Does the 1917 letters patent need updating (Not Harry related)

[LadyOfACertainAge]

As we’ve now updated the order of succession to remove male preference does it makes sense that only the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line are princes/princesses?

Surely it should be all grandchildren or even even just the children of the eldest child? Else we could be in a position where Charlotte’s children are not automatically entitled but Louis’ children are.

It different to Princess Anne as Peter was behind his three uncles when born and likely to keep dropping back as at least one of them would have children. If Charlotte has children before George they would be 3rd in line.

Charles should really follow his own argument to itslogical conclusion and 'slim ' the monarchy out of existence

THAT of course would make too much so the Windsors will attempt to keep tinkering at the edges of ridiculous feudal nonsense

It will all be taken out of their hands soon enough

Typo :
That would make too much sense

Novella4
Much as I would like to see the end of the monarchy in a constitutional sense, at the moment I think they're a useful behind the scenes tool at the moment.

I dread to think what this extreme breed of conservatives would be up to without the monarchy and the lords attempting to have some oversight.

Speaking of nonsense :

"Sarah is not the Duchess of York. Since her divorce she has been Sarah, Duchess of York"

The state the UK is in and there are people who take this absolute bullshit seriously ?

Actually I believe it is because some people take this seriously that partly explains the date we are in

@LolaSmiles
The monarchy is part of the problem

The House of Lords is being reformed and that is the start of larger reforms

Novella4
I agree it's part of the problem. I'd like rid in due course. Until the post-Cameron lot got their claws in, I would have scrapped the whole thing tomorrow.

I'd also like to keep the house of lords appointed but make it only for those who are recognised as experts in their field, with a strong track record.

In my opinion we need to seriously look at what needs to happen constitutionally to prevent a government like our current one happening again. It's terrifying that a UK government in 2023 can have contempt for rule of law, cream off money from the state to their mates, have no regard for human rights, and promote increasingly authoritarian policies. Getting rid of monarchy tomorrow would concentrate a lot of power in the hands of people who would do terrible things.

@LolaSmiles the royals are the most extreme of extreme conservatives! In what way are they tempering ANY of the vile policies of this government? They couldn’t give less of a shit if they tried 🤬.

I think they should equalise it up.

Either all grandchildren of the monarch regardless of male or female line. Or only the children born to the heir.
I think the first is more likely what they would do if they changed it, just due to the number of times the ‘spare’ has ended up as monarch.

i think it’s more likely they’ll just leave it as it is and we’ll see titles being created for lifetimes more often and lots will depend on the role someone’s children are expected to play as to them using titles or not.

So for example if by the time Charlotte and Louis have children George is married and has five kids we’d see them opt for no titles or Lord/lady Windsor for theirs. Whereas if by the time Louis married and had a child both of his siblings had been married 10+ years and had no children then his child would be titled.

Of course they don't "temper" them. That is not the role of the monarch

I've always suspected that Charles is left-leaning (and, of course, green)

As things stand, Louis's kids would be titled and Charlotte's wouldn't. I think they should change it so that either all of them do, or none of them do.

I think only the heir to the throne and his/her heir should have the title HRH and Prince/Princess.

Working members of the Royal family should have a Dukedom but only for their lifetime- not inheritable.

I would apply that to all of them now. I'd remove Prince/Princess from everyone but William and George and also HRH.

I'd remove Earls and Dukedoms from everyone apart from Edward, Anne William, Duke of Kent and D of Gloucester.

It's ludicrous that the children of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester will inherit Dukedoms because their grandfather was the son of a King.

These rules would mean:
Kent, Gloucester -become lifetime Dukedoms as currently working royals. Princess Anne would become a Duchess for her lifetime.
York, Sussex- removed now.
Earl of Wessex - removed now. Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster from Kents and Gloucesters and the subsidiary titles of Baron and Lady from their sons and daughters all removed immediately. Earl of Snowdon and subsidiary titles removed from David Linley and his children.
HRH and Prince/Princess removed from Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Alexandra, Prince Michael, Prince Edward, Princess Anne, Louis, Charlotte,Archie, Lillibet.
Lord/ Lady removed from Gloucester and Kent children and grandchildren and Lady Louise and the children of Prince Michael and from Lady Sarah Chatto.

Just out of curiosity @LuluBlakey1 Why would you allow the dukes of Kent and Gloucester to stay titled, title Princess Anne as Dutchess but not Princess Alexandra?

I get Prince Michael given he’s not a working royal, but Alexandra is.

just an oversight or a reason? I only ask as Alexandra seems to be like marmite for some on certain sights (royalty was my DSs obsession for several years).

I thought Princess Alexandra no longer was a working royal? If she is I would remove the Princess and HRH and give her a lifetime Duchess title.

She’s cut down, but still a working royal.

I agree that whatever rules are adopted prospectively, they should apply equally to men and women.

Consider that George VI had to issue new Letters Patent for then Princess Elizabeth's children to be HRH Prince/Princess because otherwise they would have had only the titles due them from Philip's dukedom.

Consider that George VI had to issue new Letters Patent for then Princess Elizabeth's children to be HRH Prince/Princess because otherwise they would have had only the titles due them from Philip's dukedom.

As it stands if George had a daughter she will be the heir, but he will have to issue LPs for her children to be titled.

That wasn’t rectified with the new LPs issued for the (then) Cambridge children.

No, taking away a person's name or title is not right.
It doesn't affect anyone but them if they are called Blurb of Blur Bloop or whatever but it is their name.
Nothing should be done retrospectively.
The children of the Monarch and their children and the children of the heir's heir should be titled.
What a boring old world if interesting and historic titles were forever not used. Not colourful at all.
The HRH perhaps should be limited from hence forward to only apply to working royals and those in direct line to the throne and heir etc.
There is time enough to wait and see if the letters patent are sufficient for William's children.

Sarah is not the Duchess of York. Since her divorce she has been Sarah, Duchess of York. Not the same thing

That's not what she's put on the 72 books she's brought out!

Sometimes she sticks the 'The' in there. Sometimes not. But what's a 'The' amongst friends?
It's all nonsense. Remove all these ridiculous titles except for direct heirs. And whilst we're at it, let's rewrite the National Anthem.

Watching the rugby, hearing and knowing the words of some of the other Nations, ours is dire.

'Long to reign over us'... no thanks! The national anthem should be for everyone, not just those that laud the RF.

I don't think children should have titles at all. I think that the monarch's children/grandchildren (children of the heir) should become Prince/Princess if/when they become working royals as adults. Calling children Prince/Princess is slightly ridiculous.

Kent, Gloucester -become lifetime Dukedoms as currently working royals. Princess Anne would become a Duchess for her lifetime.

Don't think I quite get the 'lifetime' argument here. If your criteria is 'working royals' then that's it surely. If those individuals stop working, the titles should be removed too then.

I agree with PP. Children of the heir, regardless of sex, only.
All of them is how we ended up with the Gloucester's and Kent's hanging on for so long.
All titles apart from the heir should be life time only, like Edward and the DoE too.

All of them is how we ended up with the Gloucester's and Kent's hanging on for so long

i think they get a hard time.

They should have been off doing other things (DoG was a architect and DoK loved his military career) and then got pulled into being working royals by early deaths around them.

They’ve certainly worked harder over the years than the likes of Andrew.

Even right up until covid when they were in their 70s and 80s they were doing more engagements than done well younger.

The Gloucester and Kents who are Princess or Princess are DGC of a monarch. So not "hanging on" but following the 1917 LP

And they gave up more normal jobs when needed. Especially the Duke of Gloucester who was a second son who never expected to inherit.

Neither Dukedom will be royal when it passes to the next generation. And of course Princess Alexandra's DC were had no titles

The duke of Gloucester in particular should have had a totally different life.

His father was Governor General in Australia. By all accounts had always planned, after his military career, to go abroad.

So the two Gloucester sons should have grown up relatively normal with occasional royal moments. Then the abdication made the then Duke the regent if anything happened to George VI while Elizabeth was young.

They left Australia when the royals were on an overseas trip and never went back. He basically had to be around all the time.

Even then as the younger son the current Duke was expected to have a “normal” life. Right up until his brother was killed in a plane crash he was going to be an architect after his military career just leaving the royal bits to William. His life was complete changed in his late 20s

I always wonder what the current Duchess thinks of how her life worked out. She married in July to the younger son. In august his brother was killed. Less than two years later they were Duke & Duchess and into full royal roles.

The Dukes of Gloucester & Kent are the epitome of duty & have done so many engagements. Never understand how they are described as ‘hangers on’. The Queen clearly had a great deal of affection for the Duke of Kent, he was clearly frail but still stood by her side when needed.