That is why i suggested to limit the style of HRH Prince(ss) to children of the main line. That would also include a firstborn daughter of Prince George. If he like his parents marries during the reign of his grandfather a new decree is needed or else only his oldest son will be HRH prince but any (older) sisters would be Lady until granddad William succeeds. In this case i assume William will be the reigning monarch by the time George marries, but we don't know how long William reigns and that might mean the problem just skips a generation.
Giving grandchildren of the main line the style of Lord/Lady they still are noble and not commoners, but don't really stand out too much from others with that style. Giving them an opportunity to build a life for themselves outside of the monarchy as that will be the most likely scenario for them. It would also create gender equality because the children of Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis would all be Lord/lady (Mountbatten-Windsor or any other surname from their other parent).
Limiting the use of Royal titles and peerages to working Royals and styling non-working royals as Lord or Lady also implies that once they carve out a life outside of the monarchy they do not get the opportunity or the blame for marketing their Royal status. It would give them more freedom as well. They would not be stripped of their titles (unless for instance a court conviction for a crime requires such a drastic step), but they would not use them socially or officially.
In my view the choice to strip someone officially of their royal titles should go with excluding them from the line of succession and is not a matter for the sovereign alone but one government and parliament need to participate in also.
With the very extended line of succession to the British throne that is quite a thing to do. So they might want to limit that to the first 20 or 30 people? That should be plenty to assure succession. 
Previous Message
Difficulty is in the hereditary character of the aristocracy and monarchy. More LP will have to regulate titles and styles of each generation by each new monarch if titles and styles are not dealt with in a more generic way. . Edwards children are by birth HRH prince(ss) but they use different titles and styles and are more or less being raised as royals. Andy is ostracised and stripped bare. His daughters remain HRH but have no working royal status and none will be given. Harry's children are HRH, live abroad and have no clue what it all entails. So the question is: How do you then define a working royal and how do you deal with the temporary character? When retired (as many should) you loose the HRH? Previous Message
I believe that would be a mistake.
To me the UK citizens are fine with working Royals being HRH and having peerages but they don't feel it's fair or needed for those who are living a private life.
Now all Charles III did was respond to a deep disgust of the UK population towards his younger brother. He did not think as a head of a dynasty. That is not a good idea in my view. In it he resembles Beatrix of the Netherlands who as Head of the Royal House and the House of Orange-Nassau made some questionable choices in spite of her being an excelent Monarch. Previous Message
Like your thinking. Clearly that was a step too far for Charles. He cleaned up the biggest mess for his son and Harry might consider himself warned: if he remains silent and inconspicuous he can keep his titles for now. LP can be issued just as easily for him and his wife. Previous Message
I think HM could have gone about it differently. He now singled out Andrew where he could have opted for new Letters Patent where using HRH Prince(ss) and given peerages for Royals are linked to being a working Royal.
If he restricted those to the descendants of his mother it would have included Harry and Meghan and by restricting the princely title to the main line and making the grandchildren of the main line Lord/Lady. That would have set things up for William's younger children as well. The monarch could always choose to elevate some niece, nephew or cousin to HRH prince(ss) if they were needed for the monarchy in that way.
The effect would be the same: Andrew not being allowed to use the titles he legally has. It would also have prevented having to go down a similar path again with Harry and we've seen how much media attention that gets. So one clean sweep in modernising titles used by members of the Royal Family would have been a wiser choice in my view.
Limiting the HRH and princely title to children of the main line would fit in with the line taken in other monarchies. Previous Message
"Nobody is rejoicing." I'm sorry, John, but they are, including in posts on this site. I'm not making any judgement about that fact but, clearly, people are rejoicing.
I have not suggested that the Duke of York's misfortunes and those of his wife are not of their own making. Those factors are simply not relevant to the points that I wished to make. But I don't think that retreating into cliches such as "Enough is enough" is particularly illuminating. One of the points that I was trying to make and, clearly, I failed, was that royal status necessarily is linked to hereditary rights, not just to service and, in the king's case, certainly not to moral virtue. And I say that as someone who admires the King, the Queen and the Princess Royal.
I also agree that monarchies need to continue to update, but I'm not sure that that should include discarding the very principle on which monarchy (with the exception of the Papacy and Malaysia, should people believe that they are monarchies - I don't) actually rests, like discarding the hereditary principle.
93
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index
on 11/11/2025, 16:46:10, in reply to "