The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #941  
Old 09-30-2020, 10:31 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
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.

<snip>

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.
I forgot to mention that it would be preferable for this LP to be issued by the current Queen; otherwise, one of the first acts of the new reign would be for the King to "disinherit" one (or more) of his grandchildren. Not exactly the best way to start the reign - it would be a PR nightmare in certain quarters. Remember, under the 1917 LP Archie (and any siblings) automatically become HRH Prince/ess the instant Charles becomes King so having Charles issue the LP would mean stripping the Sussex kids of something they would already have, instead of them never getting it in the first place.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #942  
Old 09-30-2020, 10:37 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
It would be a test for King Charles. Will he be for the crown or will he let his emotions and personal relationships dictate his decisions. I would like to see what he does let him make that decision it’s HIS grandchild after all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #943  
Old 09-30-2020, 10:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Charles will abide by the wishes of Archie's parents (plus for any siblings born before the reign) just as happened with the Wessex children. And Archie will inherit the Dukedom of Sussex in the fullness of time anyway, if he doesn't want to use the Earldom as an adult so he'll hardly be disinherited.
Reply With Quote
  #944  
Old 10-01-2020, 12:51 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Charles will abide by the wishes of Archie's parents (plus for any siblings born before the reign) just as happened with the Wessex children. And Archie will inherit the Dukedom of Sussex in the fullness of time anyway, if he doesn't want to use the Earldom as an adult so he'll hardly be disinherited.
I stand by my comment. Will he let his personal relationship dictate his decisions or can he put those feelings aside and think with his brain.
Reply With Quote
  #945  
Old 10-01-2020, 01:33 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
For a man that has spent an entire lifetime learning the role of monarch at his mother's knee and has shown over decade upon decade his own dedication to his role of Prince of Wales even to the point of actually rewriting and defining what his role entails, tells me this man can and will put the monarchy first in any decisions that he will have to make. Its in his blood. He's already been involved in far more decisions concerning the future of the monarchy than I'd care to count.

The "Firm" doesn't wait for things to happen. They plan everything to the minute detail for anything that *may* happen even.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #946  
Old 10-01-2020, 02:06 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I stand by my comment. Will he let his personal relationship dictate his decisions or can he put those feelings aside and think with his brain.
Like I mentioned in the previous post, if Charles does decide not to make exemptions for family members born before 2013 or the issued date this new hypothetical LP, their titles will be removed. In other words, those who are legally HRH Prince/Princess under 1917, but not the hypothetical LP will be stripped of their title, which includes
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
I personally think that removing HRH style and Prince/Princess titles from the Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy could potentially be a PR disaster for Charles. This happens because they have been supportive of the Queen for around 50 years by doing their royal duties with little or no fuss, despite little press coverage, apart from local newspapers. It has nothing to do with Charles feeling or using "his brains", it's more about whether or not he appreciate his mother's cousins' dedication and duty to the country.

Of course there is a possibility that Charles decided that George V's male-line grandchildren be exempt from this new LP, so that Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent will not be stripped of their title. I do think problem will arise if Charles make exemption on the male-line grandchildren of George V and himself (when he becomes king), but not the Queen's male-line grandchildren. It would appear that he is deliberately "punishing" his nieces and nephew (Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor and Jame, Viscount Severn) out of spite. Charles could also make exemption on his grandchildren only (Archie and his siblings affected), but I don't think it would look good either, as the Queen's cousins will still lose their title.

I agree with LauraS3514 that it would be preferable if this new hypothetical LP gets issued and acted whilst the Queen is still the Monarch, because it would not put Archie in an awkward position.
Reply With Quote
  #947  
Old 10-01-2020, 12:42 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyAtLast View Post
I stand by my comment. Will he let his personal relationship dictate his decisions or can he put those feelings aside and think with his brain.
If Charles had let his personal relationship dictate his decisions during "Megexit", things would have turned out much differently IMO. Charles had to have been aware for quite some time of Harry's difficulties in living life in the royal fishbowl, but knew that allowing him to walk away before now would not have been good for the monarchy. I am sure that it broke father Charles' heart to "show Harry the door" back in January, but he did what was best for the future of the monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #948  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Like I mentioned in the previous post, if Charles does decide not to make exemptions for family members born before 2013 or the issued date this new hypothetical LP, their titles will be removed. In other words, those who are legally HRH Prince/Princess under 1917, but not the hypothetical LP will be stripped of their title, which includes
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
I personally think that removing HRH style and Prince/Princess titles from the Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy could potentially be a PR disaster for Charles. This happens because they have been supportive of the Queen for around 50 years by doing their royal duties with little or no fuss, despite little press coverage, apart from local newspapers. It has nothing to do with Charles feeling or using "his brains", it's more about whether or not he appreciate his mother's cousins' dedication and duty to the country.

Of course there is a possibility that Charles decided that George V's male-line grandchildren be exempt from this new LP, so that Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent will not be stripped of their title. I do think problem will arise if Charles make exemption on the male-line grandchildren of George V and himself (when he becomes king), but not the Queen's male-line grandchildren. It would appear that he is deliberately "punishing" his nieces and nephew (Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor and Jame, Viscount Severn) out of spite. Charles could also make exemption on his grandchildren only (Archie and his siblings affected), but I don't think it would look good either, as the Queen's cousins will still lose their title.

I agree with LauraS3514 that it would be preferable if this new hypothetical LP gets issued and acted whilst the Queen is still the Monarch, because it would not put Archie in an awkward position.
The above would be the weirdest thing for him to do and I don't see it happening. If he indeed would like to limit HRH and prince(ss) of the UK to the children of the monarch, the heir apparent and the heir apparent's heir apparent, I see several options to do so without impacting(too many) of those currently HRHs.
1) Pick a cut-off date: the new rules apply to anyone born after date X (most logical imho is to use 28 October 2013 if dated retrospectively, date of issue or date of Charles' ascension to the throne).
2) Limit the new rules to his descendants and have all others keep their titles according to previous LPs.
3) Apply the rules from now on but let those who enjoyed the style and title under the previous monarch keep their style and right.

I hope in whichever case they clearly specify whether Louise and James are entitled to style and title as male-line grandchildren as currently BP and Sophie disagree on this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #949  
Old 10-02-2020, 09:45 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
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.
The hereditary monarchy and hereditary peerage have already started down the route of diminishing unfairness and diminishing discrimination by many standards: race, religion, class, rule of law, etc.

I disagree that it is unsavory for members of the public to question the fairness of titles or monarchies, or that such questions should be used to excuse unfairness and discrimination, but in any event that can of worms was opened in the UK long before there was much controversy over sexist laws of inheritance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
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 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?
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.
By "the entire system", do you mean the 1917 Letters Patent or the patriarchal structure of society (both were mentioned in your conversation)? The first has not been in place for a millenium, the second discriminates against many non-members of the Royal Family, and how well either has worked is questionable.

None of us are likely to be directly affected by most of the specific questions discussed on this forum, but KellyAtLast was only replying to your assertion that male-only inheritance is nondiscriminatory.
Reply With Quote
  #950  
Old 10-03-2020, 02:53 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
The unfortunate case in Belgium has showed it again: limit the number of princes and princesses of the Royal House as much as possible. In Spain, Norway, Netherlands and Luxembourg the title of the Royal House has been limited to children of a King and children of a Heir, for life.

Under HM King Charles III :

HRH The Prince William
HRH The Prince Harry
HRH The Princess Anne
HRH The Prince Andrew
HRH The Prince Edward

HRH Prince George
HRH Princess Charlotte
HRH Prince Louis

And that was it. The remnant which still carries the title of a Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland (the Gloucesters, the Kents, the York) keep their current titulature out of courtesy, prudence and benevolence. They will fade out in time.
Reply With Quote
  #951  
Old 10-03-2020, 03:53 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445


Indeed, the Gloucesters and Kents will probably follow the footsteps of the Duke(s) of Fife and their families. Queen Victoria created (or more specifically elevated) the title for Alexander William George Duff (from The Earl of Fife) in 1900, two days after his wedding to Princess Louise of Wales, later the Princess Royal (granddaughter of Queen Victoria and daughter of the then Prince and Princess of Wales, later Edward VII and Queen Alexandra).

The title did pass down through a female line, since the 1st Duke's eldest son died stillborn. The current holder is David Carnegie, 4th Duke of Fife. Ever since the 2nd holder (who was HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife), they are no longer HRH Prince/Princess. Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife at one point was a Liberal MP (House of Commons) for Elginshire and Nairnshire from 1874 to 1879, until he was became Earl of Fife.

Unlike the Dukedom of Fife, the Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will more likely pass down through a male line and carried Windsor as their surname.

I do think the Gloucesters and Kents will certainly be included in major events, but not hold royal titles.

Speaking of Queen Victoria's descendant, the great-grandson of Princess Alice Countess of Athlone, Ian Liddell-Grainger is a Conservative MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset. He is in the line of succession to the British throne. The Earl of Athlone title (unlike Duke of Fife) has become extinct, because the 1st Earl died without "survived" male heir.

It would not surprise me if the future descendants of Gloucesters and Kents do enter politics (local councillor or MP), though there will be some "mud slinging" and dirty tactics from opposition candidates from being descendent for George V and family members of hereditary peers, like Ian Liddell-Grainger have experienced. That's the nature of politics I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #952  
Old 10-03-2020, 07:28 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post


Indeed, the Gloucesters and Kents will probably follow the footsteps of the Duke(s) of Fife and their families. Queen Victoria created (or more specifically elevated) the title for Alexander William George Duff (from The Earl of Fife) in 1900, two days after his wedding to Princess Louise of Wales, later the Princess Royal (granddaughter of Queen Victoria and daughter of the then Prince and Princess of Wales, later Edward VII and Queen Alexandra).

The title did pass down through a female line, since the 1st Duke's eldest son died stillborn. The current holder is David Carnegie, 4th Duke of Fife. Ever since the 2nd holder (who was HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife), they are no longer HRH Prince/Princess. Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife at one point was a Liberal MP (House of Commons) for Elginshire and Nairnshire from 1874 to 1879, until he was became Earl of Fife.

Unlike the Dukedom of Fife, the Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will more likely pass down through a male line and carried Windsor as their surname.

I do think the Gloucesters and Kents will certainly be included in major events, but not hold royal titles.
What do you mean by 'will probably/most likely'? All of this is arranged by LPs and I don't see any reason why they would upgrade their titles - but your 'probably' and 'most likely' seems to leave room for other alternatives: what would those be in your opinion?

The current status is: as the future dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't royal highnesses (because they aren't children or grandchildren in male-line of the monarch but only 'great-grandchildren'), these dukedoms cease to be 'royal dukedoms' upon the death of the current holder. Their eldest sons will be 'His Grace The Duke of Gloucester/Kent'. And their eldest (and only) sons after them - as the remainder for both titles is for 'heirs male of the body lawfully begotten'. It seems rather unlikely that the remainder would suddenly be changed - they haven't done it for prince Andrew, so there is little reason to do so for the queen's cousins for which the title is safe at least until the fourth generation (current dukes are the second of their creation and both have at least one male-line grandson).
Reply With Quote
  #953  
Old 10-03-2020, 07:59 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
What do you mean by 'will probably/most likely'? All of this is arranged by LPs and I don't see any reason why they would upgrade their titles - but your 'probably' and 'most likely' seems to leave room for other alternatives: what would those be in your opinion?

The current status is: as the future dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't royal highnesses (because they aren't children or grandchildren in male-line of the monarch but only 'great-grandchildren'), these dukedoms cease to be 'royal dukedoms' upon the death of the current holder. Their eldest sons will be 'His Grace The Duke of Gloucester/Kent'. And their eldest (and only) sons after them - as the remainder for both titles is for 'heirs male of the body lawfully begotten'. It seems rather unlikely that the remainder would suddenly be changed - they haven't done it for prince Andrew, so there is little reason to do so for the queen's cousins for which the title is safe at least until the fourth generation (current dukes are the second of their creation and both have at least one male-line grandson).
I was trying to be less absolute. What I meant on "probably following the footsteps of the Duke of Fife", is that there might be possibilities where there are no male heirs after some generations, causing the title to become extinct. For example, the line of succession of the Duke of Gloucester, after Prince Richard (2nd Duke) is
Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster --> Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden
Both Earl of Ulster and Lord (Baron) Culloden do not have younger siblings. If Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden have no "survived" male heirs, after his death, the Duke of Gloucester will become extinct.

I am in no way wishing on the extinction of titles.

In terms of the future Duke of Gloucesters and Kents carrying the Windsor surname and be addressed as His Grace, I was thinking there could be possibility that the title pass down to daughters or female line's (if no male heirs) similar to the Dukedom of Fife. However, Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife was granted HH Princess by her grandfather Edward VII and so did her sistster HH Princess Maud. Princess Alexandra herself became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife when she married Prince Arthur of Connaught. So you're right that both Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will pass through male-lines, given that the Dukedom of York has not been done for Princess Beatrice to inherit.

Another title that I think did pass to a daughter is Earl Mountbatten of Burma.
Reply With Quote
  #954  
Old 10-03-2020, 08:45 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I was trying to be less absolute. What I meant on "probably following the footsteps of the Duke of Fife", is that there might be possibilities where there are no male heirs after some generations, causing the title to become extinct. For example, the line of succession of the Duke of Gloucester, after Prince Richard (2nd Duke) is
Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster --> Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden
Both Earl of Ulster and Lord (Baron) Culloden do not have younger siblings. If Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden have no "survived" male heirs, after his death, the Duke of Gloucester will become extinct.

I am in no way wishing on the extinction of titles.

In terms of the future Duke of Gloucesters and Kents carrying the Windsor surname and be addressed as His Grace, I was thinking there could be possibility that the title pass down to daughters or female line's (if no male heirs) similar to the Dukedom of Fife. However, Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife was granted HH Princess by her grandfather Edward VII and so did her sistster HH Princess Maud. Princess Alexandra herself became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife when she married Prince Arthur of Connaught. So you're right that both Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will pass through male-lines, given that the Dukedom of York has not been done for Princess Beatrice to inherit.

Another title that I think did pass to a daughter is Earl Mountbatten of Burma.
Thanks for the clarification. I am aware that especially the title Duke of Gloucester is at risk with only one heir in each generation; however, I don't see them making any special provisions to ensure a 'fifth Duchess of Gloucester' (which by that time only had a royal prince as a great-grandfather) while they don't do it for a 'second duke of York' who is a princess herself. It seems that mainly happens/ed when at the time a title is given it is already clear that there won't be a male-heir.

Of course, it might be that future titles (if handed out) will be given a 'heirs to the body lawfully begotten' but the queen didn't go that round in her latest ones, and I don't expect that to happen to the Duke of Edinburgh title either when it is awarded to Edward.

In the case of the Dukedom of Fife (actually the first duke of Fife held the dukedom twice, once with male-heir and once with male-heir but with the exception of the daughter's of princess Louise), the only daughters that could inherit were the daughters of Princess Louise. Hence, why there was a '2nd Duchess of Fife', from then on it is back to the original 'male-only inheritance'. This additional creation (11 years after the first) was made because it had become clear that their wouldn't be any male-heirs, so it was effectively a way to ensure that one of Louise's children would be the next Duchess of Fife, because she had no surviving son. After that, it would depend on any heirs available in male-line of any of the 1st Duke's (and princess Louise's) children. These daughters also were made princesses a few years later by her father (then king). So, there would be precedent for princess Charlotte to be Princess Royal and have her children be princes and princesses as well (not sure whether they would award a dukedom to her husband though).

