The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 01-09-2020, 07:37 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I think the point muriel was making was that Letters Patent would not be required, as in Britain the "King's Will" has always sufficed to confer the style of prince/ss.
Which persons were 'made' princes or princesses based on the king's will? I do know that 'demotions' have been based on the king's will; and princesses being allowed to be known with their first name. But I cannot think of any example (but I expect you will be able to point me to one) where someone who was not a prince or princess (by either their own right or based on their husband's title) who was a prince(ss) purely based on the king's will being made known.

Quote:
On a side note, the practice of a wife being "named as something she is not" already exists in other European royal families. For example, the wives of the current Dutch princes continued to legally be commoners after marriage, but are named as princesses.
Imo that situation is completely different. According to custom the Dutch princesses are known by their husband's title. Just as Catherine is known as 'the duchess of Cambridge' because of her husband's title.

In Camilla's case whose title of prince would her 'princess consort' be based upon?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 01-09-2020, 07:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Which persons were 'made' princes or princesses based on the king's will? I do know that 'demotions' have been based on the king's will; and princesses being allowed to be known with their first name. But I cannot think of any example (but I expect you will be able to point me to one) where someone who was not a prince or princess (by either their own right or based on their husband's title) who was a prince(ss) purely based on the king's will being made known.
I cannot think of a recent example either, but according to the information in this article, the style of prince(ss) was not based on Letters Patent until 1917.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...e_highness.htm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Imo that situation is completely different. According to custom the Dutch princesses are known by their husband's title. Just as Catherine is known as 'the duchess of Cambridge' because of her husband's title.

In Camilla's case whose title of prince would her 'princess consort' be based upon?
The legal situation in Britain is a bit different insofar as Catherine is legally a duchess, whereas the Dutch princesses are legally commoners but known as princesses.

In Camilla's (hypothetical) case it would be based upon a public announcement that she would be styled as HRH The Princess Consort.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 01-09-2020, 08:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

The legal situation in Britain is a bit different insofar as Catherine is legally a duchess, whereas the Dutch princesses are legally commoners but known as princesses.

In Camilla's (hypothetical) case it would be based upon a public announcement that she would be styled as HRH The Princess Consort.
In UK all current duchesses are commoners.
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 01-09-2020, 08:42 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I cannot think of a recent example either, but according to the information in this article, the style of prince(ss) was not based on Letters Patent until 1917.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...e_highness.htm




The legal situation in Britain is a bit different insofar as Catherine is legally a duchess, whereas the Dutch princesses are legally commoners but known as princesses.

In Camilla's (hypothetical) case it would be based upon a public announcement that she would be styled as HRH The Princess Consort.
Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.

And if I am not mistaken the HRH is the style and the 'Princess' part is the title, so for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort, I still think she would need to BE a princess. Just like the Duke of Edinburgh was made a prince. Until that moment, he was the duke of Edinburgh but not the prince consort. Since he was made a prince he is both: prince Philip and the duke of Edinburgh.
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 01-09-2020, 11:39 PM
Frozen Royalist's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 193
So, when this whole situation about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex blows over, what will be the impact on the popularity of the monarchy as a whole?

Could this lead to the monarchy outright collapsing and an establishment of a Commonwealth of Britain? I just think there should be some discussion about the ramifications and impacts of the situation is all and I'd like some opinions from this forum.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18...rting-crumble/

Prince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/8/21...back-instagram

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...bridges-hands/

-Frozen Royalist

So what are your opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 01-09-2020, 11:45 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,789
They've survived a lot worse than this.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 01-10-2020, 12:31 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,757
The monarchy and the Sussexes will both be fine. There will be the expected transition. It might be awkward for a while but then things will become the new normal.
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 01-10-2020, 01:30 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 90
I don't think that this will be end of monarchy. The queen is still popular and monarchy has seen much worse than this Sussex case. And act of Sussexes hardly was very big surprise. They have always done quiet differently as expected. This was probably going to happen sooner or latter.
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 01-10-2020, 02:16 AM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 984
I don't think it will end the monarchy, but it will be a sore point and a potential headache for ever.
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 01-10-2020, 02:19 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 720
I don't think it will have any effect. The succession is secure - Charles, William, George. Had it been William and Kate who decided to bolt it would have been different but Harry leaving is an annoyance and disappointment but largely irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 01-10-2020, 08:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.

And if I am not mistaken the HRs the style and the 'Princess' part is the title, so for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort, I still think she would need to BE a princess. Just like the Duke of Edinburgh was made a prince. Until that moment, he was the duke of Edinburgh but not the prince consort. Since he was made a prince he is both: prince Philip and the duke of Edinburgh.
I think the way it is done in British documents is to list the name followed by the title derived from the husband. That is why you get “ Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge “ on George’s birth certificate.

Catherine does not use , however, the surname “Mountbatten-Windsor” in accordance with the custom of HRHs not using family names. For the wife of a peer, I suppose the norm in documents would be

[ Given Names] [ Husband’s Family Name], [Female Version of Husband’s Title]

For example,

Georgina Susan Fitzalan-Howard, Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk

The maiden name may be added inserting, for
example, “ ne Georgina Susan Gore” after the title. I believe Diana’s passport for instance included a “ ne Lady Diana Francis Spencer” line after “HRH The Princess of Wales”,.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 01-10-2020, 10:10 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
In UK all current duchesses are commoners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.
In Britain, wives legally take the rank of their husbands, if it is higher than their own rank by birth. A female commoner who marries a male peer ceases to be a commoner upon marriage, and becomes a peeress. This means that legal privileges belonging to peers are also enjoyed by their wives, as they are peeresses by marriage.

House of Lords - Companion to Standing Orders - Companion to Standing Orders


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
For the wife of a peer, I suppose the norm in documents would be

[ Given Names] [ Husbands Family Name], [Female Version of Husbands Title]
Just like HRHs, peers and peeresses (in their own right or by marriage) customarily do not use a family name (see Debrett's for example).

Apparently that custom has been breached in regard to passports (a realistic step given that passports are used in other countries which do not recognize the custom), but that change might apply to HRHs also.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
When Andrew stood down last year it was announced that he would continue to serve as a Counsellor of State, as well as attend events such as Trooping the Colour and the Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Harry will only disqualify himself if he moves out of the UK. His statement said he will continue to support the Queen and that would presumably include being a CoS or Regent.

The Regency Act would need to be amended for Catherine to be Regent as the current act, and the amended version from 1953, says the Regent must be the next adult in the line of succession over 18 (that was the amendment) so long as the Regent is three years older than the monarch if between 18 and 21. It was realised that a person who was 18 could be the active monarch but not the Regent.

As the last time any CoS was officially was called on to do something was 2002 and the Queen no longer undertakes overseas tours there won't be a call for any for the foreseeable future.
Would he be automatically disqualified by moving abroad? From the Regency Act, it looks to me as if Letters Patent would have to be issued to disqualify him.
Provided that, if it appears to the Sovereign that any person who, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this subsection, would be required to be included among the Counsellors of State to whom royal functions are to be delegated, is absent from the United Kingdom or intends to be so absent during the whole or any part of the period of such delegation, the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the number of Counsellors of State during the period of such absence.
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 01-10-2020, 10:19 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
In Britain, wives legally take the rank of their husbands. A female commoner who marries a male peer ceases to be a commoner upon marriage, and becomes a peeress. This means that legal privileges belonging to peers are also enjoyed by their wives, as they are peeresses by marriage.

House of Lords - Companion to Standing Orders - Companion to Standing Orders





Just like HRHs, peers and peeresses (in their own right or by marriage) customarily do not use a family name (see Debrett's for example).

Apparently that custom has been breached in regard to passports (a realistic step given that passports are used in other countries which do not recognize the custom), but that change might apply to HRHs also.




Would he be automatically disqualified by moving abroad? From the Regency Act, it looks to me as if Letters Patent would have to be issued to disqualify him.
Provided that, if it appears to the Sovereign that any person who, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this subsection, would be required to be included among the Counsellors of State to whom royal functions are to be delegated, is absent from the United Kingdom or intends to be so absent during the whole or any part of the period of such delegation, the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the number of Counsellors of State during the period of such absence.
I suppose the point is that the Regency Act explicitly requires that the counsellors of state be domiciled in the United Kingdom. The excerpt you quoted above may be referring to a different situation then like a temporary absence from the country.

With respect to peers, I believe they don’t sign with their family names , but the family name is still part of their legal name and, as such, is used in documents. In the case of HRHs, I don’t know if their legal name includes a family name or not.
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 01-10-2020, 11:11 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
With respect to peers, I believe they dont sign with their family names , but the family name is still part of their legal name and, as such, is used in documents. In the case of HRHs, I dont know if their legal name includes a family name or not.
Both HRHs and peers have dormant family names which they may voluntarily use. The images of the marriage certificates of Charles' siblings indicate that they listed their names as Mountbatten-Windsor.
But the traditional custom is that they do not use them, in documents or elsewhere.

For example, in the legal notice of the Queen's consent to the late Earl of Harewood's marriage, his name appears as "George Henry Hubert, Earl of Harewood". His family name (Lascelles) is not included.

Source

Compare it to the legal notice of the Queen's consent to the marriage of his son David, then styled Viscount Lascelles. At that time, David was legally a commoner, and was merely called by his father's second title, as is the British custom. His name therefore appears as "David Henry George Lascelles, Esquire (commonly called Viscount Lascelles)", including his family name of Lascelles.

Source


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I suppose the point is that the Regency Act explicitly require that the counsellors of state be domiciled in the United Kingdom. The excerpt you quoted above may be referring to a different situation then like a temporary absence from the country.
You're right, but per UK and international law a person's legal domicile does not necessarily change when they move abroad.
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 01-10-2020, 04:58 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.

And if I am not mistaken the HRH is the style and the 'Princess' part is the title, so for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort, I still think she would need to BE a princess. Just like the Duke of Edinburgh was made a prince. Until that moment, he was the duke of Edinburgh but not the prince consort. Since he was made a prince he is both: prince Philip and the duke of Edinburgh.
Philip had been born as a Royal Prince: Prince Philip of Greece.
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 01-10-2020, 05:14 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Philip had been born as a Royal Prince: Prince Philip of Greece.
That's true but he explicitly renounced his titles and styles as a Prince of Greece and Denmark.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 01-10-2020, 05:36 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 3,539
If the monarchy survived the abdication of King Edward VIII will also survive this situation of the Dukes of Sussex.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 01-10-2020, 05:55 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think the way it is done in British documents is to list the name followed by the title derived from the husband. That is why you get Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge on Georges birth certificate.

Catherine does not use , however, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with the custom of HRHs not using family names. For the wife of a peer, I suppose the norm in documents would be

[ Given Names] [ Husbands Family Name], [Female Version of Husbands Title]

For example,

Georgina Susan Fitzalan-Howard, Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk

The maiden name may be added inserting, for
example, ne Georgina Susan Gore after the title. I believe Dianas passport for instance included a ne Lady Diana Francis Spencer line after HRH The Princess of Wales,.
Yes, I agree. I remember that there is a distinct difference with how born members are mentioned. For example, while in Catherine's case the HRH came AFTER her name. William's name read: HRH prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge.

The 'n' is needed because women loose their maiden name, while in some other countries (including the Netherlands) your maiden name remains your legal surname.

However, that wasn't really the point. It was about Camilla being a 'princess consort' without her husband being a prince
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 01-10-2020, 06:00 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Philip had been born as a Royal Prince: Prince Philip of Greece.
Yes, I am aware of that - and he had to renounce that title to marry Elizabeth. So, until he was made a UK prince (in his own right) by his wife; he couldn't be 'prince consort' nor 'prince Philip'. In that same way, I don't think Camilla can be a 'princess consort' unless his husband makes her a princess in her own right.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 01-10-2020, 06:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,099


It's possible I didn't understand what you meant in the earlier discussion My only point (and the point which I think muriel was addressing) was that in my opinion, if King Charles issued an announcement that his wife would be styled HRH The Princess Consort, without issuing any Letters Patent, he would not be failing any legal requirements and nobody, even the British government, would stop him.

As for wives of non-royal peers, my understanding is that they would not use the family name either (see message #394).
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


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
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 768 02-15-2020 04:49 PM
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1503 01-07-2020 10:25 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 118 01-24-2018 10:35 PM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 39 11-29-2017 10:53 AM




Popular Tags
aristocracy armenia belgian royal belgian royal family charles of wales chittagong countess of snowdon crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife cyprus danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; dutch royal family dutch royals felipe vi french revolution future genealogy germany haakon vii hill history house of bernadotte house of grimaldi israel jumma kent kiko lithuania lithuanian palaces mailing mbs meghan markle monaco christening monogram mountbatten naples netflix nobel prize norway history official visit pakistan popularity prince charles prince daniel princely family of monaco pronunciation queen maud queen paola rania of jordan romanov family rown south korea spain spanish royal startling new evidence state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish history thailand tracts united kingdom unsubscribe visit from sweden working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×