Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Eugenie'd still be Princess Eugenie despite being a Countess as Margaret was Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden.
Times changed though. And the tabloids hate the York-princesses.That was my concern. Of course she would still be "Princess" Eugenie. But if Jack got a title I ma sure these negative editors would use that to put her down to that "consort title" and made even more fun of her. Jack getting no title makes at least sure that Eugenie stays HRH "Princess Eugenie" which is what seh deserve by the privilege of her birth and what ties her into the current society of the Uk.:flowers:
 
Princess Anne seems to have done just fine with a commoner husband, and she is a child of the Monarch.
 
Being the princess royal does help.

And if we compare her situation to Charlotte's future situation; she comes after her younger brothers in the line of succession; while Charlotte comes before Louis.
 
Times changed though. And the tabloids hate the York-princesses.That was my concern. Of course she would still be "Princess" Eugenie. But if Jack got a title I ma sure these negative editors would use that to put her down to that "consort title" and made even more fun of her. Jack getting no title makes at least sure that Eugenie stays HRH "Princess Eugenie" which is what seh deserve by the privilege of her birth and what ties her into the current society of the Uk.:flowers:


Regardless of what Jack’s title (or lack there of) is, Eugenie is going to remain HRH Princess Eugenie. Were Jack to be titled she would go from HRH Princess Eugenie of York to HRH Princess Eugenie, Countess Whatever; with him remaining untitled she’ll instead go from HRH Princess Eugenie of York to HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

This can be seen in Princess Anne, who went from HRH The Princess Anne to HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips to HRH The Princess Royal. It can also be seen in Princess Margaret (HRH Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon) and Princess Mary (whose titles went from HRH The Princess Mary to HRH The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles to HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood, to HRH The Princess Royal).
 
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 after Charlotte and her children in the line of succession, will probably have a dukedom.

I think Charlotte should be given a dukedom, as the child of a monarch (I expect), just like her brother.

I don't think Jack should be given a title just because he's marrying a princess... but hey, that's exactly what happens when a prince marries a lady, she becomes a princess, so my thinking is a little fuddled there! In the 21st century, it's a bit of a minefield; things were a lot clearer a hundred years ago.

I think Prince Daniel has made a good job in his new 'career' of being a Royal, but I wonder how he feels, having only been made a prince because of his marriage to P Victoria. Women, e.g. Countess of Wessex, have no problems with 'stepping up' to becoming a princess, but I would imagine men might feel happier if they got a title based on their own merit. Women have been used to taking their husband's name/title for 100s of years; for men it's a new age.

Hope I made myself clear; I'm in two minds about the whole thing - and it shows!
 
Though Princess Mary became HRH The Princess Royal, was not her next title Countess of Harewood?
 
Though Princess Mary became HRH The Princess Royal, was not her next title Countess of Harewood?

Yes, in full it could be said she was HRH The Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood but usually those who are given the title princess royal use it alone. That is, until they come into the possession of a higher title, such as Empress Victoria of Germany, Queen of Prussia and daughter of Queen Victoria, who was the princess royal before her marriage.
 
I think Charlotte should be given a dukedom, as the child of a monarch (I expect), just like her brother.

I don't think Jack should be given a title just because he's marrying a princess... but hey, that's exactly what happens when a prince marries a lady, she becomes a princess, so my thinking is a little fuddled there! In the 21st century, it's a bit of a minefield; things were a lot clearer a hundred years ago.

I think Prince Daniel has made a good job in his new 'career' of being a Royal, but I wonder how he feels, having only been made a prince because of his marriage to P Victoria. Women, e.g. Countess of Wessex, have no problems with 'stepping up' to becoming a princess, but I would imagine men might feel happier if they got a title based on their own merit. Women have been used to taking their husband's name/title for 100s of years; for men it's a new age.

Hope I made myself clear; I'm in two minds about the whole thing - and it shows!


You make an interesting point about women having no problem with moving up in rank by taking their husbands' title, while the reverse may feel embarassing or awkward for men.



Personally, my position is that there should be gender symmetry in courtesy titles for spouses. In other words, either both male and female consorts should be allowed to use their respective spouse's titles and styles, or neither of them should get any courtesy title at all, or both should get a different, gender-neutral title.



Spain uses mostly option # 1, e.g. the husband of a duchess is a duke with the same style of Excellency , and even the husband of the Princess of Asturias is called Prince of Asturias with the same style of Royal Highness. Husbands of infantas , under current rules, don't get the title (infante) and the style (Royal Highness) of their wives, but the same is true for wives of infantes, so symmetry is still preserved, albeit under option # 2. The only situation where there is gender asymmetry is the case of the husband of the (reigning) Queen of Spain, who, again under current rules, is just a prince and an HRH, whereas the wife of the King of Spain is a queen and an HM. Actually, that is a relatively recent innovation which was introduced in 1987. In the past, husbands of Spanish queens, e.g. Queen Isabella II's spouse, were called king and had the style of Majesty. The introduction of gender asymmetry in the titles of the monarch's consort in Spain seems to be a northern European influence (copying the British, Dutch, or Danish models).


Going back to your example about Prince Daniel, I would imagine that the position of "prince consort" to a reigning queen, as held by Prince Philip or by Prince Henrik in the past, and which will be most likely held by Daniel in the future, must be uncomfortable for most men. However, men who accept to take up that role probably understand (or should understand) what they are getting into and, in most cases, Prince Philip being the best example, they eventually come to accept the realities of their position and rank. Prince Daniel in particular seems to me to be quite comfortable with being "Victoria's help" and "walking behind her" metaphorically speaking. In fact, he said so many times.


In Jack's case, however, at least on this forum, we are not talking about his being made a prince in his own right, or even a courtesy prince (under gender symmetry). Both options would be out of question in British custom. The question here is Jack being made an earl (or a viscount, or a baron) in his own right in the peerage of the UK and being able to pass on that title to his firstborn son if any.



EDIT: BTW, just as a last comment, the idea of being made a prince "by merit" doesn't really make much sense (no disrespect intended) because hereditary monarchy, as shocking as it might be in our modern western thinking, is not meritocratic. Men and women are born princes or princesses and normally keep that dignity for life, whether they merit it or not. To be fair, however, as I stressed before, Prince Philip e.g. was only made a prince about 10 years after he got married, so I guess you could argue that he may have gotten that dignity "by merit" perhaps. He had been an HRH and a duke though since his wedding day, despite not being called a prince, which was very odd.
 
Last edited:
I thought Prince Phillip was a Prince prior to...by birth or are you talking about a Prince of GB?


LaRae
 
I thought Prince Phillip was a Prince prior to...by birth or are you talking about a Prince of GB?


LaRae


Yes, I am talking about a "prince of the United Kingdom". He was indeed a prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, but he renounced those titles. When he became engaged to Princess Elizabeth, he was just Lt. Philip Mountbatten.


PS: I really don't know if Philip's "renunciation" had legal effect in Greece or in Denmark, or if he could legally renounce his title in those jurisdictions, but the important point here is that, from the British perspective, he was not considered a prince when he married Elizabeth and only became one ten years later.
 
Last edited:
Princess Anne seems to have done just fine with a commoner husband, and she is a child of the Monarch.

It is all moot.. even in the 70s when Mark and Anne married, the idea of giving a title to someone just because he'd married a Princess was beginning to look archaic. The queen did apparently want Mark to have a title, but he and Anne both opposed it and wanted him and their children to make their way in life on their own merits and not have the burden of a title.. And I think that Zara and Peter have had interesting careers without being Lord X and LAdy Zara Phillips..
So now, 40 years later no one is going to expect Jack to get a title...
 
Yes, I am talking about a "prince of the United Kingdom". He was indeed a prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, but he renounced those titles. When he became engaged to Princess Elizabeth, he was just Lt. Philip Mountbatten.


PS: I really don't know if Philip's "renunciation" had legal effect in Greece or in Denmark, or if he could legally renounce his title in those jurisdictions, but the important point here is that, from the British perspective, he was not considered a prince when he married Elizabeth and only became one ten years later.


I don't think it even mattered if he could renounce them in those countries. He was trying to overcome the resistance to him marrying Elizabeth. Now days he wouldn't even need to do that.



LaRae
 
You make an interesting point about women having no problem with moving up in rank by taking their husbands' title, while the reverse may feel embarassing or awkward for men.

It felt weird to Philip and Henrik, but they also grew up in a time where reigning queens were not so common. I suspect having years of three simultaneous monarchies headed by women (Elizabeth, Margarethe, Beatrix) will have made the Prince Consort title feel much more normal to men like Daniel and whomever eventually become the next generation of consorts in Belgium, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands.
 
It felt weird to Philip and Henrik, but they also grew up in a time where reigning queens were not so common. I suspect having years of three simultaneous monarchies headed by women (Elizabeth, Margarethe, Beatrix) will have made the Prince Consort title feel much more normal to men like Daniel and whomever eventually become the next generation of consorts in Belgium, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands.

Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.
 
Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.

Or to bring things back to Jack and Eugenie, imagine a situation where she is made Duchess at the time of the wedding and he a “Duke Consort.”

(This is half joke/half thought experiment. Obviously there’s zero precedent for any such thing, and I’m in the camp that assumes there will be no title offered to Jack)
 
There's no reason she would be a Duchess. Royal women have not been given royal dukedoms. She will be Princess Eugenie and h'e will be Mr Jack Brooksbank. Or she could drop her princess title and just be Lady Eugenie B or even Mrs J B.....
 
Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.

Actually, the only rationale I can think of for husbands of reigning queens to be princes rather than kings is precisely what you said, i.e. that the cultural perception still is that kings outrank queens and, therefore, if a queen's husband were called king, it would give an impression that he would be above his wife, which is nonsense BTW.


Or to bring things back to Jack and Eugenie, imagine a situation where she is made Duchess at the time of the wedding and he a “Duke Consort.”

(This is half joke/half thought experiment. Obviously there’s zero precedent for any such thing, and I’m in the camp that assumes there will be no title offered to Jack)

As I said before, there are no "duke consorts" in the UK, but there are duke consorts in other countries like Spain. And there are also princesses of the blood in other countries who are given dukedoms, albeit non-hereditary ones (for example, again in Spain and in Sweden).

I believe all those questions, not only in Jack and Eugenie's specific case, but in general and in abstract, should be considered in the context of a broader reform of the peerage system, which would address not only the question of consort titles, but also possible female succession or equal primogeniture.
 
Last edited:
Not likely to happen, IMO. the british operate on an "If it aint broke don't fix it" mindset. Nobody wants to change things much...and Im sure that they're not likey to replace the idea of Queen Consort with a Princess Consort so as to be egalitarian.
 
Although, it does bring up a point if men are prince consorts, should women be queen consorts rather than princess consorts. After all, the underlining insinuation is that queens aren't as powerful as kings if all the male consorts have to be prince consorts.

For centuries the spouse of a King was referred to as a Queen. However, she was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant.
 
I really just hope they haven't sold the photo rights to Hello or OK magazine.


I expect to see a lot of merchandising Eugenie's title, once she is married. It's not that she is rich according to Royal standards and both her parents and Jack have used their connections to do business on a regular basis.



I think Charles had a talk with them about the boundaries of making use Eugenie's Royal title (at least this would prevent a lot of PR desasters as both Sarah and a "fake sheikh" scenario or some similar tabloid-stunt are already waiting to happen...


We have no idea how loaded Andrew actually is and what kind of deals he actually did with Saudi or Russian Olegarchs, but I'm sure he will want his younger daughter to be settled securely.
 
I expect to see a lot of merchandising Eugenie's title, once she is married. It's not that she is rich according to Royal standards and both her parents and Jack have used their connections to do business on a regular basis.

What makes you say this? I see nothing of Andrew and Sarah's eagerness to abuse their titles, for want of a better phrase, in Eugenie. She's settled in her life away from royalty, she has a solid job and is clearly passionate about her patronages and promoting the work they do. I don't see why she would merchandise her title, after she is married, when she hasn't done that before?

Am I to assume that when Eugenie is married, she will be HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbanks?

I'm basing this purely on Princess Alexandras title upon marriage which was HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Oglivy.
 
I know that it I see odd but I couldn’t be surprised if Eugenie herself requests that her title and HRH is removed after the wedding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eugenie herself requests that her title and HRH is removed after the wedding.

I agree.. 'Mr Jack and Lady Eugenie Brooksbank' wouldn't surprise me at all..
 
I agree.. 'Mr Jack and Lady Eugenie Brooksbank' wouldn't surprise me at all..

It would surprise me pig simply becaus that would require a new title for her.

And why? It wouldn't change her life. She would still be the granddaughter of the Queen. Eugenie may have a career but she is also very devoted to her list of patronages. Her title helps bring more attention and that is a good thing when talking charities.

Nothing about her adult life implies she intends to simply disappear into obscurity.
 
I agree.. 'Mr Jack and Lady Eugenie Brooksbank' wouldn't surprise me at all..

all she has to do is to say that she wishes to not be known by her title. and I presume that at work, people don't cursty and call her YRH nad Ma'am....
 
Whatever her title, I still think it's too bad Jack won't get an earldom. It costs nothing, and that way their children will be titled. O well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no reason for Jack to get an earldom. ANne's husbands didn't want or get titles.. Titles are not given out now just for marrying a princess - in fact hereditary titles have not been given now for years...
and most men would prefer to make their way in their careers without the burden of a title or people saying that they 'only did well because they were lord so and so"...
and If he did get a title,their children would only have courtesy titles...
 
I still say a title is nice to have.

Otherwise, why do so many people try to buy one?

(It was quite a scandal years ago, with members of the nobility selling off their subsidiary titles. I think one of the Queen's own cousins did this. Why, if people wouldn't want to have them?)
 
Yep , can’t agree more - DoE will go to the wedding pose for the photos and do nothing to damage the day for his granddaughter. He has class.

I know that it I see odd but I couldn’t be surprised if Eugenie herself requests that her title and HRH is removed after the wedding.


Why would she do that ? She is a princess by birth and there is no reason why she should be stripped of her title.


I still say a title is nice to have.

Otherwise, why do so many people try to buy one?

(It was quite a scandal years ago, with members of the nobility selling off their subsidiary titles. I think one of the Queen's own cousins did this. Why, if people wouldn't want to have them?)


It is not possible to buy a title of nobility from someone else. Nobility can only be either inherited or given out by grace of a sovereign. So the scandal you heard about must be fake news.

Or Mirabel was right that you can do such and you were just uninformed about the situation.
Here is an article about someone buying an Irish lordship and how the process to get one works. Though while you may not necessarily get any privileges, it is in name. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdob...buying-and-selling-royal-titles/#fcc3dd86be50

And also a famous example of another way to get a title, through adoption. This was done for Zsa Zsa Gabor's last husband and he did it for others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frédéric_Prinz_von_Anhalt


British peerages cannot be bought. An Irish lordship is not a peerage. Actually, the Forbes article itself clarifies that.


The sale of British titles is prohibited by the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, 1925. However, misleading advertisements for lordships of manors sometimes appear in the media and on the internet. A manorial lordship is not an aristocratic title, but a semi-extinct form of landed property. Lordship in this sense is a synonym for ownership. According to John Martin Robinson, co-author of The Oxford Guide to Heraldry, "It cannot be stated on a passport, and does not entitle the owner to a coat of arms. Beware also of websites selling completely bogus British titles.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still say a title is nice to have.

Otherwise, why do so many people try to buy one?

(It was quite a scandal years ago, with members of the nobility selling off their subsidiary titles. I think one of the Queen's own cousins did this. Why, if people wouldn't want to have them?)

?? You can't Sell off subsidiary titles... the only titles that matter are those bestowed by the Crown....
 
Back
Top Bottom