The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 09-29-2020, 06:50 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
That's not how titles are inherited in the UK.
Had there been a situation where there were only females, LP's would be issued to ensure that titles were created.
The precedent in UK is that a child generally inherits their father's rank. Nothing discriminatory, simply a structure that has provided coherence for generations.
So you donít think itís discriminatory that a female cannot pass on her title/rank to her children and only males can pass it on? Whatís so special about these men that only they can pass on their rank to the kids and not women? Especially in this case it is the women who was born royal who has the title and not the man. You donít see any discrimination in that nonesense?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 09-29-2020, 06:56 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
So you don’t think it’s discriminatory that a female cannot pass on her title/rank to her children and only males can pass it on? What’s so special about these men that only they can pass on their rank to the kids and not women? Especially in this case it is the women who was born royal who has the title and not the man. You don’t see any discrimination in that nonesense?
Royal and Peerage titles are traditional and archaic, because there are inherited upon, not earned through meritocracy. Most Titles (Royal and Non-Royal) has survived/pass down mainly through male-line descendent. For a lot of cases, if there are no possible male heirs (even looking beyond multiple junior branch), the title will become extinct. It is highly unlikely that new hereditary peers will be created in the future.

Some posters in the British Nobility thread has suggested if we are going to change the inheritance of title, we may as well abolish the peerages all together.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 09-29-2020, 07:32 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Royal and Peerage titles are traditional and archaic, because there are inherited upon, not earned through meritocracy. Most Titles (Royal and Non-Royal) has survived/pass down mainly through male-line descendent. For a lot of cases, if there are no possible male heirs (even looking beyond multiple junior branch), the title will become extinct. It is highly unlikely that new hereditary peers will be created in the future.

Some posters in the British Nobility thread has suggested if we are going to change the inheritance of title, we may as well abolish the peerages all together.



On a side note that was the plot of season 1 of Dowton Abbey - they had to find a male relative.
Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 09-29-2020, 07:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I really see no need to tinker with the current George V Letters Patent. His LP's were a sensible balance of ensuring there would always be enough HRH's, and official members of a "working" Royal Family at any given time. It is unlikely we ever see a situation with a Royal Family of 9 children as in the case of Queen Victoria with HRH going down the male line to grandchildren which created a veritable mob of late 19th/early 20th century HRH's and HH's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
Because George the V LP is sexist. If the queen had all girls and her oldest princess Anne had all girls herself the future queens of the UK would be untitled because according to George the V letter of patent only the males are able to pass titles to their children. And I always thought it was ridiculous that royal women within the British royal family couldnít pass their title to their children and that the monarch has to give the non royal husband a title for the children to get titles. Thatís sexist. Either they all get titles or none get titles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
That's not how titles are inherited in the UK.
Had there been a situation where there were only females, LP's would be issued to ensure that titles were created.
The precedent in UK is that a child generally inherits their father's rank. Nothing discriminatory, simply a structure that has provided coherence for generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
So you donít think itís discriminatory that a female cannot pass on her title/rank to her children and only males can pass it on? Whatís so special about these men that only they can pass on their rank to the kids and not women? Especially in this case it is the women who was born royal who has the title and not the man. You donít see any discrimination in that nonesense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Royal and Peerage titles are traditional and archaic, because there are inherited upon, not earned through meritocracy. Most Titles (Royal and Non-Royal) has survived/pass down mainly through male-line descendent. For a lot of cases, if there are no possible male heirs (even looking beyond multiple junior branch), the title will become extinct. It is highly unlikely that new hereditary peers will be created in the future.

Some posters in the British Nobility thread has suggested if we are going to change the inheritance of title, we may as well abolish the peerages all together.
It is undeniable that sexist laws of inheritance are traditional (and they are traditional for commoners as much as for royalty and peers), but the claim being contended was not that they are untraditional but that they are nondiscriminatory.
Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 09-29-2020, 08:13 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Why is the UK in dire need of a busload of Princes and Princesses? Already now royals like the Kents, the Michaels, the Gloucesters, the Wessexes, Princess Alexandra and the Princess Royal have countless public engagements which go almost unnoticed in media.
They are mostly rather old and rather poor and way down the line of succession.

I was more thinking of Princess Kate or something like that. But there coulb be other ways of branding: Like in Game of Thrones - The Hand of the King...

What about: Royal Ambassador of HM the Queen (role) Duchess of Whatever (title)?
Reply With Quote
  #926  
Old 09-29-2020, 08:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
They are mostly rather old and rather poor and way down the line of succession.

I was more thinking of Princess Kate or something like that. But there coulb be other ways of branding: Like in Game of Thrones - The Hand of the King...

What about: Royal Ambassador of HM the Queen (role) Duchess of Whatever (title)?
If I understand you correctly, your proposal is that for instance the Duchess of Cambridge be officially referred to as Princess Kate? I am not sure why it would be more of a pressing issue for younger and wealthier members of the royal family, but that is a change which has been adopted by other European royal families and which I could imagine being adopted in the British royal family in the foreseeable future. Already, I believe the offices of the Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex have from time to time referred to the Dukes as Prince William or Prince Harry in official statements.
Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 09-29-2020, 09:09 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Royal and Peerage titles are traditional and archaic, because there are inherited upon, not earned through meritocracy. Most Titles (Royal and Non-Royal) has survived/pass down mainly through male-line descendent. For a lot of cases, if there are no possible male heirs (even looking beyond multiple junior branch), the title will become extinct. It is highly unlikely that new hereditary peers will be created in the future.

Some posters in the British Nobility thread has suggested if we are going to change the inheritance of title, we may as well abolish the peerages all together.
Yes I know that titles are traditional and archaic and they are inherited and not earned thru merit..if itís not earned thru merit then why in the 21st century do they still go by the rule that only the men can inherit and pass on the title. Last time I checked when a child is born they take half their dna from their dad half from their mom. You donít get extra dna if you are born a boy and you do not get less dna if you are born a girl. If the children have the same set of parents then you get the same dna equally. If itís not about merit then what qualifies a man to inherit and pass on their title and what disqualifies a woman from doing the same. Other than being born with different body parts.
Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 09-29-2020, 10:58 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
Yes I know that titles are traditional and archaic and they are inherited and not earned thru merit..if it’s not earned thru merit then why in the 21st century do they still go by the rule that only the men can inherit and pass on the title. Last time I checked when a child is born they take half their dna from their dad half from their mom. You don’t get extra dna if you are born a boy and you do not get less dna if you are born a girl. If the children have the same set of parents then you get the same dna equally. If it’s not about merit then what qualifies a man to inherit and pass on their title and what disqualifies a woman from doing the same. Other than being born with different body parts.
Fair enough, I guess the new hypothetical LP could partially solve "sex discrimination" whilst streaming down the HRH style and Prince/Princess title.
  • Children of the (present or past) Monarch
  • Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch
  • Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch

I do think issues will start to arise if Lord/Lady is given, because it would somehow tied to the peerage system, which on most occasion operate based on
male primogeniture. Under 1917's LP, great-grandchildren through (complete) male-line of the Monarch could enjoy the title Lord/Lady, like Lord Frederick Windsor or Lady Helen Taylor. If we want grandchildren of the Monarch to enjoy the Lord/Lady title, should it also not restricted to male line? I.e. Children of the younger children of the monarch could be style as Lord/Lady. If that's the case, we could have more Lord/Lady compare to 1917's LP. For example, when Charles is King,
Under 1917's LP, Princess Charlotte's children will be untitled if her husband does not hold any peerage title (either gifted by monarch or inherited from his family)
Under this new hypothetical LP, Princess Charlotte's children will be style as Lord/Lady, even if her husband does not carry any title.
Than there are more problems for great-grandchildren (who are not children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch). Should the children of the younger child of the eldest child of the monarch enjoy Lord/Lady as well? Or are they The Hon. X? Or just Master/Miss?

Personally after looking deeper into the new hypothetical LP, I think Lord/Lady probably should be restricted to grandchildren of the Monarch only (rather than great-grandchildren in 1917's LP). However I am unsure whether it should be restricted to male-line or not, if the aim is also to streamline Lord/Lady. Or alternatively, no Lord/Lady title given at all (for children of the younger children of the Monarch), just Master/Miss.

Of course, all these "predictions" or "plans" are under the assumption that one of the two parents remain royal commoners without being elevated to a royal peer. Otherwise, their eldest son could be style with subsidiary titles.
Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 09-29-2020, 11:46 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I mentioned on post #362 of Titles of the Wessex Children thread, that there is possibility for Charles to issue a new Letter Patent once he became King. This is based on the assumption that he wants to "slim down" the monarchy or more specifically reduce the number of Prince and Princesses title and HRH styles.

A possibility is that the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King) is restricted to
  • Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
  • Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
  • Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

By this altered convention,
  • Archie will not be a Prince, even when Charles does become king, as he is not the child of the eldest child of the monarch. However, if the 1917's LP is applied to those who are born prior to the "newly hypothetical" LP, he will be or a Prince when Charles becomes King (just like Princess Beatrice, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent)
  • Children of both Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis will not be Prince and Princesses, even when William becomes King, because they are not children of the eldest child of the Monarch

On the second dot point above, if the same 1917's Letter Patent is applied when William becomes King, children of Prince Louis could enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title. This is because they are the children of the son of the Monarch. Would the new LP (possibly issued by Charles) kind of solve the accusation of sexism on who is able to enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess title?

I put "kind of" in bold, because the Royal Family could still be very traditional, when it comes to the title.

Other posters on the Wessex children thread (Osipi on #365 and LauraS3514 on #366) have pointed out that ideally (hopefully Charles is kind enough to his family members), this new hypothetical LPs should only applied to children who are born after the date of the letters patent. Those who already have HRH and Prince/Princess according to 1917's LP should not be stripped. This applies to
Archie (legally style as Prince Archie of Sussex if Charles becomes King and under 1917's LP), Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent
Thank you Osipi, LauraS3514 and Claire for your contribution of opinions on the Wessex thread.

What do you all think about the possibility of this new Letter Patent?

I am sure this has been discuss before, but I think a lot have change since then.

Edited: I have included Archie as the members who will not be stripped of HRH style and Prince title.
I think your idea makes a lot of sense. To me the most efficient and non-discriminatory way of determining royal styles and titles should be proximity to the monarch, through the main line.

Younger sons should start to be treated the way daughters always have been. I see no reason why Louis, but not Charlotte, needs to be given a royal dukedom in the future and also feel thereís no need for his future children to be anything other than Mr/Miss X Mountbatten-Windsor. IMO itís easier to add special provisions for unusual circumstances - for example if George was unable to have children and it became clear that Charlotteís descendants would be the future main royal line - than it is to take away something thatís already been given.

The monarchy is a discriminatory institution. But the discriminatory nature of the institution shouldnít be used as an excuse not to address discrimination against its individual members.
Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 09-30-2020, 12:52 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
Oh and another thing if royal men is able to share their royal titles with their wives then royal women should be able to do the same with their husbands. And if royal women can’t royal men shouldn’t be allowed to either. Kind of like the Swedish version where Victoria was able to give her duchy title to her husband and if Chris O’Neill chose to take a title he would have taken the male version of Madeline’s duchy. Just like their brother Carl philip was able to share his duchy title with his wife.
Reply With Quote
  #931  
Old 09-30-2020, 01:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
If that is taken to its logical conclusion then Queen regnants would be allowed to have their husbands crowned as Kings. Which, in terms of status and precedent would make no sense at all!
Reply With Quote
  #932  
Old 09-30-2020, 02:03 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
From memory (correct me if I'm wrong), most royal titles were created/gifted for men, either 'royal-by-blood' or married into the royal family. Their wives (either married into royal family or 'royal-by-blood') then take the female version of the title. For example, the title "Duke of Edinburgh" was gifted to Prince Philip upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth by George VI. Princess Elizabeth's full title became Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh between her wedding and accession to the throne. She essentially took the "female version" of her husband's Duke of Duke of Edinburgh title. George VI simply did not create "Duchess of Edinburgh" for his daughter.

I think this does extends to some Honours and Baronets. For example, Denis Thatcher, 1st Baronet carries the Thatcher Baronetcy not his wife Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, despite Margaret Thatcher was the former Prime Minister of the UK. Margaret Thatcher herself did sit in the House of Lords.

Another example is Sir Philip May, who was knighted at (2019) Dissolution Honours. His wife, Theresa May, Lady May was not knighted, despite being the former Prime Minister of the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #933  
Old 09-30-2020, 02:42 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I mentioned on post #362 of Titles of the Wessex Children thread, that there is possibility for Charles to issue a new Letter Patent once he became King. This is based on the assumption that he wants to "slim down" the monarchy or more specifically reduce the number of Prince and Princesses title and HRH styles.

A possibility is that the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King) is restricted to
  • Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
  • Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
  • Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

.
This hypothetical new LP with the above conditions could be drafted in such a way as to only effect those persons born after 2000 - this would then only include Archie, Louise, and James as the only ones who would be HRH under the 1917 LP of those currently living. Or, they could choose the same date as the new Succession to the Crown Act, 2013, which would then only effect Archie.
Reply With Quote
  #934  
Old 09-30-2020, 04:52 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
So you donít think itís discriminatory that a female cannot pass on her title/rank to her children and only males can pass it on? Whatís so special about these men that only they can pass on their rank to the kids and not women? Especially in this case it is the women who was born royal who has the title and not the man. You donít see any discrimination in that nonesense?
If we start to go down the route of fairness and discrimination we open a very unsavoury can of worms that ultimately questions the fairness of having an inherited title at all, even an hereditary monarchy.

As none of us are likely to be affected with the male primogeniture issue, or as Princesses being unable to pass our titles to our offspring I don't see why we need to question it. Neither Princess Margaret nor Princess Anne appear to have had an issue with it or felt themselves to be discriminated against. The entire system is discriminatory at some level, but it has worked for millennium and does not discriminate against anybody other than members of the Royal Family.
Reply With Quote
  #935  
Old 09-30-2020, 05:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
Yes I know that titles are traditional and archaic and they are inherited and not earned thru merit..if itís not earned thru merit then why in the 21st century do they still go by the rule that only the men can inherit and pass on the title. Last time I checked when a child is born they take half their dna from their dad half from their mom. You donít get extra dna if you are born a boy and you do not get less dna if you are born a girl. If the children have the same set of parents then you get the same dna equally. If itís not about merit then what qualifies a man to inherit and pass on their title and what disqualifies a woman from doing the same. Other than being born with different body parts.

I think that, historically, the main reason was related to inheritance. The family estate was tied to the holder of the title and male primogeniture ensured that the estate would remain in the same (patrilineal) family over different generations.
Reply With Quote
  #936  
Old 09-30-2020, 07:14 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
Much as I respect these countries does anybody outside of Italy or Germany actually know who their respective Heads of State are? The soft power of the British Monarchy and the role played by its members as representatives on the world stage is of enormous value to the UK and will be increasingly important in a post-Brexit world.
That assumed "soft power" is really not the - for outsiders- relatively chaotic and disfunctional looking royal family. That assumed "soft power" was a whole symbiosis of what Britain once was and meant to the world, in history, in culture, in global outreach, in language, in military power, in reputation and in perspective.

My guess is that Germany's "soft power" with its invisible President, actually is greater because of the immense intrinsic leverage in financial, geopolitical and strategic positions, coupled with a longstanding steadfast course of their political leaders and institutions.

Assumed "soft power" can not work without leverage. I do not think the most sparkly and most gracious smiling Queen has any milligram of influence on the current negotiations between the UK and the EU, to name something.
Reply With Quote
  #937  
Old 09-30-2020, 07:24 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
I think very little could sway to EU in the intractability and desire to make Brexit as difficult as possible - but this is for a different forum. The UK remains the 6th largest world economy and has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, strong relationship with one of the only remaining superpowers and influence with the Commonwealth of Nations. The British Royal Family remains the only truly "global" royal family whose actions and activities are followed around the world. Over the years we have heard innumerable accounts of how a visit from The Queen, or a seat close to her at a State Banquet have positively influenced diplomatic outcomes.
Reply With Quote
  #938  
Old 09-30-2020, 08:27 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
I think your idea makes a lot of sense. To me the most efficient and non-discriminatory way of determining royal styles and titles should be proximity to the monarch, through the main line.

