|
Post by kurumais on May 24, 2018 1:54:37 GMT
ok as a yank i have some questions about harry's kids and so on
harry is a prince but he is really far away from the throne at this point. does he have other titles? can they be passed on to kids?
will his kids be known as either princes or princesses? if not what do they or will they have titles ? baring some shakespearean mayhem they are never getting to the throne.
now his grandkids will be forever and a day away from the throne. will they still be considered part of the royal family?
will they even have titles ? lord ? lady?
because i keep thinking about william's kids, basically they take over the big spots once he is on the throne and in a sense negating harry and his kids.
thanks
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on May 24, 2018 4:51:36 GMT
Ok let’s see if I can help probally not but will give it a try.....
Harry is a Prince because he is the child of the next or direct in line to the throne. his children will not be princes or princesses or have the HRH, but would be entitled to have Lord lady title
Although he is still technically a prince now he is married, his title is duke of Sussex and the prince title should be dropped and now known as a duke, but the press will no doubt refer to him as prince harry, so Megan is not a princess but a dutchess
Currently Harry’s kids will be still classed as part of the immediate royal family and be part of the civil list (given money and protection from the U.K. government)
But all this changes if the queen dies and Charles becomes king before the birth of any children, as son of the current king their children would have the HRH title and be princes or princesses although like the current earl of Wessex (prince Edward) they can choose not to take the titles for their children.
But all this can be changed by the monarch, and probally would be as harry has become an important player in the royal family,
Harry has undergone a huge transformation in recent years, from being the embarrassment to almost its saviour, he is to become ambassador to the commonwealth as his official duty, and if all plays out I suspect he his being primed to succeed Charles (instead of William) as head in years to come should it survive.
But as to any grandchildren, well they will be entitled to lord/lady or viscount/viscountess titles but will probally not take them, and will not be on the civil list either, but this is all a very long way off.......and public sentiment to the royals is no where near as good as the press and government would like you to think it is. 50 years is a long time and the chances of the monarchy remaining as it currently is are remote.
Not sure if this helps any,
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,786
|
Post by lidar2 on May 24, 2018 8:13:14 GMT
Under the letters patent from 1917 the rule is that the children of the monarch are princes or princesses. The children of the monarch's sons (not daughters) are also prices and princesses. That is why Anne's children are not a prince and princess but Charles and Andrew's are. Edward's children technically ought to be a prince and princess but have chosen to be treated as the children on an Earl. The monarch's great-grandchildren who are the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are prince and princesses, which applies to William's children. As muckypup says Harry's children will not be a prince or princess while the Queen is alive but once she dies and Charles becomes king they would be.
In terms of the British aristocracy, when a peer has more than one title his heir is known by the subsidiary title as a courtesy title, they are not and actual peer. This applies to royal and non-royal peers. Hence Edward's son is known as Viscount Severn but he is not a viscount. It is possible then that Harry's son would be known as a courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 24, 2018 11:03:11 GMT
Two very interesting replies to the OP and I learned something from each of them, thanks.
But I would argue with some of this:
"public sentiment to the royals is no where near as good as the press and government would like you to think it is. 50 years is a long time and the chances of the monarchy remaining as it currently is are remote."
We've been told many times that support is not what it once was, but frankly, that's wishful thinking on the part of republicans.
Polls consistently show support for the Constitutional Monarchy is very high, 75% or 85% - depending on how you ask the question (as any fan of 'Yes, Minister' will know! ) Whichever figure you pick, it's very high. And, interestingly enough, support has been about the same level for a long time.
This recent Telegraph article: Or, if the mere mention of that paper offends any republican sensibilities I could equally well have cited this recent Guardian article; different angle, similar numbers: and they give a link to this long-term polling study showing views have changed since the early 1990s: public support has gradually increased:
As for the next 50 years - that's true, the monarchy will probably not remain exactly as it currently is. It's also why they will very likely still be 'in business'. Our monarchy has proved amazingly adaptable for such a definitively traditional institution, sometimes deliberately (e.g. adopting the name 'Windsor') sometimes by happy chance (e.g. last weekend.)
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on May 24, 2018 14:14:12 GMT
Two very interesting replies to the OP and I learned something from each of them, thanks.
But I would argue with some of this:
"public sentiment to the royals is no where near as good as the press and government would like you to think it is. 50 years is a long time and the chances of the monarchy remaining as it currently is are remote."
We've been told many times that support is not what it once was, but frankly, that's wishful thinking on the part of republicans.
Polls consistently show support for the Constitutional Monarchy is very high, 75% or 85% - depending on how you ask the question (as any fan of 'Yes, Minister' will know! ) Whichever figure you pick, it's very high. And, interestingly enough, support has been about the same level for a long time.
This recent Telegraph article: Or, if the mere mention of that paper offends any republican sensibilities I could equally well have cited this recent Guardian article; different angle, similar numbers: and they give a link to this long-term polling study showing views have changed since the early 1990s: public support has gradually increased:
As for the next 50 years - that's true, the monarchy will probably not remain exactly as it currently is. It's also why they will very likely still be 'in business'. Our monarchy has proved amazingly adaptable for such a definitively traditional institution, sometimes deliberately (e.g. adopting the name 'Windsor') sometimes by happy chance (e.g. last weekend.)
I was not meaning becoming a republic, just that there is always talk of reducing the civil list, and as we currently have an anti royalist as leader of the opposition, what positions, payments and titles could well change by the time grandchildren come along. Its cost of the royal family on the public purse not removing them......many feel with almost 10 years and austerity much of which affects the poorest, cuts should be made to what we give to the wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 24, 2018 16:29:29 GMT
Two very interesting replies to the OP and I learned something from each of them, thanks.
But I would argue with some of this:
"public sentiment to the royals is no where near as good as the press and government would like you to think it is. 50 years is a long time and the chances of the monarchy remaining as it currently is are remote."
We've been told many times that support is not what it once was, but frankly, that's wishful thinking on the part of republicans.
Polls consistently show support for the Constitutional Monarchy is very high, 75% or 85% - depending on how you ask the question (as any fan of 'Yes, Minister' will know! ) Whichever figure you pick, it's very high. And, interestingly enough, support has been about the same level for a long time.
This recent Telegraph article: Or, if the mere mention of that paper offends any republican sensibilities I could equally well have cited this recent Guardian article; different angle, similar numbers: and they give a link to this long-term polling study showing views have changed since the early 1990s: public support has gradually increased:
As for the next 50 years - that's true, the monarchy will probably not remain exactly as it currently is. It's also why they will very likely still be 'in business'. Our monarchy has proved amazingly adaptable for such a definitively traditional institution, sometimes deliberately (e.g. adopting the name 'Windsor') sometimes by happy chance (e.g. last weekend.)
I was not meaning becoming a republic, just that there is always talk of reducing the civil list, and as we currently have an anti royalist as leader of the opposition, what positions, payments and titles could well change by the time grandchildren come along. Its cost of the royal family on the public purse not removing them......many feel with almost 10 years and austerity much of which affects the poorest, cuts should be made to what we give to the wealthy. Personally I would agree that Civil List funding should be reserved for the monarch, the children of the monarch and the children of the direct line of succession, plus spouses. Most families become more extended over time but that doesn't mean that, in this special case, public funding should too.
I'm a supporter and I think a relatively small, efficient 'public core' to the Monarchy (with all grandeur preserved) is in the best long-term interests of the nation as well as the institution.
(On related questions, I also support cutting the number of MPs to 600 (or fewer) with equalised constituency sizes, and a small, mostly elected House of Lords - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for either of those to happen!)
|
|
|
Post by kurumais on May 25, 2018 11:16:37 GMT
here is a video speaking to the cost of having a royal family and the money they generate. this guy does really excellent videos www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw oh thought charles already abdicated in favor of william. i'm pretty sure he mentioned his age and how he wouldnt reign that long because of it. boy, that queen mother keeps chugging along. i believe charles was not envisioning his mother living as long as she has, and wanting a young, spry king and queen, with william and catherine. im pretty sure that was in the news at least 5 years ago. am i making that up? williams kids are referred to as "of cambridge". would they loose that if and when their dad becomes king? george would become prince of wales. would he also be duke of cambridge? or would his dad be both king of england and duke of cambridge? what are fergies kids referred as? btw do you study all this in school? or you just pick it because its just part of the culture. thanks folks
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,786
|
Post by lidar2 on May 25, 2018 11:33:27 GMT
here is a video speaking to the cost of having a royal family and the money they generate. this guy does really excellent videos www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw oh thought charles already abdicated in favor of william. i'm pretty sure he mentioned his age and how he wouldnt reign that long because of it. boy, that queen mother keeps chugging along. i believe charles was not envisioning his mother living as long as she has, and wanting a young, spry king and queen, with william and catherine. im pretty sure that was in the news at least 5 years ago. am i making that up? williams kids are referred to as "of cambridge". would they loose that if and when their dad becomes king? george would become prince of wales. would he also be duke of cambridge? or would his dad be both king of england and duke of cambridge? what are fergies kids referred as? btw do you study all this in school? or you just pick it because its just part of the culture. thanks folks Charles has said he will not abdicate in favour of William. I think he said once he would take Goerge VII as his regnal name. When Charles accedes William will become Prince of Wales. George will then be Prince George of Wales the same way William was Prince William of Wales before he became Duke of Cambridge, but he will still be Duke of Cambridge as well, it will just be a lesser title. He will likely also become Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. When William becomes King, George will then become Prince of Wales. The other 2 will be a Prince and Princess, but who knows what other titles they may have by then. Charlotte will probably by then be Princess Royal after William has acceded and Anne dies.
Fergie's kids are Princesses because their father is the son of a monarch
I am interested, that is how I know it. Wikipedia is a good source for all this.
Just struck by a sobering thought - I am 40 and if William lives as long as his paternal grandparents I will probably not live to see George become king ... That makes me feel really old
|
|
|
Post by kurumais on May 25, 2018 13:33:34 GMT
why is charles going to to change his name when he becomes king? is that mandatory? or tradition? thats an odd thing to me either way. i have looked at wikis but i wanted a more personal back and forth.
one of the things im interested in and confused about is when do they have to "give back" a title when their line goes from second child to king or queen, to niece or nephew to the king or queen, to second cousin to the throne
ect ect. does the crown have inexhaustible titles they can bestow their family? take prince edward duke of kent cousin to the queen. looking forward a couple generations to when prince george becomes king. prince edward if
i did my math right would be king georges 4th cousin. his kids would be 4th cousin once removed. and they probably barely know each other. and lets say king george and his future wife 9 kids 5 girls 4 boys like my mom did.
where are they going to get titles for all of them.
another thing im not clear do they get a residence along with the title? does charles have a manor in wales he exclusive has access to until he becomes king? are harry and meghan going to live in a big place in susex?
i wonder how many folks does the queen host on holidays? i hope that family is close and caring because it has to be really really strange being a royal.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 25, 2018 14:08:26 GMT
why is charles going to to change his name when he becomes king? is that mandatory? or tradition? thats an odd thing to me either way. i have looked at wikis but i wanted a more personal back and forth. one of the things im interested in and confused about is when do they have to "give back" a title when their line goes from second child to king or queen, to niece or nephew to the king or queen, to second cousin to the throne ect ect. does the crown have inexhaustible titles they can bestow their family? take prince edward duke of kent cousin to the queen. looking forward a couple generations to when prince george becomes king. prince edward if i did my math right would be king georges 4th cousin. his kids would be 4th cousin once removed. and they probably barely know each other. and lets say king george and his future wife 9 kids 5 girls 4 boys like my mom did. where are they going to get titles for all of them. another thing im not clear do they get a residence along with the title? does charles have a manor in wales he exclusive has access to until he becomes king? are harry and meghan going to live in a big place in susex? i wonder how many folks does the queen host on holidays? i hope that family is close and caring because it has to be really really strange being a royal. Suspect the reason Charles may want to change his name is the history of King Charleses not being particularly good. Charles I nearly saw the end of the monarchy and Charles II's reign had the Great Plague and Great Fire of London. I don't think he necessarily has to change his name if he doesn't want to, but I'm no expert on royal matters. I guess the number of titles is only limited to the number of counties, not sure what will happen if we ever run out. I'm not exactly sure what happens to titles down the line. Most dukes and duchesses do have residences. Here's the full list if you're curious: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_royal_residencesThere is an official residence for the Princes of Wales the name of which I won't attempt to spell. Usually the Queen hosts fairly immediate family at holidays. Whether the family is close and caring, well at least more recently it all seems cosy. I don't think anyone can really say for sure.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,786
|
Post by lidar2 on May 25, 2018 15:15:37 GMT
why is charles going to to change his name when he becomes king? is that mandatory? or tradition? thats an odd thing to me either way. i have looked at wikis but i wanted a more personal back and forth. one of the things im interested in and confused about is when do they have to "give back" a title when their line goes from second child to king or queen, to niece or nephew to the king or queen, to second cousin to the throne ect ect. does the crown have inexhaustible titles they can bestow their family? take prince edward duke of kent cousin to the queen. looking forward a couple generations to when prince george becomes king. prince edward if i did my math right would be king georges 4th cousin. his kids would be 4th cousin once removed. and they probably barely know each other. and lets say king george and his future wife 9 kids 5 girls 4 boys like my mom did. where are they going to get titles for all of them. another thing im not clear do they get a residence along with the title? does charles have a manor in wales he exclusive has access to until he becomes king? are harry and meghan going to live in a big place in susex? i wonder how many folks does the queen host on holidays? i hope that family is close and caring because it has to be really really strange being a royal. The name change was a rumour that was then neither confirmed nor denied. Why would he do it? Who knows? Same reason he talks to plants? Seriously though, Sherlock's answer above is as good as any. For instance, George VI was really called Albert, he took George as his regnal name. Popes do it all the time.
Not sure what you mean by "give back" a title? Duke of Kent inherited his title from his father and his princely status because he is a male line grandson of a monarch (George V). His son will inherit the Duke title but not the princely status as he is the great-grandson of a monarch. Once his son inherits, Kent will cease to be a royal dukedom and will be like any other dukedom. Other than the titles the Duke of Kent already has, which will pass on down through his descendants, it is unlikely his descendants will get any further titles (unless they do something to merit one)
They are not entitled to a residence but I would imagine the Royals would not want the bad PR of a homeless relative so would, as a last resort, if a distant relative was unable to provide for themselves, find them somewhere to live.
|
|