Letters Patent Issued (Dec 31, 2012): All Cambridge Children to be Princes/Princesses

[Duke-of-Earl]

Whitehall, November 9, 1948.

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.

(London Gazette, issue 38452, Nov. 9, 1948, p. 1/5889.)

Interesting to compare the wording used in 1948 when the King issued similar but not exact Letters Patent for the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, with that issued by the Queen for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Another 'quirk' for us Royal watchers is the LsP refer to the Duke as Prince Philip, A title he supposedly renounced a year earlier, although Garter didn't think he had.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The reason for the different wording is that the 1948 LPs were specific for Elizabeth and Philip's children while the new LPs cover all future similar situations - where the PoW has an eldest son about to be a father.

The new LPs replace one section of the 1917 LPs ad infinitum.

I have always found it strange that the LPs from 1948 referred to Philip as Prince Philip when the King went to pains elsewhere to insist that he wasn't a Prince and that The Queen had to issue LPs in 1957 to create him a Prince.

I think what this points to is that he was still officially a Prince of Greece and Denmark, even if he didn't use those styles etc anymore but that he wasn't a Prince of the UK - which is what the 1957 LPs fixed. To me it has always suggested that the 'renounciation of his Greek and Danish titles' was more a gentlemen's agreement between Philip and the three kings concerned (Greece, Denmark and the UK) that he wouldn't use the foreign titles but that he really was still a Prince.

 

[HRHThePrince]

Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

I think you're correct. Iluvbertie is the expert if you will and I believe this is his contention as well
HRHThePrince You are becoming very knowledgeable in these matters

 

[HRHThePrince]

I can't wait to see whether a female heiress apparent will become Princess of Wales in her own right and hold the other hereditary titles automatically held by a male heir.

 

[SLV]

^^^^^
Royal princes do not uses their fathers secondary titles. For instance HRH Prince William of Gloucester never was known as HRH Prince William, Earl of Ulster and HRH the Duke of Kent was never known as HRH Prince Edwaed, Earl of St Andrews during his fathers lifetime.

But why don't they?

 

[wbenson]

Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

However, the 1917 letters patent also said "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales," and it seems to have been intended to extend to the grandsons of future Princes of Wales.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But why don't they?

Because the style of HRH Prince xxxx is senior to the courtesy title of Earl of Ulster so the late Prince William of Gloucester was called HRH Prince William of Gloucester and not The Earl of Ulster - which is simply a coutesy title for the son and heir to a dukedom to distinguish him from the myriad of others who are Lord yyy.

Imagine at school and there are a number of boys - e.g. Eton - there could be about 20 Lords in a year but maybe only 1 or 2 with a courtesy title of Earl of xxxx or Viscount yyyy and even fewer students with the styling of Prince.

If Philip's sons weren't HRH Prince then Charles would be known as Earl of Merioneth but Andrew and Edward would simply be Lord Andrew and Lord Edward Mountbatten (of course Philip wouldn't have been created a Duke if he wasn't marrying Elizabeth so this is totally hypothetical anyway).

In fact if the 1948 LPs hadn't been granted Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

George V's LPs of 1917 use the words 'the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales' not 'any' Prince of Wales'. Based on that fact it would seem that either George V only intended his LPs to apply to the grandson of Edward VIII and that therefore no LPs actually applied to the current child or - as I believe - he intended his LPs to cover ALL future Princes of Wales as there can only ever be one Prince of Wales at a time and so The Prince of Wales would always be a specific person. The Queen has used the same form as her grandfather - The Prince of Wales - but undone part of his LPs and taken them back to the same point they were for his children.

 

[Jessgan]

Thanks iluvbertie for ur explanation. The word 'peer' means they dun need to vote. I guess it's easier to see it this way:

 

[Jessgan]

Just as prince georg freidich, his title prince of Prussia is regarded as a surname. Therefore he is a commoner. So maybe same goes with the rest of the british royal family who are not peers. I guess... Is it?

 

[Iluvbertie]

A peer wasn't allowed to vote for the House of Commons because he, and then later she, automatically had a seat in the House of Lords. Just a note that in the UK voting is optional so even commoners don't have to vote but peers weren't allowed to vote for the House of Commons.

The only members of the BRF who aren't commoners are :

Philip - Duke of Edinburgh
Charles - Duke of Cornwall
William - Duke of Cmbridge
Andrew - Duke of York
Edward - Earl of Wessex
Richard - Duke of Gloucester
Edward - Duke of Kent

The rest of the HRHs, along with the non-titled members of the family, are commoners:

Camilla, Catherine, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine, Michael, Marie-Christine and Alexandra despite being HRH are all commoners.

 

[Jessgan]

How bout other non-royal dukes? They're peers too?

 

[Kataryn]

Just as prince georg freidich, his title prince of Prussia is regarded as a surname. Therefore he is a commoner. So maybe same goes with the rest of the british royal family who are not peers. I guess... Is it?

All Germans are commoners legally. We don't have royality and aristocracy any more.

 

[Iluvbertie]

How bout other non-royal dukes? They're peers too?

Definitely.

Peers are those who hold the substantive titles of: Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron.

Not their wives or children but the title holder alone.

Being called an Earl doesn't make a person a peer - having the substantive title does e.g. The Duke of Kent is a peer but his son known as Earl of St Andrews isn't because the Earl of St Andrews is a coutesy title. His father, The Duke of Kent is the substantive title holder of the St Andrews title.

 

[Anna Catherine]

This is probably repetitive, but when Catherine becomes HM The Queen is she still a commoner because she is not the monarch and only holds the title becasue of her husband's rank?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Technically - yes she is still a commoner. She won't be the monarch in her own right and she won't hold a peerage in her own right so the only place to put her is in the commoner group.

She will be top of the social heap but still a commoner.

 

[Zonk]

Please note that all posts regarding British Styles and Titles should be posted here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/questions-about-british-styles-and-titles-258-87.html.

This thread pertains to the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Any additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

Thank you!

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[Suzzanah]

I am pleased with this decision. The letter by the queen merely solidifies previous legislation that declares children of a prince or princess will be prince or princess by birth without question. Since being a Duchess is currently fashionable however, it really does not matter to Americans. Since Princess Anne donated her title the children will be doubly blessed anyway. The important thing is that the child be raised well as all members of the royal family should be.

As for the debate on commoners and peers. I was always taught that birthrights and earned rights were separate. So titles of birth are royalty and titles earned are not. As for who is common and who is not, this is determined by blood sangiunuity which is measured, when in question, as to how related you are to Queen Victoria. Additionally persons who are regnant or ruling are considered royals and servants of the people they represent. Thus they are royals. This is very complex and of course there are historical references to titles removed and regifted or renewed. When in doubt I would consult with the royal households historian or the keeper of that Clan.

Also please note that a woman who marries a prince is a Consort if he is knighted whether the title is granted or not. There are also instances of Matralineal decent of titles such as the titles of Marlboro and several of the House of Bourbon. In these cases the title, lands and fiduciary responsibility goes to the eldest female of the chosen generation. This can be researched in the royal libraries or in various libraries in the US. Each country with titles may have additional rule changes as well. Often one person is chose as regnant and one actually holds the purse strings. Popularity has long been pointed as the way to hold title while service to others remains foremost.
.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am pleased with this decision. The letter by the queen merely solidifies previous legislation that declares children of a prince or princess will be prince or princess by birth without question. Since being a Duchess is currently fashionable however, it really does not matter to Americans. Since Princess Anne donated her title the children will be doubly blessed anyway. The important thing is that the child be raised well as all members of the royal family should be.

The previous Letters Patent in the UK specified that many children of a Prince don't have the right to be a prince or princess - the children of Prince Richard, Prince Edward (of Kent), Prince Michael for instance aren't Princes/Princesses because the previous LPs restricted the titles of Prince/Princess to the male-line grandchildren of the monarch.

No princess has passed on the HRH Prince/Princess titles to their children under the 1917 LPs. Queen Elizabeth needed new LPs to be issued in 1948 specifically to give her children the HRH Prince/Princess tites while her sister, Princess Margaret's children were never Prince or Princess - just like Anne's children were never entitled to Prince or Princess.

In the UK royal status is determined by the relationship to any monarch - but they are only royal for a limited number of generations e.g. Harry's children won't be royals at birth under the existing LPs but will become royal when they are the grandchildren of the monarch - but if they are never the grandchildren of the monarch then they won't automatically become royal.

I don't know what you mean by 'Princess Anne donated her title' as she still holds the title of Princess and The Princess Royal and she couldn't 'donate' a title anyway. She, along with Mark, refused a title for Mark and thus her children weren't going to get a title as titles only go through the males in the UK, unless there are specific LPs to allow otherwise e.g. The Mountbatten title was allowed to pass to his daughters but only his daughters - after the two daughters the rest of the female descendents can't inherit the title.

As for the debate on commoners and peers. I was always taught that birthrights and earned rights were separate. So titles of birth are royalty and titles earned are not. As for who is common and who is not, this is determined by blood sangiunuity which is measured, when in question, as to how related you are to Queen Victoria...

In the UK the difference between a commoner and a peer is very clear (note that the term is commoner not common). A peer was eligible for an automatic seat in the pre-1999 House of Lords and everyone else is a commoner regardless of their relationship to the monarch of the day e.g. Princess Anne, daughter of the monarch is a commoner while The Duke of Northumberland - no blood relation to the monarch is a peer.

Blood has very little to do with the difference between commoners and peers in the UK.

Also please note that a woman who marries a prince is a Consort if he is knighted whether the title is granted or not. There are also instances of Matralineal decent of titles such as the titles of Marlboro and several of the House of Bourbon. In these cases the title, lands and fiduciary responsibility goes to the eldest female of the chosen generation...

The Marlborough title does allow for female inheritance but it still goes through males first as the terms of inheritance are:

1st duke's heirs male lawfully begotten - none
1st duke's eldest daughter and from there to her heirs males lawfully begotten - none
1at duke's younger daughters in age and from their through each of their heirs males lawfully begotten - which is where the dukes are coming from now throiugh their descent from Lady Anne Churchill.

There are many, many males in the line of succession before the line could possibly be returned to a female line - all the present male line heirs of the duke, and then other male lines - including the Earls Spencer (current earl has sons who are ahead of all females in the line of succession to the Marlborough title).

The House of Bourbon can have its own laws - but as they would be French that don't apply to the UK.
.

 

[Artemisia]

I am pleased with this decision. The letter by the queen merely solidifies previous legislation that declares children of a prince or princess will be prince or princess by birth without question. Since being a Duchess is currently fashionable however, it really does not matter to Americans. Since Princess Anne donated her title the children will be doubly blessed anyway. The important thing is that the child be raised well as all members of the royal family should be.

No such legislation ever existed. Princesses are not able to pass on any titles, let alone Princely ones, to their children (unless new Letters Patent were released - which was done extremely rarely). For instance, the children of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be untitled commoners (unless their fathers have titles), as are Princess Anne's children.
As for Princes, they can pass on Princely titles to their children only if they themselves are children of the Sovereign, or the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Everyone else can't do that; Prince Michael of Kent's children, for instance, have no Princely titles or style of a Royal Highness.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Princess Anne donated her title" since thee Princess has done no such thing and anyway, titles cannot be donated. If you allude to her title "Princess Royal", then she will have it for life. And since there can only be one Princess Royal at a time, the eldest daughter of William will have to wait for quite a while until she is granted the honour.

 

[Kotroman]

Peers are those who hold the substantive titles of: Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron.

Not their wives or children but the title holder alone.

This is probably repetitive, but when Catherine becomes HM The Queen is she still a commoner because she is not the monarch and only holds the title becasue of her husband's rank?

This is not quite that straightforward. Wives of peers actually can be considered peeresses (see, for example: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/peeresses.pdf ). They are entitled to all the prerogatives that come with peerage. For example, they (along with suo iure peers) were entitled to be tried by their fellow peers until 1948. In 1776, the Duchess of Kingston was tried for bigamy; in 1616, the Countess of Somerset was tried for murder; and, of course, the Queen was tried for treason in 1536. However, they never had a seat in the House of Lords. No women had until 1958.

Now, one could argue that Anne Boleyn was tried by the Lords because she was a peeress in her own right and not because she was queen. However, Caroline of Brunswick was also effectively tried by the House of Lords in 1820 and she was "only" queen.

That said, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Cambridge, the Countess of Wessex, the Duchess of Gloucester and the Duchess of Kent are peeresses, at least to some extent. The fact that Anne Boleyn and Caroline of Brunswick enjoyed the above mentioned privilege of peerage suggests, at least to me, that the queen of the United Kingdom is not considered a commoner.

 

[4Pam]

I've enjoyed reading this thread but it's all SO confusing. I had no idea that distinguishing between who's royal and commoner could be so complicated! If this was class, I'd fail miserably!

 

[Lumutqueen]

Have I missed something? When did letters patent thread become a c-section thread?

 

[Warren]

Ah, quite.
Posts regarding twins and c-sections have been removed.

Warren,
British Forums moderator

 

[Marquess Middleton]

Not sure why rules of the LPs need to be as they are relative to HRH and princely titles. Why not take a numerical approach? Say if you've ever been better than seventh (or whatever number) in succession than you're a HRH as is your wife and as is the husband of a sovereign. Otherwise not. It'd be interesting to backtest the differences versus history and consider the other positives and negatives of a simpler approach.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
Better yet why change the current system?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not sure why rules of the LPs need to be as they are relative to HRH and princely titles. Why not take a numerical approach? Say if you've ever been better than seventh (or whatever number) in succession than you're a HRH as is your wife and as is the husband of a sovereign. Otherwise not. It'd be interesting to backtest the differences versus history and consider the other positives and negatives of a simpler approach.

I don't think it would affect too many people who currently hold or don't hold HRH.

This is a list of those currently alive and there place in the line of succession at birth and who would hold the HRH Prince/Princess under your idea:

Elizabeth - 2nd
Charles - 2nd
William - 2nd
George - 3rd
Harry - 3rd
Andrew - 2nd
Beatrice - 4th
Eugenie - 5th
Edward - 3rd
Anne - 3rd (rises to 2nd in 1952 and then down from there to her current 11th)
Richard - 5th
Edward of Kent - 7th (did get at least as high as 5th within not much more than a year of his birth as his grandfather died and his uncle abdicated)
Alexandra - 6th (why Alexandra born higher than her brother - because by then their grandfather had died and uncle had abdicated)
Michael - 6th (he replaced his sister)

Then there is say the late Earl Harewood who was born 6th due to being the eldest grandson of George V but as he was the son of Princess Mary never held HRH but was born as high as 6th and served as a Counsellor of State as one of the first 4 adults over 21 in the line of succession even though he was by then quite a way down himself.

His brother Gerald was born 7th.

Peter was born 5th and Zara 6th.

David Linley was born 5th and Sarah Armstrong-Jones 7th.

That would have 6 more - or two in each generation - all the children of daughters - who would have had HRH who didn't hold it.

Taking the idea of born 7th or higher then all of the above would have HRH but Louise and James wouldn't because they were born 8th and 8th respectively.

A clear problem could arise with that system if say Beatrice, who is currently 6th was the next to have a legitimate child who would be 7th and that child would be HRH while a second child would never be due to simply not being high enough in the order.

It is far easier to do what has been done - although I would change the LPs to the children of the monarch, children of the heir apparent only - so I would have Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William and Harry have HRH and even have George as simply Lord George Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Strathearn until his grandfather becomes King. I would also not give HRH to a partner by marriage but limit their titles to the non HRH titles of their husbands.

 

[Ish]

Not sure why rules of the LPs need to be as they are relative to HRH and princely titles. Why not take a numerical approach? Say if you've ever been better than seventh (or whatever number) in succession than you're a HRH as is your wife and as is the husband of a sovereign. Otherwise not. It'd be interesting to backtest the differences versus history and consider the other positives and negatives of a simpler approach.

To me that sounds like it would produce too much instability in who has an HRH and who doesn't.

Let's limit the number to the first 10 in the succession. At birth Princess Anne would have been 3rd in the line of succession, behind her mother and brother. Now, since the birth of George she's 11th. Should she lose her titles and status? She's been a Princess for 63 years and has done a lot for her mother and her country, so why take away her position just because she's no longer in the top 10?

 

[Iluvbertie]

To me that sounds like it would produce too much instability in who has an HRH and who doesn't.

Let's limit the number to the first 10 in the succession. At birth Princess Anne would have been 3rd in the line of succession, behind her mother and brother. Now, since the birth of George she's 11th. Should she lose her titles and status? She's been a Princess for 63 years and has done a lot for her mother and her country, so why take away her position just because she's no longer in the top 10?

Marquess Middleton's suggestion was that anyone born 7th or higher would have HRH from birth and wouldn't lose it.

I initially read the post the way you did and then did a re-read.