The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2401  
Old 03-25-2014, 04:28 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,090
That would depend on whether or not the nobility is retained in Britain. I don't believe many other former monarchies-turned-republics continue to recognize any noble titles given under the previous regime, although I think during the Commonwealth period under Cromwell, Britain may have.

Most likely, they would simply become Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss Windsor/Mountbatten/Mountbatten-Windsor depending on their gender, marital status, descent, and preference.

However, there is a belief among royalists that "once a royal, always a royal." Thus, while they might legally simply be "Windsor" they'll continue to be recognized by their royal titles, particularly outside of Britain, similar to other deposed royal families.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2402  
Old 03-25-2014, 04:33 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,090
The Dukedom will one day pass down to James, and then to his children, and so on.

The thing with royal dukedoms is that unless they're granted to the heir or the heir's heir then they're expected to one day cease to be royal. Currently, the heir apparents to the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester are not royals, meaning when the current dukes die they will cease to be royal dukedoms.

This will also happen with the Dukedom of Edinburgh. It will be a royal dukedom under Edward, a quasi-royal dukedom under James (likely he will not receive any CC recognition for his activities), and then will cease to be a royal dukedom at all with James' son. The organizations connected with the dukedom will continue, but will cease to have their royal connections (unless they take on a royal patron, which I could see as being likely).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2403  
Old 03-25-2014, 04:48 PM
RoyalDaisy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I to also have a question, because of something you mentioned Molly!

When the DOE dies, his title goes to Charles and potentially merges with the crown, Charles then has to regrant it to Edward. However, does that regrant count for Edward alone or does it count for James as well?
Because we're talking about what one day will be the cousin of the King but one who will 99% sure have spent his entire life out of the air of royalty. Or because of the title, will James have to be a part of the lifestyle?
The purpose in giving this title to Edward is that is will continue - so James and his heirs will have the title, as will the Kents and Gloucesters (and you couldnt get a more royal dukedom than Gloucester).

It doesnt mean that James or any of the other heirs have to be part of the lifestyle - it is a dukedom. Same with patronages - these families can continue them, but they wont be designated as "royal" (sorry repeating a bit I mentioned on another thread)

This is based on my opinion that James will not use HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2404  
Old 03-25-2014, 05:12 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I have a question if the situation ever arose that the UK became a Republic. Does this mean that the Royal family would lose their "Royal Highness" titles and become simply, "His Grace/Her Grace, the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge/Gloucester/Kent/Edinburgh" etc?
In royal circles they would continue to be addressed by their royal styles.Many of the former royal houses of Europe (Greece,Romania,Bulgaria,Germany etc) are all addressed as 'Your Majesty,Royal Highnesses'. If Britain was to become a republic,I'm sure the Nobility would also be abolished along with the Royals.
__________________
4th of August 1900 : Birth of H.M.Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Reply With Quote
  #2405  
Old 03-25-2014, 08:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,031
There are other places that the Queen is monarch. So if the UK became a republic tomorrow. The Queen is still Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2406  
Old 03-26-2014, 01:39 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
There are other places that the Queen is monarch. So if the UK became a republic tomorrow. The Queen is still Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

The Queen might still be royal and hold titles, but her family won't. The titles that the BRF hold currently are all under British law, only the monarch holds a title in any other realm (although, I suppose you could argue that the wife of a King of Canada would be the Queen of Canada). In order for the DoE, Charles, William, etc, to hold any titles new ones would have to be created, even within the realms that an official royal family is recognized.

Furthermore, there would have to be a serious restructuring of the role of the monarch and royal family in at least one of the realms to accommodate the fact that the family would likely be making a home base within it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2407  
Old 03-26-2014, 06:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 263
Are we likely to ever see the husband's of Princesses being given the title of Prince like in Sweden? The titles system in this country is still outdated and sexist to both genders.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #2408  
Old 03-26-2014, 07:00 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Are we likely to ever see the husband's of Princesses being given the title of Prince like in Sweden? The titles system in this country is still outdated and sexist to both genders.
Personally I doubt it except for the husband of a Queen Regent or man married to a woman who will become Queen Regent but that is a long, long way into the future. There's no guaratee Britain will still have a monarchy when the eldest child of Prince George marries.

I agree with you that it's sexist - my solution is that women are treated the same as the men and do not take titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2409  
Old 03-26-2014, 07:04 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Are we likely to ever see the husband's of Princesses being given the title of Prince like in Sweden? The titles system in this country is still outdated and sexist to both genders.

Asides from Daniel - who is a special case - which husbands of Swedish princesses have been made Princes of Sweden?

Daniel was made a Prince because he married the heir apparent. The last time the heir to the British throne was a woman was 60+ years ago, and when she married her husband was granted an HRH and a dukedom by the then king, to be later created a British Prince by his wife during her reign.

Since then only 3 British princesses have married (to 4 men). Two of the husbands were reportedly offered peerages that were then turned down - the individuals didn't want titles. One was offered and took an earldom, but given as the marriage happened in the 60s and to someone who wasn't the best of royals, I can see why no one jumped to make him a Prince. The most recent one wasn't offered any title.

For all, especially the first two, being royal would have impacted their abilities to continue on with their private lives and private careers - especially given as they married at times when there was a shortage of working royals. For Anne's husbands this would have been less of an issue as they had military careers, but I don't think either of them wanted titles at all.

Now, the Queen has two granddaughters whose husbands could be granted titles if and when they marry - neither even being engage yet. Somehow, regardless of gender equality, I don't think people will react well if the Yorks marry and their husbands become Princes, especially as it's often assumed that Charles will strip them of their titles once he's king.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2410  
Old 03-26-2014, 09:35 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Springfield, United States
Posts: 81
A while back there was discussion that Kate would have to curtsey to Beatrice and Eugenie because she wasn't born royal. It occurred to me that Camilla wasn't born royal either. Does she also have to curtsey to the York girls? (Personally, it seems to me that people should only curtsey to the Queen and no one else. But that's just me.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2411  
Old 03-26-2014, 09:57 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketmom View Post
A while back there was discussion that Kate would have to curtsey to Beatrice and Eugenie because she wasn't born royal. It occurred to me that Camilla wasn't born royal either. Does she also have to curtsey to the York girls? (Personally, it seems to me that people should only curtsey to the Queen and no one else. But that's just me.)

I'm not sure I actually believe this story, as it doesn't seem that the family bows/curtsey to each other unless they're doing so to the Queen or DoE.

The order of precedent puts Camilla beneath Anne in terms of who gets to enter first - if Camilla attends something without Charles that Anne happens to be at, then Anne enters first. I believe this would also apply to Sophie - she comes after Anne - but I'm not certain.

Likewise, the Queen's royal granddaughters come before her royal granddaughter-in-law. If Kate attends something without William but with Beatrice, then she's expected to enter afterwards.

In the days when royals bowed and curtseyed to each other (within their own family) more, then all of this would mean that Camilla would be expected to curtsey to Anne, and Kate to Beatrice, but that's a behaviour of old that we don't really see anymore.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2412  
Old 03-26-2014, 10:19 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,031
Most of the time it doesn't seem like they even use the order of precedence. Supposedly grandsons of the sovereign are behind younger sons but William and Harry are ahead of their uncles. The closing ceremony for the Olympics- it was Harry, Kate and Anne in the next row which doesn't make sense at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2413  
Old 03-26-2014, 10:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
We don't see the private precedence of course, because it is exactly that - private and so out of the public gaze.

We don't see how they behave to each other on public occasions a lot of the time because they have already met up before we see them as well so again can't judge.

At the Closing Ceremony of the Olympics Harry took precedence because he was officially representing The Queen and thus took her position.

Other times we see them William and Harry are usually with their father when their uncles are also present and so take their precedence from being their father's sons.

We don't tend to see them with at an official function with just say Andrew or Edward - which is when the precedence would come into effect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2414  
Old 03-27-2014, 08:51 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Most of the time it doesn't seem like they even use the order of precedence.
They use the order of precedence very often.
In fact the order of precedence says how other people should behave if there are several royals around.
The order of precedence says how to arrange a place setting for a dinner with royals, how to introduce other guests or employees during royal visit and so on.
Look at the Dutch Investiture. They used the royal order of precedence at least 3 times. But do you notice it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2415  
Old 03-27-2014, 09:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
We don't see the private precedence of course, because it is exactly that - private and so out of the public gaze.

We don't see how they behave to each other on public occasions a lot of the time because they have already met up before we see them as well so again can't judge.

At the Closing Ceremony of the Olympics Harry took precedence because he was officially representing The Queen and thus took her position.

Other times we see them William and Harry are usually with their father when their uncles are also present and so take their precedence from being their father's sons.

We don't tend to see them with at an official function with just say Andrew or Edward - which is when the precedence would come into effect.
We did see them at a official function without their father but with their uncles present. Remembrance Day 2013. Charles was in India. The wreath laying went Queen, Philip,Harry who was standing in for his dad, William, Andrew, Edward, Anne....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2416  
Old 03-27-2014, 03:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Harry was there 'representing Charles' and so took Charles' precedence and as Harry took Charles' precedence William took his precedence from being Charles' son, as if Charles was there.

Had neither William nor Harry been there representing Charles then Charles' position in the precedence would have been removed and we would have seen things differently but with Harry representing Charles they both took their precedence as if they were with Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2417  
Old 03-27-2014, 08:25 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 233
Quote:
We don't tend to see them with at an official function with just say Andrew or Edward - which is when the precedence would come into effect.
I remember a couple of years ago – and can't remember the context but it was an official thing, when Prince Edward and Sophie sat next to the Queen, and William and Kate were to the side (Prince Charles was not there).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2418  
Old 03-28-2014, 10:51 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Harry was there 'representing Charles' and so took Charles' precedence and as Harry took Charles' precedence William took his precedence from being Charles' son, as if Charles was there.

Had neither William nor Harry been there representing Charles then Charles' position in the precedence would have been removed and we would have seen things differently but with Harry representing Charles they both took their precedence as if they were with Charles.
Thank you Iluvbertie - I would nave never thought of this.
The image of having a discussion with my brother to get precedence straight before we enter a function is inconceivable.
__________________
“The two important things I did learn were that you are as powerful and strong as you allow yourself to be, and that the most difficult part of any endeavor is taking the first step, making the first decision"Robyn Davidson
Reply With Quote
  #2419  
Old 03-30-2014, 12:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The Dukedom will one day pass down to James, and then to his children, and so on.

The thing with royal dukedoms is that unless they're granted to the heir or the heir's heir then they're expected to one day cease to be royal. Currently, the heir apparents to the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester are not royals, meaning when the current dukes die they will cease to be royal dukedoms.

This will also happen with the Dukedom of Edinburgh. It will be a royal dukedom under Edward, a quasi-royal dukedom under James (likely he will not receive any CC recognition for his activities), and then will cease to be a royal dukedom at all with James' son. The organizations connected with the dukedom will continue, but will cease to have their royal connections (unless they take on a royal patron, which I could see as being likely).
They will always be "of the blood royal" even when the holder is not HRH as they were originally created for sons of The Sovereign (or in Philip's case for the future consort of a Sovereign) and passed in the male-line to his descendants. When and if they cease to be extant, they are only recreated for members of the royal family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2420  
Old 03-30-2014, 01:12 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 53
It's a hereditary title, so it'll pass to James, in the same way that the present Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are fairly minor royals. It somehow hadn't been an issue for years before then, because titles kept dying out - the previous Duke of Edinburgh (Queen Victoria's son Alfred) had no surviving sons, his brother the Duke of Connaught had no grandsons in the male line, and the various Hanoverian dukes kept failing to produce sons by recognised wives. There've been loads of Dukes of York but they've all either become king or had no surviving sons. I can't see James becoming a full-time working royal because of the title, though.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman palace pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 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]