The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3321  
Old 01-20-2018, 06:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
I don't understand 5 for Charles. I count 6 - or do you mean Charles plus 5?
Should read 6.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3322  
Old 01-20-2018, 07:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
By contrast, the title of Prince of Asturias has always been gender neutral and two of the daughters of Isabella I (the Catholic) were already titled Princess of Asturias back in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. One of them was the later Queen Joanna the Mad (Juana I "la Loca"), mother of the King-Emperor Charles V.
It is true, but in those days, the title was not categorically gender neutral.

Prince(ss) of Asturias was not an automatic title before 1850. The eldest son was created Prince of Asturias or Prince without exception, but it was unusual for the eldest daughter to be created Princess. The eldest daughters of Enrique III and Juan II of Castile and Felipe III and Felipe IV of Spain were placed first in the line of succession until they had brothers, and Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia and Infanta María Teresa were placed first in line upon the deaths of their eldest brothers, but in spite of this, none of those Infantas were created Princess.

A royal decree making the title Prince(ss) of Asturias automatic and gender-neutral was published on May 30, 1850, but the decree was repealed by a royal decree published on August 23, 1880, which made the title fall automatically to the eldest son, but not the eldest daughter or heir presumptive. The eldest daughter of Alfonso XII was created Princess of Asturias ad personam in 1881, but her son was not created Prince of Asturias when he was number one in the line of succession.

A royal decree published on November 12, 1987 reverted Prince(ss) of Asturias to an automatic and gender neutral title.

https://boe.es/datos/pdfs/BOE//1850/...0001-00001.pdf
https://boe.es/datos/pdfs/BOE//1880/...0599-00600.pdf
https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1987-25284

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In the Netherlands, the title of Prince of Orange also used to be for male heirs to the throne only as it was historically attached to a principality with agnatic sucession (which, however, has been officially part of France since the 18th century and no longer has any connection to the Netherlands). Thus, neither Wilhelmina, nor Juliana, nor Beatrix were ever the Princess of Orange. The title was made officially gender neutral only in 2002 and Amalia has now become the first Princess of Orange in her own right.
I am not sure that the inheritance of the Dutch royal title of Prince of Orange was based on the succession laws of the Principality of Orange, which were based on male preference but not purely agnatic. Princess Marie was sovereign princess of Orange despite having at least one male cousin in paternal line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In Sweden, on the other hand, the Instrument of Government of 1974 removed the King's power to grant nobility and, since 2003, when the House of Nobility was officially separated from the State, nobility is no longer officially recognized although it is not technically abolished. However, the duchies held on a personal basis by the princes and princesses of Sweden, despite not having any clear legal basis, could also be interpreted, I suppose, as titles belonging to the Crown.
I support your interpretation. Given that there has never been a ducal family in the Swedish House of Nobility, the ducal titles must be titles belonging to the Royal House.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3323  
Old 01-20-2018, 08:11 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 796
I think that the royal dukedom process will have to be re-assessed because I think that if dukedoms are being given to non-heirs then daughters of the monarch will be granted dukedoms. I think that in the past royal dukedoms eventually went back to the crown because, in order for it to be passed on, the holder had to have a son, and it would eventually play out that the royal duke either died childless or with daughters, which is going to happen to the York dukedom and will likely happen to the Gloucester and Kent dukedoms over time.

To me under the current scheme, I am not that concerned that royal dukedoms will be forever lost (including the two dukedoms that were suspended in World War I because the holders were German), but once daughters are granted dukedoms, which is the correct move IMO, then the granting and inheritance of dukedoms will have to be revisited because that is what will stretch things.
Reply With Quote
  #3324  
Old 01-20-2018, 09:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Only if William is created Prince of Wales. If he isn't created Prince of Wales then she won't become Princess of Wales.
Of course. That is understood by everyone.
The original question was would Catherine be known by a different title when/if William is Prince of Wales, as Camilla is, to preserve the Princess of Wales title for Diana. Several of us replied that, no, Catherine (in that circumstance) will be Princess of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #3325  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:00 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
I think that the royal dukedom process will have to be re-assessed because I think that if dukedoms are being given to non-heirs then daughters of the monarch will be granted dukedoms. I think that in the past royal dukedoms eventually went back to the crown because, in order for it to be passed on, the holder had to have a son, and it would eventually play out that the royal duke either died childless or with daughters, which is going to happen to the York dukedom and will likely happen to the Gloucester and Kent dukedoms over time.

To me under the current scheme, I am not that concerned that royal dukedoms will be forever lost (including the two dukedoms that were suspended in World War I because the holders were German), but once daughters are granted dukedoms, which is the correct move IMO, then the granting and inheritance of dukedoms will have to be revisited because that is what will stretch things.
Dukedoms have always been given to non-direct-heirs, as in to sons of the monarch. The interesting issue is now how they want to deal with the daughters of the monarch as they are no longer after their brothers in the line to succession. I wouldn't be surprised if daughters are also given dukedoms in the future with either male-preference succession (so not exclusive to male heirs but close to the common system - and in line with a few other peerages apparently) or equal succession (which would be a large deviation from current rules about peerages, and might lead to a discussion of other titles) or the daughters are all given personal titles instead.

How do you expect the 'German' ducal titles to return to the crown? And what scenario do you hsve in mind for especially the Kent title to return to the crown. For the Gloucester title that scenario might very well play out depending on whether Xan will have sons to keep it for another generation... However, for the Kent title there are 2 males in the current duke's generation, 3 males in the next generation, and 4 in the third (and might be more). So you expect all for of them to have not even one son among them? As with each generation the number of heirs seems to grow so it will be only less and less likely. There are several non-royal dukedoms who are more likely to revert to the crown because of a lack of heirs.

(Maybr this discussion should be moved to a more general topic as it deviates from Harry's dukedom)
Reply With Quote
  #3326  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:12 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
I've been pondering the number [or lack of] Royal Ducal Titles available in the future...
We know that Edinburgh and Cambridge will 'revert' at some point, but Edinburgh will be re-created for the Earl of Wessex.
Sussex is likely to be awarded in May.. and [unless the 'Harkles' are childless] it eventually becomes an 'un-royal' Dukedom..
That leaves JUST Cambridge for the future..

Would it not be sensible for the existing Royal Dukedoms [with a long and glorious history as such] to revert to the Crown, when the existing holder dies ?

Thus - Gloucester and Kent 'revert' when the current Dukes die, leaving their heirs as 'the noble Earls of Ulster' and of 'St Andrews' respectively.
Then Gloucester, Kent and Cambridge [and possibly York] would be on hand for William V or George VIII to utilise as necessary ?
If future 'creations' were made for the same duration as the 'HRH' was held [therefter reverting back to the Crown], Dukedoms would no longer 'be lost for the future' as they are now...

Ultimately the 'pool' of Dukedoms available would be - Edinburgh, York, Cambridge, Gloucester, Sussex and Kent..A FAR more workable number than just one or two !
What makes you think that Cambridge is the only one left for the future if Sussex is granted to Harry? Many other titles are discussed here but apparently you think that non of these are available for some reason... From my perspective there are still several titles available and if at one point (but that would be many generations away most likely) they might run out of previously used titles, 'first creations' are an option as each title was at one point a first creation.

Moreover, the ducal titles of Gloucester and Kent were granted with certain rules attached to them. Just taking them back if there are rightful heirs would be utterly unfair and very hard to do without creating a huge scandal. The rules can be changed for future titles as each one gets its own set of rules (normally to be inherited by male heirs of the body), and the purpose of giving Edward the ducal title of Edinburgh in the future was exactly to make sure that that title will stay with the current duke's descendants, so making the change to personal titles would go against that.
Reply With Quote
  #3327  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,456
I don't think that they could be "taken back", as they are subject to the normal inheritance rules and as such, will go ot the next male heir... and it would be unfair to do so anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #3328  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:25 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Of course. That is understood by everyone.
The original question was would Catherine be known by a different title when/if William is Prince of Wales, as Camilla is, to preserve the Princess of Wales title for Diana. Several of us replied that, no, Catherine (in that circumstance) will be Princess of Wales.
Camilla only uses Duc of Cornwall because of the peculiar circumstances. There's no reason for Kate to not use the Princess of Wales title. There were Princesses of W before Diana and there be more of them...
Reply With Quote
  #3329  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,604
HMQ, as 'Fount of honours' has the authority to make the requisite changes... If negotiations were conducted [privately] with the Earls of Ulster and St Andrews, [and the reasoning behind the proposed changes explained], i'm sure agreement could be reached.
Neither Gentlemen have the 'state' usually associated with Dukedoms, no vast estate, no 'seat', no notable collection, or Art [beyond the jewels likely to be dispersed when their fathers die].
They and their descent must make their 'own way in the World', and a Ducal title is likely to be more a hindrance than a help with that..
If an agreement isn't possible, so be it...
Reply With Quote
  #3330  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:48 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Camilla only uses Duc of Cornwall because of the peculiar circumstances. There's no reason for Kate to not use the Princess of Wales title. There were Princesses of W before Diana and there be more of them...
Which, IMO, makes the current situation ridiculous!! Camilla is, by right, HRH The Princess of Wales.
Her marriage to Charles is not a morganatic one so she shares his rank & ALL styles & titles.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #3331  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:03 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
HMQ, as 'Fount of honours' has the authority to make the requisite changes... If negotiations were conducted [privately] with the Earls of Ulster and St Andrews, [and the reasoning behind the proposed changes explained], i'm sure agreement could be reached.
Neither Gentlemen have the 'state' usually associated with Dukedoms, no vast estate, no 'seat', no notable collection, or Art [beyond the jewels likely to be dispersed when their fathers die].
They and their descent must make their 'own way in the World', and a Ducal title is likely to be more a hindrance than a help with that..
If an agreement isn't possible, so be it...
But why would she? She hasn't started such conversations with the German cousins who never actually used the ducal titles (at least that we know of). These gentlemen have been titled as the heir of their father's respective dukedoms from birth (and I don't think becoming a non-royal duke will make their lives that much harder, they are already titled), and if other ducal titles aren't revoked (what would be the requirement to keep a ducal title; have enough money? Degrees of sanguinity to the monarch: very few degrees: title, few more degrees: no title, many more degrees: keep title - sounds all very arbitrary and like opening a can of worms) it reflects very badly on them.

Furthermore, other members have explained that each and every heir would have to agree for a ducal title to be returned and there are quite a few children who wouldn't be able to make such a decision, so that also seems to complicate matters. They need only one of them to not agree and it cannot go through, so I don't see a reason at all for the queen or future kings to go this route.

Nonetheless, interesting to consider all kinds of scenarios
Reply With Quote
  #3332  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:13 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,604
Quote:
I don't see a reason at all for the queen or future kings to go this route.
The dire shortage of Dukedoms available to future Monarchs.. Sussex [gone], Edinburgh [gone], Gloucester [gone], Kent [gone], the German lot [gone], leaving only Clarence and York..
Two [younger] sons to George takes care of them, and what then ? New creations.. 'Duke of Milton-Keynes' perhaps ?
Reply With Quote
  #3333  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:17 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Charlotte will get the title of Princess Royal when it is available.

Succession to the Crown may be gender neutral now, but succession to titles in the peerage of the UK is not. Most titles can be inherited only by male descendants in paternal line. The reason for that is not gender discrimination per se, but rather to keep the title in the same family, whose name is recorded patrilineally. If the UK allowed children to take their mother's family name as their last name, as some countries like Belgium and Sweden now do, then I think a major obstacle to gender neutral succession in the peerage would be removed.
.
Male-only inheritance of peerage titles is definitely gender discrimination. It has nothing to do with surnames. Surnames can be changed. Just ask the Windsors and the Mountbattens. The Crown also has the right to issue a special remainder allowing female succession. Again, ask the Mountbattens. Titles can also be granted as life peerages that die with the holder.

I honestly can't see the BRF following the current (and in my view antiquated) practices regarding titles in 30 years times. Quite frankly I can't even see gender-rights advocate Meghan being happy if her sons can succeed Harry as Duke of Whatever but her daughters can't.

I personally think the BRF should either (1) give life titles to ALL the monarch's children which can't be inherited by their own children, or (2) give a title to the oldest son/daughter (heir) but not the younger children. And women who marry into the RF should be referred to by their own names not their husband's. Princess Marie-Christine NOT Princess Michael.
Reply With Quote
  #3334  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
The dire shortage of Dukedoms available to future Monarchs.. Sussex [gone], Edinburgh [gone], Gloucester [gone], Kent [gone], the German lot [gone], leaving only Clarence and York..
Two [younger] sons to George takes care of them, and what then ? New creations.. 'Duke of Milton-Keynes' perhaps ?
There's nothing to stop the RF from choosing other titles, which have a historical royal connextion. It would be impossible to impose this retrospectively.. and ther'es no need.
Reply With Quote
  #3335  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:26 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,604
Quote:
choosing other titles, which have a historical royal connextion
Examples please ?
Reply With Quote
  #3336  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:47 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
But why would she? She hasn't started such conversations with the German cousins who never actually used the ducal titles (at least that we know of). These gentlemen have been titled as the heir of their father's respective dukedoms from birth (and I don't think becoming a non-royal duke will make their lives that much harder, they are already titled), and if other ducal titles aren't revoked (what would be the requirement to keep a ducal title; have enough money? Degrees of sanguinity to the monarch: very few degrees: title, few more degrees: no title, many more degrees: keep title - sounds all very arbitrary and like opening a can of worms) it reflects very badly on them.

Furthermore, other members have explained that each and every heir would have to agree for a ducal title to be returned and there are quite a few children who wouldn't be able to make such a decision, so that also seems to complicate matters. They need only one of them to not agree and it cannot go through, so I don't see a reason at all for the queen or future kings to go this route.

Nonetheless, interesting to consider all kinds of scenarios
I agree. I think the Queen is sensible enough to realize that attitudes regarding titles might be very different thirty years from now so why rock the boat by attempting to regain titles that have already been handed out?

I also doubt the lack of available traditional titles will be considered "dire" by the time William's children have grown to adulthood. The BRF has survived by evolving and will continue to evolve.
Reply With Quote
  #3337  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:53 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
I've been pondering the number [or lack of] Royal Ducal Titles available in the future...
We know that Edinburgh and Cambridge will 'revert' at some point, but Edinburgh will be re-created for the Earl of Wessex.
Sussex is likely to be awarded in May.. and [unless the 'Harkles' are childless] it eventually becomes an 'un-royal' Dukedom..
That leaves JUST Cambridge for the future..
There is also Clarence (if it is not given to Harry in May) and York will most likely also become extinct when Andrew passes.

So then Clarence, Cambridge and York would be avalible at some point.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #3338  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Male-only inheritance of peerage titles is definitely gender discrimination. It has nothing to do with surnames. Surnames can be changed. Just ask the Windsors and the Mountbattens. The Crown also has the right to issue a special remainder allowing female succession. Again, ask the Mountbattens. Titles can also be granted as life peerages that die with the holder.

I honestly can't see the BRF following the current (and in my view antiquated) practices regarding titles in 30 years times. Quite frankly I can't even see gender-rights advocate Meghan being happy if her sons can succeed Harry as Duke of Whatever but her daughters can't.

I personally think the BRF should either (1) give life titles to ALL the monarch's children which can't be inherited by their own children, or (2) give a title to the oldest son/daughter (heir) but not the younger children. And women who marry into the RF should be referred to by their own names not their husband's. Princess Marie-Christine NOT Princess Michael.

Referring to them by their own names would signify that they are princesses in their own right, which is not the case.
Reply With Quote
  #3339  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Referring to them by their own names would signify that they are princesses in their own right, which is not the case.
Princess Marie of Denmark isn't a princess in her own right. Neither are Princess Claire of Belgium, Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, or Princess Sibilla of Luxembourg, or Princess Claire of Luxembourg.

Rules for titles are not written in stone.
Reply With Quote
  #3340  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 12,000
The UK is its own entity though and does not follow the rules of the monarchy of other countries and their title structure.
__________________

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


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
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 862 09-17-2018 08:19 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 01:39 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
australia book british royal family britishroyals camilla caracciolo ceremony charles clothes current events duchessofsussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of york earl of snowdon england family fashion general royal discussion gordon hasnat khan helena hereditary princess sophie hohenzollern infanta cristina interests juan carlos kate middleton king philippe king willem-alexander ladies-in-waiting letizia lord snowdon meghan markle monaco nobel nobel prize porphyria prince aymeric prince charles prince harry prince harry of wales princess princess alexia princess beatrice public image queen elisabeth queen maxima relationship remarriage royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding sarah duchess of york smith state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royal registry theatre tiara tom bower tradition visit to spain wedding windsor windsor castle wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises