The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4381  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:24 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
This doesn't quite add up given that consistency was already broken with the Wessex children. And it's just odd to use them as the standard now when Harry and Edward are not comparable. Edward was in a much different position at the time it was decided his children would not be styled as HRH. If a comparison must be made then it should be between Harry and Andrew. Both second sons with one already having daughters with HRH titles. That's stronger than what you're arguing imo.
I agree that the consistency was broken with the Wessex children. The only way for that to make sense is if from now on ALL non-heir grandchildren are styled as children of a duke instead of as HRH.

For both Edward's and Harry's children the expectation (imo) is that they will NOT be full-time representatives of the Firm, so, if the new insight is that those not working for the firm (i.e., anyone not belonging to the direct family of the monarch or heir(s)) shouldn't be royal highness that should apply to all. In hindsight Beatrice and Eugenie probably shouldn't have been royal either but that was not yet the thinking in the 80's, while it was the new line of the thought by the 90's it seems.

So, if Harry's children are to be elevated (if they return to the former line of thought that all male-line grandchildren should be HRH), that principle should be applied to Louise, James and Archie. Not only to Archie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Really?!!! The monarchy survived the loss of its political power, the madness of King George, the American Revolution, George IV & Queen Caroline, World War I, Edward VIII & Mrs. Simpson, World War II, the Charles & Diana fiasco followed by the Andrew & Sarah fiasco, Charles's marriage to Camilla (the infamous "other woman") but Harry & Meghan's decision not to call their son by a courtesy title might create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down??????????
I was talking about the peerage; not the monarchy. If the most recent and extremely prominent peer decides that the use of styles related to the peerage are to be avoided that could be one of the many small steps that eventually will lead to bringing down the system.

Quote:
Considering that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is the Queen's first great-grandchild in the male line who is not also the child of a future King, there really isn't any *consistency* to compare this to.
The LPs are clear about how Archie should have been styled: that's why H&M made an announcement because they want to deviate from that practice.

Quote:
I can't believe the hysteria over not using a *courtesy* title! This decision wouldn't have been made without the Queen's permission. If she's willing to go along with it why can't we?
Because we are entitled to our own opinion (and I don't think permission equals support; she might inwardly be really miffed but still allow it because she it's her grandson who asked her - and it seems she has a sweet spot for her grandchildren).

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
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.
He has had a granddaughter using his surname for 16 years. It's not that his great-grandson Archie is the first to use it (nor is he the first to pass it on: that's his grandson James).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Robert Jobson in the Evening Standard appears to be quoting the same "royal source/senior source", but implies he has been given confirmation that the Prince title will be used.

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.

[…]

Buckingham Palace has said on the matter of titles, “While there are courtesy titles that Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could apply to their son, they have chosen not to give him a “courtesy title” at this time. So he will be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.”
However, if the reports you mentioned were true, the future King wanting royal titles to be denied to the children of the present Queen's younger sons really would be inconsistent with wanting royal titles for the children of his own younger son, considering that Prince Harry's children will be in exactly the same position during their grandfather's reign as the position Prince Andrew's and Prince Edward's children are in during their grandmother's reign.

The official website calls Archie "Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" in the same list where James is mentioned as Viscount Severn. Seeing this and the use of the formal titles Master/Mr/Miss/Mrs in the list, along with the announcement "The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time", the intention seems to be that, for the time being, Archie will not be mentioned as Earl of Dumbarton even in formal announcements.
Indeed very inconsistent... (one of many)

However, if they truly want him to become a prince, the main reason for not calling him Earl of Dumbarton might be that they just really dislike the 'Dumbarton'-part. Although I still don't understand that they don't even let him be Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4382  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:48 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
He's the eldest son, so he would normally be known as Lord Dumbarton. A younger son would be Lord X Mountbatten Windsor. Its quite silly really IMO and it is fairly typical of the way they go on. No matter what, Archie will inherit the title of Duke of Sussex one day.. so why not let him use the usual courtesty title? If they don't like Dumbarton (fearing jokes about Dumbness? ) I would imagine that Harry could have asked the queen for another secondary Scottish title.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4383  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:56 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
ok

