The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4941  
Old 06-06-2020, 05:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Sophie answered a question when doing an interview for The Sunday Times and she herself mentions that their children can choose to use their HRH style we 18 if they wish. I imagine her understanding of the titles is better than us and she says that they do actually have the titles, they chose to not use them but they can if they want.


“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” The Countess of Wessex
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.”

"Can Sophie, Countess of Wessex, steady the royal ship?" by Christina Lamb, The Sunday Times, June 6, 2020.

That puts quite a different potential interpretation on the palace's "the George V convention would apply" statement, if it is possible to become HRH Prince without actually being known as HRH Prince.


Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.

It is interesting that the Countess believes that given the choice, her children would not choose to use their HRH titles, since most consider a royal title to be enormously valuable. I wonder if that is because a minor member of the British royal family assuming a royal title would expose themselves to criticism.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4942  
Old 06-06-2020, 05:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 964
Possibly. It's also to do with the extra scrutiny that comes with the style I think.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4943  
Old 06-06-2020, 05:51 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It is interesting that the Countess believes that given the choice, her children would not choose to use their HRH titles, since most consider a royal title to be enormously valuable. I wonder if that is because a minor member of the British royal family assuming a royal title would expose themselves to criticism.
I’d say it has a lot to do with the fact that they have never used them until now and have gone relatively unknown so far in their short lives. Sophie has likely seen how the press treat the York princesses and does not want that for her children whereas Peter and Zara have definitely gotten off a lot more lightly.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #4944  
Old 06-06-2020, 05:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I’d say it has a lot to do with the fact that they have never used them until now and have gone relatively unknown so far in their short lives. Sophie has likely seen how the press treat the York princesses and does not want that for her children whereas Peter and Zara have definitely gotten off a lot more lightly.
Yes I agree. That's what I meant by the extra scrutiny. Much better of without.
Reply With Quote
  #4945  
Old 06-06-2020, 06:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Possibly. It's also to do with the extra scrutiny that comes with the style I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I’d say it has a lot to do with the fact that they have never used them until now and have gone relatively unknown so far in their short lives. Sophie has likely seen how the press treat the York princesses and does not want that for her children whereas Peter and Zara have definitely gotten off a lot more lightly.
That make a great deal of sense.


On a related question - Can anyone explain why, compared with other European royal families, the British royal family allows its members so much freedom to make their own decisions in relation to titles?

In recent history, I can recall only rare instances in other European monarchies where a monarch allowed members of their family to make their own decision relating to titles, rather than applying the laws or conventions of the day.

In the UK it seems to be a different story. Over Queen Elizabeth II's reign alone, Princesses Alexandra and Anne and their husbands were allowed to accept or refuse titles for their husbands and children, Prince Edward was reportedly allowed to pick Earl of Wessex over Duke of Cambridge as his peerage title, the Wessex and Sussex couples were allowed to refuse the conventional titles for their children, and the Duchess of Cornwall was allowed to use one of her lower titles. There are more examples to be found from earlier reigns, e.g. Princess Margaret's husband being allowed to make the decision about a peerage or Princess Patricia of Connaught being allowed to resign her title.

Why is the British Royal Family so idiosyncratic in this way?
Reply With Quote
  #4946  
Old 06-06-2020, 11:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That make a great deal of sense.


On a related question - Can anyone explain why, compared with other European royal families, the British royal family allows its members so much freedom to make their own decisions in relation to titles?

In recent history, I can recall only rare instances in other European monarchies where a monarch allowed members of their family to make their own decision relating to titles, rather than applying the laws or conventions of the day.

In the UK it seems to be a different story. Over Queen Elizabeth II's reign alone, Princesses Alexandra and Anne and their husbands were allowed to accept or refuse titles for their husbands and children, Prince Edward was reportedly allowed to pick Earl of Wessex over Duke of Cambridge as his peerage title, the Wessex and Sussex couples were allowed to refuse the conventional titles for their children, and the Duchess of Cornwall was allowed to use one of her lower titles. There are more examples to be found from earlier reigns, e.g. Princess Margaret's husband being allowed to make the decision about a peerage or Princess Patricia of Connaught being allowed to resign her title.

Why is the British Royal Family so idiosyncratic in this way?

My guesses:

(1) As the "fountain of honour" the Queen can choose to respect a family member's wishes regarding titles or not. She obviously chooses the former (at least in terms of choosing not to use or accept a style or title. If Beatrice and Eugenie demanded that their children be HRHs, I believe the Queen would refuse).

(2) Peerage Titles: In the UK peerage titles confer not only a social status but also a legal status. I could be wrong but I don't believe that is true in other countries. For example, until recently British peers were entitled to a seat in the House of Lords which still wielded at least some political power.

Because of this, it is possible that Angus Ogilvy and Mark Phillips were sensitive to the fact that in an increasingly democratic society, many people believe that a peerage should be earned, based on the recipient's merits, and not simply awarded because he has married a member of the BRF. For example, Antony Armstrong-Jones was criticized for accepting an earldom months after his marriage to Princess Margaret.

Perhaps Edward was given an earldom rather than a dukedom because it was decided to create him Duke of Edinburgh once Charles ascends the throne (assuming Philip has already died). I suspect the decision may also have been a part of a "slimming down" effort due the RF's unpopularity at that time, in the wake of the failed Wales & York marriages and Diana's death. In a somewhat similar fashion, Infanta Cristina of Spain was deprived of her ducal title as a result of her involvement in the Noos scandal.

(3) HRH style: Again, I believe the reason it was announced that Edward and Sophie's children would not use the HRH might be due to a "slimming down" effort on the part of the BRF as well as the fact that Edward and Sophie did not intend to be working royals.

(4) I suspect the BRF is currently rethinking their approach to peerage titles as well as George V's LP regulating the HRH. For example, under the present rules/customs Prince Louis will be awarded a dukedom and (assuming his father becomes King) his children will be entitled to the HRH. But his older sister Charlotte, who precedes him in the line of succession, would not become a Duchess nor would her children inherit her HRH.

But because the Queen is (1) a traditionalist and (2) very conservative, rather than simply overhauling the system (as the Luxembourg royal family has done) she prefers to deal with the issue on a willy-nilly, case-by-case basis.
Reply With Quote
  #4947  
Old 06-07-2020, 03:25 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That make a great deal of sense.


On a related question - Can anyone explain why, compared with other European royal families, the British royal family allows its members so much freedom to make their own decisions in relation to titles?

In recent history, I can recall only rare instances in other European monarchies where a monarch allowed members of their family to make their own decision relating to titles, rather than applying the laws or conventions of the day.

In the UK it seems to be a different story. Over Queen Elizabeth II's reign alone, Princesses Alexandra and Anne and their husbands were allowed to accept or refuse titles for their husbands and children, Prince Edward was reportedly allowed to pick Earl of Wessex over Duke of Cambridge as his peerage title, the Wessex and Sussex couples were allowed to refuse the conventional titles for their children, and the Duchess of Cornwall was allowed to use one of her lower titles. There are more examples to be found from earlier reigns, e.g. Princess Margaret's husband being allowed to make the decision about a peerage or Princess Patricia of Connaught being allowed to resign her title.

Why is the British Royal Family so idiosyncratic in this way?
The BRF is a large family and they have had to adapt the system with time. The 1917 LPs provide a framework, by but the Queen has had ato adapt the styles and titles offered to reflect the situation.

Think of it as a few distinct phases:

> Early in the Queen's reign, she had to rely on aunts, uncles and then cousins, all HRHs, to help support her in the role and carry out engagements on her behalf.

> With time, the reliance on those relatives reduced as the Queen's own children were old enough to carry out engagements.

> What followed was a mixed bag, with all the drama's in the 1990s, and some real knocks to the monarchy.

> A period of calm for the monarchy for around 20 years in the new millenium, with a decidely more egalitarian society, with a lot less deference for hereditiary priveledge. Along the way, there has been genuine preference amongst the people of these fair isles for a smaller, more cost-effective monarchy.

With the monarch as the font of all honour, the Queen has not been shy to adapt the system to make it work in the circumstances, taking into account what is probably best for The Firm and the concerned individuals.
Reply With Quote
  #4948  
Old 06-07-2020, 03:43 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 80
I still think it's unfair that Sons can pass their titles to their children and their spouse can use the female version of their title but a daughter is not allowed the same thing.. They need to change that like yesterday..
Reply With Quote
  #4949  
Old 06-07-2020, 03:46 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I still think it's unfair that Sons can pass their titles to their children and their spouse can use the female version of their title but a daughter is not allowed the same thing.. They need to change that like yesterday..
When the King of Sweden gave titles to the children of his second daughter a third of the forums raged, one third cheered and one third remained indifferent. It's hard to please everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #4950  
Old 06-07-2020, 03:49 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
I don't see them changing to extend the HRHs but rather they will go the other way and restrict it further - to only the children of the heir apparent in each generation.

The passing of titles is up to the law makers and the ones most opposed to it are the hereditary peers themselves - including those with daughters who would inherit and no sons to pass it on. 20 years ago my great-uncle was such a peer - two daughters and no son but he voted five times against allowing daughters to inherit titles preferring for his title to become extinct rather than pass to his elder daughter.

It will keep coming up but until they actually think it is worth changing it won't. It is more likely to remove the hereditary status of peers than give daughters the right to inherit.
Reply With Quote
  #4951  
Old 06-07-2020, 04:41 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
When the King of Sweden gave titles to the children of his second daughter a third of the forums raged, one third cheered and one third remained indifferent. It's hard to please everyone.
Did they react that way because they didn't like the kings decision or was it because his second daughter doesn't have a positive reputation and they don't like the decision because they don't like her. what was the reaction when he gave titles to the children of his son.
Reply With Quote
  #4952  
Old 06-07-2020, 09:11 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I still think it's unfair that Sons can pass their titles to their children and their spouse can use the female version of their title but a daughter is not allowed the same thing.. They need to change that like yesterday..
Each of us can get very passionate in our view on how some of these systems ought to run, but these are decisions of government and not the royal family. If the people of these lands felt strongly, their MPs would no doubt bring about legislation to that effect in Parliament.
Reply With Quote
  #4953  
Old 06-07-2020, 09:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Each of us can get very passionate in our view on how some of these systems ought to run, but these are decisions of government and not the royal family.
That is not entirely true. Peerages do fall under Parliament's authority. But royal titles (HRH and Prince/ss) and courtesy titles fall under the authority of the monarch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
If the people of these lands felt strongly, their MPs would no doubt bring about legislation to that effect in Parliament.
The people of Britain apparently do not feel strongly either way, but 71% of them say that daughters should have the same rights as sons to inherit titles.

Much like in Japan, the resistance of the government to female inheritance is not grounded on the feelings of the people as a whole, but the feelings of a small but powerful community who do feel strongly against it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
When the King of Sweden gave titles to the children of his second daughter a third of the forums raged, one third cheered and one third remained indifferent. It's hard to please everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
Did they react that way because they didn't like the kings decision or was it because his second daughter doesn't have a positive reputation and they don't like the decision because they don't like her. what was the reaction when he gave titles to the children of his son.
Universal acceptance. There is not a single post criticizing the decision in the threads for the pregnancy and birth of Prince Carl Philip's first child.

A Boy for Carl Philip and Sofia - Alexander Erik Hubertus Bertil: April 19, 2016
Princess Sofia is Expecting - Due April 2016

However, I don't think this forum is representative of Swedish public opinion. According to a poll in February, 34% of Swedes believed Prince Carl Philip's children deserved princely titles, and 32% believed Princess Madeleine's children did.
Reply With Quote
  #4954  
Old 06-07-2020, 10:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The people of Britain apparently do not feel strongly either way, but 71% of them say that daughters should have the same rights as sons to inherit titles.
I'm surprised nearly a third of the pubic think sex discrimination is acceptable.

I wonder what the response would have been if they'd been asked about abolition of the peerage. The great majority do want the lords abolished or replaced with an elected chamber.
Reply With Quote
  #4955  
Old 06-07-2020, 11:09 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
Ok maybe I'm mis-remembering but in the past haven't women inherited their father's titles in the U.K.? Perhaps the female version of said title?

LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #4956  
Old 06-07-2020, 11:17 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

Why is the British Royal Family so idiosyncratic in this way?
A lot of people are pretty ambivalent about royalty. This is not to be confused with the monarchy as an institution. Most as a consequence are pretty indifferent as to what they choose to call themselves. A resulting seemingly haphazard approach to styles & titles is just a reflection of that general culture imo.
Reply With Quote
  #4957  
Old 06-07-2020, 11:23 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Ok maybe I'm mis-remembering but in the past haven't women inherited their father's titles in the U.K.? Perhaps the female version of said title?

LaRae
Yes there are some very ancient titles that were created by writ. There were some titles created with remainder to female heirs ie Marlborough because it was considered essential for the dukedom to survive in memory of John Churchill victor of Blenheim. A tiny number have been created specifically for females for very particular reasons (ie Cleveland) but even then overwhelmingly for their heirs male.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/e...f-the-peerage/
Reply With Quote
  #4958  
Old 06-07-2020, 11:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I'm surprised nearly a third of the pubic think sex discrimination is acceptable.

I wonder what the response would have been if they'd been asked about abolition of the peerage. The great majority do want the lords abolished or replaced with an elected chamber.
Peoople aren't that interested in the peerage since it doesn't have much to do with their lives. They may well think that "if it aint broke, ie male descent, why bother to fix it?" It doesn't matter to them if titles die out... It doesn't impinge on life in general. and they will probably accept that the monarchy and the peerage are old fashioned insittutions and will play by old fashioned rules. Again they may theoretically say that they'd like the HOL abolished but not care enough to do anything about it...
Reply With Quote
  #4959  
Old 06-07-2020, 11:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Peoople aren't that interested in the peerage since it doesn't have much to do with their lives. They may well think that "if it aint broke, ie male descent, why bother to fix it?" It doesn't matter to them if titles die out... It doesn't impinge on life in general. and they will probably accept that the monarchy and the peerage are old fashioned insittutions and will play by old fashioned rules. Again they may theoretically say that they'd like the HOL abolished but not care enough to do anything about it...
Yes that's an accurate reflection of opinion I'm sure. Although most did actively support the abolition of male primogeniture for the crown. I think lords abolition will come in time though. It's just a matter of the politicians getting their ducks in a row.
Reply With Quote
  #4960  
Old 06-07-2020, 11:45 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Brown, United States
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
A lot of people are pretty ambivalent about royalty. This is not to be confused with the monarchy as an institution. Most as a consequence are pretty indifferent as to what they choose to call themselves. A resulting seemingly haphazard approach to styles & titles is just a reflection of that general culture imo.
Agree completely. Most people I encounter find royal titles/styles very confusing and do not understand the nuances of royal designations like those of us at TRF.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 787 09-23-2020 03:21 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baptism british british royals chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up dutch royals emperor family tree gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history house of glucksburg interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kent kids movie king willem-alexander list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family nobel 2019 norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn prince daniel princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech startling new evidence stuart swedish queen swedish royal family taiwan thailand tracts unsubscribe videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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