex he already has as a subsidiary title. Then, James would be referred to as Earl of Wessex by courtesy when his father is the Duke of Edinburgh.


James himself will not be given any new peerage of his own,
Reply With Quote
  #3504  
Old 06-09-2018, 03:41 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Zara and Peter have never been in a carriage, only ever on the balcony with their father.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the line of succession, Louise is closer to her grandmother than her grandmothers cousins are at this point so for me that's quite obviously why she is included in the parade and not them. As I have pointed out The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester clearly take the Wessexes place when they are not at the event.
I'm sorry, that was cepe's explanation. However, doesn't your explanation also apply to Peter and Zara?

Quote:
I don't see how that is inconsistent with them not being royal highnesses. Louise and James quite clearly have a normal life, or as normal as it's going to get for them. They're always going to be at events like this. They attend family gatherings/birthdays. Louise is not seen doing engagements on behalf of her grandmother is she? It's like me or you going to your mums birthday party. Louise was last seen at her cousins wedding, Windsor Horse Show (where she was carriage riding) and then Easter. Please let me know where she has been treated like a royal highness at any of those occasions or if I have missed any?

If you wish to twist words, please go somewhere else as it's not the done thing here. Just because Louise rides once a year in a carriage with her mother and father, does not mean that Edward and Sophie want them to be royal highnesses with the privacy of private citizens.
I am not trying to twist your words and do not intend to leave just because you have a different point of view and twist my words - of course you are free to have a different interpretation of the facts we both observe. I was merely stating that your reasoning is completely consistent with the point I was trying to make which is that Louise and James are receiving the same treatment as Beatrice and Eugenie and not the same treatment as Peter and Zara. By opting for their children to be addressed as children of an earl it was suggested that they didn't want the burden of a royal life but they are participating in this royal life in exactly the same way as their York cousins i.e. as they would as royal highnesses.

If they wanted the treatment of children of an earl they could still be at the balcony as members of the family (just like others without any title or those that are styled comparable to them) but by accepting this prominent place in a carriage at the cost of royal highnesses, such as the Gloucesters, the message is quite clear they want to be treated as royals (with a limited role like TRH Beatrice and Eugenie) which Louise isn't because of her grandmothers decision. So, i am just advocating for consistency; either make them royal highnesses or treat them according to their status, i.e. 'not royal' like their cousins Peter and Zara and many second cousins, such as Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor, the Earl of Saint Andrews and many others within the family.
Reply With Quote
  #3505  
Old 06-09-2018, 03:46 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of the children of an earl though I'm a bit unsure if James title will change. Normally he'd be styled with the courtesy title of Earl of Wessex if Edward had inherited the ducal title directly from Philip. Could it be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?
It will indeed be interesting how they go about that. Can a peerage be made subsidiary to a higher title by the same titleholder? I am sure there are examples in the British nobility of something similar happening.
Reply With Quote
  #3506  
Old 06-09-2018, 03:49 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Prince Philip's subsidiary title as DoE is Earl of Merioneth if I am not mistaken. If Edward had inherited the title directly from his father, then I believe James would be called Earl of Merioneth by courtesy. Since the title will be recreated though for Edward, it is possible that he will not be granted any new earldom with it and will just keep the title of Earl of Wessex he already has as a subsidiary title. Then, James would be referred to as Earl of Wessex by courtesy when his father is the Duke of Edinburgh.


James himself will not be given any new peerage of his own,
But Edward will still hold the peerage of Wessex in his own right. It's not something that will disappear just because he's a duke.
I might be making things more complicated than they actually are

In my opinion Edward will receive the title Duke of Edinburgh without those subsidiary titles currently held by Philip since he already holds a few titles of his own.
Reply With Quote
  #3507  
Old 06-09-2018, 03:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I'm sorry, that was cepe's explanation. However, doesn't your explanation also apply to Peter and Zara?


I am not trying to twist your words and do not intend to leave just because you have a different point of view. I was merely stating that your reasoning is completely consistent with the point I was trying to make which is that Louise and James are receiving the same treatment as Beatrice and Eugenie and not the same treatment as Peter and Zara. By opting for their children to be addressed as children of an earl it was suggested that they didn't want the burden of a royal life but they are participating in this royal life in exactly the same way as their York cousins i.e. as they would as royal highnesses.

If they wanted the treatment of children of an earl they could still be at the balcony as members of the family (just like others without any title or those that are styled comparable to them) but by accepting this prominent place in a carriage at the cost of royal highnesses, such as the Gloucesters, the message is quite clear they want to be treated as royals (with a limited role like TRH Beatrice and Eugenie) which Louise isn't because of her grandmothers decision. So, i am just advocating for consistency; either make them royal highnesses or treat them according to their status, i.e. 'not royal' like their cousins Peter and Zara and many second cousins, such as Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor, the Earl of Saint Andrews and many others within the family.

I agree with your point that there is no obvious reason to treat Louise and Peter/Zara differently when none of them are HRHs. On the Gloucesters though, I think it is clear that the carriages are reserved primarily for the Queen's immediate family, i.e. her children and grandchildren, or their respective spouses (the Duke of Kent being an exception because of his role as a colonel who can no longer ride on a horse), so it is understandable that they should take precedence over the Gloucesters.



Again, the only inconsistency IMHO is that, regardless of titles, descendants of the sovereign in paternal line are still given a more prominent role than those who descend from the sovereign in maternal line. That is true also when you compare the status of the Queen's cousins, who are HRHs, with her nephew and niece (Princess Margaret's children), even though the latter are higher in the line of succession than the former.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
But Edward will still hold the peerage of Wessex in his own right. It's not something that will disappear just because he's a duke.
I might be making things more complicated than they actually are

In my opinion Edward will receive the title Duke of Edinburgh without those subsidiary titles currently held by Philip since he already holds a few titles of his own.

I believe that is exactly what I said. Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh and Earl of Wessex , but probably won't be given a second earldom like the earldom of Merioneth which Prince Philip currently holds. James will use as courtesy title his father's second highest title, which will be that of Earl of Wessex. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #3508  
Old 06-09-2018, 04:03 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I agree with your point that there is no obvious reason to treat Louise and Peter/Zara differently when none of them are HRHs. On the Gloucesters though, I think it is clear that the carriages are reserved primarily for the Queen's immediate family, i.e. her children and grandchildren, or their respective spouses (the Duke of Kent being an exception because of his role as a colonel who can no longer ride on a horse), so it is understandable that should take precedence over the Gloucesters.

Again, the only inconsistency IMHO is that, regardless of titles, descendants of the sovereign in paternal line are given a more prominent role than those who descend from the sovereign in maternal line. That is true also when you compare the status of the Queen's cousins, who are HRHs, with her nephew and niece (Princess Margaret's children), even though the latter are higher in the line of succession than the former.
Yes, and traditionally that preference for male line was directly tied to them being HRH, as soon as a generation was no longer a royal highness this prominent role was no longer applied. For example, as male line descendents the Earl of Ulster and his sisters Lady Davina and Lady Rose are less prominent than HRH the Duke of Kent who is from a more junior branch.
Reply With Quote
  #3509  
Old 06-09-2018, 04:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,828
One other thing we have to remember too is that when it comes to the monarch and the royal family, there are two separate factions that are involved. We have the people that are related to the Queen and we have the people that work for the family "Firm". Most of the senior ranking members of the royal family with the HRH honorific style denoting the closeness of their relationship to the Queen work for the family "Firm" also. That's all a HRH means. Its a style and not a title nor a peerage. Edward and Sophie, with the Queen's permission prefer their children to be styled as children of a peer (Earl now, Duke later) than be styled as HRHs or prince and princess.

When we see the family all together at Trooping the Color, we're seeing a family get together to celebrate their matriarch. Its not a occasion actually where its celebrating an event that a monarch has achieved such as the Jubilees are.

As for changing anything with the peerage, its my belief that the government is also involved with making those decisions. Its not solely the Queen's decision. "Like all other peers, life peers are created by the Sovereign, who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister or the House of Lords Appointments Commission." This tells me that the monarch, alone, does not determine a peerage or the remainder attached to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
__________________
"All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life : he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." - Chief Seattle 1854
Reply With Quote
  #3510  
Old 06-09-2018, 04:32 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 422
Also another factor that comes into play with this is rank. While James and Louise may not hold the usual style and title of a male-line grandchild of the monarch, they do still hold that rank. This is why in regular, official precedence Lady Louise would come after Beatrice and Eugenie. So technically, Louise's status is equal to that of the Duke of Gloucester. This discussion on rank also ties into whether James and Louise will receive Coats of Arms and coronets, which would be a given if they were HRH, but is debatable in their unique situation.
Reply With Quote
  #3511  
Old 06-09-2018, 04:35 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

