The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5821  
Old 06-20-2021, 05:49 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 439
But can Charles actually issue Letters Patent that would only concern Harry's children and the future children in the family without actually removing the style from those who were entitled to it previously? Would Archie and Lilibet be in a different position than, say, Princess Beatrice?

IOW, do they get the style automatically when their grandfather ascends to the throne and can they be considered equal not to Beatrice, Eugenie, the Wessex kids and the Kents and Gloucesters but the future children Charlotte and Louis are goung to have?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5822  
Old 06-20-2021, 06:46 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
But can Charles actually issue Letters Patent that would only concern Harry's children and the future children in the family without actually removing the style from those who were entitled to it previously? Would Archie and Lilibet be in a different position than, say, Princess Beatrice?

IOW, do they get the style automatically when their grandfather ascends to the throne and can they be considered equal not to Beatrice, Eugenie, the Wessex kids and the Kents and Gloucesters but the future children Charlotte and Louis are goung to have?
Theoretically, he could, IMO, if it was worded in a way that made it effective/applicable only to those in the line of succession to whom the 2013 Act of Succession also applies. Yes, in the next generation it would only impact Harry's children, though it's possible Charles could also drop the "Lord/Lady" styling for greatgrandchildren of a monarch in the male line which would also impact any of James' future children until he becomes Duke of Edinburgh (or would his children be styled as Lord/Lady/Honorable while he holds the courtesy Earl of Wessex and Forfar titles?). And that might be the best move to show that Charles really isn't singling the Sussex children out due to some institutional racism within the BRF, since Harry & Meghan already chose to have Archie and Lili go simply by Master and Miss rather than Lord and Lady as they could have been styled by already being great-grandchildren of the monarch in the male line.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5823  
Old 06-20-2021, 08:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Theoretically, he could, IMO, if it was worded in a way that made it effective/applicable only to those in the line of succession to whom the 2013 Act of Succession also applies. Yes, in the next generation it would only impact Harry's children, though it's possible Charles could also drop the "Lord/Lady" styling for greatgrandchildren of a monarch in the male line which would also impact any of James' future children until he becomes Duke of Edinburgh (or would his children be styled as Lord/Lady/Honorable while he holds the courtesy Earl of Wessex and Forfar titles?). And that might be the best move to show that Charles really isn't singling the Sussex children out due to some institutional racism within the BRF, since Harry & Meghan already chose to have Archie and Lili go simply by Master and Miss rather than Lord and Lady as they could have been styled by already being great-grandchildren of the monarch in the male line.
The children of courtesy peers use the same titles as the children of substantive peers, so James's children would be Lord, Lady or Honourable through that route, regardless of what any LP says.
Reply With Quote
  #5824  
Old 06-20-2021, 08:08 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Theoretically, he could, IMO, if it was worded in a way that made it effective/applicable only to those in the line of succession to whom the 2013 Act of Succession also applies.
I was thinking about this whole problem earlier, trying to figure out how they could word a legal ruling or LP so that it effectively says 'apply the old rules to legitimate descendants of King George VI or Queen Elizabeth II, but the new rules to the legitimate descendants of King Charles III'.

What you mention here - linking it to who was impacted by the Act of Succession - that would be a convenient shortcut, for lack of a better description.
Reply With Quote
  #5825  
Old 06-20-2021, 08:10 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Theoretically, he could, IMO, if it was worded in a way that made it effective/applicable only to those in the line of succession to whom the 2013 Act of Succession also applies. Yes, in the next generation it would only impact Harry's children, though it's possible Charles could also drop the "Lord/Lady" styling for greatgrandchildren of a monarch in the male line which would also impact any of James' future children until he becomes Duke of Edinburgh (or would his children be styled as Lord/Lady/Honorable while he holds the courtesy Earl of Wessex and Forfar titles?). And that might be the best move to show that Charles really isn't singling the Sussex children out due to some institutional racism within the BRF, since Harry & Meghan already chose to have Archie and Lili go simply by Master and Miss rather than Lord and Lady as they could have been styled by already being great-grandchildren of the monarch in the male line.
For Charles to issue Letters Patent that only applied to Harry's children would be to deprive them of a right they already had by reason of, by then, being grandchildren of the monarch, and the optics would not be good and would fuel criticism already levelled at the family by Harry and Meghan because it would blatantly discriminate against their children. If it's going to be done it should be done by Elizabeth during her reign, but I don't think she will do it either, because, again, it would discriminate only against Harry & Meghan's children unless she applied it to all others who hitherto have enjoyed the royal style and titles. I suppose she could issue the LP depriving the cousins and non-Cambridge grandchildren of it too but then also let it be known it is her will that those who enjoy the royal style and titles as at the date of the LP continue to be known by them. She made a concession like this with Princess Alice, though Alice was already entitled to the HRH as Dowager Duchess anyway.

The courtesy peerage titles are a different kettle of fish and I don't think Charles would try to interfere with them because, even if he has the power to do it, he would be unlikely to try to apply the rule to only his Sussex grandchildren because of the discrimination issue, and all the other peers would kick up too much of a fuss if he tried to interfere with their rights that way. Regardless of what he is known as during his father's lifetime, Archie will eventually inherit the Dukedom of Sussex and the dukedom will continue to be inherited in the usual way. He never has to use a courtesy title or the substantive title, but that doesn't mean he loses them. He could disclaim it within 12 months of succeeding to it under the Peerage Act 1963 but it would still pass to his heir.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #5826  
Old 06-20-2021, 08:34 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
For Charles to issue Letters Patent that only applied to Harry's children would be to deprive them of a right they already had by reason of, by then, being grandchildren of the monarch, and the optics would not be good and would fuel criticism already levelled at the family by Harry and Meghan because it would blatantly discriminate against their children. If it's going to be done it should be done by Elizabeth during her reign, but I don't think she will do it either, because, again, it would discriminate only against Harry & Meghan's children unless she applied it to all others who hitherto have enjoyed the royal style and titles.
And if she applies it to all others, it would be a horrible optics as well. I mean, what did the Duke of Kent do to be demoted at 86 years of age, except for being in the way of the optics being good enough for two children who will spend their lives in America? Depriving Harry and Meghan's children: criticism because of their accusations but also depriving them from the chance to use their titles to make themselves more desirable in America's high circle. Depriving the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and Princess Alexandra: criticism because it's going to be blatantly obvious that it's only being done to appease the court of public opinion. How good is this same opinion going to be when three people who had done nothing but serve are demoted at the end of their lives out of fear?

As I see it, if the style is granted automatically, the least painful option is for HM to do it. But even so, it's going to be a can of worms.
Reply With Quote
  #5827  
Old 06-20-2021, 08:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
For Charles to issue Letters Patent that only applied to Harry's children would be to deprive them of a right they already had by reason of, by then, being grandchildren of the monarch,
I'm afraid the part in bold is incorrect. Please see what I wrote a few posts above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
and the optics would not be good and would fuel criticism already levelled at the family by Harry and Meghan because it would blatantly discriminate against their children.
It could be as you say in regards to the optics. The reality is that numerous other children of British royals already have been "blatantly discriminated against", including the Wessex children as well as the Snowdon and Phillips children who, in contrast to the Wessex or Sussex children, were discriminated against not merely on an individual basis but on the systemic basis of (their mothers') gender.

If one looks abroad, there is an abundance of other cases in foreign monarchies, beginning with the UK's neighbors: Felipe de Marichalar, Countess Eloise of Orange.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
The courtesy peerage titles are a different kettle of fish and I don't think Charles would try to interfere with them because, even if he has the power to do it, he would be unlikely to try to apply the rule to only his Sussex grandchildren because of the discrimination issue, and all the other peers would kick up too much of a fuss if he tried to interfere with their rights that way.
The other posters weren't discussing repealing the courtesy titles of the peerage, but the regulation in the 1917 Letters Patent that great-grandchildren in male line enjoy the same courtesy titles as children of a duke, even when their father (Prince Michael of Kent, for instance) is not a peer.

If a repeal of the discriminatory rule regarding male-line grandchildren ever comes about, the rule regarding male-line great-grandchildren will certainly be repealed together with it. If Prince Michael of Kent were Lord Michael Windsor, it would seem very strange for Lord Michael's children to be Lords and Ladies while children of other Lords, younger sons of peers, are plain Ms and Mr.
Reply With Quote
  #5828  
Old 06-20-2021, 09:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
But can Charles actually issue Letters Patent that would only concern Harry's children and the future children in the family without actually removing the style from those who were entitled to it previously? Would Archie and Lilibet be in a different position than, say, Princess Beatrice?

IOW, do they get the style automatically when their grandfather ascends to the throne and can they be considered equal not to Beatrice, Eugenie, the Wessex kids and the Kents and Gloucesters but the future children Charlotte and Louis are goung to have?
He can issue Letters Patent that relate to his descendants only ... and at some time the issue of Charlotte's children not being HRH while Louis' will be will have to be addressed.

I can see Charles issuing LPs that cover the children of the younger children in each generation so that only the children of the heir apparent in each generation have HRH.

