The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 01-23-2018, 04:34 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
[...]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-23-2018, 04:40 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-23-2018, 06:13 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,327
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).
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-23-2018, 06:18 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
'Foggy' REALLY wouldn't have 'cut the mustard' as a belted Earl...
Amusing!


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-23-2018, 07:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,050
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.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-24-2018, 02:02 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,327
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.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-24-2018, 02:36 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,609
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.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-24-2018, 04:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,156
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.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-24-2018, 04:49 AM
Princess B's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NA, Spain
Posts: 352
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
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-24-2018, 04:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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 !
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-24-2018, 05:09 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-24-2018, 05:17 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
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...
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-24-2018, 05:27 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-24-2018, 09:32 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
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?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-24-2018, 10:20 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 8,806
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.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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 ?
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
From Marlene Koenig's blog:

Royal Musings: No real precedent for a peerage
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:22 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,152
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?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:44 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post

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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jack Brooksbank: Family and Background Zonk The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 78 12-01-2018 02:15 AM
Engagement of Princess Eugenie of York and Jack Brooksbank: January 22, 2018 JessRulz The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 229 03-15-2018 09:50 PM
Daniel's Future: Discussion (his role, title, orders, pressure etc.) Yennie Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 441 01-13-2017 06:38 PM




Popular Tags
administrator alqasimi archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig bracelets british royal family christian ix countess of wessex crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher denmark discussão duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of sussex duke of york family search felipe vi french royalty friendly city germany greece hamdan bin mohammed harry head of the house her children introduction jack brooksbank jerusalem king letter meghan markle modernization mohammed vi monaco royal monarchism monarchy official visit patronages prince charles prince harry prince laurent princess princess anne princess claire princesses queen mathilde rania of jordan relationship royal royal tour rumania sarah duchess of york siblings south africa state visit sweden the crown titles uk styles trump valois viscount severn wivies



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises