Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
TALK OF THE TOWN: Princess Eugenie's fiance Jack Brooksbank will remain a 'commoner' | Daily Mail Online


Too bad.
That means their children will not have titles.
It doesn't seem quite fair either.

Meghan and Kate were both granted titles when they married a royal. (I know it's different because they are working royals, but still, it does seem unfair).
Meghan and Kate weren’t granted titled. Their husbands were.

As for giving Jack a title, I don’t see why? Meghan and Kate will both be working for the Firm alongside their husbands, so it’s how they will be addressed in their official capacity. Does Jack plan on using Lord Jack in his liquor distribution business? If you want to look at it another way, Jack can continue to be in a career that seeks personal profit while Meghan and Kate can’t. You give and take in life.

And really, Jack and Meghan and Kate aren’t fair comparisons. Even Anne is a different situation as she was child of a monarch when she married. Given that her ex-husband and husband aren’t titled, there is no reason to even offer it to Eugenie and Jack. I don’t believe it’s customary to issue new titles upon grandchild of a monarch not in the heir’s line. Prince Michael remains prince Michael with no peerage. His wife would be the comparison here. And for whatever reason, I can’t see Jack wanting to be Prince Eugenie. Princess Alexandra’s husband also went without a title even though he’s the younger son of an Earl.
 
Last edited:
Then Jack shouldn't be. Eugenie should be :flowers:

If sons/grandsons get titles on marriage, daughters/granddaughters should.

The quickest way to ensure a republic is to remind people how archaic/old fashioned and unnecessary they are. While a monarchy needs to keep certain traditions and regality, that is what they are, they do need to modernize. Continuing to tell women in the 21st century that they are 2nd class citizens, that they are worth less then men, is a lovely reminder of how out dated they are. Its one thing to say an oldest daughter can inherit the throne, but they actually need to take it another step.

The queen certainly has it in her power. She may not be able to change old titles on her own (though if they petition her to change she does have power like the Earl Mountbatten of Burma did), but she can Create them in a way. The succession to a title is determined on creation. Harry's title could have been created to allow a daughter to inherit no matter what. There is precedence. Scottish titles, those that existed before the uniting of the kingdoms, allow for female succession. There are several Countesses in Scotland in their own right. The wife of the current Marquis of Lothian is a peeress in her own right, in Scotland. The Marquis only has daughters, so his own title will be inherited by his brother. But his wife's title will be inherited by their oldest living daughter.

So now, don't make Jack Earl of...… Make Eugenie Countess of X and allow her children to be titled as the children of that peer. Grant her husband a courtesy title.
 
Then Jack shouldn't be. Eugenie should be :flowers:

If sons/grandsons get titles on marriage, daughters/granddaughters should.

The quickest way to ensure a republic is to remind people how archaic/old fashioned and unnecessary they are. While a monarchy needs to keep certain traditions and regality, that is what they are, they do need to modernize. Continuing to tell women in the 21st century that they are 2nd class citizens, that they are worth less then men, is a lovely reminder of how out dated they are. Its one thing to say an oldest daughter can inherit the throne, but they actually need to take it another step.

The queen certainly has it in her power. She may not be able to change old titles on her own (though if they petition her to change she does have power like the Earl Mountbatten of Burma did), but she can Create them in a way. The succession to a title is determined on creation. Harry's title could have been created to allow a daughter to inherit no matter what. There is precedence. Scottish titles, those that existed before the uniting of the kingdoms, allow for female succession. There are several Countesses in Scotland in their own right. The wife of the current Marquis of Lothian is a peeress in her own right, in Scotland. The Marquis only has daughters, so his own title will be inherited by his brother. But his wife's title will be inherited by their oldest living daughter.

So now, don't make Jack Earl of...… Make Eugenie Countess of X and allow her children to be titled as the children of that peer. Grant her husband a courtesy title.
While I agree some archaic ways will be an issue that brings down the monarchy, I don’t think this issue of that magnitude. At least not at this point (I don’t have my psychic power yet). Even the government doesn’t see it as such an issue even for those Dukedoms that have property and wealth attributed to the title. And the bill to allow daughter to inherit didn’t even make it out of committee. There is no appetite for this right now. And HM certainly isn’t going to let herself be dragged into this political discussion. Harry’s title is exactly as archaic as everyone else’s in terms of how the title will be inherited.

And not all grandsons of a monarch are titled. With the exception of the heir’s children, only the oldest son inherits titles. Everyone else gets their regular HRH as grandchildren of a monarch from a male line or less. George V’s grandchildren from his two youngest sons didn’t change this, I don’t see why it would in a society that seems to go with less titles than more. Prince Richard would’ve remained Prince Richard had his brother not died. And Prince Michael is still Prince Michael. Princess Eugenie will remain Princess Eugenie, unlike her younger cousins, who do not even hold Prince and Princess titles.
 
Last edited:
But is there any modern precedent for the grandchild of the monarch, not directly in the line of succession (i.e. so not William & Harry as they ares sons of next monarch) to receive a title. I can only think of sons of the monarch (and son-in-law of a deceased monarch) in the past few generations.
 
Speaking of the case about females succeeding to their fathers peerages, hypothetically, if it went through and in the beginning applied to daughters whose fathers don't have sons and then eventually to all daughters, would it affect the Dukedom of York since it is currently a royal duke?

Equal primogeniture succession as a default option would require an act of Parliament and it would affect the dukedom of York only if the act applied retroactively to existing peerages. That would be up to Parliament to decide, but I think it would be unlikely unless the current holder of the peerage was given a choice to keep the existing remainder or change to the new default option. As far as I understand, some of the bills to allow equal succession to peerages that were introduced in the House of Lords (and ultimately got nowhere) proposed exactly that.



The fact that a peerage is held by a member of the Royal House is of little or no relevance as far as the remainder is concerned, as the remainder is specified by the LPs that created the title, exactly as in any other peerage. The only meaningful difference really between a royal duke or a royal earl, and an ordinary duke or an ordinary earl, is that, since royal dukes and royal earls are also princes of the UK, they have the rank and style of HRH rather than His Grace or The Rt Hon, as it would be the case respectively for an ordinary duke and an ordinary earl. And, of course, the successors of royal dukes or royal earls, as long as they are no longer princes, become ordinary dukes or ordinary earls.
 
Last edited:
But is there any modern precedent for the grandchild of the monarch, not directly in the line of succession (i.e. so not William & Harry as they ares sons of next monarch) to receive a title. I can only think of sons of the monarch (and son-in-law of a deceased monarch) in the past few generations.

Only inherited titles. Not given to them as a new creation. So Duke of Kent is Duke of Kent because he inherited it from his father. Not because he was created Duke of Kent like William and Harry were created Cambridge and Sussex. Prince Michael doesn’t have a title other than Prince Michael of Kent.
 
Last edited:
Only inherited titles. Not given to them as a new creation. So Duke of Kent is Duke of Kent because he inherited it from his father. Not because he was created Duke of Kent like William and Harry were created Cambridge and Sussex.

Yes, that’s what I said. Because it was Edward, Duke of Kent’s father George-son of George V, who otiginally received the title. Inherited titles are not what we are discussing- granting a title to the monarch’s grandchild or grandson-in-law of the second son is the scenario under discussion. And I can’t think of any.
 
Last edited:
The queen certainly has it in her power. She may not be able to change old titles on her own (though if they petition her to change she does have power like the Earl Mountbatten of Burma did), but she can Create them in a way. The succession to a title is determined on creation. Harry's title could have been created to allow a daughter to inherit no matter what. There is precedence. Scottish titles, those that existed before the uniting of the kingdoms, allow for female succession. There are several Countesses in Scotland in their own right. The wife of the current Marquis of Lothian is a peeress in her own right, in Scotland. The Marquis only has daughters, so his own title will be inherited by his brother. But his wife's title will be inherited by their oldest living daughter.

The sticky wicket in this line of rationalizing is that peerage titles and remainders are not solely at the will and pleasure of the monarch and created by LPs but also has to have the express approval of the government of the day as the peerage system is also considered a legal system comprising both hereditary and lifetime titles in the United Kingdom .

"Peerages are created by the British monarch, like all Crown honours, being affirmed by Letters Patent affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. HMG recommends to the Sovereign who to be elevated to the peerage, after external vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission."

So, in actuality, it would be the Queen creating Jack a peer at the recommendation of the House of Lords. I just don't see that happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerages_in_the_United_Kingdom
 
"Peerages are created by the British monarch, like all Crown honours, being affirmed by Letters Patent affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. HMG recommends to the Sovereign who to be elevated to the peerage, after external vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission."

So, in actuality, it would be the Queen creating Jack a peer at the recommendation of the House of Lords. I just don't see that happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerages_in_the_United_Kingdom


Actually, I believe that the House of Lords Appointments Commission only vets people who are nominated for life peerages. Those are political nominees picked by the sitting PM or the leaders of the main opposition parties.



The House of Lords doesn't need to vet appointments of hereditary peers because, unlike life peers, they are no longer automatically members of the House. A new hereditary peer like Jack could be potentially elected to one of the 90 seats still reserved for hereditary peers in the House of Lords, but, since the House itself would be the electoral college in that case, no prior vetting would be required, as his record would be examined anyway by the voters if and when he stood for election.
 
Last edited:
Osipi is right in saying it’s the government who is creating the peer in that the sovereign only does so on the advice of her ministers. It’s the convention that’s been in place since Queen Victoria.

Only the most senior male members of the royal family are created hereditary peerages now a days. It’s a category Jack doesn’t fit into. It’s been almost 60 years since it happened to Margaret’s husband.

There’s only 4 honours in Britain completely independent of the government. Garter, Thistle, Merit and RVO.
 
Then Jack shouldn't be. Eugenie should be :flowers:


The queen certainly has it in her power. She may not be able to change old titles on her own (though if they petition her to change she does have power like the Earl Mountbatten of Burma did), but she can Create them in a way. The succession to a title is determined on creation.

Earl Mountbatten did NOT petition the Queen to change anything regarding his title. He was created Viscount Mountbatten of Burma in 1946 by George VI who raised him to an earldom in 1947. In both cases the LP stated his daughters were allowed to succeed him but that was only because he had no sons. And his daughters could only be succeeded by their sons not their daughters. The current Lord Mountbatten's son can inherit the title but his daughter can't.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/37702/page/4305

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38109/page/5074

Once Letters Patent granting a title & specifying the rules of succession have been issued, they can only be altered by Parliament, not the monarch.
 
Osipi is right in saying it’s the government who is creating the peer in that the sovereign only does so on the advice of her ministers. It’s the convention that’s been in place since Queen Victoria.


She didn't say hereditary peerages were created on the advice of the Queen's ministers, but rather that they were created on the advice of the House of Lords. I pointed out then that the House of Lords Appointments Committee actually only vets life peerages, but not hereditary peerages.

Other monarchies on the continent, e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain, are more transparent in that respect since titles of nobility in those countries are awarded by royal decree and, under their constitutions, all royal decrees have to be countersigned by one or more responsible ministers. So we know explicitly who in the government is taking political responsibility for the awarding of that title or honor. In the UK, by contrast, peerages are bestowed by Letters Patent, which are not countersigned by ministers in the same way Orders in Council are for example. It is not clear then who is advising the Queen on that matter, although, in the case of life peerages specifically, we know that, by convention, it is the prime minister.

Only the most senior male members of the royal family are created hereditary peerages now a days. It’s a category Jack doesn’t fit into. It’s been almost 60 years since it happened to Margaret’s husband.
Although your point may be factually correct, you failed to mention that, after Margaret's wedding, both Princess Alexandra's husband and Princess Anne's first husband were offered earldoms, but declined them. It didn't happen because of their own will, but it could have happened if they had accepted the peerage.

Overall, I don't think we can say categorically that husbands of princesses of the blood are now automatically excluded from the class of potential recipients of hereditary peerages. Maybe that is the case for Princess Eugenie , who is "just" the Queen's granddaughter in a collateral line (although her position now is similar to Princessa Alexandra's when she married). However, despite Anne's precedent, I would definitely not rule out a peerage e.g. for Princess Charlotte's future husband, especially now that, under equal primogeniture, she is likely to remain high up in the line of succession for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
Just a silly question here, Jack is NOT getting a title period, so why the fuss over it? It is a done deal and the only person who has any say or cares is either Jack or Eugenie....nobody else matters at all.......:lol:
 
Its kind of interesting to me because with the topic comes discussions and I learn things that I didn't know before. :D
 
Just a silly question here, Jack is NOT getting a title period, so why the fuss over it? It is a done deal and the only person who has any say or cares is either Jack or Eugenie....nobody else matters at all.......:lol:
"All the fuss" is so that the various tabloids can make up things such as "Andrew insisting..." "Queen is snubbing..." etc. That's all it is. Click bait.
 
"All the fuss" is so that the various tabloids can make up things such as "Andrew insisting..." "Queen is snubbing..." etc. That's all it is. Click bait.
What I find funny is that we still have no idea how Charles thinks about that, him being so old-fashioned in one way and in another so way before his time.
But Charles' will and Will is his future, so I decided to just wait and see (I personally tend to be very old-fashioned, so don't listen to my rants).
 
He is not going to be offered a title. THe queen wanted Anne's husband to accept one in the 70s but it was already looking outdated... and Mark P didn't want one.


Although I respect your opinion, I fail to see why it would be outdated to create a hereditary peerage for the husband of a British princess (especially the sovereign's daughter), but, at the same time, it would not be considered outdated to create hereditary peerages for the sovereign's sons or the Prince of Wales' sons.



Except in the cases where the title eventually merges into the Crown or becomes extinct, the net effect in the long run is the same, i.e. adding a new hereditary title outside the Royal House to the peerage of the UK. The only meaningful difference is that, in the case of the sovereign's sons, that may take two generations to happen, whereas in the case of the sovereign's son-in-law, it may happen immediately in the next generation.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to throw my two chocolate coins wrapped in gold tin foil to the mix here and throw in a thought that may or may not be relevant. :D

We see a lot of hereditary peerages such as Westminster, Spencer and Northumberland that have been in existence through generations. We also have the royal hereditary peerages that have been commonplace throughout history. These peerages are part and parcel of what makes up the history of the UK and its monarchy.

Things have changed and the House of Lords isn't what it used to be and frankly, the peerage of the UK isn't as important to the government of the day as it used to be. Hereditary peerages used to mean something. A position, a status and a relevance to the monarchy.

Lifetime peerages seem to be the way things are going in the 21st century except for those hereditary peerages that are closely connected to the royal family itself. Lifetime peerages are created at the recommendation of the Prime Minister and created by the Crown. Its more of an egalitarian method of selection rather than one of "favor" by the Crown.

With this in mind, creating an hereditary peerage for someone such as Jack Brooksbank because he is marrying a granddaughter of the Queen seems to me to be more like its doing something "historical" rather than aligning itself to how the UK does things now. Lifetime peers are created because of a reason the Prime Minister deems relevant to be recognized.

Looking at it this way, a title or a peerage for Jack is of little intrinsic value and would only serve its purpose for a short time.

Does this make any sense? :D
 
Last edited:
There is a strange sort of "Changing of the Guard" that is happening right under our nose. Princess Anne is an HRH as she is her mother's daughter just as Beatrice and Eugenie are HRH's because they are their father's daughters. Previous to them, royal princesses tended to marry into either royalty or the aristocracy which meant their husbands were both titled and monied in their own right.

Anne had a dream that would probably have been hampered by a titled husband and who can help but recognise the fruits of her labour. She did what she set out to do and has made Gatcombe Park a commercial success in the world of eventing. The only input from her parents was her home which is no more nor less than that which was granted to her brothers.

I don't think TPTB ever gave the slightest thought to the reality that the daughters of royalty would ever be in the situation of actually having to work, their minds still seem to be firmly entrenched in the nineteenth century. HM recognises this and I believe that is why Eugenie and Jack are now happily ensconced in Ivy Cottage. Empty titles don't seem to be HM's "thing" and only Eugenie's son would benefit and not her daughter. Why perpetuate the situation.
 
If Jack was given a title, would it be easier to give him a vacant title or to create a brand new title for him?
 
If Andrew remarries and has a son - which he can do at any time in his life then that son will inherit York.

The Queen could also reissue the LPs - allowing the title to pass to Beatrice (which I don't think she would do).

In addition there is regularly a 'private members' bill put up to allow women equal inheritance rights for all titles as happens now with the Crown. If that were to happen, and they didn't have a start date later than Beatrice's birth for all such titles then it could also be inherited by her.

The proposed legislation failed.

If Jack was given a title, would it be easier to give him a vacant title or to create a brand new title for him?

There is no real precedence for Jack to receive a peerage on the wedding day. Antony Armstrong-Jones did turn down a peerage before the wedding but later changed his mind when his wife was less than a month away from giving birth to a son. Angus did turn down an earldom but years later in an interview that he regretted the decision because it set a terrible precedent for Anne and Mark as Angus believed that the queen's grandchildren should have titles. Discussing a title for Jack is merely clickbait as it has never been considered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no real precedence for Jack to receive a peerage on the wedding day. Antony Armstrong-Jones did turn down a peerage before the wedding but later changed his mind when his wife was less than a month away from giving birth to a son. Angus did turn down an earldom but years later in an interview that he regretted the decision because it set a terrible precedent for Anne and Mark as Angus believed that the queen's grandchildren should have titles. Discussing a title for Jack is merely clickbait as it has never been considered.


There are actually precedents of prospective husbands of British princesses being given hereditary peerages prior to their wedding.



To begin with, the groom of then Princess Elizabeth, Lt. Philip Mountbatten, was created Duke of Edinburgh by King George VI on the morning of his wedding day (November 20, 1947). He didn't become a Prince of the United Kingdom until much later (in 1957, I think).


Similarly, the London Gazette announced that Alexander Duff had become Duke of Fife on his wedding day to Princess Louise (July 27, 1889); the actual LPs were issued, I think, about one month earlier. Technically, he was already a peer (Earl of Fife and Viscount Macduff), but Queen Victoria elevated his titles by LPs to the ranks respectively of duke and marquess, which, I suppose, count as new peerages. Interestingly, the 1889 LPs included the standard remainder to "heirs to his body male", but Queen Victoria issued new LPs in February 1900 creating a second Dukedom of Fife, but this time with a subsidiary title of Earl of Macduff (rather than Marquess) and a special remainder which allowed the peerages to pass to the daughters of the first Duke in default of a son, and then to the male heirs of those daughters. The first dukedom actually became extinct as Princess Louise and the first Duke didn't have any sons, and the second dukedom is the one that exists until today and is presently held by David Charles Carnegie.


EDIT: Note in the link above that the wording in the old Gazettes was far more precise than it is today. For example, the Gazette correctly mentions the "dignities" of a Marquess and an Earl, but under the "titles" of Marquess of Macduff and Duke of Fife, which is the right English usage IMHO. The modern Gazette note about Prince Harry's peerage mixes the two terms ("dignity" and "title") by referring to the "dignities of Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel", which is very confusing.
 
Last edited:
Question on your thoughts, Mbruno. Wouldn't the reform of the House of Lords have some bearing on these precedents no longer being viable today?
 
Question on your thoughts, Mbruno. Wouldn't the reform of the House of Lords have some bearing on these precedents no longer being viable today?


I don't think the reform of the House of Lords has any impact whatsoever on peerages bestowed on members of the Royal Family.


The House of Lords is actually a legislative body, i.e. a constituent part of the UK parliament which has an active role in making laws for the United Kingdom, even if its decisions can now be, in most cases, constitutionally overturned by the popularly elected House of Commons.


Life peers, who make up the majority of the members of the House of Lords following the 1999 reform, are mostly politicians who are affiliated with specific political parties (retired MPs for example including former ministers and party leaders, party activists, or even party donors). They are appointed either by the prime minister directly, or on the recommendation of the leaders of the main opposition (the closest equivalent in North American terms would be the Senators of Canada). There are, however, some "independent" life peers, e.g. appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Committee, who sit as "crossbenchers" (i.e. do not take any party's whip) and are usually chosen in recognition of merit. Those may include for example former high-ranking civil servants or military officers, or noteworthy personalities from key segments of civil society such as the scientific, artistic, legal or business communities.


Again, I fail to see any relation between what I described above and the titles and styles of the members of the RF. Royal dukes, even when they could sit and vote in the House of Lords, didn't do so in recent times. Now that they are not part of the House anymore, I can't imagine why the House would object to the creation of those peerages.
 
Last edited:
There are actually precedents of prospective husbands of British princesses being given hereditary peerages prior to their wedding.



To begin with, the groom of then Princess Elizabeth, Lt. Philip Mountbatten, was created Duke of Edinburgh by King George VI on the morning of his wedding day (November 20, 1947). He didn't become a Prince of the United Kingdom until much later (in 1957, I think).


Similarly, the London Gazette announced that Alexander Duff had become Duke of Fife on his wedding day to Princess Louise (July 27, 1889); the actual LPs were issued, I think, about one month earlier. Technically, he was already a peer (Earl of Fife and Viscount Macduff), but Queen Victoria elevated his titles by LPs to the ranks respectively of duke and marquess, which, I suppose, count as new peerages. Interestingly, the 1889 LPs included the standard remainder to "heirs to his body male", but Queen Victoria issued new LPs in February 1900 creating a second Dukedom of Fife, but this time with a subsidiary title of Earl of Macduff (rather than Marquess) and a special remainder which allowed the peerages to pass to the daughters of the first Duke in default of a son, and then to the male heirs of those daughters. The first dukedom actually became extinct as Princess Louise and the first Duke didn't have any sons, and the second dukedom is the one that exists until today and is presently held by David Charles Carnegie.


