The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 07-17-2018, 08:54 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If you are referring to Louise and James that is not what BP has told me. I sent them a letter to ask and they sent me a reply - which I have posted elsewhere on this forum stating that Louise and James have been deprived of HRH by The Queen's Will being made known.

At the moment we don't have the Letters Patent for Harry's title but we do have The Queen's Will having made known so Harry is Duke of Oxford.

There are three ways for titles to be created:

1. Letters Patent
2. Royal Warrant
3. The Queen's Will - this is what was done for Louise and James (and currently for Harry's Sussex title).
That's new to me

I was referring to your communication with the palace in my previous post.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-17-2018, 09:13 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I see your reasoning. However, when William and Catherine got married the rules for the line of succession were still that a son would be higher in line of succession than a daughter regardless of the birth order. That change was only agreed upon 6 months after their marriage.

Had that change not been applied the eldest son would have been the future heir, so there had not been a need to issue LPs as there would not have been the risk of a daughter who would be a future monarch being outranked by a younger brother lower in the line of succession.
Still, I don't believe no annoucement on Harry's wedding day means LPs are less likely. Perhaps the queen will do nothing but I don't see more reason to believe that she won't.

Quote:
It's indeed a different situation but it shows that changes in titles are common - whether it is a compelling argument is up for debate . Furthermore, I also provided examples of family members styled as ladies at birth being upgraded to princess.

The opposite also happened: (royal) highnesses that were downgraded to 'courtesy titles'.
And I'm not denying anything you've said. I'm just pointing out why this is a very specific case that makes the Queen issuing LPs more plausible than some seem to think.


Quote:
The palace begs to differ. They state that they are not royal highnesses as the queen's will has been made known.

I still think it would be very inconsistent for the queen to make the decision that her grandchildren who were entitled to being prince and princess not to be granted that title and on the other hand granting that same title to great grandchildren who only need to wait a little while for them to be entitled that title (assuming that Charles one day will be king, otherwise there wouldn't be a good reason to make them princes and princesses at all). I would assume there was some reasoning behind the decision that was made, so unless she has a very good reason (something else than 'Charles likes his son better than his brother'), it could be interpreted as a snub to Edward: your children aren't important enough but any potential great-grandchildren by Harry are.
To your first point, I thought I remember reading different. Whatever the case, it doesn't change the main point, which is that there are inconsistencies all over the place based on both precedence and personal preferences. Andrew's daughters are HRH but Edward's children aren't. Should that be interpreted as a snub to Edward? What about the great grandchildren "spares" Charlotte and Louis? Does the queen issuing LPs covering them suggests she loves them more or that they are more important than her grandchildren?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-17-2018, 09:34 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
Still, I don't believe no annoucement on Harry's wedding day means LPs are less likely. Perhaps the queen will do nothing but I don't see more reason to believe that she won't.
That's fine with me. It seems that we at least agree that the fact that no announcement was made doesn't make it almost a certainty that LPs will be issued. She may or she may not.

Quote:
And I'm not denying anything you've said. I'm just pointing out why this is a very specific case that makes the Queen issuing LPs more plausible than some seem to think.
I assume you refer to the argument that they will become royal highnesses as soon as Charles ascends the throne? That is currently indeed the expectation but could change

Quote:
To your first point, I thought I remember reading different. Whatever the case, it doesn't change the main point, which is that there are inconsistencies all over the place based on both precedence and personal preferences. Andrew's daughters are HRH but Edward's children aren't. Should that be interpreted as a snub to Edward? What about the great grandchildren "spares" Charlotte and Louis? Does the queen issuing LPs covering them suggests she loves them more or that they are more important than her grandchildren?
I agree the choice for Edward's children not to be HRH was not consistent.

The queen didn't decide that the spares would need to be royal highnesses (and yes, they are more important than (great)grandchildren by a non-future monarch!). Rather, she figured that it would be bad optics if George had been Georgie that both girls would have been Lady Georgie and Lady Charlotte, while higher in the line of succession (including future queen Georgie) while younger brother Louis would have been HRH prince Louis of Cambridge as the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of Wales. So, the LPs were issued to make sure that the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a royal highness independent of gender. Moreover, I like that siblings are styled the same but I'm not sure that was a consideration for the queen...
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-17-2018, 09:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
To your first point, I thought I remember reading different.
I wasn't sure on this issue so wrote directly to BP who wrote back that Louise and James were not entitled to HRH due to The Queen's Will having been made known.

Other people have said other things - which is why I wrote in person - to get it from the 'horse's mouth' as they say.

I believe the reason they went this way was so as not to strip HRH from either Andrew's daughters or the Queen's cousins but in time that may very well be the intention - that only the children of the heir will be HRH. That is even more relevant now that Charlotte remains higher in the line of succession than Louis but under the 1917 LPs Charlotte can't pass on HRH but Louis will be able to do so. To get a smaller royal family they need fewer people getting HRH and that is why I believe this approach was taken in 1999.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:05 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I assume you refer to the argument that they will become royal highnesses as soon as Charles ascends the throne? That is currently indeed the expectation but could change
Of course but such decisions are always based on expectation, yeah?


Quote:
I agree the choice for Edward's children not to be HRH was not consistent.

The queen didn't decide that the spares would need to be royal highnesses (and yes, they are more important than (great)grandchildren by a non-future monarch!). Rather, she figured that it would be bad optics if George had been Georgie that both girls would have been Lady Georgie and Lady Charlotte, while higher in the line of succession (including future queen Georgie) while younger brother Louis would have been HRH prince Louis of Cambridge as the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of Wales. So, the LPs were issued to make sure that the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a royal highness independent of gender. Moreover, I like that siblings are styled the same but I'm not sure that was a consideration for the queen...
Yes and this goes back to my point, which is that these decisions are made based on the circumstances of the royal, their position, their feelings about titles, etc. So if the Queen did issue LPs for Harry's children, my first thought wouldn't be to interpret it as snub to Edward and I doubt Edward would see it that way either.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:11 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post


I still think it would be very inconsistent for the queen to make the decision that her grandchildren who were entitled to being prince and princess not to be granted that title and on the other hand granting that same title to great grandchildren who only need to wait a little while for them to be entitled that title (assuming that Charles one day will be king, otherwise there wouldn't be a good reason to make them princes and princesses at all). I would assume there was some reasoning behind the decision that was made, so unless she has a very good reason (something else than 'Charles likes his son better than his brother'), it could be interpreted as a snub to Edward: your children aren't important enough but any potential great-grandchildren by Harry are.

You’ve overlooked why the Wessex children don’t have titles; first it is always important to remember that the decision that Edward and Sophie’s children would not have titles was made in the 1990s, when support for the monarchy was at a low. Second, it’s also important to remember that at the time, Edward and Sophie were not expected to take up royal duties. Thirdly, and most importantly, the decision has always been presented as one made by Edward, Sophie, and the Queen together. The titles of any of William or Harry’s children - when there is more support for the monarchy, when the Cambridges and Sussexes are working royals, and when (assuming, on Harry and Meghan’s behalf) the parents want their children to have titles - should not be impacted in any way by a decision made by Edward and Sophie almost 20 years ago.

Secondly, for the overall argument of whether or not a lack of a statement at the time of Harry and Meghan’s wedding means anything, we should actually look at how the royal family works. LPs typically aren’t issued for people who aren’t conceived yet. The LPs for the Cambridge children were issued when Kate was pregnant with George. The LPs for the then-Edinburgh children (who would have otherwise been styled as the children of a Duke) were not issued until the then Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles. Going further back, Princesses Alexandra and Louise of Fife were teenagers before their grandfather issued LPs to make the royals, and the three eldest children of the then-Duke of York (later George V) were all born before Queen Victoria issued LPs elevating them to HRH status.

In all likelihood, the BRF found no reason to issue any statement as for the time, any children born to Harry and Meghan will have the titles of the children of a Duke - there’s no need to issue a statement saying that children that aren’t conceived yet are going to have the style that they’re already intended to have based on the current LPs, nor is there any reason to expect LPs to be issued to elevate them at this point, as again no child is conceived yet.

If it is the intention that the Queen will elevate any future Sussex children, it is fair to expect the LPs will be issued during Meghan’s first pregnancy - just based on the precedent set during Kate’s first pregnancy and the Queen’s first pregnancy. At the same time, if it is the intention that any future Sussex children will not be elevated to the HRH title/styling when Charles is King, I would likewise expect such a statement during (or shortly after) Meghan’s first pregnancy - just so that it’s established before Charles becomes king. If, on the other hand, some course of events happen wherein Harry and Meghan don’t have children until Charles is king, then no LPs would be needed, but again I don’t think any statement about “downgrading” the children would be made until Meghan is pregnant. Ditto in the event that something happens to Charles before he becomes King, I think any LPs elevating future Sussex children would still not be issued until they’re at least conceived (with either the Queen elevating them or William doing so when he becomes king).
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:13 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I wasn't sure on this issue so wrote directly to BP who wrote back that Louise and James were not entitled to HRH due to The Queen's Will having been made known.

Other people have said other things - which is why I wrote in person - to get it from the 'horse's mouth' as they say.

I believe the reason they went this way was so as not to strip HRH from either Andrew's daughters or the Queen's cousins but in time that may very well be the intention - that only the children of the heir will be HRH. That is even more relevant now that Charlotte remains higher in the line of succession than Louis but under the 1917 LPs Charlotte can't pass on HRH but Louis will be able to do so. To get a smaller royal family they need fewer people getting HRH and that is why I believe this approach was taken in 1999.
I think this is what some people would like to see but I don't really see a reason to believe that this is/was the thought process.

Edward was a very specific case, with him being the last of four children, not a senior working royal at the time, and not exactly popular either, thus there would not even be much of murmur over his children not being styled HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If you are referring to Louise and James that is not what BP has told me. I sent them a letter to ask and they sent me a reply - which I have posted elsewhere on this forum stating that Louise and James have been deprived of HRH by The Queen's Will being made known.

At the moment we don't have the Letters Patent for Harry's title but we do have The Queen's Will having made known so Harry is Duke of Oxford.

There are three ways for titles to be created:

1. Letters Patent
2. Royal Warrant
3. The Queen's Will - this is what was done for Louise and James (and currently for Harry's Sussex title).
I've found the letter that you mentioned having posted, and agree that it makes clear the interpretation given by Buckingham Palace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.


The announcement on the Wessexes' wedding day stated that their future children would not be "given the style" Royal Highness. The announcement did not explain the reason, but it said that the decision was made by the Queen, with the agreement of the couple.

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:29 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
You’ve overlooked why the Wessex children don’t have titles
I interpret it differently; that's something different than overlooking it

Quote:
Secondly, for the overall argument of whether or not a lack of a statement at the time of Harry and Meghan’s wedding means anything, we should actually look at how the royal family works. LPs typically aren’t issued for people who aren’t conceived yet. The LPs for the Cambridge children were issued when Kate was pregnant with George. The LPs for the then-Edinburgh children (who would have otherwise been styled as the children of a Duke) were not issued until the then Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles. Going further back, Princesses Alexandra and Louise of Fife were teenagers before their grandfather issued LPs to make the royals, and the three eldest children of the then-Duke of York (later George V) were all born before Queen Victoria issued LPs elevating them to HRH status.

In all likelihood, the BRF found no reason to issue any statement as for the time, any children born to Harry and Meghan will have the titles of the children of a Duke - there’s no need to issue a statement saying that children that aren’t conceived yet are going to have the style that they’re already intended to have based on the current LPs, nor is there any reason to expect LPs to be issued to elevate them at this point, as again no child is conceived yet.

If it is the intention that the Queen will elevate any future Sussex children, it is fair to expect the LPs will be issued during Meghan’s first pregnancy - just based on the precedent set during Kate’s first pregnancy and the Queen’s first pregnancy. At the same time, if it is the intention that any future Sussex children will not be elevated to the HRH title/styling when Charles is King, I would likewise expect such a statement during (or shortly after) Meghan’s first pregnancy - just so that it’s established before Charles becomes king. If, on the other hand, some course of events happen wherein Harry and Meghan don’t have children until Charles is king, then no LPs would be needed, but again I don’t think any statement about “downgrading” the children would be made until Meghan is pregnant. Ditto in the event that something happens to Charles before he becomes King, I think any LPs elevating future Sussex children would still not be issued until they’re at least conceived (with either the Queen elevating them or William doing so when he becomes king).
With all of the above I agree. I was mainly 'protesting' the idea that because nothing was announced it MUST mean that LPs will be issued in due time.

I am sure the have some ideas about how they want to go about any titles for Harry's children (if he would have any) and if that means that the Sovereign's will needs to be made known or LPs issued they will indeed most likely do so when (and if) Meghan is pregnant.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I wasn't sure on this issue so wrote directly to BP who wrote back that Louise and James were not entitled to HRH due to The Queen's Will having been made known.

Other people have said other things - which is why I wrote in person - to get it from the 'horse's mouth' as they say.

I believe the reason they went this way was so as not to strip HRH from either Andrew's daughters or the Queen's cousins but in time that may very well be the intention - that only the children of the heir will be HRH. That is even more relevant now that Charlotte remains higher in the line of succession than Louis but under the 1917 LPs Charlotte can't pass on HRH but Louis will be able to do so. To get a smaller royal family they need fewer people getting HRH and that is why I believe this approach was taken in 1999.
They could've easily issued a new LP and not make it retroactive. This Queen doesn't deviate from tradition unless there is a reason for her to. And when she deviates, she does it on a case by case basis. I believe Edward and Sophie wanted it, and given that they weren't intended to be full time royals at that time and expected to carry on a private career contributed to that.

Now my personal belief is that any Sussex children would remain titled as that of a duke and not receive HRH when Charles becomes king. I just can't see Meghan and Harry would want HRH for their children when they will lead a private life. And I believe in this type of circumstance, even though the sovereign has the final word, the parents' wish would likely be respected. But they've certainly left the door open to a possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-19-2018, 08:45 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I interpret it differently; that's something different than overlooking it

With all of the above I agree. I was mainly 'protesting' the idea that because nothing was announced it MUST mean that LPs will be issued in due time.

I am sure the have some ideas about how they want to go about any titles for Harry's children (if he would have any) and if that means that the Sovereign's will needs to be made known or LPs issued they will indeed most likely do so when (and if) Meghan is pregnant.
JMO, but I think HM has been OK with letting her children make the choice on this - and when the time comes she has taken action, if needed with a LP or formal announcement. She is far more patient about sharing her intentions that we are waiting to know them.

I think she wisely understands that Charles may not agree entirely with the practice of "we will let people choose." Time will tell and again, JMO - my read on him.

For Harry and Meghan, this would mean we will probably know for sure when they have children. Because I also believe Charles will signal this in subtle ways, but follow his Mum in making formal announcements (LPs) in the fullness of time.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:09 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Smile

Well, here it is; and nothing unusual either:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743




Crown Office
Publication date:
19 July 2018, 12:04
Edition:
The London Gazette
Notice ID:
3071743
Notice code:
1108
Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.




So that settles that... (we hope )
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:43 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,085


Thank you, Duke of Leaside. Not surprising, but has it been confirmed who decided that the remainder be heirs male (the Queen, the Sussexes, or the Government)?
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,634
We'll see what happens when Meghan gets pregnant. Depending on when this is, it might not even be necessary to elevate a child to HRH status.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
So they are just following a pattern of it getting later and later. When it comes to George's turn (if he's not the Prince of Wales when he marries), we might need to wait six months at this rate. Louis' might take a year. Silliness.

Now, I'm waiting for the next round of "Feminist Meghan surprised her daughters won't inherit title"
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 07-20-2018, 03:49 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Now, I'm waiting for the next round of "Feminist Meghan surprised her daughters won't inherit title"
Please give it a rest with all this feminist munbo jumbo

After all the peer is Prince Harry, Duchess of Sussex is a courtesy title derived from her husband.
If she was so hell bent to adhere to her so called feminist agenda as it is claimed, she could have turned down this style and asked to be the peer in her own right. Last time I checked, She is the Duchess of Sussex and she is not making any fuss about it. I've got the feeling that some people are projecting their twisted agenda just to create controversies and angles of attack to somehow bring her down. She never expressed any view about sexism within the peerage system. For God's sake, let the girl just be married to the man she loves. This is the only truth the rest is mere hateful speculation and this is getting tiring.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 07-20-2018, 07:16 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,537
In no way was Jacqui24 attacking the Duchess of Sussex...she is a geat supporter and defender of Meghan on this site for which I applaud her wholeheartedly!

She was just referring to what the idiotic tabloids and maybe the American media will print when Meghan's first pregnancy is announced.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 07-20-2018, 07:38 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post


Thank you, Duke of Leaside. Not surprising, but has it been confirmed who decided that the remainder be heirs male (the Queen, the Sussexes, or the Government)?
I'm not even sure a decision was needed as this follows tradition - had the queen wanted to deviate she most likely would have discussed it with the government. And surely the Sussexes were not in a position to make a decision on their title as they don't grant titles but just received them..
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-20-2018, 07:53 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
We'll see what happens when Meghan gets pregnant. Depending on when this is, it might not even be necessary to elevate a child to HRH status.

There is no reason to elevate them to HRH status from birth and I doubt that will be done.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
Well, here it is; and nothing unusual either:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743




Crown Office
Publication date:
19 July 2018, 12:04
Edition:
The London Gazette
Notice ID:
3071743
Notice code:
1108
Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.




So that settles that... (we hope )



Technical question: what is the difference between a "dignity" and a "title" ?
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:50 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
There is no reason to elevate them to HRH status from birth and I doubt that will be done.







Technical question: what is the difference between a "dignity" and a "title" ?

As for a reason to elevate them from birth: maybe Charles wants them to have the rank by birth they will have once he is king?


According to Wiki (I know...) the word dignity is a synonym for name, state, degree, style, title or honour.


Plus this posting in the gazette is just the announcement that Letters Patent (which means: public announcement of the transfer of the dignity) have been created. Since 1992 the exact words on the Letters Patent are fixed according to Wiki:
The form of letters patent for creating peerages has been fixed by the Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992 (SI 1992/1730). Part III of the schedule lays down nine pro forma texts for creating various ranks of the peerage, lords of appeal in ordinary, and baronets.


As the complete Letters Patent have not been published as far as I know, it could well be that they contain a special reminder for the inheritance of daughters in case no son is being born. Or for the firstborn to inherit, no matter the gender. That wouldn't change the fact that the Letters Patent for the creation of a Duke, Earl and Baron pro forma are all for the person to be elevated and their male offspring. Because that's the tradition. So the announcement in the Gazette would be true but still Harry's female kids could inherit - we just won't know till someone sees the actual Letters Patent.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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
The Duchess of Sussex's Eveningwear Part 1: May 2018 - August 2019 iceflower Archives 530 08-31-2019 04:08 PM
The Duchess of Sussex's Daytime Fashion Part 1: May 2018 - June 2018 iceflower Archives 741 07-01-2018 10:09 AM
Prince William Created Duke of Cambridge: April 29, 2011 wbenson The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 291 10-16-2012 05:37 PM
Greetings from Kevin of Sussex! Kevin_of_Sussex Member Introductions 1 01-01-2008 12:20 PM




Popular Tags
abdication american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen chittagong commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dubai duke of sussex facts games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hill history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels norway prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tracts tradition uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×