The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5621  
Old 03-20-2021, 11:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Children of peers whether life or hereditary, get courtesy titles. But I can't see any scenario where either Anne or Mark P would have accepted a title such as an earldom for EITHER of them.. just so that their kds could be Vct X and Lady Zara Phillips. They didnt want the kids to have titles...

I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5622  
Old 03-20-2021, 12:14 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.
Perhaps, as it was the 70s and the era where men were called "male chauvinist pigs", it was Mark Phillips that really didn't want a title or anything that seemed to be something given by his wife's family to "elevate" him to the position of seeming to be "equal". This is just a thought that floated through my mind and may be from the outer reaches of space (where my mind resides without enough of a caffeine infusion).

Perhaps also as Peter was born in 1977, there was the plan already starting to formulate about limiting and restricting not only titles and styles in the royal family itself, but also looking at the fact that during the last half of the 20th century, peerages were starting to be predominately life peers instead of hereditary peers. The last three hereditary peerages (excluding royal peerages) were created in 1984, when Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton, and William Whitelaw and George Thomas were created Viscounts.

The monarchy always looks ahead not only to be relevant but also to adapt and conform to the times. As we've seen with the issue recently talked about elsewhere with the LPs for the Cambridge children, it was done to adapt and conform the monarchy to the act of parliament changing the rule of succession in 2013. It's not a sudden thing but has been gradually happening over time. I don't think there were too many people in the 70s that would have sworn that QEII would still be on the throne in 2021 at 94 years old.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #5623  
Old 03-20-2021, 12:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.
I suppose the "harm" might be found in the cultural conception of aristocrats as a snobbish and privileged group. The Phillips branch of the British royal family has preferred to present themselves as relatively down-to-earth.

Interestingly, the commentary I've seen in regard to the non-royal cadet branches of other European royal houses is inclined towards portraying them as beneficiaries of their privileged family names (such as Bourbon, Orange-Nassau or Bernadotte af Wisborg), rather than their titles such as duke or count.
Reply With Quote
  #5624  
Old 03-20-2021, 01:40 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Speaking of Princess Madeleine, it is interesting that Anglophone royal watchers almost unanimously cheer the "slimming down" of the rules regulating the number of family members with royal titles and/or working roles under King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King Philippe of Belgium, King Harald V of Norway, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. It appears that the future King Charles III of the UK is the only (future) European monarch whom royal watchers treat in a different fashion for his (rumored) plans to "slim down".
Yes. And only in regards to his second son. I remember there was much cheering when it was decided that those...*insert ugly epithete, rinse and repeat* Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn't be working royals.
Reply With Quote
  #5625  
Old 03-20-2021, 02:45 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
Yes. And only in regards to his second son. I remember there was much cheering when it was decided that those...*insert ugly epithete, rinse and repeat* Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn't be working royals.
Boom
Reply With Quote
  #5626  
Old 03-20-2021, 03:06 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Perhaps, as it was the 70s and the era where men were called "male chauvinist pigs", it was Mark Phillips that really didn't want a title or anything that seemed to be something given by his wife's family to "elevate" him to the position of seeming to be "equal". This is just a thought that floated through my mind and may be from the outer reaches of space (where my mind resides without enough of a caffeine infusion).

Perhaps also as Peter was born in 1977, there was the plan already starting to formulate about limiting and restricting not only titles and styles in the royal family itself, but also looking at the fact that during the last half of the 20th century, peerages were starting to be predominately life peers instead of hereditary peers. The last three hereditary peerages (excluding royal peerages) were created in 1984, when Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton, and William Whitelaw and George Thomas were created Viscounts.

The monarchy always looks ahead not only to be relevant but also to adapt and conform to the times. As we've seen with the issue recently talked about elsewhere with the LPs for the Cambridge children, it was done to adapt and conform the monarchy to the act of parliament changing the rule of succession in 2013. It's not a sudden thing but has been gradually happening over time. I don't think there were too many people in the 70s that would have sworn that QEII would still be on the throne in 2021 at 94 years old.
I'd say The Hon. Angus Ogilvy refusing an earldom set the tone for the next generations. Had he accepted the earldom like Antony Armstrong-Jones did only 2 years earlier (interestingly, the queen didn't offer him an earldom upon his wedding but only when his wife was pregnant with their first child); it would have been easier for Mark Phillips to also accept an earldom. Of course, he could have accepted it as he married the queen's daughter and not her cousin but he still might have felt pressured to follow Angus's example. Interestingly, the bridegroom of the next blood princess to marry -Eugenie- wasn't even offered an earldom (at least as far as is known); nor was her sister's bridegroom.
Reply With Quote
  #5627  
Old 03-20-2021, 03:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Mark Phillips didn't want an earldom.. It was out of line with the general publc thinking by 1977.. for someone to get a title just for marrying a Princess. If he and Anne didn't want him to have a title or for their children to have a title, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Reply With Quote
  #5628  
Old 03-20-2021, 03:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.
There was never any prospect of their being HRH...
Reply With Quote
  #5629  
Old 03-20-2021, 04:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,802
I think that the offer of peerages to commoners who married into the Royal family ended when the idea of a real existing court as a social meeting place ended. When HM ended the debutant presentations and the court balls, she acknowledged that the time of the peerage as the highest social level was over. Money had taken the place of birth in many cases and the young queen preferred to see "worthy" people being invited to audiences, dinners and garden parties, no matter what their rank was.



When the Royal family still was organized like a family with the souvereign in the middle and all of the family around her or him and the female family members allowed to marry into the peerage (including younger sons), they needed a titled husband to have a "married name" to be announced with which was a peerage title. From WWI (1917) these titles had to be British.


Today it is no problem for Anne, Eugenie and Beatrice to be married to commoners and the title of a Royal duke sounds better than to announce "prince and princess Henry of Wales" when there is only one Prince of Wales and his sons are grown up. especially as Harry and his wife were surely meant to be invited for state dinners like William and Catherine, as they did state visits in the queen's name. (I still can't believe what they gave up...)
Reply With Quote
  #5630  
Old 03-23-2021, 06:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Someone else posted in another forum a copy of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's marriage certificate that was published in The Sun.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...trip=all&w=960


I wonder why The Prince of Wales is not also cited as HRH The Prince of Wales considering that Harry is cited as HRH Prince Henry of Wales.


It is also interesting that the marriage was solemnized between Rachel Meghan Markle and "Henry Charles Albert David of Wales" suggesting the use of "of Wales" as a surname, which is incorrect in my opinion.



It has been mentioned in this forum that Anne and Andrew actually used "Mountbatten-Windsor" in their marriage certificates even though they do not normally use a surname. I don't know if that claim is true, but, assuming it is, could it be because, as the Queen's children, neither one was a prince/princess "of" some territorial designation?
Reply With Quote
  #5631  
Old 03-23-2021, 06:45 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Someone else posted in another forum a copy of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's marriage certificate that was published in The Sun.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...trip=all&w=960


I wonder why The Prince of Wales is not also cited as HRH The Prince of Wales considering that Harry is cited as HRH Prince Henry of Wales.


It is also interesting that the marriage was solemnized between Rachel Meghan Markle and "Henry Charles Albert David of Wales" suggesting the use of "of Wales" as a surname, which is incorrect in my opinion.



It has been mentioned in this forum that Anne and Andrew actually used "Mountbatten-Windsor" in their marriage certificates even though they do not normally use a surname. I don't know if that claim is true, but, assuming it is, could it be because, as the Queen's children, neither one was a prince/princess "of" some territorial designation?
Interesting detail. Also note how Charles is mentioned in two very different ways, as the 'The Prince of Wales' (indeed without HRH unlike 'HRH Prince Henry of Wales') as father of the groom and only as Charles (without a surname and excluding any of his other names; unlike Harry, whose full 4 names are used at that point) as a witness.

Why are the fathers' names and rank/profession included in an official wedding certificate and are the names of the mothers deemed irrelevant. Seems a rather outdated practice that could have easily been changed by now.
Reply With Quote
  #5632  
Old 03-23-2021, 08:37 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post


It has been mentioned in this forum that Anne and Andrew actually used "Mountbatten-Windsor" in their marriage certificates even though they do not normally use a surname. I don't know if that claim is true, but, assuming it is, could it be because, as the Queen's children, neither one was a prince/princess "of" some territorial designation?
Registration of Anne's marriage to Mark Phillips

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detai...hoto/839250824

And Andrew

https://imsvintagephotos.com/prince-...rd-with-280171
Reply With Quote
  #5633  
Old 03-23-2021, 08:45 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
The mess of signatures are very sweet; poignant even.
Reply With Quote
  #5634  
Old 03-23-2021, 08:59 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
So, the name for the condition changed from 'Bachelor/Spinster' to 'Single'

And the solved the occupation of the Duke nicely by making 'Duke of Edinburgh' both part of his name and his occupation all at once.

Interesting how lots of family members (including underaged) signed the marriage certificates.
Reply With Quote
  #5635  
Old 03-23-2021, 09:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, the name for the condition changed from 'Bachelor/Spinster' to 'Single'

And the solved the occupation of the Duke nicely by making 'Duke of Edinburgh' both part of his name and his occupation all at once.

Interesting how lots of family members (including underaged) signed the marriage certificates.
I remember at the time of Andrew and Sarah's wedding there was criticism in the press of Diana because she signed on behalf of William and Harry. While, of course, William was a page boy, Harry was not there and William should have signed his own name if he was able to.
Reply With Quote
  #5636  
Old 03-23-2021, 09:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post

So it is confirmed that both Andrew and Anne used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor and that Prince Philip was referrred to as HRH and also as KG and OM.

Harry instead used "of Wales" as a proxy for his surname and, for the Prince of Wales, neither HRH nor any post-nominal letters were used.

The inconsistency in British documents neve ceases to surprise me, see also the latest controversy about Archie's birth certificate.
Reply With Quote
  #5637  
Old 03-23-2021, 09:28 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Thank you VictoriaB for sharing the links of Princess Anne & Mark Phillips' and Prince Andrew & Sarah's marriage certificates.

It's very interesting how much has changed including Bachelor/Spinster to Single and signatures of the Royal Family members at the bottom half of the marriage certificates. I wonder what has caused the change from Mountbatten-Windsor to "of Wales" as surnames.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
So it is confirmed that both Andrew and Anne used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor and that Prince Philip was referrred to as HRH and also as KG and OM.

Harry instead used "of Wales" as a proxy for his surname and, for the Prince of Wales, neither HRH nor any post-nominal letters were used.

The inconsistency in British documents neve ceases to surprise me, see also the latest controversy about Archie's birth certificate.
I have to agree with you Mbruno, that the inconsistency in British documents for royal family members have been astounding.
Reply With Quote
  #5638  
Old 03-23-2021, 11:20 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Thank you VictoriaB for sharing the links of Princess Anne & Mark Phillips' and Prince Andrew & Sarah's marriage certificates.

It's very interesting how much has changed including Bachelor/Spinster to Single and signatures of the Royal Family members at the bottom half of the marriage certificates. I wonder what has caused the change from Mountbatten-Windsor to "of Wales" as surnames.


I have to agree with you Mbruno, that the inconsistency in British documents for royal family members have been astounding.
As was already suggested above. It could be that Harry still had a territorial designation unlike his aunt and uncle who were just 'The Prince(ss) X'; and probably preferred that option - an option that they didn't have. It would be interesting to know what Eugenie and Beatrice used. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 'of York'.
Reply With Quote
  #5639  
Old 03-24-2021, 04:47 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
If Archie plus sibling(s) are HRH then the BRF will have again missed an opportunity to be seen as less expansive. It should ideally have started with the daughters of the DofY. Then it'll be the children of Louis & then for fairness the children of Charlotte & then we're back to square one.

Why H&M raised this question in the way they did is beyond me. But they shouldn't be allowed to control the narrative. If the next monarch wishes to make changes then he should do so without fear of blackmail from H&M over questions of race.

Oh the irony of a republic founded in bloody rebellion against the British Crown & now feting a British prince.
With all that is currently going on, I'd say the easiest way would be to decide that for those born since the implementation of equal primogeniture (so since Oct 28, 2011) only the children of the monarch, children of the heir apparent, and children of the heir apparent's heir apparent will be Royal Highnesses. That would be a natural point to start that distinction as the rules of succession changed ensuring that children of a princess could be ahead of children of her sibling-prince, which would make it a bit awkward if the latter's would have higher titles than their cousins higher up in line...

Upon marriage each of those royal highnesses could be granted a dukedom which will ensure that both male and female line grandchildren of a (future) monarch will be styled as children of a duke - except for those that are themselves grandchildren of a (future) monarch who will be HRH and prince(ss).

In practice this would mean that Charlotte's and Louis's children will be styled equally but different than George's children. While Harry's children would be styled the same as those future children (of C and L) as well as they are in a comparable position.
Reply With Quote
  #5640  
Old 03-24-2021, 05:37 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
With all that is currently going on. I'd say the easiest way would be to decide that for those born since the implementation of equal primogeniture (so since Oct 28, 2011) only the children of the monarch, children of the heir apparent, and children of the heir apparent's heir apparent will be Royal Highnesses. That would be a natural point to start that distinction as the rules of succession changed ensuring that children of a princess could be ahead of children of her sibling-prince, which would make it a bit awkward if the latter's would have higher titles than their cousins higher up in line...

Upon marriage each of those royal highnesses could be granted a dukedom which will ensure that both male and female line grandchildren of a (future) monarch will be styled as children of a duke - except for those that are themselves grandchildren of a (future) monarch.

In practice this would mean that Charlotte's and Louis's children will be styled equally but different than George's children. While Harry's children would be styled the same as those future children (of C and L) as well as they are in a comparable position.
Yes that all makes sense. I like the idea of using 2011 as a cut off date. It's fair. In fact I'd go further & discontinue the granting of dukedoms entirely. So the children of C & L would be untitled like the those of the Princess Royal.
__________________

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: 7 (3 members and 4 guests)
JoanHarry, principessa, Prinsara
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 archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names baptism britannia british british royal family british royals camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hereditary grand duchess stéphanie highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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