New Titles for the Wessexes

[Amabel2]

I said it.  I said that a member of another royal forum wrote to BP some few years ago and asked about the question of the children's titles, and was told that they were NOT "HRH but not using it", that they actually WERE just Lord Severn and Lady Louise. It was later than this that Sophie told a journalist that they were holding the style of HRH but could choose whether to use or not use it when they were 18.
Obviously this is contradictory but I'm taking it that in 1999, the queen agreed to them just being Lord and Lady, and did not envisage them becoming known as Prince/sses, but that over the years, public opinion softened and the queen's will was that they could use the titles later on if they wanted to, when they were adults.  However I suspect that it was pretty unlikely that they would do so, and they would continue as Lord and lady for life.

[TLLK]

IMO some of the discussion over the children's use of "HRH Prince/Princess" came from Sophie's interview in 2020 when the topic of Louise and James' futures came up. So while the Queen did issue the announcement in 1999 prior to Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones' wedding, perhaps there was a private understanding between the monarch and the couple that perhaps their children could use them one day. I doubt that Sophie would have made the inference that the children could possibly use them without her late mother-in-law's blessing.

Sophie Countess of Wessex say children unlikely to use HRH titles

The Countess of Wessex has opened up about her and husband Prince Edward's parenting choices, giving a real insight into their family life.

Mum to Lady Louise Windsor, 16, and James, Viscount Severn, 12, the royal told The Sunday Times Magazine all about the family expectations for the children's futures and how they operate as a family unit.

?We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,? she told the magazine. ?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.?

[HistoryGirl2]

Thanks, @TLLK! I thought I was going a bit crazy there for a second lol they are, and have always been, a prince and a princess and the family simply chose not to style them as such. I think a bit of the confusion here is what someone is styled and what someone actually is.

[TLLK]

You're welcome @HistoryGirl2. Honestly, I don't see either of them choosing to use the royal titles. They're being raised with the expectation that they'll have careers outside of the royal sphere but we'll likely see them at family related events in the future just as we saw many relatives at  the various events associated with QEII's funeral. There will likely be some coverage when Louise graduates from St. Andrew's etc..

[HistoryGirl2]

^Agreed. It really wouldn?t make any sense for them to start using them now. I?m sure they?re fully expecting to work for a living and having an HRH can complicate matters more than help in that environment. I think they?ve been raised to know who they are and where they come from but not let it be the end all be all of who they are as people.

[Amabel2]

Thanks, @TLLK! I thought I was going a bit crazy there for a second lol they are, and have always been, a prince and a princess and the family simply chose not to style them as such. I think a bit of the confusion here is what someone is styled and what someone actually is.

Well according to Buck Palace that was NOT the case.  They were simply the children of an earl, not Prince and Princess. I think that that was what was planned in 1999, and over time, the RF crept back to greater popularity and the queen may have felt that IF the kids wanted to be known as Prince etc, it would be accepted by the public.  However, IMO the children dont want it and will remain as Lord and Lady for their lives.

[TLLK]

Louise will remain as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor much like the daughters of the Dukes of Kent (Lady Helen Taylor) and Gloucester (LadyDavina Windsor and Lady Rose Gilman) . However James is now using his father's subsidiary title of Earl of Wessex much like the eldest/only sons of the Dukes of Kent (Earl of St. Andrews) and Gloucester (Earl of Gloucester) do now.

[Amabel2]

Louise will remain as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor much like the daughters of the Dukes of Kent (Lady Helen Taylor) and Gloucester (LadyDavina Windsor and Lady Rose Gilman) . However James is now using his father's subsidiary title of Earl of Wessex much like the eldest/only sons of the Dukes of Kent (Earl of St. Andrews) and Gloucester (Earl of Gloucester) do now.

the son of the D of Gloucester is the earl of Ulster... another title that might one day be a problem.

[TLLK]

@Amabel2 -Yes you are correct he is the Earl of Ulster. Sorry it's "spring forward" day in much of the U.S. where we move the clocks forward one hour, so I'm a little sleep deprived.

[Amabel2]

@Amabel2 -Yes you are correct he is the Earl of Ulster. Sorry it's "spring forward" day in much of the U.S. where we move the clocks forward one hour, so I'm a little sleep deprived.

oh yes I hate that too.  I wonder if they will drop that title some day

[HistoryGirl2]

Well according to Buck Palace that was NOT the case.  They were simply the children of an earl, not Prince and Princess. I think that that was what was planned in 1999, and over time, the RF crept back to greater popularity and the queen may have felt that IF the kids wanted to be known as Prince etc, it would be accepted by the public.  However, IMO the children dont want it and will remain as Lord and Lady for their lives.

Until you can find a source to justify this, I think I?ll just believe the letters patent and Sophie?s own words.

[wannable]

Exactly.

[Amabel2]

Until you can find a source to justify this, I think I?ll just believe the letters patent and Sophie?s own words.

Excuse me? I hope you are not doubting what I am saying.  I believe the lady at the Forum who got a letter from BP.  Why should she make it up? It was years ago and its only in 2020, I think, that Sophie brought up the issue and said that th children were allowed to choose if they would be HRH or not.  It was discussed at the Royal forum because it WAS contradictory to what the BP staff had said years before.  As for Letters Patent, I think it was simply announced that it was the queen's will that the children should be Lord and Lady, ie styled as the children of an earl....and the title was, like most titles, to be inherited by heirs male.. so James, when he was born, was the heir to the earldom.

[Amabel2]

managed to find the LP, and it states 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.
So that IMO makes it pretty clear that the children were only titled as the children of an earl and were not to have the style of HRH.

[HistoryGirl2]

Can you please provide the link for where it says this? No one is in any doubt that they aren?t styled as HRH. That was a choice that their parents made when they were born that the Queen supported. That doesn?t mean they aren?t actually or that they didn?t have the right to. I have not seen anything that proves the contrary, but if you do have proof that BP says they aren?t, I would like to see it because the basis for my view is the 1917 letters patent decreed by George V. I have no idea about what anybody wrote about in any forum, but if you can show me where you?re seeing this, I can understand where you?re basing this off of.

If that person?s word is all you?re basing your opinion on, that?s fine, but I don?t tend to take someone?s word for it.

[Amabel2]

Sorry I'm not great with computers, but I found the LP about Ed and Sophie, and it states exactly what I said in that last post.  And the lady on the Forum stated that BP had said they were the children of an earl, NOT HRHs. If the queen states that they are styled as the children of an earl, that's what they are styled as, not HRHs who are just using Lord and lady.I think if the queen says they are NOT Given the style HRH then they are not given that style, IM sorry that you seem to be doubting what I am saying. Im not in the habit of having to keep on explaining myself .
Im sorry that you refuse to accept that someone on another forum should say this, why would she make it up?

[HistoryGirl2]

I can?t speak to why other people might or might not do something. If you feel she was telling the truth, that?s fine. But everything I?ve seen says they are a prince and princess that are just styled as the children of an earl because of a choice their family made, so that?s what I?m sticking with moving forward.

[Amabel2]

Have a look at the Letters Patent, where I copied the exact wrods about their titles. 

[HistoryGirl2]

I have looked at the announcement. It states that the children would be styled as the children of an earl. What someone is styled usually coincides with their official titles, but not always. A style is simply a way of addressing someone. Just because someone is not styled as as a prince or princess doesn?t mean they aren?t one.

If they weren?t HRHs, Sophie?s statement would be false. They?d have to wait for the king to bestow that title upon them. They don?t need to and never did. They would just style themselves according with the titles that they have the right to use. They haven?t done because it clearly is not that important to them.

[Curryong]

If I can just put my little bit in here. I am a member of that other forum and remember the debate that went on there in about 2014 as to whether Edward and Sophie?s children were HRHs or not. After it went raging on, a particular poster (who is very meticulous, is a retired teacher and does all the BRF royal engagement numbers monthly for the Forum) said she would write to BP and ask whether Louise and James were HRH?s (and therefore Prince and Princess) or not. She duly did so and after a few weeks she received a reply from BP that she posted on this particular thread which from memory dealt exclusively with the styling and titles of British royals, so it was quite specific.

The answer from BP was that Louise and James are not Prince and Princess but are styled as the children of an Earl. The correspondent was from the Lord Chamberlain?s office from memory but I wouldn?t put my life savings on it. This was a long time ago! He pointed to the announcement made at the time of Edward and Sophie?s wedding, which, as we know stated that Edward and Sophie?s children would be styled as the offspring of Earls, the title Edward had just received.

As this seemed to settle it, everybody on the thread settled down, and the question seemed done. Then came Sophie?s interview with the magazine, where she put the cat among the pigeons on the Forum with her remarks about Louise and James deciding when they were 18 as to whether they would take on being HRHs Princess/Prince. So the debate was on again, though not so fierce.

Of course Sophie?s remarks are contradictory to the LPs issued by the Queen at the time of the marriage. And actually that poster wrote only a few days ago that she no longer trusts BP correspondence!

My own guess is that as the Wessex family became exceptionally close to HM the Queen and PP in their old age, Sophie was probably told by her late mother in law that she would issue new LPs when Louise reached eighteen, giving both children the option of being styled as a Prince and Princess if she and her parents wished it. She didn?t live to see that however, and, (at least before 2015) she did not inform any officials at BP of what was presumably intended, 

It?s all pretty moot anyway, if she did. We don?t know what James will decide but Louise has elected to remain a Lady for the time being (and in fact it would be a little weird if they both decided in adult life to take it up in the future!) I am now wondering if Louise deciding in the way she has had any bearing on Charles handing over the Edinburgh title. 

[TLLK]

I too recall the BP letter sent by the Big Forum's very meticulous poster that @Curryong referred to in her post.

I also happen to agree with her that QEII did  mention something to Sophie and presumably Edward about Louise and James becoming HRH Prince/Princess when they reached adulthood. I truly don't believe that Sophie would EVER say or do anything without her late MIL's blessing. However as @Curryong pointed out, it is moot now and the Edinburgh family seems entirely comfortable and content to leave things "as is."

[HistoryGirl2]

But Sophie said the children have them, not that they will get the chance to have them. Is she lying? Does someone have a link to the letter from BP? I really do want to see what is said because a style does not necessarily equate to all titles that a person holds. It would be inappropriate to style someone as an HRH if that?s not the style they chose. Because technically, Meghan is an HRH, but she?s not styled as such since she left the public side of the RF, but she is still an HRH.

I guess what I?m asking is that I wasn?t aware that a monarch had to state that the grandchildren through the main line was a prince or princess. They just were. So, that would require the monarch to say that those titles were being taken from them because they?re not bestowed. They just are. All I?ve seen is that they agreed to be styled as children of an earl, not that they were losing their titles of prince and princess.

And if the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line do need the monarch to be gain that title, then Charles had to have done so for Lilibet and Archie, so as to not be automatic.

[Curryong]

The Letters Patent, dated November 30, 1917, stated that ?the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour?.

Above is the Letters Patent from George V in 1917.

It is clear if you look at this that Sophie is not lying. And the will of the Sovereign as to how his descendants are to be titled, styled and addressed can come through such ways as merely stating such, ref the announcement of William as Prince of Wales in Charles?s first TV appearance as King, as well as by LPs.

What has completely messed up the situation with the Wessexes was that proclamation at the time of the wedding. It seems perfectly clear in that statement that it was Edward and Sophie?s wish that their future children should be styled (that is addressed by) as the children of an Earl. And therefore the Queen by agreement and public proclamation made it so.

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!

[HistoryGirl2]

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

[Curryong]

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

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.