The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4421  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:05 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling3763 View Post
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.
Yes I know the Queen didn't *have* to act. I'm saying that if Harry and Meghan were so strongly against it or had made up their minds, I think we would know, be it through LP or a statement confirming that Archie won't become HRH. It's because HRH would automatically apply that I don't think they would leave it for Charles. Indeed, it seems like an unnecessary problem to hand him, given everything else that'll be on his table and particularly if Harry and Meghan's intentions are already set and clear.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4422  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:16 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
[.....] Harry and Meghan's intentions are already set and clear.
I doubt their intentions are clear. The Prince accepted peerages and is now the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. As a result Archie is what he is: the future Duke.

In due time Harry will be a Sovereign's son. As a result Archie will be what he will be: a prince of the United Kingdom.

If the intentions of the parents were so clear, they could have started with the three peerages of Harry himself. Just refuse. Like Mark Phillips did. Like Sir Angus Ogilvy did. Moreover: Harry and Meghan can have intentions, but Archie can have his own opinion about the matter. The legality of the Letters Patent is as enforceable to him, as it is to his father. Sussex, Dumbarton and Kilkeel are not "Harry's titles". They are much the titles of Harry, Archie and the male heirs after them. Harry can not take a decision in 2019 which affects Archie's rights in 2043. Impossible.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4423  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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
I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary.

What's awkward here is that while Archie isn't an HRH in this reign, he automatically becomes an HRH when Charles ascends to the throne under the 1917 LP. And then Charles has to take it away after he's had it. So why not preempt it like they did with the Wessex children if they can. I don't know if the Queen has the power to take away an HRH under the next reign without changing the LP. I would think so given that she can simply issue an LP and limit it for the next reign as well.

I was surprised BP didn't announce a clear decision on this right now. I just figured they would want one less issue at the beginning of Charles III's reign. While I understand that Archie's status and Camilla's are separate, that's not how it'll be viewed. Taking away his grandson's title while going back on his word regarding Camilla's, albeit well-deserved, title? It has the potential to rile up those that do not support Camilla.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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.
I would think so given Meghan is an HRH. Although it would've been interest to see how his name appear on his US documents had they used the courtesy title (Archie Dumbarton or Archie Mountbatten Windsor). Not that we would ever see it either way. But let's say if Harry passes before Archie turns 18. Has there been a Duke with American citizenship before? Interesting stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
Charles doesn't have to make Camilla Queen - she will be the moment Elisabeth closes her eyes for ever.
While that's normally the case. A statement was released, at the time of their wedding, that she'd be styled as Princess Consort. Now, there has been signs they might have changed their minds on that. While I think Camilla certainly deserves the title, and I do believe Charles would want his wife to have the title as well, it need to be addressed when the time comes.
Reply With Quote
  #4424  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:52 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary to override it.
The LP uses the word any two times in one sentence: "children of any Sovereign, and children of sons of any such Sovereign". And the same LP uses the phrase at all times: "at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

If true it is remarkable (and hard to believe) that such a carefully worded legal document, which is the foundation of the titulature of the royal family, can be swept aside with "a statement".
Reply With Quote
  #4425  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:59 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I doubt their intentions are clear. The Prince accepted peerages and is now the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. As a result Archie is what he is: the future Duke.

In due time Harry will be a Sovereign's son. As a result Archie will be what he will be: a prince of the United Kingdom.

If the intentions of the parents were so clear, they could have started with the three peerages of Harry himself. Just refuse. Like Mark Phillips did. Like Sir Angus Ogilvy did. Moreover: Harry and Meghan can have intentions, but Archie can have his own opinion about the matter. The legality of the Letters Patent is as enforceable to him, as it is to his father. Sussex, Dumbarton and Kilkeel are not "Harry's titles". They are much the titles of Harry, Archie and the male heirs after them. Harry can not take a decision in 2019 which affects Archie's rights in 2043. Impossible.
I understand why they may not have refused, as Meghan would have been known as Princess Henry. That said, I don't see much reason to believe they have any qualms with Archie becoming DoS or HRH. That's my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary.

What's awkward here is that while Archie isn't an HRH in this reign, he automatically becomes an HRH when Charles ascends to the throne under the 1917 LP. And then Charles has to take it away after he's had it. So why not preempt it like they did with the Wessex children if they can. I don't know if the Queen has the power to take away an HRH under the next reign without changing the LP. I would think so given that she can simply issue an LP and limit it for the next reign as well.

I was surprised BP didn't announce a clear decision on this right now. I just figured they would want one less issue at the beginning of Charles III's reign. While I understand that Archie's status and Camilla's are separate, that's not how it'll be viewed. Taking away his grandson's title while going back on his word regarding Camilla's, albeit well-deserved, title? It has the potential to rile up those that do not support Camilla.
I too was surprised we did not get a clear decision. Though one could argue that they learned from the Camilla situation and decided just to not say anything. But the simplest explanation imo is that Archie will become HRH. Charles likely won't be taking any action.
Reply With Quote
  #4426  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The LP uses the word any two times in one sentence: "children of any Sovereign, and children of sons of any such Sovereign". And the same LP uses the phrase at all times: "at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

If true it is remarkable (and hard to believe) that such a carefully worded legal document, which is the foundation of the titulature of the royal family, can be swept aside with "a statement".
On top of that, what is the point of a LP if you are just going to keep overriding it? At that point, just issue a new LP.
Reply With Quote
  #4427  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The LP uses the word any two times in one sentence: "children of any Sovereign, and children of sons of any such Sovereign". And the same LP uses the phrase at all times: "at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

If true it is remarkable (and hard to believe) that such a carefully worded legal document, which is the foundation of the titulature of the royal family, can be swept aside with "a statement".
We need to be careful using the word 'legal' when it comes to royal titles.

Francois Velde, and expert in the field had this to say:

"At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent."

"The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). "

"The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases."

"How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."
Reply With Quote
  #4428  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:09 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
We need to be careful using the word 'legal' when it comes to royal titles.

Francois Velde, and expert in the field had this to say:

"At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent."

"The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). "

"The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases."

"How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."
Thanks. By doing so BP takes the unclarity and public discussion for granted, so it seems. Of course, the advantage of being vague is that you can move into any desired direction.
Reply With Quote
  #4429  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Here is the answer Iluvbertie received from Buckingham Palace:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The letter said that Louise and James are not HRHs as The Queen's Will, that they aren't holders of that styling, has been made known via the announcement made on Edward's wedding day.

The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
I too was surprised we did not get a clear decision. Though one could argue that they learned from the Camilla situation and decided just to not say anything. But the simplest explanation imo is that Archie will become HRH. Charles likely won't be taking any action.
Strangely, they apparently did say that Archie would become a Royal Highness, but for whatever reason said it to royal correspondents via an anonymous "senior royal source" instead of a clear public announcement.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2220514
Reply With Quote
  #4430  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Strangely, they apparently did say that Archie would become a Royal Highness, but for whatever reason said it to royal correspondents via an anonymous "senior royal source" instead of a clear public announcement.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2220514
I don't if I would say that as they said it to royal correspondents. It's not any different than other rumors that gets published. There are other sources that are saying Sussexes has not expressed opinion on this matter either way.
Reply With Quote
  #4431  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I don't if I would say that as they said it to royal correspondents. It's not any different than other rumors that gets published. There are other sources that are saying Sussexes has not expressed opinion on this matter either way.
That is true; other correspondents were apparently told that Archie would be allowed the use of HRH Prince under the Letters Patent in Charles' reign but no decision had been taken. It is strange that different correspondents seem to have been supplied with different answers by the royal source/s.
Reply With Quote
  #4432  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:34 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Strangely, they apparently did say that Archie would become a Royal Highness, but for whatever reason said it to royal correspondents via an anonymous "senior royal source" instead of a clear public announcement.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2220514
Victoria Murphy and Jobson, in particular, seem sure of this but as other reporters are saying no preference has been expressed, I don't think we can say this came directly from BP.
Reply With Quote
  #4433  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:48 PM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That is true; other correspondents were apparently told that Archie would be allowed the use of HRH Prince under the Letters Patent in Charles' reign but no decision had been taken. It is strange that different correspondents seem to have been supplied with different answers by the royal source/s.
I don't think it's that strange.

We see evidence all the time that some people in royal offices who believe they know everything that's going on actually don't. They say things to the press with great confidence, the press believe them because they don't (and can't) really have adequate information to assess just how inside this person is on this particular issue, and it turns out the real talking on the matter didn't include that staffer.

I suspect it especially happens when, for example, the staff they bring into a certain discussion is all based at BP but the source is of rank at CH or KP. They haven't seen the talks happening in their own office, the news hadn't slipped out to their office that this thing was in the works elsewhere, they assume they have complete info, but...they don't.
Reply With Quote
  #4434  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:52 PM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
A statement was released, at the time of their wedding, that she'd be styled as Princess Consort. Now, there has been signs they might have changed their minds on that.
At the time of their engagement the statement said that it was "intended" that, on Charles' accession, Camilla would be styled at the HRH Princess Consort. At time passes, intentions may need to be revisited. Noticeably, in recent years, reference to Prince Consort has been removed from the website of the Prince of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #4435  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
I don't think it's that strange.

We see evidence all the time that some people in royal offices who believe they know everything that's going on actually don't. They say things to the press with great confidence, the press believe them because they don't (and can't) really have adequate information to assess just how inside this person is on this particular issue, and it turns out the real talking on the matter didn't include that staffer.

I suspect it especially happens when, for example, the staff they bring into a certain discussion is all based at BP but the source is of rank at CH or KP. They haven't seen the talks happening in their own office, the news hadn't slipped out to their office that this thing was in the works elsewhere, they assume they have complete info, but...they don't.
Thank you for the clarifying perspective. Is it then the most probable scenario that a decision has been made to follow the Letters Patent, but the decision has not been made known to all ranking staffers?
Reply With Quote
  #4436  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:01 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
At the time of their engagement the statement said that it was "intended" that, on Charles' accession, Camilla would be styled at the HRH Princess Consort. At time passes, intentions may need to be revisited. Noticeably, in recent years, reference to Prince Consort has been removed from the website of the Prince of Wales.
Honestly, I don't mind that happening. Since the wedding Camilla proved more times than we can count what a tremendous asset she is to the BRF, that she's accepted by the family, that her work has solid footing and matters. She's not flashy, she loves her husband, she has good values and ethic.

Though I do understand that making her the Queen Consort would be seen as awful by some people, I think I'd actually like that.
Reply With Quote
  #4437  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Camilla clearly will be Charles's Queen. She deserves it
Reply With Quote
  #4438  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:07 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
I don't think it's that strange.

We see evidence all the time that some people in royal offices who believe they know everything that's going on actually don't. They say things to the press with great confidence, the press believe them because they don't (and can't) really have adequate information to assess just how inside this person is on this particular issue, and it turns out the real talking on the matter didn't include that staffer.

I suspect it especially happens when, for example, the staff they bring into a certain discussion is all based at BP but the source is of rank at CH or KP. They haven't seen the talks happening in their own office, the news hadn't slipped out to their office that this thing was in the works elsewhere, they assume they have complete info, but...they don't.
I see it as a big game of "telephone". If no one has played this before you sit in circle with a mess of people. One person whispers something to the person on their left and it passes around that circle until it comes back to the starting person. Most times, what is stated that the last person heard is totally different from what the original statement was.

A staff member may have some of the information on a certain thing and another staff member elsewhere has another piece of that information. Unless the staff person is part of the actual decision making conversations, they will not know the full story or all of the information.

Then again, tabloids tend to take the bits of information that will garner them the most clicks and money in their pockets rather than do research and get facts. As a matter of fact, what the media hears the most is "the palace refuses to comment" or "the palace has not returned our calls".
__________________
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
  #4439  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Thank you for the clarifying perspective. Is it then the most probable scenario that a decision has been made to follow the Letters Patent, but the decision has not been made known to all ranking staffers?
Not necessarily. Another at the office can have the assumption that they've agreed to it if they didn't decline while the couple might just not have declined because they are leaving it open for now.
Reply With Quote
  #4440  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:23 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
I think it's very likely that Camilla will be styled Queen because Charles clearly adores her & will want his wife to have the proper title rather than a lesser one. He knows that names/titles have strong emotional attachments so BP will probably refer to her as Queen Camilla as much as possible rather than The Queen, at least until people become accustomed to her status.
__________________

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: 12 (3 members and 9 guests)
JoanHarry, Osipi, 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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china 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 japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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