The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Although Harry is a "royal Duke", the title of "Duke" itself is not a royal title. Its a peerage of the UK title. The most that could be done was to prohibit Harry and Meghan from using their "HRH" which *is* a royal form of address.
Dukedoms are no longer given out to non royals. Churchill was offered one but he turned it down - Duke of London. And Churchill was suis generis.

So the reality is that dukedoms are royal titles to all intents & purposes.
__________________

  #402  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I’m sorry? What exactly do you want them to do? Harry and Meghan are no longer working Royals, they can do pretty much what they want. Crack the whip? The Monarchy is just fine.
Well they could stop giving us the dubious benefits of their opinions on British society for a start. They don't live here. We can manage well enough without their nonsensical ramblings. Spreading division. It's corrosive.
__________________

  #403  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:33 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,542
Well said indeed.

https://twitter.com/royaldickie/stat...307369472?s=21
  #404  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbside View Post
I'm confused. How are they causing division?
Why be confused. It's obvious by the reaction to their latest comments. Why is this even being asked?
  #405  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Why be confused. It's obvious by the reaction to their latest comments. Why is this even being asked?
It's being asked because I do not know what you mean. They are causing division by calling out structural bias? By living in the USA but commenting on social issues in the UK? What do you mean?
  #406  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbside View Post
It's being asked because I do not know what you mean. They are causing division by calling out structural bias? By living in the USA but commenting on social issues in the UK? What do you mean?
That makes sense. A fair question.

Lots of people in Britain are not interested in being lectured to by any member of the royal family. It's not their place. It's not what they're for. Indeed it causes resentment & irritation. The royal family is at its best when it is non controversial & acting as a unifying force.

Hopefully that answers your question.
  #407  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:50 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Dukedoms are no longer given out to non royals. Churchill was offered one but he turned it down - Duke of London.

So the reality is that dukedoms are royal titles to all intents & purposes.
According to Debrett's, "At present there are 24 dukes (not including royal dukes). The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. His ancestor John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk in 1483, but because he inherited his dukedom through his mother, Margaret Mowbray, the duke’s precedence (ie his seniority in terms of the antiquity of his title) is dated 1397, which is when Margaret Mowbray’s father was created Duke of Norfolk."

I would hardly call the Duke of Norfolk "royalty". It is true though that these days, hereditary dukedoms are primarily issued to family of the monarch.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/e...20of%20Norfolk.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #408  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:54 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
According to Debrett's, "At present there are 24 dukes (not including royal dukes). The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. His ancestor John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk in 1483, but because he inherited his dukedom through his mother, Margaret Mowbray, the duke’s precedence (ie his seniority in terms of the antiquity of his title) is dated 1397, which is when Margaret Mowbray’s father was created Duke of Norfolk."

I would hardly call the Duke of Norfolk "royalty". It is true though that these days, hereditary dukedoms are primarily issued to family of the monarch.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/e...20of%20Norfolk.
There are no new dukedoms being given out, only royal ones. In fact there are no hereditary titles at all being given out now, because the ethos of the country is against the idea. Harry and William got dukedoms because they are royal....Harry is a Royal Duke and not an ordinary peer... for quite some time, by tradition, Royal dukes did not engage in any kind of politics or speechifying because they were not ordinary peers. That's why Edward VIII was made a royal duke because it would muzzle him...
  #409  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
That makes sense. A fair question.

Lots of people in Britain are not interested in being lectured to by any member of the royal family. It's not their place. It's not what they're for. Indeed it causes resentment & irritation. The royal family is at its best when it is non controversial & acting as a unifying force.

Hopefully that answers your question.
I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree. The people who benefit the most from structural racism are the arguably the best ones to condemn it. It seems to me the point of so many charities is to foster a sense of community and open opportunities for underserved groups. Structural racism hinders opportunity, so it makes sense to me that it would and should be called out.
  #410  
Old 10-02-2020, 12:57 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
According to Debrett's, "At present there are 24 dukes (not including royal dukes). The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. His ancestor John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk in 1483, but because he inherited his dukedom through his mother, Margaret Mowbray, the duke’s precedence (ie his seniority in terms of the antiquity of his title) is dated 1397, which is when Margaret Mowbray’s father was created Duke of Norfolk."

I would hardly call the Duke of Norfolk "royalty". It is true though that these days, hereditary dukedoms are primarily issued to family of the monarch.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/e...20of%20Norfolk.
Yes I know. I'm not literally saying that dukedoms are royal titles. I'm saying that they are to all intents & purposes royal titles. No dukedom has been awarded to a non royal (born or married) since 1876 (& he was already a duke anyway). Only Churchill was offered one in the C20th & he was suis generis.

Dukedoms are only awarded now to members of the royal family.

We're both right.
  #411  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbside View Post
I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree. The people who benefit the most from structural racism are the arguably the best ones to condemn it. It seems to me the point of so many charities is to foster a sense of community and open opportunities for underserved groups. Structural racism hinders opportunity, so it makes sense to me that it would and should be called out.
I think I would characterise this as a cultural impasse. We can both see the other's opinion but can't agree to agree. Fair enough.

As a British monarchist I have no doubt that a politicised royal family opens a can of worms.
  #412  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Yes I know. I'm not literally saying that dukedoms are royal titles. I'm saying that they are to all intents & purposes royal titles. No dukedom has been awarded to a non royal (born or married) since 1876 (& he was already a duke anyway). Only Churchill was offered one & he was suis generis.

