Discussion:
changes to the ATR FAQ (part 1: Britain)
(too old to reply)
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-01 13:35:01 UTC
Permalink
What follows are the changes made to the ATR FAQ since the last posting.
The changes are presented as output of the "diff -c" Unix utility. Each
change is separated by a line with a dozen *'s. A certain amount of context
is provided for each change. Within that context, the lines removed from
the previous version are marked with '-'; those added to the new version
are marked '+'. Lines that are changed from one file to the other are
marked in both files with '!'.


*** britfaq.previous Thu Jul 1 08:35:08 2004
--- - Sun Aug 1 08:35:01 2004
***************
*** 18,24 ****
and are displayable by normal browsers. Ask your Internet Service
Provider for an "8-bit clean feed" if you have this problem.

! Last updated on: 07 Jun 2004

For comments, additions, suggestions, please contact the maintainer,
François Velde (http://www.heraldica.org/contact.html).
--- 18,24 ----
and are displayable by normal browsers. Ask your Internet Service
Provider for an "8-bit clean feed" if you have this problem.

! Last updated on: 14 Jul 2004

For comments, additions, suggestions, please contact the maintainer,
François Velde (http://www.heraldica.org/contact.html).
***************
*** 664,670 ****
* HRH Princess Eugenie of York
* HRH The Earl of Wessex
* HRH The Countess of Wessex
! * HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (called Lady Louise Windsor)

When speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people
could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
--- 664,670 ----
* HRH Princess Eugenie of York
* HRH The Earl of Wessex
* HRH The Countess of Wessex
! * Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor

When speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people
could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
***************
*** 806,812 ****
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964)
! 8. HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (b. 2003)
9. HRH The Princess Royal (b. 1950)
10. Peter Phillips (b. 1977)
11. Zara Phillips (b. 1981)
--- 806,812 ----
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964)
! 8. Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003)
9. HRH The Princess Royal (b. 1950)
10. Peter Phillips (b. 1977)
11. Zara Phillips (b. 1981)
***************
*** 1805,1811 ****
Sarah", "Duchess Sarah of York" despite what was and still is reported
by the media.

! Since 1917, there have been two exceptions to this rule:

First: the Duke of Edinburgh. On the day before his marriage to the
present Queen, Lt. Philip Mountbatten was created "HRH The Duke of
--- 1805,1811 ----
Sarah", "Duchess Sarah of York" despite what was and still is reported
by the media.

! Since 1917, there have been three exceptions to this rule:

First: the Duke of Edinburgh. On the day before his marriage to the
present Queen, Lt. Philip Mountbatten was created "HRH The Duke of
***************
*** 1826,1831 ****
--- 1826,1842 ----
before they would have been entitled to it upon their mother's
accession as Queen.

+ Third: On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie
+ Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the
+ queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children
+ they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but
+ would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While
+ royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by
+ way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such
+ instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that
+ the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is
+ all that matters.
+
At present, there are eighteen members of the Royal Family who are
entitled to the style HRH:
1. HRH The Prince of Wales (the child of a sovereign)
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Louis Epstein
2004-08-02 02:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
What follows are the changes made to the ATR FAQ since the last posting.
The changes are presented as output of the "diff -c" Unix utility. Each
change is separated by a line with a dozen *'s. A certain amount of context
is provided for each change. Within that context, the lines removed from
the previous version are marked with '-'; those added to the new version
are marked '+'. Lines that are changed from one file to the other are
marked in both files with '!'.
*** britfaq.previous Thu Jul 1 08:35:08 2004
--- - Sun Aug 1 08:35:01 2004
***************
*** 18,24 ****
and are displayable by normal browsers. Ask your Internet Service
Provider for an "8-bit clean feed" if you have this problem.
! Last updated on: 07 Jun 2004
For comments, additions, suggestions, please contact the maintainer,
Fran?ois Velde (http://www.heraldica.org/contact.html).
--- 18,24 ----
and are displayable by normal browsers. Ask your Internet Service
Provider for an "8-bit clean feed" if you have this problem.
! Last updated on: 14 Jul 2004
For comments, additions, suggestions, please contact the maintainer,
Fran?ois Velde (http://www.heraldica.org/contact.html).
***************
*** 664,670 ****
* HRH Princess Eugenie of York
* HRH The Earl of Wessex
* HRH The Countess of Wessex
! * HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (called Lady Louise Windsor)
When speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people
could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
--- 664,670 ----
* HRH Princess Eugenie of York
* HRH The Earl of Wessex
* HRH The Countess of Wessex
! * Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
As noted previously...
Post by Francois R. Velde
When speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people
could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
***************
*** 806,812 ****
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964)
! 8. HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (b. 2003)
9. HRH The Princess Royal (b. 1950)
10. Peter Phillips (b. 1977)
11. Zara Phillips (b. 1981)
--- 806,812 ----
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964)
! 8. Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003)
...(Not even a Lady here eh?)...
Post by Francois R. Velde
9. HRH The Princess Royal (b. 1950)
10. Peter Phillips (b. 1977)
11. Zara Phillips (b. 1981)
***************
*** 1805,1811 ****
Sarah", "Duchess Sarah of York" despite what was and still is reported
by the media.
First: the Duke of Edinburgh. On the day before his marriage to the
present Queen, Lt. Philip Mountbatten was created "HRH The Duke of
--- 1805,1811 ----
Sarah", "Duchess Sarah of York" despite what was and still is reported
by the media.
......
Post by Francois R. Velde
First: the Duke of Edinburgh. On the day before his marriage to the
present Queen, Lt. Philip Mountbatten was created "HRH The Duke of
***************
*** 1826,1831 ****
--- 1826,1842 ----
before they would have been entitled to it upon their mother's
accession as Queen.
+ Third: On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie
+ Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the
+ queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children
+ they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but
+ would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While
+ royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by
+ way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such
+ instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that
+ the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is
+ all that matters.
...I objected intensely to the uncompromising tenor of this
new text,which represents total reversal of the previous position
on a matter on which I am convinced,when one takes the total context
of the matter into question,that the overriding intent of the Queen
was to ensure that the matter remained flexibly ambiguous.

To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
Post by Francois R. Velde
At present, there are eighteen members of the Royal Family who are
1. HRH The Prince of Wales (the child of a sovereign)
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-02 03:51:38 UTC
Permalink
I objected intensely to [...]
And, after years of objecting intensely to reality and common sense, you expect
us still to pay attention?
To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
There are no underlying rights. Isn't it absurd that I would have to tell
*you*, of all people?

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Louis Epstein
2004-08-02 14:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
I objected intensely to [...]
And, after years of objecting intensely to reality and common sense, you expect
us still to pay attention?
To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
There are no underlying rights. Isn't it absurd that I would have to
tell *you*, of all people?
When faced with pressure from modernizers,*you* say the Queen knuckled
under,*I* say she pulled an ingenious feint.

In propagating the opinion that the Wessex children (real or potential)
AREN'T Royal Highnesses rather than ARE BUT AREN'T CALLED Royal
Highnesses,you are adding your weight to the pressure I deplore.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Charles Stewart
2004-08-02 20:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Louis Epstein
To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
This is also my interpretation.
Post by Louis Epstein
When faced with pressure from modernizers,*you* say the Queen knuckled
under,*I* say she pulled an ingenious feint.
I don't think there is sufficient evidence as to *why* the Queen's
announcement contained what it contained. I can see several other
possibilities, including that the change was actually initiated by the
marrying couple, or that it was initiated by the government, or that
it represents a compromise.

Charles Stewart
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-02 22:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
In propagating the opinion that the Wessex children (real or potential)
AREN'T Royal Highnesses rather than ARE BUT AREN'T CALLED Royal
Highnesses,you are adding your weight to the pressure I deplore.
More generally, I'm propagating the opinion that the world exists,
that a spade is a spade, and other monstrosities which you also
deplore. Tough.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Christopher Buyers
2004-08-03 05:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
I objected intensely to [...]
And, after years of objecting intensely to reality and common sense, you expect
us still to pay attention?
To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
There are no underlying rights. Isn't it absurd that I would have to
tell *you*, of all people?
When faced with pressure from modernizers,*you* say the Queen knuckled
under,*I* say she pulled an ingenious feint.
In propagating the opinion that the Wessex children (real or potential)
AREN'T Royal Highnesses rather than ARE BUT AREN'T CALLED Royal
Highnesses,you are adding your weight to the pressure I deplore.
On the contrary, what the "doubters" are doing is trying to force her
into a position where the LPs will be have to be re-written so as to
limit. The consequence will be that the styles and titles of prince
and princess will be resitricted to the children of the sovereign
only. Thus, not simply making an exception for the children of one
son, but to make that the norm for all sons in the future.

Who knows what will happen if the LPs are reviewed, perhaps these
titles may even be restricted to the Heir Apparent, his/her spouse and
eldest son.

Play along with them if you like, but don't pretend to be a monarchist
thereafter.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Louis Epstein
2004-08-03 16:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
I objected intensely to [...]
And, after years of objecting intensely to reality and common sense,
you expect us still to pay attention?
I'll be right about what reality ought to be long after
what reality happens to be at the moment has crumbled
into dust!
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
There are no underlying rights. Isn't it absurd that I would have to
tell *you*, of all people?
When faced with pressure from modernizers,*you* say the Queen knuckled
under,*I* say she pulled an ingenious feint.
In propagating the opinion that the Wessex children (real or potential)
AREN'T Royal Highnesses rather than ARE BUT AREN'T CALLED Royal
Highnesses,you are adding your weight to the pressure I deplore.
On the contrary, what the "doubters" are doing is trying to force her
into a position where the LPs will be have to be re-written so as to
limit. The consequence will be that the styles and titles of prince
and princess will be resitricted to the children of the sovereign
only. Thus, not simply making an exception for the children of one
son, but to make that the norm for all sons in the future.
No...we are trying to minimize the significance of the 1999
announcement to reduce the occurrence of any such change in
the future.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Christopher Buyers
2004-08-04 05:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
I objected intensely to [...]
And, after years of objecting intensely to reality and common sense,
you expect us still to pay attention?
I'll be right about what reality ought to be long after
what reality happens to be at the moment has crumbled
into dust!
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
There are no underlying rights. Isn't it absurd that I would have to
tell *you*, of all people?
When faced with pressure from modernizers,*you* say the Queen knuckled
under,*I* say she pulled an ingenious feint.
In propagating the opinion that the Wessex children (real or potential)
AREN'T Royal Highnesses rather than ARE BUT AREN'T CALLED Royal
Highnesses,you are adding your weight to the pressure I deplore.
On the contrary, what the "doubters" are doing is trying to force her
into a position where the LPs will be have to be re-written so as to
limit. The consequence will be that the styles and titles of prince
and princess will be resitricted to the children of the sovereign
only. Thus, not simply making an exception for the children of one
son, but to make that the norm for all sons in the future.
No...we are trying to minimize the significance of the 1999
announcement to reduce the occurrence of any such change in
the future.
No, you are trying to pretend that there is no change at all. So if
people still go about calling someone a princess and Royal Highness
when the Queen has expressly said she is not, will only induce those
who insisted on the change to demand a re-writing of the LPs. The only
way that can be done in meaningful language is to limit the right to
these styles and titles to all grandchildren.

If you want to shoot your horse, just continue on your chosen path.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Louis Epstein
2004-08-04 19:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
I objected intensely to [...]
And, after years of objecting intensely to reality and common sense,
you expect us still to pay attention?
I'll be right about what reality ought to be long after
what reality happens to be at the moment has crumbled
into dust!
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
To unequivocally state that the press release removed the ENTITLEMENT
of the Wessex children to assume royal styles without any further
enactment is quite simply WRONG.It signified an intent as to usage
without prejudice to underlying rights.
There are no underlying rights. Isn't it absurd that I would have to
tell *you*, of all people?
When faced with pressure from modernizers,*you* say the Queen knuckled
under,*I* say she pulled an ingenious feint.
In propagating the opinion that the Wessex children (real or potential)
AREN'T Royal Highnesses rather than ARE BUT AREN'T CALLED Royal
Highnesses,you are adding your weight to the pressure I deplore.
On the contrary, what the "doubters" are doing is trying to force her
into a position where the LPs will be have to be re-written so as to
limit. The consequence will be that the styles and titles of prince
and princess will be resitricted to the children of the sovereign
only. Thus, not simply making an exception for the children of one
son, but to make that the norm for all sons in the future.
No...we are trying to minimize the significance of the 1999
announcement to reduce the occurrence of any such change in
the future.
No, you are trying to pretend that there is no change at all. So if
people still go about calling someone a princess and Royal Highness
when the Queen has expressly said she is not, will only induce those
who insisted on the change to demand a re-writing of the LPs. The only
way that can be done in meaningful language is to limit the right to
these styles and titles to all grandchildren.
As ever,we differ intensely.

I want those who insisted on the change to be humiliated,
not emboldened by their desires being treated as respectable.
Refusing to empower one's enemies does not empower one's enemies.
Post by Christopher Buyers
If you want to shoot your horse, just continue on your chosen path.
If you want riding your horse to be banned,continue on yours.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Charles Stewart
2004-08-02 03:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
What follows are the changes made to the ATR FAQ since the last posting.
It seems to me that some of the language that refers here to the
daughter of the Earl of Wessex is still under discussion among ATR
posters, and that a consensus concerning it has not yet been reached.
IMO, either inclusion of the language should be postponed or a
statement should be inserted indicating that there is not consensus on
the interpretation presented.
Post by Francois R. Velde
*** 664,670 ****
* HRH Princess Eugenie of York
* HRH The Earl of Wessex
* HRH The Countess of Wessex
! * HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (called Lady Louise Windsor)
I think the above reference is fine.
Post by Francois R. Velde
When speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people
could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
--- 664,670 ----
* HRH Princess Eugenie of York
* HRH The Earl of Wessex
* HRH The Countess of Wessex
! * Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
I think this reference should be amended to conform with the refrence
mentioned above. Alternatively, I think insertion of this reference
should be postponed or annotated.
Post by Francois R. Velde
When speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people
could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
***************
*** 806,812 ****
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964)
! 8. HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (b. 2003)
I think this reference should be amended to conform as indicated
above.
Post by Francois R. Velde
--- 806,812 ----
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)
7. HRH The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964)
! 8. Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003)
I think this reference should be amended to conform as indicated
above.
Post by Francois R. Velde
+ Third: On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie
+ Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the
+ queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children
+ they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but
+ would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While
+ royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by
+ way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such
+ instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that
+ the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is
+ all that matters.
I recommend modifcation of the above insertion as follows:
"...While changes in the legal and customary usage of royal styles and
titles have usually been effected by way of letters patent, royal
warrrants or Court Circular announcements, precedents show that such
instruments have not always been considered necessary, and there is no
reason to doubt that the press release correctly expresses the
sovereign's will, which is all that matters."

Charles Stewart
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-02 03:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
What follows are the changes made to the ATR FAQ since the last posting.
It seems to me that some of the language that refers here to the
daughter of the Earl of Wessex is still under discussion among ATR
posters, and that a consensus concerning it has not yet been reached.
IMO, either inclusion of the language should be postponed or a
statement should be inserted indicating that there is not consensus on
the interpretation presented.
(1) By definition, until a consensus has been reached, no language in the FAQ
will reflect a consensus, including the pre-existing one. Amending the draft,
even if the result is not yet final, seems at least to stimulate discussion....

(2) Better this than me forgetting about it altogether.

I agree that the text is currently inconsistent.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
*** 664,670 ****
* HRH Princess Eugenie of York
* HRH The Earl of Wessex
* HRH The Countess of Wessex
! * HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (called Lady Louise Windsor)
I think the above reference is fine.
I don't. I see a potential debate over Windsor versus Mountbatten-Windsor. I
see no reason to be more royalist than the Queen over the "HRH Princess" bit.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
+ Third: On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie
+ Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the
+ queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children
+ they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but
+ would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While
+ royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by
+ way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such
+ instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that
+ the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is
+ all that matters.
"...While changes in the legal and customary usage of royal styles and
titles have usually been effected by way of letters patent, royal
warrrants or Court Circular announcements, precedents show that such
instruments have not always been considered necessary, and there is no
reason to doubt that the press release correctly expresses the
sovereign's will, which is all that matters."
I don't see:
(1) the point of your alterations
(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Charles Stewart
2004-08-02 20:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
What follows are the changes made to the ATR FAQ since the last posting.
It seems to me that some of the language that refers here to the
daughter of the Earl of Wessex is still under discussion among ATR
posters, and that a consensus concerning it has not yet been reached.
IMO, either inclusion of the language should be postponed or a
statement should be inserted indicating that there is not consensus on
the interpretation presented.
(1) By definition, until a consensus has been reached, no language in the FAQ
will reflect a consensus, including the pre-existing one.
Yes, I just thought that "there is not consensus on the interpretation
presented" was less in-your-face than "some folks objected to this
interpretation but were powerless to stop it from being included". It
seems to me that on other changes presented to us there has not been
consensus either (and no chance for any on changes not presented in
advance), but there has also not been strong dissent.

I gather that the reason you go to the trouble of informing us in
advance of coming changes is to elicit dissent and suggested
improvements? I am open to alternative wording.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Amending the draft,
even if the result is not yet final, seems at least to stimulate discussion....
(2) Better this than me forgetting about it altogether.
Exactly. Thanx for doing so.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
! * HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (called Lady Louise Windsor)
I think the above reference is fine.
I don't. I see a potential debate over Windsor versus Mountbatten-Windsor. I
see no reason to be more royalist than the Queen over the "HRH Princess" bit.
It seems to me that in the past there has been considerable expression
of disagreement with the "officialness" of this deviation from the
1917 LP. The reference above seems closest to what I think has been
agreed upon in ATR discussions. I disagree that this description is
"more royalist than the Queen" for reasons (to which you have
dissented) previously posted at:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d6e20427.0407161257.f8d00a2%40posting.google.com>
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
+ Third: On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie
+ Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the
+ queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children
+ they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but
+ would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While
+ royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by
+ way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such
+ instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that
+ the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is
+ all that matters.
"...While changes in the legal and customary usage of royal styles and
titles have usually been effected by way of letters patent, royal
warrrants or Court Circular announcements, precedents show that such
instruments have not always been considered necessary, and there is no
reason to doubt that the press release correctly expresses the
sovereign's will, which is all that matters."
(1) the point of your alterations
You and I agreed with Don Aitken's assessment that the royal
prerogative may be exercised on occasion as officially through press
release as Letters Patent. Though little dissent was expressed when
that point was raised here, based on previous discussions I believe
that many ATR participants are unlikely to have been convinced, so I
prefer less definitive wording. I may well be wrong about ATR, but I
see no harm in using more cautious language. I would like to hear from
others on ATR on these points.
Post by Francois R. Velde
(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
I am not convinced that the Queen has rescinded the legal effects of
the 1917 Letters Patent in regard to the Wessex children. My read is
that their legal right to the princely style remains, but that the
Queen has directed that it not be used for the present.

Charles Stewart
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-02 21:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Stewart
I gather that the reason you go to the trouble of informing us in
advance of coming changes is to elicit dissent and suggested
improvements? I am open to alternative wording.
I don't generally announce changes in advance, simply because I rarely make
changes motu proprio. Usually I respond to mistakes or omissions pointed out
on ATR, and when they are obvious I just go ahead and correct them. When
someone raises a substantive issue (and I notice) I propose a draft change
and wait a few days for a reaction. When a single person proposes a change
and gets no reaction whatsoever, I typically wait (sorry Uwe, I took note of
your Reuss an Hesse-Philipsthal objections, but I'd like to see someone second
the motion; same for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.

Perhaps I should have proposed a draft first in this case; but the fact that
the FAQ itself was altered in the present instance does not mean in the slightest
that the change is more permanent or definitive than usual.

