Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well that isn't fair either. If you are going to change, make it gender neutral and oldest inherits like they did for the succession.

I will allow Lord Trefgarne, who moved the Bill, to explain:

"There are two other points that I would like to make. First, a number of your Lordships asked me why I do not propose that hereditary peerages simply descend through the oldest child, come what may. Speaking personally, I would have no particular objection to such an arrangement. But the plain fact is that that proposition has been before Parliament on several occasions and has on each of those occasions failed to attract your Lordships’ support. I therefore propose a more modest arrangement. Modernisation of the hereditary peerage should now begin and it is for that reason that I bring this modest proposal before your Lordships. Thus it is that the purpose of the Bill is to authorise succession through the female line in those circumstances where the peerage would otherwise disappear. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this proposition is right and proper in the present circumstances and will agree to the Bill."

This is from the Second Reading Speech, a link to which I included in Post No. 2795 above, to which I refer you. The Speech is worth reading.
 
Thus it is that the purpose of the Bill is to authorise succession through the female line in those circumstances where the peerage would otherwise disappear.
Probably one of the reasons parliament has refused to act on peerages is because this provision has always been possible. The Queen can created a peerage with whatever remainder she wants.

William's dukedom could have been created so females can inherit without any action from parliament.
 
Last edited:
:previous: But that is just leaving everything to the monarch and deal with these matters one at a time. Further, it does not permit change to take place to reflect the changes in society generally. I think HM is biased, and far too concerned about tradition and not concerned enough with broader issues like equality. Which isn't surprising considering who she is and how she's lived, but there needs to be a way to effect change within the extant system, and this proposal at least gets the ball rolling.
 
Last edited:
William's dukedom was never meant to be inherited. More than likely it merges with the crown.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Right but its possible that it doesn't however unlikely that may be.

Andrew is the Queen's 'favourite' son. When she created his dukedom it was with the standard remainder of 'heirs male' - There is no statute to prevent the creating of a peerage with the remainder of 'heirs of the body' which would allow Beatrice to inherit.

Unlike Succession, the granting of honours is an area where royal prerogative matters.

If parliament wants to legislate it that's up to them.
 
Last edited:
I could see peerage titles and their remainders being a big issue if creating hereditary peers weren't just about a thing of the past. Its my understanding that most peerages that are created these days are lifetime ones that really need no remainders.

As time goes by, more and more of the hereditary peerages are going to become more of a rarity. As far as I know, there are only two hereditary peerages that are on the plate to be issued in the near future. One being a dukedom for Harry when he marries and the second being Edward being created Duke of Edinburgh once all the prerequisites are met and Philip's title merges with the Crown.

Does this make sense or am I too far out in left field? :whistling:
 
Last edited:
It's definitely possible that William's Dukedom could be inherited. If William and Kate were to have another son, and if George were to die young, the other son would inherit the title and Charlotte would become Queen.

I could see peerage titles and their remainders being a big issue if creating hereditary peers weren't just about a thing of the past. Its my understanding that most peerages that are created these days are lifetime ones that really need no remainders.

As time goes by, more and more of the hereditary peerages are going to become more of a rarity. As far as I know, there are only two hereditary peerages that are on the plate to be issued in the near future. One being a dukedom for Harry when he marries and the second being Edward being created Duke of Edinburgh once all the prerequisites are met and Philip's title merges with the Crown.

Does this make sense or am I too far out in left field? :whistling:

Makes perfect sense to me. I like the idea that most peerages be for the recipient's lifetime only. That way the person who did whatever it was that earned them recognition is the one who gets the benefit, not those down the track who did nothing to earn it.
 
Last edited:
For William's dukedom to be inherited, he would have to die before he became King. That's a possibility but hopefully it doesn't happen.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
:previous: That's a given. No-one's hoping for it to happen, but it's not outside the realms of possibility that he and George could both die during Charles' lifetime. Helicopter crash, car crash, fall from horse, illness. All possible.
 
I am not sure what changes would be made, especially with the York title. That one has always stayed close to the senior family. QE2's father, and grandfather were both Ds of Y. It pretty much went to the spares, but always made it back. Changing it to males or females could see it gone for a very long time. What happens if the oldest female is heir apparent, but the oldest male is to become Duke of Cornwall? Two generations, and the duchy could be completely out of the line of succession. Could become quite the kurfuffle.
 
To be the Duke of Cornwall, you have to be both the eldest son of the monarch and heir apparent. If you aren't both, then there is no Duke until the criteria is filled. For example, Charles dies tomorrow, William is the heir apparent but not Duke of Cornwall because Andrew would then be the eldest son. Andrew can't be Duke of Cornwall because he isn't the heir apparent.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I am not sure what changes would be made, especially with the York title. That one has always stayed close to the senior family. QE2's father, and grandfather were both Ds of Y. It pretty much went to the spares, but always made it back. Changing it to males or females could see it gone for a very long time. What happens if the oldest female is heir apparent, but the oldest male is to become Duke of Cornwall? Two generations, and the duchy could be completely out of the line of succession. Could become quite the kurfuffle.


But does any of it really matter? The sun will still rise tomorrow if there is no Duke of York. Changed circumstances, new rules. Legislation could cure the Duchy of Cornwall problem so the heir still has the income.
 
But does any of it really matter? The sun will still rise tomorrow if there is no Duke of York. Changed circumstances, new rules. Legislation could cure the Duchy of Cornwall problem so the heir still has the income.


When there is no Duke, the duchy of Cornwall money goes to the monarch. The heir would get funded but through the monarch instead of direct from the Duchy.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I am not sure what changes would be made, especially with the York title. That one has always stayed close to the senior family. QE2's father, and grandfather were both Ds of Y. It pretty much went to the spares, but always made it back. Changing it to males or females could see it gone for a very long time. What happens if the oldest female is heir apparent, but the oldest male is to become Duke of Cornwall? Two generations, and the duchy could be completely out of the line of succession. Could become quite the kurfuffle.

Every time the DoY title has been created it's been with the intention/assumption that it would be passed on - circumstances have simply prevented it from being passed on. The Queen's father and grandfather were both second sons who ended up becoming King (and in the Queen's father's case, the title would have become extinct anyways as he had no sons). Before that is Prince Frederick, who had no children, Prince Edward, who never married, and Prince Ernest Augustus, who also never married. Continuing back, you have James II, another second son who ended up becoming King. His father, Charles II, was also a second son Duke of York who became King, as was Henry VIII. The DoY before him was Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger son of Edward IV, who died in the Tower with his brother. Then you have Edward IV himself, who became King. The only time a Duke of York has been inherited is in it's 1st creation - Edmund, son of Edward III, was succeeded by his son, Edward, who was succeeded by his nephew, Richard, who was succeeded by his son, Edward, who became king.

I'm fairly certain that when QEII made her second son Duke of York it wasn't with the hope that he would either become King through some circumstances or die without children, like his predecessors.

That said, I believe ever Dukedom created for the children of Sophia of Hanover, George I, George II, George III, Victoria, or Edward VII, except for the Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale and the Dukedom of Albany (which were suspended in 1919) have either been merged with the crown or gone extinct. And of the 4 Dukedoms created for the sons of George V, only 2 are still used today.
 
When there is no Duke, the duchy of Cornwall money goes to the monarch. The heir would get funded but through the monarch instead of direct from the Duchy.

Yes, but in the hypothetical situation raised there was an eldest son of the monarch, and therefore a Duke of Cornwall, but he was not the heir. The Duchy is supposed to fund the heir, but if the heir is a woman and not the Duke, then those funds need to be made available to the heir, not the Duke. Hence the need for legislation.
 
You have to be both. The eldest son and the heir apparent to be the Duke of Cornwall. It doesn't follow the rules of a regular dukedom. If George and Charlotte's birth order were switched. Charlotte is the heir apparent when William is king but George doesn't become the Duke of Cornwall when William is King. He is still just Prince George. In real life, George like William will become Dukes of Cornwall if no ones dies unexpectedly. When Charles is King, William is DoC, same for George when William is King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
To be Duke of Cornwall two conditions must be met. 1. Oldest son of Monarch 2. You need to be 1st in-line for the throne.

If the son has an elder sister he would be 2nd in-line. That would disqualify him from getting the title.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but in the hypothetical situation raised there was an eldest son of the monarch, and therefore a Duke of Cornwall, but he was not the heir. The Duchy is supposed to fund the heir, but if the heir is a woman and not the Duke, then those funds need to be made available to the heir, not the Duke. Hence the need for legislation.

You can have a heir apparent who isn't the Duke, but not a Duke who isn't heir apparent.

The title isn't inheritable; in order to be it, you have to be both the heir apparent and the Monarch's eldest son. This should be changed so that the holder of the Duchy is both the heir apparent and the monarch's eldest child, but as it stands now the funds from it are always going to go either to the heir apparent or to the monarch - never to the monarch's second child who is further down the line of succession.
 
OK. Thanks, everyone. That sorts that out, then. :flowers:

Still mightn't be a bad idea to introduce legislation to deal with the Duchy now we have abolished male primogeniture for the succession. The legislation that is currently in Parliament would not cure the problem as it still provides that all male siblings have priority over female and a female would only take the title if there were no males.
 
Last edited:
It is really a moot point right now because there are 3 males in the top three spots and won't become an issue until George marries which is a bit off since he is two. Also the money goes to monarch when there is no Duke so the heir who isn't the Duke is still taken of care. The monarch basically funds all the working royals except for the ones funded by the Duchy of Cornwall.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
You can have a heir apparent who isn't the Duke, but not a Duke who isn't heir apparent.

The title isn't inheritable; in order to be it, you have to be both the heir apparent and the Monarch's eldest son. This should be changed so that the holder of the Duchy is both the heir apparent and the monarch's eldest child, but as it stands now the funds from it are always going to go either to the heir apparent or to the monarch - never to the monarch's second child who is further down the line of succession.

I think it should go to the heir apparent. Period. Even in your scenario if Charles were to die before The Queen, William couldn't get the Duchy directly because he's her grandchild.
 
I think it should go to the heir apparent. Period. Even in your scenario if Charles were to die before The Queen, William couldn't get the Duchy directly because he's her grandchild.

I agree. I prefer the idea that the heir - whoever it is - has control of the assets/money, and that it doesn't revert to the monarch on the occasions where the monarch's eldest son/child is not the heir apparent, as in the example you cite.

I think it's preferable for there to be some distance between the two purses and not have the monarch in control of it all. I also think it's better for the heir to have the independence and the experience of managing the Duchy anyway.
 
Questions about British Styles and Titles

It's been that way since the 1300s. There have been several times that the first in line wasn't the Duke of Cornwall. The present Queen being the last one. 700 + years to change if they wanted to.

If something happened to Charles, the Queen isn't cutting of the Cambridges and Harry to blow the extra 18 million of Duchy of Cornwall income on the corgis and horses.

Let's not forget that most of the previous Dukes of Cornwall were not as diligent as the current one. A large portion of their income from the duchy on gambling, booze and mistresses. Looking at you Edward VII and George IV



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
But does any of it really matter? The sun will still rise tomorrow if there is no Duke of York. Changed circumstances, new rules. Legislation could cure the Duchy of Cornwall problem so the heir still has the income.

I agree Roslyn completely. I think this will happen before this becomes a problem. That change can be seen in the fact that Will and Kate children are Prince and Princess. Just the beginning. A female can be the heir(Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales in her own right.)
 
In a hypothetical situation where Charlotte was the first born and with the new legislation in place, the heir apparent, it would not follow that she would be The Princess of Wales. It would be up to the monarch's discretion whether or not to invest that title. If William were to invest Charlotte as the Princess of Wales, it would be the first time in history.that this was done.
 
Questions about British Styles and Titles

I agree. I prefer the idea that the heir - whoever it is - has control of the assets/money, and that it doesn't revert to the monarch on the occasions where the monarch's eldest son/child is not the heir apparent, as in the example you cite.

I think it's preferable for there to be some distance between the two purses and not have the monarch in control of it all. I also think it's better for the heir to have the independence and the experience of managing the Duchy anyway.


I don't disagree, but I also don't exactly agree. You make a very valid point and I think that in the event of there being a heir apparent who is an adult but not the eldest child of the monarch he/she should have access to the funds from the Duchy, although I don't think they necessarily need to be the Duke/Duchess (I want to say that either the Queen or George III had access to the funds as heir, without being the Duke, but I can't find a source so I could be wrong).

That said, instances where there is a heir apparent who is an adult but not the monarch's child are very, very rare. In 1,000 years of English I can only think of 5 occasions where the heir apparent (including QEII, who wasn't actually the heir apparent) wasn't the child of the monarch; Edward III's heir apparent was his grandson Richard II (a child), Henry VI's legally appointed heir apparent for awhile was Richard, Duke of York (hugely special circumstances), William III's heir apparent was his sister-in-law, Anne (also hugely special circumstances), George II's heir apparent was his grandson George IV, and George VI's heir presumptive was his daughter Elizabeth II.

The circumstances that saw Richard, Duke of York and Anne becoming heir apparents wouldn't be recreated in a modern monarchy. Richard II was a child. Elizabeth II would have been heir apparent and Duchess of Cornwall if equal primogeniture had applied. Which just leaves George III.
 
In a hypothetical situation where Charlotte was the first born and with the new legislation in place, the heir apparent, it would not follow that she would be The Princess of Wales. It would be up to the monarch's discretion whether or not to invest that title. If William were to invest Charlotte as the Princess of Wales, it would be the first time in history.that this was done.

It was being seriously considered in the highest quarters in 1943/44 and I think it's even more likely to happen now that we have equal primogeniture.
 
It was being seriously considered in the highest quarters in 1943/44 and I think it's even more likely to happen now that we have equal primogeniture.

I think so too. Actually, if they're going to make any changes at all, I would think they would be primarily concerned with the titles and styles and the remainders of those that are directly connected to the direct line of succession seeing as those are the ones primarily affected by the equal primogeniture changes.

It just would make sense to me that if it happened that the heir apparent is a female and the oldest child of a monarch she should be entitled to all the perks and be invested as The Princess of Wales.

Then again, it'll be a very long time before it even becomes something to worry about. As stated earlier, George's first child is still a few decades away from being a reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom