Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Fijiro]

If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?

 

[muriel]

If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?

The Crown does not "have custody of their children", H & M will.

If you are alluding to any potential divorce, the English courts will have jurisdiction on the matter. As they will be quite far down the line of succession, it is unlikely any arrangements for the "Crown" to have custody will need to be put in place.

 

[Fijiro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro
If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?

The Crown does not "have custody of their children", H & M will.

If you are alluding to any potential divorce, the English courts will have jurisdiction on the matter. As they will be quite far down the line of succession, it is unlikely any arrangements for the "Crown" to have custody will need to be put in place.

No, I was not alluding to divorce, (I hope it doesn't happen).
I was just wondering in case of out of country travels, since they're not HRHs do parents need permission to take them out of the country for travels.

 

[Spheno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro
If Harry/Meghan's children don't get to be HRHs Prince/Princess, does the Crown still have custody of their children?




No, I was not alluding to divorce, (I hope it doesn't happen).
I was just wondering in case of out of country travels, since they're not HRHs do parents need permission to take them out of the country for travels.

It's grey area. Maybe Harry and Meghan are their children's custodiants, but maybe the queen is their custodian. We don't know.

 

[Heavs]

It was once speculated that Andrew and Fergie wanted their daughter to go to Aiglon in Switzerland which obviously never happened but it was reported at the time that they would need HM's permission for her granddaughters to do that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen, as the monarch, can refuse to allow the children in the line of succession to do certain things such as leave the country. This law goes back to George II and make no reference to being HRHs - just line of succession.

What this would mean is that if Harry and Meghan were to divorce, she wouldn't get custody at all as that would have to remain with Harry (or jointly shared as happened with Charles and Diana; Andrew and Fergie and Anne and Mark). Had those divorces contested custody the Queen would have had final custody and not the parents.

She does have to give consent for them to be taken out of the country and for final decisions, such as education.

 

[Somebody]

The Queen, as the monarch, can refuse to allow the children in the line of succession to do certain things such as leave the country. This law goes back to George II and make no reference to being HRHs - just line of succession.

What this would mean is that if Harry and Meghan were to divorce, she wouldn't get custody at all as that would have to remain with Harry (or jointly shared as happened with Charles and Diana; Andrew and Fergie and Anne and Mark). Had those divorces contested custody the Queen would have had final custody and not the parents.

She does have to give consent for them to be taken out of the country and for final decisions, such as education.

There must be a limit to that because surely the queen cannot order the Norwegian royals around just because they are in line of succession.

 

[Ish]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

There must be a limit to that because surely the queen cannot order the Norwegian royals around just because they are in line of succession.

I believe the stance the BRF has typically taken is that those who are descended from women who married into foreign royalty no longer fall under the same restrictions as those who are not.

So, the Norwegians, being descended from Maud of Wales, who married into the NRF, no longer have to follow the rules that those descended from Maud’s siblings, as none of them married into foreign royalty.

This is why the Hanovers continued to ask the Queen for permission to marry (prior to the recent changes), as they technically haven’t married into a foreign royal house.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Hanoverians are descended from a British Princess who married into a foreign royal house as they are descended from the Empress Frederick and therefore did not need to ask for permission. That they chose to do so is probably because they felt like it but they were certainly exempt.

The Norwegians, like the Swedes, Danes and Spanish were also descended from a British princess who married into a foreign royal house and were equally exempt.

The rules, about custody, only apply to the BRF and not the other royal families and only to the descendants of the reigning monarch not to the entire 6000+ in the line of succession,

 

[JR76]

The Hanoverians are descended from a British Princess who married into a foreign royal house as they are descended from the Empress Frederick and therefore did not need to ask for permission. That they chose to do so is probably because they felt like it but they were certainly exempt.

The Norwegians, like the Swedes, Danes and Spanish were also descended from a British princess who married into a foreign royal house and were equally exempt.

I guess that to the Hannoverians their agnatic descent from the Kings of the United Kingdom goes before their descent from Princess Victoria. Especially when one considers their use of the title Prince/ss of the United Kingdom.
To my knowledge neither the Swedes nor the Danes have asked permission since Margareth of Connaught married Gustav Adolf of Sweden-Norway nor have the Norwegians asked permission since Maud of York married Carl of Denmark.

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen, as the monarch, can refuse to allow the children in the line of succession to do certain things such as leave the country. This law goes back to George II and make no reference to being HRHs - just line of succession.

What this would mean is that if Harry and Meghan were to divorce, she wouldn't get custody at all as that would have to remain with Harry (or jointly shared as happened with Charles and Diana; Andrew and Fergie and Anne and Mark). Had those divorces contested custody the Queen would have had final custody and not the parents.

She does have to give consent for them to be taken out of the country and for final decisions, such as education.

That is interesting, Is there an specific act of Parliament regulating those matters or is it an unwritten convention ?

I believe the stance the BRF has typically taken is that those who are descended from women who married into foreign royalty no longer fall under the same restrictions as those who are not.

So, the Norwegians, being descended from Maud of Wales, who married into the NRF, no longer have to follow the rules that those descended from Maud’s siblings, as none of them married into foreign royalty.

This is why the Hanovers continued to ask the Queen for permission to marry (prior to the recent changes), as they technically haven’t married into a foreign royal house.

Would the restrictions apply though to the Lascelles or Fife (Carnegie) families for example ?

 

[Spheno]

That is interesting, Is there an specific act of Parliament regulating those matters or is it an unwritten convention ?

Custody of royal grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

But we don't know exact situation with royal great-grandchildren. Of course king Charles will be legal custodian of all Harry's children.

 

[Mbruno]

Custody of royal grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

But we don't know exact situation with royal great-grandchildren. Of course king Charles will be legal custodian of all Harry's children.

Thanks for the clarification ! So we are talking about a court ruling rather than an act of Parliament and, apparently, it applies only to the monarch’s grandchildren and no further than that. In theory, Harry’s children would not be covered by the ruling until Charles ascended the throne.

 

[Spheno]

Thanks for the clarification ! So we are talking about a court ruling rather than an act of Parliament and, apparently, it applies only to the monarch’s grandchildren and no further than that. In theory, Harry’s children would not be covered by the ruling until Charles ascended the throne.

We need to know exact wording of this court ruling, to know modern legal interpretation of this ruling and precedents. It's too early to make any conclusions.

 

[Fijiro]

Custody of royal grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

But we don't know exact situation with royal great-grandchildren. Of course king Charles will be legal custodian of all Harry's children.

... and William's children, too, I suppose.

 

[alvinking]

We need to know exact wording of this court ruling, to know modern legal interpretation of this ruling and precedents. It's too early to make any conclusions.

There is no legal modern interpretation to be known. The rules has been used many time legally. Like it was discussed in another thread. There was no legal custody settlements for the children during the divorce, of Anne, Charles, and Andrew, only private agreements between the parties. Diana's will stated that she wanted her brother Charles Earl spencer and one of her sisters to be legal Guardians of her children, this stipulation was overruled and the Queen appointed Sir john Major as a legal guardian of William and Harry. It is he and his team who dealt with all financial matters regarding Diana's succession

 

[SLV]

Is there a reason that the Prime minister was choosen? Would that mean that if W&C would divorce now, that PM May would be a guardian?

 

[alvinking]

Is there a reason that the Prime minister was choosen? Would that mean that if W&C would divorce now, that PM May would be a guardian?

The rule as I understand it concerns the grand children of the sovereign. As of now, DoC's children are not concerned since they are great grandchildren of the sovereign. It is Charles once King who will have custody of his grandchildren. As for why Sir John Major was chosen, I don't know, only Charles and the Queen know

 

[Fijiro]

All these explanations are very interesting; and also very confusing for me.

So, this is how I understand it, the Sovereign has custody of his/her descendants, in this case, HMQueen has custody of Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward, and all their descendants, i.e. all the Mountbatten-Windsors .
When Charles becomes King, he will have custody of William, Harry, and all their descendants; and eventually when William becomes King, he will have custody of George, Charlotte, Louis, and all their descendants

IMO John Major was probably chosen because it was such a contentious divorce/separation that a selection of a third party was the way to go. Just an opinion!

 

[Lilyflo]

Is there a reason that the Prime minister was choosen? Would that mean that if W&C would divorce now, that PM May would be a guardian?

Sir John Major wasn't PM when Diana died but he had been for the previous 6 years so I presume the weekly meetings with the Queen had given her an insight into his suitability for the role (she might have thought differently had she known about his scandalous affair that only came to light in 2002).

 

[Mbruno]

Sir John Major wasn't PM when Diana died but he had been for the previous 6 years so I presume the weekly meetings with the Queen had given her an insight into his suitability for the role (she might have thought differently had she known about his scandalous affair that only came to light in 2002).

He was appointed a Knight of the Garter in 2005, i.e. after his extramarital affair had come to light. I would assume then that his affair becoming public didn’t shake Her Majesty’s confidence in him.

 

[alvinking]

I don't understand what is so complicated to understand. Absent this rule Parents (sovereign included) have custody of their minor children
So when they were minors, logically the sovereign have custody of his children.
His the case of the Queen, she and her husband had custody of her children from 1952 until their majority.
The rule came about in the 1700's when King George I had a disagreement with his son the then Prince of Wales. It was then ruled that the sovereign has custody of all his grandchildren.

According to this rule, from 1947 to 1952, King George VI had custody of Charles and Anne.
The Queen had custody of her grandchildren when they were minors
Peter Phillips, Zara Phillips, Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and according to this rule she still has custody of Lady Louise Windsor, and James Viscount Severn since they are still minors.

When he is King, Charles will have custody of his minor grandchildren
Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis, Baby Sussex, and any other grandchildren

When William is King, he will have custody of his minor grandchildren, ie
George's children, charlotte's children, louis' children, and any other future children's children

Unless the rule is somehow repealed

Again as I understand it it only concerns the sovereign grandchildren, not all the sovereign's descendant

 

[Fijiro]

I don't understand what is so complicated to understand. Absent this rule Parents (sovereign included) have custody of their minor children
So when they were minors, logically the sovereign have custody of his children.
His the case of the Queen, she and her husband had custody of her children from 1952 until their majority.
The rule came about in the 1700's when King George I had a disagreement with his son the then Prince of Wales. It was then ruled that the sovereign has custody of all his grandchildren.

According to this rule, from 1947 to 1952, King George VI had custody of Charles and Anne.
The Queen had custody of her grandchildren when they were minors
Peter Phillips, Zara Phillips, Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and according to this rule she still has custody of Lady Louise Windsor, and James Viscount Severn since they are still minors.

When he is King, Charles will have custody of his minor grandchildren
Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis, Baby Sussex, and any other grandchildren

When William is King, he will have custody of his minor grandchildren, ie
George's children, charlotte's children, louis' children, and any other future children's children

Unless the rule is somehow repealed

Again as I understand it it only concerns the sovereign grandchildren, not all the sovereign's descendant

Thank you Alvinking - now I get it.
?

 

[Lilyflo]

He was appointed a Knight of the Garter in 2005, i.e. after his extramarital affair had come to light. I would assume then that his affair becoming public didn’t shake Her Majesty’s confidence in him.

Perhaps 8 years of service as the boys' guardian also earned him the honour, besides being an ex PM (previous PMs had been appointed KG).

 

[Somebody]

Ten out of 12 judges ruled that the "king's right of supervision extended to his grandchildren and this right of right belongs to His Majesty, King of the Realm,*even during their father's lifetime."

Given that the ruling specifically referred to 'their father's lifetime', a case could be made that the queen only has/had custody of her maleline grandchildren. This would be consistent with only maleline grandchildren receiving titles.

So, I doubt that the queen ever had custody over the private citizens Peter and Zara who happened to be her grandchildren.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is no legal modern interpretation to be known. The rules has been used many time legally. Like it was discussed in another thread. There was no legal custody settlements for the children during the divorce, of Anne, Charles, and Andrew, only private agreements between the parties. Diana's will stated that she wanted her brother Charles Earl spencer and one of her sisters to be legal Guardians of her children, this stipulation was overruled and the Queen appointed Sir john Major as a legal guardian of William and Harry. It is he and his team who dealt with all financial matters regarding Diana's succession

If you actually read Diana's will it says she wanted them as guardian of her children IF both she and Charles were deceased not while Charles was still alive. She couldn't appoint a guardian of her children while their other parent was living.

CNN - Diana's Will: The full text - March 4, 1998

SHOULD any child of mine be under age at the date of the death of the survivor of myself and my husband I APPOINT my mother and my brother EARL SPENCER to be the guardians of that child and I express the wish that should I predecease my husband and he will consult with my mother with regard to the upbringing in education and welfare of our children.

She is very clear - she was appointing guardians if she was the second of the parents to die not the first. If she was first she wanted Charles to consult with her mother over their upbringing and education. Whether he did so we don't know. She didn't include her brother in any decision making if Charles survived her.

 

[wbenson]

Custody of royal grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

But we don't know exact situation with royal great-grandchildren. Of course king Charles will be legal custodian of all Harry's children.

I'm extremely skeptical that this ruling is still good law after three centuries of changes in family law.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm extremely skeptical that this ruling is still good law after three centuries of changes in family law.

The same thought actually crossed my mind. Judicial precedent is superseded by statutory law so modern acts of Parliament regulating child custody should overrule an 18th century court ruling, even if it involves royal prerogative. Keep in mind that, in the UK, Parliament can also take away royal prerogatives by law since, as affirmed in 1688, Parliament is sovereign.



I suppose that, if a custody dispute had arisen in William's or Harry's case, or should a dispute arise involving Meghan's children, the UK courts would have to reconsider the matter and the 18th century decision could be overturned.

 

[Fijiro]

Harry&Meghan's children will have a dual citizenship?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Harry&Meghan's children will have a dual citizenship?

Yes.

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html

B. Child Born in Wedlock [6]

[...]

3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent [9]

A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:

•One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
​
•The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.​

Given that the ruling specifically referred to 'their father's lifetime', a case could be made that the queen only has/had custody of her maleline grandchildren. This would be consistent with only maleline grandchildren receiving titles.

My assumption was that the 1717 ruling was specifically about "their father" because only custody of the king's son's children was at issue in the legal proceedings. His daughter was the queen consort of Prussia and it seems unlikely that she and her children were concerned in that court case.