Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?

[Countessmeout]

Angus Oglivy was offered a title, like Mark Philips, but like Mark he turned it down. He was later made a knight of the Victorian order. At the time his wife was only the cousin of the monarch.

Times have changed though, and I don't think Jack would be offered a title. If he is, perhaps a lower title like Baron. But really not sure we'd even see that.

I don't see Eugenie giving up her title and why would she? Nor do I think her and Jack would turn down a peerage if offered. It doesn't come along with any responsibilities. They would still be private citizens.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Angus Oglivy was offered a title, like Mark Philips, but like Mark he turned it down. He was later made a knight of the Victorian order. At the time his wife was only the cousin of the monarch.

Times have changed though, and I don't think Jack would be offered a title. If he is, perhaps a lower title like Baron. But really not sure we'd even see that.

I don't see Eugenie giving up her title and why would she? Nor do I think her and Jack would turn down a peerage if offered. It doesn't come along with any responsibilities. They would still be private citizens.

Did Angus Ogilvy ever comment on why he turned down the title ? I find it curious considering that his own father was an earl and actually the holder of a 17th-century earldom. Nobility is certainly not a strange concept to the family he grew up in, who has held hereditary peerages since the 15th century.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Did Angus Ogilvy ever comment on why he turned down the title ? I find it curious considering that his own father was an earl and actually the holder of a 17th-century earldom. Nobility is certainly not a strange concept to the family he grew up in, who has held hereditary peerages since the 15th century.

This is all I could find, which was from his obituary in the telegraph

His decision not to accept an earldom on marrying into the Royal Family was also unorthodox. Since Antony Armstrong-Jones had been created Earl of Snowdon after his marriage to Princess Margaret in 1960, it was assumed that Ogilvy would also be ennobled following his marriage in 1963 to the Queen's first cousin, Princess Alexandra, the daughter of the late Prince George Duke of Kent and Princess Marina Duchess of Kent. But a keen desire to pursue a City career unaffected by his marriage led him to refuse a peerage - an example followed 10 years later by Captain Mark Phillips, when he married Princess Anne.

He did later lament that he regretted turning it down. Not for himself, but for the sake of Peter and Zara. He thought turning down the earldom created the precedence which allowed Anne and Mark to turn one down. He thought as the grandchildren of the sovereign, Zara and Peter should have titles.

[Skippyboo]

If Eugenie was born a boy, she would become a Duke after her father died and her son if she had one would inherit the title from her. Harry is most likely going to be made a Duke and that title could pass down to a grandchild with no HRH like the Kent and Gloucester title will. James will become a Duke in time.

But if you a female grandchild you get nothing. A title is just a title. It doesn’t come with a grand estate or a requirement of official duties.

Boy Eugenie would be only 1 position closer to the throne than she is today but her wife would be a HRH Princess and a future Duchess. The real Eugenie’s husband gets nothing. That’s not really fair.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

If Eugenie was born a boy, she would become a Duke after her father died and her son if she had one would inherit the title from her. Harry is most likely going to be made a Duke and that title could pass down to a grandchild with no HRH like the Kent and Gloucester title will. James will become a Duke in time.

But if you a female grandchild you get nothing. A title is just a title. It doesn’t come with a grand estate or a requirement of official duties.

Boy Eugenie would be only 1 position closer to the throne than she is today but her wife would be a HRH Princess and a future Duchess. The real Eugenie’s husband gets nothing. That’s not really fair.

Well, then if Eugenie was a boy, so might Beatrice in which case Eugenie still gets nothing to hand down.

I think a grand estate, unless it comes with a fortune, is not all that great.

[Zonk]

Thanks to all for the House of Lords explanation!

Since Andrew has no sons...the title of York will simply merge back to the Crown (which it has down in the past), and can later be given to a 2nd son of William (if that is the case) or future sons of George. BUT that is the topic of another thread.

Lady Patricia Ramsay is an interesting case but she was also so removed from the throne (further down than Eugenie).

Either way...I don't see Jack receiving a title from the Queen or Eugenie giving up hers. She will continue life as HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbanks...and much like her predecessors (Princesses Alexandra, Anne and Margaret) as she gets further away from the line of succession with the new royal births....people will lose interest in her.

Something I don't think she will have a problem with at all. She will continue her work with art galleries, marry and have children. And you will see her on special occasions...that of the coronation of her uncle and cousin.

[King of the Jungle]

I think Eugenie will be fine in not receiving a title but in the name of equality I think her grandmother could offer her a title upon her marriage.
Were Peter and Zara offered a title?

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by King of the Jungle

I think Eugenie will be fine in not receiving a title but in the name of equality I think her grandmother could offer her a title upon her marriage.
Were Peter and Zara offered a title?

No they weren't. There was no reason to offer them titles and no reason to offer either Eugenie or Jack at title.

I am confidently predicting Jack will not be offered a title and Eugenie will retain hers.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Mark Phillips refused a title.

I'm sure it's been discussed...my guess is they don't want a title. They will be private citizens.



LaRae

wel I hope they DONT want this man to have a title because I'm sure he wont get one. why should he? Mark Philips didn't want one, Tim Laurence didn't get one nor did Angus Ogilvy.. why should he now in the 2010's?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by King of the Jungle

I think Eugenie will be fine in not receiving a title but in the name of equality I think her grandmother could offer her a title upon her marriage.
Were Peter and Zara offered a title?

The rule in the UK is that grandchildren of a sovereign in male line are princes/princesses and HRHs, but grandchildren in maternal line like Peter or Zara don't get any royal title. As for spouses, the general rule in the UK is that wives automatically use the titles of their husbands by courtesy, but husbands don't use the titles of their wives (that is true both in the peerage and in the Royal Family).

In the past, royal princesses normally only married other princes or peers/heirs to peerages, so the question of titles for their husbands and children did not apply or was not relevant. In the recent cases of princesses who married commoners, Margaret's husband was created an earl (the title has now been inherited by her son) ; Alexandra's husband and Anne's first husband were offered earldoms too, but declined it. Jack will probably get nothing under the current political climate because creating new hereditary peerage is seen as ill-advised nowadays and the Yorks already have an unfair reputation of being "freeloaders" and too much privileged.

[Mbruno]

Just for the sake of comparison, I thought it would be interesting to review the practice in some other kingdoms about titles and styles of husbands of royal princesses or reigning queens, as it could provide some contrast to what is done in the UK and what might be done in Jack's case specifically. If it is too much off-topic, please feel free to move this post to another forum or delete it.

1) Belgium: prior to 1991, husbands of Princesses of Belgium didn't automatically get any royal title or style. By contrast, wives of Princes of Belgium were automatically Princesses of Belgium (in their own right, referred to by their own name) and HRHs. After 1991, however, neither husbands nor wives of royal princes or princesses are automatically titled, but they can still receive a title by a separate royal decree that applies only to them specifically. The husband of Princess Astrid already held foreign titles of his own as a member of the House of Austria-Este (although those titles are not legally recognized in their countries of origin anymore); nonetheless, King Albert II made him a Prince of Belgium and an HRH in his own right, giving him the same treatment that was given to his daughters-in-law (Mathilde and Claire). The wife of Prince Amedeo, the first grandson of King Albert II to get married, did not get a royal title,but the Royal Court refers to her by courtesy as Princess Amedeo. Traditionally, the wife of the eldest son of the King was called Duchess of Brabant in addition to Princess of Belgium (as was the case with Mathilde); now that the eldest daughter of the King has become Duchess of Brabant suo jure , it is unclear how her husband will be called , even though it is all but sure that he will be at least a Prince of Belgium and an HRH. The wife of the King of the Belgians, on the other hand, always had the courtesy title of Queen and the style of Majesty; now that women can ascend the throne, it is unclear how the husband of the Queen of the Belgians would be called, but I assume he would probably have the dignity of a prince only.

2) The Netherlands: since 2002, the law on membership of the Royal House explicitly provides for the husband of the reigning queen and the husband of the heiress to the throne (now the Princess of Orange) to be created Princes of the Netherlands by royal decree, which normally carries a style of HRH with it. Husbands and wives of other Princes or Princesses of the Netherlands (explicitly in the law, children of the monarch or children of the heir to the throne) are not explicitly included in the category of people who can be made Princes or Princesses of the Netherlands in their own right by separate royal decree, but as long as their spouses are members of the Royal House, there is actually a loophole in the law under which they could still be theoretically possible, albeit unlikely. Historically, wives of Princes of the Netherlands who are not princesses in their own right like Laurentien for example have been, however, referred to by courtesy as Princesses of the Netherlands and HRHs, and by their own name unlike in the UK; that is not the case, however, for husbands of Princesses of the Netherlands suo jure who are not titled (the husband of Princess Margriet, for example, has neither a legal title nor is referred to by a courtesy title). The situation of grandchildren of the monarch who are not children of the heir is trickier; under the 2002 law, they are not normally expected to be created Princes/Princesses of the Netherlands or HRHs by separate royal decree, although, again, that is still technically possible as long as they are members of the Royal House, as is also still technically possible to make them Princes/Princesses of Orange-Nassau on a personal capacity, which normally carries with it the style of HH. The practice under Queen Beatrix was, however, to give them instead a title of nobility in the rank of count or countess, hereditary in male line only. In that case, the normal naming rules in the Dutch nobility would apply to their spouses, i.e. the wife of a count uses her husband's title, but the husband of a countess does not use his wife's title.

3) Spain: the 1987 royal decree on titles and styles of the royal family actually lays down clear rules about how royal husbands should be called. The husband of the reigning queen is now only a prince with the style of HRH (previously, husbands of reigning queens in Spain were called King with the style of His Majesty). The husband of the Princess of Asturias, however, has the right to use all titles and styles of his wife meaning that, at least under current regulations (which can be changed in the future), he would not only be an HRH, but also Prince of Asturias (and of Gerona, Viana, etc.). On the other hand, under the royal decree, neither husbands of infantas nor wives of infantes get any title or style automatically. In the Spanish peerage, where women, unlike in the UK, can and do inherit titles, it is customary for husbands of peeresses to use the titles of their wives; the ducal titles held by infantes and infantas are legally distinct, however, because they are not hereditary peerages, but rather "titles of nobility belonging to the Crown" which, according to the 1987 royal decree, can be used by members of the Royal Family only, by grace of the monarch, and strictly on a personal basis. So, technically, the legal experts say that it is wrong to refer to the husband of an infanta by the ducal title of his wife; nonetheless, probably by analogy with the standard practice in the peerage, the husbands of both Infanta Elena and Infanta Cristina were routinely called Duke of Lugo and Duke of Palma de Mallorca in the Spanish press. I assume it won't be different with Infanta Sofía's husband. Children of infantes or infantas, on the other hand, including all of JC's grandchildren other than Felipe's daughters, are not HRHs under the 1987 decree, but rather only Grandees of Spain with the style His/Her Excellency; as I understand it, the husbands of JC's granddaughters, other than obviously the husbands of the Princess of Asturias and the Infanta Sofía, will be untitled either by law or by courtesy.

