The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4481  
Old 05-30-2019, 08:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As the son of a Duke , he should be a Lord even if he didn’t use one of his father’s subsidiary titles as courtesy. There is no rationale to style him Master.
The rationale is 'parents request'.

Their son and thus their decision.

That is all the rationale that is needed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4482  
Old 05-30-2019, 08:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Palace actually made a stronger point for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's style: A statement was made and they have consistently called him Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

By way of comparison, no statement was given on Princess Eugenie's style, and the Palace called her Princess Eugenie of York (including an entry in the Court Circular on March 21) up until some weeks ago, when her style was changed with no explanation to Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?
Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?
No explanation is needed. The Queen doesn't need to make her Will public via a statement other than simply having the official records use the title she wants used.

The Queen's Will can be communicated anyway she wishes with no formal announcement of a change at all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4483  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:01 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The rationale is 'parents request'.
I believe Mbruno is referring to the parents' rationale for their request.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Their son and thus their decision.

That is all the rationale that is needed.
The Queen's Will that the parents make the decision was needed as well. As I pointed out, the rationale "her name and thus her decision" did not extend to Princess Eugenie, whose own decision appears to have been overruled by the Queen's Will.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
No explanation is needed. The Queen doesn't need to make her Will public via a statement other than simply having the official records use the title she wants used.

The Queen's Will can be communicated anyway she wishes with no formal announcement of a change at all.
That is true, but it is interesting that certain decisions are communicated with formal announcements while others are not. And it is strange that the change was carried out more than six months after the wedding instead of on the wedding day, as is tradition.
Reply With Quote
  #4484  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:15 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Queen's Will that the parents make the decision was needed as well. As I pointed out, the rationale "her name and thus her decision" did not extend to Princess Eugenie, whose own decision appears to have been overruled by the Queen's Will.
Unless someone here is in communication with Eugenie (and or the Queen) we don't know what Eugenie's choice is or the basis for that choice. She could have changed her mind and decided to be "Mrs Jack Brooksbank" after originally deciding to stick with "of York".

Similarly we don't know that the Queen has instructed that she will be known in a particular way.

The Queen was OK with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren being known as Master/Miss in the case of Archie, Zara and Peter or as Lord/Lady in the case of Louise and James. She seems a lot less concerned with titles and how someone should be known than others.
Reply With Quote
  #4485  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Unless someone here is in communication with Eugenie (and or the Queen) we don't know what Eugenie's choice is or the basis for that choice. She could have changed her mind and decided to be "Mrs Jack Brooksbank" after originally deciding to stick with "of York".

Similarly we don't know that the Queen has instructed that she will be known in a particular way.
You're correct that we don't know for sure, which I have tried to be clear about in my wording.

However, we know that Eugenie is still using York, and is not using Brooksbank, for her own charitable organization and her professional career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
The Queen was OK with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren being known as Master/Miss in the case of Archie, Zara and Peter or as Lord/Lady in the case of Louise and James. She seems a lot less concerned with titles and how someone should be known than others.
I'm not sure that acceptance of (great-)grandchildren using lower titles than the George V letters patent would rule (and Zara and Peter's lack of titles are in line with his letters patent) extends to acceptance of married women being known by their own names. As the Guardian article quoted earlier mentioned, the queen has a past record of insistence on married women being known by the names, even the given names, of their husbands.
Reply With Quote
  #4486  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,266
Zara continued to use Philips as her professional name for a number of years after she married Mike. I see no difference with Eugenie continuing to use her maiden name for her work and charities while using her husband's name at official events.

The Queen seems to be quite happy to allow the girls to take their time in getting used to their new names.
Reply With Quote
  #4487  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:59 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. Children of dukes are known as Lords and Ladies, while the eldest is formally known by the duke's first subsidiary title (and his eldest son by the duke's second subsidiary title).

Had they asked us to stick to Lord Archie, it could be argued that they just didn't want to stress he was the eldest son but now they chose not to acknowledge he is the son of a duke at all (while he is his heir!). And theoretically he will be a prince when his grandfather ascends the throne. So, all extremely inconsistent (even more so because they released a picture of Archie with the queen (a first for her greatgrandchildren) when they announced he was to be known as master Archie).

But I am curiuos what good reasons you think they had to make this unlogical decision.
It's not unlogical considering that this is about a baby not having a courtesy title. Nothing about his young life changes because he's not referred to as Lord or Earl. Perhaps his parents like the idea of him just being Archie for now. Or perhaps they didn't want to use the courtesy title, knowing that he'll be HRH, likely within the next 10 years. That makes more sense than suggesting they want everyone to pretend he's not the son of a royal duke, which would a more compelling argument if we had reason to believe he would never be known as Earl of Dumbarton or Duke of Sussex.
Reply With Quote
  #4488  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,625
Not to rain on anyone's parade but being the son of a royal Duke isn't the be all and end all.

Archie didn't receive gun salutes in green park or at the tower of London. Westminster abbey didn't mark the birth with a bell peel.

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed that Archie never becomes a royal Highness
Reply With Quote
  #4489  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:38 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Frankly, I don't think most people care if he ever becomes HRH. In fact, many like that he may have more privacy and freedom to be who he wants. Regardless of his title, however, he will attract a lot interest and attention, as we are already seeing.
Reply With Quote
  #4490  
Old 06-02-2019, 08:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed that Archie never becomes a royal Highness
Rob Jobson in the London Evening Standard seems to have total confidence in his "senior source" who says that Archie will use "Prince" and "Royal Highness" on King Charles' accession.

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

On the other hand, other reporters were told that nothing has been decided, but would any senior member of a royal staff assume and state a future decision to the press without having specific information?
Reply With Quote
  #4491  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,625
^^^

I think a lot of these 'sources' are just going by the 1917 Letters Patent without actually knowing anything definite.

We all thought he'd be earl of Dumbarton but that was scuppered. It's nothing more than a gut feeling but I think Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will be his name until he becomes the Duke of Sussex.
Reply With Quote
  #4492  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:58 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,577


I could certainly see the senior royal sources going by the current conventions as to being Earl of Dumbarton if there had been no definite decision, as the British royal family had always held to the British customs surrounding courtesy peerages.

But I have doubts that a senior source would assume based on the 1917 LPs without having definite knowledge, because in the last 20 years, the LPs have been ignored in more cases (the Wessex children and the younger Cambridge children) than they were applied in.
Reply With Quote
  #4493  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:36 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,229
It's quite possible that Archie will use Prince when Charles ascends, but I wouldn't put much faith into anonymous sources.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4494  
Old 06-03-2019, 01:27 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 660
I think they are leaving things to happen when Charles takes the throne, just to show how the LP of 1917 will continue to be used. Has this occurred since it was written? I also think that is when Harry will be given the O of G. If I am not mistaken, there has been a vacant spot for a few years that could have been filled.
Reply With Quote
  #4495  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:22 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
I think they are leaving things to happen when Charles takes the throne, just to show how the LP of 1917 will continue to be used. Has this occurred since it was written? I also think that is when Harry will be given the O of G. If I am not mistaken, there has been a vacant spot for a few years that could have been filled.
There doesnt need to be a vacancy for a member of the Royal Family to join the Order of the Garter. They are extra knights.
Reply With Quote
  #4496  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:14 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 238
I interrupt this thread with very sad news for members of this forum: there are no such people as Duchess Kate and Duchess Meghan.
Reply With Quote
  #4497  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:53 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,433
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, Leader of the House of Commons and President of the Council, requested his staff to use Esq. for untitled gentlemen, instead of Mr.

Does that mean ALL gentlemen from ALL layers of society?

So no Mr Adam Smith
but
Adam Smith Esq

?

I thought Esq was for the likes of eh, let me think, Ross Poldark and George Warleggan, gentlemen of standing, of landed gentry, but not titled? But I understand it is for any male person? Does this mean any British male person receiving a letter from Parliament is now Esq.?

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/e0556f76-...0-530adfa879c2
Reply With Quote
  #4498  
Old 07-27-2019, 01:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, Leader of the House of Commons and President of the Council, requested his staff to use Esq. for untitled gentlemen, instead of Mr.

Does that mean ALL gentlemen from ALL layers of society?

So no Mr Adam Smith
but
Adam Smith Esq

?

I thought Esq was for the likes of eh, let me think, Ross Poldark and George Warleggan, gentlemen of standing, of landed gentry, but not titled? But I understand it is for any male person? Does this mean any British male person receiving a letter from Parliament is now Esq.?

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/e0556f76-...0-530adfa879c2
Originally, esquire was used to denote the eldest sons of younger sons of a peer and their respective eldest sons in perpetuity. It was roughly equivalent to an écuyer or jonkheer in the Low Countries.
Reply With Quote
  #4499  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,625
The law firm, Messrs Middleton and Sons, was founded in Leeds by gentleman farmer and solicitor William Middleton Esq. of Gledhow Grange Estate.

'Esquire' does retain an official place in the order of precedence.
Reply With Quote
  #4500  
Old 07-27-2019, 02:16 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,433
So my understanding that via Parliament every British male will be addressed as Adam Smith Esq. insteas of Mr Adam Smith was wrong?
__________________

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: 3 (0 members and 3 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 779 06-28-2019 02:26 AM
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
administrator aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian british royal family castles christian ix clothes countess of wessex crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of edinburgh duke of sussex family search foundation french royalty friendly city future germany greece harry jerusalem kiko king king philippe lithuanian castles meghan markle monaco royal monarchist monarchy monogram official visit pakistan palaces patronages potential areas prince aymeric prince charles prince harry prince nicholas princess princess anne princess beatrice princesses princess eugenie queen elisabeth queen mathilde rania of jordan relationship royal royal children russian imperial family savoy saxony sharjah south africa south korea state visit sweden tradition trump valois viscount severn wivies



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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