The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4661  
Old 12-20-2019, 04:38 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Because the Queen issued her will and pleasure by stating that he would not be a Prince on Edward and Sophie's wedding day. Simple.
One has to remember that Jame's grandmother is not only Elizabeth but the Queen as well. What the Queen declares goes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4662  
Old 01-15-2020, 03:23 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
While there has been no official statement on the matter, a number of correspondents reported being told last year, by royal sources, that King Charles would continue to apply the Letters Patent of 1917 during his reign.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/m...-a4137941.html
New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

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

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.
At that time he fully expected Harry and Meghan to remain full-time working members of the family. It would be really inconsistent if the children of working members of the family (Edward & Sophie) aren't royal highnesses while the child(ren) of 'an independent member of the family' would become a royal highness.

I never thought it to be a good idea that Archie became a HRH as long as Louise and James aren't - but now it's even more obvious because when the decision on Louise and James was made their parents weren't expected to be full-time working members of the royal family. We'll have to wait and see whether Archie's future (non) title is also part of the 'deal' that the BRF reaches with Harry and Meghan. Imho it would be best to clear that out straight away.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4663  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:19 AM
JSH JSH is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 59
While it is true that the Wessex vs Sussex case would be inconsistent, the case of the Wessex children, IMO, was a one-time special case at their parents' request. I don't think anyone involved ever wanted it to be used as a precedent setting case.
Reply With Quote
  #4664  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:15 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,854
Still it has shown that it can be done formally for grandchildren of the monarch NOT ot have HRH. And Sicne Harry's parents don't want to use his courtesy title for him, that seems to suggest that they would be OK with his not having an HRH
Reply With Quote
  #4665  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:14 AM
JSH JSH is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 59
I disagree with that as well. There have been rumors that the Sussexes DO intend for Archie to become an HRH in time. And there is some logic to not having him use a courtesy title in that case. So that there is no confusion when he changes from one title to another. If Archie used Lord Dumbarton now, he would not use it after becoming Prince Archie. So simpler to use nothing now and just start using a title then.
Reply With Quote
  #4666  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:36 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,517
I think courtesy titles for royal children may have gotten a little complicated by the relatively recent tradition of royal peers regularly using their subsidiary titles when visiting Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Harry uses all three of his titles at times, there's nothing left for Archie.
Reply With Quote
  #4667  
Old 01-17-2020, 07:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,088
Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm

Or does anyone think differently?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I think courtesy titles for royal children may have gotten a little complicated by the relatively recent tradition of royal peers regularly using their subsidiary titles when visiting Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Harry uses all three of his titles at times, there's nothing left for Archie.
How is it handled with the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, whose sons use their father's earldoms as courtesy titles?
Reply With Quote
  #4668  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,854
I've never heard of this being a problem. The Dukes' eldest sons have the use of the courtesy secondary tiltes, Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster...
Reply With Quote
  #4669  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:26 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.
Just looking at the years presented here tells me that at that time, a woman not taking her husband's surname was unthinkable. Same with married in females. Unthinkable that they'd use anything but the female versions of their husband's titles and styles.

I divorced in the early 90s and among other women friends that also were divorced, I was the sole one that had my maiden name restored via the divorce decree.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #4670  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:41 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I think courtesy titles for royal children may have gotten a little complicated by the relatively recent tradition of royal peers regularly using their subsidiary titles when visiting Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Harry uses all three of his titles at times, there's nothing left for Archie.
it seems to me, the only ones who really use subsidiary titles are Charles and William. And their sons don’t use the subsidiary titles.
Reply With Quote
  #4671  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:18 AM
JSH JSH is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 59
Sons of royal peers don't use subsidiary titles if they have a title of their own, namely HRH Prince xxx. This only came up with Archie because he has no title of his own (yet).
Reply With Quote
  #4672  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:30 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm

Or does anyone think differently?
Neither declaration made it a legal requirement. I don't think the monarch has that power, as people can rename themselves whatever they please under common law (so anyone can rename themselves Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor so long as it's not done fraudulently). The declarations just express no opinion on what those married women and their descendants should call themselves, since it's assumed that they would/might change their names.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
How is it handled with the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, whose sons use their father's earldoms as courtesy titles?
As far as I know, they're both known as the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent everywhere. I've only seen the dukes of Cambridge, Sussex, and York use their earldoms, and the last one only started happening in the last couple of years.
Reply With Quote
  #4673  
Old 01-18-2020, 06:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm

Or does anyone think differently?



People who hold the style of Royal Highness , including the wives of British princes, do not use a family name as seen in Prince George’s birth certificate where his mother is listed only as Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

As mandated in the proclamation of 1960, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor applies , howrever, to the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II other than those who are HRHs or female descendants who marry and their respective descendants. Women who marry a descendant of the Queen who bears the name Mountbatten-Windsor follow the same rules or naming conventions that apply to women who marry into any other family. In the UK, I suppose that the norm is still that married women take their husbands’ family name.

As WBenson said, however, the common law of England allows any person to assume and use any name, provided “its use is not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary loss. “
Reply With Quote
  #4674  
Old 01-18-2020, 07:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
People who hold the style of Royal Highness , including the wives of British princes, do not use a family name as seen in Prince George’s birth certificate where his mother is listed only as Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.
They do use them on occasion, and that can be seen in, for instance, the marriage certificates of Princess Anne and her younger brothers, wherein they are listed with the family name Mountbatten-Windsor.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2065963


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As mandated in the proclamation of 1960, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor applies , howrever, to the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II other than those who are HRHs or female descendants who marry and their respective descendants. Women who marry a descendant of the Queen who bears the name Mountbatten-Windsor follow the same rules or naming conventions that apply to women who marry into any other family. In the UK, I suppose that the norm is still that married women take their husbands’ family name.
Taking the husband's name remains the norm, but (at least for commoners) it is no longer a legal requirement in the UK.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29804450



Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Neither declaration made it a legal requirement. I don't think the monarch has that power, as people can rename themselves whatever they please under common law (so anyone can rename themselves Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor so long as it's not done fraudulently). The declarations just express no opinion on what those married women and their descendants should call themselves, since it's assumed that they would/might change their names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As WBenson said, however, the common law of England allows any person to assume and use any name, provided “its use is not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary loss. “
That is a good point on the common law of England. I wonder though if common law can invalidate a proclamation of the will of the monarch. If it could, then the declaration of 1960 would be powerless to stop even Prince George from changing his family name from Mountbatten-Windsor to anything he wishes, wouldn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #4675  
Old 01-18-2020, 08:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,854
There was never a legal obligation for a woman ot take her husband's name.. but until about the 1960s and 70s, most women did. Even women who used their own names in public life, like actresses would usualy use their husband's name in private.
And I would imagine that if say WIlliam wanted to issues Letters patent that the family name of the RF was to change, he could do so and over ride the previous wish to call the family surname Mountbatten Windsor... However I dobut if it would be popular and I think the name of the Royal house would remain Windsor.. but for example Will COULD say tat he wishes for his children when they need to use a surname, to use the name.. Middleton-Mountbatten Or "middleton Winsdor."
Reply With Quote
  #4676  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:45 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I wonder though if common law can invalidate a proclamation of the will of the monarch. If it could, then the declaration of 1960 would be powerless to stop even Prince George from changing his family name from Mountbatten-Windsor to anything he wishes, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's powerless as a legal document. It relies on the Queen's powers of persuasion as head of a family, not her legal authority as head of state. People's families ultimately don't have to listen to them if they don't want to. As we've seen quite recently, even the Queen's wishes for the future of her family are not always followed.
Reply With Quote
  #4677  
Old 01-18-2020, 12:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
There was never a legal obligation for a woman ot take her husband's name.. but until about the 1960s and 70s, most women did. Even women who used their own names in public life, like actresses would usualy use their husband's name in private.
And I would imagine that if say WIlliam wanted to issues Letters patent that the family name of the RF was to change, he could do so and over ride the previous wish to call the family surname Mountbatten Windsor... However I dobut if it would be popular and I think the name of the Royal house would remain Windsor.. but for example Will COULD say tat he wishes for his children when they need to use a surname, to use the name.. Middleton-Mountbatten Or "middleton Winsdor."
The actual wording of the Declaration of 1960 is as follows:

Quote:
.
Declaration of 1960

[....]
therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."
Prince William and his children seem to be in a limbo as far as that declaration is concerned as they are not children of the Queen , but at same time they are “descendants of the Queen enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess.” Therefore, based solely on the wording of that declaration, they don’t bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, but are not included either in the category of persons (“ I and My children”) who are explicitly known as the “ House and Family of Windsor”.

In the absence of any new provision regarding descendants of the Queen ( other than her immediate children ) who are HRHs , does the previous declaration of 1952 apply and William’s name ( and his children’s name) should be simply Windsor instead of Mountbatten-Windsor ?


