The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4521  
Old 09-27-2019, 05:50 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Edward and his wife (it was announced around the time they married) that their children would not be HRH and would only have the courtesy titles.

They decided, with the approval of the Queen, that their future children would receive the courtesy titles of the children of an earl, rather than Prince or Princess. James is known as Viscount Severn. Louise is Lady Louise.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4522  
Old 09-27-2019, 05:57 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Actually I think the Queen has to pass before the DoE title can be given back out. So Charles (as King) would award that title to Edward if that is the arrangement.

I am not sure if it's possible for Edwards children to become HRH because the Queen expressed her will that they not be known as HRH. But I'm not positive about this.

Archie still has his titles, he is legally Earl Dumbarton and once Charles is King he will be an HRH. They just said at this time he is not using his titles.



LaRae.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4523  
Old 09-27-2019, 06:00 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
There's been no formal announcement but it seems likely that Edward will be re created DoE when his father dies allowing him to be a Duke and his father to pass his title on to one of his sons. .
A title can only be passed on to the eldest son. So, Charles will add 'Duke of Edinburgh' to his titles if his father dies before his mother.

Only once he becomes king (or if he is king when his father dies), the title will merge with the crown; and will become available for recreation. Which is expected to happen to make Edward 'Duke of Edinburgh' (but he will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh of the 4th creation).

The current line of inheritance for the ducal title is:
1. The prince of Wales
2. The duke of Cambridge
3. Prince George of Cambridge
4. Prince Louis of Cambridge
5. The duke of Sussex
6. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
7. The duke of York
8. The earl of Wessex
9. Viscount Severn
However, if the title's holder becomes king, the title will merge with the crown and no longer be passed on to the next in line.

And if Edward is made 'Duke of Edinburgh', the line will be rather short:
1. Viscount Severn (who most likely will be known as 'Earl of Wessex' by that time)

Note: there is another thread explaining exactly what will happen with the duke of Edinburgh title.
Reply With Quote
  #4524  
Old 09-27-2019, 06:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
A title can only be passed on to the eldest son. So, Charles will add 'Duke of Edinburgh' to his titles if his father dies before his mother.

Only once he becomes king (or if he is king when his father dies), the title will merge with the crown; and will become available for recreation. Which is expected to happen to make Edward 'Duke of Edinburgh' (but he will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh of the 4th creation).
Yeah I meant re created for him when it merges with the Crown, that wasn't clear from my post.

As far I as I know (and I could be completely wrong) Louise and James are still legally/technically HRH just by everyone's will they are not styled that way. But if tomorrow Lady Louise decided to go around calling herself Princess Louise I'm sure that wouldn't fly with anybody.
Reply With Quote
  #4525  
Old 09-27-2019, 06:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
According to Buckingham Palace, the announcement that Prince Edward's children would not be Princess and Prince was legally binding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
That is what I was told when I wrote and asked BP. All that is required for a person to gain or lose a title within the royal family is for The Queen's Will to be made known and the Queen has done that with regard to Louise and James.

[...]

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.

[...]


The announcement also stated the agreement to create Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh after the deceases of both of his parents.

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
So Edward's children are known as James, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor,
Prince Edward's son is formally known as simply Viscount Severn, without "James".

https://www.royal.uk/succession

Apart from divorcées (e.g. Sarah, Duchess of York) and widows, a person who uses a title from the British peerage is not formally addressed with their first name.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Edward was not offered DoC as far as we know.
Although there was no official confirmation, there were reports in the press to that effect.


Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph
"Prince Edward was going to be the Duke of Cambridge, but he watched the film Shakespeare in Love, which had a character called the Earl of Wessex," says the courtier. "He liked the sound of it and asked the Queen if he could have that instead."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
James and Louise could already be HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex like his two elder brothers' children. However they are styled as children of an Earl, as was the wish of the parents. See the wish of the Duke and Duke of Sussex that their son Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton, is not known as such. A personal choice can overturn an official style.
Yes, but only with the Queen's agreement. Princess Eugenie has chosen to continue styling herself Princess Eugenie of York to this day, as shown on her professional and charity websites, but several months ago the Court Circular began referring to her as Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Archie still has his titles, he is legally Earl Dumbarton and once Charles is King he will be an HRH. They just said at this time he is not using his titles.
The legal Earl of Dumbarton is the Duke of Sussex (Prince Harry), but his son, who is legally untitled, will have the choice of using this title by courtesy in accordance with tradition.
Reply With Quote
  #4526  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
We must be careful when we say ‘legal’ with regards to royal styles and titles.

