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
 
  #361  
Old 07-07-2007, 02:39 AM
banda_windsor's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 122
i don't know if there's anyone who asked this question or not, but i just wondering, do beatrice and eugine will inherits their father's title and become the duchess of york, someday?

can someone explain to me about the succession law of the Dukedom. Is there any reigning duchess in UK?
__________________

__________________
"The Hardest Thing to Govern, is the Heart"
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 07-07-2007, 03:24 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by banda_windsor View Post
i don't know if there's anyone who asked this question or not, but i just wondering, do beatrice and eugine will inherits their father's title and become the duchess of york, someday?

can someone explain to me about the succession law of the Dukedom. Is there any reigning duchess in UK?
Under the current Letters Patent for the Dukedom of York neither Beatrice nor Eugenie would inherit the title as the LPs specified 'males' of the body not children.

This is just a terminology point but Duchesses/Dukes do NOT reign - only the monarch reigns. Dukes etc hold a title and administer their lands but the term isn't reign.

As for Duchesses in their own right I simply don't know but that is not an impossibility - it would depend on the LPs at the time of the creation of the Dukedom. The Dukedom of Fife, at one time, was inherited by a female I believe but generally speaking no titles, except the monarchy, itself passes to a female. The notable exceptions are the Dukedom of Fife, early in the 20th C and the Earldom of Mountbatten of Burma but that was because at the time of the creation there was very limited chance of a male heir.

As things currently stand neither the York Dukedom nor the Wessex Earldom can be passed on as the two current holders only have daughters (but a son for Edward would change that).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 07-07-2007, 03:27 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by banda_windsor View Post
i don't know if there's anyone who asked this question or not, but i just wondering, do beatrice and eugine will inherits their father's title and become the duchess of york, someday?

can someone explain to me about the succession law of the Dukedom. Is there any reigning duchess in UK?

As far as I'm aware, Beatrice is not in the 'running'.

Isn't this title usually given to the second son of the sovereign? So is it possible Harry could, at some point, inherit the Dukedom?
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 07-07-2007, 03:35 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
As far as I'm aware, Beatrice is not in the 'running'.

Isn't this title usually given to the second son of the sovereign? So is it possible Harry could, at some point, inherit the Dukedom?
For Harry to get the Dukedom of York Andrew would have to be dead at the time when Harry came up for a title. Harry couldn't get the title while there is an incumbent.

As Harry is likely to be due to get a title within the next 10 years and Andrew is only 47 it is highly unlikely that Harry would get that title.

In addition, even if Andrew did die before Harry got that title it is not usual to give a regrant of a title while someone who held the 'of xxx' part of the title was still alive e.g. Eugenie and Beatrice, unless that title has given way to a higher one e.g. the children of George V and George VI all became 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc' replacing the 'of York' with a higher title which is why both George V and Elizabeth II felt able to grant the title during the lifetime of said uses of the 'of York' part of the title.

It is more likely that legislation giving non-gender specific legislation would be passed allowing for Beatrice to inherit that title than for Harry to get it.

It seems an anomoly to me that Beatrice could become Queen but not Duchess of York in her own right.
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 07-07-2007, 03:41 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
A thorough explanation. Muchly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 07-07-2007, 03:53 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 662
Other royal dukes which I've heard of are Cumberland, Clarence, and Albany and there are more which I can't recall. There are other 'spares' which could be used if Her Majesty wanted to do so. I remember from my old school days that HM is also the Duke (sic) of Lancashire which amused us all as children. Prince Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh in due course, which is well-known. As it's probably unlikely that Harry will not marry until after Andrew's demise, I think it unlikely that he will ever become Duke of York, particularly as there's already a lot of spares to choose from.

And Chrissy57, I didn't confuse the two Princesses Alice. My mother's formidable print (and video) collection of the royal family mentions Phillip's mother frequently as Princess Alice of Greece.
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 07-07-2007, 10:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post

And Chrissy57, I didn't confuse the two Princesses Alice. My mother's formidable print (and video) collection of the royal family mentions Phillip's mother frequently as Princess Alice of Greece.

I never suggested that you had 'confused' the two princesses.

You stated that in Australia and within your family you only heard of Philip's mother as 'Princess Alice'.

I replied that I never heard her referred to as simply 'Princess Alice'.

