The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4161  
Old 04-05-2019, 06:45 PM
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
We do have an idea. As it stands today there's no HRH. Unless the Queen wants to surprise us, we can count on no royal titles.
When did the Queen say Harry & Meghan's child(ren) would not automatically become HRH when their grandfather becomes King?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4162  
Old 04-05-2019, 06:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
When did the Queen say Harry & Meghan's child(ren) would not automatically become HRH when their grandfather becomes King?
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the post. The children won't be royal during the current reign, there's been no announcement for Charles' reign
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4163  
Old 04-05-2019, 06:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
When did the Queen say Harry & Meghan's child(ren) would not automatically become HRH when their grandfather becomes King?
She didn't. It's all speculation by some that the Sussex child(red) will not receive HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #4164  
Old 04-05-2019, 08:02 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
She didn't. It's all speculation by some that the Sussex child(red) will not receive HRH.
The poster I quoted flatly said "As it stands today there's no HRH. Unless the Queen wants to surprise us, we can count on no royal titles"
implying knowledge that any Sussex children would never be HRH.

We know unless new LP are issued, the Sussex children will become HRH when their grandfather becomes King, so to say now there will be "no HRH" is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the post. The children won't be royal during the current reign, there's been no announcement for Charles' reign
Thank you for the clarification on your statement.
Reply With Quote
  #4165  
Old 04-06-2019, 01:11 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Left Edge of A Continent, United States
Posts: 33
In several articles on Wikipedia there's a long explanation of the development of who can be called HRH Prince or Princess. To cut it short, Queen Victoria declared that the children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign would be called HRH Prince or Princess followed by their first name. In 1917 George V added that the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales would be called the same way.

Queen Elizabeth's father only had daughters so he had to issue a declaration bestowing the HRH Princess title to her and her children. Her children, of course, are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward.

Charles' wife Diana was an HRH Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until her divorce, when that was stripped from her though she was still officially called Princess Diana. His wife Camilla is technically an HRH Princess but forgoes that title, out of respect for public feeling for Diana I think. She goes by Duchess of Cornwall, one of the lesser titles her marriage to Charles grants her. Charles' sons William and Harry are both HRH Princes.

Anne married an untitled man who refused the Earldom offered him so her children were born without titles.

Andrew's children are HRH Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice.

Edward requested that his children not be given HRH Prince or Princess titles so they are known as a Viscount and Lady.

Now the great grandchildren: HRH Prince William is the oldest son of Charles, Prince of Wales. William's oldest son is George and normally only he would called HRH Prince George, but the Queen issued a declaration to give all his siblings the HRH title.

This must be getting really confusing.

But if you can get all this straight (and it took me awhile to do it) you see that HRH Prince Harry passes that title to his wife Meghan, who would be called HRH Princess Harry, but as grandson of Queen Elizabeth, he won't pass the HRH title on to his children when they're born. It only goes from her to GRANDCHILDREN.

They might get it when Charles becomes King, but he's said he wants to slim down the monarchy, and I suspect that means he won't extend the HRH title to Harry's children. (This is only my speculation, but I'm guessing he's perfectly okay with that.)

This must have been such a long, boring read. But maybe someone will find it useful someday.
Reply With Quote
  #4166  
Old 04-06-2019, 02:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
It’s not that if Charles wants to extend it to the Sussex children. They’ll automatically have it unless an announcement is made of them not having it. My guess is that the Sussexes themselves would prefer their children to lead lives much like the Wessex children. Frankly, Harry himself questioned if he wants this life. I doubt he’d want it for his children.
Reply With Quote
  #4167  
Old 04-06-2019, 04:29 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oona View Post
In several articles on Wikipedia there's a long explanation of the development of who can be called HRH Prince or Princess. To cut it short, Queen Victoria declared that the children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign would be called HRH Prince or Princess followed by their first name. In 1917 George V added that the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales would be called the same way.
In addition, greatgrandchildren in male line were highnesses.

Quote:
Queen Elizabeth's father only had daughters so he had to issue a declaration bestowing the HRH Princess title to her and her children. Her children, of course, are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward.
Elizabeth and Margaret were royal highnesses from birth. So, no hrh had to be bestowed on them by their father. Soecial regulations were indeed needed for Elizabeth's children.

Quote:
Charles' wife Diana was an HRH Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until her divorce, when that was stripped from her though she was still officially called Princess Diana. His wife Camilla is technically an HRH Princess but forgoes that title, out of respect for public feeling for Diana I think. She goes by Duchess of Cornwall, one of the lesser titles her marriage to Charles grants her. Charles' sons William and Harry are both HRH Princes.
Diana was never officially called "princess Diana". Not during nor after her marriage.

The title Duke of Cornwall is the title automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir, so a rather important title. William will be duke of Cornwall before becoming prince of Wales (the latter not even sure but depending on his father).

