Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...

That would be sort of ridiculous when the very foundation of monarchy is precisely elevating an arbitrary family chosen a long time ago above all others in the country and even giving that family the monopoly of the office of Head of State by order of primogeniture.

In other words, Harry cannot represent the monarchy and , at the same time, stand for any of what you said in your first paragraph as monarchy is exactly the opposite of all that. Modern Kings may have surrendered the actual governing of their kingdoms to democratically elected politicians with limited mandates, but monarchy itself will never be democratic or compatible with equality or meritocracy.

 

[Marlo]

Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...

Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc.

If so, then why did he accepted the dukedom? Maybe he should give up his title and privileges and go live a private life.

 

[Abbigail]

I am happy to explain: I care about consistency. It is not consistent to pretend Archie is a 'master' when in fact he is a Lord and should normally be addressed as Earl of Dumbarton.

No longer awarding HRH to grandchildren of a monarch who are not children of the heir('s heir) is fine with me IF applied consistently. So, given that the Wessex children aren't HRH, imo Harry's children shouldn't become HRH either when Charles' ascends the throne (unless Louise and James retroactively receive HRH as well; as it seems nowadays Louise is treated as if she were an HRH).

If Harry and Meghan would have asked for a life-peerage instead of a hereditary peerage, it would be more consistent than having a child start his life without any style to finally end up one of the higher ranking peers (as a duke; although last created for now; in the end he and his descendants will end up before James (Viscount Severn) and Louis (HRH prince Louis of Cambridge) as the Edinburgh dukedom will need to be recreated for Edward; and Louis will need his own dukedom) within the peerage.

This doesn't quite add up given that consistency was already broken with the Wessex children. And it's just odd to use them as the standard now when Harry and Edward are not comparable. Edward was in a much different position at the time it was decided his children would not be styled as HRH. If a comparison must be made then it should be between Harry and Andrew. Both second sons with one already having daughters with HRH titles. That's stronger than what you're arguing imo.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Perhaps because he perceives any kind of titles as divisive, non-inclusive, undemocratic, arrogant narcissistic, ridicules etc. Why elevate one person above another at all? He is a son of PEOPLE Princess, who would love to belong to the people, but he is unable to achieve this for himself without triggering of a big scandal. So he is doing his best to give it to Archie and his future siblings. Few small steps at the time...

The "royal source" who announced to royal correspondents that Prince Harry and Meghan had decided against using a courtesy title for their son used the words "at this time" and strongly suggested that Archie would be elevated to HRH and Prince in his grandfather's reign, so the expectation at present is that Archie will eventually hold the highest hereditary title available to him.

See the tweets in this post: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-217.html#post2220171

 

[VictoriaB]

Well, the only thing this might do is indeed create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down.

I hardly think not using a courtesy title for the 7th in line to the throne is going to bring down the monarchy.

As for the system of hereditary peerages, would that be a bad thing? In 2019 why are there hereditary titles? What great service to the nation has Charles Spencer or Jamie Spencer-Churchill done to entitle them to be called your Lordship or Your Grace?

If we are going to have a peerage at all, why should it not be simply a life peerage so that the only person ennobled is the person who has earned it rather than their descendants 200 plus years later. Knighthoods, even lowly MBEs can be stripped if someone does something disreputable. With hereditary peerages, the holder can go to jail (I'm looking at you Baron Brocket and your Grace the Duke of Marlborough) and retain his title.

I am having a hard time understanding why in 2019 people are getting hot under the collar about titles for someone else's child.

 

[Abbigail]

If that's the case he should have asked the queen NOT to award him a dukedom. By accepting one (and a hereditary one) he was personally responsible for having another dukedom created within the peerage of the UK which might live on forever (as long as he has male-line descendants and the system is not abolished).

Had he not accepted a dukedom, his children would still be entitled to be styled as Lord and Lady but the next generation would in fact be mere masters and misses but that's not what he did. He accepted for himself (and a direct heirs) a peerage with all that comes with it to not yet a year later ask the world to pretend for his son that he didn't - while continuing to use his peerage (and rightly so).

Well, the only thing this might do is indeed create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down.

Create a scandal? I very much doubt that. And I don't think this is the reason Harry declined a courtesy title for his son either.

 

[Gawin]

If that's the case he should have asked the queen NOT to award him a dukedom. By accepting one (and a hereditary one) he was personally responsible for having another dukedom created within the peerage of the UK which might live on forever (as long as he has male-line descendants and the system is not abolished).

