Hi - I'm returning to Royal Insight after quite a few years - 5 I think?
Have the Duke/Duchess of Edinburgh titles been bestowed upon the Wessexes yet? I did not think they had. On this forum I see the names have changed but the news reports still refer to them as Duke/Duchess Wessex?
Hiya DaFluff! I got dragged back(screaming and kicking) by TLLK. She was rather insistant. And mean!
Nice to see you.
No word yet about the Edinburgh title. I hope soon. Edward and Sophie deserve it.
I think the title is a bit of a hope for the future.
I hope the Wessexes get the Edinburgh title before the Coronation. I couldn?t see the rhyme and reason behind that imo ?fishing expedition? that appeared in the Press a few months ago where it was inferred that Edward might not get the Dukedom.
If the impetus came from CH at the time (which it may indeed have) then the conclusion came back loud and clear. The public, even the Press, were a bit puzzled by the story and believed that what had been wished for by Prince Philip and the Queen should be carried out. Was BP/CH a bit hesitant about further honours being strewn about in the wake of the Queen?s demise or was something else afoot in Charles?s mind? It was odd.
I?ve always said that when the Queen and Prince Philip announced that they wished Edward to get the Dukedom neither of them expected to live to be near a hundred years old. Edward is now in his fifties and has been an Earl in comparison to his brother Andrew and nephews William and Harry for decades now. It would be a nice gesture for Charles to hand the Dukedom over before the end of this year so no more years pass and Edward can be a Duke at his brother?s Coronation.
Quote from: Macrobug67 on September 20, 2022, 02:04:12 AM
Hiya DaFluff! I got dragged back(screaming and kicking) by TLLK. She was rather insistant. And mean!
Nice to see you.
No word yet about the Edinburgh title. I hope soon. Edward and Sophie deserve it.
I think the title is a bit of a hope for the future.
Insistent...maybe. MEAN :windsor: Recollections vary. :laugh:
I?m still traumatized.
\Its hardly a big deal. I imagine Charles will do it when he can, but Edward has managed to survive as Earl of Wessex for 20 odd years. Charles has a lot of stuff to get on with..
It was the queens' wish, but I'm sure she would understand that there are other priorities at times.
@Amabel2 -I believe that any announcements regarding titles and working status for the working members of the BRF will be taken care of after the official mourning period for the family. I believe that there's ten more days for the family's mourning.
The Wessexes like the rest of the family need an opportunity to settle back into their lives. Nearly every working member of the family has to reschedule their cancelled engagements and overseas visits if possible.
Probably Charles will give Ed the title within the next year, if he intends to do it. But from what Ed said at some interview in the last few years, he (Edw) does not seem all that pushed about having the Edinburgh title anyway, he referred to it as a pipe dream of his father's...
However, if Charles wishes to go ahead and give E the title as the queen wished, it will probably happen within the next year... but who knows? Maybe he may feel that to give a Scottish title isnt very tactful. or maybe he might have another reason for not wnating to give Ed that dukedom. honeslty my feeling is that the giving an earldom to a younger son wasn't a bad idea... but its up to Charles really. and Edward.
Perhaps revert the board name until it actually happens.
Strong rumor: After the coronation of HMKCIII.
much more likely to be before. They have almost a year to do it and it only takes 5 mins.
Maybe, the rumour (all this after the coronation) is grouped rather than individual or paired or different subjects, IOW Edward Sophie, Sussexes children, including a parliamentary discussion of removing titles.
Allegedly the King will wait until then, whilst tackling much more important crown estate (all slimming down wherever long term viable, workable and feasible, it isn't a question of total breakdown of the 'economy' to get rid of something for example then brought back, it's a question of getting rid of something to not have to bring it back, a well thought matter per item, no one is perfect, sometimes we get rid of something, and it's brought back. He is surrounded by great financial and practical people) followed by national issues combined with Foreign (and Trade) Offices. The PPOW's will take the secondary best of both items (as has always been with the Monarch and the heir, in history)
Time will tell.
Are Edward and Sophie using the full title of The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Forfar?
My understanding is that Forfar is only used when the Wessexes are in Scotland, just like the rest of the senior (male) royals in the BRF use their secondary Ducal titles, which are almost always Scottish ones. As we?ve discussed here before, the late Queen and PP expected Edward to be Duke of Edinburgh long before he was in his mid fifties, so the Queen gave him Forfar as an extra Earldom for use north of the border when it became clear that she would be a very long-lived monarch.
Charles 'TEARS UP Queen's wedding day pledge to make Prince Edward the Duke of Edinburgh': Palace sources say Earl of Wessex WON'T get his late father's title 'because it would pass down to his son James and ruin King's hopes for slimmed-down monarchy'
The new King is set to tear up the pledge handed to Prince Edward by the Queen and Prince Philip in 1999
'It wouldn't make sense to make the Earl the Duke of Edinburgh' as the King plans a 'slim down', a source said
That also means Sophie Wessex misses out on becoming Duchess of Edinburgh, breaking wedding promise
A Buckingham Palace spokesman tonight declined to comment on the reported U-turn
Richard Eden
@richardaeden
#KingCharles tears up his parents' promise to Prince Edward.
Evidence for this? Palace sources dont mean anything.
Media exerting pressure?!
Anyway, IMO if by April 2026 if there is no upgrade from Earl to Duke, I'd say it is panned. That's giving 5 years from the death of Prince Philip.
what pressure could be exerted by the Media? I doubt if Charles will wait that long, anyway. I think that there is doubt in the RF about the Edinburgh title and that Edward is not all that bothered about getting it. He may feel that there are big shoes to feill or there may be a feeling that a Scottish Royal dukedom wont go down well in Scotland.
Quote from: wannable on November 19, 2022, 03:26:03 PM
Charles 'TEARS UP Queen's wedding day pledge to make Prince Edward the Duke of Edinburgh': Palace sources say Earl of Wessex WON'T get his late father's title 'because it would pass down to his son James and ruin King's hopes for slimmed-down monarchy'
The new King is set to tear up the pledge handed to Prince Edward by the Queen and Prince Philip in 1999
'It wouldn't make sense to make the Earl the Duke of Edinburgh' as the King plans a 'slim down', a source said
That also means Sophie Wessex misses out on becoming Duchess of Edinburgh, breaking wedding promise
A Buckingham Palace spokesman tonight declined to comment on the reported U-turn
Richard Eden
@richardaeden
#KingCharles tears up his parents' promise to Prince Edward.
I?m sorry, but if the above is really what Richard Eden believes then he is believing absolute hogwash. The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are (for the time being) working royals. When has it ever been stated or believed that Charles or the late Queen expected that their eldest sons and heirs would join the roster of working royals? (And btw, the Dukedom of Gloucester is a darn sight older than any of the other royal dukedoms, including Edinburgh. It?s a shame, for historical reasons that this dukedom is going away from the RF.)
Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy for economic and PR reasons, but discouraging James from inheriting the Dukedom wouldn't come into it. My opinion is that he either has decided for his own emotional reasons that Papa?s title should remain with his dead father, or, that a dukedom of Edinburgh might well become an embarrassment for the RF and especially for himself and William as King should Scotland break away in the future.
Remember, Edward is still a man in his fifties. He could live for another forty years or more with a Dukedom that could cause offence over the border. We don?t know whether in another forty years even the title of Prince of Wales might cause the same reactions in Wales.
So like I said, there may be a mixture of reasons, sentimental and practical behind the decision not to award the Dukedom yet. And really, for all we know Charles may be saving it as a pre Coronation goody for his brother and sister in law. He might, but somehow I don?t think so!
King 'tears up Queen's pledge to hand Duke of Edinburgh title to Prince Edward' in slim down effort | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11445435/King-tears-Queens-pledge-hand-Duke-Edinburgh-title-Prince-Edward-slim-effort.html)
King Charles 'rips up Queen and Philip's plan for Edward to be Duke of Edinburgh' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-charles-rips-up-queen-28531519)
Prince Edward 'to miss out on becoming Duke of Edinburgh as part of King Charles's plans for a trimmed down monarchy' | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/20478085/prince-edward-king-charles-monarchy/)
?No surprise? at King?s choice of Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/no-surprise-at-kings-choice-of-duke-of-edinburgh-183545/)
How Prince Philip became Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/how-prince-philip-became-duke-of-edinburgh-183543/)
Unfair but Prince Edward would taking inherit of Duke of Edinburgh after Prince Philip?s death in 2021 but torch to James per dailymail says but King Charles says Earl and Countess of Wessex and Forfar remain titles not yet change titles but King Charles follow late Queen Elizabeth II and King George VI examples but Buckingham Palace decline comment it?s private matters
King 'tears up Queen's pledge to hand Duke of Edinburgh title to Prince Edward' in slim down effort | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11445435/King-tears-Queens-pledge-hand-Duke-Edinburgh-title-Prince-Edward-slim-effort.html)
King Charles 'rips up Queen and Philip's plan for Edward to be Duke of Edinburgh' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-charles-rips-up-queen-28531519)
Prince Edward 'to miss out on becoming Duke of Edinburgh as part of King Charles's plans for a trimmed down monarchy' | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/20478085/prince-edward-king-charles-monarchy/)
?No surprise? at King?s choice of Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/no-surprise-at-kings-choice-of-duke-of-edinburgh-183545/)
How Prince Philip became Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/how-prince-philip-became-duke-of-edinburgh-183543/)
Unfair but Prince Edward would taking inherit of Duke of Edinburgh after Prince Philip?s death in 2021 but torch to James per dailymail says but King Charles says Earl and Countess of Wessex and Forfar remain titles not yet change titles but King Charles follow late Queen Elizabeth II and King George VI examples but Buckingham Palace decline comment it?s private matters
Does the monarchy really need to be slimmed down?
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on November 20, 2022, 09:36:30 PM
Does the monarchy really need to be slimmed down?
Charles feels it does, and in bad economic times it?s good optics not to have too many people living in Crown properties and receiving money from the Sovereign Grant or from the Duchies of Lancaster or Cornwall. There have always been moans from the comments sections of tabloids and that ilk about ?freeloaders? on the balcony at Trooping. Many British still think all royals are on the public purse.
All that is great in theory. However for a country that still has a Commonwealth that needs to be visited every now and again, especially the realms, and three countries in the UK to cover it will be interesting to see how it works out.
This is a slimmed down monarchy that still has people in their eighties working for it, (the Kents) and also quite a few (the sovereign, his consort, Princess Anne, the Gloucesters) who are well into their seventies. What happens if any or all of them become incapacitated after the Kents retire? Say the Gloucesters and Camilla? I do not think that Camilla has a strong physical constitution or a huge capacity to work. JMO, but it?s based on past observance. And the Gloucesters are well into their seventies already. (I?m of the same age and there is no way I would want to be taking on a hundred or more engagements a year.)
In a worst case scenario the monarchy in the next ten years could well be left with a very elderly monarch, his equally elderly sister and four middle aged people, the Wales?s, who probably will not want to fulfil hundreds of engagements a year (especially Kate) with a still young family, and the underwhelming Wessexes. Welcome to the 21st century style BRF, folks!
Some RR's agree with my assessment of several conservative media outlets in the UK exerting pressure in Reference to the Duke of Edinburgh title.
Just when King Charles has given Edward a counsellor of state member, Sophie a first for a British Royal to visit the Congo, a first for the couple to represent His Majesty at the Royal Variety Performance. IOW, Charles is spreading duties and responsibilities that were previously exclusive to the monarch or the heir, heir to the heir in the past.
Quote from: wannable on November 21, 2022, 12:29:08 PM
Some RR's agree with my assessment of several conservative media outlets in the UK exerting pressure in Reference to the Duke of Edinburgh title.
Just when King Charles has given Edward a counsellor of state member, Sophie a first for a British Royal to visit the Congo, a first for the couple to represent His Majesty at the Royal Variety Performance. IOW, Charles is spreading duties and responsibilities that were previously exclusive to the monarch or the heir, heir to the heir in the past.
Well, of course he is using them in that way. What choice does he have? With the Queen, Andrew and the Sussexes gone, who is Charles going to send on a few less important overseas trips (the Congo for example has never been close to Britain, not in the Commonwealth, once a Belgian possession) or to the Royal Variety Performance which lost its importance to ordinary Brits about fifty years ago, if he or the Wales?s can?t (don?t want) to go? The Gloucesters, an elderly couple hardly any ordinary Briton knows? Or the Kents, ancient and ditto?
Upon his marriage to Sophie, was Prince Edward offered the dukedom of Cambridge?
:xmas14: :xmas14: :xmas14: :xmas14:
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on November 25, 2022, 08:56:21 PM
Upon his marriage to Sophie, was Prince Edward offered the dukedom of Cambridge?
:xmas14: :xmas14: :xmas14: :xmas14:
I don?t think the Queen and Edward actually got into specifics of what ducal title he wanted. They certainly had deep discussions about titles at the time of his and Sophie?s engagement as we know because that?s when the Earldom of Wessex was decided on as Edward liked it so much. But I do think that the Queen got an idea long before the engagement that the couple didn?t want ducal titles, that both wanted to continue on with their careers and so on.
As for the Dukedom of Cambridge I think it was always a contender in the Ducal stakes as the other traditional ones, York, Gloucester etc, were already taken and it had been in the family before with George IIIs son.
I wonder if the royal Dukedom of Clarence has just been retired by the monarchy?
Quote from: TLLK on November 26, 2022, 03:33:09 PM
I wonder if the royal Dukedom of Clarence has just been retired by the monarchy?
I think so, after Albert Victor and George who was drowned in butt of malmsey, I'd say it is one royal title that wont ever come back. But possible that Edward will get another dukedom if he wants one.. I am not sure what Phil's other titles were, but givne the queen's wish it might be a nice thing for Edw to get one of them as another title.
Quote from: Amabel2 on November 26, 2022, 04:56:36 PM
I think so, after Albert Victor and George who was drowned in butt of malmsey, I'd say it is one royal title that wont ever come back. But possible that Edward will get another dukedom if he wants one.. I am not sure what Phil's other titles were, but givne the queen's wish it might be a nice thing for Edw to get one of them as another title.
No, I don?t think Edward or anyone else will get Clarence. Too unlucky. If Charles, for whatever reason refuses to create Edinburgh again for Edward (and personally I think it?s nervousness about Scotland?s future) then I can?t see why he can?t just elevate Edward?s present title to a dukedom so he could be Duke of Wessex. Problem solved and it was done, in slightly different circumstances for the dour older son in law of Edward VII, McDuff, who became the Duke of Fife, the family Earldom being Fife.
However, if for some reason Edward remains an Earl which wouldn?t surprise me, if things go as they have done in the last few generations, the next royal dukedom will be George?s, when he marries.
@Curryong and
@Amabel2 -I had a feeling that the Clarence title had too many issues associated with it.
@Curryong's suggestion of just elevating the Wessex title to a dukedom seems like a reasonable suggestion. If the goal is to not expand the number of royal dukes, then it can be stipulated that Edward's heir, James will not be a royal duke when he inherits the title and can just be "His Grace the Duke of Wessex." James' heir can be the Earl of Forfar.
well James would probalby not be HRH the Duke of? anyway would he? Unless he chose to be titled as HRH when he turned 18?
I think that the main reason for Edward being suggested as Duke of Ed was to give Philip's title to one of his sons, but given that its a Scottish title, I think it might be more tactful not to give it, now. And possibly, both Ed and Charles have emotional feelings about the title... Ed might not want it as it is such big shoes to fill, and Charles possibly associates it with his own father, with whom he had a complicated relationship. But as i have a soft spot for old Philip, i think it woudl be nice if ONE of his titles went to his son.. Not sure what P's secondary titles were, but one of them could be recreated for Edward.
These were Phillip's secondary titles: Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwhich. Merionethshire is one of Wales' historic counties and Greenwich has long been associated with the Navy so that's probably why it was selected.
Quote from: TLLK on November 27, 2022, 02:43:07 PM
These were Phillip's secondary titles: Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwhich. Merionethshire is one of Wales' historic counties and Greenwich has long been associated with the Navy so that's probably why it was selected.
I vaguley recall Baron Greenwich. Earl of merioneth would be OK I suppose as long as the Welsh are staying within the UNion, and Ed would be a Triple earl!
In reference to that ! Title:
RP's comments (a thread) in twitter. (As I said in Charlotte's thread, more live discussion there than in forums. We resist to die though)
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
The change in view appears to be to do with Edward and Sophie not wanting royal titles and duties for their children. It?s still not officially ruled out that Edward gets the Edinburgh title though. All will become clear eventually.
Also RP in reference to Prince Philip's wish rather than Elizabeth, also the discussion of the Title actually started in the month of July 2021
Quote
It's essentially been their line since it emerged in July last year that the then Prince Charles was no longer committed to the undertaking he, the Queen and Prince Philip gave in 1999 to hand the title to Prince Edward after his parents death. It was Philip's wish.
Unquote
Sophie Wessex could lose out on treasured title to Princess Charlotte as Duchess of Edinburgh role undecided | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/20575206/sophie-wessex-lose-title-princess-charlotte/)
Remember when Edward and Sophie got married in June 19,1999 late Queen Elizabeth says dukedom Edinburgh will torched to Edward and Sophie Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh its Philip?s wishes when Queen Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh?s death but im not surprised King Charles makes decisions give to Princess Charlotte titles include Duchess of Edinburgh and also if Princess Anne died will torch to Princess Charlotte Princess Royal and also if Prince Andrew died will torch to Prince Louis of Dukedom York Prince George will remain Prince of Wales because of he is firstborn like his father and grandfather must have follow throne order
QuoteWhen William ascends to the throne, Charlotte could be given the title of The Princess Royal - which Princess Anne has held.
According to mirror says
Duke of Edinburgh title likely to go to Edward over Princess Charlotte, as per Queen's wishes | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11661231/Duke-Edinburgh-title-likely-Edward-Princess-Charlotte-Queens-wishes.html)
King Charles makes decisions to give his younger brother become Duke of Edinburgh articles says remember back to June 19,1999 when Prince Edward married to Sophie both will take Prince Philip?s titles after late Duke of Edinburgh?s death in 2021
Prince Edward could inherit new title as Charles has 'change of heart' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1724506/prince-edward-inherit-new-title-king-charles-duke-edinburgh-royal-family)
King Charles 'to make Prince Edward the Duke of Edinburgh after change of heart' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-charles-to-make-prince-29015847)
Major update to royal titles with Charles 'set to make his brother the Duke of Edinburgh' after 'insulting' snub | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21122648/charles-update-royal-titles-duke-edinburgh/)
So it seems that King Charles has changed his mind once more IF these stories are true. Best to wait and see.
Quote from: Curryong on January 22, 2023, 01:25:19 AM
So it seems that King Charles has changed his mind once more IF these stories are true. Best to wait and see.
I?m agreed with you
Quote from: Curryong on January 22, 2023, 01:25:19 AM
So it seems that King Charles has changed his mind once more IF these stories are true. Best to wait and see.
Why this touching faith in the tabloids? They are just filling up their pages...
Given that Charles has a coronation, taking over as king after 70 years, and the Harry problem, Im sure he has plenty to think of, without worryin about Edinburgh's title. He is probably deciding what is best to do with the title as it is 20 years and more since the queen made this arrangement and thigns have changed
Quote from: Amabel2 on January 22, 2023, 08:57:11 AM
Why this touching faith in the tabloids? They are just filling up their pages...
Given that Charles has a coronation, taking over as king after 70 years, and the Harry problem, Im sure he has plenty to think of, without worryin about Edinburgh's title. He is probably deciding what is best to do with the title as it is 20 years and more since the queen made this arrangement and thigns have changed
Yes when Edward married Sophie in 1999 and late Prince Philip vows give him titles Duke of Edinburgh but King Charles makes decisions give Edward Duke of Edinburgh we have wait and see not before coronation or wait till after coronation but wait till confirmed from Buckingham Palace have to say
Prince Harry had problems YES!! due he admit bombshell interview include with Oprah,Netflix,his memoir books bombshell more embarrassed his family members of the royal family but Harry claims in books of his experience tours and paparazzi plus Diana?s accident and death but paparazzi did to Diana in 1997
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64913224
Prince Edward has been named as the new Duke of Edinburgh, Buckingham Palace has announced.
The title, granted by King Charles III on the prince's 59th birthday, will be held for his lifetime.
Unusual, for lifetime only? Perhaps Charles has plans for Louis in the future? It?s been a long time coming in comparison to the POW for William, but at least now all speculation has ceased.
A busy time lately for the changing of threads here at RIF, mods!
Seems a good idea, It will not tie down the Edinburgh title for ever, so if Scotland leaves the UK, there wont be so many issues. and it will mean that the children dont have the title which they probalby dont want.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 10, 2023, 11:57:01 AM
Seems a good idea, It will not tie down the Edinburgh title for ever, so if Scotland leaves the UK, there wont be so many issues. and it will mean that the children dont have the title which they probalby dont want.
Yes, that?s right. However, I have a feeling that besides Scotland that remains problematic, a primary reason for the life peerage is that Charles has Edinburgh in mind for Louis eventually. By rights Louis should get York after Charles and Andrew die. However the Windsors live forever and the York dukedom is besmirched quite a bit. Much better to warehouse York for a while and have a nice newish title like Edinburgh as a life peerage for Louis in his middle age, after great-uncle Edward passes.
York is a bit tainted as I said, and the grand old title of Gloucester will be going out of the family as well. Kent too.
There is no by rights about it.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 10, 2023, 12:42:35 PM
There is no by rights about it.
By custom then. The second son of the monarch has received the Dukedom of York by custom the majority of the time over the centuries.
?Duke of York is a title of nobility in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Since the 15th century, it has, when granted, usually been given to the second son of English (later British) monarchs. The equivalent title in the Scottish peerage was Duke of Albany. However, King George II and King George III granted the titles Duke of York and Albany.?
Admittedly the above is from Wiki but this is correct.
Congratulations to the new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. :princessgrace: This is a well-deserved title for the couple.
Viscount Severen will now be known as the Earl of Wessex. Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor retains her title.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64913224
QuoteBuckingham Palace said in a statement on Friday: "His Majesty The King has been pleased to confer the Dukedom of Edinburgh upon the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar, on the occasion of His Royal Highness's 59th birthday.
"The title will be held by Prince Edward for His Royal Highness's lifetime.
"The Dukedom was last created for Prince Philip in 1947, upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth, who held the title of Duchess of Edinburgh before acceding to the throne in 1952.
"The new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are proud to continue Prince Philip's legacy of promoting opportunities for young people of all backgrounds to reach their full potential."
Its still in the Kings gift. we dont know if by the time Louis is the Kings son, if the younger children of a monach will get a ducal title. Or mabye they will get it for life as C has doen for Edward.
Quote from: Curryong on March 10, 2023, 11:07:00 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64913224
Prince Edward has been named as the new Duke of Edinburgh, Buckingham Palace has announced.
The title, granted by King Charles III on the prince's 59th birthday, will be held for his lifetime.
Unusual, for lifetime only? Perhaps Charles has plans for Louis in the future? It?s been a long time coming in comparison to the POW for William, but at least now all speculation has ceased.
A busy time lately for the changing of threads here at RIF, mods!
I've already scheduled a manicure for today
@Curryong. :happy: Working to update these threads is taking a toll on my fingers!
Quote from: TLLK on March 10, 2023, 01:22:51 PM
I've already scheduled a manicure for today @Curryong. :happy: Working to update these threads is taking a toll on my fingers!
I can appreciate that. Thank goodness (hopefully) there are no more BRF titles to bestow in the next few weeks or your fingers will be worn down to the knuckles!
@Curryong-I need to contact BP ASAP!!! :D
Here's the official press release from BP.
Read Buckingham Palace?s statement in full regarding the Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/edinburgh/read-buckingham-palaces-statement-in-full-regarding-the-duke-of-edinburgh-187197/)
A little history on the former Duchesses of Edinburgh which includes the late Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Camilla on the list.
All of Edinburgh?s duchesses ? from a forgotten princess to a truly historic Monarch ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/edinburgh/all-of-edinburghs-duchesses-from-a-forgotten-princess-to-a-truly-historic-monarch-2-187186/)
Quote from: TLLK on March 10, 2023, 01:29:01 PM
@Curryong-I need to contact BP ASAP!!! :D
Hard work foryou. At least there's an end now to the silly stories about Charlotte getting the title.
Prince Edward is granted Duke of Edinburgh title on 59th birthday | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11843643/Prince-Edward-granted-Duke-Edinburgh-title-59th-birthday.html)
The Duchess of Edinburgh! Prince Edward's wife Sophie earns new title | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11843837/The-Duchess-Edinburgh-Prince-Edwards-wife-Sophie-earns-new-title.html)
History of the Duke of Edinburgh title as Prince Edward follows in father Philip's footsteps | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11749569/History-Duke-Edinburgh-title-Prince-Edward-follows-father-Philips-footsteps.html)
Not back to Prince Alfred who is son of Queen Victoria 1866 for 157 years
How Lady Louise, 19, is missing out on title - which passes to her younger brother James, 15, | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11844759/How-Lady-Louise-19-missing-title-passes-younger-brother-James-15.html)
King Charles Gives Prince Edward Royal Title That Was Prince Philip's (https://people.com/royals/prince-edward-prince-charles-duke-of-edinburgh/)
Why Prince Edward's New Royal Title Won't Pass to Son James (https://people.com/royals/prince-edward-duke-edinburgh-title-wont-pass-son-james/)
King Charles FINALLY gives Prince Edward new royal title on his birthday | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230310166418/king-charles-gives-prince-edward-duke-of-edinburgh-title-on-his-birthday/)
Why Lady Louise Windsor has missed out on new royal title - unlike brother James | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230310166423/why-lady-louise-windsor-does-not-get-new-royal-title/)
Royal fans hope for new royal title for Prince Edward on his birthday | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230310166416/prince-edward-birthday-king-charles-gift-new-title/)
King Charles gives Prince Edward ?Duke of Edinburgh? title | Monarchy | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/10/king-charles-gives-prince-edward-duke-of-edinburgh-title)
Lady Louise expected to work for a living as expert says it's 'not possible' for new title | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1744880/lady-louise-royal-title-line-of-succession)
James Viscount Severn steps up as King Charles makes him the new Earl of Wessex | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1744687/james-viscount-severn-title-earl-of-wessex)
Lady Louise misses out on new title as she's only Wessex family member not to get top role | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1744691/lady-louise-title-unchanged-duke-of-edinburgh)
Sophie Wessex receives special new title as Prince Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1744685/sophie-wessex-duchess-of-edinburgh-title-latest)
Prince Edward confirmed as new Duke of Edinburgh as King Charles marks brother's birthday | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1744680/prince-edward-duke-of-edinburgh-title-confirmed)
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-10/king-gives-duke-of-edinburgh-title-to-edward-to-honour-philips-wish
King Charles finally fulfils Queen's pledge by handing Edward and Sophie top royal titles - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-king-charles-finally-fulfils-29420935)
Prince Edward is made Duke of Edinburgh by King Charles on his 59th birthday with new titles for other royals | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21658335/prince-edward-is-made-duke-of-edinburgh/)
^Best news in a long time from King Charles, Edward and Sophie are well deserving of this as they are loyal and honest and gracious. Some need to learn from them!
Here?s why James will never become Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/edinburgh/heres-why-james-will-never-become-duke-of-edinburgh-187203/)
The history of the Dukedom of Edinburgh ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/edinburgh/the-history-of-the-dukedom-of-edinburgh-2-187155/)
The King confers the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Prince Edward ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/edinburgh/the-king-confers-the-dukedom-of-edinburgh-on-prince-edward-187184/)
Introducing the new 15-year-old Earl of Wessex ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/edinburgh/introducing-the-new-15-year-old-earl-of-wessex-187188/)
The one member of Prince Edward?s family who doesn?t get a new title ? his daughter, Lady Louise ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/edinburgh/the-one-member-of-prince-edwards-family-who-doesnt-get-a-new-title-his-daughter-lady-louise-187201/)
What ARE the tabloids nattering on about? Louise is in exactly the same position as she was three days ago. She?s the daughter of a peer. Everybody in Britain knows (or should do) that the eldest or only sons of Peers inherit their father?s titles and their daughters don?t. It?s been that way for centuries. Is it unfair in many ways? Yes of course it is, but that?s the way it is with peerages, and I am absolutely sure Louise and James know it and accept it.
And ?missing out on a top role? What top role is her mother Sophie getting in this new scenario? She, and Edward are performing exactly the same duties as they were a week ago, except that Edward has a life peerage and is now a Duke. It?s a title and term of address, not a profession!
Edward and Sophie are still the youngest son of the late Queen and his wife, and their place in the succession hasn?t changed. And James will still be Earl of Wessex and Forfar in substantive not honorary terms one day, just as he would be last week. And he and Louise will almost certainly be getting jobs after their tertiary education as well.
Quote from: TLLK on March 10, 2023, 01:29:01 PM
@Curryong-I need to contact BP ASAP!!! :D
Yes, you are going to have to tick them off and say this has to stop right now!
Quote from: Curryong on March 10, 2023, 09:36:48 PM
Yes, you are going to have to tick them off and say this has to stop right now!
Well I'm hesitating because I better not tick them off and lose out on any discounted Coronation souvenirs!! :windsor1:
Quote from: TLLK on March 10, 2023, 11:10:58 PM
Well I'm hesitating because I better not tick them off and lose out on any discounted Coronation souvenirs!! :windsor1:
Those coffee mugs with Charles and Camilla?s faces on them will be going for nothing after the Coronation anyway. Ring up the Lord Chamberlain. This can?t go on. Your nerves will be shattered!
Quote from: Curryong on March 10, 2023, 09:25:06 PM
What ARE the tabloids nattering on about? Louise is in exactly the same position as she was three days ago. She?s the daughter of a peer. Everybody in Britain knows (or should do) that the eldest or only sons of Peers inherit their father?s titles and their daughters don?t. It?s been that way for centuries. Is it unfair in many ways? Yes of course it is, but that?s the way it is with peerages, and I am absolutely sure Louise and James know it and accept it.
And ?missing out on a top role? What top role is her mother Sophie getting in this new scenario? She, and Edward are performing exactly the same duties as they were a week ago, except that Edward has a life peerage and is now a Duke. It?s a title and term of address, not a profession!
Edward and Sophie are still the youngest son of the late Queen and his wife, and their place in the succession hasn?t changed. And James will still be Earl of Wessex and Forfar in substantive not honorary terms one day, just as he would be last week. And he and Louise will almost certainly be getting jobs after their tertiary education as well.
They're nattering because it's Friday or it's raining or there's a new episode of Britain's Got Talent...in other words they just natter.
Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely delighted for the couple and their family. To now be the title holder for Edinburgh which Edward's father held for so very long, must bring them much happiness even though they miss the Queen and DoE. I am glad for them that the couple now are the "keepers" of this prestigious royal title. Their children had a special relationship with their elderly grandparents as they were able to see them more frequently on the weekends at Windsor, than their older cousins would have had in the 80's and 90's when they were children.
However for now the Edinburgh family stays in the same positions in the line of succession which is currently 13th, 14th and 15th .And they'll shift downward again when Eugenie's baby is born. There won't be a dramatic change in protocol as far as I can tell either.
Congratulations to Prince Edward and Sophie on their new titles! :yesss: :yesss: :yesss:
I'm so happy for Edward and Sophie! They are loyal and hard-working, and very much deserve their new titles. :yesss:
I actually never realized that the (former) Wessexes had chosen not to style their children as a prince and princess. I like that they didn?t foist that on them. They?ve really found their way. They struggled at the beginning with Sophie having worked all her life, but she seems to have taken that work ethic and both have put their boots to the ground even though they don?t get as much publicity.
I think the Queen appreciated their hard work and support while she was alive. I do like that the title is not hereditary and will be reverted back to the Crown once Edward passes.
I dont think it is clear whose idea it was. It mgith have been Ed and Sophie or it might have been due to the fact that the RF was quite unpopular at the time and it may have been felt that to give the children HRH was not goig to fly well and it might be better to style them as the children of an Earl.
As for Sophie, she goofed up more than once - so did Edward, in the early years...
Well they can and still don?t go by prince and princess. They?ve had a long time to do so, so clearly it isn?t top of their mind.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 11, 2023, 06:41:02 PM
I dont think it is clear whose idea it was. It mgith have been Ed and Sophie or it might have been due to the fact that the RF was quite unpopular at the time and it may have been felt that to give the children HRH was not goig to fly well and it might be better to style them as the children of an Earl.
As for Sophie, she goofed up more than once - so did Edward, in the early years...
Well yes Edward and Sophie did make mistakes in their early years like we make mistakes in our lives. At least they are not writing books or doing interview complaining how horrible they are treated in the royal family, they learned from their mistakes and turned a new leaf to say and have become a very loyal and hard working members of the royal family. Decades now of them working and and doing the job required of them.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 11, 2023, 09:21:54 PM
Well they can and still don?t go by prince and princess. They?ve had a long time to do so, so clearly it isn?t top of their mind.
Of course they dont go by Prince and Princess. IT was agreed apparently that they would only do so when they were over 18, and if they temselves wanted it. James is still under 18 and I think its clear that neither of them want to be HRH
Quote from: Nightowl on March 12, 2023, 05:07:54 AM
Well yes Edward and Sophie did make mistakes in their early years like we make mistakes in our lives. At least they are not writing books or doing interview complaining how horrible they are treated in the royal family, they learned from their mistakes and turned a new leaf to say and have become a very loyal and hard working members of the royal family. Decades now of them working and and doing the job required of them.
well there was room IMO for improvement. They became working royals at first mainly because their businesses didnt do well and they had made mistakes like Sophie's interview. So they were given a role as working royals to keep them busy, rather than earning thieir own money.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 12, 2023, 09:30:57 AM
Of course they dont go by Prince and Princess. IT was agreed apparently that they would only do so when they were over 18, and if they temselves wanted it. James is still under 18 and I think its clear that neither of them want to be HRH
Yeah, that was my point. They don?t want it. They could have done at any point from birth, but simply don?t. Nothing is stopping them, not Charles or the current popularity of the RF. It was a choice.
And
@Nightowl, I agree. They floundered a bit and tried the whole one foot in, one foot out thing and it blew up in their faces. From there, they had a choice to either commit to royal life or leave royal life and continue with their commercial endeavors. The chose the former and since then, they?ve been committed to supporting the monarch by executing their royal duties. It requires having to come to terms with the fact that your job is now to support one person and make the Crown look good. That requires some sacrifice of your own ego. Some can do it, some can?t.
Not really a choice. it was announced when they got married that their children would be titled as the children of an earl, so how could they then start calling themselves HRH?
In fact, one member of another forum got a letter from BP some eyars ago which stated that the children were NOT HRH and were simply the children of an earl. THey have changed that in recnet years and stated that they CAN choose to be HRH if they want to, after the age of 18 but that's prety unlikely to happen.
and as regards their role, I've read that some courtiers thought that the queen took too long to tell them that as tehir commercial endeavours were not going well (Sophie's business was in debt, Ed's was not making a profit and both had been involved in things that made them look silly) the time had come to wind up their business life and commit to royal life. I dont think they were really NEEDED back then, but they had to do something and the best thing seemed to be to put them on the royal duty roster. They've improved since then and done a fair job of work, but they were not much good at business and IMO showed how very difficult it is to combine another career esp a business one, with royal life.
^Just like the Sussex children, both James and Louise were the grandchildren of a monarch and had the right to be styled as prince and princess since birth. They are a prince and princess now, they just decided not to style themselves as such. Just like Archie and Lilibet were always a prince and a princess as soon as Charles became king, they just hadn?t styled themselves as such.
Because their father was Earl of Wessex, they could also use the curtesy titles associated with the child of an earl, which is what their parents chose to do and the Queen supported that decision.
I think you are forgetting what I said about BP saying that the children were NOT HRH, and that they were only the children of an earl.
And its not at all clear whose idea it was. I think that the queen did not like the fact but the truth was that in 1999 when they married, the RF was far from popular and it looked like good PR to cut things down, so that Edward would only become an Earl and not a duke, for the present and that the children would not be styled HRH.
As you may remember it was a smaller less fancy wedding than the other children had had, and it was based at Windsor... because the public were muttering, "They have big weddings in London and then get divorced"....
Probably since Ed and Sophie meant to be only part time royals right then, they could see the advantages of having their children grow up without royal titles. Its only a few years ago that Sophie mentioned to a journalist that the children COULD be known as HRH when they reached 19.
Possibly several years of working as working royals made them a bit flexbile on the issue of the children being HRH.
All I?ve seen is that they would not be styled as HRHs and would instead be styled as the children of an earl. I don?t see anywhere where BP has said that they are not actually a prince and a princess. Could you provide the link where it says that they?re not actually?
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.
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 (https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/lifestyle/a32796791/sophie-wessex-children-lady-lousie-spencer-royal-titles/)
QuoteThe 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.?
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.
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..
^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.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 12, 2023, 02:03:07 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: TLLK on March 12, 2023, 02:52:41 PM
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.
@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.
Quote from: TLLK on March 12, 2023, 04:10:01 PM
@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
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 12, 2023, 02:18:16 PM
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.
Exactly.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 12, 2023, 05:39:42 PM
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Have a look at the Letters Patent, where I copied the exact wrods about their titles.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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!
Whew, that?s complicated. Thank you so much for the clarification,
@Curryong!
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 12, 2023, 11:15:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Curryong on March 12, 2023, 11:33:02 PM
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:
I'm very happy about this, and clearly, the new Duke of E is, as well.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 12, 2023, 11:15:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Curryong on March 12, 2023, 11:10:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on March 13, 2023, 05:47:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Amabel2 on March 13, 2023, 09:21:17 AM
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.
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.
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.?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 13, 2023, 04:21:20 PM
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.
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.
Okay, agree to disagree. :shake:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 13, 2023, 07:10:12 PM
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.
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.
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.
It has had that effect. But the RF can?t do anymore than they have done.
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.
The Royal Monograms of The Earl and Countess of Wessex
Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex | Charles and diana, Monogram, Countess (http://www.pinterest.com/pin/498914464948767367)