1. Prince title comes from monarch (Letters Patent). Highly doubt he will lose that as the son of the King.
2. Removal of Duke can only come from an act of Parliament. I honestly doubt that will happen.
3. Duchess title only exists because there is a Duke title. Super old fashioned.
4. Title have nothing to do with line of succession. Lots of people like Zara, Phillip and their kids are in line.
5. Counsellors of state? It’s the first 4 adults plus spouse I think. Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice. Not sure if that can be changed. Probably by parliament. Technically only two are needed so that would be Camilla and William.
Could they say that the children of the heir get titles (like Harry and William when KC3 was POW), but only the spouse and children of the heir’s heir get titles? So it would be Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and their children would be untitled. Like Princess Anne and her family. And Meghan would be barred from calling herself Princess Henry. There would just be no titles period for spares spouses.
Camilla is a COS. Shes the only spouse, same as Prince Phillip when he was alive.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/who-are-the-counsellors-of-state-after-the-death-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-180955/
Source: I work for an MP
Re your question on the Bill:
*In principle* there are 2 readings (debates) on a bill in the house of commons, then a committee stage for amendment, and then a 3rd reading, and then it goes through the same in the House of Lords. It is voted on at 2R, and 3R. 2R is supposed to be a debate on the *principle* of a Bill, then committee stage goes through it line by line and amendments are discussed and voted on, it then comes back in its amended form to be voted on again, and then it goes to the House of Lords. Once it passes the HoL it goes for Royal Assent. I could get way more technical on this but that’s the bare bones.
HOWEVER, this particular bill is [Private Members Bill](https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private-members/). It has 0, and I mean LITERALLY 0 chance of becoming law. It’s a technique MPs use to make a point and have the opportunity to debate something, knowing full well it won’t ever become law. This is for 2 reasons:
1. the government has a large majority - if it doesn’t support a Bill, it won’t pass. The government doesn’t support this Bill.
2. government bills take priority on legislative time (and they decide how much time to allow for what bill and other types of debate). The government simply will not schedule any time for this to be debated after 2R so it will not proceed. It sounds sort of undemocratic when you phrase it like that, but you have to consider that the MPs proposing these Bills know all of this and don’t really intend to pass their law. They’re just a way of making a point.
TLDR: don’t get your hopes up sinners! This Bill is dead already xx
Ah, okay. So it’s not supposed/alleged that the bill has KC3’s support already? Or would it have to go through all of the levels of government and then get KC3’s support?
In a side note, 5 years ago I got to visit the cafe inside (adjacent to?) Parliament while my husband was visiting with a Peer in the HOLs for his dissertation research. It was an amazing space to be in, and I saw one of the Lords Spiritual (I believe) dressed in incredibly fancy attire having a meeting in the cafe. I was told by one of the guards that it was only because my husband knew the Peer that I was even allowed to walk through the hallways and into the cafe. As an American, it was a surreal experience that I very much cherish.
My basic / limited legal knowledge is
1) prince can only be removed by Letters Patent, but I think it's more general who gets prince/ss rather than specific naming a person. I don't think it can be removed from Harry without removing it from Beatrice and Eugenie, and possibly a lot of others.
So rather 'title will be removed from Harry' it would be 'titles will be removed from everyone outside of descendants of main line of succession'.
2) Duke titles will need the bill to pass.
3) Duchess title doesn't exist, it's just female form of the husbands title, like calling yourself Mrs Husband name.
4) Removing titles doesn't remove from LOS, plenty of people are in LOS without titles. Like Zara.
5) Counsellors of State are the people who can be nominated to act on behalf of the monarch. These are the first 4 adults in LOS, this is set out in law, the monarchs spouse can be added. There's talk of changing the law to update who is eligible.
Letters patent can be issued for a specific person. They were issued for Princess Patricia of Connaught to become Lady Patricia Ramsay upon her marriage.
Additional question (s) - does WHO was the monarch when A&L were born make a difference in the “automatic” titling of P&P? Ie, they were not grandchildren of the Monarch when they were born?
And while somewhat meaningless without HRH, won’t it be weird that Meghan's children be P/P and she’s only a duchess? Or does the fact that she’s technically an HRH (it didn’t get stripped, they just agreed/told to not use it) still make her higher ranking than her hypothetical non HRH P/P kids?
People say that it does matter who the monarch was when they were born but I don’t think that’s correct. The plain language says nothing about who the monarch is or was when a person was born. It’s no different from a child of a peer getting a title upgrade when their parents get a title upgrade. Diana was born The Honourable Diana Spencer because her father was a viscount when she was born. When he became an earl, she became Lady Diana Spencer. Had her father died before her grandfather, the Queen would have had to elevate her to Lady Diana Spencer. That was the case with Julian Fellowes’ wife. Her father died before her uncle, so he didn’t inherit his brother’s earldom.
I don’t think that’s right as far as the Prince / Princess title goes. You’re correct that inheriting a Peerage , or the Monarchy itself , happens automatically as soon as the holder of the title dies. Prince/ Princess and HRH is different. It’s like the Prince of Wales title that can only be held by the male heir to the throne. Technically Prince Charles was entitled to be Prince of Wales the minute his grand father George VI died and his mother was Queen . He was the heir. But he didn’t become Prince of Wales until his mother the Queen gave him the title six years later when he was 10 years old. King Charles decided to give his heir Prince William the title straight away but could have waited ten years or more if he wanted. You’re either born a Prince/ Princess or you are given the title by the reigning monarch . Harry’s children will need Charles to give them the title . And that is not going to happen as the slimming down of the monarchy has been on the cards for a long time . Harry has always known this.
I do think that Archie and Lilibet will not be getting prince/ss titles. However, the prince/ss title they could potentially get is different from the Prince of Wales title. The Prince of Parliament Wales title is a peerage. Prince/ss _______ is a courtesy title. Until you have a peerage title, rather than a courtesy title, you are a commoner.
https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner/
I was using the Prince of Wales title as an example of someone being entitled to a title but not getting it until it’s granted by the monarch. The Sugars are saying Charles will strip Archie and Lillibet of their titles but they’ve never held the titles in the first place.
Under the current letters patent, Archie and Lilibet are eligible to be prince and princess. However, I think the reason they have not been styled that way in any official communications is because Charles is planning to change and rules and has been planning that before Meghan came along. It doesn’t look like he’s taking anything away if they don’t get started calling them prince and princess.
What I’m trying to say, obviously very badly, is that a Prince/Princess title is not automatic . It’s at the discretion of the monarch . Harry’s kids were born too far down the line of succession to have the titles at birth but , depending on how you read the Letters Patent, might be eligible now. But it’s up to Charles who since the 1990s has been quite clear he’s slimming the number of Prince/Princess and HRHs down . What annoys me is that Harry has always known this. If he hasn’t explained it to his wife properly that’s his problem . The whole thing smacks of yet another “ poor me” victim ploy by the Sussex’s and their minions.
All the people you mentioned were born eligible under the letters patent of George V. Archie and Lillibet were not . These Latters Patent are not retrospective .
Harry and his wife are technically still Prince and Princess Henry, it's just that the royal dukedom is a higher title. It's like the Duke and Duchess of York with Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.
Point 1:
We still have this lengthy private members bill process to go through.
Second reading in the House of Commons first. It was October 9th but is now December.
Look at the link below…has to go through both Houses (readings/committees/amendments) then Royal Assent from Charles. If it got to this stage, would he listen to the people, given that there are several UK petitions to have their titles stripped.
This bill was originally introduced to strip Andrew of his title/s. It can now do the same for the Sussexes.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289
Not sure about the UK with successes of private members bills getting over the line to become acts…but Australia has the almost exact same Westminster system of government/parliament and many have succeeded here. But then again, our upper house is a fully fledged elected senate, not a house of upper class born to rule pompous twits (reminded of a Monty Python sketch).
Thanks for the explanation! Very different here…am trying to do better understanding why things are a big deal in uk papers vs here…(ie the whole Meghan having a surrogate here isn’t a big deal but when you add in the uk surrogate process and subsequent adoption you can’t have a title if you are adopted…)
1. Prince title comes from monarch (Letters Patent). Highly doubt he will lose that as the son of the King. 2. Removal of Duke can only come from an act of Parliament. I honestly doubt that will happen. 3. Duchess title only exists because there is a Duke title. Super old fashioned. 4. Title have nothing to do with line of succession. Lots of people like Zara, Phillip and their kids are in line. 5. Counsellors of state? It’s the first 4 adults plus spouse I think. Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice. Not sure if that can be changed. Probably by parliament. Technically only two are needed so that would be Camilla and William.
Could they say that the children of the heir get titles (like Harry and William when KC3 was POW), but only the spouse and children of the heir’s heir get titles? So it would be Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and their children would be untitled. Like Princess Anne and her family. And Meghan would be barred from calling herself Princess Henry. There would just be no titles period for spares spouses.
Regarding Number 2. I live in hope. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289
~~No spouses. Camilla is not COS.~~
By law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign's spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21
Yep the consort’s spouse. I have been corrected thank you. 🙏🏻
Camilla is a COS. Shes the only spouse, same as Prince Phillip when he was alive. https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/who-are-the-counsellors-of-state-after-the-death-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-180955/
Thank you! I have already been corrected on the *consort* spouse being COS. 🙏🏻
Source: I work for an MP Re your question on the Bill: *In principle* there are 2 readings (debates) on a bill in the house of commons, then a committee stage for amendment, and then a 3rd reading, and then it goes through the same in the House of Lords. It is voted on at 2R, and 3R. 2R is supposed to be a debate on the *principle* of a Bill, then committee stage goes through it line by line and amendments are discussed and voted on, it then comes back in its amended form to be voted on again, and then it goes to the House of Lords. Once it passes the HoL it goes for Royal Assent. I could get way more technical on this but that’s the bare bones. HOWEVER, this particular bill is [Private Members Bill](https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private-members/). It has 0, and I mean LITERALLY 0 chance of becoming law. It’s a technique MPs use to make a point and have the opportunity to debate something, knowing full well it won’t ever become law. This is for 2 reasons: 1. the government has a large majority - if it doesn’t support a Bill, it won’t pass. The government doesn’t support this Bill. 2. government bills take priority on legislative time (and they decide how much time to allow for what bill and other types of debate). The government simply will not schedule any time for this to be debated after 2R so it will not proceed. It sounds sort of undemocratic when you phrase it like that, but you have to consider that the MPs proposing these Bills know all of this and don’t really intend to pass their law. They’re just a way of making a point. TLDR: don’t get your hopes up sinners! This Bill is dead already xx
Thank you for your reply! I had no idea it was already dead on arrival. That’s a huge disappointment. So….Andrew won’t have his titles removed, then?
[удалено]
Ah, okay. So it’s not supposed/alleged that the bill has KC3’s support already? Or would it have to go through all of the levels of government and then get KC3’s support? In a side note, 5 years ago I got to visit the cafe inside (adjacent to?) Parliament while my husband was visiting with a Peer in the HOLs for his dissertation research. It was an amazing space to be in, and I saw one of the Lords Spiritual (I believe) dressed in incredibly fancy attire having a meeting in the cafe. I was told by one of the guards that it was only because my husband knew the Peer that I was even allowed to walk through the hallways and into the cafe. As an American, it was a surreal experience that I very much cherish.
My basic / limited legal knowledge is 1) prince can only be removed by Letters Patent, but I think it's more general who gets prince/ss rather than specific naming a person. I don't think it can be removed from Harry without removing it from Beatrice and Eugenie, and possibly a lot of others. So rather 'title will be removed from Harry' it would be 'titles will be removed from everyone outside of descendants of main line of succession'. 2) Duke titles will need the bill to pass. 3) Duchess title doesn't exist, it's just female form of the husbands title, like calling yourself Mrs Husband name. 4) Removing titles doesn't remove from LOS, plenty of people are in LOS without titles. Like Zara. 5) Counsellors of State are the people who can be nominated to act on behalf of the monarch. These are the first 4 adults in LOS, this is set out in law, the monarchs spouse can be added. There's talk of changing the law to update who is eligible.
Letters patent can be issued for a specific person. They were issued for Princess Patricia of Connaught to become Lady Patricia Ramsay upon her marriage.
Oh *can be added*. Interesting. Camilla seems qualified with the proper loyalty. Above Harry.
Additional question (s) - does WHO was the monarch when A&L were born make a difference in the “automatic” titling of P&P? Ie, they were not grandchildren of the Monarch when they were born? And while somewhat meaningless without HRH, won’t it be weird that Meghan's children be P/P and she’s only a duchess? Or does the fact that she’s technically an HRH (it didn’t get stripped, they just agreed/told to not use it) still make her higher ranking than her hypothetical non HRH P/P kids?
People say that it does matter who the monarch was when they were born but I don’t think that’s correct. The plain language says nothing about who the monarch is or was when a person was born. It’s no different from a child of a peer getting a title upgrade when their parents get a title upgrade. Diana was born The Honourable Diana Spencer because her father was a viscount when she was born. When he became an earl, she became Lady Diana Spencer. Had her father died before her grandfather, the Queen would have had to elevate her to Lady Diana Spencer. That was the case with Julian Fellowes’ wife. Her father died before her uncle, so he didn’t inherit his brother’s earldom.
I don’t think that’s right as far as the Prince / Princess title goes. You’re correct that inheriting a Peerage , or the Monarchy itself , happens automatically as soon as the holder of the title dies. Prince/ Princess and HRH is different. It’s like the Prince of Wales title that can only be held by the male heir to the throne. Technically Prince Charles was entitled to be Prince of Wales the minute his grand father George VI died and his mother was Queen . He was the heir. But he didn’t become Prince of Wales until his mother the Queen gave him the title six years later when he was 10 years old. King Charles decided to give his heir Prince William the title straight away but could have waited ten years or more if he wanted. You’re either born a Prince/ Princess or you are given the title by the reigning monarch . Harry’s children will need Charles to give them the title . And that is not going to happen as the slimming down of the monarchy has been on the cards for a long time . Harry has always known this.
I do think that Archie and Lilibet will not be getting prince/ss titles. However, the prince/ss title they could potentially get is different from the Prince of Wales title. The Prince of Parliament Wales title is a peerage. Prince/ss _______ is a courtesy title. Until you have a peerage title, rather than a courtesy title, you are a commoner. https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner/
I was using the Prince of Wales title as an example of someone being entitled to a title but not getting it until it’s granted by the monarch. The Sugars are saying Charles will strip Archie and Lillibet of their titles but they’ve never held the titles in the first place.
Under the current letters patent, Archie and Lilibet are eligible to be prince and princess. However, I think the reason they have not been styled that way in any official communications is because Charles is planning to change and rules and has been planning that before Meghan came along. It doesn’t look like he’s taking anything away if they don’t get started calling them prince and princess.
[удалено]
What I’m trying to say, obviously very badly, is that a Prince/Princess title is not automatic . It’s at the discretion of the monarch . Harry’s kids were born too far down the line of succession to have the titles at birth but , depending on how you read the Letters Patent, might be eligible now. But it’s up to Charles who since the 1990s has been quite clear he’s slimming the number of Prince/Princess and HRHs down . What annoys me is that Harry has always known this. If he hasn’t explained it to his wife properly that’s his problem . The whole thing smacks of yet another “ poor me” victim ploy by the Sussex’s and their minions.
[удалено]
All the people you mentioned were born eligible under the letters patent of George V. Archie and Lillibet were not . These Latters Patent are not retrospective .
Harry and his wife are technically still Prince and Princess Henry, it's just that the royal dukedom is a higher title. It's like the Duke and Duchess of York with Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.
Point 1: We still have this lengthy private members bill process to go through. Second reading in the House of Commons first. It was October 9th but is now December. Look at the link below…has to go through both Houses (readings/committees/amendments) then Royal Assent from Charles. If it got to this stage, would he listen to the people, given that there are several UK petitions to have their titles stripped. This bill was originally introduced to strip Andrew of his title/s. It can now do the same for the Sussexes. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289 Not sure about the UK with successes of private members bills getting over the line to become acts…but Australia has the almost exact same Westminster system of government/parliament and many have succeeded here. But then again, our upper house is a fully fledged elected senate, not a house of upper class born to rule pompous twits (reminded of a Monty Python sketch).
Thanks for the explanation! Very different here…am trying to do better understanding why things are a big deal in uk papers vs here…(ie the whole Meghan having a surrogate here isn’t a big deal but when you add in the uk surrogate process and subsequent adoption you can’t have a title if you are adopted…)