When we say James is ‘legally’ HRH that implies he has a right that can be defended in court which he doesn’t.
Reply With Quote
  #4527  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
We must be careful when we say ‘legal’ with regards to royal styles and titles.

When we say James is ‘legally’ HRH that implies he has a right that can be defended in court which he doesn’t.
The courts never ruled on whether he is legally an HRH or not, so I don’t think there is a definite answer to that question.
Reply With Quote
  #4528  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:09 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Monsey, United States
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Edward and his wife (it was announced around the time they married) that their children would not be HRH and would only have the courtesy titles.

They decided, with the approval of the Queen, that their future children would receive the courtesy titles of the children of an earl, rather than Prince or Princess. James is known as Viscount Severn. Louise is Lady Louise.
So it was told to me that Anne's children couldn't be Prince or Princess because they didn't come from a male heir line. Let's just say for arguments sake that the Queen only had one child, Anne, and Anne in turn only had one child, Zara. That would make Anne 2nd in line to the throne and Zara next. Would Zara be a Princess at birth then? Or would she not have any title until she became Queen? Man this is exhausting...lol.
Reply With Quote
  #4529  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:17 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
So it was told to me that Anne's children couldn't be Prince or Princess because they didn't come from a male heir line. Let's just say for arguments sake that the Queen only had one child, Anne, and Anne in turn only had one child, Zara. That would make Anne 2nd in line to the throne and Zara next. Would Zara be a Princess at birth then? Or would she not have any title until she became Queen? Man this is exhausting...lol.

Anne, only if she became Queen, could of had children be Prince/Princesses. Unless she had married Royalty (in another country). That could of been another option.


You can look to how it was with the current Queen. Some of her children were born prior to her becoming Queen.




LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #4530  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:21 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Monsey, United States
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Anne, only if she became Queen, could of had children be Prince/Princesses. Unless she had married Royalty (in another country). That could of been another option.


You can look to how it was with the current Queen. Some of her children were born prior to her becoming Queen.

LaRae
So before Elizabeth became Queen her children were not considered Prince or Princess?
Reply With Quote
  #4531  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:26 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
So it was told to me that Anne's children couldn't be Prince or Princess because they didn't come from a male heir line. Let's just say for arguments sake that the Queen only had one child, Anne, and Anne in turn only had one child, Zara. That would make Anne 2nd in line to the throne and Zara next. Would Zara be a Princess at birth then? Or would she not have any title until she became Queen? Man this is exhausting...lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
So before Elizabeth became Queen her children were not considered Prince or Princess?
It is possible that should Anne have been the Queen's only child and heir, that the Queen would have issued Letters Patent been granted Peter and Zara the titles of Prince and Princess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_prince

"On 22 October 1948, George VI issued letters patent allowing the children of his daughter Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and son-in-law Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to assume princely titles and the style Royal Highness;[8] they would not have been entitled to them ordinarily, as grandchildren in the female line, until their mother ascended the throne as Queen Elizabeth II. Thus the current Prince of Wales was styled HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh until his mother's accession. Otherwise the children would have been styled Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten, respectively."

If you have more questions about titles we should take this to the appropriate thread.

Edit-post has been moved to appropriate thread by mod.
Reply With Quote
  #4532  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:32 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
And a secondary question for you. You said Zara couldn't have been a princess because she isn't the daughter of a prince. So then why are Edward's children not prince and princess? Aren't they Lord and Lady...or something along those lines?
See, all of the above.

In addition, I would add that especially in the UK not all children of princes are princes/princesses themselves. What I was trying to point out, is that it's the father that children do or do not receive a title from. So, someone's mother being a princess is irrelevant for style or title.

