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
 
  #2841  
Old 12-14-2015, 11:44 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,333
It is really a moot point right now because there are 3 males in the top three spots and won't become an issue until George marries which is a bit off since he is two. Also the money goes to monarch when there is no Duke so the heir who isn't the Duke is still taken of care. The monarch basically funds all the working royals except for the ones funded by the Duchy of Cornwall.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2842  
Old 12-14-2015, 11:45 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
You can have a heir apparent who isn't the Duke, but not a Duke who isn't heir apparent.

The title isn't inheritable; in order to be it, you have to be both the heir apparent and the Monarch's eldest son. This should be changed so that the holder of the Duchy is both the heir apparent and the monarch's eldest child, but as it stands now the funds from it are always going to go either to the heir apparent or to the monarch - never to the monarch's second child who is further down the line of succession.
I think it should go to the heir apparent. Period. Even in your scenario if Charles were to die before The Queen, William couldn't get the Duchy directly because he's her grandchild.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2843  
Old 12-15-2015, 12:42 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
I think it should go to the heir apparent. Period. Even in your scenario if Charles were to die before The Queen, William couldn't get the Duchy directly because he's her grandchild.
I agree. I prefer the idea that the heir - whoever it is - has control of the assets/money, and that it doesn't revert to the monarch on the occasions where the monarch's eldest son/child is not the heir apparent, as in the example you cite.

I think it's preferable for there to be some distance between the two purses and not have the monarch in control of it all. I also think it's better for the heir to have the independence and the experience of managing the Duchy anyway.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2844  
Old 12-15-2015, 08:47 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,333
Questions about British Styles and Titles

It's been that way since the 1300s. There have been several times that the first in line wasn't the Duke of Cornwall. The present Queen being the last one. 700 + years to change if they wanted to.

If something happened to Charles, the Queen isn't cutting of the Cambridges and Harry to blow the extra 18 million of Duchy of Cornwall income on the corgis and horses.

Let's not forget that most of the previous Dukes of Cornwall were not as diligent as the current one. A large portion of their income from the duchy on gambling, booze and mistresses. Looking at you Edward VII and George IV



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2845  
Old 12-15-2015, 10:57 AM
DukeofMontpelier's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Putney, United States
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
But does any of it really matter? The sun will still rise tomorrow if there is no Duke of York. Changed circumstances, new rules. Legislation could cure the Duchy of Cornwall problem so the heir still has the income.
I agree Roslyn completely. I think this will happen before this becomes a problem. That change can be seen in the fact that Will and Kate children are Prince and Princess. Just the beginning. A female can be the heir(Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales in her own right.)
Reply With Quote
  #2846  
Old 12-15-2015, 12:05 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,643
In a hypothetical situation where Charlotte was the first born and with the new legislation in place, the heir apparent, it would not follow that she would be The Princess of Wales. It would be up to the monarch's discretion whether or not to invest that title. If William were to invest Charlotte as the Princess of Wales, it would be the first time in history.that this was done.
__________________
“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
  #2847  
Old 12-15-2015, 02:18 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Questions about British Styles and Titles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I agree. I prefer the idea that the heir - whoever it is - has control of the assets/money, and that it doesn't revert to the monarch on the occasions where the monarch's eldest son/child is not the heir apparent, as in the example you cite.

I think it's preferable for there to be some distance between the two purses and not have the monarch in control of it all. I also think it's better for the heir to have the independence and the experience of managing the Duchy anyway.

I don't disagree, but I also don't exactly agree. You make a very valid point and I think that in the event of there being a heir apparent who is an adult but not the eldest child of the monarch he/she should have access to the funds from the Duchy, although I don't think they necessarily need to be the Duke/Duchess (I want to say that either the Queen or George III had access to the funds as heir, without being the Duke, but I can't find a source so I could be wrong).

That said, instances where there is a heir apparent who is an adult but not the monarch's child are very, very rare. In 1,000 years of English I can only think of 5 occasions where the heir apparent (including QEII, who wasn't actually the heir apparent) wasn't the child of the monarch; Edward III's heir apparent was his grandson Richard II (a child), Henry VI's legally appointed heir apparent for awhile was Richard, Duke of York (hugely special circumstances), William III's heir apparent was his sister-in-law, Anne (also hugely special circumstances), George II's heir apparent was his grandson George IV, and George VI's heir presumptive was his daughter Elizabeth II.

