The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5801  
Old 05-19-2021, 07:41 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroJapsJoRoyals View Post
May I ask, if a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one.

My question is inspired by The possibly change of succession to nobility, if it does happen, Lady Louise would be Duchess of Edinburgh in the future, what if her descendants want to change to X-Mountbatten-Windsor?
Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.
__________________

__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
Reply With Quote
  #5802  
Old 05-19-2021, 07:46 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,148
We don't know who will inherit the Edinburgh title from Edward as we don't know what the 'remainder' will be. It is possible that Charles may actually created the Edinburgh title with a remainder that allows Louise to inherit the Edinburgh Dukedom and James the Wessex Earldom and Severn Viscountcy.

As there are also moves afoot to remove male primogeniture from the inheritance of titles it is possible that a law will change the 'remainders' anyway.

Charles/William don't have to create a new Dukedom for Louise to be the Duchess if James dies without issue. They can cover that possibility in the Letters Patent creating the Dukedom for Edward when it is done after Charles becomes King.

I know what the tradition has been but that doesn't mean that is the only way things will go moving forward.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5803  
Old 05-19-2021, 07:47 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.
Edward's future dukedom will be a new creation so it will be possible, but IMO rather unlikely, for King Charles to stipulate that it's passed on to the eldest child instead of the eldest son.
Reply With Quote
  #5804  
Old 05-19-2021, 08:46 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroJpnJoRoyals View Post
[...]

My question is inspired by The possibly change of succession to nobility, if it does happen, Lady Louise would be Duchess of Edinburgh in the future, what if her descendants want to change to X-Mountbatten-Windsor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.
EuroJpnJoRoyals referred to a possible change in the rules of succession to nobility. They are clearly aware that male primogeniture is the current rule for (most) hereditary peerages.

Regarding succession to the future dukedom of Edinburgh: In the most likely situation with male primogeniture rules being still in effect at the time when the dukedom of Edinburgh will be recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I expect that the King will create it with the normal remainder to heirs male only, although as Iluvbertie and JR76 stated, it will be his choice. Then, even if male primogeniture were later to be abolished by Parliament, I expect that at the least, adult eldest sons such as James would be permitted to keep their places ahead of their older sisters.

In the unlikely scenario that male-only succession has been abolished by Parliament by the time the dukedom of Edinburgh is recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I wouldn't expect the King to defy Parliament by creating the new peerage with a male-only remainder.
Reply With Quote
  #5805  
Old 05-19-2021, 11:06 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Windsor Castle, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Lady Louise won't be the Duchess of Edinburgh. The next Duke of Edinburgh will be the Earl of Wessex, her father, and following him, her brother James. The only way she'd inherit is if James died before having any children and Charles creates a new Dukedom of Edinburgh allowing for Louise to inherit it upon her father's death.

Equal primogeniture wasn't made retroactive, as far as I know, and it starts with Prince George's generation. Louise was born well before him. So, the old rules of who inherits what title are still in play.
I know that, I have “if”in my last paragraph as The Parliament is discussing about equal succession for nobility, so I said”if”, but thanks anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #5806  
Old 05-19-2021, 11:08 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Windsor Castle, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
We don't know who will inherit the Edinburgh title from Edward as we don't know what the 'remainder' will be. It is possible that Charles may actually created the Edinburgh title with a remainder that allows Louise to inherit the Edinburgh Dukedom and James the Wessex Earldom and Severn Viscountcy.

As there are also moves afoot to remove male primogeniture from the inheritance of titles it is possible that a law will change the 'remainders' anyway.

Charles/William don't have to create a new Dukedom for Louise to be the Duchess if James dies without issue. They can cover that possibility in the Letters Patent creating the Dukedom for Edward when it is done after Charles becomes King.

I know what the tradition has been but that doesn't mean that is the only way things will go moving forward.
Thanks for that, so this comes my main question:
if a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one.
Reply With Quote
  #5807  
Old 05-19-2021, 11:10 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Windsor Castle, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
EuroJapsJoRoyals referred to a possible change in the rules of succession to nobility. They are clearly aware that male primogeniture is the current rule for (most) hereditary peerages.

Regarding succession to the future dukedom of Edinburgh: In the most likely situation with male primogeniture rules being still in effect at the time when the dukedom of Edinburgh will be recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I expect that the King will create it with the normal remainder to heirs male only, although as Iluvbertie and JR76 stated, it will be his choice. Then, even if male primogeniture were later to be abolished by Parliament, I expect that at the least, adult eldest sons such as James would be permitted to keep their places ahead of their older sisters.

In the unlikely scenario that male-only succession has been abolished by Parliament by the time the dukedom of Edinburgh is recreated for the Earl of Wessex, I wouldn't expect the King to defy Parliament by creating the new peerage with a male-only remainder.
Thanks for your help for the clarification. So here comes my main question:
IF a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one?
Reply With Quote
  #5808  
Old 05-19-2021, 05:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroJpnJoRoyals View Post
IF a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.
I'm not sure a definitive answer can be provided, because neither the interpretation of the 1917 and 1960 proclamations covering the royal family's surname, nor their validity as legal instruments, have ever been tested in court.

The proclamations are read by some royal watchers as implying that descendants of female members of the Royal Family are barred from using the names Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor. Other royal watchers read them as simply expressing no view on what surname those descendants should use.

Even if the first interpretation was the intended one, it is unclear if legal control over family members' surnames belongs to the sovereign. A segment of royal watchers assert that as statements of the monarch's will, the proclamations are law, but other royal watchers contend that the monarch's will cannot deprive members of the public of the right they enjoy under common law to choose their own names and their minor children's names.

For readers who did not follow the earlier discussions in this thread, informative sources were shared here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2344837

Of course, it is not strictly a legal matter. If Peter Phillips wished to change his surname to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor and Queen Elizabeth disapproved of the idea, I suspect each would try to bring the other around without resorting to a legal battle, or even a public debate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroJpnJoRoyals View Post
Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one?
While X-Windsor would seem more logical to me for the reason you give, I can't think of any rule which would allow X-Windsor but not Windsor-X.
Reply With Quote
  #5809  
Old 05-19-2021, 05:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Edward's future dukedom will be a new creation so it will be possible, but IMO rather unlikely, for King Charles to stipulate that it's passed on to the eldest child instead of the eldest son.
Even more so because Edward's current titles are with a 'male-remainder'; so James will inherit his current 3 titles. And the Earl of Forfar title was a very recent one; and also the latest Ducal title (Sussex) is only inheritable in male-line.

And it would be rather weird for Louise to inherit her father's title if Beatrice doesn't inherit the Duke of York title. So, the only realistic scenario in which I envision Louise to inherit is if all remainders are changed to 'eldest child' instead of 'eldest son' by law. However, as others pointed out; where does that leave all the current 'heirs' of those titles that have gone by the subsidiary title for their whole life; will that suddenly be stripped from them to be given to their elder sister?
Reply With Quote
  #5810  
Old 05-20-2021, 02:14 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Windsor Castle, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Thanks for that! It helps!
Reply With Quote
  #5811  
Old 05-20-2021, 02:26 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Windsor Castle, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
EuroJapsJoRoyals
I have ask the administrator to Change my username as my username has offensive content, could you change it here to”EuroJpnJoRoyals”? Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #5812  
Old 05-20-2021, 02:35 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Even more so because Edward's current titles are with a 'male-remainder'; so James will inherit his current 3 titles. And the Earl of Forfar title was a very recent one; and also the latest Ducal title (Sussex) is only inheritable in male-line.

And it would be rather weird for Louise to inherit her father's title if Beatrice doesn't inherit the Duke of York title. So, the only realistic scenario in which I envision Louise to inherit is if all remainders are changed to 'eldest child' instead of 'eldest son' by law. However, as others pointed out; where does that leave all the current 'heirs' of those titles that have gone by the subsidiary title for their whole life; will that suddenly be stripped from them to be given to their elder sister?
I would imagine that any legislation enacted to change the remainders to 'eldest child' would include some sort of language stipulating that the current heir does not lose succession rights but that it only applies to heirs born after the date of passage - similar to how the 2013 Act of Succession only impacts the places of those born after Oct 2011 when it was agreed upon by the Commonwealth heads.

So, say the Duke of XYZ's children are Lady A, Lady B, and Earl C - he is still the heir. Say Earl C is already married and has a daughter, Hon Miss M, when legislation is passed - she becomes his heir and is now called Viscountess M as Earl C does not have a living male heir at that time. Then, after the legislation is passed Earl C's wife gives birth to Hon Mister N. He does not supplant his older sister M as the heir and remains Hon Mister M until Earl C inherits Dukedom of XYZ. At that point he becomes Lord N and while his older sister become Countess M as the direct heir to the dukedom.
Reply With Quote
  #5813  
Old 05-21-2021, 02:28 AM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,079
The Marquess of Lansdowne includes of in the title. However, The Marquess Townshend does not have an of in its title. Why the difference?
Reply With Quote
  #5814  
Old 05-21-2021, 02:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,292
I’d say that Townshend is the Marquess’s family name though I believe that’s not his full title. While the Marquis OF Lansdowne probably refers to a place name.
Reply With Quote
  #5815  
Old 05-21-2021, 04:57 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I’d say that Townshend is the Marquess’s family name though I believe that’s not his full title. While the Marquis OF Lansdowne probably refers to a place name.
Yes, Townshend is the family name and the "of" is usually omitted when the title is prefixed to the family name. All you wanted to know about the "of" in peerages but were afraid to ask : The "of" in Peerages
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #5816  
Old 06-20-2021, 04:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,662
I haven't seen a complete transcript of the Duchess of Sussex's interview concerning her son's title, but a recently published article includes a lengthy quotation.

Speaking to Oprah, Meghan recalled how, when she had been pregnant, 'They [the Royal Family] were saying they didn't want him to be a Prince or a Princess'.

She continued: 'You know, the other piece of that convention is, there's a convention – I forget if it was George V or George VI convention – that when you're the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry's dad becomes King, automatically Archie and our next baby would become Prince or Princess, or whatever they were going to be… But also it's not their right to take it away.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ave-costs.html
"There's a convention – I forget if it was George V or George VI convention – that when you're the grandchild of the monarch [...] automatically [you] would become Prince or Princess" is false. The George V convention formulated in the Letters Patent of 1917 is that when you are the male-line grandchild of the monarch you automatically would become Prince or Princess, but when you are a female-line grandchild of the monarch you would not automatically become anything at all.


It is alleged in the article by Kate Mansey for the Mail on Sunday that at the birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor his parents expected their son to become a prince upon his grandfather's accession and that they were only told differently just before giving their interview to Oprah Winfrey this March. There are no named sources. It is claimed in the article that the information was obtained from an unnamed "source close to the couple".

Charles has told the Sussexes that he will change key legal documents to ensure that Archie cannot get the title he would once have inherited by right, according to a source close to the couple.

[...]

The loss will be all the more galling as the Sussexes havemade a point of refusing to use another, lesser title for their son, who is technically the Earl of Dumbarton. They took that decision safe in the knowledge that Archie would become a Prince in due course. Or so they thought.

Earlier this year, a source close to the Sussexes confirmed they did indeed expect Archie to be named a Prince when Charles, Archie's grandfather, acceded to the throne. Their spokesman at the time was even instructed to remind journalists of that 'fact'.

The Sussexes finally learned that would not be the case just before sitting down with Oprah Winfrey for their first bombshell interview in March.

[...]

An insider said: 'Charles has never made any secret of the fact that he wants a slimmed-down Monarchy when he becomes King.

'He realises that the public don't want to pay for a huge Monarchy and, as he said, the balcony at Buckingham Palace would probably collapse.'

[...]

A Royal source said last night: 'We are not going to speculate about the succession or comment on rumours coming out of America.'

Could the statement of the "Royal source" be considered a denial? I am not clear on why they refer to the "succession" instead of "titles".

If there is truth to the claim that "the Sussexes [...] did indeed expect Archie to be named a Prince when Charles, Archie's grandfather, acceded to the throne. Their spokesman at the time was even instructed to remind journalists of that 'fact'", it would call into question whether the "senior source" who confirmed to Robert Jobson in April 2019 that Archie would become a prince was that spokesman.

However, the timeline set out in the Mail on Sunday article is inconsistent with what was reported last year in the book Finding Freedom, which was that:
[...] Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king. [...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...] The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."
Reply With Quote
  #5817  
Old 06-20-2021, 04:38 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
[...] Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king. [...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...] The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."
This all sounds convoluted to me as if the Sussexes seem to think that Charles would issue new letters patent that would refer to the Sussex children alone. It doesn't work that way at least as how I understand it. If Charles is to issue letters patent restricting the HRH Prince/ss titles to the main line of succession (William, George, Charlotte and Louis), it stands to reason that those letters patent would also be in effect and apply to Charlotte and Louis' kids unless William, then as king, issued his own new letters patent.

If Charles is going to enact a slimmed down monarchy by letters patent, it'll be one that stays in effect and not geared to one particular couple and their children that no longer wish to be a part of the monarchy and don't even reside in the UK. The rumors of Charles' slimmed down monarchy have been circulating for far longer than the concerns of the Sussex couple.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #5818  
Old 06-20-2021, 04:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,662


Please note that the paragraphs which you quoted were not written by me but are from the article linked in the preceding paragraph.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...arles-22502836

I agree that any changes would be intended to be permanent for future generations, although of course William and other future monarchs would remain entitled to make their own decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #5819  
Old 06-20-2021, 05:01 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post


Please note that the paragraphs which you quoted were not written by me but are from the article linked in the preceding paragraph.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...arles-22502836

I agree that any changes would be intended to be permanent for future generations, although of course William and other future monarchs would remain entitled to make their own decisions.
I realized that and that's why I commented that it seems to be slanted to how the Sussexes are perceiving things from their angle. Especially mentioning Scobie and Durand.

You know too much about how titles and style really to author statements like that. I've learned a lot from you.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #5820  
Old 06-20-2021, 05:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,662
Thanks, and the same to you.

I wanted to clarify for the benefit of any reader who might not have read the previous link because the quote appeared as "Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria".
__________________

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: 4 (0 members and 4 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 791 03-28-2021 04:29 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
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
america american archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism birth britain britannia british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doll dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf highgrove history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank jewellery książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg medical meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen maxima royal ancestry solomon j solomon spain speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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