The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4921  
Old 05-09-2020, 02:47 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 4,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
If they dislike the Earl of Dumbarton, thten it wasn't a good idea to give it..because normally, it would be expected that their eldest son wuodl be known by that title...
I can quite understand that they may have feared headlines like "Dumbo", but there were surely other secondary titles Harry could have been given.

Could they not have choosen to use the Baron Kilkell Title insteead if the dislikd Earl of Dumbarton.
__________________

__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #4922  
Old 05-09-2020, 07:44 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,021
When Archie's name was announced, my conclusion, speculative of course, was that what happened with the Wessex children was not a one-off, rather it was a purposeful precedent setting of how cadet branches / descendants of the monarch's younger sons will be handled going forward. I think the Sussexes then took it a step further by eschewing having Archie known by one of his father's subsidiary titles.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4923  
Old 05-09-2020, 07:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
When Archie's name was announced, my conclusion, speculative of course, was that what happened with the Wessex children was not a one-off, rather it was a purposeful precedent setting of how cadet branches / descendants of the monarch's younger sons will be handled going forward.
On the one hand, it would be odd if the Wessex children were meant to be a one-off. I cannot think of any other European royal family depriving only one couple's children of their expected titles without a formal reason, for instance the marriage of the couple not being approved.

But on the other hand, the theory that it was a purposeful precedent raises the question of why the letters patent of 1917 are unaltered and palace sources affirmed that Charles does not plan to alter them. It made some sense to not immediately act in 1999, given that the concept of slimming down the royal family was novel and they may have wished to leave themselves more flexibility to reverse the decision. But 20 years had passed since then by the time Archie was born.
Reply With Quote
  #4924  
Old 05-09-2020, 09:57 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
On the one hand, it would be odd if the Wessex children were meant to be a one-off. I cannot think of any other European royal family depriving only one couple's children of their expected titles without a formal reason, for instance the marriage of the couple not being approved.

But on the other hand, the theory that it was a purposeful precedent raises the question of why the letters patent of 1917 are unaltered and palace sources affirmed that Charles does not plan to alter them. It made some sense to not immediately act in 1999, given that the concept of slimming down the royal family was novel and they may have wished to leave themselves more flexibility to reverse the decision. But 20 years had passed since then by the time Archie was born.
My guess, if they issue new letter patent now, say, that only heir apparent's (which will later become monarch) children are eligible for HRH or Prince title, then in current situation all HM's cousins would lose theirs (so do the York girls). Which considering the Kents (including Alexandra) and the Gloucesters' services to BRF, HM may not want it.

But if they are no more, it will be more make sense for Charles to issue it with less furore. The York girls will lose theirs but they're not working royal anyway (so justified). The Wessex kids haven't been referred as HRH or Prince(ss) to begin with (though they're eligible), so do Archie (no problem to change anything there). Which will later affect Charlotte's and Louis' future kids. So in a way Louise, James, and Archie can be the "prepared transition".

Even in the far away future if George's first born is female, with the current absolute primogeniture she'll be heir apparent so even though hers is female line, her children still eligible for the title (IF they are really serious about slimming down).

But who know, royal titles aren't a big deal as decades ago and may become less important in the future so it's possible they may go with that route.
Reply With Quote
  #4925  
Old 05-09-2020, 10:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
My guess, if they issue new letter patent now, say, that only heir apparent's (which will later become monarch) children are eligible for HRH or Prince title, then in current situation all HM's cousins would lose theirs (so do the York girls). Which considering the Kents (including Alexandra) and the Gloucesters' services to BRF, HM may not want it.

But if they are no more, it will be more make sense for Charles to issue it with less furore. The York girls will lose theirs but they're not working royal anyway (so justified). The Wessex kids haven't been referred as HRH or Prince(ss) to begin with (though they're eligible), so do Archie (no problem to change anything there). Which will later affect Charlotte's and Louis' future kids. So in a way Louise, James, and Archie can be the "prepared transition".
I think it would be a simple matter to clarify in new letters patent that it does not affect anyone already carrying a title. For example, they could adapt the wording in the 1917 letters patent which prevented those who already were conferred with HRH or HH rank from losing it:

Quote:
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
This could be adapted to:

Quote:
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 the Letters Patent [dated November 30, 1917]
Reply With Quote
  #4926  
Old 05-09-2020, 11:46 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
The Wessex kids haven't been referred as HRH or Prince(ss) to begin with (though they're eligible)
Actually they aren't.

Up thread there is a letter that I received from BP on this issue which confirmed that The Queen's Will was used to deprive the Wessex children of that entitlement.
Reply With Quote
  #4927  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:17 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Actually they aren't.

Up thread there is a letter that I received from BP on this issue which confirmed that The Queen's Will was used to deprive the Wessex children of that entitlement.
Yes, I saw your post about letter from BP. I don't know what you wrote to them so I would appreciate it if you can give some light on below matter (in case you already mentioned it in the letter you've sent to BP).

What make me wonder about that "agreement" is; is it actually same as Letters Patent (as I never find anything that refer it as one, but maybe I haven't searched deep enough) or even hold same standing as Letters Patent?

On January, BP announced that Meghan would be referred as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex only backpedal after someone point out that it's actually a title for a divorced duchess so forgive me if I have a little doubt. Because George VI specifically issued letters patent for the - then - Princess Elizabeth's children's titles (not just the King's Will) and HM also issued letters patent for William's children, why not for Wessex' children?

Hypothetically speaking, let's say if someday in the future during King Charles reign, Louise or James contests their "birth right" to be titled HRH Prince(ss) basing on Letters Patent 1917, can they do it or the previous "Queen's Will" can precede the letter patent? Not to mention that Charles was not mentioned in on the children's title part (only mentioned in the Dukedom of Edinburgh part), so technically he's not binded by the agreement.

Another point, first it mentioned that she conferred Earl title to Edward, then agreement between them and Charles that Edward would be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh later and "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." The word "might" (curiously also followed by "have" and "should", so many words ) is what make me wonder whether they initially intented to elate them to HRH Prince(ss) after Edward become Duke of Edinburgh which most likely happen during Charles' reign, so could it be interpreted that the agreement about title also only legally binding during the current Queen's reign?

Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #4928  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:37 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Yes, I saw your post about letter from BP. I don't know what you wrote to them so I would appreciate it if you can give some light on below matter (in case you already mentioned it in the letter you've sent to BP).
I asked them whether The Queen's Will really meant that the Wessex children were permanently deprived of the HRH Prince/Princess styles as a result of the 1999 announcemnt.

My interpretation was confirmed by BP.

Quote:
What make me wonder about that "agreement" is; is it actually same as Letters Patent (as I never find anything that refer it as one, but maybe I haven't searched deep enough) or even hold same standing as Letters Patent?
No LPs were issued to deprive the Wessex children - probably because the only way to do so would also mean deprive all other male line grandchildren of the monarch, other than the heir, would also need to be deprived i.e. The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael, Princess Alexandra and the York girls. The Queen didn't want to deprive her cousins so did it this way.

Quote:
On January, BP announced that Meghan would be referred as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex only backpedal after someone point out that it's actually a title for a divorced duchess so forgive me if I have a little doubt.
This was BP and not the Queen. How this was stuffed up I have no idea but it was.

Quote:
Because George VI specifically issued letters patent for the - then - Princess Elizabeth's children's titles (not just the King's Will) and HM also issued letters patent for William's children, why not for Wessex' children?
Because any such LPs would affect more than just the Wessex children. It would affect 6 other HRHs who have had the title since birth.

George VI and Elizabeth II issued LPs to grant HRH to children - different situation.

Quote:
Hypothetically speaking, let's say if someday in the future during King Charles reign, Louise or James contests their "birth right" to be titled HRH Prince(ss) basing on Letters Patent 1917, can they do it or the previous "Queen's Will" can precede the letter patent? Not to mention that Charles was not mentioned in on the children's title part (only mentioned in the Dukedom of Edinburgh part), so technically he's not binded by the agreement.
The Queen's Will has equal force with a Letters Patent. There is a third way as well - a Royal Warrant.

Quote:
Another point, first it mentioned that she conferred Earl title to Edward, then agreement between them and Charles that Edward would be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh later and "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." The word "might" (curiously also followed by "have" and "should", so many words ) is what make me wonder whether they initially intented to elate them to HRH Prince(ss) after Edward become Duke of Edinburgh which most likely happen during Charles' reign, so could it be interpreted that the agreement about title also only legally binding during the current Queen's reign?

Thank you
The 'might' refers to the possibility of future children. Remember this was made on their wedding day and it wasn't a given that they would have children.

Thus they 'might' or 'might not' have any children. Nothing curious about the following words - If they had children those children would be styled as the children of an Earl.

It is legally binding until another monarch issues new rules i.e. Charles issues the LPs to strip his mother's cousins, and his nieces and Harry's children of HRH. I suspect he, or William will do so after the death of the last of the Queen's cousins.
Reply With Quote
  #4929  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:53 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,265
A Letter of Patent restricting the HRH and the title of Prince(ss) to children of a monarch and children of a heir does not necessarily deprive existing HRH's and Princes (Princesses) when the LP has no retroactive effects.

This means that the current Gloucesters, Kents and Yorks remain unaffected. It happened in the Netherlands too. When in 2002 was stated that a member whom loses the membership of the Royal House, also looses the title Prince (Princess) of the Netherlands, it did not retroactively affect Princess Irene (lost the membership in 1964) and Princess Christina (lost the membership in 1975). They kept all their royal titles.
Reply With Quote
  #4930  
Old 05-10-2020, 04:53 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

No LPs were issued to deprive the Wessex children - probably because the only way to do so would also mean deprive all other male line grandchildren of the monarch, other than the heir, would also need to be deprived i.e. The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael, Princess Alexandra and the York girls. The Queen didn't want to deprive her cousins so did it this way.
Why would it be the only way? It was not the only way in 1917, when George V issued Letters Patent that prospectively limited royal rank to male-line grandchildren without depriving female-line grandchildren who already held it.
Reply With Quote
  #4931  
Old 05-10-2020, 07:36 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,537
I think the Danish way is useful - children of the monarch and the heir are HRH, the children of a male HRH are HH and after that they have the title of Greve af Monpezat in thre male line. I just hope that they'll fix the problem with the female descendants as now so many women in Danmark keep their own name, so they could give the girls the title of Grevinde af Monpezat (countess in her own right) and not Komtesse (daughter of a count).
Reply With Quote
  #4932  
Old 05-10-2020, 07:55 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I think the Danish way is useful - children of the monarch and the heir are HRH, the children of a male HRH are HH and after that they have the title of Greve af Monpezat in thre male line. I just hope that they'll fix the problem with the female descendants as now so many women in Danmark keep their own name, so they could give the girls the title of Grevinde af Monpezat (countess in her own right) and not Komtesse (daughter of a count).
To the best of my knowledge no statement has been publicly issued regarding possible royal titles for the future children of the young Princes and Princesses to Denmark. If tradition is followed I suppose they would all be HH (other than the HRH children of Prince Christian) given that the monarch now seems to approve all marriages, but many Danish royal watchers seem to expect that steps will be taken to keep the size of the Royal House manageable.
Reply With Quote
  #4933  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:35 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 21
I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."
Reply With Quote
  #4934  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."
HH was given to children of younger sons of British kings until the reign of King William V and to children of daughters if British subjects during the reigns of Queen Victoria and King Edward VII.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain
Reply With Quote
  #4935  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."
They are but interestingly they are also princes or at least styled as such. Maybe the nearest thing Britain has to a furst?

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...therprince.htm
Reply With Quote
  #4936  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:27 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."
King George VI was born as 'HH Prince Albert of York' - as a great-grandson of queen Victoria; he was only elevated to 'HRH Prince Albert of York' by Victoria's LP in 1898 that elevated all the children of the eldest son of the prince of Wales to 'HRH'.

His styles & titles over his lifetime:
14 December 1895 – 28 May 1898: His Highness Prince Albert of York
28 May 1898 – 22 January 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of York
22 January 1901 – 9 November 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Cornwall and York
9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Wales
6 May 1910 – 4 June 1920: His Royal Highness The Prince Albert
4 June 1920 – 11 December 1936: His Royal Highness The Duke of York
11 December 1936 – 6 February 1952: His Majesty The King
In British India, 11 December 1936 – 14 August 1947: His Imperial Majesty The King, Emperor of India

However, the 1917 LPs cancelled the idea of HH - but theoretically it could be revived.
Reply With Quote
  #4937  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:55 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Wales
6 May 1910 – 4 June 1920: His Royal Highness The Prince Albert
The practice of consistently styling children of monarchs as "The" Prince or Princess but omitting the "The" for other royals was only implemented under Queen Elizabeth II.

For example, you can see here that when his father the King approved his marriage, Albert was styled His Royal Highness Prince Albert (etc.), not "The" Prince Albert.
Reply With Quote
  #4938  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."
George V stopped HH in 1917.
Reply With Quote
  #4939  
Old 05-11-2020, 02:34 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
This sounds like the half in half out scenario that Harry and Meghan wanted in January. Get all the privileges keep using their titles but pick and choose the responsibilities and live mostly abroad. Only in this case Archie gets the full title and style, be raised in the USA and never take on royal engagements for the crown because his parents want him to be a private person.
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. From birth through college/university, Archie would be simply Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Once he finishes his studies/career prep, he could then either choose to adopt the title & style HRH Prince Archie of Sussex (if it was determined that he was needed as a full-time working royal) or renounce the title & style permanently and remain Archie, private citizen. No privileges or royal financial support until such time as he chose to take on responsibilities of a full-time working royal living in the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #4940  
Old 05-11-2020, 03:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. From birth through college/university, Archie would be simply Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Once he finishes his studies/career prep, he could then either choose to adopt the title & style HRH Prince Archie of Sussex (if it was determined that he was needed as a full-time working royal) or renounce the title & style permanently and remain Archie, private citizen. No privileges or royal financial support until such time as he chose to take on responsibilities of a full-time working royal living in the UK.
This all sounds very unsatisfactory. Far simpler just to end cadet line styles.
__________________

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 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 782 10-28-2019 07:29 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 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
armstrong-jones belgian royal family castles chittagong clarence house countess of snowdon cover-up crown princess victoria cyprus danish history denmark dna duchess of cambridge duke & duchess of cambridge; dutch dutch history dutch royal family family tree future haakon vii henry v hill history house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha interesting introduction jumma kids movie king philippe languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mailing marriage mbs naples nobel 2019 norwegian royal family official visit pakistan palaces palestine prince charles princess elizabeth queen mathilde queen maud romanov family royal balls royal events royal family royal spouse royal tour royalty royal wedding shakespeare spanish royal startling new evidence state visit stuart sweden swedish royal family tracts unsubscribe usa videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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