Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[Somebody]

Assuming Edward gets the Edinburgh title(s) James might likely be Earl Merioneth and not Viscount Severn. The HRH Prince/ss thing won't make a difference there.

That assumes that Edward also receives the Earl of Merioneth title in addition to the Duke of Edinburgh title. While the titles are currently held by the same person (third creation) that is not a requirement. For example, in the second creation the subsidiary titles were: Earl of Kent and Earl of Ulster. Currently, Kent is a dukedom while the Earl of Ulster is a subsidiary title to the Duke of Gloucester. The subsidiary titles for the first creation were Baron of Snowdon, Viscount of Launceston, Earl of Eltham, and Marquess of the Isle of Ely; and as we all know Snowdon was later 'upgraded' to an earldom for princess Margaret's husband.

Given that Edward already has two earldoms and a viscountcy I don't see the need to give him not only a ducal title but also a third earldom and a barony. So, I expect that James will be known as Earl of Wessex if he doesn't start using the title HRH Prince James of Edinburgh.

Maybe Charles or William decides to award Louis either the Earl of Merioneth or Baron Greenwich title as a subsidiary title (if/when he receives his dukedom); in that way different lines of the family can keep the various titles of the Duke of Edinburgh alive.

 

[AC21091968]

Look personally I feel that King Charles will be removing the HRH from anyone except Prince William and his children. So it will be a race - will HRH Lady Louise turn 18 before or after the emergence of King Charles.

If Charles really wants remove HRH from anyone except for Prince William and his children, than I think he should the Letters Patent, like what George V did.
Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn was an example, where he lost the title of a British prince and the style of Highness.

9 August 1914 – 20 November 1917: His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught
20 November 1917 – 16 January 1942: Earl of Macduff
16 January 1942 – 26 April 1943: His Grace The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Windsor,_2nd_Duke_of_Connaught_and_Strathearn

Charles' Letter Patent could restrict the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King)

• Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
• Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
• Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

By this convention, Archie will not be a Prince, even when Charles does become king, as he is not the child of the eldest child of the monarch. That means the following Royal Family members will loose their Prince/Princess title and HRH style

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (no longer legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent​

Personally, I really don't want this to happen.

 

[Claire]

Charles' Letter Patent could restrict the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King)

• Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
• Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
• Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

I personally believe that the patent has already been written up and waiting.

However I believe that only the monarch and his spouse, Prince William and his spouse and children will be getting it.
Possibility that the Princess Royal will be as well.

But not anyone from the Duke of Sussex done.

 

[AC21091968]

Charles' Letter Patent could restrict the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King)

• Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
• Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
• Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

I personally believe that the patent has already been written up and waiting.

However I believe that only the monarch and his spouse, Prince William and his spouse and children will be getting it.
Possibility that the Princess Royal will be as well.

But not anyone from the Duke of Sussex done.

Fair enough. I guess Lady Louise is more looking forward to become a godmother (particularly of, future children of Princess Beatrice and 2nd child of Princess Eugenie) than choosing to use HRH style and Princess title when she turns 18 next year.

 

[Osipi]

I think that if Charles issues letters patent as suggested, it would only affect those children that are born after the date of the letters patent. Those that already hold titles and styles according to previous letters patents would not be stripped of them. Eventually, those that do hold the HRH and prince/princess would eventually be weeded out.

It'll be interesting to watch and see what Charles does when the time comes.

 

[LauraS3514]

I think that if Charles issues letters patent as suggested, it would only affect those children that are born after the date of the letters patent. Those that already hold titles and styles according to previous letters patents would not be stripped of them. Eventually, those that do hold the HRH and prince/princess would eventually be weeded out.

It'll be interesting to watch and see what Charles does when the time comes.

I agree. I can't see Charles stripping his mother's cousins - who have given decades-long service to the crown - of their birthrights. The Duke of Kent will be 85, Princess Alexandra 84, and the Duke of Gloucester is 76. Removing their HRH Prince/Princess would be petty and cruel and Charles is neither.

 

[MissPeach77]

So Prince Edward's children are "technically" Prince and Princess if they someday choose to use those titles? So is Sophie technically a Princess as well? Is Harry and Meghan's son Archie "technically" a Prince even though they chose for him to not have a title?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sophie is a princess - the wife of a Prince is a Princess but Edward has a better title for Sophie to use - Countess and so she uses that. The only wife of a British prince who uses Princess is the lowest ranked princess - Princess Michael of Kent because Michael isn't a peer of the realm and so has nothing better than Princess for his wife to use. Sophie is Princess Edward.

Archie is not eligible to be a prince - yet - as he is only a male line great-grandchild of a monarch. When he is a male line grandchild i.e. when Charles is King, Archie will then be a Prince.

Archie is entitled to be a Lord as a male line great-grandchild of a monarch in the same way that Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are Lord and Lady. He is also entitled to be the Earl of Dumbarton as the heir apparent to the Duke of Sussex.

 

[Mbruno]

So Prince Edward's children are "technically" Prince and Princess if they someday choose to use those titles? So is Sophie technically a Princess as well? Is Harry and Meghan's son Archie "technically" a Prince even though they chose for him to not have a title?

Sophie is a princess, not only "technically" but legally, since she is married to a prince. Harry is also a prince and, as his wife, Meghan is a princess too. There is no doubt about that.


James and Louise would be respectively prince and princess under the terms of King George V's Letters Patent of 1917. Some royal experts argue that the Queen's will and pleasure that they be styled instead as children of an earl, when announced publicly, overrides the LPs of a previous sovereign. That is debatable, but most people go with that interpretation and consider that they are not prince and princess, either legally or technically.

 

[MissPeach77]

So if Archie isn't eligible to be a Prince "yet," then how come William's children are? Is it because William is in direct line to the throne? Sorry, I don't mean to stray away from the Wessex children, since this is their thread, but I feel like all this ties together and it is easier to just ask here then to hop around to 20 different threads on each different kid.

Sophie is a princess - the wife of a Prince is a Princess but Edward has a better title for Sophie to use - Countess and so she uses that. The only wife of a British prince who uses Princess is the lowest ranked princess - Princess Michael of Kent because Michael isn't a peer of the realm and so has nothing better than Princess for his wife to use. Sophie is Princess Edward.

Archie is not eligible to be a prince - yet - as he is only a male line great-grandchild of a monarch. When he is a male line grandchild i.e. when Charles is King, Archie will then be a Prince.

Archie is entitled to be a Lord as a male line great-grandchild of a monarch in the same way that Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are Lord and Lady. He is also entitled to be the Earl of Dumbarton as the heir apparent to the Duke of Sussex.

 

[Somebody]

So if Archie isn't eligible to be a Prince "yet," then how come William's children are? Is it because William is in direct line to the throne? Sorry, I don't mean to stray away from the Wessex children, since this is their thread, but I feel like all this ties together and it is easier to just ask here then to hop around to 20 different threads on each different kid.

There is no need to hop around as there is one topic fully dedicated to all British styles and titles, so I suggest we move the general discussion over there. And you can read up on all the previous discussions about this topic.

 

[Somebody]

James and Louise would be respectively prince and princess under the terms of King George V's Letters Patent of 1917. Some royal experts argue that the Queen's will and pleasure that they be styled instead as children of an earl, when announced publicly, overrides the LPs of a previous sovereign. That is debatable, but most people go with that interpretation and consider that they are not prince and princess, either legally or technically.

One person who does not go by that interpretation is the Countess of Wessex. She recently said that Louise and James are still prince and princess and royal highnesses and it's up to them to decide whether they want to start using it.

 

[Denville]

Then it wasn't made very clear when Sophie and Edward married.. becauase the impresson was that their children would be titled as the children of an earl....

 

[Somebody]

Then it wasn't made very clear when Sophie and Edward married.. becauase the impresson was that their children would be titled as the children of an earl....

True. That's why it has been a topic of debate for so long (even more so because someone at BP said they were stripped because the queen's will was made known). It was said that they would be styled (not titled) as the children of an earl. However, apparently according to Sophie the fact that they were not stripped of their titles by LP means that they are still entitled to it but just not using it.

 

[AC21091968]

True. That's why it has been a topic of debate for so long (even more so because someone at BP said they were stripped because the queen's will was made known). It was said that they would be styled (not titled) as the children of an earl. However, apparently according to Sophie the fact that they were not stripped of their titles by LP means that they are still entitled to it but just not using it.

I think this is why Sophie's interview with the Sunday Times (later picked up by People Magazine) gave me the impression that Louise and James are still legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince of Wessex (under 1917 Letters Patent). However, they are styled as children of an Earl, which was agreed upon the Earl and Countess of Wessex's wedding.
https://people.com/royals/queen-eli...ill-work-for-a-living-mom-sophie-wessex-says/

Government's website on the Title of HRH The Prince Edward, including his "future children". The sentence below kind of contradict's Sophie's statement on Louise and James choosing HRH Prince/Princesses. However, things could have changed since then.

"The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl."​

https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...ews/title_of_hrh_the_prince_edward/40309.html

 

[Denville]

Precisley. It IS contradictory and a member of this forum was told form BP a few years ago that the children were Viscount Severn and Lady Louise, not "HRH's who weren't using their style of HRH". Sophie's statement seems to be adding to the confusion, and in any case I think its unlikely that when the children are 18 they will choose to be Prince and Princess.....

 

[Biri]

Louise turns 18 in a year, we will see.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have a subscription and am able to read the entire article.

It is written by Christina Lamb, who accompanied the Countess on her tour of South Sudan in March. A week after their return, she also interviewed Sophie at Bagshot Park where the question regarding the children was asked:

"How does she try to give the children a normal life? She laughs as we look around the enormous house. “What’s normal? They go to a regular school [they both attend top independent schools]. They go to friends for sleepovers and parties. At weekends we do lots of dog walking and stay with friends. I guess not everyone’s grandparents live in a castle, but where you are going is not the important part, or who they are. When they are with the Queen, she is their grandmother.

“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.”"

The statement "They have [HRH titles] and can decide to use them" is open to interpretation to some extent. One could reading "having them" to mean that the titles are used on their birth registrations or identification documents, or one could read it as a simple reference to the fact that the 1917 Letters Patent says that male-line grandchildren are HRHs.

Louise turns 18 in a year, we will see.

Possibly, but it is more likely that Louise will quietly continue to be known as Lady Louise and the debate will persist.

 

[Mbruno]

One person who does not go by that interpretation is the Countess of Wessex. She recently said that Louise and James are still prince and princess and royal highnesses and it's up to them to decide whether they want to start using it.

If Sophie is correct, I hope her children use the title as adults as that is their right and there is no reason why they should give it up. Are they maybe waiting for Edward to be made a Duke first ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If Sophie is correct, I hope her children use the title as adults as that is their right and there is no reason why they should give it up. Are they maybe waiting for Edward to be made a Duke first ?

The official reason given was that it is "appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children".

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

It is unclear which "future circumstances" were meant, but I would guess that it is the expectation that their children will not be working royals. That was the official reason given for why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex ceased using their HRHs.

 

[JR76]

Precisley. It IS contradictory and a member of this forum was told form BP a few years ago that the children were Viscount Severn and Lady Louise, not "HRH's who weren't using their style of HRH".

If I remember it correctly the member that you refer to is Iluvebertie and it happened quite a long time ago.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Louise has been Lady Louise for years. If she was to suddenly become Princess Louise, would it not be confusing for her?
James has been Viscount Severn for years. If he was to suddenly become Prince James, would it not be confusing for him?

 

[Alison H]

It happens all the time. Viscount Linley became the Earl of Snowdon, and Charles Armstrong-Jones became Viscount Linley. The Marquess of Blandford became the Duke of Marlborough, and the Earl of Sunderland in turn became the Marquess of Blandford. Depending on the particular circumstances, Miss Smith may become Lady Mary when her grandfather dies and her father inherits a title, and Master Smith may become Lord X or the Hon X. Viscount Althorp became Earl Spencer.If Prince Edward at some point becomes Duke of Edinburgh, James may become the Earl of Wessex or the Earl of Merioneth. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark became the Duke of Edinburgh and then Prince Philip of the United Kingdom. And so on and so forth!


The idea of suddenly becoming a princess on your 18th birthday sounds a bit strange, like something out of a fairy story, but titles do get changed all the time. It's presumably no more confusing than getting married and going from being Miss Jane Smith to Mrs Jane Bloggs.

 

[Prinsara]

Anyway, she won't 'suddenly become' Princess Louise, she has to choose to do it.

Like getting married and choosing to change your name, but not much like getting a title, courtesy title, or style by inheritance.

 

[Denville]

Its hardly a big deal is it? If it happens which IMO is unlikely.

 

[sophie25]

If she chose to adopt the title HRH Princess, which of course she has always been entitled to, it wouldn't look good for her. It would give the impression that she is a snob and I'm sure the media would portray her in that way for doing it. That is why I think Edward and Sophie put their children in an awkward situation by not giving them the HRH. It's ok saying they can use it later on in life if they wish but I don't think it would be an easy transition because it would portray them in a negative light. I feel they have been cheated a bit out of something that was rightfully theirs so I hope they are happy about the decision within themselves.

 

[Mbruno]

If she chose to adopt the title HRH Princess, which of course she has always been entitled to, it wouldn't look good for her. It would give the impression that she is a snob and I'm sure the media would portray her in that way for doing it. That is why I think Edward and Sophie put their children in an awkward situation by not giving them the HRH. It's ok saying they can use it later on in life if they wish but I don't think it would be an easy transition because it would portray them in a negative light. I feel they have been cheated a bit out of something that was rightfully theirs so I hope they are happy about the decision within themselves.

Why would it look snobbish for her to adopt a title which, as you said, she has always been entitled to and which her parents decided on her behalf that she would not use as child? If anything, the mistake was not calling her HRH Princess Louise of Wessex from birth, which was unnecessary. Titles are not linked to being a working royal or receiving public funding as the examples of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie or Prince Michael show. There was no need to strip her of a princely title to signify that she was not expected to be a working royal. And it is indeed awkward that she and her brother were given a different treatment than the York girls.

I sympathize with the idea of restricting the HRH to children of the heir only (following the recent examples of the Netherlands and Spain), but, if that is decision, then do it in the next generatiion, i.e, for Prince Charles' descendants only when he is King (and descendants of future Sovereigns thereafter), and do it properly by new Letters Patent issued by the King.

 

[Claire]

I have never understood Sophie's remark about Louise and indeed James been able to simple choose what they want the title to be. It doesn't make sense. It is decided by the monarch and the monarch only. If the Queen wants her corgi to be a Duchess then it will be so. The situation for the Wessex in 1999 is not really different then today in the broad view. Edward is number 13 heading down on the line of succession. If they need Louise to take up engagements she can go so as Lady Louise, but I do not seem her picking up engagement before the York princesses and Princess Anne's children.

 

[Denville]

I have never understood Sophie's remark about Louise and indeed James been able to simple choose what they want the title to be. It doesn't make sense. It is decided by the monarch and the monarch only. If the Queen wants her corgi to be a Duchess then it will be so. The situation for the Wessex in 1999 is not really different then today in the broad view. Edward is number 13 heading down on the line of succession. If they need Louise to take up engagements she can go so as Lady Louise, but I do not seem her picking up engagement before the York princesses and Princess Anne's children.

I presume that if Sophie said this, she knows that the queen would be ok if the children wanted to use HRH. It does not mean that they have to do engagements, but possibly, with the loss of some royals, they are considering using Louise at least for a few years.

 

[sophie25]

Why would it look snobbish for her to adopt a title which, as you said, she has always been entitled to and which her parents decided on her behalf that she would not use as child? If anything, the mistake was not calling her HRH Princess Louise of Wessex from birth, which was unnecessary. Titles are not linked to being a working royal or receiving public funding as the examples of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie or Prince Michael show. There was no need to strip her of a princely title to signify that she was not expected to be a working royal. And it is indeed awkward that she and her brother were given a different treatment than the York girls.

I sympathize with the idea of restricting the HRH to children of the heir only (following the recent examples of the Netherlands and Spain), but, if that is decision, then do it in the next generatiion, i.e, for Prince Charles' descendants only when he is King (and descendants of future Sovereigns thereafter), and do it properly by new Letters Patent issued by the King.

I said the media would portray her to look like a snob. They would suggest that she must be a rather grand person to adopt the title and the fact that she was always entitled to it wouldn't be emphasised. I agree that it would have been better to have done things in reverse ie to have let the children be born HRH Princess and Prince and then let them renounce it later in life if they wanted to.