If they wanted the treatment of children of an earl they could still be at the balcony as members of the family (just like others without any title or those that are styled comparable to them) but by accepting this prominent placein a carriage at the cost of royal highnesses, such as the Gloucesters, the message is quite clear they want to be treated as royals (with a limited role like TRH Beatrice and Eugenie) which Louise isn't because of her grandmothers decision. So, i am just advocating for consistency; either make them royal highnesses or treat them according to their status, i.e. 'not royal' like their cousins Peter and Zara and many second cousins, such as Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor, the Earl of Saint Andrews and many others within the family.
I disagree with the boldness Sophie is a HRH as well, daughter in law to The Queen, Louise is the Queens titled granddaughter. I don't see how accepting an invitation, if that's what it is, means they are putting themselves in a prominent position. I think what we're taking out of the equation here is proximity to The Queen regardless of title. Her Majesty has all her titled children and grandchildren in the carriage procession, I see no reason why she would replace her granddaughter and her rumoured favourite daughter in law with her cousins. It makes no sense. Sophie is unlikely to ride if Louise is out so that takes them both away and leaving Edward by himself. It's family after all.

Zara and Peter Philips are not royal, the line Anne used is something like they just happen to have The Queen as their grandmother. They participate in these events as private citizens. In my view, you also cannot compare The Earl of St Andrews, The Queens second cousin (that may not be 100% accurate as I don't know how cousins word) to The Queens grand-daughter. He's so far removed from the main core of the royal family that we see him perhaps twice a year.

The decision for Louise and James not be HRHs were taken by Edward and Sophie and agreed by HM. HM apparently took away their birthright which for me I don't think sat right with her and still doesn't. I strongly believe that Sophie and Edward deprived them of their HRHs simply to stop the consistent onslaught of press that they would have gotten, look at the treatment Beatrice and Eugenie have received through their adult life, it is constant. Louise and James have been afforded that privacy. However what is quite clear is that one day Edward is going to be DOE, and whatever happens to Louise and James they're going to move more in the for front of the RF. Beatrice and Eugenie are unlikely to step up, else they would have by now. Perhaps Louise and James are going to fill the gap, they will be on the only "of age" royals for a long time before George and Charlotte start to pick up the reigns. If and when it comes to that stage we will see Louise and James take that decision for themselves, as opposed to have a decision made for them before they were born.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3512  
Old 06-09-2018, 04:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,353
I would really like to see Louise and James become royal highnesses as that is the style they would normally have received and the way they are currently treated is consistent with that style. However, if it has been decided that children of younger children of a monarch from now on will no longer be royal highnesses (which should become clear if H&M have children and Charles ascends the throne) that's at least consistent with the decision made for Louise and James; although I still think it would have been wiser to introduce such a new policy for a new generation instead of applying different 'rules' between cousins.
Reply With Quote
  #3513  
Old 06-09-2018, 04:51 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
will no longer be royal highnesses (which should become clear if H&M have children and Charles ascends the throne)
If The Queen is on the throne when H&M have children, unless new LPs are issued like with William and Catherine, they children won't have HRHs and be styled as Lady XXX of Sussex and XXX, Earl of Dumbarton. If Charles is on the throne HRHs are automatic. So what will be telling is if they refuse in the reign of The Queen, because I then don't see the children getting HRHs when their grandfather comes to the throne.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3514  
Old 06-09-2018, 04:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
ll.

Zara and Peter Philips are not royal, the line Anne used is something like they just happen to have The Queen as their grandmother. They participate in these events as private citizens. In my view, you also cannot compare The Earl of St Andrews, The Queens second cousin (that may not be 100% accurate as I don't know how cousins word) to The Queens grand-daughter. He's so far removed from the main core of the royal family that we see him perhaps twice a year.

He is The Queen's first cousin once removed. He is a second cousin to The Queen's children.

As I said before, I agree with you on the Gloucesters not riding on a carriage whereas the Wessexes do. Somebody's point was, however, on why Louise can ride on a carriage while Peter or Zara can't. Officially, neither Louise nor Peter is "royal" if, by "royal", we mean only people who have an HRH style. There are only two logical explanations then: either, as Somebody claimed, Louise is de facto treated as an HRH (as a male line granddaughter of the sovereign even though she is not officially styled as such), or, more likely, she was riding on the carriage simply because her mother, who is an HRH and daughter-in-law of the Queen, was too. I don't think Louise would be on a carriage by herself as Beatrice and Eugenie were, if her mother were not with her.


I don't think either that the distinct treatment that Peter and Louise get is explained by Louise having a courtesy style of "Lady" (note really a title) and Peter having none. If Anne had married an earl, or if Mark Phillips had accepted an earldom, Peter and Zara would have been styled as James and Louise are, but, still, I don't think that would have given them a more prominent role at Trooping or any other royal event.


I don't remember what happened before Anne start riding as a colonel. Did she ever appear with her children on a carriage ? If not, then I guess we must accept that maternal and paternal lines are indeed treated differently, whether the children are HRHs or not.
Reply With Quote
  #3515  
Old 06-09-2018, 05:05 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I disagree with the boldness Sophie is a HRH as well, daughter in law to The Queen, Louise is the Queens titled granddaughter. I don't see how accepting an invitation, if that's what it is, means they are putting themselves in a prominent position. I think what we're taking out of the equation here is proximity to The Queen regardless of title. Her Majesty has all her titled children and grandchildren in the carriage procession, I see no reason why she would replace her granddaughter and her rumoured favourite daughter in law with her cousins. It makes no sense. Sophie is unlikely to ride if Louise is out so that takes them both away and leaving Edward by himself. It's family after all.

Zara and Peter Philips are not royal, the line Anne used is something like they just happen to have The Queen as their grandmother. They participate in these events as private citizens. In my view, you also cannot compare The Earl of St Andrews, The Queens second cousin (that may not be 100% accurate as I don't know how cousins word) to The Queens grand-daughter. He's so far removed from the main core of the royal family that we see him perhaps twice a year.

The decision for Louise and James not be HRHs were taken by Edward and Sophie and agreed by HM. HM apparently took away their birthright which for me I don't think sat right with her and still doesn't. I strongly believe that Sophie and Edward deprived them of their HRHs simply to stop the consistent onslaught of press that they would have gotten, look at the treatment Beatrice and Eugenie have received through their adult life, it is constant. Louise and James have been afforded that privacy. However what is quite clear is that one day Edward is going to be DOE, and whatever happens to Louise and James they're going to move more in the for front of the RF. Beatrice and Eugenie are unlikely to step up, else they would have by now. Perhaps Louise and James are going to fill the gap, they will be on the only "of age" royals for a long time before George and Charlotte start to pick up the reigns. If and when it comes to that stage we will see Louise and James take that decision for themselves, as opposed to have a decision made for them before they were born.
The queen has four royal grandchildren and four non-royal grandchildren. Louise and James are not royal nor are they titled, so in that way comparable to Peter and Zara who aren't royal nor titled either. James uses a courtesy title as if his father was a non-royal earl and Louise is styled (not titled) as a daughter of a (non- royal) earl. And I don't see why Sophie wouldn't ride just because her non-royal daughter would not be invited for a carriage procession that has always been limited to royals.

The main thing the Earl of St Andrews and Lady Louise have in common is that they are non-royal male-line descendants of a monarch. The earl of St Andrews will evently be a peer and Louise is just a lady like many other children of peers in the UK. The main difference is of course that her grandmother is the current monarch, which she has in common with other non-royal cousins Peter and Zara, while the Earl of St Andrews greatgrandfather was a monarch many decades ago.

Moreover, I don't see a reason at all why Louise and James would have a more prominent position when their uncle is king compared to when their grandmother is king (they'll move down from 2nd to 3rd degree relationship to the monarch). It is clear that Charles' nieces and nephews are not needed/called upon for royal duties, so if his royal nieces only attend the occassional event, why expect his non-royal niece and nephew to surpass their more prominent cousins to pick up lots of royal duties (not that they can decide that as that is up to the monarch; the only thing someone within the firm who was called upon could possibly do is refuse).
Reply With Quote
  #3516  
Old 06-09-2018, 05:05 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
He is The Queen's first cousin once removed. He is a second cousin to The Queen's children.

