The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5701  
Old 04-18-2021, 08:42 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Official announcements from BP usually just refer to him as Viscount Severn but the media often include his first name in the same way they use Kate, Duchess of Cambridge.

Also he's often referred to in the same sentence as Lady Louise so I think they just even up the use of first names.

Lady Louise is referred to as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor on royal.uk but usually only as "Windsor" without Mountbatten (unlike Archie who always has M-W) in the media so they don't check a lot of things.



Which is wrong since the Queen's declaration to the Privy Council of February 8, 1960 makes it clear that, unless Lady Louise uses her (rightful) style of Princesses, her family name is Mountbatten-Windsor.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5702  
Old 04-18-2021, 08:47 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Which is wrong since the Queen's declaration to the Privy Council of February 8, 1960 makes it clear that, unless Lady Louise uses her (rightful) style of Princesses, her family name is Mountbatten-Windsor.
I believe that at school she's known as Louise Windsor, People with double barrelled names dont always use the full version.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5703  
Old 04-23-2021, 01:59 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
Since Prince Andrew has no sons, (assuming he does not have any going forward) his dukedom will revert to the crown when he passes away. If he has the longevity of his parents, that could be many decades from now.

After it reverts, the monarch (Charles or William, most likely) is then free to bestow it on Louis or another male royal.

Though the Dukedom has a history of being bestowed on brothers of future Kings, there is no rule giving Louis a right to the York Dukedom or any other. If Andrew is still alive when the Monarch wants to give Louis a Dukedom, another will be given instead. Or if Louis does not want a Dukedom, it will remain with the Crown.

(There are only two Dukedoms that are set aside permanently: Duchy of Cornwall for the heir to the throne, and the Duchy of Lancaster for the Monarch. Everything else is up to the Monarch once it has reverted back to the Crown.)
Couple of thoughts:



In order to keep "Duke of York" in the Royal Family maybe it should in the (distant) future be reserved for the heir-to-the-heir. George V was Duke of York before he became POW. It would be nice for it to not pass out of the family forever the way Kent and Gloucester are slated to do.


Also, there is one more "reserved" Dukedom: Duke of Rothsay - the title of the oldest son in Scotland.
Reply With Quote
  #5704  
Old 04-23-2021, 02:23 AM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 3,000
Agreed. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it would be an ideal solution for all the royal dukedoms. Let the dukedoms be given for life (similar to what they do in Sweden) but make the subsidiary titles hereditary. So, say, when he ascends the throne, Charles bestows the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Edward but Edward would then only be able to pass on the Earldom of Wessex (and Forfar) and Viscountcy of Severn thereby "retaining" the Dukedom of Edinburgh.
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

Reply With Quote
  #5705  
Old 04-23-2021, 03:01 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
Agreed. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it would be an ideal solution for all the royal dukedoms. Let the dukedoms be given for life (similar to what they do in Sweden) but make the subsidiary titles hereditary. So, say, when he ascends the throne, Charles bestows the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Edward but Edward would then only be able to pass on the Earldom of Wessex (and Forfar) and Viscountcy of Severn thereby "retaining" the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

I fail to see why Dukedoms can not be hereditary but Earldoms etc. can?
Reply With Quote
  #5706  
Old 04-23-2021, 03:12 AM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 3,000
To avoid potentially "losing" historical dukedoms such as York or Clarence like they will Gloucester and Kent.
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

Reply With Quote
  #5707  
Old 04-23-2021, 03:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Clarence is available.
Reply With Quote
  #5708  
Old 04-23-2021, 03:56 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
To avoid potentially "losing" historical dukedoms such as York or Clarence like they will Gloucester and Kent.

They will never be "lost" because in the end, without successors, all titles revert to the Crown.

The former royal dukedoms of Albany, Albemarle, Avondale, Clarence, Connaught, Cumberland, Hereford, Kendal, Kindyre, Lorne, Ross, St Andrews, Strathearn, Teviotdale and Windsor are all available.

The former royal dukedoms of Bedford, Norfolk and Somerset were re-used to create "normal" Dukes and all three current non-royal Dukes belong to the most prestigious peers of the Realm.

I like it that under a future King George VII there will be a 4th Duke of Gloucester (the current Lord Culloden) whom is equally a descendant of King George V and Queen Mary.
Reply With Quote
  #5709  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Connaught is not available. Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland and so not available. The monarch of the UK can't create a title using a place that is not in the UK. Yes there are peers in the UK now still with titles with place names in the republic but when they go extinct those titles also won't be recreated.

An example - George VI as Duke of York as Duke of York, Earl of Inverness but Baron Killarney but when Prince Andrew was created Duke of York he was also created Earl of Inverness but Baron Killyleagh - in Northern Ireland and not the republic.

Albany, Cumberland and Teviotdale aren't available as their heirs can still ask the Privy Council for them to be returned - even though it has been over 100 years there was no cut off date. As long as there are male heirs those titles are off the table.

St Andrews and Strathearn are now Earldoms.

