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
 
  #1821  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:37 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
You have a very bad attitude I've noticed... and it is sad. You come off as if your answer & those of others are law & shouldn't be questioned. By the way you responded, I can tell that it bothered you that I reached out to historical & genealogical societies that are considered experts in the topic at hand. And according to them, what I said for sometime is actually correct, when others like you said it wasn't.
You asked a question, it was answered and in great detail by one member here Which had to have taken up quite a bit of her time to do so considering how indepth she answered your question. You then proceed to treat us in a very arrogant manner, act like you had been ignored completely and/or you got the wrong answer, which you were not treated as nor received the wrong answer to your question.

You then proceed to tell us you've contacted "the experts" w/your question and look at that!!! You pretty much got the same answer as was given you here by at least four different people. Since it's "Debrett's" and therefore the experts, I guess that trumps whatever you were told here. I honestly can't believe you went to all of that trouble and for what? The only reason I can think is to rub our faces in "just how wrong we were", only those who answered your question didn't tell you anything different from what you were told by Debrett's, so...

Why didn't you do that in the first place?

BTW...I've checked the thread for Iluvbertie's posts and from the one I did see going back through the last three pages, there was nothing in it that matches up w/what you say you were told by him/her. That means she/he sent you a Private Message. Posting what another member has told you in the form of a PM out in the open on the board for all to see, unless she/he gave you permission to do so and I doubt it, is not cool and quite rude to boot.

Which leads me to this...

You come on here, basically treat us as an arrogant rude clique who need educating from "the experts" on the subject at hand since you felt you didn't get what you wanted and then have the outright nerve to start calling others on the thread calling you out for your behaviour as rude, arrogant and in need of an attitude adjustment?

Pot calling kettle black much?
__________________

__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #1822  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:39 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
To my knowledge, there has never been a Princess of Wales in her own right. Several previous Princesses of Wales did go on to become Queen Consorts and some of them that didn't, retained the title of Dowager Princess of Wales after their husband's death. A good example of this would be Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII's first wife. On divorce, she was then known as the Dowager Princess of Wales until her death. This is unique to her because she had been previously married to Henry's older brother who was a Prince of Wales.

To date there have been 10 Princesses of Wales. The list and dates can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_of_Wales
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1823  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:44 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
Neither is listed in Wikipedia's list of Princes of Wales or Princesses of Wales (the later of which states that the is a courtesy title for the consort of the Prince of Wales). I believe I've read that at one point during the reign of Henry VIII (presumably before his first divorce) Mary was given many of the privileges of Prince of Wales without being given the title, so it stands to reason that she was treated as such without being such.

Regardless, though, as the birth of Edward proves, neither was the heir apparent at any point in their life. As the children of the monarch they were at best the heir presumptive and could be (and were) displaced by the birth of the monarch's legitimate male heir - and at one point, I believe, there was even talk of displacing Mary in favour of her illegitimate male half-brother. Later in their lives they were each the heir presumptive of the monarch, their sibling, and could be displaced by the birth of a legitimate child (regardless of gender). None of the children of Henry had children themselves, thus each of his legitimate children became monarch in succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1824  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:47 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
First off, this is another production by Dr David Starkey and I keep meaning to watch it over at YouTube, but haven't done as of yet. Too many things to do and too little time in the day. Anyway...

AFAIK and from what I've read over the years, Mary was indeed created Princess of Wales and was sent to Ludlow Castle in Wales, w/a household in keeping w/her Station and Rank. When Henry divorced Katherine of Aragorn and also declared Mary as illegitimate and a bastard unfit to any Rights of Succession to the Throne, the title was also taken from her.

To my knowledge, while Elizabeth was proclaimed as a Princess and Heiress to the Throne until her Mother's fall from Grace, she never was granted the title Princess of Wales. Now it could have happened and we just don't know about it, but considering after she was born Anne and Henry were still confident of having a son and wanting to leave that title open for lack of a better term, I doubt it.

Now that's how I've read in various books over the years, but I could also be wrong and I'm sure someone on here will come and correct me if that's the case. After all, we're all here to learn, right?
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #1825  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post
You asked a question, it was answered and in great detail by one member here Which had to have taken up quite a bit of her time to do so considering how indepth she answered your question. You then proceed to treat us in a very arrogant manner, act like you had been ignored completely and/or you got the wrong answer, which you were not treated as nor received the wrong answer to your question.

You then proceed to tell us you've contacted "the experts" w/your question and look at that!!! You pretty much got the same answer as was given you here by at least four different people. Since it's "Debrett's" and therefore the experts, I guess that trumps whatever you were told here. I honestly can't believe you went to all of that trouble and for what? The only reason I can think is to rub our faces in "just how wrong we were", only those who answered your question didn't tell you anything different from what you were told by Debrett's, so...

Why didn't you do that in the first place?

BTW...I've checked the thread for Iluvbertie's posts and from the one I did see going back through the last three pages, there was nothing in it that matches up w/what you say you were told by him/her. That means she/he sent you a Private Message. Posting what another member has told you in the form of a PM out in the open on the board for all to see, unless she/he gave you permission to do so and I doubt it, is not cool and quite rude to boot.

Which leads me to this...

You come on here, basically treat us as an arrogant rude clique who need educating from "the experts" on the subject at hand since you felt you didn't get what you wanted and then have the outright nerve to start calling others on the thread calling you out for your behaviour as rude, arrogant and in need of an attitude adjustment?

Pot calling kettle black much?

Very well said.

I have no record of contacting this person via PM - and I have my PMs back to last June but may have written something like this on another thread or somewhere else.

I found this posters response rude and then condescending and so they are now on my mental 'ignore' list - in other words I will simply skip everything they say, not reply to anything they post etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1826  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:49 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 145
Thanks. I just wonder why he would say, "And Elizabeth was proclaimed Princess of Wales... Now there were two Queens, and two Princesses of Wales." I guess it is just the dweebish British royal historian equivalent of literary hyperbole.

Hmm, the more I look, the more I find websites that say Mary was actually invested as Princess of Wales. I wonder what the original source is for all of these claims. I'm sure there's a simmering debate amongst historians as to the reliability of whatever source has led people to list her as a Princess of Wales. Was it based on some clergyman's diary entry, and mentioned nowhere else? Has she been erased from the line of Princes (and potentially Princess) of Wales because her tenure was so short? Surely someone on this forum has some solid info on this matter.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1827  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:57 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
Neither Lady Mary (future Mary I) nor Lady Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I) or Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II) were ever Princesses of Wales. It is not an automatic title and the Sovereign has to grant it to the heir apparent to the throne. None of them were Heiresses Apparent (all were heiresses presumptive) and none was ever created the Princess of Wales.

In Mary's case, she had been heiress presumptive to the Throne for many years and when it became apparent Catherine of Aragon would not have any further children, some people (Henry VIII included) started referring to her as The Princess of Wales. However, the title was never officially hers.

At no point was Lady Elizabeth called the Princess of Wales; there was always a strong chance Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn would have a son, or Henry would marry again and have a son with his next wife, as did indeed happen.

Princess Elizabeth was likewise never created The Princess of Wales. Admittedly, when it became apparent George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) would have no further children, some senior politicians suggested the Princess - as heiress apparent to the throne in all but name - could be granted the title. However, George VI is said to have been opposed to the idea, maintaining that the Princess of Wales has always been the wife of the Prince of Wales, and there was never a woman who held the title in her own right.


This said, there is actually no reason at all why a woman couldn't be created The Princess of Wales in her own right. Some titles of the Heir Apparent require the holder to be male: for instance, the title The Duke of Cornwall can only be held by the Heir Apparent who is also eldest son of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales title, however, merely requires for the holder to be Heir Apparent to the Throne. If the Succession to the Crown Act is passed, then the first-born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be Heir(ess) Apparent regardless of gender. If a girl, she absolutely could one day become The Princess of Wales in her own right.
Reply With Quote
  #1828  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:57 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,260
I don't know and it's odd that Starkey, if this is the production I'm thinking of, would say something like that if it wasn't documented somewhere. He usually does a pretty good job of his fact checking, so...Hmmm....

Now you're *really* making me want to watch this. Has to wait till sometime tomorrow at least, as I've up too late already and I have a Dr's appt tomorrow too.
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #1829  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:06 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
Neither Lady Mary (future Mary I) nor Lady Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I) or Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II) were ever Princesses of Wales. It is not an automatic title and the Sovereign has to grant it to the heir apparent to the throne. None of them were Heiresses Apparent (all were heiresses presumptive) and none was ever created the Princess of Wales.

In Mary's case, she had been heiress presumptive to the Throne for many years and when it became apparent Catherine of Aragon would not have any further children, some people (Henry VIII included) started referring to her as The Princess of Wales. However, the title was never officially hers.

At no point was Lady Elizabeth called the Princess of Wales; there was always a strong chance Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn would have a son, or Henry would marry again and have a son with his next wife, as did indeed happen.

Princess Elizabeth was likewise never created The Princess of Wales. Admittedly, when it became apparent George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) would have no further children, some senior politicians suggested the Princess - as heiress apparent to the throne in all but name - could be granted the title. However, George VI is said to have been opposed to the idea, maintaining that the Princess of Wales has always been the wife of the Prince of Wales, and there was never a woman who held the title in her own right.


This said, there is actually no reason at all why a woman couldn't be created The Princess of Wales in her own right. Some titles of the Heir Apparent require the holder to be male: for instance, the title The Duke of Cornwall can only be conferred to a Heir Apparent who is also eldest son of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales title, however, merely requires for the holder to be Heir Apparent to the Throne. If the Succession to the Crown Act is passed, then the first-born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be Heir(ess) Apparent regardless of gender. If a girl, she absolutely could one day become The Princess of Wales in her own right.
But was this a legal requirement in the 1520s/30s as it might be today? The sense I get is that legal documents must be filed today to create someone with a title. And even if legal documents were required back then as well, isn't whatever the Sovereign says the end all be all, as the font of titles or whatever? In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales? Perhaps there are court records/circulars that refer to "The Princess of Wales". Would that be enough to make it "official," or are Letters Patent the only way to make a title official?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1830  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,357
George III was, of course, heir apparent after the death of his father, Frederick Prince of Wales.

Now George couldn't be Duke of Cornwall even though he was the heir apparent because he wasn't the eldest son of the King but George II conferred the title Prince of Wales on him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1831  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:26 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales?
I think the answer to this comes back to the difference between titles and styles. Queen Elizabeth II allowed Princess Alice to be known as such as a courtesy. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was affectionately known as the Queen Mum but you would never see Queen Mum in the history books. From my limited forays into medieval history, its struck me that even back then there were meticulous records kept and if Henry VIII had created Mary a Princess of Wales, it would be in on record as such. As much as having a son and heir meant to Henry, I don't see that he would have done this only to have her displaced by a future son.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1832  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:43 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think the answer to this comes back to the difference between titles and styles. Queen Elizabeth II allowed Princess Alice to be known as such as a courtesy. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was affectionately known as the Queen Mum but you would never see Queen Mum in the history books. From my limited forays into medieval history, its struck me that even back then there were meticulous records kept and if Henry VIII had created Mary a Princess of Wales, it would be in on record as such. As much as having a son and heir meant to Henry, I don't see that he would have done this only to have her displaced by a future son.
Good points. I just wish they included footnotes with documentaries like this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1833  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:45 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
But was this a legal requirement in the 1520s/30s as it might be today? The sense I get is that legal documents must be filed today to create someone with a title. And even if legal documents were required back then as well, isn't whatever the Sovereign says the end all be all, as the font of titles or whatever? In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales? Perhaps there are court records/circulars that refer to "The Princess of Wales". Would that be enough to make it "official," or are Letters Patent the only way to make a title official?
Then, as now, the Heir Apparent must be invested wit the title of the Prince of Wales to actually hold it. For instance, Henry VIII became Heir Apparent to the Throne on 2 April 1502 (upon his elder childless brother's death) but was not granted the Prince of Wales title until February of 1503 or 1504.

Henry merely acknowledged that as his (at the time) sole heir, Mary was The Princess of Wales (heiress to the Throne) in all but name. He also gave Mary (then just a child) her own court, as well many of the prerogatives normally held by the Prince of Wales only. She was even sent to preside over the Council of Wales and the Marches in 1525, aged just 9. A lot of courtiers and even foreigners called her The Princess of Wales; among them was Juan Luis Vives, the famous Spanish humanist who played a role in Mary's education. Nevertheless, Mary was never formally invested with the title. Had Henry wanted to do so, I doubt anyone would have mind; after all Mary already was the Princess of Wales de juro. But he didn't. Moreover, after the annulment of marriage and declaring Mary a bastard, she was no longer heiress (until he passed the Third Succession Act), meaning she couldn't even theoretically hold the title.

In case of most peerage titles, Letters of Patent or Writs of Summons are the only way to make a title official. In case of royal titles, however, the Sovereign's word is believed to be highest authority and he/she is indeed the fount of all honours.
Reply With Quote
  #1834  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:55 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Okay, so I have a question regarding the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It's been established that while it's the intention if HM and The DoE that eventually the EoW will be created the DoE, but first both HM and the DoE must die and the duchy must merge with the crown - and that there are circumstances under which it will now merge and will instead end up with Harry or the DoY.

My question is, since honours come from HM is it possible for her to issue LPs regarding the duchy stating that on the death of the current DoE the title will pass to his youngest son? She's issued LPs before that allow for the changing of the inheritance of other duchys, could she not do so here and thus avoid all the speculation and possible drama (and ensure that her wishes are carried out regarding the matter)?

Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1835  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:06 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Good points. I just wish they included footnotes with documentaries like this.
The good part about not having footnotes is that it whets the appetite for more knowledge and raises questions and that gives rise to discussions such as we have here. The information that comes out can sometimes be very in depth and by participating we really expand our own scope of understanding of how things work. Some of the knowledge presented here would take hours to present in depth in a TV documentary methinks.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1836  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:06 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,789
I do believe the title is Anne's for life. There can only be one at a time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1837  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:24 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Okay, so I have a question regarding the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It's been established that while it's the intention if HM and The DoE that eventually the EoW will be created the DoE, but first both HM and the DoE must die and the duchy must merge with the crown - and that there are circumstances under which it will now merge and will instead end up with Harry or the DoY.
Have a look at this thread - The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title - which explains all the possible future scenarios of the title.

Quote:
My question is, since honours come from HM is it possible for her to issue LPs regarding the duchy stating that on the death of the current DoE the title will pass to his youngest son? She's issued LPs before that allow for the changing of the inheritance of other duchys, could she not do so here and thus avoid all the speculation and possible drama (and ensure that her wishes are carried out regarding the matter)?
No, Her Majesty can't alter the line of succession to the Duke of Edinburgh title. Nor has she ever done that in regards to other titles. The only way any changes to the original Letters Patent can be made is through an Act of Parliament. Not even the Monarch can amend them just like that.

An example to explain this better. The Duke and Duchess of Fife (the Duchess being the daughter of Edward VII) only had two daughters, meaning the Dukedom should have became extinct about the Duke's death. To avoid that, and not to go through the whole Act of Parliament process, Queen Victoria simply created a second Dukedom of Fife with a remainder that allowed female inheritance. When the Duke of Fife died, the first Dukedom became extinct while the second was inherited by his daughter, Princess Alexandra.

Another example, this time when Letters Patent were actually amended by an Act of Parliament. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough had no sons and the original Letters Patent of his title had the standard "heirs male" reminder, meaning his daughters could not inherit the title. Not to let it become extinct, an Act of Parliament was passed which allowed female inheritance.

In both cases, the Sovereign's will alone was not enough to make any changes to the title. The Monarch can grant peerage titles but to revoke, amend or suspend them an Act of Parliament is required.

Quote:
Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?
The Princess Royal isn't an automatic title; it is usually but not always granted to the eldest surviving daughter of the current Monarch.
There can only be one Princess Royal at a time
. Princess Anne will continue to be The Princess Royal until her death upon which the title will be available for new creation for the eldest daughter of the Monarch of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #1838  
Old 02-15-2013, 03:00 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,034
Thank you!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1839  
Old 02-15-2013, 03:18 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?
There can only be one Princess Royal at a time. So Anne is The Princess Royal until her death. When William is King, if he wants to bestow his eldest daughter (if he has one) with that title, it will have to be after his aunt has passed.

Queen Elizabeth II was never The Princess Royal as the eldest daughter of George VI because his sister Mary was still alive, and thus the title was not available.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #1840  
Old 02-15-2013, 03:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Okay, so I have a question regarding the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It's been established that while it's the intention if HM and The DoE that eventually the EoW will be created the DoE, but first both HM and the DoE must die and the duchy must merge with the crown - and that there are circumstances under which it will now merge and will instead end up with Harry or the DoY.

My question is, since honours come from HM is it possible for her to issue LPs regarding the duchy stating that on the death of the current DoE the title will pass to his youngest son? She's issued LPs before that allow for the changing of the inheritance of other duchys, could she not do so here and thus avoid all the speculation and possible drama (and ensure that her wishes are carried out regarding the matter)?

Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?

The Queen can't issue new LPs for the Edinburgh title. She could ask Parliament though to alter the LPs but...that would mean asking parliament to strip her and Philip's elder two sons of their rights - not something I think either of them would want to do.

As for the Princess Royal title - no there can only be one Princess Royal at a time.

If we go back to Queen Victoria and look at the Princess Royals since then and when they were created it shows this quite clearly:

Victoria created her daughter Princess Royal shortly after she was born. She died in 1901, the same year as her mother and Edward VII created his eldest daughter, Louise, Princess Royal in 1905.

Louise died in 1931 and so George V was finally able to create his own daughter, Mary, Princess Royal in 1932 - just short of a year later.

Mary died in 1965 so The Queen could have created Anne Princess Royal any time after that but waited 22 years, until 1987, before giving her that title.

The title is reserved for the eldest daughter of the monarch and there can only be one at a time.
__________________

__________________
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 10:59 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 felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess eleonore princess elisabeth princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 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]