The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,503
well I thought it was pretty unlikely that anyone marrying a princess, in the UK nowadays would wish for or be offered a title. In Margarets day, yes it was felt that the children of a princess, near the throne like Marg or Pss Alexandra, should not be merely "master and Miss X". But by the time Anne married in the 70s, the mood had changed.. and while I believe the queen still did want to give Mark a titlte, so that her future grandchild, (when Anne was pregnant).. would not be merely "master Peter Philips... Mark and ANne were very much against it.. He felt that he would be taken more seriously in his work and as a person, if he was making his way in the world by his own efforts and he wanted the same freedom for his children.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-28-2018, 11:05 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHDuchessofAlbany View Post
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
I'd say there position is more similar to princess Alexandra than to princess Margaret. They are only granddaughters of the monarch, not daughters. However, both are indeed royal highnesses, so that's something they have in common.

The main concern has always been the names/titles of the children; so, Angus being an honorable was not relevant: their children couldn't derive a title from that.

I agree that given that the last 3 husbands didn't get a title, it is unlikely that Jack will (unless they decide that given that princesses now have the same succession rights as princes, all of them should be treated equally and the two of them become prince and princess Eugenie of York (as a younger child she wouldn't be entitled to a ducal title - but would be comparable to prince Michael of Kent). So, to me the more interesting question is whether he or his children might derive any titles from his wife/their mother.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-28-2018, 11:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,306
The Queen seems pretty on the ball, and lets face it hasn't reigned for 66years without knowing about PR, especially post 90s. Even she would know a title for Jack would create a complete fuss that could take the shine off Louis' birth and Harry and Meghan's wedding. There is no reason for Jack to have a title especially as Eugenie seems quite happy to go on working privately rather than being a 'full time royal'. How would it play that the Queen's granddaughter gets a title for her husband when her own daughter didn't - twice - and some of her own grandchildren don't even have titles of their own. Yes the husbands of Margaret and Alexandra and Anne were offered titles but I think time has moved on since then. So will Jack get a title - almost certainly not IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-28-2018, 12:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I agree that given that the last 3 husbands didn't get a title, it is unlikely that Jack will (unless they decide that given that princesses now have the same succession rights as princes, all of them should be treated equally and the two of them become prince and princess Eugenie of York (as a younger child she wouldn't be entitled to a ducal title - but would be comparable to prince Michael of Kent).
Theoretically, allowing Eugenie to remain Princess Eugenie of York instead of giving up the "of York" and being known as Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank could be a first step. The other monarchs in Europe have allowed it, even when no title was bestowed on the princess's husband. For example, Norwegian Princess Märtha Louise did not adopt the style Princess Märtha Louise, Mrs. Ari Behn, and Princess Madeleine of Sweden did not become Princess Madeleine, Mrs. Christopher O'Neill.

I wouldn't expect Queen Elizabeth II to allow Eugenie to remain Princess Eugenie of York, considering that the queen's only married granddaughter Zara Tindall is styled Mrs. Michael Tindall, but I don't think that public opinion would object if Eugenie kept her territorial designation.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-28-2018, 12:33 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 5,053
I think Princess Eugenie would not refuse a title if the Queen wanted to offer her a duchy or county. I think she would even be happy if that happens, but it's something we'll only know by the time of the wedding.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-28-2018, 01:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
I think Princess Eugenie would not refuse a title if the Queen wanted to offer her a duchy or county. I think she would even be happy if that happens, but it's something we'll only know by the time of the wedding.
Why on earth would the queen "offer her a duchy or county"??? the most that husbands of princesses have had, in the past 50 years, was an earldom for Antony Snowdon....Not going to happen....
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-28-2018, 01:32 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,656
I don't see it happening either.

Royal dukedoms are perhaps the only hereditary peerages offered at the time of marriage and it still remains pretty much the ruling that peerages are inherited through the male line so even if Eugenie was created a peerage (duchess, countess, baroness etc) it would only be a lifetime peerage. Unless of course there is a sweeping change for *all* peerages to be inherited by a child regardless of its sex.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:27 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
I think Princess Eugenie would not refuse a title if the Queen wanted to offer her a duchy or county. I think she would even be happy if that happens, but it's something we'll only know by the time of the wedding.
Even if daughters were able to inherit titles, Eugenie would not be offered a ducal title (like Harry), as she is only a grandchild not a child of a monarch or future monarch. In that case Beatrice would inherit the ducal title of their father and Eugenie would remain hrh princess Eugenie of York for life (and her children would be Lord and Lady).
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wherever I wish, United States
Posts: 139
I think the question of peerages for non-mainline princesses has been definitively resolved (at least for now) as a no.

Really the more interesting question is if, in the name of gender equality, Charlotte is made a duchess in her own right upon marriage similar to how Louis will likely be granted a dukedom. While obviously the Anne precedent would say no, it would make sense to let Charlotte be equal to her brothers and, rather then give the peerage to a husband who might or might not stick around, give the title of Duchess to Charlotte directly.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:42 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillVictoria View Post
I think the question of peerages for non-mainline princesses has been definitively resolved (at least for now) as a no.

Really the more interesting question is if, in the name of gender equality, Charlotte is made a duchess in her own right upon marriage similar to how Louis will likely be granted a dukedom. While obviously the Anne precedent would say no, it would make sense to let Charlotte be equal to her brothers and, rather then give the peerage to a husband who might or might not stick around, give the title of Duchess to Charlotte directly.
An important difference between Anne and Charlotte was that Anne was displaced by her younger brothers while Charlotte is not. Of course she might be made the princess royal but I'm not sure how they will handle any children she might have. No title but higher in line to the throne than Louis' titled children?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 04-28-2018, 03:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
. So, to me the more interesting question is whether he or his children might derive any titles from his wife/their mother.
They could not anyway, as, in the UK, the dignity of prince/princess is not transmitted in maternal line (unless the mother is the reigning Queen or special LPs are issued as was the case with the older children of Princess Elizabeth). In fact, even if the next King decided to change the rules so that the children of princesses could be princes/princesses themselves, that would probably still apply to grandchildren of a sovereign, but not to great-grandchildren, so none of Eugenie's children would benefit.

One of the reasons to give an earldom to the husband of a princess was precisely so that her children could have titles or honorific prefixes like Viscount, Lady, or at least "The Honourable". If princesses naturally married peers or foreign princes, as it used to be the case in the past, that discussion would be superfluous as nobody would suggest giving another title to someone who is already titled and can transmit his title to his children (even though, in the distant past, some titles of royal husbands were actually "upgraded", e.g. the Duke of Fife).
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-28-2018, 03:40 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wherever I wish, United States
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
An important difference between Anne and Charlotte was that Anne was displaced by her younger brothers while Charlotte is not. Of course she might be made the princess royal but I'm not sure how they will handle any children she might have. No title but higher in line to the throne than Louis' titled children?
Yep, that's why I suspect the debate will be when Charlotte gets married as to whether she will be made a duchess in her own right (ex: Duchess of Kendal) with the title passing onto her children (and potentially being able to be inherited solely based on birth order instead of gender).

In the future Charlotte's line might be the following:
HRH The Duchess of XXXX (Charlotte)
Mr (Insert last name here) (Husband)
Lord/Lady YYYY (Insert last name here), Earl/Countess of ZZZZ
Lord/Lady WWW (Insert last name here)
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-28-2018, 03:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillVictoria View Post
I think the question of peerages for non-mainline princesses has been definitively resolved (at least for now) as a no.

Really the more interesting question is if, in the name of gender equality, Charlotte is made a duchess in her own right upon marriage similar to how Louis will likely be granted a dukedom. While obviously the Anne precedent would say no, it would make sense to let Charlotte be equal to her brothers and, rather then give the peerage to a husband who might or might not stick around, give the title of Duchess to Charlotte directly.
I don't think Charlotte will be made a duchess, because, as the eldest daughter of the future King, she will eventually be the new Princess Royal when the title becomes available.

A more interesting question would arise if William and Catherine had another baby girl, who would then be only HRH The Princess [xxx] when William is King.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 04-28-2018, 03:51 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They could not anyway, as, in the UK, the dignity of prince/princess is not transmitted in maternal line (unless the mother is the reigning Queen or special LPs are issued as was the case with the older children of Princess Elizabeth). In fact, even if the next King decided to change the rules so that the children of princesses could be princes/princesses themselves, that would probably still apply to grandchildren of a sovereign, but not to great-grandchildren, so none of Eugenie's children would benefit.
I am very well aware that these dignities are not transmitted in maternal line. But until recently, brothers were ahead of sisters in line to the throne as well. So, things are changing, and especially the situation with Charlotte being higher up while her brother can pass titles on will be interesting. And Eugenie's children would be effected if something to that effect would happen: as they would be Lord and Lady, just like Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor.

