The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 07-30-2005, 04:52 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Hope this helps Idriel.
This helps a lot! Thank you very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
The Queen can't change this law Idriel. The prohibition of Roman Catholics (and those married to Roman Catholics) being in line to the British Crown is laid down by Act of Parliament. Only the Parliament (ie the government of the day) can change the law.
I am very shocked actually. After reading these forum for a while, I was brought to think The Queen was the ultimate reference and could do whatever she wanted. Now I know there's one law she can't change.
Somehow that makes her more human .
Question: would that change be made by the UK parliament only or would they have to ask Canadian, Australian, etc. parliaments too? And the Commonwealth?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 07-30-2005, 05:51 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Changing the Act of Settlement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
I am very shocked actually. After reading these forum for a while, I was brought to think The Queen was the ultimate reference and could do whatever she wanted. Now I know there's one law she can't change.
Somehow that makes her more human .
Question: would that change be made by the UK parliament only or would they have to ask Canadian, Australian, etc. parliaments too? And the Commonwealth?
The Queen is a Constitutional Monarch; she reigns but does not rule. The Parliament makes the laws, the Queen gives Royal Assent to approve them. She always acts on the advice of her Prime Minister.

Interesting question about a change to the Act of Settlement. Don't know the answer but I would assume the governments of Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc would certainly be consulted. Just as they were during the Abdication Crisis in 1936.

Changing the Act of Settlement 1702 to lift the bar on Roman Catholics is not as easy as it sounds. The Sovereign is the Head of the Church of England for starters. Another problem is that repeal of the Act would leave the way open for those claimants who are disbarred by their Catholicism. There were many people passed over when the Act provided that only Protestant descendents of Sophia, Electress of Hanover could succeed to the Crown.

The "Representative and Heir of King Charles I of England" is today HRH Franz, Duke of Bavaria, Head of the Royal House of Bavaria. He is unmarried; his brother Duke Max Emanuel's eldest child is Duchess Sophie who is married to Alois, the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein. Their eldest son, Prince Joseph Wenzel (b 1995) will one day be not only the Reigning Prince of Liechtenstein but the "legitimate" heir of Charles I and thus "rightful" King of Great Britain (in the eyes of Stuart legitimists).

The government of the United Kingdom has not shown any serious interest in addressing the legal issues involved in amending/repealing the Act of Settlement. Perhaps it is all too complex with any number of possible unexpected and unwelcome repercussions!
.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 07-30-2005, 06:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
The Queen can't change this law Idriel. The prohibition of Roman Catholics (and those married to Roman Catholics) being in line to the British Crown is laid down by Act of Parliament. Only the Parliament (ie the government of the day) can change the law.

German law doesn't recognise titles. However people are allowed to make their title part of their surname, hence a passport showing "Alexandra Princessin von Hanover".

Again, German law doesn't recognise styles (eg HRH, HSH etc). However, many people, including members of the government, will still use HRH, HSH etc when addressing a Prince, Duchess, whatever. Good manners, respect for the person or family, old-world charm: all of these I guess. Just as some Greeks would greet former King Constantine as "Your Majesty", and some Serbians would greet Crown Prince Alexander as "Your Royal Highness".

Archdukes and Archduchesses of Austria are styled Imperial and Royal Highness. Among Royalty they certainly would be addressed as such. The Habsurgs are one of the oldest dynasties in Europe. Royalty will always respect Royalty; the fact a family may no longer reign is irrelevant. Royalty is a very exclusive caste; they observe their own traditional social rules amongst themselves.
The Windsors would treat the Archdukes according to their standing; eg Queen Elizabeth would regard the Archduke Otto as the Head of a Royal [Imperial] House and would accord him the appropriate respect.

Hope this helps Idriel.
.
I guess you answered all of Idriel's questions for me. QEII would accord Otto the status of the head of his house, but is the precedence that might be given to any of the numerous cadet members of the family is questionable, as is royal recognition in future generation. Members of the family *bore* the style of Imperial Highness during the time of the monarchy. These are now titles and styles of pretension only. Some royal courts may continue (now and in the future) to choose to accord them this dignity if they so wish, while others may not. It is all a matter of courtesy, and not diplomacy (although the Austrian government and people might get upset).

