The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4061  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:41 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Off-topic, but all Princes of Sweden in the past who were excluded from the line of succession also lost their princely titles and their duchies.


Second, the actual text of the Act of Succession (English translation here ) does not in fact say that being raised overseas implies losing succession rights (in the same way as leaving the Church of Sweden or marrying without consent explicitly do). What it says is simply that "princes and princesses of the Royal House are [...] brought up in the realm". The logical implication is that being brought up in the realm is a necessary condition to be a prince or princess of Sweden and, accordingly, that being raised overseas causes one to lose the title.
The difference is that they lost their titles due to their morganatic marriage. The 1980 changes in the Act of Succession abolished that rule. The Act also only discussed membership in the line of succession, not titles. And this is where the grey area commences. Madeleine's children may have their (and their descendent's) membership removed, but still keep their titles if they are deemed not brought up in the realm. Unless tested, we will not know what the outcome is. We wait with bated breath......

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Whether or not they can hold office has nothing to do with if they’ll be US citizen from birth. That’s another discussion entirely. I imagine the issue of if a royal so closely related to the monarch, even one that does not carry out engagement, should be permitted to run for political office would be much more of an issue. In US, their titles aren’t recognized but used as a curtesy. And I’m understanding why they can’t keep their dual citizenship as adults if they wish. Their mother carries out work representing the monarch not even as a dual citizen, but solely a US citizen. And they will spend the first 18 years of their lives with dual citizenship.
How would the American public react is a Sussex child, who is the niece/nehew of the King of England, wanting to be a President of the US? Would that make American citizens uneasy?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4062  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:54 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
How would the American public react is a Sussex child, who is the niece/nehew of the King of England, wanting to be a President of the US? Would that make American citizens uneasy?
I think that unless the Sussex child came to the U.S. for college and stayed to work as an adult, there would be a slim to none chance of them being accepted as a presidential candidate. And their citizenship would be highly scrutinized and questioned.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4063  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I think that unless the Sussex child came to the U.S. for college and stayed to work as an adult, there would be a slim to none chance of them being accepted as a presidential candidate. And their citizenship would be highly scrutinized and questioned.
There is requirement for US President to have lived in US for a certain number of years. But I think it’s a bit much to discuss what if a child has not even been born yet runs for President. The discussion only started as the child will be US citizen from birth and throughout their childhood. There is no way around it.
Reply With Quote
  #4064  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:04 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
There is requirement for US President to have lived in US for a certain number of years. But I think it’s a bit much to discuss what if a child has not even been born yet runs for President. The discussion only started as the child will be US citizen from birth and throughout their childhood. There is no way around it.

Necessary requirements to be eligible to the office of President of the United States:

Quote:
(5) No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I suppose the boldfaced part pretty much rules out the Sussex kids unless they move to the US as adults.
Reply With Quote
  #4065  
Old 01-14-2019, 06:07 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
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 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.
Yes, but then your highlighted comments about the Wessex children really don't have any direct bearing on the way the Duke & Duchess of Sussex's children will be styled. That was a mutual decision made by HM the Queen along with Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, on behalf of Louise and James. Reported in Royal Musings:
"Several years ago, in an interview, their mother, Sophie, told a reporter that she knew that her kids were royal, despite their style."

When Prince Charles becomes King, the Sussex children will be entitled to the HRH styling (similar to the entitlement the Wessex children have). But the general consensus is that Charles will issue a LP when he ascends the throne further clarifying and leaving no doubt that only the eldest progeny of the eldest progeny in direct line to the throne will be styled HRH.

Clearly the reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with the background and heritage of any royal spouse. And in any case, there's every reason to believe that Harry specifically does not want to burden his children with a title he himself chafed at. I'm sure the Sussexes would like their children to lead private lives as much as possible, and not have to shoulder the burdens of royal status. It's enough that they will be part of the British royal family and have a considerable measure of stature and access.

