The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 07-22-2018, 01:32 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
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).
Meghan and Kate weren’t granted titles though - their husbands were granted titles, and by custom they use the feminine equivalent of their husbands’ titles.

If Jack were to have been granted a title, it would have been in his own right - that’s different from the situation with Meghan and Kate.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-22-2018, 01:35 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,942
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).
It has nothing to do with that. Jack will not be offered a title because in today's world, the husbands of Princesses are not longer offered titles. However a wife shares her husband's title, so as the wives of princes, Meg and Kate share their husband's rank...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-22-2018, 01:50 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
It has nothing to do with that. Jack will not be offered a title because in today's world, the husbands of Princesses are not longer offered titles. However a wife shares her husband's title, so as the wives of princes, Meg and Kate share their husband's rank...
There really hasn't been an opportunity for the husband of a princess to not be offered a title in 'today's world' since the last princess to marry was Anne 26 years ago and observing her and Tim, it seems like they wouldn't want him to have one. And while some may say there is a precedent for husbands not to accept a title, if Jack accepted one there would be no precedent at all because it would be 2-2.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-22-2018, 02:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,942
He is not going to be offered a title. THe queen wanted Anne's husband to accept one in the 70s but it was already looking outdated... and Mark P didn't want one.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-22-2018, 02:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,125
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).
Meghan and Catherine didn't receive a title upon marriage. Their husbands received (additional) titles that they may use.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-22-2018, 03:24 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,421
Meghan and Kate weren't granted titles. When they married men that hold titles, as their spouse, they are automatically given the right to use the feminine version of their husband's title as a courtesy. So, its incorrect to state that Meghan and Kate were granted a title. They weren't. Their husbands hold the titles.

I don't expect Jack to be given any kind of a title. A male spouse cannot take the masculine form of a female's title as a female spouse can. For the most part, titles of the peerage are passed through the male line in the UK and I don't see the government of the day approving a title for Jack just because he's marrying a granddaughter of the monarch.

As it stands now, unless Andrew remarries and has a son, his title of the Duke of York will revert to the Crown on his death. There's been some talk about changing the peerage inheritance clause to allow women to inherit but at this writing, it doesn't look like there will be a change made.
__________________
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
  #147  
Old 07-22-2018, 03:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
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).

I think he should be created a viscount or a baron. An earldom may be too much nowadays, but a lower ranked peerage may be more palatable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Meghan and Kate weren't granted titles. When they married men that hold titles, as their spouse, they are automatically given the right to use the feminine version of their husband's title as a courtesy. So, its incorrect to state that Meghan and Kate were granted a title. They weren't. Their husbands hold the titles.
There are monarchies, most notably Spain, where husbands use their wives' titles, e.g. the husband of a titular duchess is a courtesy duke and is entitled to the same style of "Excellency" as his wife. That is, however, not the case in the UK. Jack, as a man, cannot use his wife's titles and styles under British custom. So, he is still being treated unequally (and unfairly) compared to Kate and Meghan. That is yet another reason actually why he should be granted a title of his own.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-22-2018, 03:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,871
I think Mirabel meant that had the genders been reversed, HRH Prince Eugene's wife would have been titled HRH Princess Eugene of York without being granted a title in her own right, and his children would have been titled Lord and Lady.

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)
It is likely to be far in the future before British titles become fair in terms of granting women the same right to share their titles with their spouses as men have, yet I could see it happening within Eugenie's lifetime (former PM David Cameron's government already suggested it for women peers in 2016).


The article also says that Eugenie will be known as HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank after marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:04 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think he should be created a viscount or a baron. An earldom may be too much nowadays, but a lower ranked peerage may be more palatable.




There are monarchies, most notably Spain, where husbands use their wives' titles, e.g. the husband of a titular duchess is a courtesy duke and is entitled to the same style of "Excellency" as his wife. That is, however, not the case in the UK. Jack, as a man, cannot use his wife's titles and styles under British custom. So, he is still being treated unequally (and unfairly) compared to Kate and Meghan. That is yet another reason actually why he should be granted a title of his own.
Its basically a thing of the past that the government, on the Queen's recommendation, approves hereditary peerages. Basically, giving Jack a title (no matter what the title would be) would be basically to ensure that any children that Eugenie and Jack have titles.

There is also the distinct possibility that Eugenie and Jack would refuse a title anyways. Considering the flak that both Beatrice and Eugenie have garnered by being royal blood princesses and not working for the "Firm", it stands to reason they wouldn't want to put any of their children through the downsides that a title can bring sometimes.

I do agree it seems sexist and unfair the way the titles in the UK work sometimes but it just shows that all is *not* fair in love and war.
__________________
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
  #150  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:17 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 423
Speaking of the case about females succeeding to their fathers peerages, hypothetically, if it went through and in the beginning applied to daughters whose fathers don't have sons and then eventually to all daughters, would it affect the Dukedom of York since it is currently a royal duke?
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
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).
Meghan and Kate weren’t granted titled. Their husbands were.

