The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4881  
Old 05-06-2020, 08:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As you say, the Letters Patent issued by King George V can be (and on several occasions already have been) overruled by his successors, and it will fall to King Charles to decide whether to follow them with regard to Archie. But the suggestion from at least one palace source is that he will, and the number of HRHs will thus be increased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
This was way before the recent events happened. I cannot imagine Archie becoming HRH Prince Archie of Sussex given the decisions his parents recently made. It would make no sense at all for Louise and James as children of senior full-time working members of the BRF to not be HRH while a boy (albeit grandson of the king by then) living in Canada with his parents who are no longer known as HRH as they officially departed from the working BRF will be HRH.

However, much regarding this couple has been inconsistent, so you never know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
No, I don't think Archie will be HRH. Possbily if the Sussexes return but not even then, most likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
I completely agree. I find it almost inconceivable at this stage to think that Archie will ever have the HRH. I suppose it's possible if circumstances change significantly but I can think of only one or two changes that would lead me to believe that he would ever receive the HRH.

In wishing Archie a happy birthday, the Queen's household called him "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor", but the households of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge called him simply "Archie". I wonder if that is a signal that the intention for him to become "Prince Archie" in the next reign is maintained.

If the recent events were to impact Archie's future title, it would have been the rational thing to announce that at the same time as the announcement that his parents would refrain from using their HRHs. But no such announcement has been forthcoming.

In at least one aspect Archie has already been treated like a Prince: His birth was recorded in The London Gazette, as it was for the Cambridge princes(ses) and the York princesses. The births of the Wessex children were not recorded in the Gazette.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4882  
Old 05-06-2020, 09:49 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
In wishing Archie a happy birthday, the Queen's household called him "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor", but the households of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge called him simply "Archie". I wonder if that is a signal that the intention for him to become "Prince Archie" in the next reign is maintained.
I wouldn't read to much into that; why would they use a surname to wish their grandchild/nephew a happy birthday?! Clarence house didn't say Prince Louis of Cambridge/Princess Charlotte of Cambridge - but just 'prince Louis' and 'princess Charlotte' when wishing them a happy birthday.

Quote:
If the recent events were to impact Archie's future title, it would have been the rational thing to announce that at the same time as the announcement that his parents would refrain from using their HRHs. But no such announcement has been forthcoming.

In at least one aspect Archie has already been treated like a Prince: His birth was recorded in The London Gazette, as it was for the Cambridge princes(ses) and the York princesses. The births of the Wessex children were not recorded in the Gazette.
I do agree that would have been a logical timing; maybe they want to wait until after the 'review period' of one year has passed?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4883  
Old 05-06-2020, 11:15 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
I just don't see the point of (male line) grandchildren outside of the direct line being given any styles or titles other than courtesy titles that might come from their father's peerage. Even then I don't see the point of continuing giving peerages to younger children of monarchs either.

We need to move away from this bloated system. In terms of a thousand year old plus monarchy this plethora of HRH's & princes is relatively new anyway as I've already said.

A streamlined simpler system is the way forward. I've no doubt most people in Britain would be happy with that.
Reply With Quote
  #4884  
Old 05-06-2020, 12:00 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
Questions about British Styles and Titles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I've no doubt most people in Britain would be happy with that.

To counter that, I’ve no doubt most people in Britain couldn’t care less who has a HRH or not.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #4885  
Old 05-06-2020, 12:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
To counter that, I’ve no doubt most people in Britain couldn’t care less who has a HRH or not.
Well I guess without asking them we don't know. I'm surprised though that you would think most people couldn't care less. Most people I know whose views I'm aware of would be happy to see "the royals" reduced in number.

There again that's anecdote and anecdote isn't fact. So, who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #4886  
Old 05-06-2020, 12:28 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Well I guess without asking them we don't know. I'm surprised though that you would think most people couldn't care less. Most people I know whose views I'm aware of would be happy to see "the royals" reduced in number.

There again that's anecdote and anecdote isn't fact. So, who knows.
I'd agree that most people don't think about it much and couldn't tell yu how many royals have a title or HRH. If they think about it, many/most will tend to say they'd like to see the "royals reduced in number", but cutting back ther HRH's wont do that, because waht they really mean si they want the cost of the monarchy to be less.
Reply With Quote
  #4887  
Old 05-06-2020, 12:34 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I just don't see the point of (male line) grandchildren outside of the direct line being given any styles or titles other than courtesy titles that might come from their father's peerage. ...

We need to move away from this bloated system. In terms of a thousand year old plus monarchy this plethora of HRH's & princes is relatively new anyway as I've already said.

Funny, I am for example thinking, the British Royal Family spare heirs' families are too fast "phased out". The Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice get no money at all from the royal coffers. Their father was quite the businessman and partly somehow abusing his title to rake some monies in... but Eugenie and Beatrice, the Princesses, have now no own budget for their own plannings to become somebody. They have to be nice to daddy or go broke - the Princesses!


But anyway: You are saying too many, I feel different. Perhaps the numbers can talk here... Germany is said to have 40,000 noble persons for more than 80 million commoners. 1/2000th of the population have a title then.