According to the LP (which as you've seen by now is not strictly applied) only children and grandchildren in de male-line are Royal Highnesses and prince(sse)s. So, for example, the children of the dukes of Gloucester (HRH prince Richard) and Kent (HRH prince Edward) and of (HRH) prince Michael of Kent are lords and ladies even though their fathers are princes - but they are great-grandchildren of a monarch, so one generation 'too far'. The eldest sons of the royal dukes using their fathers' secondary titles as courtesy titles.

In many other countries it's not limited to a degree of kinship - all children of princes are princes and princesses (if they meet other requirements that might apply for example regarding 'valid' marriages); of the current reigning houses Liechtenstein is an example of a princely family with a lot of princes and princesses (of Liechtenstein) with various degrees of kinship to the current Fürst.
Reply With Quote
  #4533  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
So it was told to me that Anne's children couldn't be Prince or Princess because they didn't come from a male heir line. Let's just say for arguments sake that the Queen only had one child, Anne, and Anne in turn only had one child, Zara. That would make Anne 2nd in line to the throne and Zara next. Would Zara be a Princess at birth then? Or would she not have any title until she became Queen? Man this is exhausting...lol.
If Anne would be the eldest sibling and not had any brothers, she would have been first in line to the throne; and as such her husband surely would have been given a title/peerage (most likely a royal dukedom) - not accepting one would not have been an option; and a Letters Patent would have been created to ensure the style of royal highness for their children. This exact scenario played out with the queen, who was the eldest of two siblings and no brothers. Philip had to relinquish his Greek titles to be made HRH Duke of Edinburgh upon marriage. Both Charles and Anne started their lives as HRH prince(ss) X of Edinburgh.

In the same way Anne's children would have been royal highnesses from birth; with the title of prince(ss) and suffix deriving from their father. For example if Mark Phillips had been made 'Duke of London', they would have been 'HRH prince Peter of London' and 'HRH princess Zara of London'. (Oh wait, in your example, there wouldn't be a prince Peter)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
So before Elizabeth became Queen her children were not considered Prince or Princess?
They were; because their grandfather issued Letters Patent ensuring that his grandchildren by his heir would be royal highnesses and he elevated their father to a royal dukedom - which of course happened as he married the first in line to the throne. Charles and Anne derived their title from their father, that's why they were 'prince(ss) of Edinburgh'. Only when their mother became queen they started to derive their title from their mother as children of the monarch they were styled as 'The prince(ss) X'.
Reply With Quote
  #4534  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:48 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Monsey, United States
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If Anne would be the eldest sibling and not had any brothers, she would have been first in line to the throne; and as such her husband surely would have been given a title/peerage (most likely a royal dukedom) - not accepting one would not have been an option. This exact scenario played out with the queen, who was the eldest of two siblings and no brothers. So, it just what happened with the current duke of Edinburgh and therefore, with Anne herself. Philip had to relinquish his Greek titles to be made HRH Duke of Edinburgh upon marriage. Both Charles and Anne started their lives as prince(ss) X of Edinburgh.

In that way Anne's children would have been titled from birth; with the suffix deriving from their father. For example if Mark Phillips had been made 'Duke of London', they would have been 'HRH prince Peter of London' and 'HRH princess Zara of London'. (Oh wait, in your example, there wouldn't be a prince Peter)

They were; because their father was elevated to a royal dukedom - which of course happened as he married the first in line to the throne. Charles and Anne derived their title from their father, that's why they were 'prince(ss) of Edinburgh'. Only when their mother became queen they started to derive their title from their mother as children of the monarch they were styled as 'The prince(ss) X'.
Okay, it is all finally starting to make sense. Thank you for educating me! I'm sure you will see me around the threads with many more questions as I try to figure this whole British monarchy out...lol.
Reply With Quote
  #4535  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:52 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
Okay, it is all finally starting to make sense. Thank you for educating me! I'm sure you will see me around the threads with many more questions as I try to figure this whole British monarchy out...lol.
It may seem rather complicated at first but there is some logic to it; although in recent years lots of exceptions have been made, so if you are just starting to figure things out it might be hard to understand what's the rule and what's the exception to the rule (which might be the start of some kind of 'new normal'. But all of that makes it interesting and gives us lots of food for thought and discussion
Reply With Quote
  #4536  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The courts never ruled on whether he is legally an HRH or not, so I don’t think there is a definite answer to that question.
I would think that the reply I received from Buckingham Palace is a 'definite answer' especially as that was the very question I asked.
Reply With Quote
  #4537  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
The abovementioned Letters Patent, as well as numerous others, may be read here:
Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
Reply With Quote
  #4538  
Old 09-28-2019, 06:06 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 6,606
What did Zara said during her interview at the Duke and Duchess of Malborough horse competition ?
Reply With Quote
  #4539  
Old 09-28-2019, 06:37 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
So before Elizabeth became Queen her children were not considered Prince or Princess?
Under the 1917 Letters Patent children of a daughter of the monarch aren't automatically a Prince or Princess whereas the children of a son of the monarch is.

The then Princess Elizabeth was less from a month from giving birth when George VI issued the Letters Patent to create the soon to be born child the designation of HRH Prince/Princess. That applied to all of the children of the Princess Elizabeth.

Had he not done so then Charles and Anne would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth and Anne as Lady Anne Mountbatten.

As a result of the Letters Patent they were born as TRH Prince Charles and Princess Anne of Edinburgh.

The Queen did something similar in 2012 when she extended George V's rule for great-grandchildren. Under George V's rules only Prince George would have been born a Princess while Charlotte and Louis would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

As the various governments that were affected had agreed that a first born child, regardless of gender, would become the monarch there was the possibility that a future monarch would be born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor while a younger brother would be born as HRH Prince George of Cambridge (my example is assuming Charlotte and George were born in the reverse order). As it is the new LPs only apply to the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and not the eldest child of the Prince of Wales so it will need to be fixed again in the future (if George's first born child is a girl then this Letters Patent won't cover the children of that girl whereas if George has a boy first then they will).
Reply With Quote
  #4540  
Old 09-28-2019, 06:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
Okay, it is all finally starting to make sense. Thank you for educating me! I'm sure you will see me around the threads with many more questions as I try to figure this whole British monarchy out...lol.
Miss Peach ...

The rules around who is and who isn't a Prince or Princess in the UK are largely governed by a series of rules set down in 1917 by George V in a document referred to as Letters Patent or LPs for short on this forum.

Under those rules the following are HRH Prince/Princess:

1. Children of the monarch - Andrew and Edward (I will come back to Charles and Anne shortly)

2. Male line grandchildren of a monarch - Elizabeth (the Queen - born to the second son of George V), Richard (now Duke of Gloucester - born to the third son of George V), Edward, Alexandra and Michael (the current Duke of Kent and his siblings - born to the fourth son of George V), William, Harry (born to the 1st son of Elizabeth II), Beatrice and Eugenie (born to the 2nd son of Elizabeth II); and the deceased Princess Margaret and Prince William of Gloucester

3. The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George

Now to the additions or changes to these rules:

1. In 1948 George VI issued LPs to ensure that the soon to be born baby and any subsequent siblings would be born HRH Prince/Princess - Charles and Anne

2. In 1999 The Queen announced that the children of her third son would not be HRH Prince/Princess but styled as the children of an earl - Louise and James (I have personally written to BP to check on whether this means they are never going to be HRH Prince/Princess and been told that is the case)

3. In 2012 The Queen extended HRH Prince/Princess to all of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - Charlotte and Louis (George was covered by the 1917 rules)

With the exception of the Queen herself under the 1948 LPs all those who are HRH Prince or Princess are the children of a son of the monarch. None of the other children of the daughters of a monarch since 1917 have been royal - the two sons of Princess Mary, the two children of Princess Margaret and the two children of Princess Anne. Princess Mary married a many who became an Earl so her children were titled via their father (this is the Harewood branch of the family although they are rarely seen at royal events these days). Princess Margaret insisted on the Queen giving her husband a title so that her children would be Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah while Princess Anne refused a title for herself, her husband or her children - all of which reportedly were offered.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:43 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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