The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1361  
Old 12-01-2008, 07:06 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
If you don't know of many 101 year olds or even 80 years olds that have to radically alter their lifestyle, I suggest you go and see some of the folk at Age Concern, they have no option but to live according to the money in their purse!
You may find there is typically quite a lot of difference between the mental faculties of people at 80 and 101..... and if you have the money or you know your children will take care of your expenses, at age 101 why would you bother?
__________________

  #1362  
Old 12-01-2008, 07:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Part of The Queen Mother's cash flow problems were also attributable to the fact she transferred her own fortune (estimated at $30 million) to a trust for her great-grandchildren in 1987. The income was payable to them for their expenses via a trustee until her death. After that, the trust ended and the remaining principal was paid in equal shares to her grandchildren (with the exception of Charles).
__________________

  #1363  
Old 12-01-2008, 08:36 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Part of The Queen Mother's cash flow problems were also attributable to the fact she transferred her own fortune (estimated at $30 million) to a trust for her great-grandchildren in 1987. The income was payable to them for their expenses via a trustee until her death. After that, the trust ended and the remaining principal was paid in equal shares to her grandchildren (with the exception of Charles).
Actualy I do remember reading this a long time ago. Irrespective of what caused the cash flow shortage towards the end of her life, I am sure the QM had no doubt that her costs would be taken care of by HM!
  #1364  
Old 12-01-2008, 11:10 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,380
We are drifting. You can discuss HM The Queen Mother here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...002-a-555.html
  #1365  
Old 12-01-2008, 11:16 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
As you can see here, the very first title for Charles probably was His Royal Highness Prince Charles, Earl of Merioneth.

Letters Patent 22 October 1948

In the letters patent his father is referred to as HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and his mother HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. It doesn't mention any other title for the children of said marriage than Royal Highness and the prefix prince/princess. Thus Charles surely was known by his father's secondary title, as I don't think "Duke of Edinburgh" was a Royal Dukedom such as "York", like the ones given to a son of the souverain. If so, Chrles would have been HRH prince Charles of Edinburgh?

The letters patent says: " in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter", so doesn't clarify this question.

The letters patent of 21. Nov. 1947 was about "granting unto Lieutenant H.R.H. Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N. and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Greenwich in the County of London, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh." In other documents the king made it clear that he didn't want to create Philip a Prince of the Uk, so I guess he was not a Royal duke like his son of York, but a Royal Highness with a peerage of duke. Thus his heir would hold his secondary title as a courtesy title in addition the the HRH prince Charles.
But Jo, wasn't the earldom of Merioneth only his courtesy title? He was not Merioneth is his own right, only by courtesy as the Duke of E's eldest son.
I thought of that before I posted about Cornwall being his first title, but then I thought since it was only by courtesy, and because no one called him that........ In fact, just before he was born the King took the liberty of making him HRH Prince so that he would not be known by the courtesy earldom. At least, that's what I thought, based on the story as told by Pimlott.
It does not matter. I'm not wanting to discuss it and certainly have no desire to argue and debate it because it's not worth it to me. I was just curious about it.

Anyway, we are all used to Camilla being Duchess of Cornwall now (we can argue that it would be better for her to use the Wales title, but in the end, everything is fine and our protests will just cause unnecessary unhappiness with something that was always fine) and then she will become Queen probably in the 2020s and the teenagers at that time will have no conscious memory of Diana. Diana will just be a figure in their modern history books.

There are more important things than Camilla's "senior title" to fight for. Keep perspective!! :)
Fight for love, prosperity, and health for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  #1366  
Old 12-01-2008, 11:29 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Thus Charles surely was known by his father's secondary title, as I don't think "Duke of Edinburgh" was a Royal Dukedom such as "York", like the ones given to a son of the If so, Chrles would have been HRH prince Charles of Edinburgh?
"Royal dukedoms" aren't different from ordinary dukedoms except that they're held by somebody royal, and Philip was (meaning that royal dukedoms can stop being royal, as will happen when the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, and non-royal dukedoms can become royal, which I don't think has ever happened). That means Charles was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh from his birth until 1952 (when he became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, etc.) Anyways, it doesn't really matter what Philip was. Charles was assuredly a prince (meaning he wouldn't use the courtesy title, even if he technically held it, like every other royal heir to a dukedom), and his father (and mother) were of Edinburgh, so he was too.
  #1367  
Old 12-01-2008, 02:35 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Well, they're different in that they can't be inherited by brothers and cousins like regular dukedoms. If Andrew dies before Edward, Edward doesn't inherit the York title.
  #1368  
Old 12-01-2008, 06:33 PM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
A beautiful young woman who nearly caused the fall of the RF, in fact very much as Wallis did.
I'm sorry but that is such an exaggeration imo...
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #1369  
Old 12-01-2008, 08:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Well, they're different in that they can't be inherited by brothers and cousins like regular dukedoms. If Andrew dies before Edward, Edward doesn't inherit the York title.
Correct. And technically a dukedom (or any other Peerage) granted to a son or grandson of The Sovereign remains "of the blood royal" forever, even without the style of HRH, because it re-merges with the Crown once there are no more direct heirs of the first holder and is never created outside the royal family.
  #1370  
Old 12-01-2008, 08:51 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Fairly speaking, I do not see much difference between late Duchess of Windsor and Duchess of Cornwall: divorcees with a past. The background is somewhat different, but both situations do not positively contribute to the image of the British monarchy.
  #1371  
Old 12-01-2008, 09:35 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Well, they're different in that they can't be inherited by brothers and cousins like regular dukedoms. If Andrew dies before Edward, Edward doesn't inherit the York title.

