If Charles dies before the queen

[TRIBBLE]

That is kind of sad.

 

[TRIBBLE]

Sorry then, followup: Now that girls count toward the succession, they cannot be sidelined the way Anne was. You start stacking up Princes and Princesses fast. So you can't just hand out HRH's like gumballs. Is there a cutoff point where the line ends? Also any other opinions on what is the situation for Archie should his grandfather pass before his great grandmother? If Charles never becomes King they will never be grandchildren of the Monarch.

 

[Osipi]

If Charles never becomes king, Archie and his sister will be in the same position Margaret's children were. Neither of them are HRH prince/ss. They, however are titled and styled after their father who was the Earl of Snowden. The oldest boy, David Linley, is now the Earl of Snowden since Anthony Armstrong Jones' death.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Margaret's children though were never going to be HRHs as they are the children of a girl.

If Charles dies before The Queen then Archie and his sister will never meet the requirement of being male line grandchildren of a monarch and so won't become HRH Prince/Princess.

 

[Curryong]

Why would Charles die before the Queen anyway? He’s a man in his early seventies who has never had a serious illness, leads a very robust outdoor life in his leisure time and came through his bout with Covid just fine.

The Queen too is reasonably healthy for her age but she is almost 95 and in one’s nineties people are usually coming to terms with the end of their lifespan.

I certainly believe that Charles will be King within the next few years and, if his lifespan imitates his parents he’s likely to have a reign of a quarter of a century or more.

 

[Roslyn]

^^^ Charles could trip and fall and strike his head on something very hard or pointed. It happens to people no matter how fit they are, and there are many other things that could happen, though they are unlikely. I think and hope that he will be king though.

 

[TRIBBLE]

I am American with a pretty good grasp of things, but sometimes a question comes to mind. It was mere a procedural question.

 

[Osipi]

It's what we do here, Tribble. Keep asking those questions! I knew almost nothing when I first joined and in fact, found this site with a google for "silly Ascot hats". Over the years I've learned so much just from these threads.

As Roslyn stated, its possible but not probable that Charles could fall and hit his head similar to what happened to Camilla's brother, Mark Shand. If that did happen, Archie and his sister would be nephew and niece to King William (after the Queen passes) and not eligible for the HRH prince/ss.

I see Charles though on the throne very much a king. He's prepared for this all of his life. His main contribution though to British history, I believe, will be how he's redefined his role as the Prince of Wales. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry then, followup: Now that girls count toward the succession, they cannot be sidelined the way Anne was. You start stacking up Princes and Princesses fast. So you can't just hand out HRH's like gumballs. Is there a cutoff point where the line ends?

Again, refer to the document in the below link:

The current Queen has decided to keep the rules written by King George V in 1917 (known as the 1917 Letters Patent), but she has allowed certain exceptions on a case by case basis.

You can read the Letters Patent, and a summary, at this link: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2

the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom 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 [...] 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 the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.​

Therefore, the cutoff for maternal succession to the HRH is children of the sovereign, whereas the cutoff for paternal succession to the HRH is grandchildren of the sovereign (and great-grandchildren by the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, thanks to the Letters Patent of 2012). Despite girls and women no longer being sidelined in the succession to the British crown, they remain sidelined in succession to titles.

 

[Fijiro]

If Charles dies before The Queen then Archie and his sister will not automatically qualify to be HRHs, but as the children of a Duke, Archie is entitled to Earl of Dumburton(sp?) and is also heir apparent to the Dukedom of Sussex after his father; and his little sister will be Lady(first name)Mountbatten Windsor.

 

[Mbruno]

Sorry then, followup: Now that girls count toward the succession, they cannot be sidelined the way Anne was. You start stacking up Princes and Princesses fast. So you can't just hand out HRH's like gumballs. Is there a cutoff point where the line ends? Also any other opinions on what is the situation for Archie should his grandfather pass before his great grandmother? If Charles never becomes King they will never be grandchildren of the Monarch.

The cutoff point as currently used in the Netherlands and Spain is to grant the title of Prince/Princess (or equivalent like Infante/Infanta) and the accompanying style of HRH only to children of the monarch or children of the heir to the throne.