Quote:
One of the reasons to give an earldom to the husband of a princess was precisely so that her children could have titles or honorific prefixes like Viscount, Lady, or at least "The Honourable". If princesses naturally married peers or foreign princes, as it used to be the case in the past, that discussion would be superfluous as nobody would suggest giving another title to someone who is already titled and can transmit his title to his children (even though, in the distant past, some titles of royal husbands were actually "upgraded", e.g. the Duke of Fife).
Exactly, that's the reason I referenced in my previous post as to why husbands were given earldoms: making sure that the children would not be plain 'miss' and 'mister'.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 04-28-2018, 03:54 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillVictoria View Post
Yep, that's why I suspect the debate will be when Charlotte gets married as to whether she will be made a duchess in her own right (ex: Duchess of Kendal) with the title passing onto her children (and potentially being able to be inherited solely based on birth order instead of gender).

In the future Charlotte's line might be the following:
HRH The Duchess of XXXX (Charlotte)
Mr (Insert last name here) (Husband)
Lord/Lady YYYY (Insert last name here), Earl/Countess of ZZZZ
Lord/Lady WWW (Insert last name here)
A lot might depend on what happens with peerages in general. Will they remain male line or will they open up to female line inheritance (and if so, equally? Of would it still be male preference?).

In the above example Charlotte's children wouldn't be treated equally to Louis's children, as his children will be HRH prince(ss) X of (Cambridge?) as male-line grandchildren.

However, we are very much off-topic. Moderators, would you mind moving this discussion to a more appropriate topic?
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 04-28-2018, 04:11 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
A lot might depend on what happens with peerages in general. Will they remain male line or will they open up to female line inheritance (and if so, equally? Of would it still be male preference?).

In the above example Charlotte's children wouldn't be treated equally to Louis's children, as his children will be HRH prince(ss) X of (Cambridge?) as male-line grandchildren.

However, we are very much off-topic. Moderators, would you mind moving this discussion to a more appropriate topic?
Since you raised the issue, the most adequate "modernization" IMHO would not be to give dukedoms to princesses, but rather to do away with royal dukes altogether and have only "Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom" with a special title, e.g. Prince/Princess of Wales, for the heir to the throne only. All children and grandchildren of a sovereign, and the children of the eldest child of the Prince/Princess of Wales could be "Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom" under that system and, beyond the second generation, there would be no hereditary transmission of titles, except in the direct line to the throne.

Royal dukedoms add to the existing stock of hereditary peerages and may linger for many generations, as is the case now with the Kents and the Gloucesters. If the idea , as some posters have claimed here, is to phase out the hereditary peerage, I don't see why royal dukedoms, which then become ordinary peerages, should continue to be bestowed.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-28-2018, 04:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Royal dukedoms are perhaps the only hereditary peerages offered at the time of marriage and it still remains pretty much the ruling that peerages are inherited through the male line so even if Eugenie was created a peerage (duchess, countess, baroness etc) it would only be a lifetime peerage. Unless of course there is a sweeping change for *all* peerages to be inherited by a child regardless of its sex.
When a hereditary peerage is invested in a woman, the remainder normally grants her the ability to transmit it to her sons, e.g. Countess Mountbatten.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-28-2018, 05:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Sin
Royal dukedoms add to the existing stock of hereditary peerages and may linger for many generations, as is the case now with the Kents and the Gloucesters. If the idea , as some posters have claimed here, is to phase out the hereditary peerage, I don't see why royal dukedoms, which then become ordinary peerages, should continue to be bestowed.
Its not a case of phasing out the hereditary peerages,but of not removing their political power. But the RF and the political bods are not adding to the numbers...
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-22-2018, 02:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,236
TALK OF THE TOWN: Princess Eugenie's fiance Jack Brooksbank will remain a 'commoner' | Daily Mail Online


Too bad.
That means their children will not have titles.
It doesn't seem quite fair either.

Meghan and Kate were both granted titles when they married a royal. (I know it's different because they are working royals, but still, it does seem unfair).
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-22-2018, 02:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
TALK OF THE TOWN: Princess Eugenie's fiance Jack Brooksbank will remain a 'commoner' | Daily Mail Online


Too bad.
That means their children will not have titles.
It doesn't seem quite fair either.

Meghan and Kate were both granted titles when they married a royal. (I know it's different because they are working royals, but still, it does seem unfair).
While I wasn't expecting Jack to get a title, this story seems very hard to believe. The Earl of Northallerton, that's about the most random title I've ever heard and before this story I have never seen anyone predict he would receive that earldom or give a name to which one it would be. I think the DM is just trying to falsely develop a story that they know will be true but not necessarily in the way they are presenting it.
__________________

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 90 07-15-2020 07:15 PM
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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones bridal gown british royal family british royals buckingham palace canada coronavirus daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon elizabeth ii emperor family life fantasy movie hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume historical drama history hypothetical monarchs introduction jewellery jewelry jumma king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal family northern ireland norway plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde resusci anne royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress settings speech stuart suthida thailand tips united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×