Names and Godparents for Eugenie and Jack's First child

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

When do they disclose the name? I am careful to know the child's name.

They are not required to release the name until the baby is registered and they have 42 days to do that. If they do not have a name by then the baby still has to be registered and the 'name' left blank.

They will probably release a name in the next few days but it may take a week or more. With Charles it was a month and Edward took longer than the 42 days and Philip was fined for a late registration of birth (the Queen allegedly believed she was having another girl and only had girls names chosen and they took time to decide on a boy's name for Edward).

[MaiaMia_53]

Jack and Eugenie probably discussed both boys and girls names over the course of Eugenie's pregnancy. It's always better to wait and see the baby before settling on one of the favorite names under consideration for either gender.

They may have already decided, but are waiting till they are ready to announce. Or else, they're still deciding.

[RJC]

I hope they are thinking that with all the covid negative things happening in the world at the moment the birth of a child is a joyous occasion and imho worth sharing. I hope they can balance that with any privacy concerns. It's just a name and eventually everyone will know what it is. Please tell us!!

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Until he is 18 when he will become Mister.

Old fashioned but still used for 'formal' names. Peter Phillips was known as Master Peter Phillips until he turned 18.

If Archie were in the UK he may very well be called Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor rather than just Archie.

Does this mean he won't have a title?

[Curryong]

Who, baby Brooksbanks or Archie?

Baby Brooksbanks won't have a (courtesy) title as Jack isn't a Peer.

Archie has a courtesy title as the eldest son of a Duke but his parents don't want him to use it, presumably until adulthood when he can choose. He will be a Duke after Harry's death however, as he will inherit the Sussex dukedom.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Who, baby Brooksbanks or Archie?

Baby Brooksbanks won't have a (courtesy) title as Jack isn't a Peer.

Archie has a courtesy title as the eldest son of a Duke but his parents don't want him to use it, presumably until adulthood when he can choose. He will be a Duke after Harry's death however, as he will inherit the Sussex dukedom.

Baby Brooksbanks. I was already told Archie has a title. I thought Jack got a title when he married Eugenie. The "master" part confuses me with the babies. Was George announced as "master" George? I can't remember.

[Curryong]

Jack has no title and was not likely to get one on marriage. George was never a 'master' because he was born a Prince. Master is just a form of address in Britain and a very formal and rather oldfashioned one.

[Iluvbertie]

Jack, like the husband of Princess Alexandra wasn't given a title on his marriage to Eugenie. Edoardo also wasn't given a title on marriage to Beatrice.

Alexandra is a better precedent for the York girls as, like them, she is a grand daughter of a monarch and a Princess, unlike Anne and Margaret (and Mary) who were all the daughters of a monarch.

Master Brooksbank isn't entitled to any title as his father doesn't have a title and Eugenie, being a girl, can't pass on a title - only males can pass on HRH's and most other titles e.g. as girls neither Beatrice nor Eugenie can inherit their father's titles while Archie and James are both the heirs to their father's titles because they are boys.

When someone has a title they have the option to either use it or not.

Those without titles are referred to as Mr or Miss or Ms or Mrs.

Mr = Master for boys and Mister for adult males
Miss = an unmarried woman - girl or adult woman
Ms = any woman regardless of marital status
Mrs = a married woman

Archie is entitled to use the courtesy title of Earl Dumbarton - Harry's second title as Archie is the heir apparent to the Dukedom of Sussex. That is why James uses Viscount Severn - because he is the heir apparent to the Earldom of Wessex. The substantive titles of Earl Dumbarton and Viscount Severn are held by Harry and Edward respectively but their sons can use them as a courtesy. Harry and Meghan decided that Archie wouldn't use that courtesy title.

Archie is also entitled to be Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor as a male line great-grandchild of a monarch in the same way that Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are able to use Lord and Lady - they are male line great-grandchildren of George V via their father Prince Michael of Kent and are able, under the 1917 Letters Patent, to style themselves as the younger children of a Duke. The Duke of Kent's younger children are Lady Helen and Lord Nicholas while his eldest uses the courtesy title Earl of St Andrews.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

Does this mean he won't have a title?

No, he won't get a title or honorific prefix unless his father is later made a peer, in which case he would be styled as a peer's son (for example, if Jack became an earl, his son would probably be a courtesy viscount). For practical reasons, it is unlikely, however, that Jack will ever get a peerage. But, who knows, Jack may one day get a baronetcy for example and his firstborn son might inherit it if he outlives his father.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

I thought Jack got a title when he married Eugenie.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Master Brooksbank isn't entitled to any title as his father doesn't have a title and Eugenie, being a girl, can't pass on a title - only males can pass on HRH's and most other titles e.g. as girls neither Beatrice nor Eugenie can inherit their father's titles while Archie and James are both the heirs to their father's titles because they are boys.

Iluvbertie's excellent explanation applies to Jack as well. Because Eugenie is a woman, she cannot pass on her title to her spouse under the laws which are in place. Had their genders been reversed, Miss Jacqueline Brooksbank would have automatically gotten the title HRH Princess upon marriage to HRH Prince Eugene of York, and she would have been referred to as HRH Princess Eugene of York.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

No, he won't get a title or honorific prefix unless his father is later made a peer, in which case he would be styled as a peer's son (for example, if Jack became an earl, his son would probably be a courtesy viscount). For practical reasons, it is unlikely, however, that Jack will ever get a peerage. But, who knows, Jack may one day get a baronetcy for example and his firstborn son might inherit it if he outlives his father.

Aren't there a substantial number of males ahead of Jack in the line of succession to the Brooksbank baronetcy?

Barring a series of unexpected deaths in the Brooksbank family, and given the current trends in Britain and Europe, I think the least unlikely opportunity for the child to get a title would be some sort of reform, during Baby Brooksbank's lifetime, to equalize the titles of the children/spouses of princesses and the children/spouses of princes, which in my opinion is likelier than a reversion to giving peerages to consorts of junior members of the British royal family. In that scenario, the child would become for example Lord Edward Brooksbank, equivalent to Lord Frederick Windsor.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Iluvbertie's excellent explanation applies to Jack as well. Because Eugenie is a woman, she cannot pass on her title to her spou

Barring a series of unexpected deaths in the Brooksbank family, and given the current trends in Britain and Europe, I think the least unlikely opportunity for the child to get a title would be some sort of reform, during Baby Brooksbank's lifetime, to equalize the titles of the children/spouses of princesses and the children/spouses of princes, which in my opinion is likelier than a reversion to giving peerages to consorts of junior members of the British royal family. In that scenario, the child would become for example Lord Edward Brooksbank, equivalent to Lord Frederick Windsor.

Not going to happen. hereditary titles are no longer given in the UK except for the senior male royals who are given a title on marriage.. like William and Harry...

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Denville

Not going to happen. hereditary titles are no longer given in the UK except for the senior male royals who are given a title on marriage.. like William and Harry...

Which one is not going to happen? I mentioned three scenarios in my post, only one of which would involve giving a hereditary title.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Denville

Not going to happen. hereditary titles are no longer given in the UK except for the senior male royals who are given a title on marriage.. like William and Harry...

Correct. The last three hereditary non-royal peerages were created in 1984, when Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton and Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden.

William Whitelaw was created 1st Viscount Whitelaw but had no heir (his daughter married the 3rd Earl of Swinton).

The third gentleman was George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy. There was no heir either to this Viscountcy.

Most likely the Queen was aware of this circumstance with the last two gentlemen when the three last hereditary peers of her Reign (or of ever?) were created.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Barring a series of unexpected deaths in the Brooksbank family, and given the current trends in Britain and Europe, I think the least unlikely opportunity for the child to get a title would be some sort of reform, during Baby Brooksbank's lifetime, to equalize the titles of the children/spouses of princesses and the children/spouses of princes, which in my opinion is likelier than a reversion to giving peerages to consorts of junior members of the British royal family. In that scenario, the child would become for example Lord Edward Brooksbank, equivalent to Lord Frederick Windsor.

I agree that the least unlikely (but still very unlikely) situation is for royal titles to be passed on as they are now under the 1917 patents but with equal gender so that just as Prince Michael of Kent (a second son and grandson of a King) is able to style his son and daughter Lord and Lady, so would Eugenie. That would also mean Beatrice would inherit the Duchess of York title.

That is very unlikely to happen. If there's still a monarchy but the time it affects Charlotte's potential future children it might be possible ala Madeleine of Sweden but it probably wouldn't be retroactive for previously born children.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Heavs

That is very unlikely to happen. If there's still a monarchy but the time it affects Charlotte's potential future children it might be possible ala Madeleine of Sweden but it probably wouldn't be retroactive for previously born children.

In regards to royal (HRH Princess) titles I agree with you, but if a reform of nonroyal courtesy titles were to happen in the future, I think it is plausible that it would apply to children born previously (though probably only from the moment the reform comes into effect, rather than retroactively). That is what happened when the courtesy titles of daughters and younger sons of peers (Lady, Lord, and the Honourable) were expanded to children who were legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage, for example.

It is very unlikely to happen within the near future, but as Master Brooksbank is likely to live into the 22nd century I don't think it is hugely unlikely to happen during his lifetime.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

.
Aren't there a substantial number of males ahead of Jack in the line of succession to the Brooksbank baronetcy?

I wasn't thinking about succession to the existing Brooksbank baronetcy, but rather on the possibility of a new baronetcy created specifically for Jack as the baronetcy that was created for example for Margaret Thatcher's husband Denis and is now held by her son Mark.


Margaret Thatcher herself was allegedly offered an earldom, but declined it. Ultimately she became a life peeress like many retired British politicians.

[ladongas]

Bertie mentioned Princess Alexandra’s husband, Angus Ogilvy. Apparently he was offered an earldom, but declined it because he “couldn’t afford the lifestyle of an earl”. I remember reading this many years ago, and I was always a bit amused by it. Earls aren’t allowed to be modest and low key?

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Aren't there a substantial number of males ahead of Jack in the line of succession to the Brooksbank baronetcy?

Barring a series of unexpected deaths in the Brooksbank family, and given the current trends in Britain and Europe, I think the least unlikely opportunity for the child to get a title would be some sort of reform, during Baby Brooksbank's lifetime, to equalize the titles of the children/spouses of princesses and the children/spouses of princes, which in my opinion is likelier than a reversion to giving peerages to consorts of junior members of the British royal family. In that scenario, the child would become for example Lord Edward Brooksbank, equivalent to Lord Frederick Windsor.

There are 5 people ahead of him.

The current Baronet has one son Florian. Then the title passes to the line of Stamp Brooksbank, but George is the younger son. Jack's Uncle David and his two sons are 2-4 in line, and then George is 5th.


I think there will be a reform. Either that only the heir to the throne receives a title on marriage, or all children do. But it will only apply to the children of William and then on. So either Charlotte will be treated equally to her brothers and be given a title on marriage of her own, or Louis will not be given one. But this will not effect the York girls.


I think rightfully the days of a woman's husband being given a peerage are over. There is no reason the peerage should not be given to the daughters instead of their husbands.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by ladongas

Bertie mentioned Princess Alexandra’s husband, Angus Ogilvy. Apparently he was offered an earldom, but declined it because he “couldn’t afford the lifestyle of an earl”. I remember reading this many years ago, and I was always a bit amused by it. Earls aren’t allowed to be modest and low key?

Many of them are quite cash poor and/or have sold their ancestral homes. Many do live more modestly and low key than rich celebrities for example.

Angus Ogilvy was the second son of an Earl and his mother was the daughter of an Earl (interestingly maternally from the Earls of Leicester who Jack Brooksbank is also descended from via his grandmother). So rather than not being able to afford an Earldom be probably just didn't want one.

[An Ard Ri]

A wild guess but possible Nicholas Brooksbank in honour of Jack's mother?