The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 01-25-2018, 09:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,088


I concur with much of your explanation of male and male-preference primogeniture. However, the policy of keeping the dynasty name in maternal line (and affixing the husband's name to it) when a woman became the queen regnant goes back centuries in European kingdoms; the children of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom were the anomaly in the 19th century.

Concerning Queen Maria II of Portugal, her children were given the surname "de Bragança e Bourbon Saxe Cobourg Gotha" at their baptisms, as news articles stated around the time. "Bourbon" indicated their descendance from Queen Carlota Joaquina, an Infanta of Spain. The surname was shortened sometimes to "de Bragança e Bourbon".

By the way, giving the patrilineal dynasty name and arms to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha's children also attracted criticism in England.
Quote:
December 5th. [1841] […] The Queen and Prince are very anxious to allot to this Baby [the Prince of Wales] his armorial bearings, and they wish that he should quarter the arms of Saxony with the Royal arms of England, because Albert is alleged to be Duke of Saxony. […] but now the Heralds (and others who have considered the matter) think that the Saxon arms ought not to be foisted upon the Royal arms of England. It is her inveterate predilection for everything German (a disagreeable peculiarity in her character) which makes her insist on this being done, and she wants it to be done offhand at the next Council without going through the usual forms of a reference and report.

December 9th. Saw Graham again yesterday about this business. They have gazetted the child 'Duke of Saxony,' which is very absurd, and at Lady Holland's, last night, the precedence given to that title over the English titles was much criticised.

The Greville Memoirs, 1938, vol. 4, p. 432-33:

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
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.
That is true, and I think this custom has an explanation: "Lady Timothy Taylor" would misleadingly imply that Lady Helen's husband was Lord Timothy Taylor.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-27-2018, 08:50 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,524
One article had mentioned that Jack Brooksbank be given the title of Baron Brooksbank. However, the Brooksbank Baronetcy, of Healaugh Manor, in the parish of Healaugh, in the West Riding of the County of York, is a title in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-27-2018, 09:19 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,780
I probably missed it...but if his family used to hold a title why don't they now?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-27-2018, 10:07 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I probably missed it...but if his family used to hold a title why don't they now?


LaRae
They do. He is just not descended from the eldest son.

The 1st baron had 2 sons (at least 2 sons). The eldest was William, who was 2nd baron. Its William's son Nicholas who is Baron Brooksbank. The younger of the 1st baron's sons was Captain Stamp Brooksbank. Stamp was Jack's grandfather. So his father George is 1st cousins of Baron Brooksbank.

He is also descended from the earl of Leicester, but through not only a junior branch (12th of 15 children of the 2nd earl) but the female line (a granddaughter of the earl).

Quote:
One article had mentioned that Jack Brooksbank be given the title of Baron Brooksbank. However, the Brooksbank Baronetcy, of Healaugh Manor, in the parish of Healaugh, in the West Riding of the County of York, is a title in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom.
The current baronet, Jack's father's cousin, is titled Sir Brooksbank, 3rd Baronet.

If Jack was made a baron, it would likely be a Baron (peerage) not baronetcy. He would be titled Jack Brooksbank, The 1st Baron Brooksbank.

Though Barons there can be more then one of the same name. Common enough. Baron Grey is a good example. They simply have a different designation. Baron Grey of......
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-27-2018, 10:55 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,843
The titles of Baron and Baronet are not the same. A Baron is a Peer with the style of Lord while a Baronet is a commoner with the style of Sir. It's sort of a hereditary Knighthood.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:59 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Long Island City, United States
Posts: 15
I hope so but I don't think so. I hope so because they're blood Princesses and should get the same treatment as Princess Margaret. If so, I vote for Earl and Countess of Nottingham or Earl and Countess of Suffolk. I know Anne didn't want a title and from what I've read, Sir Angus didn't get one because he was already and Honorable. Don't quote me lol
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-28-2018, 12:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,574
Anne not having her husbands get titles set a new standard - no titles for the husbands of Princesses unless said Princess is the heiress apparent - so no titles for Eugenie's, Beatrice's or in time Charlotte's husbands.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-28-2018, 01:12 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,780
Even so, couldn't the Queen bestow a title on Jack (in Eugenie's situation)? Assuming they wanted one to begin with?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-28-2018, 01:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Even so, couldn't the Queen bestow a title on Jack (in Eugenie's situation)? Assuming they wanted one to begin with?


LaRae
The Queen can obviously bestow titles to anyone she wants. However, given the circumstances, would she is the question.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-28-2018, 01:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,574
She could but she knows that the British people don't want more people with titles. The Yorks are already the most despised branch of the family and this would only further alienate them from the British people.

It would be a step backwards as the last princess whose husband was given a title was Princess Margaret over half a century ago. There have been three husbands since then - Angus Ogilvy, Mark Philips and Tim Laurence with no titles.

I would expect if she did think along these lines she would consult with Charles and William and also the PM and I get the clear feeling they would all sound a resounding NO.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:37 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,780
Right and if they aren't going to be working Royals either then yeah...makes sense. So the York girls, unless they marry a man with a title their husbands will be Mister's and their children will carry no title either. York will revert back to the Crown at Andrews passing.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:49 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,124
The British people don't want more people on the pay roll.

Titles don't come with a job, money, an estate or anything that costs the tax payers anything. Nor does it mean that Eugenie or her husband would be working royals. Plenty of private citizens with titles out there.

The issue they need to consider is how archaic do they want to continue looking? They need to keep traditions alive, but need to show that they can modernize with culture as well. They will allow a woman to be heir but they treat any other women like second class citizens???

What happens with Charlotte when she marries?? Will her husband not get a title?? Will she not get a title?? Why is it if she was born first, she would be Princess of Wales, but born second she wont have a title of her own???

If Margaret set the new way, how does that not apply to all women? If Eugenie and Beatrice shouldn't get a title, why should Charlotte?

They really need to consider how people look at the sexist way things are done. Maybe they should consider when they create Harry's title, that it should be inheritable by women. That decision can be made when created. Because if Meghan and Harry have only daughters, it would be nice if they showed the move to the 21st century other royal houses have made, and their daughters could actually inherit. Especially if they have a child before Charles is king, and that child is not a prince/ss.

But sadly they likely wont modernize soon enough for Eugenie.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,574
If Andrew remarries and has a son - which he can do at any time in his life then that son will inherit York.

The Queen could also reissue the LPs - allowing the title to pass to Beatrice (which I don't think she would do).

In addition there is regularly a 'private members' bill put up to allow women equal inheritance rights for all titles as happens now with the Crown. If that were to happen, and they didn't have a start date later than Beatrice's birth for all such titles then it could also be inherited by her.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-28-2018, 03:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
The issue they need to consider is how archaic do they want to continue looking? They need to keep traditions alive, but need to show that they can modernize with culture as well. They will allow a woman to be heir but they treat any other women like second class citizens???

What happens with Charlotte when she marries?? Will her husband not get a title?? Will she not get a title?? Why is it if she was born first, she would be Princess of Wales, but born second she wont have a title of her own???

If Margaret set the new way, how does that not apply to all women? If Eugenie and Beatrice shouldn't get a title, why should Charlotte?

They really need to consider how people look at the sexist way things are done. Maybe they should consider when they create Harry's title, that it should be inheritable by women. That decision can be made when created. Because if Meghan and Harry have only daughters, it would be nice if they showed the move to the 21st century other royal houses have made, and their daughters could actually inherit. Especially if they have a child before Charles is king, and that child is not a prince/ss.

But sadly they likely wont modernize soon enough for Eugenie.
While it is true that Elizabeth II and Charles III likely will discourage modernization, there is a chance that future governments might want it. A recent government disclosed its intention to resolve "intrinsic inequalities in the courtesy titles system" for spouses in 2016.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/p...16-06-13/HL662

I too expect Jack to remain Mr. Jack Brooksbank in the near future, but should Eugenie and Jack remain married in 50 years, the British royal family may have TRH Princess Eugenie and Prince Jack or TRH Princess and Prince Eugenie in 2068.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-28-2018, 05:34 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,311
The 'best' Mr Brooksbank can hope for is a Knighthood, which he could earn by lengthy and sterling work for a recognised 'good cause'.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-28-2018, 08:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She could but she knows that the British people don't want more people with titles.
How do you know that for sure ? I don't think the British people have ever expressed opposition in opinion polls to the creation of new titles in the hereditary peerage, especially now that hereditary peers no longer automatically sit in the House of Lords and peerages are just honorific titles anyway.

There might be opposition to the creation of new royal titles as most people still equate being an HRH with certain privileges and public funding, but that is not the discussion here since Jack would not be a royal even if he were made a baron or an earl.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-28-2018, 08:18 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,780
I don't get why anyone would care about a title being issued when there is nothing that goes with it (land, money etc). Who cares if Jack is Baron Brooksbank instead of Mister?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-28-2018, 08:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,843
Since there have been no creations of hereditary peerages (I think Marg Thatrcher created one or 2) in a long time now I'm assuming that poltiicans and the RF feel that the public mood is against it.. and Anne and Mark did not want a title.. for him and their children. They felt that they would prefer Mark himelf and his kids to get on in the world without this.. and that it would look bad if he "only got the title for marryng the queen's daughter"..
I'm sure that Eugenie and Jack would feel the same way....
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-28-2018, 08:35 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post



That is true, and I think this custom has an explanation: "Lady Timothy Taylor" would misleadingly imply that Lady Helen's husband was Lord Timothy Taylor.
A woman keeps her title or honorific prefix when she marries someone "of lower rank" so to speak. So, for example, the daughter of a duke or earl who has the style Lady [Name] [Family Name] becomes Lady [Name] [Husband's Family Name] when she marries Mr. [Husband's Family Name]. Likewise, HRH Princess [xxx] when marrying a peer becomes HRH Princess [xxx], [Female version of her husband's peerage] . If the same princess married someone who was untitled, she would become HRH Princess [xxx], Mrs.[Husband's Name and Family Name], but she would always remain a princess and an HRH anyway, just as the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl always remains a "Lady".

My understanding is, however, that, when a woman marries a husband of "higher rank", then she uses the husband's higher title and style only. Hence, Lady Diana Spencer became HRH The Princess of Wales or Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon became HRH The Duchess of York and, later, HM The Queen.

The complication arises when a princess of the royal blood (for example, from another royal house) marries a prince. According to the more knowledgeable British posters here, while their husbands were alive, Princess Alexandra of Denmark or Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark were styled as any other wife of a British prince, i.e. as HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Kent, rather than being styled as HRH Princess Alexandra, Princess of Wales or HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent to signify that they had been born princesses in their own right (which IMHO would be more appropriate).

Some people have speculated that, if Princess Madeleine had married Prince William, she might have been called in the long title "HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland" and that their children could have been "HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Cambridge and Sweden". However, as noted above, there is no precedent for those styles in recent British history according to posters here. So, most likely, she would have been just "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" (which would be a demotion for Madeleine BTW ) and the children would have been simply "HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Cambridge".
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Since there have been no creations of hereditary peerages (I think Marg Thatrcher created one or 2) in a long time now I'm assuming that poltiicans and the RF feel that the public mood is against it.. and Anne and Mark did not want a title.. for him and their children. They felt that they would prefer Mark himelf and his kids to get on in the world without this.. and that it would look bad if he "only got the title for marryng the queen's daughter"..
I'm sure that Eugenie and Jack would feel the same way....
Reading through this thread, this same reason was forming in my head and I'm going to say I think you've hit it right on the money here.

The days of the hereditary peer among the British population is being phased out. The House of Lords seat isn't guaranteed to a hereditary peer anymore simply because of his birth and his title. Peerages that are now being created and granted are lifetime peerages only specific to the person.

I'm also in agreement with Mbruno that there is still the opportunity for Jack Brooskbank to be knighted but that is going to have to be on his own merits and not simply because he married the granddaughter of the Queen. Most people today, I believe, would rather receive something because of their own individual selves rather that just because of a marriage. Its called having a sense of one's individuality.

So, I don't see a title being in the cards for Jack at all. I don't think he or Eugenie are expecting one either.
__________________

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
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
alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian royal family castles charles of wales chittagong cht clarence house cover-up crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch history dutch royal family foundation french revolution future genealogy general news germany henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma languages lithuanian castles mail marriage meghan markle monaco christening monaco history monogram naples nobel 2019 norway norwegian royal family official visit palaces palestine prince charles prince harry prince of wales settings shakespeare south korea spain spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts united kingdom usa


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:55 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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