The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5021  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:11 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Trying to work out the scenarios. First the easier one with Charlotte's husband being granted an earldom and no dukedom for Charlotte (she'll be granted the title of Princess Royal at some point):

In that case we could have in let's say 40 years time (during William's reign):
HRH The prince of Wales (George)
HRH The princess of Wales (George's wife)
TRH The princes/princesses of Wales (George's children)

HRH The princess royal (also: countess of Reading) (Charlotte)
The earl of Reading (Charlotte's husband; previously known as mr Strudwick)
Viscount Denbigh (Charlotte's eldest son; his father's subsidiary title)
Lady X Strudwick (Charlotte's daughters)
The Hon. Y Strudwick (Charlotte's younger sons)

HRH The duke of Cambridge (Louis based on a new creation; for ease working with the same remainders)
HRH The duchess of Cambridge (Louis's wife)
Earl of Strathearn (eldest son of Louis)
Lady Z Mountbatten-Windsor (daughters of Louis)
Lord T Mountbatten-Windsor (younger sons of Louis)


Now the more complicated scenarios for Charlotte (the others remain the same): Charlotte is granted a dukedom and her husband an earldom with courtesy titles derived from father (apparently, this scenario is unrealistic as they would derive their courtesy titles from their mother in that case):
HRH The duchess of Avondale (Charlotte)
The earl of Reading (Charlotte's husband)
Earl of Antrim (Charlotte's eldest son uses his mother's subsidiary title as that would be higher than his father's subsidiary title)
Lady Y Strudwick (any daugthers of Charlotte)
the Hon. Z Strudwick (younger sons of Charlotte)



Charlotte is granted a dukedom but her husband remains a commoner; no special provision is needed to make her children Lords and Ladies. They would normally take their surname from their father but the monarch could decide differently and allow them to for example be known as 'Strudwick-Windsor' to indicate their royal background (like was done with the duke of Edinburgh's family):
HRH The duchess of Avondale (Charlotte)
Mr. Strudwick (Charlotte's husband)
Earl of Antrim (Charlotte's eldest son using his mother's subsidiary title)
Lady Y Strudwick-Windsor (any daughters of Charlotte)
Lord Z Strudwick-Windsor (younger sons of Charlotte)

Based on the comments about prince Michael's children, another alternative scenario would be to award courtesy titles to her children by royal patent based on them being children of a princess of the UK (extension of the current LPs that grant those courtesy titles to children of princes of the UK):
HRH The princess royal (Charlotte)
Mr. Strudwick (Charlotte's husband)
Lord X Strudwick (for all sons)
Lady X Strudwick (for all daughters)

NOTE: Edited based on Tatiana Maria's excellent comments.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5022  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:15 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Historically, the British patrilineal naming convention has generally been followed even with children of peeresses in their own right. For example, the children of the late Countess Mountbatten were born with the family name Knatchbull, not Mountbatten.
The difference being that their father also had a peerage which Charlotte's husband might not.

Quote:
Were Charlotte to be granted a dukedom (or earldom), her children would automatically under the rules of the peerage be styled in the same manner as the children of a male duke (or earl). (The daughters of Countess Mountbatten are styled Lady though their father was only a Baron.)

However, her husband would remain styled as a plain Mr., unless special provisions were made.
Thanks that helps. So, if she has a higher peerage (or if her husband would have no peerage at all, her children would still derive their courtesy titles from her. That makes things much easier that I feared.

Quote:
Without a peerage, I suppose Letters Patent would be issued if the Sovereign wished to grant courtesy titles to her children. The children of Prince Michael of Kent, who does not hold a peerage, are styled as children of dukes under the letters patent of King George V.
That's always a helpful way out but for the moment doesn't apply to children of princesses but it could be extended...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5023  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Trying to work out the scenarios. First the easier one with Charlotte's husband being granted an earldom and no dukedom for Charlotte (she'll be granted the title of Princess Royal at some point):

[...]

HRH The princess royal, countess of Reading (Charlotte)
As Princess Royal she most likely would not use "Countess of Reading", as generally Princess Anne was no longer known as Mrs. Mark Phillips and Princess Mary was no longer known as Countess of Harewood after being granted the title of Princess Royal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Charlotte is granted a dukedom and her husband an earldom with courtesy titles derived from father:
HRH The duchess of Avondale (Charlotte)
The earl of Reading (Charlotte's husband)
Earl of Antrim (Charlotte's eldest son uses his mother's subsidiary title as that would be higher than his father's subsidiary title)
Lady Y Strudwick (any daugthers of Charlotte)
the Hon. Z Strudwick (younger sons of Charlotte)
Her daughters and younger sons would also derive their courtesy titles from their mother as these would be higher in rank than the courtesy titles they could derive from their father. It would be Lady for any daughters (the daughters of an earl are also Lady, but their precedence falls below the daughters of a duchess) and Lord for younger sons.
Reply With Quote
  #5024  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The difference being that their father also had a peerage which Charlotte's husband might not.
Another example from the extended royal family is Flora Fraser, Lady Saltoun, the daughter-in-law of Princess Patricia of Connaught. Her husband Alexander Ramsay had no peerage, but their children were born as Ramsays rather than Frasers.

Of course, times are changing and even in Britain it has become less and less unthinkable for children to take the surname of their mother.

However, for Charlotte there would be the problem of the Sovereign's Will. Does the 1960 declaration of Queen Elizabeth II that "My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor" override the common-law rights of women to keep their surnames and parents to give their children any surname they please?

Even if it does not, if King Charles/King William believes that children should always bear their father's surname, would he perhaps have the authority as king and head of the family to prohibit Charlotte and her husband from giving their children the surname Mountbatten-Windsor or Strudwick-Windsor even if that is what the couple both want?
Reply With Quote
  #5025  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:35 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As Princess Royal she most likely would not use "Countess of Reading", as generally Princess Anne was no longer known as Mrs. Mark Phillips and Princess Mary was no longer known as Countess of Harewood after being granted the title of Princess Royal.

Her daughters and younger sons would also derive their courtesy titles from their mother as these would be higher in rank than the courtesy titles they could derive from their father. It would be Lady for any daughters (the daughters of an earl are also Lady, but their precedence falls below the daughters of a duchess) and Lord for younger sons.

Why would letters patent not suffice for her children when they sufficed to arrange it for the children of Prince Michael of Kent?
As you may have noticed, I responded to your post afterI presented the above. So, my post was based on my limited knowledge of the system but I am happy to change my post accordingly now I've learned something new. Of course it was not possible to incorporate your comments in my original post before reading them
Reply With Quote
  #5026  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
As you may have noticed, I responded to your post afterI presented the above. So, my post was based on my limited knowledge of the system but I am happy to change my post accordingly now I've learned something new. Of course it was not possible to incorporate your comments in my original post before reading them
You responded ten minutes after I made the post, so I unfortunately had no way to know you hadn't read it.
But I have already deleted the part that you addressed in your later post.
Reply With Quote
  #5027  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:47 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
You responded ten minutes after I made the post, so I unfortunately had no way to know you hadn't read it.
But I have already deleted the part that you addressed in your later post.
Thanks for thinking highly of me - but I'm not that quick in figuring out all of that and come up with reasonable names for the various dukes, earls and viscounts in less than 10 minutes. I continued working on it after posting my previous post, so it took me about 40 minutes

My apologies for the capital letters in my previous post. Those were uncalled for (and have been edited).
Reply With Quote
  #5028  
Old 07-05-2020, 11:59 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Thanks for thinking highly of me - but I'm not that quick in figuring out all of that and come up with reasonable names for the various dukes, earls and viscounts in less than 10 minutes. I continued working on it after posting my previous post, so it took me about 40 minutes
I will bear that in mind when reading your future posts. I customarily check for new posts before submitting (long) responses, as that is useful when there is a new reply to the thread which changes what I intended to say - so I was not assuming you necessarily wrote the entire post within 10 minutes.

No worries about the unedited post; I have edited the quote and my reply.
Reply With Quote
  #5029  
Old 07-05-2020, 12:14 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
I think will all the problems with spares in the RF, I think massive changes will need to be made. I would not be surprised if Charlotte and Louis were encouraged to have their own careers and were never granted any additional titles (expect Princess Royal for Charlotte)
Reply With Quote
  #5030  
Old 07-05-2020, 12:32 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
I would be surprised if the granting of peerages continued. I can't see William wanting this.

I suspect the children of younger sons/daughters of the monarch/direct line will be plain Mr/Miss/Ms just like Peter & Zara.

What will be interesting is whether any future husband of Charlotte will be a prince.
Reply With Quote
  #5031  
Old 07-05-2020, 12:39 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I would be surprised if the granting of peerages continued. I can't see William wanting this.

I suspect the children of younger sons/daughters of the monarch/direct line will be plain Mr/Miss/Ms just like Peter & Zara.

What will be interesting is whether any future husband of Charlotte will be a prince
.
Why would the future husband of Charlotte be a prince (assuming she is interested in the opposite sex) when the husbands of her great-aunt Anne were not made princes and even her great-grandfather was not made a prince-despite being married to the heir.
Reply With Quote
  #5032  
Old 07-05-2020, 12:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Why would the future husband of Charlotte be a prince (assuming she is interested in the opposite sex) when the husbands of her great-aunt Anne were not made princes and even her great-grandfather was not made a prince-despite being married to the heir.
Potentially, for the same reason that Charlotte's future interest or disinterest in the opposite sex is now considered relevant, as opposed to being expected to marry a foreign prince or duke whether she is romantically interested in him or not: The status of women has evolved and it continues to evolve.
Reply With Quote
  #5033  
Old 07-05-2020, 12:45 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Why would the future husband of Charlotte be a prince (assuming she is interested in the opposite sex) when the husbands of her great-aunt Anne were not made princes and even her great-grandfather was not made a prince-despite being married to the heir.
I don't think Charlotte's husband would be made prince in his own right. However, the duke of Edinburgh (a former prince of Greece and Denmark) was made a prince of the UK in his own right later on.
Reply With Quote
  #5034  
Old 07-05-2020, 12:55 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The status of women has evolved and it continues to evolve.
Yes indeed. I raised the subject of Charlotte's putative husband because in 20/30 years time it may seem perfectly natural for the spouse of a princess to be treated in exactly the same way as the spouse of a prince. So any husband (not being created a prince like Philip) automatically acquires the title of prince by marrying a princess. I don't know.

By the same token the granting of dukedoms may come to be seen as silly, not in a disrespectful way but rather in the sense of no longer being seen as relevant or appropriate to the sort of society that Britain may by then have become. A sort of historical curiosity if you like.

All speculation of course.
Reply With Quote
  #5035  
Old 07-05-2020, 01:00 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
I am joining the discussion late, but I guess the crux of the problem is the British custom of wives taking their husbands’ titles and styles, but the reverse not being true. For Charlotte’s children, I assume the normal rules for styles of children of peers would apply if Charlotte were given a peerage ( it remains to be seen what kind of remainder her peerage would have ).


In Spain, the husband of a Duchess in her own right has always been a Duke and even the husband of the Princess of Asturias, at least according to the RD 1368/1987 , is still the Prince of Asturias. Even the husband of a reigning Queen used to be a King and , to go back to a previous discussion in the forum, that did not affect precedence because the order of precedence was, as it still is:

1) King or Queen (of Spain)
2) Queen consort or consort of the Queen (of Spain)

For some reason, however, the Spaniards decided in 1987 to change their long-held tradition and style the consort of the Queen simply as Prince as in the UK, but kept equal courtesy titles for other husbands ( of duchesses, marquises, countesses, etc.) . Spouses of infantes and Infantas were left both without any title , but it was still a gender-neutral rule, I.e. it applied equally to men and women.
Reply With Quote
  #5036  
Old 07-05-2020, 01:36 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646


Thank you for that. That's very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #5037  
Old 07-05-2020, 01:40 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Potentially, for the same reason that Charlotte's future interest or disinterest in the opposite sex is now considered relevant, as opposed to being expected to marry a foreign prince or duke whether she is romantically interested in him or not: The status of women has evolved and it continues to evolve.
This has nothing to do with the status of women. If Charlotte is not the heir there is no point in her husband having any titles or styles
Reply With Quote
  #5038  
Old 07-05-2020, 01:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
This has nothing to do with the status of women. If Charlotte is not the heir there is no point in her husband having any titles or styles
But what is the point in Louis's (and possibly Archie's) wife having royal titles and styles?
Reply With Quote
  #5039  
Old 07-05-2020, 02:20 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
But what is the point in Louis's (and possibly Archie's) wife having royal titles and styles?
Louis will be a son of the King ( probably), so I think it is rrasonable that he should have a royal title and style . In Archie’s case, my opinion is that, if the system were to be reformed, he should not have any royal title as he will be only a possible grandson of a King not in direct line.

As for Louis’ wife or Charlotte’s husband , I think that:

1) Either they should both take the title and style of their spouses ( which is not too much in my opinion) , OR

2) Neither of them should have royal titles and only George’s wife should be titled ( which is actually the Spaniish system I mentioned before for spouses of children of a King).

Either way, the system would be gender neutral, which is very important to me.

As for peerages, I think they should be given to both sons and daughters of the King, except the heir who already has a special title like Prince of Wales ( which should be extended the women in their own right too) , but royal peerages should be life peerages only ( which is the Spanish or Swedish system).

People say hereditary peerages for princes are harmless , but George V and Elizabeth II have created at least three ducal lines ( Gloucester, Kent and Sussex) and two commital lines ( Snowdon and Wessex) that are likely to endure over multiple generations ( the Wessex line may be absorbed into another ducal Edinburgh line if King Charles III só decides). And more lines would have been created if Angus Ogilvy and Mark Phillips had not turned down their earldoms. That is actually quite a lot of “ new hereditary nobility” by modern standards. Looking ahead, if the system is kept the way it is, Louis will probably start a new Cambridge ducal line too, which will persist if he had sons.
Reply With Quote
  #5040  
Old 07-05-2020, 02:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
I agree in regard to royal titles and peerages for sons and daughters (incidentally, the UK is the only reigning European monarchy which continues to grant them to princes but not princesses).

As for life peerages, a strong argument which can be made in support of continuing to grant royal dukedoms with a hereditary remainder is to point out that other dukedoms in the British peerage are currently hereditary. It could be perceived as strange and contradictory if royal dukes were denied the privilege of passing their peerages to their sons while dukes from far less prestigious families continue to enjoy that very right.

There is a counterargument to this: In an ordinary British noble family, the title is passed on in the direct line only by the heads and future heads of the house. The children of younger sons ordinarily revert to being untitled. And one could argue that royal dukes are not heads of their own noble houses, they are only younger sons of the house of Windsor, of which the Queen or King is the head.
__________________

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 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 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




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×