If Charles dies before the queen

[Biri]

The Hon. Edward Lascelles (youngest son of the 8th Earl of Harewood) and his wife Sophie (née Cartlidge).

Currently, Sebastian is 3rd in line for the Earl of Harewood title after his uncle Alexander, Viscount Lascelles, and his father.

I looked through "Peerage News" site (August 2020) and I didn't find the mention of his birth.

Any source?

 

[Mbruno]

The Hon. Edward Lascelles (youngest son of the 8th Earl of Harewood) and his wife Sophie (née Cartlidge).

Currently, Sebastian is 3rd in line for the Earl of Harewood title after his uncle Alexander, Viscount Lascelles, and his father.

Alexander, Viscount Lascelles, has a son born out of wedlock and a legitimate daughter, none of whom are in the line of succession to the earldom. That is why the next in line is his younger brother, The Hon Edward Lascelles. According to the Wilkipedia, Edward's son Sebastian was born in August 2020.


Incidentally, the 8th Earl's eldest son, The Hon Benjamin Lascelles, was also born out of wedlock so, even though his parents got married afterwards, neither he nor his son Mateo are in the line of succession.

 

[Somebody]

And the same exercise as before but now excluding all female lines (as in the reference point of Saudi Arabia) resulting in a much shorter line.

King George V (reigned until 1936)

First generation
1. King Edward VIII (b. 1894; reign 1936)
2. King George VI (Albert) (b. 1895; reign 1936 - 1952)
3. King Henry (b. 1900; reign 1952 - 1974)

Second generation
4. King Edward IX (b. 1935; reign 1974 - now)

Line of succession:
(still second generation)
1. Prince Michael of Kent (b. 1942)
2. The Duke of Gloucester (b. 1944)

Third generation
3. Earl of St Andrew (June 1962)
4. Lord Nicholas Windsor (July 1970)
5. Earl of Ulster (Oct 1974)
6. Lord Frederick Windsor (April 1979)

Fourth generation
7. Lord Downpatrick (Dec 1988)
8. Lord Culloden (March 2007)
9. Albert Windsor (Sept 2007)
10. Leopold Windsor (Sept 2009)
11. Louis Windsor (May 2014)

 

[LauraS3514]

Please delete as redundant...we really need a "Delete" button...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does Edinburgh come before Cambridge based on the date of creation of the title?

Yes - Edinburgh before Cambridge due to date of creation.

It actually more likely that at some point William will be Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge - in the same way that George V spent most of 1901 as Duke of Cornwall and York.

For anyone interested the line of succession to the Edinburgh title is as follows:

1. Charles
2. William
3. George
5. Louis
6. Harry
7. Archie
8. Andrew
9. Edward
10. James

Thus if Charles, William AND George all predeceased Philip and the Queen meaning Charlotte became Queen the title would pass to Louis and not be available to be regranted to Edward.

The announcement, in 1999, was that when BOTH The Queen and Philip die then Charles will recreate the Edinburgh title for Edward. He can only do that though after he has become King (i.e. The Queen has died) and he has inherited the Edinburgh title (i.e. Philip has died).

The Edinburgh title was created with the usual remainder - heirs male of the body lawfully begotten (as are all the other royal dukedoms ... no rights for girls to inherit in the BRF other than the throne itself).

 

[Denville]

I thought she was younger than that. She'll live to be 100 is what I meant. Like her mother. How's that?

we dont know how long she's going to live... I hope she has more years but she is elderly and increasingly frail. However she'll never abdicate....

 

[TRIBBLE]

Can I ask a question I can't seem to find an answer to? If Charles takes the throne. Archie and his sister will become a Prince and Princess as the grandchildren of the Monarch. But what happens if the death of Prince Charles happens before the death of Queen Elizabeth? William automatically is the heir, followed by his children. So what happens to Archie then? If Archie grows up in America, he would do better to do so without a title. It would give kids one less thing to bully him about. Does he become a Prince or is that up to William's discretion.?

 

[TLLK]

Can I ask a question I can't seem to find an answer to? If Charles takes the throne. Archie and his sister will become a Prince and Princess as the grandchildren of the Monarch. But what happens if the death of Prince Charles happens before the death of Queen Elizabeth? William automatically is the heir, followed by his children. So what happens to Archie then? If Archie grows up in America, he would do better to do so without a title. It would give kids one less thing to bully him about. Does he become a Prince or is that up to William's discretion.?

There are members here with far greater knowledge than I possess but I'll try to answer. I believe that new Letters Patent would have to be created by the Queen for the Sussex children if the PoW predeceases his mother. Based upon the Sussexes' responses in the recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, it appeared to me that they were unhappy that Archie didn't have one from birth, so I believe they'd like to see their children with HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess ____ of Sussex.



While I do agree it might be easier for the Sussex children to not have royal styles and titles in the U.S., they wouldn't be the first children to have royal styles and titles while growing up and attending American schools.

 

[Somebody]

I don't see a reason why William would create Letter Patents for children that will have no role what so ever within the British monarchy (other than one of many family members of course).

So, as in that scenario they won't be grandchildren of a monarch, they would 'continue' to be styled as great-grandchildren of a monarch in male-line (which is using Lord/Lady; even if their father wouldn't be a Duke); but in their case: as their father is a Duke, they can be styled as children of a Duke. It's their parents that decided that it would be better for them to go without a courtesy title but instead are known as 'master' and 'miss' like children of non-titled fathers; so if they agree, that could continue being known without a title as well - again, as a personal preference.

N.B. Archie and his future sister will become prince/princess UNLESS Charles decides to take that title away - which would follow the example already set for Harry's youngest cousins who are also children of a younger son of the monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes ... if Charles were to predecease his mother than Harry's children won't be male line grandchildren of a monarch and so no automatic right to HRH Prince/Princess.

 

[TRIBBLE]

Thank you. That made the most sense. Archie will inherit the Dukedom (?) And his sister will have the courtesy title if Lady.

 

[TRIBBLE]

I assumed the farther you were from the top, the less likely you would be to get the HRH. But both Anne and her youngest brother's children are not Prince and Princesses, even though they qualify as children of the Monarch.

 

[Osipi]

I assumed the farther you were from the top, the less likely you would be to get the HRH. But both Anne and her youngest brother's children are not Prince and Princesses, even though they qualify as children of the Monarch.

Anne's children were never eligible because they are from a female line of descent.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I assumed the farther you were from the top, the less likely you would be to get the HRH. But both Anne and her youngest brother's children are not Prince and Princesses, even though they qualify as children of the Monarch.

Princess Anne's children do not, as they are children of the daughter of a Monarch.

Prince Edward's children do, but we know the titles situation with them.

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

Anne's children were never eligible because they are from a female line of descent.

But didn't the Queen offer to make them Prince Peter and Princess Zara? They are the grandchildren of a Monarch.

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

I don't see a reason why William would create Letter Patents for children that will have no role what so ever within the British monarchy (other than one of many family members of course).

So, as in that scenario they won't be grandchildren of a monarch, they would 'continue' to be styled as great-grandchildren of a monarch in male-line (which is using Lord/Lady; even if their father wouldn't be a Duke); but in their case: as their father is a Duke, they can be styled as children of a Duke. It's their parents that decided that it would be better for them to go without a courtesy title but instead are known as 'master' and 'miss' like children of non-titled fathers; so if they agree, that could continue being known without a title as well - again, as a personal preference.

N.B. Archie and his future sister will become prince/princess UNLESS Charles decides to take that title away - which would follow the example already set for Harry's youngest cousins who are also children of a younger son of the monarch.

So their daughter would be Lady X of Sussex and Archie would be Lord Arhie of Sussex? But Archie is going to inherit the Dukedom of Sussex one day and his wife will be Duchess right?

I also don't see why William would even get involved.

 

[Durham]

So their daughter would be Lady X of Sussex and Archie would be Lord Arhie of Sussex? But Archie is going to inherit the Dukedom of Sussex one day and his wife will be Duchess right?

I also don't see why William would even get involved.

Lady or Lord as a courtesy title is followed by surname after the Christian name ie Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. The heir is usually known by the peerage holders secondary title ie Earl of Dumbarton for the Sussex dukedom.

Sussex is the territorial designation of the dukedom not the family name.

Some earldoms such as Earl Spencer confuse the issue somewhat since the peerage title is also the family name.

 

[Osipi]

But didn't the Queen offer to make them Prince Peter and Princess Zara? They are the grandchildren of a Monarch.

That never happened. What did happen was that Mark Phillips was offered a title and then his children would be appropriately titled after their father's title. Mark and Anne vetoed that idea and their children never had any titles whatsoever.

The same thing happened for Anthony Armstrong Jones, Margaret's husband. He was created the Earl of Snowden and his children were appropriately titled as children of an Earl. His son, David now holds the Earl of Snowden title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But didn't the Queen offer to make them Prince Peter and Princess Zara? They are the grandchildren of a Monarch.

It was reported at the time that she did not - she merely offered a peerage to their father. That would have entitled them to be known as Lord and Lady.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 15 | 1977: Princess Anne gives birth to Master Phillips

Both the princess and her husband are said to have rejected an offer from the Queen of titles which would have enabled their children to be born into the peerage.​

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/16/...irth-to-boy-fifth-in-line-to-the-british.html

In a departure from tradition, the child will not be given a title. [...] No reason was given but it was speculated that the young parents, both of whom are known as freewheeling and independent, did not want peerages for themselves or their children.​

Does he become a Prince or is that up to William's discretion.?

In theory, the British Queen or King exercises complete discretion over royal titles, with the exception of peerages (which Parliament does not allow the Sovereign to modify or remove without Parliament's consent).

The current Queen has decided to keep the rules written by King George V in 1917 (known as the 1917 Letters Patent), but she has allowed certain exceptions on a case by case basis.

You can read the Letters Patent, and a summary, at this link: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2

the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess [...] the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.​

Can I ask a question I can't seem to find an answer to?

There is a dedicated thread for questions (and discussions) on British styles and titles; should you or anyone have further questions I would recommend asking in it.

Questions about British Styles and Titles

 

[Sandy345]

Antony Armstrong Jones was offered a title and took it so his and Margaret's children could have titles.

 

[Durham]

But didn't the Queen offer to make them Prince Peter and Princess Zara? They are the grandchildren of a Monarch.

No she didn't. Edward VII created his British born female line grand daughters princesses but as HH not HRH. And his son George V did not agree with the decision which is why his daughters's sons were not princes.

No other British monarchs have done this.

 

[Osipi]

No she didn't. Edward VIII made his female line grand daughters princesses but as HH not HRH. And his son George V did not agree with the decision which is why his daughters's sons were not princes.

No other British monarchs have done this.

Not so. In 1948, King George VI issued Letters Patent permitting his eldest daughter, then-Princess Elizabeth, to pass the style of “HRH” and “Prince/Princess” onto her children. Prior to this, the daughters of the reigning monarch could be “HRH” and “Princess,” but their children could not. It’s because of these Letters Patent that Charles was “Prince” Charles when he was born.

 

[Durham]

Not so. In 1948, King George VI issued Letters Patent permitting his eldest daughter, then-Princess Elizabeth, to pass the style of “HRH” and “Prince/Princess” onto her children. Prior to this, the daughters of the reigning monarch could be “HRH” and “Princess,” but their children could not. It’s because of these Letters Patent that Charles was “Prince” Charles when he was born.

Of course but that's an exception for the female heir apparent to the throne. A very unique circumstance. I hadn't thought to include that.

The post I was replying to was about the children of a daughter not in direct line.

 

[Osipi]

You're right. the LP's issued by George VI are similar to the ones issued by Queen Elizabeth II in relation to the Cambridge children. Deals with the direct succession to the Crown. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Of course but that's an exception for the female heir apparent to the throne. A very unique circumstance. I hadn't thought to include that.

The post I was replying to was about the children of a daughter not in direct line.

Have responded here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-284.html#post2388777

 

[Fijiro]

Of course but that's an exception for the female heir apparent to the throne. A very unique circumstance. I hadn't thought to include that.

The post I was replying to was about the children of a daughter not in direct line.

A female was never heir apparent, but heir presumptive. Even the Queen was heir presumptive during her father's reign, because up till the time of his death, her father could've fathered a legitimate son.

And even her children Charles and Anne, at the time of their birth did not automatically qualify to be HRH Prince or Princess, so her father George VI issued a letter patent for Charles and Anne to be styled HRH Prince Charles and Princess Anne.

 

[Mbruno]

A female was never heir apparent, but heir presumptive. Even the Queen was heir presumptive during her father's reign, because up till the time of his death, her father could've fathered a legitimate son.

And even her children Charles and Anne, at the time of their birth did not automatically qualify to be HRH Prince or Princess, so her father George VI issued a letter patent for Charles and Anne to be styled HRH Prince Charles and Princess Anne.

George VI's LPs, like George V's LPs of 1917, do not include any mention to territorial designation added to titles, but, following British custom, were Charles and/or Anne ever called "HRH Prince/Princess Charles/Anne of Edinburgh" ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

George VI's LPs, like George V's LPs of 1917, do not include any mention to territorial designation added to titles, but, following British custom, were Charles and/or Anne ever called "HRH Prince/Princess Charles/Anne of Edinburgh" ?

This question was asked and answered here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-268.html#post2343353

 

[Durham]

A female was never heir apparent, but heir presumptive. Even the Queen was heir presumptive during her father's reign, because up till the time of his death, her father could've fathered a legitimate son.

And even her children Charles and Anne, at the time of their birth did not automatically qualify to be HRH Prince or Princess, so her father George VI issued a letter patent for Charles and Anne to be styled HRH Prince Charles and Princess Anne.

Yes indeed heir presumptive. Thanks for reminding me. I did know that really. Honest.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Yes indeed heir presumptive. Thanks for reminding me. I did know that really. Honest.

Instead of a female being considered heir presumptive, should she not be considered heiress presumptive?