The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 07-22-2018, 06:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Then Jack shouldn't be. Eugenie should be


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.
Earl Mountbatten did NOT petition the Queen to change anything regarding his title. He was created Viscount Mountbatten of Burma in 1946 by George VI who raised him to an earldom in 1947. In both cases the LP stated his daughters were allowed to succeed him but that was only because he had no sons. And his daughters could only be succeeded by their sons not their daughters. The current Lord Mountbatten's son can inherit the title but his daughter can't.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...7702/page/4305

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...8109/page/5074

Once Letters Patent granting a title & specifying the rules of succession have been issued, they can only be altered by Parliament, not the monarch.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-22-2018, 08:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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.

She didn't say hereditary peerages were created on the advice of the Queen's ministers, but rather that they were created on the advice of the House of Lords. I pointed out then that the House of Lords Appointments Committee actually only vets life peerages, but not hereditary peerages.

Other monarchies on the continent, e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain, are more transparent in that respect since titles of nobility in those countries are awarded by royal decree and, under their constitutions, all royal decrees have to be countersigned by one or more responsible ministers. So we know explicitly who in the government is taking political responsibility for the awarding of that title or honor. In the UK, by contrast, peerages are bestowed by Letters Patent, which are not countersigned by ministers in the same way Orders in Council are for example. It is not clear then who is advising the Queen on that matter, although, in the case of life peerages specifically, we know that, by convention, it is the prime minister.

Quote:
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.
Although your point may be factually correct, you failed to mention that, after Margaret's wedding, both Princess Alexandra's husband and Princess Anne's first husband were offered earldoms, but declined them. It didn't happen because of their own will, but it could have happened if they had accepted the peerage.

Overall, I don't think we can say categorically that husbands of princesses of the blood are now automatically excluded from the class of potential recipients of hereditary peerages. Maybe that is the case for Princess Eugenie , who is "just" the Queen's granddaughter in a collateral line (although her position now is similar to Princessa Alexandra's when she married). However, despite Anne's precedent, I would definitely not rule out a peerage e.g. for Princess Charlotte's future husband, especially now that, under equal primogeniture, she is likely to remain high up in the line of succession for quite some time.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:09 PM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850
Just a silly question here, Jack is NOT getting a title period, so why the fuss over it? It is a done deal and the only person who has any say or cares is either Jack or Eugenie....nobody else matters at all.......
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:58 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
Its kind of interesting to me because with the topic comes discussions and I learn things that I didn't know before.
__________________
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
  #165  
Old 07-23-2018, 03:52 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Payton View Post
Just a silly question here, Jack is NOT getting a title period, so why the fuss over it? It is a done deal and the only person who has any say or cares is either Jack or Eugenie....nobody else matters at all.......
"All the fuss" is so that the various tabloids can make up things such as "Andrew insisting..." "Queen is snubbing..." etc. That's all it is. Click bait.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 07-23-2018, 04:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
"All the fuss" is so that the various tabloids can make up things such as "Andrew insisting..." "Queen is snubbing..." etc. That's all it is. Click bait.
What I find funny is that we still have no idea how Charles thinks about that, him being so old-fashioned in one way and in another so way before his time.
But Charles' will and Will is his future, so I decided to just wait and see (I personally tend to be very old-fashioned, so don't listen to my rants).
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-23-2018, 05:33 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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.

Although I respect your opinion, I fail to see why it would be outdated to create a hereditary peerage for the husband of a British princess (especially the sovereign's daughter), but, at the same time, it would not be considered outdated to create hereditary peerages for the sovereign's sons or the Prince of Wales' sons.



Except in the cases where the title eventually merges into the Crown or becomes extinct, the net effect in the long run is the same, i.e. adding a new hereditary title outside the Royal House to the peerage of the UK. The only meaningful difference is that, in the case of the sovereign's sons, that may take two generations to happen, whereas in the case of the sovereign's son-in-law, it may happen immediately in the next generation.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 07-23-2018, 07:50 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
I'm going to throw my two chocolate coins wrapped in gold tin foil to the mix here and throw in a thought that may or may not be relevant.

We see a lot of hereditary peerages such as Westminster, Spencer and Northumberland that have been in existence through generations. We also have the royal hereditary peerages that have been commonplace throughout history. These peerages are part and parcel of what makes up the history of the UK and its monarchy.

Things have changed and the House of Lords isn't what it used to be and frankly, the peerage of the UK isn't as important to the government of the day as it used to be. Hereditary peerages used to mean something. A position, a status and a relevance to the monarchy.

Lifetime peerages seem to be the way things are going in the 21st century except for those hereditary peerages that are closely connected to the royal family itself. Lifetime peerages are created at the recommendation of the Prime Minister and created by the Crown. Its more of an egalitarian method of selection rather than one of "favor" by the Crown.

With this in mind, creating an hereditary peerage for someone such as Jack Brooksbank because he is marrying a granddaughter of the Queen seems to me to be more like its doing something "historical" rather than aligning itself to how the UK does things now. Lifetime peers are created because of a reason the Prime Minister deems relevant to be recognized.

Looking at it this way, a title or a peerage for Jack is of little intrinsic value and would only serve its purpose for a short time.

Does this make any sense?
__________________
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
  #169  
Old 07-23-2018, 08:22 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,549
There is a strange sort of "Changing of the Guard" that is happening right under our nose. Princess Anne is an HRH as she is her mother's daughter just as Beatrice and Eugenie are HRH's because they are their father's daughters. Previous to them, royal princesses tended to marry into either royalty or the aristocracy which meant their husbands were both titled and monied in their own right.

Anne had a dream that would probably have been hampered by a titled husband and who can help but recognise the fruits of her labour. She did what she set out to do and has made Gatcombe Park a commercial success in the world of eventing. The only input from her parents was her home which is no more nor less than that which was granted to her brothers.

I don't think TPTB ever gave the slightest thought to the reality that the daughters of royalty would ever be in the situation of actually having to work, their minds still seem to be firmly entrenched in the nineteenth century. HM recognises this and I believe that is why Eugenie and Jack are now happily ensconced in Ivy Cottage. Empty titles don't seem to be HM's "thing" and only Eugenie's son would benefit and not her daughter. Why perpetuate the situation.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 07-23-2018, 09:32 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,849
If Jack was given a title, would it be easier to give him a vacant title or to create a brand new title for him?
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 07-23-2018, 09:35 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA, United States
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
The proposed legislation failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
If Jack was given a title, would it be easier to give him a vacant title or to create a brand new title for him?
There is no real precedence for Jack to receive a peerage on the wedding day. Antony Armstrong-Jones did turn down a peerage before the wedding but later changed his mind when his wife was less than a month away from giving birth to a son. Angus did turn down an earldom but years later in an interview that he regretted the decision because it set a terrible precedent for Anne and Mark as Angus believed that the queen's grandchildren should have titles. Discussing a title for Jack is merely clickbait as it has never been considered.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 07-23-2018, 10:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarleneKoenig View Post
There is no real precedence for Jack to receive a peerage on the wedding day. Antony Armstrong-Jones did turn down a peerage before the wedding but later changed his mind when his wife was less than a month away from giving birth to a son. Angus did turn down an earldom but years later in an interview that he regretted the decision because it set a terrible precedent for Anne and Mark as Angus believed that the queen's grandchildren should have titles. Discussing a title for Jack is merely clickbait as it has never been considered.

There are actually precedents of prospective husbands of British princesses being given hereditary peerages prior to their wedding.



To begin with, the groom of then Princess Elizabeth, Lt. Philip Mountbatten, was created Duke of Edinburgh by King George VI on the morning of his wedding day (November 20, 1947). He didn't become a Prince of the United Kingdom until much later (in 1957, I think).


Similarly, the London Gazette announced that Alexander Duff had become Duke of Fife on his wedding day to Princess Louise (July 27, 1889); the actual LPs were issued, I think, about one month earlier. Technically, he was already a peer (Earl of Fife and Viscount Macduff), but Queen Victoria elevated his titles by LPs to the ranks respectively of duke and marquess, which, I suppose, count as new peerages. Interestingly, the 1889 LPs included the standard remainder to "heirs to his body male", but Queen Victoria issued new LPs in February 1900 creating a second Dukedom of Fife, but this time with a subsidiary title of Earl of Macduff (rather than Marquess) and a special remainder which allowed the peerages to pass to the daughters of the first Duke in default of a son, and then to the male heirs of those daughters. The first dukedom actually became extinct as Princess Louise and the first Duke didn't have any sons, and the second dukedom is the one that exists until today and is presently held by David Charles Carnegie.


EDIT: Note in the link above that the wording in the old Gazettes was far more precise than it is today. For example, the Gazette correctly mentions the "dignities" of a Marquess and an Earl, but under the "titles" of Marquess of Macduff and Duke of Fife, which is the right English usage IMHO. The modern Gazette note about Prince Harry's peerage mixes the two terms ("dignity" and "title") by referring to the "dignities of Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel", which is very confusing.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 07-23-2018, 10:44 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
Question on your thoughts, Mbruno. Wouldn't the reform of the House of Lords have some bearing on these precedents no longer being viable today?
__________________
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
  #174  
Old 07-23-2018, 11:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Question on your thoughts, Mbruno. Wouldn't the reform of the House of Lords have some bearing on these precedents no longer being viable today?

I don't think the reform of the House of Lords has any impact whatsoever on peerages bestowed on members of the Royal Family.


The House of Lords is actually a legislative body, i.e. a constituent part of the UK parliament which has an active role in making laws for the United Kingdom, even if its decisions can now be, in most cases, constitutionally overturned by the popularly elected House of Commons.


Life peers, who make up the majority of the members of the House of Lords following the 1999 reform, are mostly politicians who are affiliated with specific political parties (retired MPs for example including former ministers and party leaders, party activists, or even party donors). They are appointed either by the prime minister directly, or on the recommendation of the leaders of the main opposition (the closest equivalent in North American terms would be the Senators of Canada). There are, however, some "independent" life peers, e.g. appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Committee, who sit as "crossbenchers" (i.e. do not take any party's whip) and are usually chosen in recognition of merit. Those may include for example former high-ranking civil servants or military officers, or noteworthy personalities from key segments of civil society such as the scientific, artistic, legal or business communities.


Again, I fail to see any relation between what I described above and the titles and styles of the members of the RF. Royal dukes, even when they could sit and vote in the House of Lords, didn't do so in recent times. Now that they are not part of the House anymore, I can't imagine why the House would object to the creation of those peerages.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 07-23-2018, 11:17 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
There are actually precedents of prospective husbands of British princesses being given hereditary peerages prior to their wedding.



To begin with, the groom of then Princess Elizabeth, Lt. Philip Mountbatten, was created Duke of Edinburgh by King George VI on the morning of his wedding day (November 20, 1947). He didn't become a Prince of the United Kingdom until much later (in 1957, I think).


Similarly, the London Gazette announced that Alexander Duff had become Duke of Fife on his wedding day to Princess Louise (July 27, 1889); the actual LPs were issued, I think, about one month earlier. Technically, he was already a peer (Earl of Fife and Viscount Macduff), but Queen Victoria elevated his titles by LPs to the ranks respectively of duke and marquess, which, I suppose, count as new peerages. Interestingly, the 1889 LPs included the standard remainder to "heirs to his body male", but Queen Victoria issued new LPs in February 1900 creating a second Dukedom of Fife, but this time with a subsidiary title of Earl of Macduff (rather than Marquess) and a special remainder which allowed the peerages to pass to the daughters of the first Duke in default of a son, and then to the male heirs of those daughters. The first dukedom actually became extinct as Princess Louise and the first Duke didn't have any sons, and the second dukedom is the one that exists until today and is presently held by David Charles Carnegie.


EDIT: Note in the link above that the wording in the old Gazettes was far more precise than it is today. For example, the Gazette correctly mentions the "dignities" of a Marquess and an Earl, but under the "titles" of Marquess of Macduff and Duke of Fife, which is the right English usage IMHO. The modern Gazette note about Prince Harry's peerage mixes the two terms ("dignity" and "title") by referring to the "dignities of Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel", which is very confusing.
The Fife Dukedom is hardly a modern precedent- it was 129 years ago. And a Dukedom for the husband of the next monarch is a totally different situation.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 07-23-2018, 11:28 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
The Fife Dukedom is hardly a modern precedent- it was 129 years ago. And a Dukedom for the husband of the next monarch is a totally different situation.

Well, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha didn't get a dukedom (or any British peerage actually), so I would submit that Philip's precedent is much more "modern". And, again, Philip became a duke before he became a prince of the United Kingdom.



PS: I suppose one of the reasons why Prince Albert didn't get a dukedom was the fear that he might actually take his seat in the Lords (I believe some of Victoria's uncles did that). And, at the time, the House of Lords was far more powerful than it is today as it was before the Parliament Act 1911, which stripped the Lords of their legislative veto power, and at a time when many prime ministers still came from the House of Lords rather than the House of Commons, as it is the norm today.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 07-24-2018, 11:50 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
The Fife Dukedom is hardly a modern precedent- it was 129 years ago. And a Dukedom for the husband of the next monarch is a totally different situation.
Also, the Duke of Fife also married the daughter of a future monarch (Edward VII was the Prince of Wales at the time of the wedding), which is different than Eugenie's situation. This would be a better comparison for Anne (which they chose to go a different route obviously) and what could be done for Charlotte when she's old enough to marry.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 07-24-2018, 11:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,616
I don't think the senior members of the RF want Jack to have a peerage, because I'm convinced a lot of media outlets would call her "Countess Eugenie" then instead of Princess Eugenie and that would mean a downgrading of her noone really could wish for. Just an idea, but if noone wants to see Jack as a peer, nothing will happen.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 07-24-2018, 11:59 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I don't think the senior members of the RF want Jack to have a peerage, because I'm convinced a lot of media outlets would call her "Countess Eugenie" then instead of Princess Eugenie and that would mean a downgrading of her noone really could wish for. Just an idea, but if noone wants to see Jack as a peer, nothing will happen.
I think it's not that they don't want to give him one rather than that ship has long sailed with Princess Alexandria, and that was a situation that it would made more sense in as giving out titles to those marrying into royal family are more common in those days, and Princess Alexandria was a working royal. Eugenie'd still be Princess Eugenie despite being a Countess as Margaret was Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 07-24-2018, 03:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Also, the Duke of Fife also married the daughter of a future monarch (Edward VII was the Prince of Wales at the time of the wedding), which is different than Eugenie's situation. This would be a better comparison for Anne (which they chose to go a different route obviously) and what could be done for Charlotte when she's old enough to marry.

My post was not meant to suggest that the Fife precedent would apply to Jack, but rather to illustrate that, unlike what was said by another poster, there are precedents of husbands of British princesses being granted peerages on the day of their wedding. In the Earl of Snowdon's case, it is true, however, that the peerage was only created a little under one year and a half after the wedding.


In Charlotte's case, I think it would be ridiculous if her husband were not given a peerage when her younger brother, who will be below Charlotte and her children in the line of succession, will probably have a dukedom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I don't think the senior members of the RF want Jack to have a peerage, because I'm convinced a lot of media outlets would call her "Countess Eugenie" then instead of Princess Eugenie and that would mean a downgrading of her noone really could wish for. Just an idea, but if noone wants to see Jack as a peer, nothing will happen.

Not really. If Jack became, let's say, The Rt Hon The Earl Brooksbank, Eugenie would be HRH Princess Eugenie, Countess Brooksbank. That is certainly better IMHO than being called HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank. In fact, the latter style would sound far more like a downgrade to me compared to Eugenie's current title. In reality, however, Eugenie will always keep her dignity of Princess of the United Kingdom and the style of HRH, so nothing is changing really.

British princesses of the past of course had it better as they married foreign royals and actually became queens, empresses, grand duchesses, etc.
__________________

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 04:19 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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