Observations in your last paragraph are obviously true, but those facts are not widely known or celebrated. A lot of people know about Princess Grace, but few people know about Princess Angela of Liechtenstein (formerly Angela Brown, Panamanian-born & New York City bred). Her maiden name is ironically very descriptive of her skin color too. Her son, Prince Alfonso, in looks, reminds me a lot of my own brother when he was a teenager.

It's funny that you mention Princess Angela, as I was going to point out how her title demonstrates that the way royals and royal spouses are styled differs among other European royal houses. The same for Monaco's former Princess Grace, and now Prince Albert's wife, Princess Charlene. Neither Angela, Grace, nor Charlene of Monaco are blood royal princesses, but they are able to use Princess in front of their given names.

Here's the Royal Musings article that discusses LP and titles changes adjusted within the British monarchy across the years:
Royal Musings: What was George V thinking?
Reply With Quote
  #4066  
Old 01-14-2019, 06:17 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Her name is not Charlotte but Charlene SMH
Reply With Quote
  #4067  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:07 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Yes, but then your highlighted comments about the Wessex children really don't have any direct bearing on the way the Duke & Duchess of Sussex's children will be styled. That was a mutual decision made by HM the Queen along with Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, on behalf of Louise and James. Reported in Royal Musings:
"Several years ago, in an interview, their mother, Sophie, told a reporter that she knew that her kids were royal, despite their style."
Formally it doesn't but as I have stated time and time again in my opinion it should have a direct bearing (which is why I used the modal 'should' and 'imo'). It is unfair and inconsistent to grant Harry and Meghan's children the HRH-style as long as Harry's cousins who are in exactly the same position (children of a younger son) don't have that same style.

Quote:
When Prince Charles becomes King, the Sussex children will be entitled to the HRH styling (similar to the entitlement the Wessex children had). But the general consensus is that Charles will issue a LP when he ascends the throne further clarifying and leaving no doubt that only the eldest progeny of the eldest progeny in direct line to the throne will be styled HRH.

Clearly the reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with the background and heritage of any royal spouse. And in any case, there's every reason to believe that Harry specifically does not want to burden his children with a title he himself chafed at. I'm sure the Sussexes would like their children to lead private lives as much as possible, and not have to shoulder the burdens of royal status. It's enough that they will be part of the British royal family and have a considerable measure of stature and access.
I am fully aware that they are entitled to the HRH-style as soon as Charles ascends the throne but it is only right if either all male-line grandchildren of a monarch share that style or if the new rule applies to all who were born after that new rule was introduced (so I don't advocate for stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their style). What will happen remains to be seen but as long as they are consistent I am ok with it (not that my opinion matters )

Quote:
Observations in your last paragraph are obviously true, but those facts are not widely known or celebrated. A lot of people know about Princess Grace, but few people know about Princess Angela of Liechtenstein (formerly Angela Brown, Panamanian-born & New York City bred). Her maiden name is ironically very descriptive of her skin color too. Her son, Prince Alfonso, in looks, reminds me a lot of my own brother when he was a teenager.

It's funny that you mention Princess Angela, as I was going to point out how her title demonstrates that the way royals and royal spouses are styled differs among other European royal houses. The same for Monaco's former Princess Grace, and now Prince Albert's wife, Princess Charlotte. Neither Angela, Grace, nor Charlotte of Monaco are blood royal princesses, but they are able to use Princess in front of their given names.

Here's the Royal Musings article that discusses LP and titles changes adjusted within the British monarchy accross the years:
Royal Musings: What was George V thinking?
Yes, it's always interesting to see how traditions and practices differ among royal families. And it shows that we must be careful to apply the practices of one country to another. Another really important difference is whether a title is only passed on to the eldest son or to all (male-line) members of the family. The UK and Spain seem to practice the first and many other countries/traditions the second.
Reply With Quote
  #4068  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:19 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
Her name is not Charlotte but Charlene SMH
Thanks for the correction. I always get Charlene's name mixed-up. She's the former Zimbabwaian-South African swimmer, with blond good looks similar to that of Princess Grace.
Reply With Quote
  #4069  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:36 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It is unfair and inconsistent to grant Harry and Meghan's children the HRH-style as long as Harry's cousins who are in exactly the same position (children of a younger son) don't have that same style,
Its all a matter of perspective too. Perhaps Harry and Meghan would feel its unfair and inconsistent in not being allowed to withhold the HRH style from their children like Edward and Sophie were allowed to do.

To us, being a HRH and a Prince or Princess sounds like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow whereas to some of those HRHs that have borne the title and style for their entire lives, feel like its a giant millstone around their necks.

I state "allowed" rather than "granted" because its my understanding that Edward and Sophie wanted the HRH rescinded and the Queen assented to their request.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #4070  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:44 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post


I am fully aware that they are entitled to the HRH-style as soon as Charles ascends the throne but it is only right if either all male-line grandchildren of a monarch share that style or if the new rule applies to all who were born after that new rule was introduced (so I don't advocate for stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their style). What will happen remains to be seen but as long as they are consistent I am ok with it (not that my opinion matters )
.
A new “rule” was not introduced. Her Majesty didn’t change the LP for future generations. Only the Wessex children.
Reply With Quote
  #4071  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
But it does set a precedent. I said in a previous post that it’s unlikely there’ll be an announcement regarding Harry’s kids.

Meghan’s due date is known to HM and it’s unlikely she’d wait until the last minute if she was to change the custom.

With the Cambridge children the announcement came 6 months out.
Reply With Quote
  #4072  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:51 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Formally it doesn't but as I have stated time and time again in my opinion it should have a direct bearing (which is why I used the modal 'should' and 'imo'). It is unfair and inconsistent to grant Harry and Meghan's children the HRH-style as long as Harry's cousins who are in exactly the same position (children of a younger son) don't have that same style.
The topic of British styles and titles is interesting. And it's cool learning about it (even though it's very difficult to follow). Clearly, there are reasons why titles and styles have changed over the years. The British monarchy has a lot of convoluted reasoning too. Endlessly fascinating, but usually there's a reason behind the old-fashioned unwritten rules, traditions, and protocol, re the difficult to understand granting of styles and titles. Often monarchs in the past made decisions at will, and sometimes unaccountably.

In any case, re your highlighted comments, I have to laugh, because whether it's fair or not, what's decided has little to do with observers on the sidelines. Probably Louise and James don't mind in the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am fully aware that they are entitled to the HRH-style as soon as Charles ascends the throne but it is only right if either all male-line grandchildren of a monarch share that style or if the new rule applies to all who were born after that new rule was introduced (so I don't advocate for stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their style). What will happen remains to be seen but as long as they are consistent I am ok with it (not that my opinion matters )
Right, none of our opinions on the topic matter in the least, though it's fun chatting about it, learning more about it, and then later having to brush up on it again. The distinctions continue to baffle and stump the U.S. media. I'm bracing for the error-strewn commentary that will come out once baby Sussex is born.

If you read the linked Royal Musings blog in my earlier post, the writer/researcher seems to feel certain that Charles will release the LP further restricting the current HRH style entitlement when he ascends the throne. But you know, anything is possible. It's not up to any of us. Plus, the Queen had four children and Edward is the youngest. Prince Charles only has two sons.

As we know, Princess Anne's children could have been given lesser titles such as Viscount for Peter and Lady for Zara had Anne agreed for her first husband to be granted pre-wedding with a title (i.e., Earl of) in the way that Princess Margaret allowed/ desired for Tony Armstrong-Jones (Earl of Snowden). Zara and Peter seem perfectly well-adjusted and happy without any titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Another really important difference is whether a title is only passed on to the eldest son or to all (male-line) members of the family. The UK and Spain seem to practice the first and many other countries/traditions the second.
Right. Reminds me of the country house series, "Secrets of..." In particular, the episode on Chatsworth House. The current Duke of Devonshire reflected on how the British primogeniture practice was intended to ensure property would not be split up between siblings, thereby protecting and securing the intact passing down of estates to the oldest surviving son or male line relative.

The Duke of Devonshire indicated that he did not think the inheritance rule was fair to his two daughters. However, he and his wife spoke to their son and two daughters and decided it was best for the son (and oldest sibling) to inherit the house and the family estate, as tradition dictates. He said his daughters completely understand, and that his son also understands and accepts the burden of responsibility for managing and preserving the family's legacy/ estate.
Reply With Quote
  #4073  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:41 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Reported in Royal Musings:
"Several years ago, in an interview, their mother, Sophie, told a reporter that she knew that her kids were royal, despite their style."

[...]

Here's the Royal Musings article that discusses LP and titles changes adjusted within the British monarchy across the years:
Royal Musings: What was George V thinking?
It would be interesting to read the exact words of the Countess of Wessex's interview. Reporters and a member of this forum have been directly told by Buckingham Palace that the Queen's Will was all that was necessary to withhold the HRH status from Louise and James under British law. Perhaps the Countess was pointing out that her children were members of the Royal Family in spite of not holding HRH status?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Meghan’s due date is known to HM and it’s unlikely she’d wait until the last minute if she was to change the custom.

With the Cambridge children the announcement came 6 months out.
In my personal opinion, the timing of the British royal family's announcements and letters patent about royal styles is too inconsistent to predict on that basis (and as others have mentioned, in the British monarchy, even the decisions themselves are oddly inconsistent).

The gazette notices regarding the creations of the York, Wessex, Cambridge, and Sussex dukedoms and earldom were posted on the day of the marriage with Prince Andrew, the week after the marriage with Prince Edward, the month after the marriage with Prince William, and two months after the marriage with Prince Harry, respectively.

The announcement regarding the Wessex children was made on their parents' wedding day (June 19, 1999). Letters patent were never issued, the Queen's Will being all that was needed, per Buckingham Palace.

The announcement regarding the Cambridge children was made on the date of the pregnancy announcement (December 3, 2012). The letters patent were issued four weeks later (December 31, 2012) and gazetted over a week past the announcement (January 8, 2013).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Another really important difference is whether a title is only passed on to the eldest son or to all (male-line) members of the family. The UK and Spain seem to practice the first and many other countries/traditions the second.
Since 2006, Spanish titles are passed on to the eldest child, whether a daughter or a son.
http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-18869
Reply With Quote
  #4074  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The announcement regarding the Wessex children was made on their parents' wedding day (June 19, 1999). Letters patent were never issued, the Queen's Will being all that was needed, per Buckingham Palace.

The announcement regarding the Cambridge children was made on the date of the pregnancy announcement (December 3, 2012). The letters patent were issued four weeks later (December 31, 2012) and gazetted over a week past the announcement (January 8, 2013).
The Queen is a traditionalist. There’s no need to elevate Harry’s children. King George V knew what he was doing in 1917.

As for the Wessex children, for the 1000th time, it’s HM and HM alone who decides who’s royal.
Reply With Quote
  #4075  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:18 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
More than likely, as has been discussed ad nauseam, the Sussex children will receive and retain Earl (Lord)/Lady titles and not be elevated upon Charles' ascendance to the throne. Still the fact remains to date, that once Charles inherits the throne, the Sussex children are entitled to be styled HRH, just as the Wessex offspring are.

Likely when Her Majesty has passed on, His Majesty will be of one and the same mind regarding matters of styles/titles for the immediate and extended members of the British royal family.

I find it highly unlikely the Sussex children will be styled HRH Prince/Princess, nor do I believe Harry has ever desired it at all for his children, quite the contrary. That Harry's offspring with Meghan are healthy, happy, well-adjusted, kind and fulfilled humans who will be able to live as normal a life as possible, is surely the main priority.
Reply With Quote
  #4076  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Queen is a traditionalist. There’s no need to elevate Harry’s children. King George V knew what he was doing in 1917.
I agree it is probable that Queen Elizabeth II thinks of herself as a traditionalist. In this case, upholding the tradition set by King George V would elevate Harry's children in due course. However, many of Elizabeth's decisions, including the styles of princesses of the blood after marriage to commoners, the Wessex family, and the Cambridge children, did not uphold the traditions of George V.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
As for the Wessex children, for the 1000th time, it’s HM and HM alone who decides who’s royal.
Indeed that is the explicit position of the Queen and Buckingham Palace, as explained in the link above.
Reply With Quote
  #4077  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:23 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
But it does set a precedent. I said in a previous post that it’s unlikely there’ll be an announcement regarding Harry’s kids.

Meghan’s due date is known to HM and it’s unlikely she’d wait until the last minute if she was to change the custom.

With the Cambridge children the announcement came 6 months out.
Because if George had been a girl, Georgina would not have been HRH and Princess but been the heir apparent, yet her eldest younger brother Charlie would have been HRH and Prince per the Letters Patent of 1917-i.e. "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales...shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess..."

This was not a situation George V ever anticipated, therefore he did not address it. Cirumstances changed and the Queen addressed the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #4078  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Because if George had been a girl, Georgina would not have been HRH and Princess but been the heir apparent, yet her eldest younger brother Charlie would have been HRH and Prince per the Letters Patent of 1917-i.e. "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales...shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess..."

This was not a situation George V ever anticipated, therefore he did not address it. Cirumstances changed and the Queen addressed the situation.
But what I’m saying is, if HM decides to elevate Harry’s kids we’d probably would have heard about it by now. If Meghan is 6 months pregnant, why the wait.

Who knows what Charles’ reign will bring. But it’s my vibe Harry’s kids will never be HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #4079  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post


Since 2006, Spanish titles are passed on to the eldest child, whether a daughter or a son.
http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-18869

I think Somebody's point was not so much about gender, but rather about titles descending by primogeniture (which is/was the English, French and Spanish custom), or being transmitted from birth to all descendants in male line, which, I guess, was the German custom (?) and influenced in turn the Low Countries and the Scandinavian realms. Starting in the 19th century, however, there have been also titles of nobility in Belgium, Sweden or the Netherlands for example that are transmitted only by primogeniture.



In the case of Spain, male-preference primogeniture had always been the norm (unlike in England or France, an eldest daughter could inherit titles from her father if she had no brothers). The 2006 law changed the default to equal primogeniture as you mentioned, but it is also possible (and indeed quite common) for a grandee who holds multiple titles to distribute his/jer subsidiary titles among his/her younger children during his/her lifetime. That is a way to circumvent primogeniture in practice so that younger children are not left titleless as in England. The "redistribution" of titles during someone's lifetime must be approved by the King though.
Reply With Quote
  #4080  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:57 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Because if George had been a girl, Georgina would not have been HRH and Princess but been the heir apparent, yet her eldest younger brother Charlie would have been HRH and Prince per the Letters Patent of 1917-i.e. "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales...shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess..."

This was not a situation George V ever anticipated, therefore he did not address it. Cirumstances changed and the Queen addressed the situation.



The Queen went one step further though, didn't she ? Following your reasoning, she could have simply decreed that "the eldest living child of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales" would be a prince/princess with the HRH style, but, instead, she decided that all children of the eldest son of the PoW should hold that titular dignity, which wasn't necessary.



If the point is actually dealing with the consequences of the introduction of equal primogeniture in the succession to the Crown, then I guess the 1917 LPs will have to be changed after all as it will be awkward if Louis' children become HRHs when Charlotte's children, who will be higher in the line of succession, are not princes/princesses. On the other hand, giving out HRH to all grandchildren of the monarch (in both paternal and maternal line) would have the inconvenience of possibly increasing the number of HRHs over time , which is why Charles may well consider limiting HRH to the heir's children only as some posters here are suggesting.
__________________

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: 1 (0 members and 1 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 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 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




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×