Questions about British Styles and Titles

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Alison H

The Palace possibly didn't want to say anything that would spark headlines about male only primogeniture. It's not really a subject in the news because, apart from royal dukedoms and earldoms, nobody's really that bothered about who's the next Duke of A or Earl of B. One duke's daughter, and I'm afraid I can't remember whom, did go to the press and say that it wasn't fair, but people weren't that interested.

The woman you mention is Charlotte Carew Pole and her campaign is here:
https://daughtersrights.co.uk

This link takes you to the latest position in parliament and I think it will progress (if slowly!)
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/w...of-succession/

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

The woman you mention is Charlotte Carew Pole and her campaign is here:
https://daughtersrights.co.uk

This link takes you to the latest position in parliament and I think it will progress (if slowly!)
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/w...of-succession/

I think the major people who were part of it were Lady Kinvara Balfour and probably Julian Fellowes. Charlotte Carew-Pole is a baronet’s daughter (part of the gentry) not necessarily nobility.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I think the major people who were part of it were Lady Kinvara Balfour and probably Julian Fellowes. Charlotte Carew-Pole is a baronet’s daughter (part of the gentry) not necessarily nobility.

Charlotte founded the campaign - listen to her talk about it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy1jfJNsFuQ

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

The woman you mention is Charlotte Carew Pole and her campaign is here:
https://daughtersrights.co.uk

This link takes you to the latest position in parliament and I think it will progress (if slowly!)
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/w...of-succession/

I looked her up and came across a Glamour Mag article where it is indicated around the time H&M were expecting their first child, she was campaigning for change in primogeniture if they had a daughter born first.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I looked her up and came across a Glamour Mag article where it is indicated around the time H&M were expecting their first child, she was campaigning for change in primogeniture if they had a daughter born first.

Charlotte probably did have something to say about it but her campaign pre-dates that - she founded it in 2015.

[Tatiana Maria]

I've copied my reply to the British Nobility thread as that is where I've posted related news before:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Thanks, Lilyflo.

The present campaign began in 2013 under the name Hares are Running and was spurred by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which removed sex discrimination from the succession to the crown. Its previous lead campaigner was the Countess of Clancarty, whose husband's earldom is set to become extinct even though the couple has a daughter.

People related to the Royal Family who have signed their names to the petition for equal primogeniture are the then Lady Serena Linley (the ex-wife of the current Earl of Snowdon), Melanie Cable-Alexander (the mother of the 1st Earl of Snowdon's son Jasper Cable-Alexander), and the Marchioness of Milford Haven (the wife of a cousin of Prince Philip).

Charlotte Carew Pole, who renewed the campaign under the name of Daughters' Rights, was born as a middle-class commoner, so she is not in line to inherit any title herself with or without a change to equal primogeniture.

She was inspired to become an activist against male primogeniture because of the behavior of some of her husband's aristocratic relatives when she gave birth to a daughter:

Charlotte Carew Pole, founder of Daughters' Rights, a campaign against [male] primogeniture, describes her aristocratic family's reaction when her first child, a daughter, was born. Of course, they were happy to have the baby. But, she said, there were frequent comments about what a shame it was that the child couldn't inherit and how Charlotte and her husband "must try again." Can you imagine the heartbreak of seeing that reaction to the birth of your first child? Charlotte says she had not, until that moment, seen that people would actually feel "a girl might not be the right baby to have."

https://www.doublexeconomy.com/post/...ng-the-peerage

After seven miscarriages and two rounds of IVF Charlotte Carew Pole was “absolutely thrilled” when she gave birth to her daughter, Jemima. Yet the penny soon dropped that, for some, Jemima was not good enough.

“It was definitely a thing,” she said. “‘Congratulations, what a shame it wasn’t a boy’, or ‘How quickly can you have another?’” were some of the comments she received.

“There was a general expectation that I must keep pumping them out until a boy arrived. And all because I married a man who will inherit a title.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...ture-3qznb7j5l

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I think the major people who were part of it were Lady Kinvara Balfour and probably Julian Fellowes. Charlotte Carew-Pole is a baronet’s daughter (part of the gentry) not necessarily nobility.

But baronetcies are also hereditary and descend by agnatic primogeniture.

[Tatiana Maria]

Mrs. Carew Pole is married to the son and heir of a baronet. She is not of aristocratic birth herself.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I am confused. Is your comment "I don't see what has changed in essence." meant to respond to the Mail article, my post, or SirGyamfi1's post?

If it is a response to my post: So you are saying that if Buckingham Palace had been asked a question about male primogeniture in, say, 1923, they would have responded in the same way (refusal to comment)?

If it is a response to the Mail article: It is not the first time that the Mail and other newspapers have published articles about male primogeniture or specifically about Louise being bypassed for James. That is indeed not a "change". But the recent dukedom news has refocused attention on it.

My post was in response to the discussion now being held about Louise holding a lower style/title than her brother; in that regard nothing has changed between a few days ago and now: she was always styled as lady (first because it is the traditional style for the daughter of an earl and now because it is the traditional style for the daughter of a duke) and her brother was always styled with their father's subsidiary title. So, I don't understand why that suddenly has become an issue (other than attention) as in essence nothing has changed.

The part that has been 'unfair' to sons for ages is that younger sons of an earl are only 'honorables' while their sisters are ladies.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Mrs. Carew Pole is married to the son and heir of a baronet. She is not of aristocratic birth herself.

They have a son now after all the stress so the baronetcy won’t die out yet.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Alison H

The Palace possibly didn't want to say anything that would spark headlines about male only primogeniture. It's not really a subject in the news because, apart from royal dukedoms and earldoms, nobody's really that bothered about who's the next Duke of A or Earl of B.

Thank you for understanding what I meant.

Originally Posted by Somebody

My post was in response to the discussion now being held about Louise holding a lower style/title than her brother; in that regard nothing has changed between a few days ago and now: she was always styled as lady (first because it is the traditional style for the daughter of an earl and now because it is the traditional style for the daughter of a duke) and her brother was always styled with their father's subsidiary title. So, I don't understand why that suddenly has become an issue (other than attention) as in essence nothing has changed.

I see. Hopefully the discussion has now made clear that it didn't just "suddenly become an issue": there has been a campaign against male primogeniture ongoing for the past decade, and Louise's situation has been reported on before. This was simply the first time - to my knowledge - that Buckingham Palace was directly asked for comment.

Originally Posted by Somebody

The part that has been 'unfair' to sons for ages is that younger sons of an earl are only 'honorables' while their sisters are ladies.

Yes indeed; also, even when a peerage is inheritable by women, heiresses generally cannot use the same courtesy styles as a male heir.

[Meee]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't see what has changed in essence. James was using one of his father's subsidiary titles (as his heir) and still is using one of his father's subsidiary titles (just a different one, now his father is a dyke, so his previous title is now the subsidiary title).

Louise was styled as a Lady as daughter of an earl and now still is styled as a lady as the daughter of a duke. If Louise and James would have had a younger brother (let's call him Thomas), his style would have changed from The Honarable Thomas M-W to Lord Thomas M-W.,

Nothing has changed, but it looks to the general public who don’t follow these things too closely that they have. James is now known as Earl of Wessex, the title his father was using this time last week. The significance of the ‘The’ which indicates that Edward was/is The Earl, and that James isn’t the Earl yet won’t be widely understood. James looks like he’s been promoted, while Louise hasn’t and the optics are that the monarchy is sexist again. It would probably look more equal if Louise used her HRH - and some probably thought she would when her father became a Duke, as the Duke of York’s daughters are Princesses.

James looks like he is an Earl, due to the never before seen situation where the subsidiary title he’s known by is the actual title he’ll inherit.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Meee

Nothing has changed, but it looks to the general public who don’t follow these things too closely that they have. James is now known as Earl of Wessex, the title his father was using this time last week. The significance of the ‘The’ which indicates that Edward was/is The Earl, and that James isn’t the Earl yet won’t be widely understood. James looks like he’s been promoted, while Louise hasn’t and the optics are that the monarchy is sexist again. It would probably look more equal if Louise used her HRH - and some probably thought she would when her father became a Duke, as the Duke of York’s daughters are Princesses.

James looks like he is an Earl, due to the never before seen situation where the subsidiary title he’s known by is the actual title he’ll inherit.

It isn't 'never before seen situation' as it happens all the time. It is a lack of understanding of how these things work rather than it being a unique situation.

Not long ago the present Earl Snowdon was known as Viscount Linley. Now he is the Earl and his son is Viscount Linley.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It isn't 'never before seen situation' as it happens all the time. It is a lack of understanding of how these things work rather than it being a unique situation.

Not long ago the present Earl Snowdon was known as Viscount Linley. Now he is the Earl and his son is Viscount Linley.

But James won't be known as anything in the future other than THE Earl of Wessex, with a 'The' added. That's quite unique, because I don't think there's ever been anyone whose senior title is a life peerage.

I also doubt too many people generally or outside this board care what Louise and James are called, simply because Edward himself said his existence and relationship with the King are misidentified all the time. It stands to reason people are not aware of his kids.

[Opals]

A totally hypothetical question, what would Louise and James's titles be if they used the prince and princess.

I assume Louise would be Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Edinburgh but I'm less sure about her brother. Would it be His Royal Highness Earl of Wessex Prince James of Edinburgh?

Again just a hypothetical

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Opals

A totally hypothetical question, what would Louise and James's titles be if they used the prince and princess.

I assume Louise would be Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Edinburgh but I'm less sure about her brother. Would it be His Royal Highness Earl of Wessex Prince James of Edinburgh?

Again just a hypothetical

Just Prince James. "Earl of Wessex" is his courtesy title from his father, and being royal outranks it. If he (or Louise) were bestowed a title in their own right, that would be a different story — HRH the Whatever of Wherever.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Opals

A totally hypothetical question, what would Louise and James's titles be if they used the prince and princess.

I assume Louise would be Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Edinburgh but I'm less sure about her brother. Would it be His Royal Highness Earl of Wessex Prince James of Edinburgh?

Again just a hypothetical

Like Beatrice and Eugenie, pre-marriage and Prince Michael today:

HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh
HRH Prince James of Edinburgh..

The current Duke of Gloucester was HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester until he succeeded to his father's dukedom and the current Duke of Kent was HRH Prince Edward of Kent until his father's death.

James would be the same - HRH Prince James of Edinburgh until Edward dies when he would become HRH The Earl of Wessex.

Louise would be HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh until she marries when, following the precedent of Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandra she would replace the 'of Edinburgh' with Mrs xxxxx.