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
 
  #2761  
Old 11-22-2015, 04:58 PM
Tilia C.'s Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: O, Germany
Posts: 4,421
To my knowledge usually only the second highest title is used as courtesy title.

Forgive my ignorence: is Earl of Merioneth the second titel of the DoE? If so, after the title merges with the crown and can be re-issued to someone else: Is that really done in the same combination of titles? Eg. does the current Duke of Cambridge have the same combination of titles as the previous DoCa?
__________________

__________________
Please vote in our TRF Fashion Polls


Reply With Quote
  #2762  
Old 11-22-2015, 05:18 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilia C. View Post
To my knowledge usually only the second highest title is used as courtesy title.

Forgive my ignorence: is Earl of Merioneth the second titel of the DoE? If so, after the title merges with the crown and can be re-issued to someone else: Is that really done in the same combination of titles? Eg. does the current Duke of Cambridge have the same combination of titles as the previous DoCa?
Yes Earl of Merioneth is the second title of Prince Philip and Baron Greenwhich.
Butu usually it is not the same combination of titles that is used so it could be that Edweard is only created Duke of edinburgh in addition to his other Titles.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2763  
Old 11-22-2015, 05:22 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy T View Post
Another question regarding the titles of Prince Edward's children in the future.
The story so far:
Edward has been created Earl of Wessex and his son, James, as per tradition, uses one Edward's "secondary" title, "Viscount Severn" as a courtesy title.
The future:
When Edward is eventually created Duke of Edinburgh, he'll possibly have another secondary title a well. For argument's sake, let's imagine it's "Earl of Merioneth" like his father.

Edward will thus have 4 titles in total : a dukedom (Edinburgh), two earldoms (Wessex & Merioneth) and a viscountcy (Severn).

In this case, would James take both the secondary titles (Earl of Merioneth, Viscount Severn) as courtesy titles?
Those subsidiary titles go with the current creation. When the current dukedom merges with the crown a new creation will probably only be issued with one title. Edward will keep his current earldom.


Another thing to remember is being a HRH and prince carries with it no legal entitlements. The only 'advantage' is you can called yourself a prince. It doesn't change precedence or line of succession.

Prince Harry has no more legal standing than Peter Philips.

So the argument the Wessex children are 'legally' prince/ss is meaningless.

British courts don't rule on how the prerogative is implemented only whether the prerogative exists

In the case of royal styles and titles the prerogative clearly exists. How the Queen chooses to style members of her family is her business. Parliament has not legislated on this matter and the often quoted Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without the advice of government.

So if the Queen says the children of the Earl of Wessex are to be styled as the children of a non-royal earl then that's it.
Reply With Quote
  #2764  
Old 11-22-2015, 05:24 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
In 1999, the Buckingham Palace announce that Edward's future children would be styled as children of an Earl and when the time comes Edward will be made Duke of Edinburgh.

In 2011, in a bid for equal rights, it was unanimously adopted amending the rules on the succession so that absolute primogeniture would apply rather than male preference primogeniture.

In 2012, The Queen issued Letters Patent stating that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the title Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness.

If Charles becomes King in 2020 and follows his mother's request, is that not going backwards and giving a son something that a daughter is not receiving?

Does that not continue the male preference?

How can Charles turn around and grant Edward a Dukedom without granting his sister Princess Anne a Dukedom?

What happened in 2011 & 2012 should invalidate what was said in 1999.
Reply With Quote
  #2765  
Old 11-22-2015, 05:37 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
In 1999, the Buckingham Palace announce that Edward's future children would be styled as children of an Earl and when the time comes Edward will be made Duke of Edinburgh.

In 2011, in a bid for equal rights, it was unanimously adopted amending the rules on the succession so that absolute primogeniture would apply rather than male preference primogeniture,

In 2012, The Queen issued Letters Patent stating that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the title Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness.

If Charles becomes King in 2020 and follows his mother's request, is that not going backwards and giving a son something that a daughter is not receiving?

Does that not continue the male preference?

How can Charles turn around and grant Edward a Dukedom without granting his sister Princess Anne a Dukedom?

What happened in 2011 & 2012 should invalidate what was said in 1999?
As far as I recollect, the amendment to allow equal primogeniture in the line of succession was something that Parliament and governments in the Commonwealth had to agree to and ratify. This applies only to the line of succession and does not apply whatsoever to peerages.

Two totally different things.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2766  
Old 11-22-2015, 05:40 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
It would be a major backward step if Charles gave Edward a dukedom but not Anne.
Reply With Quote
  #2767  
Old 11-22-2015, 05:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
It would be a major backward step if Charles gave Edward a dukedom but not Anne.
I would be a major first ever event if he did. I'd also bet my last piece of pumpkin pie that Anne would decline any such offer of a dukedom. As I mentioned earlier, equal primogeniture does not affect peerages at this time but there are a few that have special remainders as far as the inheritance of a peerage goes.

Most peerages created these days too are lifetime peerages that do not pass down through the family.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2768  
Old 11-22-2015, 06:15 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,347
The changes to rules of accession only starts with the Cambridge children and kids born afterwards. It doesn't retroactive change Anne to Andrew's spot. Plus Anne already has an extra title in Princess Royal.

William's dukedom is only inheritable by male heirs. If the Queen was super concerned about gender equality. She could have made it so daughters could inherit the Dukedom but she didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2769  
Old 11-22-2015, 06:17 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
It would be a major backward step if Charles gave Edward a dukedom but not Anne.

You're being absurd.

It has been British royal custom that upon marriage the sons of the monarch or the heir apparent are given a dukedom, while the husbands-to-be of daughters who don't have their own titles are given a peerage (which has typically become an earldom).

It is valid to say that this is sexist. It is valid to say that this should be remedied. It is ridiculous to say that this should be retroactively remedied to Anne without actually considering Anne (especially since the changes to the succession weren't nearly that retroactive).

When Anne married in 1973 her husband was offered a peerage. It was declined. When Anne was pregnant in 1977 her mother offered to grant her child titles, but that was declined. We don't have reason to believe that any title was offered when Anne married again in 1992, but if one was offered it was also declined. Anne and her family do not want to have a peerage. Her children have benefited from not having titles and neither want nor need them.

When Edward married it was decided that instead of going the usual Dukedom route he would be given a lesser title with the understanding that one day he would be given his father's title. It's rather a different situation. To go back and not grant that title would make Charles look bad. To force a title that she clearly doesn't want on his sister just in the interest of equality would make him a bit of a word that will get censored if I type it and really would have nothing to do with equality.

One day, when Charlotte gets married she should be given a dukedom - her own, not her husbands. When she has children they should have royal titles accorded to them as the grandchildren of a monarch, just as her brother's children will. Not doing so then would be continuing sexism, but changing things to alter Anne or her children's titles at this point is just silly.
Reply With Quote
  #2770  
Old 11-22-2015, 06:19 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The changes to rules of accession only starts with the Cambridge children and kids born afterwards. It doesn't retroactive change Anne to Andrew's spot. Plus Anne already has an extra title in Princess Royal.

William's dukedom is only inheritable by male heirs. If the Queen was super concerned about gender equality. She could have made it so daughters could inherit the Dukedom but she didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The changes to the succession apply to all children born after 2011, not just William's. It was retroactive for several children, but they were all that - children.
Reply With Quote
  #2771  
Old 11-22-2015, 06:36 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,205
The discussion of boys overtaking girls came up initially when James was born in 2007 and he leapfrogged his sister Louise. That of course was discussed and it was seen as unfair to his sister who was pushed out of the way for her brother, but in reality it didn't really matter as they would never be the Monarch. I don't think it was really ever discussed in depth until William married and there was the possibility he might have a daughter first who would unfairly be placed after her brother.

With regards to Edward's title and it not being "fair" to not give Anne one - women just simply are not given Dukedom's in their own right. I also don't think Anne would accept it. Edward was made an Earl on his wedding day because he was always going to be made Duke of Edinburgh in future and to give him two Dukedom's would have been unnecessary.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #2772  
Old 11-22-2015, 06:40 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,347
Thanks. I couldn't remember exactly far it went back to. I knew it covered George. Savannah and Isla were both girls and Mia doesn't have a sibling so they don't change. Any Gloucester or Kent grandkids really doesn't matter since they are so far down any ways.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2773  
Old 11-22-2015, 06:47 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,447
One of the reasons people have always given me for why it is better to be a Duke than a Prince is that a Dukedom often comes with a source of income.

It works for Charles, but do we know what/any income comes from York to Andy? I have no memory of ever reading about that. If so, please enlighten me. But I have read that the Queen is picking up his tab. And does Phillip have an income from Edinburgh? (I'm thinking not).
Which reduces the value of a Duchy literally. More so if it comes with a historic pile of bricks that is falling apart with no income to fix the place up.
Anne, on the other hand may not be a Duke but owns/was given a tidy pile that she runs (I assume) as a self sustaining horse farm. Which is what I've always assumed was Anne's dream job anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #2774  
Old 11-22-2015, 07:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,196
1. The topic of changing the succession to first born regardless of gender was discussed when Diana was pregnant with William. Once he was a boy it was put on the backburner for another generation.


2. Despite the Succession to the Crown Act The Queen still only made William's title male only succession - which could theoretically see it pass outside the monarch e.g. William dies, George inherits, has a daughter than a son and then George dies - son inherits Cambridge and daughter inherits throne. Clearly The Queen saw no need to worry about the line of succession to the Cambridge title for inheritance purposes and she has only created male line successors for her other sons as well.


3. There is no money associated with either the York, Edinburgh, Kent, Gloucester or Cambridge titles. The main reason for giving these titles to the sons was, historically, to prevent them from standing for election to the House of Commons. As Princes of the Realm they were commoners and so eligible to stand but as Peer of the Realm they had seats in the House of Lords (no longer of course). Dukedoms haven't come with money or lands since the middle ages except for Lancaster and Cornwall - and these titles are automatic and not inherited or created. The monarch holds Lancaster while Cornwall is held by the heir apparent who is also the eldest son of the monarch (as the laws around Cornwall currently stand IF Charles were to predecease The Queen, William would not become Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay in Scotland but he could still be created Prince of Wales - he also wouldn't be eligible for the income of the Duchy). There has been talk of amending these laws to make the qualification only the 'heir/heiress apparent' but until the need arises I suspect they will just wait it out. Other non-royal dukes were usually already the holders of large estates or were given large estates by the crown to support them in an appropriate style e.g. Marlborough and Wellington.
Reply With Quote
  #2775  
Old 11-22-2015, 07:58 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 343
Quote:
With regards to Edward's title and it not being "fair" to not give Anne one - women just simply are not given Dukedom's in their own right.
There was Princess Alexandra, wife of Prince Arthur of Connaught, who was The Duchess of Fife in her own right; she succeeded her father.
Reply With Quote
  #2776  
Old 11-22-2015, 08:10 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
The discussion of boys overtaking girls came up initially when James was born in 2007 and he leapfrogged his sister Louise. That of course was discussed and it was seen as unfair to his sister who was pushed out of the way for her brother, but in reality it didn't really matter as they would never be the Monarch. I don't think it was really ever discussed in depth until William married and there was the possibility he might have a daughter first who would unfairly be placed after her brother.

With regards to Edward's title and it not being "fair" to not give Anne one - women just simply are not given Dukedom's in their own right. I also don't think Anne would accept it. Edward was made an Earl on his wedding day because he was always going to be made Duke of Edinburgh in future and to give him two Dukedom's would have been unnecessary.

There have been British Duchesses in their own right in the past. Barbara Villiers is one such woman - a mistress of Charles II, she was created Duchess of Cleveland in her own right.

There haven't been many female peers in the past owing to most successions only passing to men. However, I believe this is something that has been debated and there was or is an attempt by Parliament to remedy that. The Queen can't do anything (other than making new hereditary peerages gender equal, which she's not done) to change the situation for existing peerages as only Parliament has that power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Thanks. I couldn't remember exactly far it went back to. I knew it covered George. Savannah and Isla were both girls and Mia doesn't have a sibling so they don't change. Any Gloucester or Kent grandkids really doesn't matter since they are so far down any ways.

I believe one of the Kent grandchildren is the first person whose place in the succession was changed because of it. I could be wrong about that. The way they did it always struck me as a little odd; it's retroactive to when they decided to make the changes (2011), but by choosing that date they didn't really change the succession for anyone hire up in it - of the Queen's descendants, Anne and her descendants are displaced by Andrew, Edward, and their descendants and Louise is displaced by James. I understand why it wouldn't be changed to allow for Anne (it's silly to make it retroactive by a good 50 years, especially given the huge size of the succession), but I still find it odd that they didn't date it to before Louise's birth.
Reply With Quote
  #2777  
Old 11-22-2015, 08:52 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,347
The odds of the throne ever getting to Louise and James is very slim so they probably weren't too concerned about going back that far. They just had to get William's children covered since the throne goes through William's line.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2778  
Old 11-22-2015, 11:30 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post

I believe one of the Kent grandchildren is the first person whose place in the succession was changed because of it. I could be wrong about that. The way they did it always struck me as a little odd; it's retroactive to when they decided to make the changes (2011), but by choosing that date they didn't really change the succession for anyone hire up in it - of the Queen's descendants, Anne and her descendants are displaced by Andrew, Edward, and their descendants and Louise is displaced by James. I understand why it wouldn't be changed to allow for Anne (it's silly to make it retroactive by a good 50 years, especially given the huge size of the succession), but I still find it odd that they didn't date it to before Louise's birth.
The highest-ranked persons truly affected by the new rules were two grandsons of The Duke of Gloucester, Rufus Gilman (b 1 Nov 2012) and Tane Mahuta Lewis (b 25 May 2012.) They were ahead of their older sisters in line at their births, but "demoted" when the law took full effect in March 2015 as the first ones born after 28 October 2011 as stated in the Act who had older sisters. The powers-that-be chose the October 2011 date so as not to change the positions of anyone then living - even though it would not fully pass until 2015. What's often forgotten is that the Earl of St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent got their places back in that same Act, having previously been disqualified because they married Catholics.
Reply With Quote
  #2779  
Old 11-23-2015, 12:21 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
You're being absurd.

It has been British royal custom that upon marriage the sons of the monarch or the heir apparent are given a dukedom, while the husbands-to-be of daughters who don't have their own titles are given a peerage (which has typically become an earldom).

It is valid to say that this is sexist. It is valid to say that this should be remedied. I

When Edward married it was decided that instead of going the usual Dukedom route he would be given a lesser title with the understanding that one day he would be given his father's title. It's rather a different situation. To go back and not grant that title would make Charles look bad.

One day, when Charlotte gets married she should be given a dukedom - her own, not her husbands. When she has children they should have royal titles accorded to them as the grandchildren of a monarch, just as her brother's children will. Not doing so then would be continuing sexism, but changing things to alter Anne or her children's titles at this point is just silly.
No not absurd just realistic.

You are saying that Edward should receive something because it was promised to him before they changed the rules.

You are suggesting they continue the sexist policy but change it for Charlotte.

I am saying that Edward should not receive the title because Anne would not be given a title.

Going forward males and females should be treated equally.

If Edward did not receive the dukedom in 1999, he cannot receive it after 2011/2012/2015.

The same for Harry. He does not have it now so he should not be given a dukedom. (Or are you suggesting the sexist policy should continue for Harry?)

If going forward Beatrice or Eugenie will not receive a dukedom nor inherit a dukedom, neither should Harry nor Charlotte.

I originally thought Charlotte should receive a dukedom but changed my mind.
Why should Charlotte be handed a dukedom if Beatrice cannot inherit a dukedom?

IMO, dukedoms should cease to be passed out, except to the monarch & heir.

Their purpose has been reduced. They also suggest sexism.

Going forward the title of Duke Cambridge should not pass to George.

If Harry nor Edward receives a dukedom then no one except the usual
anti-Charles brigade would complain.
Reply With Quote
  #2780  
Old 11-23-2015, 12:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
There have been British Duchesses in their own right in the past. Barbara Villiers is one such woman - a mistress of Charles II, she was created Duchess of Cleveland in her own right.

There haven't been many female peers in the past owing to most successions only passing to men. However, I believe this is something that has been debated and there was or is an attempt by Parliament to remedy that. The Queen can't do anything (other than making new hereditary peerages gender equal, which she's not done) to change the situation for existing peerages as only Parliament has that power.

The Queen could issue new LPs to recreate the titles so that if there is no male heir then heirs female could inherit but she can't unilaterally change the succession to titles or allow for first born to titles already existing.

The fact that she didn't issue the Cambridge title with any other than the standard 'heirs male' suggests that she really doesn't approve of the changes but, as a constitutional monarch, accepts the will of her various parliaments.
__________________

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 1353 11-17-2016 02:00 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 38 09-17-2016 06:06 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 749 06-29-2016 07:02 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 05:24 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best holiday outfit best outfit catherine middleton style corbyn countess of wessex's style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria daytime fashion current events denmark royals duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 october november 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises