Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[Zonk]

It will be interesting to see what these kids end up doing...and beatrice and eugenie as well. Prince Charles has been vocal about wanting to keep the Royal Family small (which makes sense). It gets a bit crazy when everyone gets to be a Princess. The Swedish Royal Family has it figured out - nice and small and compact.

IMO the Swedish Royal Family isn't a good example because the King was the only son of the Crown Prince (who died shortly after his birth), and his uncles (with the exception of Betril) basically lost their titles with their unequal marriages. Although to to be legit with your argument, the sisters of the King who married unequally also lost their HRH's.

I think Norway is what you are looking for. Martha Louise gave up her title (so that she can earn money) and Sevrre Magnus wasn't born with one. I personally think Denmark is the good balance. Joachim is the 2nd son and was born an HRH, his three sons are all HH. That was certainly the case with Elizabeth who is the daughter of Knud (I believe). She is an HH as well. Though one does wonder (must do research) if she was born an HRH because at one time her father was slated to succeed Frederick before the law was changed and Margrethe became Queen instead.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I am under the understanding that prince/ss is a courtesy title and carries with it NO legal standing. How can people say Louise or James are legally prince/ss? Legally to me , means they would have recourse in the courts and I don't how a courtesy would hold up in court.

This style of Prince "is purely a courtesy and the holders of that title remain commoners until they are raised to the Peerage, the only exception being the eldest son of the Sovereign who at birth or, as in the case of Prince Charles, at his mother's accession to the Throne, immediately becomes Duke of Cornwall" (H. Austin Strutt, assistant under-secretary of state, in a memo dated June 17th, 1954 prepared for the Home Secretary; HO 286/50). See also Garter's statement that "the title of Prince is (in this country) normally a courtesy title indicating certain degrees of relationship to the Sovereign and having no power to govern." --- Heraldica

According to Bitish law, only Peerages need to be created by LPs. (Because they carry with them legal responsibility) All other styles and titles, including prince/ss can bestowed by warrant, press release or verbal declaration.

IMO, Louise and James are not prince/ss by virtue of the fact HM said they are not style as such, by press release and HM pleasure is all that matters.

 

[Artemisia]

That is not entirely accurate. Letters Patent don't need for those Princes and Princesses who inherit them automatically, such as children and male-line grandchildren of the Monarch. However, if someone (say, Camilla, Kate or Timothy) were to be created a Prince or Princess in his/her own right, Letters Patent would be required. Mind you, that hasn't happened to day, but if it were to, LPs would be necessary.

The Letters Patent 1917 issued by George V weren't about creation or granting of a Princely status to anyone; among other things, they established who was entitled to be called a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom automatically. That included male-line grandchildren of the Monarch. Louise and James are male-line grandchildren of the Queen; ergo, they are a Princess and a Prince from birth, same as Beatrice, Eugenie, William and Harry. Peter and Zara aren't a Prince and Princess because they are female-line grandchildren of Her Majesty - and titles are (usually) inherited from the father.

Until new Letters Patent are issued that change those requirements (for instance, limiting them to children of the Monarch), the Letters Patent 1917 still apply today.

 

[Molly2101]

Sometimes I do wish Edward and Sophie had just let Louise and James use their Princess/Prince titles as it would have saved a lot of confusion. I do understand their reasoning, and I also feel Charles perhaps has a bit of an input in their choice. Edward knew that his brother wanted a smaller Royal family, and the choice of not giving his children HRH styles worked well for Charles. I don't think, even if Louise and James were HRH, they would be bothered by the press. Edward is very unknown among the British, and other commonwealth countries; not many people know the Queen has a 3rd son, nevermind the fact that he has two children. Therefore I feel if we had a Princess Louise and a Prince James, it would have made no difference to how the public treated them; they would remain quite unknown and grow up in private, only attending family events (as they do now.) Edward and Sophie would still have hidden them away in their early years as they want their children to grow up with some semblance of a normal life, which I respect them for. I just don't think anyone would have really remembered his children existed, even if they were HRH. Of course not having HRH titles let's Louise and James grow up and get normal jobs, thus avoiding the situation Beatrice and Eugenie are in. That said, you know Lady Louise wants to be Princess Louise!

 

[Zonk]

Please note that all posts relating to the late Duchess of Kent (Marina) and Duchess of Gloucester (Alice) have been moved http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ish-styles-and-titles-258-68.html#post1468492 .


Lets stay on topic with the actual titles of the James and Louise Wessex.

Thanks!

Zonk

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Sorry for straying off topic

 

[AnnEliza]

Okay I am trying to make sense of this:
Did the children of the Wessexes officially have their royal titles (i.e., prince/ss, HRH) removed, or are they simply not using them as a matter of their parents' choice, similar to Camilla being in actuality the Princess of Wales but choosing to be styled the Duchess of Cornwall? Forgive me if this is redundant, but every time I think I understand it I read another post and get confused again.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well the 1917 Letters Patent was never revoked and under it both would be HRH Prince/Princess. It was simply announced at the time of Edwards wedding that he and Sophie wished any children to be styled as the children of an earl and that the Queen had agreed to this. It is kind of vague so some people believe they remain HRH while others believe the Queens announcement is enough to remove their HRH. I don't think I have ever seen a legal opinion on this but they are indeed styled as the son and daughter of an earl.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

That is not entirely accurate. Letters Patent don't need for those Princes and Princesses who inherit them automatically, such as children and male-line grandchildren of the Monarch. However, if someone (say, Camilla, Kate or Timothy) were to be created a Prince or Princess in his/her own right, Letters Patent would be required. Mind you, that hasn't happened to day, but if it were to, LPs would be necessary.

The Letters Patent 1917 issued by George V weren't about creation or granting of a Princely status to anyone; among other things, they established who was entitled to be called a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom automatically. That included male-line grandchildren of the Monarch. Louise and James are male-line grandchildren of the Queen; ergo, they are a Princess and a Prince from birth, same as Beatrice, Eugenie, William and Harry. Peter and Zara aren't a Prince and Princess because they are female-line grandchildren of Her Majesty - and titles are (usually) inherited from the father.

Until new Letters Patent are issued that change those requirements (for instance, limiting them to children of the Monarch), the Letters Patent 1917 still apply today.

So what is your opinion on this Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain ?

This explanation makes sense to me, are we certain that new LPs have to be issued or is that an opinion?

 

[padams2359]

Right, he recognized the fact that QV created, what would be half of Europe at this point, as royal. That was tightening the belt. It has happened. Natural selection will take care of this. PA's children have fallen off as female line. The Yorks & Wessexes will have none royal children. PH grandchildren will not be royal, etc. no changes are needed. KGV took care of this.

 

[padams2359]

There will be small things like wives, and children earlier than a new monarch, but no major changes.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Many people posting are of the opinion that unless the Queen was to issue new Letters Patent to specifically take away the Wessex children's royal styles and titles , then they are still "officially" HRH and Prince/ess but the article I linked to states that LPs are just one of several ways to express HM's pleasure and that in fact the BP press release removed their royal titles without the need for LPs.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I wonder if, when the time comes, that Louise will use her HRH style and Princess title at her wedding and afterwards? I've heard that when she's a bit older, she can choose whether to have the royal title or to keep her courtesy title. Or she might even be offered a duchy on her big day, like Princess Anne (but Anne refused and that's why Peter and Zara don't have titles).

 

[Artemisia]

I don't think Anne was ever offered a Dukedom in her own right, and she most certainly couldn't have been offered a Duchy.
The Queen offered Mark Phillips a title so that his and Anne's children were not untitled commoners, but the couple refused.

The chances of Lady Louise being granted a title in her own right are exactly nil, unless something horrible happens and all those ahead of her in the Line of Succession perish, leaving Louise as the Heiress to the Throne.

Most experts agree that Louise and James are legally a Princess and a Prince, so technically yes, Louise could opt to use her title as a male-line grandchild of a Monarch once she is of age. However, in reality, I doubt that will happen; nowadays, the tendency is to downsize the Royal Family, not have additional Princes and Princesses.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I'm still trying to get my head around what 'legally' means in the context to a prince and princess. Given that it is a courtesy title and the use of it is a prerogative of the Queen, I'm confused.
Artemisia and many others have more knowledge of this matter than I do but let me run this scenario and people tell me what they think.

Louise turns 18 and says "You know what? I should be styled as a royal highness and have the title of princess, so I'm going to the courts and asking to have my 'legal' right to be a princess enforced"

Wouldn't the judge say "Sorry Louise, but that is a royal prerogative and its up to the Sovereign to decide and the court has no jurisdiction"

My point is, since Louise isn't styled as HRH or princess by the pleasure of the Queen, then in fact she is not a princess.

Why am I having a difficult time with this?

 

[Artemisia]

I'm still trying to get my head around what 'legally' means in the context to a prince and princess. Given that it is a courtesy title and the use of it is a prerogative of the Queen, I'm confused

Prince is not a courtesy title; it's an actual title although granting (or revoking) it is indeed entirely at the will of the Sovereign of the time.

Legally (from my point of view) means reinforced by Letters Patent, Royal Proclamations, Orders-in-Council, etc.
Letters Patent of 1917 are still in force and until new ones are issued regulating the use of the titles of Princes and Princess, all children, male-line grandchildren, as well as wives of the Monarch's sons and male-line grandsons will be British Princes and Princesses (by birth and marriage).

When Prince Philip was created a Prince of the United Kingdom, Letters Parent had to be issued for the announcement to have a legal effect since otherwise the Duke of Edinburgh would not have been entitled to the title. Had the Queen decided to revoke the honour, she would have issued another Letters Patent.

In James and Louise's case, the Buckingham Palace let it be known that it was the wish of the Earl and Countess of Wessex for their children to be styled as children of an Earl, rather then male-line grandchildren of the Monarch. At no point did the Buckingham Palace say that the Wessex children will actually be stripped of those titles or have no rights to them.

Louise turns 18 and says "You know what? I should be styled as a royal highness and have the title of princess, so I'm going to the courts and asking to have my 'legal' right to be a princess enforced"
Wouldn't the judge say "Sorry Louise, but that is a royal prerogative and its up to the Sovereign to decide and the court has no jurisdiction"

I doubt that's a likely scenario. If, at any point of their lives, Louise and James decide they want to become full-time working royals and use their birth styles and titles, then they would most likely privately consult the Sovereign of the time. If the Sovereign has no objections, then the Buckingham Palace will issue an announcement about her new (or rather, old) titles and styles. If the Sovereign objects, then obviously the Wessex kids will do nothing because the King/Queen could revoke their titles at any time anyway so turning to the Court isn't going to help them.

My point is, since Louise isn't styled as HRH or princess by the pleasure of the Queen, then in fact she is not a princess.
Why am I having a difficult time with this?

That's your point of view, and I respect it. I happen to think that since Letters Patent 1917 are still in force, and there has been no actual announcement of revoking the titles for the Wessex children, the latter still remain British Princes and Princesses.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

The use of Letters Patent to grant or revoke the title of Prince/ss is a settled matter of law?

So at the Queen mum's funeral she wasn't 'legally' Princess Elizabeth?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

This style "is purely a courtesy and the holders of that title remain commoners until they are raised to the Peerage, the only exception being the eldest son of the Sovereign who at birth or, as in the case of Prince Charles, at his mother's accession to the Throne, immediately becomes Duke of Cornwall" (H. Austin Strutt, assistant under-secretary of state, in a memo dated June 17th, 1954 prepared for the Home Secretary; HO 286/50). See also Garter's statement that "the title of Prince is (in this country) normally a courtesy title indicating certain degrees of relationship to the Sovereign and having no power to govern."

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain

In the above statement from Mr Strutt, Assistant Under-Secretary of State, he states that 'Prince' is a courtesy title

 

[branchg]

The use of Letters Patent to grant or revoke the title of Prince/ss is a settled matter of law?

So at the Queen mum's funeral she wasn't 'legally' Princess Elizabeth?

Letters Patent are necessary to confirm changes to prior Letters Patent which govern the criteria for royal rank. The Queen Mother automatically became a Princess upon marriage in 1923, so the use of her Christian name was a courtesy from The Queen to honour her mother.

James and Louise automatically are entitled to royal rank under the 1917 Letters Patent, but The Queen announced before their parents married that she agreed their future children would be styled as the children of a Peer. Technically, her announcement is sufficient notice of her Will as fount of honour, so they are not Prince/Princess at this time.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Thanks for the reply branchg. What is your opinion on Mr Strutt's view that the title of Prince/ss is a courtesy title within the UK?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain

The view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"

The opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"

I take this to mean that in particular circumstances (such as the Wessex children) the Queen can change styles and titles without LP or am I reading this wrong?

 

[branchg]

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain

The view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"

The opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"

I take this to mean that in particular circumstances (such as the Wessex children) the Queen can change styles and titles without LP or am I reading this wrong?

Well, the Wessex situation is a bit ambiguous from a legal standpoint since The Queen did not follow up her initial announcement with Letters Patent once Louise was born. Technically, both Louise and James remain HRH because legally they are automatically entitled to it.

The Queen's announcement certainly was sufficient notice of her Will that they should use the styles of children of a Peer, but I do not believe that is binding unless new Letters Patent are issued.

 

[branchg]

Thanks for the reply branchg. What is your opinion on Mr Strutt's view that the title of Prince/ss is a courtesy title within the UK?

It is unquestionably a courtesy title signifying place and precedence to the Crown and a royal style. But they are legally commoners unless created Peers of the Realm or they become The Sovereign.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

It is unquestionably a courtesy title signifying place and precedence to the Crown and a royal style. But they are legally commoners unless created Peers of the Realm or they become The Sovereign.

Okay, thanks. What I'm having a difficult time understanding is, when someone states that Princess Alice of Gloucester was using the title of princess as a courtesy, (and not a 'real' princess) it seems to me that no matter if your born a princess or are created one by the Queen, both are courtesies.
I can't find any source that says Letters Patent are needed to create or revoke the title of prince/ss.
I found lots of information that peerages must be created by LP because they are substantive titles that can only be revoked or altered by parliament but I can't find information that this is the case for the courtesy title of prince/ss

Because what I'm getting at is if the Queen can make someone a princess without Letters Patent, than it seems to me she can revoke the title (the Wessex children) without LP?

 

[branchg]

Okay, thanks. What I'm having a difficult time understanding is, when someone states that Princess Alice of Gloucester was using the title of princess as a courtesy, (and not a 'real' princess) it seems to me that no matter if your born a princess or are created one by the Queen, both are courtesies.
I can't find any source that says Letters Patent are needed to create or revoke the title of prince/ss.
I found lots of information that peerages must be created by LP because they are substantive titles that can only be revoked or altered by parliament but I can't find information that this is the case for the courtesy title of prince/ss

Because what I'm getting at is if the Queen can make someone a princess without Letters Patent, than it seems to me she can revoke the title (the Wessex children) without LP?

It is a style and status granted to those in close succession to the throne at birth and is regulated by Letters Patent in order to define the criteria. Wives of sons and male-line grandsons enjoy it by virtue of marriage and retain their status if widowed.

The Sovereign is the fount of all honours and source of all ennoblement as the Crown, so they can grant or withhold royal rank solely within their prerogative. James and Louise are being styled as the children of a Peer because The Queen agreed to allow it. Alice remained The Princess Henry as a widow, but was granted the courtesy of using the style with her Christian name as the mother of a male-line grandson of George V and Royal Duke.

 

[BelleMia]

The intent was to start downsizing the number of Royal Highnesses in the royal family, something that has been discussed for years among The Queen, Prince Philip and their children. Edward and Sophie are far from the throne and the chance of their children succeeding is almost zero. So, why should they carry the burden of HRH?

The main obstacle to carrying out reform now is The Duke of York, who is adamantly opposed to his daughters losing their royal rank and title. But once The Queen dies, it is very likely Charles will issue new letters patent replacing the 1917 Letters Patent criteria of holding royal rank. This would mean Beatrice, Eugenie, James and Louise would all be styled as the children of a Duke. The Princess Royal's children are commoners and carry no titles.

Is is very unlikely Charles is going to change the Letters Patent or even think about it. And even if he did it would only change the status of coming children it would not effect any living title holders.

Also the Queen could have changed it but not only did she not she only allowed Edward to have his children referred to as Lord/Lady she did not allow their actual ranks to be changed and they can retain their HRH at anytime they wish

 

[BelleMia]

Many people posting are of the opinion that unless the Queen was to issue new Letters Patent to specifically take away the Wessex children's royal styles and titles , then they are still "officially" HRH and Prince/ess but the article I linked to states that LPs are just one of several ways to express HM's pleasure and that in fact the BP press release removed their royal titles without the need for LPs.

Both Sophie and Edward have stated that their children can retain their HRH when they become of age if they choose too and further this effects no future HRHs

 

[BelleMia]

If and when Edward inherits the title Duke of Edinburgh, Lady Louise's title remains the same - she will still be Lady Louise Windsor. James, however, will most likely be styled Earl of Wessex and it will be the new secondary title to the Duke of Edinburgh, with James' son being Visount Severn. Unless, however, James will use the secondary title currently for the Duke of Edinburgh, which is the Earl of Merioneth I think. Louise, however, will always be Lady Louise as woman cannot inherit Earldom and Dukedoms.

I think with the new law regarding girls and the throne we will also see the rule regarding girls inheriting titles will change as well.

And of course Lady Louisa can assume her HRH at 18 - that is how her parents set it up and Edward has said as much.

 

[NGalitzine]

Both Sophie and Edward have stated that their children can retain their HRH when they become of age if they choose too and further this effects no future HRHs

Can you provide a source/link to prove that statement? I have never read of them ever commenting on their childrens titles beyond the initial statement from BP at the time of their marriage.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Can you provide a source/link to prove that statement? I have never read of them ever commenting on their childrens titles beyond the initial statement from BP at the time of their marriage.

I too have read a statement to this effect from Sophie, but I can't tell you where or when.