The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 07-31-2005, 02:11 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
Correct. Additoinally, she was never 'plain Mrs. Somebody' as the previous poster wrote. Rather, she was the Honourable Mrs. Frances Shand-Kyd. She was entitled to the "Honourable" as she was the daughter of a Baron -- Baron Fermoy to be exact.
Erm, actually she was the Hon Frances Burke Roche; Peter Shand Kydd was her second husband, not her father. However, when she married him, she did indeed keep the "Hon", which was from her father.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 07-31-2005, 02:14 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Uh, why then is King Constantine still accepted by the British Royal family besides being part of Philip's family?? They never acknowledged Philip's sisters!
Well, Philip's sisters were married to Germans, some of whom were known or suspected to have been followers of Hitler. The public wouldn't have been thrilled at the notion of Prince Philip's family having a very high profile in the UK after the war.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 07-31-2005, 06:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Erm, actually she was the Hon Frances Burke Roche; Peter Shand Kydd was her second husband, not her father. However, when she married him, she did indeed keep the "Hon", which was from her father.
Erm, that's what I wrote/meant. I think you're confused, as we were discussing her style *after* her divorce & second marriage. The previous poster wrote that she was plain Mrs. somebody, and I was pointing out that she wasn't just Mrs. Somebody, but rather that she had was entitled to the predicat of Honourable. ;-)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 07-31-2005, 07:07 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Ah, OK. When you said "never," I thought you were referring back to her original name.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 07-31-2005, 09:14 PM
florawindsor's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , China
Posts: 279
shouldn't she be The Princess Anne before she became The Princess Royal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
The Royal Family > HRH The Princess Royal > Background

She received the title Princess Royal from The Queen in June 1987; she was previously known as Princess Anne
__________________
i'm not from an english speaking country, plz forgive me if i made any stupid mistakes in my post

Life is mostly froth and bubbles Two things stand like stone
Kindness in others' trouble Courage in your own
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 07-31-2005, 09:49 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Yes, it should be. The Royal Family website doesn't seem to have been written by one of their experts on titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 07-31-2005, 10:51 PM
florawindsor's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , China
Posts: 279
thank you Elspeth.
maybe it's inevitable when they are making such a huge site, they are bound to make minor mistakes.
__________________
i'm not from an english speaking country, plz forgive me if i made any stupid mistakes in my post

Life is mostly froth and bubbles Two things stand like stone
Kindness in others' trouble Courage in your own
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 08-01-2005, 02:32 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Anne

Quote:
Originally Posted by florawindsor
shouldn't she be The Princess Anne before she became The Princess Royal?
Yes, you are right florawindsor. She was previously known as HRH The Princess Anne; now HRH The Princess Royal.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 08-01-2005, 02:46 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
King Consort

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
Thank you. I read in wikipedia that Victoria wanted Albert to be King Consort but the parliament did not allowed that because he was a foreigner, which I found strange.
I don't think it would have mattered who Victoria married; it is unlikely the Parliament would have allowed anyone to be called "King Consort". For a start there was no precedent for this title, plus there may have been concern that the husband may take the title too literally.

Prince Albert was created Prince Consort by letters patent in 1857, many years after they were married. Although this title was also without precedent, it seemed an acceptable compromise to give him some extra status, and to keep Victoria happy (a tough job in itself).
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 08-01-2005, 02:52 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Consultancy positions available?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
The Royal Family website doesn't seem to have been written by one of their experts on titles.
All they need to do is advertise on the TRF for consultants. Problem solved.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 08-01-2005, 03:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 123
I know this conversation ended a few days ago but I have spent that time looking for evidence to back up what I wanted to say.
I was sure that Prince Andrew was Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
I am now certain of it. When Prince Charles was born, the notice on the gates at Buckingham Palace read "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was safely delivered of a Prince at 9.14pm today etc etc"
I am sure of all the people to know and get it right, Buckingham Palace would be?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 08-01-2005, 04:18 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia
I know this conversation ended a few days ago but I have spent that time looking for evidence to back up what I wanted to say.
I was sure that Prince Andrew was Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
I am now certain of it. When Prince Charles was born, the notice on the gates at Buckingham Palace read "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was safely delivered of a Prince at 9.14pm today etc etc"
I am sure of all the people to know and get it right, Buckingham Palace would be?
She wasn't Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right, but by marriage. Thus she was styled The Princess Elizabeth (the higher of the two titles), Duchess of Edinburgh. Conversely, Andrew is Duke of York in his own right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 08-01-2005, 04:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia
I know this conversation ended a few days ago but I have spent that time looking for evidence to back up what I wanted to say.
I was sure that Prince Andrew was Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
I am now certain of it. When Prince Charles was born, the notice on the gates at Buckingham Palace read "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was safely delivered of a Prince at 9.14pm today etc etc"
I am sure of all the people to know and get it right, Buckingham Palace would be?
It's not the same. Elizabeth held the style and title of "Duchess of Edinburgh" as the wife of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. So she was correctly styled "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh". Similarly, when married, Sarah was formally "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York", but styled and addressed correctly as "HRH the Duchess of York".

Andrew is both "HRH the Prince Andrew" and "HRH the Duke of York". His birthright style remains his automatically, but was superseded by his royal dukedom upon marriage. He is correctly styled and addressed as "HRH the Duke of York" as a matter of practice and form.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 08-02-2005, 02:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 123
Thanksfor clarifying that. I stand corrected. However, as a Prince is higher than a Duke what is the point of granting extra titles. Surely a person would rather be known as a Prince than a Duke? Sorry if I'm just not getting this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 08-02-2005, 04:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia
Thanksfor clarifying that. I stand corrected. However, as a Prince is higher than a Duke what is the point of granting extra titles. Surely a person would rather be known as a Prince than a Duke? Sorry if I'm just not getting this.
A Prince is higher than a Duke in the peerage of the UK, however, this dignity can only be held by the children and male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign. Because of this, a dukedom is customarily granted to each son of the Sovereign, which then becomes their new title, in order to provide a royal style to pass down to their eldest male descendants.

For example, HRH the Prince Harry was granted the dukedom of Gloucester by his father, George V. He then became HRH the Duke of Gloucester. His son, HRH Prince Richard, assumed the dukedom after the death of his father and is the present Duke. After his death, his eldest son will become the new Duke, but as a great-grandon of George V, will not be entitled to the style of HRH. He will instead be known as "His Grace the Duke of Gloucester" as a duke of the blood royal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 08-16-2005, 03:24 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Precedence of stand-ins

I will gingerly re-activate this thread with a story disclosing another aspect of Precedence as it relates to a representative, or "stand-in", for the Prince of Wales.

In the just-released "Olivier, The Authorised Biography", it is revealed that the Olivier family reacted with horror when the Prince of Wales suggested that the actor Kenneth Branagh should represent him at the memorial service at Westminster Abbey in 1989. They feared that such a prominent role for the young Branagh, who was already being hailed as "the next Olivier", would have stolen Olivier's thunder on the very day he was meant to be centre stage.

As the representative of the Prince of Wales, Branagh would have taken precedence over everyone else at the ceremony and would have entered the Abbey last while all the other mourners stood.

The author of the biography writes: "Richard Olivier [his son] thought several senior actors would have died on the spot." Branagh's nomination was withdrawn, and instead the "safe" Lord Attenborough represented the Prince of Wales.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 08-16-2005, 03:36 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
I don't think it would have mattered who Victoria married; it is unlikely the Parliament would have allowed anyone to be called "King Consort". For a start there was no precedent for this title, plus there may have been concern that the husband may take the title too literally.
...
Actually, there was a precedentthe husband of Mary Tudor, Philip of Spain, was styled 'King of England'. It comes at no surprise, though, that the Government of 1857 decided not to follow in Mary and Philip's steps.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 08-16-2005, 03:56 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
Actually, there was a precedentthe husband of Mary Tudor, Philip of Spain, was styled 'King of England'.
Thanks for the correction, and welcome to TRF Mapple.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 08-16-2005, 05:30 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
The Real Thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
I will gingerly re-activate this thread with a story disclosing another aspect of Precedence as it relates to a representative, or "stand-in", for the Prince of Wales.

In the just-released "Olivier, The Authorised Biography", it is revealed that the Olivier family reacted with horror when the Prince of Wales suggested that the actor Kenneth Branagh should represent him at the memorial service at Westminster Abbey in 1989. They feared that such a prominent role for the young Branagh, who was already being hailed as "the next Olivier", would have stolen Olivier's thunder on the very day he was meant to be centre stage.

As the representative of the Prince of Wales, Branagh would have taken precedence over everyone else at the ceremony and would have entered the Abbey last while all the other mourners stood.

The author of the biography writes: "Richard Olivier [his son] thought several senior actors would have died on the spot." Branagh's nomination was withdrawn, and instead the "safe" Lord Attenborough represented the Prince of Wales.
.
Warren that's simply wonderful! We have been disserting on the order of precedence of the BRF when there's no real indication that the royal do really care; and now you bringing us those very commoner actors who act whith more diva attitude, grandness and snobbery than the royal.
It's a whole new world for me, thank you :p .
Mapple, when Mary's husband was styled King, what did happen? Was is hierarchically above his wife? Did he had precedence over her? Did he shared some (or all) of her Royal prerogatives?
Please tell more (and welcome BTW).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 08-16-2005, 07:51 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Warren, Idriel, thank you for your welcome!

So, as regards Mary Tudor, she was a Queen Regnant, the first such case in England (if we are to exclude Empress Mathilda, and we'd better do it), since 1553. On 25 July 1554 she married Prince Philip of Spain at Winchester Cathedral, and they took a joint style 'Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God, King and Queen of England, France and Naples, Jerusalem and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Princes of Spain and Sicily, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Milan, Burgundy and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol'.

In 1556 Philip ascended the throne of Spain, and the style changed to 'Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God, King and Queen of England, Spain, France, Jerusalem, both the Sicilies and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgungy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol'.

The Parliament was called under their joint authority, the Acts of Parlament were dated with both royal names, and the coins were minted with two faces. However, Philip's role in government was extremely limited, his case was a unique instance of 'Crown matrimonial' going to a male person. Unlike William and Mary, the joint sovereignty of Philip and Mary was never established by an Act of Parliament, and Philip lost his English title when Mary died in 1558.

By the way, Scotland also had a King Consort—Lord Darnley was elevated to the kingship on marrying Mary, Queen of Scots in 1565.
__________________

__________________
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




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 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]