The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1541  
Old 05-01-2017, 09:45 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,712
I don't see why the RF would use an Irish title anyway; there seem to be plenty of others available.

And let's face it, probably every title has some negative history attached to it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1542  
Old 05-01-2017, 11:58 AM
JR76's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 1,173
There seems to be a small misconception regarding royal titles among a few posters. They cant only use titles that have been used by the royal family before & they cant only use noble titles that have been used before. The Queen could make Harry the Duke of Elephant & Castle, Earl of Chigwell & Baron of Slough if she wanted to. In general the only restrictions there are is that titles once used by the royal family arent awarded to non-royals, titles in places not longer under British rule arent awarded anymore & the titles lost by the Hannovers & SCG are still considered taken.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1543  
Old 05-01-2017, 01:27 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
So what ? There are probably many British peers who have titles with an Irish territorial designation. The Duke of Wellington for example is also the Baron Mornington.

And, on a different note, the heir to the Dutch throne is the Prince of Orange, although that location is now part of the French Republic.
You do know that the republic of Ireland is a separate country to the UK and that there would certainly be resentment if any such a thing were to happen.. not that it would.
Reply With Quote
  #1544  
Old 05-01-2017, 01:56 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,950
I think the difference would be using a territorial designation in a *new* creation of titles. The older titles that have been passed down through generations with an Republic of Ireland designation was actually created when that area was part of the UK and has historical meaning.

More simply put, the 6th Baron of Blarney Stone shows that the title has spanned six generations of the same creation. To create the 1st Baron of Blarney Stone wouldn't be correct as Blarney Stone isn't applicable for a UK title.

At least that's how I see it.
__________________
“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
  #1545  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,690
Plenty of Irish titles exist, Maurice FitzGerald, 9th Duke of Leinster, is the highest-ranking member of the peerage of Ireland.

That was then though and this is now. Ireland was sensitive about this sort of thing when it was part of UK. There would be war if the Queen created an Irish title for Harry today.
Reply With Quote
  #1546  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
at the time of these peerages being created, Ireland was under British rule. the Irish didn't necessarily LIKE their land's places being used for british lords and royals to use as their titles. but they had to put up with it. now they are independent of the UK ad have been for 100 years almost.
it simply wouldn't happen now...
And yes, the queen could create Harry Earl of Milton Keynes and Baron Tiddley In the Wold but it would sound pretty silly....
Reply With Quote
  #1547  
Old 05-01-2017, 03:50 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,891
Using Northern Irish titles is acceptable.

William was given the title Baron Carrickfergus in 2011
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1548  
Old 05-01-2017, 04:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
Since N Ireland is still part of the UK yes it is acceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #1549  
Old 05-01-2017, 04:27 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Burke, United States
Posts: 61
Still think he should get Clarence. At the end of the day lots of titles being used has had a bad history.
Reply With Quote
  #1550  
Old 05-01-2017, 04:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
Pretty well all the titles used by royals have 'bad' histories e.g. Gloucester was the title or Richard III (and I am not going into the Richard III story but his reputation is debateable).

All the sons of George III had interesting stories attached and so again it could be argued that they have some 'bad' history. That includes York, Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Cambridge and Sussex.

Albany (which along with Cumberland isn't available) are both associated with Germans who fought against Britain in WWI.

The one thing we do know is that there won't be any titles associated with countries outside the UK - such as Connaught - as that would be insulting to that country. If a current title with a Republic of Ireland association becomes extinct it won't be recreated. If Scotland were to leave the UK then there would be no new creations of Scottish titles although those with existing Scottish titles would continue to use them - although Scotland probably wouldn't recognise them.

Edward VIII and his brothers, Henry and Albert were all created Knights of St Patrick after 1922. Interestingly Edward VIII created the future George VI such a knight in March, 1936 while George V had given that status to Henry in 1934. At that time, although Eire was an independent country it was still a 'realm' so there was no real difference between creating the royals knights of an order in Ireland (of which interestingly the Queen is still the Sovereign of the Order) than Australia creating Charles a Knight of the Order of Australia which happened in 1981 (there was controversy when Philip was given that honour in 2015 and the honour no longer exists).
Reply With Quote
  #1551  
Old 05-01-2017, 05:24 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Burke, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Pretty well all the titles used by royals have 'bad' histories e.g. Gloucester was the title or Richard III (and I am not going into the Richard III story but his reputation is debateable).

All the sons of George III had interesting stories attached and so again it could be argued that they have some 'bad' history. That includes York, Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Cambridge and Sussex.

Albany (which along with Cumberland isn't available) are both associated with Germans who fought against Britain in WWI.

The one thing we do know is that there won't be any titles associated with countries outside the UK - such as Connaught - as that would be insulting to that country. If a current title with a Republic of Ireland association becomes extinct it won't be recreated. If Scotland were to leave the UK then there would be no new creations of Scottish titles although those with existing Scottish titles would continue to use them - although Scotland probably wouldn't recognise them.

Edward VIII and his brothers, Henry and Albert were all created Knights of St Patrick after 1922. Interestingly Edward VIII created the future George VI such a knight in March, 1936 while George V had given that status to Henry in 1934. At that time, although Eire was an independent country it was still a 'realm' so there was no real difference between creating the royals knights of an order in Ireland (of which interestingly the Queen is still the Sovereign of the Order) than Australia creating Charles a Knight of the Order of Australia which happened in 1981 (there was controversy when Philip was given that honour in 2015 and the honour no longer exists).
Thank you. So I really do not get why people don't like Clarence as Harry's future title.
Reply With Quote
  #1552  
Old 05-01-2017, 08:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 120
For those who want Duke of Clarence, sorry it can be used. It is stuck in limbo as a subsidiary title (Earl of Clarence) for the Dukedom of Albany.
Reply With Quote
  #1553  
Old 05-01-2017, 08:45 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,974
The issue with that is that Queen Victoria created both the Earldom for her son, Leopold and then created the Dukedom again for her grandson, Albert Victor. So both did exist at the same time and were both created by the same monarch. With that precedent the Dukedom can co-exist with the Earldom. She did add Avondale to the Dukedom when she did that but she still did it.
Reply With Quote
  #1554  
Old 05-01-2017, 11:42 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Burke, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalHighness 2002 View Post
For those who want Duke of Clarence, sorry it can be used. It is stuck in limbo as a subsidiary title (Earl of Clarence) for the Dukedom of Albany.
But what about Avondale since thats part of the Clarence title.
Reply With Quote
  #1555  
Old 05-02-2017, 12:20 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalHighness 2002 View Post
For those who want Duke of Clarence, sorry it can be used. It is stuck in limbo as a subsidiary title (Earl of Clarence) for the Dukedom of Albany.
A Duke and Earl of the same name easily coexist. There is an Earl of Cambridge. It is the secondary title of the Duke of Hamilton. Didn't stop William from being made Duke. And unlike Albany, Hamilton isn't even in limbo.

Avondale is possible. Scottish as senior title is not that common, but of course like Prince Philip, not heard of. Though if his Earl totle was English, customarily he would be referred to by his lesser title (opposite of Charles going by his Scottish in Scotland). But by practice would likely just be referred to by his senior title every where as Philip is.
Reply With Quote
  #1556  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:11 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Let's assume that Prince Harry marries without consent, in violation of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Under the said act, Harry and his descendants from that marriage would be disqualified from the succession. However, unlike what happened before under the Royal Marriages Act, his marriage would still be legally valid. Since the marriage would not be morganatic, could Harry's wife use his titles and would their children still be styled as grandchildren of a sovereign when Charles becomes king , even though they would have no succession rights ?
Reply With Quote
  #1557  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,950
I imagine that the situation would be handled much like Prince Michael of Kent's was. Prince Michael forfeited his place in the line of succession when he married Marie Christine but his children remained in the line of succession as they were raised in the Church of England.

When the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 was passed allowing marriages to Roman Catholics, Prince Michael regained his place in the line of succession.

I would imagine that if Harry was to renounce his place to marry and it stipulated that neither he or his descendants would be in the line of succession, that would be the only repercussion. They would still be the members of the family most likely with their HRH titles when Charles becomes King unless Charles himself changes things.
__________________
“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
  #1558  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:50 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Let's assume that Prince Harry marries without consent, in violation of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Under the said act, Harry and his descendants from that marriage would be disqualified from the succession. However, unlike what happened before under the Royal Marriages Act, his marriage would still be legally valid. Since the marriage would not be morganatic, could Harry's wife use his titles and would their children still be styled as grandchildren of a sovereign when Charles becomes king , even though they would have no succession rights ?
This topic was discussed and you participated in this discussion
Questions about British Styles and Titles
Reply With Quote
  #1559  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:51 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Let's assume that Prince Harry marries without consent, in violation of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Under the said act, Harry and his descendants from that marriage would be disqualified from the succession. However, unlike what happened before under the Royal Marriages Act, his marriage would still be legally valid. Since the marriage would not be morganatic, could Harry's wife use his titles and would their children still be styled as grandchildren of a sovereign when Charles becomes king , even though they would have no succession rights ?


The 1917 LPs make no reference to the succession. Titles are based on proximity to a monarch, not proximity to inheriting the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #1560  
Old 05-22-2017, 12:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The 1917 LPs make no reference to the succession. Titles are based on proximity to a monarch, not proximity to inheriting the throne.
I asked the question because, coincidentally, I was watching the ITV series Victoria over the weekend where there is a reference to the Duke of Sussex (one of Victoria's uncles), who married without the sovereign's consent, and whose wife and children were not able to use royal titles. However, the situation was different back then because, under the old Royal Marriages Act, his marriage was legally invalid and, therefore, his children were technically illegitimate. The Duke himself remained in the line of succession as the Royal Marriages Act did not affect his own succession rights.
__________________

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