I don't remember what happened before Anne start riding as a colonel. Did she ever appear with her children on a carriage ? If not, then I guess we must accept that maternal and paternal lines are indeed treated differently, whether the children are HRHs or not.
Thanks for the cousin bit, I never know what makes you removed from someone.

Peter and Zara have never been in a carriage, they have only ever been on the balcony. Anne was appointed Regimental Colonel in Chief in 1998. The only photos I can find are really old ones, 1980s ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The queen has four royal grandchildren (eaily recognizable as they are royal highnesses) and four non-royal grandchildren. Louise and James are not royal nor are they titled, so in that way comparable to Peter and Zara who aren't royal nor titled either. James uses a courtesy title as if his father was a non-royal earl and Louise is styled (not titled) as a daughter of a (non- royal) earl. And I don't see why Sophie wouldn't ride just because her non-royal daughter would not be invited for a carriage procession that has always been limited to royals.

Moreover, I don't see a reason at all why Louise and James would have a more prominent position when their uncle is king compared to when their grandmother is king (they'll move down from 2nd to 3rd degree relationship to the monarch). It is clear that Charles' nieces and nephews are not needed/called upon for royal duties, so if his royal nieces only attend the occassional event, why expect his non-royal niece and nephew to surpass their more prominent (by their style and title and position in line to the throne) cousins to pick up lots of royal duties (not that they can decide that as that is up to the monarch).

The main thing the Earl of St Andrews and Lady Louise have in common is that they are non-royal male-line descendants of a monarch. The earl of St Andrews will evently be a peer and Louise is just a lady like many other children of peers in the UK. The main difference is of course that her grandmother is the current monarch, which she has in common with other non-royal cousins Peter and Zara, while the Earl of St Andrews greatgrandfather was a monarch many decades ago.
I'm tired now frankly (insert sleepy emoticon).

I disagree that Louise is not royal, I also disagree that you can compare The Earl of St Andrews and Louise simply as male line grandchildren of a monarch, especially considering George's great-grandfather is no longer on the throne. Everything including their lack of titles around the wessex children is subjective so i think like me i'm putting this subject to bed.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3517  
Old 06-09-2018, 05:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
If The Queen is on the throne when H&M have children, unless new LPs are issued like with William and Catherine, they children won't have HRHs and be styled as Lady XXX of Sussex and XXX, Earl of Dumbarton. If Charles is on the throne HRHs are automatic. So what will be telling is if they refuse in the reign of The Queen, because I then don't see the children getting HRHs when their grandfather comes to the throne.
I am not sure what there is to refuse in the reign of the queen but I might be misunderstanding. They will be styled according to existing LPs. When Charles ascends the throne they will become royal highnesses according to the same LPs. So, if they don't want that to happen, an announcement could made at some point that their children will remain styled the way they are even 'now' independent of Charles ascending the throne. If they want the children to be royal highnesses in the future no announcement or new LPs are necessary as that is taken care of by the existing ones, the only risk is that Charles doesn't ascend the throne because in that case they will never be grandchildren of a monarch so they wouldn't be male line grandchildren but only greatgrandchildren of a monarch and therefore not be entitled to a royal style nor title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I'm tired now frankly (insert sleepy emoticon).

I disagree that Louise is not royal, I also disagree that you can compare The Earl of St Andrews and Louise simply as male line grandchildren of a monarch, especially considering George's great-grandfather is no longer on the throne. Everything including their lack of titles around the wessex children is subjective so i think like me i'm putting this subject to bed.
Looks like we are at the heart of our different points of view. I guess we will not come to an agreement if the basic disagreement is about who is a royal: in my definition: (royal) highnesses (and her majesty of course); not sure about your definition but it looks like it is all children and male line grandchildren of the current monarch (or a monarch?) but not male line great grandchildren (or are male line great grandchildren of a current monarch also royal?) regardless of their actual status/title.
Reply With Quote
  #3518  
Old 06-09-2018, 05:29 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am not sure what there is to refuse in the reign of the queen but I might be misunderstanding. They will be styled according to existing LPs. When Charles ascends the throne they will become royal highnesses according to the same LPs. So, if they don't want that to happen, an announcement could made at some point that their children will remain styled the way they are even 'now' independent of Charles ascending the throne. If they want the children to be royal highnesses in the future no announcement or new LPs are necessary as that is taken care of by the existing ones, the only risk is that Charles doesn't ascend the throne because in that case they will never be grandchildren of a monarch so they wouldn't be male line grandchildren but only greatgrandchildren of a monarch and therefore not be entitled to a royal style nor title.



Frankly, this anomaly of James and Louise not being princes/HRHs when grandchildren of sovereigns in male line have always been so (since the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty) is simply ridiculous IMHO, especially when, in practice, they are given the rank and precedence of grandchildren in male line as someone pointed out.
Reply With Quote
  #3519  
Old 06-09-2018, 05:30 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,086
Questions about British Styles and Titles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Frankly, this anomaly of James and Louise not being princes/HRHs when grandchildren of sovereigns in male line have always been so (since the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty) is simply ridiculous IMHO, especially when, in practice, they are given the rank and precedence of grandchildren in male line as someone pointed out.


Now this I agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am not sure what there is to refuse in the reign of the queen but I might be misunderstanding. They will be styled according to existing LPs. When Charles ascends the throne they will become royal highnesses according to the same LPs. So, if they don't want that to happen, an announcement could made at some point that their children will remain styled the way they are even 'now' independent of Charles ascending the throne. If they want the children to be royal highnesses in the future no announcement or new LPs are necessary as that is taken care of by the existing ones, the only risk is that Charles doesn't ascend the throne because in that case they will never be grandchildren of a monarch so they wouldn't be male line grandchildren but only greatgrandchildren of a monarch and therefore not be entitled to a royal style nor title.


Genuine question as I don’t know this; if they have children in the reign of The Queen and nothing happens no LPs and the children are titled as children of a royal duke. Then are they automatically elevated when Charles ascends the throne? I was assuming not which is why then refusing new LPs in the reign of The Queen meant the decision was final.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3520  
Old 06-09-2018, 07:50 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,353
My understanding is that they will indeed be elevated just like other titles change at that exact same moment:

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge become The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge and their children will be 'prince(ss) George/Charlotte/Louis of Cornwall and Cambridge'.

Charles and Camilla seize to have all titles they hold now.

Had Harry still been prince Harry of Wales, he would have changed from being 'of Wales' to being 'the prince Henry'. If they for example at that moment in time have a daughter called Alice and a son called Albert, their children are known as 'Lady Alice Mountbatten-Windsor' and 'earl of Dumbarton' in the queen's reign and will turn into HRH princess Alice of Sussex and HRH prince Albert of Sussex when their grandfather ascends the throne. If they have a third child during Charles' reign, she would for example be born as HRH princess Alexandra of Sussex. It would be illogical if her older brother and sister would have a non-royal style for life just because they were born while their grandfather was not yet king.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Frankly, this anomaly of James and Louise not being princes/HRHs when grandchildren of sovereigns in male line have always been so (since the beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty) is simply ridiculous IMHO, especially when, in practice, they are given the rank and precedence of grandchildren in male line as someone pointed out.
Exactly. If they truly had been treated differently, it was still a change rather than an anomoly (if continued with Harry's children) but now they are treated as if they were royal highnesses; quite ridiculous indeed. Imo their title should be made to align with their position. Glad that you were able to word it in a way that we can all agree on as that was my point from the start.

The way they are treated should be in line with their title: either they are royal highnesses as male line grandchildren of the monarch and are treated as such or the original intend is respected: meaning they are not royal and therefore not treated as such (but treated as other non-royal male line descendants (such as all great granchildren of monarchs). Now they are treated as if they are royal while the queen and their parents decided way back that they wouldn't be, which is reflected in the way they are styled, it is this inconsistency that I don't agree with.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (1 members and 6 guests)
Gawin
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
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 782 10-28-2019 07:29 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry bangladesh belgian royal family castles charles of wales chittagong cht danish royalty diana princess of wales dna duchess of cambridge dutch dutch royal family family tree foundation future games germany hill house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha intro italian royal family jacobite jumma kids movie king salman languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mailing mary: crown princess of denmark memoir monaco history netflix nobel 2019 norway norway history official visit pakistan potential areas prince charles princess elizabeth princess margaret queen mathilde random facts royal children royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding russian imperial family saudi arabia serbian royal family snowdon spanish history spencer family state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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