Windsor will only be used for some disgraced royal and not otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #5710  
Old 04-23-2021, 06:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Albany [...] aren't available as their heirs can still ask the Privy Council for them to be returned - even though it has been over 100 years there was no cut off date. As long as there are male heirs those titles are off the table.
Who are the male heirs to Albany? Illegitimate male descendants and their descendants cannot be heirs to the dukedom.

By the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, when a descendant of King George II (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) contracted marriage without the consent of the monarch, the marriage was null and void, and consequently the couple's children were illegitimate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/12/11/contents

For example, the Royal Marriages Act was followed when Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in breach of it. His marriage was declared null and void, and the couple's son Augustus Frederick d'Este was, as an illegitimate child, unable to inherit the dukedom of Sussex.


Per the author of Queen Victoria's Descendants, no descendant of the second Duke of Albany, Charles Edward, ever sought approval from the British monarch before marrying.

Therefore, so long as the Royal Marriages Act was maintained, the grandchildren of Charles Edward, and their heirs, were illegitimate in the United Kingdom and excluded from the line of succession to the dukedom of Albany.


The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 did legitimize marriages which were null and void under the Royal Marriages Act, but only if "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it", per section 3, subsection 5 (a).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20

If it was not reasonable for Duke Charles Edward's descendants to have been unaware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them, then his heirs are still illegitimate in the United Kingdom and there are no heirs to the dukedom of Albany.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Connaught is not available. Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland and so not available. The monarch of the UK can't create a title using a place that is not in the UK. Yes there are peers in the UK now still with titles with place names in the republic but when they go extinct those titles also won't be recreated.
There is no legal barrier as far as I know. It is only that it would be toxic from a political point of view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Clarence is available.
Yes, and the original poster was stating that she would like to keep it available for the royal family rather than losing it to for example Prince Louis's male heirs for the foreseeable future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
They will never be "lost" because in the end, without successors, all titles revert to the Crown.
York is the only royal dukedom without a successor, and that is owed to chance. At the time that dukedoms are bestowed there is every reason to expect that there will be successors, especially in this traditional family in which marriage and childbearing are expected.
Reply With Quote
  #5711  
Old 04-23-2021, 06:18 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
To avoid potentially "losing" historical dukedoms such as York or Clarence l.

They haven't used Clarence since almost 130 years so there is no danger for it to get lost.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #5712  
Old 04-23-2021, 06:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
Agreed. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it would be an ideal solution for all the royal dukedoms. Let the dukedoms be given for life (similar to what they do in Sweden) but make the subsidiary titles hereditary. So, say, when he ascends the throne, Charles bestows the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Edward but Edward would then only be able to pass on the Earldom of Wessex (and Forfar) and Viscountcy of Severn thereby "retaining" the Dukedom of Edinburgh.



The problem is that British law, I think, limits life peerages to the rank of baron only. Furthermore, life peerages also entitle the holder to a seat in the House of Lords (provided that he or she is a British citizen).


My understanding then is that an act of Parliament would be needed to allow the creation in the future of life dukedoms.
Reply With Quote
  #5713  
Old 04-23-2021, 06:40 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The problem is that British law, I think, limits life peerages to the rank of baron only. Furthermore, life peerages also entitle the holder to a seat in the House of Lords (provided that he or she is a British citizen).

My understanding then is that an act of Parliament would be needed to allow the creation in the future of life dukedoms.
My understanding is that the Life Peerages Act 1958 was passed to empower the government to have the monarch appoint life peers to Parliament, not to eliminate the crown's prerogative to create other non-hereditary peerages. As life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958 automatically have the rank of baron, the creation of a non-hereditary dukedom would be deemed not to have been a creation under that Act. As a result, the duke would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. But that would not prevent the monarch from creating a non-hereditary dukedom outside of that Act.

Quote:
Life Peerages Act 1958
1958 CHAPTER 21 6 and 7 Eliz 2

An Act to make provision for the creation of life peerages carrying the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

[30th April 1958]
1 Power to create life peerages carrying right to sit in the House of Lords.

(1)F1... Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a peerage for life having the incidents specified in subsection (2) of this section.

(2)A peerage conferred under this section shall, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him—

(a)to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; and

(b)subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly,

and shall expire on his death.

(3)A life peerage may be conferred under this section on a woman.

(4)Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
They haven't used Clarence since almost 130 years so there is no danger for it to get lost.
But it will probably be the next dukedom to be used. It and Windsor are the only former royal dukedoms which have a history of active use by British royals, are indisputably available (as explained above, Albany is likely available, but there is a smidgen of doubt) and do not use a territorial designation outside the present borders of the UK (which excludes Connaught).
Reply With Quote
  #5714  
Old 04-23-2021, 06:43 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Who are the male heirs to Albany? Illegitimate male descendants and their descendants cannot be heirs to the dukedom.

By the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, when a descendant of King George II (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) contracted marriage without the consent of the monarch, the marriage was null and void, and consequently the couple's children were illegitimate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/12/11/contents

For example, the Royal Marriages Act was followed when Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in breach of it. His marriage was declared null and void, and the couple's son Augustus Frederick d'Este was, as an illegitimate child, unable to inherit the dukedom of Sussex.


Per the author of Queen Victoria's Descendants, no descendant of the second Duke of Albany, Charles Edward, ever sought approval from the British monarch before marrying.

Therefore, so long as the Royal Marriages Act was maintained, the grandchildren of Charles Edward, and their heirs, were illegitimate in the United Kingdom and excluded from the line of succession to the dukedom of Albany.


The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 did legitimize marriages which were null and void under the Royal Marriages Act, but only if "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it", per section 3, subsection 5 (a).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20

If it was not reasonable for Duke Charles Edward's descendants to have been unaware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them, then his heirs are still illegitimate in the United Kingdom and there are no heirs to the dukedom of Albany.





There is no legal barrier as far as I know. It is only that it would be toxic from a political point of view.




Yes, and the original poster was stating that she would like to keep it available for the royal family rather than losing it to for example Prince Louis's male heirs for the foreseeable future.




York is the only royal dukedom without a successor, and that is owed to chance. At the time that dukedoms are bestowed there is every reason to expect that there will be successors, especially in this traditional family in which marriage and childbearing are expected.
I wonder if since the Duke of Albany and his children weren't considered members of the British Royal family after WWI and his children were descended from a granddaughter of George II that had married into a foreign royal family they might not have felt that the stipulations of the act required them to require permission to marry?
It's also possible that Karl Edvard felt that he didn't care about his British peerages and legal obligations after what had happened.
What's interesting to me is how being illegitimate would affect the Duke's descendants that do live in the UK especially considering that they hold the baronetcy of Huntington-Whiteley of Grimley.
Reply With Quote
  #5715  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:05 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
My understanding is that the Life Peerages Act 1958 was passed to empower the government to have the monarch appoint life peers to Parliament, not to eliminate the crown's prerogative to create other non-hereditary peerages. As life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958 automatically have the rank of baron, the creation of a non-hereditary dukedom would be deemed not to have been a creation under that Act. As a result, the duke would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. But that would not prevent the monarch from creating a non-hereditary dukedom outside of that Act.

Yes, that is a possible interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #5716  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:31 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post





But it will probably be the next dukedom to be used. It and Windsor are the only former royal dukedoms which have a history of active use by British royals, are indisputably available (as explained above, Albany is likely available, but there is a smidgen of doubt) and do not use a territorial designation outside the present borders of the UK (which excludes Connaught).

The next Dukedom will most likely by Edinburgh when it will be bestowed on Prince Edward. And the next after this i think Cambridge could be available again then it could be that King William prefers to give his one former Duchy to one of his children.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #5717  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:40 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
The next Dukedom will most likely by Edinburgh when it will be bestowed on Prince Edward. And the next after this i think Cambridge could be available again then it could be that King William prefers to give his one former Duchy to one of his children.
I like the possibility that when William becomes King if he gave the dukedom of Cambridge to George's heir and then Cambridge could kind of become the title associated with the heir to the heir. It would then always stay within the royal family as it would always merge with the crown ready to be passed to the next heir to the heir.
Reply With Quote
  #5718  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:44 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
I wonder if since the Duke of Albany and his children weren't considered members of the British Royal family after WWI and his children were descended from a granddaughter of George II that had married into a foreign royal family they might not have felt that the stipulations of the act required them to require permission to marry?
It's also possible that Karl Edvard felt that he didn't care about his British peerages and legal obligations after what had happened.
What's interesting to me is how being illegitimate would affect the Duke's descendants that do live in the UK especially considering that they hold the baronetcy of Huntington-Whiteley of Grimley.
It wouldn't (and didn't in 2019) affect their rights to the baronetcy. The only lineage in which legitimacy would be at stake as far as the baronetcy is concerned would be the lineage from the baronetcy's original grantee. Having a female ancestor of illegitimate birth will not affect the succession to a peerage or baronetcy that passes in the male line.

There has even been a case in the royal family. Maria, Duchess of Gloucester (1739-1807) was the illegitimate daughter of a British peer. Nonetheless, her son with the Duke of Gloucester inherited his father's peerages.
Reply With Quote
  #5719  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:51 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saz83 View Post
I like the possibility that when William becomes King if he gave the dukedom of Cambridge to George's heir and then Cambridge could kind of become the title associated with the heir to the heir. It would then always stay within the royal family as it would always merge with the crown ready to be passed to the next heir to the heir.
My thought was he will give it to either Louis or Charlotte
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #5720  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:56 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
My thought was he will give it to either Louis or Charlotte
I think that Charlotte will eventually be given the Princess Royal title and depending on if Andrew is still around when Louis gets married he may get the Duke of York title. But it would also be a nice nod to their father if either Louis or Charlotte were eventually passed the Cambridge title.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs 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 meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria 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 12:43 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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