My opinion of this issue is as follows


Nobody knows what Prince Charles has in mind for the future, but I truly think He is not the type of person who would differentiate among his grandchildren as far dignities are concerned especially when they are untitled to them in light of the LP of 1917
All the talk about shrinking the firm is just projection. No new LP gonna be issued at the start of his reign

Differences between his grandchildren and Edward's children if there is is not of his doing, but rather Edward and Sophie's choices

All his grandchildren is male line will be HRH
Camilla will Be Queen Consort, there will be no such thing as Princess Consort

What is happening now is just a trick, without any title they are shielding Archie from the press
Reply With Quote
  #4384  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:00 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
ok

My opinion of this issue is as follows


Nob

All his grandchildren is male line will be HRH
Camilla will Be Queen Consort, there will be no such thing as Princess Consort

What is happening now is just a trick, without any title they are shielding Archie from the press
how are they shielding him from the Press? He's going to be noiticed and photographed as the son of a Prince and princess
Reply With Quote
  #4385  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
how are they shielding him from the Press? He's going to be noiticed and photographed as the son of a Prince and princess
Yes but basically the press will not be able to be too intrusive while he grows up, and justify their intrusiveness by saying he is titled so it is fair game. They are in essence in the driving seat, and they made him for lack of better word a private citizen for the time being so he is off limit
Reply With Quote
  #4386  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:10 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
Yes but basically the press will not be able to be too intrusive while he grows up, and justify their intrusiveness by saying he is titled so it is fair game. They are in essence in the driving seat, and they made him for lack of better word a private citizen for the time being so he is off limit
The press will be intrusive if they think they will make money by it. Whehter they call him Archie or Lord Dumbarton or Prince Archie, the press will see him as the son of the fairly popular Duke and Duchess of Sussex, active members of the RF, and they will do their best to get pics and news of him
Reply With Quote
  #4387  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I was talking about the peerage; not the monarchy. If the most recent and extremely prominent peer decides that the use of styles related to the peerage are to be avoided that could be one of the many small steps that eventually will lead to bringing down the system.

I apologize for my mistake. And my hysterical response.

But the power & prestige of the hereditary peerage have steadily eroded over the past 100 years, beginning with the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911, followed by (among others) the Life Peerages Act of 1958, the Peerage Act of 1963 (allowing hereditary peers to disclaim their title), and the House of Lords Act of 1999. In the past 54 years only four hereditary peerages have been created outside the Royal family, the last in 1984. I've read that some members of Parliament refuse to consider the idea of amending peerages to allow daughters to succeed because they prefer to see the titles die out. It is no longer expected that members of the RF marry into a titled family, in fact the Queen's grandson and eventual heir married into a wealthy but middle class family. In 1963 Princess Alexandra's husband refused a peerage followed (reportedly) by Princess Anne's in 1973. And the government has also imposed death duties which have whittled away at the wealth of many titled families, forcing many to sell their estates.

It is clear that many *big* steps have already been taken (long before we were even born) that might eventually bring the system down.

Quote:
The LPs are clear about how Archie should have been styled: that's why H&M made an announcement because they want to deviate from that practice.
Yes, and the 1917 LPs were clear about how William's children should have been styled but the Queen chose to override them by issuing new LPs. Now that Harry & Meghan have chosen not to follow them for their own child, I guess we can say the 1917 LPs are *consistently* being ignored as they apply to great-grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line.
Reply With Quote
  #4388  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 515
Will the fact that baby Archie doesn't have Royal titles (and also James and Louise) increase the likelihood of Beatrice and Eugenie giving theirs up?
Reply With Quote
  #4389  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:28 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Will the fact that baby Archie doesn't have Royal titles (and also James and Louise) increase the likelihood of Beatrice and Eugenie giving theirs up?
No, why should they give them up? They are entitled to be HRH as the daughters of the son of the Monarch. No reason why they should give them up.
Reply With Quote
  #4390  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
No, why should they give them up? They are entitled to be HRH as the daughters of the son of the Monarch. No reason why they should give them up.
Doing so would enable them to live normal lives, they may be related to the monarch but they are no note important or special than the rest of us.
Reply With Quote
  #4391  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:53 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Will the fact that baby Archie doesn't have Royal titles (and also James and Louise) increase the likelihood of Beatrice and Eugenie giving theirs up?
Being forced to give titles up is incredibly rare. It’s punishment for bad behavior. I suspect the Queen and Charles would consider it beyond the pale to even suggest that Princesses who’ve had the title their whole life be asked to renounce them. So if those two aren’t personally moved to stop using their titles it’s highly unlikely we’ll see that happen.

This, I think, is why we are seeing what we’re seeing from Harry. It seems safer to start with no titles while they are (perhaps) still sorting out what the new normal will be under Charles and then William because it’s more palatable to add titles later than it is to take them away.

Honestly, I wouldn’t be shocked if there has been long term work put into a big LP, similar to the 1917, that just reworks it all—to be adopted as one of Charles’ first acts as king.
Reply With Quote
  #4392  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Doing so would enable them to live normal lives, they may be related to the monarch but they are no note important or special than the rest of us.
They do lead normal lives. THey don't do royal duties, they have jobs, (or don't) and are just part of the RF without being anyting special...#
Reply With Quote
  #4393  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:05 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
Being forced to give titles up is incredibly rare. It’s punishment for bad behavior. I suspect the Queen and Charles would consider it beyond the pale to even suggest that Princesses who’ve had the title their whole life be asked to renounce them. So if those two aren’t personally moved to stop using their titles it’s highly unlikely we’ll see that happen.

This, I think, is why we are seeing what we’re seeing from Harry. It seems safer to start with no titles while they are (perhaps) still sorting out what the new normal will be under Charles and then William because it’s more palatable to add titles later than it is to take them away.

Honestly, I wouldn’t be shocked if there has been long term work put into a big LP, similar to the 1917, that just reworks it all—to be adopted as one of Charles’ first acts as king.
True, it is usually only as punishment or in very rare circumstances. They don't use their titles at work, and its up to them what they want to do about it. I agree that Charles and the queen would probably be horrified at the idea of asking or telling them to renounce their rightful titles.
but Harry is IMO being foolish since his son IS the eldest son of a duke, and will be a Duke himself later on. So what's the point of calling hi "master Archie?" In later life Arch MAY prefer to be known as Earl of Dumbarton than as Arhcie...
Reply With Quote
  #4394  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:07 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
True, it is usually only as punishment or in very rare circumstances. They don't use their titles at work, and its up to them what they want to do about it. I agree that Charles and the queen would probably be horrified at the idea of asking or telling them to renounce their rightful titles.
but Harry is IMO being foolish since his son IS the eldest son of a duke, and will be a Duke himself later on. So what's the point of calling hi "master Archie?" In later life Arch MAY prefer to be known as Earl of Dumbarton than as Arhcie...
There’s been no indication that Master Archie has lost the right to later choose to be called Earl of Dumbarton.
Reply With Quote
  #4395  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
There’s been no indication that Master Archie has lost the right to later choose to be called Earl of Dumbarton.
He could not lose that right.. So it seems to me odd forhis parents to say that they want him to be known as "master Archie." It IS a rather - well a title that may provoke jokes.. but that should hve been noticed at the start.
Reply With Quote
  #4396  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
This, I think, is why we are seeing what we’re seeing from Harry. It seems safer to start with no titles while they are (perhaps) still sorting out what the new normal will be under Charles and then William because it’s more palatable to add titles later than it is to take them away.

Honestly, I wouldn’t be shocked if there has been long term work put into a big LP, similar to the 1917, that just reworks it all—to be adopted as one of Charles’ first acts as king.
If the royal family's intention were to leave the options open for the Sussex children, though, why would the "senior royal source" notify Robert Jobson and other correspondents that Archie would be elevated to prince, instead of not saying anything at all regarding the future?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
But the power & prestige of the hereditary peerage have steadily eroded over the past 100 years, beginning with the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911, followed by (among others) the Life Peerages Act of 1958, the Peerage Act of 1963 (allowing hereditary peers to disclaim their title), and the House of Lords Act of 1999. In the past 54 years only four hereditary peerages have been created outside the Royal family, the last in 1984. I've read that some members of Parliament refuse to consider the idea of amending peerages to allow daughters to succeed because they prefer to see the titles die out. It is no longer expected that members of the RF marry into a titled family, in fact the Queen's grandson and eventual heir married into a wealthy but middle class family. In 1963 Princess Alexandra's husband refused a peerage followed (reportedly) by Princess Anne's in 1973. And the government has also imposed death duties which have whittled away at the wealth of many titled families, forcing many to sell their estates.
That is a good point. The Sussexes could have styled their son Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor if they simply wanted all of their children to use the same style, or wanted their son to be known by a name rather than an earldom, but perhaps the eroded prestige of the peerage made the difference between Lord Archie and Master Archie seem slim.
Reply With Quote
  #4397  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:59 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
If the royal family's intention were to leave the options open for the Sussex children, though, why would the "senior royal source" notify Robert Jobson and other correspondents that Archie would be elevated to prince, instead of not saying anything at all regarding the future?
.
I don’t know. I feel like we should wait on believing one way or another on this issue. Some have said a decision has not been made. Some, like Jobson, said he will be. I don’t know which I believe. Nor do I think it matters at this point since they can literally change their minds any time. And royal sources are also an odd thing. It depends on which household they have the source at, no? And it also depends on the sources’ interpretion of the situation. And then it’s interpreted again by the writer. It’s just a lot of interpretations before we see it.
Reply With Quote
  #4398  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:07 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,952
I truly believe that both Harry and Meghan want their son to be Master Archie. It is their child and they should have exactly what they want. If they want, and can talk Charles into doing when he is King, maybe all titles for him will be abolished while he is young. Harry and Meghan seem to have very clear reasons for all this. So be it. Laws can be changed and I believe when Charles becomes King, there will immediate be a new set of laws revising the entire 1917 LP. He probably has them all in pecking order already. Smaller firm on payroll with only certain royal family members not actually paid by firm pulled in for the occasional help and compensated for their time. Charles has had years to think this out in detail. I believe it will be done to his specifications almost immediately upon his reign.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #4399  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Roya Nikkhah has a new article in the Sunday Times.

"Baby #Archie will have a different childhood to his cousins as the Duke & Duchess of Sussex raise him as a “private citizen” away from the public gaze"

To me that doesn't sound like a couple who will want Archie to be an HRH
Reply With Quote
  #4400  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post
I truly believe that both Harry and Meghan want their son to be Master Archie. It is their child and they should have exactly what they want. If they want, and can talk Charles into doing when he is King, maybe all titles for him will be abolished while he is young. Harry and Meghan seem to have very clear reasons for all this. So be it. Laws can be changed and I believe when Charles becomes King, there will immediate be a new set of laws revising the entire 1917 LP. He probably has them all in pecking order already. Smaller firm on payroll with only certain royal family members not actually paid by firm pulled in for the occasional help and compensated for their time. Charles has had years to think this out in detail. I believe it will be done to his specifications almost immediately upon his reign.
how can all ttitles be abolished for him? Laws can't be changed.. by the RF.
They can't change the peerage laws, and A will inherit the title of Duke of Sussex one day. and Archie may WANT to be Lord Dumbarton and later DUke of Sussex...
__________________

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 (1 members and 4 guests)
Prinsara
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
america archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names baptism britannia british british royal family british royals camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hereditary grand duchess stéphanie highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:17 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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