That wouldn't then remove HRH from anyone who currently has it, especially The Queen's cousins.

He could also specify descendants of George VI and thus remove HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie.

I doubt he would specify the children of The Duke of Sussex but be more general - but which generation - his descendants or QEII's or GV's descendants. (George VI's descendants who are HRH are also QEII's as Princess Margaret's descendants aren't HRH's).
Reply With Quote
  #5829  
Old 06-20-2021, 09:43 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sionevar View Post
I was thinking about this whole problem earlier, trying to figure out how they could word a legal ruling or LP so that it effectively says 'apply the old rules to legitimate descendants of King George VI or Queen Elizabeth II, but the new rules to the legitimate descendants of King Charles III'.

What you mention here - linking it to who was impacted by the Act of Succession - that would be a convenient shortcut, for lack of a better description.
The 'short-cut' is the one I've been proposing for a long time. Especially because it makes a lot of sense to tie it to the change in succession in terms of gender.

Previously, children of daughters were behind children of sons in the line of succession and while the latter got titles and had expectations to participate in royal life that did not apply to the female-line descendants. Given that Charlotte's children will be ahead of Louis' children in the line of succession, they need a solution to avoid his children being HRH while Charlotte's are not. The easiest way (and the one in line with what already has been applied to Edward's children) is to no longer make any other than children of monarch and direct heirs HRH for all those born after October 28, 2011. Everyone born before that date remains untouched (as it did with the succession itself).
Reply With Quote
  #5830  
Old 06-20-2021, 09:49 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The other posters weren't discussing repealing the courtesy titles of the peerage, but the regulation in the 1917 Letters Patent that great-grandchildren in male line enjoy the same courtesy titles as children of a duke, even when their father (Prince Michael of Kent, for instance) is not a peer.

If a repeal of the discriminatory rule regarding male-line grandchildren ever comes about, the rule regarding male-line great-grandchildren will certainly be repealed together with it. If Prince Michael of Kent were Lord Michael Windsor, it would seem very strange for Lord Michael's children to be Lords and Ladies while children of other Lords, younger sons of peers, are plain Ms and Mr.
I could see them either repealing it completely and have the 'normal' peerage rules apply; or explicitly make all grandchildren by non-direct heirs (so both Charlotte's and Louis') Lord and Lady. I personally would like the grandchildren of the monarch to be differentiated in some way - by at least enjoying the style that many others in the country (and their social circle) enjoy instead of being plain master/mr and miss/mrs. Another way to make sure all grandchildren are entitled to courtesy titles is to create peerages for all children of the monarch and not only the sons.
Reply With Quote
  #5831  
Old 06-20-2021, 09:53 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
He can issue Letters Patent that relate to his descendants only ... and at some time the issue of Charlotte's children not being HRH while Louis' will be will have to be addressed.

I can see Charles issuing LPs that cover the children of the younger children in each generation so that only the children of the heir apparent in each generation have HRH.

That wouldn't then remove HRH from anyone who currently has it, especially The Queen's cousins.

He could also specify descendants of George VI and thus remove HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie.

I doubt he would specify the children of The Duke of Sussex but be more general - but which generation - his descendants or QEII's or GV's descendants. (George VI's descendants who are HRH are also QEII's as Princess Margaret's descendants aren't HRH's).
That's an interesting thought - and one in which it is very clear that it is not targeted at one specific family but at setting a new reality for the younger and future generations. I am sure Andrew wouldn't be happy about it but it would make it consistent within their generation as currently Beatrice and Eugenie are known as princess while Louise and James are known by courtesy titles.

In that case, we'd have Lady Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi and Lady Eugenie Brooksbank. That could work and even sounds better than 'Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi' and 'Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank'.
Reply With Quote
  #5832  
Old 06-20-2021, 10:16 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I'm afraid the part in bold is incorrect. Please see what I wrote a few posts above.
The part to which you were responding said:

"For Charles to issue Letters Patent that only applied to Harry's children would be to deprive them of a right they already had by reason of, by then, being grandchildren of the monarch"

The reason I said that was because the 1917 Letters Patent states:

"...Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and 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..."

By the time Charles is in a position to issue Letters Patent, Archie and Lili will be the son and daughter of a son of the Sovereign, and on my reading of the 1917 LP they shall therefore have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince and Princess prefixed to their Christian names.

I cannot find anything in any of your recent posts that indicates my view is incorrect, though I concede I ought to have been more specific and said children of a son of the
monarch, and with that proviso I press it as correct. If you maintain that it is incorrect for other reasons, would you please refer me to the specific comment you had in mind.

Quote:
It could be as you say in regards to the optics. The reality is that numerous other children of British royals already have been "blatantly discriminated against", including the Wessex children as well as the Snowdon and Phillips children who, in contrast to the Wessex or Sussex children, were discriminated against not merely on an individual basis but on the systemic basis of (their mothers') gender.

If one looks abroad, there is an abundance of other cases in foreign monarchies, beginning with the UK's neighbors: Felipe de Marichalar, Countess Eloise of Orange.
You are correct and I abhore this insidious, anachronistic, gender-based discrimination, but it is long-standing discrimination of a different sort and unrelated to the individual person-specific discrimination to which I was referring.

Quote:
The other posters weren't discussing repealing the courtesy titles of the peerage, but the regulation in the 1917 Letters Patent that great-grandchildren in male line enjoy the same courtesy titles as children of a duke, even when their father (Prince Michael of Kent, for instance) is not a peer.

If a repeal of the discriminatory rule regarding male-line grandchildren ever comes about, the rule regarding male-line great-grandchildren will certainly be repealed together with it. If Prince Michael of Kent were Lord Michael Windsor, it would seem very strange for Lord Michael's children to be Lords and Ladies while children of other Lords, younger sons of peers, are plain Ms and Mr.
You are correct; I had misread the post and my comments were not responsive to the matter in question.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #5833  
Old 06-21-2021, 06:56 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
[...]

If one looks abroad, there is an abundance of other cases in foreign monarchies, beginning with the UK's neighbors: Felipe de Marichalar, Countess Eloise of Orange.

[...]


I do not know if these examples are discrimination. Both in Spain and the Netherlands the choice has been made to reserve the HRH and the style Prince/Princess (Infante/Infanta) exclusively for children of a (future) King.
Reply With Quote
  #5834  
Old 06-21-2021, 07:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I could see them either repealing it completely and have the 'normal' peerage rules apply; or explicitly make all grandchildren by non-direct heirs (so both Charlotte's and Louis') Lord and Lady. I personally would like the grandchildren of the monarch to be differentiated in some way - by at least enjoying the style that many others in the country (and their social circle) enjoy instead of being plain master/mr and miss/mrs. Another way to make sure all grandchildren are entitled to courtesy titles is to create peerages for all children of the monarch and not only the sons.



I think making all grandchildren born of non-direct heirs Lord/Lady makes a lot of sense. It would be similar to the children of Infantes/Infantas being given the consideration of untitled Grandees in Spain and a better solution than giving them a hereditary title of nobility as it was done in the Netherlands for Prince Constantijn's children.


I also think that the practice of giving out hereditary peerages to sons of sovereigns and sons of the heir should stop. It is a practice that originated in medieval France to compensate for the introduction of primogeniture in the succession to the Crown and no longer makes sense today. Creating peerages for all children of monarchs would result in a large number of new hereditary peerages over time.
Reply With Quote
  #5835  
Old 06-21-2021, 08:07 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think making all grandchildren born of non-direct heirs Lord/Lady makes a lot of sense. It would be similar to the children of Infantes/Infantas being given the consideration of untitled Grandees in Spain and a better solution than giving them a hereditary title of nobility as it was done in the Netherlands for Prince Constantijn's children.


I also think that the practice of giving out hereditary peerages to sons of sovereigns and sons of the heir should stop. It is a practice that originated in medieval France to compensate for the introduction of primogeniture in the succession to the Crown and no longer makes sense today. Creating peerages for all children of monarchs would result in a large number of new hereditary peerages over time.
other monarchies give peerages to members of the family, as far as I know. And in the UK, its hardly going to result in a flood of peerages.. most monarchs have only 2 or maybe 3 children... if it is restrcited to the children of the monarch that's 2 or 3 in the lifetime of the monarch....
Reply With Quote
  #5836  
Old 06-21-2021, 08:28 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
By the time Charles is in a position to issue Letters Patent, Archie and Lili will be the son and daughter of a son of the Sovereign, and on my reading of the 1917 LP they shall therefore have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince and Princess prefixed to their Christian names.

I cannot find anything in any of your recent posts that indicates my view is incorrect, though I concede I ought to have been more specific and said children of a son of the monarch, and with that proviso I press it as correct.

[...] I abhore this insidious, anachronistic, gender-based discrimination, but it is long-standing discrimination of a different sort and unrelated to the individual person-specific discrimination to which I was referring.
The part of your original post which I highlighted and said was not correct was
by reason of, by then, being grandchildren of the monarch,
In my reply, I quoted the section of my original post which indicated why that was not correct. I will quote the key sentences once more here:
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.
Therefore, the reason I maintain the original statement was not correct is that being the grandchild of the monarch does not entail the right to be a Prince or Princess. (If that were the case, the Princess Royal's children would have that right.) The Duke of Sussex's children will enjoy that right not because they are grandchildren, but because they are male-line grandchildren.

I think that is an important distinction, especially in view of the discussions about person-specific discrimination and about potential future accusations of racial discrimination, because the fact of the matter is that allowing the 1917 Letters Patent to be applied unchanged to the next generation will entail perpetuating gender discrimination for one generation more, as you recognize.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I do not know if these examples are discrimination. Both in Spain and the Netherlands the choice has been made to reserve the HRH and the style Prince/Princess (Infante/Infanta) exclusively for children of a (future) King.
I was responding to Roslyn's comment that depriving some of the future King Charles's grandchildren of the style Prince/Princess would "blatantly discriminate against [them]". My point was that if deprivation of the Prince/Princess style is blatant discrimination, then there are many other children (including in the Spain and the Netherlands) who are blatantly discriminated against, according to that standard.

(And certainly it discriminates between the children of the heir and the children of younger children, but I think that is completely acceptable.)
Reply With Quote
  #5837  
Old 06-21-2021, 12:38 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: small town, United States
Posts: 96
Ok, It is my opinion that changes have to be made. Order of succession is now equal between males and females, so Charlotte is ahead of Louis. Due to the equal status, grandchildren in the female lines should be HRH and prince/princess, or both groups of grandchildren should be untitled. As I see it, having HRH and prince/princess titles only for the grandkids in the direct line is the fair and equal way to go.

Charles can write the order so it starts with his grandchildren.

Another option would be that no grandchildren have titles.

Edit: It looks like I should have read farther ahead, some others are basically saying the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #5838  
Old 06-21-2021, 01:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Titles and styles have never passed through the female line: that would be quite a radical change. It's possibly long overdue, but it would be a big change.


I think that withdrawing the HRH style from anyone who already holds it would be very controversial. How could you tell the Duke of Kent that he was being demoted after 85 years? Or even tell Beatrice and Eugenie that they were being demoted, when they haven't done anything wrong? Changes are not usually retrospective: Charlotte comes ahead of Louis in the order of succession, but Princess Anne still remains behind her younger brothers.


I think it'd make more sense to say that only the children and grandchildren in the direct line are to be HRH and princes and princesses - but starting with any future generations. That would mean that Archie and Lili would be HRH and would be prince and princess, if they chose to use the titles, which might not be what Charles has in mind, but I'm not keen on the idea of withdrawing the rights of people who are already here. I know it's been done in other countries and hasn't caused any ill feeling, but it just doesn't work for me.
Reply With Quote
  #5839  
Old 06-21-2021, 02:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 103
If prince Charles will become king, Who will be prince of wales?
Reply With Quote
  #5840  
Old 06-21-2021, 02:05 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The 'short-cut' is the one I've been proposing for a long time. Especially because it makes a lot of sense to tie it to the change in succession in terms of gender.

Previously, children of daughters were behind children of sons in the line of succession and while the latter got titles and had expectations to participate in royal life that did not apply to the female-line descendants. Given that Charlotte's children will be ahead of Louis' children in the line of succession, they need a solution to avoid his children being HRH while Charlotte's are not. The easiest way (and the one in line with what already has been applied to Edward's children) is to no longer make any other than children of monarch and direct heirs HRH for all those born after October 28, 2011. Everyone born before that date remains untouched (as it did with the succession itself).
This remains the perfect solution for me. If we think back, In December 2012, Queen Elizabeth issued letters patent that stated that all children born to the eldest child of Charles, Prince of Wales, would enjoy a princely title and style, and not just the eldest son. This was done specifically should the Cambridge first born child be a daughter.

With Charles issuing letters patent to reinforce the Queen's and making it known that going into the future, only the direct heirs born after October 28, 2011 would be HRH Prince/ss would only affect the Sussex children. Everyone else that still is HRH and Prince/ss would retain those titles and styles.

This puts the limit on HRH Prince/ss going into the future and George's children as William's grandchildren would be titled and styled as HRH Prince/ss whereas Charlotte's and Louis' would not.

In other words, all Charles would be doing is amending the letters patent already in force by Queen Elizabeth II which was done when the Act to the Succession of the Crown was amended.
__________________

__________________
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
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: 5 (1 members and 4 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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life gemstones george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex taiwan thai royal family united states wales


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

Social Knowledge Networks

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