4) Sweden: always a tricky case due to the lack of clear legal rules. Before 1980, the wife of the King was "Sweden's Queen" (Sveriges Drottning), which is still the case for Queen Silvia. Now that "Sweden's Queen" is a title that can be also used by the person who occupies the throne, it is unclear how her husband would be called, but I assume he would be just a prince and an HRH. As far as princes and princesses are concerned, again prior to 1980, the heir to throne was the Crown Prince and his wife was called Crown Princess; a male descendant of King Karl XIV Johan in male line other than the Crown Prince was called a "Hereditary Prince" (Arvfurste) as long as he was not excluded from the succession; both a wife of an Arvfurste and a female descendant in male line of the first Bernadotte king had the rank of princess (Prinsessa, not Arvfurstinna), but the husbands of princesses of the blood got no royal titles or styles. Under the new post-1980 system, the husband of the current titular Crown Princess is called "Prince of Sweden" (Prins av Sverige) with the style of HRH and also uses her wife's personal ducal title (being referred to as Duke of Västergötland then), but is not called "Crown Prince"; it is unclear how the wife of a male titular Crown Prince would be called. The wives of other Princes of Sweden by birth (I mean, other than the Crown Prince), based on Sofia's precedent, are apparently to be called Princesses of Sweden with the HRH style and the right to use their husband's ducal title. Reportedly, the same treatment was offered to Chris O'Neill when he married Princess Madeleine, but he declined it because he was allegedly told by the Court that, in order to become a Prince of Sweden, he had to take up Swedish citizenship, which he didn't want to do. Please note that the King of Sweden lost the power to confer titles of nobility in 1975, so both the titles of Prince/Princess of Sweden and Duke/Duchess of [one or more Swedish provinces] are titles of the Royal House, rather than titles of nobility. Apparently, as we have found out recently in these forums, those titles are not even mentioned in Swedish documents like birth certificates, although the designation of "prince or princess of the Royal House" is used in the Swedish Act of Succession (which is part of the constitution) to refer to people in line to the throne and, therefore, I would assume is a legally recognized title.


Please feel free to add information about Denmark, Luxembourg and Norway. I am not particularly knowledgeable about those realms, especially historically.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The rule in the UK is that grandchildren of a sovereign in male line are princes/princesses and HRHs, but grandchildren in maternal line like Peter or Zara don't get any royal title. As for spouses, the general rule in the UK is that wives automatically use the titles of their husbands by courtesy, but husbands don't use the titles of their wives (that is true both in the peerage and in the Royal Family).

PS: Just for the sake of those who might not know, infantes or infantas of Spain are, ordinarily under the 1987 decree, the children of the monarch other than the Prince (or Princess ) of Asturias, and the children of the Prince (or Princess) of Asturias. On the other hand, since December 2015, only persons who are born as children or grandchildren of the King, or as children or grandchildren of the heir to the throne become automatically new Princes or Princesses of Belgium.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

4) Sweden: always a tricky case due to the lack of clear legal rules. Before 1980, the wife of the King was "Sweden's Queen" (Sveriges Drottning), which is still the case for Queen Silvia. Now that "Sweden's Queen" is a title that can be also used by the person who occupies the throne, it is unclear how her husband would be called, but I assume he would be just a prince and an HRH. As far as princes and princesses are concerned, again prior to 1980, the heir to throne was the Crown Prince and his wife was called Crown Princess; a male descendant of King Karl XIV Johan in male line other than the Crown Prince was called a "Hereditary Prince" (Arvfurste) as long as he was not excluded from the succession; both a wife of an Arvfurste and a female descendant in male line of the first Bernadotte king had the rank of princess (Prinsessa, not Arvfurstinna), but the husbands of princesses of the blood got no royal titles or styles. Under the new post-1980 system, the husband of the current titular Crown Princess is called "Prince of Sweden" (Prins av Sverige) with the style of HRH and also uses her wife's personal ducal title (being referred to as Duke of Västergötland then), but is not called "Crown Prince"; it is unclear how the wife of a male titular Crown Prince would be called. The wives of other Princes of Sweden by birth (I mean, other than the Crown Prince), based on Sofia's precedent, are apparently to be called Princesses of Sweden with the HRH style and the right to use their husband's ducal title. Reportedly, the same treatment was offered to Chris O'Neill when he married Princess Madeleine, but he declined it because he was allegedly told by the Court that, in order to become a Prince of Sweden, he had to take up Swedish citizenship, which he didn't want to do. Please note that the King of Sweden lost the power to confer titles of nobility in 1975, so both the titles of Prince/Princess of Sweden and Duke/Duchess of [one or more Swedish provinces] are titles of the Royal House, rather than titles of nobility. Apparently, as we have found out recently in these forums, those titles are not even mentioned in Swedish documents like birth certificates, although the designation of "prince or princess of the Royal House" is used in the Swedish Act of Succession (which is part of the constitution) to refer to people in line to the throne and, therefore, I would assume is a legally recognized title.

I'm not sure if Chris O'Neill was offered the title of Prince and the style of HRH. When Madeline's engagement to Jonas Bergström was announced it was communicated that he would share his future wife's ducal title and be a member of the Royal House but not, as far as I can remember, be a prince of Sweden. It would be strange if one of her future husbands was offered one title and the other another title.

[Tatiana Maria]

It has never explicitly been affirmed that Christopher O'Neill was offered a princely title, but the spokeswoman for the palace mentioned "Chris's possible princely title" in the interview below, and the official announcement explained that he could not hold "the title H.R.H. Prince of Sweden or Duke of Gästrikland and Hälsingland" due to his position as a businessman and a foreign citizen.

Kungen vägrar kommentera Maddes affärer | Aftonbladet
Mr Christopher O'Neill's title - Sveriges Kungahus

Jonas Bergström was a Swedish citizen, but it was also communicated that he would continue to work for his law firm. In my opinion, there is a chance that Jonas Bergström was offered the title HRH Prince of Sweden and, much like Christopher O'Neill, rejected it to work in the commercial sector.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I find it hard to imagine anyone NOT wanting a title!

Why not??
It costs nothing and it sounds very nice.
If Jack is offered one, I hope he won't be silly enough to refuse.

Jack, despite his profession as a "barman" is a nobleman in everything but name. Adding a title would just be a formality. I am 100% sure he couldn't care less and the same goes for his fiancee.

But I agree...I cannot imagine anyone turning it down and I was baffled when the Princess Royal did so before her marriage to Mark Phillips in 1973.

[wyevale]

marriage to Mark Phillips in 1973

'Foggy' REALLY wouldn't have 'cut the mustard' as a belted Earl...

[Tatiana Maria]

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2066709

Thank you for this broad review!

Originally Posted by Mbruno

In the Spanish peerage, where women, unlike in the UK, can and do inherit titles, it is customary for husbands of peeresses to use the titles of their wives; the ducal titles held by infantes and infantas are legally distinct, however, because they are not hereditary peerages, but rather "titles of nobility belonging to the Crown" which, according to the 1987 royal decree, can be used by members of the Royal Family only, by grace of the monarch, and strictly on a personal basis. So, technically, the legal experts say that it is wrong to refer to the husband of an infanta by the ducal title of his wife; nonetheless, probably by analogy with the standard practice in the peerage, the husbands of both Infanta Elena and Infanta Cristina were routinely called Duke of Lugo and Duke of Palma de Mallorca in the Spanish press.

The Royal House acknowledged the infantas' husbands as the Dukes consort, such as:

Página oficial del enlace matrimonial de Su Alteza Real el Príncipe de Asturias con Doña Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano

- SS.AA.RR. el Infante Don Carlos y Doña Ana de Francia
- S.A.R. la Infanta Doña Margarita y el Duque de Soria
- S.A.R. la Infanta Doña Cristina y el Duque de Palma
- S.A.R. la Infanta Doña Elena y el Duque de Lugo
- S.M. el Rey y S.A.R. la Infanta Doña Pilar
- S.M. la Reina y S.A.R. el Príncipe de Asturias[/Quote]

Jaime de Marichalar

"Jaime de Marichalar y Saenz de Tejada is the fourth of the six children of the Count of Ripalda, Amalio de Marichalar y Bruguera, who died in 1979, and Concepcion Saenz de Tejada y Fernandez de Bobadilla.
[...]
"After a number of years working in the international financial markets sector, in January 1998 he was appointed Managing Director's Senior Advisor for Credit Suisse First Boston in Madrid where the Duke and Duchess of Lugo have lived since then. He is also President of the Winterthur Foundation which promotes cultural activities."

Iñaki Urdangarin Liebaert

"Iñaki Urdangarin Liebaert is the sixth child of Juan Maria Urdangarin Berriochoa and Claire Liebaert Courtain.
"He was born in Zumárraga, Guipúzcoa, on 15 January 1968 and soon after his birth his family moved to Barcelona where he lived until the age of 16. He then moved to Vitoria where he lived for two years then returned to Barcelona, where the Duke and Duchess of Palma de Mallorca live today."


My understanding is that, in the decree, "personal" means the title is not inheritable by the children of the holder.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

3) Spain: [...] as I understand it, the husbands of JC's granddaughters, other than obviously the husbands of the Princess of Asturias and the Infanta Sofía, will be untitled either by law or by courtesy.

I agree, however, the husbands of Juan Carlos's granddaughters will use their wives' style of Excellency, just as the official guestlist for the Royal Wedding in 2004 referred to Infanta Pilar's daughter and son-in-law as

"Excma. Señora Doña Simoneta Gómez-Acebo y de Borbón
"Excmo. Señor Don José Miguel Fernández Sastrón"

http://www.casareal.es/ES/Documents/...osCatedral.pdf

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Historically, wives of Princes of the Netherlands who are not princesses in their own right like Laurentien for example have been, however, referred to by courtesy as Princesses of the Netherlands and HRHs, and by their own name unlike in the UK;

I am not certain of this, but referring to the wives of Dutch princes by their own name is likely to be a twentieth century custom. Older articles seem to prefer, as an example, "de Prinses Frederik der Nederlanden".

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Please feel free to add information about Denmark, Luxembourg and Norway. I am not particularly knowledgeable about those realms, especially historically.

There are no legal rules concerning titles for husbands in Denmark and Norway. A princely title was offered to the husband of Princess Benedikte of Denmark, however, none was offered to Ari Behn.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

But I agree...I cannot imagine anyone turning it down and I was baffled when the Princess Royal did so before her marriage to Mark Phillips in 1973.

I suspect titles aren’t Anne’s style. She’s a very practical, sensible, no-frills type of person who runs a very informal (by royal standards) household. She’s all about horses and royal duty without a grand lifestyle. Maybe she felt a title would cramp her style & the life-style she wanted for her children.

Plus accepting a title for simply marrying a royal opens the recipient to criticism, at least from certain quarters, possibly another factor in Anne’s decision. Outside the BRF titles are only awarded for distinguished public service and even then as life (not hereditary) peerages. Even Antony Armstrong-Jones was criticized when he accepted an earldom in 1961. “What has he done?” the critics asked. Marrying the Queen’s sister wasn’t on par with serving the nation as Prime Minister. I’ve also read jokes about it – he was performing a national service by marrying Princess Margaret and taking her off the Queen’s hands – akin to “take my sister to the dance and I’ll pay you £20 – marry her and I’ll give you a title.” The UK was in an economic recession when Anne married & she may have wanted to avoid appearing too grand.

I’d be surprised if the Queen gives Jack a title. But I hope Eugenie keeps her HRH. I suspect she will, if given a choice. She’s chosen to be married in St. George’s Chapel rather than a non-royal church which tells me she takes pride in being a royal.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I suspect titles aren’t Anne’s style. She’s a very practical, sensible, no-frills type of person who runs a very informal (by royal standards) household. She’s all about horses and royal duty without a grand lifestyle. Maybe she felt a title would cramp her style & the life-style she wanted for her children.

Plus accepting a title for simply marrying a royal opens the recipient to criticism, at least from certain quarters, possibly another factor in Anne’s decision. Outside the BRF titles are only awarded for distinguished public service and even then as life (not hereditary) peerages. Even Antony Armstrong-Jones was criticized when he accepted an earldom in 1961. “What has he done?” the critics asked. Marrying the Queen’s sister wasn’t on par with serving the nation as Prime Minister. I’ve also read jokes about it – he was performing a national service by marrying Princess Margaret and taking her off the Queen’s hands – akin to “take my sister to the dance and I’ll pay you £20 – marry her and I’ll give you a title.” The UK was in an economic recession when Anne married & she may have wanted to avoid appearing too grand.

I’d be surprised if the Queen gives Jack a title. But I hope Eugenie keeps her HRH. I suspect she will, if given a choice. She’s chosen to be married in St. George’s Chapel rather than a non-royal church which tells me she takes pride in being a royal.

There is no question really that Eugenie will keep her HRH. The Queen is not going to take it from her and neither is Charles, and I don't see why she would do a Patricia Ramsay as mentioned here and renounce her princely status.

It may sound strange by today's standards that royal titles are not transmitted in female line in the UK, but the logic of it goes back again to the patrilineal naming of families. Under that criterion, Anne's children for example were born into the Phillips family, rather than the Windsor (or, if you prefer, Mountbatten-Windsor) family. It is just natural then that they shouldn't have royal titles. Giving a title to their father, which Peter at least could inherit, could be a way of "compensating" them, but, as you said, giving out a hereditary peerage is already controversial in itself these days, and doing so just because you happen to have married a princess of the blood would be even more controversial.

As the TRF member Somebody asked in a previous post, I wonder if equal primogeniture will eventually lead to a change on the use of princely titles in the UK. It would be odd for example if, in the future, the heir to throne were a woman and her children were not princes or princesses because they are not grandchildren of the King in male line. When that situation arose with Princess Elizabeth, her children were made HRHs by separate LPs, but now that male preference has been abandoned and that scenario may occur more often, it would be more efficient to have new general rules.

Personally, my advice would be:

1) Define who belongs to the Royal House based on proximity of blood to the sovereign or former sovereigns, and to the heir, and restrict the use of an HRH to people in that category without gender distinction, plus female spouses and widows when applicable.

2) Discontinue the awarding of hereditary titles of nobility (in the UK, peerages) to members of the Royal Family. That would be a big change in the British ways, but, if the members of the Royal Family must hold titles other than prince/princess, I think it is better to use personal titles belonging to the Crown as in Spain rather than a hereditary title that, in practice, over multiple generations, adds to the existing stock of members of the nobility or the peerage. Even in a country like the Netherlands, I personally think it was worse for Queen Beatrix to have created a new comital house for her grandchildren than it would have been to have made them non-hereditary HHs like her nephews.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Personally, my advice would be:

1) Define who belongs to the Royal House based on proximity of blood to the sovereign or former sovereigns, and to the heir, and restrict the use of an HRH to people in that category without gender distinction, plus female spouses and widows when applicable.

2) Discontinue the awarding of hereditary titles of nobility (in the UK, peerages) to members of the Royal Family. That would be a big change in the British ways, but, if the members of the Royal Family must hold titles other than prince/princess, I think it is better to use personal titles belonging to the Crown as in Spain rather than a hereditary title that, in practice, over multiple generations, adds to the existing stock of members of the nobility or the peerage. Even in a country like the Netherlands, I personally think it was worse for Queen Beatrix to have created a new comital house for her grandchildren than it would have been to have made them non-hereditary HHs like her nephews.

Your suggestions make a lot of sense.

I always enjoy reading your posts - you have a wealth of information on the European Royal Families.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by wyevale

'Foggy' REALLY wouldn't have 'cut the mustard' as a belted Earl...

You are probably right at that.....!!!