The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1181  
Old 03-08-2023, 08:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,378
Louise is now legally an adult, so can make the choice for herself. Presumably she's happy to be Lady Louise rather than Princess Louise. If that's what works for her, so be it. Someone really needs to make it clear which titles, if any, Archie and Lilibet are using, and stop the confusion.
Reply With Quote
  #1182  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:01 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It is unsurprising but nonetheless disappointing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and to a lesser extent the King have decided to enforce the sexism of 1917 for another generation.

It also creates an odd situation for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as their lack of royal styles can no longer be interpreted as part of a progressive downsizing of royal titles but is only an inexplicable absence of the titles enjoyed by all other male-line grandchildren before and after them. (It was explained in 1999 that the decision was due to the future Wessex children's future roles, but that explanation no longer holds as the Sussex children's future roles are not expected to be any more official than the Wessex children's.)



I see nothing "fail" in Rebecca English (and other royal correspondents) choosing to report the Palace's statement on a news story of public interest.
I think Curryong was referring to the Daily Mail, which has a notorious reputation in the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #1183  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:02 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Jyvšskylš, Finland
Posts: 10
Personally the parents just announcing this was the best way to handle the situation. They legally had the right since Charles became the king, but the theoretically the parents might not have wanted to use the titles for the children like the Wessexes. So better that itís them and not someone else confirming the titles, as precedent for future similar cases. Even if here it was known the parents wanted the titles.

Regarding future and sexism mentioned here by Tatiana Maria, is there any movement pushing for a change so that when Charlotte has children and William is king that her children also could have these titles? Or is it something that seems too distant and not relevant now so most donít really care?
Reply With Quote
  #1184  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:06 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,934
There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.

Why didn't they just baptize her when they were in the UK for the Queen's Jubilee and they had a 1st birthday party for her?

This couple continues to perplex me with their passive/aggressive attitudes about everything.

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.
Reply With Quote
  #1185  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:07 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.

Why didn't they just baptize her when they were in the UK for the Queen's Jubilee and they had a 1st birthday party for her?

This couple continues to perplex me with their passive/aggressive attitudes about everything.

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.
They made a point in mentioning that she is now a princess too.
Reply With Quote
  #1186  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:08 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MalmŲ, Sweden
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It is unsurprising but nonetheless disappointing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and to a lesser extent the King have decided to enforce the sexism of 1917 for another generation.
How's choosing to use the titles they are legally entitled too sexist? The problem with having a male-line preference as in the LP of 1917 lies with the King who can change it and not with those which it applies to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

It also creates an odd situation for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as their lack of royal styles can no longer be interpreted as part of a progressive downsizing of royal titles but is only an inexplicable absence of the titles enjoyed by all other male-line grandchildren before and after them.
I totally agree with this. There was a precedent set decades ago for a model going forward regarding the roles and titles of the Royal family that has been thrown out the door either by the Sussexes not agreeing with it or King Charles and/or Queen Elizabeth dithering about and not making their will (if it indeed was their will) official.
Now instead the King has allowed the Sussexes to take command of the narrative and whatever he now does will be seen as a reaction to them even if it has been thought of and planned for a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #1187  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:09 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: West Chester, United States
Posts: 308
Yet ANOTHER mess for Charles and The Family to deal with just prior to The Coronation.
Now the "will they or won't they come" question can be lumped with the Family having to decide whether to recognize Prince-Princess Titles for The Sussex's Children ! In America no less.
I will be monitoring The Royal Family website for updates.

Kudos to The Sussex's though, well played to put attention back on them and basically dare Charles to act to strip the kids titles. Great strategy, *possibly* get them sympathy in the States ( their market) and further complaints and allegations against the mean Royal Family.

Will Charles dither and do nothing ? Not a good look in my opinion with the British Public. He could very easily announce that as part of the "slimming down" of The Royal Family ONLY The Heir's Children get Titles. Queen Margarethe of Denmark did it.

Sure, it will generate headlines and chatter, but IT would fade soon enough.
Doing nothing will only embolden The Sussex's too.

It is so tiresome the games The Sussex's play. They live for drama. Now using the children to ramp up controversy. Pathetic.
Reply With Quote
  #1188  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:09 AM
acdc1's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: somewhere in, United States
Posts: 2,238
Do they get the full HRH Prince/Princess of Sussex titles?
Reply With Quote
  #1189  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:09 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 12,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.
Maybe it was Samantha Markle.
Reply With Quote
  #1190  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:13 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 12,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by acdc1 View Post
Do they get the full HRH Prince/Princess of Sussex titles?
The 1917 Letters Patent would allow them to be known as HRH Prince [ ] or Princess { } of Sussex.
Reply With Quote
  #1191  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:19 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Essex, United Kingdom
Posts: 108
Are christenings at the family home/mansion commonly done in US?
I’m surprised the Bishop would make a house call to do this, rather than use a place of worship.
(Please note he is Bishop, not Archbishop.)
Reply With Quote
  #1192  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:19 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 12,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
Yet ANOTHER mess for Charles and The Family to deal with just prior to The Coronation.
Now the "will they or won't they come" question can be lumped with the Family having to decide whether to recognize Prince-Princess Titles for The Sussex's Children ! In America no less.
I will be monitoring The Royal Family website for updates.

Kudos to The Sussex's though, well played to put attention back on them and basically dare Charles to act to strip the kids titles. Great strategy, *possibly* get them sympathy in the States ( their market) and further complaints and allegations against the mean Royal Family.

Will Charles dither and do nothing ? Not a good look in my opinion with the British Public. He could very easily announce that as part of the "slimming down" of The Royal Family ONLY The Heir's Children get Titles. Queen Margarethe of Denmark did it.

Sure, it will generate headlines and chatter, but IT would fade soon enough.
Doing nothing will only embolden The Sussex's too.

It is so tiresome the games The Sussex's play. They live for drama. Now using the children to ramp up controversy. Pathetic.
I don't think it is a mess at all. Whilst the children are entilted to be known at Prince and Princess of Sussex under the 1917 Letters Patent, the fact that BP have no officially announced it so, or updated their website to reflect it indicates, to me, that this is not the King's intentiaon. The reality is that the children will never be working royals, so they really do not matter in the scheme of things. Their names should be taken off the royal website completely.

The bigger irony, in my mind, is that whilst H&M are so scathing of the royal institution and all that it represents, yet have gone ahead with the titles, quite possibly, unilaterally. Might there be a contradiction there?
Reply With Quote
  #1193  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:31 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I don't think it is a mess at all. Whilst the children are entilted to be known at Prince and Princess of Sussex under the 1917 Letters Patent, the fact that BP have no officially announced it so, or updated their website to reflect it indicates, to me, that this is not the King's intentiaon. The reality is that the children will never be working royals, so they really do not matter in the scheme of things. Their names should be taken off the royal website completely.

The bigger irony, in my mind, is that whilst H&M are so scathing of the royal institution and all that it represents, yet have gone ahead with the titles, quite possibly, unilaterally. Might there be a contradiction there?
You tell their fans and supporters. There is a definite contradiction in there and proves what people who aren’t fans of them have thought.
Reply With Quote
  #1194  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:33 AM
acdc1's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: somewhere in, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaye1850 View Post
Are christenings at the family home/mansion commonly done in US?
Iím surprised the Bishop would make a house call to do this, rather than use a place of worship.
(Please note he is Bishop, not Archbishop.)
American who was raised in a religious mainstream Protestant home, and while I am not friends with anyone of Sussex-level wealth, it is not common for baptisms to happen at the family home. Itís something that happens at church and then you may have a celebration at home for family and friends.
Reply With Quote
  #1195  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:36 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: West Chester, United States
Posts: 308
Muriel, I do think its a mess, yet another unnecessary complication, ramped up by the Sussex's to generate controversy. They specifically referred to Lili as PRINCESS Lilibet Diana. Why even go there, unless they were seeking to put The Titles Issue front and center. The children Titles factor very much into the calculating Sussex's plans.

Ahhhhh, more intimate family information released by the privacy obsessed Sussex's... why ?

They succeeded greatly in a PR push, again.

The ball is now in Charles Court, either let it stand as HRH Prince-Princess of Sussex or issue new Letters Patent.
I used to read that one of Queen Elizabeth few faults was her habit of ignoring bad news or developments. The "ostrich effect"....bury your head in the sand and wait for it to pass. I hope Charles didn't inherit that.

This situation is a test for him. It will be interesting to see how he reacts.

By the way, I find it curious that the Sussex's didn't release a picture of 'Princess Lilibet'. On top of the fact they waited nearly TWO years to baptize her too.

Also......there is NO way the Author of " Spare" and Meghan, who are very concerned with 'Status" were going to let his arch nemesis William's children have higher status over their children. No way.

The Sussex's secondary place in "The Hierarchy" was a big issue for them. Now they are involving their poor kids into this.
Reply With Quote
  #1196  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:36 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It is unsurprising but nonetheless disappointing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and to a lesser extent the King have decided to enforce the sexism of 1917 for another generation.

It also creates an odd situation for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as their lack of royal styles can no longer be interpreted as part of a progressive downsizing of royal titles but is only an inexplicable absence of the titles enjoyed by all other male-line grandchildren before and after them. (It was explained in 1999 that the decision was due to the future Wessex children's future roles, but that explanation no longer holds as the Sussex children's future roles are not expected to be any more official than the Wessex children's.)



I see nothing "fail" in Rebecca English (and other royal correspondents) choosing to report the Palace's statement on a news story of public interest.
It has nothing to do with sexism as you imply but simply the fact that the Wessexes where in a different set of circumstances compared to the Sussexes who want the titles for their own questionable reasons. The Wessexes only made the choice for their children because of all the mess of the 90s when very few wanted to see more royal HRHs given the public mood. The Sussexes arenít really paying attention to much of the public mood around titles
Reply With Quote
  #1197  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:41 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
It has nothing to do with sexism as you imply but simply the fact that the Wessexes where in a different set of circumstances compared to the Sussexes who want the titles for their own questionable reasons. The Wessexes only made the choice for their children because of all the mess of the 90s when very few wanted to see more royal HRHs given the public mood. The Sussexes arenít really paying attention to much of the public mood around titles
Please reread: I did not say that the Wessexes' decision was sexist. To the contrary, it slightly mitigated the effects of sexism compared to fully implementing the 1917 Letters Patent.
Reply With Quote
  #1198  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
The ball is now in Charles Court, either let it stand as HRH Prince-Princess of Sussex or issue new Letters Patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Whilst the children are entilted to be known at Prince and Princess of Sussex under the 1917 Letters Patent, the fact that BP have no officially announced it so, or updated their website to reflect it indicates, to me, that this is not the King's intentiaon.
Buckingham Palace indicated today to royal reporters who made inquiries after the christening announcement that the website will be updated to refer to the Sussex children as Prince and Princess. We will see if and when it happens, as the palace website is not known for prompt updates. Six months after Queen Elizabeth II's death, the profiles of senior working royals on the royal website still include phrases such as "supports Her Majesty".

That said I do wonder if Buckingham Palace is simply trying to save face. Prior reports on the title issue referred to talks between the King and the Duke and Duchess, suggesting it was not as simple as waiting for the couple to make a decision and following whichever decision they made, which is the current line from the Palace.
Reply With Quote
  #1199  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,378
According to the Telegraph, and it doesn't say where they've got it from:

It is understood that the Sussexes have only recently decided that their children's Prince and Princess titles will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use.

That sounds a bit confusing, but I suppose no more so than than Prince George being known as George Cambridge or George Wales at school.
Reply With Quote
  #1200  
Old 03-08-2023, 10:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.
HenRach Dominion posted the article here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2535787

Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The 1917 Letters Patent would allow them to be known as HRH Prince [ ] or Princess { } of Sussex.
The 1917 Letters Patent likewise allow their father to be known as HRH, but he agreed in 2020 to cease using it.

On the one hand, it might seem strange for HRH to be used for the children but not for their parents, as it could give the impression of the children outranking their parents. On the other hand, the children will not be involved anytime soon in business activities, which is most likely the true reason the parents were requested to desist from using their HRHs (the official reason was that it was because they were no longer working royals).

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
I think Curryong was referring to the Daily Mail, which has a notorious reputation in the UK.
Certainly, but here was nothing unethical or objectionable in regard to Rebecca English's reporting of the palace's briefing, and the reputation of the Daily Mail in general does not discredit her or her information, especially as others have reported being told the same information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
According to the Telegraph, and it doesn't say where they've got it from:

It is understood that the Sussexes have only recently decided that their children's Prince and Princess titles will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use.

That sounds a bit confusing, but I suppose no more so than than Prince George being known as George Cambridge or George Wales at school.
I doubt that any of the British princes and princesses have had their titles used in everyday conversation when they were children.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 19 (5 members and 14 guests)
biru, EllieCat, Queen Claude, QueenJen, Royal_Royal
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 Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 2014 10-06-2022 12:16 PM
Princess Stephanie Current Events 1 : Oct.2002 - Oct.2004 Tisha Current Events Archive 266 10-03-2004 11:42 AM




Popular Tags
#princedubai #rashidmrm abolished monarchies all tags america arcadie arcadie claret bevilacqua british caribbean caroline charles iii claret current events danish royal family defunct thrones duarte pio edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito fabio bevilacqua fallen empires genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed harry history hollywood hotel room for sale house of gonzaga introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king willem-alexander mall coronation day matrilineal monaco monarchy need help new zealand; cyclone gabrielle official visit order of precedence order of the redeemer pamela hicks portugal preferences prince christian princess of orange queen queen camilla queen elizabeth ii queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima republics restoration royal without thrones silk spain spanish royal family state visit to germany switzerland tiaras visit william


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises