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
 
  #101  
Old 01-11-2013, 10:24 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puchong, Malaysia
Posts: 12
Just as prince georg freidich, his title prince of Prussia is regarded as a surname. Therefore he is a commoner. So maybe same goes with the rest of the british royal family who are not peers. I guess... Is it?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-11-2013, 10:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
A peer wasn't allowed to vote for the House of Commons because he, and then later she, automatically had a seat in the House of Lords. Just a note that in the UK voting is optional so even commoners don't have to vote but peers weren't allowed to vote for the House of Commons.

The only members of the BRF who aren't commoners are :

Philip - Duke of Edinburgh
Charles - Duke of Cornwall
William - Duke of Cmbridge
Andrew - Duke of York
Edward - Earl of Wessex
Richard - Duke of Gloucester
Edward - Duke of Kent

The rest of the HRHs, along with the non-titled members of the family, are commoners:

Camilla, Catherine, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine, Michael, Marie-Christine and Alexandra despite being HRH are all commoners.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-12-2013, 03:14 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puchong, Malaysia
Posts: 12
How bout other non-royal dukes? They're peers too?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-12-2013, 03:32 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessgan View Post
Just as prince georg freidich, his title prince of Prussia is regarded as a surname. Therefore he is a commoner. So maybe same goes with the rest of the british royal family who are not peers. I guess... Is it?
All Germans are commoners legally. We don't have royality and aristocracy any more.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-12-2013, 05:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessgan View Post
How bout other non-royal dukes? They're peers too?

Definitely.

Peers are those who hold the substantive titles of: Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron.

Not their wives or children but the title holder alone.

Being called an Earl doesn't make a person a peer - having the substantive title does e.g. The Duke of Kent is a peer but his son known as Earl of St Andrews isn't because the Earl of St Andrews is a coutesy title. His father, The Duke of Kent is the substantive title holder of the St Andrews title.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-12-2013, 04:00 PM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 320
This is probably repetitive, but when Catherine becomes HM The Queen is she still a commoner because she is not the monarch and only holds the title becasue of her husband's rank?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-12-2013, 04:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Technically - yes she is still a commoner. She won't be the monarch in her own right and she won't hold a peerage in her own right so the only place to put her is in the commoner group.

She will be top of the social heap but still a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-12-2013, 04:28 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
Please note that all posts regarding British Styles and Titles should be posted here Questions about British Styles and Titles.

This thread pertains to the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Any additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

Thank you!

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-16-2013, 12:10 AM
Suzzanah's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hallsville, United States
Posts: 18
I am pleased with this decision. The letter by the queen merely solidifies previous legislation that declares children of a prince or princess will be prince or princess by birth without question. Since being a Duchess is currently fashionable however, it really does not matter to Americans. Since Princess Anne donated her title the children will be doubly blessed anyway. The important thing is that the child be raised well as all members of the royal family should be.

As for the debate on commoners and peers. I was always taught that birthrights and earned rights were separate. So titles of birth are royalty and titles earned are not. As for who is common and who is not, this is determined by blood sangiunuity which is measured, when in question, as to how related you are to Queen Victoria. Additionally persons who are regnant or ruling are considered royals and servants of the people they represent. Thus they are royals. This is very complex and of course there are historical references to titles removed and regifted or renewed. When in doubt I would consult with the royal households historian or the keeper of that Clan.

Also please note that a woman who marries a prince is a Consort if he is knighted whether the title is granted or not. There are also instances of Matralineal decent of titles such as the titles of Marlboro and several of the House of Bourbon. In these cases the title, lands and fiduciary responsibility goes to the eldest female of the chosen generation. This can be researched in the royal libraries or in various libraries in the US. Each country with titles may have additional rule changes as well. Often one person is chose as regnant and one actually holds the purse strings. Popularity has long been pointed as the way to hold title while service to others remains foremost.
.
__________________
Suzzanah
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-16-2013, 01:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzanah View Post
I am pleased with this decision. The letter by the queen merely solidifies previous legislation that declares children of a prince or princess will be prince or princess by birth without question. Since being a Duchess is currently fashionable however, it really does not matter to Americans. Since Princess Anne donated her title the children will be doubly blessed anyway. The important thing is that the child be raised well as all members of the royal family should be.
The previous Letters Patent in the UK specified that many children of a Prince don't have the right to be a prince or princess - the children of Prince Richard, Prince Edward (of Kent), Prince Michael for instance aren't Princes/Princesses because the previous LPs restricted the titles of Prince/Princess to the male-line grandchildren of the monarch.

No princess has passed on the HRH Prince/Princess titles to their children under the 1917 LPs. Queen Elizabeth needed new LPs to be issued in 1948 specifically to give her children the HRH Prince/Princess tites while her sister, Princess Margaret's children were never Prince or Princess - just like Anne's children were never entitled to Prince or Princess.

In the UK royal status is determined by the relationship to any monarch - but they are only royal for a limited number of generations e.g. Harry's children won't be royals at birth under the existing LPs but will become royal when they are the grandchildren of the monarch - but if they are never the grandchildren of the monarch then they won't automatically become royal.

I don't know what you mean by 'Princess Anne donated her title' as she still holds the title of Princess and The Princess Royal and she couldn't 'donate' a title anyway. She, along with Mark, refused a title for Mark and thus her children weren't going to get a title as titles only go through the males in the UK, unless there are specific LPs to allow otherwise e.g. The Mountbatten title was allowed to pass to his daughters but only his daughters - after the two daughters the rest of the female descendents can't inherit the title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzanah View Post
As for the debate on commoners and peers. I was always taught that birthrights and earned rights were separate. So titles of birth are royalty and titles earned are not. As for who is common and who is not, this is determined by blood sangiunuity which is measured, when in question, as to how related you are to Queen Victoria...
In the UK the difference between a commoner and a peer is very clear (note that the term is commoner not common). A peer was eligible for an automatic seat in the pre-1999 House of Lords and everyone else is a commoner regardless of their relationship to the monarch of the day e.g. Princess Anne, daughter of the monarch is a commoner while The Duke of Northumberland - no blood relation to the monarch is a peer.

Blood has very little to do with the difference between commoners and peers in the UK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzanah View Post
Also please note that a woman who marries a prince is a Consort if he is knighted whether the title is granted or not. There are also instances of Matralineal decent of titles such as the titles of Marlboro and several of the House of Bourbon. In these cases the title, lands and fiduciary responsibility goes to the eldest female of the chosen generation...
The Marlborough title does allow for female inheritance but it still goes through males first as the terms of inheritance are:

1st duke's heirs male lawfully begotten - none
1st duke's eldest daughter and from there to her heirs males lawfully begotten - none
1at duke's younger daughters in age and from their through each of their heirs males lawfully begotten - which is where the dukes are coming from now throiugh their descent from Lady Anne Churchill.

There are many, many males in the line of succession before the line could possibly be returned to a female line - all the present male line heirs of the duke, and then other male lines - including the Earls Spencer (current earl has sons who are ahead of all females in the line of succession to the Marlborough title).

The House of Bourbon can have its own laws - but as they would be French that don't apply to the UK.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-16-2013, 01:14 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzanah View Post
I am pleased with this decision. The letter by the queen merely solidifies previous legislation that declares children of a prince or princess will be prince or princess by birth without question. Since being a Duchess is currently fashionable however, it really does not matter to Americans. Since Princess Anne donated her title the children will be doubly blessed anyway. The important thing is that the child be raised well as all members of the royal family should be.
No such legislation ever existed. Princesses are not able to pass on any titles, let alone Princely ones, to their children (unless new Letters Patent were released - which was done extremely rarely). For instance, the children of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be untitled commoners (unless their fathers have titles), as are Princess Anne's children.
As for Princes, they can pass on Princely titles to their children only if they themselves are children of the Sovereign, or the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Everyone else can't do that; Prince Michael of Kent's children, for instance, have no Princely titles or style of a Royal Highness.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Princess Anne donated her title" since thee Princess has done no such thing and anyway, titles cannot be donated. If you allude to her title "Princess Royal", then she will have it for life. And since there can only be one Princess Royal at a time, the eldest daughter of William will have to wait for quite a while until she is granted the honour.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-16-2013, 08:05 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Peers are those who hold the substantive titles of: Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron.

Not their wives or children but the title holder alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Catherine View Post
This is probably repetitive, but when Catherine becomes HM The Queen is she still a commoner because she is not the monarch and only holds the title becasue of her husband's rank?
This is not quite that straightforward. Wives of peers actually can be considered peeresses (see, for example: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/peeresses.pdf ). They are entitled to all the prerogatives that come with peerage. For example, they (along with suo iure peers) were entitled to be tried by their fellow peers until 1948. In 1776, the Duchess of Kingston was tried for bigamy; in 1616, the Countess of Somerset was tried for murder; and, of course, the Queen was tried for treason in 1536. However, they never had a seat in the House of Lords. No women had until 1958.

Now, one could argue that Anne Boleyn was tried by the Lords because she was a peeress in her own right and not because she was queen. However, Caroline of Brunswick was also effectively tried by the House of Lords in 1820 and she was "only" queen.

That said, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Cambridge, the Countess of Wessex, the Duchess of Gloucester and the Duchess of Kent are peeresses, at least to some extent. The fact that Anne Boleyn and Caroline of Brunswick enjoyed the above mentioned privilege of peerage suggests, at least to me, that the queen of the United Kingdom is not considered a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 05-31-2013, 10:58 AM
4Pam's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 2,770
I've enjoyed reading this thread but it's all SO confusing. I had no idea that distinguishing between who's royal and commoner could be so complicated! If this was class, I'd fail miserably! :)
__________________
Absence is, in my opinion, important to find out whether something in your life is meaningful and important! It may be difficult to endure, but the end result is always revealing.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 05-31-2013, 04:56 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Have I missed something? When did letters patent thread become a c-section thread?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06-01-2013, 03:00 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,372

Ah, quite.
Posts regarding twins and c-sections have been removed.

Warren,
British Forums moderator
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-26-2013, 10:47 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Middletown, United States
Posts: 9
Not sure why rules of the LPs need to be as they are relative to HRH and princely titles. Why not take a numerical approach? Say if you've ever been better than seventh (or whatever number) in succession than you're a HRH as is your wife and as is the husband of a sovereign. Otherwise not. It'd be interesting to backtest the differences versus history and consider the other positives and negatives of a simpler approach.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-26-2013, 10:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
^^^^^
Better yet why change the current system?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-26-2013, 11:46 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquess Middleton View Post
Not sure why rules of the LPs need to be as they are relative to HRH and princely titles. Why not take a numerical approach? Say if you've ever been better than seventh (or whatever number) in succession than you're a HRH as is your wife and as is the husband of a sovereign. Otherwise not. It'd be interesting to backtest the differences versus history and consider the other positives and negatives of a simpler approach.

I don't think it would affect too many people who currently hold or don't hold HRH.

This is a list of those currently alive and there place in the line of succession at birth and who would hold the HRH Prince/Princess under your idea:

Elizabeth - 2nd
Charles - 2nd
William - 2nd
George - 3rd
Harry - 3rd
Andrew - 2nd
Beatrice - 4th
Eugenie - 5th
Edward - 3rd
Anne - 3rd (rises to 2nd in 1952 and then down from there to her current 11th)
Richard - 5th
Edward of Kent - 7th (did get at least as high as 5th within not much more than a year of his birth as his grandfather died and his uncle abdicated)
Alexandra - 6th (why Alexandra born higher than her brother - because by then their grandfather had died and uncle had abdicated)
Michael - 6th (he replaced his sister)

Then there is say the late Earl Harewood who was born 6th due to being the eldest grandson of George V but as he was the son of Princess Mary never held HRH but was born as high as 6th and served as a Counsellor of State as one of the first 4 adults over 21 in the line of succession even though he was by then quite a way down himself.

His brother Gerald was born 7th.

Peter was born 5th and Zara 6th.

David Linley was born 5th and Sarah Armstrong-Jones 7th.

That would have 6 more - or two in each generation - all the children of daughters - who would have had HRH who didn't hold it.

Taking the idea of born 7th or higher then all of the above would have HRH but Louise and James wouldn't because they were born 8th and 8th respectively.

A clear problem could arise with that system if say Beatrice, who is currently 6th was the next to have a legitimate child who would be 7th and that child would be HRH while a second child would never be due to simply not being high enough in the order.

It is far easier to do what has been done - although I would change the LPs to the children of the monarch, children of the heir apparent only - so I would have Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William and Harry have HRH and even have George as simply Lord George Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Strathearn until his grandfather becomes King. I would also not give HRH to a partner by marriage but limit their titles to the non HRH titles of their husbands.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-26-2013, 11:47 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquess Middleton View Post
Not sure why rules of the LPs need to be as they are relative to HRH and princely titles. Why not take a numerical approach? Say if you've ever been better than seventh (or whatever number) in succession than you're a HRH as is your wife and as is the husband of a sovereign. Otherwise not. It'd be interesting to backtest the differences versus history and consider the other positives and negatives of a simpler approach.
To me that sounds like it would produce too much instability in who has an HRH and who doesn't.

Let's limit the number to the first 10 in the succession. At birth Princess Anne would have been 3rd in the line of succession, behind her mother and brother. Now, since the birth of George she's 11th. Should she lose her titles and status? She's been a Princess for 63 years and has done a lot for her mother and her country, so why take away her position just because she's no longer in the top 10?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-26-2013, 11:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
To me that sounds like it would produce too much instability in who has an HRH and who doesn't.

Let's limit the number to the first 10 in the succession. At birth Princess Anne would have been 3rd in the line of succession, behind her mother and brother. Now, since the birth of George she's 11th. Should she lose her titles and status? She's been a Princess for 63 years and has done a lot for her mother and her country, so why take away her position just because she's no longer in the top 10?
Marquess Middleton's suggestion was that anyone born 7th or higher would have HRH from birth and wouldn't lose it.

I initially read the post the way you did and then did a re-read.
__________________

__________________
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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 olympics ottoman palace poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 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]