Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

No, I mean when are we’re going to get a letters patent on their title of prince or princess?

Given how close we are to the birth - about two months to go - it is highly unlikely that Her Majesty is going to issue such LPs.

She issued them for William and Kate's children, largely because the first born, regardless of gender would be the future monarch and it would look bad if the first child had been a girl but born Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor while a second born was a son who would have been born HRH Prince George of Cambridge. She had to make a decision, remove HRH from all the Cambridge children, give it to all the Cambridge children or let the status quo exist. She chose to give HRH from birth to all the children of the future King.

She appears to be taking the view that the children of the spare don't warrant that distinction. Harry is now 6th in the line of succession and at his highest was the same place as Edward was at his highest so having Harry's children follow Edward's example makes sense - Lord and Lady for Harry's children during her reign.

 

[muriel]

Given how close we are to the birth - about two months to go - it is highly unlikely that Her Majesty is going to issue such LPs.

She issued them for William and Kate's children, largely because the first born, regardless of gender would be the future monarch and it would look bad if the first child had been a girl but born Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor while a second born was a son who would have been born HRH Prince George of Cambridge. She had to make a decision, remove HRH from all the Cambridge children, give it to all the Cambridge children or let the status quo exist. She chose to give HRH from birth to all the children of the future King.

She appears to be taking the view that the children of the spare don't warrant that distinction. Harry is now 6th in the line of succession and at his highest was the same place as Edward was at his highest so having Harry's children follow Edward's example makes sense - Lord and Lady for Harry's children during her reign.

I think that is right. It is clear that Harry's children are unlikely to be working members of the BRF or be central to the BRF, and therefore, will not warrant the rewriting of rules.

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks for the perspective, Muriel. Basically then the Sussex children will be facing the same conundrum as the York girls are now. They'll live in a in-between world.

Beatrice and Eugenie were born HRHs though, which will not be the case for the Sussex baby.



I still think, however, that Harry's children will be HRHs (in accordance with the 1917 LPs) when Charles is King. Given that Harry is Charles's only other son, stripping Harry's children of princely status would be too much of a departure from tradition for grandchildren of a sovereign in male line.

 

[Iluvbertie]

We already had the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line who have been stripped of their princely status by the use of The Queen's Will - Louise and James. They are as much the male line grandchildren of the Queen as are William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie but they were stripped.

If the rumours about Charles wanting a smaller royal family are actually true then he needs to start within his own branch of the family and that means staring with Harry's children - and then in time neither Charlotte's nor Louis' children have HRH either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, I mean when are we’re going to get a letters patent on their title of prince or princess?

Given how close we are to the birth - about two months to go - it is highly unlikely that Her Majesty is going to issue such LPs.

No matter what the child's eventual styles will be, is is not a possibility that they will be put forward with an announcement of the Queen's Will instead of issuance of Letters Patent?

Not particularly, in my view. They will be great-grand children of the current monarch, grand children of the next King, so IMO, foreign nationalities will not be acceptable. Whilst the children themselves are unlikely to be working royals, their parents are working royals, and very much at the heart of the royal family. These children will grow up in royal palaces, with royal privileges and the royal machine around them; those perks will be unacceptable for foreigners.

But the decision for someone who has only foreign nationality to be a working royal with royal privileges has already been fully accepted by the British public. In light of that, I would expect dual British-foreign nationality for grandchildren who are not working royals to be accepted as well.

We already had the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line who have been stripped of their princely status by the use of The Queen's Will - Louise and James. They are as much the male line grandchildren of the Queen as are William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie but they were stripped.

Furthermore, it was an even more acute departure from tradition to give the children of one younger son of the sovereign a different status than the children of another younger son of the sovereign, his brother.

 

[Mbruno]

We already had the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line who have been stripped of their princely status by the use of The Queen's Will - Louise and James. They are as much the male line grandchildren of the Queen as are William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie but they were stripped.

True, but Edward was the Queen's third son, unlike Harry who will be the King's only other son besides the heir to the throne. Furthermore, Edward reportedly asked the Queen to have his children styled only as children of an earl in the peerage (technically, they are still princes to me, although I know that is controversial). In any case, the point is that we don't know if Harry and Meghan would actually prefer that their children are not HRHs (as Edward and Sophie allegedly did), or if Charles would deny them princely status (departing from precedent) without Harry and Meghan asking for it.


Charles is not likely to have that many grandchildren. Wiliam and Kate may or may not have another kid and I don't see Harry and Meghan having a particularly big family, especially given Meghan's age. It would be perfectly possible to make all of his grandchildren HRHs and still have a "slimmed down" Royal House.


EDIT: A possible compromise would be to do as in Denmark and just downgrade Harry's children to HHs, but that would be silly in my opinion and ineffective (a prince is a prince in people's mind, whether he is an HRH, HH or HSH).

 

[Somebody]

True, but Edward was the Queen's third son, unlike Harry who will be the King's only other son besides the heir to the throne. Furthermore, Edward reportedly asked the Queen to have his children styled only as children of an earl in the peerage (technically, they are still princes to me, although I know that is controversial). In any case, the point is that we don't know if Harry and Meghan would actually prefer that their children are not HRHs (as Edward and Sophie allegedly did), or if Charles would deny them princely status (departing from precedent) without Harry and Meghan asking for it.


Charles is not likely to have that many grandchildren. Wiliam and Kate may or may not have another kid and I don't see Harry and Meghan having a particularly big family, especially given Meghan's age. It would be perfectly possible to make all of his grandchildren HRHs and still have a "slimmed down" Royal House.

Even if Harry and Meghan had only 2 children, the number of royal grandchildren would exceed the number of royal grandchildren of the queen. So, no slimming down at all. Even awarding a RH to Harry's eldest child results in an equal number.

To me it is irrelevant that Charles has only 2 sons. Because first of all, a younger son is a younger son, no reason to treat one fifferently than the other. The queen's second child's children are even not titled at all... In addition, when Edward married the queen had 4 royal grandchildren. Charles already has 3.

Moreover, it would be smart to continue the precedent set by the queen with Edward in no longer awarding RH to children of younger children as that would also solve an issue in the next generation with Charlotte's children being higher in line than Louis's. The likelyhood that this child will be born as a greatgrandchild of the monarch (so no right to RH from birth) makes it even easier to continue on that path.

 

[Mbruno]

Even if Harry and Meghan had only 2 children, the number of royal grandchildren would exceed the number of royal grandchildren of the queen. So, no slimming down at all. Even awarding a RH to Harry's eldest child results in an equal number.

But nowadays, in addition to the Queen's grandchildren, there is a stock of three more children of the Queen besides Charles and four other Kent and Gloucester HRHs , plus wives whenever applicable. Under current rules (with patrilineal transmission only), the potential number of HRHs in the future will be smaller because Charles only had two sons and William so far only has two sons also. And William only has two HRH cousins whereas his father has none.



King Albert II has 12 grandchildren and all of them are HRHs, even though royal family funding is far more controversial in Belgium than in the UK. I don't see the impact of accomodating two more Sussex princes/princesses in the Royal House. It would be much ado about nothing.

 

[Lady Reem]

From what I can gather studying her nature the queen was/is never going to issue a letters patent in relation to Meghan & Harry’s offspring and I’m willing to bet on it, too. No biggie really but what I try to understand is the logic of those who claim the couple wouldn’t want their children burdened with princely titles anyway blah blah. And yet there’s hardly likely to be any difference in daily living for the Sussex offspring if they’re saddled with the style of offsprings of a Duke. They will still be children of the Duke & Duchess of Sussex and will face the same unrelenting and mostly unkind attention/issues as their parents. Just do away with the antiquated styles already if the children are going to lead ordinary lives as adults. How ridiculous for the poor mites to be tagged as Earl/Lord dumbarton or Lady whatever and working or trying to get jobs in America or elsewhere away from the poisonous atmosphere their parents are having to endure over here. Also Charles has only two children/sons and I dread the comparisons between his grandchildren once he ascends the throne.

 

[Denville]

From what I can gather studying her nature the queen was/is never going to issue a letters patent in relation to Meghan & Harry’s offspring and I’m willing to bet on it, too. No biggie really but what I try to understand is the logic of those who claim the couple wouldn’t want their children burdened with princely titles anyway blah blah. And yet there’s hardly likely to be any difference in daily living for the Sussex offspring if they’re saddled with the style of offsprings of a Duke. They will still be children of the Duke & Duchess of Sussex and will face the same unrelenting and mostly unkind attention/issues as their parents. Just do away with the antiquated styles already if the children are going to lead ordinary lives as adults. How ridiculous for the poor mites to be tagged as Earl/Lord dumbarton or Lady whatever and working or trying to get jobs in America or elsewhere away from the poisonous atmosphere their parents are having to endure over here. Also Charles has only two children/sons and I dread the comparisons between his grandchildren once he ascends the throne.

There's nothing to stop the children, if they want to "go to America and get a real job", from dropping their titles. I don't think that anyone's going to mind if the Ealr of Dumbarton gets a job and calls himself James Dumbarton or James Windsor....

 

[Stefan]

Because first of all, a younger son is a younger son, no reason to treat one fifferently than the other. The queen's second child's children are even not titled at all... In addition, when Edward married the queen had 4 royal grandchildren. Charles already has 3.

But then they should not have tre4ated Edward's children different then Andrew:s. Both are younger sons of a monarch.

 

[Denville]

If Edward watned it, or was at least willing to have his children not be Princes.. then what's the problem. According to some reports he wished for them not to be seen as royal esp as at the time he and Sophie were not meant to be working royals.

 

[Somebody]

But then they should not have tre4ated Edward's children different then Andrew:s. Both are younger sons of a monarch.

I fully agree. The only somewhat reasonable explanation imo is that this is how the queen wanted it going forward. So, given that the latest decision was to not grant princely titles to children of the younger son, that should be continued -especially keeping in mind the new gender neutral rules- (or completely reversed).

If Edward watned it, or was at least willing to have his children not be Princes.. then what's the problem. According to some reports he wished for them not to be seen as royal esp as at the time he and Sophie were not meant to be working royals.

Currently, Louise is treated differently than Peter and Zara but more like Beatrice and Eugenie (riding in the carriage at Trooping), so it seems that nowadays they want them to be treated like royals but without the formal titles. I would be surprised if they would do the same with Harry's children.

I mainly argue for consistency. If they want grandchildren to be royals it should be applied to all (at least in male line) not to some. If they only want the children of monarchs and heirs to be royal, that's fine with me as well, as long as it's consistent.

But nowadays, in addition to the Queen's grandchildren, there is a stock of three more children of the Queen besides Charles and four other Kent and Gloucester HRHs , plus wives whenever applicable. Under current rules (with patrilineal transmission only), the potential number of HRHs in the future will be smaller because Charles only had two sons and William so far only has two sons also. And William only has two HRH cousins whereas his father has none.

Indeed, regarding born Royal Highnesses:
Queen's generation: 7
Charles's generation: 4
William's generation: 4
George's generarion: 3 (would be at least 4 if Harry's chikdren were to be granted it as well)

So, the slimming down took already place in Charles' generation and continued in William's, extending princely titles to Harry's children opens up the very real possibiliy of increasing the number which is contrary to the slimming down that you argued would be in line with giving Harry's childen titles (if I understood you correctly).

 

[Kataryn]

EDIT: A possible compromise would be to do as in Denmark and just downgrade Harry's children to HHs, but that would be silly in my opinion and ineffective (a prince is a prince in people's mind, whether he is an HRH, HH or HSH).

Talking about Denmark - this kingdom accepted foreigners as part of their Royal family when they agreed on the title "Princess of Greece and Denmark" for the Greek branch of the family and issued Danish deplomatic passports for the former king and queen when they abdicated and moved to London. Okay, the ex-queen of the Hellenes is the sister of the queen of Denmark who had married her cousin.


But the British did not force Meghan to get rid of her US nationality on marriage.

 

[Stefan]

I mainly argue for consistency. If they want grandchildren to be royals it should be applied to all (at least in male line) not to some. If they only want the children of monarchs and heirs to be royal, that's fine with me as well, as long as it's consistent.

If the Queen wants consistence she should issue new Letters patent regulating the Titles. And they can still make a provision that it doesn't apply to those who are still alive. This way the York Princesses would remain Princeses.

Talking about Denmark - this kingdom accepted foreigners as part of their Royal family when they agreed on the title "Princess of Greece and Denmark" for the Greek branch of the family and issued Danish deplomatic passports for the former king and queen when they abdicated and moved to London. Okay, the ex-queen of the Hellenes is the sister of the queen of Denmark who had married her cousin.



But the British did not force Meghan to get rid of her US nationality on marriage.



.

That was always the case since Prince Vilhelm became King of the Hellenes in 1863. Probalby it is because to do that he never renounced his danish Title.



And on the other hand the danish Goverments made special regulations for the daughter-in-laws of Queen Margrethe that receice danish citizenship on with ther respecitve marriages what the british goverment didn't in the case of Meghan.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But nowadays, in addition to the Queen's grandchildren, there is a stock of three more children of the Queen besides Charles and four other Kent and Gloucester HRHs , plus wives whenever applicable. Under current rules (with patrilineal transmission only), the potential number of HRHs in the future will be smaller because Charles only had two sons and William so far only has two sons also. And William only has two HRH cousins whereas his father has none.

If I understand your statement that "nowadays, in addition to the Queen's grandchildren, there is a stock of three more children of the Queen […]", you are comparing the current number of HRHs to the potential number of HRHs after Queen Elizabeth's children have passed.

By including Queen Elizabeth's cousins, children, and her grandchildren, the "nowadays" number is measured across three generations. A useful comparison then necessitates measuring the "future" number across three generations as well (King William's brother and cousins, children, and grandchildren).

Applying the 1917 rules, that would necessarily include the children and daughters-in-law of Prince Harry as well as the wives, children, and daughters-in-law of Prince George and Prince Louis. According to my counting, there would be expected to be 18 HRHs in those three generations (there are 20 in the three older generations mentioned earlier) even if Harry, George, and Louis limited their families to one daughter and one son.

But as we have no way of knowing how many wives and children there will be in the next generation, it seems more feasible to simply compare the number of born HRHs in George's generation with the number of born HRHs in William's generation, as Somebody did.

King Albert II has 12 grandchildren and all of them are HRHs, even though royal family funding is far more controversial in Belgium than in the UK. I don't see the impact of accomodating two more Sussex princes/princesses in the Royal House. It would be much ado about nothing.

I agree, but Queen Elizabeth II and the Prince of Wales seem to have take a different view. There would also be no impact on funding if the Wessex children (or for that matter the Phillips children) were princes/princesses, and they have nonetheless not been granted that status.

 

[Denville]

Perhaps it is true that Edward didn't want his kids to be princes.. I was dubious about this, I think that it was more to do with the fact that the RF was in a low at the time and it looked good to cut back on the titles and grandeur for the wedding and future children. and also because at the time Edward didn't intend to be a working royal. but although he is now a working royal, the children still are Lord and Lady.. so maybe he feels it is bsest for them not to have HRH's..

 

[Mbruno]

If Edward watned it, or was at least willing to have his children not be Princes.. then what's the problem. According to some reports he wished for them not to be seen as royal esp as at the time he and Sophie were not meant to be working royals.