I am under the impression, based on what I really don't know, that if a Duke (or any other title) is created it is always using the 'heirs male of the body' and so a brother or cousin couldn't inherit from the first creation either.

e.g. my older brother gets Duke of Greatness and he dies with only daughters then his brother doesn't inherit the title but if he has three sons then each of their lines are eligible based on their order of birth so that after he dies and the eldest son dies the second son can inherit the title as he is an 'heir male of the body' but the younger brother of the first Duke of Greatness can't inherit it as he isn't an 'heir male of the body'.

If we go back to the Gloucester title - when the elder brother of the present Duke died his younger brother was able to inherit it but if both the brothers had died it couldn't go to the Duke of Kent's line as that line wasn't descended from the first Duke of Gloucester of this creation.

Please correct me if I am wrong but that is how it has always seemed to me and I don't know where I learnt it that way.
  #1372  
Old 12-01-2008, 10:22 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I am under the impression, based on what I really don't know, that if a Duke (or any other title) is created it is always using the 'heirs male of the body' and so a brother or cousin couldn't inherit from the first creation either.
I'm pretty sure that's the case for all dukedoms created in the past couple of centuries. I think some old ones might pass to heirs male general, though (which includes descendants of ancestors).

The Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992

Quote:
And for Us Our heirs and successors do appoint give and grant unto him the said name state degree style dignity title and honour of Duke of and by these Presents do dignify invest and ennoble him by girding him with a sword and putting a cap of honour and a coronet of gold on his head and by giving into his hand a rod of gold [or, if the grant is to a woman, “dignify invest and really ennoble her with such name state degree title and honour of Duchess of ”] to have and to hold the said name state degree style dignity title and honour of Duke of unto him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten
  #1373  
Old 12-01-2008, 11:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If we go back to the Gloucester title - when the elder brother of the present Duke died his younger brother was able to inherit it but if both the brothers had died it couldn't go to the Duke of Kent's line as that line wasn't descended from the first Duke of Gloucester of this creation.
Prince Richard inherited his dukedom from his father, The Prince Henry, who died after his eldest son. If both brothers had been deceased, the title would have been extinct and returned to the Crown.

The creation of Peerages in the male heirs of body means they can only be inherited by your son or male-line grandson. If neither survives you, the peerage becomes extinct.
  #1374  
Old 12-02-2008, 02:23 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Prince Richard inherited his dukedom from his father, The Prince Henry, who died after his eldest son. If both brothers had been deceased, the title would have been extinct and returned to the Crown.

The creation of Peerages in the male heirs of body means they can only be inherited by your son or male-line grandson. If neither survives you, the peerage becomes extinct.

That is exactly what I said - that the title wouldn't have passed to the Kents had both sons died rather than just the eldest.
  #1375  
Old 12-02-2008, 11:52 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 68
In my ideal world, Charles would be by-passed in the succession and Queen Elizabeth would be succeeded by a "young" (relatively) King William V.

Charles would get some title such as Duke of Edinburgh, or Essex, or something prestigious like that, and Camilla enjoy the female equivalent. Preferably they would remain as Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, as there is no sense changing duchies for another, but I don't know if this is legally possible or if the title automatically passes to the King's firstborn male child (ie, Charles and Camilla would automatically lose it once William ahd a son).

However, if Charles does become King, then I can see no good reason why Camilla shouldn't become Queen consort, except for the fact that people would rather have seen Diana be Queen Consort. Which is understandable and a fairly good reason of itself, considering how the monarchy is not what it once was and the BRF will have to appease public opinion on such matters if they do not want to get the boot in the next few generations. So then the suggested title, "Princess Consort", which sounds ok since Prince Philip and Prince Albert were both Princes Consort (a precedent), and it is still a unique, lofty sounding title worthy of the royal consort.

I would also like (regardless of which title she gets - Queen/Princess Consort) for her to be elevated to the peerage in her own right. Historically, commoner wives and/or their immediate families were elevated to the peerage shortly before or upon marriage. Elizabeth Woodville's father was made Earl Rivers and her son was made Marquis of Dorset; Anne Boleyn was made Marchioness of Pembroke suo jure and her father was made Earl of Wiltshire; etc etc. So Camilla should be made a Duchess/Marchioness/Countess, so that her son and descendants will in time be a Duke/Marquis/Earl, which is only fair given their close kinship (even if not by blood) to the royal house.
  #1376  
Old 12-02-2008, 11:59 AM
Empress's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,122
Frankly, I see no reason for Camilla's children from a previous marriage to reap the benefits of her current marriage. As far as I am aware there is no precedent for that. I see no reason why she should not have some title in her own right, although I doubt very much that she cares about this (or else, I think that she should not have married him in the first place).

No, I don't see any good reason for them to be given a title, and what's more, a special remainder would have to be created so that her titles could pass on to her children, as most titles pass through the male line, rather than the female line, unless a special remainder has been created.

At this time, when the royal family is apparently attempting to downsize a bit, I don't think that it would be prudent economically or PR wise, to grant titles to the children of Camilla, who are not noble or aristocratic in the first place.
__________________
  #1377  
Old 12-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 68
Well, any hereditary title granted to Camilla would automatically be inherited by her son, even if succession is only permissible in the male line and her daughter cannot inherit.

Camilla is the granddaughter of the Baron Ashcombe and descends from the Earls of Albermarle (she is a cousin of the present Earl, Rufus Keppel). There is also some evidence to suggest that she is a great-granddaughter through an illegitimate line of Edward VII and thus her husband's 2nd cousin.

Since her children are the step-children of the Prince of Wales and future King of England, I do consider them aristocrats/noble, even if not by blood, but by connection to the throne.

When Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville, her sons from her first marriage were received at court and treated not only as nobility, but also elevated. Her eldest son Thomas Grey was knighted, made Earl of Huntingdon and then Marquis of Dorset; and her younger son Richard was knighted, and given a whole string of honours before his abrupt early death. Her father, a mere 'esquire', was made 1st Earl Rivers and Lord Treasurer.

Later Kings, notably Henry VIII, also granted plenty of lands and titles to their wives relatives, in recognition of their new found status and proximity to the Crown.

Just seems strange to me that the children of the de jure Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, future Queen/Princess Consort of England, should be treated as mere commoners. A viscounty would suffice
  #1378  
Old 12-02-2008, 12:40 PM
Empress's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,122
No, the only way that a title can be inherited from a female is if a special remainder is created saying that this is the way that it will happen. And then that remainder would have to be recreated for each instance. So if Camilla has a title, the only way that her son would inherit it is if it was created with that remainder in place or made after it's creation.

With Elizabeth Woodville, it is an entirely different situation in a different time. Her first husband was dead, and her family had helped Edward secure his throne after defecting from the other Kings camp. These days are not the same as they were then, and peerages can not and should not be bought or given just based on relation to a member of the royal family. In the middle ages, to which you speak, it was common for the king to grant lands and honors to his retainers in place of paying them a salary for the jobs that they did for him. Counselors, lawyers, courtiers, etc were not given a salary, they were sometimes given an allowance, but most often their "payment for services rendered" were given in lands and titles from which they could earn their living.
__________________
  #1379  
Old 12-02-2008, 12:44 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Why exactly should children of Duchess of Cornwall from the first marriage have any titles through the second marriage of their mother? The last I have heard, the children in question want nothing, but remain private citizens. Tom and Laura are a part of the Parker Bowels family. If their father has got any titles to pass, Mr. Tom Parker Bowels can have them. I tend to share Empress' opinion on this matter.
  #1380  
Old 12-02-2008, 01:24 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Why exactly should children of duchess of Cornwall from the first marriage have any titles through the second marriage of their mother? The last I heard, the children in question wanted nothing, but remain private citizens. Tom and Laura are a part of the Parker Bowels family. If their father has got any titles to pass, Mr. Tom Parker Bowels can have them. I tend to share Empress' opinion on this matter.
What title could they possibly get, they are Parker-Bowles children and have his title which the last time I heard was Mr. and now his daughter is Mrs. Lopes. Perhaps Laura´s husband is going to get a title by inheritance one day that is different. They are the step children of the Prince of Wales, that is all, not royal by any means.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, princess consort, queen consort, styles and titles


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
Victoria's Future Title? rop81 Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 80 09-12-2021 08:00 PM
Will and should Camilla use the title of Queen when Charles becomes King? muriel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 17 11-10-2011 10:20 AM
Crown Prince Hamzah relieved of his title: November 28, 2004 Amoula Current Events Archive 338 04-22-2005 09:28 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family jewellery king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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