The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,893
The LPs have been published - 'heirs male of his body lawfully begotten' - as seen in Post #132 above.

That is the complete Gazette entry and so the complete LP for the creation of the Sussex title for Harry.

If he only has daughters - like Andrew - the title won't be passed on. If he has a daughter first and then a son - like Edward - the son will inherit and not the daughter who will have no claim on the title.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-20-2018, 10:04 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The LPs have been published - 'heirs male of his body lawfully begotten' - as seen in Post #132 above.

That is the complete Gazette entry and so the complete LP for the creation of the Sussex title for Harry.

No, that is not right. The notice in the Gazette only announced that Letters Patent have been created.



According to The Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992


Letters Patent creating Dukes read in their standard text as follows:





Harry's are surely a variant thereof, because he as a Royal Duke cannot take a seat in parliament. But as this depends completely on the will of HM, she can make as many changes as she want. Still the announcement in the Gazette would read the same, but there could be special reminders in the text of the document.


So no, we don't know what the queen actually granted Harry apart from the fact that he got the dignity of being Duke of Sussex (plus the other titles) and that his male heirs lawfully begotten can inherit. We don't know if his female heirs can inherit, too and in which way the line of succession to his titles is organized.



Of course, probably it's just the normal Letters Patent without special reminders but it could be different and we don't know that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-20-2018, 03:58 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
It would be misleading to publish one thing while something else would be the case. So, unless clear evidence is presented that the Gazette entry is incorrect I don't see a reason to assume that the inheritance of his titles is something else than males heir to the body lawfully begotten.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
The Gazette is the paper of formal record. The announcements of State never contain the preamble and fancy language of the Letters Patent.

We are provided with all the relevant information. Letters Patent were passed under the great seal of the realm to grant Harry a dukedom and the remainder is to his heirs male.

That’s a wrap folks.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Gazette is the paper of formal record. The announcements of State never contain the preamble and fancy language of the Letters Patent.

We are provided with all the relevant information. Letters Patent were passed under the great seal of the realm to grant Harry a dukedom and the remainder is to the heirs male.

That’s a wrap folks.

I'm not sure they'd announce special reminders in the Gazette, though. Did they do it with Lord Mountbatten?


Plus there are even cases where something is only announced in the Gazette and not in the actual Letters Patent but is obviously still valid, as there is no special form required to express the will of HM.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/brit..._docs.htm#1957
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:25 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
Well the remainder is what it is. ‘Special’ or otherwise. It’s to the heirs male lawfully begotten. The Gazette just didn’t make it up.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:44 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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?
...
We won't find this out until Meghan becomes pregnant, if I'm reading along in this thread correctly.

There's no way to 100% know M&H's feelings on the matter until a child is conceived and further action is taken or not taken. If no further action is taken, I would assume that in accordance with Prince Charles' expressed desire to streamline the royal family, that M&H's children will hold titles due the offspring of a Duke.

We all know how much Prince Harry struggled himself with being known as a prince (especially during his twenties), until he came to grips with his royal heritage and realized that he had status and a platform to make a difference for others.

That said, we still do not know for sure what the Sussexes' desires might be for their future offspring. Perhaps it will be decided to wait until Prince Charles becomes King and then elevate the status of M&H's offspring. Or, once Meghan conceives, LP may be issued for M&H's children to be styled HRH Prince/Princess. Or, once styled Earl/Lady at birth, they will retain those titles for life in order to ease huge burdens of limelight attention.

Seemingly, there's a lot that will go into a final decision being made. Or, perhaps a final decision has already been made, with the desires of the Sussexes playing a major part.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:52 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
If no further action is taken any children they may have will be royal highnesses when Charles ascends the throne. So, the ways for them not to end up as royal highnesses are (next yo not being born): Charles doesn't ascend the throne or the Sovereign's will is made known (in one way or another) that they won't (but instead most likely be styled as children of a non-royal duke).
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:26 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,776
Right, but further action could be taken when Meghan becomes pregnant for the Queen to make M&H's offspring HRH Prince/Princess from birth. Or right, nothing will be done and they will automatically be styled as children of a duke, and once Prince Charles inherits the throne, their titles might be elevated, or not if M&H have decided differently.

I'm not sure why you are saying 'non-royal' though since Harry is definitely royal.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Well the remainder is what it is. ‘Special’ or otherwise. It’s to the heirs male lawfully begotten. The Gazette just didn’t make it up.

What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
The LPs formally mention "the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour" of Duke [xxx]. The gazette summary, on the other hand, refers only to "the dignity of [xxx]". George V's 1917 LPs add even further to the confusion by referring to "style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

I know I have already asked that before, but I am still confused by those terms and by the difference between a "dignity" and a "title". Different dictionaries say that one possible meaning of the word "dignity" is "a high rank", or "a title of high rank". Apparently, "prince" is a dignity in that sense, but, per the Gazette notice, so is "Duke of Sussex", which is somewhat confusing.

Apparently BTW, that semantic complication also extends to other languages. For example, in Spain, the royal decree 1368/1987 mentions the "dignidad" of Prince of Asturias or Infante of Spain, but otherwise refers to "títulos de nobleza pertenecientes a la Casa Real", as the ones currently held by Infantas Elena, Pilar and Margarita for example.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:47 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Right, but further action could be taken when Meghan becomes pregnant for the Queen to make M&H's offspring HRH Prince/Princess from birth. Or right, nothing will be done and they will automatically be styled as children of a duke, and once Prince Charles inherits the throne, their titles might be elevated, or not if M&H have decided differently.

I'm not sure why you are saying 'non-royal' though since Harry is definitely royal.
My wording was indeed not precise. I was trying to make the distinction between being styled as grandchildren of the monarch (i.e., as children of a royal duke: so, princes and princesses) compared to being styled of children of an ordinary duke (secondary title for eldest son, lord and lady for any other children). However, there is of course the category of greatgrandchildren who are styled the same as those of ordinary dukes (and the eldest son will be an ordinary duke himself and no longer a royal duke) while their father is a royal duke (think: the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester).
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:52 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.
But again, why would they publish something that would be incorrect and misleading. The Gazette reports "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, it was clearly NOT granted to heirs female of his body - if it had been that would have been mentioned. This message is supposed to be an accurate reflection of the Letters Patent as that is the whole purpose of this announcement. So, the whole truth is rather obvious. I don't see any reason to speculate any longer but of course anyone is free to do so
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Ok, I feel like we might be lost in the semantics in debating about the language in the Gazette. Bottom line is, I don't think this Queen would venture into this debate right now given the issues Parliament has had with it.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:59 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
However, there is of course the category of greatgrandchildren who are styled the same as those of ordinary dukes (and the eldest son will be an ordinary duke himself and no longer a royal duke) while their father is a royal duke (think: the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

That category actually includes any grandchildren in direct male line of a son of a British sovereign, even if their father is not a duke himself. Prince Michael of Kent for example is not a duke, but his children held from birth the style of "Lord/Lady [xxx] Windsor", as if they were children of an ordinary duke in the peerage of the UK. The only difference is that there is no other "courtesy title" that can be used by the eldest son.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 07-20-2018, 06:04 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.
I think this has been beaten to death; and I will try to bury it now as others have.

IF we question the gazette in terms of having misleading or incomplete information here, then we must question every gazette entry and without the letters patent one could say we know nothing and the gazette is just PR deflecting.

I personally do not believe this. The gazette is simply a quick summary of the relevant facts regarding the granting of the peerage. If they had wanted to hide something they simply would not have gazetted at all. (I'm suspicious this is why the letters patent granting the Duke of Windsor -March 8, 1937, were never gazetted).

And to answer an earlier question: yes Lord Mountbatten's special remainders were mentioned in the gazette notice in 1947. See below:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...8109/page/5074

I believe he had special remainders for his 1946 Viscountcy (that were also gazetted) as were the Duke of Fife's special remainders in 1900. If interested, you can search them yourselves on the gazette website.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 07-20-2018, 06:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Ok, I feel like we might be lost in the semantics in debating about the language in the Gazette. Bottom line is, I don't think this Queen would venture into this debate right now given the issues Parliament has had with it.

More significantly, I agree with most other posters. It wouldn't make any sense for the Gazette notice to mention "heirs to the body male" if the actual LPs had a different remainder.


In the past, when royal dukes were automatically eligible to seat in the House of Lords, we had the benefit of the full LPs being read out loud in the chamber of the House of Lords on the occasion of the new duke's introduction, as seen in the clip below from Prince Andrew's introduction. Unfortunately, nowadays, the LPs are normally not made public, so there is no way to access their content other than the summary provided in the Gazette.



https://youtu.be/XYvhIl_CoSI?t=171
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 07-20-2018, 06:10 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That category actually includes any grandchildren in direct male line of a son of a British sovereign, even if their father is not a duke himself. Prince Michael of Kent for example is not a duke, but his children held from birth the style of "Lord/Lady [xxx] Windsor", as if they were children of an ordinary duke in the peerage of the UK. The only difference is that there is no other "courtesy title" that can be used by the eldest son.
Thanks for the addition. You are of course completely right - as Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella will attest to. The difference starts in the next generation. While Frederick's cousin George's children are styled as Lord (Downpatrick) and Lady, his children aren't.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 07-20-2018, 06:16 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,776

So Lord Frederick Windsor's daughter is Miss Maud Windsor (plus she has three additional given names).
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 07-21-2018, 11:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.
Yes, we do know the truth. The Gazette wouldn't state the succession is limited to "heirs male" unless the LP does. The Gazette simply summarizes the LP. If the LP contained a special remainder, the Gazette would report it.

Please refer to the Gazette's website for more information on its function:

"The Gazette is the UK’s official public record."

"The Gazette is a government publication, managed by The Stationery Office, under the superintendence of The National Archives. As the official public record, information published is verified and certified as fact."

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/about
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 06:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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