Had he not accepted a dukedom, his children would still be entitled to be styled as Lord and Lady but the next generation would in fact be mere masters and misses but that's not what he did. He accepted for himself (and a direct heirs) a peerage with all that comes with it to not yet a year later ask the world to pretend for his son that he didn't - while continuing to use his peerage (and rightly so).

Well, the only thing this might do is indeed create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down.

Really?!!! The monarchy survived the loss of its political power, the madness of King George, the American Revolution, George IV & Queen Caroline, World War I, Edward VIII & Mrs. Simpson, World War II, the Charles & Diana fiasco followed by the Andrew & Sarah fiasco, Charles's marriage to Camilla (the infamous "other woman") but Harry & Meghan's decision not to call their son by a courtesy title might create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down??????????

I am happy to explain: I care about consistency. It is not consistent to pretend Archie is a 'master' when in fact he is a Lord and should normally be addressed as Earl of Dumbarton.

No longer awarding HRH to grandchildren of a monarch who are not children of the heir('s heir) is fine with me IF applied consistently. So, given that the Wessex children aren't HRH, imo Harry's children shouldn't become HRH either when Charles' ascends the throne (unless Louise and James retroactively receive HRH as well; as it seems nowadays Louise is treated as if she were an HRH).

If Harry and Meghan would have asked for a life-peerage instead of a hereditary peerage, it would be more consistent than having a child start his life without any style to finally end up one of the higher ranking peers (as a duke; although last created for now; in the end he and his descendants will end up before James (Viscount Severn) and Louis (HRH prince Louis of Cambridge) as the Edinburgh dukedom will need to be recreated for Edward; and Louis will need his own dukedom) within the peerage.

Considering that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is the Queen's first great-grandchild in the male line who is not also the child of a future King, there really isn't any *consistency* to compare this to.

I can't believe the hysteria over not using a *courtesy* title! This decision wouldn't have been made without the Queen's permission. If she's willing to go along with it why can't we?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If I am reading this discussion correctly, I think that comment was a reference to the earlier comment saying that Prince Harry is unable to renounce his own title because it would be "triggering of a big scandal".

I think all of those who have participated in this discussion would agree with you that hysteria is unwarranted.

In regards to "going along with" the Queen's decisions on styles and titles, many of the recent decisions (Princess Consort, Wessex children, and so forth) have been debated in this thread. Recently, I myself stated the opinion that it would have been better to issue Letters Patent specifically for the Cambridge children in 2012 than to issue Letters Patent which will grant the HRH to the children of a younger brother of an heiress apparent.

 

[wbenson]

I can't believe the hysteria over not using a *courtesy* title! This decision wouldn't have been made without the Queen's permission. If she's willing to go along with it why can't we?

I agree, and also, what if we're all straining at gnats based on a sentence of ten words, and they have no firm intention for the child not to be called Earl of Dumbarton at appropriate moments? He's less than a week old, he's not getting an entry in the Court Circular or an invitation to a state banquet in the near future.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

One of the numerous royal reporters who stated that Archie will become a Prince in the next reign, Victoria Murphy, says the information indeed came from "a royal source".

On any potential future title for Archie, a royal source says that "on the change of reign the George the V convention would apply". Suggests that Archie could use the title Prince when it is available to him​

However, she subsequently clarified that it was not clear if the Prince title would actually be used.

Therefore it seems it will be the Sussex family's choice as to what the Sussex children will be called in the next reign, but the intention from the future King Charles is for them to become legally princes and princesses even if they never use the title - which is strange because Buckingham Palace's stance is that the decision for the Wessex children means they are not even legally princess and prince.

Robert Jobson in the Evening Standard appears to be quoting the same "royal source/senior source", but implies he has been given confirmation that the Prince title will be used.

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.

[…]

Buckingham Palace has said on the matter of titles, “While there are courtesy titles that Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could apply to their son, they have chosen not to give him a “courtesy title” at this time. So he will be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.”
​

I remember when Lady Louise was born and there were reports that Charles felt it was a good opportunity to establish conformity regarding the titles of his brothers children ie to change Beatrice and Eugenie's titles to those of Lady as well. The POW allegedly felt that it was best to 'tidy things up' whilst the girls were young teenagers as holding the HRH whilst having no real future role in the family would cause problems for them later. Andrew reportedly went berserk, ran to the Queen and the matter was dropped. IF that actually occured then I think it was a sensible suggestion on Charles' part. The title situation in the BRF is all over the place and Archie having no title at all has made it even more confusing.

However, if the reports you mentioned were true, the future King wanting royal titles to be denied to the children of the present Queen's younger sons really would be inconsistent with wanting royal titles for the children of his own younger son, considering that Prince Harry's children will be in exactly the same position during their grandfather's reign as the position Prince Andrew's and Prince Edward's children are in during their grandmother's reign.

I agree, and also, what if we're all straining at gnats based on a sentence of ten words, and they have no firm intention for the child not to be called Earl of Dumbarton at appropriate moments? He's less than a week old, he's not getting an entry in the Court Circular or an invitation to a state banquet in the near future.

The official website calls Archie "Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" in the same list where James is mentioned as Viscount Severn. Seeing this and the use of the formal titles Master/Mr/Miss/Mrs in the list, along with the announcement "The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time", the intention seems to be that, for the time being, Archie will not be mentioned as Earl of Dumbarton even in formal announcements.

 

[loonytick]

James' children will be Mountbatten-Windsor and if he has a son then the name will continue.

George's line will also pass it down via a second son as will Louis' and Archie's via any sons.

Daughter's will have it as a maiden name - as Louise does today - but give it up on marriage.

You're right, I was forgetting about second+ sons.

Still, there's been a lot of chatter about the Mountbatten-Windsor name being one that barely gets used to this point. It must feel nice to Philip to see one of his grandkids proudly presented to the world with it front and center.

 

[sophie25]

There's no doubt that Andrew is frustrated that his daughters are not being allowed to be full working royals and I do believe that it's because Charles wants to restrict the working royals to those in the main line to the throne. It would make no sense at all for Harry's children to be HRH's in the future just to end up like Beatrice and Eugenie, floating around as a prince or princess with no real role within the family.

 

[Abbigail]

Charles is not yet king so the decision likely has little to do with him. I believe Beatrice and Eugenie aren't working royals because 1) their parents tainted their reputations so much that their daughters taking on larger roles isn't seen as an asset and 2) there simply is no need for them to be working royals right now. Maybe that will change when some of the older working royals have retired.

 

[muriel]

Charles is not yet king so the decision likely has little to do with him.

I am not sure I quite agree with you. IMO, the Queen would have consulted with Charles, and possibly William, before taking a final view on the matter, as the decision would have implications through Charles and William's reigns.

 

[sophie25]

I am not sure I quite agree with you. IMO, the Queen would have consulted with Charles, and possibly William, before taking a final view on the matter, as the decision would have implications through Charles and William's reigns.

I think so to. I think the Queen does allow Charles a say in certain things regarding the future of the monarchy.

 

[loonytick]

I think so to. I think the Queen does allow Charles a say in certain things regarding the future of the monarchy.

Yes, there is every indication that she's allowed him an advisory role for quite a while. She's visibly included him to an increasing degree in formal events (for instance, after decades of delivering the address to Parliament with only Philip by her side, she's had Charles accompany her for the past several years) and for any one thing we see in public there are probably countless related measures happening behind closed doors.

It makes sense; it's partly preparation for his time as king, partly to ensure a smooth transition after her time is gone. Anytime a member of the BRF is asked to talk about the Queen they, to a person, emphasize her strong sense of duty. Involving the son who will succeed her in decisions like that one is surely a key part of carrying out her duty to prevent a turbulent transition from her time to Charles'.

 

[Abbigail]

I am not sure I quite agree with you. IMO, the Queen would have consulted with Charles, and possibly William, before taking a final view on the matter, as the decision would have implications through Charles and William's reigns.

She may have very well consulted Charles but I don't think we can say this was his decision. We don't even know if indeed he wants to make any changes to the number of working royals. This is something that's just been assumed prematurely, imo.

 

[Denville]

Thank



Yes, but most of the courtesy peers who do not use their titles in everyday life use them nevertheless for formal communications. Use of the designation from their courtesy title as their informal last name suggests that they do use the full title when appropriate. For instance, until he inherited his father's peerages, Buckingham Palace consistently referred to Princess Margaret's son by the courtesy title of Viscount Linley, even though he used David Linley as his professional name (his legal last name being Armstrong-Jones).

Precisley.. I don't know what Meg and Harry seem to be doing..

 

[muriel]

Charles is not yet king so the decision likely has little to do with him.

She may have very well consulted Charles but I don't think we can say this was his decision.

Slightly different messages in you first and second posts on this topic. ?

 

[Osipi]

For all we know and its a remote possibility, the plans for a soft transition into Charles' reign could have been idealized back when they had the now defunct Way Ahead group. We just don't know and probably won't have a lot of answers until the time comes.

Its going on 11 years since I was corrected quite a few times (thankfully) that it was said that Charles is the Defender of Faith (he'll actually be Defender of *the* Faith but there was a rumor going around that Charles wishes to change this. Its been a subsidiary title of the monarch since 1521.

 

[Abbigail]

Slightly different messages in you first and second posts on this topic. ?

It doesn't matter, lol. The point remains the same. Charles is not king, it's ultimately not his decision and since we don't really know his thoughts, we can't put this on him.

 

[muriel]

For all we know and its a remote possibility, the plans for a soft transition into Charles' reign could have been idealized back when they had the now defunct Way Ahead group. We just don't know and probably won't have a lot of answers until the time comes.

I have no doubt the issue would have been discussed between some of the family in the 1990s, when a lot of the "re-engineering" of The Firm took place. The Way Ahead Group was certainly of the time.

Its going on 11 years since I was corrected quite a few times (thankfully) that it was said that Charles is the Defender of Faith (he'll actually be Defender of *the* Faith but there was a rumor going around that Charles wishes to change this. Its been a subsidiary title of the monarch since 1521.

I do remember the debate in last decade in the Press about whether Charles would be "Defender of Faith" as opposed to "Defender of the Faith". The issue fell away when somebody pointed out that the latter title would require disestablishment of the Church of England. So I am not sure if it was ever one of Charles' ideas, or something thought up by journalists.

 

[Rudolph]

'Defender of the Faith' is one of the titles given by parliament. Remember the 'faith' in this case is the established church. It's not up to Charles to decide.

 

[Lilyflo]

She may have very well consulted Charles but I don't think we can say this was his decision. We don't even know if indeed he wants to make any changes to the number of working royals. This is something that's just been assumed prematurely, imo.

No we don't know precisely what he'd like the future monarchy to look like but he provided a very strong indication at the diamond jubilee when the balcony appearance was just his immediate family. None of his siblings or their families were included (much to their annoyance it was reported). He might have softened a bit since then of course, having realised that his sister in particular is a huge asset to the BRF. I think since 2012, Charles has a great deal of influence over decisions made that will impact on his reign eg who will be HRH and/or working royals.

 

[Fijiro]

Did the Royal Family explain why Prince Edward was created an Earl instead of a Duke, thereby not making his children HRHs?

At what age can Louise and James reclaim their HRHs? At 18 maybe?

I've noticed in official communication that Louise is styled as Lady Louise Windsor (not Mountbatten-Windsor). When did they officially drop the Mountbatten?

 

[Denville]

Did the Royal Family explain why Prince Edward was created an Earl instead of a Duke, thereby not making his children HRHs?

At what age can Louise and James reclaim their HRHs? At 18 maybe?

I've noticed in official communication that Louise is styled as Lady Louise Windsor (not Mountbatten-Windsor). When did they officially drop the Mountbatten?

I understood that this was the wish of Edward and Sophie, who were not working royals at the time of their marriage. but their children are so far down the succession that its unlikely they would ever be "used" as workign royals. So as far as I know they wont be "reclaiming" their HRH's. In due course Ed wil become Duke of Edinburgh and James will inherit that title

 

[Rudolph]

We have to remember no one has a 'right' to royal styles and titles. They are granted at the sovereigns pleasure and can be granted, revoked or altered at anytime.

The LP of 1917 are just an expression of the sovereigns pleasure. The Queen isn't bound by them.

 

[Denville]

We have to remember no one has a 'right' to royal styles and titles. They are granted at the sovereigns pleasure and can be granted, revoked or altered at anytime.

The LP of 1917 are just an expression of the sovereigns pleasure. The Queen isn't bound by them.

the queen can take away an HRH, but not as far as I know a peerage. Once she gives a peerage it is subject ot the normal rules of inheritance. Ie it can only be inherited by a male heir (unless it was granted with the understanding that it would go to a female heir like Lord Mountbattne's). She could not change the law that says that Philip's peerage will descend to his eldest son, Charles.. and give it to Edward

 

[Fijiro]

the queen can take away an HRH, but not as far as I know a peerage. Once she gives a peerage it is subject ot the normal rules of inheritance. Ie it can only be inherited by a male heir (unless it was granted with the understanding that it would go to a female heir like Lord Mountbattne's). She could not change the law that says that Philip's peerage will descend to his eldest son, Charles.. and give it to Edward

It has been speculated that Edward will inherit his father's dukedom? So Charles is the one to make that decision?

 

[Denville]

I has been speculated that Edward will inherit his father's dukedom? So Charles is the one to make that decision?

More than speculated, as far as I know.. It was announced that it was the queen's wish that Edward would become Duke of Edinburgh. he can't directly inherit.. because the queen can't change the rules for a peerage. Charles will have to create Edward Duke of Ed when he is king...