As for giving Jack a title, I don’t see why? Meghan and Kate will both be working for the Firm alongside their husbands, so it’s how they will be addressed in their official capacity. Does Jack plan on using Lord Jack in his liquor distribution business? If you want to look at it another way, Jack can continue to be in a career that seeks personal profit while Meghan and Kate can’t. You give and take in life.

And really, Jack and Meghan and Kate aren’t fair comparisons. Even Anne is a different situation as she was child of a monarch when she married. Given that her ex-husband and husband aren’t titled, there is no reason to even offer it to Eugenie and Jack. I don’t believe it’s customary to issue new titles upon grandchild of a monarch not in the heir’s line. Prince Michael remains prince Michael with no peerage. His wife would be the comparison here. And for whatever reason, I can’t see Jack wanting to be Prince Eugenie. Princess Alexandra’s husband also went without a title even though he’s the younger son of an Earl.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:33 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,123
Then Jack shouldn't be. Eugenie should be

If sons/grandsons get titles on marriage, daughters/granddaughters should.

The quickest way to ensure a republic is to remind people how archaic/old fashioned and unnecessary they are. While a monarchy needs to keep certain traditions and regality, that is what they are, they do need to modernize. Continuing to tell women in the 21st century that they are 2nd class citizens, that they are worth less then men, is a lovely reminder of how out dated they are. Its one thing to say an oldest daughter can inherit the throne, but they actually need to take it another step.

The queen certainly has it in her power. She may not be able to change old titles on her own (though if they petition her to change she does have power like the Earl Mountbatten of Burma did), but she can Create them in a way. The succession to a title is determined on creation. Harry's title could have been created to allow a daughter to inherit no matter what. There is precedence. Scottish titles, those that existed before the uniting of the kingdoms, allow for female succession. There are several Countesses in Scotland in their own right. The wife of the current Marquis of Lothian is a peeress in her own right, in Scotland. The Marquis only has daughters, so his own title will be inherited by his brother. But his wife's title will be inherited by their oldest living daughter.

So now, don't make Jack Earl of...… Make Eugenie Countess of X and allow her children to be titled as the children of that peer. Grant her husband a courtesy title.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Then Jack shouldn't be. Eugenie should be

If sons/grandsons get titles on marriage, daughters/granddaughters should.

The quickest way to ensure a republic is to remind people how archaic/old fashioned and unnecessary they are. While a monarchy needs to keep certain traditions and regality, that is what they are, they do need to modernize. Continuing to tell women in the 21st century that they are 2nd class citizens, that they are worth less then men, is a lovely reminder of how out dated they are. Its one thing to say an oldest daughter can inherit the throne, but they actually need to take it another step.

The queen certainly has it in her power. She may not be able to change old titles on her own (though if they petition her to change she does have power like the Earl Mountbatten of Burma did), but she can Create them in a way. The succession to a title is determined on creation. Harry's title could have been created to allow a daughter to inherit no matter what. There is precedence. Scottish titles, those that existed before the uniting of the kingdoms, allow for female succession. There are several Countesses in Scotland in their own right. The wife of the current Marquis of Lothian is a peeress in her own right, in Scotland. The Marquis only has daughters, so his own title will be inherited by his brother. But his wife's title will be inherited by their oldest living daughter.

So now, don't make Jack Earl of...… Make Eugenie Countess of X and allow her children to be titled as the children of that peer. Grant her husband a courtesy title.
While I agree some archaic ways will be an issue that brings down the monarchy, I don’t think this issue of that magnitude. At least not at this point (I don’t have my psychic power yet). Even the government doesn’t see it as such an issue even for those Dukedoms that have property and wealth attributed to the title. And the bill to allow daughter to inherit didn’t even make it out of committee. There is no appetite for this right now. And HM certainly isn’t going to let herself be dragged into this political discussion. Harry’s title is exactly as archaic as everyone else’s in terms of how the title will be inherited.

And not all grandsons of a monarch are titled. With the exception of the heir’s children, only the oldest son inherits titles. Everyone else gets their regular HRH as grandchildren of a monarch from a male line or less. George V’s grandchildren from his two youngest sons didn’t change this, I don’t see why it would in a society that seems to go with less titles than more. Prince Richard would’ve remained Prince Richard had his brother not died. And Prince Michael is still Prince Michael. Princess Eugenie will remain Princess Eugenie, unlike her younger cousins, who do not even hold Prince and Princess titles.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:54 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
But is there any modern precedent for the grandchild of the monarch, not directly in the line of succession (i.e. so not William & Harry as they ares sons of next monarch) to receive a title. I can only think of sons of the monarch (and son-in-law of a deceased monarch) in the past few generations.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:54 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalHighness 2002 View Post
Speaking of the case about females succeeding to their fathers peerages, hypothetically, if it went through and in the beginning applied to daughters whose fathers don't have sons and then eventually to all daughters, would it affect the Dukedom of York since it is currently a royal duke?
Equal primogeniture succession as a default option would require an act of Parliament and it would affect the dukedom of York only if the act applied retroactively to existing peerages. That would be up to Parliament to decide, but I think it would be unlikely unless the current holder of the peerage was given a choice to keep the existing remainder or change to the new default option. As far as I understand, some of the bills to allow equal succession to peerages that were introduced in the House of Lords (and ultimately got nowhere) proposed exactly that.



