The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3001  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:08 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
A territorial designation is not a surname, it doesn't hold the same "honour" that passing down a surname to your children does.
Nothing would have been different if Diana had been "Princess Charles of Edinburgh", as she never could have been as the title doesn't exist and never will. I don't know how other posters could be any clearer.
I'm talking about if George IV had lived to the 1990s, and was still king, and Charles had turned down a peerage from his grandfather on the day of 29 July 1981 and had asked to be remained as Prince Charles of Edinburgh in honor of his father, Diana would have been Princess Charles of Edinburgh.

Charles' wives are legally Princess Charles, as the two Edwards' wives' are legally Princess Edward. It is just like how Prince Michael's wife is Princess Michael.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...es&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Edward

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Michael
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3002  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Problem with Princess Henry of Wales is that when Charles becomes King, Harry's wife would just be The Princess Henry. No territorial designation at all. Most likely the title of The Prince of Wales will be bestowed on William by his father and therefore, Kate will be The Princess of Wales.

I really don't see Harry refusing a dukedom upon marriage. Actually, in the peerage of the UK, a duke is the highest you can go. A prince is not a peer.

I think I got that right.
The Princess Henry would sound well for his wife. As a honor to her husband, his father, and his mother. I would like the sound of THR The Prince and Princess Henry.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3003  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
I'm talking about if George IV had lived to the 1990s, and was still king, and Charles had turned down a peerage from his grandfather on the day of 29 July 1981 and had asked to be remained as Prince Charles of Edinburgh in honor of his father, Diana would have been Princess Charles of Edinburgh.

Charles' wives are legally Princess Charles, as the two Edwards' wives' are legally Princess Edward. It is just like how Prince Michael's wife is Princess Michael.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...es&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Edward

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Michael
It still wouldn't have worked for very long. Once Charles' mother became the monarch, Charles was The Prince Charles. Period. The Prince of Wales is a title reserved for the first son of the monarch and heir apparent. Hence, Diana's title The Princess of Wales and subsequently after the divorce, Diana, Princess of Wales (courtesy title denoting she was a wife of The Prince of Wales at one time). Charles is also the Duke of Cornwall and its actually a title Charles has held longer the the PoW title. Camilla chose to use that title in the feminine form.

No woman that marries into the peerage or into royalty ever uses her given name in a title unless its by courtesty for a ex-wife such as Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York etc.

Another interesting tidbit is that when George (and Charlotte) were born, when William registered their births, for occupation of the mother, he entered Princess of the UK.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3004  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:26 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It still wouldn't have worked for very long. Once Charles' mother became the monarch, Charles was The Prince Charles. Period. The Prince of Wales is a title reserved for the first son of the monarch and heir apparent. Hence, Diana's title The Princess of Wales and subsequently after the divorce, Diana, Princess of Wales (courtesy title denoting she was a wife of The Prince of Wales at one time). Charles is also the Duke of Cornwall and its actually a title Charles has held longer the the PoW title. Camilla chose to use that title in the feminine form.

No woman that marries into the peerage or into royalty ever uses her given name in a title unless its by courtesty for a ex-wife such as Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York etc.

Another interesting tidbit is that when George (and Charlotte) were born, when William registered their births, for occupation of the mother, he entered Princess of the UK.
ONe other use of given name is when she becomes Queen -
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #3005  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:29 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,094
Charles automatically becomes the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Rothesay when he becomes the heir apparent. He doesn't have a choice to decline them with those titles.
Reply With Quote
  #3006  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:31 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It still wouldn't have worked for very long. Once Charles' mother became the monarch, Charles was The Prince Charles. Period. The Prince of Wales is a title reserved for the first son of the monarch and heir apparent. Hence, Diana's title The Princess of Wales and subsequently after the divorce, Diana, Princess of Wales (courtesy title denoting she was a wife of The Prince of Wales at one time). Charles is also the Duke of Cornwall and its actually a title Charles has held longer the the PoW title. Camilla chose to use that title in the feminine form.

No woman that marries into the peerage or into royalty ever uses her given name in a title unless its by courtesty for a ex-wife such as Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York etc.

Another interesting tidbit is that when George (and Charlotte) were born, when William registered their births, for occupation of the mother, he entered Princess of the UK.
I actually think that George the Sixth could have lived to 100. Yes, men die earlier than women, but if not for World War II, he could have been around longer. Princess Elizabeth would have been waiting for years and years. Her other children, Andrew and Edward would have been Princes Andrew and Edward of Edinburgh. I could see Princess Elizabeth having more children, especially more daughters. Anne would have loved more Edinburgh girls. Andrew wouldn't turn down a peerage from his grandfather, he would want to rise in British nobility. Edward, would have remained Prince Edward of Edinburgh had George VI lived. I don't think Fergie would want to be known as "Princess Andrew of Edinburgh" in her first months as a Princess by marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #3007  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:37 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,094
It was the smoking that killed him. Considering that both his surviving brothers only made to their seventies. It seems highly unlikely the George would have made past the lifespan of his brothers both who died in the early 1970s. Way before Charles gets married.
Reply With Quote
  #3008  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Territorial designations are beautiful. I love it. Yes, I do stand by my comment that this is the 21st century, and the royal style rules should be changed.

Had Diana be Princess Charles of Edinburgh, I wonder what would have happened--if Charles had turned down a peerage. I do believe that Harry should turn down a peerage--if he wants. He may want his wife to be Princess Henry of Wales--in honor of his mother and father, the Waleses.

It's a good discussion however. Extremely important.
Charles didn't get the chance to 'turn down' a peerage as the Cornwall and Rothesay titles are automatic to him as the heir apparent to the throne and he has held them both since 6th February, 1952. The instant his mother became Queen he became HRH The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. He ceased to be 'of Edinburgh' as he took his styles and titles from his mother who was senior to his father as monarch to his father's mere peer of the realm.

As a 9 year old he may have been able to ask the Queen to delay the Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester but as he already had the English and Scottish titles for the heir apparent why not accept the Welsh one as well.

It should be noted that Prince Harry will cease to be 'of Wales' the instant his father becomes King so why have his wife use a style that she would only be entitled for a few years.

Harry's wife - if he has no peerage - will be Princess Henry of Wales and then The Princess Henry as Harry will lose the 'of Wales' designation when his father ceases to be Prince of Wales.

The York girls will stop using the 'of York' designation on marriage just as Princess Alexandra of Kent stopped using the 'of Kent' designation when she married. She is now 'HRH Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Oglivy. That is because like every other woman she gave up the identity related to her father and took on the identity of her husband.

That means that Beatrice will go from HRH Princess Beatrice of York to HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs xxxxx and Eugenie from HRH Princess Eugenie of York to HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs xxxxx.

The territorial designations are really simply to identify the royal line from which the children come. In the days of Queen Victoria she had numerous grandchildren named Prince Albert or Princess Victoria so the 'of Wales', 'of Edinburgh', 'of Prussia/Germany' 'of Hesse' made sense to say which Prince Albert or Princess Victoria they were referring to.

I agree the royal rules should change. I would change HRH to:

1. The spouse of the monarch
2. The children of the monarch
3. The spouse of the heir apparent regardless of gender (currently the husband of a princess isn't automatic)
4. The children of the heir apparent
5. The spouse of the heir apparent's heir apparent

No one else - so in my system the following wouldn't be HRHs:

George, Charlotte (great-grandchildren of the monarch so one generation to far for me), Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Richard, Birgitte, Edward of Kent, Katherine of Kent, Michael, Marie-Christine and Alexandra.

