The Monarchy under Charles

[Cris M]

Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward aren´t?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine

The children of the Princess Royal aren't a Prince and Princess because titles don't pass through the female line. The children of the Earl of Wessex (who's not a Duke) aren't styled as a Prince and a Princess because their parents asked the Queen for them to be styled just as children of an Earl.

Following the 1917 Letters of Patent, the York Princesses are the rule, while their Wessex cousins are the exception.

 

[USAPolitics]

Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward aren´t?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine

In Princess Anne's case, it would have been unprecedented (or out of the ordinary) for her children to have royal titles as they pass through the father. For example, my parents are married so I don't have my mothers last name, I have my fathers. Same with royalty--Anne's children take their fathers surname. So all this nonsense of Anne wanting her children to have a normal life are I'm sure true, but have little bases for why they don't have titles.

For Prince Edwards children, they ARE princes and princesses. Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, technically, Louise is Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. And they may wish to go by their HRH once they come of age.

However, in order to help lessen the burden of royal association they are now styled as children of an earl--so Lady Louise. This doesn't mean she isn't a princess at all. Their parents decided to take an unprecedented step to help them grow up as normal children. It has more to do with how the public views them than who they really are. The public views her as a mere Lady so are less interested. But she is a princess. That is fact.

The children of the Princess Royal aren't a Prince and Princess because titles don't pass through the female line. The children of the Earl of Wessex (who's not a Duke) aren't styled as a Prince and a Princess because their parents asked the Queen for them to be styled just as children of an Earl.



Following the 1917 Letter of Patent, the York Princesses are the rule, while their Wessex cousins are the exception.

Exactly. Wessex cousins are unprecedented and not of the norm. Yorks are the rule!

 

[Skippyboo]

Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward aren´t?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine

In the UK, children inherit titles from their fathers not their mother. Anne's kids are the same as Margaret kids. The only difference is the Tony Armstrong Jones took a peerage while Mark Phillips didn't.

Edward and Sophie made the decision to style their kids as children of a peer instead of using their Royal titles that they are legally entitled to.

Harry could do the same thing with his kids if he wanted too.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward aren´t?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine

The 1917 Letters Patent or rules on who is or who isn't an HRH Prince or Princess:

1. The children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward

2. The MALE LINE grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra (Elizabeth herself was, like Beatrice, the elder daughter of the second son and Margaret was born in Eugenie's position of the younger daughter of the second son - the only other one born with HRH since 1917 was Prince William of Gloucester who died in 1972. He was the elder son of the late Duke of Gloucester)

3. The spouses of the men - Camilla, Sophie, Kate, Birgitte, Katherine and Marie-Christine

4. The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George


In 2012 The Queen modified these LPs to allow ALL of William's children to be HRH Prince/Princess.

In 1948 George VI also modified the 1917 LPs to allow ALL children of HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh to also have HRH - otherwise Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merionth and Anne as Lady Anne Mountbatten.

Anne's children, like Margaret's and Mary's before her, don't have titles because they are descended from a girl and not a boy and as a daughter of the monarch Anne's children don't get titles without the monarch of the day doing something which didn't happen so no titles for Peter or Zara. Margaret's children have titles because Margaret insisted on her husband being given a title and The Queen agreed so he became Lord Snowdon and the children Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah. Princess Margaret married a man with a title in his own right so her children were titled through their father.

Edward's situation is different. His children are not using HRH Prince/Princess titles because he requested that they not be so burdened in 1999 when he was getting married. At the end of the 1990s the public were not in the mood for more royal children to be born, unless they were Diana's descendants whereas when Andrew's children were born there was never any suggestion of them not having the styles they were entitled to by the 1917 LPs.

 

[Iluvbertie]

For Prince Edwards children, they ARE princes and princesses. Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, technically, Louise is Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. And they may wish to go by their HRH once they come of age.

There has been considerable debate on whether or not 'The Queen's will' is enough to override the LPs with quite a few 'experts' arguing on each side.

One side says as you do that they are really a Prince and Princess but not using that styling while the other argument is that as The Queen has made her will known that is enough to say that they are no longer entitled to be HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. I believe that is the view of BP - that The Queen's will has been made known and that they aren't and never will be a Prince or a Princess.

 

[Ish]

There has been considerable debate on whether or not 'The Queen's will' is enough to override the LPs with quite a few 'experts' arguing on each side.

One side says as you do that they are really a Prince and Princess but not using that styling while the other argument is that as The Queen has made her will known that is enough to say that they are no longer entitled to be HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. I believe that is the view of BP - that The Queen's will has been made known and that they aren't and never will be a Prince or a Princess.

I kind of feel like this was deliberately left vague. I've seen it argued that the decision was presented as Edward and Sophie's desire but was actually done because of the attitude of the public towards the monarchy at the time. By doing it as "the Queen's will" instead of through LPs they can act as though it's intended that this is official and they won't ever be royals, but if at some point in the future public opinion is different and Louise or James want to be royal they can back up and go "well, see, they always were royals they just weren't called such."

 

[Molly2101]

The Wessex children debate is something that I think will forever ongoing. I think it's a good thing they aren't using their royal statuses as it will give them some freedom and privacy as adults, much like their oldest cousins Peter and Zara.

Whether the decision was Edward and Sophie's or the Queen's, it was a very good decision and one that will work in Louise and James' favour when they are older. Edward is quite unknown in the UK and worldwide. Generally no one in the "younger" generation know who he or his wife is, and even the older generation has a small number who know who he is. A lot of them know who he is due to Louise's dramatic birth and remember when she was born, but that's about as far as his fame goes. (Even then their view is skewed as they all think Louise has mental disabilities "as she has that cross eye look doesn't she?"). Those that do know who he is think he and Andrew do nothing for the royal family (when if fact Edward was the 3rd hardest working Royal this year). Edward was in a no win situation at the time of his marriage as it was the 90's when the world was still in deep mourning for Diana and their disliking toward the British monarchy was huge. I think that also was why his wedding was a much smaller affair than those of his siblings. Had the situation been different and Diana was still alive, then his wedding may have been a state occasion like the others. Edward and Sophie both said they chose St George's as it was smaller and made it feel "cosier" (if you can call 500 guests cosy), but I think his wedding would have been very different if the BRF were still in their 80's/early 90's popularity.

The idea that any of his children would be a Prince or Princess was something that the British public would not have welcomed as they just thought of it as "another mouth to feed with our money" so the decision to use Lady/Viscount was a smart move on the Queen's part, whether it was her decision, Edward's decision or an adviser's decision.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In Princess Anne's case, it would have been unprecedented (or out of the ordinary) for her children to have royal titles as they pass through the father.

It would have been out of the ordinary, but there would have been a precedent - the daughters of Princess Louise were created princesses in 1905.

 

[Ish]

It would have been out of the ordinary, but there would have been a precedent - the daughters of Princess Louise were created princesses in 1905.

The difference between the Fifes and Anne's children is that the Fifes got their titles before the 1917 LPs and were only Highnesses, not Royal Highnesses. Princess Maud relinquished her Royal titles on her marriage in 1923, and Princess Alexandra used her husband's after her marriage in 1913.

The children of Princesses Mary (daughter of George V), Margaret (daughter of George VI), and Anne (daughter of Elizabeth II) all held the same position (or similar; Margaret being the younger daughter, the others being the only daughter), but none of their children were created royals.

Another precedent would have been the children of Elizabeth II herself, none of whom got their titles from their father. Charles and Anne got their first titles from LPs issued by their maternal grandfather owing to their mother's position as heir presumptive, later they, Andrew, and Edward took their titles from their position as the monarch's children, not from their position as the DoE's children.

 

[yvr girl]

Another precedent would have been the children of Elizabeth II herself, none of whom got their titles from their father. Charles and Anne got their first titles from LPs issued by their maternal grandfather owing to their mother's position as heir presumptive, later they, Andrew, and Edward took their titles from their position as the monarch's children, not from their position as the DoE's children.

|

That isn't entirely true. From the time they were born Charles and Anne were prince/princess because of the LPs issued by their grandfather, but they were 'of Edinburgh' because of their father.

 

[Ish]

|

That isn't entirely true. From the time they were born Charles and Anne were prince/princess because of the LPs issued by their grandfather, but they were 'of Edinburgh' because of their father.

Yeah, but saying that they got their titles from their father is inaccurate. Princess Louise's children were "of Fife" but they got their titles from their maternal grandfather who issued the LPs granting them. Their territorial designation was from their father, but their titles were from their grandfather.

Likewise, Charles and Anne may have gotten their territorial designation from the DoE, but their titles were from their grandfather. If they had gotten their titles from their father then Charles would have been Earl of Merioneth and Anne would have been Lady Anne Mountbatten.

 

[Lady Nimue]

If they had gotten their titles from their father then Charles would have been Earl of Merioneth and Anne would have been Lady Anne Mountbatten.

Suits her.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

It would have been out of the ordinary, but there would have been a precedent - the daughters of Princess Louise were created princesses in 1905.

Precedents are important. Once they are established, they should not be changed.
Lady Alexandra Duff and Lady Maud Duff both began as Their Ladyships even if their mother was a Princess, who eventually became the Princess Royal.
​

 

[VictoriaB]

Precedents are important. Once they are established, they should not be changed.
Lady Alexandra Duff and Lady Maud Duff both began as Their Ladyships even if their mother was a Princess, who eventually became the Princess Royal.
​

Precedents are important, I agree. But I think they are only a guide and should change to adapt to different social values. The current precedent comes from the 1920s when the children of Princess Mary, the previous Princess Royal before Anne were titled as the children of an Earl and were not Royal Highnesses. In that case the Letters Patent were followed.

I think royalty has to move with the times and not get stuck in some Victorian vacuum where they become irrelevant to the modern world.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Charles III may have some changes made.
However he will be the Sovereign and only he.
No one else will be ruler of England when he is the King.
He may want some precedents left alone.
Charles deserves respect in this and any other decision he makes.

​

 

[Iluvbertie]

One precedent that has gone by the wayside over the last few centuries is the role of the monarch. The monarch no longer 'rules' but 'reign'. The last King to 'rule' was Charles I and since then with every reign more and more power has been given away to the government - thus there is a clear precedent for change.

 

[COUNTESS]

Hardly, unless he wants to end up like Charles I. But, all kidding aside, the British have a very nice system of governing, with the monarch aside with little power. It is a Constitutional Monarchy for many, many years and does well that way. Charles will not rock the boat. Why would he?

 

[padams2359]

I think there will be few changes than people might think in some instances as far as the household goes that will remain unchanged. I mean positions, not the people that fill them. I think the idea of valets, etc will remain. As William moves up in the chain, and has more engagements, he will appreciate the added time of not having to put his clothes together, etc.

 

[MARG]

While Charles as a Monarch will be pretty much business as usual, I would bet my best china that Sandringham and Balmoral will be in for a shake up. I expect to see a lot of things now seen in the Duchy of Cornwall, not least an awful lot of "sustainable" living.

Recycling, solar energy, etc. seem to be a given and I believe Charles will be a lot more "hands on" than his mother. Charles is committed to improving the land and I expect to see the Highgrove template applied to just about everything on all privately owned estate properties.

The only possible problem I see is if those in charge of the Duchy of Lancaster do business in such a way as to offend Charles progressive and protective tendencies. If that happens things could get interesting.

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Charles 'has talked to Queen about what sort of king he should be', aides say on eve of new biography - Telegraph

The Prince of Wales has discussed with the Queen the “sensitive matter” of what sort of king he should be, royal aides have disclosed as they prepare for the publication of a new biography which explores the Prince’s preparations for kingship.

Sources close to the Prince have said there is “no-one” other than his mother with whom he would talk about his plans for the monarchy, adding that nobody else would ever be present when such discussions took place.

Clarence House is preparing for the publication next week of a biography of the Prince by Catherine Mayer, a journalist for Time magazine, which is expected to include the thoughts of his courtiers on how he will approach his eventual role as sovereign.

The Prince’s future is also likely to be discussed in a second book, to be published in mid-February, by the former Downing Street communications secretary Alastair Campbell.

 

[cepe]

and therefore his thoughts as stated in the book are merely speculation.

Making and stating the difference between real and speculation is v important.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Prince Charles 'has talked to Queen about what sort of king he should be', aides say on eve of new biography - Telegraph

The Prince’s future is also likely to be discussed in a second book, to be published in mid-February, by the former Downing Street communications secretary Alastair Campbell. Winners and How They Succeed is understood to include a whole chapter on the Queen, based on Mr Campbell’s experiences in Downing Street and on more recent conversations with royal aides.

I can't say I'm looking forward to the release of the Alastair Campbell book.

Miss Mayer’s book, Charles, The Heart of a King is also expected to address the belief in some quarters that the Queen should bypass her son and make the Duke of Cambridge her successor.

Those who believe that The Queen can skip Charles and make William her successor is lacking knowledge about how things work. There are actually journalists who go around and think that she is allowed to do it.

 

[Dman]

Martin @CourtierUK · 1h 1 hour ago
English DM front page has been released yet, but it’s on Charles reportedly wanting to overhaul honours system.

Martin @CourtierUK · 1h 1 hour ago
If true, as far as Charles's interventions go, this is definitely one of the most agreeable ones. Honours system does need reforming.

The Times of London @thetimes · 43m 43 minutes ago
Tomorrow's front page: Rival camps tear apart Charles's household
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/561285478855741440

Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail · 13m 13 minutes ago
One member of his inner circle told me: ‘Does he meddle? Yes, sometimes. Is he misguided on occasions? Possibly......

Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail · 12m 12 minutes ago
....But does he do it for the best of reasons? Absolutely. He is a very good man and what he does comes from a good place.’ #PrinceCharles

 

[Dman]

Prince Charles 'has talked to Queen about what sort of king he should be', aides say on eve of new biography - Telegraph



I can't say I'm looking forward to the release of the Alastair Campbell book.



Those who believe that The Queen can skip Charles and make William her successor is lacking knowledge about how things work. There are actually journalists who go around and think that she is allowed to do it.

I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of King Charles will be and I'm looking forward to the books. I've always had the feeling that he'll be an engaging and very hands on King like no other. William will likely be a very hands on King as well. I truly believe the future of the Monarchy is very bright.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Well, Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail is tweeting her fool head off about this - from the DM Charles wants to shake up honours: Gongs are handed out 'to the wrong people for the wrong reasons' | Daily Mail Online

 

[cepe]

All from Mail on line

Our splash in tomorrow's Daily Mail: What Prince Charles thinks of the honours system plus fascinating detail from a new biog of the prince

Exclusive:How Prince Charles wants to shake up honours system & friend Emma Thompson believes he's 'driven by guilt'

New biography of Charles includes details of his 'royal rages' and Princess Diana 's bloodlust' for revenge.

Prince Charles is certainly a complex man, full of passion and drive, and a remarkable charitable entrepreneur....

but one that is also riven by self-doubt and subject,not entirely unreasonably,to accusations his influencing of public policy goes too far

Oh dear! British tabloid headlines at their worst. Everyone seek out their SACK of salt!

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Well, Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail is tweeting her fool head off about this - from the DM Charles wants to shake up honours: Gongs are handed out 'to the wrong people for the wrong reasons' | Daily Mail Online

I don't take Rebecca English seriously anymore.

 

[VictoriaB]

Well, Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail is tweeting her fool head off about this - from the DM Charles wants to shake up honours: Gongs are handed out 'to the wrong people for the wrong reasons' | Daily Mail Online

Well he can start by applying the same criteria in awarding honours to his family as apply to any other member of the public (and, no, I'm not thinking of Prince Philip's Australian knighthood).

All honours/awards should be based on merit, not some long service award for members of an already very privileged family.

I like Prince Charles but I find it embarrassing when I see him in uniform looking like a Christmas tree with so many medals pinned to his chest. I know he's entitled to wear them but to compare his row of medals with those worn by serving members of the armed forces who have risked their lives in theatres of war but not attended coronations and jubilee celebrations, to my mind, suggests someone has got their priorities wrong.

Equally, if I were Prince William, I would be mortified that, at 30, I hold the two most senior knighthoods. Sir Edmund Hillary conquered Everest to earn his K.G., Margaret Thatcher won 3 elections and governed the UK for over 10 years (like her or not). William got born.

Mummy/Granny may have wanted to give these medals and honours out but her family really should start putting their collective feet down and refusing to accept them.

 

[cepe]

I find that if I start from the position of not believing the UK press, I find that I am right at the end of the day.

The UK tabloid press - led by the fiction writers at the Mail - are a disgrace. No research, no original thought, the regurgitation of an unauthorised biography - they just push it out there for the gullible to believe.

SAdly, I find that the Telegraph are joining their ranks and I am in 2 minds whether to continue by subscription. Recently it seems that I am paying for Mail reporting thru that paper.

Read the UK press and then stand back - just dont take it as a true report of FACT.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Well he can start by applying the same criteria in awarding honours to his family as apply to any other member of the public (and, no, I'm not thinking of Prince Philip's Australian knighthood).

All honours/awards should be based on merit, not some long service award for members of an already very privileged family.

I like Prince Charles but I find it embarrassing when I see him in uniform looking like a Christmas tree with so many medals pinned to his chest. I know he's entitled to wear them but to compare his row of medals with those worn by serving members of the armed forces who have risked their lives in theatres of war but not attended coronations and jubilee celebrations, to my mind, suggests someone has got their priorities wrong.

Equally, if I were Prince William, I would be mortified that, at 30, I hold the two most senior knighthoods. Sir Edmund Hillary conquered Everest to earn his K.G., Margaret Thatcher won 3 elections and governed the UK for over 10 years (like her or not). William got born.

Mummy/Granny may have wanted to give these medals and honours out but her family really should start putting their collective feet down and refusing to accept them.

I understand what you are saying but the concept of monarchy is based on honors earned through ancestral connections rather than personal merit. The Queen was only 25 years old before she was treated with extraordinary deference by everyone, including prime ministers and combat veterans.

I think Charles will make some major changes to modernize the monarchy but he will not undermine the very foundation of a hereditary system.