Dukedoms are only awarded now to members of the royal family.

We're both right.
and Churchill turned it down. harry would not have his title if he weren't a member of the RF
  #413  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think I would characterise this as a cultural impasse. We can both see the other's opinion but can't agree to agree. Fair enough.

As a British monarchist I would say that a politicised royal family opens a can of worms.
It's kind of sad that the idea of eradicating structural racism is seen as political, but, it is what it is.
  #414  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:13 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
and Churchill turned it down. harry would not have his title if he weren't a member of the RF
I'm not disputing that Harry is a royal duke. The point I was trying to make responding to KellyAtLast when she said to discontinue H&M's "royal title". Its my understanding that the title of "Duke" is not a royal title per se but rather a title denoting a peer of the UK.

Its all good.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #415  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbside View Post
It's kind of sad that the idea of eradicating structural racism is seen as political, but, it is what it is.
I think that's unfair. It's a lot more complicated than that.
  #416  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I'm not disputing that Harry is a royal duke. The point I was trying to make responding to KellyAtLast when she said to discontinue H&M's "royal title". Its my understanding that the title of "Duke" is not a royal title per se but rather a title denoting a peer of the UK.

Its all good.
We're all a bit correct.

The big question is would we accept a dukedom if we were offered one?
  #417  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:38 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
We're all a bit correct.

The big question is would we accept a dukedom if we were offered one?
Not me. I already have an impressive title. I'm the Queen of Procrastinators. I was even going to write a book about it but never got around to it.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #418  
Old 10-02-2020, 02:50 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Both, probably. She meant she didn't realize that they had a Black History Month until she lived in Britain.



Imagine how much more powerful and compelling it would be if they'd actually stayed in the UK, not treated it as a giant charity site.
Meh, that's an excuse. If I, as a non brit or black/biracial was able to assume that Britain had a BHM, you would think an educated American biracial who spoke (sparingly, very sparingly) about racism in the past, would be able to assume the same.

The reality is: Meghan never really cared (nor cares) about blacks or racism, unless she can use it for PR, like all those white actors who did blackout Tuesday a couple months ago... all talk, no action.
She went through two BHM while living in the UK (plus potentially during her visits to see Harry or casually vacationing in the UK), did she not read the papers or saw anything online about it? yet, not a single word.


Yes, I think Meghan, if she had been sincere about making change and doing good, could have been a true force for good. But that's not what she's about.

Like the latest list, or the vogue cover, are there any doctors? lawyers? people in education? civil right, or general charity, activist? mp's (okay that may be problematic since it can be seen as political), scientists? on that list?
According to the responds I have seen, the answer is no, but maybe I missed something?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think I would characterise this as a cultural impasse. We can both see the other's opinion but can't agree to agree. Fair enough.

As a British monarchist I have no doubt that a politicised royal family opens a can of worms.
If I am not mistaken, the last time that can of worm was opened a British king lost his head, and the crown - for awhile anyway.
  #419  
Old 10-02-2020, 03:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I personally think the timing of Harry & Meghan's interview with the Evening Standard is what driving the "controversy". As I posted earlier, the report on "white working class boys" falling behind in school makes some people questioned Harry & Meghan's "alleged" opinions on "white privilege", "male privilege" or "decolonise curriculum".

Some people believed that Harry and Meghan are somewhat "working against the government's interest" in terms of culture. There are some backbencher MPs retweeting criticism of Harry and Meghan, which includes the statistic by Matt Goodwin on the 9% of poorest white boys making into university. For example Ben Bradley MP retweeting this
https://twitter.com/MartinDaubney/st...37777290084352
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status...35249651597313
One benefit of this interview in that case might be that many more people hear about the issue of the low-SES white boys than otherwise might have learned about it
  #420  
Old 10-02-2020, 03:38 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The way I see it is that last March, it became officially known that Harry and Meghan no longer represented the Queen, the Firm or the monarchy in any shape or form from that time onward. Any views this couple expresses are their own and represent no one other than themselves. They've surely been taking advantage of that and its rocking the boat.

The British MPs, the British press and the British popular opinion also have the right to express their concerns and their thoughts and views but the reality is that it's going to get them nowhere at all. Harry and Meghan's view on issues have as much weight as any Brit expressing their views on things. The Sussexes actually are *allowed* to express themselves as they see fit at this time without restriction. It may not seem wise or of any benefit other than rocking that proverbial boat and causing uproars but that's the way things are now.
I don't agree. He is still one major accident away from the throne. So, I don't think it is right to both keep your succession rights AND make it your 'independent job' to advocate your personal and sometimes politically-charged views as much as possible to the largest audience possible; and even using your royal titles to do so.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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
Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Current Events 2: April-September 2020 JessRulz Current Events Archive 489 09-03-2020 04:10 AM
General News about the Sussex Family, Part Three: August-September 2020 JessRulz Current Events Archive 919 09-01-2020 06:59 PM
Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Current Events 1: May 2018 - March 2020 JessRulz Current Events Archive 771 04-07-2020 10:20 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baptism british brownbitcoinqueen canada chittagong commonwealth countries coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up daisy duke of sussex dutch royals emperor family tree gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kent king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech startling new evidence stuart swedish queen taiwan thailand tracts videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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