The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1461  
Old 02-21-2021, 04:28 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Its the 21st century, just like the monarchy, if things want to survive they need to modernize a bit.

The time for male only should have been long over. In Scottish titles (ones that are older then the union of the thrones) there are those who already practice male-preference. Lady Saltoun is the most clear example of that.

It needs to be done retroactively so those lords who have no sons, and who are beyond having more children (their daughters are adults) can leave their titles to their grown children.

Male preference for any children born before 2020 say, and equal rights after 2020 would be the prime idea. It would mean no son who is already heir would be stripped of his title. But if a Duke or such only has daughters (born before 2020) they will still be able to inherit their father's throne. Kind of like how the succession was handled in countries like Norway. Where Haakon was still ahead of Martha Louise, but Ingrid is ahead of her brother.

They could even do earlier then 2020. Just choose a point so that no 'adult heir' is stripped of their position.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1462  
Old 02-21-2021, 05:59 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
I would also like to ask if the absolute primogeniture would apply to royal peerages? The most prominent example would be the Dukedom of York and whether or not Princess Beatrice would inherit it in the future. I chose the Duke of York, because he has no sons to pass down his title under male primogeniture. And for the royal peers who have sons and daughters, would the daughters be added to the peerage line of succession (i.e. Would Lady Louise be ahead of her younger brother, James in inheriting Earldom of Wessex or Dukedom of Edinburgh if the title is created for Prince Edward?) Of course these circumstances will depends on what year (of the child's birth) the Bill decided to apply to.

I understand that the next holder of Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent would not have HRH Prince title (becoming non-royal peer).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1463  
Old 02-21-2021, 06:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Second, there is the question of the link between the family estate and the title. I am not versed in English property law, but, as far as I understand it and Tatiana Maria or Durham may be able to confirm, entails have been abolished in England. In fact, I believe that even the creation of new trusts to simulate entails in practice by having the title holder as "tenant for life" is now unlawful (I don't know about preexisting trusts). If so, there is no legal impediment to a hypothetical Lady Mary Crawley inheriting her father's estate rather than surrendering it to her fifth cousin upon her father's demise. In that scenario, daughters are still disadvantaged to the extent that holding a peerage still carries certain rights and privileges in the UK (more so than on other countries), but the link between the estate and the title has already been broken in practice anyway.
I'm afraid I am not versed in English property law either, but the linked court judgment, which was handed down in 2009, explains that entails still exist in law, but it is a simple matter for the tenant in possession to terminate it. (Nevertheless, it is obviously in the interest of noble families to maintain the link between the peerage and the estate.)

P, Re [2009] EWCOP 163 (09 February 2009)

(By the way, it was me who argued that it is not forbidden in law for children to take their mother's name, though in my judgment that is what the Viscount meant by "solvable". I don't think there is any case that would provide a reasonable basis for arguing that it is illegal.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
It needs to be done retroactively so those lords who have no sons, and who are beyond having more children (their daughters are adults) can leave their titles to their grown children.
I understand you to mean that it needs to be done for preexisting daughters of present peers, without applying it retroactively to past successions. Fully retroactive equal primogeniture would transfer the peerage to the eldest child of the eldest child of the eldest child, etc., etc., etc., of the original grantee, who is likely to be a very distant relative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Male preference for any children born before 2020 say, and equal rights after 2020 would be the prime idea. It would mean no son who is already heir would be stripped of his title. But if a Duke or such only has daughters (born before 2020) they will still be able to inherit their father's throne. Kind of like how the succession was handled in countries like Norway. Where Haakon was still ahead of Martha Louise, but Ingrid is ahead of her brother.

They could even do earlier then 2020. Just choose a point so that no 'adult heir' is stripped of their position.
It could certainly be arranged without too much difficulty, but it would be slightly more complex than "sons preferred over daughters for children born before 2020" since the adult heir is not always the son of the peer. For instance, a peer in his 80s who has only daughters may have a nephew in his 60s who has been in preparation for all of his adult life to take over the peerage and its estates, ever since it became obvious that his uncle and aunt would not produce a son.
Reply With Quote
  #1464  
Old 02-22-2021, 03:31 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

Second, there is the question of the link between the family estate and the title. I am not versed in English property law, but, as far as I understand it and Tatiana Maria or Durham may be able to confirm, entails have been abolished in England.
You might find this of interest from a 1957 House of Lords debate:

"The "tenant in tail", that is, the person who succeeds to entailed property, can, in fact, sell or dispose of that property as if he were the absolute owner, and he can deal with the proceeds as if he were the absolute owner. That is so under an Act passed as long ago as 1833,"