George and Charlotte would gain HRHs only on the accession of Charles but Harry's wife and children wouldn't ever get it. That would also lessen the negative stories about his girlfriends based on the perceived idea that she would have to give up her own career to be royal. If the spouses of younger siblings aren't getting HRHs then they would be able to continue their own lives and careers. Why should the wives have to give up their jobs while the husbands of princesses aren't expected to do so e.g. Tony Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, and even Prince Philip didn't have to end their careers on marriage into the royal family (Phillip had to do so eventually but the plan was that that was supposed to be more into the late 60s rather than the early 50s).
Reply With Quote
  #3009  
Old 04-16-2017, 07:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140


Princesses Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise should continue using HRH. They are blood princesses. They should do royal work on behalf of their uncle and cousin when Charles and William becomes king. They can't do it all on their own.
Reply With Quote
  #3010  
Old 04-16-2017, 07:35 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Princesses Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise should continue using HRH. They are blood princesses. They should do royal work on behalf of their uncle and cousin when Charles and William becomes king. They can't do it all on their own.
Only Beatrice and Eugenie use the HRH now. Louise doesn't as she is styled as the child of an Earl by request.

I do think that the "Firm" will be a bit different once Charles ascends the throne. Engagements and appearances may be totally different than what they are now in order to work with a streamlined "Firm".

Titles and styles, for the most part, are a totally different beast than the working "Firm". Its been obvious that Beatrice and Eugenie, at this time, are not needed to work for the family and therefore have their own personal charities and issues that they sponsor and are patron of.

We have to remember too that HRH is a style and not a title. It is a form of address such as His Grace, Her Majesty or His Eminence.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3011  
Old 04-16-2017, 07:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 122
I know the Firm is planning on downsizing, but I wish Louise, at the time she would be able to start, would be allowed to perform royal duties. She just has this Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone/ Princess Alexandra type of aura around her IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #3012  
Old 04-16-2017, 07:45 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Princesses Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise should continue using HRH. They are blood princesses. They should do royal work on behalf of their uncle and cousin when Charles and William becomes king. They can't do it all on their own.
They can. If Charles becomes King tomorrow:
The King
The Queen (Camilla)
The Duke of Cornwall (William)
The Duchess of Cornwall (Catherine)
The Prince Henry
(The Princess Henry)
The Princess Royal
Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence
The Duke of York
The future Duke of Edinburgh
The future Duchess of Edinburgh
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
The Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy
Prince Michael
Princess Michael

For so far the new King has plenty of assistance to bridge the years that William becomes King. And Charles seems to go with the habit in continental monarchies: a streamlined, compact royal family with an efficiently working Household.
Reply With Quote
  #3013  
Old 04-16-2017, 07:56 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
They can. If Charles becomes King tomorrow:
The King
The Queen (Camilla)
The Duke of Cornwall (William)
The Duchess of Cornwall (Catherine)
The Prince Henry
(The Princess Henry)
The Princess Royal
Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence
The Duke of York
The future Duke of Edinburgh
The future Duchess of Edinburgh
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
The Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy
Prince Michael
Princess Michael

For so far the new King has plenty of assistance to bridge the years that William becomes King. And Charles seems to go with the habit in continental monarchies: a streamlined, compact royal family with an efficiently working Household.
I don't disagree with this but my main problem is the comparison with other compact (mainly European) royal families.

They do not have a population of 64 million; 15 other realms; plus the Commonwealth.

I accept that eventually the other realms might go, but the "seen to be believed" ethos will still be valid.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Apologies if off topic - merely replying to post.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #3014  
Old 04-16-2017, 08:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
They can. If Charles becomes King tomorrow:
The King
The Queen (Camilla)
The Duke of Cornwall (William)
The Duchess of Cornwall (Catherine)
The Prince Henry
(The Princess Henry)
The Princess Royal
Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence
The Duke of York
The future Duke of Edinburgh
The future Duchess of Edinburgh
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
The Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy
Prince Michael
Princess Michael

For so far the new King has plenty of assistance to bridge the years that William becomes King. And Charles seems to go with the habit in continental monarchies: a streamlined, compact royal family with an efficiently working Household.
The Duchess of Kent has been retired from royal duties for over a decade and given her health isn't about to return. She is also in her 80s.

Prince and Princess Michael have never worked for The Firm and again aren't about to start in their 70s.

The Duke of Kent is also over 80 and has had health issues of his own as has Princess Alexandra.

That is an impressive list but five of them are either retired, never have worked in that role or have health issues.

When an analysis of ages is done there is none currently in either their 40s or 20s.

I don't think the York girls will ever be called upon as the public don't want the large family representing them anymore and although the BRF have a Commonwealth of a third of the world's population to deal with given the speed of travel these days they don't need to be away for as long to visit as many countries as possible.

When the Queen ascended the throne she did a six month tour to see some of her realms.

When Charles becomes King, to see those same realms he could do it in maybe three weeks.

I am thinking that in 10 years from now the working royals will be minus at least 4 of those who do regular duties now (if Alexandra and her half dozen or so this year really counts as regular anymore) with a most one replacement - Harry's wife.

In 20 years they will probably be minus 9 of those currently working and other than Harry's wife no new additions. (The 9 I don't expect to be working in 20 years - Elizabeth, Philip, Charles, Camilla, Anne, Richard, Birgitte, Edward Kent and Alexandra)

That will see the natural attrition come into play with the working numbers down from 15 now to 7 then. (William, Kate, Harry, spouse, Andrew, Edward and Sophie). George will still be at university and still have his military career to come - so following his father's example will not be doing full-time duties until at least 2052 when he will be 35.)
Reply With Quote
  #3015  
Old 04-16-2017, 08:29 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,094
If William is King in 20 years, George will be more active than his father was at that age because he will be the heir apparent. William isn't the heir yet. So George will be more like 20 something Charles then his father.
Reply With Quote
  #3016  
Old 04-16-2017, 08:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
George won't be asked to do more than Charles was and he didn't do much until his late 20s and could easily argue that he wants to spend his time with his family as his father did.

Edward VII as heir wasn't required to do anything as there actually is nothing set down for them to do so he could literally do nothing until he is King.
Reply With Quote
  #3017  
Old 04-16-2017, 08:45 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,094
The Royal Family going out to do engagements with the people basically starts in the reign of George V so Edward VII was before that period and we are getting off topic.
Reply With Quote
  #3018  
Old 04-16-2017, 08:57 PM
Princess Squirrel's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 58
I think that it's a bit silly of the British royal family that a woman cannot become a princess by marriage like they can in other royal families such as Monaco. When you think about it, doesn't make sense that one can become a queen by marriage but not a princess!
__________________
London-based royal rodent
Reply With Quote
  #3019  
Old 04-16-2017, 09:12 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
Actually, the women that marry into the royal family are princesses but are referred to as Princess William, Princess Michael, Princess Charles or whatever. Women take their titles from their husbands. Regardless, as I pointed out with George's birth, they are Princesses of the UK.

The difference with the Queen appellation is that when a woman marries the heir (as Camilla did) and her husband becomes the monarch, she is the Queen Consort. Elizabeth II is a Queen Regnant. Bit of a difference there too.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3020  
Old 04-16-2017, 09:29 PM
Princess Squirrel's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 58
I meant as a queen consort of course.

I think it is silly using the husband's first name eg Princess William. It should be Princess Catherine. Yes I know they usually get a title eg Dukedom and are known as Duchess etc. But the British royal family have to be different. Princess Charlene of Monaco isn't known as Princess Albert!

I also, by the way, hate being addressed by my husband's first name! I took his surname but not his first name! I've told my mother-in-law and she doesn't do it anymore, nor his grandmother. But his dad and one aunt still do it and I hate seeing "Mrs Mark Oursurname" on envelopes, so patriarchal and makes me want to scream! Lol. It's "Mrs Squirrel Oursurname"
__________________

__________________
London-based royal rodent
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, kate, queenmother, 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 1896 11-14-2017 06:35 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 750 10-25-2017 04:30 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 02:39 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
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events cymry denmark duchess of brabant earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia italy iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon monarchy news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen silvia soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises