Post by Francois R. VeldeI don't generally announce changes in advance, simply because I rarely make
changes motu proprio. Usually I respond to mistakes or omissions pointed out
on ATR, and when they are obvious I just go ahead and correct them.
Makes sense.
Post by Francois R. VeldeWhen
someone raises a substantive issue (and I notice) I propose a draft change
and wait a few days for a reaction. When a single person proposes a change
and gets no reaction whatsoever, I typically wait (sorry Uwe, I took note of
your Reuss an Hesse-Philipsthal objections, but I'd like to see someone second
I don't generally announce changes in advance, simply because I rarely make
changes motu proprio. Usually I respond to mistakes or omissions pointed out
on ATR, and when they are obvious I just go ahead and correct them.
Makes sense.
Post by Francois R. VeldeWhen
someone raises a substantive issue (and I notice) I propose a draft change
and wait a few days for a reaction. When a single person proposes a change
and gets no reaction whatsoever, I typically wait (sorry Uwe, I took note of
your Reuss an Hesse-Philipsthal objections, but I'd like to see someone second
the motion;
I would like to see how the Holstein lines would be equitably handled
consistent with the principle Uwe is advocating before seeing these
changes implemented.
Post by Francois R. Veldesame for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I second Pierre's proposal as expressed at:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3DFAQ%2Bspain%2Bsuccession%2Baronax%2Bgroup%253Aalt.talk.royalty%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.talk.royalty>
Post by Francois R. VeldeI'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
But quite sensible. I see no need for changing them, especially the
rule about not automatically including every substantive proposed
change without a second, since the original FAQ was vetted on ATR when
Yvonne Demoskoff was in the process of drafting it.
Post by Francois R. VeldePerhaps I should have proposed a draft first in this case; but the fact that
the FAQ itself was altered in the present instance does not mean in the slightest
that the change is more permanent or definitive than usual.
I misunderstood. I thought the automatic posting proposed a future
change, not an effected one.
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartYou and I agreed with Don Aitken's assessment that the royal
prerogative may be exercised on occasion as officially through press
release as Letters Patent. Though little dissent was expressed when
that point was raised here, based on previous discussions I believe
that many ATR participants are unlikely to have been convinced, so I
prefer less definitive wording.
If that is the case, the only needed modification would be to the
clause "precedents show that such instruments are not necessary".
Still sounds too definitive to me. But I will drop the objection if I
continue to be the only one raising it.
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartI may well be wrong about ATR, but I
see no harm in using more cautious language. I would like to hear from
others on ATR on these points.
I don't understand the phrasing you propose: "changes in the legal and
customary usage of royal styles and titles". What's a "legal usage"?
Emphasis on the distinction between exercises of the royal prerogative
(e.g. 1917 LP) and custom (e.g. pre-1864 attribution of style of
"Prince" and "Royal Highness" to British agnates).
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartPost by Francois R. Velde(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
But the Queen did not say she is no longer so entitled and extant
letters patent state that she is.
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartI am not convinced that the Queen has rescinded the legal effects of
the 1917 Letters Patent in regard to the Wessex children. My read is
that their legal right to the princely style remains, but that the
Queen has directed that it not be used for the present.
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
Or that can be withdrawn only through a comparable exercise of the
royal prerogative, which is a form of legal process.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThis is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice.
I don't know that this aspect of the royal prerogative is exempt from
governmental advice, but I agree that such titles, styles and
precedence depend upon the royal prerogative.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThe use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements.
I disagree. The distinction is meaningful, though not necessarily
essential, and I have indicated several times what I think it means in
reference to the Wessex children; use of royal titles and styles
suspended -- but right thereto not permanently abolished. The
"entitlement" lasts until another exercise of the royal prerogative of
comparable gravitas to the 1917 LP, or until it is communicated that
royal press releases have replaced or are equal in power of effect to
letters patent. I do not believe that such a message has been sent or
that it was intended.
Post by Francois R. VeldeWhat counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
Agreed. Nonetheless I am not convinced that the tradition of
distinguishing among expressions of the royal will by use of different
instruments has been ended. Admittedly, there have been
inconsistencies in that tradition, but I believe that the Crown has
treated these instruments as differing in import and use, and I don't
think enough changes have gone through to clearly signal that those
differences are now considered meaningless.
If I understand you correctly, your contention is that distinctions
between letters patent, royal warrants, press releases issued on royal
authority and the Queen's verbal decisions were always meaningless and
that henceforth we and ATR's FAQ should treat them that way. I
disagree.
Post by Francois R. VeldeYou are trying to make a distinction between an underlying legal
right and actual usage, which I suspect is the reason for the odd
phrase "legal usage" you propose above.
Mea culpa.
Post by Francois R. VeldeIn that view, the right to
be called HRH Princess remains intact, but is somehow suspended from
being exercised, à la Cumberland peerage; and the earl of Wessex's
daughter enjoys the style of princess but cannot be called a princess.
This makes no sense to me.
I know. That is where we diverge, because I find it equally lacking in
sense to say that the Queen cannot uphold a class of persons' right to
a style under previous royal edict, while exempting specified
individuals from the exercise of that right for such time as she
thinks good. Nor do I believe that she need communicate that exception
explicitly as such if she prefers to do it in a subtle manner. You
will not think she *should* do it that way, but that does not, to me,
mean that she *may* not do it that way -- and it does not free us from
the responsibility to seek to understand her intent in good faith.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThere is no legal right, in part because
there is no court where Lady Louise W could seek the enforcement of the
right to enjoy the style without enjoying it, in part because there is no
evidence for the existence of such rights in English law (so I
believe: I'm happy to be shown such evidence.) As long as the
sovereign wills it, she is not called a royal highness or a princess,
and that is exactly the same thing as not being a royal highness or
a princess: so I believe, but I'm willing to look at any evidence
for a distinction between the two.
IMO, the evidence consists in the distinctions the Crown itself has
made when choosing among instruments to express the royal will.
Post by Francois R. VeldeMy basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
from that command.
I do see ambiguity of a deliberate kind and I think that ambiguity
should be reflected in the FAQ.
We have heard each other's arguments and, I think, we simply disagree
on this point.
A description of the way in which the change was effected, preserving
much of the language used, suffices for me.
Post by Francois R. Velde"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?
Sarcasm duly noted.
Post by Francois R. VeldeI also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I do not see a divergence between what they have said. Her comment
confirmed exactly what I understood the Queen had communicated by
choice of wording and instrument of expression.
Post by Francois R. VeldeI see no need to invent
ambiguity where there is none.
But I see the ambiguity as intentional, and not as mine.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThere is no need for flexibility,
because the Queen has all the flexibility she wants: the minute the
Queen changes her mind, Louise becomes a princess, and the Queen can
announce it any way she likes.
Then you see it as inconceivable that the Queen intended to
communicate the message that Louis, I and the Countess of Wessex
perceive?
Post by Francois R. VeldeIf the hang-up is over the (incorrect) perception that letters patent
signify customs set in stone, I'm happy to add a note to state the
obvious, that the Queen's decision could be changed at any time (by
the Queen or her successors, not by the countess of Wessex).
That is, indeed, obvious, and does not get at the point that I think
is at issue here.
Charles Stewart
I would like to see how the Holstein lines would be equitably handled
consistent with the principle Uwe is advocating before seeing these
changes implemented.
Post by Francois R. Veldesame for Pierre's proposal to truncate the Spanish succession list).
I second Pierre's proposal as expressed at:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6779ec44.0406050850.7111b4f3%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3DFAQ%2Bspain%2Bsuccession%2Baronax%2Bgroup%253Aalt.talk.royalty%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.talk.royalty>
Post by Francois R. VeldeI'm aware that my procedures are rather informal.
But quite sensible. I see no need for changing them, especially the
rule about not automatically including every substantive proposed
change without a second, since the original FAQ was vetted on ATR when
Yvonne Demoskoff was in the process of drafting it.
Post by Francois R. VeldePerhaps I should have proposed a draft first in this case; but the fact that
the FAQ itself was altered in the present instance does not mean in the slightest
that the change is more permanent or definitive than usual.
I misunderstood. I thought the automatic posting proposed a future
change, not an effected one.
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartYou and I agreed with Don Aitken's assessment that the royal
prerogative may be exercised on occasion as officially through press
release as Letters Patent. Though little dissent was expressed when
that point was raised here, based on previous discussions I believe
that many ATR participants are unlikely to have been convinced, so I
prefer less definitive wording.
If that is the case, the only needed modification would be to the
clause "precedents show that such instruments are not necessary".
Still sounds too definitive to me. But I will drop the objection if I
continue to be the only one raising it.
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartI may well be wrong about ATR, but I
see no harm in using more cautious language. I would like to hear from
others on ATR on these points.
I don't understand the phrasing you propose: "changes in the legal and
customary usage of royal styles and titles". What's a "legal usage"?
Emphasis on the distinction between exercises of the royal prerogative
(e.g. 1917 LP) and custom (e.g. pre-1864 attribution of style of
"Prince" and "Royal Highness" to British agnates).
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartPost by Francois R. Velde(2) how your altered text is consistent with calling her "HRH Princess", since
the Queen tells us she shouldn't be so called.
But the Queen did not say she is no longer so entitled and extant
letters patent state that she is.
Post by Francois R. VeldePost by Charles StewartI am not convinced that the Queen has rescinded the legal effects of
the 1917 Letters Patent in regard to the Wessex children. My read is
that their legal right to the princely style remains, but that the
Queen has directed that it not be used for the present.
I have come to believe that there are no "legal rights" at issue. The
mistake we (or at least I) have been making is to think of royal titles
and styles as similar to peerages: letters patent are issued, vesting
a particular individual or individuals with legal rights that can be
withdrawn only throguh a legal process (e.g., an Act of Parliament).
Or that can be withdrawn only through a comparable exercise of the
royal prerogative, which is a form of legal process.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThis is correct for peerages, and for some aspects of precedence (those
that are defined by an Act of Parliament). I believe this is incorrect
for royal styles and titles. These belong to the royal prerogative,
the part that is not exercised on advice.
I don't know that this aspect of the royal prerogative is exempt from
governmental advice, but I agree that such titles, styles and
precedence depend upon the royal prerogative.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThe use of letters patent or warrants is
only a matter of signifying the sovereign's will, which can be
signified by other written means (such as a press release, however
untraditional that may be) or even verbally. There is no meaningful
distinction to be drawn from using letters patent or warrants or
anything else regarding the announcement; letters patent in the
matter create no entitlements.
I disagree. The distinction is meaningful, though not necessarily
essential, and I have indicated several times what I think it means in
reference to the Wessex children; use of royal titles and styles
suspended -- but right thereto not permanently abolished. The
"entitlement" lasts until another exercise of the royal prerogative of
comparable gravitas to the 1917 LP, or until it is communicated that
royal press releases have replaced or are equal in power of effect to
letters patent. I do not believe that such a message has been sent or
that it was intended.
Post by Francois R. VeldeWhat counts is the sovereign's
will: the pieces of paper are just testimony as to the sovereign's
will at some point in time, not a commitment that binds the sovereign
or her successors thereafter.
Agreed. Nonetheless I am not convinced that the tradition of
distinguishing among expressions of the royal will by use of different
instruments has been ended. Admittedly, there have been
inconsistencies in that tradition, but I believe that the Crown has
treated these instruments as differing in import and use, and I don't
think enough changes have gone through to clearly signal that those
differences are now considered meaningless.
If I understand you correctly, your contention is that distinctions
between letters patent, royal warrants, press releases issued on royal
authority and the Queen's verbal decisions were always meaningless and
that henceforth we and ATR's FAQ should treat them that way. I
disagree.
Post by Francois R. VeldeYou are trying to make a distinction between an underlying legal
right and actual usage, which I suspect is the reason for the odd
phrase "legal usage" you propose above.
Mea culpa.
Post by Francois R. VeldeIn that view, the right to
be called HRH Princess remains intact, but is somehow suspended from
being exercised, à la Cumberland peerage; and the earl of Wessex's
daughter enjoys the style of princess but cannot be called a princess.
This makes no sense to me.
I know. That is where we diverge, because I find it equally lacking in
sense to say that the Queen cannot uphold a class of persons' right to
a style under previous royal edict, while exempting specified
individuals from the exercise of that right for such time as she
thinks good. Nor do I believe that she need communicate that exception
explicitly as such if she prefers to do it in a subtle manner. You
will not think she *should* do it that way, but that does not, to me,
mean that she *may* not do it that way -- and it does not free us from
the responsibility to seek to understand her intent in good faith.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThere is no legal right, in part because
there is no court where Lady Louise W could seek the enforcement of the
right to enjoy the style without enjoying it, in part because there is no
evidence for the existence of such rights in English law (so I
believe: I'm happy to be shown such evidence.) As long as the
sovereign wills it, she is not called a royal highness or a princess,
and that is exactly the same thing as not being a royal highness or
a princess: so I believe, but I'm willing to look at any evidence
for a distinction between the two.
IMO, the evidence consists in the distinctions the Crown itself has
made when choosing among instruments to express the royal will.
Post by Francois R. VeldeMy basic point is this: I see no ambiguity in the phrase "she shall
not be called a princess" and I see no reason to exempt the ATR FAQ
from that command.
I do see ambiguity of a deliberate kind and I think that ambiguity
should be reflected in the FAQ.
We have heard each other's arguments and, I think, we simply disagree
on this point.
A description of the way in which the change was effected, preserving
much of the language used, suffices for me.
Post by Francois R. Velde"The Queen has decided that the baby should not be called a princess;
this FAQ, however, will continue to do so because...." Because
what: because she can't do that? Because she didn't mean to say
it? Because she had her fingers crossed behind her back when
she said that? Because the announcement was typed rather than
handwritten on parchment? Because she didn't send out a trumpeter
in scarlet waistcoat to inform us? Because God told Louis the
real style of the baby?
Sarcasm duly noted.
Post by Francois R. VeldeI also see no reason to ignore what the Queen says and pay attention
to what the countess of Wessex says.
I do not see a divergence between what they have said. Her comment
confirmed exactly what I understood the Queen had communicated by
choice of wording and instrument of expression.
Post by Francois R. VeldeI see no need to invent
ambiguity where there is none.
But I see the ambiguity as intentional, and not as mine.
Post by Francois R. VeldeThere is no need for flexibility,
because the Queen has all the flexibility she wants: the minute the
Queen changes her mind, Louise becomes a princess, and the Queen can
announce it any way she likes.
Then you see it as inconceivable that the Queen intended to
communicate the message that Louis, I and the Countess of Wessex
perceive?
Post by Francois R. VeldeIf the hang-up is over the (incorrect) perception that letters patent
signify customs set in stone, I'm happy to add a note to state the
obvious, that the Queen's decision could be changed at any time (by
the Queen or her successors, not by the countess of Wessex).
That is, indeed, obvious, and does not get at the point that I think
is at issue here.
Charles Stewart