In Denmark and in Sweden, all grandchildren of the monarch (both in paternal and maternal line) are still Princes/Princesses, but only the children of the heir carry the style of Royal Highness. Specifically, in Denmark, grandchildren in collateral line are only HHs rather than HRHs, whereas in Sweden they are now plain Prince/Princess [First name] without any prefix.


Answering your second question, if Charles passed before the Queen, Archie would never be an HRH under current rules. He would continue to be styled as the son of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom meaning he could use his father's subsidiary title of Earl of Dumbarton and, if he outlived Prince Harry, he would eventually become His Grace The Duke of Sussex. If Charles becomes King, he will be known as HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and, if he outlives his father, HRH The Duke of Sussex.

 

[Fijiro]

Again, refer to the document in the below link:



Therefore, the cutoff for maternal succession to the HRH is children of the sovereign, whereas the cutoff for paternal succession to the HRH is grandchildren of the sovereign (and great-grandchildren by the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, thanks to the Letters Patent of 2012). Despite girls and women no longer being sidelined in the succession to the British crown, they remain sidelined in succession to titles.

That is true girls remain sidelined as far as titles go. Even though Charlotte is ahead of Louis, Charlotte's children will not be titled just like Eugenie's and Anne's, but Louis' children will be titled. Even the Princess Elizabeth (now Queen Elizabeth)'s children Charles and Anne were not automatically qualified for HRH Prince/Princess until King George VI issued a letter patent for them to be styled as HRHs. This is because although they were born grandchildren of the monarch, they were the female line.

 

[Mbruno]

That is true girls remain sidelined as far as titles go. Even though Charlotte is ahead of Louis, Charlotte's children will not be titled just like Eugenie's and Anne's, but Louis' children will be titled. Even the Princess Elizabeth (now Queen Elizabeth)'s children Charles and Anne were not automatically qualified for HRH Prince/Princess until King George VI issued a letter patent for them to be styled as HRHs. This is because although they were born grandchildren of the monarch, they were the female line.

I think Tribble's point was that, following the introduction of equal primogeniture in 2015, it no longer makes sense to treat grandchildren in paternal and maternal line differently. Charlotte's children for example will be ahead of Louis' children in the line of succession and, yet, under current rules, if William becomes King, Louis' children will be HRHs and Charlotte's will not.

On the other hand, as Tribble argued, if HRH were also inherited in maternal line, there would be an undesirable growth in the potential number of HRH Princes/Princesses, so there is a need for a new cutoff point if princely titles become gender neutral. The natural cutoff point IMHO would be to restrict the HRH only to the heir's children. The remaining grandchildren of the monarch could carry a lower style like HH in Denmark or HE in Spain (for children of Infantes/Infantas), or they could be simply untitled like in Norway for instance.

 

[TRIBBLE]

Thank you. That always confused me. Now Charles has talked about streamlining the monarchy. Can he limit or change the succession when he becomes King? What does that mean for Andrew and Edward?

 

[sarahedwards2]

When the Queen issued the Letters Patent stating that all her great-grandchildren would be Princes and Princesses unless their parents weren’t; wasn’t that unnecessary seeing as Victoria had great-grandchildren as well? Or was it changed sometime after Victoria died?

 

[Osipi]

When the Queen issued the Letters Patent stating that all her great-grandchildren would be Princes and Princesses unless their parents weren’t; wasn’t that unnecessary seeing as Victoria had great-grandchildren as well? Or was it changed sometime after Victoria died?

The letters patent that Queen Elizabeth II issued were solely to make her great grandchildren born to William (heir to the heir) HRH Prince/ss. It did not affect any of the Queen's other great grandchildren. This was done due to the amendment of the Act of Succession to the Crown bill presented in Parliament in 2011 and ratified into law in 2013 before any Cambridge child was born.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thank you. That always confused me. Now Charles has talked about streamlining the monarchy. Can he limit or change the succession when he becomes King? What does that mean for Andrew and Edward?

When did Charles talk about streamlining the monarchy? Every time I ask all I get is a link to a media report but no one has ever been able to give the time and date that Charles did this. I have seen so many reports that are also different - to the idea of stripping everyone other than himself, William's children and Harry of their HRHs, stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRHs but not the Queen's cousins to limiting those who ever appear on the balcony to only his immediate family and also only allowing his immediate family to conduct official engagements i.e. be supported for that work by the Sovereign Grant. None of the media reports can even agree on what Charles allegedly means by this idea let alone when it was said.

I do know that at the first meeting of the now defunct Way Ahead group someone suggested a smaller visible royal family and that was leaked by a staff member. The media then assumed that person was Charles but was it???

Can Charles limit or change the succession - no. That takes an Act of Parliament in 15 different countries (I say 15 because Barbados will be republic later this year and so wouldn't be needed). When they 16 countries agreed to a change in 2011 it took then 3.5 years to get that law passed.

Nothing will change for Andrew or Edward - they will remain HRHs as the children of the monarch; they will remain in the line of succession, dropping further and further as new babies are born e.g. Edward has dropped one position this year and will drop again when Meghan's second baby is born. Andrew will drop also when Meghan's baby is born.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I think Tribble's point was that, following the introduction of equal primogeniture in 2015, it no longer makes sense to treat grandchildren in paternal and maternal line differently. Charlotte's children for example will be ahead of Louis' children in the line of succession and, yet, under current rules, if William becomes King, Louis' children will be HRHs and Charlotte's will not.

On the other hand, as Tribble argued, if HRH were also inherited in maternal line, there would be an undesirable growth in the potential number of HRH Princes/Princesses, so there is a need for a new cutoff point if princely titles become gender neutral. The natural cutoff point IMHO would be to restrict the HRH only to the heir's children. The remaining grandchildren of the monarch could carry a lower style like HH in Denmark or HE in Spain (for children of Infantes/Infantas), or they could be simply untitled like in Norway for instance.

Thank you for this explanation! I was just wondering about this as it now doesn’t make sense to treat the maternal and paternal lines differently.

 

[TRIBBLE]

What he said! If Charlotte is in line, they really can't keep her children out of consideration because they are before Louis and his children. I actually concur with your idea. The world economies will be hurting and I do not think the UK will be any different. Once the Queen is gone I fear it will be one of those nexus points. There has been both anti royal sentiment and breaking up the Commonwealth sentiment. I think getting rid of your Royalty would be a huge mistake from a tourism standpoint, if no other. I hope things will settle out and travel resumes, but that may be a few years.

I think reducing the number of people housed in estates would be good optics. It might help to take a smaller percentage of the two duchy's profit and let more flow back to the government for a few years.

As an American, I would like to apologize for Meghan Markle. She and Harry are aware of how statements are released and whose comes first. We Southerners have a saying for these occasions, "Bless their hearts". It is used for times when there are "no words". When someone is so self centered, it never occurs to them to read the room. To release that statement about how she was "trying to forgive them", no words! When Teddy Roosevelt was alive, my favorite quote about him was that "He wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral". That seems to cover Meghan, bless her heart! Thanks for the answers guys and I will come back if I need more.

 

[Stefan]

In Denmark and in Sweden, all grandchildren of the monarch (both in paternal and maternal line) are still Princes/Princesses, but only the children of the heir carry the style of Royal Highness. Specifically, in Denmark, grandchildren in collateral line are only HHs rather than HRHs, whereas in Sweden they are now plain Prince/Princess [First name] without any prefix.


.

So far in Denmark there are only grandchildren in the male line who are in line of the succession. We will have to wait and see what happens with Isabella's children once she marries and has children.

 

[Meee]

I expect the LP’s will be changed slightly by most monarchs - HRH to all grandchildren of the monarch would make sense in cases where the monarch has fewer children, but QEII having three sons under LPs where male line grandchildren are entitled to HRH and gender neutral succession make the case for titles to be restricted to the children of the heir.

As Harry and Meghan have stepped back and seem to have made themselves less popular since that time, Charles’s reign seems the natural time for the change. Louis cannot be allowed to pass on HRH while Charlotte is not. As Archie and his sister will be entitled to HRH in future as things stand though, a change to the children of heirs only is bound to be labelled racist somewhere.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is no way the UK is going to increase the number of people eligible to be HRHs.

I suspect Charles will issue LPs to limit them to the children of the heir apparent in each generation only - while the children are still not parents but all of his grandchildren have HRH. He won't then take HRH from anyone but stop Charlotte and Louis' children from passing it on.

 

[QueenEmpath]

There is no way the UK is going to increase the number of people eligible to be HRHs.

I suspect Charles will issue LPs to limit them to the children of the heir apparent in each generation only - while the children are still not parents but all of his grandchildren have HRH. He won't then take HRH from anyone but stop Charlotte and Louis' children from passing it on.

I think the British royal family should follow the example of Swedish Royal for more slim down monarchy. Charlotte's children won't be eligible for HRH title like Princess Anne and Princess Margret's children unless Charlotte marry another prince like Princess Caroline of Hanover

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is true girls remain sidelined as far as titles go. Even though Charlotte is ahead of Louis, Charlotte's children will not be titled just like Eugenie's and Anne's, but Louis' children will be titled.

Moved my response to the thread Future of the British Monarchy.

 

[Fijiro]

What he said! If Charlotte is in line, they really can't keep her children out of consideration because they are before Louis and his children. I actually concur with your idea. The world economies will be hurting and I do not think the UK will be any different. Once the Queen is gone I fear it will be one of those nexus points. There has been both anti royal sentiment and breaking up the Commonwealth sentiment. I think getting rid of your Royalty would be a huge mistake from a tourism standpoint, if no other. I hope things will settle out and travel resumes, but that may be a few years.

I think reducing the number of people housed in estates would be good optics. It might help to take a smaller percentage of the two duchy's profit and let more flow back to the government for a few years.

As an American, I would like to apologize for Meghan Markle. She and Harry are aware of how statements are released and whose comes first. We Southerners have a saying for these occasions, "Bless their hearts". It is used for times when there are "no words". When someone is so self centered, it never occurs to them to read the room. To release that statement about how she was "trying to forgive them", no words! When Teddy Roosevelt was alive, my favorite quote about him was that "He wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral". That seems to cover Meghan, bless her heart! Thanks for the answers guys and I will come back if I need more.

What statement did Meghan release?

 

[Somebody]

I think the British royal family should follow the example of Swedish Royal for more slim down monarchy. Charlotte's children won't be eligible for HRH title like Princess Anne and Princess Margret's children unless Charlotte marry another prince like Princess Caroline of Hanover

The Swedish family did not slim down the monarchy but largely increased it by allowing Madeleine's children to become princes and princesses. So, I don't think they are a good example. The Norwegian royal family has truly been slimming down the monarch (to a level that might leave Haakon and Ingrid-Alexandra from a young age the two main figures who have to carry almost all the load). So, I wouldn't necessary recommend there tactics either.

 

[amaryllus]

If your countries Royal family by choice is down to 2 or 3 people relatively powerless people then it’s time to give back the all the palaces, yachts, money grants, Etc. Or just get rid of your monarchy all together. No point anymore.

 

[Denville]

If your countries Royal family by choice is down to 2 or 3 people relatively powerless people then it’s time to give back the all the palaces, yachts, money grants, Etc. Or just get rid of your monarchy all together. No point anymore.

Why? The more working royals, the more cost to the public. so a small RF is cheaper ad in in todays world more popular...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Swedish family did not slim down the monarchy but largely increased it by allowing Madeleine's children to become princes and princesses.

Allowing Carl Philip's children to become princes was equally responsible for the increase, as he and his sister had three children apiece.

The number of princes and princesses has obviously increased, but the rules were indeed slimmed down: from all adult persons in the line of succession and their spouses being officially funded working members of the Royal House, to only children of the monarch or of the heir and their spouses being eligible, and permitted to opt out as well (Chris O'Neill).

As Archie and his sister will be entitled to HRH in future as things stand though, a change to the children of heirs only is bound to be labelled racist somewhere.

Ironically, Archie and his sister's (and their mother's) entitlement to HRH would accurately be labeled as sexist. There is no mention of race in the 1917 Letters Patent, but under its rules, if Prince Harry were Princess Henrietta, her husband and children would be entitled to nothing except being plain Mr. or Miss Markle.

 

[Somebody]

Allowing Carl Philip's children to become princes was equally responsible for the increase, as he and his sister had three children apiece.

No, I guess it depends on your perspective. As male-line children of an approved marriage always were princes and princesses (of course, previously his marriage might not have been approved but that's different than also making children of a princess - whose father is untitled).

First extending it and then retracting some of it within 10 years doesn't sound like slimming down to me.

That's like shops first increasing the price of a product significantly and then selling it at a discount... (which ends up at the same or a higher price than it originally would have been)