New Titles for the Wessexes

[HistoryGirl2]

You?re welcome. If you want some other clarifications,  that other forum has a thread ?Titles of The Edinburgh Children?. It?s discussed intermittently on there especially in the #170s plus posts.

:thumbsup:

[Princess Cassandra]

I'm very happy about this, and clearly, the new Duke of E is, as well.

[Amabel2]

Whew, that?s complicated. Thank you so much for the clarification, @Curryong!

It is not that complicated.  In 1999 the queen issued letters patent, stating that they would be Lady Female Name and Vct Severn etc..  During the intervening years, as the RF's popularity went back to normal, the queen changed her mind and felt that if the children wanted to be Prince etc, she would like it to happen and it was her Will that they should have the choice.  Perhaps she would have issued new LPs when Louise and J were older, but she herself was getting on and may not have sorted it out. However I find it very annoying that someone should doubt what I said in this way.  I do not lie and I do not say something if Im not as clear as I can reasoanbly be, that it is true.

[Amabel2]

From that moment on it appears that everyone, including people working in offices at BP, believed that Louise and James were not Princess/Prince or HRHs AT ALL. This was reinforced by the letter sent to the poster at TRFs. I remember that letter quite clearly and it stated plainly that Louise and James were NOT HRHs and were NOT Prince or Princess. It was clear that official believed it. He did not just say ?The Earl and Countess have chosen to have their children styled as an Earl?s children?, but said specifically that the HRHs and titles of Prince and Princess were not options.

Now, that correspondent was clearly wrong, (see above for George V) no matter what he sincerely believed at the time. Perhaps Sophie and Edward wanted that at the time of their wedding. I don?t know. As I said in my previous post, as the years passed, maybe the Wessex parents? views changed and the Queen discussed it with them and said that if they all wished she would issue patents to make it all clear, and that Louise and James could resume being a Prince and Princess if they wished, and be titled as such, at the age of eighteen. Edward and Sophie made it clear I think, that their children would make their own minds up at eighteen or older.

The arguments and debates for and against them being HRHs etc are all there in various threads at The Royal Forums (sorry mods, for mentioning another forum here) and, as far as I remember the debate went on prior to 2015. The poster is still there there who wrote to BP. Peruse the Wessex threads first, then the styles and titles threads. Or there?s always the option of writing to BP yourself and settling this darn conundrum once and for all!

I think its quite obvious that in 1999, the queen made it known as her wish that the childre would be Lord Severn, Lady X MW, or Hon X MW if there was a younger boy. over time, she may have changed her mind and felt that it was not fair to the Wessex children not to have the choice, but she was willing ot leave it to the children to decide at the age of 18, if they wanted that rank.  BUt they did not have it in 1999. By rights, she would probably have been better to issue new LPs, but if the kids did not want to become HRH, it would be pointless to do that.  In the end it is part of the queen's prerogative to decide who is HRH... she took that style away from Diana and Sarah after the divorces, and IMO she made it clear in 1999 that her WIll was that she was not givin them HRH at that time.

[HistoryGirl2]

I'm very happy about this, and clearly, the new Duke of E is, as well.

Yes, and I liked that he did it on his birthday, too.

[Curryong]

I think its quite obvious that in 1999, the queen made it known as her wish that the childre would be Lord Severn, Lady X MW, or Hon X MW if there was a younger boy. over time, she may have changed her mind and felt that it was not fair to the Wessex children not to have the choice, but she was willing ot leave it to the children to decide at the age of 18, if they wanted that rank.  BUt they did not have it in 1999. By rights, she would probably have been better to issue new LPs, but if the kids did not want to become HRH, it would be pointless to do that.  In the end it is part of the queen's prerogative to decide who is HRH... she took that style away from Diana and Sarah after the divorces, and IMO she made it clear in 1999 that her WIll was that she was not givin them HRH at that time.

.

Both of Edward and Sophie's children were automatically at birth HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V.

Neither were born in 1999. They were to be styled as the children of an Earl at the 1999 request of their parents, but this was simply a declaration, not a change in title or rank.

The Queen did not issue any LPs in 1999, nor after the birth of Louise nor James.

Therefore the 1917 George V convention still held and holds today. It is simply that Louise has chosen not to take up the HRH and Princess title.

[Amabel2]

sorry I thought it was obvious that I meant that their future childnre would have the style of Lord Severn etc. We know they weren't born in 1999.  I think that the LP clearly states that they were NOT going to have the rank and style of HRH and Prince, and it is backed up by a letter from BP. 

[HistoryGirl2]

I think there?s a lot of room for confusion here, so that?s why Sophie?s statement caused a ruckus. Maybe she was mistaken? I?m not really sure.

