Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?

[Tatiana Maria]

It may sound strange by today's standards that royal titles are not transmitted in female line in the UK, but the logic of it goes back again to the patrilineal naming of families. Under that criterion, Anne's children for example were born into the Phillips family, rather than the Windsor (or, if you prefer, Mountbatten-Windsor) family. It is just natural then that they shouldn't have royal titles.
[...]
As the TRF member Somebody asked in a previous post, I wonder if equal primogeniture will eventually lead to a change on the use of princely titles in the UK.
[...]

That is unless they decide to go a different way for those born after equal primogeniture was adopted (although giving Charlotte herself a hereditary title seems a more likely way to go); and husband at some point would be allowed to use his wife's title(s)...

More specifically, patrilineal naming of families and patrilineal inheritance of titles are each based on customary patriarchal principles.

As regards the possibility of changes, the British Government disclosed in June 2016 that it was seeking to resolve inequalities in the courtesy titles for husbands and wives of peers. But two weeks after the announcement, then prime minister Cameron announced his resignation.

Husbands of Baronesses in House of Lords could be given their own title rather than plain 'Mr', Government says
High Speed 2 Railway Line:Written question - HL662

 

[JR76]

More specifically, patrilineal naming of families and patrilineal inheritance of titles are each based on customary patriarchal principles.

As regards the possibility of changes, the British Government disclosed in June 2016 that it was seeking to resolve inequalities in the courtesy titles for husbands and wives of peers. But two weeks after the announcement, then prime minister Cameron announced his resignation.

Husbands of Baronesses in House of Lords could be given their own title rather than plain 'Mr', Government says
High Speed 2 Railway Line:Written question - HL662

The article only mentiones Life peerages and Damehoods. I wonder if they had any intentions of including the husbands of Peeresses in their own right?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Angus Ogilvy is no comparison material. He was an aristocrat himself being a son of and a brother to the Earl of Airlie. In that aspect Angus was the same as Diana, herself a daughter and a sister to the Earl Spencer. As children of an Earl, Angus and Diana had a prefix (The Honourable for a younger son of an Earl and Lady for a daughter of an Earl).

 

[Pranter]

'Foggy' REALLY wouldn't have 'cut the mustard' as a belted Earl...

Amusing!


LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

There is really no pressing need to change the rules for the use of princely titles in the BRF as, by chance, George was born a boy and, therefore, the situation Princess Elizabeth was caught in when she got married (i.e. the heir having children that might not be princes/princesses) cannot happen probably for at least another 60 years or so and, again, only if George's firstborn is a girl. Even if the catalyst for a change were instead to give princely titles to Charlotte's children, that won't happen either for another 30 years or so probably.

I don't think Charles or William will make any changes in the absence of a concrete reason to do so, unless of course the government of the day advises them to do so for some political reason.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I would not mind Princess Eugenie going the Louise and James-way after her marriage and no longer use the royal style she is entitled to (like Louise and James). Lady Eugenie Brooksbank instead of HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

 

[Osipi]

As, from what I've read, when she's working, she goes as Eugenie York. She may just opt out to use Eugenie Brooksbank for everyday use and not give up any titles.

 

[Denville]

And there's nothing to stop her usng her HRH and Princess when required, if she does charity engagements or is at a royal function...and using her married name at work. But I don't see why her husband should get a title and I'm sure he wont. Angus Ogivly and Mark Philips were wise not to want them.. as it would open them to criticism.. esp Mark.

 

[Princess B]

There’s no reason for Eugenie to give up her royal titles. She’s not passing them on anyway.
I used to love it when men marrying princess of blood received peerages. But I understand that was a different time. Also the fact that Angus Ogilvy and Mark didn’t accept titles and Tim wasn’t offered one, have kind of set a precedent that men marrying blood princesses will not be offered a peerage. Maybe an exception could be made for the sovereigns son in law.

I think they’d go by Jack Brooksbank and HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank. And would probably continue to use Eugenie York or switch to Eugenie Brooksbank for work

 

[Mbruno]

And there's nothing to stop her usng her HRH and Princess when required, if she does charity engagements or is at a royal function...and using her married name at work. But I don't see why her husband should get a title and I'm sure he wont. Angus Ogivly and Mark Philips were wise not to want them.. as it would open them to criticism.. esp Mark.

Suppose Charlotte gets a new baby brother this year. When he grows up and gets married, he will be made a duke and his wife will be a duchess; no one will criticize her for that. However, when Charlotte gets married, her husband can't become an earl because he would be "open to criticism". If you think about it, it is not really fair.

That is why I say: give an HRH to both husbands and wives at least of the children of the monarch or of the heir to the throne (as King Albert II did to all his children-in-law in Belgium and was offered apparently to Chris O'Neill in Sweden, but he declined). And, then, stop the use of hereditary peerages altogether by members of the Royal Family.

Even if in the UK there is only at most one peer per generation for each title (because of male primogeniture), if you think about it, between King George V's sons, Queen Elizabeth II's sons and husband, and Prince Charles' sons, we have 6 new peerages in current use, with a seventh coming up for Harry and maybe another one at some point if William has another son. Furthermore, out of those aforementioned peerages, only two (York and Cambridge) will disappear in the next generation if they are not recreated somehow. That is too many and, whether one approves of it or not, it is indirectly creating "new hereditary nobility" as an offspring of the Royal Family, like the descendants of the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester, or of the Earl of Wessex (future Duke of Edinburgh probably).

As I said though, I don't expect any changes in the foreseeable future. The British Royal Family is very traditional and conservative in its ways and, surprisingly, royal watchers and commentators are even more conservative in that respect (even the possibility of ditching the Imperial State Crown at the opening of Parliament already raises eyebrows among them, it seems).



PS: I didn't count above the Earl of Snowdon, whose title has now already been passed down one generation. So, in fact, we are already talking about 7 new peerages in use, all connected to the RF !

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And there's nothing to stop her usng her HRH and Princess when required, if she does charity engagements or is at a royal function...and using her married name at work. But I don't see why her husband should get a title and I'm sure he wont. Angus Ogivly and Mark Philips were wise not to want them.. as it would open them to criticism.. esp Mark.

What is not open for criticism these days?

In 1990 Mr Denis Thatcher was created Baronet Thatcher, of Scotney. His son Mark is the current 2nd Baronet.

In 1983 Mr Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton and Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden. His son Alexander is the current 2nd Earl and his grandson Daniel is the current Viscount.

So the precedents are there.

 

[wyevale]

7 new peerages in use, all connected to the RF !

I assure you there is NO disquiet about this very gradual increase in Dukes, precisely because they are 'connected' to the Royal Family..
What does concern the public is the bi-annual accretion of Life-Peers to the House of Lords [superannuated politicians, Lobbyists, donors to Political Parties, etc, etc] who have no real justification or purpose in an ALREADY over-peopled Chamber.

There is 'talk' of up to 200 new Brexiteer Life-peers being created to redress the imbalance created in the Upper House, by the LARGE numbers of [remain] 'Liberal-Democrat' Peers wangled by the party during the Coalition Government !

It is this that brings 'the Honours system' into widespread disrepute [jeopardising the very existence of the House of Peers], not a handful of Dukes ,who will never 'sit', [nor be paid from the public purse] to do so...

 

[Mbruno]

I assure you there is NO disquiet about this very gradual increase in Dukes, precisely because they are 'connected' to the Royal Family..
.

In that case, there should be no disquiet then about Jack becoming an earl. After all, one more hereditary earl also pales in comparison to 200 new life peers !

Seriously, Jack shouldn't be made an earl or an HRH (in an alternative system) because it would be too much IMHO for the husband of a granddaughter of the Queen in a collateral line of the Royal Family. However, I can't see a rationale for treating Charlotte's husband differently from the wife of a hypothetical younger brother of hers, especially now that Charlotte WILL be higher in the order of succession even if her baby sibling is a boy.

 

[Ish]

How is Charlotte’s husband’s titles (or lack there of) on topic? Given as Charlotte is 3 and currently unattached and the topic of this thread is Jack’s titles?

 

[MARG]

Eugenie like Anne do not have to relinquish their HRH Princess title. They are princesses of the blood, they are born and will die as royal princesses. It ends with them and unlike those before Eugenie, I don't think a courtesy title is in the offing.

 

[Mbruno]

How is Charlotte’s husband’s titles (or lack there of) on topic? Given as Charlotte is 3 and currently unattached and the topic of this thread is Jack’s titles?

I was questioning the fact in general that husbands of princesses get an unfair treatment compared to wives of princes; I mentioned Charlotte and a hypothetical younger brother of hers just to illustrate that point. Likewise, however, Jack would be "open to criticism" if he got a title, but if Eugenie were a man, Eugenie's wife would be a princess and an HRH and would not be open to any criticism. In fact, as some other poster wrote before, if Beatrice were still a woman, but Eugenie had been born a boy, then Eugenie's wife would not only be an HRH, but one day would probably also become a duchess, and, again, nobody would criticize her for that. So why is it so unacceptable that Jack might get a title ?

 

[Gawin]

From Marlene Koenig's blog:

Royal Musings: No real precedent for a peerage

 

[Skippyboo]

There is only a small sample size. Basically it’s not until the children of George V that you have royals not marrying other royals. Princess Mary married the heir to a peerage so he didn’t need one.

Elizabeth was the future Queen so she is different category.

Margaret : Tony took a peerage 5 months after the wedding when she got pregnant. The baby would have little chance of ever seeing throne since Charles, Anne and Andrew were already born.

Alexandra: Offered, turned down
Anne: Offered, turned down.

So it’s basically 4 non heir princesses in the last 100 years

Should Angus & Mark’s decision set a precedence for Jack?

Does Ed & Sophie not using HRHs Prince Princess set a precedence for Harry and Meghan?

 

[Mbruno]

There is only a small sample size. Basically it’s not until the children of George V that you have royals not marrying other royals. Princess Mary married the heir to a peerage so he didn’t need one.

Elizabeth was the future Queen so she is different category.

Margaret : Tony took a peerage 5 months after the wedding when she got pregnant. The baby would have little chance of ever seeing throne since Charles, Anne and Andrew were already born.

Alexandra: Offered, turned down
Anne: Offered, turned down.

So it’s basically 4 non heir princesses in the last 100 years

Should Angus & Mark’s decision set a precedence for Jack?

Does Ed & Sophie not using HRHs Prince Princess set a precedence for Harry and Meghan?

In fact, the precedent as far as I see it is that Angus, the husband of a cousin to the Queen, was offered a peerage, and so were the first husband of the Queen's daughter and the husband of King George VI's youngest daughter. What Alexandra and Eugenie have in common is that both are/were daughters of a royal duke and granddaughters in paternal line of a sovereign. If precedent were to be followed, Jack shouldn't be treated differently from Angus then.

Besides, contrary to what Angus said, the fact that he turned down the offer doesn't necessarily mean that Jack has to do it too, although I think that, if an offer were made, he and Eugenie would decline it for other reasons (I'm pretty sure it will be a joint decision though).

 

[Gawin]

Should Angus & Mark’s decision set a precedence for Jack?

Yes.

In 1905 Edward VII created his granddaughters Lady Alexandra and Lady Maud Duff, the daughters of Princess Louise and the Duke of Fife, princesses with the style and attribute of HH. It was considered unseemly that a sovereign's grandchildren should styled Lord or Lady like common aristocrats.

Fast forward to 1961. Antony Armstrong-Jones accepted an earldom so that his children would be styled Viscount, Lady, or Hon. It was considered unseemly that the children of a Princess - and the grandchildren of a sovereign - should be plain Mr. or Miss.

Fast forward to 1973. Anne and Mark Phillips refused a title because it was now considered acceptable that a sovereign's grandchildren should be styled Mr. or Miss.

Fast forward to 2018. Hereditary titles are even less important, less common, and carry even less prestige.

 

[Gawin]

A hypothetical situation:

Jack is offered - and accepts - a hereditary peerage with the usual remainder (only sons can inherit). He and Eugenie have a daughter. Jack dies unexpectedly. Daughter doesn't inherit the title. Eugene remarries. Husband #2 has no title.

Right back to square one.

Another reason to give the hereditary title to Eugenie instead of Jack - if a title is offered.

 

[Gawin]

A hypothetical situation:

Jack is offered - and accepts - a hereditary peerage with the usual remainder (only sons can inherit). He and Eugenie have a daughter. Jack dies unexpectedly. Daughter doesn't inherit the title. Eugene remarries. Husband #2 has no title.

Right back to square one.

Another reason to give the hereditary title to Eugenie instead of Jack - if a title is offered.

Oops - just thought of another one. Same as above. EXCEPT Jack and Eugenie divorce. Jack remarries and has a son by 2nd wife.

That son inherits the title instead of Eugenie's daughter.

And Eugenie's 2nd husband still needs a title.

 

[Ish]

I was questioning the fact in general that husbands of princesses get an unfair treatment compared to wives of princes; I mentioned Charlotte and a hypothetical younger brother of hers just to illustrate that point. Likewise, however, Jack would be "open to criticism" if he got a title, but if Eugenie were a man, Eugenie's wife would be a princess and an HRH and would not be open to any criticism. In fact, as some other poster wrote before, if Beatrice were still a woman, but Eugenie had been born a boy, then Eugenie's wife would not only be an HRH, but one day would probably also become a duchess, and, again, nobody would criticize her for that. So why is it so unacceptable that Jack might get a title ?

I am not going to argue with you on the “unfair treatment” of men who marry into the BRF over women, as that really gets off topic and is hugely complicated; I think in general when it comes to men gaining titles from their wives, the history of what that meant has to be considered too.

I will say that I disagree that it is the men who marry in that are being treated differently, but rather the British Princesses who are being treated differently; it is considered acceptable for a British Prince to be given a dukedom upon marriage, but British Princesses are given nothing themselves. I think a better way forward would be to give the Princesses themselves their own dukedom, at least if they were in a position to be given one were they male.

I think the reason why Jack himself should not be given a title is because he is the one marrying into the family - I think much like with the marriages of royal men, if any tile is on the table it should go to the royal. That said, I do not think Eugenie should be given any title at all; I think that as the younger child of a younger child of the monarch, who is not expected to do royal duties and who is never going to be more than the granddaughter of a monarch, Eugenie does not need a higher title. Alexandra and Angus aren’t a great comparison, as the BRF was much smaller at the time and Alexandra at least was a working Royal. Eugenie is not and the BRF is much larger than it was in the 60s.

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Angus and Mark’s refusal of a title also lead to Prince Michael not being granted one on his marriage in 1978. Like Eugenie, he was the younger son of a younger son of a British monarch and received no Dukedom or Earldom when he married. And like Eugenie, he was not (and never has been) a working Royal.

 

[Mbruno]

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Angus and Mark’s refusal of a title also lead to Prince Michael not being granted one on his marriage in 1978. Like Eugenie, he was the younger son of a younger son of a British monarch and received no Dukedom or Earldom when he married. And like Eugenie, he was not (and never has been) a working Royal.

Do cadet grandsons in male line of the sovereign other than the sons of the PoW usually get new peerages ? I don't recall any example among Queen Victoria's or King George III's grandsons who would set a precedent in that situation, but maybe I am mistaken.

If Princess Eugenie got the same treatment as Prince Michael of Kent, then her children would also be "untitled" in a way, except for the honorific predicate Lord/Lady. Ironically, if Angus had accepted an earldom, James Ogilvy would be an earl, while his cousin, Lord Frederik Windsor, never would be.

Bottom line: it is really difficult to give equal treatment to people who theoretically have the same degree of kinship to a monarch.

 

[Andy T]

In recent history, a pattern emerges: British princes who are sons of the monarch or his/her heir get titles (cf sons of George V, sons of the Queen and sons of Charles) but not the rest. As the generations shift, the older sons inherit their fathers' titles (Dukes of Gloucester & Kent) but the younger sons (Prince Michael of Kent) remain with no title. Daughters of monarchs have ended up with a title of some sort, either conferred personally or acquired through marriage or conferred on marriage (Princess Royal, Countess of Snowdon, Countess of Harewood).

We know that Angus Ogilvy, husband of the Monarch's only female first cousin on her father's side, and Mark Phillips were offered titles but declined. Timothy Laurence became a "Sir" (as was Angus Ogilvy).

If the trend continues, Jack Brooksbank may end up "Sir Jack" one day but it's highly doubtful, in my view, that he'll be given a peerage.

 

[Ish]

Do cadet grandsons in male line of the sovereign other than the sons of the PoW usually get new peerages ? I don't recall any example among Queen Victoria's or King George III's grandsons who would set a precedent in that situation, but maybe I am mistaken.

Were any of the husbands of George III or Victoria’s granddaughters offered titles upon their marriage?

It’s hard to say Michael shouldn’t have been offered a title because none of Queen Victoria’s grandsons (who weren’t children of the PoW) got titles, when Alexandra is in a similar position to her brother and her husband was offered one. Precedent was set there.

Regardless, it’s hard to justify a precedent for Jack and Eugenie when at best we’re looking at weddings that happened 40-60 years ago. The monarchy has modernized however slightly since then.

 

[Skippyboo]

But if Eugenie was Eugene no one would blink an a eye at Eugene’s wife becoming a HRH Princess. Even though HRH Prince Eugene is not a working royal and down line of succession

The modernization would be removing the gender bias and then limiting everything to direct line, giving spouses same status whether married to son or daughter of sovereign. Nothing for grandkids unless parent will be monarch

 

[Osipi]

But if Eugenie was Eugene no one would blink an a eye at Eugene’s wife becoming a HRH Princess. Even though HRH Prince Eugene is not a working royal and down line of succession

The modernization would be removing the gender bias and then limiting everything to direct line, giving spouses same status whether married to son or daughter of sovereign. Nothing for grandkids unless parent will be monarch

If the hypothetical Eugene wasn't created a peer of the realm though, his wife would be HRH Princess Eugene which denotes that its Eugene that actually holds the title and style of Prince.

It would actually look quite weird to me to have a HRH Prince Eugenie which gender equality in this matter would present. Just as women rarely like being called by their husband's name like Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, reverse it and I don't think men would like it either.

 

[MARG]

Well, we all know how forward thinking the UK is. The royal succession is gender neutral, the aristocratic succession is not. Now how is that fair on a land of women still being evicted for an unknown distant male relative like some cheap historical novel?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the hypothetical Eugene wasn't created a peer of the realm though, his wife would be HRH Princess Eugene which denotes that its Eugene that actually holds the title and style of Prince.

It would actually look quite weird to me to have a HRH Prince Eugenie which gender equality in this matter would present. Just as women rarely like being called by their husband's name like Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, reverse it and I don't think men would like it either.

As it is now, it appears that all women in the British royal family are required to be called by their husband's first name. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II's granddaughters will be granted permission one day to be Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank and Mrs. Zara Tindall instead of Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank and Mrs. Michael Tindall.

Were any of the husbands of George III or Victoria’s granddaughters offered titles upon their marriage?

Princess Louise of Wales's husband the Earl of Fife took the dukedom of Fife, and Princess Alice of Albany's husband Prince Alexander of Teck took the earldom of Athlone.