The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4961  
Old 06-07-2020, 11:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.
I don't think any politicians are going to bother with it at all. There are a lot more issues of concern now than something that doesn't affect the vast majority of the population.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4962  
Old 06-07-2020, 12:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I don't think any politicians are going to bother with it at all. There are a lot more issues of concern now than something that doesn't affect the vast majority of the population.
I think it's an inevitability but yes I agree it's certainly not a priority.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4963  
Old 06-07-2020, 12:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think it's an inevitability but yes I agree it's certainly not a priority.
Perhaps, or perhaps Britain will become a Republic, and then the HOL will be replaced by an elected second chamber or no chamber at all....Or things will just bumble on as they are for another 100 years because there are other things on politicans' minds...
Reply With Quote
  #4964  
Old 06-07-2020, 12:09 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 48
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
The only one I can remember is Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife, who inherited the title from his father. She's the eldest daugther of Louise, Princess Royal, which made her Edward VII's granddaughter and Victoria's great-granddaughter.

When it became apparent that the Fifes would not have a son, on 24 April 1900 Queen Victoria signed letters patent creating a second Dukedom of Fife, along with the Earldom of Macduff in the Peerage of the United Kingdom with a special remainder: in default of a male heir, these peerages would pass to the daughters of the 1st Duke and then to their male descendants.
She only have one son who predeceased her and her title went to her nephew (only son of Alexandra's sister).
Reply With Quote
  #4965  
Old 06-07-2020, 12:15 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Perhaps, or perhaps Britain will become a Republic, and then the HOL will be replaced by an elected second chamber or no chamber at all....Or things will just bumble on as they are for another 100 years because there are other things on politicans' minds...
bumble on is just about right I think, we're very good at that as a country.

I don't know how accurate this is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ated_for_women

Quite a few were created for life.
Reply With Quote
  #4966  
Old 06-07-2020, 12:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
The only one I can remember is Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife, who inherited the title from his father. She's the eldest daugther of Louise, Princess Royal, which made her Edward VII's granddaughter and Victoria's great-granddaughter.

When it became apparent that the Fifes would not have a son, on 24 April 1900 Queen Victoria signed letters patent creating a second Dukedom of Fife, along with the Earldom of Macduff in the Peerage of the United Kingdom with a special remainder: in default of a male heir, these peerages would pass to the daughters of the 1st Duke and then to their male descendants.
She only have one son who predeceased her and her title went to her nephew (eldest son of Alexandra's sister).
There are a few titles that allow female succession, it was allowed in the creation of the peerage... Uusually where someone had been ennobled but was not likely to have a legitmate son
Reply With Quote
  #4967  
Old 06-07-2020, 12:47 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
There are a few titles that allow female succession, it was allowed in the creation of the peerage... Uusually where someone had been ennobled but was not likely to have a legitmate son
Yes I remember reading a list of women who inherit peerage somewhere. The case of dukedom of Fife is quite recent so that's the only one I can recall.

There's a good docu in youtube about British Dukes, can't remember its title but basically a compilation of different tales of several Dukes (non royal). There's one where a nice lady recounting the end of her father's peerage because she can't inherit it, but there's also one who went as far as finding very far distant cousin to make sure that the dukedom will lives on.
Reply With Quote
  #4968  
Old 06-07-2020, 12:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Yes I remember reading a list of women who inherit peerage somewhere. The case of dukedom of Fife is quite recent so that's the only one I can recall.

There's a good docu in youtube about British Dukes, can't remember its title but basically a compilation of different tales of several Dukes (non royal). There's one where a nice lady recounting the end of her father's peerage because she can't inherit it, but there's also one who went as far as finding very far distant cousin to make sure that the dukedom will lives on.
a recenet one is lord Mountbatten. Since he had 2 daugthers and no son his title went to his eldest daughter.
Reply With Quote
  #4969  
Old 06-07-2020, 01:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Yes I remember reading a list of women who inherit peerage somewhere. The case of dukedom of Fife is quite recent so that's the only one I can recall.

There's a good docu in youtube about British Dukes, can't remember its title but basically a compilation of different tales of several Dukes (non royal). There's one where a nice lady recounting the end of her father's peerage because she can't inherit it, but there's also one who went as far as finding very far distant cousin to make sure that the dukedom will lives on.
The first was Leeds & the second Atholl.



The outstanding portrait of the 9th Duke of Marlborough & family at 4.15 is by the celebrated American John Singer Sargent & is placed directly opposite the equally superb portrait of the 4th duke & family by Reynolds. The wife of the 9th duke was born Consuelo Vanderbilt.
Reply With Quote
  #4970  
Old 06-08-2020, 08:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
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.
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.


Gawin, muriel, and Durham, thank you for the insightful replies. I have some followup questions to ask (which anyone is welcome to answer).

I notice two principal considerations in the suggested explanations.


(1) Adapting titles to changes in society: This consideration is not special to Britain; the majority of the other monarchies of Europe have also adapted titles to suit changing demands. But the other monarchies have generally used a more standardized approach.

The monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg issued decrees, and the government of the Netherlands passed a law, laying out the altered rules.

The monarchs of Sweden and Norway adapted titles case-by-case (like Queen Elizabeth II), but their decisions were based on impersonal criteria. For example, whenever the HRH title was deprived or withheld from certain members of the Swedish or Norwegian royal families, announcements were issued explaining that HRH was limited to family members who would hold an official public role.

But British monarchs do not explain their "adaptations" (if that is what they are) as alterations to the general rules (as in Belgium or Spain) or as carefully considered approaches to adapting the monarchy (as in Norway or Sweden). Rather, they explain them as the personal "wish" or "choice" of the individual family member. Why?


(2) Acceptance from the queen and the public when royal family members wish to break with tradition regarding their titles: If this is the chief reason for the British royal family's haphazard treatment of titles, then why is Britain an outlier amongst the European royal families?

Are the British queen and the British public more accepting of case-by-case breaks with tradition than the rest of Western Europe? Are members of the British royal family more inclined to want to be called by a non-traditional title or no title, compared to members of the other European royal families? And why?
Reply With Quote
  #4971  
Old 06-08-2020, 11:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,274
This is a bit off-topic, but north of the border in Scotland females have always been able to inherit titles if there are no sons to inherit. And the title doesn't necessarily have to go to the eldest daughter either.

https://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles08.html
Reply With Quote
  #4972  
Old 06-09-2020, 02:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
This is a bit off-topic, but north of the border in Scotland females have always been able to inherit titles if there are no sons to inherit. And the title doesn't necessarily have to go to the eldest daughter either.

https://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles08.html
This is very interesting. Thank you.

Just in case anyone is unsure lots of "Scottish" titles created after the Act of Union in the peerage of Great Britain (& subsequently the UK) will overwhelmingly have been created to the heirs male rather than follow the old established practise of the Kingdom of Scotland up until 1707 (& the very ancient English baronies).
Reply With Quote
  #4973  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:08 PM
carlota's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 8,211
Will Kate be queen when William is King?

i have not seen any thread discussing this, but how will Kate be addressed when William is King?

precedent indicates she'll be queen, as although males tend to be addressed as prince (consort), wives of kings were queens:

reign vs consort title:

Queen Elizabeth: Prince
Queen Victoria: Prince Consort
George VI: Queen
George V: Queen
Edward VII: Queen
__________________
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization.
https://www.humanesociety.org
Reply With Quote
  #4974  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:14 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 446
I believe that whenever a prince marries a woman she becomes queen when he becomes king. The reason the women's husbands only become prince is they can't have a higher title than she does.
Reply With Quote
  #4975  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:14 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: The 6ix, Canada
Posts: 151
Possibly you're skipping a bit. No one knows if Camilla will be Queen when Charles is King.

William and Catherine having had a much more conventional union, the automatic "Queen Consort" precedent would seem to apply.
Reply With Quote
  #4976  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:18 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 4,290
I think Kate will be queen when William becomes King. That's what makes the most sense, in my opinion.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #4977  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
I believe that whenever a prince marries a woman she becomes queen when he becomes king. The reason the women's husbands only become prince is they can't have a higher title than she does.
Why do you believe 'king' to be a higher title than 'queen'?
Reply With Quote
  #4978  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:33 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Why do you believe 'king' to be a higher title than 'queen'?
Because that is what it traditionally is. A King outranks a Queen. Thus, the husband of a Queen Regnant cannot be King because he would outrank her.

The BRF is the most traditional of the European Royal Families and I doubt that Kate will be anything other than HM The Queen when William is King (of course this assumes that they are still married and she is still with us). Same goes for Camilla. She will legally by HM The Queen if/when Charles becomes King. It would take parliamentary action for her to be styled anything else and Parliament has other things to worry about.
Reply With Quote
  #4979  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Because that is what it traditionally is. A King outranks a Queen. Thus, the husband of a Queen Regnant cannot be King because he would outrank her.
Can you provide an instance when a royal holding the title of King outranked a royal holding the title of Queen on the basis of their titles?
Reply With Quote
  #4980  
Old 06-19-2020, 12:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 527
In orders of precedence King is always a higher title than Queen inside a particular Royal Court/House/family, that's just the way it works. That's why Queen Regnant's spouse is always made a Prince, unless he is a King in his own right see Mary 1 and Phillip II of Spain.

There has never been anything like a "King Consort" in the UK except perhaps "the Crown Matrimonial" in Scotland that allowed spouses to become co-rulers, which caused a lot of problems for Mary, Queen of Scots. One of the reasons Elizabeth I didn't want to get married was because a husband might be a King or else demand to become one and she would loose her power to him.

That's why there was such controversy over Prince Henrik of Denmark's comments in later life about how he should have been King - because it would put him above his wife and many felt like he was saying he should be the one reigning or at least co-reigning.

He also tried to use the argument that his daughter in law was going to be a Queen, so why shouldn't he be King. This has been brought up as an interesting point among the new equal primogeniture laws in Europe. Should Mary, Mette-Marit, Kate et al become Princess Consorts or should Daniel and all the future husbands become King Consorts and the laws/precedence changed there? The reason it is ok for a consort to become "Queen" is that historically is has always been automatically lower than a King in his own Kingdom. Precedence when aboard is always trickier and these days is often based on date crowned.

"Here comes the Queen and the King consort" doesn't really roll off the tongue like "here comes the King and Queen" though.

So assuming William is crowned King Kate will be Queen Consort.

There has been talk about Camilla using "Princess Consort" as a title because of her unpopularity and as a perpetual mark against her because of Diana. This has no historical or constitutional basis in the UK. If she chooses (or is forced by public opinion) to use "Princess Consort" then she would probably still be legally Queen Consort like she is still legally Princess of Wales.
__________________

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 784 06-07-2020 11:40 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 abdication althorp american history anastasia bangladesh belgian royal family bridal gown chittagong cht clarence house countess of snowdon danish history diana princess of wales dna dutch dutch history dutch royal family edo facts family tree fantasy movie genealogy habsburg henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha imperial household intro jewelry jumma languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mail maxima mbs netherlands northern ireland norway norway history palaces palestine prince daniel princely family of monaco queen paola random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress settings shakespeare snowdon spanish royal swedish history swedish royal family tips tracts united kingdom visit from sweden wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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