The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 11-28-2017, 09:04 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
That is what confuses me. If a duke is a higher title than a prince, why did she do it since he already had a Dukedom?


This is bridging to be off topic, but it’s not that simple.

A Duke is not “higher” than a Prince. Being a Prince of the United Kingdom means that one is a member of the Royal Family, either a son, grandson, or in rare cases great-grandson of a monarch.

Being a Duke means that one is a Peer of the Realm, and is the highest rank in the Peerage of the United Kingdom (or any of the peerages of the pre-UK kingdoms).

Harry is not, at this point, as “just” a Prince somehow ranked less than, say, the Duke of Norfolk, and while the Duke of Norfolk is the highest non-royal Duke in the United Kingdom, Harry has a higher place in the order of precedence.

When the DoE married, he gave up his royal titles. He was made a peer of the Realm, but he was not a Prince of the Realm. What the Queen did was make him a Prince as well as a Peer.
__________________

  #122  
Old 11-28-2017, 09:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
When Catherine accompanied William on the engagements before the wedding she was not mentioned in the CC at all - just as if she hadn't attended.
So aides get recognition sometimes, but fiancees do not?
__________________

  #123  
Old 11-28-2017, 09:15 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 543
Quote:
That is what confuses me. If a duke is a higher title than a prince, why did she do it since he already had a Dukedom? i am not saying the should not have. I am still just trying to figure out how all these titles work. Everytime I think I have it figured out, i get confused again :)
Quickly put, it's (in order of highest to lowest):

1. Royal Dukes (who are usually also princes)
2. Princes
3. Regular Dukes.
  #124  
Old 11-28-2017, 09:21 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabella View Post
I thought about Letizia as soon as I saw Meghan and Harry's interview, because Meghan's confidence and personality stood out to me in much the same way that Letizia's had at her engagement announcement. Usually royal fiancees are (understandably) more reserved in that first interview, but both Meghan and Letizia were very much at ease ... which I perceive as a good thing. For me, it has been very disheartening to see the way that Letizia is regarded by the Spanish people. However, Meghan's situation is fortunately quite different: it's a different country (and, of course, a different royal family) and she's not marrying the future king. Hopefully Meghan will be given a bit more leeway to be herself ... I suspect she will.
Letizia was a journalist and news anchor. Meghan an actress. Both careers require being comfortable and confident in front of the camera and in the public eye so of course they have that in common. That experience also gives them an advantage in their Royal roles.

Meghan seems to be level headed and very much her own person. I don’t see her being swallowed up and reduced to a shell of herself as some seem to fear. She will no doubt find it challenging at times as she adjusts but I don’t see her changing who she is.
  #125  
Old 11-28-2017, 11:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
That is what confuses me. If a duke is a higher title than a prince, why did she do it since he already had a Dukedom? i am not saying the should not have. I am still just trying to figure out how all these titles work. Everytime I think I have it figured out, i get confused again :)
She wanted him to have the style he was born with - Prince.

She also wanted it to be for him as an honour.

Dukes per se aren't higher than princes but royal dukes are.

In the UK a Prince stops using Prince as their primary style when created a peer of the realm.

Remember that a prince is a commoner and not a noble title so William woke up on his wedding day a commoner and went to bed a peer - he had been promoted from Prince to Duke with the creation of a title in his own right.

Harry is a commoner (as are the vast majority of the BRF) - Camilla, Kate, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Birgitte, Katherine, Michael, Marie-Christine and Alexandra.

The peers - and thus those of higher rank - are Philip, Charles, William, Andrew, Edward, Richard and Edward.

Think of it this way: there are three ranks

1. The monarch
2. The peers
3. The commoners

Princes are commoners unless they also have a peerage which is why Kate uses Duchess of Cambridge and not Princess William - because William was promoted from commoner to peer on their wedding day.

With Philip it didn't mean anything much recreating him as a Prince - it wasn't necessary as his senior title - the one that saw him take a seat in the House of Lords and swear allegiance to Elizabeth at the coronation was that of Duke of Edinburgh. It was simply to give him an honour.
  #126  
Old 11-28-2017, 11:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Letizia was a journalist and news anchor. Meghan an actress. Both careers require being comfortable and confident in front of the camera and in the public eye so of course they have that in common. That experience also gives them an advantage in their Royal roles.

Meghan seems to be level headed and very much her own person. I don’t see her being swallowed up and reduced to a shell of herself as some seem to fear. She will no doubt find it challenging at times as she adjusts but I don’t see her changing who she is.
I do hope you are right! Other 'non-Brits' have married into the Firm; the Danish duchess of Gloucester and the Austrian Princess Michael of Kent come to mind. Privately, I believe they celebrate the national holidays they were brought up with in order to transmit their personal cultures to their children: I remember reading about the Prince of Wales attending a mid summers eve party at the Gloucester's, for example. However, I feel the new Princess Harry will face a steep learning curve about her adopted country as she goes out into the towns and cities of Britain. She will need to bite her tongue as she may not say what she thinks; she can however take on various patronages, as other RF members have done, to support work that is already being done in the field. I would be interested to see if she is allowed to take on international patronages along the model of the Scandinavian and Dutch princesses; time will tell but one wishes her the best of luck! As Prince Harry said, 'there is a lot of work to do!'
  #127  
Old 11-28-2017, 11:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerry View Post
I do hope you are right! Other 'non-Brits' have married into the Firm; the Danish duchess of Gloucester and the Austrian Princess Michael of Kent come to mind. Privately, I believe they celebrate the national holidays they were brought up with in order to transmit their personal cultures to their children: I remember reading about the Prince of Wales attending a mid summers eve party at the Gloucester's, for example. However, I feel the new Princess Harry will face a steep learning curve about her adopted country as she goes out into the towns and cities of Britain. She will need to bite her tongue as she may not say what she thinks; she can however take on various patronages, as other RF members have done, to support work that is already being done in the field. I would be interested to see if she is allowed to take on international patronages along the model of the Scandinavian and Dutch princesses; time will tell but one wishes her the best of luck! As Prince Harry said, 'there is a lot of work to do!'
Based on what Meghan said during the interview, it sounds like she already has a pretty good grasp of what her future role will entail. She didn't go into a lot of detail, of course, but she talked about looking forward to getting to know different communities in the UK and working with smaller organizations that deal with causes that she's already passionate bout. I suspect she's done her homework, and it sounds like she's eager to go out and learn and do. It seems like she's already been doing that throughout her life, in various ways. She strikes me as being very adaptable.
  #128  
Old 11-29-2017, 02:20 AM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
It kinda hilarious to me how we were recently discussing how Meghan would spend her time if she were to move to London before an engagement. And now, she's not only an engaged woman but attending actual engagements with her future husband, only a few days after their big announcement. This is really something. Very unexpected but not really surprising to see Harry being supportive and considerate in making sure Meghan is included and not left behind while he's working. So many lovely developments this week. Really can't wait to see her in action on Friday.
  #129  
Old 11-29-2017, 02:29 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
I have a question. Or a few, actually. In the future, maybe after she's proven herself and been accepted, will Meghan be able to have some patronages of her own?
Of course. It wont just be encouraged, it will be expected of her. That is part of being a working royal, having patronages you support. Kate had about 6 by the end of her first year, as well as their foundation.

In the months following the wedding we will see Meghan picking up her own.

Its great that we will already see Meghan out with Harry. Good chance for the people to get to know her. And for her to be comfortable in the public eye in her new role before the wedding. Also keep her busy in the months leading up to the wedding, not sitting home while he travels.
  #130  
Old 11-29-2017, 03:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Duke is not a higher title than prince. The confusion arises because some senior princes also happen to be dukes.
no of course it isn't. Harry is a Prince, on marriage he will be problaby given a ROYAL dukedom, whhch is different to an ordinary dukedom as a mark of status. But Princes rank higher than dukes...
  #131  
Old 11-29-2017, 05:16 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
None of what you said here is true or correct.
The first part was true, the second part wasn't. She won't be a Princess, she will be a Princess of the United Kingdom. If you want to correct someone, make sure you've got your facts straight - not an "I know I'm right" attitude as you have literally stated before. No one here knows whether they are right or not, we can only assume, predict, think and/or feel until confirmation by Kensington Palace.

It's obvious that you are very proud that a fellow American will enter the BRF, but it's not certain at this point whether she will keep her US citizenship. No matter how much you advocate for her keeping it. If she will ditch it, that's her choice.

---------------
In general: I feel that I have considered a lot of flak and been raked over the coals by some for my comment about Princess vs. Princess of the United Kingdom. I already said that I was somewhat in the wrong (that translates into an apology), so you may assume that I have received the message by now.

Meghan will be a Princess of the United Kingdom by her marriage to Harry. She will not be a Princess in her own right. There, I have brushed up my knowledge of how it works.
I was confused by the Princess vs. Princess of the UK thing.

Just wanted to point that out.
  #132  
Old 11-29-2017, 05:33 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,480
no she wont be a Princess in her own right because she's not a member of the RF by birth. Anyway I remember lots of people a few years ago claiming that William was going to throw a hissy fit unless Kate was made a princess in her own right as opposed to a princess by marriage...
  #133  
Old 11-29-2017, 12:58 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
Quickly put, it's (in order of highest to lowest):

1. Royal Dukes (who are usually also princes)
2. Princes
3. Regular Dukes.
Thanks. That makes sense.
  #134  
Old 11-29-2017, 01:01 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Meghan will have the rank, title, style and privileges of a Princess of the United Kingdom and of a Royal Duchess. I'm not sure what else anybody could want!
  #135  
Old 11-29-2017, 01:22 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
Quickly put, it's (in order of highest to lowest):



1. Royal Dukes (who are usually also princes)

2. Princes

3. Regular Dukes.


By that logic, in the 70s the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester (the cousins of the current monarch, and grandsons of a monarch who has reigned some 40 years earlier) were higher than Princes Andrew and Edward (sons of the current monarch), who held no peerages at the time. Actually, by that logic, the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester still rank higher than Edward, who is “merely” an Earl.
  #136  
Old 11-29-2017, 01:34 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
But in the Order of Precedence, Edward comes before the Gloucester and Kent Dukes because he is a son of the monarch whereas they are "only" grandchildren of a late monarch.
  #137  
Old 12-02-2017, 09:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
They have to get all the support people hired (personal secretary etc) pretty soon.
When are royal spouses typically get their own private secretary? I'm assuming some will still be shared by all four, like Jason Knauf is still going to serve as Communications Secretary for all four.

How many staff does the younger royals have? I didn't even know Heather Wong was PH's asssistant private secretary until yesterday. Or that he even had an assistant private secretary.
  #138  
Old 12-02-2017, 09:09 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
When are royal spouses typically get their own private secretary? I'm assuming some will still be shared by all four, like Jason Knauf is still going to serve as Communications Secretary for all four.

How many staff does the younger royals have? I didn't even know Heather Wong was PH's asssistant private secretary until yesterday. Or that he even had an assistant private secretary.
Seems like Kate/William have personal secretaries....I figured Harry and Meghan would also.


LaRae
  #139  
Old 12-02-2017, 09:15 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Seems like Kate/William have personal secretaries....I figured Harry and Meghan would also.





LaRae


Harry does have one. It's probably only a matter of time until Meghan does too.
  #140  
Old 12-02-2017, 10:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Seems like Kate/William have personal secretaries....I figured Harry and Meghan would also.


LaRae
I know Edward Fox Lane is his private secretary. I didn't know there was assistant private secretaries too.
__________________

Closed Thread


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





Popular Tags
america ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography britain british british royal family brownbitcoinqueen camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy dna doge of venice doll dubai duke of cambridge duke of sussex family life family tree fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! highgrove imperial household italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery king edward vii king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mary: crown princess of denmark meghan markle nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince constantijn prince dimitri princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen mathilde queen maxima royal ancestry royal jewels serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs united states of america wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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