The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 01-10-2013, 05:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
^^^^
Prince Albert Victor,The Duke of Clarence was Victorias grandson not great-grandson.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-10-2013, 06:00 PM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

Take the Duke of Gloucester. He is a peer of the realm, took his seat in the House of Lords and all the rest - lost his seat in the 1999 reforms to that house as well. His son has always been known as the Earl of Ulster (little 't' the) while his father is The Earl of Ulster (capital 'T' The). The Duke's grandson is known as Lord Culloden which is the third of the Duke's titles. When the Duke passes (many, many years from now I hope) and his son moves up to the title of The Duke of Gloucester, young Lord Culloden will take on the style of the Earl of Ulster and if by then he has a son that son will take on Lord Culloden.
I wonder why William then never uses his fathers secondairy title? It would be according to the rules you mention. And that would mean that ,without the newly published orders, the first son of W&C would have been allowed to use Charles' third title.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-10-2013, 06:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
^^^^^
Royal princes do not uses their fathers secondary titles. For instance HRH Prince William of Gloucester never was known as HRH Prince William, Earl of Ulster and HRH the Duke of Kent was never known as HRH Prince Edwaed, Earl of St Andrews during his fathers lifetime.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-10-2013, 07:26 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
I see Prince Charles' concern. The first child is girl, she could be heir to the throne, but a second child, male could be Duke of Cornwall, and separate the Duchy from the heir. I think that is his concern. If the child is truly equal, they need the dukedom be it male or female.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-10-2013, 08:00 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,632
I look at the Letters Patent in a different light, maybe. Depending on if/when Prince Charles chatted up the pols on his concerns, the timing of the Queen's announcement certainly clarifies how she feels about the issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-10-2013, 08:44 PM
Princess Robijn's Avatar
Super Moderator
Blog Editor
Picture of the Month Representative - Denmark
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
I see Prince Charles' concern. The first child is girl, she could be heir to the throne, but a second child, male could be Duke of Cornwall, and separate the Duchy from the heir. I think that is his concern. If the child is truly equal, they need the dukedom be it male or female.
The Duke of Cornwall has to be the oldest living son of the monarch AND the heir to the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-10-2013, 09:21 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puchong, Malaysia
Posts: 12
I still don't get it. Prince William was born into the royal family, thus he would have the title HRH. Since in his royal highness status, why was he a commoner?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-10-2013, 10:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
Kate is the Princess William :-).
Kate is HRH Princess William - no 'the'. Only the children of the monarch, and the spouse of the monarch in the case of Philip are entitled to the word 'The'. It is one of the distinguishing features between being a common or garden variety prince/princess and being the child of the monarch.


Quote:
The eldest son of a duke or an earl normally has his own title - Earl of Ulster, Earl of St Andrews, Viscount Linley, Viscount Severn, etc - so the Queen could even give the baby his (or indeed her, in keeping with the new spirit of equality!) own title.
The eldest sons of peer do NOT have their own titles. They usually use their father's second title as a courtesy but it isn't the title of the heir.

The full list of HRH The Duke of Gloucester's titles, for instance, are:

Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden.

As a result he is known by his first and most senior title while his heir uses the second title as a courtesy and his grandson uses the third one as a courtesy as well but the title-holder in each case is still The Duke of Gloucester.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-10-2013, 10:42 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,080
this is a great news! well, we now can say WE HAVE A LITTLE PRINCE/PRINCESS ON WAY!
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-10-2013, 10:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessgan View Post
I still don't get it. Prince William was born into the royal family, thus he would have the title HRH. Since in his royal highness status, why was he a commoner?
There are three categories of people in the UK:

1. The monarch - he isn't the monarch and so can't be category 1.

2. Peers of the realm - he didn't have a substantive title until he was created Duke of Cambridge so he wasn't a peer of the realm - he couldn't have sat in the pre-1999 House of Lords until he was created Duke of Cambridge so he can't be category 2 which only leave category 3 - a commoner.

3. Commoners - as he wasn't either of the above he was a commoner. He was eligible to vote for and to stand for election to the House of Commons. Kate still can by the was as can Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine Kent, Michael and Marie Christine and Alexandra - all HRHs but all commoners.

I remember way way back when Britain first allowed 18 year olds to vote and there was a story in the paper about Princess Anne being eligible to vote in an election and she was asked about that and said something along the lines of :I am eligible to vote but like the rest of my family won't do so.

Queen Victoria often objected to being told to make her sons Dukes but when it was explained to her that if she didn't do that they could vote and stand for election to the House of Commons because they weren't peers of the realm she immediately agreed that she needed to promote them to the peerage. She didn't have to worry about her daughters as women weren't allowed to vote in the UK until 1918 (over 30) and 1928 (over 21 - the same age as men). It is for this reason the the younger sons of Kings have been made Dukes - to keep them away from the frontline of politics which they would have to have been involved in in the Commons but in the Lords they never needed to even turn up.

Interestingly if they were living in Australia they wouldn't have a choice as it is compulsory to vote in all elections here (and you will be fined - and even have to fill in forms and produce death certificates to get out of paying a fine - as we had to do for my father with the local government elections last year when the government sent him a fine notice nearly 12 months after he died).

