The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 08-16-2005, 11:45 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
I think the laws need to change and allow for a King Consort to a Queen Regnant. There should be equality. A husband should get the title of his wife if she ascends the throne. The days of a man usurping power from a "weak" female are over.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 08-16-2005, 02:06 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Who wears the pants?

'Spaciba' Mapple (sorry, no cyrilic alphabet on my computer).

Your post is really informative but could you precise who in this couple had official precedence over the other. I note that the King is named before the Queen. Is that an indication of anything? I read on Wikipedia that English male consorts were never elevated to the dignity of King because a King (male) is hierarchically above a Queen (female).

Tiaraprin, I agree with you! Everybody is much interested in women rights (abrogating the Salic rule, etc.) but everybody forget men's rights (poor creatures) :p .
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 08-16-2005, 02:21 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
'Spaciba' Mapple (sorry, no cyrilic alphabet on my computer).

Your post is really informative but could you precise who in this couple had official precedence over the other. I note that the King is named before the Queen. Is that an indication of anything? I read on Wikipedia that English male consorts were never elevated to the dignity of King because a King (male) is hierarchically above a Queen (female).

Tiaraprin, I agree with you! Everybody is much interested in women rights (abrogating the Salic rule, etc.) but everybody forget men's rights (poor creatures) :p .
Glad to be of use. :)

The King was always mentioned first in the legal instruments of 1554-1558 and Mary I called Philip her 'Lord and Husband' in her will, so, I think, it is safe to infer that Philip preceded the Queen theoretically. However, it was Mary who exercised royal powers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:11 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
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.

I just can't agree, Branch q. Sarah was never formally The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York. Precisely because the royal ducal title supercedes the princely one, she was formally HRH The Duchess of York, because her husband was HRH The Duke of York (and not HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York) when she married him.

When Andrew was created the Duke of York he ceased to have the title the Prince Andrew. He remained a Prince and his name remained Andrew, but his title changed - not his dignity, his title.

Retaining his birthright princely dignity does not mean the birth title that uses the Christian name was also retained. The princely dignity was used with a new title of a royal dukedom.

Of course, Andrew and Edward are informally known as Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, but those are not true titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:16 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
The letters patent grant a princely dignity, they do not state that it must include a Christian name. They state either the Christian name or the other title of honour shall be used. It is either/or and not both.

What is retained as granted at birth is the rank of Prince/ss of the UK. Not a particular style using a Christian name.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:21 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Maybe I should write to the Palace and ask. I did email Debrett's, but got no reply. This is just one of those niggling questions that bug a person.

Branch thinks that once Andrew was made DofY, he was "formally" known as HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York and I disagree. Perhaps only a letter to the palace can solve this. I could send it on to an admin person if I got a reply.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:39 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
The letters patent grant a princely dignity, they do not state that it must include a Christian name. They state either the Christian name or the other title of honour shall be used. It is either/or and not both.

What is retained as granted at birth is the rank of Prince/ss of the UK. Not a particular style using a Christian name.
Hi Frothy,

Maybe we're talking semantics. I distinctly remember reading a primer for Americans on the titles of British nobility and royalty and it mentioned that the style Prince or Princess could only be inherited at birth by the child or grandchild through the male line of the sovereign. In such case they were Prince or Princess FirstName. The presence of a Christian name was definitely spelled out to differentiate it from a title which does not include a Christian name (normally) It is a style or honor inherited at birth and so should not be confused with titles according to this source. Once a prince or princess inherits a title the style Prince (Princess) first name is no longer used. The only exception is Prince and Princess of Wales, which afterall is a title. I normally would discount a third party American reference but this was written by Amy Vanderbilt who advised a lot of prominent Americans how to move in titled British society during the early 50s when this stuff was still really important. She said she had a lot of research to do for this section because it is so complicated.

Perhaps the Queen has changed the rules, she did grant the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester to be called Princess Alice but this is really the exception not the rule.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 08-17-2005, 09:51 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Exactly. The title is 'Prince'. The style is The Prince Andrew. The title of a royal Duke is HRH The Duke of X (HRH says 'Prince', of course - all royal dukes are princes). The style is then HRH The Duke of X as well as the title.

The letters patent say that a Prince will be known by his first name OR his other titles of honour. It is not AND but OR - not both. A title of honour supercedes the use of the Christian name. This is certainly confirmed on the BRF website.

However, Branch Q will disagree. I adamantly maintain Sarah was never The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York because I believe there is no such title as The Prince Andrew, Duke of York, except when talking informally. However, as I have said, perhaps the only way to clear this up is to write to HRH's private secretary and ask. If I get a response I promise to publicize it here even if it says I am utterly wrong!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 08-17-2005, 10:44 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Maybe I should write to the Palace and ask. I did email Debrett's, but got no reply. This is just one of those niggling questions that bug a person.

Branch thinks that once Andrew was made DofY, he was "formally" known as HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York and I disagree. Perhaps only a letter to the palace can solve this. I could send it on to an admin person if I got a reply.
You could submit it as a question to the Royal Insight Magazine, but I don't know how many of the questions they respond to. I'm pretty sure you'd get an answer of some sort if you wrote to the Palace. You can always tell them you're asking because of some questions that came up on this message board and you'd like to get an authoritative answer that you can post.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 08-18-2005, 03:58 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Still important!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
... Amy Vanderbilt who advised a lot of prominent Americans how to move in titled British society during the early 50s when this stuff was still really important.
Some of us think it still is!
:) :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:04 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Some of us think it still is!
:) :)
Very true Warren!
__________________
Thy choicest gifts in store, on her be pleased to pour, long may she reign. May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 08-18-2005, 04:36 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Back into it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Schlesian
Very true Warren!
Yes, good to have this thread not only up and running again, but back on track with the really gritty issues!

:) :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 09-05-2005, 06:45 PM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
It was a well known fact that Her Royal Highness the Princess Michael of Kent felt terribly awkward at the thought of Diana, Princess of Wales cutsying to her. Apparently she said to Diana that she would never except a cursty from the future King of Englands mother.

"MII"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 09-05-2005, 07:50 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
The members of the royal family (and Diana was still one of them even without the HRH) don't bow and curtsey to the minor royals anyway, so I have no idea why she thought that was going to be an issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:03 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,540
I agree Elspeth. I would not even bow to her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 09-05-2005, 10:10 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 778
When Princess Michael said she couldn't receive a bow/curtsey from Diana it was out of RESPECT for her as the mother of the heir to the throne but probably also for the person she was. A commoner being introduced to a royal such as Princess Michael and not bowing would be showing lack of respect and lack of good manners. Bad education also.

I would certainly bow/curtsy to even Mary, not a big thing but a small respectful one. And if you follow me on her thread you should know I'm absolutely not a big fan of her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 09-05-2005, 10:12 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Despite being a royal addict, I wouldn't curtsey to Princess Michael. And I probably wouldn't curtsey or bob to Her Majesty, either.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 09-05-2005, 10:28 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess BellyFlop
When Princess Michael said she couldn't receive a bow/curtsey from Diana it was out of RESPECT for her as the mother of the heir to the throne but probably also for the person she was.
Princess Michael of Kent was not entitled to receive a curtsey from Diana after the divorce, nor was anyone else in the royal family with the exception of the Queen and the Queen Mother, because Diana retained her precedence regardless of the HRH issue. Since the Queen declared Diana's rank to be the same, it would have been a breach of protocol to expect a curtsey from the Princess.

Diana remained the mother of a future king and received the same protocol and deference she enjoyed while married.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 09-05-2005, 11:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,540
Well...actually, since Diana was no longer an HRH, technically speaking, she would probably have to curtsey to Princess Michael. She was the mother of a future king, but she lost all titular dignities and styles upon her divorce...including being curtsied to herself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 09-06-2005, 12:15 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
Despite being a royal addict, I wouldn't curtsey to Princess Michael. And I probably wouldn't curtsey or bob to Her Majesty, either.
Although I am an American, there are certain Royals I would curtsey to out of respect and the fact that I think they are good people. I would curtsey to Her Majesty, Prince William, Prince Harry, The Wessexes, The York Girls, The Gloucesters, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra.

I would NEVER curtsey to Charles, Camilla, Prince Philip, Princess Michael, and The Duke of York.
__________________

__________________
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 olympics 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 madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion 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 06:02 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]