The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3981  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,057
Personally I think it is better they don't have titles, having HRH means they will automatically have a heap of expectations placed upon them. I think Harry the Queen and Charles will all be aware of the way the media have treated the York girls and if we are honest with the Cambridge's having 3 children already they is likely to be little need for the Sussex children to undertake public duties in time. I honestly think its easier for this child not to have a title, my understanding is that when Charles becomes King the child would become Prince/Princess anyway (although if i were Harry and Meghan I would be pushing for that not to happen).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3982  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:23 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,728
By consensus, most of us are suspecting it's not going to happen for reasons already discussed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3983  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 8,973
And in the next generation only Prince George's children will be HRH Prince/Princess?
Reply With Quote
  #3984  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Just one little significant factor here. By letters patent, Andrew's daughters were automatically princesses because they were born as granddaughters of a reigning monarch in the male line.. Anne's children were just as much grandchildren of a reigning monarch but were of a female line so they were not born prince/princesses.

I don't think it ever occurred to Andrew to have things happen any way but how they've always happened. It wasn't a question of preference at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Until Edward's request was announced in 1999 no one questioned the right of the York princesses to be exactly that.

I remember the joy that was expressed when Beatrice was born as there was a 'little princess to go with Diana's two princes'. People were glad to have a baby princess.
Were there any questions in the media before her birth about Prince Andrew's children potentially not being HRH either by request or by changes to the rules of 1917?

Did anybody speculate, prior to the birth Princess Anne's children, that they might be granted the HRH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
The tabloid press is already cluelessly and nonsensically braying about lack of HRH titles somehow being a snub. So silly and pointless.
What are the reasons alleged by the tabloid(s) in question for the snubbing (from the tabloid's point of view) of the Phillips, Wessex, Armstrong-Jones, Gloucester, Kent, and Ogilvy children?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
my understanding is that when Charles becomes King the child would become Prince/Princess anyway
Under the rules of the 1917 Letters Patent, but the Letters Patent could be changed or repealed. Considering the introduction of gender equality in the inheritance of the crown in 2015, it is long overdue.
Reply With Quote
  #3985  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:09 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,713
I would like to see Baby Sussex get HRH because the child will be a grandchild of a future monarch. And HRH or not the baby makes history as a child of African American heritage will be a legal successor to the British throne. There will be interest in Baby Sussex no matter his/her place in the line of succession .
Reply With Quote
  #3986  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:14 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
... What are the reasons alleged by the tabloid(s) in question for the snubbing (from the tabloid's point of view) of the Phillips, Wessex, Armstrong-Jones, Gloucester, Kent, and Ogilvy children?...
As usual, it was just a bit of dog-whistling and making things up by the tabloid press. See the article I linked in my post #3 if you are interested in reading. They obviously don't give any reasons. They just used the words 'royal snub' in the headline to get the clicks.
Reply With Quote
  #3987  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:33 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Duke of Kent hasn't used his Scottish title - Earl of St Andrews since he had his son who uses it. Nor has the Duke of Gloucester used his Northern Irish title since he had a son to use it.

That would be the same for Harry. He simply wouldn't use the Scottish title - just as Andrew doesn't use Earl of Inverness anymore, even though he doesn't have a son to use it.

If the Queen doesn't issue any new Letters Patent, then Harry would be The Duke of Sussex in both England and Scotland.
This is factually wrong. When in Scotland, the Duke of York is addressed as HRH The Earl of Inverness, just like when the Prince of Wales is in Scotland, he is addressed as HRH The Duke of Rothesay, Prince William is addressed as HRH The Earl of Strathearn, and Prince Harry is addressed as HRH The Earl of Dumbarton. It may seem small and unimportant but it is important for the people of Scotland. Even their Coat of Arms change in Scotland although the variations may be subtle for the untrained eyes. Even today some in Scotland are not over the Queen Elizabeth II, she is Queen Elizabeth I in scotland since Queen Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scots.
Reply With Quote
  #3988  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:57 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,110
They will do what is best for their children and the monarchy. Though as the children of Harry and Meghan, they will never have normal lives. Title or not. So the suggestion that not being HRH will be easier on them rings false to me. I am not expecting HRH but I won't be surprised either way. I do agree up-thread that if the plan is for them to be HRH when Charles becomes King then they should just do it at birth.
Reply With Quote
  #3989  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:03 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I would like to see Baby Sussex get HRH because the child will be a grandchild of a future monarch. And HRH or not the baby makes history as a child of African American heritage will be a legal successor to the British throne. There will be interest in Baby Sussex no matter his/her place in the line of succession .
The baby having African American heritage should not in any way influence a decision on whether s/he will be a royal highness. Neither in a negative nor in a positive way. As long as Louise and James, who are grandchildren in maleline of the current monarch, aren't royal highnesses, Harry's children shouldn't be either imo.

In addition, while I understand the BRF is considered more important than other monarchies, the Liechtenstein princely family already has a biracial prince who is 7th in line to the throne (the same spot baby Sussex will have). The Danish have two princes from partly Asian descent who were born 3rd and 4th in line. And the BRF has children of Maori descent in their midst. So, whilst it's not common, it is certainly no exception that members of European royal families are ethnically diverse.
Reply With Quote
  #3990  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:04 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I know this isn't the correct thread and I'm very sorry for this, but I can't use the Search button any more.

A couple of friends were discussing Meghan's pregnancy the other day and the fact that, if the Queen doesn't issue LPs, a son would be Earl Dumbarton. Now, that's fine as it is Harry's subsidiary title and so, following custom his son will receive it. However, Earl Dumbarton is also Harry's title when in Scotland.

Therefore, Scottish commentators describing a visit to Scotland by the Sussex family years into the future might well begin with 'The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with the Countess, followed by the Earl of Dumbarton.' A bit awkward?

The Duke of Cambridge is not called the Earl of Strathearn in Scotland, so I wouldn't expect the Duke of Sussex to be called the Earl of Dumbarton either.
Reply With Quote
  #3991  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:10 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The Duke of Cambridge is not called the Earl of Strathearn in Scotland, so I wouldn't expect the Duke of Sussex to be called the Earl of Dumbarton either.
Sorry but you are wrong. When in Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge is indeed addressed as The Earl of Strathearn, and the Duke of Sussex as The Earl of Dumbarton

This is what KP said about the subject

https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/...66463998562304
Reply With Quote
  #3992  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The baby having African American heritage should not in any way influence a decision on whether s/he will be a royal highness. Neither in a negative nor in a positive way. As long as Louise and James, who are grandchildren in maleline of the current monarch, aren't royal highnesses, Harry's children shouldn't be either imo.

In .
Ed's children did not have HRH either because he wanted it (according to some reports). or because he was given a lesser ttitle at his wedding, in order for him to get the D of Ed title later.
Reply With Quote
  #3993  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:23 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
This is factually wrong. When in Scotland, the Duke of York is addressed as HRH The Earl of Inverness, just like when the Prince of Wales is in Scotland, he is addressed as HRH The Duke of Rothesay, Prince William is addressed as HRH The Earl of Strathearn, and Prince Harry is addressed as HRH The Earl of Dumbarton. It may seem small and unimportant but it is important for the people of Scotland. Even their Coat of Arms change in Scotland although the variations may be subtle for the untrained eyes. Even today some in Scotland are not over the Queen Elizabeth II, she is Queen Elizabeth I in scotland since Queen Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scots.
Andrew visited Scotland on July 2 and 3 and was called 'The Duke of York' in the Court Circular. However, when he visited Inverness itself in September, his Inverness title was added to his ducal title, not to him being The prince Andrew (as is done with Charles). And even William was called 'The duke of Cambridge' on his visit to Stirling Castle in October 2016. However, in July of this year 'Prince William, earl of Strathearn', was used.

Charles indeed seems to be called 'The prince Charles, duke of Rothesay' consistently when in Scotland.
Reply With Quote
  #3994  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:27 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I would like to see Baby Sussex get HRH because the child will be a grandchild of a future monarch. And HRH or not the baby makes history as a child of African American heritage will be a legal successor to the British throne. There will be interest in Baby Sussex no matter his/her place in the line of succession .
Baby Sussex is not " a legal successor to the British throne".
Reply With Quote
  #3995  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:40 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Baby Sussex is not " a legal successor to the British throne".
if you mean he's not the next heir, of course not.. But any baby they have will be in the succession...…….
Reply With Quote
  #3996  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:41 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Ed's children did not have HRH either because he wanted it (according to some reports). or because he was given a lesser ttitle at his wedding, in order for him to get the D of Ed title later.
I am aware of that. Still, I would like the royals to be consistent in their use of titles. Elevating a greatgrandchild by a younger son to HRH when earlier lowering the style of a grandchild by a younger sonseems unjust.

I do wonder whether it would have been possible to still give Edward's children the style of royal highness and use 'Wessex' as the territorial designation for the time being. I don't see why that wouldn't work but I don't think there is a precedent for it.
Reply With Quote
  #3997  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am aware of that. Still, I would like the royals to be consistent in their use of titles. Elevating a greatgrandchild by a younger son to HRH when earlier lowering the style of a grandchild by a younger sonseems unjust.

I do wonder whether it would have been possible to still give Edward's children the style of royal highness and use 'Wessex' as the territorial designation for the time being. I don't see why that wouldn't work but I don't think there is a precedent for it.
It may be that when Ed becomes Duke of Edinburgh, his children will become HRH but I don't see why they should. Edward's children are unlikely to be needed for royal work, and they don't need an HRH. I presume that he either wished for them not to be titled as royal or else that at least he agreed with his mother on the issue...
Reply With Quote
  #3998  
Old 01-06-2019, 11:04 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,912
Every day that goes by without an announcement for Harry’s kids makes it less likely there’ll be an announcement.

The LPs for the Cambridge children were dated December 2012 and announced in January 2013, 6 months before George was born.

It looking likely the 1917 LP will apply for the Sussex kids.
Reply With Quote
  #3999  
Old 01-06-2019, 11:10 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
It may be that when Ed becomes Duke of Edinburgh, his children will become HRH but I don't see why they should. Edward's children are unlikely to be needed for royal work, and they don't need an HRH. I presume that he either wished for them not to be titled as royal or else that at least he agreed with his mother on the issue...
That wasn't what I was talking about (I was discussing the possibility of Edward being earl of Wessex -as he currently is- and his children still being styled royal highnesses from birth) but I agree that the chance is small they will be elevated in the future hence why I think Harry's children shouldn't be either. Continuing the all-male line grandchildren are royal highnesses except for Edward's seems hugely unfair. Being royal shouldn't be about personal preference; as the system itself is based on tradition and not on likes or dislikes. Of course, traditions can change with the time but should apply to all...

So, not making Edward's children royal highnesses imo can only be justified if no younger son's children will be made royal highnesses in future cases (including Harry's). This would also avoid issues for the next generation with Charlotte being higher in line than her younger brother.
Reply With Quote
  #4000  
Old 01-06-2019, 11:13 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Ed's children did not have HRH either because he wanted it (according to some reports). or because he was given a lesser ttitle at his wedding, in order for him to get the D of Ed title later.

The explanation provided for the Queen's decision concerning the Wessex children in 1999 was:
The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding.

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

The decision to grant Prince Edward an earldom in lieu of a dukedom has never been given a public explanation. (As far as I am aware, a duke can receive another dukedom, so it was not necessary to avoid giving him a dukedom on marriage in order for him to receive the dukedom of Edinburgh later.) According to unconfirmed reports, Edward simply preferred the sound of it.
"Prince Edward was going to be the Duke of Cambridge, but he watched the film Shakespeare in Love, which had a character called the Earl of Wessex," says the courtier. "He liked the sound of it and asked the Queen if he could have that instead."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...im-a-duke.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The LPs for the Cambridge children were dated December 2012 and announced in January 2013, 6 months before George was born.
The Gazette announcement was in January 2013, but the decision was announced on December 3, 2012, when the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy was announced.

https://twitter.com/PeterDGPHunt/sta...80933762453504
__________________

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: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 784 06-07-2020 11:40 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
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
abdication american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones belgian royal family bridal gown canada castles chittagong clarence house coronavirus cover-up danish history dna dutch dutch history dutch royal family edo facts family tree fantasy movie foundation future genealogy habsburg henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha imperial household introduction italian royal family japan jumma kent languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mail maxima monaco history nobel 2019 northern ireland norway history palaces palestine prince daniel royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown saudi arabia serbian royal family settings shakespeare spanish history startling new evidence stuart swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tips tracts united kingdom visit from sweden von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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