Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[AC21091968]

Camilla's title when she becomes the wife of the sovereign is an issue for Charles to decide when he is king. I don't see it as a matter that concerns the present Queen and it is a decision that Charles has no authority to decide now.



On the other hand, if the present Queen issued LPs tomorrow to restrict princely titles to children of the heir only, as opposed to" children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", there is a question on whether that would also affect Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise, Richard (Gloucester), Edward (Kent), Michael, and Alexandra, in addition to people who, like Archie and his future sister, would become children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom only in the next reign or other future reigns.



I suppose the new LPs, following the formula that was used in 1917 for the "grandchildren of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", would create a new style for grandchildren of a sovereign in male line; most likely, they would be also styled as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom (even if their father were not a duke himself) and, in that scenario, to make the style gender neutral, the same could apply to grandchildren of a sovereign in maternal line other than children of the heir , i.e. they would all be Lord/Lady [Forename] [Surname].



Would it be necessary, however, to mention explicitly in the new LPs that the new rule would not apply to grandchildren of sons of George V and Elizabeth II, who would keep their titles and styles under the terms of the LPs of 1917?

For the BIB, I think either that (new LP not affecting grandchildren of George V and Elizabeth II) or a cut-off date of birth (some poster suggested 2011 like Succession of Crown Act 2013) would be ideal. For both of these methods, it's only starting from Archie and his sister (as grandchildren of the sovereign- Charles) will be affected rather than the older Royal Family members, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward (Duke of Kent), Michael and Alexandra. Eventually Louis's grandchildren would also be affected with no HRH Prince title and style at all under the new LP (i.e. they are not children of the heir of the sovereign- William).

In terms of Lord and Lady X [Surname] to great-grandchildren of the sovereign not limiting to paternal line, I personally would prefer limiting it to grandchildren (who are not children of the heir) of the sovereign only. The main reason is that there would be too many Lords and Ladies, which are still courtesy titles. I understand there is a difference between HRH Prince/Princess and Lords/Ladies, but I don't think it's the best strategy/optic in slimming down the monarchy. Of course, one could even go further to suggest that there should be no Lords/Ladies for members who are descendent of the sovereign.

 

[Mbruno]

For the BIB, I think either that (new LP not affecting grandchildren of George V and Elizabeth II) or a cut-off date of birth (some poster suggested 2011 like Succession of Crown Act 2013) would be ideal. For both of these methods, it's only starting from Archie and his sister (as grandchildren of the sovereign- Charles) will be affected rather than the older Royal Family members, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward (Duke of Kent), Michael and Alexandra. Eventually Louis's grandchildren would also be affected with no HRH Prince title and style at all under the new LP (i.e. they are not children of the heir of the sovereign- William).

In terms of Lord and Lady X [Surname] to great-grandchildren of the sovereign not limiting to paternal line, I personally would prefer limiting it to grandchildren (who are not children of the heir) of the sovereign only. The main reason is that there would be too many Lords and Ladies, which are still courtesy titles. I understand there is a difference between HRH Prince/Princess and Lords/Ladies, but I don't think it's the best strategy/optic in slimming down the monarchy. Of course, one could even go further to suggest that there should be no Lords/Ladies for members who are descendent of the sovereign.

My suggestion was indeed to make grandchildren (in paternal or maternal line) Lord/Lady in the new LPs. I think the formula for great-grandchildren should be simply deleted. If sons of the monarch continue to be created dukes, then the great-grandchildren who are born of the eldest son of a son of a monarch will probably be styled as children of a duke anyway eventually. For great-grandchildren in the category for example of Prince Michael's children, I think it is reasonable that they be simply untitled in the future.


Having rules for the titles and styles of spouses, children and grandchildren of monarchs, but not for great-grandchildren, would also put the UK in line with other monarchies with more modern royal titles regulations like Spain and the Netherlands. I would only open an exception again for children of the eldest child of the heir, who could continue to be princes/princesses as in the LPs of 2012, just replacing "eldest son" with "eldest child".

 

[Queen Claude]

Keeping the Royal House's dynastic name for the successors of a female monarch was not the tradition in England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom, where dynasties were named based on the patrilineal family name.


Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Anne didn't have surviving issue, but in both cases, the name of dynasty changed when the next King ascended (respectively from Tudor to Stuart, and from Stuart to Hanover). Queen Victoria's situation mirrors the present Queen's and under her successor, Edward VII, the Royal House was named the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha after his father, rather than his mother.


Queen Elizabeth II decided that the Royal House would continue to be called the "House and Family of Windsor" although her descendants who do not bear the title of prince/princes and the style of Royal House would have the family name Mountbatten-Windsor. It remains to be seen if Charles, as the first monarch of the new dynasty (based on the patrilineal naming custom) will keep the name House of Windsor, or change it to House of Mountbatten-Windsor or, less likely, House of Mountbatten.

I am aware of the tradition, the tradition prior to 1952 was for the House name to change upon the ascension of the next King. So going by tradition, when Charles ascends the the British Royal House's name was going to change to Mountbatten. Queen Elizabeth usurped that in 1952 when she declared that it was her wish that her descendants, descendants of a female line, be known by her family name Windsor as opposed to the family name of her husband. She was prompted to do this by her then Prime Minister Winston Churchill who made her do it because Philip's uncle was going around talking about the House of Mountbatten which would not be taking place until Charles ascends. The Queen's grandmother got wind of Mountbatten's comment and she leaned on Churchill to use his position to get the new Queen to keep the name of the House that her husband George V concocted in 1917. Elizabeth II then tweaked it in 1960 when she made the Mountbatten-Windsor declaration.

What I was actually address was the comment made by the quote I was responding to which will be the surname of the children of a future female monarch in circumstances where a surname is warranted.

It should also be noted that changes come about at the will of the monarch of the day, assuming there is no opposition from the Privy Council and other political leadership, or alternatively the monarch being made to do something at the direction of the political leadership.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The website of the Imperial House of Russia explains their similar situation as such:

"The Grand-Prince Georgy Mikhailovich is a member of the House of Romanov. He does not use the titles of the House of Prussia, into which his father was born, just as -for example- the Prince of Wales, is a member of the House of Windsor and does not use the titles of the Greek and Danish dynasties, to which his father belonged by birth.

This is a common practice of all Royal Houses that allow succession through the female line. It should also be noted that beginning with Tsar Peter III (reigned 1761-1762), all the Tsars of Russia during the monarchy and all the Heads of the Imperial House in the post-revolutionary period are descendants of the House of Romanov in the female line: they all descend from the marriage of the daughter of Tsar Peter I the Great, the Grand-Princess Anna Petrovna to a German prince, Karl-Friedrich von Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf."

 

[Durham]

Well I'm a radical on styles & titles. If the wife of a king doesn't have to be a queen then the children of a monarch don't have to be princes. That's just custom. The monarch is the Duke of Lancaster anyway so the younger children already have the courtesy titles of lord/lady.

More realistically princes & hrh's should be limited to the children of the monarch & those in direct line only. The granting of peerages to sons of the monarch should stop & any cadet line grandchildren be entirely private & without title.

 

[Somebody]

Camilla's title when she becomes the wife of the sovereign is an issue for Charles to decide when he is king. I don't see it as a matter that concerns the present Queen and it is a decision that Charles has no authority to make now.

Exactly, that is why I pointed out that I fully understand that to be dealt with in Charles' reign.

On the other hand, if the present Queen issued LPs tomorrow to restrict princely titles to children of the heir only, as opposed to" children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", there is a question on whether that would also affect Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise, Richard (Gloucester), Edward (Kent), Michael, and Alexandra, in addition to people who, like Archie and his future sister, would become children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom only in the next reign or other future reigns.

There wouldn't be a question about it, as that would be clarified in the LPs. And there is no way that the queen would strip it off her cousins after decades of service to the crown.

I suppose the new LPs, following the formula that was used in 1917 for the "grandchildren of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", would create a new style for grandchildren of a sovereign in male line; most likely, they would be also styled as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom (even if their father were not a duke himself) and, in that scenario, to make the style gender neutral, the same could apply to grandchildren of a sovereign in maternal line other than children of the heir , i.e. they would all be Lord/Lady [Forename] [Surname] (similar to how, in Spain, children of Infantes/Infantas are now styled Excellence like Grandees of Spain).

They could indeed apply the same rule as currently is applied to children of a younger son of a royal duke (currently: Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella). I assume that rule would be moved up one generation.

Would it be necessary, however, to mention explicitly in the new LPs that the new rule would not apply to grandchildren of sons of George V and Elizabeth II, who would keep their titles and styles under the terms of the LPs of 1917?

Something would need to be said about whom it applies to.

 

[Somebody]

For the BIB, I think either that (new LP not affecting grandchildren of George V and Elizabeth II) or a cut-off date of birth (some poster suggested 2011 like Succession of Crown Act 2013) would be ideal. For both of these methods, it's only starting from Archie and his sister (as grandchildren of the sovereign- Charles) will be affected rather than the older Royal Family members, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward (Duke of Kent), Michael and Alexandra. Eventually Louis's grandchildren would also be affected with no HRH Prince title and style at all under the new LP (i.e. they are not children of the heir of the sovereign- William).

In terms of Lord and Lady X [Surname] to great-grandchildren of the sovereign not limiting to paternal line, I personally would prefer limiting it to grandchildren (who are not children of the heir) of the sovereign only. The main reason is that there would be too many Lords and Ladies, which are still courtesy titles. I understand there is a difference between HRH Prince/Princess and Lords/Ladies, but I don't think it's the best strategy/optic in slimming down the monarchy. Of course, one could even go further to suggest that there should be no Lords/Ladies for members who are descendent of the sovereign.

There are hundreds of Lords and Ladies in the UK (all children of Dukes, Marqueses and all daughters of Earls), so I am not worried about a few Lords and Ladies more or less; but I agree, if the princely titles is removed for the 'second generation', it makes sense to move the Lord/Lady up to the generation and not keep it for the great-grandchildren (unless children of a peer of course).

 

[Durham]

I presume you mean daughters rather than sons of earls? The younger sons of earls are hons.

 

[Mbruno]

Well I'm a radical on styles & titles. If the wife of a king doesn't have to be a queen then the children of a monarch don't have to be princes. That's just custom. The monarch is the Duke of Lancaster anyway so the younger children already have the courtesy titles of lord/lady.

More realistically princes & hrh's should be limited to the children of the monarch & those in direct line only. The granting of peerages to sons of the monarch should stop & any cadet line grandchildren be entirely private & without title.

In the Austrian/German or previous Scandinavian (Danish/ Swedish) tradition (prior to the introduction of cognatic succession), all agnatic dynasts (i.e. males in the line of succession to the throne) and their daughters were actually princes/princesses or equivalent (like archduke/archduchess). Compared to that, the French and later British tradition that limited the style of Royal Highness (or equivalent) to children and grandchildren of the King or the heir was already a big improvement in terms of limiting the number of royals.

Keeping HRH for the heir, children of the monarch, and children of the heir, and using a non-royal honorific prefix to distinguish other grandchildren of the monarch in collateral line is the best compromise IMHO.

 

[Durham]

using a non-royal honorific prefix to distinguish other grandchildren of the monarch in collateral line is the best compromise IMHO.

I'm not convinced that they need any honorific. People are quite used to the fact that some of the present monarch's grandchildren are untitled such as the children of the Princess Royal.

 

[Somebody]

I presume you mean daughters rather than sons of earls? The younger sons of earls are hons.

Yes, thanks. That's indeed what I was trying to say: daughters are Ladies but younger sons are only 'Hon.' (which is a weird anomaly in my eyes).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well I'm a radical on styles & titles. If the wife of a king doesn't have to be a queen then the children of a monarch don't have to be princes. That's just custom.

Further to your point, it is a custom which in England is "only" centuries old, originating from the reign of Henry VII.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#overview

My understanding is that Mountbatten-Windsor did not come into play until the 1960s.

Yes, in 1960 (reference Somebody's post and the link there.)

Furthermore, it probably does not matter if the husband is from another royal house or a commoner, after all Mountbatten is the commoner name Philip adopted after he renounced his foreign royal titles.

Mountbatten is the anglicized form of Battenberg, the name of a German princely family to which Philip's mother, although she was a member of the British royal family, also belonged. After 1917 Mountbatten became the name of a British aristocratic family which was a cadet branch of the British royal family.

The Mountbatten-Windsor declaration happened in 1960, reportedly prompted by The Queen being told that if her children did not carry their father's name they would be considered bastards.

No one referred to Elizabeth and Philip's children as bastards in 1960. Royal expert Edward Iwi insisted that the children ought to carry their father's name because carrying the name of one's mother was according to him a "badge of bastardy", but he did not call the children bastards.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/18/monarchy

Camilla's title when she becomes the wife of the sovereign is an issue for Charles to decide when he is king. I don't see it as a matter that concerns the present Queen and it is a decision that Charles has no authority to make now.

It depends on what you mean by "no authority to make". The Prince has no authority to make a decision which will legally bind himself as King. Even after his succession as King, he will have no authority to make a decision which legally binds his own future acts. If he were to announce on his first day as King that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort, he would retain the authority to change his decision whenever he pleases.

But he, like any other person in Great Britain, is legally at liberty to make whatever announcements he pleases regarding his plans for the future.

 

[Mbruno]

Further to your point, it is a custom which in England is "only" centuries old, originating from the reign of Henry VII.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#overview




Yes, in 1960 (reference Somebody's post and the link there.)



Mountbatten is the anglicized form of Battenberg, the name of a German princely family to which Philip's mother, although she was a member of the British royal family, also belonged. After 1917 Mountbatten became the name of a British aristocratic family which was a cadet branch of the British royal family.



No one referred to Elizabeth and Philip's children as bastards in 1960. Royal expert Edward Iwi insisted that the children ought to carry their father's name because carrying the name of one's mother was according to him a "badge of bastardy", but he did not call the children bastards.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/18/monarchy




It depends on what you mean by "no authority to make". The Prince has no authority to make a decision which will legally bind himself as King. Even after his succession as King, he will have no authority to make a decision which legally binds his own future acts. If he were to announce on his first day as King that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort, he would retain the authority to change his decision whenever he pleases.

But he, like any other person in Great Britain, is legally at liberty to make whatever announcements he pleases regarding his plans for the future.

The Prince of Wales has no legal authority to make any decision on titles and styles of members of the Royal Family. That is an exclusive prerogative of the Queen unless the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom decides otherwise.

I don't understand the call on Prince Charles to rush into making an ultra vires announcement that would effectively amount to disrespecting his mother's constitutional position, especially when he can perfectly do so when he is King and legally capable of doing it.

 

[Heavs]

Charles already suffers enough "jokes" about him wishing his mother dead so he can become king. I don't think it would be a good idea for him to publicly announce his future plans whilst she's still alive and everyone's hoping she makes it to her jubilee next year.

I assume he's making plans in private and probably discussing them with the family - which is possibly where a lot of Harry and Meghan's outrage comes from - that Archie wasn't given special LPs and that he might never get that HRH but there's no need to set out plans for his reign publicly whilst his mother is alive and working.

I am in favour of limiting HRH to just the heir's line in the future but I'm against either HM or Charles stripping the Kents and Gloucesters of their HRHs just as they're retiring. Pretty poor thanks for a lifetime of service.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Prince of Wales has no legal authority to make any decision on titles and styles of members of the Royal Family. That is an exclusive prerogative of the Queen unless the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom decides otherwise.

Nobody disputed this.

I don't understand the call on Prince Charles to rush into making an ultra vires announcement that would effectively amount to disrespecting his mother's constitutional position, especially when he can perfectly do so when he is King and legally capable of doing it.

Whether it is disrespectful and whether it is ultra vires are wholly different issues. Whether you consider it disrespectful or not, which UK law do you believe the Prince of Wales was in breach of when he announced in 2005 that "Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne"?

 

[Somebody]

The Prince of Wales has no legal authority to make any decision on titles and styles of members of the Royal Family. That is an exclusive prerogative of the Queen unless the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom decides otherwise.

I don't understand the call on Prince Charles to rush into making an ultra vires announcement that would effectively amount to disrespecting his mother's constitutional position, especially when he can perfectly do so when he is King and legally capable of doing it.

As far as I can see nobody is asking him to do so. He already made a statement on how he would handle this case; i.e., he said (or in his name it was said) that Camilla will be Princess Consort. For that to come into effect, he will have to act when he is king because she will legally become queen the moment he becomes king.

If he has changed his mind, he could make it known, just as he did 15 years ago, that his intention is not to make any changes to the law once he is king but have her by his side as his queen. I don't really see a reason for it but it would be as prematurely as it was 15 years ago...

 

[Somebody]

Charles already suffers enough "jokes" about him wishing his mother dead so he can become king. I don't think it would be a good idea for him to publicly announce his future plans whilst she's still alive and everyone's hoping she makes it to her jubilee next year.

I assume he's making plans in private and probably discussing them with the family - which is possibly where a lot of Harry and Meghan's outrage comes from - that Archie wasn't given special LPs and that he might never get that HRH but there's no need to set out plans for his reign publicly whilst his mother is alive and working.

The case with Archie and his sibling is different; in that the queen could easily arrange something. It would limit the outrage when Archie and sibling NEVER are royal highnesses than we they first become royal highnesses, to be stripped of their titles a little later. So, if they want to avoid them TAKING AWAY their princely titles, they will have to act in advance; as that would ensure they never have those titles.

Theoretically, that also applies to Camilla (being demoted to HRH from HM); but as this would be a person-based case; it would be harder to arrange now; as I don't see the queen willing to strip all future spouses of the title of queen. She has already shown she is willing to have grandchildren in male-line not be known as HRH; so that would be consistent with her position over 20 years ago.

I am in favour of limiting HRH to just the heir's line in the future but I'm against either HM or Charles stripping the Kents and Gloucesters of their HRHs just as they're retiring. Pretty poor thanks for a lifetime of service.

I don't think I've seen anyone who is in favour of stripping the Kents and Gloucesters of their title. Opinions might differ on Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[Durham]

The case with Archie and his sibling is different; in that the queen could easily arrange something. It would limit the outrage when Archie and sibling NEVER are royal highnesses than we they first become royal highnesses, to be stripped of their titles a little later. So, if they want to avoid them TAKING AWAY their princely titles, they will have to act in advance; as that would ensure they never have those titles.

I don't think I've seen anyone who is in favour of stripping the Kents and Gloucesters of their title. Opinions might differ on Beatrice and Eugenie.

Well the recent interview certainly muddied the waters over Archie & sibling(s). Either the desire to have fewer hrh's was not explained properly to his parents or it was & they didn't like it. Either way this would be best resolved sooner rather than later.

I agree that the Gloucesters & Kents (at least the duke & his sister) are a different case & should just be left as they are. I think the York princesses would have been best advised to voluntarily relinquish their titles/styles on marriage like Patricia of Connaught.

 

[Durham]

Further to your point, it is a custom which in England is "only" centuries old, originating from the reign of Henry VII.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#overview

Thanks for the link. Henry VII of course had a very weak claim to the throne & was concerned about the survival of his dynasty. Maybe using the title of prince for younger sons was part of a strategy to strengthen the legitimacy & status of the Tudors although I don't know for sure.

Wasn't John Lackland referred to as prince as well?

 

[Mbruno]

I agree that, in Archie's case, it would be better to change the rules now, so that he never becomes an HRH, than to strip him of the HRH after he gets it.


That doesn't change my point though that any such decision has to be agreed to and announced by the Queen, rather than the Prince of Wales, as it is not his prerogative to do so. And I don't think the Queen will make such move at the age of 95 and at the end of her reign.


More likely, any changes to titles of grandchildren of a sovereign will be implemented only in William's reign. The only affected persons in Charles' reign would be Archie and his future sister, which, pragmatically, is not worth the controversy.

Whether it is disrespectful and whether it is ultra vires are wholly different issues. Whether you consider it disrespectful or not, which UK law do you believe the Prince of Wales was in breach of when he announced in 2005 that "Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne"?

That was merely an intention, not a statement that Mrs Parker Bowles would be known as HRH The Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales accedes the Throne as such decision, again, is something that is beyond Charles' authority. Since Charles' opinion or intention as PoW doesn't change the current common law rule under which Camilla will be queen when he is king, my interpretation of the announcement is that it was merely a PR stunt to boost popular support for the his second marriage and one that, unfortunately, he might regret now. It may not be illegal, but it is legally meaningless.

 

[Durham]

More likely, any changes to titles of grandchildren of a sovereign will be implemented only in William's reign. The only affected persons in Charles' reign would be Archie and his future sister, which, pragmatically, is not worth the controversy.

A controversy unnecessarily turbo charged by you know who.

I think differently. Face any controversy head on & get it done. It's in the best long term interests of the monarchy to resolve questions over titles without being seen to give in to what amounts in effect to a form of blackmail.

 

[Sunnystar]

A controversy unnecessarily turbo charged by you know who.

I think differently. Face any controversy head on & get it done. It's in the best long term interests of the monarchy to resolve questions over titles without being seen to give in to what amounts in effect to a form of blackmail.

Well, since we've been told that it wasn't HM or the DoE who made the racist comment that fueled so much of the recent controversy, I think that doing it now while the Queen is still alive actually provides a degree of protection from any further accusations of racism. If it happens during Charles' reign there's nothing that will convince those who already believe he's the one who said it that it was anyone but him.

 

[Osipi]

I think the worse mistake that could be made would be to tackle this "problem" with the idea in mind that one couple, living in California that have walked away from anything to do with the monarchy could be reflected as being the "need" for the actions taken. I think it's best to just have the monarchy go ahead as it would if that said couple didn't exist anymore. I just don't think I'd like to see the monarchy do something and have it seem to be reflective of two people that have gone rogue.

The Queen may live for quite some time yet as she seems to be in pretty good shape for her age. By the time Charles does become the monarch, who knows what the situation within the family is going to be like.

 

[Somebody]

Well the recent interview certainly muddied the waters over Archie & sibling(s). Either the desire to have fewer hrh's was not explained properly to his parents or it was & they didn't like it. Either way this would be best resolved sooner rather than later.

I agree that the Gloucesters & Kents (at least the duke & his sister) are a different case & should just be left as they are. I think the York princesses would have been best advised to voluntarily relinquish their titles/styles on marriage like Patricia of Connaught.

As soon as Charles ascends the throne, Beatrice will be one of the Counsellors of State (and Eugenie might be called upon if it would be decided/concluded that Harry is no longer 'domiciled' in the UK); so recommending a future counsellor of state to relinquish her titles when no decision has been reached on the future use of titles seems premature.

Of course, previously, there have been other Counsellors of State who weren't royal highnesses but given that Beatrice will have this royal duty; I would not have advised her to relinquish her title and style that are related to being a princess of the blood (by the second son of the monarch - which makes her the 'most important' cousin in terms of the line of succession of the future king).

 

[Somebody]

I agree that, in Archie's case, it would be better to change the rules now, so that he never becomes an HRH, than to strip him of the HRH after he gets it.

That doesn't change my point though that any such decision has to be agreed to and announced by the Queen, rather than the Prince of Wales, as it is not his prerogative to do so. And I don't think the Queen will make such move at the age of 95 and at the end of her reign.

Of course, she has. I haven't read anyone disputing that. But Charles could make his case and see whether his mother agrees that this would be the best way forward (if he indeed intends to limit it to children of the monarch and (heirs) only).

Based on Louise and James, I don't see why she wouldn't agree with that approach; but she will need some kind of justification for the announcement (not formally; but it would help to explain why it was made at that point in time).

More likely, any changes to titles of grandchildren of a sovereign will be implemented only in William's reign. The only affected persons in Charles' reign would be Archie and his future sister, which, pragmatically, is not worth the controversy.

We don't know what controversy they might cause in the long run (if they would follow in their parents' footsteps a lot could happen); so, it could also be pragmatic to avoid having two HRH's that are primarily American in culture and don't grow up within 'the system' unlike previous HRHs - so don't feel the same respect and responsibility in relation to the royal family they would represent as Royal Highnesses.

That was merely an intention, not a statement that Mrs Parker Bowles would be known as HRH The Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales accedes the Throne as such decision, again, is something that is beyond Charles' authority. Since Charles' opinion or intention as PoW doesn't change the current common law rule under which Camilla will be queen when he is king, my interpretation of the announcement is that it was merely a PR stunt to boost popular support for the his second marriage and one that, unfortunately, he might regret now. It may not be illegal, but it is legally meaningless.

Yes, and so would be any other statement that Charles makes nowadays. So, I'm not sure what your point is. It seems everyone agrees that no formal action can be taken by Charles until he is king. The only thing he could do is announce 'intentions'; which he did. If he changed his 'intentions' and thinks the public should know to avoid outcry when he ascends the throne, he might want to consider making that public knowledge. Only in the case of the grandchildren action would be needed in advance to avoid them being 'stripped off'; while in Camilla's case the expectation is that she will be 'stripped off', so not doing so could be seen as elevation.

I think the worse mistake that could be made would be to tackle this "problem" with the idea in mind that one couple, living in California that have walked away from anything to do with the monarchy could be reflected as being the "need" for the actions taken. I think it's best to just have the monarchy go ahead as it would if that said couple didn't exist anymore. I just don't think I'd like to see the monarchy do something and have it seem to be reflective of two people that have gone rogue.

The Queen may live for quite some time yet as she seems to be in pretty good shape for her age. By the time Charles does become the monarch, who knows what the situation within the family is going to be like.

That makes sense. Although I also don't think they should avoid doing what might have been intended to do either because of the upheaval they may cause; because that would mean to basically let yourself be blackmailed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

More likely, any changes to titles of grandchildren of a sovereign will be implemented only in William's reign. The only affected persons in Charles' reign would be Archie and his future sister, which, pragmatically, is not worth the controversy.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the same applies in the next generation - the only affected persons would be Louis's children. What would your expectation be if Louis or his future wife held an interview resulting in a comparable degree of controversy over their children not having the status of princess or prince? Would the implementation of the changes need to be put back until a generation in which the younger sons and the mothers of their children are willing to cooperate with the change?

 

[Mbruno]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the same applies in the next generation - the only affected persons would be Louis's children. What would your expectation be if Louis or his future wife held an interview resulting in a comparable degree of controversy over their children not having the status of princess or prince? Would the implementation of the changes need to be put back until a generation in which the younger sons and the mothers of their children are willing to cooperate with the change?

Louis is 3. By the time he is 30, William most likely will be king already. Chances are then that the new rules will be in place even before Louis gets married or has children of his own.

It is already unlikely that a Harry/Meghan type situation will repeat itself with Louis and, given my point above, I would say even more so.

By playing the race card, Meghan effectively set a trap for Charles , which he doesn't have to fall into. Even more appalling is the suggestion here that his 95-year-old mother should take the fall for him and be the one who will deny Archie his future title.

 

[Durham]

Of course, previously, there have been other Counsellors of State who weren't royal highnesses but given that Beatrice will have this royal duty; I would not have advised her to relinquish her title and style that are related to being a princess of the blood (by the second son of the monarch - which makes her the 'most important' cousin in terms of the line of succession of the future king).

I understand the point but eventually these cousins inevitably drift so far down the line of succession that it seems silly to keep making them hrh's. Richard of Gloucester is the 'most important cousin' in HM's generation but he's now 29th in line & may well end up nearly fortieth after being born 5th in line.

And as you point out a C of S doesn't need to be an hrh. If HM had stopped at two children then Peter Phillips & Zara Tindell would be C's of S. And Lord Snowden would be one in the next reign.

There is of course a question over whether C's of S are even needed anymore because of modern communications. And even if C's of S continued I don't see any reason why they have to be relatives of the monarch other than those in direct line.

The emerging scandal over Michael of Kent is another reason for keeping the number of hrh's as low as possible. The less potential for reputational damage to the crown the better.

 

[Somebody]

I understand the point but eventually these cousins inevitably drift so far down the line of succession that it seems silly to keep making them hrh's. Richard of Gloucester is the 'most important cousin' in HM's generation but he's now 29th in line & may well end up nearly fortieth after being born 5th in line.

And as you point out a C of S doesn't need to be an hrh. If HM had stopped at two children then Peter Phillips & Zara Tindell would be C's of S. And Lord Snowden would be one in the next reign.

There is of course a question over whether C's of S are even needed anymore because of modern communications. And even if C's of S continued I don't see any reason why they have to be relatives of the monarch other than those in direct line.

The emerging scandal over Michael of Kent is another reason for keeping the number of hrh's as low as possible. The less potential for reputational damage to the crown the better.

We aren't talking about 'making' them HRHs. This question is about REMOVING HRHs; and I would say that you would need a very good reason to do so. And removing it from Beatrice, who currently is an HRH, and might serve as a C of S, doesn't make sense to me.

Not awarding them for future generations (starting with Charles' grandchildren/the change of the line of succession), is a very different decision - and I am sympathetic to the view that the smartest solution - especially given the changed rules on the line of succession - could be to limit it to children of monarchs (and direct heirs).

Louis is 3. By the time he is 30, William most likely will be king already. Chances are then that the new rules will be in place even before Louis gets married or has children of his own.

It is already unlikely that a Harry/Meghan type situation will repeat itself with Louis and, given my point above, I would say even more so.

Archie only turned 2 last week, so he won't know the difference either.

By playing the race card, Meghan effectively set a trap for Charles , which he doesn't have to fall into. Even more appalling is the suggestion here that his 95-year-old mother should take the fall for him and be the one who will deny Archie his future title.

Not falling into the trap to me means doing EXACTLY what he planned to do, whether that means letting the grandchildren by his younger son be HRH or making sure that they aren't. He should NOT let himself be blackmailed by Meghan.

The only reason many of us propose that the announcement needs to be made in advance, is to avoid Archie and sibling to ever be HRH. Or do you think it doesn't matter whether he isn't awarded it at all versus the title and style being removed from him after he just got it upon his grandfather's ascension to the throne? I'd say it is much better for each and everyone that IF the decision has been made that they won't be HRH, that this is arranged before the fact than just after.

 

[Durham]

We aren't talking about 'making' them HRHs. This question is about REMOVING HRHs; and I would say that you would need a very good reason to do so. And removing it from Beatrice, who currently is an HRH, and might serve as a C of S, doesn't make sense to me.
.

The suggestion was that they could have voluntarily relinquished them on marriage. Not remove them.