That within my family, and within my corner of Australia, Princess Alice was only ever used for Princess Alice of Athlone while Princess Alice, Philip's mother, was only ever referred to as Princess Andrew of Greece.
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 07-08-2007, 09:44 AM
RoyalProtocol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57 View Post
I would like to differ in one respect to this statement - in my family, and part of Australia, any reference I ever heard to Prince Philip's mother was always as Princess Andrew of Greece. Princess Alice when used was in reference to Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

I distinctly remember asking my grandmother, in the 1960s, why a woman would have a name like Andrew and she then explained to this child (as I then was) that as Princess Andrew wasn't born a Princess of Greece she couldn't be Princess Alice of Greece but had to take the name of her husband when in Greece. I thought it strange at the time but understand it now.

In 1969, when she died, our local paper definitely referred to her as 'Princess Andrew of Greece'. I had that paper for many years, until a fire destroyed my parent's garage in the 1980s. There was no reference, in that article to Princess Alice at all - just Princess Andrew of Greece, mother of the Duke of Edinburgh. Maybe the fact that I grew up in a very small rural town we were still keeping some older titles whereas the big cities were becoming less so by the late 60s. Remember that we were only getting about five hours a day of TV at that time too.

I never heard the use of the name Princess Alice except with regard to Princess Alice of Athlone, who died in 1981 aged 97. She was the last surviving grandchild of Queen Victoria and I remember reading about her in the 1960s and 1970s whenever I could as a link to Victoria. My grandmother still had relatives living in England who sent her papers and letters about the royals until her death. I loved reading their views on things and of these people.
Even in Her signature Princess Andrew signed Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece.
__________________
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
59 Years of Dedicated and Devoted Service

God Save The Queen!



Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 07-15-2007, 02:57 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Carmel, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
I agree. If The King really wanted to deny Wallis royal rank, then he should have issued letters patent revoking his brother's right to hold it (which he certainly could have done).
This is what has always troubled me about that particular affair. Courtesy styles are not held by those to whom they apply; they're vested in the peerage itself.

By the logic of the Wallis case, seems to me the Queen could deny courtesy titles to anyone. E.g., she could decide that the Duke of Devonshire's heir presumptive is a punk and can't call himself "Marquess of Hartington."

But who knows, after Diana got an even worse shaft. Does Buckingham not get that when they play fast and loose with custom and tradition, they are undermining their own position?
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:02 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well, be fair - Di got the same treatment as Fergie. When you divorce, you lose out. Which is how it should be isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:25 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Actually the Princess of Wales got a better deal than Fergie. She lost her HRH but retained her title and precedence at court. Diana also recieved a good lump some of money.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:26 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well money makes the world go round. I wonder how much the Government charge for an HRH these days?
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:29 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Alot I presume.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:30 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Carmel, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well, be fair - Di got the same treatment as Fergie. When you divorce, you lose out. Which is how it should be isn't it?
Except in all other usages of courtesy titles, you keep your style until you remarry.

Don't get me wrong, I would have no problems with this if Sarah had become plain old Ms. Sarah Ferguson upon divorce. It's the fact that she lost one of her courtesy titles but not the other that's odd to me. She is HRH Sarah, Duchess of York, or she's Ms. Sarah Ferguson, not something in-between, if tradition is to be maintained.

Alternatively, if royal styles at the whim of the monarch and customs relating to courtesy titles do not apply, why not make Princess Michael Princess Christine, or whatever her name is? To deny her that, if you accept the view that royal styles are at the whim of the monarch, is just silly. Rigid insistence upon tradition is the only thing that can possibly justify making a woman give up her own name.

Oh well I'm probably the one who's even vaguely troubled by this. I just feel that once the crown, in the modern age, is perceived to be making it up as it goes along to suit its whims, it's all over.
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 07-15-2007, 05:32 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripitaka View Post
Except in all other usages of courtesy titles, you keep your style until you remarry.

Don't get me wrong, I would have no problems with this if Sarah had become plain old Ms. Sarah Ferguson upon divorce. It's the fact that she lost one of her courtesy titles but not the other that's odd to me. She is HRH Sarah, Duchess of York, or she's Ms. Sarah Ferguson, not something in-between, if tradition is to be maintained.
She lost her royal status but like the wife of any divorced peer she is entitled to keep the 'title' as part of her name.



Quote:
Alternatively, if royal styles at the whim of the monarch and customs relating to courtesy titles do not apply, why not make Princess Michael Princess Christine, or whatever her name is? To deny her that, if you accept the view that royal styles are at the whim of the monarch, is just silly. Rigid insistence upon tradition is the only thing that can possibly justify making a woman give up her own name.
Princess Micheal can't be Princess Christine unless the Queen issues LPs granting her the title and style of a Princess of the UK. She has only done that once in her reign - to her husband.

No other wife of a son, or cousin, has been given the title 'Princess' in their own right.

Quote:
Oh well I'm probably the one who's even vaguely troubled by this. I just feel that once the crown, in the modern age, is perceived to be making it up as it goes along to suit its whims, it's all over.
It isn't making it up as it goes along.

The Queen was put in a situation that hadn't occurred before so had to deal with the situation clearly and decided, rightly, that the ex-wives were to lose their royal status but not their rights as divorced wives of peers.

That Diana was given a precedence was also an indication that she was the mother of a future king and in a unique position.
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 07-15-2007, 05:51 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Actually the Princess of Wales got a better deal than Fergie. She lost her HRH but retained her title and precedence at court. Diana also recieved a good lump some of money.
Diana was married to one of Britain's richest men. Sarah was married to a person who had, besides his royal title, not so very much wealth on his own. That made a lot of difference in the 'lump sum' she received.

There was no difference in precedence to Sarah and Diana. Both were divorced spouses of a Royal Peer. Both lost their royal status and rank. Both used the social tradition that former wifes of Peers could use their former husband's name. A very pecular British custom which is unknown to the Continent.

On the Continent a lady who divorces retains to the style she was known before the marriage. That is all.
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 07-15-2007, 05:59 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57 View Post

It seems an anomoly to me that Beatrice could become Queen but not Duchess of York in her own right.
It is, but it's always been the case. Women haven't been barred from succeeding to the throne, but they've almost never been eligible to inherit peerages.
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 07-15-2007, 06:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
There was a very big difference in the precedence of Diana and Sarah after their divorces, not the least of which Diana retained her dignity as a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of HRH.

The Queen made it clear in a statement from the Palace that Diana remained a member of the royal family, would continue to enjoy her royal privileges including access to The Queen's Flight and her residence at Kensington Palace, and would retain her precedence on all national and royal occasions.

Sarah received none of those concessions and is no longer regarded as a member of the royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 07-15-2007, 06:38 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M. View Post
Diana was married to one of Britain's richest men. Sarah was married to a person who had, besides his royal title, not so very much wealth on his own. That made a lot of difference in the 'lump sum' she received.

There was no difference in precedence to Sarah and Diana. Both were divorced spouses of a Royal Peer. Both lost their royal status and rank. Both used the social tradition that former wifes of Peers could use their former husband's name. A very pecular British custom which is unknown to the Continent.

On the Continent a lady who divorces retains to the style she was known before the marriage. That is all.
At the request of her Majesty The Queen Diana retained her precedance at court because she was the mother of the future king of england.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 07-15-2007, 07:04 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Carmel, United States
Posts: 13
Chrissy, you're seeing a lot more consistency than I am in all this.

1. Wallis married an HRH and remained plain old Wallis despite the fact that the LP granting the Dukedom of Windsor specified the dignity of a son of the sovereign for Edward.
2. Sarah became HRH when she married Andrew, lost it along with membership in the RF when they divorced.
3. Diana became HRH and lost it when she divorced Charles, but remained a member of the RF.

Looking at that, I cannot come to the conclusion that Sarah and Diana gained the HRH as a consequence of marriage to an HRH, because Wallis did not get HRH.

Nor can I conclude that HRH denotes membership in the RF because Diana lost the HRH and stayed in the RF. You clearly can be a member of the RF and not be HRH.

All I can conclude is that the sovereign bestows and takes away HRH as she sees fit. They are not properly termed courtesy titles; they function more like the GCVO or KG. Diana being the mother of a future king, and Wallis being hated, are reasons that explain why the Queen did what she did, but they are not Constitutional principles that explain how this process works. I'm ok with everything the Queen did, I just wish she'd done it in a way that establishes clear and consistent principles for the future.

But I believe HRH/princes have divorced before, not the heir but HRH/princes nonetheless. What happened in those instances?

PS - edit to add, Princess Michael doesn't need princely dignity to be Princess Christine, all she needs is a peerage in her own right. (I think authorities split on the issue though.) I don't believe the Queen ever had the power to bestow princely dignity on Phillip anyway.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1115 01-14-2015 03:50 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]