So it's been possible to break entails for nearly two centuries. This debate was about the entail on the Norfolk estates in Sussex but they were unsual in that they had been entailed by an act of parliament so only another act could end it:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-h...lords-by-order
Reply With Quote
  #1465  
Old 02-22-2021, 04:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 447
I read that the new Earl Mountbatten is going to sell family portraits and I think that he is wrong to do so. In fact, he reminds me of Lord Linley who also sold at least one portrait. What are these guys thinking? I think that the aristocrats need to keep portraits and at least one tiara for the brides to wear.
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 02-22-2021, 05:21 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan D View Post
I read that the new Earl Mountbatten is going to sell family portraits and I think that he is wrong to do so. In fact, he reminds me of Lord Linley who also sold at least one portrait. What are these guys thinking? I think that the aristocrats need to keep portraits and at least one tiara for the brides to wear.
The auction that I think you're referring to will be held at Sotheby's on the 24 March and will include many items from the home of his deceased parents Countess Mountbatten and Lord Brabourne and are according to the family done in accordance to their wishes. While I agree that its sad that these collections are split up its often necessary to both pay death duties and to be able to split the inheritance evenly among the heirs (The Countess & Lord had 8 children).
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 02-23-2021, 03:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan D View Post
I read that the new Earl Mountbatten is going to sell family portraits and I think that he is wrong to do so. In fact, he reminds me of Lord Linley who also sold at least one portrait. What are these guys thinking? I think that the aristocrats need to keep portraits and at least one tiara for the brides to wear.
Why? They would prefer to be solvent, and pay thier bills and taxes...
Reply With Quote
  #1468  
Old 02-24-2021, 07:04 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
After watching a Youtube video by Lindsay Holiday on line of succession in European Royal Family. Surely most British Nobility followed agnatic primogeniture, where women do not succeed to the hereditary peerage and only men can inherit titles (E.g. Japan, Liechtenstein)? In agnatic primogeniture, only men are in line of succession, whereas women are in the line of succession in male primogeniture, but behind their male siblings' branch. I'm very surprised that The Times seemed to have mixed up between agnatic primogeniture and male primogeniture.

Ladies first in Tory plan to abolish male primogeniture
Daughters may take hereditary peerages under new bill
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...df6b3215677d06

Male primogeniture would mean that a daughter can inherit the peerage if
  • She is the eldest amongst her siblings who are all female (E.g. Queen Elizabeth II)
  • She is the only child (E.g. Queen Victoria)
  • All her (older and younger) brothers who have no children predecease her (E.g. Mary I and Elizabeth I)

Agnatic primogeniture starts at 23:09
https://youtu.be/mNgyPWCTIMA?t=1389

In terms of the probability of a hereditary title becoming extinct (most likely to least likely):
Agnatic primogeniture > Male primogeniture > Absolute primogeniture
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 02-25-2021, 08:07 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,927
Respectfully, I feel the definition of male primogeniture expressed in the video (based on your summary) is more confusing and liable to "mixup" than the definition of male primogeniture expressed in The Times. If I were to read that a peerage was inheritable by male primogeniture, I would not interpret it to mean that both males and females could inherit it.

The rule where
"a daughter can inherit the peerage if

She is the eldest amongst her siblings who are all female (E.g. Queen Elizabeth II)
She is the only child (E.g. Queen Victoria)
All her (older and younger) brothers who have no children predecease her (E.g. Mary I and Elizabeth I)"
ordinarily seems to be known as male preference primogeniture. But son preference (a term used by the Daughters Rights group) is a more accurate label, given that even under those rules there will be cases where a female is preferred to a male, e.g., a daughter will be preferred to her uncle.
Reply With Quote
  #1470  
Old 02-28-2021, 05:33 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
The Earl and Countess of Iveagh are to divorce:

Divorce du comte et de la comtesse de Iveagh – Noblesse & Royautés
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
Reply With Quote
  #1471  
Old 02-28-2021, 05:44 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
The Earl and Countess of Iveagh are to divorce:

Divorce du comte et de la comtesse de Iveagh – Noblesse & Royautés
Wow just short of their 20th wedding anniversary (anniversary is October).

Some couples choose to not divorce until their children are grown. Their son Arthur will be 19 years old this year. Perhaps that played a part who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #1472  
Old 03-01-2021, 09:32 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 14
Lord Fred Wellesley (son to the Duke of Wellington) is engaged.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-expert.html
Reply With Quote
  #1473  
Old 03-04-2021, 07:16 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,596
The family name of Viscount Hambleden is Smith. The family name of Earl Birkenhead is Smith. Are the two Smith families related?
Reply With Quote
  #1474  
Old 03-05-2021, 03:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
The family name of Viscount Hambleden is Smith. The family name of Earl Birkenhead is Smith. Are the two Smith families related?
The first Viscount Hambledon was the founder of a very well know brand of British shops. They are pretty ubiquitous the length & breath of Britain. So the family was involved in commerce. FE Smith later Earl Birkenhead was a well known early C20th politician who held high office. So very different worlds.

I don't know whether they're related or not but I'd be surprised if there was any connection. I'm not aware of one but can't answer the question categorically.
Reply With Quote
  #1475  
Old 03-05-2021, 03:53 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 31,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
The first Viscount Hambledon was the founder of a very well know brand of British shops. They are pretty ubiquitous the length & breath of Britain.
Wasn't that WHSmith?

Not sure if its still in the family or was sold off?
Reply With Quote
  #1476  
Old 03-05-2021, 04:02 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
The first Viscount Hambledon was the founder of a very well know brand of British shops. They are pretty ubiquitous the length & breath of Britain. So the family was involved in commerce. FE Smith later Earl Birkenhead was a well known early C20th politician who held high office. So very different worlds.

I don't know whether they're related or not but I'd be surprised if there was any connection. I'm not aware of one but can't answer the question categorically.
The first viscount wasn’t a viscount at all. It was created for Emily Danvers Smith.

Her husband was indeed a member of the WH Smith family but the company was founded by his grandparents Henry and Anne Smith. It became WH Smith and son when he joined his father in the business.

Like the earl of Birkenhead William was a conservative politician. His wife was awarded the hereditary peerage after his death.

And no there is no sign the two families are related.
Reply With Quote
  #1477  
Old 03-05-2021, 04:05 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
Wasn't that WHSmith?

Not sure if its still in the family or was sold off?
Yes indeed. It was sold off.
Reply With Quote
  #1478  
Old 03-05-2021, 04:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
The first viscount wasn’t a viscount at all. It was created for Emily Danvers Smith.

Her husband was indeed a member of the WH Smith family but the company was founded by his grandparents Henry and Anne Smith. It became WH Smith and son when he joined his father in the business.

Like the earl of Birkenhead William was a conservative politician. His wife was awarded the hereditary peerage after his death.

And no there is no sign the two families are related.
Thank you for that clarification. Interesting that the peerage was created for a woman.

It's accurate to say that FE Smith was a career politician whereas W Smith was involved in politics in addition to being a businessman.
Reply With Quote
  #1479  
Old 03-11-2021, 12:46 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 10,139
Another QVD is engaged!

The engagement was announced 11 March, 2021, between Richard Christian Beaumont [born 27 May, 1989], scion of the Viscounts Allendale, second son of the Hon Hubert Wentworth Beaumont -[born 13 Apr, 1956], of County Kildare, Ireland, and Katherine Emma [Kate] Beaumont [nee Abel Smith, born 11 March, 1961], of Nottinghamshire, and Elizabeth Louise Holland [b 1990], daughter of Michael G. Holland, of Bramcote, Nottinghamshire, and his wife the former Margaret H. Osborne.

Richard Beaumont, a grandson of the late life peer the Baron Beaumont of Whitley [1928-2008] is also a descendant of Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria [1819-1901] > Prince Leopold [1853-84] > Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone [1883-1981] > Lady May Abel Smith [1906-94] > Richard Abel Smith [1933-2004] > Kate Abel Smith [b 1961] > Richard Beaumont [b 1989]

Source: https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/202...ngagement.html
Reply With Quote
  #1480  
Old 03-11-2021, 01:53 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
The engagement was announced 11 March, 2021, between Richard Christian Beaumont [born 27 May, 1989], scion of the Viscounts Allendale, second son of the Hon Hubert Wentworth Beaumont -[born 13 Apr, 1956], of County Kildare, Ireland, and Katherine Emma [Kate] Beaumont [nee Abel Smith, born 11 March, 1961], of Nottinghamshire, and Elizabeth Louise Holland [b 1990], daughter of Michael G. Holland, of Bramcote, Nottinghamshire, and his wife the former Margaret H. Osborne.

Richard Beaumont, a grandson of the late life peer the Baron Beaumont of Whitley [1928-2008] is also a descendant of Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria [1819-1901] > Prince Leopold [1853-84] > Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone [1883-1981] > Lady May Abel Smith [1906-94] > Richard Abel Smith [1933-2004] > Kate Abel Smith [b 1961] > Richard Beaumont [b 1989]

Source: https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/202...ngagement.html
Very Interesting. I don't tend to think much about Queen Vic's wider descendants beyond the obvious ones in various well known royal and aristocratic dynasties, which isn't surprising. Thank you.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aristocracy, armstrong-jones, british nobility, countess, countess of snowdon, douglas, earl of snowdon, marie, phillip, snowdon, von hofmannsthal


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
British Royal Family Picture Thread james British Royals 68 05-31-2021 01:15 PM
The Royal Family of Spain Picture Thread, Part 1 Anna_R Royal Family of Spain 117 08-23-2020 08:56 AM
British Royal Family Current Events 2: November 2005-June 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 187 06-11-2006 01:10 AM
Infanta Leonor, News and Pictures Part 1: November 2005 - February 2006 Elsa M. Current Events Archive 192 02-18-2006 06:11 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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