Great Britain: I don't know! What, around 430 peerages? Than I found this here: 600 families...
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/...e-study-498179


So, maybe 5times as much noble persons? 3,000?
That would be on around 60 million inhabitants be what, 1/20,000th, or 10 times less per capita then in Germany?


I do not know! Some here in the forums even say, Barman Jack is a nobleman... So, how many of them are there?


But to close the circle: The leading family of the Commonwealth, the British Royal Family, is rather small! And all too fast it's members are losing their titles, if their ancestors were only "spares". I mean, from time to time something can be read about the "obscure Windors", but even then mostly about those which made it. Would be a nice tv broadcast: an inverse "Who do you think you are?" about the royal Windsor Barristas, Waiters and Plumbers!
Reply With Quote
  #4888  
Old 05-06-2020, 12:48 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
If they think about it, many/most will tend to say they'd like to see the "royals reduced in number", but cutting back ther HRH's wont do that, because waht they really mean si they want the cost of the monarchy to be less.
We know that of course but it's about perception.

I'm certainly not aware of any groundswell of opinion to increase their number!
Reply With Quote
  #4889  
Old 05-06-2020, 12:59 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
But anyway: You are saying too many, I feel different. Perhaps the numbers can talk here... Germany is said to have 40,000 noble persons for more than 80 million commoners. 1/2000th of the population have a title then.


Great Britain: I don't know! What, around 430 peerages? Than I found this here: 600 families...
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/...e-study-498179


So, maybe 5times as much noble persons? 3,000?
That would be on around 60 million inhabitants be what, 1/20,000th, or 10 times less per capita then in Germany?


I do not know! Some here in the forums even say, Barman Jack is a nobleman... So, how many of them are there?
The peerage has always been relatively small. Lots of relatives, the upper ten thousand as they were termed in the late c19th (originally a US term), although that included the gentry as well. Many European nobilities had/have huge numbers of title holders. The French aristocracy of the Ancien Regime was very large, as was the Polish I think.

Jack Brocklesbank would be part of the upper ten thousand because of his family links I think possibly, I'm not entirely sure.

The Commonwealth is an odd institution. A curious survival but I'm not aware that it's of any great importance or relevance compared to other intergovernmental organisations. Its great population is mostly down to India being a member.
Reply With Quote
  #4890  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:48 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
The peerage has always been relatively small. Lots of relatives, the upper ten thousand as they were termed in the late c19th (originally a US term), although that included the gentry as well. Many European nobilities had/have huge numbers of title holders. The French aristocracy of the Ancien Regime was very large, as was the Polish I think.

Jack Brocklesbank would be part of the upper ten thousand because of his family links I think possibly, I'm not entirely sure.

The Commonwealth is an odd institution. A curious survival but I'm not aware that it's of any great importance or relevance compared to other intergovernmental organisations. Its great population is mostly down to India being a member.
Jack Is gentry, from a "well born" family and I think there's a baronetcy in there.. but no title of nobility. Yes the peerage in the UK has always been small.. whereas in Europe most countries had a much larger number of noble families.
Reply With Quote
  #4891  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
We know that of course but it's about perception.

I'm certainly not aware of any groundswell of opinion to increase their number!
No of course no one wants to increase the numbers. but even if Charles decided to give HRH to every one of his cousins that would not mean that they were receiving any money from the state. I think however he wont add to the numbers, and possibly in the future only the children of the heir to the throne will have HRH
Reply With Quote
  #4892  
Old 05-06-2020, 04:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
No of course no one wants to increase the numbers. but even if Charles decided to give HRH to every one of his cousins that would not mean that they were receiving any money from the state. I think however he wont add to the numbers, and possibly in the future only the children of the heir to the throne will have HRH
Yes I agree that's very likely & I think for the best.
Reply With Quote
  #4893  
Old 05-06-2020, 04:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think however he wont add to the numbers, and possibly in the future only the children of the heir to the throne will have HRH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Yes I agree that's very likely & I think for the best.
But if that is the case, what was the meaning of the "George V convention" comment and the gazetting of the birth?
Reply With Quote
  #4894  
Old 05-06-2020, 04:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
But if that is the case, what was the meaning of the "George V convention" comment and the gazetting of the birth?
Maybe Charles thinks that limiting HRH/prince is a good idea but he doesn't actually want his own grandson to be affected so he'll leave things the way they are for now.

I think Archie would be best of without the heightened public interest that comes with the style/title. I think the York women would have been best off without it as well but that's just my opinion.

Maybe Charles is happy for future monarchs to introduce the change instead.
Reply With Quote
  #4895  
Old 05-06-2020, 05:50 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
If Charles is serious about slimming down the monarchy he should start with his own line. He's the one that goes on and on about wanting limited members of royals but he doesn't have the guts to implement it to his own descendants. It would be unfair to take away titles from adults who has been serving the crown for decades. He should start with the Archie and any future child that the Sussex have. Archie is still a baby he will not feel the difference. That way the Sussex can raise Archie as a private person(like they wish him to be) and to fend for himself and not feel entitled to royal benefits when he grows up. He should make like the King of Sweden and do it now that the grandkids are still young.
Reply With Quote
  #4896  
Old 05-06-2020, 06:55 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
If Charles is serious about slimming down the monarchy he should start with his own line. He's the one that goes on and on about wanting limited members of royals but he doesn't have the guts to implement it to his own descendants. It would be unfair to take away titles from adults who has been serving the crown for decades. He should start with the Archie and any future child that the Sussex have. Archie is still a baby he will not feel the difference. That way the Sussex can raise Archie as a private person(like they wish him to be) and to fend for himself and not feel entitled to royal benefits when he grows up. He should make like the King of Sweden and do it now that the grandkids are still young.
Charles has never gone on and on about slimming down the Royal family. To my knowledge he's never mentioned it in public at all. Even if he does nothing and Archie becomes a prince that'll still be a case of slimming down since his nephew and nieces won't have an active role in the family. I dare say that neither was Archie expected to be a working royal even before his parents took a step back from official duties. You mention the King of Sweden but all his grandchildren retain both royal titles and their duchies. The only thing that has changed is the removal of their styles as hrh and making their royal titles personal and not inheritable.
Reply With Quote
  #4897  
Old 05-06-2020, 08:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Charles has never gone on and on about slimming down the Royal family. To my knowledge he's never mentioned it in public at all. Even if he does nothing and Archie becomes a prince that'll still be a case of slimming down since his nephew and nieces won't have an active role in the family. I dare say that neither was Archie expected to be a working royal even before his parents took a step back from official duties. You mention the King of Sweden but all his grandchildren retain both royal titles and their duchies. The only thing that has changed is the removal of their styles as hrh and making their royal titles personal and not inheritable.
It appears (see the links here) that, like the King's sisters who concluded unequal marriages, the grandchildren's title of Princess/Prince of Sweden was removed and they carry "only" the title of Princess/Prince.

Luxembourg and Belgium have implemented an almost identical system: Children (as well as grandchildren in Belgium) of heirs to the throne are Princess/Prince of Belgium/Luxembourg, while titled members outside this direct line are "only" Princess/Prince with their father's last name.

But I feel that the British system is superior in its clarity - one either is a royal Princess/Prince or carries no royal title whatsoever. What is apparently not clear, at least to the British public, is (as KellyAtLast mentioned) what benefits a British royal Prince/Princess can expect to receive on the basis of being a Prince/Princess.
Reply With Quote
  #4898  
Old 05-06-2020, 10:51 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It appears (see the links here) that, like the King's sisters who concluded unequal marriages, the grandchildren's title of Princess/Prince of Sweden was removed and they carry "only" the title of Princess/Prince.

Luxembourg and Belgium have implemented an almost identical system: Children (as well as grandchildren in Belgium) of heirs to the throne are Princess/Prince of Belgium/Luxembourg, while titled members outside this direct line are "only" Princess/Prince with their father's last name.

But I feel that the British system is superior in its clarity - one either is a royal Princess/Prince or carries no royal title whatsoever. What is apparently not clear, at least to the British public, is (as KellyAtLast mentioned) what benefits a British royal Prince/Princess can expect to receive on the basis of being a Prince/Princess.
The alternative would be to have a 'lesser' princely (or nobility) title. The king of Sweden would probably have liked to create his grandchildren 'prince(ss) Bernadotte' (like previous princes were created as part of the Luxembourgish nobility) but he cannot do that. The Dutch and the Luxembourg houses have/had that practice with 'prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau' being the 'family title' - at least for one generation (now they've been demoted to 'count(ess)'), while 'prince(ss) of the Netherlands' was only for the children of the heir. In Luxembourg it's 'of Luxembourg' vs 'of Nassau'. In Belgium they could use 'of Belgium' vs 'of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha'.

However, the British system is rather different, so this solution wouldn't work for them.
Reply With Quote
  #4899  
Old 05-07-2020, 05:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Charles has never gone on and on about slimming down the Royal family. To my knowledge he's never mentioned it in public at all. Even if he does nothing and Archie becomes a prince that'll still be a case of slimming down since his nephew and nieces won't have an active role in the family. I dare say that neither was Archie expected to be a working royal even before his parents took a step back from official duties. You mention the King of Sweden but all his grandchildren retain both royal titles and their duchies. The only thing that has changed is the removal of their styles as hrh and making their royal titles personal and not inheritable.
It is not up to Charles.. And since Harry was always intended to be a working royal, i think there's a perfectly good case for Archie to have HRH. he does nto have to use it if he doesn't want to, as an adult.. and if he's not a working royal, he wont be getting any money.. so what is the difference
Reply With Quote
  #4900  
Old 05-07-2020, 05:41 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
It is not up to Charles.. And since Harry was always intended to be a working royal, i think there's a perfectly good case for Archie to have HRH. he does nto have to use it if he doesn't want to, as an adult.. and if he's not a working royal, he wont be getting any money.. so what is the difference
It will be up to Charles when he becomes king.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

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


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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


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




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor 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 medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee 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 01:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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