Ideally, to clarify those issues, I suppose King William V should issue a declaration when he ascends to make it known how he and his descendants are to be named.

Quote:
. Declaration of 1952

My Lords,
I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor
EDIT: I am aware that, in practice, Anne, Andrew and William have used the family name Mountbatten-Windsor in the past . I just can’t see how that usage is compatible with the wording of Her Majesty’s 1952 and 1960 declarations to the Privy Council.
Reply With Quote
  #4678  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:01 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,881
Regarding the title issue in the hypothetical situation that Harry and Meghan divorce while Meghan is not a British citizen (as discussed in the 'step away-thread'). I don't think she will legally be 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex', simply because her legal name will be whatever is written down in her US documents.

If she would do what she did in/after her first marriage; she would have changed her legal surname to 'Mountbatten-Windsor' and will revert back to 'Markle' upon divorce. As she was 'Rachel Meghan Englewood' during her first marriage but prior and after her first marriage she was 'Rachel Meghan Markle' (as far as I am aware).

Whether Meghan would choose to 'go by' Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is a different matter. And I wouldn't be surprised if in this case she would decide to keep the Mountbatten-Windsor surname as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
The Queen conferred upon her grandson the Dukedom of Sussex, with two subsidiary titles. Earl of Dumbarton would be Henry's primary courtesy title that his son could use. Upon marriage, Meghan became The Duchess of Sussex. Should they divorce, she would be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex until Henry remarried. The title is by no means linked to Meghan being a british citizen, else she shouldn't be holding it now?

This link announces the official creation of Letters Patent in regards to the title.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743

No mention of citizenship.
Of course there is no mention of citizenship. The peerage was created for a British prince. He just happened to marry an American who shares his title for all but US legal purposes as long as they are married.
Reply With Quote
  #4679  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As WBenson said, however, the common law of England allows any person to assume and use any name, provided “its use is not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary loss. “

That's so different from name usage in Germany where you have to stick to your given names officially if your parents named you Willy-Didi, you have to stick with that complete name throughout your life if you cannot convince a judge that it is ridiculous to be named thus. Since the end of 2018 it is possible to change the order of the first names, though. But when you marry a ex-noble and get divorced, you can keep the noble name, remarry an even higher noble and get divorced and you can get back to the old noble name and if you marry someone with a normal name, he can take the noble name as well. That's all legal!


See Dr. Gabriele Henne (father's name), then Dr. Gabriele Thyssen (Mother's married name), then Dr. Gabriele Prinzessin von Leiningen (marriage, then divorce), then The Begum Inaara Aga Khan, then back to being Dr. Gabriele Prinzessin von Leiningen after the divorce. All possible as long as she stays Gabriele!
Reply With Quote
  #4680  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,462
I found this on heraldica.org:


The U.S. cannot grant titles of nobility, and foreigners who are naturalized must renounce all titles, but there is nothing that prevents a U.S. citizen from inheriting a title from abroad and using it as he pleases, unless it leads him or her to pledge alliegance to a foreign power, a case which could be grounds for loss of citizenship.



Examples of US citizens holding British titles include the 5th Earl of Wharcliffe (Richard Alan Montagu Stuart Wortley, of Cumberland ME; his eldest son is viscount Carlton), and Sir John Dunbar, Bt, who was succeeded in August 1993 by his son Sir Michael Dunbar, 14th Bt, a colonel in the US Air Force.
(End of quote)


So could it be that Archie will loose his US-citizenship when he becomes prince of the UK? Or when the courtesty title of "Earl Dumbarton" is used for him? Do he have to plead allegeiance or is that included in being a British Royal?
__________________

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
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-27-2019 12:04 AM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 782 10-28-2019 08:29 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 04:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
administrator archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bangladesh belgian royal belgian royal family chittagong crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex dutch royal family dutch royals family search french royalty future future wife of prince hussein germany haakon vii hamdan bin mohammed hill history house of bernadotte house of grimaldi israel jerusalem jumma lithuania lithuanian palaces mailing meghan markle monaco royal monarchy mountbatten netflix nobel prize norway history official visit pakistan popularity prince charles prince daniel prince harry princely family of monaco princess benedikte princess margaret pronunciation qe2 queen mathilde queen maud queen paola rown royal tour state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish history thailand tracts trump united kingdom unsubscribe valois visit from sweden working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×