The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1041  
Old 05-10-2014, 07:19 AM
ff462's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I think that Prince Harry will take up residence at Clarence House and become the future Duke of Clarence. That would be a nice match between residence and title.
Unfortunately, the Clarence title is tied up in a legal matter. The title 'Earl of Clarence' was given to Queen Victoria's fourth son, whose own son inherited it. However, his son fought in WW1 on Germany's side, so his titles were taken away from him.
Thus, the title isn't being used any more but legally, the heirs of the title have the right to reclaim them so it would be a bit strange if Harry just used the Clarence title anyway.

As the second son of the future king, I thought it would be nice if he could use a title associated with his position, like how the Duke of York is always given to the second son. The Scottish equivalent of the Duke of York is the Duke of Albany but that's tied up in the same legal matter
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 05-10-2014, 07:28 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
The Earl of Clarence may be tied up but Queen Victoria herself created her grandson Duke of Clarence after creating her youngest son Earl of Clarence so both titles existed in the UK in the 1890s with no problems.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 05-10-2014, 07:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't imagine Harry's children would be denied HRH/titles unless, like Anne, Harry decided against using them.


LaRae
A better example would be Harry following Edward's example and not using the HRH Prince/Princess styles for his children, once his father becomes King.

Anne's children were never entitled to that styling as they are descendants of the monarch through a girl and girls can't pass on titles.

In 1988, when Beatrice was born, no one even considered the idea of her not begin a princess as she was entitled to that styling under the 1917 LPs but now things are different and many people would like to see fewer people with HRH Prince/Princess.

As Harry's children, will also be the children of the second son, and the view seems very strongly to be that the children of younger sons aren't to be involved in royal work there is no need for them to have royal titles.

I do think that Charles will issue new LPs to limit the HRH to the children of the heir apparent but not the children of other heirs. He won't strip anyone who currently holds HRH but won't have that styling extended to Harry's children. It should also be remembered that in the current reign Harry's children aren't going to be HRH anyway but Lord and Lady.
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 05-10-2014, 07:48 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't imagine Harry's children would be denied HRH/titles unless, like Anne, Harry decided against using them.


LaRae
Essentially Princess Anne had nothing to deny against the use of any title: her children would never have inherited one from her anyway, since titles are inherited via the paternal lineage. Rumours said it was Captain Mark Phillips himself who denied an offered peerage.

The situation of Princess Anne and her nephew Prince Harry is different. No matter Prince Harry likes it or not, his children WILL become a Prince (Princess) with the style of a Royal Highness. Of course, like his uncle Prince Edward, also Prince Harry can decide to refer to his children with another style. As Prince Harry is not in the main line (his nephew George is now), his grandchildren will become "normal" aristocrats anyway, like today's Earl of Ulster or Earl of St Andrews.
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 05-10-2014, 08:16 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,581
I forgot how that works.. I thought Anne's children would also be prince/princesses by bloodline.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 05-10-2014, 08:27 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't imagine Harry's children would be denied HRH/titles unless, like Anne, Harry decided against using them.
It does seem to be the going trend, with the exception of Andrew, that the HRH titles are not used for those children not in the direct line to the throne. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Harry follows and prefers his children do not use the HRH titles.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 05-10-2014, 08:39 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I forgot how that works.. I thought Anne's children would also be prince/princesses by bloodline.


LaRae
George V issued Letters Patent determining who is an HRH Prince/Princess:

1, children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward - and the spouses of the men - Camilla and Sophie but not the spouse of the women - so no HRH for Tim

2, male-line grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Alexandra and Michael - plus the spouses of the men - Kate, Birgitte, Katherine and Marie-Christine but again not the spouse of the women - so no HRH for the late Angus Ogilvy

no HRH for the children of the girls - so no HRH for the children of Princesses Mary, Margaret or Anne - all the daughters of monarchs but whose children have no titles from their mothers although Mary and Margaret's do through their fathers.

