What will happen to Princess Charlotte’s future family?

[VelvetAndPVC]

The thread about Peter Philips’ second engagement has got me thinking and now I have a question for you royal experts.

Now that the latest Letter Patent has placed Princess Charlotte ahead of Prince Louis in the LoS, what will happen when Princess Charlotte marries? Being a female and additionally not the immediate heir, there is a statistical likelihood she will be the first of the Wales children to marry. Will her husband likely receive a title and thus will their children receive titles? According to tradition this shouldn’t happen and Princess Charlotte’s future husband and children, as was in the case of Princess Anne, should be title-less because usually the husband of a female Royal doesn’t automatically receive a title.

Princess Anne was always ranked behind her three brothers on the LoS but this time around things are different and Princess Charlotte and any future children will rank higher than Prince Louis and his future children. It is expected that Prince Louis’ wife would receive a Duchess title and their children Prince and Princess titles (assuming, sadly, that by the time any of the Wales’ children are ready for marriage it is quite likely their father would be King).

So will there be any change for Princess Charlotte’s husband? Their first child is likely to be 3rd in line to the throne. And to have a 3rd in line without a title, would that be awkward?

Strange they didn't think that through when they changed it initially. It's such an obvious discrepancy. You have to put all subsequent children on the same footing. Either Charlotte's children should have the same as Louis or, as I think should happen, only children of the heir have titles so the equivalent of Bea, Eugenie, Edwards kids, Harry's kids are on the same footing as Anne's kids. No titles, no Prince/ Princess. They can be Lord/ Lady something or other if they want.

I agree, but as I said up thread, there is no 'they' here. It was the late Queen who issued the new LP's and she was as conservative as one would expect for a woman of her generation, which is why she did not extend the privilege of passing on titles to females. When she was pregnant with Charles, LP's were required to allow him the title of Prince at birth, since under the normal rules he would not have been entitled to be Prince as he was royal in the female line 'only'.

I agree that only direct line grandchildren should be Prince or Princess. Charles should issue LP's soon. If he doesn't make it retrospective - and maybe even if he did - it would be an entirely uncontroversial and quite popular move.

I agree with a PP - better to change the Prince / Princess titles to just children in the direct line.

If George did not have children then Charlotte or Louis’ kids could have titles at the point they became direct heirs.

I think it was an error not to do it at the time.

Whilst the ultimate decision was that of QEII there were clearly lots of discussions at the time surrounding the LoS changes and various commonwealth changes, so I personally find it hard to believe that she wouldn't have taken Charles opinions into consideration and if he strongly wanted to limit the titles going forward and resolve the female descendant issue I think it would have been done.

She was reserved, as many of her generation, but she did see changes made on her watch - Edward's children not being styled as HRH Prince/Princess, Anne's husband not taking a title like Margaret's husband. Modernisation happened, but verrrry slowly. I don't think it'll change much further in the close future either - I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Charlotte follows Anne with an untitled spouse and untitled children, any children born to her brothers will be titled and the whole issue will be kicked down the road for George to deal with at some point.

I don't actually think there will be significant changes allowing females to pass on their titles until the first firstborn girl who will be heir apparent is born.

It's been done on a one off basis in the past, but perhaps when there is a Princess born who will be queen that'll be when the LP's and habit of bestowing Dukedoms with a male line clause changes.

She was reserved, as many of her generation, but she did see changes made on her watch - Edward's children not being styled as HRH Prince/Princess, Anne's husband not taking a title like Margaret's husband. Modernisation happened, but verrrry slowly. I don't think it'll change much further in the close future either - I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Charlotte follows Anne with an untitled spouse and untitled children, any children born to her brothers will be titled and the whole issue will be kicked down the road for George to deal with at some point.
The changes were not because of her though they were despite her. She offered the titles and they were refused. The problem with the current system is the most craven and entitled ( Andrew, Harry) want the titles whereas the more sensible ( Anne, Edward) want their children to make their own way. Why should Louis children be titled ( let alone Prince/ Princess when their higher ranking cousins won't be? It's an absolute nonsense. Charles should sort this out now. Otherwise William will have to do it and I don't think he will tbh.

Lots of alternate lines to explore in that unlikely scenario. by then would probably be Andrew's grandchildren, Anne's grandchildren, Edwards grandchildren, and if none of them, then go back another generation, and so on.

I think the last Monarch has already been born.

The changes were not because of her though they were despite her. She offered the titles and they were refused

She offered, she didn't insist or decide for people, which is a modernisation from previous generations.

When you hear Sophie talking about the discussions and decisions made around her and Edward's children, she was actively supportive of their changes.

Lots of alternate lines to explore in that unlikely scenario. by then would probably be Andrew's grandchildren, Anne's grandchildren, Edwards grandchildren, and if none of them, then go back another generation, and so on.

It would be Harry's children and grandchildren before any of them.

But as I've said above, relying on individuals to decide for themselves means that you end up with a discrepancy between the Harry and Andrews of this world and the Edward and Anne's. If there was a hard and fast rule not only would it being then more in line with the rest of European Royalty but avoids the problem they had with Harry throwing his toys out of the pram because his dad wanted his kids not to be a Prince.

Royal titles go down the male line (except in the case of a Queen Regnant) so unless Charlotte marries a titled man, her children won't have titles. The Queen asked Princess Margaret if she wanted her husband to be made an earl so her children would be titled as children of an earl. She said yes, thus we have the Earl of Snowden and Lady Sarah Chatto. Princess Anne was asked the same thing at her marriage and said no, so her children do not have titles of any kind.

William may do the same, and Charlotte will get to choose, or he may make the choice for her. Either way her children will not have Prince/Princess titles.

I know. I'm saying Louis shouldn't either. It's the only fair way. Any other situation ( apart from Charlotte marrying a Prince of another country) and you have Louis children who are further down the line of succession than Charlotte's children wandering around as Prince/ Princess whatever whereas their higher up cousins, Charlotte's children being Master/miss/lord/lady. Charles needs to sort it before the Wales kids are adults.

Not exactly. I'm around Diana's age so know it well. The Letters Patent ensured that Andrew and Fergies' children would get Prince/Princess. At the time of their marriage the monarchy was riding high and no one thought anything of it. They were married at Westminster Abbey because that was the done thing at the time. Princess Anne was also married there.

By the time Edward married Sophie, Diana had only been dead two years, there was still an undercurrent of animosity toward the monarchy and the Queen didn't want to make things worse. That is why E&S were married at Windsor and why their children did not use the Prince/Princess titles. They technically still have them because the 1710 Letters Patent is in effect, but they continue to choose, or be told, not to use them.

Aah so are you saying there is a convention that those lower down can't use the titles? Why has it reverted back for Harry's kids then? This is the problem with the ' choose not to use them' scenario. There needs to be certainty. Harry's kids should not have been allowed to be styled Prince/Princess. What is the difference between Archie and Lilli being grandchildren of a Monarch and Edwards kids being grandchildren of a Monarch? They are the same.

There isn't a convention as such.

Edward and Sophie had planned not to be working royals, and the royals weren't massively popular when they got married, so they decided that they wanted to be Earl and Countess instead of Duke & Duchess (with the plan of Edinburgh going to them when Charles became king) and having their children styled as the children of an Earl given the children wouldn't be working royals themselves.

It was a surprising decision at the time, but not an unpopular one.

It hasn't reverted back for Harry as such - the hard and fast rule is that male line grandchildren are HRH Prince/Princess. It's simply that the rule has been stuck to with Harry. So all of Charles grandchildren were going to be titled as such the moment he became king.

The anomaly was the quick LPs titling all of William's future children, while Catherine was pregnant with George, because the primogeniture change went through and that meant that a girl born to them would be a future Queen, but would be Lady whereas their first son would be HRH Prince due to standing LPs (the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of wales) that were put in place before that primogeniture change.

It was to dodge a sexism row. Harry simply didn't understand it when he complained about his children not being titled HRh right away.

was to dodge a sexism row. Harry simply didn't understand it when he complained about his children not being titled HRh right away
My completely unsubstantiated made up theory is that he did understand it, and also understood perfectly well his fathers position of not making his children Prince ( as per the Oprah interview). He just didn't like it, so told Meghan two things- that there was talk about the colour of Archie's skin and that Archie wouldn't be a Prince, deliberately conflating the two. If I married into a family who had apparently gossiped behind my back about what my child looked like and then thought they were being treated differently because of it I would be mightily pissed off. Especially if I didnt understand the family and the person I loved and relied on to had told me all the terrible things they had done and said to him. I don't buy the ' poor innocent dumb Harry being manipulated by the evil woman' narrative. I think he has poured all his grievances out to Meghan and she has not quite understood the protocol and has slagged them off based on what Harry has told her. Everything she said about the racism etc has come out of her mouth via Harry. He has done all the court cases and the book. Not her. I think he is the one who has manipulated her into this shitshow with his 'poor me' narrative.

I think he is the one who has manipulated her into this shitshow with his 'poor me' narrative.

I've said many times that if you stand back and take a look at this couple his neglect (for want of a better word) of preparing her for his family is very telling.

Harry was desperate for a wife and family. All of his previous girlfriends walk, or ran, away when they realised exactly what life as a high profile royal was like.

People mock Meghan for the curtsy saga, but looking at the bigger picture of it - assuming that the family curtsied to his Granny The Queen at formal public events, but not realising that extended to private family lunches isn't ridiculous.
I called my Nana Mrs Surname when she worked in my school - I didn't call her that out of school!

Same with the whole titles saga. Only George of Charles' grandchildren would be HRH Prince while QEII was alive. Had the primogeniture change not happened then the LP's would have stayed the same. George would have been HRH Prince, Charlotte and Louis, as well as Archie and Lilibet, would have been Lords and Ladies and then they'd have been upgraded when QEII died. To avoid the sexism stink had Charlotte been born first and been Lady, and future Queen, then out titled by a younger sibling there were quite LPs titling all the Cambridge kids. Kate was pregnant so there wasn't time to go through all the legalities of sorting the duchy of Cornwall and the wales titles and everything else to sort absolutely everything. So a quick fix.

Then Harry spins that to Meghan as "William's kids got titles and ours aren't..." with no context about the usual pattern, about the reasons for a quick fix etc.

He massively underprepared her for life as his wife. And he made her believe she didn't need help from Sophie or Kate or anyone because he was teaching her.

Given that the woefully underprepared partner was the one he managed to get down the aisle, I've said numerous times that in her shoes I'd feel manipulated and furious because he's set her up to fail.

The way titles were handled for Edward’s children makes them much less headline worthy. If a tabloid can’t draw readers in with a prince or Princess title, it’s much harder to write clickbait about children and young adults.

if I were in charge, I might throw a “lady” or “viscount” in there, but save bestowing anything major until they are adults and there is a plan for them to be working royals.

the direct line doesn’t get the privilege of relative anonymity, but Charlotte and Louis’s future children can be much less searchable if they choose.

Not exactly. I'm around Diana's age so know it well. The Letters Patent ensured that Andrew and Fergies' children would get Prince/Princess.

Beatrice and Eugenie were male line granddaughters of the reigning monarch. There was never any question that they would get royal titles. The 1917 LP's actually limited royal titles to the children and male line grandchildren of the monarch, rather than granting them that right. Previously, all male line descendants of the monarch could have royal titles, so that theoretically a great great grandson of the monarch could go around calling himself a Prince of the Realm.

So what is the situation with Edwards kids then? Are they Prince/Princess but don't use the titles, but could if they want to?

Yes, they could use the HRH Princess/Prince titles if they wanted when they became/become adults (Sophie confirmed that in an interview a few years ago), but Louise hasn't so far, and it was said in that interview that their parents don't expect either of them to do so.

I 'd expect them to offer a title on marriage like Snowdon/Margaret - but if she turns it down like Princess Ann and her first husband - then it makes the problem quite visible.

I also expect Princess Louis will follow Edward and Sophie example and perhaps just not use Prince/Princess for his kids at all despite being able to.

I suspect they'll also stop having Royal dukedoms being royal for two generations and may do what they've done with The Duke of Edinburgh title.

Then when they've got consensus and precedent decided between them - they'll quietly update the The Letters Patent to reflect what they are already doing.

However if they don't get consensus or someone marrying in feels the tiltes are needed as they are in currently set out in - the Letters Patent - then I think at some point they'll start doing PR build momentum and the monarch will impose it by updating The Letters Patent. Which monarch does it probably depends on when the problems with current system are visible.

I doubt they would need any PR for that change though even now. It would be meet with almost universal approval/indifference. They are the ones reluctant to do it.

I agree. The vast majority wouldn't care, and those that do take an interest would likely approve of limiting royal titles. Using this forum as an example, I don't think I've seen anyone, whatever their views on the royals, disagree with the idea of restricting royal titles to those directly in line. Certainly such a change has caused little or no controversy in any of the European monarchies where it's happened.