Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?

[Gawin]

A hypothetical situation:

Jack is offered - and accepts - a hereditary peerage with the usual remainder (only sons can inherit). He and Eugenie have a daughter. Jack dies unexpectedly. Daughter doesn't inherit the title. Eugene remarries. Husband #2 has no title.

Right back to square one.

Another reason to give the hereditary title to Eugenie instead of Jack - if a title is offered.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Gawin

A hypothetical situation:

Jack is offered - and accepts - a hereditary peerage with the usual remainder (only sons can inherit). He and Eugenie have a daughter. Jack dies unexpectedly. Daughter doesn't inherit the title. Eugene remarries. Husband #2 has no title.

Right back to square one.

Another reason to give the hereditary title to Eugenie instead of Jack - if a title is offered.

Oops - just thought of another one. Same as above. EXCEPT Jack and Eugenie divorce. Jack remarries and has a son by 2nd wife.

That son inherits the title instead of Eugenie's daughter.

And Eugenie's 2nd husband still needs a title.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I was questioning the fact in general that husbands of princesses get an unfair treatment compared to wives of princes; I mentioned Charlotte and a hypothetical younger brother of hers just to illustrate that point. Likewise, however, Jack would be "open to criticism" if he got a title, but if Eugenie were a man, Eugenie's wife would be a princess and an HRH and would not be open to any criticism. In fact, as some other poster wrote before, if Beatrice were still a woman, but Eugenie had been born a boy, then Eugenie's wife would not only be an HRH, but one day would probably also become a duchess, and, again, nobody would criticize her for that. So why is it so unacceptable that Jack might get a title ?

I am not going to argue with you on the “unfair treatment” of men who marry into the BRF over women, as that really gets off topic and is hugely complicated; I think in general when it comes to men gaining titles from their wives, the history of what that meant has to be considered too.

I will say that I disagree that it is the men who marry in that are being treated differently, but rather the British Princesses who are being treated differently; it is considered acceptable for a British Prince to be given a dukedom upon marriage, but British Princesses are given nothing themselves. I think a better way forward would be to give the Princesses themselves their own dukedom, at least if they were in a position to be given one were they male.

I think the reason why Jack himself should not be given a title is because he is the one marrying into the family - I think much like with the marriages of royal men, if any tile is on the table it should go to the royal. That said, I do not think Eugenie should be given any title at all; I think that as the younger child of a younger child of the monarch, who is not expected to do royal duties and who is never going to be more than the granddaughter of a monarch, Eugenie does not need a higher title. Alexandra and Angus aren’t a great comparison, as the BRF was much smaller at the time and Alexandra at least was a working Royal. Eugenie is not and the BRF is much larger than it was in the 60s.

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Angus and Mark’s refusal of a title also lead to Prince Michael not being granted one on his marriage in 1978. Like Eugenie, he was the younger son of a younger son of a British monarch and received no Dukedom or Earldom when he married. And like Eugenie, he was not (and never has been) a working Royal.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Ish

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Angus and Mark’s refusal of a title also lead to Prince Michael not being granted one on his marriage in 1978. Like Eugenie, he was the younger son of a younger son of a British monarch and received no Dukedom or Earldom when he married. And like Eugenie, he was not (and never has been) a working Royal.

Do cadet grandsons in male line of the sovereign other than the sons of the PoW usually get new peerages ? I don't recall any example among Queen Victoria's or King George III's grandsons who would set a precedent in that situation, but maybe I am mistaken.

If Princess Eugenie got the same treatment as Prince Michael of Kent, then her children would also be "untitled" in a way, except for the honorific predicate Lord/Lady. Ironically, if Angus had accepted an earldom, James Ogilvy would be an earl, while his cousin, Lord Frederik Windsor, never would be.

Bottom line: it is really difficult to give equal treatment to people who theoretically have the same degree of kinship to a monarch.

[Andy T]

In recent history, a pattern emerges: British princes who are sons of the monarch or his/her heir get titles (cf sons of George V, sons of the Queen and sons of Charles) but not the rest. As the generations shift, the older sons inherit their fathers' titles (Dukes of Gloucester & Kent) but the younger sons (Prince Michael of Kent) remain with no title. Daughters of monarchs have ended up with a title of some sort, either conferred personally or acquired through marriage or conferred on marriage (Princess Royal, Countess of Snowdon, Countess of Harewood).

We know that Angus Ogilvy, husband of the Monarch's only female first cousin on her father's side, and Mark Phillips were offered titles but declined. Timothy Laurence became a "Sir" (as was Angus Ogilvy).

If the trend continues, Jack Brooksbank may end up "Sir Jack" one day but it's highly doubtful, in my view, that he'll be given a peerage.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Do cadet grandsons in male line of the sovereign other than the sons of the PoW usually get new peerages ? I don't recall any example among Queen Victoria's or King George III's grandsons who would set a precedent in that situation, but maybe I am mistaken.

Were any of the husbands of George III or Victoria’s granddaughters offered titles upon their marriage?

It’s hard to say Michael shouldn’t have been offered a title because none of Queen Victoria’s grandsons (who weren’t children of the PoW) got titles, when Alexandra is in a similar position to her brother and her husband was offered one. Precedent was set there.

Regardless, it’s hard to justify a precedent for Jack and Eugenie when at best we’re looking at weddings that happened 40-60 years ago. The monarchy has modernized however slightly since then.

[Skippyboo]

But if Eugenie was Eugene no one would blink an a eye at Eugene’s wife becoming a HRH Princess. Even though HRH Prince Eugene is not a working royal and down line of succession

The modernization would be removing the gender bias and then limiting everything to direct line, giving spouses same status whether married to son or daughter of sovereign. Nothing for grandkids unless parent will be monarch

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

But if Eugenie was Eugene no one would blink an a eye at Eugene’s wife becoming a HRH Princess. Even though HRH Prince Eugene is not a working royal and down line of succession

The modernization would be removing the gender bias and then limiting everything to direct line, giving spouses same status whether married to son or daughter of sovereign. Nothing for grandkids unless parent will be monarch

If the hypothetical Eugene wasn't created a peer of the realm though, his wife would be HRH Princess Eugene which denotes that its Eugene that actually holds the title and style of Prince.

It would actually look quite weird to me to have a HRH Prince Eugenie which gender equality in this matter would present. Just as women rarely like being called by their husband's name like Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, reverse it and I don't think men would like it either.

[MARG]

Well, we all know how forward thinking the UK is. The royal succession is gender neutral, the aristocratic succession is not. Now how is that fair on a land of women still being evicted for an unknown distant male relative like some cheap historical novel?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Osipi

If the hypothetical Eugene wasn't created a peer of the realm though, his wife would be HRH Princess Eugene which denotes that its Eugene that actually holds the title and style of Prince.

It would actually look quite weird to me to have a HRH Prince Eugenie which gender equality in this matter would present. Just as women rarely like being called by their husband's name like Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, reverse it and I don't think men would like it either.

As it is now, it appears that all women in the British royal family are required to be called by their husband's first name. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II's granddaughters will be granted permission one day to be Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank and Mrs. Zara Tindall instead of Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank and Mrs. Michael Tindall.

Originally Posted by Ish

Were any of the husbands of George III or Victoria’s granddaughters offered titles upon their marriage?

Princess Louise of Wales's husband the Earl of Fife took the dukedom of Fife, and Princess Alice of Albany's husband Prince Alexander of Teck took the earldom of Athlone.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

As it is now, it appears that all women in the British royal family are required to be called by their husband's first name. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II's granddaughters will be granted permission one day to be Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank and Mrs. Zara Tindall instead of Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank and Mrs. Michael Tindall.

I don't think its a hard and fast and set in stone rule but up until the past couple of decades, was just the way things were done. I don't think many women actually go by their husband's first name on purpose unless they're in grade school and crushing on someone and writing Mrs. (his name) all over their notebooks.

Through two marriages that both lasted over 20 years, I never once referred to myself as Mrs. (his name). Its just not who I am.

[AdmirerUS]

I agree, Osipi, that the Princess Eugene and Prince Eugenie sound odd to us. And I have fought for civil rights all my life. But we are American and we only have a borrowed oar in the lake on this issue.

I dream of equality for all over all the world. But I am a realist. And I think it will be an interesting several decades to come as the UK moves through time and thinks/rethinks primogeniture. Or not.

[Osipi]

Maybe in some ways, the issue of primogeniture isn't something that should be messed with. As with the monarchy, the aristocracy dates way back into British history and in keeping the traditions and the old ways of doing things makes everything seem to have more of a sense of continuity.

Start modernizing everything to conform to today and a lot of the past is lost. Just another way of looking at something.

[Gawin]

"Titles and styles, like dignities, precedence, distinctions, orders and decorations, emanate from the sovereign who is the fons honorum, fount of all honors."

This means the sovereign can end the practice of referring to the wives of HRHs by their husband's names. Princess Michael becomes Princess Marie-Christine.

I realize that under current usage this would imply that Marie-Christine is a princess in her own right, not by marriage, but that isn't written in stone. For example, after the Queen's uncle the Duke of Gloucester died his wife was allowed to use the title and style "HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester." So it has been done.

So if Princess Michael is known as HRH Princess Marie-Christine then Princess Charlotte's husband (should she have one) becomes HRH Prince [given name].

I don't think this will happen during QE II's reign. As someone pointed out in another forum, she prefers the current, traditional customs. But perhaps it will change under Charles or William.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Start modernizing everything to conform to today and a lot of the past is lost. Just another way of looking at something.

In terms of gender discrimination, I say good riddance!

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

As it is now, it appears that all women in the British royal family are required to be called by their husband's first name. I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II's granddaughters will be granted permission one day to be Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank and Mrs. Zara Tindall instead of Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank and Mrs. Michael Tindall.

But we do have Lady Helen Taylor, lady Davina Lewis and lady Rose Gilman, don't we?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Princess Alice of Albany's husband Prince Alexander of Teck took the earldom of Athlone.

Alexander of Teck didn't get his earldom because he married a granddaughter of Queen Victoria but he was granted an earldom when he, like the rest of the royal clan, relinquished his German titles in 1917.

[Countessmeout]

Maybe we should embrace gender equality truly. Jack should not be made an earl. Eugenie should be made a Countess, with the remainder made to be equal inheritance. They could do as the Spanish and Swedes do, and allow the spouses to use their wive's titles (Daniel, Inaki) or something else. Pave the way for perhaps the parliament to see to modernizing other peerages.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Somebody

But we do have Lady Helen Taylor, lady Davina Lewis and lady Rose Gilman, don't we?

We do but their styling conforms to the customs of the aristocracy and has nothing to do with their respective fathers being princes. Daughters of a peer who marry an untitled man are always styled as The Lady - First Name - Husband's Surname.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

What is not open for criticism these days?

In 1990 Mr Denis Thatcher was created Baronet Thatcher, of Scotney. His son Mark is the current 2nd Baronet.

In 1983 Mr Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton and Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden. His son Alexander is the current 2nd Earl and his grandson Daniel is the current Viscount.

So the precedents are there.

Yes, but those aren't necessarily good precedents. The Thatcher baronetcy in particular was very controversial.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Maybe in some ways, the issue of primogeniture isn't something that should be messed with. As with the monarchy, the aristocracy dates way back into British history and in keeping the traditions and the old ways of doing things makes everything seem to have more of a sense of continuity.

Start modernizing everything to conform to today and a lot of the past is lost. Just another way of looking at something.

Off-topic, but the goal of male primogeniture was to keep the title and, more importantly, the estate (as the two used to be linked by entailment) in the family of the last holder rather than transferring it to the family of his sons-in-law (using the patrilineal definition of family). That was done sometimes at the expense of proximity of blood, as in the aforementioned Downton Abbey scenario where the heir was a fifth cousin at the expense of the title holder's eldest daughter for example.

Male preference cognatic primogeniture, as was used in the succession to the crown in England and some other European countries, tried to reach a compomise between those two conflicting goals. When the firstborn was a girl, but she had a younger brother, the brother and his descendants had precedence in the succession over the sister and her descendants to prioritize keeping the crown as long as possible in the same dynasty (otherwise, if the female became queen and had children bearing her husband's name, a new dynasty would take over). However, if the king had no direct descendants in male line, then his daughters and their respective descendants would have precedence over collateral male lines to prioritize proximity of blood.

The purpose of male preference seems to have been made irrelevant though when royal families like the Orange-Nassaus started to keep their dynasty name even in maternal line (theoretically, the last Dutch monarch of the dynasty should have been Queen Wilhelmina). Alternatively, they could use hyphenated names like Habsburg-Lorraine, or Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or, if you will, Mountbatten-Windsor.

Of course, one can always argue that male preference had nothing to do with family names, but rather with a more basic belief at the time that men were better equipped to rule than women.

So if Princess Michael is known as HRH Princess Marie-Christine then Princess Charlotte's husband (should she have one) becomes HRH Prince [given name].

I don't think this will happen during QE II's reign. As someone pointed out in another forum, she prefers the current, traditional customs. But perhaps it will change under Charles or William.

That would not be a good solution in my humble opinion. I prefer a compromise between tradition and gender equality:

1) Husbands and wives of children of the monarch should be made HRHs and princes/princesses in their own right (like Mathilde, Claire and Lorenz in Belgium for example) and could use their own names after HRH Prince/Princess .

2) In the case of grandchildren of the monarch though, only husbands or wives of the children of the heir should be made HRHs and princes/princesses in their own right. Wives of other royal grandsons who are princes would use their husband's title by courtesy (like Princess Amedeo in Belgium or Princess Michael in the UK) while husbands of other royal granddaughters who are princesses should use their own names (like Mr. Jack Brooksbank).

As implied in (2) above, I favor the generous policy of making all persons born as grandchildren of a monarch HRHs and princes/princesses (again as in Belgium) as opposed to leaving that titular dignity and style only to children of the heir as it is now done in the Netherlands, or restricting it to male-line grandchildren as in the UK. In other words, I think people in the same situation as Zara and Peter for example should also be princes/princesses.