EDIT: Note in the link above that the wording in the old Gazettes was far more precise than it is today. For example, the Gazette correctly mentions the "dignities" of a Marquess and an Earl, but under the "titles" of Marquess of Macduff and Duke of Fife, which is the right English usage IMHO. The modern Gazette note about Prince Harry's peerage mixes the two terms ("dignity" and "title") by referring to the "dignities of Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel", which is very confusing.

The Fife Dukedom is hardly a modern precedent- it was 129 years ago. And a Dukedom for the husband of the next monarch is a totally different situation.
 
The Fife Dukedom is hardly a modern precedent- it was 129 years ago. And a Dukedom for the husband of the next monarch is a totally different situation.


Well, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha didn't get a dukedom (or any British peerage actually), so I would submit that Philip's precedent is much more "modern". And, again, Philip became a duke before he became a prince of the United Kingdom.



PS: I suppose one of the reasons why Prince Albert didn't get a dukedom was the fear that he might actually take his seat in the Lords (I believe some of Victoria's uncles did that). And, at the time, the House of Lords was far more powerful than it is today as it was before the Parliament Act 1911, which stripped the Lords of their legislative veto power, and at a time when many prime ministers still came from the House of Lords rather than the House of Commons, as it is the norm today.
 
Last edited:
The Fife Dukedom is hardly a modern precedent- it was 129 years ago. And a Dukedom for the husband of the next monarch is a totally different situation.

Also, the Duke of Fife also married the daughter of a future monarch (Edward VII was the Prince of Wales at the time of the wedding), which is different than Eugenie's situation. This would be a better comparison for Anne (which they chose to go a different route obviously) and what could be done for Charlotte when she's old enough to marry.
 
I don't think the senior members of the RF want Jack to have a peerage, because I'm convinced a lot of media outlets would call her "Countess Eugenie" then instead of Princess Eugenie and that would mean a downgrading of her noone really could wish for. Just an idea, but if noone wants to see Jack as a peer, nothing will happen.
 
I don't think the senior members of the RF want Jack to have a peerage, because I'm convinced a lot of media outlets would call her "Countess Eugenie" then instead of Princess Eugenie and that would mean a downgrading of her noone really could wish for. Just an idea, but if noone wants to see Jack as a peer, nothing will happen.

I think it's not that they don't want to give him one rather than that ship has long sailed with Princess Alexandria, and that was a situation that it would made more sense in as giving out titles to those marrying into royal family are more common in those days, and Princess Alexandria was a working royal. Eugenie'd still be Princess Eugenie despite being a Countess as Margaret was Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden.
 
Also, the Duke of Fife also married the daughter of a future monarch (Edward VII was the Prince of Wales at the time of the wedding), which is different than Eugenie's situation. This would be a better comparison for Anne (which they chose to go a different route obviously) and what could be done for Charlotte when she's old enough to marry.


My post was not meant to suggest that the Fife precedent would apply to Jack, but rather to illustrate that, unlike what was said by another poster, there are precedents of husbands of British princesses being granted peerages on the day of their wedding. In the Earl of Snowdon's case, it is true, however, that the peerage was only created a little under one year and a half after the wedding.


In Charlotte's case, I think it would be ridiculous if her husband were not given a peerage when her younger brother, who will be below Charlotte and her children in the line of succession, will probably have a dukedom.


I don't think the senior members of the RF want Jack to have a peerage, because I'm convinced a lot of media outlets would call her "Countess Eugenie" then instead of Princess Eugenie and that would mean a downgrading of her noone really could wish for. Just an idea, but if noone wants to see Jack as a peer, nothing will happen.


Not really. If Jack became, let's say, The Rt Hon The Earl Brooksbank, Eugenie would be HRH Princess Eugenie, Countess Brooksbank. That is certainly better IMHO than being called HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank. In fact, the latter style would sound far more like a downgrade to me compared to Eugenie's current title. In reality, however, Eugenie will always keep her dignity of Princess of the United Kingdom and the style of HRH, so nothing is changing really.

British princesses of the past of course had it better as they married foreign royals and actually became queens, empresses, grand duchesses, etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom