The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1381  
Old 03-08-2017, 03:05 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
The issue of gender blind inheritance of titles has been raised in the parliament a number of times and that is where it will end up being changed - by law - to allow for the first born child to inherit regardless of a younger son and regardless of gender.

Why should Andrew's title not be allowed to be passed to his children while Edward's can be simply because Edward had a son and Andrew didn't - plainly that is sexist and in this day and age that is totally unacceptable.

I doubt that the Edinburgh title would have a different remainder to the Wessex title as that would mean Louise getting Edinburgh while James would still inherit Wessex and thus separate the titles which I don't think is what anyone would want - both of Edward's children to be peers of the realm while neither of Andrew's are able to have that status.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1382  
Old 03-08-2017, 03:38 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,024
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

And if Parliament ever passes the law changing it then the Royal Family will follow it but they aren't going to lead the charge. The Queen didn't create any royal peerage with both genders can inherit. Even the Mountbatten peerage only allows for the daughters of Louis to inherit then it goes back to males. There is male bias that sons of the monarch pass down their HRH to their children but daughters don't, the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall titles are limited to men, wives of Princes become Princess but not husbands of Princesses unless she is a direct heir. There are all kinds of inequality. Monarchy itself is based on inequality.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1383  
Old 03-08-2017, 03:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
All the children of the monarch are HRH not just the sons. It is only the children of the sons who can pass on HRH so male-line grandchildren but not female line grandchildren.

Personally I would limit HRH to the eldest child of the monarch and their eldest child and no spouses at all with only the HRHs undertaking royal duties. I wouldn't allow great-grandchildren to have HRHs at all so in my system only Charles and William would be HRH while the rest would be plain Mr or Miss/Ms/Mrs with the clear expectation that they would not attend any royal events at all other than weddings and commemorative church services.
Reply With Quote
  #1384  
Old 03-08-2017, 04:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,690
Well, I've always been of the opinion that Harry's children won't be HRH either by choice or just a limiting of the style.

Edward set the precedent and really it makes no sense for people who will never be near the throne to have it.

Harry and his wife will be HRH but his children will be styled as the children of a duke.
Reply With Quote
  #1385  
Old 03-08-2017, 04:41 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,946
I've wondered about how Harry will handle his children when it comes to titles. I haven't decided what I think. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't want them as a way to give them some protection ... but I think regardless if his children have titles are not they are going to be of interest to the media/public.

Then he might want them to have them, he's going to be a senior royal all his life. He and William are close and we have every expectation of them having a long working life together with their families. So wouldn't surprise me either if his children are given titles, even HRH titles.

Will be interesting to see what actually happens should he have children.

LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1386  
Old 03-08-2017, 04:43 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,946
Rudolph...Edward set the precedent? Ann set the precedent didn't she? Her children were the first to not have titles....or are you talking about something else?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1387  
Old 03-08-2017, 04:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Rudolph...Edward set the precedent? Ann set the precedent didn't she? Her children were the first to not have titles....or are you talking about something else?


LaRae
Anne's children were never going to be HRH, it's passed through the male-line. Edward had a choice to make. In consultation with BP, it was decided his children would not have a royal style.
Reply With Quote
  #1388  
Old 03-08-2017, 05:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Rudolph...Edward set the precedent? Ann set the precedent didn't she? Her children were the first to not have titles....or are you talking about something else?


LaRae

Anne had to ask for her children to have titles either by having her husband given one or for the children to be given them in their own right.

Edward had to do the opposite - ask for his children NOT to be HRHs.

Under the 1917 LPs HRH goes automatically to:

the children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward

the wives of the sons of the monarch - Diana, Camilla, Sarah and Sophie (although on divorce they automatically lose it now)

the male line grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Richard, Edward, Alexandra and Michael (Louise and James don't have this as per their father's request)

the wives of the male line grandsons - Kate, Birgitte, Katherine and Marie-Christine

the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George


In addition to those LPs new ones were needed in 1948 to ensure that the children of the then Princess Elizabeth were born HRH - Charles and Anne - rather than having to wait until they were the children of the monarch. Had those LPs not been issued then Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth (from his father's titles) and Anne as Lady Anne Mountbatten.

Further LPs were issued to give HRH to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales when Kate was pregnant with George so that a daughter would be born HRH - as befits a potential future monarch. As George was a boy he was covered under the 1917 LPs but these new LPs meant Charlotte was born a Princess and not a Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor.

If Harry has children in the present reign new LPs will need to be issued to give them HRH from birth as they don't qualify under the 1917 LPs so currently they would be:

eldest son (assuming Harry has a title) would use the second title as a courtesy title like James now uses Viscount Severn
younger sons - Lord xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor
daughters - Lady yyyy Mountbatten-Windsor

As the Queen didn't amend the 1917 LPs in 2012 to extend to all grandchildren of the current Prince of Wales I suspect that she may not issue such LPs for Harry's children and so they won't be HRHs from birth.
Reply With Quote
  #1389  
Old 03-08-2017, 06:26 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

As the Queen didn't amend the 1917 LPs in 2012 to extend to all grandchildren of the current Prince of Wales I suspect that she may not issue such LPs for Harry's children and so they won't be HRHs from birth.
But Harry's children will become HRH when Charles becomes King. Is that correct? So under the present system, we would still have people who have only a very, very remote chance of inheriting the throne entitled to the HRH.

Personally, I like your suggestion - the heir, the heir's heir and that's it. But, if that were the case, would the marriages not be morganatic marriages which, according the advice from 1936, does not exist in Britain?
Reply With Quote
  #1390  
Old 03-08-2017, 07:18 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
The marriages wouldn't be morganatic as I would be changing the law as to who is HRH not denying it for petty purposes but actually changing the status of the spouse to keep their own birth status.
Reply With Quote
  #1391  
Old 03-09-2017, 06:49 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,946
Ah ok gotcha!

So as Victoria has asked/said....Harry's children would become HRH after Charles is King right? Unless they are styled that with a new LP prior to that event.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 03-10-2017, 09:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
Yes - under the 1917 LPs Harry's children will become HRH's when Charles becomes King if the Queen hasn't issued such LPs beforehand.
Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 03-10-2017, 09:57 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,946
Great, thanks Bertie!


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 03-15-2017, 01:35 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 323
I would tend to agree that Harry probably does not want any children born to him to be designated HRH. He will likely be styled Duke of Sussex upon marrying, and his eventual children will be styled as befits the children of a Duke.

I found this interesting article from 2008, which is of course dated since it was written prior to William's wedding. It was unknown in 2008 that William would eventually be styled Duke of Cambridge & Earl of Strathearn.

It's still a good read, nonetheless:
A Dukedom for Harry? | Unofficial Royalty

I agree that Henry, Duke of Clarence has a nice ring to it. But yes, the less than memorable associations with the former ne'er-do-well, Prince Albert, Duke of Clarence circa early 20th-century, means reactivation of that title anytime soon is hardly likely.

The facts surrounding the in abeyance title, Duke of Albany, are fascinating. As is the information on the Duke of Cumberland title, which also is not available.

I also agree with the writer that the 'Windsor' title has a nice ring and is very family name appropriate, but is definitely out of the question since 'Duke & Duchess of Windsor' is still too closely (and maybe for all time) associated with the abdication of former King Edward VIII and his marriage to American divorcee, Wallis Simpson.

That leaves Sussex for consideration, and I believe Harry has previously mentioned he prefers that title. The article also discusses some other extinct peerages 'loosely associated with royal history': Portsmouth, Cleveland, Inverness, and Strathearn. However, Prince William is already the Earl of Strathearn, so that one is out. In addition, Prince Andrew, Duke of York is also the Earl of Inverness, so that one is out too. Cleveland and Portsmouth don't have much of an historic ring, although they are nice names. Harry will likely become the Duke of Sussex.
Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 03-17-2017, 03:32 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
The last Duke of Clarence died in the 19th Century not the early 20th century.

Prince Albert Victor was the heir apparent to the then Prince of Wales and had recently announced his engagement to Princess Mary of Teck when he died. She then went on to marry his younger brother, Prince George who was created Duke of York and eventually Prince of Wales and King George V.
Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:37 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,024
People seem to always mess up the century thing. It's one ahead of the date. 17th Century is 1600s, 20th Century is 1900s, the current century is the 21st .

What's funny is that Albert Victor dies in 1892. So he wasn't a former ne'er-do-well in any early century. He is dead before the 1900s and wasn't born yet in the early 1800s.
Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 03-21-2017, 03:21 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The last Duke of Clarence died in the 19th Century not the early 20th century.

Prince Albert Victor was the heir apparent to the then Prince of Wales and had recently announced his engagement to Princess Mary of Teck when he died. She then went on to marry his younger brother, Prince George who was created Duke of York and eventually Prince of Wales and King George V.
Thanks for the correction. Yes, I knew that Prince Albert Victor had been originally engaged to Mary of Teck before he died. His brother, Prince George later took over as heir to King Edward, and he also inherited his older brother's fiancee.

I have previously read books on Queen Victoria, her children and her grandchildren, but I didn't remember the exact date of death of the Prince of Wales' oldest son. So, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence died in 1892. I didn't realize he died before the 20th century dawned. I knew he died fairly young, but I thought he had lived into the early 1900s. So, his grandmother, Queen Victoria made it into the 20th century, but he didn't.

There is speculation that Albert Victor was mentally backward and that he may have died of gonorrhea or syphilis, although the official story is that he died from an influenza outbreak. He was also rumored by some to have been Jack the Ripper, but there is no definitive evidence to support that speculation. It was theorized in a novel (later a 2001 movie) that Prince Albert Victor became involved with a woman of ill repute and fathered a child by her, and also secretly married her. And then to cover up his transgressions, an elaborate plan was devised by certain powers to murder various prostitutes (including Albert Victor's paramour). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Hell_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince...e_and_Avondale

Jack The Ripper suspect Prince Albert Victor is revealed to have had gonorrhoea | Daily Mail Online

I suppose it can be said that Mary of Teck was lucky to escape being saddled with Prince Albert Victor (England was lucky too).
Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 04-01-2017, 07:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Here's the deal. When Prince Harry of Wales gets married, I wonder if he will receive a wedding gift of a royal peerage or some sort.

Possible Dukedoms:
The Dukedom of Sussex
The Dukedom of Albany
The Dukedom of Clarence

I could see the prince just continuing to be Prince Henry of Wales, and his wife being Princess Henry of Wales, but as the son and brother of the Heirs Apparent, his children should be styled as His/Her Royal Highness Prince/Princess____.
Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 04-01-2017, 07:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
Albany isn't available as it currently in 'abeyance' under the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act but there are living claimants - the male line descendants of Queen Victoria's son, Leopold. While any such descendants live that title, along with Cumberland, isn't available for regrant. There are currently 13 such males in the line of succession to the Albany title with the most recent born in 2015 so it will be some time before this title is available again.

Under the 1917 LPs Harry's children aren't entitled to HRH until Charles is King. As Charles is reportedly wanting a smaller royal family I can see him encouraging Harry to not have his children have HRH - and given the attitude of so many people to Beatrice and Eugenie being HRHs I suspect Harry will follow Edward's lead and not have his children so styled to prevent that same animosity towards his children when they are young adults and surplus to requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 04-01-2017, 10:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Albany isn't available as it currently in 'abeyance' under the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act but there are living claimants - the male line descendants of Queen Victoria's son, Leopold. While any such descendants live that title, along with Cumberland, isn't available for regrant. There are currently 13 such males in the line of succession to the Albany title with the most recent born in 2015 so it will be some time before this title is available again.

Under the 1917 LPs Harry's children aren't entitled to HRH until Charles is King. As Charles is reportedly wanting a smaller royal family I can see him encouraging Harry to not have his children have HRH - and given the attitude of so many people to Beatrice and Eugenie being HRHs I suspect Harry will follow Edward's lead and not have his children so styled to prevent that same animosity towards his children when they are young adults and surplus to requirements.
I am not sure this so-called "animosity" towards Beatrice and Eugenie is related to their being HRHs or not. I think it has more to do with animosity towards Beatrice's and Eugenie's parents and the girls' perceived lifestyle.

Children of the king's second son have always been HRHs. Even though Harry may ask Charles to give his children only the style of a duke's children, it would be a big departure from tradition.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince harry, prince william, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (2 members and 7 guests)
Furienna, Osipi
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
albania best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe letizia monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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