The fact that a peerage is held by a member of the Royal House is of little or no relevance as far as the remainder is concerned, as the remainder is specified by the LPs that created the title, exactly as in any other peerage. The only meaningful difference really between a royal duke or a royal earl, and an ordinary duke or an ordinary earl, is that, since royal dukes and royal earls are also princes of the UK, they have the rank and style of HRH rather than His Grace or The Rt Hon, as it would be the case respectively for an ordinary duke and an ordinary earl. And, of course, the successors of royal dukes or royal earls, as long as they are no longer princes, become ordinary dukes or ordinary earls.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 07-22-2018, 04:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
But is there any modern precedent for the grandchild of the monarch, not directly in the line of succession (i.e. so not William & Harry as they ares sons of next monarch) to receive a title. I can only think of sons of the monarch (and son-in-law of a deceased monarch) in the past few generations.
Only inherited titles. Not given to them as a new creation. So Duke of Kent is Duke of Kent because he inherited it from his father. Not because he was created Duke of Kent like William and Harry were created Cambridge and Sussex. Prince Michael doesn’t have a title other than Prince Michael of Kent.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 07-22-2018, 05:03 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Only inherited titles. Not given to them as a new creation. So Duke of Kent is Duke of Kent because he inherited it from his father. Not because he was created Duke of Kent like William and Harry were created Cambridge and Sussex.
Yes, that’s what I said. Because it was Edward, Duke of Kent’s father George-son of George V, who otiginally received the title. Inherited titles are not what we are discussing- granting a title to the monarch’s grandchild or grandson-in-law of the second son is the scenario under discussion. And I can’t think of any.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 07-22-2018, 05:09 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
The queen certainly has it in her power. She may not be able to change old titles on her own (though if they petition her to change she does have power like the Earl Mountbatten of Burma did), but she can Create them in a way. The succession to a title is determined on creation. Harry's title could have been created to allow a daughter to inherit no matter what. There is precedence. Scottish titles, those that existed before the uniting of the kingdoms, allow for female succession. There are several Countesses in Scotland in their own right. The wife of the current Marquis of Lothian is a peeress in her own right, in Scotland. The Marquis only has daughters, so his own title will be inherited by his brother. But his wife's title will be inherited by their oldest living daughter.
The sticky wicket in this line of rationalizing is that peerage titles and remainders are not solely at the will and pleasure of the monarch and created by LPs but also has to have the express approval of the government of the day as the peerage system is also considered a legal system comprising both hereditary and lifetime titles in the United Kingdom .

"Peerages are created by the British monarch, like all Crown honours, being affirmed by Letters Patent affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. HMG recommends to the Sovereign who to be elevated to the peerage, after external vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission."

So, in actuality, it would be the Queen creating Jack a peer at the recommendation of the House of Lords. I just don't see that happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerag...United_Kingdom
__________________
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
  #159  
Old 07-22-2018, 05:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
"Peerages are created by the British monarch, like all Crown honours, being affirmed by Letters Patent affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. HMG recommends to the Sovereign who to be elevated to the peerage, after external vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission."

So, in actuality, it would be the Queen creating Jack a peer at the recommendation of the House of Lords. I just don't see that happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerag...United_Kingdom

Actually, I believe that the House of Lords Appointments Commission only vets people who are nominated for life peerages. Those are political nominees picked by the sitting PM or the leaders of the main opposition parties.



The House of Lords doesn't need to vet appointments of hereditary peers because, unlike life peers, they are no longer automatically members of the House. A new hereditary peer like Jack could be potentially elected to one of the 90 seats still reserved for hereditary peers in the House of Lords, but, since the House itself would be the electoral college in that case, no prior vetting would be required, as his record would be examined anyway by the voters if and when he stood for election.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 07-22-2018, 05:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,912
Osipi is right in saying it’s the government who is creating the peer in that the sovereign only does so on the advice of her ministers. It’s the convention that’s been in place since Queen Victoria.

Only the most senior male members of the royal family are created hereditary peerages now a days. It’s a category Jack doesn’t fit into. It’s been almost 60 years since it happened to Margaret’s husband.

There’s only 4 honours in Britain completely independent of the government. Garter, Thistle, Merit and RVO.
__________________

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 06:15 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 09:50 PM
Daniel's Future: Discussion (his role, title, orders, pressure etc.) Yennie Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 441 01-13-2017 06:38 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names bangladesh baptism biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi heraldry hill historical drama history hochberg introduction jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess of orange queen consort queen mathilde royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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