The simple question to ask yourself is: Is this person able to sit in the pre-1999 House of Lords? If the answer is No, unless they are the monarch of the day, then they are a commoner.

So even though William was born a Prince of the realm he wasn't a peer of the realm until created Duke of Cambridge and so until that day he was a commoner.

The bit jump made on his wedding day was not made by Kate who went from commoner to commoner but William who went from commoner to peer.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to who is actually a peer and who is a commoner amongst many people because the Europeans do/did things differently. In Britain only the title holder is a noble - not his wife or his children. As William didn't hold a title he wasn't a peer and thus wasn't a noble. The only alternative is to be a commoner - a royal but still a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-10-2013, 11:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Whitehall, November 9, 1948.

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.

(London Gazette, issue 38452, Nov. 9, 1948, p. 1/5889.)

Interesting to compare the wording used in 1948 when the King issued similar but not exact Letters Patent for the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, with that issued by the Queen for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Another 'quirk' for us Royal watchers is the LsP refer to the Duke as Prince Philip, A title he supposedly renounced a year earlier, although Garter didn't think he had.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-11-2013, 12:27 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
The reason for the different wording is that the 1948 LPs were specific for Elizabeth and Philip's children while the new LPs cover all future similar situations - where the PoW has an eldest son about to be a father.

The new LPs replace one section of the 1917 LPs ad infinitum.

I have always found it strange that the LPs from 1948 referred to Philip as Prince Philip when the King went to pains elsewhere to insist that he wasn't a Prince and that The Queen had to issue LPs in 1957 to create him a Prince.

I think what this points to is that he was still officially a Prince of Greece and Denmark, even if he didn't use those styles etc anymore but that he wasn't a Prince of the UK - which is what the 1957 LPs fixed. To me it has always suggested that the 'renounciation of his Greek and Danish titles' was more a gentlemen's agreement between Philip and the three kings concerned (Greece, Denmark and the UK) that he wouldn't use the foreign titles but that he really was still a Prince.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-11-2013, 01:17 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-11-2013, 01:24 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?
I think you're correct. Iluvbertie is the expert if you will and I believe this is his contention as well
HRHThePrince You are becoming very knowledgeable in these matters
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-11-2013, 01:34 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
I can't wait to see whether a female heiress apparent will become Princess of Wales in her own right and hold the other hereditary titles automatically held by a male heir.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-11-2013, 03:07 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
^^^^^
Royal princes do not uses their fathers secondary titles. For instance HRH Prince William of Gloucester never was known as HRH Prince William, Earl of Ulster and HRH the Duke of Kent was never known as HRH Prince Edwaed, Earl of St Andrews during his fathers lifetime.

But why don't they?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-11-2013, 04:44 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?
However, the 1917 letters patent also said "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales," and it seems to have been intended to extend to the grandsons of future Princes of Wales.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-11-2013, 06:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
But why don't they?

Because the style of HRH Prince xxxx is senior to the courtesy title of Earl of Ulster so the late Prince William of Gloucester was called HRH Prince William of Gloucester and not The Earl of Ulster - which is simply a coutesy title for the son and heir to a dukedom to distinguish him from the myriad of others who are Lord yyy.

Imagine at school and there are a number of boys - e.g. Eton - there could be about 20 Lords in a year but maybe only 1 or 2 with a courtesy title of Earl of xxxx or Viscount yyyy and even fewer students with the styling of Prince.

If Philip's sons weren't HRH Prince then Charles would be known as Earl of Merioneth but Andrew and Edward would simply be Lord Andrew and Lord Edward Mountbatten (of course Philip wouldn't have been created a Duke if he wasn't marrying Elizabeth so this is totally hypothetical anyway).

In fact if the 1948 LPs hadn't been granted Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-11-2013, 06:16 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

George V's LPs of 1917 use the words 'the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales' not 'any' Prince of Wales'. Based on that fact it would seem that either George V only intended his LPs to apply to the grandson of Edward VIII and that therefore no LPs actually applied to the current child or - as I believe - he intended his LPs to cover ALL future Princes of Wales as there can only ever be one Prince of Wales at a time and so The Prince of Wales would always be a specific person. The Queen has used the same form as her grandfather - The Prince of Wales - but undone part of his LPs and taken them back to the same point they were for his children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-11-2013, 10:22 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puchong, Malaysia
Posts: 12
Thanks iluvbertie for ur explanation. The word 'peer' means they dun need to vote. I guess it's easier to see it this way:
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
"Queen Victoria's Children" (January 2013) - Three-part BBC 2 series Dman The Electronic Domain 37 05-15-2014 07:34 AM
Duke of Cambridge current events 1: 29 April 2011 - 31 December 2013- wbenson Current Events Archive 905 01-01-2014 12:01 PM
Number of Royal Children RoyalEnquirer Royal Chit Chat 210 10-04-2013 09:40 PM
Duchess of Cambridge current events 2: 1 February 2012 - 5 January 2013 Zonk Current Events Archive 1905 01-05-2013 07:37 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events Thread 2: 1 December 2011 - 1 April 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 887 04-03-2012 10:16 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]