Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?

[Denville]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[tommy100]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Blog Real]

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.

 

[Denville]

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....

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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).

 

[WillVictoria]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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?

 

[Mbruno]

. 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).

 

[WillVictoria]

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)

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

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'.

 

[Somebody]

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?

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Denville]

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...

 

[Mirabel]

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).

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Denville]

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...

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

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.

 

[Denville]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

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?