Younger sons should start to be treated the way daughters always have been. I see no reason why Louis, but not Charlotte, needs to be given a royal dukedom in the future and also feel there’s no need for his future children to be anything other than Mr/Miss X Mountbatten-Windsor. IMO it’s easier to add special provisions for unusual circumstances - for example if George was unable to have children and it became clear that Charlotte’s descendants would be the future main royal line - than it is to take away something that’s already been given.
I agree that Charlotte and Louis should be "ideally" treated the same and also probably need to be brought up with the possibility or even certainty of not being working royal. This way they would have adequate qualifications or at least prepared for future careers and employment. I also agree with you that "it's easier to add special provisions for unusual circumstances" than to "take something away that's already given". I do think there will be less "family tension" or media attention if titles are given for special circumstances than titles being taken away that were previously granted by old LPs.

Thank you camelot23ca for your opinion on the ideal situation where it's better to give out titles under special circumstance, than to take the already placed titles away

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
This hypothetical new LP with the above conditions could be drafted in such a way as to only effect those persons born after 2000 - this would then only include Archie, Louise, and James as the only ones who would be HRH under the 1917 LP of those currently living. Or, they could choose the same date as the new Succession to the Crown Act, 2013, which would then only effect Archie.
I think the 2013's date of Succession to the Crown Act is a good cut-off for the effect to occur (to those born after this 2013 date). This way Lady Louise Windsor (born in 2003) and James, Viscount Severn (born in 2007) can still have the choice of using HRH Prince/Princess when they turn 18 (though unlikely to actually use them, according to the Countess of Wessex). Also by considering the 2013's date, Louise and James could possibly to be treated similarly as with other children of the younger sons of the Queen, rather than treating them separately or almost associating them with the Queen's great-grandchildren, due to their closeness with age.

Savannah Phillips (born in 2010) and Isla Phillips (born in 2012), the Queen's eldest two great-grandchildren are unlikely to hold any titles in the future, based on old and new LP.

Archie would be affected if the cut-off is 2013 (for now). He would not be able to enjoy HRH style and Prince title if this new hypothetical LP is to be followed. Again, I think it's better for Archie to start with no title (under the hypothetical LP when Charles becomes King) and then possibly be given one under special provision, rather than having a title and then be taken away.

Thank you LauraS3514 for your suggestion on the date/year of birth that determine who will be affected by this new hypothetical LP.
Reply With Quote
  #939  
Old 09-30-2020, 01:28 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
That assumed "soft power" is really not the - for outsiders- relatively chaotic and disfunctional looking royal family. That assumed "soft power" was a whole symbiosis of what Britain once was and meant to the world, in history, in culture, in global outreach, in language, in military power, in reputation and in perspective.

My guess is that Germany's "soft power" with its invisible President, actually is greater because of the immense intrinsic leverage in financial, geopolitical and strategic positions, coupled with a longstanding steadfast course of their political leaders and institutions.

Assumed "soft power" can not work without leverage. I do not think the most sparkly and most gracious smiling Queen has any milligram of influence on the current negotiations between the UK and the EU, to name something.
What this says about Britain (& I don't disagree) could equally be said about France. History moves on & great powers decline while others rise.

That said, I'm not convinced that Britain's soft power is over shadowed by that of Germany on the wider world stage. In Europe certainly. Blighty still packs a powerful punch for it's size despite post war degradations. Whether that continues, & what the role of the monarchy is in that, is an open question.
Reply With Quote
  #940  
Old 09-30-2020, 01:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post

As none of us are likely to be affected with the male primogeniture issue, or as Princesses being unable to pass our titles to our offspring I don't see why we need to question it. Neither Princess Margaret nor Princess Anne appear to have had an issue with it or felt themselves to be discriminated against. The entire system is discriminatory at some level, but it has worked for millennium and does not discriminate against anybody other than members of the Royal Family.
I think this made sense when we had male preference primogeniture but now we don't it would seem odd for any children of Louis to have royal status while those of Charlotte wouldn't (despite them being higher in the line of succession). Although I take your point about the totality of the system being discriminatory anyway.

Less complicated in the end to limit royal status to the direct line as others have said.

In fact I'd go further & limit it those individuals born to be monarch. Their siblings could have the same courtesy titles as the younger children of dukes as indeed that's what they would be.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla parker bowles, camilla parker-bowles, camilla's family


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
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 797 05-31-2021 02:27 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family buckingham palace 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 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 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 names plantinum jubilee 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 unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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