New title for Princess Anne?

[Gawin]

Geeez we have absolutely no idea wether this is even on the table or if it is (as i suspect) other people who wants Anne to become a Duchess just because of showing female equality…

Yet we are here shouting and pointing fingers at each other, and taking down each others freely expressed opinions as if we have comitted a crime by even expressing them !

Can’t we at least wait with the next domestic war here until the late Queen has been laid to rest ?

Calm down. We are simply having a debate, which is what Royal Forums is all about. And it doesn't make sense to claim others are "shouting and pointing fingers, etc." when you just made an accusation based on your *suspicions.* LOL!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Princess Mary (King George V's daughter) was Countess of Harewood by marriage, but was referred as "Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood", in that order, suggesting "Princess Royal" was considered her most senior title.

But she was only a Countess by marriage, not in her own right, so I'm not sure it's comparable to Anne's hypothetical situation.

Another example of titles by marriage and titles in one's own right being ranked differently: Elizabeth II was officially referred to after her marriage and before her succession to the throne as "Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh".

We know, however, that if Elizabeth had been a male and held the dukedom of Edinburgh in his own right, the ducal title would have superseded the princely title and he would have been referred to as simply "The Duke of Edinburgh", like Elizabeth's uncles the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent.

The title Prince of Wales isn't a peerage title

It is enrolled on the official Roll of the Peerage.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/images/downloads/Roll_of_the_Peerage.pdf

The United Kingdom has separate orders of precedence for men and women. The female order of precedence, I believe, does not distinguish peeresses in their own right and wives of peers. Although wives of peers are commoners, they take their precedence by what peerage their husband's title belongs to (England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, or the United Kingdom) and, within each peerage, by the date of creation of the said title.

Do we, the general public, truly know what the current order(s) of precedence is? As we discussed in the Order of Precedence thread, as early as 2005 the order of precedence was already an internal palace document, kept private.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-351948/Camilla-Britains-Fourth-Lady-.html

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The fact that this is coming from the Guardian is laughable. I don’t believe Charles will confer any peerage to Anne. I highly doubt Anne wants a title when she is The Princess Royal and she doesn’t care for the fan care hoo ha of titles. Her kids don’t care for peerages either.

 

[Gawin]

The fact that this is coming from the Guardian is laughable. I don’t believe Charles will confer any peerage to Anne. I highly doubt Anne wants a title when she is The Princess Royal and she doesn’t care for the fan care hoo ha of titles. Her kids don’t care for peerages either.

I agree, and to be fair, The Guardian only stated "there is speculation" Anne might get an "elevated title." The article focuses on her importance to the monarchy, a position I suspect she values much more than a peerage title.

 

[Denville]

The Guardian must be hard up for stories, if they are on about Anne and the RF

 

[Mbruno]

Do we, the general public, truly know what the current order(s) of precedence is? As we discussed in the Order of Precedence thread, as early as 2005 the order of precedence was already an internal palace document, kept private.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-351948/Camilla-Britains-Fourth-Lady-.html

That is a fair point. One of the things that I expect King Charles III to do is to clarify the order of precedence.

The current (commonly implied) order is based on very old rules and statutes, sometimes dating back to the Tudor era, and it would be nice to have a new consolidated table of precedence officially published by the Palace.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Guardian is hardly the only news site which has been running a mass of opinion columns, news stories, and features about the royal family over the past few days. I understand and appreciate it given both the historical significance and the extraordinarily impactful life of Elizabeth II, who deserves to be commemorated.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

My point is that "Princess Royal" is not necessarily the highest title Anne can have. It's simply the highest title she was traditionally allowed to have as a female. If she had been a born male not female she wouldn't have been created Prince Royal. Why not? Because she would have been given a peerage title instead, rendering "Prince Royal" completely unnecessary. Sons get peerages, daughters get nothing except the eldest who gets the "Princess Royal" style. So we really have no idea if "Princess Royal" would supersede a peerage title in her own right. It's never happened.

Both in the United Kingdom as well in the Netherlands the title Princess Royal came before the title Princess of Orange.

If these Stuart and Hannover princesses were Duchess of so-and-so. I doubt this ducal title would have superseded their title Princess of Orange.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The Guardian must be hard up for stories, if they are on about Anne and the RF

Yes. It seems that a certain publication has nothing better to do.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am sure the press is capable of covering other important stories at the same time that they cover the royal family.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I am sure the press is capable of covering other important stories at the same time that they cover the royal family.

But not the Guardian.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But not the Guardian.

There are many non-royal stories being covered on the Guardian's website at present. http://www.theguardian.com/ I will leave it at that to avoid derailing this thread.

 

[Kataryn]

That was years ago. Now the trend is for only a very limited number of people to have honours and ranks unless they have earned them

Let's say the late queen chose to do that and we don't know yet how the new king is going to do it and how the media will react. I don't think we will find our what the people are thinking.


There are so many reasons why people accept titles and never use them. EG the former butler of HM who, when he retired, was given the position of Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, thus was a "Sir". That was okay in as such, but he and his wife moved away from the palace in a quarter they could afford and there, his wife felt, it would be ridiculous to go to the butcher or shopping for cleaning agents while the shopowners greeted her as "Lady X" (can't remember the name, read it in some biography and that was long ago). So they decided to not use their style. That was the lowest rank of title/style but we cansurely assume that it is the same or worse without money attached all over the peerage.


Then there was the politician Michael Ancram who sat in the Commons. Till his father died and he became the Marquess of Lothian, had to leave the commons, I think he served at the House of Lords for some time, but still, that he could be forced from the Commons was surely not something he was overly happy about.



Or Jane Austen's Bennett family, where Mrs. Bennett was punished because she had married the holder of a family fortune that was entrusted only to the next male in line and she didn't deliver. Was left quite poor, but with 4 daughter she had to marry off. Believe me, such situations happened and the former owners were escorted from their home to God knows where.



[.....]

There is so much injustice in the honorary or inheritance system in the Uk that I can understand that a normal citizen will howl when confronted with it, but what can Charles do and what will he want to?



He already gave up the Crown Estate, so that the revenues can be used to support all people. We'll see what the government is using it for in reality. Maybe renovate Chequers to the best available standard....


The monarch has always payed poorly because working for the Royals was considered a payment in itself - do we really wonder when in this age of greed the knowledge of Royal servants ähhh "sources" can be acquired by intersted parties?


I mean, you can't change the whole system but may I wish for it? For gender equality (especially in the nobility), for adequate payment, for 21.century comforts for Royals and their staff alike?


And wishing for a peerage for The Princess Royal and later for Princess Charlotte is one possibilty. Or none. And maybe none anymore in the whole of the UK for noone.

 

[Meee]

I can’t see Anne getting a new title, especially one that would outrank Princess Royal. As one poster said, she was granted that by her mother, after putting in the work on behalf of the firm. Why would she want to cease using it for something bestowed on her by her brother?

What I can see, is something that would elevate her status back to her rightful place. There would be more appetite for a retrospective Perth Agreement now than there was at the time I suspect, given that Andrew has been forced to retire from public life.

Most likely I can see an adjustment of the HRH’s and the CoS list being amended to something like the first four working royals in line over 21. While I agree that Charles will not go against his parents wishes and will create Edward DoE (perhaps on the anniversary of their wedding, to avoid too many major changes at once having already bestowed Wales), I think he’s much more likely to require Andrew to stop using HRH as Harry has been. Peter and Zara probably don’t want to use them and can opt not to, but it seems very unfair that they are not entitled while every other grandchild is. Surely he would not want Louis to be able to pass on HRH while Charlotte cannot?

Another possible HRH criterion would be all grandchildren of the monarch are entitled during the reign; all children of a monarch for life. Presumably though as Harry and Meghan do not use the style as part of the agreement of their stepping back, their children cannot either despite having become legally entitled upon the death of Her Majesty.

CoS changes like the above will likely allow Anne back onto the list for life, as it would be William, Edward, Anne, The Duke of Gloucester? Something has to be done anyway as there is no appetite for Andrew to serve. Should Charles’s reign be a short one, the rules as they stand would put Eugenie on who might well be in Portugal. Closer than Harry would be if they were required to serve, but still a mess.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

My point is that "Princess Royal" is not necessarily the highest title Anne can have. It's simply the highest title she was traditionally allowed to have as a female. If she had been a born male not female she wouldn't have been created Prince Royal. Why not? Because she would have been given a peerage title instead, rendering "Prince Royal" completely unnecessary. Sons get peerages, daughters get nothing except the eldest who gets the "Princess Royal" style. So we really have no idea if "Princess Royal" would supersede a peerage title in her own right. It's never happened.

Why is Prince Royal an unnecessary title?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I can’t see Anne getting a new title, especially one that would outrank Princess Royal. [...]

And the question is if a title like "Duchess of Connaught" (just naming something) if that would supersede her current style. My guess is she would remain HRH The Princess Royal as her royal title trumps over her peerage title. So never HRH The Duchess of Connaught.

And in the whole queue of Duchesses it is exactly Anne whom stands out with the very one-and-only truly unique title: The Princess Royal.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I can’t see Anne getting a new title, especially one that would outrank Princess Royal. As one poster said, she was granted that by her mother, after putting in the work on behalf of the firm. Why would she want to cease using it for something bestowed on her by her brother?

What I can see, is something that would elevate her status back to her rightful place. There would be more appetite for a retrospective Perth Agreement now than there was at the time I suspect, given that Andrew has been forced to retire from public life.

Most likely I can see an adjustment of the HRH’s and the CoS list being amended to something like the first four working royals in line over 21. While I agree that Charles will not go against his parents wishes and will create Edward DoE (perhaps on the anniversary of their wedding, to avoid too many major changes at once having already bestowed Wales), I think he’s much more likely to require Andrew to stop using HRH as Harry has been. Peter and Zara probably don’t want to use them and can opt not to, but it seems very unfair that they are not entitled while every other grandchild is. Surely he would not want Louis to be able to pass on HRH while Charlotte cannot?

Another possible HRH criterion would be all grandchildren of the monarch are entitled during the reign; all children of a monarch for life. Presumably though as Harry and Meghan do not use the style as part of the agreement of their stepping back, their children cannot either despite having become legally entitled upon the death of Her Majesty.

CoS changes like the above will likely allow Anne back onto the list for life, as it would be William, Edward, Anne, The Duke of Gloucester? Something has to be done anyway as there is no appetite for Andrew to serve. Should Charles’s reign be a short one, the rules as they stand would put Eugenie on who might well be in Portugal. Closer than Harry would be if they were required to serve, but still a mess.

Charlotte’s children would only ever get to be HRH if she was the first born child which she is not or unless she married another royal. Other daughters of Princes didn’t get to pass on their HRH so why should it be a bother? Peter and Zara don’t care for titles and styles so I don’t see what the problem is.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Why is Prince Royal an unnecessary title?

Well, there was a warship named HMS The Prince Royal and this was to honour Henry Frederick Stuart, back then The Prince of Wales (1594-1612).

While it was no title (Henry Frederick was The Prince of Wales) apparently the reference The Prince Royal must have been known and have been used back then, otherwise the Royal Navy would not name one of their heaviest and most impressive warships ever as such.

 

[Meee]

Charlotte’s children would only ever get to be HRH if she was the first born child which she is not or unless she married another royal. Other daughters of Princes didn’t get to pass on their HRH so why should it be a bother? Peter and Zara don’t care for titles and styles so I don’t see what the problem is.

Charlotte is the first Princess not to be ranked below a younger brother in the line of succession; as things stand Louis would be able to pass on HRH to his children in William’s reign, but Charlotte would not despite being higher up the order. They’ve removed one part of the gender bias but left the second part to continue.

I don’t think that is fair and expect that as part of the modernisation, it will be resolved one way or the other. Even if that is to restrict HRH so that only the children of the monarch (or expected future monarchs) are entitled to it.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Charlotte is the first Princess not to be ranked below a younger brother in the line of succession; as things stand Louis would be able to pass on HRH to his children in William’s reign, but Charlotte would not despite being higher up the order. They’ve removed one part of the gender bias but left the second part to continue.

I don’t think that is fair and expect that as part of the modernisation, it will be resolved one way or the other. Even if that is to restrict HRH so that only the children of the monarch (or expected future monarchs) are entitled to it.

Other previous princesses and Princess Royals didn’t pass on their titles and styles so why should Charlotte’s. Right now, very few people are interested in more royals having more titles.

 

[Somebody]

Other previous princesses and Princess Royals didn’t pass on their titles and styles so why should Charlotte’s. Right now, very few people are interested in more royals having more titles.

As Meee explaine previously princesses ranked BELOW their brothers in the line of succession, so from that perspective the royals that were 'higher up' in each generation would be titled while the once 'lower' were not. From the next generation forwards we would have the illogical constellation of those who are lower in the line (but in the same generation) being titled while those who are higher up are not... So, would your solution be to quit the styles and titles completely for both Charlotte's and Louis' children (and probably also for Harry's children - as they are in the same situation as Louis') - or give them a lower (non-royal) style or title?

 

[kalnel]

If Charles wants to give Anne an honor, he could make her a Counsellor of State. In fact, if he pushed Andrew and Harry off the list, she'd be the next in line for it.

I'm sure it's not as simple as a wave of his hand, but she would make an excellent choice for this.

I suppose he could also make her "governor" somewhere, too.

 

[Somebody]

If Charles wants to give Anne an honor, he could make her a Counsellor of State. In fact, if he pushed Andrew and Harry off the list, she'd be the next in line for it.

I'm sure it's not as simple as a wave of his hand, but she would make an excellent choice for this.

I suppose he could also make her "governor" somewhere, too.

No, he cannot do that. These things are regulated and not at the sole discretion of the king. If Charles would need Counsellors of State because he cannot fulfill his duties, he can pick his two Counsellors from among the 5 who are eligible, specifically: his spouse and the 4 adults (21+) highest in line to the throne. Anne is currently in position 7.

The top 10 people aged 21+ or older in the line to the throne:
1. William
2. Harry
3. Andrew
4. Beatrice
5. Eugenie
6. Edward
7. Anne
8. Peter
9. Zara
10. David

So, as explained in this topic before. Even if Harry and Andrew were to be removed. It would be Eugenie and Edward who would be added to the list of eligible Counsellors of State and not Anne. Anne had her turn from her 21th birthday until William's 18th birthday.

 

[Meee]

No, he cannot do that. These things are regulated and not at the sole discretion of the king. If Charles would need Counsellors of State because he cannot fulfill his duties, he can pick his two Counsellors from among the 5 who are eligible, specifically: his spouse and the 4 adults (21+) highest in line to the throne. Anne is currently in position 7.

The top 10 people aged 21+ or older in the line to the throne:
1. William
2. Harry
3. Andrew
4. Beatrice
5. Eugenie
6. Edward
7. Anne
8. Peter
9. Zara
10. David

So, as explained in this topic before. Even if Harry and Andrew were to be removed. It would be Eugenie and Edward who would be added to the list of eligible Counsellors of State and not Anne. Anne had her turn from her 21th birthday until William's 18th birthday.

It was William’s 21st - only the heir is eligible to serve at 18 - but it also looks like this was a typo as you mentioned Anne’s 21st.

Louise would take 7th position on 8th November 2024, so Anne is going further down the order unless the rules are changed in some way. Parliament would have to be involved but I can’t see that being a problem. It would never have imagined that a son of the monarch would live abroad or that a brother of the monarch would be forced to retire from royal duties. I would have thought it better that they have working royals eligible rather than someone using a loophole to still be treated as domiciled here or those that have rarely if ever performed royal duties.

Since Charles is likely to do overseas visits with Camilla accompanying him, it seems to me even more urgent that this is changed than it was a few years ago. Until after his father’s death, his mother was in good health and we knew that she wouldn’t be out of the country.

 

[tommy100]

Not maybe the place to have this discussion but I think the Counsellor of State system needs overhauling given the many anomalties. Certainly I think it would be right for Anne to be given a role in any overhaul, she is more than up to the job.

The more I think about it, I don't see Anne getting a new title and even if she does it won't really surplant the Princess Royal title she already has. Personally, I think that title just perfectly encompasses Anne.

 

[Somebody]

It was William’s 21st - only the heir is eligible to serve at 18 - but it also looks like this was a typo as you mentioned Anne’s 21st.

Louise would take 7th position on 8th November 2024, so Anne is going further down the order unless the rules are changed in some way. Parliament would have to be involved but I can’t see that being a problem. It would never have imagined that a son of the monarch would live abroad or that a brother of the monarch would be forced to retire from royal duties. I would have thought it better that they have working royals eligible rather than someone using a loophole to still be treated as domiciled here or those that have rarely if ever performed royal duties.

Since Charles is likely to do overseas visits with Camilla accompanying him, it seems to me even more urgent that this is changed than it was a few years ago. Until after his father’s death, his mother was in good health and we knew that she wouldn’t be out of the country.

Yes, of course. I don't know why I wrote 18. I intended to write 21 as it is indeed only for the heir that 18 is sufficient.

I agree that it would make sense to make some changes (but it's not something that Charles himself can unilaterally do) but that's something to discuss in the CoS-thread.

 

[southwind]

This ''problems'' only shows that chages has to be made, in one way or another. i'm really sure we will see it in the future, not for Anne (i'm sure she doesn't even care about it), but for William's kids.

Have equality in some things but not in others don't make sense. If Charlotte is upper in the line of succession, is not logical that Louis future children could have higher rank than hers. The logical thing would be: or all are HRH or none.

Or an hypothetical situation: If George would have 4 kids, 3 girls and then a 4th boy. the 1st one would be the princess of Wales by her own rigth, no? the boy a duke. the 2nd, could be the princess royal? even when there is no precedent. and the 3rd girl? just nothing? Again, the logical thing (with a 2020's look) is or dukedoms for all or dukedoms for none.
Or if William is still the King, will the 1st girl get a dukedom when she merries? or will it be given to her husband? Is easy to see acusations of sexism even today...

The problem is that the PL established in 1917 doesn't correspond with the 2013's. In actual times, those changes would be necessary at some point.

 

[Denville]

And the question is if a title like "Duchess of Connaught" (just naming something) if that would supersede her current style. My guess is she would remain HRH The Princess Royal as her royal title trumps over her peerage title. So never HRH The Duchess of Connaught.

And in the whole queue of Duchesses it is exactly Anne whom stands out with the very one-and-only truly unique title: The Princess Royal.

I trus you are not saying that Duchess of Connaught is a title that she could conceviable receive??

 

[Sister Morphine]

I trus you are not saying that Duchess of Connaught is a title that she could conceviable receive??

No, they were just using that as a placeholder in their comment. He/She could have said "Duchess of Tomato." The duchy itself is immaterial. The point is that it's doubtful Anne will receive another title because A) no title she could be granted is superior to "Princess Royal" and B ) I doubt seriously she wants one.

 

[Denville]

of course she is not going to get another title but Im rahter shocked that poeple dont seem to know that Connaught is in the Irish republic