The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #881  
Old 01-03-2019, 08:09 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
On the verge of being Queen, with media frenzy paying ransom for photos, interviews, etc. After all that, not royal..

Sarah, I can grasp. But if you achieve icon status all over the place, and news outlets are glued to your every word, well after a divorce, what would that be called then ? Double royal ? But without the official stamp.
It is very simple:

She became royal when she married.

She stopped being royal when she divorced.

The Queen's Will is the one that determines who is and who isn't royal and she had decided that Diana was no longer royal once she was divorced.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 01-03-2019, 07:45 PM
Elan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kalispell, United States
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

She became royal when she married.

She stopped being royal when she divorced.

The Queen's Will is the one that determines who is and who isn't royal and she had decided that Diana was no longer royal once she was divorced.
I suppose technically that is true, but it ignores pertinent history.

Is there a scholar today(?) who argues whether Alexander was King of Macedon, after learning of vigorous argument from others in line to.. On the father's side he was legitimate, but not on the mother's. Technically, it does not add up to being 'royal'. Yet history devotes little to it today, when the rest of his life is considered.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 01-03-2019, 07:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,889
The UK isn't ancient Macedon and they have clear rules regarding who is and who isn't royal decided by set means and set means only:

1. Letters Patent - mainly the 1917 ones but also the 1996 and 2012 LPs.

2. Royal Warrants - none currently in existence

3. The Queen's Will - which has determined the titles for the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (allowing her to use the style Princess Alice after the death of her husband) and also denying HRH to Louise and James.

How other countries or times determine status is irrelevant, especially when the law of the land recognises the legality of Letters Patent in determining status.

The 1917 Letters Patent made Diana a royal as the wife of The Prince of Wales along with George V's own later interpretation of those LPs that the wives of a Prince were also royal. He made that determination in 1923 when asked if Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons would become royal when she married The Duke of York. Had he decided 'no' at that time then Diana would also not have become royal but as he decided that additional interpretation of the 1917 LPs all subsequent non-royal born wives of UK Princes have become royal (Princess Marina was a Princess born and so would have remained royal on her marriage). Had he not made that determination Alice, Katherine, Birgitte, Marie-Christine, Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Camilla, Catherine and Meghan wouldn't have become royal at all.

The 1997 Letters Patent removed the royal status as the divorced wife of The Prince of Wales.

You can't recognise the legality of one and ignore the legality of the other.

How Diana became a royal was the same way she stopped by royal - by Letters Patent.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:04 AM
Elan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kalispell, United States
Posts: 169
As fascinating as the tenets are, in some ways they can be seen (here) as an embarassment to the RF. Whatever degree of spite was in the air during the settlement, convincing the Queen to rescind...I recall reading her preference was for keeping the HRH at the time.

Diana clearly had some faults, but whether we approve or not, we are talking about someone whose life rose to near mythical stature. The patents do nothing to change her in that light.
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:16 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,889
The 'Letters Patent' are not embarrassing at all.

They spell out who is and who isn't royal and by what criteria.

That is all they do.

With two ex-wives in the same year a decision had to be made - do they both remain royal or neither of them. The Queen decided on neither of them remaining royal.

It wasn't only about Diana but also Sarah and how they would use that HRH once outside the royal family. By removing it from both women it was made clear that HRH comes with marriage and marriage only - it was clarifying things that weren't clear in 1917 just as the status of the wife wasn't clear at all so George V made The King's Will known in 1923 to give royal status to the wives who didn't have it in their own right.

That is what happens sometimes - further clarification needed. George V didn't deal with the possibility of a divorced ex-wife because that situation wasn't one he could envisage. When it became a possibility the BRF had to make a decision and so The Queen decided that an ex-wife was no longer royal.
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 04-11-2019, 06:20 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 108
If Diana had re-married, what involvement would the Royal Household have? Would they have announced the engagement? Would Diana have had to ask the Queen for permission to remarry?
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 04-11-2019, 06:26 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 682
Only Persons in line of sucsession ever had to ask for permission to marry! Diana never was on that list.


By the new rule only the first 6 People in line have to ask...


And of course no involvment of Royal Houshold or announcment - she wasn't anylonger a member of the royal family
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 11-25-2019, 07:49 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 6,195
Could Princess Diana have given up the title Her Royal Highness and been given the title of Her Highness instead?
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 11-25-2019, 07:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Could Princess Diana have given up the title Her Royal Highness and been given the title of Her Highness instead?
HH is not used in Britain any longer to my knowledge. Whatever title or style Diana *could* have had remained solely as at the will and pleasure of HM, The Queen. At the time of the divorce though, I do not believe that the Queen held Diana in the highest of regards.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 11-25-2019, 09:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,889
HH and HSH were official removed as options in the UK in the 1917 Letters Patent of George V.

And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked

The wording of the 1917 Letters Patent that covers HH and SH.
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The 'Letters Patent' are not embarrassing at all.

They spell out who is and who isn't royal and by what criteria.

That is all they do.

With two ex-wives in the same year a decision had to be made - do they both remain royal or neither of them. The Queen decided on neither of them remaining royal.

It wasn't only about Diana but also Sarah and how they would use that HRH once outside the royal family. By removing it from both women it was made clear that HRH comes with marriage and marriage only - it was clarifying things that weren't clear in 1917 just as the status of the wife wasn't clear at all so George V made The King's Will known in 1923 to give royal status to the wives who didn't have it in their own right.

That is what happens sometimes - further clarification needed. George V didn't deal with the possibility of a divorced ex-wife because that situation wasn't one he could envisage. When it became a possibility the BRF had to make a decision and so The Queen decided that an ex-wife was no longer royal.
I think this is also one of the reasons why the Duchess of Windsor was denied HRH status. George VI was concerned that a hypothetical divorced duchess would remain HRH. Wallis had after all been divorced twice before.
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
HH and HSH were official removed as options in the UK in the 1917 Letters Patent of George V.

And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked

The wording of the 1917 Letters Patent that covers HH and SH.
The wording covers HRH as well ("Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness"), but that was apparently not enough to block subsequent monarchs from conferring the HRH on other individuals (e.g. in 1948 and 2012), despite those conferrals violating the terms of the 1917 letters Patent. Another reason why repeal or amendment of the 1917 Letters Patent is long overdue.

And strictly speaking, the paragraph applies only to descendants of a British Sovereign; it would otherwise have barred wives of princes who married after 1917 from sharing the HRH of their husbands.
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:23 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The wording covers HRH as well ("Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness"), but that was apparently not enough to block subsequent monarchs from conferring the HRH on other individuals (e.g. in 1948 and 2012), despite those conferrals violating the terms of the 1917 letters Patent. Another reason why repeal or amendment of the 1917 Letters Patent is long overdue.

And strictly speaking, the paragraph applies only to descendants of a British Sovereign; it would otherwise have barred wives of princes who married after 1917 from sharing the HRH of their husbands.
The 'save as aforesaid' is indeed crucial here. Here is the full wording (for those interested):
Quote:
George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting:

Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Her Reign declare her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned And whereas we deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared.

Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour

And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms

Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of Our reign.
Source: Heraldica

So, according to these Letters Patent Charles, Anne, Charlotte and Louis should not have been HRHs; while Louise and James should have been. Maybe the queen leaves it for Charles to write new Letters Patent that represent the current situation.
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:09 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,889
Deleted - where has the 'delete button' gone?
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:04 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The 'save as aforesaid' is indeed crucial here. Here is the full wording (for those interested):

Source: Heraldica

So, according to these Letters Patent Charles, Anne, Charlotte and Louis should not have been HRHs; while Louise and James should have been. Maybe the queen leaves it for Charles to write new Letters Patent that represent the current situation.
LP's are not laws needing amending. They are simply proclamations made by the monarch of how things will be handled. It is in the power of succeeding monarchs to issue their own proclamations.

In 1948 the queen's father saw fit to proclaim:

Quote:
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth. Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal 'Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter
No official proclamation was made for Louise and James. Technically they should be Prince/ss of UK. It was simply stated they would be referred to as the children of an earl.

Like her father Elizabeth saw the need to create new LP when William and Kate had children. Under the old LP's, only William's eldest son would have been a Prince, any daughters or younger sons would have been styled the children of a duke until their grandfather became king. Including if George had been a girl.

Elizabeth issued LP in 2012, prior to George's birth

Quote:
31 December 2012 The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour. C I P Denyer
Any changes to titles of grandchildren will easily be addressed by Charles in the same way, when he is king.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, princess diana, styles and titles


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions about British Styles and Titles summrbrew2 British Royals 5467 01-13-2021 09:53 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 787 09-23-2020 04:21 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 04:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names british royal family buckingham palace canada carolin cht coronavirus cpr duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise queen maud resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress settings spain stuart thailand thai royal family videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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