The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 07-25-2005, 04:32 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 364
A divorced Peeress dosn't automatically revert to her pre-marital status when her husband remarries. She becomes known not as "The" Duchess or Countess etc but instead her title starts with her forename and then the title. For example, Earl Spencer's first wife Victoria was known as Victoria, Countess Spencer after the Earl remarried but his new wife became The Countess Spencer. Victoria only gave up her title completley when she recently remarried herself. Similarly, Sarah Ferguson would still be know as Sarah, Duchess of York if Andrew remarried and his wife would be The Duchess of York.

Also, there is no difference between a Royal Duchess and a Royal Princess as all Royal Duchesses are Princesses as well.The Duchess of Gloucester's full title for example is Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. She is equally a Princess in the way that Princess Michael is but Princess Michael uses the Princess title as her husband has no other titles.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-25-2005, 05:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by james
Also, there is no difference between a Royal Duchess and a Royal Princess as all Royal Duchesses are Princesses as well.The Duchess of Gloucester's full title for example is Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. She is equally a Princess in the way that Princess Michael is but Princess Michael uses the Princess title as her husband has no other titles.
Right now, this is true. However, Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, was specifically denied the rank of HRH and princess of the UK by George V and held the rank of a duchess with the style "Her Grace", albeit still royal.

Upon the deaths of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, their eldest sons will still hold a royal dukedom with the style of His Grace, not HRH.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-25-2005, 07:22 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Upon the deaths of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, their eldest sons will still hold a royal dukedom with the style of His Grace, not HRH.
I thought upon the deaths of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, their sons would just remain Earls and the Kent and Gloucester Dukedoms would revert back to the crown?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-25-2005, 07:23 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
That was my impression too, tiaraprin.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-25-2005, 07:27 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I've heard that the Gloucester and Kent titles will carry on down the current lineage, although York will revert to the Crown and would have done so even if Prince Andrew had had a son. I'm not sure about that, though, because if the Gloucester and Kent titles do continue down the present lineage, assuming (fairly safe assumption, with the low infant mortality rate these days) that there are sons for the next few generations in those lineages, the titles will be effectively lost to the monarchy, which would be a shame.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-25-2005, 07:31 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I've heard that the Gloucester and Kent titles will carry on down the current lineage, although York will revert to the Crown and would have done so even if Prince Andrew had had a son. I'm not sure about that, though, because if the Gloucester and Kent titles do continue down the present lineage, assuming (fairly safe assumption, with the low infant mortality rate these days) that there are sons for the next few generations in those lineages, the titles will be effectively lost to the monarchy, which would be a shame.
I agree with you Elspeth. I wonder, if down the line, there is only a female to succeed her father, if special orders of patent would be drawn up for her to become duchess in her own right leaving the title afterwards to male heirs of her body?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-25-2005, 07:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I've heard that the Gloucester and Kent titles will carry on down the current lineage, although York will revert to the Crown and would have done so even if Prince Andrew had had a son. I'm not sure about that, though, because if the Gloucester and Kent titles do continue down the present lineage, assuming (fairly safe assumption, with the low infant mortality rate these days) that there are sons for the next few generations in those lineages, the titles will be effectively lost to the monarchy, which would be a shame.
Unless the Queen issues new letters patent, the dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester will continue downward until the death of the last male descendant of the current Dukes. At that time, the titles would return to the Crown. Given past history, it is inevitable the titles will revert since it is very rare for successive generations to have sons to inherit every time, but it certainly is possible.

More likely, given current trends in the UK, the Queen will issue new letters patent to supersede her grandfather's 1917 letters patent before her death on the advice of the Government. It is clear the future royal family will be limited to the children of the sovereign, the eldest child of the heir to the throne and the eldest grandchild of the heir to the throne. All other members of the family would be granted courtesy titles or new peerages without the style of HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-25-2005, 08:53 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I was just reading up on the matter of the Gloucesters and Kents. Apparently, the sons of the current incumbents will inherit the titles but they will not be allowed to be HRHs like their fathers. So, the next Duke of Kent will simply be the Duke of Kent, not HRH the Duke of Kent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-25-2005, 10:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
At this point in time all the Royal Dukedoms have included in their Letters Patent the clause about the title passing to male heirs of the body only. That is why both Kent and Gloucester will pass on to their sons and grandsons in time but York and Wessex won't as neither of these titles have an heir male of the body. If either Prince Andrew or Prince Edward have a legitimate son then their titles will pass to that son. Andrew could pass the title Duke of York to a legitimate son but historically this hasn't happened since the middle ages with the Dukes of York either becoming king in turn or dying without issue. Andrew is the first I can think of since 1500 to actually have children and look like not becoming king. His title will revert to the crown unless he has a son.

The Royal Dukedoms inheritance laws follow those of any other Duke in that the title passes on even though the holder ceases to be an HRH. The difference is that when there is no male line direct heir the title merges with the crown rather than pass to cousins etc as can happen with other titles.


The HRH was clearly covered in 1917 - children of a monarch (Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward), all male line grandchildren (including the present Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra of Kent - all grandchildren of George V through their respective fathers, William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise - and I am not going there - we all know that situation!) and then only the eldest son of the Prince of Wales eldest son. As things currently stand only Prince William's eldest son is guaranteed having an HRH but presumably all his children and all of Prince Harry's children will be HRH (assuming that Charles becomes king) but only the children of their sons will have the HRH and not of their daughters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-26-2005, 12:14 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:

The Crown takes precedence over all laws and customs. The title "Duke of Rothesay" is royal and held by Prince Charles on behalf of the Sovereign. A former wife cannot hold a royal peerage granted to a prince of the blood royal after a divorce. There is no question on the matter. The only title Diana could hold was one granted in her own right by the Queen, which never came to be.

"Your Grace" is not an appropriate form of address to a former princess of the UK. Neither Sarah nor Diana was ever a duchess, they were both princesses while married. Sarah was technically "HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York"
Again, I must take issue with you. Nobody says the wife of a peer 'holds' a peerage. We are talking about the style of a divorced peeress who has not yet remarried.

Sarah was not technically HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York because Andrew was never HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York. While we are getting techincal, direct sons and daughters of the monarch have 'the' before their names if they have no senior titles. The day before his marriage, Andrew was HRH The Prince Andrew, not Prince Andrew. Furthermore, when he became Duke of York he ceased to be referred to as the Prince Andrew, having acceded to a higher dignity. His correct title is not HRH the Prince Andrew Duke of York, it is simply HRH the Duke of York.

The Queen decided that the divorcees would cease to be princesses, which carry with them the HRH title. But she did not strip them of their common right to be known as divorced peeresses are known. The woman may not be royal but retains the normal style and title for her situation unless the Queen specifically forbids it. Wallis Simpson was 'Your Grace' as a Duchess, although not permitted by the Sovereign to rise to the level of a Princess; her marriage was semi-morganatic. Wallis' casket reflects that ducal dignity.

Diana was not allowed to use the style of a Princess as a former Princess. That was the Queen's explicit decision. The Queen made no such pronouncement about her using the style of a divorced peeress, therefore normal custom holds. A divorced Duchess, as noted above, retains the 'Your Grace' unless she loses the courtesy title by remarrying, as Diana's mother did. Diana, and Sarah, had/have the correct style of 'Your Grace'. Sarah, Duchess of York has been barred from the royal dignity by the Queen's express statement, but she is a still a divorced duchess. The Queen has not said that she may not use the normal style of any divorced and not remarried duchess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-26-2005, 12:18 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Here is a question of divorcee precedence I am not sure of. Anybody know the answer?

What is the correct style of the divorced wife of the younger son of a peer who has a courtesy title?

EG: Lord Alexander Smith marries Jane Bloggs. Now she is Lady Alexander Smith. What if they divorce?

For an ordinary man, Mrs. John Smith becomes Mrs. Jane Smith. But to call her 'Lady Jane Smith' would indicate she was the daughter of a marquis. So how is she styled?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-26-2005, 01:45 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, Lady Colin Campbell is still referred to by that name even though she's divorced.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-26-2005, 02:54 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Referred to by herself by that name - she trades on the title - but I do not believe she is entitled to it. If Lord Colin should remarry, his wife would be Lady Colin. I don't think there can be two of them!

Lady CC is actually what got me thinking about this a few years back - and this is the forum to find out the answers, if any!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-26-2005, 03:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Sarah was not technically HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York because Andrew was never HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York. While we are getting techincal, direct sons and daughters of the monarch have 'the' before their names if they have no senior titles. The day before his marriage, Andrew was HRH The Prince Andrew, not Prince Andrew. Furthermore, when he became Duke of York he ceased to be referred to as the Prince Andrew, having acceded to a higher dignity. His correct title is not HRH the Prince Andrew Duke of York, it is simply HRH the Duke of York.
Are you saying that a dukedom is a higher dignity than a prince of the UK with the style of HRH? That's ridiculous. Andrew is HRH the Prince Andrew, Duke of York. He is a prince of the UK granted a secondary dukedom as a son of the Sovereign. His wife reflected his dignity as HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York and nothing else. Sarah was a princess, NOT a duchess, while married.

This is the critical point you keep missing. Diana and Sarah reflected their husbands, who were sons of the Sovereign as Princes of the UK. They also hold secondary titles and dignities such as Duke of York, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Baron Killeaney, etc; A divorce means you are no longer a Princess of the UK nor a duchess, countess, etc; held in subsidiary with the primary dignity of HRH. That is different than a regular dukedom in the peerage. They are not dukes, but princes and HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-26-2005, 04:12 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Referred to by herself by that name - she trades on the title - but I do not believe she is entitled to it.
Have the Campbells said anything about it?

Was Princess Margaret referred to as Princess Margaret or Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, after her divorce?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-26-2005, 04:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Have the Campbells said anything about it?

Was Princess Margaret referred to as Princess Margaret or Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, after her divorce?
Officially, she remained HRH the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden after her divorce and until her death. I would assume she chose to retain a style related to her former husband as the mother of Lord Linley and Lady Sarah, similar to wives retaining their divorced surname if they have children from the marriage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-26-2005, 05:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, Lady Colin Campbell is still referred to by that name even though she's divorced.
Technically incorrect because she is no longer the Lady Campbell.

For example, if Miss Anna Jones marries Lord John Smith, she becomes Lady Anna Smith. Upon divorce, she would be Anna Jones, Lady Smith as the former wife of a peer.

This is why Frothy's assertions on Diana and Sarah are incorrect. A royal princess by marriage loses all titles and status held through their husband upon divorce. Diana thus became Lady Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah is technically Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York with divorce.

With divorce, any titles acquired through marriage become a style, similar to a regular surname.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-26-2005, 07:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: N/A, France
Posts: 1,665
I've a question, but I'm not sure of this (taking the exemple of the French society, don't know how it's in UK).

When Marie Dupont marries Jean Granger in France, in an old-fashioned way, she's madame Jean Granger. But more and more women want to be known, in this case, like madame Marie Granger, or shorter Marie Granger. If they divorce, they will be known like madame Marie Dupont. The same of some (very few)vwomen of the french aristocracy.

In UK, does it often happen that, for example, Mary Smith, who married duke John Campbell, wants to be known as duchess Mary Campbell? Technically, would it be correct?

In France, given the fact we have no more official aristocracy, a comtesse Jean Dupont (Marie Thomas, wife of comte Jean Dupont) is only a use and the survivance of this old use in old-fashioned family. It has no legal existence (and on a strictly personnel plan it would hate to be known like madame Jean Dupont, or whatsoever). What's the point about this in UK? Thanks by advance.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-26-2005, 07:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danielane
I've a question, but I'm not sure of this (taking the exemple of the French society, don't know how it's in UK).

When Marie Dupont marries Jean Granger in France, in an old-fashioned way, she's madame Jean Granger. But more and more women want to be known, in this case, like madame Marie Granger, or shorter Marie Granger. If they divorce, they will be known like madame Marie Dupont. The same of some (very few)vwomen of the french aristocracy.

In UK, does it often happen that, for example, Mary Smith, who married duke John Campbell, wants to be known as duchess Mary Campbell? Technically, would it be correct?

In France, given the fact we have no more official aristocracy, a comtesse Jean Dupont (Marie Thomas, wife of comte Jean Dupont) is only a use and the survivance of this old use in old-fashioned family. It has no legal existence (and on a strictly personnel plan it would hate to be known like madame Jean Dupont, or whatsoever). What's the point about this in UK? Thanks by advance.
Well, given that the UK still has a class system based on a formal peerage and the ranking of dignities all the way up to the Crown, it is usually the desire of a lady to assume the titular dignities of her husband, if superior to her own, upon marriage. There is nothing in the law, however, to stop a woman from choosing not to and/or retaining their own name and status regardless.

In France, the Republican Government does not legally recognize any of the former titles of nobility, with the notable exception of the heads of the former royal houses of Orleans, Bonaparte and Bourbon. Each Head of the Royal or Imperial Houses are recognized by the Republic by their princely or ducal dignities and titles legally as descendants of former Sovereigns of France.

The rest of the former nobility continue to hold their dignities as courtesy titles, recognized by society, but not legally by the French Republic except as a surname (i.e. Rothschild).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-26-2005, 09:04 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Technically incorrect because she is no longer the Lady Campbell.
Do you know what she actually is? That was what Frothy was asking about originally. Georgie Ziadie, Lady Campbell?
__________________

__________________
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 current events engagement 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 olympics ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias 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 wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 AM.

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]