New title for Princess Anne?

[CyrilVladisla]

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

More people knew about Connaught after Queen Victoria gave the title of Duke of Connaught to her son Prince Arthur. Also, more news was made when Arthur's daughter Princess Margaret of Connaught wed Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden.

 

[kalnel]

I don't think they've ever had a female personal aide-de-camp to the sovereign. Her brothers (and husband) were ADC's to the Queen, so maybe Charles will appoint her.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think they've ever had a female personal aide-de-camp to the sovereign. Her brothers (and husband) were ADC's to the Queen, so maybe Charles will appoint her.

That's a lovely thought. The Princess Royal is treated as 'one of the guys' anyways these days (and also for her father's funeral) and I imagine she is one of Charles' most trusted advisors (as his only sibling close in age).

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

1. Charles can't do that as who is a CoS is determined by LAW.

2. If Harry and Andrew were removed then the next two would be Eugenie and Edward and in just over two years Louise would also be ahead of Anne in the eligibility criteria

3. She served as a CoS from her 21st birthday until William's 21st birthday when she was no longer one of the first four adults in the line of succession.

4. He could make her Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports - a title their grandmother held from many years.

5. If you mean 'governor' of an overseas realm - not happening. We expect to have our own now and not a foreign royal foisted on us. Besides which I doubt she would want to up sticks and move overseas for 4 - 5 years.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

A second daughter can't be The Princess Royal. That title is limited to the eldest daughter only - that is what it signifies.

I do think that new LPs are needed to limit HRH to the children of the monarch and the heir apparent in each subsequent generation. I would also like clarity about HRHs for spouses of an HRH and would suggest again HRH only for the spouse of the heir apparent in each generation. I would also stop the creation of Dukedoms for younger children. It made sense when, as a commoner, a Prince could stand for election to the House of Commons but makes no sense now as even a Duke can stand for such an election.

 

[Meee]

With absolute primogeniture, I think it’s only a matter of time until we get Princess Royal going to a second daughter (the eldest daughter who is not destined to be Queen.) That or they are created Duchesses in their own right, or no spares are created anything.

To stop Dukedoms ending up far from the crown, perhaps they would be created as grantee only in the future - although if HRH were slimmed, perhaps they’re not needed, as that would confer the status of child of a monarch.

 

[Denville]

More people knew about Connaught after Queen Victoria gave the title of Duke of Connaught to her son Prince Arthur. Also, more news was made when Arthur's daughter Princess Margaret of Connaught wed Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden.

that is not my point. My point is that no Kng could give a title named for a place in the Irish republic.

 

[Heavs]

More people knew about Connaught after Queen Victoria gave the title of Duke of Connaught to her son Prince Arthur. Also, more news was made when Arthur's daughter Princess Margaret of Connaught wed Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden.

Perhaps, although it's not like we're talking about an obscure town and still in usage today. It's exactly like talking about Ulster, which more people seem to know since it is often used synonymously with "Northern Ireland".

Perhaps we should be thankful we're not talking about anyone being created Earl of Munster as that might really lead to some confusion.

* General observations, not talking about anyone discussing this on TRF.

 

[Denville]

connaught is just as much a province in the Irish republic as is Munster

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

How is that a "honour" as Anne already has been a Counsellor of State for three decades ? Reviving that Counsellor of State thing is like saying: "Life is like a box of chocolates: when lifting the lid, you already know the box is empty".

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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

Just something which popped up. Make her Duchess of Dorsetshire whatever pops up in the mind.

But the point is that most likely Princess Anne still would remain HRH The Princess Royal, no matter which peerage she receives because my guess is that her current style trumps any other title.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

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?

I think giving a non-royal title and style.

 

[Denville]

Just something which popped up. Make her Duchess of Dorsetshire whatever pops up in the mind.

But the point is that most likely Princess Anne still would remain HRH The Princess Royal, no matter which peerage she receives because my guess is that her current style trumps any other title.

yes but Dorsetshire is a part of the UK. Connaught isn't.

 

[Heavs]

connaught is just as much a province in the Irish republic as is Munster

I'm well aware, I was just making a silly joke about some people thinking the the extinct Earl of Munster title was about the TV show and not realising it was one of the four provinces of ROI.

I don't think the new King is going to 'make up' new royal Dukedoms anymore than the QQueen generally did and goodness knows we're all well aware here of the limited pool for various reasons.

 

[Denville]

I'm well aware, I was just making a silly joke about some people thinking the the extinct Earl of Munster title was about the TV show and not realising it was one of the four provinces of ROI.

I don't think the new King is going to 'make up' new royal Dukedoms anymore than the QQueen generally did and goodness knows we're all well aware here of the limited pool for various reasons.

well um that is what is annoying me, that after almost 100 years since ireland split away from the UK, people in Britain do not know when a place is in Ireland, or think that it is part of the Uk and can be used as a royal title or the like. Im surprised that some poeple (not on the RF) dont say "Oh the queen' rules over Ireland, dont she?"

 

[Tatiana Maria]

well um that is what is annoying me, that after almost 100 years since ireland split away from the UK, people in Britain do not know when a place is in Ireland, or think that it is part of the Uk and can be used as a royal title or the like. Im surprised that some poeple (not on the RF) dont say "Oh the queen' rules over Ireland, dont she?"

Duc_et_Pair is not from Britain or Ireland.

I am not sure why there seems to be a widespread expectation that non-British royal watchers should be familiar with all the details of Britain and the British monarchy, but not the other way around. I very much doubt that all of the British, American, etc. posters on this forum can reliably remember which cities and towns belong to Flanders versus the Kingdom of the Netherlands, outside of the capital cities. Nevertheless I have never seen the Dutch and Belgian posters express annoyance at it.

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.

A second daughter can't be The Princess Royal. That title is limited to the eldest daughter only - that is what it signifies.

southwind acknowledged that there is no precedent for creating a second daughter The Princess Royal. That does not mean the precedent and significance cannot be changed - in fact it would be quite easy to change as the style is given at the discretion of the Sovereign. And if future firstborn daughters are Princess of Wales, I do think it is reasonable that the Princess Royal tradition be changed.

 

[Alison H]

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.

Entails, such as the one in Pride and Prejudice, were placed on an estate by the owner of the estate, NOT by the authorities or the legal system. They were binding on future generations, but had absolutely nothing to do with titles or honours.

The title of Earl of Wessex was revived after nearly a millennium, so there's no particular need to stick to recent titles, but I cannot see that Anne would want, or be offered, any title other than Princess Royal.

 

[Denville]

please please read up on entails

 

[Carin]

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.

If the Queens's second child had been a boy, he would have been Duke of York, as that title is traditionally given to the monarch's second son. Andrew would have been further down the line. I think HMQE was very lucky with her daughter. Now what would be a better honour, restore Princess Anne to follow in line of succession right after Charles 'line. I know it is very remote she would inherit the throne, but she does really deserve this honour,

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If the Queens's second child had been a boy, he would have been Duke of York, as that title is traditionally given to the monarch's second son. Andrew would have been further down the line. I think HMQE was very lucky with her daughter. Now what would be a better honour, restore Princess Anne to follow in line of succession right after Charles 'line. I know it is very remote she would inherit the throne, but she does really deserve this honour,

How is that a "honour"? She still only comes after Lady Lillibet Mountbatten-Windsor. To me this would mean just another empty box of chocolates for the Princess Royal...

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Queens's second child had been a boy, he would have been Duke of York, as that title is traditionally given to the monarch's second son. Andrew would have been further down the line. I think HMQE was very lucky with her daughter. Now what would be a better honour, restore Princess Anne to follow in line of succession right after Charles 'line. I know it is very remote she would inherit the throne, but she does really deserve this honour,

The person most opposed to that idea is Anne herself. When the topic has been raised with her she has always said she didn't want that to happen.

 

[Denville]

has she? I've never heard of her saying anything about her place in the line of succession

 

[Iluvbertie]

has she? I've never heard of her saying anything about her place in the line of succession

She was asked about it when Sweden changed, when Norway changed and again as each of the other European countries changed.

 

[Denville]

really? I must have missed that.

 

[xenobia]

If Anne would have been behind Charles (and his heirs) in line of succession, she would have been eligible to serve as Counsellor of state. She would have been a great person to have there. The king trusts her, and she has served in that position before.

 

[Denville]

If Anne would have been behind Charles (and his heirs) in line of succession, she would have been eligible to serve as Counsellor of state. She would have been a great person to have there. The king trusts her, and she has served in that position before.

She did serve as Counsellor of State. Why would she want to do it again?

 

[Mbruno]

If the Queens's second child had been a boy, he would have been Duke of York, as that title is traditionally given to the monarch's second son. Andrew would have been further down the line. I think HMQE was very lucky with her daughter. Now what would be a better honour, restore Princess Anne to follow in line of succession right after Charles 'line. I know it is very remote she would inherit the throne, but she does really deserve this honour,

Changing the order of succession is not something that the King can do on his own. It requires legislation not only in the UK, but in other Commonwealth realms too. In Australia, for example, it requires legislation passed by the federal Parliament and the Parliaments of all the states.

The heads of government of the realms agreed in Perth that the new rules of equal primogeniture should not apply to anyone born before 2011. Reopening that debate now and restarting legislative action in the different realms is simply not realistic.

 

[Denville]

and it would be ridiculous. Anne would still be miles down the line of succession, since There are Will and his 3 kids and Harry nad his 2 kids.

 

[xenobia]

She did serve as Counsellor of State. Why would she want to do it again?

I'm not saying that she personally wants to do it again. I'm saying that I think she would do a great job. The first four in line are William, Harry, Andrew and Eugenie. Only William is a full-time royal right now.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm not saying that she personally wants to do it again. I'm saying that I think she would do a great job. The first four in line are William, Harry, Andrew and Eugenie. Only William is a full-time royal right now.

I suppose you mean Beatrice, not Eugenie.