But the 1999 statement from BP says that the children of the then Earl would not have the *style* of HRH. A style is simply a form of address. It?s not a title or rank. It?s just how you would formally address someone at an event or a letter. So, currently the Sussexes are not publicly styled as Their Royal Highnesses at the request of BP, but they are still HRHs, the title of prince and wife of prince have not been revoked.

*This is my understanding* but maybe I?m reading way too much in the definition of a title and a style.

And again, maybe Sophie was wrong, not really sure. What I do know is that Sophie?s statement cannot be correct if the 1999 announcement actually took away their HRHs because the Queen would then have to have made another declaration granting them those titles.

My understanding is that the point of a hereditary monarchy is that it?s hereditary, no action need be done on certain things. If I understand correctly (far cry, there) William was automatically His Royal Highness when he was born because he was the son of the Prince of Wales. His children, however, had to be made HRHs by the Queen because as great grandchildren of the current monarch, per George V?s LP, they were not automatically granted hereditary HRHs.

Same with Princess Anne?s children. At the time, she had to be asked whether to give them titles because the law did not allow that to be automatic. And for something that?s automatic, the parents or the individual themselves has to ask the monarch for a change. So, Edward and Sophie asked that their children not be addressed as HRHs, but that didn?t necessarily mean that they weren?t? Reading that announcement to me reads like, ?Our children are to be publicly addressed as the children of an Earl,? not ?Our children aren?t actually their royal highnesses.?

[Amabel2]

Ed adn Sophie didn't just ask.  They could have simply said when their first child was born that they just wanted her to be called Lady Louise or even Miss Louise. Just as H and Meghan did when Archie was born, they said that they wanted him to be known as Master Archie.
Or the queen could have said that since her son and D in law wanted informality, the chldren would be known in the present as Lady and Lord.
With Ed and Sophie, that was'tnt what happened.  As far as I can see, in the Letters Patent creating Ed's title, the queen expressed HER wish that any children should not be HRH but should be known as the children of an earl. THe queen has the power to grant HRH or remove, its usually done by Letters Patent but it can be done by the announcement of the queens will.  Charles did not issue LP formally to make William POW the day after he became King but he did announce his wish that William would be POW and Will was styled as POW from then onwards.
I don't really know why Sophie brought up the issue, since I seriously doubt that either of her children want to be HRH... but she did so.  I think the queen would have liked for her younger grandchildren to have that rank. She was an old lady and probably could not understand why anyone would be unwilling to use a title or style if it was available. so it was probably discussed in the family and agreed that if Louise or James wanted to be HRH, they could assume that style when they turned 18.  If either of them wanted it, it would probably simply have been announced as the queen's or Kings wish.

[HistoryGirl2]

Right. So if the HRH was removed, where is the LP/announcement stating that the styles and associated titles that allow those styles were reinstated?

But Prince of Wales is a title, not just a style. He had to make William POW because that?s not automatic. I could be wrong, but I don?t believe there?s any law stating that the son of the monarch is automatically conferred the title of Prince of Wales. It?s just been tradition since the time of Edward II. So William was not automatically POW just because he was styled as such out of curtesy. He did eventually have to announce William as POW, which I believe was done recently.

The same should hold in the opposite direction too. Just because someone is not styled as something doesn?t mean they don?t actually hold it.

That seems to be what happened here. The Queen dictated that the children would not be styled as HRHs not that they weren?t actually. A style is a form of address not an establishment of a title or a revocation of one.

[HistoryGirl2]

My main reasoning for thinking this is that Sophie said what she said. I just don?t think she?s the type of person who would say something like that if she didn?t know it to be true.

[Amabel2]

Right. So if the HRH was removed, where is the LP/announcement stating that the styles and associated titles that allow those styles were reinstated?

But Prince of Wales is a title, not just a style. He had to make William POW because that?s not automatic. I could be wrong, but I don?t believe there?s any law stating that the son of the monarch is automatically conferred the title of Prince of Wales. It?s just been tradition since the time of Edward II. So William was not automatically POW just because he was styled as such out of curtesy. He did eventually have to announce William as POW, which I believe was done recently.

The same should hold in the opposite direction too. Just because someone is not styled as something doesn?t mean they don?t actually hold it.

That seems to be what happened here. The Queen dictated that the children would not be styled as HRHs not that they weren?t actually. A style is a form of address not an establishment of a title or a revocation of one.

well Im not styled as the queen so maybe i could be the queen. the point about Charles and William was that Charles could make him POW just by saying so.  He did formalise it, but it took months before he did so. William was made POW when Charles announced it as his Will. And the queen in her Letters Patent, made it clear that the children of the Wessex marriage did not have HRH, but rather Lord and Lady, as styles.  I think it is obvious that over time, as the RF became relatively popular again, the queen and perhaps the Wessexes felt that it woudl be nice if the 2 children could be HRH and be known as Prince James and Pss Louise, but they did NOT make a formal announcement of this anyway.  Quite obviously, if James decided he wanted to be known as HRH P James, he could do so when he turned 18, but in all honesty I dont think that he would want it and even mroe, I dont think it would go down all that well with the public.  I think that the public is increasingly cool to there being a lot of HRHs going around. If James were to pop up and say he wanted to be P James, I think there woudl be fair bit of muttering, Oh God another one that wants us to bow to him... or Another skiver on the public purse.
It doesn't matter that James doesn't get any money from the public purse, it is how it looks, that the RF is stuffed iwth people with useless titles who are not really needed as working royals.

[Amabel2]

I dont know if you know but there are discussions on the other RF, and some people felt that until Charles agreed to Arch and Lilibet having the titles of P and Pss, they were not Prince and Princess.
I dont agree. I think that they were HRH's from the time that Charles became king, BUT Charles could announce it as his wish, or produce Letters patent, stating that Arch and Lilie were NOT HRH or Prince/ss and there would be nothing that anyone could do about that, because the king has the right to give out or take away HRH's.
If he had wanted to take away their titles and style, he coudl have done so officially, the day after he became king and pouf they would be gone. so equally the queen could take away Diana's HRH or the HRH of Edwards potential children.

[HistoryGirl2]

Okay, agree to disagree.  :shake:

[Amabel2]

Ok,there are disputes about these things, but times change.  Hence Charles gave Ed the title of DUke but made it for life only.  THat would not have happened under the queen's reign.

[HistoryGirl2]

Yep, that?s one thing I do like about it. It?s really showing the evolution of the monarchy. I think Charles has been waiting so long to do these very things. It helps that a) he didn?t have as many children as the Queen and b) his second son decided to leave the monarchy.

Edward will get to have his title during his lifetime and then whoever is king when he passes will decide who it goes to next. I did see that it might go to one of William?s sons. Would make sense. Or just have it revert back to the Crown for use at another time.

[Amabel2]

I dont think that Harry's walk out did Charles any good.  He has lost a title to someone who will just use it to make money and he's had all the accusations of racism etc.  PLUS he's had this problem with the children and what titles they should have. I feel that if he HAD wanted to cut down further on HRH's, and taken them away from the Suss children there would have been such a fuss form the USA.

And he has lost 2 youngish workers for the RF that he had probably been planning on having for life. 
However I think that given how the pair have turned out it IS better that they should be out of the RF, and never return.  but it could have been possible, had Harry and Meg not been so keen ot make money, for them to leave royal work without a major rift and a feud with the UK based royals. I wonder if CHARLES realised how bitter his second son was against WIlliam. 
I think that most of us have been surprised when Harry published SPARE  to see how much being the spare ate away at him, and given that Charles probalby didnt spend as much time with him, I wonder if he understood that his son was angry and bitter on this issue. 

[HistoryGirl2]

I?m sure it came as a shock even if he might have had inklings. I think Charles will still have help from Edward and Sophie, and Anne seems like someone who?s going to go for as long as humanly possible. The Wales children will grow older and Kate can spend more time on duties. And then eventually, William will likely be king.

Harry?s absence will be felt a little more when William becomes king. The Queen had her children helping her and Charles will have two of his siblings, William will really only have his children.

I think it was good to give Edward and Sophie a higher title, even if the Queen always meant for that to happen. It?ll add more exposure to them and their work.

[Amabel2]

Harry?s absence will be felt a little more when William becomes king. The Queen had her children helping her and Charles will have two of his siblings, William will really only have his children.

I think it was good to give Edward and Sophie a higher title, even if the Queen always meant for that to happen. It?ll add more exposure to them and their work.

hum.  They have never been all THAT popular... albeit They've taken on a decet amount of work, and since H's departure the remaining Royals, except Andrew, look good by comparison. Edward is problaby more popular as a reminder of his father than in himself.

[HistoryGirl2]

Yeah, they?ve always been in the background mostly. I hope that changes though, they work hard and I?d like to see the work they do highlighted.

[Amabel2]

I think it is more that the scandals of Andrew and Harry, in thier different ways have made the remaining royals, who stayed  and tried to keep things going during Covid, look good. but at a cost to Charles.

[HistoryGirl2]

It has had that effect. But the RF can?t do anymore than they have done.

[Amabel2]

There are things they could do, but Charles is cautious.  He would not like to take away HRH from Andrew and Harry, even though both have behaved badly.  But to tell the truth I think it would go down well if he did.  But it just isn't something that Charles would do.

[LouisFerdinand]

The Royal Monograms of The Earl and Countess of Wessex   
Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex | Charles and diana, Monogram, Countess