The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4601  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:40 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The only ones who would have been HRH currently are Louise and James. We still have to see what happens to Archie (I have argued that he shouldn't be HRH as long as Louise and James aren't - otherwise I'd be fine with it).

Theoretically, it could be that Meghan just really doesn't like the sound of 'Earl of Dumbarton' and therefore prefers for him to be known as Archie but they could be fine with 'HRH prince Archie of Sussex'. We'll have to see what happens when Charles ascends the throne.
I dont see what James and Louise have to do with Archie. The York girls are also grandchildren of the queen (and not children of the heir) and yet they have titles. Edward CHOSE for his children not to have a title, other then that of the kids of an Earl. Archie's title should not be dictated by what his Great Uncle chose for his children.


I doubt they 'dont like the title given'. It's likely they are just happy calling their son by his name. In natural time he will be the grandson of the king and he will be entitled to be Prince Archie.




Quote:
I imagine that if Charles issues letters patent amending just who is entitled to the HRH honorific, it will be effective from that date forward and not retroactive. Just gradually slimming down who holds the HRH should it be the King and his heir and family. the only person in question would be a daughter if Harry and Meghan have one before Charles is king. They may even go the way they have with Archie.

Agreed. Highly doubtful Charles will see the need to 'strip his family' of their titles.

There is no need. HRH doesn't come with money, power or anything. It doesn't save the royal family, or tax payers, money by eliminating those with a title. The reality is its too late to simplify the life of the York girls by 'removing their title'. Whether they have the title officially or not, they will be known as the York princesses. Their life is what it will be, too late to turn back the clock on that one.


I don't get the whole concern about 'too many HRH' anyways. I sometimes wonder if people think there is a dollar amount attached to every HRH. And its too costly to have them. Other then security, not true.

Reality for tax payers, beyond security: You will pay just as much money for 5 royals as you do 16. The sovereign's grant isn't going to reduce with the number of royals going down. All you do is you get Less work for the same amount of money. Less royals mean less events.


The family slims down naturally anyways. The Kents and Gloucesters will pass on and their children are private citizens. The queen and Philip as well. Edward's children are private citizens, and the York girls are and can't pass on their titles either.

In twenty years we will have:
Charles/Camilla
Kate/William
Harry/Meghan
Anne
Edward/Sophie
Andrew

That's already far less then we have now as working royals. The Cambridge kids aren't likely to take on full time royal duties until their late twenties like their dad and Uncle Harry. And by then William is likely king. And his aunts and uncles may very well have retired or slowly started to. Anne at the very least will.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4602  
Old 10-10-2019, 06:28 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
I dont see what James and Louise have to do with Archie. The York girls are also grandchildren of the queen (and not children of the heir) and yet they have titles. Edward CHOSE for his children not to have a title, other then that of the kids of an Earl. Archie's title should not be dictated by what his Great Uncle chose for his children.


I doubt they 'dont like the title given'. It's likely they are just happy calling their son by his name. In natural time he will be the grandson of the king and he will be entitled to be Prince Archie.







Agreed. Highly doubtful Charles will see the need to 'strip his family' of their titles.

There is no need. HRH doesn't come with money, power or anything. It doesn't save the royal family, or tax payers, money by eliminating those with a title. The reality is its too late to simplify the life of the York girls by 'removing their title'. Whether they have the title officially or not, they will be known as the York princesses. Their life is what it will be, too late to turn back the clock on that one.


I don't get the whole concern about 'too many HRH' anyways. I sometimes wonder if people think there is a dollar amount attached to every HRH. And its too costly to have them. Other then security, not true.

Reality for tax payers, beyond security: You will pay just as much money for 5 royals as you do 16. The sovereign's grant isn't going to reduce with the number of royals going down. All you do is you get Less work for the same amount of money. Less royals mean less events.


The family slims down naturally anyways. The Kents and Gloucesters will pass on and their children are private citizens. The queen and Philip as well. Edward's children are private citizens, and the York girls are and can't pass on their titles either.

In twenty years we will have:
Charles/Camilla
Kate/William
Harry/Meghan
Anne
Edward/Sophie
Andrew

That's already far less then we have now as working royals. The Cambridge kids aren't likely to take on full time royal duties until their late twenties like their dad and Uncle Harry. And by then William is likely king. And his aunts and uncles may very well have retired or slowly started to. Anne at the very least will.
I don’t quite agree that HRH doesn’t come with state support in the UK.

Eugenie’s husband and Beatrice’s future husband have careers that allow them to support their families and the princesses themselves also work . Still, Eugenie and Jack for example live in a Crown Estate property at minimum cost, don’t they ? And all HRHs who are working members of the RF get some form of support from the Sovereign’s grant and, in the case of the Queen’s children, probably also from the Duchy of Lancaster. William and Harry on the other hand are supported by the Prince of Wales via the Duchy of Cornwall.

So I understand why there would be a public demand to cut down on the number of HRHs , or am I wrong ?

My only concern is that, 10 years into William’s reign, there may be only 7 or so working HRHs ( not counting B&E) plus the King and Queen, which is not enough for the BRF’s current level of engagements. So they will have to cut down on that too.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4603  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:50 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don’t quite agree that HRH doesn’t come with state support in the UK.

Eugenie’s husband and Beatrice’s future husband have careers that allow them to support their families and the princesses themselves also work . Still, Eugenie and Jack for example live in a Crown Estate property at minimum cost, don’t they ? And all HRHs who are working members of the RF get some form of support from the Sovereign’s grant and, in the case of the Queen’s children, probably also from the Duchy of Lancaster. William and Harry on the other hand are supported by the Prince of Wales via the Duchy of Cornwall.

So I understand why there would be a public demand to cut down on the number of HRHs , or am I wrong ?

My only concern is that, 10 years into William’s reign, there may be only 7 or so working HRHs ( not counting B&E) plus the King and Queen, which is not enough for the BRF’s current level of engagements. So they will have to cut down on that too.
If Eugenie and Jack moved, their cottage would not be rented out at market rate to a member of the public. It's in a secure zone. The Crown Estates are none the worse for the current situation. Likewise, the Sovereign Grant isn't based on the number of HRHs. It is a percentage of the Crown Estates income.
Reply With Quote
  #4604  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:14 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

Theoretically, it could be that Meghan just really doesn't like the sound of 'Earl of Dumbarton' and therefore prefers for him to be known as Archie but they could be fine with 'HRH prince Archie of Sussex'. We'll have to see what happens when Charles ascends the throne.

But why is he then not konwn as Lord Archie Miountbatten-Windsor which would be the style of the son of a Duke. They could have asaid that he isn't styled as Earl Dumabarton but as the sion of a Duke.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #4605  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

My only concern is that, 10 years into William’s reign, there may be only 7 or so working HRHs ( not counting B&E) plus the King and Queen, which is not enough for the BRF’s current level of engagements. So they will have to cut down on that too.

They do about 3500 to 4000 engagements a year now. For 7 royals that would be about 500 - 600 each or about the number Charles and Anne do now. It really isn't that much to expect them all to do that number of engagements.
Reply With Quote
  #4606  
Old 10-13-2019, 06:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
I love hearing that Charles 'seems anxious to streamline the monarchy' or words to that effect and every time I ask for proof all anyone can point to are media outlets making the claim and nothing directly from Charles himself. 'reportedly' and 'allegedly' are used a lot but nothing can be attributed to Charles himself.

I have seen media reports that he intends on stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRHs but then we have the same media reporting that BP has allegedly said that Archie will/may be a Prince when Charles is King. That would be contradictory - taking HRH from the children of his mother's second son but giving it to the children of his own second son.

IF Charles is going to slim down the monarchy he has to include his own descendants in that and the only way to really do it is to limit HRH to the children of the heir apparent in each generation.
Reply With Quote
  #4607  
Old 10-13-2019, 09:52 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,203
The LP of King George V limits the HRHs to three degrees of consanguinity with the Sovereign. When King Charles limits it to two degrees, then he is there.

0 HM The King
- HM The Queen

1 HRH The Prince of Wales
- HRH The Princess of Wales
1 HRH The Duke of Sussex
- HRH The Duchess of Sussex

2 HRH Prince George of Wales
2 HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales
2 HRH Prince Louis of Wales
2 HRH Prince Archie of Sussex
2 HRH The Princess Royal
- Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence
2 HRH The Duke of York
2 HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
- HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh

Meaning that the last HRH's (the Yorks, the Gloucesters, the Kents) should lose their HRH, but -most likely- will keep their HRH out of courtesy and prudence, by means of transition to the new regime.
Reply With Quote
  #4608  
Old 10-13-2019, 12:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Definitely agree that there is no clear evidence that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy other than the late 90s/early 2000s rumours from “unnamed sources”.

I do feel, based purely on Archie’s lack of titles and the way the RF seem to act atm that there will be limiting of HRHs but that may well be down like James and Louise somewhat unofficially rather than through change of rules. I think it comes from having seen with Beatrice, Eugenie and others have been through and that is easier to be a private individual who works for other companies etc when they don’t have HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #4609  
Old 10-13-2019, 03:04 PM
Princess B's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NA, Spain
Posts: 397
Even I think Charles will issue letters patent limiting the title of Prince/Princess to the heir and his/her children.
This would mean Archie won’t be a Prince.
But it won’t be applied retroactively, so Beatrice and Eugenie will remain their titles.
Reply With Quote
  #4610  
Old 10-13-2019, 09:03 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
When William is King, if the slimming down goes forward, ...
But each monarch is allowed to over-ride the restrictions of the previous monarch. For instance Queen Victoria wrote LP that said all the children of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales should enjoy the style title or attribute of "Royal Highness" in addition to such titular dignity of Prince or Princess

Quote:
Children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales (May 28, 1898)

Victoria by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting: Whereas by virtue of Our Letters Patent dated the thirtieth of January one thousand eight hundred and sixty four wherein We declared Our Royal will and pleasure in that behalf the children of the sons of any Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland are entitled to the style of "Royal Highness" Know Ye that in the exercise of our Royal and undoubted prerogative and of Our especial grace We do hereby declare our further Royal will and pleasure that the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of "Royal Highness" in addition to such titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or other titles of honour if any as they may otherwise possess Our will and pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof we have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent.. Witness Ourself etc.
King George V limited it to the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales

Quote:
Members of the Royal Family (Nov 30, 1917)

See a picture of the original letter patents (Credit: The National Archives, ref. HO125/15).
George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting: Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Her Reign declare her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned And whereas we deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales 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 prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of Our reign.
Queen Elizabeth countered the order of George V and went back the Victorian convention of all children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
Quote:
Children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (2012)

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.
(London Gazette 8 Jan 2013)
If the Prince and Princess had always been limited to the Sr Line, it's interesting to do a count.

sons | Sr Line | daughters
1 George I 1
3 George II 5
5 Frederick 4
9 George III 6
0 George IV 1
0 William 2
4 Victoria 5
3 Edward VII 3
5 George V 1
0 Edward VIII 0
0 George VI 2
3 Elizabeth II 1
2 Charles 0
2 William 1
37 Sr Line 32
22 Others 26

I included Viscount James and Lady Louise in the "other count".

It may be a little surprising that the count of "other" Princesses would be so high since with a very limited number of exceptions female line grandchildren did not get to enjoy the style of Prince or Princess, but surprisingly only 9 male line grandsons were designated Princes (and one had his titles removed in 1919).
Reply With Quote
  #4611  
Old 10-13-2019, 10:32 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don’t quite agree that HRH doesn’t come with state support in the UK.

Eugenie’s husband and Beatrice’s future husband have careers that allow them to support their families and the princesses themselves also work . Still, Eugenie and Jack for example live in a Crown Estate property at minimum cost, don’t they ? And all HRHs who are working members of the RF get some form of support from the Sovereign’s grant and, in the case of the Queen’s children, probably also from the Duchy of Lancaster. William and Harry on the other hand are supported by the Prince of Wales via the Duchy of Cornwall.

So I understand why there would be a public demand to cut down on the number of HRHs , or am I wrong ?

My only concern is that, 10 years into William’s reign, there may be only 7 or so working HRHs ( not counting B&E) plus the King and Queen, which is not enough for the BRF’s current level of engagements. So they will have to cut down on that too.
Honestly I get when people know nothing about royals, having these thoughts, but on this board?? We discus royal finances all the time.

The sovereign's grant is a lump sum. Its not 20,000 a month x how many royals. Say its 20 million pounds, its 20 million pounds whether 30 working royals or 5 working royals. The public will not Benefit from having less HRH. The only ones who benefit are the royals, who will have less people to cover with the grant. Money will spread further with less people. The tax payers aren't saving a cent.

As you pointed out less royals mean less work. Does that mean tax payers get to pay less money? No. In fact the sovereign's grant goes up. It just means tax payers get less work for the same or more money.

Yes the York girls pay lower rent then they might. But they pay 'fair market price'. Due to security concerns and other issues, there is limited rental potential for the apartments that they have called home. They can't rent these places out just to the general public.

The York girls get NO funding from anyone but their father. What Andrew chooses to do with his funding for his work, is up to him.


As for Duchy of Lancaster, same thing as Grant. It is not affected by the number of people. Its income brought in from the properties. The tax payers are not affected at all by the duchy. Again the only people concerned are the queen and how she chooses to share the money among her family.


People seem to be lead like sheep by the press into believing the slimming down will mean tax payers save money. Thats not a reality.
Reply With Quote
  #4612  
Old 10-13-2019, 10:37 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Honestly I get when people know nothing about royals, having these thoughts, but on this board?? We discus royal finances all the time.

The sovereign's grant is a lump sum. Its not 20,000 a month x how many royals. Say its 20 million pounds, its 20 million pounds whether 30 working royals or 5 working royals. The public will not Benefit from having less HRH. The only ones who benefit are the royals, who will have less people to cover with the grant. Money will spread further with less people. The tax payers aren't saving a cent.

As you pointed out less royals mean less work. Does that mean tax payers get to pay less money? No. In fact the sovereign's grant goes up. It just means tax payers get less work for the same or more money.

Yes the York girls pay lower rent then they might. But they pay 'fair market price'. Due to security concerns and other issues, there is limited rental potential for the apartments that they have called home. They can't rent these places out just to the general public.

The York girls get NO funding from anyone but their father. What Andrew chooses to do with his funding for his work, is up to him.


As for Duchy of Lancaster, same thing as Grant. It is not affected by the number of people. Its income brought in from the properties. The tax payers are not affected at all by the duchy. Again the only people concerned are the queen and how she chooses to share the money among her family.


People seem to be lead like sheep by the press into believing the slimming down will mean tax payers save money. Thats not a reality.
Hear hear.
Reply With Quote
  #4613  
Old 10-14-2019, 03:08 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
In twenty years we will have:
Charles/Camilla
Kate/William
Harry/Meghan
Anne
Edward/Sophie
Andrew

That's already far less then we have now as working royals. The Cambridge kids aren't likely to take on full time royal duties until their late twenties like their dad and Uncle Harry. And by then William is likely king. And his aunts and uncles may very well have retired or slowly started to. Anne at the very least will.
Princess Alexandra was age 15 when her cousin became Queen in 1952. She was not originally intended to be a working royal, as it was felt that her older brother, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, would represent that branch of the family.

Older princesses at the time of the 1952 coronation
1883 Alice Mary Victoria Augusta Pauline
1884 Beatrice Leopoldine Victoria
1897 Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary (Princess Royal)

But it was felt that the royal family lacked enough young Princesses, and the Queen's sister was seen as a bit of a "wild card". So Princess Alexandra was pressed into service.

My point is that the demand for princesses could be very high, and the number of working royals might expand.
Reply With Quote
  #4614  
Old 10-14-2019, 05:15 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacomartin View Post

My point is that the demand for princesses could be very high, and the number of working royals might expand.
If there were to be a demand for Princesses in the future, I am sure Beatrice or Eugenie could be pressed into service. However, they are fortunate in that, for now, they can live their lives free of the constraints and responsibilities of royal life.
Reply With Quote
  #4615  
Old 10-14-2019, 05:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Honestly I get when people know nothing about royals, having these thoughts, but on this board?? We discus royal finances all the time.

The sovereign's grant is a lump sum. Its not 20,000 a month x how many royals. Say its 20 million pounds, its 20 million pounds whether 30 working royals or 5 working royals. The public will not Benefit from having less HRH. The only ones who benefit are the royals, who will have less people to cover with the grant. Money will spread further with less people. The tax payers aren't saving a cent.

As you pointed out less royals mean less work. Does that mean tax payers get to pay less money? No. In fact the sovereign's grant goes up. It just means tax payers get less work for the same or more money.

Yes the York girls pay lower rent then they might. But they pay 'fair market price'. Due to security concerns and other issues, there is limited rental potential for the apartments that they have called home. They can't rent these places out just to the general public.

The York girls get NO funding from anyone but their father. What Andrew chooses to do with his funding for his work, is up to him.


As for Duchy of Lancaster, same thing as Grant. It is not affected by the number of people. Its income brought in from the properties. The tax payers are not affected at all by the duchy. Again the only people concerned are the queen and how she chooses to share the money among her family.


People seem to be lead like sheep by the press into believing the slimming down will mean tax payers save money. Thats not a reality.

Although it is true that the Sovereign Grant is not tied to the number of HRHs, the number of HRHs affect. how the grant is spent. In other words, if less money were spent with princes and princesses , there would be more money available to the Court to be spent elsewhere , includiing staff.

Furthermore, as IluvBertue said, fewer HRHs wouldn’t necessarily mean less work if the remaining HRHs increased their workload accordingly. .
Reply With Quote
  #4616  
Old 10-14-2019, 06:13 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
Let's stay on topic please - Styles and Titles in this thread and Royal Finances in the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...nces-9826.html thread.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #4617  
Old 10-14-2019, 10:20 AM
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 muriel View Post
If there were to be a demand for Princesses in the future, I am sure Beatrice or Eugenie could be pressed into service. However, they are fortunate in that, for now, they can live their lives free of the constraints and responsibilities of royal life.
Its occurred to me too that if we look at the younger working royals today, for the most part what we see as far as titles go, is a bunch of Dukes and Duchesses. Of course, they're addressed at HRH/TRH but would that honorific style of address really be missed all that much?

In years to come, should there be a need for more working family members for the "Firm", we could see an event attended by The Duke of Sussex along with Earl Dumbarton or The Duke of Edinburgh along with Earl Wessex and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. (I think I got that right).

So, its possible that if Charles does limit the use of HRH Prince/Princess to the monarch's heir and family and the heir's heir and family, things wouldn't really *look* that much different to the "Firm" and to the general public. Not being HRH Prince/ss may not really affect the "Firm" much at all.

In restricting the HRH Prince/Princess more, what we'll see as far as working royals will be those with titles and styles that are more the working person's title in his/her own right (as in a peerage of the UK) rather than a title denoting how close he/she is in relationship to the monarch.

