The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

I do not believe the general public in any of the European monarchies distinguishes between an HRH Prince/ss, an HH Prince/ss, and a Prince/ss without an honorific. In the court of public opinion, it is the style or rank of Prince/ss which counts.

We don't know hoe the wife of a potential younger son os a spanish King would be styled as there hasn't been a younger son in the last generations and there is no one in the next generation. Could well have been that she would be made Infanta de gracias.

ETA: Have moved my reply to Titles of the Royal Family , but will quote it here:

The current Spanish model was established by the royal decree of November 12, 1987. In past generations, a husband or wife who met the dynastic requirements was an Infante/Infanta of Spain, whereas a wife or husband who was a commoner or "unequal" nobility, or did not settle in Spain, did not become an Infanta/Infante.

The 1987 decree stipulates in Article 3 that Infantas/Infantes by grace are to be created only in "exceptional circumstances". While it does not define "exceptional circumstances", I don't think merely being the wife of a younger son would qualify.

https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1987-25284

 

[Alison H]

Not now. In the past, there was certainly a lot of fuss about who was a royal highness and who was a serene highness and so on, and whether those who weren't royal highnesses were good enough to marry those who were. But times change.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Personally I would limit HRH to the children of the monarch, the children of the heir apparent in each generation and the spouse of the heir apparent in each generation. In my system the following would be HRH:

Charles and Camilla
William and Catherine
George, Charlotte, Louis
Andrew
Edward
Anne

Going forward Harry would become HRH when Charles becomes King but not Meghan and never Harry's children.

Then George's children and spouse but no one else.

Anyone with HRH who wasn't working full-time for the monarch (or serving in the military after finishing university/school) would automatically lose HRH in perpetuity as well ... so having the HRH status has an obligation to work for the monarch.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In most Continental monarchies the trend is that children of a former King, of the current King, and of a future King are HRH Prince/Princess

Norway
1 child of a former King (Astrid)
2 children of the current King (Haakon and Märtha Louise)
1 eldest child of a future King (Ingrid Alexandra)

Denmark
1 child of a former King (Benedikte)
2 children of the current Queen (Frederik and Joachim)
4 children of a future King (Christian, Isabella, Vincent, Josephine)

Netherlands
4 children of a former Queen (Beatrix, Irene, Margriet, Constantijn)
3 children of the current King (Amalia, Ariane, Alexia)

Spain
3 children of a former King (Margarita, Elena, Crístina)
2 children of the current King (Leonor, Sofía)

Translated to the United Kingdom:
4 children of the current Queen (Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward)
5 children of a future King (William, Harry, George, Charlotte, Louis)

I think that is a reasonable method of keeping the number of HRH's exclusive, focusing on the core royal family.

 

[Mbruno]

Personally I would limit HRH to the children of the monarch, the children of the heir apparent in each generation and the spouse of the heir apparent in each generation. In my system the following would be HRH:

Charles and Camilla
William and Catherine
George, Charlotte, Louis
Andrew
Edward
Anne

Going forward Harry would become HRH when Charles becomes King but not Meghan and never Harry's children.

Then George's children and spouse but no one else.

Anyone with HRH who wasn't working full-time for the monarch (or serving in the military after finishing university/school) would automatically lose HRH in perpetuity as well ... so having the HRH status has an obligation to work for the monarch.

That is a point I don't get when people raise it. Having HRH status never implied an obligation to work for the monarch. Historically, it only signaled a certain degree of kinship to a Sovereign (or being the wife or widow of someone who holds that status).

I would understand the "work requirement" if HRH status were automatically tied to public funding, but, again contrary to popular misconceptions, actually it is not.

Finally, I would find it hard to take away the HRH status of wives of princes given the British custom of wives assuming the titles and styles of their husbands. I suppose any change might require legislation in that case and not only LPs.

 

[Claire]

okay - next question? Who is involved in the writing of a new letter patent? Is it only the Queen and the her private secretary involved? Does the house of lords need to be involved or any other legal institution? Can it be appealed ?

The reason I ask - is that I am told that the letter patent for the above has already been looked into and possibly written? I am also told that CH has a law firm looking into if it can be legally countered.

 

[Durham]

Finally, I would find it hard to take away the HRH status of wives of princes given the British custom of wives assuming the titles and styles of their husbands. I suppose any change might require legislation in that case and not only LPs.

But there was the Duchess of Windsor. No legislation required there. A vindictive act if ever there was one.

Or is that different because it was never actually taken away just not awarded on marriage?

 

[Denville]

the HRH is in the monarch's gift.. so if the king didn't want Wallis to be HRH, he could refuse to let her have it. it was unkind and unfair but still it was Wallis, who had been part of the disaster of hte abidication

 

[Sionevar]

But there was the Duchess of Windsor. No legislation required there. A vindictive act if ever there was one.

Or is that different because it was never actually taken away just not awarded on marriage?

According to Wikipedia:

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937 re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke, but specifically stated that "his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute".

 

[Durham]

According to Wikipedia:

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937 re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke, but specifically stated that "his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute".

The "re-conferred" is interesting. It suggests that when he abdicated he lost this status but that's always been controversial I think.

 

[Durham]

the HRH is in the monarch's gift.. so if the king didn't want Wallis to be HRH, he could refuse to let her have it. it was unkind and unfair but still it was Wallis, who had been part of the disaster of hte abidication

Well it was certainly a huge mess although it turned out for the best in the end of course but even so seemed a little spiteful. But yes at the time feelings were raw so understandable I guess.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But there was the Duchess of Windsor. No legislation required there. A vindictive act if ever there was one.

Or is that different because it was never actually taken away just not awarded on marriage?

HRH is governed only by Letters Patent so no legislation needed to remove the HRH Prince/Princess styles e.g. Elizabeth II issued to LPs to remove HRH from Diana and Sarah after Diana's divorce (remember Sarah was divorced a number of months earlier and from her divorce until Diana's was HRH Sarah, Duchess of York).

Only peerage titles need legislation to remove them - Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron.

In the case of the Duchess of Windsor is was never awarded so was never removed by had it been taken then the King could have removed it via LPs quite easily.

 

[Sionevar]

The "re-conferred" is interesting. It suggests that when he abdicated he lost this status but that's always been controversial I think.

Hmm, yes, there's definitely an interesting discussion to be had there. We know peerages merge with the Crown when the holder ascends the throne, but what about HRH and Prince / Princess? Did that title and style cease to exist for Edward when he became King, and thus had to be recreated after his abdication to 'give them back', or could he have argued that he never lost his right to use them in the first place, because he was always the son of a monarch?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The "re-conferred" is interesting. It suggests that when he abdicated he lost this status but that's always been controversial I think.

After the abdication the BBC were about to introduce Edward as Mr Edward Windsor but George VI countered and said that 'he would always be the son of a monarch and so would always be HRH The Prince Edward' and that is how the BBC introduced him when he spoke to the nation that evening. If he ever did stop being HRH Prince then it was for a few hours at most until the new King confirmed that he would always hold that style.

 

[Somebody]

Personally I would limit HRH to the children of the monarch, the children of the heir apparent in each generation and the spouse of the heir apparent in each generation. In my system the following would be HRH:

Charles and Camilla
William and Catherine
George, Charlotte, Louis
Andrew
Edward
Anne

Going forward Harry would become HRH when Charles becomes King but not Meghan and never Harry's children.

Then George's children and spouse but no one else.

Anyone with HRH who wasn't working full-time for the monarch (or serving in the military after finishing university/school) would automatically lose HRH in perpetuity as well ... so having the HRH status has an obligation to work for the monarch.

Harry is already the son of an heir apparent, so it doesn't make sense to exclude him (suggesting he will get his when Charles becomes king) but include Charlotte and Louis. If the 'you have to work for the monarchy applies, it doesn't make sense to give it back just because his father becomes king. And shouldn't Andrew be removed as well?

And what about a spouse who works for the monarchy? I fully support Sophie being an HRH.

 

[Iluvbertie]

According to Wikipedia:

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937 re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke, but specifically stated that "his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute".

The interesting thing with that is that The King indicated in December 1936, on the day of the abdication, that his brother was always a Prince and so didn't need the HRH to be 're-conferred' at all and that he was going to create him as Duke of Windsor (date of creation and date of the issuing of LPs are not always the same e.g. William was created Duke of Cambridge on his wedding day but the LPs were issued until later in May)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

the HRH is in the monarch's gift.. so if the king didn't want Wallis to be HRH, he could refuse to let her have it. it was unkind and unfair but still it was Wallis, who had been part of the disaster of hte abidication

HRH is governed only by Letters Patent so no legislation needed to remove the HRH Prince/Princess styles e.g. Elizabeth II issued to LPs to remove HRH from Diana and Sarah after Diana's divorce (remember Sarah was divorced a number of months earlier and from her divorce until Diana's was HRH Sarah, Duchess of York).

Mbruno was referring to British common law, by which a woman has the right to take her rank and title from her husband. The right lapses on divorce.

Just as many legal experts and royal watchers argued that Parliament would have to pass legislation to deny Camilla the right to take the title HM Queen, many legal experts and royal watchers argue to this day that Parliament would have had to pass legislation to deny Wallis the right to take the title HRH Princess and refuse to recognize George VI's letters patent as legal.

If anyone is interested in reading more about the legal controversies:

https://heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/drafting_lp1937.htm

https://www.academia.edu/17178874/Wallis_Simpson_-_A_real_princess

okay - next question? Who is involved in the writing of a new letter patent? Is it only the Queen and the her private secretary involved? Does the house of lords need to be involved or any other legal institution? Can it be appealed ?

The reason I ask - is that I am told that the letter patent for the above has already been looked into and possibly written? I am also told that CH has a law firm looking into if it can be legally countered.

I have never seen, in what royal correspondents have written, any suggestion of involvement by Parliament or other legal institutions in any of the recent letters patent involving HRH status or royal peerages.

Nor have I seen any reports that letters patent to further limit HRH have already been written.

Until recently, the concept of filing a lawsuit to be awarded royal status and titles would probably have been considered nonsense. Obviously, that is no longer the case, but for that reason I doubt any UK precedent has been established.

In most Continental monarchies the trend is that children of a former King, of the current King, and of a future King are HRH Prince/Princess

[...]

I think that is a reasonable method of keeping the number of HRH's exclusive, focusing on the core royal family.

In Norway only the eldest son/child is HRH.

That is a point I don't get when people raise it. Having HRH status never implied an obligation to work for the monarch. Historically, it only signaled a certain degree of kinship to a Sovereign (or being the wife or widow of someone who holds that status).

Replied here, as I think my point can extend to other European monarchies: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/non-british-styles-and-titles-17155-41.html#post2453372

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry is already the son of an heir apparent, so it doesn't make sense to exclude him (suggesting he will get his when Charles becomes king) but include Charlotte and Louis. If the 'you have to work for the monarchy applies, it doesn't make sense to give it back just because his father becomes king. And shouldn't Andrew be removed as well?

And what about a spouse who works for the monarchy? I fully support Sophie being an HRH.

Sorry, I left Harry off the original list. He should be there from birth but would have lost it on leaving the working list of royals ... as would Andrew, when he was forced to step down.

Charlotte and Louis keep it until they finish their education/military training at which time they indicate whether they will be a 'working royal' for life or be a 'private individual' and thus permanently give up HRH.

I also am proposing that the spouse, other than of the heir apparent in each generation, isn't a working royal, which is why no HRH for them. That would, hopefully prevent the 'title chaser women' from getting into the family ... if they knew they wouldn't be getting a title/style or have the big wedding or get the adulation of the people (not all wives are like that but there have been a few in recent generations).

 

[Mbruno]

Mbruno was referring to British common law, by which a woman has the right to take her rank and title from her husband. The right lapses on divorce.

Just as many legal experts and royal watchers argued that Parliament would have to pass legislation to deny Camilla the right to take the title HM Queen, many legal experts and royal watchers argue to this day that Parliament would have had to pass legislation to deny Wallis the right to take the title HRH Princess and refuse to recognize George VI's letters patent as legal.

Exactly. Denying the legal wives of younger sons of the Sovereign the style of HRH when their husbands are HRHs themselves would be equivalent in my view to accepting the concept of a morganatic marriage and many posters here have been adamant, e.g. in connection with the "Queen Camilla" discussion, that English law never accepted morganatic marriages and "never will". Parliament could do it as a sovereign legislative body, but it would take legislation to overrule the common law in my opinion.

A different point of view, however, is that royal styles are a royal prerogative and, therefore, the Queen's will and pleasure alone in that case can override the common law. I leave that discussion to the experts, but, either way, you can't have it both ways. If a prince's style can be taken away from his legally married wife by the Queen's will alone, so could the HM be taken from Camilla by the King's will alone.

Divorced wives, of course, are a different matter as Tatiana Maria explained.

 

[Denville]

After the abdication the BBC were about to introduce Edward as Mr Edward Windsor but George VI countered and said that 'he would always be the son of a monarch and so would always be HRH The Prince Edward' and that is how the BBC introduced him when he spoke to the nation that evening. If he ever did stop being HRH Prince then it was for a few hours at most until the new King confirmed that he would always hold that style.

I thought that George VI said that as the son of a Duke, Edward should be at least LORD Edward Windsor.. so they ended up iwht calling him Prince Edward.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

After the abdication the BBC were about to introduce Edward as Mr Edward Windsor but George VI countered and said that 'he would always be the son of a monarch and so would always be HRH The Prince Edward' and that is how the BBC introduced him when he spoke to the nation that evening. If he ever did stop being HRH Prince then it was for a few hours at most until the new King confirmed that he would always hold that style.

I've heard this too, and George VI's reasoning makes sense to me. Curiously though, Edward was actually introduced by Sir John Reith of the BBC as "His Royal Highness Prince Edward", not "His Royal Highness THE Prince Edward". I was always curious about the omission of the "The". Was it just an oversight or is it common to omit it when introducing, even though it signifies that the Prince or Princess is the child of a monarch?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I've heard this too, and George VI's reasoning makes sense to me. Curiously though, Edward was actually introduced by Sir John Reith of the BBC as "His Royal Highness Prince Edward", not "His Royal Highness THE Prince Edward". I was always curious about the omission of the "The". Was it just an oversight or is it common to omit it when introducing, even though it signifies that the Prince or Princess is the child of a monarch?

Moved here:

At the time, the inclusion or omission of "The" did not signify whether the Prince or Princess was or was not the child a monarch. That distinction was established later (during the reign of Elizabeth II, I believe).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I've heard this too, and George VI's reasoning makes sense to me. Curiously though, Edward was actually introduced by Sir John Reith of the BBC as "His Royal Highness Prince Edward", not "His Royal Highness THE Prince Edward". I was always curious about the omission of the "The". Was it just an oversight or is it common to omit it when introducing, even though it signifies that the Prince or Princess is the child of a monarch?

It was a common oversight. How often did anyone refer to The Princess Elizabeth, The Princess Margaret, The Princess Anne, The Prince Andrew or The Princess Edward then or now.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The difference between "then and now" is that, as Duke of Leaside described, a tradition of using "The" Prince or Princess in formal communications to signify the child of a monarch, and plain Prince or Princess to signify other princes and princesses, has now been established.

Do you know the exact date when the tradition was introduced? If it was not until after 1937, then either HRH Prince or HRH The Prince would have been equally proper then and there was no oversight.

 

[B__ll]

Is it possible that Charles follows the lead of the King of Sweden and strips his grandchildren of royal titles?

 

[ACO]

Is it possible that Charles follows the lead of the King of Sweden and strips his grandchildren of royal titles?

He just might. I think it would be better to do it now though than one of his first actions as the King. It would be quite easy for HMQ to just do it now. She had no issue making her desire for Camilla to be seen as consort known. She made it so all the Cambridge kids were HRH. So it won't be any issue to strip Harry's kids of future titles.

 

[Somebody]

As he isn't a monarch at the moment, he has no formal say in this area at the moment. And, in the future, I don't think he is following the lead of the King of Sweden in dealing with the titles of the royal family.

However, as has been discussed in the titles thread, it is possible that not all of his male-line grandchildren will be HRH and prince of the UK (currently, only those by his eldest son and heir are); as that tradition has already been discontinued by the queen over 20 years ago for the children of her youngest son... and his youngest son's decisions might make it even more likely that he will follow that path. But, it's not a given, so we'll have to wait and see. Although I would recommend the queen to take action prior to that as in that way no titles need to be removed but will just not be awarded (less painful) - as she did for Camilla by make her wish known; although that didn't require a LP and imho it would be best to arrange any changes in titles with a LP.

 

[Vicky7]

The Queen should be the one to do it since they are all her descendants. If they wait for Charles then its his descendants vs his niece and nephew. I guess that was the logic of the King of Sweden they are all his grandchildren if Victoria did it its her kids vs her nieces and nephews.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the case of Archie and Lilibet, they would be King Charles's descendants as well (specifically, his grandchildren).

In the case of the King of Sweden, as was discussed in more detail in the Swedish forum, his grandchildren were stripped of their membership of the Royal House, and once they ceased to be members they automatically lost their HRH and "of Sweden" titles according to Swedish custom. Their removal from the Royal House was a logical consequence of the decision that they would not take on publicly funded official roles and would be expected to work for a living, as there was no tradition (at least not in recent memory) for a member of the Royal House to enter the job market.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen didn't strip HRH from Edward and Sophies' children - according to Sophie but not according to the letter I received from BP so I no longer know what to believe.

As the rules currently exist the instant the Queen dies, assuming Charles outlives her, Harry's children will be HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

Charles would then have to issue the Letters Patent to strip them of those titles - which I believe he is intending to do and also stripping Beatrice and Eugenie at the same time but not from the Queen's cousins. I suspect he will apply his new rules to all descendants of Queen Elizabeth and limit HRH to only the children of the heir apparent in each generation (so no HRH for Louis' children - Charlotte's already aren't eligible so it makes sense if he wants to make the number of royals a smaller number by limiting it to the children on only one child).