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
 
  #821  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:53 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
Sorry
[A little off topic, but I’m still curious as to why Nicholas’ children have The Hon. in front of their names. There’s really no reason for them to be, so I wonder if it is a mistake along the same lines as the succession mixup. We’ll have to see if Frederick’s children are The Hon. too I guess.]

As they are the grandchildren of a Duke they are Honourable.

Frederick's children won't be I am sure because they aren't the grandchildren of a peer of the realm but great-grandchildren.

Frederick and Gabriella are actually exceptions to the normal title rules as they are styled as the children of a Duke even though their father isn't one. This is because of the 1917 LPs. Maybe Micheal's male line grandchildren will be Hon - we will have to wait and see. Without the 1917s expressly giving Michael's children the Lord and Lady designation they would be Honourables and their children definietly Miss/Master.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 08-20-2011, 10:18 AM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As they are the grandchildren of a Duke they are Honourable.
Thank you, I didn't know that. So all (male-line) grandchildren of Dukes - besides the heir's children - are the Honourable? Does this apply to all Dukes, even non-royal ones? (I tried to look it up but couldn't find anything about it..it looks like the children of the younger sons of Dukes don't have courtesy titles all. I still don't see why they would in the first place !)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #823  
Old 08-20-2011, 07:40 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
Thank you, I didn't know that. So all (male-line) grandchildren of Dukes - besides the heir's children - are the Honourable? Does this apply to all Dukes, even non-royal ones? (I tried to look it up but couldn't find anything about it..it looks like the children of the younger sons of Dukes don't have courtesy titles all. I still don't see why they would in the first place !)

Younger sons of all Dukes are 'Lord' while all daughters are 'Lady'. Only the eldest son uses a courtesy title but their actual title is still really only 'Lord xxxx' buy they are allowed to use the current title holder's second title as a courtesy. This also applies to the other levels of the aristocracy as well.

The children of the sons of a title holder are Honourable e.g. Diana when she was born was The Honourable Diana Spencer as the granddaughter of the then Earl Spencer. Her father, at that time, was styled Viscount Althorp as a courtesy and a sign of his position as his father's heir. When her grandfather died her father became Earl Spencer, her brother was styled as Viscount Althorp and she became Lady Diana Spencer. Of course now her brother is Earl Spencer and his eldest son is Viscount Althorp while his other children are all Lord/Lady.

These rules also apply to the royal dukedoms so both the Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent's eldest sons use the courtesy titles of Earl of Ulster and Earl of St Andrews respectively while their eldest sons use the third title of their fathers - Barons Culloden and Downpatrick. The other children of the Dukes are Lord/Lady and all of the other male line grandchildren are Honourables. As Nicholas is the second son his children are Honourable but normally the younger sons of Dukes don't pass on titles at all. It is adding an extra generation to the titles for the male line descendents of royal dukes in the same way that Prince Michael of Kent's children are Lord and Lady whereas non-royal Duke's younger sons children normally hold no title.

So a non-royal dukedom would go:

generation 1 - title holder
generation 2 - courtesy title for heir, lord/lady for younger children
generation 3 - courtesy title for heir (if available), honourable for younger children of heir in generation 2 and no title for the children of the lord/lady from generation 2

but.... with the royal dukedoms there is an extra generation being added for the younger sons

generation 1 - title holder
generation 2 - courtesy title for heir, lord/lady for younger children
generation 3 - courtesy title for heir (if available), lord/lady for younger children of heir in generation 2 and for the children of the lord/s from generation 2
generation 4 - courtesy title for heir (if available), ... honourable for younger children of heir in generation 3 and no title for the children of the lord/lady from generation 3.

We are actually in uncharted territory to a certain extent as this is a consequence of the 1917 LPs and we are really into the beginning of the fourth generation from George V to which these rules apply.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
Sorry for bumping this thread, but I was looking at the line of succession on the British Monarchy’s official website (royal.gov.uk), and was surprised to see that it was incorrect..]
Albert and Leopold should not be on the list at all since they are Roman Catholics so do not have succession rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #825  
Old 08-21-2011, 12:13 AM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Albert and Leopold should not be on the list at all since they are Roman Catholics so do not have succession rights.
They are baptized Roman Catholics (since they're so young they didn't have a choice), so until they are confirmed into the Catholic Church they retain their succession rights. It happened to their cousins Edward and Marina-Charlotte.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 08-21-2011, 04:10 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
They are baptized Roman Catholics (since they're so young they didn't have a choice), so until they are confirmed into the Catholic Church they retain their succession rights. It happened to their cousins Edward and Marina-Charlotte.

This is where the Act if a little bit unclear.

Is a baptised child 'holding communion with the Church of Rome'? Given the very young age at which a RC takes communion the question of when they lose/lost their rights could be taken as being from baptism or first communion but certainly not as late as confirmation - unless they haven't already taken their first communion - once they do that they are in communion with Rome and thus our.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 08-21-2011, 11:59 AM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
However, Lady Amelia Windsor is 15 and is still in the line of succession. I would assume she has been baptized and has had her first communion and will be going though confirmation soon. Unless she's the only one in her immediate family not be a Roman Catholic. I think I read that her sister lost her rights in 2008, around the time she would have been confirmed into the Church.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 08-28-2011, 04:35 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,805
One has to understand that because of the historical background. When the Act was passing legislation it didn't matter to the people if someone was born and baptized a Catholic as it was very common to change the religion in later years. Elizabeth Stuart eg had two daughters who became nuns and later abbesses - one a Catholic in France, the other a Protestant in Germany... which didn't matter to their family at all - some siblings were Catholic, other stayed Protestants but still they stayed in Contact...

So the point that the Act excludes a member of the RF is when he or she becomes a "Papist" through willingly taking communication in a Holy Mass as a grown-up. (Which is after coming to age in the religious sense, which currently is age 14 in Germany, not sure about the UK).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 08-28-2011, 06:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
The simple point is that the Act says -'holding communion with Rome'.

Now what does that mean - to me that is when they are accepted as a Roman Catholic - in the eyes of the RC church - and that is baptism.

That some people argue differently is fine - but if the RC church regards a person as being a member of their church then that person is in communion with Rome and thus out of the line of succession. That recently some lists wait until confirmation to remove a person is actually irrelevant as the act actually only affects a person at the time of the succession. Being RC doesn't have any other bearing on a person and their rights until they are about to succeed and then they are stopped from doing so e.g. strange as it seems if Charles converted to RC it would technically make no difference to his position as heir to the throne but...the moment the Queen died he would be regarded as dead as well and William would succeed but while the Queen was alive Charles would still have all the same rights that he has now.

Now take this scenario - William and Kate have a child and that child is baptised RC, then the Queen dies, Charles dies, William dies - who is the next monarch. From my study of this issue - Harry succeeds as the child would also be regarded as being dead as the child has been accepted into the RC church and would be regarded as RC from the time of the baptism. Now I know that others will argue and that is fine but that is my understanding and what I have been taught by professors etc who have studied this period of history and the legislation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 08-28-2011, 04:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
"As Nicholas is the second son his children are Honourable but normally the younger sons of Dukes don't pass on titles at all."

While Nicholas is styled as Lord as the younger son of a duke his children in fact have no titles and are not styled Honorable...they are plain Master Albert and Master Leopold...the first of the Windsors to enjoy no honorifics at all.

The royal website may give them this courtesy style, but in this and other cases I believe it is wrong. The 1917 Patent only states that children of younger sons, like Prince Michael, shall be styled as younger sons of dukes. It says nothing about more remote descendents... younger sons of dukes have the courtesy title of Lord but they pass on no distinction to their children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 10-13-2011, 10:04 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
Act of Succession now will be looked at

Here we go! It seems that Prime Minister Cameron will be discussing possible changes to the Act of Settlement (male primogeniture as well as Roman Catholic issues) with the other realm PMs at the upcoming commonwealth conference.

PM Harper of Canada has previously stated that it's not a priority issue for Canada and potential Canadian constitutional issues have been discussed in this thread above.

Get the can opener ready, as these worms are about to be released.

Fascinating stuff!
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 10-13-2011, 02:32 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,118
The whole issue (or as it has become, issues) is likely to be referred to a committee and that will be the last we hear of it.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 10-13-2011, 02:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Probably correct. Likely the coalition will fall apart and we will have another election before anything happens, plus the Commonwealth process could take quite a long time as well.
The Cambridge's children could well be in school before any changes happen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:01 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,181
As you might remember, I'm personally more eager about them changing the Roman Catholic thing (which hasn't made sense for, what, three hundred years) than the male primogeniture thing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 10-16-2011, 09:02 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
As you might remember, I'm personally more eager about them changing the Roman Catholic thing (which hasn't made sense for, what, three hundred years) than the male primogeniture thing.
On both issues. the line to the throne and the catholic angle. does anyone feel that there would be a "nay" vote? Just curious.

I'm just assuming that as in the US, the way a person votes when it comes to these kind of issues is made public.

In this day and age to vote no for a child to ascend the throne, no matter what the sex of the child is, brands that vote as as misogynist. To vote against the Roman Catholic thing would brand him as as narrow minded.

Just my opinon
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
I can see the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops in the House of Lords voting againts the Roman Catholic change.

Remember that the Church of England is an established church and that the bishops are actually political appointments made by the PM.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 10-16-2011, 05:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
The proposed change still requires the monarch to be Church of England, it just allows the possibility that the consort may be Roman Catholic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 10-16-2011, 09:50 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,592
Do you mean in the same way as CP Maxima of the Netherlands is?
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 10-16-2011, 11:51 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
From what I've read, it is likely the monarch would still need to be Church of England because he or she is the Supreme Governor of the Church, but the proposed change would allow the consort to be RC.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 10-18-2011, 11:42 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,181
But that Roman-Catholics are specifically targeted by a law in this day and age, is just weird. I wouldn't have said much about it, if the law had said "the consort must belong to the Church of England", that is, all other religions than the CoE were forbidden. But basically, a prince of a princess could marry a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu etc, but not a Catholic. I know there are reasons for why this law came about, but that was three hundred years ago.

It does make sense though, that the monarch should belong to the Church of England, as he or she also is the head of said church. But his or her consort should be able to belong to another religion, even the Roman-Catholic church.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander 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 01:18 PM.

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]