Names and Godparents for Eugenie and Jack's First child


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Tatiana Maria said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Denville said:
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...
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Tatiana Maria said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Heavs said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Tatiana Maria said:
.
Aren't there a substantial number of males ahead of Jack in the line of succession to the Brooksbank baronetcy?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Tatiana Maria said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ladongas said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
A wild guess but possible Nicholas Brooksbank in honour of Jack's mother?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Aren't there a substantial number of males ahead of Jack in the line of succession to the Brooksbank baronetcy?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider 'substantial'. Jack is probably 6th, 7th or 8th in line (so higher up than Eugenie is to the throne :flowers: but I think we can agree it is highly unlikely that she will be queen one day) - however, given that the baronetcy is only passed on in male-line, I would say the chance that Jack will be a baronet is small but the chance that baby Brooksbank will be the baronet is a lot higher - nobody needs to die for that to happen. There is no confirmation that either of Jack's cousins higher up in line have children. So, baby Brooksbank might be the highest up in his generation!

If these three cousins don't have children or only daughters, baby Brooksbank would be the baronet of his generation. Given that Jack's first cousins are already in their early forties and his second cousin, the heir-apparent, is 38 and according to The Peerage neither of them have children; it isn't that unlikely to happen (note: of course it could be that one or more of them do have sons but no information is available to confirm that).

See line of succession to the Baronetcy (based on information available on wikipedia & The Peerage - but could be incomplete) included in the overview below:

Male line descendants of the 1st baronet - N.B. numbers refer to real spot in family order (colors indicate generation):
Sir Edward Clitherow Brooksbank, 1st Bt (1858-1943)
1. Stamp Brooksbank (1887-1915; KIA)
2. Edward York Brooksbank (1888-1935)
2.2. Edward William Brooksbank, 2nd Bt. (1915 - 1983)
2.2.1. Sir Edward Nicholas Brooksbank, 3rd Bt (b. 1944)
2.2.1.1. Florian Thomas Charles Brooksbrank (b. 1982) - HEIR APPARENT (LoS 1)*
2.3. Benjamin John Brooksbank (b. 27 Sep 1918) (LoS 2; if still alive at age 102)
2.4. Stamp Godfrey Brooksbank (1922 - 2017)
2.4.1. David William Brooksbank (b. 1946) (LoS 3)
2.4.1.1. Scott Brooksbank (b. 1976) (LoS 4)**
2.4.1.2. Charles Brooksbank (b. 1979) (LoS 5)
2.4.2. George Edward Hugh Brooksbank (b. 1949) (LoS 6)
2.4.2.1. Jack Brooksbank (b. 1986; son of 5) (LoS 7)
2.4.2.1.1. Baby Brooksbank (b. 2021; son of 6) (LoS 8)
2.4.2.2. Thomas Brooksbank (b. 1988; son of 5) (LoS 9)
2.4.2.2.1. Wilfred Brooksbank (b. 2020; son of 8) (LoS 10)
4. Hugh Godfrey Brooksbank (1893-1914)

* The heir apparent got engaged over 6 years ago, so it's quite likely that he is married an might have children... However, I didn't find any information on a wedding nor children.
** He might have a son 'William Emile Brooksbank (b. 2009)'; if the Scott in this birth announcement is Jack's cousin - in that case baby Brooksbank would be the second of his generation... but about 12 years younger, so he still might be a future baronet depending on whether this William Emile would have any sons...
 
Last edited:
Somebody said:
Depends on what you consider 'substantial'. Jack is probably 6th, 7th or 8th in line (so higher up than Eugenie is to the throne :flowers: but I think we can agree it is highly unlikely that she will be queen one day) - however, given that the baronetcy is only passed on in male-line, I would say the chance that Jack will be a baronet is small but the chance that baby Brooksbank will be the baronet is a lot higher - nobody needs to die for that to happen. There is no confirmation that either of Jack's cousins higher up in line have children. So, baby Brooksbank might be the highest up in his generation!

If these three cousins don't have children or only daughters, baby Brooksbank would be the baronet of his generation. Given that Jack's first cousins are already in their early forties and his second cousin, the heir-apparent, is 38 and according to The Peerage neither of them have children; it isn't that unlikely to happen (note: of course it could be that one or more of them do have sons but no information is available to confirm that).

See line of succession to the Baronetcy (based on information available on wikipedia & The Peerage - but could be incomplete) included in the overview below:

Male line descendants of the 1st baronet - N.B. numbers refer to real spot in family order (colors indicate generation):
Sir Edward Clitherow Brooksbank, 1st Bt (1858-1943)
1. Stamp Brooksbank (1887-1915; KIA)
2. Edward York Brooksbank (1888-1935)
2.2. Edward William Brooksbank, 2nd Bt. (1915 - 1983)
2.2.1. Sir Edward Nicholas Brooksbank, 3rd Bt (b. 1944)
2.2.1.1. Florian Thomas Charles Brooksbrank (b. 1982) - HEIR APPARENT (LoS 1)*
2.3. Benjamin John Brooksbank (b. 27 Sep 1918) (LoS 2; if still alive at age 102)
2.4. Stamp Godfrey Brooksbank (1922 - 2017)
2.4.1. David William Brooksbank (b. 1946) (LoS 3)
2.4.1.1. Scott Brooksbank (b. 1976) (LoS 4)**
2.4.1.2. Charles Brooksbank (b. 1979) (LoS 5)
2.4.2. George Edward Hugh Brooksbank (b. 1949) (LoS 6)
2.4.2.1. Jack Brooksbank (b. 1986; son of 5) (LoS 7)
2.4.2.1.1. Baby Brooksbank (b. 2021; son of 6) (LoS 8)
2.4.2.2. Thomas Brooksbank (b. 1988; son of 5) (LoS 9)
2.4.2.2.1. Wilfred Brooksbank (b. 2020; son of 8) (LoS 10)
4. Hugh Godfrey Brooksbank (1893-1914)

* The heir apparent got engaged over 6 years ago, so it's quite likely that he is married an might have children... However, I didn't find any information on a wedding nor children.
** He might have a son 'William Emile Brooksbank (b. 2009)'; if the Scott in this birth announcement is Jack's cousin - in that case baby Brooksbank would be the second of his generation... but about 12 years younger, so he still might be a future baronet depending on whether this William Emile would have any sons...
Click to expand...

Update: I found a funeral notice from Tiffany-Rose's father; and it looks like Tom and her had 2 sons by August 2019: Oliver & Nicholas

Funeral Notices – Monday 26th August – What's On Invers
https://whatsoninvers.nz/funeral-notices-monday-26th-august
8/26/2019 · Loved Father, Grandfather & Great Grandfather of Judith(Jude)Lawson (Clyde), Christian Rebecca & Louis Lawson (Dorking UK) Sophia Anthony Max & Leo Franklin(Villard St Pancrace France), Tiffany-Rose Tom Oliver& Nicholas Brooksbank (Singapore), Annabelle Linton Breigh Finn Liam & Charlotte Stanley (Invercargill).
Click to expand...

So, if I include both of them and the William previously found, it would look like this:

Male line descendants of the 1st baronet - N.B. numbers refer to real spot in family order (colors indicate generation):
Sir Edward Clitherow Brooksbank, 1st Bt (1858-1943)
1. Stamp Brooksbank (1887-1915; KIA)
2. Edward York Brooksbank (1888-1935)
2.2. Edward William Brooksbank, 2nd Bt. (1915 - 1983)
2.2.1. Sir Edward Nicholas Brooksbank, 3rd Bt (b. 1944)
2.2.1.1. Florian Thomas Charles Brooksbrank (b. 1982) - HEIR APPARENT (LoS 1)*
2.2.1.1.1. Oliver Brooksbank (LoS 2)
2.2.1.1.2. Nicholas Brooksbank (LoS 3)
2.3. Benjamin John Brooksbank (b. 27 Sep 1918) (LoS 4; if still alive at age 102)
2.4. Stamp Godfrey Brooksbank (1922 - 2017)
2.4.1. David William Brooksbank (b. 1946) (LoS 5)
2.4.1.1. Scott Brooksbank (b. 1976) (LoS 6)**
2.4.1.1.1. William Emile Brooksbank (2009) (LoS 7)
2.4.1.2. Charles Brooksbank (b. 1979) (LoS 8)
2.4.2. George Edward Hugh Brooksbank (b. 1949) (LoS 9)
2.4.2.1. Jack Brooksbank (b. 1986; son of 5) (LoS 10)
2.4.2.1.1. Baby Brooksbank (b. 2021; son of 6) (LoS 11)
2.4.2.2. Thomas Brooksbank (b. 1988; son of 12) (LoS 12)
2.4.2.2.1. Wilfred Brooksbank (b. 2020; son of 8) (LoS 13)
4. Hugh Godfrey Brooksbank (1893-1914)

So, Baby Brooksbank might both be 11th in the line of succession to the Baronetcy as well as to the throne :D
 
The little one has just turned a week and we still don't know his name.
 
How long do the parents have until they must register his name?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Iluvbertie's answer was accurate. https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...d-jacks-first-child-47933-11.html#post2370878
Click to expand...

42 days is really excessive in my view; but of course that is colored by the 3 workdays that is allowed in the Netherlands.

So, given that the birth took place on Monday morning, the latest Jack would have been allowed to register the birth would be Thursday (day of birth itself doesn't count).

I read that in Belgium it's 15 days and in Denmark 14 days (but allows 6 months for deciding on a surname); in Norway the limit is one month, while Sweden allows 3 months for registration of the name. So, rather different practices...
 
Last edited:
Here in HK it's 42 days too, but I realize it probably was copied from the British law during colonial period and has been used ever since.

It has been only 7 days yet seems a long wait. Hopefully we won't have to wait for 42 days. ?
 
Not that I think they'll name it anything really odd but I know in some countries the government won't let you name them certain things. Is that true in England?
 
QueenMathilde said:
Not that I think they'll name it anything really odd but I know in some countries the government won't let you name them certain things. Is that true in England?
Click to expand...


QueenMathilde-This is what I could find and I hope it answers your question. While it applies to change of name on a legal document, I expect that it is also used for registering births.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/change-of-name-guidance/use-and-change-of-names


  • numbers or symbols
  • punctuation marks other than hyphens or apostrophes
  • too many characters in forenames/surname to fit onto the face of the document
  • language which may cause outrage or offence or are deliberately or inadvertently likely to offend sectors of the community
  • wording that promotes criminal activities
  • a trademarked name, or is subject to copyright, except where the applicant produces written permission from the owner
Click to expand...
Here's an article on the topic.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6939112.stm


A New Zealand couple blocked from naming their baby 4Real have instead settled on Superman. So what are the rules on naming children in the UK?

Apple, Brooklyn, Zowie, Fifi Trixibelle... celebrity offspring have often ended up with more colourful entries on their birth certificates than us mere mortals.

But British parents hoping to bestow elaborate, unusual or just plain bizarre names to their children may find it easier than those in other countries.

The UK's rules on baby names are among the most liberal in the world. A spokesman for the General Register Office says there are no restrictions on parents - except for exceptional cases, such as a name which could be deemed offensive, when an official could refuse to register it. He refused to divulge if there had been any such cases.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The baby has to be registered by or on day 42. However it is possible to register a baby without a name - the law requires the birth to be registered, not a name to be registered.

If the baby isn't registered at that time there is a fine - which Philip had to pay when he registered Prince Edward as the Queen and Philip took more than 42 days to come up with an agreed name.
 
Grandma Sarah's happiness about the baby boy should have spilled over, maybe should have given a little hint. She is silent, so we wait.
 
The little boy is only a week old. We will find out his name in due course. I doubt we will have to wait 42 days!

I honestly believe they already have the name, but in light of Prince Harry's and Meghan's announcement about their pregnancy, they are waiting until that hype is over. Eugenie and Harry seem very close and probably have spoken about the respective announcements.
 
Biri said:
The little one has just turned a week and we still don't know his name.
Click to expand...
I think Grandpa Andrew might have a special birthday wish on Friday which may include the baby's name.
 
I think we will know the Baby's name after registration in 42 days. Eugenie and Jack probably need more time to bond with their baby.
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Jack and Princess Eugenie's son will have an unusual middle name.
http://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/princess-eugenies-baby-unusual-middle-120300017.html
Click to expand...

Leave it to Yahoo to use attention grabbing fake headlines :lol:

While they may actually stumble on the truth, its a MAY have the middle name. Yes its Jack's middle name and his nephew's. Stands to be seen if he uses it.


Hmm. I kind of like Stamp it's different. Just so long as it's a middle name
Click to expand...

Used to be common enough, tradition, to use a woman's maiden name as a middle name for a son. See it both in the UK and parts of the US (a number of US presidents (James Knox Polk, Knox for his mother's family is just the start).

Original Stamp was heir to his maternal grandfather's fortune so they gave him his last name as a first name. Jack's grandfather also had it as a first name.
 
Countessmeout said:
Leave it to Yahoo to use attention grabbing fake headlines :lol:

While they may actually stumble on the truth, its a MAY have the middle name. Yes its Jack's middle name and his nephew's. Stands to be seen if he uses it.




Used to be common enough, tradition, to use a woman's maiden name as a middle name for a son. See it both in the UK and parts of the US (a number of US presidents (James Knox Polk, Knox for his mother's family is just the start).

Original Stamp was heir to his maternal grandfather's fortune so they gave him his last name as a first name. Jack's grandfather also had it as a first name.
Click to expand...

True. Also, Robert Hunter Biden (Hunter for his mother's maiden name).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Princess Eugenie, Jack Brooksbank and Family, Current Events 2: Sep 2022-
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
15K
Snowangel
Snowangel
E
It's A Boy for Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank: February 9, 2021
5 6 7
Replies
202
Views
21K
Duchess_Watcher
Duchess_Watcher
JessRulz
  • Locked
Princess Eugenie, Jack Brooksbank and Family, Current Events 1: Oct 2018 - Sep 2022
21 22 23
Replies
688
Views
137K
Marengo
Marengo
principessa
  • Locked
Potential Names and Godparents for Madeleine and Chris's First Child
4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
31K
marine2109
marine2109
EliseLadyofLancaster
  • Locked
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022
30 31 32
Replies
943
Views
135K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom