Prince Charles to alter the Letters Patent - Sussex Children won't become Prince/Princess

[Comeinoutoftherain]

Apologies for the Daily Mail reference, but it's all I have so far.

Apparently PC told H&M shortly before the Oprah interview that his intention was to amend the Letters Patent so that only the children in direct line to the throne (aka William's children) would receive the Prince/Princess title.

So neither Archie nor Lilibet were going to be "upgraded" to Prince/Princess on the Queen's death.

That explains that slightly vague comments made in the OW interview about Archie not being made a Prince; and why relations between PC and H&M were clearly very fraught.

If this is true (and I accept it's hard to see the wood for the trees with the constant press briefings from both sides) I can see it from both points of view.

Harry is in Prince Andrew's position (as a royal, not as a person) which makes Archie and Lilibet on a par with Beatrice and Eugenie. As they get older, and William's children start their own families, the Sussex children drop down the pecking order pretty quickly.

I think Charles has it right that the British Public don't want to keep paying for an extended royal family, you can see that playing out in Europe at the moment. So even if H&M were working royals, their children likely won't be; and I can understand why he wants to present a limited number of royals to the public.

From Harry's perspective, it must feel like a downgrade. It must be difficult being the second (and only other) child in a hierarchical monarchy; being aware from the beginning of all that William is to inherit. Having his children lose something that is currently their birthright must sting a bit.

This should probably have been considered before William and Harry had kids. I doubt it would have been as big a deal when you are not considering actual children, just abstract ones. Or at the very least, it should have been done when the Letters Patent were altered for George, Charlotte and Louis.

It's clearly added to an already tense atmosphere and won't help family relations get back on track.

If I am absolutely honest & I do not know either of them but Pc looks happier with Camilla - I do not give a shiny hoot what name she will be given . But I do think that H&M are clinging on to royal stuff , whilst also tying to earn £00000000000000 from being part of the RF.

Only my opinion but they could have done a great job. & be given a house & & & all the way to do chariities they wanted. - But hey - not my choice.

*If 2 adults are legally qualified to marry, can the monarch prevent it?

Between 1772 and 2013, yes. The Royal Marriages Act meant that no marriage (of a child or grandchild of a monarch) as validd if it did not have the consent of the monarch. Exception - if over 25 and consent denied, permission could be sought on 1 year's notice to Privy Council, provided neither Commons not Lords objected. This was rooted in concerns over marriages too foreign Royals, and the alliances which couid arise, but applied to all royal marriages.

I think the Queen's consent to Prince William's marriage was published, and his was the last marriage before the 1772 Act was overtaken by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, in which the first 6 in line require monarchical consent if they wish to remain in the line of succession and for any children of the marriage to join it.

@EdithWeston

*If 2 adults are legally qualified to marry, can the monarch prevent it?

Between 1772 and 2013, yes. The Royal Marriages Act meant that no marriage (of a child or grandchild of a monarch) as validd if it did not have the consent of the monarch. Exception - if over 25 and consent denied, permission could be sought on 1 year's notice to Privy Council, provided neither Commons not Lords objected. This was rooted in concerns over marriages too foreign Royals, and the alliances which couid arise, but applied to all royal marriages.

I think the Queen's consent to Prince William's marriage was published, and his was the last marriage before the 1772 Act was overtaken by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, in which the first 6 in line require monarchical consent if they wish to remain in the line of succession and for any children of the marriage to join it.

Great factual post .

Maria Fitzherbert & George IV marriage was invalid as George III permission hadn’t been sought. She was also a catholic so I think he wouldn’t have been able to remain in LoS if the marriage had been valid. There are more knowledgeable people than me here but I find it interesting.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Fitzherbert

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I suspect that whether or not they plan to have an investiture for William and how quickly they grant the title may well depend upon how old Charles is and how healthy he is when he becomes King They won't want a succession of expensive events close together so if Charles is not likely to be King for long they won't want an investiture ceremony. On the other hand it could be a useful positive PR opportunity for the Royals, and raises William's profile if Charles is unpopular

Interesting point; I hadn't thought about it from the expense angle - though I'm not sure how much that would worry them since they're not the ones doing the paying, and it's not as if Charles is noted for his personal restraint around money

Also not sure if Charles would welcome William's profile being raised if he himself was unpopular. Given his widely reported self-pitying diatribes I can't quite imagine that happening, but time will tell

Charles' plan to slim down the monarchy is all about saving money because he knows that throwing public money around on pomp and ceremony isn't good for the public perception. It is why he has been at odds with Andrew over the extent of the role for his family.

I see what you mean about Charles, reportedly he was very jealous of Diana's popularity with the press and the public but I don't think that is particularly relevant here. Not only has Charles had several decades to mature there is a big difference between the attention lavished on his wife who he wasn't getting on with versus attention being paid to the son he has been grooming for the role.

Most importantly Charles will see his duty to preserve the monarchy as being more important than personal popularity. If the best thing for the monarchy is to promote William he will do that (although he won't abdicate for the same reasons the Queen won't).

Something that will be very interesting when Charles takes the throne will be his Counsellors of State as they will include (assuming the Queen doesn’t live until George is 21) Princess Beatrice.

Currently only Charles and William act out of the four, as the other two are Andrew and Harry.

"Something that will be very interesting when Charles takes the throne will be his Counsellors of State as they will include (assuming the Queen doesn’t live until George is 21) Princess Beatrice."

@JustLyra Is there a "formula" to figure that out? How far down the LOS is Beatrice?

Sorry, that was an awkward way of asking what the rules are regarding who will be Counsellors of State.

@Andylion

Sorry, that was an awkward way of asking what the rules are regarding who will be Counsellors of State.

I think it’s the next 4 people in line of succession who are over 21 (it might be over 18)

@Andylion

Sorry, that was an awkward way of asking what the rules are regarding who will be Counsellors of State.

It’s the spouse of the monarch then the next four in the line of succession who are over 21.

So the Queen currently has Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. And had Philip.

Charles will have William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice, plus Camilla.

Andrew doesn’t act. Harry is still eligible as is still officially domiciled in the UK. If that changes he’s no longer eligible to be CoS (or Regent).

PrincessBeatrice is now 10th in the line of succession (so 9th if Charles ascends with no new additions above her)

But for Counsellors of State, only the adults count (not sure if it's 18 or 21, or indeed some other age, but as there isnt anyone close to that cut off it doesn't matter. So if you exclude the Cambridge and Sussex children, she is now 5th, so 4th when Charles ascends

Thank you @JustLyra AND @Wanttocry. I confess I was too lazy to work it out for myself.

It’s quite a while until the children bump the current bunch down the list as well.

11 years for George if William is King, 14 if it’s Charles (if you’re their heir you only have to be 18, but another step down and it’s 22)

The Regency Acts are interesting to contemplate as well. Under current law, if George were to succeed to the throne while he is a minor, Harry would be regent, assuming he were domiciled in the U.K. After Harry, it's Andrew and then Beatrice.

I think Prince Harry may well be excluded, based on domicile, and one can only hope that Prince Andrew has good advisers and declines the role. Which takes us back to Princess Beatrice again.

@SenecaFallsRedux

The Regency Acts are interesting to contemplate as well. Under current law, if George were to succeed to the throne while he is a minor, Harry would be regent, assuming he were domiciled in the U.K. After Harry, it's Andrew and then Beatrice.

They are very interesting.

It will be interesting to see if they use the 1953 act to make Catherine the Regent (she would have custody of George as the child monarch remains in the custody of their mother if she is alive) as they did with Philip being put in place of Princess Margaret.

@EdithWeston

I think Prince Harry may well be excluded, based on domicile, and one can only hope that Prince Andrew has good advisers and declines the role. Which takes us back to Princess Beatrice again.

I think that’s one of the reasons Harry was/is still legally domiciled here.

However, that can’t go on indefinitely

... their daughter, Isabelle Townsend, was a well-known model

Well, I'll be blowed; I knew that face, but never realised she was Townsend's daughter!!

I learn something new on here every day

They have other options if they decide to specify someone other than the next in line. For example Edward.

If Catherine were Queen Consort already at the time George succeeded then she probably would be the natural choice but if William predeceased Charles then Edward might make more sense as Catherine isn't Royal. Philip was Royal, and was related to British Royalty by blood, plus there weren't many other options, especially not ones that would avoid ostracizing Margaret.

I don't know if Royal blood would matter particularly, it probably depends upon the mood at the time and the age of George at the time.

@Skiptheheartsandflowers

I can see why you'd register more than one domain if you have a shortlist of names. It's not like they can't afford it. What seems most likely to me was that they told, rather than asked, the queen about the name - I would guess that they said they wanted to use Lilibet and it would be a lovely tribute to her, and the queen didn't say outright 'actually I'm uncomfortable with that' so they ended the call thinking 'permission granted!' Full steam ahead.

I didn't think William became Duke of Cornwall on the queen's death either. Charles will still be alive! Bet something is said pretty quickly about Camilla being queen consort after all, though.

I thought they announced years ago (on or just after the wedding) that Camilla would not me know as Queen or Queen Consort bit retain Duchess..:... though I may have imagined this!?

Just googled it & realised I'm wrong about her remaining Duchess

@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon

They have other options if they decide to specify someone other than the next in line. For example Edward.

If Catherine were Queen Consort already at the time George succeeded then she probably would be the natural choice but if William predeceased Charles then Edward might make more sense as Catherine isn't Royal. Philip was Royal, and was related to British Royalty by blood, plus there weren't many other options, especially not ones that would avoid ostracizing Margaret.

I don't know if Royal blood would matter particularly, it probably depends upon the mood at the time and the age of George at the time.

To go with Edward they’d have to completely change the Regency Act, and bypass both of the York girls.

I think Catherine would be the obvious choice because if you start messing about with the line at that point then where does that end?

Philip was chosen purely because he was male abs they didn’t trust Margaret. I very much believe even if he hadn’t been Greek/Danish royalty the same would still have been done. If it hadn’t been him then it would likely have been the Duke of Gloucester again, but that would have been very harsh when he had had to be on standby for that when the Queen was young.

It’s definitely a situation they’ll be concerned about as it would take quite a lot to remove the Regent and I’m not sure Andrew’s “not doing royal stuff anymore” is enough of a step down so they’d be relying on him doing the right thing.

I don't think that Catherine not being royal by birth would be seen as an impediment to her being regent. It would require a new act, of course, but the last three regents for English monarchs who were minors were not royal. You have to go back to the Sixteenth Century, but they were Thomas Seymour and Robert Dudley for Edward VI and Margaret Beaufort for the short minority of Henry VIII.

Also Scotland had several non-royal regents, including Mary of Guise, the mother of Mary Queen of Scots. She was from a noble family with strong royal connections, but still not royal by birth.

I'm this day and age, I doubt that Catherine's non-royal birth would be a factor at all.