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
 
  #481  
Old 07-25-2013, 10:33 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,239
Cepe, Lumutqueen, vkrish, et al: what a lovely, civil, fascinating discussion. This is why I belong to the forums! Thank you all.
__________________

__________________
It feels like a place where no truth goes unquestioned and where there is much more discovering to be done in the world" The Duke of Cambridge, 12/9/14

"They are pretty, they are shiny, and they are more fun to look at than the shame that lives inside us all". John Stewart, The Daily Show
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 07-25-2013, 11:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
I am not asking whether a daughter can inherit.
If HRH Prince ABC, son of a monarch wants his kids to grow up simply as Mr X Mountbatten-Windsor, and no other title whatsoever, then at the time of creating him a peer, if the monarch simply omits the "heirs body male", then it is possible right?
That the peerage no longer exists after the said Prince dies, and title reverts to Crown instead of passing to his son..
Well according to the 1917 Letters Patent the children of the monarchs male line grandchildren are styled as the younger children of a duke. This is why Prince Michael's children are styled Lord and Lady even though he has no peerage.
In your scenario the monarchs son does have a peerage so then his children automatically get a courtesy title and are not plain Mr or Miss rather like the children of the Earl of Wessex.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 07-25-2013, 12:33 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
Were/Are there any peerages created without the tag "heirs body male"?
If a son of monarch wants his kids to grow up as real-commoners (not half-way like Edward) no prefixes/no suffixes/styles/titles, just Mr X M-W then can/will the monarch create him a peer just for himself, so that after his death the title reverts to Crown, instead of passing on to his son.
Any precedence?
Or any chances of adopting this method in future as "modernisation"?
I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.

There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post

Well according to the 1917 Letters Patent the children of the monarchs male line grandchildren are styled as the younger children of a duke. This is why Prince Michael's children are styled Lord and Lady even though he has no peerage.
In your scenario the monarchs son does have a peerage so then his children automatically get a courtesy title and are not plain Mr or Miss rather like the children of the Earl of Wessex.
True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 07-25-2013, 12:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.

There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.



True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.
To answer your question, the children of Life Peers are styled as the children of Barons.
Anyone can chose to be known as Mr or Miss, but it still remains that as the children of a peer they also have courtesy styles and titles.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 07-25-2013, 12:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post

To answer your question, the children of Life Peers are styled as the children of Barons.
Anyone can chose to be known as Mr or Miss, but it still remains that as the children of a peer they also have courtesy styles and titles.
That's what I figured.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 07-25-2013, 01:20 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
I am not asking whether a daughter can inherit.
If HRH Prince ABC, son of a monarch wants his kids to grow up simply as Mr X Mountbatten-Windsor, and no other title whatsoever, then at the time of creating him a peer, if the monarch simply omits the "heirs body male", then it is possible right?
That the peerage no longer exists after the said Prince dies, and title reverts to Crown instead of passing to his son..
There are life peerages issued twice a year in the honours lists - so the answer to your question is yes. Sorry I misunderstood earlier
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 07-25-2013, 05:14 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Edward does A LOT for the DoE award, as does Sophie. It's on fitting that he become the next DoE when his father passes away so he can carry on the award. James will eventually become His Grace, Duke of Edinburgh and I am sure he will support the award, whether he does it or not.

Edward declined being made a Duke at his wedding because the discussion about him becoming DoE had obviously happened, thus he probably felt it wasn't right to be made a Duke twice.
He will not only have to wait until Philip passes but until The Queen passes as the title will become one of Charles' titles when Philip passes.

The stated intention is that when Charles is King and the title has merged with The Crown that it be recreated for Edward which means that theoretically we could have a period of a decade or so with The Duke of Edinburgh title not actually being used formally as Charles would be the holder but not using it as he would still use Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay as his primary titles.
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 12-20-2013, 08:31 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,755
Prince Frederick Louis, grandson of King George I of England, was styled Duke of Gloucester from 1718 to 1726. He was created Duke of Edinburgh in 1726. Was he ever created Duke of Gloucester? If Yes, when?
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 12-20-2013, 08:56 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,569
Nobility, Aristocracy and Titles

According to the Wikipedia page, while Frederick was styled Duke of Gloucester when he was younger, he was never actually created Duke of Gloucester. Frederick's third son, William Henry, would later be created Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, in what can be seen as a clear reference to his father.
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 07-20-2015, 04:23 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 155
This kind of topic confuses me to the point really being unable to pay much attention. The basic points are looking like firstly it is a title of nobility, second it has nothing to do with personal financial gain, third it is a matter of tradition, something about saying thanks in Russian I think it is spa-zi-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-bah, (?)(thank you) or bal-shoy spa-see-boe (?)(thank you very much), anyway as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example. Who is supposed to address them by that duke title?
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 07-20-2015, 04:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.

There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.



True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.
Oh ok just a place to comment with reference to learn.. so it's more of a household title kind of a family name thing that relates to politics and family business? There are so many names, so many titles. So, lol, it's kind of just easier to refer to them as names without title when doing study on history until you get to the point where the title is part of the history your reading. So they get votes? What about just personal companions can't they just have personal companions or friends without title? I guess there is too much money and politics involved or something. I might be misunderstanding, but, it seems like anyone they do any interaction with has to have some kind of status and title, job or reason for the interaction, which makes sense, really it does for the positions they are in. I don't see the benefit of them having interactions with others who do not have some sort of royal job or duty or with some sort of title of nobility. Or am I way off in understanding? Really this is a family who has historically had the power to declare war, we are not talking some renaissance nuisance, wanna be king of the round table nonsense, but a full fledged royal family who given their nobility status can bring on a high scale war with certain given titles through hereditary. See, so all this to do with Prince Andrew in the media and court room speculation about paid for hire courtesans in the past doesn't make a lot of sense. So for study, is it duke, duchess, princess prince or hereditary name when researching the land held and history of the commonwealth, to aide in refrence?
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 07-20-2015, 04:43 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
This kind of topic confuses me to the point really being unable to pay much attention. The basic points are looking like firstly it is a title of nobility, second it has nothing to do with personal financial gain, third it is a matter of tradition, something about saying thanks in Russian I think it is spa-zi-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-bah, (?)(thank you) or bal-shoy spa-see-boe (?)(thank you very much), anyway as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example.
This answer is based primarily on things that I have learned here from those much wiser than I and from reading through the threads in their entirety.

Although for the most part duchies do not provide income these days there are two primary ones that do. The Duchy of Cornwall which provides an income for The Prince of Wales and the Duchy of Lancaster which provides income for The Queen. There are also different types of ducal titles. There are royal dukes and there are hereditary peer dukes. Except in rare cases, the ducal title and the estates (many times called a "pile") entailed with it still goes by the ages old first male of the body rule.

A royal duke can also be a prince. For example, when in Scotland, Prince Charles is referred to as The Duke of Rothesay.

One thing to remember. The HRH and styles of Prince and Princess denote members of the royal family. Hereditary peerages such as Duke, Earl etc are created by the sovereign at his/her pleasure. Honorific lifetime titles such as OBE (Order of the British Empire) and such are granted by the monarch for specific reasons. This is what you mostly see when you hear that The Queen or Prince William has done an investiture. Good examples are Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Baroness Margaret Thatcher, Sir Patrick Stewart etc.

Its a very interesting topic and I can't begin to say I know all the ins and outs. I suggest reading through this thread in its entirety. There are also other threads dealing with similar topics.

Enjoy!
__________________
“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
  #493  
Old 07-20-2015, 05:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 155
So life peers, or peerage is a part of Parliament. Their titles? The curly wigged white hair dudes can be woman through the peerage act. The house of lords is a hereditary thing that requires some kind of summons, doesn't always have to be peerage, requires a letters patent for peerage respectfully, kind of an Irish Scottish thing, all seems to have to do with shires or land, but there is some history in there about how Earls are an Anglo-Saxton thing, William the Conqueror, and Henry II didn't make dukes it was a Edward of England III thing, basically the titles are representations of land, Barons were ordered to attend Parliament, so Barons have had to do with Parliament in the past as representatives then led to house of commons, oh..k.. those titles, including marquees and viscounts all have to do with law and land. From what I read anyway. correct me if I am wrong. So referring to their titles is like referring to their position it's like a title that illustrates a job not like mr or mrs or ms unless it is in it's masculine or feminine form.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 07-20-2015, 05:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 155
So if it's the Order of the British Empire it's a Dame or Sir/Knight. Five classes, GBE,KBE/DBE,CBE,OBE,MBE . The British Empire Medal is associated or affiliated but recipients are not members of the order. So I guess their titles are also referring to the business they conduct or the status of their (?) Ok, so, King George V founded OBE to fill gaps in the British Honor System and from what I have read usually those in the orders were military officials, diplomats, peers, officials, civil servants and then there was the association with the Indian Royals and British Raj. How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 07-20-2015, 05:47 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.
Basicially (and don't quote me on this), I believe its in recognition to contributions made in their respective fields. The arts, science, community service and the like. Its The Queen's way of saying thank you and acknowledging what they've accomplished.

The Honors thread here is a good place to read up on this subject. It has a massive wealth of information and has been ongoing here since 2005.

The Honours thread
__________________
“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
  #496  
Old 07-20-2015, 07:11 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Basicially (and don't quote me on this), I believe its in recognition to contributions made in their respective fields. The arts, science, community service and the like. Its The Queen's way of saying thank you and acknowledging what they've accomplished.

The Honors thread here is a good place to read up on this subject. It has a massive wealth of information and has been ongoing here since 2005.

The Honours thread
It isnt just about their achievements in their professional field. For example, Elton John received his knighthood for his work for charity, as did Sir Ian Botham (England cricketer who was knighted for his charity work, not for services to cricket). Dual reasons can be given (ie service to music and charitable causes)

The notice for honours is very specific. Always worth a read
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 07-21-2015, 01:52 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,569
I'm going to try to answer all your points, and I apologize if I repeat anything already said by Osipi or Cepe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example. Who is supposed to address them by that duke title?
To start, "who is supposed to address them by that duke title" the answer is simple: everyone. If you have a title - Duke, Earl, etc - you are not a Mr. or Mrs., you are that title. It's comparable to being a Dr. or a Reverend in that regards.

A royal, a peer, and any person who holds a courtesy title is not just a Mr. or a Ms., etc, they are instead that title that they hold.

In modern Britain, the only way that a person loses a title they hold in their own right is if it is revoked via parliament or they become the monarch and it merges with the crown - they can chose to not acknowledge or use a title, but they can't cease to have it outside of these conditions. This doesn't apply to those who hold a title by courtesy; the eldest son of a Duke will use a courtesy title until becoming the Duke himself; a daughter will use a courtesy title but might take her husband's title upon marriage (if he has one); a wife is the Duchess during their marriage but ceases to be so if they get divorced and becomes the Dowager Duchess on her husband's death.

So, for example: Prince Charles was born Prince Charles of Edinburgh - holding the title Prince in his own right owing to the LPs issued by his grandfather during his mother's pregnancy, and "of Edinburgh" by courtesy owing to his father's title. When his mother became Queen he lost the "of Edinburgh" and became Duke of Cornwall in his own right. He continued to be a Prince, he was just also a Duke. Likewise, when he became Prince of Wales he continued to be Duke of Cornwall; he's just primarily known as Prince of Wales because that's the higher title. When he becomes King he'll cease to be a Prince, a Duke, or Prince of Wales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
Oh ok just a place to comment with reference to learn.. so it's more of a household title kind of a family name thing that relates to politics and family business? There are so many names, so many titles. So, lol, it's kind of just easier to refer to them as names without title when doing study on history until you get to the point where the title is part of the history your reading.
Typically in histories people get referred to by their titles, or an abbreviated version of their titles. The idea of a person being known by their given name and not their surname or title is a fairly modern concept. It's not something as simple as a household title or a family name - first of all, within Britain, it wasn't a "household" title, as only one person held the title, although others did derive their titles from it. It's not a family name in the pure sense either; while a person may use their territorial designation in place of a title, or their title may be derived from their surname, it is still something separate from the actual name.

The way a history works is that a person will typically be referred to by the name that they held at the time in reference - therefore, a biography of the Queen would refer to her as Princess Elizabeth of York from her birth until 1936, thereafter simply Princess Elizabeth until she became Queen, at which point a biography would refer to her as the Queen in addition to just Elizabeth.

Quote:
So they get votes?
The House of Lords is composed of members of the Peerage; traditionally this was all members who held title of nobility (in their own right) in Britain or its predecessor states. Since 1999 it has only been composed of those individuals who have received a life peerage, and not those who have a hereditary peerage - therefore, only those members of the nobility who have received recognition for their accomplishments, and not those who are members on the merits of their ancestors. Members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections, nor are they allowed to hold a seat in the House of Commons.

As for royals themselves; if they haven't been made a life peer then they are allowed to vote in parliamentary elections (except for the Queen), but do not exercise this right. Before the change to the House of Lords, royals who where members of the nobility (and had their own titles) were eligible to vote in the House of Lords, but did not exercise this right either.

Just a note, members of the nobility are the Dukes, Earls, Barons, etc. The hereditary peers are those whose titles can be inherited by their heirs, according to whatever rules were established when the title was created (typically only the male-line descendants of the first holder of the title can inherit, in order of seniority). The life peers are those whose titles cannot be inherited on their passing, the rules of their title does not allow for any inheritance. Life peers are a very modern thing, but now all new peerages that are created are life peers (and only with the title Baron, nothing higher), unless they're created for a member of the British Royal Family.

Quote:
What about just personal companions can't they just have personal companions or friends without title? I guess there is too much money and politics involved or something. I might be misunderstanding, but, it seems like anyone they do any interaction with has to have some kind of status and title, job or reason for the interaction, which makes sense, really it does for the positions they are in. I don't see the benefit of them having interactions with others who do not have some sort of royal job or duty or with some sort of title of nobility.
The members of the BRF have many interactions with people who are not titled, and we see this in their friendships and companions. A perfect example is Kate, whose family had no aristocratic connections or titles prior to Kate's schooling, yet she married a future king. Camilla, Sarah, and Sophie are all also not from aristocratic families, although in the case of both Camilla and Sarah their families were ones who were well connected (both in friendship and family ways) well before their marriages.

A lot of this isn't because there's any benefit in a specific background for their friends/partners, but rather because most of their friends are people they went to school with and/or the children of their parents' friends. So, for example, one of George's godfathers is William van Custem, who is known to be a good friend of Prince William's. One of William van Custem's brothers, Hugh, is the father to Grace, who was a flower girl at Prince William's wedding and is one of Prince William's godchildren. How did the van Custem brothers meet William? Their father, Hugh, went to university with Charles, and another one of their brothers served as pageboy at Charles and Diana's wedding. This brother, Edward, married Tamara Grosvenor, whose mother, the Duchess of Westminster, is one of Prince William's godparents, and one of her sons, Hugh, is another of George's godparents.

An interconnectedness that is often seen continues here; Hugh van Custem had a brother, Geoffrey, who married Sally McCorquodale, whose brother, Neil, married Sarah Spencer, whose sister, Diana, was the late Princess of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 07-21-2015, 01:53 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
See, so all this to do with Prince Andrew in the media and court room speculation about paid for hire courtesans in the past doesn't make a lot of sense.
Andrew's issues are a bit off topic for this thread, but the issue at hand there is that a man whom he is known to have been close friends with is a pedophile who recently was publicly accused of having utilized girls as sex slaves. Andrew's name (along with others) was brought into it when one of the girls named him as one of the people she had been forced to have sex with.

Quote:
So for study, is it duke, duchess, princess prince or hereditary name when researching the land held and history of the commonwealth, to aide in refrence?
In terms of heirarchy... they're not entirely based on the same level.

In essence, first you have your monarch, then your royal family (the princes and princesses), then your nobility, which is broken into dukes, marques, earls, viscounts, barons, then baronets, in that order, then your untitled individuals. There is an order of precedent for the royalty and a separate order of precedent for the nobility (with the royals typically coming before the nobles). Within the nobility, however, there is a difference between the royal dukes - that is the Princes who are also Dukes - and the regular Dukes.

In trying to do research... it's rather best if you have an idea of who was holding what titles at a certain time. Take for example Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904). After a certain time he's not going to be referred to as Prince George, but rather as the Duke of Cambridge. If you don't know when he became Duke then researching the Duke is likely to come up with confusion between him and his father, but searching just for Prince George is going to leave things out as well - do you mean George of Cambridge, George of Cumberland (later Hanover), or George of York (later George V), who were all alive at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
So life peers, or peerage is a part of Parliament. Their titles? The curly wigged white hair dudes can be woman through the peerage act.
The House of Lords is a House of Parliament composed of peers - since 1999 life peers (those whose titles are not hereditary), prior to that all peers.

Women are able to be peers in their own right.

Their titles are typically "Baron" now. A peer is simply a member of the nobility, a member of the peerage - a Duke, Earl, Baron, etc, however the only title used in the system of granting life peerages is Baron.

Quote:
The house of lords is a hereditary thing that requires some kind of summons, doesn't always have to be peerage, requires a letters patent for peerage respectfully
Being a member of the House of Lords does require having a peerage, hence the name "Lords" - it referred to the fact that those who sat in it were Lords, or peers. Its opposite is the House of Commons, which is made up of those elected by the "commons" or the commonfolk who weren't peers.

Quote:
but there is some history in there about how Earls are an Anglo-Saxton thing, William the Conqueror, and Henry II didn't make dukes it was a Edward of England III thing, basically the titles are representations of land, Barons were ordered to attend Parliament, so Barons have had to do with Parliament in the past as representatives then led to house of commons, oh..k.. those titles, including marquees and viscounts all have to do with law and land.
It's a bit more complicated than that.

The Earls, in England (in Scotland they were Thanes), from the Scandinavian "jarl" referred initially to a chieftain who ruled a territory in the king's stead. Essentially they were the governors of an area for the king - the equivalent to the continent's Dukes, but with less power (Dukes were de facto rulers; Earls were ruling under the control of the king). William I continued the system of Earls under a modified manner while also introducing the Barons, altering the feudal system, however with time the Earls became something that in rank may have been higher than the Barons but in actual terms of wealth or power was not necessarily greater.

The title Duke comes from Roman political divisions, which were abandoned under the Anglo-Saxons. The system continued on the Continent, and William the Conqueror was also Duke of Normandy. Edward III revived this for people who were family - three of the first four dukes were his sons, the fourth being a cousin (I can't remember how removed) with whom Edward is believed to have been on good terms with (and who had no sons, so the title wasn't going to be passed on).

The marquess title doesn't have a great history in Britain. Richard II created the first two Marquesses, only to revoke them both (the first one so that he could create it's bearer, Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland). Henry VI was the next to create a marquess, but even then it wasn't a hugely popular title - Lord Melbourne once told Queen Victoria that "people were mere made Marquises, when it was not wished that they should be made Dukes."

Henry VI also created the first viscounts, although initially they weren't hereditary titles. Like Marquess, they weren't used a lot on the grounds that they weren't very English.

Baronet is a title that while hereditary is not actually a peerage, and rank above the knighthoods. While originally used as early as the 14th century, it really gained prominence during the reign of James I who sold the titles.