Additionally, my point was that there is little contact between the BRF and the Hapsburgs. They are not closely related like they are with the former GRF. Moreover, the Hapsburgs are much more removed from their throne (1918) compared to the GRF (1970s).

With regards to titles, they are illegal in Germany, too, but this has been circumvented somewhat by making a title ones last name. This isn't possible in Austria. The ban on titles and styles is much more strict. Many of the Hapsburgs are still not allowed in the country ( or weren't until recently), and they would not be allowed to use their titles and styles in Austria.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 07-30-2005, 06:58 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
The government of the United Kingdom has not shown any serious interest in addressing the legal issues involved in amending/repealing the Act of Settlement. Perhaps it is all too complex with any number of possible unexpected and unwelcome repercussions


Oh, that would be easy. You would just change it from the present going forwards, leaving the past untouched.

There is, unfortunately, excellent reason to believe that both the CofE and the Queen's position as its Head will soon be disestablished. I am quite sure that in my own lifetime changes to the UK monarchy will include a) getting rid of male precedence in the line of succession, a la Sweden, and b) getting rid of the ban on Catholics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 07-30-2005, 07:11 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
Andrew's new wife would actually be "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York", or "HRH the Duchess of York".
Huh? I don't understand this comment, I thought we had put this issue to bed?

We have established by the Duke of York's site on Buckingham Palace's site that the title is HRH the Duke of York. He ceased to be known as HRH The Prince Andrew upon his marriage and his being created The Duke of York. A future wife would be HRH The Duchess of York, not HRH The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York. There is no such title.

The Royal Family > HRH The Duke of York > Background

Quote:
Named Andrew Albert Christian Edward, he was known as Prince Andrew until his marriage, when he was created The Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
This is standard in the Royal Family. When a higher title is created, the former title ceases to be used. This is not only the case for the Duke of York, but for all members of the Royal Family:

The Royal Family > HRH The Princess Royal > Background

Quote:
She received the title Princess Royal from The Queen in June 1987; she was previously known as Princess Anne. Her Royal Highness is the seventh holder of the title.
Edited to add one more section illustrating the same point:

The Royal Family > HRH The Countess of Wessex > Marriage and family


Quote:
On the day of the wedding, it was announced that The Queen had conferred the titles of The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn upon The Prince Edward. Therefore, upon her marriage Miss Rhys-Jones became Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

I hope that's definitive enough. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that this website is not a private site of the British Royal Family, it is an official government website as evidenced by the .gov in the web address.

Sarah, Duchess of York is correctly addressed as 'Duchess'. I have not been able to work out if this is the correct style for every divorced Duchess or a style granted her as an exceptional case by direct wish of the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 07-30-2005, 07:24 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Lashinka,


Quote:
Thank you for your responses.
I would hope the queen would grant Sarah a different title should Andrew remarry, but then why would Sarah want a different title than her children?
It seems a little silly that both women would be known as duchesses of york.
IMO, Sarah is not remarrying because she does not wish to lose her title as Sarah, Duchess of York and the right to be addressed as 'Duchess'. There have been several times she appears to have come close but the 'duchess' bit of her style goes away with remarriage. Diana's mother was plain Mrs. somebody after remarriage having been countess Spencer.

I think titles are somewhat addictive. Look at how interested we all are on this forum!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 07-30-2005, 07:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
It should be remembered that Andrew really loved Sarah. I have no idea why she did what she did to him, but he was devesated. I hope he does remarry. I can understand why at present he may be a little gunshy.

It would be great if he could have a couple of sons. I love the titles of junior Princes and their wives. Imagine a future HRH Princess Rupert of York (or whatever)!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 07-30-2005, 09:10 AM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Huh? I don't understand this comment, I thought we had put this issue to bed?

We have established by the Duke of York's site on Buckingham Palace's site that the title is HRH the Duke of York. He ceased to be known as HRH The Prince Andrew upon his marriage and his being created The Duke of York. A future wife would be HRH The Duchess of York, not HRH The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York. There is no such title.

The Royal Family > HRH The Duke of York > Background



This is standard in the Royal Family. When a higher title is created, the former title ceases to be used. This is not only the case for the Duke of York, but for all members of the Royal Family:

The Royal Family > HRH The Princess Royal > Background



Edited to add one more section illustrating the same point:

The Royal Family > HRH The Countess of Wessex > Marriage and family





I hope that's definitive enough. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that this website is not a private site of the British Royal Family, it is an official government website as evidenced by the .gov in the web address.

Sarah, Duchess of York is correctly addressed as 'Duchess'. I have not been able to work out if this is the correct style for every divorced Duchess or a style granted her as an exceptional case by direct wish of the Queen.




However, for The Duke of Edinburgh the story is slight different.
The title of his biography on the official site is: HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (which is wrong, because he was given the article "the" before the "Prince").
Then the biography states:
Quote:
In February 1957 it was announced that The Queen had granted to The Duke of Edinburgh the style and dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom, and that in future he would be known as 'The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'.
http://http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page443.asp

So, HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is his official title.

I wonder if this has anything to do to with the fact that he was created a prince of the UK after he was given the dukedom.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 07-30-2005, 10:41 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
So, HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is his official title.

I wonder if this has anything to do to with the fact that he was created a prince of the UK after he was given the dukedom.


Yes, I would imagine so. As I said, in the UK the higher title is always used. Philip was first created Duke of Edinburgh etc, and allowed to use the *style* Royal Highness, by George VI. (Not sure whether this was in deference to the royal Greek/Danish title which he had renounced prior).But at that time he did not have the rank of Prince of the UK. It was his wife, however, who made him a Prince of the United Kingdom after her accession. So that title ranked higher, and he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.



I hope that when Edward succeeds to the Duchy of Edinburgh he will reconsider and allow Louise to be HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh. That is a beautiful title, and it would be great to have a specifically Scottish-named princess. Of course Camilla is Princess of Scotland and the Isles, but it's all about the actual name you use and that's in common use.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 07-30-2005, 10:57 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I have a Philip precedence question. Has it been decided what his precedence will be should the Queen predecease him?

And another title question. Why was he not made Prince Consort? I read the answer to that someplace but I forgot.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 07-30-2005, 10:59 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
Thank you for your responses.
I would hope the queen would grant Sarah a different title should Andrew remarry, but then why would Sarah want a different title than her children?
It seems a little silly that both women would be known as duchesses of york.
It's usually the way things work out when a man is divorced and remarries. The first Mrs Smith is still Mrs Smith; the fact that there's a second Mrs Smith doesn't alter that. It's been traditional for a married woman to be Mrs John Smith but a divorced one to use her own first name, but these days it's much less likely that women wish to be known by their husbands' names, so the distinction is getting less clear. On the other hand, since so many married women are using their maiden names nowadays, it helps distinguish who's who.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 07-30-2005, 11:16 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
And another title question. Why was he not made Prince Consort? I read the answer to that someplace but I forgot.
Here what I found on the internet (I have no idea how reliable this site is through):
Quote:
Unlike the wife of a British monarch, there is no corresponding role for the husband of a reigning Queen. In compensation, the Queen allowed Philip a free hand in the upbringing of their children, allowing Philip to decide on their education and future careers.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...nburgh#Consort

I think Victoria created the title Prince Consort for Albert because she was so in love with him and wanted to give him a special status. But according to this site, that title is not automatically granted to the spouse of a Queen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I have a Philip precedence question. Has it been decided what his precedence will be should the Queen predecease him?
From the same source:
Quote:
After her accession to the throne, the Queen also announced that the Duke was to have place, pre-eminence and precedence next to the Queen on all occasions and in all meetings, except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament. This means the Duke is the first gentleman of the land, and takes precedence over his son, the Prince of Wales.
I guess King Charles would be the only person allowed to change that. But truly I'm clueless so I let place to the experts. :)
I also think that's a nice gesture from the Queen to allow Philip to be above his son in hierarchy.
I know in Denmark it's not the case and that Henry did "runaway" once because he was upset Frederick took precedence on him during the absence of the Queen.
Kind of funny!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 07-30-2005, 11:53 AM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Yes, I would imagine so. As I said, in the UK the higher title is always used. Philip was first created Duke of Edinburgh etc, and allowed to use the *style* Royal Highness, by George VI. (Not sure whether this was in deference to the royal Greek/Danish title which he had renounced prior).But at that time he did not have the rank of Prince of the UK. It was his wife, however, who made him a Prince of the United Kingdom after her accession. So that title ranked higher, and he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.[...]

Perhaps this is the reason. Now I remember that also the late Duchess of Gloucester had such a title: Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.
However, it's difficult to establish what title is more important, as the dignity of prince/princess and a peerage are two different things. I think that UK princes are given peerages because "prince" is only a courtesy title (I read somewhere).
Philip is usually (or always?) called The Duke of Edinburgh. We could say this is his other official title.
On the other hand it always was Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (also on Debrett's), but this was to distinguish them from her daughter-in-law.

There was a very interesting difference in name and occupation between Philip and Charles on his... I don't know the name: the document of the marriage with signatures of bride, groom and witnesses... :o
I saw a picture of it, but I can't find it anymore. :( It's very interesting.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
People are getting confused between the difference between how you are styled and your formal name and titles. All sons of the sovereign under letters patent are entitled to be prince of the UK with the style of HRH. As a matter of practice, the Sovereign usually grants each son a dukedom with subsidiary peerages upon marriage in order to provide a new family line and style for their descendants, who lose the right to carry the prefix Royal Highness after the first generation, but continue to hold a royal peerage through the eldest male with the style of a peer.

They are then addressed by their ducal style "HRH the Duke of York", which is their title, but remain "HRH the Prince Andrew" as well. When they marry, their wives become princesses of the UK with the style of HRH and addressed by their peerage titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Prince Philip is another strange situation. When he married Princess Elizabeth, he was granted the style of HRH by George VI and received the title "Duke of Edinburgh". This was controversial at the time since there has never been a royal duke carrying the style of Royal Highness who was not a prince of the UK as the son or grandson of the Sovereign. In 1957, the Queen granted him the dignity of Prince of the UK and declared his style to be "HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh".

All royal dukes carrying the style of Royal Highness are princes of the UK, which takes precedence over all other dignities since they are sons and grandsons of the Sovereign. As a matter of form, they are usually styled after their peerage because their children will carry the family "name" through the eldest son (if any, otherwise the peerage returns to the Crown). In successive generations, the eldest male descendant remains a duke of the blood royal with the style of His Grace, but not Royal Highness.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 07-30-2005, 01:03 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
I would really be surprised, considering how the BRF treats the Greek RF, for example, if they did not had the same respect for Austrian Princes.
What are your views on the subject?
I think that the much of the courtesy extended to the Greeks has to do with their family ties to Prince Philip.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 07-30-2005, 01:06 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Diana's mother was plain Mrs. somebody after remarriage having been countess Spencer.
Diana's mother never got to be Countess Spencer. The marriage ended while she was Viscountess Althorp.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 07-30-2005, 01:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
I think that the much of the courtesy extended to the Greeks has to do with their family ties to Prince Philip.
Yes, and also the fact that Constantine and Anne-Marie also live in London, so the Queen has the opportunity to see them much more than the Austrian imperial family. But she treats all of the heads of the various royal houses, whether reigning or not, with the same courtesy she herself receives as Sovereign. This is royal protocol.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 07-30-2005, 06:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Yes, and also the fact that Constantine and Anne-Marie also live in London, so the Queen has the opportunity to see them much more than the Austrian imperial family. But she treats all of the heads of the various royal houses, whether reigning or not, with the same courtesy she herself receives as Sovereign. This is royal protocol.
Not really. Many of the so-called heads of royal houses wouldn't even be allowed anywhere near the interior of Buckingham Palace, let alone the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 07-30-2005, 06:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
Not really. Many of the so-called heads of royal houses wouldn't even be allowed anywhere near the interior of Buckingham Palace, let alone the Queen.
This is very true, however, with regard to the German ducal and princely families, the Queen has often received them privately at Balmoral via Prince Philip or Lady Pamela Hicks at her home. Most the remaining houses are Catholic or Orthodox and traditionally very distant from the British monarch as Head of the Church of England.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
order of precedence, protocol


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
The Danish Orders and Monograms davo Royal House of Denmark 156 08-08-2014 12:36 PM
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM
Princess Madeleine at the Ball of the Order of Innocence: 2003 Josefine Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill 62 11-19-2005 04:27 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 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]