The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5721  
Old 04-23-2021, 08:23 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
But if it's the case that Victoria Huntington-Whiteley is deemed illegitimate because her parents, Calma of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha & Friedrich Wilhelm of Castell-Rüdhausen, didn't request permission to marry according to the provisions of the RMA doesn't that imply that she in her turn would have been required to request the same permission to marry? If she didn't her son would be illegitimate and would not have been line to inherit his father's title. Or am I understanding this wrong?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5722  
Old 04-23-2021, 08:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
My thought was he will give it to either Louis or Charlotte

I think Charlotte will be the next Princess Royal. I don't see her getting a peerage.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5723  
Old 04-23-2021, 08:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
But if it's the case that Victoria Huntington-Whiteley is deemed illegitimate because her parents, Calma of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha & Friedrich Wilhelm of Castell-Rüdhausen, didn't request permission to marry according to the provisions of the RMA doesn't that imply that she in her turn would have been required to request the same permission to marry? If she didn't her son would be illegitimate and would not have been line to inherit his father's title. Or am I understanding this wrong?
the legitimate ones have to be the male line (Unless its a title that can descend in teh female line. If the Duke of Gloucester married a woman whose parents weren't married, THEIR son would be Ok to inherit, because the Duke was legitimate. His mother being illegitimate would not affect his succession to his fahter's titles.
Reply With Quote
  #5724  
Old 04-23-2021, 08:48 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think Charlotte will be the next Princess Royal. I don't see her getting a peerage.
Its hard to say. It might happen in hte interests of makng male and female royals more equal.. however, OTOH, the trend is for less titles, less HRHS etc.. so - mabye not. But in that case, if Charlotte does nt get a peerage when she marries, mabye Louis wont get one either. That only the heir and the heir's heir will get titles.
Reply With Quote
  #5725  
Old 04-23-2021, 08:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Illegitimacy only affects the succession to a British title if it represents a break in the lineage tracing back to the parent or ancestor by whom one claims the title.

Victoria's son Leopold Huntington-Whiteley inherited his title from his father Sir Miles Huntington-Whiteley. To prove his claim to his title, he would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of Sir Miles. Refer to the guidance from the College of Arms:
11. For the succession of a son by the first or only marriage of the late peer
a) the full birth certificate of the claimant;
b) the marriage certificate of the claimant’s parents;
c) the death certificate of the late peer; and
d) evidence showing that the late Peer had no legitimate surviving male issue before the birth of the claimant.
A generation ago, when Miles Huntington-Whiteley claimed his title, he too would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of his father. His own father before him would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of his father, and so on.

It is of no importance to the baronetcy if Victoria, Lady Huntington-Whiteley is an illegitimate child. (Just as it was irrelevant that the mother of Prince William Frederick of Gloucester was an illegitimate child, and it was no barrier to the prince's succession as Duke of Gloucester.) Lady Huntington-Whiteley is only a consort. She is not in the line of succession to the Huntington-Whiteley baronetcy, and her parentage and ancestry does not affect its order of succession.

Victoria's illegitimacy would, however, affect her son Leopold's right to succeed to any British title which Leopold claimed through her, his mother (such as the title to the British crown).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
the legitimate ones have to be the male line (Unless its a title that can descend in teh female line. If the Duke of Gloucester married a woman whose parents weren't married, THEIR son would be Ok to inherit, because the Duke was legitimate. His mother being illegitimate would not affect his succession to his fahter's titles.
Thank you, Denville. You put it much more succinctly than I did.

Aren't the current members of the royal family descended from illegitimate children of earlier kings? That would be another example of illegitimacy in other ancestral lines not affecting the succession so long as the line through which the title (crown) descended to the heirs is always legitimate.
Reply With Quote
  #5726  
Old 04-23-2021, 09:39 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
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.
I was thinking that he might want to give it to Louis; a bit like how Philip liked one of his sons to have the Duke of Edinburgh title; so it would stay with his descendants (which of course requires that James will have sons).
Reply With Quote
  #5727  
Old 04-23-2021, 10:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
But if it's the case that Victoria Huntington-Whiteley is deemed illegitimate because her parents, Calma of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha & Friedrich Wilhelm of Castell-Rüdhausen, didn't request permission to marry according to the provisions of the RMA doesn't that imply that she in her turn would have been required to request the same permission to marry? If she didn't her son would be illegitimate and would not have been line to inherit his father's title. Or am I understanding this wrong?
I forgot to respond to JR76's question on whether illegitimate children were required to request permission for their own marriages, according to the Royal Marriages Act.

In earlier centuries, the Royal Marriages Act was not deemed to apply to illegitimate descendants. For example, King William IV bestowed the Earldom of Munster on his illegitimate son, George FitzClarence. Later, George was succeeded as Earl by his eldest son. We can infer that the Royal Marriages Act did not apply to George, because if George's marriage had been deemed void according to the RMA, George's son would have been deemed illegitimate and prevented from succeeding George as Earl.

At that time, illegitimate children were not legally acknowledged as the offspring of their birth parents. I am not sure whether the changes in the laws of legitimacy which had come to pass by the time Victoria married Miles affected the interpretation of the Royal Marriages Act.

If Victoria's own marriage to Sir Miles required permission (but my guess is that it did not), their marriage would have been null and void and their son Leopold would have been deemed illegitimate in the UK. Accordingly, Leopold would not have been in line to the baronetcy at birth.

However, he would probably have been in line to the baronetcy after 2015 (he inherited it in 2019), when the Succession to the Crown Act retroactively legitimated most of the descendants who were rendered illegitimate by the Royal Marriages Act. As stated in the law, it would require that "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". But Victoria and Miles would certainly meet that requirement, given that the Royal Marriages Act historically did not apply to illegitimate children like Victoria.
Reply With Quote
  #5728  
Old 04-23-2021, 10:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
.

Victoria's son Leopold Huntington-Whiteley inherited his title from his father Sir Miles Huntington-Whiteley. To prove his claim to his title, he would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of Sir Miles. Refer to the guidance from the College of Arms:
11. For the succession of a son by the first or only marriage of the late peer
a) the full birth certificate of the claimant;
b) the marriage certificate of the claimant’s parents;
c) the death certificate of the late peer; and
d) evidence showing that the late Peer had no legitimate surviving male issue before the birth of the claimant.

What if the mother was required to ask for permission to marry, but did not? Would the marriage certificate of the claimant's parents (item b of the list) be considered valid in that case ?

I believe that is what JR76 asked.


EDIT: Sorry, I noticed now you have already answered the question above.
Reply With Quote
  #5729  
Old 04-23-2021, 12:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
At the beginning I misread JR76's question and thought he was asking about both Victoria, Lady Huntington-Whiteley and Sir Leopold Huntington-Whiteley's potential illegitimacy (and forgot to respond to the latter), but I see now he was asking only about Leopold. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Post #2393903 is therefore the correct reply, though I will leave the comment about Victoria where it is.


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.

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.
One potential correction: I have read somewhere, albeit I cannot locate the source offhand, that it would be possible to create a peerage under the Life Peerages Act using a style other than Baron, and that section (2)(a) simply means that the duke (or whatever style he uses) would only hold the rank of a baron.
Reply With Quote
  #5730  
Old 04-23-2021, 06:15 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I forgot to respond to JR76's question on whether illegitimate children were required to request permission for their own marriages, according to the Royal Marriages Act.
Thank you for taking the trouble to post such an extensive reply. It answered quite a lot of things I've been wondering about in relation to the RMA.
Also thanks to Denville. Unfortunately the thank you button isn't a feature on the Android app.
Reply With Quote
  #5731  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:05 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Confirmation that Charles has inherited the Dukedom of Edinburgh:

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/n...e-of-edinburgh

The Duke of Edinburgh was granted the style and title of Royal Highness on 19 November 1947; on the next day, 20 November, he was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, of Greenwich in the County of London. These peerages are hereditary and on the death of His Royal Highness have passed to his eldest son, HRH The Prince of Wales. In the event of the Prince of Wales or any subsequent holder of these titles succeeding to the Crown, these titles and all others held will merge with the Crown.
Reply With Quote
  #5732  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Its hard to say. It might happen in hte interests of makng male and female royals more equal.. however, OTOH, the trend is for less titles, less HRHS etc.. so - mabye not. But in that case, if Charlotte does nt get a peerage when she marries, mabye Louis wont get one either. That only the heir and the heir's heir will get titles.


I’d like to see Charlotte treated the same as Louis- whatever that ends up meaning. But, we’ll see.
Reply With Quote
  #5733  
Old 04-23-2021, 07:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post



If Victoria's own marriage to Sir Miles required permission (but my guess is that it did not), their marriage would have been null and void and their son Leopold would have been deemed illegitimate in the UK. Accordingly, Leopold would not have been in line to the baronetcy at birth.

You are correct. Even if Victoria's mother Caroline Mathilde had been subject to the RMA, Victoria was not, by virtue of Caroline Mathilde's marriage to Victoria's father, a foreign count.

For example, the Teck children (who were born and raised in the UK) weren't subject to the RMA because their father Francis Duke of Teck was a foreign prince.
Reply With Quote
  #5734  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The fact remains that no matter what Harry does or says or where he moves or even if he gets into a situation like Andrew got himself into, Parliament, by law, will not and can not remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason to Crown and Country.
Which law states that Parliament cannot remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason? I have never heard of it. Further, the law is made by Parliament; my understanding is that its sovereignty is confined only by international treaties to which the UK commits itself.

I cannot see any legal reason why Parliament could not remove the titles of every single duke in the United Kingdom, if that was its wish. (Of course, you are right that it will not do that.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
In the UK he wouldn't be introduced like this; he would be HRH The Duke of Sussex; they wouldn't combine the 'prince Harry' and 'Duke of Sussex' (without 'the'!). Given that he is not supposed to use HRH; using his highest title would mean being introduced as 'The Duke of Sussex' without a first name or prince; however, I guess both Harry and Meghan prefer to have their first name attached to it for recognition purposes.
I find it odd that according to the 2020 family agreement he is free to use Prince for any purpose but is not supposed to use HRH for any purpose, given that in countries like the United States, Prince is more recognizable as a royal title than HRH is. I wonder if, because the Palace consistently refers to him as (HRH) The Duke of Sussex, it escaped their minds that referring to himself as Prince Harry was a possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #5735  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:29 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Which law states that Parliament cannot remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason? I have never heard of it. Further, the law is made by Parliament; my understanding is that its sovereignty is confined only by international treaties to which the UK commits itself.

I cannot see any legal reason why Parliament could not remove the titles of every single duke in the United Kingdom, if that was its wish. (Of course, you are right that it will not do that.)
This is what I'm going by. The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. It's the first and *only* time it's been used to strip titles in modern times (as far as I know).

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/...ess-of-sussex/

It wouldn't apply to Harry under this act as he's not an "enemy" of Crown and Country and the US and UK are allies and it's not unusual for a person to have dual UK/US citizenship these days.

The other factor here is that if Harry were to be stripped of his ducal titles in Parliament, that opens the door to a new precedent where people would clamor "but... but... what Andrew is accused of is much, much worse!" And there starts a domino effect by the court of popular opinion. A lot of people with significant titles have behaved badly through history and have not lost their titles. However, the title may go into a category of "infamous" such as the Duke of Windsor title did.

I'm an American and learning... don't shoot me yet.
__________________
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
  #5736  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:39 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This is what I'm going by. The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. It's the first and *only* time it's been used to strip titles in modern times (as far as I know).
The entire Titles Deprivation Act can be read at this link:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...7-8/47/enacted

There is nothing in the Act to limit Parliament's sovereignty over titles. (Even if there were, there would be nothing to bar the current Parliament from repealing the Act.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It wouldn't apply to Harry under this act as he's not an "enemy" of Crown and Country
Even if he hypothetically were, it would not apply to him since, as stated in the Act, it only concerns "the present war" (i.e. the First World War).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The other factor here is that if Harry were to be stripped of his ducal titles in Parliament, that opens the door to a new precedent where people would clamor "but... but... what Andrew is accused of is much, much worse!" And there starts a domino effect by the court of popular opinion. A lot of people with significant titles have behaved badly through history and have not lost their titles. However, the title may go into a category of "infamous" such as the Duke of Windsor title did.
I cannot imagine even the Duke of York being stripped of his ducal titles by Parliament without a criminal conviction, but as I said, I see no legal (as opposed to political) limitation on Parliament's powers.
Reply With Quote
  #5737  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:49 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The entire Titles Deprivation Act can be read at this link:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...7-8/47/enacted

There is nothing in the Act to limit Parliament's sovereignty over titles. (Even if there were, there would be nothing to bar the current Parliament from repealing the Act.)



Even if he hypothetically were, it would not apply to him since, as stated in the Act, it only concerns "the present war" (i.e. the First World War).




I cannot imagine even the Duke of York being stripped of his ducal titles by Parliament without a criminal conviction, but as I said, I see no legal (as opposed to political) limitation on Parliament's powers.

I agree. There is no limitation since the UK Parliament is sovereign.



Previously, there could be a limitation if an act of Parliament conflicted with EU law. Even in the latter case, however, Parliament's will would prevail if the said act contained an explicit provision that it would be in force notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in European law. Such provision would possibly put the UK in breach of its obligations in international law (e.g. under the European Union treaties), but could not be subject to judicial review by the UK courts. Without an explicit notwithstanding clause, UK courts could, however, suspend the application of the said act invoking the European Communities Act.

Brexit eliminated the latter possibility and restored the full sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, which was one of its goals in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #5738  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:56 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Which, to me, boils down to one thing. Parliament has other pressing issues and governmental issues to deal with than to find it a necessity to put Harry's peerage titles (or Andrew's or any peer after him) to even bring them up for discussion in Parliament.

Once you open that can of worms, those worms will never go back in the can again. If, by chance, Parliament did take on the issue of Harry's ducal title today, it would set a precedent of how to handle other peerage titles or could Harry's be a "one off" kind of act of Parliament?
__________________
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
  #5739  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
I think we can all agree that there is no prospect of serious discussion in Parliament of stripping any royal or non-royal peer of his titles in the foreseeable future (except perhaps in the event that a peer is convicted in court of murder; in that event I could imagine a discussion occurring in Parliament).
Reply With Quote
  #5740  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:18 AM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,550
Are there really no peers who have been up on murder charges in the last century or so? (I suppose before the last fifty years or so a convicted murderer might have faced the death penalty, and that would have solved the title problem.)

Murder, I'm not so sure about. Treason or possibly even espionage, I would say yes.
__________________

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: 2 (0 members and 2 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 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 daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree 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 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 12:09 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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