That is precisely the point. James and Louis are not styled as HRHs because, apparently, , their parents didn’t want them to be , not because the Queen thought at the time that there were too many princes in the Royal Family. So I don’t think their case sets a precedent for Harry’s children unless Harry also asks Charles that his children be styled as children of a Duke only,

Moreover, as you said, Edward and Sophie at the time were not meant to become working royals whereas Harry and Meghan already.are and will continue to be working royals, which makes any claim of a precedent even less likely.

 

[Denville]

I m not sure if Harry wouldn't want the children to be HRH.. but there doesn't seem to be any move from the Queen to arrange for this...

 

[Somebody]

If the Queen wants consistence she should issue new Letters patent regulating the Titles. And they can still make a provision that it doesn't apply to those who are still alive. This way the York Princesses would remain Princeses.

I agree but apparently she decided that she will leave it to the next generation (i.e. Charles - if William were to be her successor, Harry's children will automatically remain styled as children of a duke) to finalize it.

For now it seems extremely likely that Harry's child will be born a lord (with subsidiary title) or lady instead of a prince. Which I think he/she should be as a male-line great-grandchild of the monarch (and not a child of the heir's heir).

 

[ACO]

The moment Charles becomes King the Sussex children will become HRH unless they decline it. I don't see the need to make them HRH now. They just letting it happen as intended... or not. Time will tell.

 

[Countessmeout]

We don't know if Harry and Meghan's kids will be completely private citizens. Yes the fact Charles only has 2 kids does play an impact.

If George is around 30 when he takes on full duties, like his father and Uncle:
-The queen, Philip, Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Alexandra will be gone
-Anne will be in her 90's and likely retired

Andrew, Edward and Sophie will be in their 80's. They may still be doing duties but that will likely be limited like the Kents.

William will likely be on the throne by then, or close to it. Unlike the queen, he will not have any cousins who will perform official royal duties for him. Unless things change with the Yorks. When William and Kate are King and queen they will have different duties to perform, and there is only so much that Harry and Meghan can do.

We are talking likely a good 50-60 years before George and his siblings have kids who are old enough to take on royal duties. Having some of their cousins take on royal duties would make sense.

 

[Winnie]

Countessmeout, you make very good points as things stand now. I truly believe that Charles and the Queen have talked over all of your points in detail and probably the Queen is agreeing with the future King's ideas and wishes. Charles wants a much smaller "Royal" presence during his reign. He wants to cut down the cost drastically. I can actually see him running many things more business-like. Of course he will certainly keep all the royal duties of over hundreds of years in tact with their showy splendor. That is English and should never be changed. I just feel that he will come up with a difference way of doing things which I know will still be good for country. JMO but in my heart I believe Charge has been working on these things for years.

 

[Claire]

Perhaps it is true that Edward didn't want his kids to be princes.. I was dubious about this, I think that it was more to do with the fact that the RF was in a low at the time and it looked good to cut back on the titles and grandeur for the wedding and future children. and also because at the time Edward didn't intend to be a working royal. but although he is now a working royal, the children still are Lord and Lady.. so maybe he feels it is bsest for them not to have HRH's..

The idea of a smaller royal family was directly out of the Way forward group from the palace and Prince Charles is the major driving force behind it. The problem is now the press/people doesn't want popular royals to be sidelined when they should due to their distance from the throne. They cant have one rule for some and anther for another. If Charles was serious about this - which is appears to have been favoring his family over his siblings - then he should carry on with it. Harry's child/ren should be styled as children of a Duke nothing more. it might not be the fairy tale the press want - but it is what it is.

 

[Denville]

I don't think that most people care one way or the other...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Perhaps it is true that Edward didn't want his kids to be princes.. I was dubious about this, I think that it was more to do with the fact that the RF was in a low at the time and it looked good to cut back on the titles and grandeur for the wedding and future children. and also because at the time Edward didn't intend to be a working royal. but although he is now a working royal, the children still are Lord and Lady.. so maybe he feels it is bsest for them not to have HRH's..

That is precisely the point. James and Louis are not styled as HRHs because, apparently, , their parents didn’t want them to be , not because the Queen thought at the time that there were too many princes in the Royal Family. [...]

While acknowledging the spokesperson's explanation, there is also the potential that other factors such as the number of princes(ses) were at issue but, out of consideration for optics, the spokesperson made a point of the parents' wishes in order to send a clear message that the Queen's decision should not be perceived as a "snub", especially as Edward's children were to be treated differently from his brother's children. Time will tell which interpretation is the correct one.

I m not sure if Harry wouldn't want the children to be HRH.. but there doesn't seem to be any move from the Queen to arrange for this...

The moment Charles becomes King the Sussex children will become HRH unless they decline it. I don't see the need to make them HRH now. They just letting it happen as intended... or not. Time will tell.

Technically, it would be King Charles who declines it as HRH status is a matter for the monarch. It is also possible that the rules will have been changed by that time.

If there will be a move to bestow royal status on the child, it would seem most logical for it to happen either at the time of the birth (which is still months away) or at the time of Charles' accession to the throne, under the 1917 letters patent.

We don't know if Harry and Meghan's kids will be completely private citizens. Yes the fact Charles only has 2 kids does play an impact.

If George is around 30 when he takes on full duties, like his father and Uncle:
-The queen, Philip, Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Alexandra will be gone
-Anne will be in her 90's and likely retired

Andrew, Edward and Sophie will be in their 80's. They may still be doing duties but that will likely be limited like the Kents.

William will likely be on the throne by then, or close to it. Unlike the queen, he will not have any cousins who will perform official royal duties for him. Unless things change with the Yorks. When William and Kate are King and queen they will have different duties to perform, and there is only so much that Harry and Meghan can do.

We are talking likely a good 50-60 years before George and his siblings have kids who are old enough to take on royal duties. Having some of their cousins take on royal duties would make sense.

Somebody performed the calculations earlier in the thread demonstrating that if the desire is to keep the number of royals performing duties consistent with current numbers, it will be necessary to utilize the York princesses (and even the other grandchildren) as much as the Sussex children, whilst if the desire is to slim the number of royals performing duties, then none of them will be needed:

Taking a cut-off point of 85 years (it seems that most royals stay quite active until about that age; for example, the Duke of Kent at age 83 took on 92 engagements so far this year; comparable to his 10 year younger cousin the Duke of Gloucester):
- by January 2019 there are 15 full-time royals;
- by January 2029 this number will most likely drop to about 12 (still more than enough imo),
- 10 years (2039) the numbers will be at a relatively low point (if Charles is king at that point it will be 8-9 active royals; if it's William, we're talking about 7 - the Cambridge kids are in their early 20's and can take on an engagement here and there but most likely will focus on their studies);
- another 10 years (2049) later the numbers are going up again to 9-12 full-time royals (depending on whether the Cambridge kids have spouses that become active full-time royals) which should be more than sufficient;
- another 10 years down the line (so in 40 years/2059), we're still at 9-10 full time royals.
- by 2069 (50 years from now), we might get to another low point with William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan all being in their mid- to late eighties and only George and his siblings fully active; however, as king and queen William and Catherine will most likely still take on quite a large amount of engagements; and by that point George hopefully has grown children of his own supplying another generation of royals.

So, I truly don't see why Harry and Meghan's child(ren) (and spouse(s)) - who would start becoming active by 2049 at the earliest (in their late twenties) - would be needed; especially if the support of Beatrice and Eugenie is not needed now nor in the future; as they would be the ones that really could help out at the lowest point, unlike children by Harry and Meghan, but apparently that's not considered a need.

I decided to look back to see what the numbers of active members were 10 and 20 years ago:

Jan 2009: 13 (excluding the Cambridges, Sussexes and adding the duke of Edinburgh & duchess of Kent)
Jan 1999: 11-12 (excluding Camilla, the Wessexes, the Cambridges, the Sussexes; and adding the duke of Edinburgh, duchess of Kent, Queen-mother, princess Margaret; I am not sure how active the Queen Mother was aged 99)

Going back to the start of her reign:
The queen started with 7 active members (not counting queen Mary who passed away a year later): herself, the duke of Edinburgh, the queen-mother, the princess Margaret and the duke and duchess of Gloucester and the dowager duchess of Kent as active members.
She purposefully enlarged that number to include 3 more members in the next 10 years, raising the number to about 10 (as expected the duke of Kent and therefore also the duchess of Kent, and (not-necessarily expected princess Alexandra.

It seems that having about 10-12 active royals has been the Queen's average for most of her reign. The current 15 seem to be the highest number in many decades; imo mainly because the queen doesn't want to ask her eldest cousins (the Kents) to retire and also wanted to make sure that her grandsons became full-time royals (bad optics if they would wait another 5-10 years). Slimming down the monarchy (a wish Charles apparently has had for quite some time) could therefore very well include going down to 10 or less.

 

[Somebody]

We don't know if Harry and Meghan's kids will be completely private citizens. Yes the fact Charles only has 2 kids does play an impact.

If George is around 30 when he takes on full duties, like his father and Uncle:
-The queen, Philip, Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Alexandra will be gone
-Anne will be in her 90's and likely retired

Andrew, Edward and Sophie will be in their 80's. They may still be doing duties but that will likely be limited like the Kents.

William will likely be on the throne by then, or close to it. Unlike the queen, he will not have any cousins who will perform official royal duties for him. Unless things change with the Yorks. When William and Kate are King and queen they will have different duties to perform, and there is only so much that Harry and Meghan can do.

We are talking likely a good 50-60 years before George and his siblings have kids who are old enough to take on royal duties. Having some of their cousins take on royal duties would make sense.

I've made the exact calculations (posted somewhere here on TRF - edit: I just noticed that Tatiana Maria quoted them in her post) and the low point is in about 20 years; a few years before George, Charlotte and Louis are about to take on full duties. Any younger cousins cannot help in that effort. Once the three of them are full-fledged working royals, there is very little reason to start involving their younger cousins.
If William becomes king before his children are 30, I would not expect them to wait until their (mid)thirties to go 'full-time'. Mid- to late twenties would not be unlikely imo (given the ages of their great uncles and aunts).

By the time George turns 30, Edward and Sophie are mid-70s so very likely still active members - given that Charles and Camilla are early 70s right now and are expected to continue on working for quite some time. The British tend to go on longer than some of their continental colleagues because of the queen's longevity.

 

[jacqui24]

I fully agree. The only somewhat reasonable explanation imo is that this is how the queen wanted it going forward. So, given that the latest decision was to not grant princely titles to children of the younger son, that should be continued -especially keeping in mind the new gender neutral rules- (or completely reversed).

If she wanted it going forward, it would’ve been an easy announcement to change it for everyone going forward. It was specifically for the Wessex children. Andrew was a bachelor at that point. There was no guarantee that he wouldn’t remarry and have more children. Well, I suppose he’s still in that situation.

 

[Mbruno]

Countessmeout, you make very good points as things stand now. I truly believe that Charles and the Queen have talked over all of your points in detail and probably the Queen is agreeing with the future King's ideas and wishes. Charles wants a much smaller "Royal" presence during his reign. He wants to cut down the cost drastically.

The British royal family is the only truly self-funded royal family among the major European RFs. The need to "cut down the cost drastically" is far less clear then in the UK than in some other kingdoms.



I also agree with Countesmeout. The Sussexes will likely have a high profile in Charles's reign and in the early years of William's reign. It is unlikely that Harry and Meghan's kids will have a life as private as the Wessex children have today for example.

 

[Zonk]

What is happening here? This thread is all over the place.

Let's get back on topic...styles and topics...not citizenship, baby shower, diplomatic status, etc.

ETA: These off topic posts have been deleted. If you wish to discuss Meghan's citizenship, please do so here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...enship-and-religious-conversion-43937-49.html.