The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #901  
Old 08-30-2020, 05:55 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Sorry I don't follow. I was commenting on constitutional monarchy in the UK & how the actions of members of the royal family can erode support for it over time. I'm sure lots of (most?) Australians might prefer one of their own as HofS.
Sorry that I should have make myself way more clear on whether I was talking about Australia or UK.

I found a statistic from the Guardian (Left-leaning, Republican, anti-monarchy), which was conducted on November 2018 in Australia. It is on the bottom of the page.

"The Newspoll also found support for a republic has fallen to a 25-year low after last month’s royal visit to Australia by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The poll – of 1,802 voters – has measured a huge drop in support for a republic since April, with just 40% of Australians saying they are in favour of cutting ties with the British monarchy, down from 50% seven months ago.

At the same time, the number of Australians saying they’re against a republic has jumped from 41% to 48%, marking the first time since the republican referendum in 1999 that the number of voters in favour of the monarchy has overwhelmed those against it. The number of people uncommitted to a republic has risen from 9% to 12%.

But support for a republic is still strongest among younger Australians. Forty-five per cent of 18- to 34-year-olds are in favour, compared with 43% of 34- to 49-year-olds and 36% of over-50s.

Just 39% of 18- to 34-year-olds are against a republic, rising to 44% of 35- to 49-year-olds and 55% for over-50s."

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-the-coalition


I then found another poll published on the Sunday Telegraph (right-leaning, perhaps pro-constitutional monarch??). Unfortunately, I run out of my free trial, but the headline reads "Poll finds majority want an Australian head of state"

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/su...s&mode=premium
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 09-29-2020, 03:19 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 359
Future Letters Patent

I mentioned on post #362 of Titles of the Wessex Children thread, that there is possibility for Charles to issue a new Letter Patent once he became King. This is based on the assumption that he wants to "slim down" the monarchy or more specifically reduce the number of Prince and Princesses title and HRH styles.

A possibility is that the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King) is restricted to
  • Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
  • Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
  • Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

By this altered convention,
  • Archie will not be a Prince, even when Charles does become king, as he is not the child of the eldest child of the monarch. However, if the 1917's LP is applied to those who are born prior to the "newly hypothetical" LP, he will be or a Prince when Charles becomes King (just like Princess Beatrice, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent)
  • Children of both Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis will not be Prince and Princesses, even when William becomes King, because they are not children of the eldest child of the Monarch

On the second dot point above, if the same 1917's Letter Patent is applied when William becomes King, children of Prince Louis could enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title. This is because they are the children of the son of the Monarch. Would the new LP (possibly issued by Charles) kind of solve the accusation of sexism on who is able to enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title?

I put "kind of" in bold, because the Royal Family could still be very traditional, when it comes to the title.

Other posters on the Wessex children thread (Osipi on #365 and LauraS3514 on #366) have pointed out that ideally (hopefully Charles is kind enough to his family members), this new hypothetical LPs should only applied to children who are born after the date of the letters patent. Those who already have HRH and Prince/Princess according to 1917's LP should not be stripped. This applies to
Archie (legally style as Prince Archie of Sussex if Charles becomes King and under 1917's LP), Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent
Thank you Osipi, LauraS3514 and Claire for your contribution of opinions on the Wessex thread.

What do you all think about the possibility of this new Letter Patent?

I am sure this has been discuss before, but I think a lot have change since then.

Edited: I have included Archie as the members who will not be stripped of HRH style and Prince title.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 09-29-2020, 03:27 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I mentioned on post #362 of Titles of the Wessex Children thread, that there is possibility for Charles to issue a new Letter Patent once he became King. This is based on the assumption that he wants to "slim down" the monarchy or more specifically reduce the number of Prince and Princesses title and HRH styles.

A possibility is that the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King) is restricted to
  • Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
  • Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
  • Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

By this altered convention,
  • Archie will not be a Prince, even when Charles does become king, as he is not the child of the eldest child of the monarch
  • Children of both Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis will not be Prince and Princesses, even when William becomes King, because they are not children of the eldest child of the Monarch

On the second dot point above, if the same 1917's Letter Patent is applied when William becomes King, children of Prince Louis could enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title. This is because they are the children of the son of the Monarch. Would the new LP (possibly issued by Charles) kind of solve the accusation of sexism on who is able to enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title?

I put "kind of" in bold, because the Royal Family could still be very traditional, when it comes to the title.

Other posters on the Wessex children thread (Osipi on #365 and LauraS3514 on #366) have pointed out that ideally (hopefully Charles is kind enough to his family members), this new hypothetical LPs should only applied to children who are born after the date of the letters patent. Those who already have HRH and Prince/Princess according to 1917's LP should not be stripped. This applies to
Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent
Thank you Osipi, LauraS3514 and Claire for your contribution of opinions on the Wessex thread.

What do you all think about the possibility of this new Letter Patent?

I am sure this has been discuss before, but I think a lot have change since then.
I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense, and is one way to restrict the HRH to the "main line" only.

The querstion I have is whether the time may be coming to have a clearer distinction between working members of the family, and others. Perhaps a distinction between the royal house (ie, The Firm) and the family. In time, and I know this may well be some time in the future, Charlotte and / or Louis may or may not choose to be working members of the family, to that extent they should be free to do so. Might the time be right to consider that?
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 09-29-2020, 03:37 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I mentioned on post #362 of Titles of the Wessex Children thread, that there is possibility for Charles to issue a new Letter Patent once he became King. This is based on the assumption that he wants to "slim down" the monarchy or more specifically reduce the number of Prince and Princesses title and HRH styles.

A possibility is that the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King) is restricted to
  • Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
  • Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
  • Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

By this altered convention,
  • Archie will not be a Prince, even when Charles does become king, as he is not the child of the eldest child of the monarch
  • Children of both Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis will not be Prince and Princesses, even when William becomes King, because they are not children of the eldest child of the Monarch

On the second dot point above, if the same 1917's Letter Patent is applied when William becomes King, children of Prince Louis could enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title. This is because they are the children of the son of the Monarch. Would the new LP (possibly issued by Charles) kind of solve the accusation of sexism on who is able to enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title?

I put "kind of" in bold, because the Royal Family could still be very traditional, when it comes to the title.

Other posters on the Wessex children thread (Osipi on #365 and LauraS3514 on #366) have pointed out that ideally (hopefully Charles is kind enough to his family members), this new hypothetical LPs should only applied to children who are born after the date of the letters patent. Those who already have HRH and Prince/Princess according to 1917's LP should not be stripped. This applies to
Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent
Thank you Osipi, LauraS3514 and Claire for your contribution of opinions on the Wessex thread.

What do you all think about the possibility of this new Letter Patent?

I am sure this has been discuss before, but I think a lot have change since then.
If this applies only to children born who are born after the date of the Letters Patent then wouldn't Archie become Prince Archie of Sussex upon Charles' accession to the throne? The way I'm reading what you're proposing is that the LP that is in effect when said person is born would apply to them for the rest of their life which would mean Archie becomes Prince Archie as a male-line grandson of the monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 09-29-2020, 03:42 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense, and is one way to restrict the HRH to the "main line" only.

The querstion I have is whether the time may be coming to have a clearer distinction between working members of the family, and others. Perhaps a distinction between the royal house (ie, The Firm) and the family. In time, and I know this may well be some time in the future, Charlotte and / or Louis may or may not choose to be working members of the family, to that extent they should be free to do so. Might the time be right to consider that?
Thank you for your contribution. I agree that there is going to be complicated discussion on who is going to be a working royal. I do think that convention for the royal title and style is easier to set it out than is to decide the number of members of the Royal Family who are going to be working royals.
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 09-29-2020, 03:52 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
If this applies only to children born who are born after the date of the Letters Patent then wouldn't Archie become Prince Archie of Sussex upon Charles' accession to the throne? The way I'm reading what you're proposing is that the LP that is in effect when said person is born would apply to them for the rest of their life which would mean Archie becomes Prince Archie as a male-line grandson of the monarch.
Thank you for point this out. I have now edited the post, so that Archie is able to enjoy or legally be style as HRH Prince Archie of Sussex (under 1917's LP), even when Charles becomes King.
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 09-29-2020, 04:54 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I mentioned on post #362 of Titles of the Wessex Children thread, that there is possibility for Charles to issue a new Letter Patent once he became King. This is based on the assumption that he wants to "slim down" the monarchy or more specifically reduce the number of Prince and Princesses title and HRH styles.

A possibility is that the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King) is restricted to
  • Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
  • Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
  • Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

By this altered convention,
  • Archie will not be a Prince, even when Charles does become king, as he is not the child of the eldest child of the monarch. However, if the 1917's LP is applied to those who are born prior to the "newly hypothetical" LP, he will be or a Prince when Charles becomes King (just like Princess Beatrice, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent)
  • Children of both Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis will not be Prince and Princesses, even when William becomes King, because they are not children of the eldest child of the Monarch

On the second dot point above, if the same 1917's Letter Patent is applied when William becomes King, children of Prince Louis could enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title. This is because they are the children of the son of the Monarch. Would the new LP (possibly issued by Charles) kind of solve the accusation of sexism on who is able to enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title?

I put "kind of" in bold, because the Royal Family could still be very traditional, when it comes to the title.

Other posters on the Wessex children thread (Osipi on #365 and LauraS3514 on #366) have pointed out that ideally (hopefully Charles is kind enough to his family members), this new hypothetical LPs should only applied to children who are born after the date of the letters patent. Those who already have HRH and Prince/Princess according to 1917's LP should not be stripped. This applies to
Archie (legally style as Prince Archie of Sussex if Charles becomes King and under 1917's LP), Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent
Thank you Osipi, LauraS3514 and Claire for your contribution of opinions on the Wessex thread.

What do you all think about the possibility of this new Letter Patent?

I am sure this has been discuss before, but I think a lot have change since then.

Edited: I have included Archie as the members who will not be stripped of HRH style and Prince title.
I like your altered version and I disagree with your edit I think you were right the first time in regards to Archie. If they are going to change how things are with titles they need to start with him. He’s a little child he wouldn’t know that he “lost” a title..
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 09-29-2020, 05:58 AM
Claire's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,205
okay - bit of backstory here.
I firmly believe the the letter patent has already been drawn up and is simply waiting. I suspect that it will be altered since then, due the recent actions about The Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York.
Why do I believe so - in 1990 about I was working in a newspaper office in Fleet Street and the names of Princess Eugenie were announced and it created a bit of a stir among the royal correspondence. Reason been they has been told that the children of the Duke of York will not be given HRH and the titles of Prince or Princess and that Beatrice title will be corrected when another child shows up. Why this didn't happen at the time we will never know but the press expected it in 1990. When Edward got married, it was assumed he was following a patent that hadn't been placed into law yet.
So why hasn't that patent been released yet - I can only guess that Prince Charles through he might need the Duke and Duchess of York to step in if he was made king in the 1990's. When William and Harry were too young to undertake engagements.
But since then they could have released the patent many times, actually any day. So I think it simply comes down to Queen Elizabeth II not wanting to - it will be left as one of the first jobs of King Charles.
Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 09-29-2020, 06:41 AM
Claire's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,205
Interesting - maybe they should do it according top the line of succession. Only the Top 5 people - everyone following should not be HRH. When someone is born lose it as well.
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 09-29-2020, 07:22 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Interesting - maybe they should do it according top the line of succession. Only the Top 5 people - everyone following should not be HRH. When someone is born lose it as well.
I do think there are some people who want Royal Family members to lose their title once they drop out of top 5 (or 10), so that a new member who is born without a title would not be outranked by someone with a title who is behind him/her in the line of succession. For example Peter Phillips (15th) would not be outranked by Prince Michael of Kent (48th).

I do want to ask by what you meant by removing HRH style and Prince/Princess title? Is it by exceptions on LP? or is it members who are legally style as HRH Prince/Princess, but force to be addressed as Lord/Lady or The. Hon. (like Lady Louise and James, Viscount Severn)?

Of course, Charles could restrict HRH to the first five individuals in the line of succession by writing this in the LP.
Reply With Quote
  #911  
Old 09-29-2020, 07:35 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I like your altered version and I disagree with your edit I think you were right the first time in regards to Archie. If they are going to change how things are with titles they need to start with him. He’s a little child he wouldn’t know that he “lost” a title..
I think Archie's case is the most complicated, because as you said he is still a child and but a grandson of the future King through a male-line. Unlike Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, who are going to be niece/nephew of the King and unlikely to be address as HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince Jame of Wessex (despite given the choice at 18). They are also brought up expected to work outside the royal family for a living with the freedom to choose their own career. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie do work for a living, but are also involved in charity patronages that are personal to them. With Archie, everything is still "up in the air".
Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 09-29-2020, 08:38 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Interesting - maybe they should do it according top the line of succession. Only the Top 5 people - everyone following should not be HRH. When someone is born lose it as well.

The easiest solution, which is already done in Spain, the Netherlands, Norway: exclusively the children of a Sovereign and children of a Heir are members of the Royal House and have the prefix of a HRH and titles of said House. Of course their female spouses enjoy the same style and title.

In the UK:

HM The Queen
HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (by creation)

HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales
HRH The Princess Anne, Princess Royal
HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York
HRH The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex

HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Cambridge
HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge

HRH Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex


All others then have no longer the prefix HRH or a title of the Royal House. Of course, out of courtesy and benevolence, no one will be robbed from their title. The ones outside this group (the Yorks, the Kents, the Gloucesters) will keep their current style for lifetime.
Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 09-29-2020, 09:05 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The easiest solution, which is already done in Spain, the Netherlands, Norway: exclusively the children of a Sovereign and children of a Heir are members of the Royal House and have the prefix of a HRH and titles of said House. Of course their female spouses enjoy the same style and title.

In the UK:

HM The Queen
HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (by creation)

HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales
HRH The Princess Anne, Princess Royal
HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York
HRH The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex

HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Cambridge
HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge

HRH Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex


All others then have no longer the prefix HRH or a title of the Royal House. Of course, out of courtesy and benevolence, no one will be robbed from their title. The ones outside this group (the Yorks, the Kents, the Gloucesters) will keep their current style for lifetime.
I actually like the approach, which does streamline the monarchy, but also not remove royal family members from their title and style. I am of course not familiar with the Spanish, Dutch, Norwegian Royal Families and also unsure whether or not they have altered Letters Patent or other legal instrument. Thank you Duc_et_Pair for your contribution.
Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 09-29-2020, 09:45 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 504
From my personal non-british perspective:

I don't care about HRH-titles! They mean more or less nothing to me. If I read "HRH", I think of Howard Robbard Hughes first, you know, the genius, the aviator, the first Dollar-billionaire.

But the UK has a dire need of Princesses and Princes. Princess or Prince, yep, that is a title I can understand!

And I don't want to bring up the old point again - but what is with the vast Commonwealth? I guess, folks are still excited about some "real" VIPs presenting the UK...

Now, one can't simply bake some Princesses and Princes, if they are needed, but there could be some dignified branding.
Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 09-29-2020, 12:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 101
I really see no need to tinker with the current George V Letters Patent. His LP's were a sensible balance of ensuring there would always be enough HRH's, and official members of a "working" Royal Family at any given time. It is unlikely we ever see a situation with a Royal Family of 9 children as in the case of Queen Victoria with HRH going down the male line to grandchildren which created a veritable mob of late 19th/early 20th century HRH's and HH's.

I do think that HRH should be inherited at birth as per the 1917 LP's. Should an HRH upon reaching adulthood decide they do not want to be "working" royals carrying out a representative role they should cease to use the HRH in order to dedicate themselves to their own activities, with the style of Lord/Lady.

We are at risk of having such a small group of "working" royals that the potential reach and ability to represent the UK and Commonwealth would be extremely limited. In Spain the working members of the family are effectively only the King and Queen at present - this would be sad to see in UK.
Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 09-29-2020, 12:56 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
From my personal non-british perspective:

I don't care about HRH-titles! They mean more or less nothing to me. If I read "HRH", I think of Howard Robbard Hughes first, you know, the genius, the aviator, the first Dollar-billionaire.

But the UK has a dire need of Princesses and Princes. Princess or Prince, yep, that is a title I can understand!

And I don't want to bring up the old point again - but what is with the vast Commonwealth? I guess, folks are still excited about some "real" VIPs presenting the UK...

Now, one can't simply bake some Princesses and Princes, if they are needed, but there could be some dignified branding.
Why is the UK in dire need of a busload of Princes and Princesses? Already now royals like the Kents, the Michaels, the Gloucesters, the Wessexes, Princess Alexandra and the Princess Royal have countless public engagements which go almost unnoticed in media.

France can do it with a Macron and a hardly visible Premičre Dame. Italy can do it with a a President hidden in the Quirinale. Germany can do it with a President hidden in the Bellevue. And then the UK needs a whole bunch of Princes and Princesses?
Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 09-29-2020, 01:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 101
Much as I respect these countries does anybody outside of Italy or Germany actually know who their respective Heads of State are? The soft power of the British Monarchy and the role played by its members as representatives on the world stage is of enormous value to the UK and will be increasingly important in a post-Brexit world.
Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 09-29-2020, 02:25 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I really see no need to tinker with the current George V Letters Patent. His LP's were a sensible balance of ensuring there would always be enough HRH's, and official members of a "working" Royal Family at any given time. It is unlikely we ever see a situation with a Royal Family of 9 children as in the case of Queen Victoria with HRH going down the male line to grandchildren which created a veritable mob of late 19th/early 20th century HRH's and HH's.

I do think that HRH should be inherited at birth as per the 1917 LP's. Should an HRH upon reaching adulthood decide they do not want to be "working" royals carrying out a representative role they should cease to use the HRH in order to dedicate themselves to their own activities, with the style of Lord/Lady.

We are at risk of having such a small group of "working" royals that the potential reach and ability to represent the UK and Commonwealth would be extremely limited. In Spain the working members of the family are effectively only the King and Queen at present - this would be sad to see in UK.
Because George the V LP is sexist. If the queen had all girls and her oldest princess Anne had all girls herself the future queens of the UK would be untitled because according to George the V letter of patent only the males are able to pass titles to their children. And I always thought it was ridiculous that royal women within the British royal family couldn’t pass their title to their children and that the monarch has to give the non royal husband a title for the children to get titles. That’s sexist. Either they all get titles or none get titles.
Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 09-29-2020, 02:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 101
That's not how titles are inherited in the UK.
Had there been a situation where there were only females, LP's would be issued to ensure that titles were created.
The precedent in UK is that a child generally inherits their father's rank. Nothing discriminatory, simply a structure that has provided coherence for generations.
Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 09-29-2020, 02:40 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I like your altered version and I disagree with your edit I think you were right the first time in regards to Archie. If they are going to change how things are with titles they need to start with him. He’s a little child he wouldn’t know that he “lost” a title..
I agree, imho this is easily solved by stating that everyone who enjoyed the style and title of Royal Highness Prince(ss) of the UK under the former monarch will continue to be styled and titled as such.

In that way Archie would not be included - as it would make little sense to start including an British-American boy living in the States whose parents decided to professionally leave the BRF if the wish is to limit these styles and titles from Charles' reign onwards.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1570 10-11-2020 08:28 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 771 04-18-2020 12:48 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names bangladesh baptism biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus cover-up dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi heraldry hill historical drama history hochberg introduction jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess of orange queen consort queen mathilde royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×