3, the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - covers George but...The Queen had already extended that provision to give ALL of William's children HRH - so that had George been a girl she would have been born a princess

Even Elizabeth couldn't pass on HRH to Charles under these LPs. Had George VI not issued additional LPs in 1948 then Charles would have been born Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth - and still 2nd in line to the throne.

When Margaret married she and Tony refused a title for Tony but then when she was pregnant she decided that she wanted her children to have a title so Tony was given Snowden.

Anne and Mark refused a title for Mark both at the wedding and again when Anne was expecting Peter.

For Anne special provisions would have been needed - specific LPs whereas for Andrew and Edward - their children were automatically HRHs under the existing rules.

Edward and Sophie have decided not to have their children use it - and there has been some debate as to whether or not 'The Queen's Will' is all that is required to strip them of the title with experts in this area arguing both Yes and No. I highly doubt that Louise and James will ever use HRH and as neither of them can pass it on it will simply die with them anyway - just as it would with Harry's children - for them but not for their children.
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 05-10-2014, 09:06 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,097
It seems unlikely that Louise would 15 years from now when she is grown up would start using her royal title. Since any of Harry's kids won't be HRH until Charles is King and can't pass the HRH on anyways, it would make sense to follow how Edward and Sophie did it. It is a different story for William's other future kids. The Queen has already made them HRHs from birth and the sons can pass their HRHs down since the kids will be male line grand kids of the monarch (William)
Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 05-10-2014, 01:44 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 879
So is it fair to say?

Prince William's sons, and grandsons will be Princes.

Prince William daughters, Princesses but their sons NOT Princes??
Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 05-10-2014, 02:15 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by angieuk View Post
So is it fair to say?

Prince William's sons, and grandsons will be Princes.

Prince William daughters, Princesses but their sons NOT Princes??
That is -until now- the system. The eldest son of a Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron or a Baronet inherit the title. Not his younger brothers, not his sisters. Is that fair? It is how the system works.

In the northern half of the continent there is a different system: all children of a titled person inherit the title but it can only passed by male lineage. For an example Queen Mathilde of the Belgians. She and her siblings Elisabeth, Hélène and Charles-Henri are all Count(ess) d'Udekem d'Acoz as children of the late Patrick Count d'Udekem d'Acoz. But only the children of Charles-Henri will become the next generation Counts (Countesses) d'Udekem d'Acoz. Mathilde's own children have a title from their father King Philippe of the Belgians. Her sister Elisabeth's children have a title from their father Don Alfonso, Marquess Pallavicini. Her sister Hélène's daughter has a title from her father Nicolas Baron Jansen. This is an example how you see that the titles are passed via the male lineage.
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 05-10-2014, 02:23 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,097
That is right. All of William kids will be HRHs. The children of George will be HRHs. Children of younger sons are eligible to be HRHs but may not use it like Edward and Sophie. Children of daughters aren't eligible for HRHs.

If George was a girl, she would be Queen one day so William would have to issue LPs making her kids HRHs like King George VI did for then Princess Elizabeth before Charles was born.
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 05-10-2014, 04:20 PM
ff462's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Earl of Clarence may be tied up but Queen Victoria herself created her grandson Duke of Clarence after creating her youngest son Earl of Clarence so both titles existed in the UK in the 1890s with no problems.
I was really confused about why that happened. I always thought that if a title referred to a place, then no other person could also have that place as part of their title. If you think about what the titles actually originally meant, it doesn't really make sense - surely there should only be one lord of the manor?

In any case, it would be awesome if Harry did become the Duke of Clarence or Albany.
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 05-10-2014, 04:54 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,358
I think an argument could be made that the reason why it was okay for there to be a Duke of Clarence and an Earl of Clarence was because the Earldom was a subsidiary title for a Dukedom that had been granted to a man whose son was now a German Duke. This meant that the subsidiary title wouldn't actually ever be used - the son of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and 2nd Duke of Albany, would be titled "Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" not "Earl of Clarence".

That said, while the title Duke of Clarence can be seen as open despite the still extant state of the Earldom of Clarence, the title Duke of Albany is no more available than the Earl of Clarence is.
Reply With Quote
  #1054  
Old 05-10-2014, 05:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,477
Prince Albert Victor was Duke of Clarence and Avondale (one dukedom), not Duke of Clarence.
Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 05-10-2014, 05:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 821
I wonder if part of the reason Edward chose as he did for his children was because he was the fourth child and 3rd son as opposed to being the second son.
Queen Elizabeth had 4 children, Edward being the youngest. All of the Queen's children perform full time royal duties. Additionally, she has cousins doing so as well and now her grandsons William (and his spouse) and Harry. Plus, for many years of her reign her mother was very active too.
Charles, when he becomes King will still have his 3 siblings performing royal duties as well as his two sons and their spouses - the cousins will be gone, no Queen mum, and his sons' children will probably be too young to undertake duties.
William, however, will only have one sibling helping him - Harry, plus William's own children when they are old enough, thus it makes sense to me for Harry's children to be HRHs as William will not have 3 siblings to share the work as Charles will have and there might be more need going forward for nieces and nephews to help out than currently exists for Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James.
Of course if William decides to have, say, 4 children instead of the 2 apiece the Queen's children have had, then the scenario is different and lessens the need for Harry's to be HRHs.
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 05-10-2014, 07:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
I really love it when people say that when Charles is King his mother's cousins will all be gone - The Duke of Gloucester is only 4 years older than Charles so should very much be still around.

Richard will be 70 this year, Birgitte - 68, Camilla - 67 and Charles 66.

Going forward - Charles will start his reign, in all probability with - Richard, Birgitte, Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, William and Kate doing full-time duties while Harry will still be in the army and who knows if he will be married by then so 9 full-time while The Queen currently has 13.

William may still have his uncles Andrew and Edward with Sophie plus Kate and Harry and maybe a wife for Harry when his reign starts. Depending on how long into the future that is maybe George but maybe not so start the reign with 6 or 7 or even fewer depending on the ages of Andrew and Edward at the time e.g. if it is 30 years in the future he won't have them either so will need George, who may or may not be married and maybe a second child, who if a girl won't have a spouse to help either. Spouses of girls who aren't going to be The Queen continue their own careers so can't count on the spouse of William's younger children.

Having set the precedent that the cousins of the monarch aren't going to be needed with Beatrice and Eugenie it then would be fair to say that Harry will raise his kids with the same expectation that Beatrice and Eugenie will show - thus no I don't think they will be raised to help their cousin, George (assuming there even are any children for Harry).

I think a major reason why Edward made the decision he did for his children was all to do with the fact that at the end of the 90s the BRF were on the nose and the idea of adding more HRHs just wouldn't wash. In addition the intention was that Edward and Sophie would continue to work full-time outside the Firm - which they did until the end of 2001 when it was announced that they would be starting to support The Queen for the Jubilee. It has amazed me that this full-time working couple manage the number of engagements they did in 2000 and 2001 while still holding permanent jobs.
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 05-10-2014, 09:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I really love it when people say that when Charles is King his mother's cousins will all be gone - The Duke of Gloucester is only 4 years older than Charles so should very much be still around.

Richard will be 70 this year, Birgitte - 68, Camilla - 67 and Charles 66.

.....
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, as there's really no predicting how long they will live and be fit enough to carry out duties. I'm not positive Charles will outlive his mother, frankly.
On paper, Charles may outlive his mother's cousins, as his parents are both still living which is not the case for the parents of the cousins.
I considered the cousins to be:
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, aged 69, who's father died at age 74 (and mother at age 102.)
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, aged 78, who's father died young in an aircrash but who's mother died at age 61.
Princess Alexandra aged 77.
Some females in the families are long lived, Queen Mary 85, Queen mother 101, Princess Alice 102. Others less so, Princess Margaret 71, Princess Mary 67.
I cannot find a male, except Prince Phillip, who lived to 80 - King George V 70, King Edward VIII 77, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester 74, King Edward VII 64, George VI 56.
Reply With Quote
  #1058  
Old 05-10-2014, 09:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
How about...

Christian IX of Denmark - aged 88 - born 1818 and died 1906 (and Charles has two lines of descent from him through both his mother and father) (Charles great-great-grandfather through Philip and great-great-great-grandfather through The Queen

The Queen Mother's father - aged 89; and her grandfather aged - 79 - only a few months short of 80 and that was in the 19th Century

Queen Mary's grandfather - 81 - again in the 19th Century

There are long-lived genes from men in Charles' ancestry - just not from the Kings of the UK - due to a number of factors - heavy drinkers and smokers and the stresses of leading their nations at war - Edward VII, George V and George VI were all heavy smokers and Prince Andrew of Greece was also a heavy drinker.

Charles has always taken very good care of his health and drinks an occasional drink and doesn't smoke - so the major reason why the male ancestors died early aren't there in his case while he does have males ancestors in earlier generations that lived very long lives in times when the medical care wasn't as good as it is now.

His immediate ancestors:

Father - still going - aged 92
Mother - still going - aged 88
Paternal grandfather - aged 62
Paternal grandmother - aged 86
Maternal grandfather - aged 56
Maternal grandmother - aged 101

Average age of these 6 is already 80 and going up

Paternal great-grandparents - aged - 69 (assassinated), 75, 67, 87
Maternal great-grandparents- 70, 84, 89, 74

So going back through three generations the average age is 78 and going up and there is one assassination in there so not natural causes for that one - given the ages of George I of the Hellenes siblings at death - 67, 85, 80, 79, 80 it is reasonable to assume that given the natural course of events he would have lived another 10 years or so which would take that average age up to close to 79.

I see no reason to assume, based on these ages amongst his ancestors and knowing that those that died early were the ones who smoked and/or drank to excess - which he has never done, that he won't live at least to the average age of his immediate ancestors - or 80 and given the reason for his grandfathers early deaths to assume that had they taken care of their health that they too would have lived longer e.g. George VI's two brothers who didn't die in the war, or as a child, who both lived into their 70s - Edward VIII and Henry so genetically the evidence is there for him to have that longer life as well but for his own poor health decisions. Prince Andrew's brothers aren't as consistent though - 54, 88, 66 and 52 but still evidence of the over 80s genes coming through on that side of the family again.
Reply With Quote
  #1059  
Old 05-11-2014, 02:44 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
(Edward) John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer (1924-1992) was the father of Diana, Princess of Wales and Prince Henry's maternal grandfather. Scenario:
Suppose Diana had been the only child of the 8th Earl Spencer.
Would Prince Harry have been able to become the new Earl Spencer upon his grandfather's demise?

If peerage is correct, then John Spencer's 1st cousin would have become the 9th Earl Spencer.

Captain George Cecil Robert Maurice Spencer b. 14 July 1932 son of Captain Hon. George Charles Spencer b. 15 August 1903, d. October 1982 son of Charles Robert Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer b. 30 October 1857, d. 26 September 1922
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 05-11-2014, 04:30 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
I'm not positive Charles will outlive his mother, frankly.
Why not? I am always amused when people point to the longevity of the Windsors (Queen Elizabeth, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, etc.).

But in him, Prince Charles has the DNA of his mother Elizabeth Windsor who has an old age, the DNA of his father Philip of Greece and Denmark who as an old age, the DNA of his grandmother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon who had a very old age.

The Prince is known as an ascetic man with an outspoken viewpoint on organic and sustainable food, harmony with nature, etc. There is really no reason to believe why the Prince of Wales would not be able to reach the age of his very durable parents.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince harry, prince william, 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





Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill christening crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events david armstrong-jones denmark duchess of cambridge style earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king carl gustaf and queen silvia king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news picture of the week picture of the week december prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in new zealand queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:09 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises