The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4361  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:03 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
James' children will be Mountbatten-Windsor and if he has a son then the name will continue.

George's line will also pass it down via a second son as will Louis' and Archie's via any sons.

Daughter's will have it as a maiden name - as Louise does today - but give it up on marriage.
You're right, I was forgetting about second+ sons.

Still, there's been a lot of chatter about the Mountbatten-Windsor name being one that barely gets used to this point. It must feel nice to Philip to see one of his grandkids proudly presented to the world with it front and center.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4362  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:38 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,537
There's no doubt that Andrew is frustrated that his daughters are not being allowed to be full working royals and I do believe that it's because Charles wants to restrict the working royals to those in the main line to the throne. It would make no sense at all for Harry's children to be HRH's in the future just to end up like Beatrice and Eugenie, floating around as a prince or princess with no real role within the family.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4363  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:34 AM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Charles is not yet king so the decision likely has little to do with him. I believe Beatrice and Eugenie aren't working royals because 1) their parents tainted their reputations so much that their daughters taking on larger roles isn't seen as an asset and 2) there simply is no need for them to be working royals right now. Maybe that will change when some of the older working royals have retired.
Reply With Quote
  #4364  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:04 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
Charles is not yet king so the decision likely has little to do with him.
I am not sure I quite agree with you. IMO, the Queen would have consulted with Charles, and possibly William, before taking a final view on the matter, as the decision would have implications through Charles and William's reigns.
Reply With Quote
  #4365  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:10 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I am not sure I quite agree with you. IMO, the Queen would have consulted with Charles, and possibly William, before taking a final view on the matter, as the decision would have implications through Charles and William's reigns.
I think so to. I think the Queen does allow Charles a say in certain things regarding the future of the monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #4366  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:53 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I think so to. I think the Queen does allow Charles a say in certain things regarding the future of the monarchy.
Yes, there is every indication that she's allowed him an advisory role for quite a while. She's visibly included him to an increasing degree in formal events (for instance, after decades of delivering the address to Parliament with only Philip by her side, she's had Charles accompany her for the past several years) and for any one thing we see in public there are probably countless related measures happening behind closed doors.

It makes sense; it's partly preparation for his time as king, partly to ensure a smooth transition after her time is gone. Anytime a member of the BRF is asked to talk about the Queen they, to a person, emphasize her strong sense of duty. Involving the son who will succeed her in decisions like that one is surely a key part of carrying out her duty to prevent a turbulent transition from her time to Charles'.
Reply With Quote
  #4367  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:07 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I am not sure I quite agree with you. IMO, the Queen would have consulted with Charles, and possibly William, before taking a final view on the matter, as the decision would have implications through Charles and William's reigns.
She may have very well consulted Charles but I don't think we can say this was his decision. We don't even know if indeed he wants to make any changes to the number of working royals. This is something that's just been assumed prematurely, imo.
Reply With Quote
  #4368  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Thank



Yes, but most of the courtesy peers who do not use their titles in everyday life use them nevertheless for formal communications. Use of the designation from their courtesy title as their informal last name suggests that they do use the full title when appropriate. For instance, until he inherited his father's peerages, Buckingham Palace consistently referred to Princess Margaret's son by the courtesy title of Viscount Linley, even though he used David Linley as his professional name (his legal last name being Armstrong-Jones).
Precisley.. I don't know what Meg and Harry seem to be doing..
Reply With Quote
  #4369  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:15 PM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
Charles is not yet king so the decision likely has little to do with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
She may have very well consulted Charles but I don't think we can say this was his decision.
Slightly different messages in you first and second posts on this topic.
Reply With Quote
  #4370  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,740
For all we know and its a remote possibility, the plans for a soft transition into Charles' reign could have been idealized back when they had the now defunct Way Ahead group. We just don't know and probably won't have a lot of answers until the time comes.

Its going on 11 years since I was corrected quite a few times (thankfully) that it was said that Charles is the Defender of Faith (he'll actually be Defender of *the* Faith but there was a rumor going around that Charles wishes to change this. Its been a subsidiary title of the monarch since 1521.
__________________
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
  #4371  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:28 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Slightly different messages in you first and second posts on this topic.
It doesn't matter, lol. The point remains the same. Charles is not king, it's ultimately not his decision and since we don't really know his thoughts, we can't put this on him.
Reply With Quote
  #4372  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:30 PM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
For all we know and its a remote possibility, the plans for a soft transition into Charles' reign could have been idealized back when they had the now defunct Way Ahead group. We just don't know and probably won't have a lot of answers until the time comes.
I have no doubt the issue would have been discussed between some of the family in the 1990s, when a lot of the "re-engineering" of The Firm took place. The Way Ahead Group was certainly of the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its going on 11 years since I was corrected quite a few times (thankfully) that it was said that Charles is the Defender of Faith (he'll actually be Defender of *the* Faith but there was a rumor going around that Charles wishes to change this. Its been a subsidiary title of the monarch since 1521.
I do remember the debate in last decade in the Press about whether Charles would be "Defender of Faith" as opposed to "Defender of the Faith". The issue fell away when somebody pointed out that the latter title would require disestablishment of the Church of England. So I am not sure if it was ever one of Charles' ideas, or something thought up by journalists.
Reply With Quote
  #4373  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
'Defender of the Faith' is one of the titles given by parliament. Remember the 'faith' in this case is the established church. It's not up to Charles to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #4374  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:55 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
She may have very well consulted Charles but I don't think we can say this was his decision. We don't even know if indeed he wants to make any changes to the number of working royals. This is something that's just been assumed prematurely, imo.
No we don't know precisely what he'd like the future monarchy to look like but he provided a very strong indication at the diamond jubilee when the balcony appearance was just his immediate family. None of his siblings or their families were included (much to their annoyance it was reported). He might have softened a bit since then of course, having realised that his sister in particular is a huge asset to the BRF. I think since 2012, Charles has a great deal of influence over decisions made that will impact on his reign eg who will be HRH and/or working royals.
Reply With Quote
  #4375  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Did the Royal Family explain why Prince Edward was created an Earl instead of a Duke, thereby not making his children HRHs?

At what age can Louise and James reclaim their HRHs? At 18 maybe?

I've noticed in official communication that Louise is styled as Lady Louise Windsor (not Mountbatten-Windsor). When did they officially drop the Mountbatten?
Reply With Quote
  #4376  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
Did the Royal Family explain why Prince Edward was created an Earl instead of a Duke, thereby not making his children HRHs?

At what age can Louise and James reclaim their HRHs? At 18 maybe?

I've noticed in official communication that Louise is styled as Lady Louise Windsor (not Mountbatten-Windsor). When did they officially drop the Mountbatten?
I understood that this was the wish of Edward and Sophie, who were not working royals at the time of their marriage. but their children are so far down the succession that its unlikely they would ever be "used" as workign royals. So as far as I know they wont be "reclaiming" their HRH's. In due course Ed wil become Duke of Edinburgh and James will inherit that title
Reply With Quote
  #4377  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:28 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
We have to remember no one has a 'right' to royal styles and titles. They are granted at the sovereigns pleasure and can be granted, revoked or altered at anytime.

The LP of 1917 are just an expression of the sovereigns pleasure. The Queen isn't bound by them.
Reply With Quote
  #4378  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:44 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
We have to remember no one has a 'right' to royal styles and titles. They are granted at the sovereigns pleasure and can be granted, revoked or altered at anytime.

The LP of 1917 are just an expression of the sovereigns pleasure. The Queen isn't bound by them.
the queen can take away an HRH, but not as far as I know a peerage. Once she gives a peerage it is subject ot the normal rules of inheritance. Ie it can only be inherited by a male heir (unless it was granted with the understanding that it would go to a female heir like Lord Mountbattne's). She could not change the law that says that Philip's peerage will descend to his eldest son, Charles.. and give it to Edward
Reply With Quote
  #4379  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
the queen can take away an HRH, but not as far as I know a peerage. Once she gives a peerage it is subject ot the normal rules of inheritance. Ie it can only be inherited by a male heir (unless it was granted with the understanding that it would go to a female heir like Lord Mountbattne's). She could not change the law that says that Philip's peerage will descend to his eldest son, Charles.. and give it to Edward


It has been speculated that Edward will inherit his father's dukedom? So Charles is the one to make that decision?
Reply With Quote
  #4380  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:53 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
I has been speculated that Edward will inherit his father's dukedom? So Charles is the one to make that decision?
More than speculated, as far as I know.. It was announced that it was the queen's wish that Edward would become Duke of Edinburgh. he can't directly inherit.. because the queen can't change the rules for a peerage. Charles will have to create Edward Duke of Ed when he is king...
__________________

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: 11 (3 members and 8 guests)
Catcatcat91, JoanHarry, principessa
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 baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jewellery liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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