The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 10-04-2014, 11:54 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The Queen Mum wasn't too excited for Philip, she wanted an British aristocrat such as the future Dukes of Grafton, Rutland, Buccleuch or Lord Porchester who became Earl of Carnarvon for Elizabeth at the time.
So there we have the possible consorts.

Since the future Duke of Grafton was in his 20's in the 40's, he could have married Margaret, except that he married in 1946. Unlikely.

The Duke of Rutland was the same age as the Duke of Grafton, and he married in 1946 as well. So unlikely.

The Duke of Buccleuch looks more promising, especially in terms of wealth and 'grandness', not to mention his being Scottish. Younger than the above two Dukes by 4 years he was free to be considered for Margaret in the late 40's, given that he married in 1953.

Lord Porchester (Earl of Carnarvon) was one year younger than the heir to the Duke of Buccleuch and he married in 1956, so a likely contender. Plus he knew both Elizabeth and Margaret from childhood.

So my guess would be either the Duke of Buccleuch or Lord Porchester, with my choice being the Duke of Buccleuch.

Okay, so that is all sorted.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-05-2014, 12:09 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,171
But we are in alternate history world. In alternative history world, Elizabeth had died at some point not specified in the first thread but it is before the death of George VI. She may have been a young woman or a little girl at the time of her death.

Also in alternate history world because future Duke soandso married in 1946 in real world doesn't mean he does in alternate history world.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-05-2014, 12:12 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
There is also the idea that she could have married a Marquess or an Earl, or a younger son. I doubt she would have been allowed to marry lower than an Earl, but Royal men had married the daughters of Earls before.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-05-2014, 12:20 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,171
Alternative History: Princess Margaret as Queen

Like her parents

A younger son of a Duke would have been good because he wouldn't have his own land/money and maybe would be eager to be consort instead of a heir having to be second to your wife which if your an alpha male you might have problems with. Such as Philip did early on in real life.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-08-2015, 06:43 PM
DukeJonathan81's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Your succession is a bit off.

It would be:

1) Charles, Prince of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita (B. 2002)

3) Princess Sarah, Princess Royal (B. 1964)

4) Samuel Chatto (B. 1996)

5) Arthur Chatto (B. 1999)

LPs probably wouldn't be issued to make Sarah's children Royal - they weren't issued to make Margaret's or Anne's as it was. Also, Charles and Margarita would probably have different names - Charles was named for the current Prince of Wales, and Margarita would probably be Margaret. David might not even be David. The Chattos would probably be the children of an Earl, comparable to what happened with Margaret.

Saying this is a bit late would be an understatement, but here I go anyway.

I disagree that there would be no chance that Letter's of Patent would have been released to create Sam and Arthur Princes. Anne didn't want her children burdened with pointless royal titles because they would have no chance at getting near to the throne anyway , not to mention that royal titles would mean they would have to take part in official functions of state.

In this alternative timeline, upon the birth of Samuel Chatto in 1996, he would be third in line to the throne behind his mother and uncle, AND keep in mind that David would have already been married for five years and produced no children alongside Serena. There would have been a good chance that Samuel may one day succeed to the throne, therefore I think it's possible that LP's may have been released.

Though I think your right on the Chatto's, I find it likely that Daniel would have been created an Earl, not a Duke.

However I'm not incorrect on Charles A-J's title, you have to be of age (18) to created Prince of Wales, Charles is only coming 16 this July, he wouldn't be old enough to take the official title. He would only be an Prince of Wales due to the fact that his father would be The Prince of Wales on his birth.

Line of Succession (As of 2015)

1) Prince Charles of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita of Wales (B. 2002)

3) Sarah, Princess Royal, Countess of Wessex* (*A traditional title for Daniel maybe?)

4) Prince Samuel of Wessex (B. 1996)

5) Prince Arthur of Wessex (B. 1999)





Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-08-2015, 06:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
You do NOT have to be 18 to be created Prince of Wales.


The current holder was 9, his predecessor was 17 and Edward VII was barely 1 month old.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-08-2015, 07:09 PM
DukeJonathan81's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
You do NOT have to be 18 to be created Prince of Wales.


The current holder was 8, his predecessor was 17 and Edward VII was barely 1 month old.

Ah! That's what I thought. I just assumed to had to be of age to be created Prince of Wales, that teaches me for not doing doing my research. I still think in an alternate timeline, David would wait to create his son Prince of Wales, with that title comes great responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-08-2015, 07:58 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeJonathan81 View Post
Saying this is a bit late would be an understatement, but here I go anyway.

I disagree that there would be no chance that Letter's of Patent would have been released to create Sam and Arthur Princes. Anne didn't want her children burdened with pointless royal titles because they would have no chance at getting near to the throne anyway , not to mention that royal titles would mean they would have to take part in official functions of state.

In this alternative timeline, upon the birth of Samuel Chatto in 1996, he would be third in line to the throne behind his mother and uncle, AND keep in mind that David would have already been married for five years and produced no children alongside Serena. There would have been a good chance that Samuel may one day succeed to the throne, therefore I think it's possible that LP's may have been released.

Though I think your right on the Chatto's, I find it likely that Daniel would have been created an Earl, not a Duke.

However I'm not incorrect on Charles A-J's title, you have to be of age (18) to created Prince of Wales, Charles is only coming 16 this July, he wouldn't be old enough to take the official title. He would only be an Prince of Wales due to the fact that his father would be The Prince of Wales on his birth.

Line of Succession (As of 2015)

1) Prince Charles of Wales (B. 1999)

2) Princess Margarita of Wales (B. 2002)

3) Sarah, Princess Royal, Countess of Wessex* (*A traditional title for Daniel maybe?)

4) Prince Samuel of Wessex (B. 1996)

5) Prince Arthur of Wessex (B. 1999)





Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

This is not how British titles work.

First, a person who holds no titles in their own right takes their territorial designation from their father's titles (unless their mother is the monarch). If a person is the child of the Prince of Wales and doesn't hold their own titles then he/she is "of Wales" - so, Harry is "of Wales" as the son of the Prince of Wales, while William is not since, while also being the son of the Prince of Wales, he holds his own title.

In the event of David being King his children would not be "of Wales." They would not be "of" anything officially - if they held no other titles they would be "Prince Charles" and "Princess Margarita."

However, Charles would certainly hold higher titles. He would be Duke of Cornwall, as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would also be Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and High Steward of Scotland as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would go by the titles Duke of Cornwall or (in Scotland) Duke of Rothesay, not Prince Charles, if he wasn't created Prince of Wales.

However, your assertion that he couldn't be Prince of Wales because of his age is wrong. The current Prince of Wales was created such when he was 10. His predecessor, the future Edward VIII, was 17 when he became PoW. The future Edward VII was 1 month old when he was created PoW, and the future George IV was only a week old. There is no age requirement, only the requirement that they be the heir apparent.

It's unlikely that Daniel would have been created Earl of Wessex as that was a title that hadn't been used in about 1,000 years and was revived specifically for Edward because of a movie that didn't come out until 1998. That said, I still doubt Sarah and Daniel's children would have been created royals. This doesn't hold with the precedent since 1917 - Anne's children weren't created royal despite being the then only grandchildren of the Queen, nor were Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood's. It is not a requirement that one be royal in order to be in the line of succession.

Looking at other royal families we see that it's not typical for the children of royal daughters who aren't heir presumptives to be created royals just because the heir hasn't procreate yet. The children of Princess Caroline of Monacco were never created royals despite the fact that Caroline was a grandmother before her brother had legitimate children. Princess Martha Louise of Norway ha children before her brother, but they weren't created royals.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-08-2015, 07:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
Not really. It is just a title. It is up to the holder to do what they want with the title.


As the heir apparent he would already be Duke of Cornwall and that does have responsibilities - to run the duchy when of age - but other than that there are actually no responsibilities to being the heir to the throne at all.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-08-2015, 08:59 PM
DukeJonathan81's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
This is not how British titles work.

First, a person who holds no titles in their own right takes their territorial designation from their father's titles (unless their mother is the monarch). If a person is the child of the Prince of Wales and doesn't hold their own titles then he/she is "of Wales" - so, Harry is "of Wales" as the son of the Prince of Wales, while William is not since, while also being the son of the Prince of Wales, he holds his own title.

In the event of David being King his children would not be "of Wales." They would not be "of" anything officially - if they held no other titles they would be "Prince Charles" and "Princess Margarita."

However, Charles would certainly hold higher titles. He would be Duke of Cornwall, as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would also be Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and High Steward of Scotland as the monarch's eldest son and heir apparent. He would go by the titles Duke of Cornwall or (in Scotland) Duke of Rothesay, not Prince Charles, if he wasn't created Prince of Wales.

However, your assertion that he couldn't be Prince of Wales because of his age is wrong. The current Prince of Wales was created such when he was 10. His predecessor, the future Edward VIII, was 17 when he became PoW. The future Edward VII was 1 month old when he was created PoW, and the future George IV was only a week old. There is no age requirement, only the requirement that they be the heir apparent.

It's unlikely that Daniel would have been created Earl of Wessex as that was a title that hadn't been used in about 1,000 years and was revived specifically for Edward because of a movie that didn't come out until 1998. That said, I still doubt Sarah and Daniel's children would have been created royals. This doesn't hold with the precedent since 1917 - Anne's children weren't created royal despite being the then only grandchildren of the Queen, nor were Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood's. It is not a requirement that one be royal in order to be in the line of succession.

Looking at other royal families we see that it's not typical for the children of royal daughters who aren't heir presumptives to be created royals just because the heir hasn't procreate yet. The children of Princess Caroline of Monacco were never created royals despite the fact that Caroline was a grandmother before her brother had legitimate children. Princess Martha Louise of Norway ha children before her brother, but they weren't created royals.

Hmmm, maybe. I still think "Daniel, Earl of Wessex" has a good ring to it! :)


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-16-2015, 12:16 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: -, Antarctica
Posts: 1,275
As Margaret's husband in this world was created Earl of Snowdon at their marriage, wouldn't it be likely that Margaret as a queen would have given some kind of title to her daughter's husband and their children in an alternate world? If Sarah at her marriage had been the daughter of a queen instead of a niece, it's not certain that she would have made the same choice as Anne did and not wish for a title for her husband and children.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-16-2015, 12:26 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
As Margaret's husband in this world was created Earl of Snowdon at their marriage, wouldn't it be likely that Margaret as a queen would have given some kind of title to her daughter's husband and their children in an alternate world? If Sarah at her marriage had been the daughter of a queen instead of a niece, it's not certain that she would have made the same choice as Anne did and not wish for a title for her husband and children.

I think it's probably likely that if Margaret had been Queen then her daughter's husband would have been given the choice of being created an Earl - like Anne's first husband, Margaret's husband himself, and I believe Princess Alexandra's husband. I don't know if he would have accepted the title, but I think he would have been given the choice.

The point in my previous post wasn't that Sarah's husband wouldn't have been created an Earl, but that neither he nor their children would have been created royals - since the 1917 LPs, the female-line grandchildren haven't been created royals unless they were the children of the heir apparent. Anne's children, Margaret's, Princess Mary's, none were/are royal.
__________________

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





Popular Tags
#choker ascot 2016 best gown best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary evening dresses crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events current events thread danish royal family danish state visit to indonesia death duchess of cambridge fashion poll felipe vi grand duke jean greece haakon magnus kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe and queen letizia king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander koningsdag member introduction national day nobel 2015 norwegian royals opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard princess madeleine princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia maternity wear princess sofia pregnancy style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal royal fashion state visit sweden the 2015 nobels the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge eveningwear the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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

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 07:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises