The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5581  
Old 02-22-2021, 08:41 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Richard wasn't the eldest son though.. he was the eldest living son. So Im not sure if he would have used the subsidiary title.. Also he had the rank of Prince.. so that's higher....
I was asking about Richard's eldest son, Alexander (in the scenario with his grandfather, Prince Richard's father Prince Henry, still being alive).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5582  
Old 02-22-2021, 08:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I was asking about Richard's eldest son, Alexander (in the scenario with his grandfather, Prince Richard's father Prince Henry, still being alive).
Yes I know. But if the old Duke had still been alive, Richard was the next heir and as far as I know he iddn't use the title Earl of Ulster.. He was Prince Richard as the grandson of a monarch.. and his son would have probalby been Lord Alexander Windsor... as the great grandson...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5583  
Old 02-22-2021, 09:01 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes I know. But if the old Duke had still been alive, Richard was the next heir and as far as I know he iddn't use the title Earl of Ulster.. He was Prince Richard as the grandson of a monarch.. and his son would have probalby been Lord Alexander Windsor... as the great grandson...
I see, apologies for the misunderstanding. I am not sure the fact that Prince Richard was known as Prince Richard of Gloucester (on the basis that being a prince outranked being a courtesy peer) as the heir apparent would have deprived his non-princely son of the same privilege. The eldest son of HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught and HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught used Earl of Macduff by courtesy, in spite of neither of his parents being styled as a peer.
Reply With Quote
  #5584  
Old 02-22-2021, 09:04 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes I know. But if the old Duke had still been alive, Richard was the next heir and as far as I know he iddn't use the title Earl of Ulster.. He was Prince Richard as the grandson of a monarch.. and his son would have probalby been Lord Alexander Windsor... as the great grandson...


That’s interesting that Prince Richard did not use Earl of Ulster (courtesy titles). Before John Manners became the 9th Duke of Rutland in 1906, he was styled as Marquess of Granby (1st Subsidiary titles) between 1925 and 1906 when his father was the 8th Duke (Henry Manners) John Manners himself was the eldest surviving son, his older brother Robert Manners, Lord Haddon (1885–1894) (2nd subsidiary title) died before their father succeeded the Dukedom.

But then again, it could be different for Royal peers, especially when Richard is already styled as HRH Prince as the son of the son of the monarch (1917 LP).
Reply With Quote
  #5585  
Old 02-22-2021, 09:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
That’s interesting that Prince Richard did not use Earl of Ulster (courtesy titles). Before John Manners became the 9th Duke of Rutland in 1906, he was styled as Marquess of Granby (1st Subsidiary titles) between 1925 and 1906 when his father was the 8th Duke (Henry Manners) John Manners himself was the eldest surviving son, his older brother Robert Manners, Lord Haddon (1885–1894) (2nd subsidiary title) died before their father succeeded the Dukedom.

But then again, it could be different for Royal peers, especially when Richard is already styled as HRH Prince as the son of the son of the monarch (1917 LP).
I think his being Prince Richard would mean that it was a higher title than Earl of Ulster.. so he used that..and I think Alexander would have ben Lord Alex till his father inherited.
Reply With Quote
  #5586  
Old 02-22-2021, 09:28 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Wouldn't he have been entitled to assume a courtesy peerage? The Letters Patent of 1917 stipulated 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", and the eldest sons of non-royal dukes of the realm enjoy the privilege of being styled as a peer, using one of the subsidiary peerages of their father.

I interpret the text of the LPs to mean that Alexander would have a courtesy title only if his father were already the duke, which is not the scenario you describe. Otherwise, he would have the generic style of the son of a duke of these realms, which would be Lord xxx Windsor.
Reply With Quote
  #5587  
Old 02-22-2021, 06:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
That’s interesting that Prince Richard did not use Earl of Ulster (courtesy titles). Before John Manners became the 9th Duke of Rutland in 1906, he was styled as Marquess of Granby (1st Subsidiary titles) between 1925 and 1906 when his father was the 8th Duke (Henry Manners) John Manners himself was the eldest surviving son, his older brother Robert Manners, Lord Haddon (1885–1894) (2nd subsidiary title) died before their father succeeded the Dukedom.