At any rate, the automatic monthly posting of changes to the FAQ provides a
simple way to monitor the changes I make, as happened this time fortunately.
Take it as a proposed draft, to call the baby "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor"
or "Lady Louise Windsor" (I'm not quite sure myself which to use).
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
! * HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (called Lady Louise Windsor)
I think the above reference is fine.
I don't. I see a potential debate over Windsor versus Mountbatten-Windsor. I
see no reason to be more royalist than the Queen over the "HRH Princess" bit.
It seems to me that in the past there has been considerable expression
of disagreement with the "officialness" of this deviation from the
1917 LP. The reference above seems closest to what I think has been
agreed upon in ATR discussions. I disagree that this description is
"more royalist than the Queen" for reasons (to which you have
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d6e20427.0407161257.f8d00a2%40posting.google.com>
I don't understand what position that post is arguing: it seems to me to be
arguing over Windsor versus Mountbatten-Windsor, not over the "HRH Princess" bit.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
+ Third: On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie
+ Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the
+ queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children
+ they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but
+ would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While
+ royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by
+ way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such
+ instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that
+ the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is
+ all that matters.
"...While changes in the legal and customary usage of royal styles and
titles have usually been effected by way of letters patent, royal
warrrants or Court Circular announcements, precedents show that such
instruments have not always been considered necessary, and there is no
reason to doubt that the press release correctly expresses the
sovereign's will, which is all that matters."
(1) the point of your alterations
You and I agreed with Don Aitken's assessment that the royal
prerogative may be exercised on occasion as officially through press
release as Letters Patent. Though little dissent was expressed when
that point was raised here, based on previous discussions I believe
that many ATR participants are unlikely to have been convinced, so I
prefer less definitive wording.
If that is the case, the only needed modification would be to the
clause "precedents show that such instruments are not necessary".
Post by Charles Stewart
I may well be wrong about ATR, but I
see no harm in using more cautious language. I would like to hear from
others on ATR on these points.
I don't understand the phrasing you propose: "changes in the legal and
customary usage of royal styles and titles". What's a "legal usage"?
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
I am not convinced that the Queen has rescinded the legal effects of
the 1917 Letters Patent in regard to the Wessex children. My read is
that their legal right to the princely style remains, but that the
Queen has directed that it not be used for the present.
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).

This is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice. Here, as in Louis's dream
world, the sovereign's will is the absolute law at any point in time,
and the sovereign's will is not bound by precedent or any requirement
of consistency over time. The use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements. What counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.

You are trying to make a distinction between an underlying legal
right and actual usage, which I suspect is the reason for the odd
phrase "legal usage" you propose above. In that view, the right to
be called HRH Princess remains intact, but is somehow suspended from
being exercised, à la Cumberland peerage; and the earl of Wessex's
daughter enjoys the style of princess but cannot be called a princess.
This makes no sense to me. There is no legal right, in part because
there is no court where Lady Louise W could seek the enforcement of the
right to enjoy the style without enjoying it, in part because there is no
evidence for the existence of such rights in English law (so I
believe: I'm happy to be shown such evidence.) As long as the
sovereign wills it, she is not called a royal highness or a princess,
and that is exactly the same thing as not being a royal highness or
a princess: so I believe, but I'm willing to look at any evidence
for a distinction between the two.

My basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
from that command. How would I write the footnote in the ATR FAQ:
"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?

I also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says. I see no need to invent
ambiguity where there is none. There is no need for flexibility,
because the Queen has all the flexibility she wants: the minute the
Queen changes her mind, Louise becomes a princess, and the Queen can
announce it any way she likes.

If the hang-up is over the (incorrect) perception that letters patent
signify customs set in stone, I'm happy to add a note to state the
obvious, that the Queen's decision could be changed at any time (by
the Queen or her successors, not by the countess of Wessex).
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Louis Epstein
2004-08-03 16:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
+ Third: On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie
+ Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the
+ queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children
+ they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but
+ would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While
+ royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by
+ way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such
+ instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that
+ the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which
+ is all that matters.
"...While changes in the legal and customary usage of royal styles
and titles have usually been effected by way of letters patent, royal
warrrants or Court Circular announcements, precedents show that such
instruments have not always been considered necessary, and there is
no reason to doubt that the press release correctly expresses the
sovereign's will, which is all that matters."
(1) the point of your alterations
You and I agreed with Don Aitken's assessment that the royal
prerogative may be exercised on occasion as officially through press
release as Letters Patent. Though little dissent was expressed when
that point was raised here, based on previous discussions I believe
that many ATR participants are unlikely to have been convinced, so I
prefer less definitive wording.
If that is the case, the only needed modification would be to the
clause "precedents show that such instruments are not necessary".
Post by Charles Stewart
I may well be wrong about ATR, but I
see no harm in using more cautious language. I would like to hear from
others on ATR on these points.
I don't understand the phrasing you propose: "changes in the legal and
customary usage of royal styles and titles". What's a "legal usage"?
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess",
since the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
I am not convinced that the Queen has rescinded the legal effects of
the 1917 Letters Patent in regard to the Wessex children. My read is
that their legal right to the princely style remains, but that the
Queen has directed that it not be used for the present.
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
So you see Letters Patent as of different degrees of effect
depending on their subject matter?
Post by Francois R. Velde
This is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice. Here, as in Louis's dream
world, the sovereign's will is the absolute law at any point in time,
and the sovereign's will is not bound by precedent or any requirement
of consistency over time. The use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn
I see nothing to be gained by denying the Sovereign's
discretion to create nuances in formal effect through
varying means of expression used.
Post by Francois R. Velde
from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements. What counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
But the kind of paper chosen is chosen to
indicate a degree of commitment.Recall that
the mother of the children at issue said the
children would be able to choose Royal styles
as adults,had LP been at issue this would not
have been the case.
Post by Francois R. Velde
You are trying to make a distinction between an underlying legal
right and actual usage, which I suspect is the reason for the odd
phrase "legal usage" you propose above. In that view, the right to
be called HRH Princess remains intact, but is somehow suspended from
being exercised, a la Cumberland peerage; and the earl of Wessex's
daughter enjoys the style of princess but cannot be called a princess.
This makes no sense to me. There is no legal right, in part because
there is no court where Lady Louise W could seek the enforcement of the
right to enjoy the style without enjoying it, in part because there is
no evidence for the existence of such rights in English law (so I
believe: I'm happy to be shown such evidence.) As long as the
sovereign wills it, she is not called a royal highness or a princess,
and that is exactly the same thing as not being a royal highness or
a princess: so I believe, but I'm willing to look at any evidence
for a distinction between the two.
Again,look at what the Countess told the phony Arabs.
Lady Louise is intended,without public emphasis on the
point for public relations reasons,to be able to start
going by Princess Louise without any formal enactment,
which would not be the case if LP had been issued.
Post by Francois R. Velde
My basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
It doesn't say "she shall not be a princess",does it?
Post by Francois R. Velde
"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
this FAQ,however,understands that that doesn't mean she
isn't really a Princess...
Post by Francois R. Velde
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?
I also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I see no reason to assume that the Countess of Wessex is
not much better informed about the underlying intent than
was openly distilled into the press release.
Post by Francois R. Velde
I see no need to invent ambiguity where there is none.
I see no reason to ignore extremely important
ambiguity because it sailed,as intended,over
the heads of the popular press.
Post by Francois R. Velde
There is no need for flexibility, because the Queen has all the
flexibility she wants: the minute the Queen changes her mind, Louise
becomes a princess, and the Queen can announce it any way she likes.
The way the announcement was made in 1999
means that no greater formality is called
for any change.
Post by Francois R. Velde
If the hang-up is over the (incorrect) perception that letters patent
signify customs set in stone, I'm happy to add a note to state the
obvious, that the Queen's decision could be changed at any time (by
the Queen or her successors, not by the countess of Wessex).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-03 17:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
So you see Letters Patent as of different degrees of effect
depending on their subject matter?
Here's a useful pair of concepts: form/substance.
Post by Louis Epstein
I see nothing to be gained by denying the Sovereign's
discretion to create nuances in formal effect through
varying means of expression used.
So what's the difference between the HRH of the husbands of Alice
and Beatrice, daughters of Queen Victoria? One by letters patent,
the other by royal warrant.
Post by Louis Epstein
But the kind of paper chosen is chosen to
indicate a degree of commitment.Recall that
the mother of the children at issue said the
children would be able to choose Royal styles
as adults,had LP been at issue this would not
have been the case.
The mother of the children said that royal styles and titles was
"up to us" (meaning her and her husband). You think that the
royal prerogative in matters of royal styles and titles has been
transferred to the Countess of Wessex?
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
My basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
It doesn't say "she shall not be a princess",does it?
Letters Patent never say that anyone is a prince or princess, do they?
By your logic, therefore, no one is a prince or princess.
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
this FAQ,however,understands that that doesn't mean she
isn't really a Princess...
Are you sure you want to use the word "really"?
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?
I also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I see no reason to assume that the Countess of Wessex is
not much better informed about the underlying intent than
was openly distilled into the press release.
Your sentence is grammatically incomplete. You think the
Countess is better informed than the Queen? Or do you
think that the press release is lying when it says "the
Queen has decided"?

Between a press release from BP and an interview of the countess of
Wessex (the only evidence you provide), I choose the former.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Louis Epstein
2004-08-04 19:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
So you see Letters Patent as of different degrees of effect
depending on their subject matter?
Here's a useful pair of concepts: form/substance.
You're the one who feels that one can not change a Prince/Princess's
"form" without changing their substance!
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Louis Epstein
I see nothing to be gained by denying the Sovereign's
discretion to create nuances in formal effect through
varying means of expression used.
So what's the difference between the HRH of the husbands of Alice
and Beatrice, daughters of Queen Victoria? One by letters patent,
the other by royal warrant.
Post by Louis Epstein
But the kind of paper chosen is chosen to
indicate a degree of commitment.Recall that
the mother of the children at issue said the
children would be able to choose Royal styles
as adults,had LP been at issue this would not
have been the case.
The mother of the children said that royal styles and titles was
"up to us" (meaning her and her husband). You think that the
royal prerogative in matters of royal styles and titles has been
transferred to the Countess of Wessex?
I believe that the royal prerogative was exercised in such
a way as to make no change that could not be reversed by a
casual family agreement.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
My basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
It doesn't say "she shall not be a princess",does it?
Letters Patent never say that anyone is a prince or princess, do they?
By your logic, therefore, no one is a prince or princess.
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
this FAQ,however,understands that that doesn't mean she
isn't really a Princess...
Are you sure you want to use the word "really"?
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Francois R. Velde
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?
I also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I see no reason to assume that the Countess of Wessex is
not much better informed about the underlying intent than
was openly distilled into the press release.
Your sentence is grammatically incomplete. You think the
Countess is better informed than the Queen? Or do you
think that the press release is lying when it says "the
Queen has decided"?
Between a press release from BP and an interview of the countess of
Wessex (the only evidence you provide), I choose the former.
The press release is a superficial statement concerning
matters on which the Countess of Wessex is better informed
than we are.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 15:46:50 UTC
Permalink
"Louis Epstein" <***@shell.fcc.net> a �crit dans le message de news:t8CdnYqxzeUtr4zcRVn-***@fcc.net...

<...>
Post by Louis Epstein
The press release is a superficial statement concerning
matters on which the Countess of Wessex is better informed
than we are.
Louis makes a good point here I think: if only the will of the sovereign
counts, and not the document by which he express his will which would be
only informative and not legally binding, how can we be sure then that the
testimony of the Countess of Wessex is not a better instrument to know this
will than the press release? In the time where official documents where only
that, notifications of an action which had taken place otherwise, it was
precisely because the real proof of the action was vested on the
testimonies.

Pierre
Charles Stewart
2004-08-03 19:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
I don't generally announce changes in advance, simply because I rarely make
changes motu proprio. Usually I respond to mistakes or omissions pointed out
on ATR, and when they are obvious I just go ahead and correct them.
Makes sense.
Post by Francois R. Velde
When
someone raises a substantive issue (and I notice) I propose a draft change
and wait a few days for a reaction. When a single person proposes a change
and gets no reaction whatsoever, I typically wait (sorry Uwe, I took note of
your Reuss an Hesse-Philipsthal objections, but I'd like to see someone second
I don't generally announce changes in advance, simply because I rarely make
changes motu proprio. Usually I respond to mistakes or omissions pointed out
on ATR, and when they are obvious I just go ahead and correct them.
Makes sense.
Post by Francois R. Velde
When
someone raises a substantive issue (and I notice) I propose a draft change
and wait a few days for a reaction. When a single person proposes a change
and gets no reaction whatsoever, I typically wait (sorry Uwe, I took note of
your Reuss an Hesse-Philipsthal objections, but I'd like to see someone second
the motion;
I would like to see how the Holstein lines would be equitably handled
consistent with the principle Uwe is advocating before seeing these
changes implemented.
Post by Francois R. Velde
same for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I second Pierre's proposal as expressed at:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3DFAQ%2Bspain%2Bsuccession%2Baronax%2Bgroup%253Aalt.talk.royalty%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.talk.royalty>
Post by Francois R. Velde
I'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
But quite sensible. I see no need for changing them, especially the
rule about not automatically including every substantive proposed
change without a second, since the original FAQ was vetted on ATR when
Yvonne Demoskoff was in the process of drafting it.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Perhaps I should have proposed a draft first in this case; but the fact that
the FAQ itself was altered in the present instance does not mean in the slightest
that the change is more permanent or definitive than usual.
I misunderstood. I thought the automatic posting proposed a future
change, not an effected one.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
You and I agreed with Don Aitken's assessment that the royal
prerogative may be exercised on occasion as officially through press
release as Letters Patent. Though little dissent was expressed when
that point was raised here, based on previous discussions I believe
that many ATR participants are unlikely to have been convinced, so I
prefer less definitive wording.
If that is the case, the only needed modification would be to the
clause "precedents show that such instruments are not necessary".
Still sounds too definitive to me. But I will drop the objection if I
continue to be the only one raising it.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
I may well be wrong about ATR, but I
see no harm in using more cautious language. I would like to hear from
others on ATR on these points.
I don't understand the phrasing you propose: "changes in the legal and
customary usage of royal styles and titles". What's a "legal usage"?
Emphasis on the distinction between exercises of the royal prerogative
(e.g. 1917 LP) and custom (e.g. pre-1864 attribution of style of
"Prince" and "Royal Highness" to British agnates).
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
But the Queen did not say she is no longer so entitled and extant
letters patent state that she is.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
I am not convinced that the Queen has rescinded the legal effects of
the 1917 Letters Patent in regard to the Wessex children. My read is
that their legal right to the princely style remains, but that the
Queen has directed that it not be used for the present.
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
Or that can be withdrawn only through a comparable exercise of the
royal prerogative, which is a form of legal process.
Post by Francois R. Velde
This is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice.
I don't know that this aspect of the royal prerogative is exempt from
governmental advice, but I agree that such titles, styles and
precedence depend upon the royal prerogative.
Post by Francois R. Velde
The use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements.
I disagree. The distinction is meaningful, though not necessarily
essential, and I have indicated several times what I think it means in
reference to the Wessex children; use of royal titles and styles
suspended -- but right thereto not permanently abolished. The
"entitlement" lasts until another exercise of the royal prerogative of
comparable gravitas to the 1917 LP, or until it is communicated that
royal press releases have replaced or are equal in power of effect to
letters patent. I do not believe that such a message has been sent or
that it was intended.
Post by Francois R. Velde
What counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
Agreed. Nonetheless I am not convinced that the tradition of
distinguishing among expressions of the royal will by use of different
instruments has been ended. Admittedly, there have been
inconsistencies in that tradition, but I believe that the Crown has
treated these instruments as differing in import and use, and I don't
think enough changes have gone through to clearly signal that those
differences are now considered meaningless.

If I understand you correctly, your contention is that distinctions
between letters patent, royal warrants, press releases issued on royal
authority and the Queen's verbal decisions were always meaningless and
that henceforth we and ATR's FAQ should treat them that way. I
disagree.
Post by Francois R. Velde
You are trying to make a distinction between an underlying legal
right and actual usage, which I suspect is the reason for the odd
phrase "legal usage" you propose above.
Mea culpa.
Post by Francois R. Velde
In that view, the right to
be called HRH Princess remains intact, but is somehow suspended from
being exercised, à la Cumberland peerage; and the earl of Wessex's
daughter enjoys the style of princess but cannot be called a princess.
This makes no sense to me.
I know. That is where we diverge, because I find it equally lacking in
sense to say that the Queen cannot uphold a class of persons' right to
a style under previous royal edict, while exempting specified
individuals from the exercise of that right for such time as she
thinks good. Nor do I believe that she need communicate that exception
explicitly as such if she prefers to do it in a subtle manner. You
will not think she *should* do it that way, but that does not, to me,
mean that she *may* not do it that way -- and it does not free us from
the responsibility to seek to understand her intent in good faith.
Post by Francois R. Velde
There is no legal right, in part because
there is no court where Lady Louise W could seek the enforcement of the
right to enjoy the style without enjoying it, in part because there is no
evidence for the existence of such rights in English law (so I
believe: I'm happy to be shown such evidence.) As long as the
sovereign wills it, she is not called a royal highness or a princess,
and that is exactly the same thing as not being a royal highness or
a princess: so I believe, but I'm willing to look at any evidence
for a distinction between the two.
IMO, the evidence consists in the distinctions the Crown itself has
made when choosing among instruments to express the royal will.
Post by Francois R. Velde
My basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
from that command.
I do see ambiguity of a deliberate kind and I think that ambiguity
should be reflected in the FAQ.

We have heard each other's arguments and, I think, we simply disagree
on this point.
A description of the way in which the change was effected, preserving
much of the language used, suffices for me.
Post by Francois R. Velde
"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?
Sarcasm duly noted.
Post by Francois R. Velde
I also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I do not see a divergence between what they have said. Her comment
confirmed exactly what I understood the Queen had communicated by
choice of wording and instrument of expression.
Post by Francois R. Velde
I see no need to invent
ambiguity where there is none.
But I see the ambiguity as intentional, and not as mine.
Post by Francois R. Velde
There is no need for flexibility,
because the Queen has all the flexibility she wants: the minute the
Queen changes her mind, Louise becomes a princess, and the Queen can
announce it any way she likes.
Then you see it as inconceivable that the Queen intended to
communicate the message that Louis, I and the Countess of Wessex
perceive?
Post by Francois R. Velde
If the hang-up is over the (incorrect) perception that letters patent
signify customs set in stone, I'm happy to add a note to state the
obvious, that the Queen's decision could be changed at any time (by
the Queen or her successors, not by the countess of Wessex).
That is, indeed, obvious, and does not get at the point that I think
is at issue here.

Charles Stewart

I would like to see how the Holstein lines would be equitably handled
consistent with the principle Uwe is advocating before seeing these
changes implemented.
Post by Francois R. Velde
same for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I second Pierre's proposal as expressed at:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3DFAQ%2Bspain%2Bsuccession%2Baronax%2Bgroup%253Aalt.talk.royalty%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.talk.royalty>
Post by Francois R. Velde
I'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
But quite sensible. I see no need for changing them, especially the
rule about not automatically including every substantive proposed
change without a second, since the original FAQ was vetted on ATR when
Yvonne Demoskoff was in the process of drafting it.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Perhaps I should have proposed a draft first in this case; but the fact that
the FAQ itself was altered in the present instance does not mean in the slightest
that the change is more permanent or definitive than usual.
I misunderstood. I thought the automatic posting proposed a future
change, not an effected one.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
You and I agreed with Don Aitken's assessment that the royal
prerogative may be exercised on occasion as officially through press
release as Letters Patent. Though little dissent was expressed when
that point was raised here, based on previous discussions I believe
that many ATR participants are unlikely to have been convinced, so I
prefer less definitive wording.
If that is the case, the only needed modification would be to the
clause "precedents show that such instruments are not necessary".
Still sounds too definitive to me. But I will drop the objection if I
continue to be the only one raising it.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
I may well be wrong about ATR, but I
see no harm in using more cautious language. I would like to hear from
others on ATR on these points.
I don't understand the phrasing you propose: "changes in the legal and
customary usage of royal styles and titles". What's a "legal usage"?
Emphasis on the distinction between exercises of the royal prerogative
(e.g. 1917 LP) and custom (e.g. pre-1864 attribution of style of
"Prince" and "Royal Highness" to British agnates).
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
But the Queen did not say she is no longer so entitled and extant
letters patent state that she is.
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
I am not convinced that the Queen has rescinded the legal effects of
the 1917 Letters Patent in regard to the Wessex children. My read is
that their legal right to the princely style remains, but that the
Queen has directed that it not be used for the present.
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
Or that can be withdrawn only through a comparable exercise of the
royal prerogative, which is a form of legal process.
Post by Francois R. Velde
This is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice.
I don't know that this aspect of the royal prerogative is exempt from
governmental advice, but I agree that such titles, styles and
precedence depend upon the royal prerogative.
Post by Francois R. Velde
The use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements.
I disagree. The distinction is meaningful, though not necessarily
essential, and I have indicated several times what I think it means in
reference to the Wessex children; use of royal titles and styles
suspended -- but right thereto not permanently abolished. The
"entitlement" lasts until another exercise of the royal prerogative of
comparable gravitas to the 1917 LP, or until it is communicated that
royal press releases have replaced or are equal in power of effect to
letters patent. I do not believe that such a message has been sent or
that it was intended.
Post by Francois R. Velde
What counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
Agreed. Nonetheless I am not convinced that the tradition of
distinguishing among expressions of the royal will by use of different
instruments has been ended. Admittedly, there have been
inconsistencies in that tradition, but I believe that the Crown has
treated these instruments as differing in import and use, and I don't
think enough changes have gone through to clearly signal that those
differences are now considered meaningless.

If I understand you correctly, your contention is that distinctions
between letters patent, royal warrants, press releases issued on royal
authority and the Queen's verbal decisions were always meaningless and
that henceforth we and ATR's FAQ should treat them that way. I
disagree.
Post by Francois R. Velde
You are trying to make a distinction between an underlying legal
right and actual usage, which I suspect is the reason for the odd
phrase "legal usage" you propose above.
Mea culpa.
Post by Francois R. Velde
In that view, the right to
be called HRH Princess remains intact, but is somehow suspended from
being exercised, à la Cumberland peerage; and the earl of Wessex's
daughter enjoys the style of princess but cannot be called a princess.
This makes no sense to me.
I know. That is where we diverge, because I find it equally lacking in
sense to say that the Queen cannot uphold a class of persons' right to
a style under previous royal edict, while exempting specified
individuals from the exercise of that right for such time as she
thinks good. Nor do I believe that she need communicate that exception
explicitly as such if she prefers to do it in a subtle manner. You
will not think she *should* do it that way, but that does not, to me,
mean that she *may* not do it that way -- and it does not free us from
the responsibility to seek to understand her intent in good faith.
Post by Francois R. Velde
There is no legal right, in part because
there is no court where Lady Louise W could seek the enforcement of the
right to enjoy the style without enjoying it, in part because there is no
evidence for the existence of such rights in English law (so I
believe: I'm happy to be shown such evidence.) As long as the
sovereign wills it, she is not called a royal highness or a princess,
and that is exactly the same thing as not being a royal highness or
a princess: so I believe, but I'm willing to look at any evidence
for a distinction between the two.
IMO, the evidence consists in the distinctions the Crown itself has
made when choosing among instruments to express the royal will.
Post by Francois R. Velde
My basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
from that command.
I do see ambiguity of a deliberate kind and I think that ambiguity
should be reflected in the FAQ.

We have heard each other's arguments and, I think, we simply disagree
on this point.
A description of the way in which the change was effected, preserving
much of the language used, suffices for me.
Post by Francois R. Velde
"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?
Sarcasm duly noted.
Post by Francois R. Velde
I also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I do not see a divergence between what they have said. Her comment
confirmed exactly what I understood the Queen had communicated by
choice of wording and instrument of expression.
Post by Francois R. Velde
I see no need to invent
ambiguity where there is none.
But I see the ambiguity as intentional, and not as mine.
Post by Francois R. Velde
There is no need for flexibility,
because the Queen has all the flexibility she wants: the minute the
Queen changes her mind, Louise becomes a princess, and the Queen can
announce it any way she likes.
Then you see it as inconceivable that the Queen intended to
communicate the message that Louis, I and the Countess of Wessex
perceive?
Post by Francois R. Velde
If the hang-up is over the (incorrect) perception that letters patent
signify customs set in stone, I'm happy to add a note to state the
obvious, that the Queen's decision could be changed at any time (by
the Queen or her successors, not by the countess of Wessex).
That is, indeed, obvious, and does not get at the point that I think
is at issue here.

Charles Stewart
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-03 22:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Stewart
I misunderstood. I thought the automatic posting proposed a future
change, not an effected one.
The automatic posting of changes to the FAQ is made by a script
that compares last month's FAQ with this month's FAQ and posts
the result.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
I don't understand the phrasing you propose: "changes in the legal and
customary usage of royal styles and titles". What's a "legal usage"?
Emphasis on the distinction between exercises of the royal prerogative
(e.g. 1917 LP) and custom (e.g. pre-1864 attribution of style of
"Prince" and "Royal Highness" to British agnates).
Then I don't see how letters patent can change "customary usage"; if
letters patent come into play, it ceases to be customary and becomes
legal. And if the distinction between the two sources of usage is
not going be to be used later in the paragraph, I don't see the point
of introducing it at the cost of complex language.

I think the word "legal" is misapplied and misleading anyway. There
is custom, and there is express will. I don't know what a good adjective
for the latter would be, but "legal" isn't it.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Francois R. Velde
(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
But the Queen did not say she is no longer so entitled and extant
letters patent state that she is.
How so? I know of no letters patent that say she is "entitled" to anything.

I know of letters patent that say individuals of a certain class (to
which she belongs) "shall enjoy" a certain style, and I know of a press
release that says "she shall not be called a princess" (I do not see any
meaningful distinction between enjoying a style and being called by that
style, unless the enjoyment comes from calling oneself a princess in front
of one's mirror).

Besides, even if she is still a princess, I'm not supposed to call her
a princess, so what do I do? Call her "H*r R*y*l H*ghn*ss Pr*nc*ss"?
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
Or that can be withdrawn only through a comparable exercise of the
royal prerogative, which is a form of legal process.
The words "only" and "comparable" are your interpolations. Who says it
takes letters patent to rescind, extend, limit or amend letters patent
in matters of styles and titles? We have examples to the contrary
(examples which you presumably dismiss by saying that they didn't
"really" have any effect, but only seemed to.)

In matters of peerage, of course, your statement is inapplicable.
While a peerage is created by letters patent, it cannot be altered
by "a comparable exercise of the royal prerogative." What
inference can one make solely from the form of instrument used?

Letters patent creating peerages have a clause that indicate how
the sovereign binds himself/herself: "by these Presents granting
for Us Our heirs and successors". If letters patent in matters
of royal style included such clauses, and if evidence could be
found in English common law that royal styles and titles are
legal rights, then I would change my mind.

I should be clear: one can think of a right in the sense that
someone who "shall enjoy the style of prince" has the right to
demand the style of prince in any of the relevant circumstances.
The issue is not whether there is a right with respect to other
parties, but with respect to the sovereign. By "legal right"
I mean some binding commitment of the sovereign toward the
individual.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
The use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements.
I disagree. The distinction is meaningful, though not necessarily
essential, and I have indicated several times what I think it means in
reference to the Wessex children; use of royal titles and styles
suspended -- but right thereto not permanently abolished. The
"entitlement" lasts until another exercise of the royal prerogative of
comparable gravitas to the 1917 LP, or until it is communicated that
royal press releases have replaced or are equal in power of effect to
letters patent. I do not believe that such a message has been sent or
that it was intended.
I do not believe that such a message is needed, so it's irrelevant
whether it was sent or intended. Your construct that it takes a
letter patent to repeal a letter patent, or that there exists a legal
right, has been much repeated but remains unproven.

Your argument is that the phrase "the Queen has decided that she shall
not be called a princess" has a different meaning depending on the piece
of paper on which it appears. To me, it means what it means.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
What counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
Agreed. Nonetheless I am not convinced that the tradition of
distinguishing among expressions of the royal will by use of different
instruments has been ended.
What is the evidence that this tradition has existed, outside of the
exegeses carried out on ATR?
Post by Charles Stewart
If I understand you correctly, your contention is that distinctions
between letters patent, royal warrants, press releases issued on royal
authority and the Queen's verbal decisions were always meaningless and
that henceforth we and ATR's FAQ should treat them that way. I
disagree.
I'm saying that when the Queen says "she shall not be called a
princess", that's what she means, and the FAQ has no reason to
do otherwise, parchment or no parchment.

The distinctions between instruments come from the content, not the form.
Letters patent, for example, are apparently preferred for the announcement
of general rules (1864, 1917, 1996), because general rules are intended to
stay in effect for lengthy periods of time, and letters patent are issued
"ad perpetuam rei memoriam". Royal warrants are more suitable for a group
of individuals of the same cohort (siblings), and less formal means for
one-off events, or graces that are conferred upon one particular individual.
Perhaps letters patent are preferred for an individual of particularly
high status (sovereign's consort). Of course exceptions can be found
to such patterns, but they are unimportant, because it's the substance
that influences the form, not the form that determines or modifies the
substance.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
In that view, the right to
be called HRH Princess remains intact, but is somehow suspended from
being exercised, à la Cumberland peerage; and the earl of Wessex's
daughter enjoys the style of princess but cannot be called a princess.
This makes no sense to me.
I know. That is where we diverge, because I find it equally lacking in
sense to say that the Queen cannot uphold a class of persons' right to
a style under previous royal edict, while exempting specified
individuals from the exercise of that right for such time as she
thinks good.
I think the phrase "exempting an individual from exercising his right"
lacks in sense. If the exercise of the right is voluntary, you can't
exempt the individual from his own will. If the exercise of the right
is not voluntary, it isn't a right, it's an obligation.

And once again, there is no legal right for the Queen to uphold.
Post by Charles Stewart
Nor do I believe that she need communicate that exception
explicitly as such if she prefers to do it in a subtle manner.
There's nothing subtle about "she shall not be called a princess",
which is as explicit as can be.
Post by Charles Stewart
You
will not think she *should* do it that way, but that does not, to me,
mean that she *may* not do it that way -- and it does not free us from
the responsibility to seek to understand her intent in good faith.
The intent of the phrase "she shall not be called a princess" is that
she shall not be called a princess. Is it bad faith on my part to
say that?

The advantage of my position is that it requires zero amount of
unproveable speculation about hidden intents. Or perhaps that is
its disadvantage.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
There is no legal right, in part because
there is no court where Lady Louise W could seek the enforcement of the
right to enjoy the style without enjoying it, in part because there is no
evidence for the existence of such rights in English law (so I
believe: I'm happy to be shown such evidence.) As long as the
sovereign wills it, she is not called a royal highness or a princess,
and that is exactly the same thing as not being a royal highness or
a princess: so I believe, but I'm willing to look at any evidence
for a distinction between the two.
IMO, the evidence consists in the distinctions the Crown itself has
made when choosing among instruments to express the royal will.
What is the evidence that this distinction matters, aside from the
fact that it exists? What's the difference between HRH Prince Ludwig
of Hesse (LP) and by Rhine and HRH Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein
(no LP)?

How about the distinction between grants announced on odd days and those
announced on even days? That distinction surely exists. Does it matter?
Post by Charles Stewart
A description of the way in which the change was effected, preserving
much of the language used, suffices for me.
Then I can't justify calling her "HRH Princess" elsewhere in the FAQ
after having noted that the Queen said "she should not be called a
princess" by press release. The subtlety and ambiguity you claim to
see just might be lost on the average reader, you know. Then I'd have
to explain that, when it is said by press release, we should ignore it,
and, in good faith, I can't.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
I also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I do not see a divergence between what they have said. Her comment
confirmed exactly what I understood the Queen had communicated by
choice of wording and instrument of expression.
The Queen said that she shall not be called a princess. The countess
of Wessex said that the matter of her daughter's style was "up to us"
(meaning her and her husband, I presume). That is a divergence.
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
There is no need for flexibility,
because the Queen has all the flexibility she wants: the minute the
Queen changes her mind, Louise becomes a princess, and the Queen can
announce it any way she likes.
Then you see it as inconceivable that the Queen intended to
communicate the message that Louis, I and the Countess of Wessex
perceive?
The Countess of Wessex isn't making much sense, neither is Louis of
course. That leaves you. Anybody else want to chime in?
Post by Charles Stewart
Post by Francois R. Velde
If the hang-up is over the (incorrect) perception that letters patent
signify customs set in stone, I'm happy to add a note to state the
obvious, that the Queen's decision could be changed at any time (by
the Queen or her successors, not by the countess of Wessex).
That is, indeed, obvious, and does not get at the point that I think
is at issue here.
I'm not sure what the point is, quite frankly. Lots of talk about ambiguity
and subtlety, none of which helps resolve the issue at hand, which is how
to call that baby in the FAQ. I can't think of a subtly ambiguous way to
do that. Either it's "HRH PRincess" or it's something else. Perhaps you
can answer a simple question:

* when the Queen says "she shall not be called a princess", should I call
her a princess or shouldn't I?
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Noel S. McFerran
2004-08-04 04:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Your argument is that the phrase "the Queen has decided that she shall
not be called a princess" has a different meaning depending on the piece
of paper on which it appears. To me, it means what it means.
I think that even Francois would agree that it very much does matter on
what piece of paper this statement appeared.

If Sophie wrote a letter to her best friend saying such a thing (and
nothing else on the topic had been published), such a piece of paper
(even one written in the hand of the mother of the child, and by the
wife of a prince) would have no legal authority whatsoever.

What some people believe is that press releases (even one's from
Buckingham) also have no legal authority (I'm not saying that they are
the same as letters from Sophie, so don't say that I am). By the way,
when I write "legal authority", I'm trying to pretend that the Windsors
might have some (but of course I don't think they do).

--
Noel S. McFerran
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-04 04:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noel S. McFerran
Post by Francois R. Velde
Your argument is that the phrase "the Queen has decided that she shall
not be called a princess" has a different meaning depending on the piece
of paper on which it appears. To me, it means what it means.
I think that even Francois would agree that it very much does matter on
what piece of paper this statement appeared.
If Sophie wrote a letter to her best friend saying such a thing (and
nothing else on the topic had been published), such a piece of paper
(even one written in the hand of the mother of the child, and by the
wife of a prince) would have no legal authority whatsoever.
Of course.

But what counts is not literally the physical support, but our belief that a
press release from BP would never be released without being reviewed by the
Queen; whereas we would not have the same assurance for a letter written by the
countess of Wessex to her best friend (or for an interview with phony Arabs).

The formality of letters patent or royal warrants are the age-old way of
creating this assurance, both at the time of issue and for future times (a lot
of the art that went into drafting medieval documents was to make them difficult
to counterfeit). It is not the only way.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Noel S. McFerran
2004-08-04 06:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
But what counts is not literally the physical support, but our belief that a
press release from BP would never be released without being reviewed by the
Queen;
Francois is clearly a man of much greater faith than I am!

Surely we should not blame the senior lady in residence at BP for some
of the oddities which appear in press releases from that place.

A recent press release read (in part) as follows:
-----
The children of The Queen and of Princess Margaret were christened in
it, and it has subsequently been used for the christenings of all The
Queens [sic] grandchildren and other royal babies, including the grand
children of Princess Margaret.
-----

Most commentators nowadays would argue that the children of Princess
Margaret are not "royal". But here we have a BP press release which
describes her "grand children" as "royal babies".

Perhaps we should also take it that "the Queens English" has been
altered, and we are no longer meant to use apostrophes to indicate the
genitive form of a noun.

I am not suggesting that this particular press release is on the same
level as the other one recently under discussion. There are press
releases, and then there are press releases.

--
Noel S. McFerran
Andy.III
2004-08-04 06:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noel S. McFerran
Most commentators nowadays would argue that the children of Princess
Margaret are not "royal". But here we have a BP press release which
describes her "grand children" as "royal babies".
So one press release says that Edward's child is a royal and one says what
seems to be otherwise.. now.. WHICH DAMN ONE IS CORRECT?? !!!!

I swear I think they take lessons in how to contradict themselves!

These two press releases in conjunction with the Surname announcements and
House name some years back AND the Royal Marriages Act AND the Act of
Succession convinces me there is a centuries old school hidden somewhere where
inside the palace where select pupils are given world class educations in
obtuseness and evasion!

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


Andy.III
--
"I have a congenital birth defect.
I have a violent commitment to candor,
so don't ask unless you *REALLY* want to know!"
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-04 13:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noel S. McFerran
There are press
releases, and then there are press releases.
In particular, there are press releases that say "The Queen has decided that X".
I believe such press releases, and believe that the Queen has indeed decided X.

Otherwise, the only standard we can accept is direct personal communication from
the Queen herself to each and every one of us (or else from God).

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 15:48:00 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Noel S. McFerran"
Post by Noel S. McFerran
There are press
releases, and then there are press releases.
In particular, there are press releases that say "The Queen has decided that X".
I believe such press releases, and believe that the Queen has indeed decided X.
Otherwise, the only standard we can accept is direct personal
communication from
the Queen herself to each and every one of us (or else from God).
But what about oral testimonies (like the Countess of Wessex one)? Why are
they less valuable than press releases?

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-06 16:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Noel S. McFerran"
Post by Noel S. McFerran
There are press
releases, and then there are press releases.
In particular, there are press releases that say "The Queen has decided
that X".
I believe such press releases, and believe that the Queen has indeed
decided X.
Otherwise, the only standard we can accept is direct personal
communication from
the Queen herself to each and every one of us (or else from God).
But what about oral testimonies (like the Countess of Wessex one)? Why are
they less valuable than press releases?
I have reason to believe that the contents of a press release by BP stating
what the Queen has decided have been cleared with the Queen beforehand.

I have less reason to believe that what the countess of Wessex said privately
to a journalist posing as an Arab sheik dangling a lucrative PR account in
front of her and for whom she was playing her royal connections to the hilt
was cleared with the Queen beforehand. Do you?

Also, some people think that testimonies by interested parties have no value.

For the record, here is the "oral testimony".

(Fake Arab sheikh):a Will your children be called princes?

Sophie: Well they can be, yes, it's up to us. The only reason we wouldn't want
them to be royal highnesses, princes and princesses, is because of media attention.
For instance, Zara and Peter Phillips, who are the children of the Princess Royal,
they have a normal life.

You're starting to hear more of Zara now because she's starting to get to that age
now and everyone's taking an interest in her life. She'll always have interest but
on a daily basis she can do whatever she pleases.

Beatrice and Eugenie, who are daughters of the Duchess of York, they will always
have more of a problem because they will expect their royal highnesses to work.
Their name, wherever they go, will inevitably create interest.

We would ask for our children to be addressed as viscount. However, it would also
be their right, if they wanted, to take their title. But if we changed what's
written, we would be changing it for other people. Once Charles succeeded (to
the throne) Prince Harry, for example, would become a child of the monarch. If
Harry married and had children, they could not be called royal highnesses (she
means if Sophie and Edward had rewritten parts of the royal succession protocol)
although they would really be entitled to it. So if we changed anything then it
would have a knock-on effect."
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 17:37:37 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax
<***@hotmail.com> os suum:

<...>
Post by Pierre Aronax
But what about oral testimonies (like the Countess of Wessex one)? Why are
they less valuable than press releases?
I have reason to believe that the contents of a press release by BP stating
what the Queen has decided have been cleared with the Queen beforehand.
I have less reason to believe that what the countess of Wessex said privately
to a journalist posing as an Arab sheik dangling a lucrative PR account in
front of her and for whom she was playing her royal connections to the hilt
was cleared with the Queen beforehand. Do you?
So it all depends of what each of us believe intimately about the relative
validity of the testimonies (since after all a press releases is nothing
more than a testimony whose author is unknown)? There is not a general rule?
What for example if the testimony as been made by the Earl of Wessex? The
Prince of Walles?

<...>
Sophie: Well they can be, yes, it's up to us. The only reason we wouldn't want
them to be royal highnesses, princes and princesses, is because of media attention.
For instance, Zara and Peter Phillips, who are the children of the Princess Royal,
they have a normal life.
You're starting to hear more of Zara now because she's starting to get to that age
now and everyone's taking an interest in her life. She'll always have interest but
on a daily basis she can do whatever she pleases.
Beatrice and Eugenie, who are daughters of the Duchess of York, they will always
have more of a problem because they will expect their royal highnesses to work.
Their name, wherever they go, will inevitably create interest.
We would ask for our children to be addressed as viscount. However, it would also
be their right, if they wanted, to take their title. But if we changed what's
written, we would be changing it for other people. Once Charles succeeded (to
the throne) Prince Harry, for example, would become a child of the monarch. If
Harry married and had children, they could not be called royal highnesses (she
means if Sophie and Edward had rewritten parts of the royal succession protocol)
although they would really be entitled to it. So if we changed anything then it
would have a knock-on effect."
My God! How confuse! It is almost worth than a press release :)

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-06 18:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
So it all depends of what each of us believe intimately about the relative
validity of the testimonies (since after all a press releases is nothing
more than a testimony whose author is unknown)?
It always does. For example, when I read in the London Gazette an item
that begins "The Queen has been pleased today to ...", I have to decide
whether I believe what is nothing more than a testimony whose author
is unknown.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 18:47:23 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax
Post by Pierre Aronax
So it all depends of what each of us believe intimately about the relative
validity of the testimonies (since after all a press releases is nothing
more than a testimony whose author is unknown)?
It always does. For example, when I read in the London Gazette an item
that begins "The Queen has been pleased today to ...", I have to decide
whether I believe what is nothing more than a testimony whose author
is unknown.
Yes, but in the case of a decision expressed by Letter patent, you can
wonder if the London Gazette is right, and eventually, in case of doubt, go
back to the original text of the said LP, as you have already done here with
great method. Because there is nothing before the LP: although it is,
according to your theory, only a testimony of the Royal will, it works as
the royal will himself and it is its wording which imports. At least, it
imports more than what the London Gazette can say, and that is a general
rule which works for all LP and all editions of the London Gazette. How do
you apply this kind of acribia to hierarchise between competent testimonies,
those being made by press release or orally? Does the testimony of a
Countess always count less than the testimony of a press release about what
is actually the Queen's will, or have we to decide on an individual basis
for each Countess and each press release? LP seems more handy in my
oppinion.

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-06 19:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax
Post by Pierre Aronax
So it all depends of what each of us believe intimately about the
relative
Post by Pierre Aronax
validity of the testimonies (since after all a press releases is nothing
more than a testimony whose author is unknown)?
It always does. For example, when I read in the London Gazette an item
that begins "The Queen has been pleased today to ...", I have to decide
whether I believe what is nothing more than a testimony whose author
is unknown.
Yes, but in the case of a decision expressed by Letter patent, you can
wonder if the London Gazette is right, and eventually, in case of doubt, go
back to the original text of the said LP, as you have already done here with
great method.
I haven't; I've never seen the original text of any of the letters patent
(and naturally everything I say about them is limited to that extent).
All I have are testimonies from unknown authors.
Post by Pierre Aronax
Because there is nothing before the LP: although it is,
according to your theory, only a testimony of the Royal will, it works as
the royal will himself and it is its wording which imports. At least, it
imports more than what the London Gazette can say, and that is a general
rule which works for all LP and all editions of the London Gazette. How do
you apply this kind of acribia to hierarchise between competent testimonies,
those being made by press release or orally? Does the testimony of a
Countess always count less than the testimony of a press release about what
is actually the Queen's will, or have we to decide on an individual basis
for each Countess and each press release? LP seems more handy in my
oppinion.
Well yes, I'd prefer to always have to deal with the same kind of
testimony, but we don't have a choice in the matter.

Dealing with eclectic materials, it seems appropriate to evaluate and
sort them. That it might be difficult to do does not mean it can't or
shouldn't be done and that all material should be treated equally. And
I don't think it is necessary to establish a ranking for all conceivable
hypothetical materials before we can rank a particular pair, especially
this pair.

To begin, I am not inclined to consider the private comments of the
countess of Wessex made over champagne during a business meeting and
taped without her knowledge, to be "testimony". I doubt that the
countess would; she certainly did not seem to be happy when they
became public. Louis is the one who ranks it higher than a press
release.

Even if we decide to count those private comments as "testimony",
I've already explained that, in my opinion, the press release is
likelier accurately to reflect the Queen's will, because that is
what it is supposed to do, just as the London Gazette is supposed
to report accurately on the contents of letters patent; various
institutional features will help to reach that goal, however
imperfectly (I think the Queen keeps herself informed, and has a
staff that does so; someone would notice if the press release
misstated the queen's will; the writer of the inaccurate release
might be fired, a correction might be issued). The main purpose
of the statements made by the countess to the person impersonating
an Arab sheikh was not accurately to reflect the Queen's will; and
if it failed to do so, there was no way for anyone with knowledge
of the Queen's will to find out about it and correct the
misrepresentation. (Remember that, when the countess made those
comments, she had no idea they were taped and would become public.)

Finally, the countess's private comments are not testimony about the
Queen's will, as the press release is; simply because they do not
contain any assertions about the Queen's will, as the press release
(anonymous as it is) plainly does.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Christopher Buyers
2004-08-07 07:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Just a point about the London Gazette. It is a newspaper too. Simply,
the government's newspaper, that's all.

Christopher Buyers
edespalais
2004-08-07 09:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Just a point about the London Gazette. It is a newspaper too. Simply,
the government's newspaper, that's all.
Christopher Buyers
Gazette meant probably in the so called good old time: the government's
newspaper.

When one speaks of La Gazette de Vienne, one probably do not find it, if
one does not understand: Wiener Zeitung

Etc
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 18:27:26 UTC
Permalink
"Francois R. Velde" <***@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news:cep2cs$sac$***@e250.ripco.com...
<...>
Post by Francois R. Velde
I know of letters patent that say individuals of a certain class (to
which she belongs) "shall enjoy" a certain style, and I know of a press
release that says "she shall not be called a princess" (I do not see any
meaningful distinction between enjoying a style and being called by that
style, unless the enjoyment comes from calling oneself a princess in front
of one's mirror).
I can be misunderstanding again British naming practice but, didn't the
Count of Wessex "have been called" sometimes simply Mr Windsor in business,
although he nevertheless stil "enjoyed" the HRH? Or are they in fact two
ways of "being called" something, one informal and the other legal (or
rather official since you said legal was not the right word)? The first one
would be only a mater of ordinary practice ("Don't call me HRH, call me
Willy!"), when the other will imply the expressed will of the individual
(like with the deed poll thing Mr Aitken and Rhodes explained us some time
ago) or (in the case we are discussing) of the sovereign? Or am I making
fiction and confusing all more than it is already?

<...
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Charles Stewart
If I understand you correctly, your contention is that distinctions
between letters patent, royal warrants, press releases issued on royal
authority and the Queen's verbal decisions were always meaningless and
that henceforth we and ATR's FAQ should treat them that way. I
disagree.
I'm saying that when the Queen says "she shall not be called a
princess", that's what she means, and the FAQ has no reason to
do otherwise, parchment or no parchment.
The distinctions between instruments come from the content, not the form.
Letters patent, for example, are apparently preferred for the announcement
of general rules (1864, 1917, 1996), because general rules are intended to
stay in effect for lengthy periods of time, and letters patent are issued
"ad perpetuam rei memoriam". Royal warrants are more suitable for a group
of individuals of the same cohort (siblings), and less formal means for
one-off events, or graces that are conferred upon one particular individual.
Perhaps letters patent are preferred for an individual of particularly
high status (sovereign's consort). Of course exceptions can be found
to such patterns, but they are unimportant, because it's the substance
that influences the form, not the form that determines or modifies the
substance.
I still find that odd, although I'm perfectly ready to believe it is an
English oddity, that a press release can be considered a diplomatical form
to class somewhere between the letters patent and the royal warrant. But I
think your point is rather that no diplomatical form at all is needed to
express the sovereign's will: her voice is enough (so phone-tapes would be
the more adapted diplomatical form).

<...>
Post by Francois R. Velde
The Queen said that she shall not be called a princess. The countess
of Wessex said that the matter of her daughter's style was "up to us"
(meaning her and her husband, I presume). That is a divergence.
Probably what the Countess understood is that, would her daughter have the
desire to use the royal style to which she would have had right according to
the normal rule, the Queen would not object: what she did not understand is
that it would need a new press release.

<...>
Post by Francois R. Velde
* when the Queen says "she shall not be called a princess", should I call
her a princess or shouldn't I?
Reading your demonstrations, I am contemplating the idea that nobody IS a
prince/princess of the UKOGBNI: one is only called like that by grace of the
sovereign and can enjoy it, but no more: it's pure form, no substance (as
opposed to be for exemple Count of Wessex, which is substantial).
Don't worry: she IS a princess of Greece and Denmark anyway.

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-06 18:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
I can be misunderstanding again British naming practice but, didn't the
Count of Wessex "have been called" sometimes simply Mr Windsor in business,
although he nevertheless stil "enjoyed" the HRH? Or are they in fact two
ways of "being called" something, one informal and the other legal (or
rather official since you said legal was not the right word)? The first one
would be only a mater of ordinary practice ("Don't call me HRH, call me
Willy!"), when the other will imply the expressed will of the individual
(like with the deed poll thing Mr Aitken and Rhodes explained us some time
ago) or (in the case we are discussing) of the sovereign? Or am I making
fiction and confusing all more than it is already?
(1) I would distinguish betwen matters of names, which is what you raise,
and matters of styles and titles.
(2) A person can ask to be called a certain way by others. This is not
the question at hand. The question is: what happens when the Queen decides
that a person should not be called a certain way?
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Christopher Buyers
2004-08-07 07:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Reading your demonstrations, I am contemplating the idea that nobody IS a
prince/princess of the UKOGBNI: one is only called like that by grace of the
sovereign and can enjoy it, but no more: it's pure form, no substance (as
opposed to be for exemple Count of Wessex, which is substantial).
Don't worry: she IS a princess of Greece and Denmark anyway.
Strictly speaking, if one were to take the equivalent of continental
"diplomas" only, there are no princes and princesses of the UKOGBI at
all, save one. Only Prince Philip has LPs saying that he has the
territorial designation of UKOGBI. The late Hanovarian princes and
princesses also had LPs saying they were of GBI but they are now all
dead.

Lots of things are different from the continent, another world in all
matters of this type. You can go from the shape of the crown and the
number of arches, to the method of government, to not having "Counts"
in the UK.

Much stems from the fact that we have a long tradition of common law
and precedent in this country. Not only do people actually obey laws
that are passed by parliament, they actually obey the "spirit" of the
laws that are not written down anywhere.

All titles in the UK are, at the end of the day, by the grace of the
sovereign. The only exceptions are really peerage titles themselves.

All this is impossible for continentals to understand. But there it
is. It has stood for a thousand years, so I suppose we can assume that
there is something substantial about it all!

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-07 07:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Pierre Aronax
Reading your demonstrations, I am contemplating the idea that nobody IS a
prince/princess of the UKOGBNI: one is only called like that by grace of the
sovereign and can enjoy it, but no more: it's pure form, no substance (as
opposed to be for exemple Count of Wessex, which is substantial).
Don't worry: she IS a princess of Greece and Denmark anyway.
Strictly speaking, if one were to take the equivalent of continental
"diplomas" only, there are no princes and princesses of the UKOGBI at
all, save one. Only Prince Philip has LPs saying that he has the
territorial designation of UKOGBI. The late Hanovarian princes and
princesses also had LPs saying they were of GBI but they are now all
dead.
Take the princes of the blood in France: they had no more diploma of any
kind making them such, but it was a very substantial title and position, of
which nobody, not even the king, can deprive them. So, I think the
difference is not here: as far as I can see, the existence of RH and princes
today in the UK comes precisely from LP regulating a tradition.

<...>
Post by Christopher Buyers
Much stems from the fact that we have a long tradition of common law
and precedent in this country.
So did we have. That is not the question. The question is that, according to
the theory developped by François, nobody is really a prince: one is only
called a prince. French princes of the blood were called so (at least the
majority of them), but they also were so.
Post by Christopher Buyers
Not only do people actually obey laws
that are passed by parliament, they actually obey the "spirit" of the
laws that are not written down anywhere.
All titles in the UK are, at the end of the day, by the grace of the
sovereign. The only exceptions are really peerage titles themselves.
All this is impossible for continentals to understand.
It seems it is also for many British.
Post by Christopher Buyers
But there it
is. It has stood for a thousand years, so I suppose we can assume that
there is something substantial about it all!
For what is of the title of prince, certainly not for a thousand years.

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-07 14:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Take the princes of the blood in France: they had no more diploma of any
kind making them such, but it was a very substantial title and position, of
which nobody, not even the king, can deprive them.
It didn't quite seem that way to the poor Courtenays...

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-07 15:09:50 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Pierre Aronax"
Post by Pierre Aronax
Take the princes of the blood in France: they had no more diploma of any
kind making them such, but it was a very substantial title and position, of
which nobody, not even the king, can deprive them.
It didn't quite seem that way to the poor Courtenays...
They were not exactly "deprived" of it: they didn't use it, find some day
that they have a right to use it, and where then bared to do so (not that I
give my approbation to what Louis XIV did in the Courtenay case, but
strictly speaking it was not deprivation).



Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-07 19:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Pierre Aronax"
Post by Pierre Aronax
Take the princes of the blood in France: they had no more diploma of any
kind making them such, but it was a very substantial title and position,
of
Post by Pierre Aronax
which nobody, not even the king, can deprive them.
It didn't quite seem that way to the poor Courtenays...
They were not exactly "deprived" of it: they didn't use it, find some day
that they have a right to use it, and where then bared to do so (not that I
give my approbation to what Louis XIV did in the Courtenay case, but
strictly speaking it was not deprivation).
I suppose you are saying that Louis XIV (and other kings) did not deprive them
because he could not deprive them (de jure). The fact is that the Courtenays
were forbidden by the courts from calling themselves princes, and kings,
informed of it, did nothing about it. Of course, in front of their mirrors,
they could call themselves whatever they liked.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-07 23:12:06 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Pierre Aronax"
Post by Pierre Aronax
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "Pierre Aronax"
Post by Pierre Aronax
Take the princes of the blood in France: they had no more diploma of any
kind making them such, but it was a very substantial title and position,
of
Post by Pierre Aronax
which nobody, not even the king, can deprive them.
It didn't quite seem that way to the poor Courtenays...
They were not exactly "deprived" of it: they didn't use it, find some day
that they have a right to use it, and where then bared to do so (not that I
give my approbation to what Louis XIV did in the Courtenay case, but
strictly speaking it was not deprivation).
I suppose you are saying that Louis XIV (and other kings) did not deprive them
because he could not deprive them (de jure).
Is my English as bad as that? No, I said what I said, not what you suppose I
said (see above). I said: that the Courtenay did not make use of or pretend
to have right to use the title of prince of the blood until the day when,
due to the effort of genealogists, they discovered what they had fogotten,
that they were Capetians, and so began to try to introduce it in official
documents. Then they were forbiden to do so. And I said it is not the same
thing that depriving of his title a member of a branch who would have always
used that title since one can not be deprived of something he did not have
until now.
The fact is that the Courtenays
were forbidden by the courts from calling themselves princes, and kings,
informed of it, did nothing about it. Of course, in front of their mirrors,
they could call themselves whatever they liked.
Of course, in front of your mirror you can mock as you like things that I
never said. Or more exactly that I did not say in the present occasion:
indeed, the quality of prince of the blood and the title of prince of the
blood are two different things and one can have the one without having the
other, firsts of all the sons of France. But that was not the question here:
I was only speaking ot the title of prince of the blood, that's why I used
the expression "title of prince of the blood").



Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-08 01:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
I said: that the Courtenay did not make use of or pretend
to have right to use the title of prince of the blood until the day when,
due to the effort of genealogists, they discovered what they had fogotten,
that they were Capetians, and so began to try to introduce it in official
documents. Then they were forbiden to do so. And I said it is not the same
thing that depriving of his title a member of a branch who would have always
used that title since one can not be deprived of something he did not have
until now.
I think this is just a matter of language. What you mean is that the use of the
title was not taken away from them. They were deprived of it, however; if you
accept that they had a right to it.

Deprive can mean both: "to deprive (a person) of (a thing) = to take it away
from him" and "To keep (a person) out of (from) what he would otherwise have".

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Christopher Buyers
2004-08-07 15:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
For what is of the title of prince, certainly not for a thousand years.
No LPs or "diplomas", you are certainly right about that.

For the rest, I think you haven't read my posting very carefully.

CJB
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-07 15:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Pierre Aronax
For what is of the title of prince, certainly not for a thousand years.
No LPs or "diplomas", you are certainly right about that.
For the rest, I think you haven't read my posting very carefully.
I think I did: perhaps you may want to read mine again more carefully?

Pierre
Christopher Buyers
2004-08-08 06:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Pierre Aronax
For what is of the title of prince, certainly not for a thousand years.
No LPs or "diplomas", you are certainly right about that.
For the rest, I think you haven't read my posting very carefully.
I think I did: perhaps you may want to read mine again more carefully?
Then you have a clear difficulty in understanding English.
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-08 09:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Pierre Aronax
For what is of the title of prince, certainly not for a thousand years.
No LPs or "diplomas", you are certainly right about that.
For the rest, I think you haven't read my posting very carefully.
I think I did: perhaps you may want to read mine again more carefully?
Then you have a clear difficulty in understanding English.
Probably: I remind you that it is not my language. But a vague "I think you
haven't read my posting very carefully" does not help: better to explain
where you think your subtle thoughts have been misunderstood.

Pierre
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 15:33:58 UTC
Permalink
"Francois R. Velde" <***@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news:cemddb$s3o$***@e250.ripco.com...

<;;;>
Post by Francois R. Velde
same for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
This question still interested me and I would like to see a discution on it:
I am sure others have an interest and an opinion and agree or disagree with
me but didn't notice my post or had not the occasion to discuss the question
at the time.
The message is here if some whant to know what is in question:
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl2572833699d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com
The idea being that the FAQ are supposed to present in an non controversial
manner controversial questions.

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-06 16:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
<;;;>
Post by Francois R. Velde
same for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
I am sure others have an interest and an opinion and agree or disagree with
me but didn't notice my post or had not the occasion to discuss the question
at the time.
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl2572833699d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com
The idea being that the FAQ are supposed to present in an non controversial
manner controversial questions.
Incidentally, I am personally in favor of limiting the Spanish succession list
in the FAQ to the present king's childrena and grandchildren. The reasons are
simple: the succession lists are supposed to be limited to the first 10 or less
individuals, the Spanish list runs to 18. Limiting it to the grandchildren
seems a natural cut-off, would bring the number down to 8, and there is no doubt
about their inclusion (except for 1776 diehards).
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Uwe
2004-08-06 16:30:22 UTC
Permalink
I cannot enlarge the desired discussion further because I do fully agree
with the positions on that point as taken by Mr. Aronax and Mr. Velde.
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 17:40:56 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax
Post by Pierre Aronax
<;;;>
Post by Francois R. Velde
same for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
I am sure others have an interest and an opinion and agree or disagree with
me but didn't notice my post or had not the occasion to discuss the question
at the time.
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl2572833699d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com
Post by Pierre Aronax
The idea being that the FAQ are supposed to present in an non controversial
manner controversial questions.
Incidentally, I am personally in favor of limiting the Spanish succession list
in the FAQ to the present king's childrena and grandchildren. The reasons are
simple: the succession lists are supposed to be limited to the first 10 or less
individuals, the Spanish list runs to 18. Limiting it to the
grandchildren
seems a natural cut-off, would bring the number down to 8, and there is no doubt
about their inclusion (except for 1776 diehards).
That was exactly my idea: it avoids to go into hardly debated questions
which have probably not their place in the FAQ.

Pierre
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-08-08 20:41:31 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax
Post by Pierre Aronax
<;;;>
Post by Francois R. Velde
same for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
I am sure others have an interest and an opinion and agree or disagree with
me but didn't notice my post or had not the occasion to discuss the question
at the time.
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl2572833699d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com
Post by Pierre Aronax
The idea being that the FAQ are supposed to present in an non controversial
manner controversial questions.
Incidentally, I am personally in favor of limiting the Spanish succession list
in the FAQ to the present king's childrena and grandchildren. The reasons are
simple: the succession lists are supposed to be limited to the first 10 or less
individuals, the Spanish list runs to 18. Limiting it to the
grandchildren
seems a natural cut-off, would bring the number down to 8, and there is no doubt
about their inclusion (except for 1776 diehards).
Makes sense. Please go ahead!
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Pierre Aronax
2004-08-06 15:40:18 UTC
Permalink
"Francois R. Velde" <***@heraldicaNOTSPAM.invalid> a écrit dans le message
de news:cemddb$s3o$***@e250.ripco.com...
<...>
Post by Francois R. Velde
This is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice. Here, as in Louis's dream
world, the sovereign's will is the absolute law at any point in time,
and the sovereign's will is not bound by precedent or any requirement
of consistency over time. The use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements. What counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
That is interesting and probably very English: it recalls the acts of the
high Middle Ages, where the acts were indeed only a testimony of the
juridical action and not the instrument of this action. But that changed
later and, in other monarchies, even where the king had an absolute power,
the expression of this will needed to go through some peculiar forms to be
valid (or, if you prefer, to be recognized by others as valid): no lettres
de cachet without cachet. I am quite ready to believe that it is as you say
in the present case nevertheless.

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-06 16:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Francois R. Velde
This is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice. Here, as in Louis's dream
world, the sovereign's will is the absolute law at any point in time,
and the sovereign's will is not bound by precedent or any requirement
of consistency over time. The use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements. What counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
That is interesting and probably very English: it recalls the acts of the
high Middle Ages, where the acts were indeed only a testimony of the
juridical action and not the instrument of this action. But that changed
later and, in other monarchies, even where the king had an absolute power,
the expression of this will needed to go through some peculiar forms to be
valid (or, if you prefer, to be recognized by others as valid): no lettres
de cachet without cachet. I am quite ready to believe that it is as you say
in the present case nevertheless.
I'm describing my understanding as a lay person and am perfectly ready to be
corrected on any point. What I describe relates to exercises of the royal
prerogative.

In order for legal rights or obligations to be created by the sovereign's
will, it may well be that particular forms have to be followed. I don't
think grants of royal styles create any such rights, which is why I interpret
the choices between various instruments as a matter of convenience rather
than legal necessity.

It may well be that letters patent do create rights and obligations, but
I would want to see the actual texts to be convinced of that: I don't
think the form alone tells us everything. Unfortunately, what is readily
available, at best, is a summary (sometimes a partial quotation) in the
London Gazette or the Times.

Halsbury's Laws of England is not particularly helpful in distinguishing
the various instruments (LPs, warrants, declarations) used in the exercise
of the royal prerogative. The only thing I noted that was of relevance:
royal warrants may place a duty on a minister, but you can't go to court
and force the minister to carry out his duty. (Presumably, it's up to the
sovereign to dismiss the minister.)
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...