The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3961  
Old 12-22-2018, 12:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 706
I'm not an expert on the peerage but I think with the older titles, there is usually someone able to inherit even if you have to go back a few generations & forward again to find the 'heirs of the body' specified in the letters patent related to the title. For example, if the 10th Earl Spencer has no male heirs, there's probably a distant cousin somewhere in the world who is next in line.

Here's an example of an 8th cousin inheriting an Earldom. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/103...male-heir.html
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3962  
Old 12-22-2018, 12:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
That's true, outside the RF only three hereditary peerages have been created since 1964: Viscount Whitelaw (1983), Viscount Tonypandy (1983), and Earl of Stockton (1984). And hereditary peers no longer have the political power they once helf. The UK has finally rejected rule by a hereditary aristocracy, following in the footsteps of the USA, where it was rejected when our government was formed in the 1780s. At that time it quite a revolutionary concept.

As hereditary peerages become less and less important in the UK I suspect eventually the RF will stop using them as well.



The thing is that royal peerages are actually like any other ordinary hereditary peerage after two generations or so at most and, therefore, they end up adding to the stock of aristocratic families over time, except for those peerages that merge back into the Crown or become extinct.



Just to illustrate, over the past three reigns alone (including the current one), peerages bestowed on members of the Royal Family (or people who married members of the RF) have produced at least four new aristocratic families in male line: the descendants of Prince George, Duke of Kent; the descendants of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester; the descendants of the 1st Earl of Snowdon; and the future descendants of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and possibly the future Duke of Edinburgh. Add to that a possible son of Harry and Meghan and his possible future descendants in male line and we will already get to five new families in the British peerage. That is not neglible over time IMHO, even if no other hereditary peerages are created outside the Royal Family.


If British monarchs really wanted to phase out hereditary peerages, they should start giving life peerages only to princes (and, why not, princesses too).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3963  
Old 12-22-2018, 12:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Talk about chopping off the tree branch on which one is perching -The entire Monarchy is predicated on heredity [as are all families].
I said I believed the BRF would eventually stop using hereditary peerages. After all, the royal families of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg do just fine without them. And even within the BRF the practice is now limited to sons of the monarch or future monarch. Antony Armstrong-Jones was given a peerage but Angus Ogilvy, Mark Phillips, and Jack Brooksbank weren't. And members of the BRF are no longer expected to marry into titled families (Catherine Middleton & Meghan Markle, for example).

Why not? Because titles and hereditary peerages simply aren't as important as they once were. It's simply the way the world is progressing.

Quote:
The current obsession with 'equality' is absurd - there will ALWAYS be people cleverer, better looking or richer than oneself, it is simply a 'fact of life'...
No, the obsession with titles is absurd, which (as I've pointed out), even the British are beginning to realize. And being cleverer or better looking are due to biology or nature, forces outside our control, not to man-made, artificial structures such as a hereditary peerage.

As John Ball, that good Englishman, once said "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?"
Reply With Quote
  #3964  
Old 12-22-2018, 12:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I said I believed the BRF would eventually stop using hereditary peerages. After all, the royal families of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg do just fine without them. And even within the BRF the practice is now limited to sons of the monarch or future monarch. Antony Armstrong-Jones was given a peerage but Angus Ogilvy, Mark Phillips, and Jack Brooksbank weren't. And members of the BRF are no longer expected to marry into titled families (Catherine Middleton & Meghan Markle, for example).

Why not? Because titles and hereditary peerages simply aren't as important than they once were. It's simply the way the world is progressing.

Hereditary titles of nobility are still ordinarily given out in countries like Belgium or Spain. In the Netherlands, Queen Beatrix gave hereditary titles to his son, Friso, and to Prince Constantijn's children. The title might survive if Claus-Casimir has male offspring. Ditto for the title of Count of Monpezat that will probably survive via at least one (and possibly more than one ) of Queen Margrethe II's grandsons.
Reply With Quote
  #3965  
Old 12-22-2018, 01:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Payton View Post
A thought came to mind now in regards to this, would this be the next step in getting rid of the monarchy all together now?
I don't think so. There's a difference between a monarch whose power is largely symbolic, versus a monarchy/aristocracy with actual political power. The UK has chosen to keep the monarchy (and the aristocracy) but strip them of their power. This allows the UK to keep the heritage/traditions they are proud of, but also become more democratic by transferring more power to the electorate.

The BRF survived the loss of their political power. I certainly don't think they'd collapse if they no longer had peerage titles. Princess Anne does just fine without one.
Reply With Quote
  #3966  
Old 12-22-2018, 01:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
No Problem if the future 10th Earl Spencer will have no sons as he has also a younger brother. Only if the younger brother also has no sons the Title will become extinct-
Y'know, I'd totally forgotten about Edmund as he's not mentioned too much.
__________________
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
  #3967  
Old 12-22-2018, 02:53 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
The UK has finally rejected rule by a hereditary aristocracy, following in the footsteps of the USA, where it was rejected when our government was formed in the 1780s. At that time it was quite a revolutionary concept.
Not fully. There are 92 seats left in the House of Lords (currently 12% of the chamber) for which only hereditary peers are eligible.
Reply With Quote
  #3968  
Old 12-22-2018, 03:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,034
That's true, thank you for pointing that out. The hereditary peers still have some political power. But only a vestige, compared to the past. The British have been chipping away at the power of the House of Lords since the 1911 Parliament Act.
Reply With Quote
  #3969  
Old 12-31-2018, 09:44 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
There was some talk here back in Oct. and Nov. about the Queen issuing (or not issuing) new letters patent for the children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex re: HRH and Prince/Princess.

Some people pointed out that the 2012 LP's for the Cambridge children were issued (only) 4 weeks after Catherine's pregnancy (with George) was announced. When the four week mark was passed after Meghan's pregnancy with no announcement of LP's, talk died down and I believe many thought that no LP's would therefore be issued.

I however think that there's a reasonably good chance that new LP's could be issued today. Here's my thinking: While most people focused on the elapsed time between the announcement of the pregnancy and the issuance of the LP's; I took note more of the date. The Cambridge children LP's were issued December 31, 2012 (although not gazetted until January 8, 2013). Perhaps it was a little New Year's gift from Her Majesty to William and Catherine? A sort of internal family New Year's honours list.

Today being December 31, 2018, perhaps The Queen will issue (has issued) the same for Harry and Meghan. Of course that's if they even want it and if such LP's will ever be issued.

The above of course is just some idle New Year's eve musing but it wouldn't surprise me if it came to pass. Of course even if it did, we probably won't hear about it for another week or two when the LP's are gazetted.

I personally feel that if the Sussex children will eventually be HRH and Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King (which is what will happen if nothing else is proactively announced), then The Queen and family would probably want them to be royal from birth. If they decided to go the route of the Wessex children, then an announcement should be made sooner rather than later to avoid having them born without HRH, getting it briefly and then having it stripped.

Well, that's my two cents.

Happy New Year to all and all the best for a royally terrific 2019!
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #3970  
Old 12-31-2018, 11:16 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
There was some talk here back in Oct. and Nov. about the Queen issuing (or not issuing) new letters patent for the children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex re: HRH and Prince/Princess.

Some people pointed out that the 2012 LP's for the Cambridge children were issued (only) 4 weeks after Catherine's pregnancy (with George) was announced. When the four week mark was passed after Meghan's pregnancy with no announcement of LP's, talk died down and I believe many thought that no LP's would therefore be issued.

I however think that there's a reasonably good chance that new LP's could be issued today. Here's my thinking: While most people focused on the elapsed time between the announcement of the pregnancy and the issuance of the LP's; I took note more of the date. The Cambridge children LP's were issued December 31, 2012 (although not gazetted until January 8, 2013). Perhaps it was a little New Year's gift from Her Majesty to William and Catherine? A sort of internal family New Year's honours list.

Today being December 31, 2018, perhaps The Queen will issue (has issued) the same for Harry and Meghan. Of course that's if they even want it and if such LP's will ever be issued.

The above of course is just some idle New Year's eve musing but it wouldn't surprise me if it came to pass. Of course even if it did, we probably won't hear about it for another week or two when the LP's are gazetted.

I personally feel that if the Sussex children will eventually be HRH and Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King (which is what will happen if nothing else is proactively announced), then The Queen and family would probably want them to be royal from birth. If they decided to go the route of the Wessex children, then an announcement should be made sooner rather than later to avoid having them born without HRH, getting it briefly and then having it stripped.

Well, that's my two cents.

Happy New Year to all and all the best for a royally terrific 2019!
I agree that New Year's eve or New Year's day would be a reasonable date for the issuance (or replacement) of letters patent if that is intended. However, an announcement regarding the Cambridge children being princes and princesses (https://twitter.com/PeterDGPHunt/sta...80933762453504) was made on the date of the pregnancy announcement (December 3, 2012), four weeks prior to the issuance of the Letters Patent on New Year's eve, so the timing of the announcement (if any) this time will differ from the Cambridges regardless of what may happen.

Happy New Year!
Reply With Quote
  #3971  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,835
I know this isn't the correct thread and I'm very sorry for this, but I can't use the Search button any more.

A couple of friends were discussing Meghan's pregnancy the other day and the fact that, if the Queen doesn't issue LPs, a son would be Earl Dumbarton. Now, that's fine as it is Harry's subsidiary title and so, following custom his son will receive it. However, Earl Dumbarton is also Harry's title when in Scotland.

Therefore, Scottish commentators describing a visit to Scotland by the Sussex family years into the future might well begin with 'The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with the Countess, followed by the Earl of Dumbarton.' A bit awkward?
Reply With Quote
  #3972  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:56 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,633
Im really hoping we’ll be seeing a princess or prince of Sussex born this spring. I’m really hoping for that, Curryong.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #3973  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:59 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,980
Interesting to say the least. I'm going to take your scenario and put how I think it would go. Lets name the son Moe for this exercise.

I think if it was reported it might go like this. "The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with The Countess, followed by Moe, Earl Dumbarton. It would differentiate between Harry's title with "The" and use the courtesy use of his father's secondary title for his son, Moe.

I might be totally off base with this but its my initial reaction.
__________________
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
  #3974  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:04 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,849
My sense is that the Sussex children will not be given the HRH.

> This is a matter that will have been discussed within the family by now, and it is possible that H&M will choose to follow the path of the Wessex family

> Whilst the Sussex children will be entitled to be HRH under the 1917 LPs when Charles is King, and if that is indeed the route that H&M want to go down, my view is that the HRH should be granted at birth using new LPs.

> However, if in time Harry's children are not expected to be core working members of the Firm (quite like the York girls in the current set up), I can see the argument for Harry to request that they go down the Wessex route and do not have the HRH at all. The children will then be free to develop lives for themselves outside the Firm, yet be part of the family, like Peter and Zara are.
Reply With Quote
  #3975  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:00 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,659
Exactly.

There has been recent speculation in the media:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...-baby-due-date

I think a lot of the commentary in this article is OTT speculation and inaccurate too regarding titles. It's my understanding that since Prince William's children are not currently the grandchildren of a monarch, the Queen had the LP issued in advance of Charlotte's birth so that all of William's children would be known as HRH Prince/Princess prior to Prince Charles acceding to the throne. Prince George had access to the title already since he is in direct line of succession to the throne. It makes sense to me that the LP action was taken in advance for William's additional offspring.

The article fails to mention the fact that Prince Andrew's children were given the HRH title. They were entitled to it by virtue of being born grandchildren of a reigning monarch (Andrew also preferred it for his children -- he surely could have declined if he wished).

We already know that Prince Harry is not keen on having been saddled with the title of 'Prince' as a teenager, therefore he may not want it for his children. Whether Harry and Meghan want HRH for their children or not, they are not entitled to HRH upon birth, unless Prince Charles is King, or unless LP are issued which I find unlikely (for the reasons already cited by @muriel). The question is whether any changes might be made regarding titles for the Sussex children when Charles inherits the throne. I do not think any changes will be made, and likely no announcement regarding titles until the baby is born and styled either ______ Earl of Dumbarton or Lady ________ Mountbatten-Windsor.

The thing about all of this is that especially the American media has no clue nor savvy about understanding the ins-and-outs of British royal titles. There has been and will continue to be numerous errors published and erroneous pontificating by the tabloids and talking heads. As we can see by now, that is not unusual when it comes to the media wrapping their heads around British royal family happenings and traditions.
Reply With Quote
  #3976  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Interesting to say the least. I'm going to take your scenario and put how I think it would go. Lets name the son Moe for this exercise.

I think if it was reported it might go like this. "The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with The Countess, followed by Moe, Earl Dumbarton. It would differentiate between Harry's title with "The" and use the courtesy use of his father's secondary title for his son, Moe.

I might be totally off base with this but its my initial reaction.
If Harry is in Scotland with his son, using the courtesy title, then Harry wouldn't also use it so it would be The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, accompanied by the Earl Dumbarton walked towards the crowd ...'

That is the way they have done it with the Gloucesters and Kents who don't use their secondary titles in Scotland or Northern Ireland because their sons and grandsons are known by those titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I know this isn't the correct thread and I'm very sorry for this, but I can't use the Search button any more.

A couple of friends were discussing Meghan's pregnancy the other day and the fact that, if the Queen doesn't issue LPs, a son would be Earl Dumbarton. Now, that's fine as it is Harry's subsidiary title and so, following custom his son with receive it. However, Earl Dumbarton is also Harry's title when in Scotland.

Therefore, Scottish commentators describing a visit to Scotland by the Sussex family years into the future might well begin with 'The Earl of Dumbarton proceeded to walk towards the crowd with the Countess, followed by the Earl of Dumbarton.' A bit awkward?

The Duke of Kent hasn't used his Scottish title - Earl of St Andrews since he had his son who uses it. Nor has the Duke of Gloucester used his Northern Irish title since he had a son to use it.

That would be the same for Harry. He simply wouldn't use the Scottish title - just as Andrew doesn't use Earl of Inverness anymore, even though he doesn't have a son to use it.

If the Queen doesn't issue any new Letters Patent, then Harry would be The Duke of Sussex in both England and Scotland.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Im really hoping we’ll be seeing a princess or prince of Sussex born this spring. I’m really hoping for that, Curryong.
If the reports of Charles wanting a smaller royal family are true then he has to start with his own family. He can't object to the size of the royal family when the only way to add to it is via his branch and with three HRH grandchildren already it looks like the BRF will expand under his leadership rather than shrink as he reportedly wants it to do.

The best way for him to actually reduce the size of the BRF is to have Harry follow Edward's lead and to not have his children ever styled as HRH and then at some point in the future - either Charles or William issue new LPs stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of HRH and restricting it to the children of the heir apparent only. That won't happen during the Queen's reign, nor I suspect while her cousins are still alive but I can see it happening either late in Charles' reign or early in William's especially when his second child is a girl who can't pass it on while the third child can despite their places in the line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #3977  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:15 AM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Im really hoping we’ll be seeing a princess or prince of Sussex born this spring. I’m really hoping for that, Curryong.
I for one would love to see a healthy baby be the child a boy or girl. Titles are less importance then being healthy.....wanting a prince or princess shows the importance of what is important, a healthy baby or title........
Reply With Quote
  #3978  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:29 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
The article fails to mention the fact that Prince Andrew's children were given the HRH title, but that's because they were entitled to it by virtue of being born grandchildren of a reigning monarch (Andrew also preferred it for his children -- he surely could have declined if he wished).
Just one little significant factor here. By letters patent, Andrew's daughters were automatically princesses because they were born as granddaughters of a reigning monarch in the male line.. Anne's children were just as much grandchildren of a reigning monarch but were of a female line so they were not born prince/princesses.

I don't think it ever occurred to Andrew to have things happen any way but how they've always happened. It wasn't a question of preference at all.

If I'm not mistaken, it was Edward that first rocked the boat and requested that he children be known as the children of a Duke rather than an HRH.
__________________
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
  #3979  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:45 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,358
Until Edward's request was announced in 1999 no one questioned the right of the York princesses to be exactly that.

I remember the joy that was expressed when Beatrice was born as there was a 'little princess to go with Diana's two princes'. People were glad to have a baby princess.

Then came the 90s and the questioning about the entire royal family and the way it functions and who should be royal and who shouldn't and its size and cost etc.

By the early part of the 2000s people were asking why Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses and not Louise and James and many made the erroneous suggestion (and belief) that Andrew demanded HRH for his children totally ignoring the fact that they are the children of the second son. The Queen was the child of the second son. In the Queen's generation there are also princes and a princess from the third and fourth sons but I do think the days of the younger children passing on royal status may have ended with Edward's decision going to be the norm (now watch the Queen issue the LPs for Harry's children overnight).
Reply With Quote
  #3980  
Old 01-06-2019, 06:18 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,659
Thanks as always for your wise input, @Iluvbertie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Just one little significant factor here. By letters patent, Andrew's daughters were automatically princesses because they were born as granddaughters of a reigning monarch in the male line....
Yes, I know. That's exactly what I meant, though I may have expressed it awkwardly in my previous post. And okay, to be fair to Andrew, it wasn't a question of preference, just a matter of course that didn't require discussion.

If Prince Charles were already King, Prince Harry's children would 'automatically' be entitled to be styled HRH Prince/Princess too. But for the reasons previously cited, and despite any automatic entitlement if Charles were King, it's not certain the Sussex children would or will ever be styled HRH.

Talking about the ins-and-outs of these British monarchy styles/titles/traditions is like saying 'Supercalifragilistic' very fast 20 times in succession.
__________________

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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 781 10-08-2019 04:50 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 886 04-11-2019 05:26 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 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
alqasimi aristocracy armenia bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian belgian royal family castles charles of wales countess of snowdon countess of wessex crown prince hussein's future wife current events cypher cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch history family search felipe vi foundation french royalty friendly city future wife of prince hussein general news germany hamdan bin mohammed harry head of the house henry v house of bourbon house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lithuanian castles marriage meghan markle memoir monaco christening monaco history naples nobel 2019 official visit palaces potential areas prince harry prince of wales prince peter princess anne princess benedikte qe2 rania of jordan rumania russian imperial family saudi arabia shakespeare south africa south korea spain spanish history state visit swedish royal family swedish royalty united kingdom usa valois


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×