The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:09 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
But that is not the case now, so the law should be altered to reflect changing times.
Don't forget to forbid princesses to marry foreigners. Or you will have british prince Johnny Boone Pickens VII from Texas or british prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-19-2013, 11:10 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Don't forget to forbid princesses to marry foreigners. Or you will have british prince Johnny Boone Pickens VII from Texas or british prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
That makes no sense.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-19-2013, 02:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
The answer is very simple. The female line grandchildren inherit titles from their fathers.
It was hard to imagine british princess's husband without a title.
It denied royal status to some grandchildren and not others based on the gender of their royal parent - titles don't come into it but being royal does.

Regardless of whether Andrew or Edward had been given titles when they married under the 1917 LPs their children were going to be royal but Anne's children aren't royal - and that wouldn't change whether or not Mark or Anne had had a title.

The following might make clear the sexist nature of the 1917 LPs -

Princess Mary married the son of Earl of Harewood so her children took titles from their father but were NOT royal - not HRH Prince/Princess while her brothers who married the daughters of Earls had children who were HRH Prince/Princesses.

That is sexist - the spouses were children of Earls - the same rank in the UK but the children weren't royal or were royal based on the gender of the child of George V who was their parent.

Going further - Charles and Anne needed special LPs to be born as HRH Prince/Princess because even though Charles was about to be 2nd in line to the throne his descent from a woman meant he wasn't automatically royal. Move on a generation to when William was about to be born as 2nd in line - no special LPs needed as his descent was through a male.

Even The Queen had to do something to ensure that a girl born to William and Kate was born as an HRH Princess as only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was automatically a Prince - turned out George was a boy so not needed but without the special LPs to cover all of William's children a girl would have been born Lady xxxxx Mountbatten-Windsor instead of a Princess.

The 1917 LPs are sexist and aimed at treating some grandchildren of a monarch differently to other grandchildren of a monarch based on the gender of the royal parent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-19-2013, 02:40 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It denied royal status to some grandchildren and not others based on the gender of their royal parent - titles don't come into it but being royal does.

Regardless of whether Andrew or Edward had been given titles when they married under the 1917 LPs their children were going to be royal but Anne's children aren't royal - and that wouldn't change whether or not Mark or Anne had had a title.

The following might make clear the sexist nature of the 1917 LPs -

Princess Mary married the son of Earl of Harewood so her children took titles from their father but were NOT royal - not HRH Prince/Princess while her brothers who married the daughters of Earls had children who were HRH Prince/Princesses.

That is sexist - the spouses were children of Earls - the same rank in the UK but the children weren't royal or were royal based on the gender of the child of George V who was their parent.
Then again, the LP of 1917 were right on the money as far as women were concerned. At that time, women weren't even allowed to vote. Women over 30 were allowed to vote starting in 1918. In 1928, women got voting equality with men.

We've come a long way since then.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-26-2014, 06:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 236
I am still surprised the situation regarding titles for female line grandchildren wasn't reformed at any point in the last 60 years.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-26-2014, 06:48 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I am still surprised the situation regarding titles for female line grandchildren wasn't reformed at any point in the last 60 years.

I find your comment here particularly entertaining given your argument that the monarchy needs to be downsized under Charles.

The BRF isn't known for being progressive - monarchies as a whole tend not to be - and thus typically makes changes in response to a current need instead of a potential future need. There hasn't really been need in the past 60 years to address the titles of the female-line grandchildren.

During George VI's reign the issue was addressed when the then Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with her first child and LPs were issued to create any children she has royals. Similarly, at her marriage her husband was created an HRH, if not actually a Prince. George's other daughter didn't marry or have children during his lifetime, so we can't say that he didn't intend on doing similar for her when it came up - reactionary, instead of progressive.

When Margaret did marry and have children it wasn't decided that her husband or children needed to be royals - although her husband was raised into the nobility, to give him an equal status to previous husbands of a daughter of the monarch. Given just who Margaret was and elements of her personal life, I would think that making her husband and children royals wouldn't have been a good long term investment for the BRF.

Of the Queen's children only one of them was female - meaning that for the bulk of her children there was no need to change the rules. And for Anne... Well, when Anne married she didn't see any need for her husband or children to have any titles. For all we know they could have discussed creating Mark and the Phillips children's royals but decided against it.

This was also in the 70s, when the issue of equal primogeniture just seemed to be beginning. Since then, what need has there been to change things? Now that equal primogeniture is becoming a big thing in European realms, Britain is still in a position where any changes would be proactive instead of reactionary - in contrast to everyone else, whose changes are in a reaction to young, female royals in the direct line.

Ask yourself, who would be affected by a change? Princess Margaret's children, who are in (or almost in) their 50s and Princess Anne's children, who are in their 30s. There are no other living female line grandchildren of a monarch, and these 4 have already established themselves as non-royals and aren't likely to appreciate suddenly being royals and having much more expected of them (not to mention more of a loss of privacy).

This issue will be addressed, but not until it actually needs to be - likely not until William's reign, if he has daughters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-26-2014, 08:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,322
I suspect that the issue will be addressed to create fewer royals altogether - the children of the monarch and the grandchildren through the heir to the throne only - so William's children but not Harry's and then George's but not the children of his siblings and so on. That seems to be what the British public want - fewer in each generation not more.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
lady louise, lady louise mountbatten-windsor, louise mountbatten-windsor, styles and titles, viscount severn


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
Countess Of Wessex Jewellery Josefine Royal Jewels 477 02-26-2014 08:09 AM
About the Wessex family iowabelle Forum Announcements and Admin 4 01-31-2008 04:39 PM
Possible names for the new Lord or Lady Wessex Beck The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 252 01-04-2008 12:07 PM
Earl and Countess Of Wessex Alexandria Current Events Archive 138 11-19-2004 04:09 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary current events danish royals duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander ottoman poland pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince laurent prince maurits princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william winter olympics 2014


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]