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
 
  #261  
Old 01-26-2007, 11:06 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem
Catherine Parr remained Queen Catherine after her divorce and remarriage to Lord Seymour of Sudeley.
Catherine Parr was never divorced! She married Seymour after the death of Henry VIII. She had been widowed at least twice prior to her marriage to Henry.
__________________

__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 01-27-2007, 01:34 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
I would imagine entertaining/meeting foreign dignataries and visiting royals constitutes a bulk of it. "Court" itself refers to the royal retinue, consisting of people like the ladies-in-waiting, chamberlains and stewards.
"The Court" may otherwise be known as the Royal Household, with the traditional positions such as Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, Treasurer, Comptroller, Gold Stick, Mistress of the Robes, Ladies of the Bedchamber, Equerries etc etc, and the more contemporary Private Secretaries, Press Secretaries, various advisers, political, religious and military aides, and the administrative officers that keep the whole thing running smoothly.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 01-27-2007, 07:14 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
The succession to the throne rests with Parliament and can be modified at any time and for any reason. While Diana's constitutional position as the wife of the heir to the throne was unaffected, the consensus was she could not possibly be crowned Queen Consort if she did not wish to remain the true wife of the King.
You have been asked for links to show this 'consensus' and have failed to do so.

Everything I have read about that time says the opposite - namely that no one raised that issue at all - even up to the divorce the understanding was that she would have been Queen, and like Queen Caroline before here could have claimed the right to be crowned - George IV had to lock the Abbey to stop her entering on coronation day.

Again - please provide links to support your suggestion - I have googled for statements dated 10th, 11th, 12th December (your original post said the next day) and no mention of this claim has appeared.

Quote:
Whether this would have actually affected her position as Queen or not is a moot question. Once legally separated, Diana and Charles were already on the road to an inevitable divorce.
They both made it clear in 1992 that they didn't want a divorce but that doesn't change the fact that until 1996 they were still married and therefore Diana would have been Queen had Charles succeeded.

Quote:
The question of Camilla's status and title as the wife of the King is clear in law and practice. She is not legally separated under British law and is in line to become Queen in due course.
Yes, but my point was that you suggested that Diana's status changed from equal wife to unequal wife after the separation.

People are suggesting that Camilla should be treated as an unequal wife and not take the title Queen Consort. In 1936 the Parliament told the king that Britain couldn't have a morganatically married wife - or another way of saying it was the King couldn't have an unequal wife.

Yet this is what you are suggesting happened sometime after the separation - that Charles and Diana were no longer in an equal marriage. If that is the case (and I don't agree) then the argument that Charles and Camilla can't be morganitically married falls down - as according to you Parliament, or at least the government, has made a statement stating that the marriage of the heir to the throne was for a time an unequal marriage.

Again I will ask for links to show this consensus you talk about.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 01-27-2007, 10:19 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Legally, Diana remained HRH The Princess of Wales until her divorce was finalized in August 1996 and in line to become Queen Consort. Whether she in fact would have been crowned as such if The Queen had died before their marriage was legally dissolved is an open question. It has nothing to do with being a morganatic wife or the situation facing Camilla with The Princess Consort nonsense.

There has never been a morganatic marriage for The King and the 1936 precedents make it clear the wife of the King is Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 01-27-2007, 10:28 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,478
I think Chrissy is trying to get some substantiation of this point, made in post #245:
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
the Commons made clear the next day she could not become Queen if separated from Prince Charles.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 02-26-2007, 02:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 67
Commoner, Aristocrat, Noble

I would like to know where each member of the British royal family fall when it comes to being categorize as a commoner, aristocrat, or a noble. Of course starting with the Queen and ending with the Kents and their family. I will also assume that individuals might fall into more than one categories.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 02-26-2007, 02:42 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
I'm not sure how you distinguish aristocrat from noble, a title? I think aristocrat is an informal definition.

Every one with a HRH in front of their name is a royal and the Queen as HM is the head of the royal house of Windsor.

The heirs to the Royal Dukes I guess would be considered part of the nobility (Earl of St. Andrew, etc.)

Princess Margaret's son, Viscount Linley, as heir of the Earl of Snowdon would be a noble too.

As far as the rest, I guess you could call them aristocrats or commoners.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 02-26-2007, 11:48 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,262
Officially, anyone who doesn't hold a peerage title (i.e. any of the Queen's grandchildren, the Princess Royal, Prince Michael of Kent, etc.) is a commoner, but this is definitely not how the word works in popular culture. This definition as also been blurred by the House of Lords Act, 1999, by which hereditary peers are excluded from the House of Lords, and may run for seats in the House of Commons and vote in elections.

The following would be considered of noble rank in the royal family:

The Duke of Edinburgh
The Prince of Wales
The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex
The Earl of Snowdon
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent

Their wives are included in that, where applicable. The Queen is also not a commoner. Viscount Linley is considered a commoner (and until 1999, could vote in elections, run for a seat in the House of Commons), as his title is a courtesy title, not a substantive title.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 02-27-2007, 02:54 AM
HRH Kimetha's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arlington, United States
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson
The Queen is also not a commoner. Viscount Linley is considered a commoner (and until 1999, could vote in elections, run for a seat in the House of Commons), as his title is a courtesy title, not a substantive title.
What happened in 1999 that he could not vote in the elections?

I thought that his title was because he was a royal. Why is a courtesy title? Because his father was a commoner when he married Margaret?
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 02-27-2007, 04:47 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH Kimetha
What happened in 1999 that he could not vote in the elections?

I thought that his title was because he was a royal. Why is a courtesy title? Because his father was a commoner when he married Margaret?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. He could vote in elections before 1999, and can also vote in elections after 1999. He wasn't a peer before 1999, when it became possible for many peers to vote.

He is able to use the title of "Viscount Linley" as he is the eldest son of the Earl of Snowdon, who is also Viscount Linley. Traditional practice is for the heir to the title to use the second-highest title the current titleholder holds. The heir to the heir would use a 3rd highest title, if one existed. (Sometimes the heir doesn't use the second-highest title of their father (or in rare cases, mother) if the titles are similar (Earl of X and Viscount X, for instance, so that there is no confusion when referring to Lord X). What title is used is often a matter of family tradition.

The son of the Duke of Kent uses the title "Earl of St. Andrews", and the Earl of St. Andrews' son is "Lord Downpatrick" The son of the Duke of Gloucester uses the title "Earl of Ulster." If the Earl of Ulster ever has a son, he will be "Lord Culloden." A son that is a Prince, however, is "Prince Y of X." This is why Prince Charles was "Prince Charles of Edinburgh" after birth, and not "Earl of Merioneth", which is a subsidiary title of Prince Philip. As the Earl of Snowdon only holds one other title (Viscount Linley), Viscount Linley's son is styled as the son of a Viscount ("The Honourable").

The Earl of Snowdon was granted his title a year or so after marrying Princess Margaret, as he was indeed a commoner. Incidentally, he was given a life Barony in 1999 so that he could retain his seat in the House of Lords after Hereditary Peers (all but 90 or so) were excluded from the House.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:25 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 67
Would someone like Lady Helen Windsor be considered a commoner? What exactly is the benefit of being a Lady and a Lord?
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:39 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,262
Lady Helen Windsor would be a commoner. Her style of "Lady" comes from being the daughter of a Duke. "Lord" and "Lady" can be used in 2 ways.

The younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses use the style "Lord Firstname Surname." Their wives are styled "Lady", as are all daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls.

Also, many peers beneath the rank of Duke style themselves "Lord X" (Lord Mountbatten). Barons use it the most frequently. Their wives and peeresses in their own right (Baroness Thatcher, Countess Mountbatten) are also styled "Lady X."

The wife of a Knight is also styled "Lady Surname."
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 02-28-2007, 02:08 AM
HRH Kimetha's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arlington, United States
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson
Sorry, I wasn't very clear... He is able to use the title of "Viscount Linley"...
Thanks for your wonderful explanation and clarity. It cleared up a lot of confusion.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 03-20-2007, 07:38 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M.

But we have seen more of these examples (The Empress Friedrich, Princess Andrew of Greece, Princess Michael of Kent)
Empress Friedrich was more a nick than Victorias official name. She was always Her Majesty, the Empress, later she was informally styled as Her Majesty The Dowager Empress or Her Majesty The Empress Mother or The Empress Friedrich but her official title was still The Empress, so the Friedrich part was added to end confusion.

It has to do that the title of Emperor in Germany was not "Emperor of Germany" but "German Emperor" for the king of Prussia in his position of president of the federation of German countries which had all their own ruler and crowned souverain. So Victoria was HM The German Empress and The Queen of Prussia.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 03-21-2007, 08:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
A woman who marries a prince of the UK shares his rank and title as "Princess Husband's Christian Name" and holds the qualification of Her Royal Highness.

If granted titles in the peerage, the wife is styled after her husband's peerage, rather than her rank as a princess, but they are both by virtue of their marriage.

For example, Katharine is legally HRH Princess Edward, The Duchess of Kent, but styled only as HRH The Duchess of Kent in practice.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 03-22-2007, 08:02 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,478
A reminder that we have a separate thread for the titles of William and Harry and their spouses, here.
v
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 03-24-2007, 03:51 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
This is true as Diana was never granted the right to assume the dignity by the Queen via letters patent. However, the Palace confirmed after the divorce that it was acceptable to refer to Diana as "Princess Diana", although technically she was no longer a princess, as she was the mother of a future king.
I recall also that after her death, The Queen issued something like a statement saying that Diana could be referred to as 'the' Princess of Wales (not sure if it was only lower-case 't' or not) until, of course, Prince Charles remarried.So I suppose from 1997 through 2005, you could write her name as Diana, the Princess of Wales instead of just Diana, Princess of Wales.

I enjoy your posts a lot, branchg. I think you are right. I disagree about your view that only Anglicans can marry into the royal family under the Act of Settlement; after all, as Elspeth pointed out, as long as it doesn't say that specifically, the intent of the act's creation in 1701 is irrelevant now, and in any case, it does only say that Catholics are prohibited. But about the titles of Prince William and Prince Harry after marriage, I think your points make sense. I don't think Prince William will be granted a dukedom at any time before his father's ascension unless Queen Elizabeth decides to follow the precedent of Queen Victoria making her grandson Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Obviously, I don't expect those particular dukedoms to be used, but with that precedent existing, QEII could technically issue a dukedom for her grandson.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 03-24-2007, 04:42 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suonymona
the title actually goes to Charles as the oldest male descendant but there is an "understanding" he will not actually accept it
This is not possible. When a Peer dies, the heir to the peerage needs nothing to confirm, to deny, to accept or to sign, whatever like that.
When the Peer blows out his last breath, his heir automatically has become the new Peer.

This counts for all Peers.

The current Viscount Ingestre will automatically become the 23rd Earl of Shrewsbury when the 23rd Earl dies;
The current Marquess of Worcester will automatically become the 12th Duke of Beaufort when the 11th Duke dies;
The current Earl of Wiltshire will automatically become the 19th Marquess of Winchester when the 18th Marquess dies;
The current Prince of Wales will automatically become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh when the 1st Duke dies.

Neither the Viscount Ingestre, nor the Marquess of Worcester, nor the Earl of Wilthsire nor the Prince of Wales, nor any other heir to a peerage can consider not 'to accept' the peerage.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 03-24-2007, 04:57 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,403
Henri, this makes complete sense, of course, and I am not arguing, but only pointing out some information (as a question) that I was given by Sandy Henney, who was Assistant Press Sec. at the time (1994). Ms. Henney informed me, in discussing the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, those dukedoms would revert back to the Crown after the deaths of the current dukes. Do you or does anyone know if that is so? It always seemed to be as odd, but I took it on authority since I didn't want to question Ms. Henney's knowledge of the scope of her work environment. I brought this up once long ago at alt.talk.royalty and was laughed out, because they could not accept it. So I am asking again, just in case someone here might know.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 03-24-2007, 05:07 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio
in discussing the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, those dukedoms would revert back to the Crown after the deaths of the current dukes.
No, after the death of HRH Prince Edward of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the 2nd Duke of Kent, his son Lord George Windsor, the Earl of St. Andrews will become the 3rd Duke of Kent.

And after the death of HRH Prince Richard of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the 2nd Duke of Gloucester, his son Lord Alexander Windsor, the Earl of Ulster, will become the 3rd Duke of Gloucester.

But as both the Earl of St. Andrews and the Earl of Ulster are no sons or grandsons of a Sovereign, their Dukedom will cease to be a royal dukedom.

Their style will change from a royal dukedom into a normal dukedom with the style 'His Grace the Duke of Kent' / 'His Grace the Duke of Gloucester'.

__________________

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 1115 01-14-2015 03:50 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 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 King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium best outfit brussels carl philip crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion fashion poll funeral germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg maxima nobility official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince henrik princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess madeleine princess mary princess mette-marit princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]