But then again, it could be different for Royal peers, especially when Richard is already styled as HRH Prince as the son of the son of the monarch (1917 LP).
Prince Richard's older brother was born as the heir apparent to Gloucester and he was always styled as Prince William of Gloucester throughout his life. The current Duke of Kent was also born as Prince Edward of Kent and was styled like that until his father died. Neither ever used the courtesy titles from their father as their own princely titles took precedence - i.e. title in own right takes precedence over courtesy title.

When Prince Richard became the heir apparent to his father's title, when his older brother died, his style didn't change as he was already HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester. His titles changed on the 10th June, 1974 when he became HRH The Duke of Gloucester - and his wife went from being Princess Richard of Gloucester to HRH The Duchess of Gloucester.
Reply With Quote
  #5588  
Old 02-22-2021, 06:53 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I see, apologies for the misunderstanding. I am not sure the fact that Prince Richard was known as Prince Richard of Gloucester (on the basis that being a prince outranked being a courtesy peer) as the heir apparent would have deprived his non-princely son of the same privilege. The eldest son of HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught and HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught used Earl of Macduff by courtesy, in spite of neither of his parents being styled as a peer.
Interesting question. I am with you in thinking that Alexander being the heir apparent's heir apparent would have made him use a courtesy title. I am not sure whether he would have used 'Earl of Ulster' or 'Lord Culloden'; my guess would be he would use the 'highest available' courtesy title; and as his father was never going to use the 'Earl of Ulster' title, that one would have been available from birth.

Quote:
Wouldn't he have been entitled to assume a courtesy peerage? The Letters Patent of 1917 stipulated 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", and the eldest sons of non-royal dukes of the realm enjoy the privilege of being styled as a peer, using one of the subsidiary peerages of their father.
Given that the implications of the final sentence are already applied to grandsons of royal dukes (before their father is a non-royal duke), for example, Alexander's son Xan is styled as 'Lord Culloden'; and his cousin George's son is known as Lord Downpatrick. I don't see a reason why that same logical wouldn't apply to Alexander himself if his father had not yet been the duke.
Reply With Quote
  #5589  
Old 03-07-2021, 10:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
She did state at one point that Archie & the other Sussex children will become prince/princesses once Charles becomes king and mentioned what she called the "George V or VI protocols." But that seemed to go right by Oprah who questioned whether Archie's skin color was part of the reason for his lack of a title. The conversation went on so long I had a hard time keeping up and can't remember all the questions & answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Meghan did mention that Archie and her unborn child will become prince/princesses once Charles becomes king. She referred to what she called the "George V or VI protocol." But that went right by Oprah who wanted to know if Archie's skin color played a part.
It would have been instructive to compare the questions & answers if Oprah had thought to question why Meghan and her children, the spouse and children of the next monarch's second child, are/will be HRH Princess/Prince, while the spouse and children of the current monarch's second child are a mere Sir, Mr., and Mrs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Charles better have a new LP ready to go on his accession to the throne that limits the HRH to the monarch's children and the heir's children but that anyone previously entitled to the HRH (the Kents, Gloucesters, Yorks and Wessexes) will retain their HRH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
If that were to happen it would make the royal family look vindictive.
I am not sure if Alisa's post refers to potential new Letters Patent on Charles' accession, but if so, she has a point, even if new LPs were long planned (and indeed, they are long overdue since the entry into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 in 2015).
Reply With Quote
  #5590  
Old 03-07-2021, 10:13 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It would have been instructive to compare the questions & answers if Oprah had thought to question why Meghan and her children, the spouse and children of the next monarch's second child, are/will be HRH Princess/Prince, while the spouse and children of the current monarch's second child are a mere Sir, Mr., and Mrs.

Unfortunately, Oprah did not see fit to consult royal experts before preparing her questions regarding Archie's title (or lack thereof). Meghan mentioned the "George V or VI protocol" and that Archie would become a prince once Charles becomes King, but instead of asking for clarification Oprah ignored it and focused on questioning Meghan whether Archie's skin color was involved in the decision.
Reply With Quote
  #5591  
Old 03-07-2021, 10:17 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Unfortunately, Oprah did not see fit to consult royal experts before preparing her questions regarding Archie's title (or lack thereof). Meghan mentioned the "George V or VI protocol" and that Archie would become a prince once Charles becomes King, but instead of asking for clarification Oprah ignored it and focused on questioning Meghan whether Archie's skin color was involved in the decision.


Exactly! Sloppy sloppy work on Oprah’s part
Reply With Quote
  #5592  
Old 03-07-2021, 10:39 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It would have been instructive to compare the questions & answers if Oprah had thought to question why Meghan and her children, the spouse and children of the next monarch's second child, are/will be HRH Princess/Prince, while the spouse and children of the current monarch's second child are a mere Sir, Mr., and Mrs.






I am not sure if Alisa's post refers to potential new Letters Patent on Charles' accession, but if so, she has a point, even if new LPs were long planned (and indeed, they are long overdue since the entry into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 in 2015).
Charles would never openly discuss new LPs on his accession while his mother is still alive. He understands the hierarchy and knows that titles of the RF are a matter for the Sovereign to decide, not the heir. Meghan's confusing account of the story is not credible.

In any case, if Charles as king decides to limit the HRH to children of the heir only, he will be just following a trend that already applies to the monarch's grandchildren e,g. in the Netherlands, Spain and, most recently, Sweden. It has nothing to do with Harry, Meghan or Archie personally, or with "race".
Reply With Quote
  #5593  
Old 03-07-2021, 10:47 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Unfortunately, Oprah did not see fit to consult royal experts before preparing her questions regarding Archie's title (or lack thereof). Meghan mentioned the "George V or VI protocol" and that Archie would become a prince once Charles becomes King, but instead of asking for clarification Oprah ignored it and focused on questioning Meghan whether Archie's skin color was involved in the decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
Exactly! Sloppy sloppy work on Oprah’s part
You think that was "sloppy" on Oprah's part? I'd say it was more likely deliberate. But that's all I'm going to say on the subject since anything else edges dangerously into discussion American politics and that's strictly verboten here (which I appreciate!).
Reply With Quote
  #5594  
Old 03-08-2021, 04:46 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,866
Well I haven't watched the interview but I can understand how the precise details and significance of matters as arcane as Letters of Patent escaped Meghan's understanding.

All it really means is the rule was made at a time when life spans were shorter and children often didn't know much about their grandparents because they had died. The sheer number of HM's Great Grandchildren is wonderful but never envisioned and therefore never included. Therefore when the Heir's Heir married his children would not have been prince's or princess's. Thus LP's were drawn up to cover the Duke of Cambridge's children and by the time he was born, he was born a prince.

This nonsense about Anne not wanting it for her children is true but her children were never entitled to it under the rules she grew up with and she had made a name and potential career for herself before her marriage and it wasn't a royal life or career.

Personally I believe Oprah had a racial agenda and didn't want to know "the actual facts". Half a truth is a damnable lie but one she can spin.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #5595  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:53 AM
principessa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Schweinfurt, Germany
Posts: 3,573
If the title "Duke of Sussex" will be removed from Harry (but he and his children will remaining in the line of succession) and Prince Charles will be king and there would be a new letters patent that all grandchildren of the king will be HRH and Prince/ss, what will Archies and his future sisters title be?
__________________
I had a dream: Let's connect our thoughts together, than we have a mission, let's connect our feelings together, than we have a mood, let's connect our dreams together, than we have a vision and let's connect our mission, our mood and our vision together than we have a perfect life.
Reply With Quote
  #5596  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:42 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by principessa View Post
If the title "Duke of Sussex" will be removed from Harry (but he and his children will remaining in the line of succession) and Prince Charles will be king and there would be a new letters patent that all grandchildren of the king will be HRH and Prince/ss, what will Archies and his future sisters title be?

I suppose simply HRH Prince Archie .

Note that what the existing LPs say is that princes have the titular dignity (I am not sure that is the exact term, and don't have time to check it now) of "Prince" and the stye of Royal Highness prefixed to their given names. The LPs do not say anything about territorial designations like "of Cambridge" or "of Sussex", whose use I assume is only a matter of tradition, possibly inspired by the old French custom of children of French royal peers taking the territorial designation of their fathers' peerage as last name.
Reply With Quote
  #5597  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:45 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
Exactly! Sloppy sloppy work on Oprah’s part
I don't think there is anything sloppy here at all. It is sensationalist journalism at its most vulgar
Reply With Quote
  #5598  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:57 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by principessa View Post
If the title "Duke of Sussex" will be removed from Harry (but he and his children will remaining in the line of succession) and Prince Charles will be king and there would be a new letters patent that all grandchildren of the king will be HRH and Prince/ss, what will Archies and his future sisters title be?
Further to other answers, removal of the Sussex title would also render Archie's parents as being Prince and Princess Henry - "of Wales" I assume until Charles becomes king?
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #5599  
Old 03-08-2021, 06:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
All it really means is the rule was made at a time when life spans were shorter and children often didn't know much about their grandparents because they had died. The sheer number of HM's Great Grandchildren is wonderful but never envisioned and therefore never included.
The Letters Patent of 1917 did envision great-grandchildren of monarchs, stipulating that the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would enjoy the style of HRH Prince while other great-grandchildren in male line would be styled as children of dukes.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...ocs.htm#1917_2

Whitehall, 11th December, 1917.
[...] It is declared by the Letters Patent that [...] 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 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 the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In any case, if Charles as king decides to limit the HRH to children of the heir only, he will be just following a trend that already applies to the monarch's grandchildren e,g. in the Netherlands, Spain and, most recently, Sweden. It has nothing to do with Harry, Meghan or Archie personally, or with "race".
Of course, but given that Archie and his sister would be the only individuals who would immediately be affected (unless the King chooses to strip existing HRHs), it would leave King Charles vulnerable to accusations by those who ignore the general nature of the Letters Patent.
Reply With Quote
  #5600  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Unless they amend the act of succession, through an act of Parliament, then actually Archie and his sister will both automatically become HRHs when Charles ascends the throne. Again something Harry absolutely knew. Now there might be some talk of trying to get an amendment but it hasn't happened. So as of now, Yes, Archie will be a Prince.

This is of course assuming nothing else happens like the Sussexes are stripped of their titles, which again takes an act of Parliament, and are removed from the succession.
Unlike peerages, HRH and Prince/ss titles have always been regulated by the Sovereign without interference from Parliament.

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

Not all members of the line of succession are HRHs; Archie is already placed in the line of succession.

https://www.royal.uk/succession


Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
When the Letter Patent was issued 1917, there was no specific year, meaning it applied retrospectively. For example, His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught lost HH Prince in 1917 (1914-1943). Other great-grandchildren of George III and Queen Victoria also lost their HH Prince (of United Kingdom) title.
The Letters Patent of 1917 actually included a saving clause which preserved titles previously created through Letters Patent. In this way, female-line granddaughters such as HH Princess Helena Victoria (a granddaughter of Queen Victoria) and HH Princess Maud (a granddaughter of King Edward VII) were able to remain HH Princess after 1917, in spite of being ineligible for HH/HRH or Princess under the 1917 LPs.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...ocs.htm#1917_2

[...] 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

Alastair, on the other hand, ceased to be known as HH Prince because, while called a prince by custom, he did not bear that attribute in pursuance of any Letters Patent. As a matter of fact, his own grandmother was uncertain whether he was a prince.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri....htm#Connaught

Sometime in late 1916, the duchess of Connaught asked the Earl Curzon to look into the style of her grandson, the infant Alastair. Curzon contacted the Lord Chancellor discreetly, avoiding Buckingham Palace (he wrote that "The King is indifferent [?] rather hostile, having always been rather jealous of the Connaughts"). The Lord Chancellor replied on Jan 11, 1917 that "it would be in accordance with usage that the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught should be styled 'Prince' and 'Highness'" but cautioned that no step should be taken without consulting the 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: 6 (1 members and 5 guests)
Prinsara
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 asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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