The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1761  
Old 05-24-2013, 07:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I do think Letters Patent will be released by Charles to limit the HRH to children of the eldest child, but I don't think his LP would affect the Wessex children unless it was made retrospective. Is it possible to make it retrospective? Louise and James ARE a Princess and Prince legally, their parents just CHOSE to not use the styles. Legally they are a HRH's, and can choose to use the style when they turn 18 (which I doubt they will.) Unless Charles makes his LP retrospective from 2003 (Louise's birth), they can choose to use the style when they are 18.
Well when George V issued his 1917 Letters Patent it caused Alistair of Connaught to cease to be a prince and become instead Lord MacDuff. I think all that is required is for the monarch to express their wish how a member of their family is to be styled and titled since we are not talking about peerages.
__________________

__________________
  #1762  
Old 05-24-2013, 07:31 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I think you're right here. As hereditary peerages are no longer created (outside of Royal peerages), and as the Queen at least has continued to use the typical "heirs male" when creating peerages for her own children and grandchildren, not altering the way that existing peerages are inherited seems like an attempt to slowly reduce the number of hereditary peers over time. You can see this in the dukedoms - there are only something like 31 current dukedoms, 7 of which belong to royals (and 2 belong to Charles).



You're right it is an outdated concept that only men are created titles, it's also wrong. Women are bestowed life peerages under QEII. Life peerages.

There is absolutely no need to bestow any titles on a daughter of William's upon her marriage. Either she will marry someone who has titles - and will become the whatever as such - or she will marry someone who doesn't, and he'll be offered one, and she'll become the whatever of whatever as a result. Either way she'll also remain a princess.

Consider - the then Princess Elizabeth became Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh on her marriage. Princess Margaret became Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. Had the titles been bestowed upon then instead of their husbands they would have had the same titles, but their husbands would have remained Mr. Philip Mountbatten and Mr. Anthony Armstrong-Jones.

William's titles didn't allow for female inheritance, and I doubt we should expect future titles to do so either. Simply put this ensures that titles do not go on forever. The hereditary peerage is slowly being shrunk because it's seen as outdated. Enabling women to inherit counters this.



PoW doesn't have restrictions regarding gender. If William has a daughter she can be PoW - although it's my opinion that she would be Prince of Wales, not Princess, as the title Prince is for the heir apparent and Princess for the (female) consort.



The Queen does not have the power to change already existing peerages. She can only set the inheritance rules when she creates a peerage - sure she could recreate every peerage to allow for female inheritance, but that would counter a distancing from the peerage that we've see during her reign.

If HM is still Queen when Harry marries she'll not be allowing for female inheritance. She didn't do so with William, why would she do so with Harry?
We don't actually know what the letters patent on Cambridge say. But since the title will merge with the throne, it is a different matter than Harry's. Harry's title will not merge, so if he is like Andrew and only has daughters, the title would end. How do you know for a fact, you state 'she won't' do you have a source we don't?

What distancing from the peerage? The queen has great respect for it, and has made no move to slim it down. The royal family yes, in the sense those who are paid for by the tax payers, but the peerage is another matter all together. All we have to do is look at Louis Mountbattan, whose title was made to allow females to inherit, to know there isn't an opposition to such change. And her full hearted acceptance of equal primogeniture, shows she seems open to even more.

It would be quite easy when any title goes extinct because of lack of male heir, be recreated for the female heir, and at that time the letter patents be changed. It would cost the royal family nothing, as the peerage receives no money, and since the change in house of lords, no extra rights either.
__________________

__________________
  #1763  
Old 05-24-2013, 07:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
All we have to do is look at Louis Mountbattan, whose title was made to allow females to inherit, to know there isn't an opposition to such change. And her full hearted acceptance of equal primogeniture, shows she seems open to even more.

It would be quite easy when any title goes extinct because of lack of male heir, be recreated for the female heir, and at that time the letter patents be changed. It would cost the royal family nothing, as the peerage receives no money, and since the change in house of lords, no extra rights either.
Mountbatten is not the best example to use for your arguement. Female succession to that title was limited to Patricia and Pamela and the heirs male of their body. They are the only 2 women who could ever inherit that title.
What possible reason could the Queen use to issue new LPs to daughters of extinct peerages? Why would she want to do something that runs contrary to how the government and society is moving? What possible benefit would their be to the UK? You certainly would be very unlikely to have a political party lining up to support a move which would be quite controversial and receive a lot of criticism and make HM look very out of date and out of touch with society in the 21st century.
__________________
  #1764  
Old 05-24-2013, 07:44 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,577
She cannot do anything to slim the peerage down personally, however the fact that Government has removed the creation of hereditary peerages means that fewer will continue over time.

I though that changes to letters patent meant government intervention and was not within her personal gift - is that right?
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #1765  
Old 05-24-2013, 08:06 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Mountbatten is not the best example to use for your arguement. Female succession to that title was limited to Patricia and Pamela and the heirs male of their body. They are the only 2 women who could ever inherit that title.
What possible reason could the Queen use to issue new LPs to daughters of extinct peerages? Why would she want to do something that runs contrary to how the government and society is moving? What possible benefit would their be to the UK? You certainly would be very unlikely to have a political party lining up to support a move which would be quite controversial and receive a lot of criticism and make HM look very out of date and out of touch with society in the 21st century.
How would it be showing her as being out dated? Peerages exist, and until they all die out, they will. By saying, okay there are dukes, but there can also be duchesses, it would prove that they are modernizing. By allowing women to inherit titles and not just the throne, how is that archaic?

And what purpose? Does it matter? Last I looked, aristocracy doesn't hold any government position. They don't tax the serfs any more. The only ones affected by a title, are the family themselves. Its not like when the title goes extinct, that the money and land reverts back to the common people. The daughters inherit the estate and money, just not the title.

How exactly is it controvercial to allow equal inheritance? Love to here how that is controvercial.
__________________
  #1766  
Old 05-24-2013, 08:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
How would it be showing her as being out dated? Peerages exist, and until they all die out, they will. By saying, okay there are dukes, but there can also be duchesses, it would prove that they are modernizing. By allowing women to inherit titles and not just the throne, how is that archaic?

And what purpose? Does it matter? Last I looked, aristocracy doesn't hold any government position. They don't tax the serfs any more. The only ones affected by a title, are the family themselves. Its not like when the title goes extinct, that the money and land reverts back to the common people. The daughters inherit the estate and money, just not the title.

How exactly is it controvercial to allow equal inheritance? Love to here how that is controvercial.
Controversial and out of touch because it would be perpetuating a hereditary aristocracy in a country that no longer creates hereditary peers and slowly moves to meritocracy. If these women are so desperate to become peers let them do something to be rewarded with a life peerage. As you said the daughters already inherit the land and the wealth so there is no need for them to also inherit a title which is meaningless and will benefit no one, not even themselves but certainly not society.

At any rate HM would still need government advice to create these hereditary peers and I cannot see any government or political party giving such advice. You are more likely to see a future government pass legislation to abolish hereditary peers. The time of the hereditary peers has passed.

I can imagine future royal peerages also being lifetime peerages as well.
__________________
  #1767  
Old 05-24-2013, 09:40 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Interestingly, the Duke of Devonshire's heir, Lord Burlington, has two children. The eldest is a girl, Lady Maud Cavendish.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #1768  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:37 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post

We don't actually know what the letters patent on Cambridge say. But since the title will merge with the throne, it is a different matter than Harry's. Harry's title will not merge, so if he is like Andrew and only has daughters, the title would end. How do you know for a fact, you state 'she won't' do you have a source we don't?
I have no such magic source - I read elsewhere here that William's titles were created with the typical heirs male.