Quote:
Anne married an untitled man who refused the Earldom offered him so her children were born without titles.

Andrew's children are HRH Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice.

Edward requested that his children not be given HRH Prince or Princess titles so they are known as a Viscount and Lady.

Now the great grandchildren: HRH Prince William is the oldest son of Charles, Prince of Wales. William's oldest son is George and normally only he would called HRH Prince George, but the Queen issued a declaration to give all his siblings the HRH title.

This must be getting really confusing.
Not at all. It's rather consistent except for Edward's children not being royal highnesses.

Important to note is that the queen decided that all children of the heir's heir would be royal highnesses before it was known that their first child was a son. In this way the queen avoided the potential situation that the future queen was born with a lower title than her younger eldest brother.

Quote:
But if you can get all this straight (and it took me awhile to do it) you see that HRH Prince Harry passes that title to his wife Meghan, who would be called HRH Princess Harry, but as grandson of Queen Elizabeth, he won't pass the HRH title on to his children when they're born. It only goes from her to GRANDCHILDREN.

They might get it when Charles becomes King, but he's said he wants to slim down the monarchy, and I suspect that means he won't extend the HRH title to Harry's children. (This is only my speculation, but I'm guessing he's perfectly okay with that.)

This must have been such a long, boring read. But maybe someone will find it useful someday.
I am glad that it all makes sense to you now and I agree with your assessment about it being more likely that Harry and Meghan's children won't be royal highnesses even in the next reigns. Although it is not about Charles extending it to his grandchildren but about him actively withholding it.
Reply With Quote
  #4168  
Old 04-06-2019, 05:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oona View Post

Charles' wife Diana was an HRH Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until her divorce, when that was stripped from her though she was still officially called Princess Diana. His wife Camilla is technically an HRH Princess but forgoes that title, out of respect for public feeling for Diana I think. She goes by Duchess of Cornwall, one of the lesser titles her marriage to Charles grants her. Charles' sons William and Harry are both HRH Princes.
Diana was never Princess Diana. Only a Princess born as a Princess in the UK can use Princess and their own names e.g. Princess Anne, Princess Charlotte etc.

Wives of British princes use their husband's names so Diana was Princess Charles.

Fortunately for her Charles had higher titles than simply Prince for her to use 'Prince of Wales', 'Earl of Chester','Duke of Cornwall', 'Duke of Rothesay' etc. Diana, like Camilla, could use the feminine form of all of these titles - so Princess of Wales, Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay etc. The only one of these titles Camilla has not used is Princess of Wales but she is entitled to do so. As she uses Countess of Chester she has also to be Princess of Wales as both Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester were given to Charles in the same Letters Patent.

Diana was stripped of HRH at the time of her divorce,which is also when Sarah lost HRH. Sarah had remained HRH from the time of her own divorced until Diana's divorce.

After their divorces they followed the custom in the UK and used their own names with the feminine form of their husband's senior title so HRH The Princess of Wales became Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York became Sarah, Duchess of York.
Reply With Quote
  #4169  
Old 04-06-2019, 07:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The title Duke of Cornwall is the title automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir, so a rather important title. William will be duke of Cornwall before becoming prince of Wales (the latter not even sure but depending on his father).

[...]

Important to note is that the queen decided that all children of the heir's heir would be royal highnesses before it was known that their first child was a son.
Just for specification:

The duchy of Cornwall and its ducal title are automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir when the heir is also the eldest son of the monarch. In any other situation, the duchy of Cornwall reverts to the monarch.

The Letters Patent of 2012 provided that "all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales" would be Royal Highnesses. Should Prince George's firstborn child be a girl, she will be the future Queen, but her husband and children will not automatically be royal during the reigns of King William and King George. Her younger brother will merely be a "spare", but his wife and children will automatically be Royal Highnesses, even if his children are born during their great-grandfather's reign.
Reply With Quote
  #4170  
Old 04-06-2019, 08:25 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Just for specification:

The duchy of Cornwall and its ducal title are automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir when the heir is also the eldest son of the monarch. In any other situation, the duchy of Cornwall reverts to the monarch.
Thanks, it's indeed more specific based on the situation that the expectation has been that it's the male line that will carry on the crown.

Quote:
The Letters Patent of 2012 provided that "all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales" would be Royal Highnesses. Should Prince George's firstborn child be a girl, she will be the future Queen, but her husband and children will not automatically be royal during the reigns of King William and King George. Her younger brother will merely be a "spare", but his wife and children will automatically be Royal Highnesses, even if his children are born during their great-grandfather's reign.
Good point! My guess would be that Elizabeth worded it this way given the current situation. I assume that if George's eldest child is a girl, new Letters Patent will change that to the children of the eldest child of the prince (or princess) of Wales will be royal highnesses and at the same time revoking the rule for children of the 'eldest son'.
Reply With Quote
  #4171  
Old 04-07-2019, 01:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Diana was never Princess Diana. Only a Princess born as a Princess in the UK can use Princess and their own names e.g. Princess Anne, Princess Charlotte etc.

Wives of British princes use their husband's names so Diana was Princess Charles.

Fortunately for her Charles had higher titles than simply Prince for her to use 'Prince of Wales', 'Earl of Chester','Duke of Cornwall', 'Duke of Rothesay' etc. Diana, like Camilla, could use the feminine form of all of these titles - so Princess of Wales, Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay etc. The only one of these titles Camilla has not used is Princess of Wales but she is entitled to do so. As she uses Countess of Chester she has also to be Princess of Wales as both Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester were given to Charles in the same Letters Patent.

Diana was stripped of HRH at the time of her divorce,which is also when Sarah lost HRH. Sarah had remained HRH from the time of her own divorced until Diana's divorce.

After their divorces they followed the custom in the UK and used their own names with the feminine form of their husband's senior title so HRH The Princess of Wales became Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York became Sarah, Duchess of York.

I think Diana could have reverted back to her own courtesy title and could have used Lady Diana Mountbatten-Windsor as well.
Reply With Quote
  #4172  
Old 04-07-2019, 05:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I think Diana could have reverted back to her own courtesy title and could have used Lady Diana Mountbatten-Windsor as well.
I can't see why she would do that. She was entilted to be Diana Princess of wales unless she remarried...
Reply With Quote
  #4173  
Old 04-07-2019, 06:31 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I can't see why she would do that. She was entilted to be Diana Princess of wales unless she remarried...

Well, she didn't do it, we all know. But she could have decided that having a courtesy title is better than having none - Diana, Princess of Wales was just a name while "Lady Diana" would have been a titled style.
Reply With Quote
  #4174  
Old 04-07-2019, 06:38 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 Kataryn View Post
Well, she didn't do it, we all know. But she could have decided that having a courtesy title is better than having none - Diana, Princess of Wales was just a name while "Lady Diana" would have been a titled style.
Actually it boils down to that regardless of which "title/style" she preferred to use, they're still both courtesy titles. She was able to use "Lady" because her father was Earl Spencer. She was able to use "Princess of Wales" because her ex-husband is The Prince of Wales. She opted for the more "esteemed" courtesy title as I see it. She never held a title or style of her own.
__________________
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
  #4175  
Old 04-07-2019, 09:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually it boils down to that regardless of which "title/style" she preferred to use, they're still both courtesy titles. She was able to use "Lady" because her father was Earl Spencer. She was able to use "Princess of Wales" because her ex-husband is The Prince of Wales. She opted for the more "esteemed" courtesy title as I see it. She never held a title or style of her own.
I would have said that most people would opt for the Princess title, rather than Lady Diana...
Reply With Quote
  #4176  
Old 04-07-2019, 09:58 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,034
As I recall it, there was this whole thing in the tabloids of the time about her being "The People's Princess." It was very awkward and I think even she recognized it. That moniker implied so many things:
-Sod off Charles, you can divorce her but we will love her even when you don't. In fact a lot of the public found her more princess than they found him Prince-like.
-The corollary to that which is that the BRF cannot unmake a princess if we, the public don't ascent
-She is OURS - meaning she is a belonging/puppet/plaything of the public. I always thought Di wanted the Admiration of the public but thought the kind of all access pass that was in effect at the time to be a bridge too far. She did not want to be dictated to by anyone at the time of the divorce.
I've always believed (and let's not go off topic and chase this on this thread) that the whole thing was just so very awkward for the BRF and Di, that the eventual Camilla/not Queen decision happened because the whole mess with Di's title had been usurped by the public.
Her Majesty's Royal Will simply could not be imposed on this situation and that must have been difficult, indeed.
Ugly times back then.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #4177  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:12 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
The way I see it, Diana's courtesy title was resolved a year before she was tragically killed. She was afforded the courtesy title that denotes that she is an ex-wife of The Prince of Wales. This same courtesy title was given to not only Sarah, Duchess of York but also legally to the wives that the 9th Earl Spencer was divorced from. Its just the way it works in the UK and the British title/style system.
__________________
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
  #4178  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Didn’t the People’s Princess thing really take off after Tony Blair’s speech after Diana’s death? Besides I really don’t think Diana would’ve minded that.

Anyways, speaking of Lady Diana. Would Diana revert back to that had she remarried?
Reply With Quote
  #4179  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:21 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
I think its very possible that she would have reverted to Lady Diana, Mrs Khan if she had married Hasnat Khan or Lady Diana, Mrs. Al-Fayed or Lady Diana, Mrs. Hewitt. Once she remarried, she would no longer be eligible to use "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy styling whereas because of who her father was, she would always remain "Lady".
__________________
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
  #4180  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Wouldn’t she just be Lady Diana [married name] like her sisters? Instead of Lady Diana, Mrs. [married name].
__________________

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 11:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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