Discussion:
New British Royal Birth Expected
Add Reply
Louis Epstein
2018-10-15 14:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
TRH the Duke & Duchess of Sussex are expecting a child next spring.
The Duke is a younger son of a Prince of Wales,and the Queen's expected
survival through the infant's birth would make him the first younger
son of a Prince of Wales to have a child.

Younger sons of Princes of Wales become younger sons of Sovereigns
in due course,and as such their children are HRH Princes/ses...but
there is no provision for that style & title if the fathers are
still younger sons of Princes of Wales...under the 1917 LP they
would be Lord and Lady during the Queen's lifetime and would then
ascend to princely status on the Queen's death.

Common usage before 1917 was that the great-grandchildren were
Princes/ses styled "Highness" rather than "Royal Highness",and
from 1898 to 1917 this was upgraded to Royal Highness for children
of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales before being limited in
1917 to only the eldest living son among such children...again
extended to all children of the current eldest son of the Prince
of Wales but no provision for children of a younger son.

So what will or should it be?
If the Queen does nothing,as noted,the child would be a Lord
or Lady,before becoming HRH Prince/ss N of Sussex in the next reign.
Otherwise,in anticipation of the inevitable,the HRH could be
provided...or perhaps,maintaining the distinction but easing
the inevitable,the style of Highness could be revived with the
title of Prince/ss with the Highness becoming "Royal" in the next reign.

(George V was a younger son of a Prince of Wales from 1865 to his
brother's death in 1892,but had his first child in 1894,and George
VI was a younger son of a Prince of Wales from 1901 to 1910,but
had his first child in 1926...both were younger than the Duke of
Sussex when they became fathers but their ancestors died younger
than the Queen).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham
2018-10-15 21:05:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
TRH the Duke & Duchess of Sussex are expecting a child next spring.
The Duke is a younger son of a Prince of Wales,and the Queen's expected
survival through the infant's birth would make him the first younger
son of a Prince of Wales to have a child.
Younger sons of Princes of Wales become younger sons of Sovereigns
in due course,
If the Princes of Wales become Sovereigns. E.g. Frederick Prince of Wales's sons the Dukes of York, Cumberland and Gloucester were never the sons of a Sovereign. Gloucester had children - long after his father's death meant that he ceased to be the younger son of a Prince of Wales - but his children's status was AFAIK the same as it would have been if George II and Frederick had lived to see them.
Post by Louis Epstein
and as such their children are HRH Princes/ses...but
there is no provision for that style & title if the fathers are
still younger sons of Princes of Wales...under the 1917 LP they
would be Lord and Lady during the Queen's lifetime and would then
ascend to princely status on the Queen's death.
If the baby were a boy, would he not be styled Earl of Dumbarton? Compare the eldest sons of TRH the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent - both styled as Earls, and both great-grandsons of George V.
Post by Louis Epstein
Common usage before 1917 was that the great-grandchildren were
Princes/ses styled "Highness" rather than "Royal Highness",and
from 1898 to 1917 this was upgraded to Royal Highness for children
of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales before being limited in
1917 to only the eldest living son among such children...again
extended to all children of the current eldest son of the Prince
of Wales but no provision for children of a younger son.
So what will or should it be?
If the Queen does nothing,as noted,the child would be a Lord
or Lady,before becoming HRH Prince/ss N of Sussex in the next reign.
Otherwise,in anticipation of the inevitable,the HRH could be
provided...or perhaps,maintaining the distinction but easing
the inevitable,the style of Highness could be revived with the
title of Prince/ss with the Highness becoming "Royal" in the next reign.
(George V was a younger son of a Prince of Wales from 1865 to his
brother's death in 1892,but had his first child in 1894,and George
VI was a younger son of a Prince of Wales from 1901 to 1910,but
had his first child in 1926...both were younger than the Duke of
Sussex when they became fathers but their ancestors died younger
than the Queen).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham
2018-10-15 21:27:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Louis Epstein
there is no provision for that style & title if the fathers are
still younger sons of Princes of Wales...under the 1917 LP they
would be Lord and Lady during the Queen's lifetime and would then
ascend to princely status on the Queen's death.
If the baby were a boy, would he not be styled Earl of Dumbarton? Compare the eldest sons of TRH the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent - both styled as Earls, and both great-grandsons of George V.
And if HM were to rival Jeanne Calment in longevity, would Harry's grandson be styled Baron Kilkeel?
Louis Epstein
2018-10-27 04:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Graham
Post by Louis Epstein
there is no provision for that style & title if the fathers are
still younger sons of Princes of Wales...under the 1917 LP they
would be Lord and Lady during the Queen's lifetime and would then
ascend to princely status on the Queen's death.
If the baby were a boy, would he not be styled Earl of Dumbarton? Compare the eldest sons of TRH the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent - both styled as Earls, and both great-grandsons of George V.
And if HM were to rival Jeanne Calment in longevity, would Harry's
grandson be styled Baron Kilkeel?
Possibly.

If the Queen were in her 120s and had survived the current Prince
of Wales and Duke of Cambridge,Prince George would have inherited
the Dukedom of Cambridge but his children would not be Princes/ses
under current rules,though if the Queen were to survive to
sesquicentennial years and see him become a grandfather,the eldest
living son of his eldest son WOULD be a Prince,if she had created
George Prince of Wales...

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein
2018-10-16 04:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Louis Epstein
TRH the Duke & Duchess of Sussex are expecting a child next spring.
The Duke is a younger son of a Prince of Wales,and the Queen's expected
survival through the infant's birth would make him the first younger
son of a Prince of Wales to have a child.
Younger sons of Princes of Wales become younger sons of Sovereigns
in due course,
If the Princes of Wales become Sovereigns. E.g. Frederick Prince of Wales's sons the Dukes of York, Cumberland and Gloucester were never the sons of a Sovereign. Gloucester had children - long after his father's death meant that he ceased to be the younger son of a Prince of Wales - but his children's status was AFAIK the same as it would have been if George II and Frederick had lived to see them.
Post by Louis Epstein
and as such their children are HRH Princes/ses...but
there is no provision for that style & title if the fathers are
still younger sons of Princes of Wales...under the 1917 LP they
would be Lord and Lady during the Queen's lifetime and would then
ascend to princely status on the Queen's death.
If the baby were a boy, would he not be styled Earl of Dumbarton?
Compare the eldest sons of TRH the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent - both
styled as Earls, and both great-grandsons of George V.
This is a possibility,though Lord Frederick Windsor is an example
of the default style for a great-grandson in the younger line.
I think this is the first time more than one son of a son of a Sovereign
has been a Royal Duke in his own right (George V did not become Duke
of York until after his elder brother the Duke of Clarence had died;
he was already Sovereign before any of his sons were created Dukes).
Post by Graham
Post by Louis Epstein
Common usage before 1917 was that the great-grandchildren were
Princes/ses styled "Highness" rather than "Royal Highness",and
from 1898 to 1917 this was upgraded to Royal Highness for children
of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales before being limited in
1917 to only the eldest living son among such children...again
extended to all children of the current eldest son of the Prince
of Wales but no provision for children of a younger son.
So what will or should it be?
If the Queen does nothing,as noted,the child would be a Lord
or Lady,before becoming HRH Prince/ss N of Sussex in the next reign.
Otherwise,in anticipation of the inevitable,the HRH could be
provided...or perhaps,maintaining the distinction but easing
the inevitable,the style of Highness could be revived with the
title of Prince/ss with the Highness becoming "Royal" in the next reign.
(George V was a younger son of a Prince of Wales from 1865 to his
brother's death in 1892,but had his first child in 1894,and George
VI was a younger son of a Prince of Wales from 1901 to 1910,but
had his first child in 1926...both were younger than the Duke of
Sussex when they became fathers but their ancestors died younger
than the Queen).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham
2018-10-16 20:28:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Graham
Post by Louis Epstein
TRH the Duke & Duchess of Sussex are expecting a child next spring.
The Duke is a younger son of a Prince of Wales,and the Queen's expected
survival through the infant's birth would make him the first younger
son of a Prince of Wales to have a child.
Younger sons of Princes of Wales become younger sons of Sovereigns
in due course,
If the Princes of Wales become Sovereigns. E.g. Frederick Prince of Wales's sons the Dukes of York, Cumberland and Gloucester were never the sons of a Sovereign. Gloucester had children - long after his father's death meant that he ceased to be the younger son of a Prince of Wales - but his children's status was AFAIK the same as it would have been if George II and Frederick had lived to see them.
Post by Louis Epstein
and as such their children are HRH Princes/ses...but
there is no provision for that style & title if the fathers are
still younger sons of Princes of Wales...under the 1917 LP they
would be Lord and Lady during the Queen's lifetime and would then
ascend to princely status on the Queen's death.
If the baby were a boy, would he not be styled Earl of Dumbarton?
Compare the eldest sons of TRH the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent - both
styled as Earls, and both great-grandsons of George V.
This is a possibility,though Lord Frederick Windsor is an example
of the default style for a great-grandson in the younger line.
Prince Michael of Kent is not a duke with a subsidiary earldom - Prince Harry is.
Post by Louis Epstein
I think this is the first time more than one son of a son of a Sovereign
has been a Royal Duke in his own right (George V did not become Duke
of York until after his elder brother the Duke of Clarence had died;
he was already Sovereign before any of his sons were created Dukes).
George I created his grandsons Duke of Edinburgh and Duke of Cumberland in 1726.
Loading...