The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 07-24-2018, 05:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Eugenie'd still be Princess Eugenie despite being a Countess as Margaret was Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden.
Times changed though. And the tabloids hate the York-princesses.That was my concern. Of course she would still be "Princess" Eugenie. But if Jack got a title I ma sure these negative editors would use that to put her down to that "consort title" and made even more fun of her. Jack getting no title makes at least sure that Eugenie stays HRH "Princess Eugenie" which is what seh deserve by the privilege of her birth and what ties her into the current society of the Uk.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 07-24-2018, 07:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,679
Princess Anne seems to have done just fine with a commoner husband, and she is a child of the Monarch.
__________________

__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 07-24-2018, 08:09 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,880
Being the princess royal does help.

And if we compare her situation to Charlotte's future situation; she comes after her younger brothers in the line of succession; while Charlotte comes before Louis.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 07-24-2018, 10:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Times changed though. And the tabloids hate the York-princesses.That was my concern. Of course she would still be "Princess" Eugenie. But if Jack got a title I ma sure these negative editors would use that to put her down to that "consort title" and made even more fun of her. Jack getting no title makes at least sure that Eugenie stays HRH "Princess Eugenie" which is what seh deserve by the privilege of her birth and what ties her into the current society of the Uk.

Regardless of what Jack’s title (or lack there of) is, Eugenie is going to remain HRH Princess Eugenie. Were Jack to be titled she would go from HRH Princess Eugenie of York to HRH Princess Eugenie, Countess Whatever; with him remaining untitled she’ll instead go from HRH Princess Eugenie of York to HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

This can be seen in Princess Anne, who went from HRH The Princess Anne to HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips to HRH The Princess Royal. It can also be seen in Princess Margaret (HRH Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon) and Princess Mary (whose titles went from HRH The Princess Mary to HRH The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles to HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood, to HRH The Princess Royal).
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 07-24-2018, 10:14 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 517
Quote:
In Charlotte's case, I think it would be ridiculous if her husband were not given a peerage when her younger brother, who will be after Charlotte and her children in the line of succession, will probably have a dukedom.
I think Charlotte should be given a dukedom, as the child of a monarch (I expect), just like her brother.

I don't think Jack should be given a title just because he's marrying a princess... but hey, that's exactly what happens when a prince marries a lady, she becomes a princess, so my thinking is a little fuddled there! In the 21st century, it's a bit of a minefield; things were a lot clearer a hundred years ago.

I think Prince Daniel has made a good job in his new 'career' of being a Royal, but I wonder how he feels, having only been made a prince because of his marriage to P Victoria. Women, e.g. Countess of Wessex, have no problems with 'stepping up' to becoming a princess, but I would imagine men might feel happier if they got a title based on their own merit. Women have been used to taking their husband's name/title for 100s of years; for men it's a new age.

Hope I made myself clear; I'm in two minds about the whole thing - and it shows!
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 07-24-2018, 10:34 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,524
Though Princess Mary became HRH The Princess Royal, was not her next title Countess of Harewood?
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 07-24-2018, 10:47 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Though Princess Mary became HRH The Princess Royal, was not her next title Countess of Harewood?
Yes, in full it could be said she was HRH The Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood but usually those who are given the title princess royal use it alone. That is, until they come into the possession of a higher title, such as Empress Victoria of Germany, Queen of Prussia and daughter of Queen Victoria, who was the princess royal before her marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 07-24-2018, 11:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
I think Charlotte should be given a dukedom, as the child of a monarch (I expect), just like her brother.

I don't think Jack should be given a title just because he's marrying a princess... but hey, that's exactly what happens when a prince marries a lady, she becomes a princess, so my thinking is a little fuddled there! In the 21st century, it's a bit of a minefield; things were a lot clearer a hundred years ago.

I think Prince Daniel has made a good job in his new 'career' of being a Royal, but I wonder how he feels, having only been made a prince because of his marriage to P Victoria. Women, e.g. Countess of Wessex, have no problems with 'stepping up' to becoming a princess, but I would imagine men might feel happier if they got a title based on their own merit. Women have been used to taking their husband's name/title for 100s of years; for men it's a new age.

Hope I made myself clear; I'm in two minds about the whole thing - and it shows!

You make an interesting point about women having no problem with moving up in rank by taking their husbands' title, while the reverse may feel embarassing or awkward for men.



Personally, my position is that there should be gender symmetry in courtesy titles for spouses. In other words, either both male and female consorts should be allowed to use their respective spouse's titles and styles, or neither of them should get any courtesy title at all, or both should get a different, gender-neutral title.



Spain uses mostly option # 1, e.g. the husband of a duchess is a duke with the same style of Excellency , and even the husband of the Princess of Asturias is called Prince of Asturias with the same style of Royal Highness. Husbands of infantas , under current rules, don't get the title (infante) and the style (Royal Highness) of their wives, but the same is true for wives of infantes, so symmetry is still preserved, albeit under option # 2. The only situation where there is gender asymmetry is the case of the husband of the (reigning) Queen of Spain, who, again under current rules, is just a prince and an HRH, whereas the wife of the King of Spain is a queen and an HM. Actually, that is a relatively recent innovation which was introduced in 1987. In the past, husbands of Spanish queens, e.g. Queen Isabella II's spouse, were called king and had the style of Majesty. The introduction of gender asymmetry in the titles of the monarch's consort in Spain seems to be a northern European influence (copying the British, Dutch, or Danish models).


Going back to your example about Prince Daniel, I would imagine that the position of "prince consort" to a reigning queen, as held by Prince Philip or by Prince Henrik in the past, and which will be most likely held by Daniel in the future, must be uncomfortable for most men. However, men who accept to take up that role probably understand (or should understand) what they are getting into and, in most cases, Prince Philip being the best example, they eventually come to accept the realities of their position and rank. Prince Daniel in particular seems to me to be quite comfortable with being "Victoria's help" and "walking behind her" metaphorically speaking. In fact, he said so many times.


In Jack's case, however, at least on this forum, we are not talking about his being made a prince in his own right, or even a courtesy prince (under gender symmetry). Both options would be out of question in British custom. The question here is Jack being made an earl (or a viscount, or a baron) in his own right in the peerage of the UK and being able to pass on that title to his firstborn son if any.



EDIT: BTW, just as a last comment, the idea of being made a prince "by merit" doesn't really make much sense (no disrespect intended) because hereditary monarchy, as shocking as it might be in our modern western thinking, is not meritocratic. Men and women are born princes or princesses and normally keep that dignity for life, whether they merit it or not. To be fair, however, as I stressed before, Prince Philip e.g. was only made a prince about 10 years after he got married, so I guess you could argue that he may have gotten that dignity "by merit" perhaps. He had been an HRH and a duke though since his wedding day, despite not being called a prince, which was very odd.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 07-24-2018, 11:49 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,780
I thought Prince Phillip was a Prince prior to...by birth or are you talking about a Prince of GB?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07-25-2018, 12:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I thought Prince Phillip was a Prince prior to...by birth or are you talking about a Prince of GB?


LaRae

Yes, I am talking about a "prince of the United Kingdom". He was indeed a prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, but he renounced those titles. When he became engaged to Princess Elizabeth, he was just Lt. Philip Mountbatten.


PS: I really don't know if Philip's "renunciation" had legal effect in Greece or in Denmark, or if he could legally renounce his title in those jurisdictions, but the important point here is that, from the British perspective, he was not considered a prince when he married Elizabeth and only became one ten years later.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 07-25-2018, 03:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Princess Anne seems to have done just fine with a commoner husband, and she is a child of the Monarch.
It is all moot.. even in the 70s when Mark and Anne married, the idea of giving a title to someone just because he'd married a Princess was beginning to look archaic. The queen did apparently want Mark to have a title, but he and Anne both opposed it and wanted him and their children to make their way in life on their own merits and not have the burden of a title.. And I think that Zara and Peter have had interesting careers without being Lord X and LAdy Zara Phillips..
So now, 40 years later no one is going to expect Jack to get a title...
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 07-25-2018, 08:40 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Yes, I am talking about a "prince of the United Kingdom". He was indeed a prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, but he renounced those titles. When he became engaged to Princess Elizabeth, he was just Lt. Philip Mountbatten.


PS: I really don't know if Philip's "renunciation" had legal effect in Greece or in Denmark, or if he could legally renounce his title in those jurisdictions, but the important point here is that, from the British perspective, he was not considered a prince when he married Elizabeth and only became one ten years later.

I don't think it even mattered if he could renounce them in those countries. He was trying to overcome the resistance to him marrying Elizabeth. Now days he wouldn't even need to do that.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:24 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 756
Quote:
You make an interesting point about women having no problem with moving up in rank by taking their husbands' title, while the reverse may feel embarassing or awkward for men.
It felt weird to Philip and Henrik, but they also grew up in a time where reigning queens were not so common. I suspect having years of three simultaneous monarchies headed by women (Elizabeth, Margarethe, Beatrix) will have made the Prince Consort title feel much more normal to men like Daniel and whomever eventually become the next generation of consorts in Belgium, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
It felt weird to Philip and Henrik, but they also grew up in a time where reigning queens were not so common. I suspect having years of three simultaneous monarchies headed by women (Elizabeth, Margarethe, Beatrix) will have made the Prince Consort title feel much more normal to men like Daniel and whomever eventually become the next generation of consorts in Belgium, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands.
Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:54 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.
Or to bring things back to Jack and Eugenie, imagine a situation where she is made Duchess at the time of the wedding and he a “Duke Consort.”

(This is half joke/half thought experiment. Obviously there’s zero precedent for any such thing, and I’m in the camp that assumes there will be no title offered to Jack)
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 07-25-2018, 02:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,840
There's no reason she would be a Duchess. Royal women have not been given royal dukedoms. She will be Princess Eugenie and h'e will be Mr Jack Brooksbank. Or she could drop her princess title and just be Lady Eugenie B or even Mrs J B.....
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 07-25-2018, 03:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.
Actually, the only rationale I can think of for husbands of reigning queens to be princes rather than kings is precisely what you said, i.e. that the cultural perception still is that kings outrank queens and, therefore, if a queen's husband were called king, it would give an impression that he would be above his wife, which is nonsense BTW.


Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
Or to bring things back to Jack and Eugenie, imagine a situation where she is made Duchess at the time of the wedding and he a “Duke Consort.”

(This is half joke/half thought experiment. Obviously there’s zero precedent for any such thing, and I’m in the camp that assumes there will be no title offered to Jack)
As I said before, there are no "duke consorts" in the UK, but there are duke consorts in other countries like Spain. And there are also princesses of the blood in other countries who are given dukedoms, albeit non-hereditary ones (for example, again in Spain and in Sweden).

I believe all those questions, not only in Jack and Eugenie's specific case, but in general and in abstract, should be considered in the context of a broader reform of the peerage system, which would address not only the question of consort titles, but also possible female succession or equal primogeniture.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 07-25-2018, 03:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,840
Not likely to happen, IMO. the british operate on an "If it aint broke don't fix it" mindset. Nobody wants to change things much...and Im sure that they're not likey to replace the idea of Queen Consort with a Princess Consort so as to be egalitarian.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:46 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.
For centuries the spouse of a King was referred to as a Queen. However, she was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 08-19-2018, 10:22 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I really just hope they haven't sold the photo rights to Hello or OK magazine.

I expect to see a lot of merchandising Eugenie's title, once she is married. It's not that she is rich according to Royal standards and both her parents and Jack have used their connections to do business on a regular basis.



I think Charles had a talk with them about the boundaries of making use Eugenie's Royal title (at least this would prevent a lot of PR desasters as both Sarah and a "fake sheikh" scenario or some similar tabloid-stunt are already waiting to happen...


We have no idea how loaded Andrew actually is and what kind of deals he actually did with Saudi or Russian Olegarchs, but I'm sure he will want his younger daughter to be settled securely.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jack Brooksbank: Family and Background Zonk The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 78 12-01-2018 03:15 AM
Engagement of Princess Eugenie of York and Jack Brooksbank: January 22, 2018 JessRulz The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 228 03-15-2018 10:50 PM
Daniel's Future: Discussion (his role, title, orders, pressure etc.) Yennie Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 441 01-13-2017 07:38 PM




Popular Tags
althorp archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy armenia bangladesh belgian royal family birthday celebration castles charles of wales chittagong crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife current events cypher denmark diana princess of wales duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch royal family felipe vi foundation future genealogy general news germany hamdan bin mohammed hill house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma king salman languages lithuanian castles mail meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco christening monaco history monarchism netflix nobel 2019 norway history official visit prince charles prince harry prince of wales princess margaret queen maud royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia settings spain spanish history spencer family state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts trump united kingdom working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×