The circumstances that saw Richard, Duke of York and Anne becoming heir apparents wouldn't be recreated in a modern monarchy. Richard II was a child. Elizabeth II would have been heir apparent and Duchess of Cornwall if equal primogeniture had applied. Which just leaves George III.
Reply With Quote
  #2848  
Old 12-15-2015, 02:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
What happens when there is no Duke?

When there is no male heir, the Duchy reverts to the Monarch, and the annual Sovereign Grant is reduced annually by the amount of the Duchy’s income.

Frequently Asked Questions | The Duchy of Cornwall
Reply With Quote
  #2849  
Old 12-15-2015, 06:30 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
In a hypothetical situation where Charlotte was the first born and with the new legislation in place, the heir apparent, it would not follow that she would be The Princess of Wales. It would be up to the monarch's discretion whether or not to invest that title. If William were to invest Charlotte as the Princess of Wales, it would be the first time in history.that this was done.
It was being seriously considered in the highest quarters in 1943/44 and I think it's even more likely to happen now that we have equal primogeniture.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2850  
Old 12-15-2015, 07:22 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It was being seriously considered in the highest quarters in 1943/44 and I think it's even more likely to happen now that we have equal primogeniture.
I think so too. Actually, if they're going to make any changes at all, I would think they would be primarily concerned with the titles and styles and the remainders of those that are directly connected to the direct line of succession seeing as those are the ones primarily affected by the equal primogeniture changes.

It just would make sense to me that if it happened that the heir apparent is a female and the oldest child of a monarch she should be entitled to all the perks and be invested as The Princess of Wales.

Then again, it'll be a very long time before it even becomes something to worry about. As stated earlier, George's first child is still a few decades away from being a reality.
__________________
“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
  #2851  
Old 01-17-2016, 04:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
The bottom line with styles and titles is this, it's entirely at the Queen's will and pleasure. The constitution gives her free reign. Royal prerogative falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts. There is no such thing in Britain as being 'legally' a Prince/ss or a Royal Highness. It can't be defended in a court of law

Letters patent seem to be an issue with some, but letters patent is just one example of the Sovereign's will and pleasure. More importantly, the sovereign isn't bound by letters patent issued by a former monarch.

Simply put, its a matter of royal prerogative and how the Queen expresses her pleasure is irrelevant
Reply With Quote
  #2852  
Old 01-17-2016, 05:50 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 365
If the Countess of Wessex had another son would he come before or after Louise in the line of succession? He would be born after the change in laws but Louise was born before.
Reply With Quote
  #2853  
Old 01-17-2016, 06:26 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The bottom line with styles and titles is this, it's entirely at the Queen's will and pleasure. The constitution gives her free reign. Royal prerogative falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts. There is no such thing in Britain as being 'legally' a Prince/ss or a Royal Highness. It can't be defended in a court of law

Letters patent seem to be an issue with some, but letters patent is just one example of the Sovereign's will and pleasure. More importantly, the sovereign isn't bound by letters patent issued by a former monarch.

Simply put, its a matter of royal prerogative and how the Queen expresses her pleasure is irrelevant
What constitution? What piece of legislation or convention gives the monarch "free reign"? Parliament makes the laws. The Royal Prerogative is subject to the laws made by Parliament.

Letters patent are legal instruments granting rights or status. I am unable to think of a situation where it might arise, but I see no reason why the rights/status granted in respect of a title or style could not be enforced or defended in courts of law. Perhaps someone else can think of an example or precedent.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2854  
Old 01-17-2016, 06:31 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl View Post
If the Countess of Wessex had another son would he come before or after Louise in the line of succession? He would be born after the change in laws but Louise was born before.
Section 1 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 provides:

1. Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).

Louise would not be displaced.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2855  
Old 01-17-2016, 06:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
What constitution? What piece of legislation or convention gives the monarch "free reign"? Parliament makes the laws. The Royal Prerogative is subject to the laws made by Parliament.

Letters patent are legal instruments granting rights or status. I am unable to think of a situation where it might arise, but I see no reason why the rights/status granted in respect of a title or style could not be enforced or defended in courts of law. Perhaps someone else can think of an example or precedent.
In absence of statute , common law applies. The common law has evolved as such that royal prerogative governing royal styles and titles is at the pleasure of the sovereign, without ministerial advice

The Law Officers of The Crown stated at the time of the Duke of Windsor -

"the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"
Reply With Quote
  #2856  
Old 01-17-2016, 07:25 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl View Post
If the Countess of Wessex had another son would he come before or after Louise in the line of succession? He would be born after the change in laws but Louise was born before.

Highly unlikely that a woman in her early 50s would have another child but ... if any more legitimate children are born to Andrew or Edward they wouldn't replace the girls in he line of succession but they would be in the line to inherit their father's titles while the daughters wouldn't.

To give a hypothetical example:

Andrew remarries a woman in her 30s who gives him a son. That son would be behind Eugenie in the line of succession to the Crown as he was born after October 2011 which is the date from which the change in the succession laws took effect but would be the heir to York and would one day become The Duke of York. A younger legitimate child of Edward's would be known as Lord xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor and be behind Louise in the line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #2857  
Old 01-17-2016, 07:34 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Highly unlikely that a woman in her early 50s would have another child but ... if any more legitimate children are born to Andrew or Edward they wouldn't replace the girls in he line of succession but they would be in the line to inherit their father's titles while the daughters wouldn't.

To give a hypothetical example:

Andrew remarries a woman in her 30s who gives him a son. That son would be behind Eugenie in the line of succession to the Crown as he was born after October 2011 which is the date from which the change in the succession laws took effect but would be the heir to York and would one day become The Duke of York. A younger legitimate child of Edward's would be known as Lord xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor and be behind Louise in the line of succession.
Not quite: if Edward were to have another son, and they follow the precedent of only using the titles of an (ordinary) Earl's children, that son would be "The Honourable X Mountbatten-Windsor" as an Earl's younger sons are mere "Honourables." All sons of Dukes and Marquesses are "Lord X Lastname" and the eldest also may use a subsidiary title if one exists. A bigger question would be if Andrew remarries and has a son would he use the HRH like his sisters or just be "Earl of Inverness?"
Reply With Quote
  #2858  
Old 01-17-2016, 07:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
Not quite: if Edward were to have another son, and they follow the precedent of only using the titles of an (ordinary) Earl's children, that son would be "The Honourable X Mountbatten-Windsor" as an Earl's younger sons are mere "Honourables." All sons of Dukes and Marquesses are "Lord X Lastname" and the eldest also may use a subsidiary title if one exists. A bigger question would be if Andrew remarries and has a son would he use the HRH like his sisters or just be "Earl of Inverness?"
Edward, being a prince however, changes that to Lord in the same way that Prince Michael's son is Lord Frederick Windsor (1917 LPs give the sons of Princes the style of Lord if they aren't Princes).

Andrew would probably want his son to be Prince but I suspect that the Queen would pre-empt and issue the same instructions as has happened with Edward's children and he would be the Earl of Inverness.
Reply With Quote
  #2859  
Old 01-17-2016, 08:53 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
In absence of statute , common law applies. The common law has evolved as such that royal prerogative governing royal styles and titles is at the pleasure of the sovereign, without ministerial advice

The Law Officers of Crown stated at the time of the Duke of Windsor -

"the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"
OK. I get it now. You're only talking about the monarch's personal prerogative power to grant approval for certain uses of royal names and titles, not royal prerogative generally.

Attitudes to the royal prerogative/s have changed since the 1930s though and I woudn't be surprised if HM took advice from ministers before issuing letters patent in respect of the titles and styles of members of her family, even if she didn't have to.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2860  
Old 02-06-2016, 09:08 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Edward, being a prince however, changes that to Lord in the same way that Prince Michael's son is Lord Frederick Windsor (1917 LPs give the sons of Princes the style of Lord if they aren't Princes).
Only the grandchildren of the sovereign's sons in the male line, and Edward's children are children of the sovereign's son.

Quote:
Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms
The announcement on the Earl's wedding day was:

Quote:
The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.
__________________

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 birthday birthday wishes catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge 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 opening of parliament picture of the week president nieto; state visit prince alexander of sweden prince bernhard prince charles prince joachim princess madeleine 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 sonja 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 09:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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