Queen Elizabeth II Letters Patent 2012

[Dame Margaret of Fermoy]

'The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.'

I have some questions on the above announcement that TRH the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge children will all receive the HRH title now and will be know as HRH and princes and princesses at birth. There most likely to called HRH the Prince x of Cambridge or HRH the Princess X of Cambridge.

Under the old 1917 letters of patent by George V only the first great grandson of the Queen as the monarch, would have received the title of Prince and the HRH title as a direct male line descendant of the monarch in line of succession.

I also believe under the same 1917 patent any girls born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would have been born commoners and would only be entitled to be addressed and styled only as lady X as the daughter of a Duke and and that any other sons born to the duke would only have the style of maybe Lord Windsor as the sons of a duke if the letters patent was not updated, and they would then have had to wait for there grandfather or father to became king for them to received the title of Princess and Prince and HRH but now all children born will be so titled. is this correct?

This letter patent is similar I think to the one done in 1948 or 1949 by King George VI to allow the heirs of his daughter Princess Elizabeth to have her children born as HRH and princes and princesses as there father had given up his royal titles as HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, and they would be born as commoners and it was not thought appropriate to have the heirs of the throne born as such.

When Prince Philip married Princess Elizabeth he received only the HRH title from the King why did the king not also make him a prince as well at the time, anyone know why he was not made a prince?

The King knew that Philip and princess Elizabeth would have children so the king had to know they would be born commoners and styled as the children of a Duke without making Philip a prince, so why did he decide to fix this by letter patent making the future children HRH and princes and princesses but not make Philip a prince, its does not make sense to have his children as royal prince and princess with the HRH title and he was only made a HRH? And why then did Philip have to wait until the Queen decide to make him a prince once again in 1956?

On the current letters patent as the queen is in great heath there is the major possibility she will be around to see Prince Harry marry she has made no provision under this letter patent for his children to have the HRH title and be princes and princess while she is still alive.

I believe they will then fall under the 1917 patent and will have to wait for Princes Charles to be king before they will receive those titles as grandchildren of the sovereign is that correct? so they will be born commoners, that is unless the queen make new letters patent to cover them before they are born to make them prince and princess is this correct?

If anyone has more information on this process, I love to hear it or if I have made errors on what I have said above please let me know. I would be very interested to know more on letters patents

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259712/The-Queen-declares-future-Royal-daughter-Duke-Duchess-Princess--But-dont-know-boy-girl.html

Please noted I have never linked to a news link before online so Cinderella, if I have linked incorrectly please fill free to delete my link. I don't want to violate copyright law or cause issues for your web page

[Cinderella]

Margaret, thank you for your post. Generally linking to articles is OK, but I just read the other day that Irish newspapers are trying to ban free links to their websites, so I will remove that particular link. I hope you can find another with the same info. The BBC site might be a good place to look.

[observer]

With regard to George VI's titles for Prince Philip, Francois Velde of heraldica.org says that the omission of the title of "prince" was intentional though he doesn't state the reason for the omission.

With regard to your other points, I believe your conjectures are correct.

[Dame Margaret of Fermoy]

Many thanks for your reply and information

[Dame Margaret Of Fermoy]

Another question has come to mind on the titles of HRH the Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. when his title was announced it was before there was talk of making the succession to the throne gender neutral. So I am guessing the title Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus and that as normally done with dukedoms was the Remainder was to heirs male of the body of the grantee. that is the succession to the dukedom is male only?

It will be interesting if the heir is female if the title Duke of Cambridge is male only then that princess will not be able to succeeded to Dukedom of Cambridge or be know as Princess X of Cambridge Countess of Strathearn, when she is born and it will be her first born younger brother who will be heir to the dukedom and be know HRH Prince x of Cambridge Earl of Strathearn.

That is unless the queen re grands the dukedom with a special remainder that allow the title to pass to daughters as was done by Queen Victoria's Letters Patent of 29 June 1889 contained the standard remainder "heirs male of his body." Letters Patent of 24 April 1900 granted a second Dukedom of Fife with a special remainder that allowed the title to pass to the daughters of the first Duke, in default of a son, and then to the male heirs of those daughters.

Does anyone think the queen will re grant the dukedom of Cambridge if a princess is born to allow her in due course to be Duchess of Cambridge Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus

Queen Victoria's Letters Patent of 29 June 1889 contained the standard remainder "heirs male of his body." Letters Patent of 24 April 1900 granted a second Dukedom of Fife with a special remainder that allowed the title to pass to the daughters of the first Duke, in default of a son, and then to the male heirs of those daughters.

Or do people think the queen will leave the Dukedom as is as a consolation prize for a first born son so he will have a title if he has an older sister as heir.

[paulchen]

Does anyone know for sure whether these Letters Patent are an "amendment" to King George V's of 1917 as seems to be at least implied in the press or whether it is an isolated case as with King George VI's Letters Patent of 1948? The difference hinges on the phrase, "...the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". Does this mean the Prince of Wales as in the institution of the title [any and every Prince of Wales] or this specific Prince of Wales [i.e. HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales]?

I fully agree with tying up loopholes and anomalies, especially with the Succession Rights being amended. But we will have to wait and see if the baby is a boy or a girl, otherwise speculation is just speculation.

As for the succession to the title of the Duchy of Cambridge, that is very interesting. Personally, I would think that the situation will be avoided by their children simply being known as HRH Prince or Princess X of Cambridge. However, as with the "agreement" that HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex will inherit the title of Duke of Edinburgh in due course there may come a time the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will want to marry and Prince Charles is still King. Although their parents will more than likely be Prince and Princess of Wales by then, the Cambridge title won't have merged with the Crown yet.

Will we set up a system like Sweden where all Princes and Princesses get a dukedom?

As for HRH Prince Harry, I think it is a case of either/or. We can only wait and see.

[observer]

A few comments.

Swedish royals dukedoms are for life only, I believe, and not inheritable.

The more interesting issue for me is not succession to the Dukedom of Cambridge but to the dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay, the principalities of Wales and Scotland, and their associated subsidiary titles. The original creation charters. patents, etc., speak of succession by sons only. The present Queen, for example, was never Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, Princess of Wales, and Princess and Great Steward of Scotland.

[paulchen]

Agreed Observer. And what will the husband of a Princess of Wales in her own right be called...?

And what happens to the title Princess Royal if the eldest daughter is already the heir? Does the second eldest daughter then get granted the title Princess Royal...?

The knock-on effects have to be dealt with as well.

[RJG6952]

I would guess HM is doing this b/c of the 1917 Letters Patent, in regards to styles/titles for HRH Prince William of Wales' children...

As for HRH Prince Henry of Wales (Harry)... She may not need to do it at all, if he doesn't have children before she dies. The moment HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales becomes King - Harry will automatically become HRH The Prince Henry (which would extend, the HRH, to his children as the son of a King, etc. etc.)