A similar principle applies to the Earldom Mountbatten of Burma: the only daughters (or their male descendants) that may inherit it are the daughters of the first Earl. Any daughters of subsequent generations are excluded.

Quote:
...to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne...and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten; and in default of such issue to every other daughter lawfully begotten of the said Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten...
So, this would be akin to the queen (or future king) issues a new LP to hand the duke of York the exact same titles a second time (not going to happen!) and include the special provision that the title will be passed on to his daughters and their male-line descendants.

However, we should probably move any further discussion on titles to the appropriate thread
Reply With Quote
  #955  
Old 10-03-2020, 02:14 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 636
I don't want to interrupt the discussion here, nor do I want to hijack the thread... but:

The whole discussion about the titles seems to be somewhat hollow and empty, since the whole Prince-Harry-affair. Until now I was not able to find any point against Harry, except that he is alledgedly not following the rules and left the flag and duty.

But de facto is he just outdoing the regular Windsors with his "good deeds"... He is even more "woke" and eco-conscious and pro-diversity. That is all!

And this brings me to my question: What is the "Duty", what is the raison d'être of the most prominent royal House on this planet?

I can't see them as something else than just more legit and more official "Harrys"!

And seen as such, I wonder on a more abstract level, what the Windsors could do to differentiate themselves from other charity firms. Ok, there will be in a forseeable future the thingy with the Commowealth as "hinterland" for the UK. But apart from this the House of Windsor has an utter lack of a special characteristics... - besides it's very old history and tradition. But "old" can also mean outdated and dusty!
Reply With Quote
  #956  
Old 10-04-2020, 06:28 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 684
The Future of the British Monarchy

This monarchy has survived for 1000 years with its traditions. The York title to tightly associated with the second son of a monarch. To make provisions for it to move further away from the immediate royal family is unprecedented. It may not be available for William to give it to Louis, or possibly Caroline, but it will mostly be available for George to give it to his second son.
Reply With Quote
  #957  
Old 10-05-2020, 07:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
This monarchy has survived for 1000 years with its traditions. The York title to tightly associated with the second son of a monarch. To make provisions for it to move further away from the immediate royal family is unprecedented.
Was the York title not given to Prince Albert and Prince Andrew with the standard provisions of heirs male of the body lawfully begotten? That would have provided for it to move further away from the immediate royal family, if only Albert and Andrew had had sons.
Reply With Quote
  #958  
Old 10-05-2020, 07:48 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Was the York title not given to Prince Albert and Prince Andrew with the standard provisions of heirs male of the body lawfully begotten? That would have provided for it to move further away from the immediate royal family, if only Albert and Andrew had had sons.

Yes the York Title has opnly remained so close to the Throne and could be given to the second son because the Title Holder did either have no sons (Frederick, Albert/Geoge VI., Andrew) or did become King
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #959  
Old 10-06-2020, 12:25 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
Yes the York Title has opnly remained so close to the Throne and could be given to the second son because the Title Holder did either have no sons (Frederick, Albert/Geoge VI., Andrew) or did become King
The last time the Duke of York title passed from father to son via direct inheritance was in December 1460 when Richard, the 3rd Duke of York, was killed in battle and his eldest son Edward Earl of March succeeded him. Edward would become King Edward IV in 1461. Since that time, the succeeding Dukes of York either died without male heirs or became King - including Andrew's two predecessors (George V and George VI).
Reply With Quote
  #960  
Old 10-06-2020, 05:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
York is such a special city. Seat of the only other Archbishop, Primate of England. Historic capital of the the North of England.

Maybe Duke of York could be given to the heir along with Cornwall & Chester in a new tradition.
__________________

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 07:27 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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