Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[SirGyamfi1]

No I don't BUT if they are to be they should be gender neutral. Daughters as well as sons.

The peerage system doesn’t work that way, it will be too confusing and I don’t see how that will be viable.

 

[FigTree]

The peerage system doesn’t work that way, it will be too confusing and I don’t see how that will be viable.

Ah there are Dukedoms where daughters can inherit. Fife...for one and that is a royal dukedom.

 

[Prinsara]

Ah there are Dukedoms where daughters can inherit. Fife...for one and that is a royal dukedom.

Can the daughters still inherit, or was that a special remainder for Alexandra only?

 

[FigTree]

Can the daughters still inherit, or was that a special remainder for Alexandra only?

Well if its changed for one. I don't think it has arisen again because in the first instance girls are looked over.

There are other titles over the land where women could inherit as well. So they must be able to make changes to their own domain.

 

[Prinsara]

Well if its changed for one. I don't think it has arisen again because in the first instance girls are looked over.

There are other titles over the land where women could inherit as well. So they must be able to make changes to their own domain.

But some (very few) titles are "semi-Salic". I'm not sure if the special remainder cases like Mountbatten, good for one daughter only, outnumber them or not.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Ah there are Dukedoms where daughters can inherit. Fife...for one and that is a royal dukedom.

Which Dukedoms? The Fife one might have been inherited by females, but it was the male descendants who inherited. Also most of the peerages that were inherited by women were feudal baronies with very different letters patent issued.

Well if its changed for one. I don't think it has arisen again because in the first instance girls are looked over.

There are other titles over the land where women could inherit as well. So they must be able to make changes to their own domain.

But ultimately it was the male descendants who inherited. If you are talking about entails those were broken in the 1950s. Titles aren’t really attached to land these days. For example, the 7th Duke of Portland broke the entails and let his daughters inherit Welbeck Abbey and other family properties.

No I don't BUT if they are to be they should be gender neutral. Daughters as well as sons.

Your suggestion is simply going to increase numbers of the peers.

Well if its changed for one. I don't think it has arisen again because in the first instance girls are looked over.

There are other titles over the land where women could inherit as well. So they must be able to make changes to their own domain.

The letters patent for the recreated Dukedom was the first Dukes daughters of Princess Louise and heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten.

 

[FigTree]

Your suggestion is simply going to increase numbers of the peers.

Look I don't want any to be hereditary but if they are yes daughters should have their own. Charlotte should be treated no different from Louis.

I am basically saying I don't want any to be hereditary anymore but if they must be we need gender equivalence. Basically any which way the system needs updating.

 

[Denville]

but its not making sense. If you allow royal women to have dukedoms the number of peers will increase. if you dont like the idea of peers, you have to abolish the lot..

 

[FigTree]

but its not making sense. If you allow royal women to have dukedoms the number of peers will increase. if you dont like the idea of peers, you have to abolish the lot..

Of course it makes sense. I, personally, am in favour of life peerages for both sons and daughters. However, if that isn't the case then sons and daughters still have to be treated the same.

Number one is gender equality.

Number two is have life peerages.

If you have Number one without Number two and the numbers of peers increase. Well then at least its more equal.

 

[Denville]

what on earth difference will it all make? Apart from Pss Anne (Pss Alexandra is nearly retired now) there are no working princesses, and Anne's done her job for many years as Pss Anne without a peerage. And what about the husbands of these female peers if they have husbands? Are they going to be Dukes? the whole trend nowadays is to have less and less peers, one reason why the husbands of princesses are no longer offered an earldom.

 

[FigTree]

what on earth difference will it all make? Apart from Pss Anne (Pss Alexandra is nearly retired now) there are no working princesses, and Anne's done her job for many years as Pss Anne without a peerage. And what about the husbands of these female peers if they have husbands? Are they going to be Dukes? the whole trend nowadays is to have less and less peers, one reason why the husbands of princesses are no longer offered an earldom.

Well charlotte will grow up one day and if she is a working Royal I think she should be a life peer. No need to give her partner a title. No need for them to work for the firm and I would say the same for Louis. Other countries do this. Princess Madeleine's husband doesn't have a title.

If they continued with the passing down peerages. Then yes, if she had children, the first born would have to get it I suppose.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That the egalitarian Scandinavian or Dutch monarchies did not allow female nobles to pass titles was exactly because of the undesired side-effect: it would continue the hereditary Nobility rather than let it fade away in a dormant state.

Out of courtesy, politesse and because of the historic fabric of the Nobility, none of these monarchies wants to end it. They see the Nobility as an institution, with historic rules, which would never be acceptable now but as "a glass dome" has been placed over it, it is "frozen in time" so to sprak.

People who advocate gender equality in Nobility effectively promote perpetuity in this most excluding social system imagineable.

 

[FigTree]

That the egalitarian Scandinavian or Dutch monarchies did not allow female nobles to pass titles was exactly because of the undesired side-effect: it would continue the hereditary Nobility rather than let it fade away in a dormant state.

Out of courtesy, politesse and because of the historic fabric of the Nobility, none of these monarchies wants to end it. They see the Nobility as an institution, with historic rules, which would never be acceptable now but as "a glass dome" has been placed over it, it is "frozen in time" so to sprak.

People who advocate gender equality in Nobility effectively promote perpetuity in this most excluding social system imagineable.

It comes down to which belief you think is more important. I personally would do two. Gender equality and a life peer ( or change the title to lesser after 1st). If I had to choose unfortunately, for some, come down on gender equality side.

 

[Denville]

Well charlotte will grow up one day and if she is a working Royal I think she should be a life peer. No need to give her partner a title. No need for them to work for the firm and I would say the same for Louis. Other countries do this. Princess Madeleine's husband doesn't have a title.

If they continued with the passing down peerages. Then yes, if she had children, the first born would have to get it I suppose.

but that is completely flying in the face of gender equality, if princesses become royal duchesses and dont share their title with their spouses. How can you justify George's wife being a duchess, but Charlotte's husband not being a duke? As for Charlotte, I'm guessing she is not that likely to become a working royal when she is grown up, it will be just the king, queen, POW and his wife... and the next heir.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

When I hear people talking about modernizing certain system with clear guidelines and rules. I just laugh. The more you try to keep matching it with social-political cultural zeitgeists the more it appears anachronistic and out of touch and the questions won’t stop about what to do next.

 

[FigTree]

but that is completely flying in the face of gender equality, if princesses become royal duchesses and dont share their title with their spouses. How can you justify George's wife being a duchess, but Charlotte's husband not being a duke? As for Charlotte, I'm guessing she is not that likely to become a working royal when she is grown up, it will be just the king, queen, POW and his wife... and the next heir.

Because ambitiously or unfortunately for them marrying the heir to the throne is a career move. If she is not likely to be a working royal then neither her or Louis should be given peerages. There should be no reason either spouse gets a title and they should very much be like Bea and Eug and Prince Michael. I mean it’s all done then too really. Harry then will be the last hereditary peerage given…ironic.

And then maybe all points are done. Peerages no longer an issue, no need to think of gender equality and a far more stripped back system.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

It comes down to which belief you think is more important. I personally would do two. Gender equality and a life peer ( or change the title to lesser after 1st). If I had to choose unfortunately, for some, come down on gender equality side.

Life peerages in the UK are only given to people with political involvement. So what would be the point of giving life peerages? The only way daughters are going to get peerages is if (A) They marry an eligible peer with a title (B) Be lucky to have a peerage that can descend to female lines from their family (C) move to another country with an aristocracy and monarchy and assimilate well enough and be involved in some way and get titles (D) If their father’s only have daughters and want the title to pass to them instead of a distant relative, then their fathers should request a writ for the titles and hope for the best.

 

[Denville]

Life peerages in the UK are only given to people with political involvement. So what would be the point of giving life peerages? The only way daughters are going to get peerages is if (A) They marry an eligible peer with a title (B) Be lucky to have a peerage that can descend to female lines from their family (C) move to another country with an aristocracy and monarchy and assimilate well enough and be involved in some way and get titles (D) If their father’s only have daughters and want the title to pass to them instead of a distant relative, then their fathers should request a writ for the titles and hope for the best.

Life peerages are given to people who have done something special, some kind of service that is recognised... Diana's broher in law Robin Fellowes got a life peerage for service to the queen as her secretary

 

[Denville]

Because ambitiously or unfortunately for them marrying the heir to the throne is a career move. If she is not likely to be a working royal then neither her or Louis should be given peerages. There should be no reason either spouse gets a title and they should very much be like Bea and Eug and Prince Michael. I mean it’s all done then too really. Harry then will be the last hereditary peerage given…ironic.

And then maybe all points are done. Peerages no longer an issue, no need to think of gender equality and a far more stripped back system.

so I presum you think that Kate and Meghan and the other royal wives of Dukes should not have the title of Duchess?

 

[FigTree]

so I presum you think that Kate and Meghan and the other royal wives of Dukes should not have the title of Duchess?

I have no opinion really. You can’t look at what was done years ago and view it through what you want for the future. Kate is a future Queen hers is, and probably always will be, a given. Going forward it’s a very tricky one to do with choice and a woman's right to take her husbands name if she wishes. So complex one. Presumably if Louis got married to a women, didn’t get a Dukedown, she would have the right to be known as Princess Louis of Cambridge (or whatever). Who knows in however many years time it may be equally as common to keep her own name.

 

[Somebody]

Not that I think Archie should be inheriting either but that would make her alone from Charles grandchildren.

Anyway doesn't really matter.

Whether she is the only one among Charles grandchildren is completely irrelevant. Harry received a peerage as son of the future king. There is no custom to also hand peerages to grandchildren.

Lady Sarah Chatto is also the only one among her cousins who isn't either a prince(ss) or has a peerage. If the 'Duke of York' had a remainder to be passed down in female line as well, only Beatrice would receive it as some point and not Eugenie. Would that also be unfair? While you might complain that it shouldn't go to the oldest either, that's just how the British nobility system works. Only 1 person can inherit the title - in most cases that is the eldest son, and in some cases that also might be the eldest daughter (without brothers).

If Charles and Diana had had a third son, there would most likely have been another family headed by a Duke of which only the eldest son would be eligible to inherit that title. Any younger children of that hypothetical third son would not. So, she isn't singled out. It is just that Harry doesn't have a younger brother nor does she herself have a younger sibling.

In general, a third Wales-brother would have made things much easier for people to understand, as it would be clear that any measures taken would not specifically target one family but would be targeted to 'younger sons and their families' in general.

 

[Somebody]

Because ambitiously or unfortunately for them marrying the heir to the throne is a career move. If she is not likely to be a working royal then neither her or Louis should be given peerages. There should be no reason either spouse gets a title and they should very much be like Bea and Eug and Prince Michael. I mean it’s all done then too really. Harry then will be the last hereditary peerage given…ironic.

And then maybe all points are done. Peerages no longer an issue, no need to think of gender equality and a far more stripped back system.

I have no opinion really. You can’t look at what was done years ago and view it through what you want for the future. Kate is a future Queen hers is, and probably always will be, a given. Going forward it’s a very tricky one to do with choice and a woman's right to take her husbands name if she wishes. So complex one. Presumably if Louis got married to a women, didn’t get a Dukedown, she would have the right to be known as Princess Louis of Cambridge (or whatever). Who knows in however many years time it may be equally as common to keep her own name.

Exactly, Louis' wife will be 'HRH Princess Louis of Cambridge' (or 'of Wales' or no 'of' at all) if he doesn't get a peerage. She will be entitled to that, just like prince Michael's wife is HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

 

[FigTree]

Whether she is the only one among Charles grandchildren is completely irrelevant. Harry received a peerage as son of the future king. There is no custom to also hand peerages to grandchildren.

Lady Sarah Chatto is also the only one among her cousins who isn't either a prince(ss) or has a peerage. If the 'Duke of York' had a remainder to be passed down in female line as well, only Beatrice would receive it as some point and not Eugenie. Would that also be unfair? While you might complain that it shouldn't go to the oldest either, that's just how the British nobility system works. Only 1 person can inherit the title - in most cases that is the eldest son, and in some cases that also might be the eldest daughter (without brothers).

If Charles and Diana had had a third son, there would most likely have been another family headed by a Duke of which only the eldest son would be eligible to inherit that title. Any younger children of that hypothetical third son would not. So, she isn't singled out. It is just that Harry doesn't have a younger brother nor does she herself have a younger sibling.

In general, a third Wales-brother would have made things much easier for people to understand, as it would be clear that any measures taken would not specifically target one family but would be targeted to 'younger sons and their families' in general.

I was just thinking out loud. I don’t think it truly matters life wise what these members of a hugely privileged family have title wise. The ones without the titles, but with all the associated perks, do a lot better.

 

[Denville]

I have no opinion really. You can’t look at what was done years ago and view it through what you want for the future. Kate is a future Queen hers is, and probably always will be, a given. Going forward it’s a very tricky one to do with choice and a woman's right to take her husbands name if she wishes. So complex one. Presumably if Louis got married to a women, didn’t get a Dukedown, she would have the right to be known as Princess Louis of Cambridge (or whatever). Who knows in however many years time it may be equally as common to keep her own name.

really cant follow you, so going to drop it.

 

[Mbruno]

Exactly, Louis' wife will be 'HRH Princess Louis of Cambridge' (or 'of Wales' or no 'of' at all) if he doesn't get a peerage. She will be entitled to that, just like prince Michael's wife is HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

When Prince Charles becomes King, Prince Louis' title will change, I think, to HRH Prince Louis of Cornwall and Cambridge (just as King George VI was briefly HRH Prince Albert of Cornwall and York between January and November 1901). I assume that, according to tradition, Prince William will be created Prince of Wales shortly thereafter though. Then Louis' title will change to HRH Prince Louis of Wales. When Prince William is King, however, if Prince Louis is not given any peerage, he may become simply HRH The Prince Louis, in which case his wife would be known as HRH The Princess Louis under current conventions.

However, we are talking about a hypothetical marriage that might take place close to 30 years from now. The naming conventions in Britain may change over that period of time and maybe wives of princes will start to be cited by their own names, although I wouldn't bet on that possibility.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I was just thinking out loud. I don’t think it truly matters life wise what these members of a hugely privileged family have title wise. The ones without the titles, but with all the associated perks, do a lot better.

What perks do those without titles have? The only thing is that they will get is no media scrutiny but there are even those with titles like the Gloucester’s who get little to no scrutiny.

 

[Mbruno]

What perks do those without titles have? The only thing is that they will get is no media scrutiny but there are even those with titles like the Gloucester’s who get little to no scrutiny.

Untitled members of the family like Peter and Zara also draw plenty of media attention.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Untitled members of the family like Peter and Zara also draw plenty of media attention.

Occasionally, but the media doesn’t talk too much about them.

 

[Somebody]

When Prince Charles becomes King, Prince Louis' title will change, I think, to HRH Prince Louis of Cornwall and Cambridge (just as King George VI was briefly HRH Prince Albert of Cornwall and York between January and November 1901). I assume that, according to tradition, Prince William will be created Prince of Wales shortly thereafter though. Then Louis' title will change to HRH Prince Louis of Wales. When Prince William is King, however, if Prince Louis is not given any peerage, he may become simply HRH The Prince Louis, in which case his wife would be known as HRH The Princess Louis under current conventions.

Correct. It seems unlikely that at the time of Louis' marriage William wouldn't be either prince of Wales or king... which is why I presented these two options of being 'of Wales' or not having any territorial indication as the son of the monarch in addition to his current title.

However, we are talking about a hypothetical marriage that might take place close to 30 years from now. The naming conventions in Britain may change over that period of time and maybe wives of princes will start to be cited by their own names, although I wouldn't bet on that possibility.

True but the aritocracy is typically not at the forefront of such changes...

 

[FigTree]

really cant follow you, so going to drop it.

Legally woman have the right to know by their husbands surname when they marry they can use their own of course and this may be more common in 30 odd years when persumably Louis may wish to marry.