Just a few thoughts here.
__________________
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
  #4618  
Old 10-14-2019, 12:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its occurred to me too that if we look at the younger working royals today, for the most part what we see as far as titles go, is a bunch of Dukes and Duchesses. Of course, they're addressed at HRH/TRH but would that honorific style of address really be missed all that much?

In years to come, should there be a need for more working family members for the "Firm", we could see an event attended by The Duke of Sussex along with Earl Dumbarton or The Duke of Edinburgh along with Earl Wessex and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. (I think I got that right).

So, its possible that if Charles does limit the use of HRH Prince/Princess to the monarch's heir and family and the heir's heir and family, things wouldn't really *look* that much different to the "Firm" and to the general public. Not being HRH Prince/ss may not really affect the "Firm" much at all.

In restricting the HRH Prince/Princess more, what we'll see as far as working royals will be those with titles and styles that are more the working person's title in his/her own right (as in a peerage of the UK) rather than a title denoting how close he/she is in relationship to the monarch.

Just a few thoughts here.
I think a Duke's lack of the HRH rank would remain apparent to the public because, with the possible exception of the Gloucesters and Kents, the HRH Dukes and Duchesses are widely referred to as Prince X and Princess Y by the public even if that is technically incorrect.

I also think it is a possibility that at some point in the future - perhaps when William is king - the British royal family will follow the example of the Belgian and Swedish royals and style even royals with ducal titles as Prince and Princess rather than Duke and Duchess.
Reply With Quote
  #4619  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Interesting new poll from Public First:

http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-cont...1/PF_Royal.pdf
[...]

Carried out 28th - 31st Oct, 1005 UK adults surveyed

The poll posed questions to Britons rather than the international public, so this is another example – of many – of references being intended for a British audience but nonetheless not using the styles mandated by the British queen. For instance, the poll uses the style "Prince Andrew" for the royal who is called The Duke of York by the Royal Household and the style "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)" for the royal who is called The Duchess of Sussex by the Royal Household.

Though they were not included in the poll, the divide between Queen Elizabeth's and the public's styling choices is even more widespread in the language they use about her married granddaughters. Elizabeth appears to be intent on describing her granddaughters as Mrs. Michael Tindall and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, but I have never known the British media to use "Mrs. Michael" or "Mrs. Jack" towards either woman.

Taking into consideration that the British public knows how to style royals in the way approved by Queen Elizabeth, it appears that the different language used by the public is deliberate, not careless.
Reply With Quote
  #4620  
Old 11-06-2019, 05:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The poll posed questions to Britons rather than the international public, so this is another example – of many – of references being intended for a British audience but nonetheless not using the styles mandated by the British queen. For instance, the poll uses the style "Prince Andrew" for the royal who is called The Duke of York by the Royal Household and the style "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)" for the royal who is called The Duchess of Sussex by the Royal Household.

Though they were not included in the poll, the divide between Queen Elizabeth's and the public's styling choices is even more widespread in the language they use about her married granddaughters. Elizabeth appears to be intent on describing her granddaughters as Mrs. Michael Tindall and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, but I have never known the British media to use "Mrs. Michael" or "Mrs. Jack" towards either woman.

Taking into consideration that the British public knows how to style royals in the way approved by Queen Elizabeth, it appears that the different language used by the public is deliberate, not careless.
I fail to see what the controversy is. Andrew or William are legally princes, as they are also legally dukes, earls and barons. HRH The Duke of xxx is simply their short style under British custom. Note that official documents such as passports and birth certificates that we have seen before use e.g. HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge.

And the short style where princes are referred to by their main peerage is not something that is “ mandated” by the current Queen. It has been the standard way of referring to British princes since the 18th century at least ( maybe by French influence ?). It is by no means technically incorrect though to refer to William or Andrew as “Prince William” or “ Prince Andrew” as, again, that is legally their titular dignity.
__________________

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 birth britannia 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 dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones 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 names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria 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 12:52 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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