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
 
  #2801  
Old 11-25-2015, 08:57 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 341
I wonder that King George never made his daughter (now Elizabeth II) Princess of Wales, as the heir of a monarch. Certainly when he first became King she was too young and there was a possibility of another child being born to K George (Bertie) and Q Elizabeth; at that time a boy would have superseded his sister. But as the years went on and Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret became adults, why did Princess Elizabeth not become Princess of Wales? I don't recall reading anything about this anywhere.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2802  
Old 11-25-2015, 09:05 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
I suspect it never entered Elizabeth's father's mind.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2803  
Old 11-25-2015, 10:13 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
I wonder that King George never made his daughter (now Elizabeth II) Princess of Wales, as the heir of a monarch. Certainly when he first became King she was too young and there was a possibility of another child being born to K George (Bertie) and Q Elizabeth; at that time a boy would have superseded his sister. But as the years went on and Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret became adults, why did Princess Elizabeth not become Princess of Wales? I don't recall reading anything about this anywhere.

It was discussed but ultimately the King decided against it because the title Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales, and not a substantial title in its own right.

I'm fairly certain that it was accepted that Elizabeth would become Queen, and that there would be no male heir - or any further children for that matter. Elizabeth was 10 when her father became King, Margaret 6. I believe both were born via Caesarian, so I wouldn't be surprised if after Margaret's birth they tried to not have further children.
Reply With Quote
  #2804  
Old 11-25-2015, 10:25 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
It was discussed but ultimately the King decided against it because the title Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales, and not a substantial title in its own right.
I'm surprised that it was even discussed, for the very reason that Princess of Wales is a courtesy title for the PoW's wife. Do you have a reference for those discussions, Ish? I'd like to know when they took place, and with whom. Though unlikely, it was always possible that Queen Elizabeth would die and George would marry again and have a son.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2805  
Old 11-25-2015, 11:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,188
There may well have been a chance, if only a minute one, that the Queen could have become pregnant again and given birth to a boy after Margaret in spite of the difficulties in giving birth. That minuscule chance remained right up until the king's death, didn't it, as far as we know?

Anyway, surely, as Elizabeth was a princess by birth, giving her a courtesy title such as Princess of Wales (which would be of a lower 'status') wouldn't make sense. Also, when she married her husband could hardly have become Prince of Wales!
Reply With Quote
  #2806  
Old 11-25-2015, 11:52 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
I should know better than to comment before checking around a bit, including in my own books. Sir Alan Lascelles' (Private Secretary to King George VI at the time) diaries of 1943 and 1944 mention the issue in some detail, and so does the BBC. BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Royal plans to beat nationalism There was considerable discussion about it in the press and amongst politicians coming up to Princess Elizabeth's 18th birthday. I can't pinpoint whether it was Welsh nationalism that precipitated consideration of the issue, but it seems it may have been, and thus Elizabeth was being considered as a handy political pawn.

Lascelles' view was that constitutionally the remote contingencies, of the King & Queen having a son or the Queen dying and the King remarrying and having a son, could not be rejected as negligible, and on 27 September 1943 he informed The Times' editor, Robin Barrington-Ward, that, should there be a serious demand for making Elizabeth Princess of Wales, he would be safe in reminding his readers that she was, after all, only Heiress Presumptive, not Apparent, and to let them draw their own conclusions.

Lascelles commented on the issue further on 8 January 1944 in connection with correspondence received on the subject, and which he sent on to the King. He thought there would be a lot of talk about it in the following four months and expected it to be brought up in the House of Commons, the Commons having the right to approach the Sovereign on the subject, citing the example of the petition by them to Edward III in 1376 to make Richard of Bordeaux Prince of Wales. On 13.1.44, Their Majesties consented to Lascelles writing to the Lord Chancellor to draft a press announcement that the King did not propose to change Princess Elizabeth's style and title for the present. There had apparently been a "spate" of "press comment and general chatter" on the subject and Lascelles thought it a good idea to nip it in the bud.

As an aside, I find it interesting that at this point Lascelles noted, "It is so much easier to do this before the waters have started to rise than to bury your head in the sand, and trust that the flood won't incommode you, which is the usual technique of the Royal Family in the face of such threatened agitations".

On 27th January Cabinet was discussing the matter and came to the conclusion that if anyone was going to make an announcement on the subject if should be the Home Office, not Buckingham Palace. Lascelles did not care which one did it, noting "my motive throughout is to get somebody to make some decision before an undignified controversy erupts in Parliament and Press. But I suspect that some of the Cabinet rather favour her being made Princess of Wales - possibly the PM himself, whose pictorial imagination is no doubt fired by a vision of Princess Elizabeth looking charming on the steps of Carnarvon Castle, and blushingly acknowledging the loyal acclamations of a pan-Welsh Eisteddfod. That, of course, is all very nice; but I doubt if any of them have really thought out the full implications of such a step - particularly what I described in a letter to John Martin (Lord Chancellor) as the physiological contingencies".

On 2nd February Lascelles described events at a luncheon that day, and noted that Churchill had dissuaded the King from making any definite pronouncement to the effect he didn't propose to change Elizabeth's title, preferring to leave it to Brendan Bracken (Minister for Information) to "damp down" any Press publicity about it. Lascelles was disappointed, calling it a reversion to "ostrich" tactics, "which won't stop the Welsh going on being troublesome, nor private individuals from writing foolish letters". Making Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales was very appealing to some politicians as "bait to catch Welsh votes".

It is noteworthy that that evening Lascelles joined the King for dinner with the PM, three Chiefs of Staff, General Eisenhower, Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, General Omar Bradley, and Field-Marshall Montgomery. There were, after all, a few other things going on in Europe at the time, particularly plans for something that would eventually take place on the 6th June!

9th February 1944 Cabinet discussed the announcement to be made about Elizabeth and it was agreed it would be made from BP, not No. 10, and on 10th February Cabinet "made no bones about the Princess Elizabeth announcement (that there be no change), and, having cabled it to the four Governors-General, I hope to get the wretched thing published here on Saturday", which it was.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2807  
Old 11-26-2015, 12:08 AM
EllieCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 341
Re Princess Elizabeth and The Princess of Wales title.

Thanks, Ish and Roslyn, especially Roslyn for the detailed reply which was very interesting indeed. Titles and Styles can be so tricky...
Reply With Quote
  #2808  
Old 11-26-2015, 12:08 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Roslyn, just to add to your comments Wikipedia references Ben Pimlott's biography of the Queen on the issue and does link it to Welsh nationalism; essentially during the war there was a rising in Welsh nationalism resulting in a desire to more closely affiliate her with Wales - initially it was suggested that she become Constable of Caernarfon Castle of patron of Udd Gobaith Cymru, then it was suggested she become Princess of Wales by Welsh politicians on her 18th birthday (at which point her father would have been 49, her mother 44), but it was rejected.
Reply With Quote
  #2809  
Old 11-26-2015, 12:20 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Thanks for that, Ish. It's quite an interesting subject, which so many historical decisions are when you look into them and consider them in conjunction with what else was happening in society at the time. So many factors can be in play and influence decisions, and those factors vary with the circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Anyway, surely, as Elizabeth was a princess by birth, giving her a courtesy title such as Princess of Wales (which would be of a lower 'status') wouldn't make sense. Also, when she married her husband could hardly have become Prince of Wales!
But Princess of Wales is only a courtesy title in the hands of the wife of the Prince of Wales. The proposal under consideration was to make Elizabeth the female equivalent of Prince of Wales, as a substantive title. Her husband didn't become a prince by reason of marrying her, but because he was created one, and that wasn't until 1957, and he certainly didn't become King when she became Queen.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2810  
Old 12-13-2015, 07:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
Going on the precedence established by Princess Alexandra - the last princess who was also the granddaughter of a monarch to marry - there would be no title for either of the husband's of Beatrice or Eugenie. Alexandra's husband wasn't given a title when they married.


Since then Anne, the daughter of a monarch, has married twice with neither husband being given a title, although there were reports that Mark was offered a title which he and/or Anne turned down.


The Duke of York title won't merge with the Crown, unless Andrew ends up as king. It will become extinct on his death unless there is either a change in the legislation to allow for daughters to inherit titles or for the Queen to issue new LPs to allow for female heirs to be able to inherit when there are no male heirs.
Reply With Quote
  #2811  
Old 12-13-2015, 07:16 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Going on the precedence established by Princess Alexandra - the last princess who was also the granddaughter of a monarch to marry - there would be no title for either of the husband's of Beatrice or Eugenie. Alexandra's husband wasn't given a title when they married.


Since then Anne, the daughter of a monarch, has married twice with neither husband being given a title, although there were reports that Mark was offered a title which he and/or Anne turned down.


The Duke of York title won't merge with the Crown, unless Andrew ends up as king. It will become extinct on his death unless there is either a change in the legislation to allow for daughters to inherit titles or for the Queen to issue new LPs to allow for female heirs to be able to inherit when there are no male heirs.
I can't see this happening, at least during the timeframe that would affect Beatrice. Do you see a different likelihood?
Reply With Quote
  #2812  
Old 12-13-2015, 08:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
The Duke of York title will go extinct. Parliament won't change the remainder and no new title will be issued.

Even the Cambridge dukedom just issued in the 'progressive' year of 2011 stated 'heirs male' only. No girls allowed.

As for Dave himself getting a title when he marries Bea, not going to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #2813  
Old 12-13-2015, 05:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
I can't see this happening, at least during the timeframe that would affect Beatrice. Do you see a different likelihood?
I can see a change in the legislation to make all titles gender blind - which would allow Beatrice to inherit her father's title. Andrew is only 55 and given the longevity of his parents a good chance to live for another 30+ years. That therefore could happen within the timeframe to make it relevant to Beatrice. The issue comes up every so often and, I suspect will continue to do so, until either the daughters who are passed over for younger brothers get the legislation changed, as it has already changed for the monarchy itself, or the entire system of titles is abolished.

Would the Queen issue new LPs? Personally I don't think so but then again Andrew is reportedly her favourite child and maybe he can convince her to issue those LPs - say as a wedding gift for Beatrice
Reply With Quote
  #2814  
Old 12-13-2015, 06:08 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,328
If you change it for Bea and then wouldn't you have to change it for Louise so she not her brother inherits her father title.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2815  
Old 12-13-2015, 07:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
Changes to the Succession is different from peerages. Succession has always been governed by parliament. Honours have always been the prerogative of the Sovereign.

There's never been anything to stop the Queen creating peerages with the remainder of 'heirs of the body' or even 'heirs general' as opposed to 'heirs male'

William's dukedom was 'heirs male' even with the proposed changes to the Act of Succession. The Prime Minister didn't force her to do otherwise.

If parliament were to force all existing remainders to peerages to be altered, it would be an extraordinary thing. Personally I don't see it happening.
Reply With Quote
  #2816  
Old 12-13-2015, 07:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
If you change it for Bea and then wouldn't you have to change it for Louise so she not her brother inherits her father title.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
That's a very good point. It wouldn't be fair to Louise.
Reply With Quote
  #2817  
Old 12-13-2015, 07:43 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
If you change it for Bea and then wouldn't you have to change it for Louise so she not her brother inherits her father title.
If the "Succession to Peerages Bill" currently before Parliament were to pass through both Houses and become law, males would still have priority as, within each group of siblings, males in order of birth and their issue succeed before females. So James would still take Wessex and Louise would only inherit if James predeceased her without issue. In the case of Beatrice and Eugenie, they are both girls so that provision is not relevant; Beatrice would inherit, provided Andrew does not remarry and have a son.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2818  
Old 12-13-2015, 08:02 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,328
Well that isn't fair either. If you are going to change, make it gender neutral and oldest inherits like they did for the succession.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2819  
Old 12-13-2015, 08:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 963
That's silly. If they're going to change it from the "salic law" model, they might as well make it equal primogeniture. What's the point of a half-ass, male-cognatic model. By changing the current system you're acknowledging that there is discrimination, and yet you're not giving it a fair solution. At least by supporting the current system you can defend it on the basis of history and tradition. It should be all or nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #2820  
Old 12-13-2015, 08:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
As of today there is no act governing the remainder of peerages. Nothing is to stop the Queen from creating a title with whatever remainder she likes.

Honours have always been granted by royal prerogative. Once a peerage has been created, it can only be altered by parliament but this is different from the creating of a title.
__________________

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 outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's eveningwear coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish royal family duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jean 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 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess madeleine hats 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 fashion 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 spanish queen 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 10:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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