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
 
  #441  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:33 AM
zembla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Camden, United States
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
They would not be within the line of succession, so the Letters Patent of 1917 would not apply. As was done many times in the past with George III's sons and successors, The Sovereign could create them Peers if he/she wished.
What does that mean?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:40 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
For instance, the child is born John Smith (taking their mother's name), but is actually the child of a Prince of the UK. The Sovereign recognizes John by creating him The Earl of Hampton.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 11-24-2007, 10:12 PM
Melania's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 102
Question A question or two, maybe someone could answer?

From my understanding, Prince Philip was never crowned consort, instead, he was the first person to pledge his allegiance to the queen...

My question is, why was Prince Philip never crowned consort? I know the Queen has wanted to give him a higher title, like prince of the commonwealth or prince of the realm, but why never consort?

I also have another question, but on a different topic. When the kingdoms of Britain and Hanover were ruled by the same monarch, is that similar to today in the way that QEII rules Great Britain and Australia, Canada, etc.? Is that kind of the same idea... same monarch, different crowns, but united together?

Thanks if you can help answer my questions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 11-24-2007, 10:50 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melania View Post
My question is, why was Prince Philip never crowned consort?
To be "crowned" as such, he would have to be a King, which would have been nearly impossible (even Victoria couldn't pull that one off). Why not consort? I'm not really sure, but I think that had Philip really wanted it, he would have gotten it. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who wants a lot of attention due to titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melania View Post
I also have another question, but on a different topic. When the kingdoms of Britain and Hanover were ruled by the same monarch, is that similar to today in the way that QEII rules Great Britain and Australia, Canada, etc.? Is that kind of the same idea... same monarch, different crowns, but united together?
Exactly. It's the same end result, though the evolution was different. (The other Commonwealth realms branched off from the UK, whereas the personal union between Britain and Hanover happened by succession to the various thrones).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 11-24-2007, 11:15 PM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melania View Post
is that similar to today in the way that QEII rules Great Britain and Australia, Canada, etc.?
Just to be picky, the Queen does not rule, she reigns.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:27 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Richland Center, United States
Posts: 108
I don't believe the situations of Hanover and Canada/Australia etc. are the same at all. King George I was already Elector of Hanover when he succeeded to the British throne so he became King of both countries. In the case of Canada and other commonwealth countries, I believe Britain colonized those countries so that's how they became part of the realm.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:47 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkrcwi View Post
I don't believe the situations of Hanover and Canada/Australia etc. are the same at all. King George I was already Elector of Hanover when he succeeded to the British throne so he became King of both countries. In the case of Canada and other commonwealth countries, I believe Britain colonized those countries so that's how they became part of the realm.
How they came to be is quite different, but the legal separation is quite the same now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 11-25-2007, 03:31 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post

Why not consort? I'm not really sure, but I think that had Philip really wanted it, he would have gotten it. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who wants a lot of attention due to titles.

He was offered the title "Prince Consort" and refused it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 11-25-2007, 08:22 AM
coco's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: . . ., Germany
Posts: 219
I have a question.
I think it is true if you marry a prince you have to become a princess. And if your Prince becomes a king, you have no choice, you have to become a queen. And if you marry a queen, it's not possible for you to become a king. And the son of a Prince and a non-princess is a prince and a son of a Princess and a non-prince is no Prince . . . . is everything I said true?
Now my question: is it in some occasions possible to choose if you want to get a title? Maybe for lower titles? So that the parents can choose for a title of their son?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 11-25-2007, 08:44 AM
magnik's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,681
alt.talk.royalty FAQ: British royalty and nobility

A Glossary of European Noble, Princely, Royal and Imperial Titles
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 11-25-2007, 03:05 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
I think it is true if you marry a prince you have to become a princess. And if your Prince becomes a king, you have no choice, you have to become a queen. And if you marry a queen, it's not possible for you to become a king.
Correct. The last thing (marrying and becoming a King) used to be somewhat common in other countries, but only happened once in England, when Mary I's husband (later Philip II of Spain) used the title King Consort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
And the son of a Prince and a non-princess is a prince and a son of a Princess and a non-prince is no Prince . . . . is everything I said true?
It's true under the current letters patent. If the Queen wanted, she could change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
Now my question: is it in some occasions possible to choose if you want to get a title? Maybe for lower titles? So that the parents can choose for a title of their son?
If it comes simply by being married to someone, you can't choose whether or not you get it (unless you want to choose not to get married), but you certainly can choose whether or not you want to use it.

Parents can choose what their child will be called, but they can't change whether or not they have a title if that comes immediately from inheritance. A good example is Lady Louise. She's technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, but her parents have decided that she should be styled as if her father wasn't a son of the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 11-27-2007, 09:03 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Parents can choose what their child will be called, but they can't change whether or not they have a title if that comes immediately from inheritance. A good example is Lady Louise. She's technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, but her parents have decided that she should be styled as if her father wasn't a son of the Queen.
With the consent of the Sovereign only. The 1917 Letters Patent grant the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male-line the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. Unless The Queen issued a royal warrant or new letters patent, Louise remains a princess legally.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 11-27-2007, 11:19 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
With the consent of the Sovereign only. The 1917 Letters Patent grant the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male-line the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. Unless The Queen issued a royal warrant or new letters patent, Louise remains a princess legally.
I'm sure they got the Queen's consent, but it wasn't formal consent nor legalized. She is still a princess, but the Palace seems to have adopted a brute-force method of changing styles. (Say it many times as loud as you can and it becomes true.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 12-13-2007, 06:09 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 10
until what generation can the term "blue blood" be used by a person or to pertain to a person? like for example the Queen, The Princess Royal and Zara Phillips. can Zara be called "blue blood" even if she doesnt carry a title? if so that does also include her children & grandchildren??

what about for the Princesses of York,their future children & grandchildren???
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:21 PM
Quinto's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 23
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post


That is true Skydragon. Again I did not think of all the advances in medical care. But you still have to have good genes too.
When referring to HRH Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family, please use the appropriate etiquette and refer to them by their proper titles, otherwise you are being rude; also, please do not infer that HRH Prince Charles does not have "good genes" running through the blood in his Royal veins.

These discussions are most unpalatable to me as a Royalist.

Q.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:24 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Actually, and I refer to Debretts, it's quite proper to discuss the Royal Family as Prince X and Princess X. The HRH etc is really not nessecary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:51 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinto View Post
When referring to HRH Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family, please use the appropriate etiquette and refer to them by their proper titles, otherwise you are being rude; also, please do not infer that HRH Prince Charles does not have "good genes" running through the blood in his Royal veins.
These discussions are most unpalatable to me as a Royalist.
I will address Charles, Camilla or any other member of the Royal Family as I have always done and will certainly not take advice from someone who appears to be trying her outmost to alienate every member on here.

{edited for consistency - Elspeth}
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 12-16-2007, 04:10 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Having been in domestic service for all of 10 minutes, I'm aware of forms of address. I'd recommend you get a copy of Debretts Forms of Address and possibly Debretts Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners. In a very informal chat setting like this, full styles (not titles) are not really required though sometimes we do say HRH as an abbreviation. Usually though it's first names.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 12-17-2007, 02:53 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Personally, I think that His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Great Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Honorary Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, Chief Grand Commander of the Order of Logohu, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty will do quite a good job as King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 12-17-2007, 04:36 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
BTW - why does Charles not have a "Sir" in his list of titles? As he is a Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter, he surely has a right to be called Sir Charles? Like eg. Sir Guy David Innes Ker, the 10th Duke of Roxburghe - I took this style from the Roxburghe homepage, thus it should be correct.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
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 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 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 Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
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]