Quote:
What distancing from the peerage? The queen has great respect for it, and has made no move to slim it down. The royal family yes, in the sense those who are paid for by the tax payers, but the peerage is another matter all together. All we have to do is look at Louis Mountbattan, whose title was made to allow females to inherit, to know there isn't an opposition to such change. And her full hearted acceptance of equal primogeniture, shows she seems open to even more.
The distancing from the peerage may not be HM's choice, but there is a sliming down by natural means in occurrence here. Since 1965 all peerages created have either been royal or life. With the "heirs male" requirement attached to the existing hereditary peerages then it means that with time there is going to be a natural slimming of the peerage as the hereditary peers become extinct due to a lacking of male heirs. In the future, if the only hereditary peerages created continue to be royal dukedoms, this means that eventually the only hereditary peers will be ones descended from royals.

As for Louis Mountbatten, he is the exception to a rule, not a rule in itself. Other peerages have gone extinct during HM's rule, or threatened to do so, and she has not acted to save them in favour of female inheritance.

Quote:
It would be quite easy when any title goes extinct because of lack of male heir, be recreated for the female heir, and at that time the letter patents be changed. It would cost the royal family nothing, as the peerage receives no money, and since the change in house of lords, no extra rights either.
I really don't see this happening. HM no longer creates non-royal hereditary peers. It's that simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
I though that changes to letters patent meant government intervention and was not within her personal gift - is that right?
That's right. HM cannot alter LPs, parliament has to do so. She could, theoretically, issue new LPs creating new titles to allow for the prevention of the extinction of endangered titles, as was done with Louis Mountbatten. However, as no non-royal hereditary peerage has been created since 1965 and HM hasn't taken measures to ensure the preservation of Andrew's titles, I doubt this is going to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post

How would it be showing her as being out dated? Peerages exist, and until they all die out, they will. By saying, okay there are dukes, but there can also be duchesses, it would prove that they are modernizing. By allowing women to inherit titles and not just the throne, how is that archaic?
1. Creating non-royal hereditary peerages is seen as outdated. Therefore preserving hereditary peerages can also be seen as outdated.
2. There are duchesses (and female equivalents of other titles). There are women who have been created peers. There are also some peerages which allow for female inheritance, just not the vast majority.
3. Altering peerages in order to allow for female inheritance, however, is altering a system that is seen as archaic - not for its inherent sexism but for its inherent classism. That the Queen no longer creates non-royal hereditary peers means that any steps she takes to allow for female inheritance (not that she really can take any without creating hereditary peerages, which she doesn't do anymore) is seen as preserving an archaic system.

Quote:
And what purpose? Does it matter? Last I looked, aristocracy doesn't hold any government position. They don't tax the serfs any more. The only ones affected by a title, are the family themselves. Its not like when the title goes extinct, that the money and land reverts back to the common people. The daughters inherit the estate and money, just not the title.

How exactly is it controvercial to allow equal inheritance? Love to here how that is controvercial.
Daughters inherit money and estates with or without titles. Therefore the only thing being preserved here is the title - which in itself is seen as a part of an archaic system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post

I can imagine future royal peerages also being lifetime peerages as well.
I can see this happening in the future, but I hope it happens in the distant future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
Interestingly, the Duke of Devonshire's heir, Lord Burlington, has two children. The eldest is a girl, Lady Maud Cavendish.
This happens in a lot of families. The Duke of Devonshire's heir apparent is his eldest son, the Earl of Burlington, whose heir apparent is his eldest son, Lord Cavendish.
__________________
  #1769  
Old 05-26-2013, 10:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,234
I still believe that, as equal primogeniture affects royal succession, the end will be a rash of lawsuits if the peerage continues to use male primogeniture.

It is already happening in some instances:

Lambton inheritance: 'Selfish Ned is damaging our family’ - Telegraph


And, it may be true that titles are outmoded, but people still want them; witness the existence of websites purporting to sell (clearly fraudulent) titles to interested buyers. (The Duke of Bedford has been fighting this for years, and, every time he denounces them, he still gets enquiries as to where interested parties might then obtain a genuine title!)
__________________
  #1770  
Old 05-26-2013, 10:56 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I still believe that, as equal primogeniture affects royal succession, the end will be a rash of lawsuits if the peerage continues to use male primogeniture.

It is already happening in some instances:

Lambton inheritance: 'Selfish Ned is damaging our family’ - Telegraph


And, it may be true that titles are outmoded, but people still want them; witness the existence of websites purporting to sell (clearly fraudulent) titles to interested buyers. (The Duke of Bedford has been fighting this for years, and, every time he denounces them, he still gets enquiries as to where interested parties might then obtain a genuine title!)

The Lambton women don't want the title - they are after the money. That's nothing to do with primogeniture, its greed.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #1771  
Old 05-26-2013, 05:43 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
This happens in a lot of families. The Duke of Devonshire's heir apparent is his eldest son, the Earl of Burlington, whose heir apparent is his eldest son, Lord Cavendish.
My point was that Layd Maude Cavendish is older than her brother. If equal primogeneter was to come into force she would succeed to the title over her younger brother on the death of their father.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #1772  
Old 05-26-2013, 05:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Yes but no one in government has any intention of muddling around with the hereditary peerage so I think Lord Burlington is pretty safe in his expectations to become the next duke.
__________________
  #1773  
Old 05-27-2013, 09:25 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: long island city, United States
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
Ladyfizzle, I am glad someone besides me loves Estelle's name. Princess Estelle seems to have been named after a relative by marriage whom Victoria liked, maybe Daniel liked the stories, too, about Estelle Bernadotte. A similar reason is why I nominated Prince David, in honor of way-back personages who were very interesting and mostly admirable. I think you are right that Mary and Victoria are up in front of the pack, being traditional but not used recently, not really recently. Of the two I think Mary is the more likely.
I have my fingers crossed for a Princess Mary of Cambridge. It has such an old world charm to it :)
__________________
  #1774  
Old 05-28-2013, 01:19 AM
Princess Xenia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: ..., United States
Posts: 253
I'am waiting for a Princess Alexandra of Cambridge.
__________________
  #1775  
Old 05-28-2013, 07:34 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Princess Mary Alexandra Elizabeth Frances
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #1776  
Old 05-30-2013, 08:14 AM
Broadway Duchess's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Somewhere in America, United States
Posts: 69
I am hoping they go with Princess Charlotte Augusta Elizabeth Diana. Each of the names, except for Augusta, honors a close relative yet Baby C gets her own identity, as it were. If it's a boy, I'm still pulling for Philip Alexander Henry Charles. I'd love for the DoE to be honored in that way.
__________________
  #1777  
Old 05-30-2013, 11:26 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadway Duchess View Post
I am hoping they go with Princess Charlotte Augusta Elizabeth Diana. Each of the names, except for Augusta, honors a close relative yet Baby C gets her own identity, as it were. If it's a boy, I'm still pulling for Philip Alexander Henry Charles. I'd love for the DoE to be honored in that way.
Who's the close relative with Charlotte?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #1778  
Old 05-30-2013, 12:01 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Who's the close relative with Charlotte?
I think that would be Charles.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
  #1779  
Old 05-30-2013, 12:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think that would be Charles.
Charles and Carole.
__________________
  #1780  
Old 05-30-2013, 01:05 PM
princess gertrude's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadway Duchess View Post
I am hoping they go with Princess Charlotte Augusta Elizabeth Diana. Each of the names, except for Augusta, honors a close relative yet Baby C gets her own identity, as it were. If it's a boy, I'm still pulling for Philip Alexander Henry Charles. I'd love for the DoE to be honored in that way.
Always loved the name Charlotte! And Philip is a nice nod to the DOE.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


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
HRH Duke Carlos Javier (1970- ) and the Royal House of Bourbon-Parma: August 2010- Warren Royal Families of Italy 221 11-19-2014 09:34 AM
Potential Names and Godparents for Zara Phillips Tindall and Mike Tindall First Child Zonk The Princess Royal and Family 110 06-05-2014 04:47 AM
Baby Cambridge: Musings and Suggestions Zonk The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 3615 07-22-2013 02:30 AM
Possible names and godparents for Joachim & Marie's baby principessa Prince Joachim and Princess Marie and Family 390 07-26-2009 11:56 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 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]