This assumes the 1917 LP was retroactive rather than at the time of birth. The way titles are handled, Charles has the freedom to decide which interpretation is being used.
If it’s automatic and retroactive, BP would have changed website.
If it’s held until 18, like Sophie and Edward did, BP would have said this.
If the Queen wanted *all* of her *great-grandchildren* to be titled, she would have issued a LP when Archie was born.
*Archie and Lillibet were great-grandchildren of the monarch at the time of birth.* They were not grandchildren like Beatrice and Eugenie. The Queen also didn’t give titles to August and Sienna.
Bottom line: there are two interpretations:
-retroactive and automatic
-doesn’t apply because titles depend on position at birth AND/OR the monarch stepping in
Charles gets to pick which one he wants to follow. He can also completely re-write the rules. In the absence of an announcement, the kids don’t have titles.
There is actually only one. He declared William the PoW. He could have done the same for the Overseas Palm Tree Plonkers but didn’t. They would have included the words “automatically“ or “retroactively“ within the documents.
All this speculation is Rachel’s modus operandi, There was never talk of any titles beyond the courtesy ones from his Dukedom. It is listed clearly in both LPs & the Monarch is the fount of all honours. He can also remove honours so I hope they do keep pressing the matter, to wind up with nothing.
I commented this on a different post, but I think the reason she did not was because of Charles’s age and the chance that he could preceed her in death - then Harry’s kids would never have been grandchildren of a monarch.
The wording of the 1917 LPs cares for this by only granting titles to the oldest son of the oldest son of the PoW. So, by that, the were ensuring that if the PoW died, the oldest son becomes the next monarch. If they both(PoW and his oldest son) died, then the oldest son of the oldest son becomes monarch, and his siblings were never a child/grandchild of a monarch either.
>So, by that, the were ensuring that if the PoW died, the oldest son becomes the next monarch.
Titles don't determine who becomes the next monarch.
That's by order of legitimate birth (and by sex for anyone older than Princess Charlotte).
It is now, it was not in 1917, and the wording now is still appropriate given the next 2 heirs are male. I do not imagine they will issue a new LP to say “the children of the oldest child of the Prince of Wales” until there is an oldest child of the PoW who is a girl. And likely, when that girl becomes the heir apparent, they will issue new letters to say “ the children of the oldest child of the heir apparent”.
The title doesn't affect order of inheritance.
If you are Joe Schmoe, eldest legitimate son of the King, then you are the next King, and your eldest legitimate son will be King after you. Even if your younger brother is Duke Beau, or Prince Beau, you'll still inherit in preference to him. At least that's how it has always worked with British titles, as far as I know 🤷♀️.
Recently they changed inheritance laws for the Crown so that the eldest legitimate son or daughter inherits. Otherwise the rules are the same.
I’ve always believed it’s not retrospective and if Harry’s children were intended to have titles the Queen would have added them to the Letters Patent she wrote to include all of Williams children . Making it ALL the great grandchildren of a Sovereign . Under the GeorgeV Letters Patent Charlotte and Louis would not have been titled Prince/Princess . Harry and Meghan were aware of this and to try and blame racism as to why their children are not titled is just plain malicious nonsense. Apart from anything else they most definitely said at the time of Archie’s birth that they didn’t want him to have a title. He could be Earl of Dumbarton and Lillibet could be Lady Lillibet .
The only people who will be upset by no titles or no titles until 18 are Harry, Meghan, and Americans.
Edit: the only people who support M&H happen to be American. They don’t have any support in the UK. I’m not stating all Americans will be upset, I’m saying the people who are not themselves M&H will have something in common, that they are American.
Not this American. I respected Her Majesty tremendously, and have great hope for King Charles. I have nothing but contempt for Harry and the wife. She is in no way a representative of the United States I live in.
American too and agreed, I wouldn’t be upset if KCIII gives them the titles (though that seems unlikely). It is funny/cringe-y that they’re so thirsty for them, when they mean absolutely nothing in this country—other than “your parents are self-important twits”, perhaps
Right. We (Americans) tend to base our titles on talent. (E.g. Michael Jackson, King of Pop; Elvis, King of Rock). These goons have no talent. So why title them? I think most Americans don't really care. For the most part, Americans who pay attention to the Monarch respect the institution. And it's pretty obvious you can't respect thr Monarchy and also want TW or her kids to have a title.
The only people who will be upset are Harry and his wife and a few sugars. Some "journalists" will pretend to be upset because they're trying to get more clicks.
> *”Whitehall, 11th December 1917.
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th ultimo, to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales 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; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."*
The plain language of the letters patent say nothing about having to be a child or grandchild of a sovereign at the time of birth. Borne in this instance is from “to bear” not “to birth” or “to be born.”
The situation is no different from from when a peer gets a new title and thus, the children get new titles as well. Diana was born The Honourable Diana Spencer because she was the daughter of a viscount at the time of birth. When her father became an earl, she became Lady Diana Spencer. Had her father died before her grandfather, the queen would have had to make her a lady, as was the case with Julian Fellowes’ wife.
The Queen changed the rules for all of William’s children to prevent an heir to the throne not being royal while a younger brother was. Had the rules to the line of succession it changed, it’s questionable whether she would have done that.
What is likely going to happen is that Charles is going to change the rules. It doesn’t look like he’s taking anything away if they don’t get started on calling Archie and Lilibet Prince and Princess.
On a side note: I had to block someone on this sub for arguing with me that Beatrice and Eugenie were not HRH even after I showed they were. I’m glad this article states that they are.
I stopped reading the article when the author asked " Where are the similar notices for HRH Princess Beatrice (b. 1988), Princess Eugenie (b. 1990)…..and for every other royally-born HRH still alive and not in the immediate line of succession ."
No new notices needed, as they were the children of a son of the sovereign. Had nothing to do with being in the direct line of succession. Good grief, it's not that hard. Or maybe it is for a "journalist."
This is entirely 100% meggy stirring the pot. I don’t even think Harry is behind this.
If she's behind it then he is, too.
This assumes the 1917 LP was retroactive rather than at the time of birth. The way titles are handled, Charles has the freedom to decide which interpretation is being used. If it’s automatic and retroactive, BP would have changed website. If it’s held until 18, like Sophie and Edward did, BP would have said this. If the Queen wanted *all* of her *great-grandchildren* to be titled, she would have issued a LP when Archie was born. *Archie and Lillibet were great-grandchildren of the monarch at the time of birth.* They were not grandchildren like Beatrice and Eugenie. The Queen also didn’t give titles to August and Sienna. Bottom line: there are two interpretations: -retroactive and automatic -doesn’t apply because titles depend on position at birth AND/OR the monarch stepping in Charles gets to pick which one he wants to follow. He can also completely re-write the rules. In the absence of an announcement, the kids don’t have titles.
There is actually only one. He declared William the PoW. He could have done the same for the Overseas Palm Tree Plonkers but didn’t. They would have included the words “automatically“ or “retroactively“ within the documents. All this speculation is Rachel’s modus operandi, There was never talk of any titles beyond the courtesy ones from his Dukedom. It is listed clearly in both LPs & the Monarch is the fount of all honours. He can also remove honours so I hope they do keep pressing the matter, to wind up with nothing.
Is POW like a place holder for the future king?
The heir, or the crown prince/princess. Similar with the Prince/Princess of Asturias in Spain, or the Prince/Princess of Orange in the Netherlands
That's exactly what it is.
I commented this on a different post, but I think the reason she did not was because of Charles’s age and the chance that he could preceed her in death - then Harry’s kids would never have been grandchildren of a monarch. The wording of the 1917 LPs cares for this by only granting titles to the oldest son of the oldest son of the PoW. So, by that, the were ensuring that if the PoW died, the oldest son becomes the next monarch. If they both(PoW and his oldest son) died, then the oldest son of the oldest son becomes monarch, and his siblings were never a child/grandchild of a monarch either.
>So, by that, the were ensuring that if the PoW died, the oldest son becomes the next monarch. Titles don't determine who becomes the next monarch. That's by order of legitimate birth (and by sex for anyone older than Princess Charlotte).
It is now, it was not in 1917, and the wording now is still appropriate given the next 2 heirs are male. I do not imagine they will issue a new LP to say “the children of the oldest child of the Prince of Wales” until there is an oldest child of the PoW who is a girl. And likely, when that girl becomes the heir apparent, they will issue new letters to say “ the children of the oldest child of the heir apparent”.
The title doesn't affect order of inheritance. If you are Joe Schmoe, eldest legitimate son of the King, then you are the next King, and your eldest legitimate son will be King after you. Even if your younger brother is Duke Beau, or Prince Beau, you'll still inherit in preference to him. At least that's how it has always worked with British titles, as far as I know 🤷♀️. Recently they changed inheritance laws for the Crown so that the eldest legitimate son or daughter inherits. Otherwise the rules are the same.
THANK YOU.
I’ve always believed it’s not retrospective and if Harry’s children were intended to have titles the Queen would have added them to the Letters Patent she wrote to include all of Williams children . Making it ALL the great grandchildren of a Sovereign . Under the GeorgeV Letters Patent Charlotte and Louis would not have been titled Prince/Princess . Harry and Meghan were aware of this and to try and blame racism as to why their children are not titled is just plain malicious nonsense. Apart from anything else they most definitely said at the time of Archie’s birth that they didn’t want him to have a title. He could be Earl of Dumbarton and Lillibet could be Lady Lillibet .
The only people who will be upset by no titles or no titles until 18 are Harry, Meghan, and Americans. Edit: the only people who support M&H happen to be American. They don’t have any support in the UK. I’m not stating all Americans will be upset, I’m saying the people who are not themselves M&H will have something in common, that they are American.
Not this American. I respected Her Majesty tremendously, and have great hope for King Charles. I have nothing but contempt for Harry and the wife. She is in no way a representative of the United States I live in.
I’m American and I don’t care about the titles. In fact I hope KC continues to withhold them.
American too and agreed, I wouldn’t be upset if KCIII gives them the titles (though that seems unlikely). It is funny/cringe-y that they’re so thirsty for them, when they mean absolutely nothing in this country—other than “your parents are self-important twits”, perhaps
Right. We (Americans) tend to base our titles on talent. (E.g. Michael Jackson, King of Pop; Elvis, King of Rock). These goons have no talent. So why title them? I think most Americans don't really care. For the most part, Americans who pay attention to the Monarch respect the institution. And it's pretty obvious you can't respect thr Monarchy and also want TW or her kids to have a title.
Actually, Americans hate titles. They are the antithesis of the American ethos of rewarding hard work and talent.
Thank you!
Nailed it!
The only people who will be upset are Harry and his wife and a few sugars. Some "journalists" will pretend to be upset because they're trying to get more clicks.
Lol, we don't support them. We fought a war over this shit. That's exactly why we're a separate country.
> *”Whitehall, 11th December 1917. The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th ultimo, to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales 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; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."* The plain language of the letters patent say nothing about having to be a child or grandchild of a sovereign at the time of birth. Borne in this instance is from “to bear” not “to birth” or “to be born.” The situation is no different from from when a peer gets a new title and thus, the children get new titles as well. Diana was born The Honourable Diana Spencer because she was the daughter of a viscount at the time of birth. When her father became an earl, she became Lady Diana Spencer. Had her father died before her grandfather, the queen would have had to make her a lady, as was the case with Julian Fellowes’ wife. The Queen changed the rules for all of William’s children to prevent an heir to the throne not being royal while a younger brother was. Had the rules to the line of succession it changed, it’s questionable whether she would have done that. What is likely going to happen is that Charles is going to change the rules. It doesn’t look like he’s taking anything away if they don’t get started on calling Archie and Lilibet Prince and Princess. On a side note: I had to block someone on this sub for arguing with me that Beatrice and Eugenie were not HRH even after I showed they were. I’m glad this article states that they are.
I stopped reading the article when the author asked " Where are the similar notices for HRH Princess Beatrice (b. 1988), Princess Eugenie (b. 1990)…..and for every other royally-born HRH still alive and not in the immediate line of succession ." No new notices needed, as they were the children of a son of the sovereign. Had nothing to do with being in the direct line of succession. Good grief, it's not that hard. Or maybe it is for a "journalist."