The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4401  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
I think its clear that, like The Wessex's children James and Louise, Archie will have titles legally in time but choose simply not to use them. It seems to be increasingly the way of the RF, not to change the law surrounding titles but to choose not to use them - the Wessex children are an example as is Camilla choosing to use Duchess of Cornwall instead of PoW. In each case they are simply using lesser titles than those they are entitled to.

IMO in the case of Archie this is the best solution, it means while legally and technically he will be HRH Prince when Charles becomes King he can live a life without the pressure that brings. If in time, for whatever reason, he is needed to fulfil a full time working royal role he can always revert to using his full legal title. Its easier not to use a title from the beginning than it is to get people to forget you have been using one for years.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4402  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:21 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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
I'm skeptical about Archie ever being an HRH, but I don't think there's anything inherently inconsistent with wanting to raise him as privately as possible, and him eventually becoming HRH Prince Archie. It seems to me those are two separate issues. How those will be navigated remains to be seen, there's no way to predict at this point.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4403  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I think its clear that, like The Wessex's children James and Louise, Archie will have titles legally in time but choose simply not to use them. It seems to be increasingly the way of the RF, not to change the law surrounding titles but to choose not to use them - the Wessex children are an example as is Camilla choosing to use Duchess of Cornwall instead of PoW. In each case they are simply using lesser titles than those they are entitled to.

IMO in the case of Archie this is the best solution, it means while legally and technically he will be HRH Prince when Charles becomes King he can live a life without the pressure that brings. If in time, for whatever reason, he is needed to fulfil a full time working royal role he can always revert to using his full legal title. Its easier not to use a title from the beginning than it is to get people to forget you have been using one for years.
They can't change the law. Camilla is only using Duchess of Cornwall for a particular reason.. Im sure she would rather have been Princess of wales and when Charles becomes King, she will be queen.
Reply With Quote
  #4404  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:17 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Its also possible that Camilla chose to use "The Duchess of Cornwall" because it is Charles' oldest peerage title that he has. Camilla also has never come across to me as a person that wants or has a need to "put on airs". She made the choice that was right for her, IMO.
__________________
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
  #4405  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its also possible that Camilla chose to use "The Duchess of Cornwall" because it is Charles' oldest peerage title that he has. Camilla also has never come across to me as a person that wants or has a need to "put on airs". She made the choice that was right for her, IMO.
I don't see that she had a choice. It was completely unprecedented for a woman marrying the POW not to use his title.. and it was clearly due to the fact that she was not fully accepted by the public.
Reply With Quote
  #4406  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:28 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I think its clear that, like The Wessex's children James and Louise, Archie will have titles legally in time but choose simply not to use them. It seems to be increasingly the way of the RF, not to change the law surrounding titles but to choose not to use them - the Wessex children are an example as is Camilla choosing to use Duchess of Cornwall instead of PoW. In each case they are simply using lesser titles than those they are entitled to.

IMO in the case of Archie this is the best solution, it means while legally and technically he will be HRH Prince when Charles becomes King he can live a life without the pressure that brings. If in time, for whatever reason, he is needed to fulfil a full time working royal role he can always revert to using his full legal title. Its easier not to use a title from the beginning than it is to get people to forget you have been using one for years.
That is my guess too.

James is HRH Prince James of Wessex but is known as Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn

Louise is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex but is known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor

Archie will be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex but will probably be known as Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton

Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester etc etc but is mainly known as The Duchess of Cornwall.

To me it looks like the British royal family tries to find alternatives in an existing legal and traditional framework rather than change the framework (the LP of George V).
Reply With Quote
  #4407  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:30 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
I do see the choice being sensitive to how the public still associated "The Princess of Wales" and then "Diana, Princess of Wales" with Charles' ex-wife and it was also perhaps a consideration taken for her two stepsons.

The fact does remain that legally, Camilla *is* The Princess of Wales. She just has chosen to be "known as" The Duchess of Cornwall". It separates her as an individual and she's comfortable with it and its not stopped her from being a huge asset to her husband and the monarchy.
__________________
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
  #4408  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:49 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I do see the choice being sensitive to how the public still associated "The Princess of Wales" and then "Diana, Princess of Wales" with Charles' ex-wife and it was also perhaps a consideration taken for her two stepsons.

The fact does remain that legally, Camilla *is* The Princess of Wales. She just has chosen to be "known as" The Duchess of Cornwall". It separates her as an individual and she's comfortable with it and its not stopped her from being a huge asset to her husband and the monarchy.
No, but it was a highly unusual situation. I dnt think the RF would have wished for such a use of a different title. With Archie, there is no reason why he should not be known as earl of Dumbarton. Except that his parents have made this choice for him. But eventually he will be Duke of Sussex so I don't see the point.. If they don't want him to have an HRH, its one thing.. They may be choosing NOT ot have him as a working royal when he's grown up...just as Ed and Sophie were not meant to be working royals and so wanted their children to be free of the HRH...
Reply With Quote
  #4409  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:50 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I don't see that she had a choice. .


Well she clearly did have a choice, else she would be known as The Princess of Wales right now.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #4410  
Old 05-12-2019, 02:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I think its clear that, like The Wessex's children James and Louise, Archie will have titles legally in time but choose simply not to use them. It seems to be increasingly the way of the RF, not to change the law surrounding titles but to choose not to use them - the Wessex children are an example as is Camilla choosing to use Duchess of Cornwall instead of PoW. In each case they are simply using lesser titles than those they are entitled to.

IMO in the case of Archie this is the best solution, it means while legally and technically he will be HRH Prince when Charles becomes King he can live a life without the pressure that brings. If in time, for whatever reason, he is needed to fulfil a full time working royal role he can always revert to using his full legal title. Its easier not to use a title from the beginning than it is to get people to forget you have been using one for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
That is my guess too.

James is HRH Prince James of Wessex but is known as Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn

Louise is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex but is known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor

Archie will be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex but will probably be known as Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton

Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester etc etc but is mainly known as The Duchess of Cornwall.

To me it looks like the British royal family tries to find alternatives in an existing legal and traditional framework rather than change the framework (the LP of George V).
But there is a difference between the expressed opinions of Buckingham Palace in relation to the Wessex children and the Sussex children. Buckingham Palace has said they believe the Wessex children are not legally princess and prince (even though some interpret it differently), but that Archie will become legally a prince even if he is not known as such.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2220514
Reply With Quote
  #4411  
Old 05-12-2019, 02:25 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
But there is a difference between the expressed opinions of Buckingham Palace in relation to the Wessex children and the Sussex children. Buckingham Palace has said they believe the Wessex children are not legally princess and prince (even though some interpret it differently), but that Archie will become legally a prince even if he is not known as such.
This is true and we have no clue what is going to happen in the future when Charles becomes King. Most likely though, this will happen while Archie is still very much a minor and the fact remains that until Archie reaches 18 years old, he will also be a citizen of the US. It will be up to him personally to either keep or revoke his US citizenship. Prince Albert of Monaco did as an adult. Queen Noor did also and so did Elizabeth Taylor when she married Richard Burton. (Taylor though became a US citizen again when she married John Warner) This is what I believe is the difference between the Wessex and the Sussex children. The dual nationality.

Using "Master" Archie as a child right now, to me, is his parents embracing the fact that their son has dual nationalities. In time, Archie will decide for himself what fits him best. All we can do now is sit back and watch and see what develops over the years. We know Archie is entitled to use his father's secondary title as a courtesy but, for now, he won't. With the Queen in on any decision made in this regard, I have to believe that these people know what they are doing.
__________________
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
  #4412  
Old 05-12-2019, 05:28 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This is true and we have no clue what is going to happen in the future when Charles becomes King. Most likely though, this will happen while Archie is still very much a minor and the fact remains that until Archie reaches 18 years old, he will also be a citizen of the US. It will be up to him personally to either keep or revoke his US citizenship.
He could even decide to renounce his British citizenship and only keep his US citizenship if he wants.

By the time he is 18 his grandfather will be King, if not his Uncle and he may very well decide he would rather not have anything to do with the entire royal 'scene' and embrace the opportunity of leaving the UK and living permanently in the US or someone else as a US citizen.
Reply With Quote
  #4413  
Old 05-12-2019, 05:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
He could even decide to renounce his British citizenship and only keep his US citizenship if he wants.

By the time he is 18 his grandfather will be King, if not his Uncle and he may very well decide he would rather not have anything to do with the entire royal 'scene' and embrace the opportunity of leaving the UK and living permanently in the US or someone else as a US citizen.
While I think it’d be interesting to see how the public reacts to someone this close to the royal family renouncing U.K. citizenship in favor of US citizenship, I don’t see why it would happen even if he chooses to live in US. There is a very specific reason why US citizens living abroad renounce their citizenship, and that’s the worldwide tax imposed on US citizens. Not the same case in Britain.

Although, I think we can assume that his name will be the same on his U.K. birth certificate and US proof of citizenship with him not using a courtesy title. Imagine the pain in the Behind of having to enter US with passport with one name and going back to U.K. using passport with another.
Reply With Quote
  #4414  
Old 05-12-2019, 05:46 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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.
You are right, it is part of a bigger picture. I am not sure that the queen's grandson should be one to add to it

Quote:
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.


In the case of William and Catherine's children there was a very good reason to override as the rules were about to change regarding an older sister becoming the future Sovereign instead of a younger brother. So, they were still in line with the reasoning behind the LPs; i.e., that a future Sovereign should be born as HRH.

But you are right that for this Sovereign's great-grandchildren the LPs are consistently being ignored, however, many other great-grandchildren of a Sovereign were born in the queen's reign and for all others the rules were consistently applied:
- The eldest sons of the dukes of Gloucester and Kent are known by their courtesy title;
- Their younger siblings are styled as Lord and Lady;
- The children of the younger brother of the Duke of Kent are also styled as Lord and Lady
Reply With Quote
  #4415  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:53 AM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
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
I don't know if "trick" is the word I would use but I share all of your thoughts on this.

I also saw Robert Jobson on one of the morning shows the other day and he is convinced Archie will become HRH. I'm not sure how reliable he is but I think that's more likely to happen than Charles issuing LP to prevent it from happening. I just don't see Charles doing that unless Harry and Meghan really wanted it and if that were the case, I think the Queen would have done so herself already.
Reply With Quote
  #4416  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:35 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
I also saw Robert Jobson on one of the morning shows the other day and he is convinced Archie will become HRH. I'm not sure how reliable he is but I think that's more likely to happen than Charles issuing LP to prevent it from happening. I just don't see Charles doing that unless Harry and Meghan really wanted it and if that were the case, I think the Queen would have done so herself already.
The Queen did not act because there's no reason for her to do so. Under the 1917 LP, Archie isn't a prince. If H&M don't want him to be one, well, they won't be during her reign. Mission accomplished.

It's only when Charles becomes King that this becomes an issue. Therefore, the Queen will allow Charles (with input from H&M) to sort it out. There's no reason for her to make this her problem.

I can really see this going both ways.
On the one hand, H&M have set the stage to allow Charles to issue new LP that only give HRH to heirs of the heir. The entire family can say this is consistent with H&M's desires and point to the fact that from birth they have eschewed all titles for Archie.

On the other hand, if the RF knows that eventually the child will be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, why let the public and the media get used to referring to him as Archie, Earl of Dumbarton/Archie Dumbarton? Just wait a few years and he'll be "Prince Archie of Sussex" forevermore. Also, will Charles really want his first acts to be (i) making Camilla Queen, while (ii) denying his grandson a princely title? Weird dichotomy.
Reply With Quote
  #4417  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:42 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 695
Charles doesn't have to make Camilla Queen - she will be the moment Elisabeth closes her eyes for ever.
Reply With Quote
  #4418  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:45 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
But there is a difference between the expressed opinions of Buckingham Palace in relation to the Wessex children and the Sussex children. Buckingham Palace has said they believe the Wessex children are not legally princess and prince (even though some interpret it differently), but that Archie will become legally a prince even if he is not known as such.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2220514
How can James, born to a Sovereign's son, not legally be a prince while Archie, born to a future Sovereign's son, will legally become a prince?

Maybe it is me, but where is the logic in that?
Reply With Quote
  #4419  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Perhaps because of the statement issued at the time of the Wessex wedding, with regard to their future children. No such statement was issued last May about any the styling for Harry and Meghan's offspring.

I was just wondering the other day as to whether Archie being a dual citizen until he is 18 would affect his being given an HRH at the beginning of Charles's reign? Or indeed his use of an earldom now.
Reply With Quote
  #4420  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:02 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Perhaps because of the statement issued at the time of the Wessex wedding, with regard to their future children. No such statement was issued last May about any the styling for Harry and Meghan's offspring.
Does a mere "statement" overrule a Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?

"[.....] It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign 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 [.....] "

Source: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...ocs.htm#1917_2
__________________

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
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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