From what I read anyway. correct me if I am wrong. So referring to their titles is like referring to their position it's like a title that illustrates a job not like mr or mrs or ms unless it is in it's masculine or feminine form.[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
So if it's the Order of the British Empire it's a Dame or Sir/Knight. Five classes, GBE,KBE/DBE,CBE,OBE,MBE . The British Empire Medal is associated or affiliated but recipients are not members of the order. So I guess their titles are also referring to the business they conduct or the status of their (?) Ok, so, King George V founded OBE to fill gaps in the British Honor System and from what I have read usually those in the orders were military officials, diplomats, peers, officials, civil servants and then there was the association with the Indian Royals and British Raj. How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.
As for the Order of the British Empire, it's one of the orders within Great Britain.

There is the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of the Bath, the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, the Distinguished Service Order, the Royal Victorian Order, the Order of Merit, the Imperial Service Order, the Order of the British Empire, and the Order of the Companions of Honour.

The Garter creates knights (KG) and Ladys (LG), as does the Thistle (KT and LT). The Bath creates Knights/Dames of the Grand Cross (GCB), Knight/Dame Commanders (KCB/DCB), and Companions (CB). Saint Michael and Saint George is similar (GCMG, KCMG/DCMG, CMG). The Distinguished Service just has Companions (DSO). The Royal Victorian has the Knight/Dames (GCVO, KCVO/DCVO), Commanders (CVO), Lieutenants (LVO), and Members(MVO). The Merit just has Members (OM), the Imperial Service has no rankings (ISO). The British Empire has the Knights/Dames (GBE, KBE/DBE), Commanders (CBE), Officers (OBE), and Members (MBE). The Companions of Honour just have Companions (CH).

Each one of these orders has its own requirements, varying from service to the crown, military service, civil service, or achievements in science, art, literature, culture, etc. The Order of the British Empire was designed to be a catch all with anyone being eligible for it if they had accomplished anything great.
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 07-21-2015, 03:06 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 426
Thank you for your exceptionally well written and detailed post Ish.

There were just a couple of things I thought of and, not being even remotely an expert in this area, I welcome correction.

I thought it was possible for a hereditary Peer to renounce his title. This happened when Viscount Stansgate renounced his peerage to become Tony Benn so that he could continue to sit in the commons.

Secondly, There are a small number of hereditary peers still sitting in the upper house (according to Parliament's website 88). I recall the idea was that the hereditary peers who were having their right to sit in the house removed were allowed to vote for some of their number who would continue to be members of the house. Since the Constitutional Reform Act, there have been rumblings that the Government should do away with this anomaly and remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit but it clearly hasn't happened yet.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 07-21-2015, 03:30 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 553
Sometime in the next 20 years two new non royal dukedoms will enter the British Peerage, the first since the Duke if Fife was created, that of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. In both cases they will be the 3rd of their creation but the first holders who are not Princes. There are also two other potential peerages, that of the Earl of Wessex (and any other title he may be given) through his son, Lord James and any line of Prince Harrys. Is this going to be the only way that HERIDITARY titles will enter the peerage from now on, through cadet branches of the British Royal family?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dukedom, royal dukes, 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
Royal Titles Zina Royal Family of Brunei 23 01-10-2014 12:11 PM
Royal, Princely and Comital Titles MAfan Royal Families of Italy 31 11-26-2011 03:30 AM
Moroccan Royal Names and Titles bjanka66 Royal Family of Morocco 61 07-05-2011 07:21 PM
Royal Titles Through the Generations IslandDweller Royal House of Norway 13 02-24-2008 08:26 AM




Popular Tags
australia belgium best outfit birth camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess catharina-amalia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall duke of cambridge fashion fashion poll france funeral germany hereditary grand duchess stéphanie infanta leonor king abdullah of jordan king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima official visit picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince frederik prince harry prince of wales princess ariane princess charlene princess madeleine princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mette-marit princess victoria queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague united states of america wedding willem-alexander


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

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 06:16 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]