The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   Duty and Title (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/duty-and-title-48034.html)

Suzzanah 11-22-2020 01:04 AM

Duty and Title
 
There is much chatter about titles on the web for several royals. In general a prince and princess are birth titles. Titles of domain like a Duchy or Duke however have duties. Many years back discussion about the Marlboro title was presented. As an American I believe those with titles of domain should have duties. They should have stipends as well. There is always more work than money though it seems. The princes should remain so but hand over the other titles that they are not serving. Lady Sara should hand over hers as well.

Prince Harry should be in the nova scotia titles now so he can serve his queen in Canada. Prince Andrew seems retired out but should create a new life with person he can trust. Perhaps a new venue would help him.

Lady Sara should find a new love and marry.

The queen has so much to worry about with covid right now? Perhaps the kids can settle down a bit.

Family ties are thicker than blood, but protocol has men and women waiting to serve her majesty. I hope they will let them. Creation of jobs is crucial now.the world economy is important.

Princess Anne once said, I have been asked to give up my title would you? My response was this, I am decendant of the Duke of Leeds the fifth and I was born in 1963. The title was dissolved in 1964 so that London could have a park. They had no heir supposedly. I never had the chance to claim my title as I was a baby. So I am not the right one to ask.

Perhaps chatter and gossip are just that!

Iluvbertie 11-22-2020 01:54 AM

Outside of the royal family there are very few titles that have any official duties. They are private citizens who happen to also have a title - many going back many centuries. These men usually have large estates to manage e.g. The Duke of Marlborough has the Blenheim estate to manage and that is a massive job. The estate doesn't even cover to costs of the maintenance of Blenheim Palace so the Palace has to be opened to the public to ensure that there is sufficient money coming in to maintain the palace (and he doesn't have to pay rent - only give a flag to The Queen on the anniversary of the Battle of Blenheim).

The Dukedom of Leeds wasn't dissolved but became extinct as there was no male heir. A son via a female isn't a male heir. Only a son born to a son is an heir. The 11th Duke died in 1963 without a male heir so the title passed to his 2nd cousin, who himself died 8 months later having never married. He was the last male line claimant. The 11th Duke married three times and had one daughter, who, as a girl, couldn't inherit the title. That daughter, herself, had two daughters. The 10th Duke had one son, who became the 11th Duke who was the second last Duke. The male heirs to the Duke of Leeds are easy enough to find as there aren't that many so any claim you think you had doesn't add up

My family's title went extinct in 2001 when the Viscount died with two daughters who between them had five sons but as there were only two daughters none of the sons could inherit their grandfather's title.

That is the same thing that will happen with York - if Eugenie's baby is a boy he won't be able to inherit York as Eugenie is a girl.

Countessmeout 11-22-2020 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suzzanah (Post 2356167)
There is much chatter about titles on the web for several royals. In general a prince and princess are birth titles. Titles of domain like a Duchy or Duke however have duties. Many years back discussion about the Marlboro title was presented. As an American I believe those with titles of domain should have duties. They should have stipends as well. There is always more work than money though it seems. The princes should remain so but hand over the other titles that they are not serving. Lady Sara should hand over hers as well.

Prince Harry should be in the nova scotia titles now so he can serve his queen in Canada. Prince Andrew seems retired out but should create a new life with person he can trust. Perhaps a new venue would help him.

Lady Sara should find a new love and marry.

The queen has so much to worry about with covid right now? Perhaps the kids can settle down a bit.

Family ties are thicker than blood, but protocol has men and women waiting to serve her majesty. I hope they will let them. Creation of jobs is crucial now.the world economy is important.

Princess Anne once said, I have been asked to give up my title would you? My response was this, I am decendant of the Duke of Leeds the fifth and I was born in 1963. The title was dissolved in 1964 so that London could have a park. They had no heir supposedly. I never had the chance to claim my title as I was a baby. So I am not the right one to ask.

Perhaps chatter and gossip are just that!


Lady Sarah? The only Lady Sarah is Lady Sarah Chatto. She has no title to hand over. And I would think her husband Daniel would have an issue with her finding a new love of any kind.

If you are talking about Fergie, she is not Lady Sarah. She is not like Diana, she wasn't born to the nobility. She is Sarah, Duchess of York. Duchess of York is not a title she can give up. It's literally her last name. Like other divorced women, unless she remarries, she uses her former surname.


The Duchies don't come with duties. They don't come with lands or stipends of any kind. The Duke of Gloucester and Kents sons will be private citizens and will be non-royal dukes like the Duke of Marlborough or Duke of Northumberland. They will not even have an estate to over see. There are no duties that they are forgoing, that they are not over seeing.


Being a duke is not a 'job'. Its not about retiring off Andrew and Harry to create new 'jobs in the economy'. These are royal positions, honorary titles that come with their birth and marriage. The queen isn't going to hand over the Duke of Sussex to someone else to 'create a job' in the economy.

BRF don't have 'stipends'. There used to be the civil list which working royals got paid from. Now there is simply the sovereign's grant. The queen gets her money from the Duchy of Lancaster estates and Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall. Any money for William, Edward and so on comes from the queen and Charles, not from any government stipend directly to them.

You need to do a little bit more reading on how titles are inherited in the UK.


The Duke of Leeds didn't get 'taken away to make a park'. The title was only inheritable by heirs male of the 1st duke. There were no male heirs left. The last duke had inherited the title from his second cousin. If you are descended from the line you must be from a female line. Just like Eugenie's children can not inherit York any more then she can, female line grandchildren or so on can not either for Leeds.

Denville 11-22-2020 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suzzanah (Post 2356167)
There is much chatter about titles on the web for several royals. In general a prince and princess are birth titles. Titles of
Prince Harry should be in the nova scotia titles now so he can serve his queen in Canada. Prince Andrew seems retired out but should create a new life with person he can trust. Perhaps a new venue would help him.

Lady Sara should find a new love and marry.

The queen has so much to worry about with covid right now? Perhaps the kids can settle down a bit.

Family ties are thicker than blood, but protocol has men and women waiting to serve her majesty. I hope they will let them. Creation of jobs is crucial now.the world economy is important.

Princess Anne once said, I have been asked to give up my title would you? My response was this, I am decendant of the Duke of Leeds the fifth and I was born in 1963. The title was dissolved in 1964 so that London could have a park. They had no heir supposedly. I never had the chance to claim my title as I was a baby. So I am not the right one to ask.

Perhaps chatter and gossip are just that!

I dont really know what you mean. Titles and how they are inherited are part of UK law and its for the citizens of the UK to decide if they want any changes. And the royal titles and succession have nothing to do with the "creation of jobs". Working royals don't have "jobs". The title of Duke of Leeds wasn't "abolished".. it has died out because there were no male heirs. I dont know what you mean by "so London could have a park". There are plenty of parks in London and they have nothing to do with how many dukes there are.
I dont know of Anne ever saying that she'd been asked ot give up her title and I doubt if it was ever suggested.
As for Harry and Andrew... Andrew has had to retire, because of the scandals he's caused and he will never undertake royal duties again.. IMO.
And Harry does not live in Canada, he is living in the US and has given up royal duties.
Lady Sara if you mean Sarah Duchess of York is very unlikely to find a new love and marry..

Countessmeout 11-22-2020 03:47 AM

:previous: I too wonder about how Leeds was used to make a park, and which park?

The 11th Duke sold the family estate and he basically squandered most of their fortune before he died. He was succeeded by his second cousin the last Duke. But the 12th Duke didn't inherit what was left of the family estate, just the title. The 11th Duke had a daughter who inherited what was left of the family money which was about a million pounds, and an annual allowance from a family trust.

The 12th duke spent his later life living in Rome and his financial situation was precarious at best. He lived comfortably due to financial support from friends including the Queen mother.

Not sure what the imagine estate used to build a park was.

Heavs 11-22-2020 04:32 AM

Some families with titles and/or who also own their historic family seat do still care about their role in the community whether it's official or unofficial and care about the estate making money and conservation and whatever else, I've seen it first hand.

Many others don't and it's not and never has been a requirement.

In the royal family there hasn't been any direct connection to a geographical area with their titles for a long, long time. With the possible exception of the POW and his work with the Duchy of Cornwall and business and other interests there.

No one expected Harry to be given a house in Sussex and start creating jobs there or Andrew having nothing to do with York except some Northern honorary military appointments and Chancellorships. He certainly could marry a younger woman and have more children if he wanted and try and pass his title on that way but he's given absolutely no indication that that is a priority in the years since the divorce. Passing on titles to a female heir is still a matter of huge debate in certain sections of the UK and gets brought up regularly as Private Members' Bills in Parliament. Nothing has changed so far and HM doesn't seem interested in entering that debate by giving her HRH Granddaughters Dukedoms or Earldoms in their own right either.

Denville 11-22-2020 05:08 AM

I think that families who have retained their estates and stately homes and live there, are inclined to do some "in the community" activiites and to still retain a sense of noblesse oblige. Others, as with all groups of people dont care or do much, or are preoccupied with the problems of maintaining a big house in today's world. It takes work, and concentrating on making money to keep things going. Charles does have a connection with his duchy, but he also owns property in other parts of the country.. but he does try to use the Duchy to help the people who live within it, as well as to increase the income. But the Duke of Leeds has nothing to do iwth London parks!!

Mbruno 11-22-2020 05:25 AM

Maybe the OP is thinking of the situation that existed in the past when there were still many sovereign dukes or grand dukes. That system survived for example in Italy until Italian unification in the 19th century and in Germany until the early 20th century when the monarchy was abolished.

Nowadays there are in practice only two countries in Europe ( the UK and Spain) where the title of Duke is still legally recognized and held by people outside the Royal Family and, in both cases, the title is purely honorific. For historical reasons, many dukes,, marquesses ( marquises in the continent) and earls still own large land estates, especially in the UK, but those are just private property and not fiefdoms that come with a sovereign grant and obligations to the Crown as it used to be the case under the feudal system, which, I believe, was legally abolished in England in the early modern age.

There is also a handful of ducal families in Belgium, but the dukedoms in the Low Countries are not indigenous titles granted by the kings of Belgium or the Netherlands , but preexisting titles that were held by Low Countries families, generally in the Holy Roman Empire, and were then recognized by the monarchs of the Netherlands or Belgium.

Tatiana Maria 12-24-2020 11:41 AM

Perhaps the original poster intended to post this in the British Royals subforum, as only the British royal family was mentioned in the original post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suzzanah (Post 2356167)
There is much chatter about titles on the web for several royals. In general a prince and princess are birth titles. Titles of domain like a Duchy or Duke however have duties.

Prince and duke were both titles of sovereign and/or feudal domains in the past, and the domain of a prince is termed a principality.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 2356177)
If you are talking about Fergie, she is not Lady Sarah. She is not like Diana, she wasn't born to the nobility. She is Sarah, Duchess of York. Duchess of York is not a title she can give up. It's literally her last name. Like other divorced women, unless she remarries, she uses her former surname.

I would describe it as a courtesy title. She would not be addressed as Mrs. Duchess of York, for example.

Denville 12-24-2020 01:17 PM

Yes its a courtesy title but its like a surname to her.. she uses her husband's title until she remarries....

Alison H 12-24-2020 01:27 PM

There's no obligation for any divorced person to remarry! Even if they want to, they might just not meet the right person: it's not that easy. Plenty of divorced women continue to use their married name rather than reverting to their maiden name. She could go back to calling herself Ferguson, or adopt another surname if she wanted to - I know someone who got divorced and chose a new surname at random out of the phone directory (why??) - but that would be her choice.


Britain doesn't have duchies in the way that Italy or Germany used to. A duke will usually have a large house and a lot of land, but he doesn't have any political power or legal obligations, although most dukes have historically taken an interest in local communities.

Denville 12-24-2020 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2362940)
There's no obligation for any divorced person to remarry! Even if they want to, they might just not meet the right person: it's not that easy. Plenty of divorced women continue to use their married name rather than reverting to their maiden name. She could go back to calling herself Ferguson, or adopt another surname if she wanted to - I know someone who got divorced and chose a new surname at random out of the phone directory (why??) - but that would be her choice.


Britain doesn't have duchies in the way that Italy or Germany used to. A duke will usually have a large house and a lot of land, but he doesn't have any political power or legal obligations, although most dukes have historically taken an interest in local communities.

Sarah is not going to remarry!!! nor is she likely to stop using Sarah Duchess of York... but she's entitled to use it as Andrew's Ex wife. But she clings to the title... because it has helped her to get business deals.
Duchies in Italy or Germany were separate states, where the Duke was a ruler.. whereas in England the title is the senior rank of nobility and they are not rulers just ordinary landowners who have weatlh and property..

Somebody 12-24-2020 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2362940)
There's no obligation for any divorced person to remarry! Even if they want to, they might just not meet the right person: it's not that easy. Plenty of divorced women continue to use their married name rather than reverting to their maiden name. She could go back to calling herself Ferguson, or adopt another surname if she wanted to - I know someone who got divorced and chose a new surname at random out of the phone directory (why??) - but that would be her choice.

What percentage of the divorced women in the UK keeps her married name? It seems the norm rather than the exception (and included Camilla Parker Bowles instead of Shand). For someone from a country where nobody would keep the name of a former spouse after a divorce (of course, they will keep it if widowed) it remains a bit of a weird practice.

Osipi 12-24-2020 03:04 PM

Here in the US and from personal experience, in order for a woman to *not* use her married surname after a divorce, it has to be specifically requested in the divorce papers that she wishes to revert to using her maiden name or any other name. It has to be legally changed. I requested, at the time of my divorce, to revert legally to my maiden surname.

Denville 12-24-2020 03:30 PM

in the UK, you can use any name you like provided you dont use it to commit a fraud. But I think that most divorced women keep their husbands's names esp if they have children...I dont have figures but I'd say that it is the norm rather than the exception...
It is quite proper for Fergie to keep the title Sarah Duchess Of York if she wishes to....and of course she is going to, becuase its her chief selling point in trying to make money...

Alison H 12-24-2020 04:07 PM

It depends. If there are children, women often prefer to keep the same surname as their children. Or, if you've been Mrs X for years and everyone knows you as Mrs X, and you've got used to thinking of yourself as Mrs X, you may just not want the hassle of changing.


I find it very odd that Lady Colin Campbell still goes by her married name, because that means she's actually using her ex's first name as well as his surname, and they were only married for five minutes anyway, but, hey, titles sell! And there's no legal and social reason why she shouldn't, or why Sarah shouldn't go as Sarah, Duchess of York.

Somebody 12-24-2020 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2362956)
Here in the US and from personal experience, in order for a woman to *not* use her married surname after a divorce, it has to be specifically requested in the divorce papers that she wishes to revert to using her maiden name or any other name. It has to be legally changed. I requested, at the time of my divorce, to revert legally to my maiden surname.

Isn't it interesting how naming practices differ?

In the Netherlands you do not legally change your family name upon marriage. It is however registered how you wish to be addressed from then on; there are four options for both partners (and each one has to indicate their choice):
1. Keep your original surname (done by almost all men and a growing percentage of women)
2. Take the other's surname (hardly ever done - although it seems common practice for women in for example the UK and the USA)
3. Surname husband - surname wife (common practice among Dutch women but decreasing - and very few men do this when a couple decides they want to share the same hyphenated surname)
4. Surname wife - surname husband (hardly ever done)

That 'form of address' is used from the day your married. So, if someone divorces, they automatically refer to the name they still legally hold as the form of address does no longer apply now they are no longer married. It is possible to request to change your surname at court but that hardly ever happens and is a rather complicated process - if it happens, it is mostly in the case of children that for example no longer wish to carry their estranged parent's name; and not because of marriage (or divorce).

A naming practice in the USA I still don't understand is women giving up their middle name when they marry to be able to keep their maiden name but now as their middle name instead of last name. Is that middle name worth nothing that it is so easily exchanged?

Denville 12-24-2020 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2362967)
It depends. If there are children, women often prefer to keep the same surname as their children. Or, if you've been Mrs X for years and everyone knows you as Mrs X, and you've got used to thinking of yourself as Mrs X, you may just not want the hassle of changing.


I find it very odd that Lady Colin Campbell still goes by her married name, because that means she's actually using her ex's first name as well as his surname, and they were only married for five minutes anyway, but, hey, titles sell! And there's no legal and social reason why she shouldn't, or why Sarah shouldn't go as Sarah, Duchess of York.

AFAIK That's the correct title as she was married to a Lord Colin Campbell... and yes she keeps the title for the same reason Fergie keeps hers.. it sells. books by Lady Colin Campbell sound better than books by Mary Jane Jones.

Osipi 12-24-2020 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2362969)
A naming practice in the USA I still don't understand is women giving up their middle name when they marry to be able to keep their maiden name but now as their middle name instead of last name. Is that middle name worth nothing that it is so easily exchanged?

To be honest here, this is a practice I've never heard of until now. :biggrin:

For awhile after my second marriage, i hyphenated my maiden name and my married surname and it was legal (by the banks at least) to handle an inheritance i acquired. Mostly now, i just use my married surname.

Denville 12-24-2020 04:31 PM

How does giving up your middle name enable you to keep your maiden name? Surely if your name is Jane Margaret Brown.. you are still Jane Margaret, even if you marry Mr Smith

Somebody 12-24-2020 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2362972)
To be honest here, this is a practice I've never heard of until now. :biggrin:

For awhile after my second marriage, i hyphenated my maiden name and my married surname and it was legal (by the banks at least) to handle an inheritance i acquired. Mostly now, i just use my married surname.

Several of my American friends and colleagues did so upon marriage. If for example someone's name before marriage was 'Nicole Heather Brown' and she married Edward John Williams; after marriage she is 'Nicole Brown Williams' with Williams being the surname and Brown becoming the middle name. In the UK they would be more likely to be 'Nicole Heather Williams' (or in formal communication 'mrs. Edward (John) Williams') - with Brown being completely left out; while the traditional Dutch form would be 'Nicole Heather Williams-Brown'; and in Canada it would more likely be 'Nicole Heather Brown-Williams'.

Hillary R. Clinton is an example. The R stands for her maiden name, Rodham, not the middle name she was given at birth.

Denville 12-24-2020 06:28 PM

She's still Hillary whatever her second name is. It hasn't disappeared becuase she took to using her maiden name when she had a political career....

Osipi 12-24-2020 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2362989)
She's still Hillary whatever her second name is. It hasn't disappeared becuase she took to using her maiden name when she had a political career....

Even the royals with their names that amount to a mouthful of many, many given "middle" names rarely use them all. Even though at times, my bank checks were issued in first name with my maiden surname and married surname hyphenated, I never "lost" my middle name or my confirmation name if we want to get technical. Now my checks are issued in my first, middle and married surname.

If I had to use my full list of names I've had over my lifetime, I'd have to have much, much longer checks to fit them all on. We use what is pertinent for ourselves at the times we need them. Nobody really cares (or even could tell you) what my confirmation name is as its irrelevant to who I am today. BTW: it's Bernadette if anyone is wondering. :lol:

Denville 01-12-2021 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2362990)
Even the royals with their names that amount to a mouthful of many, many given "middle" names rarely use them all. Even though at times, my bank checks were issued in first name with my maiden surname and married surname hyphenated, I never "lost" my middle name or my confirmation name if we want to get technical. Now my checks are issued in my first, middle and married surname.

If I had to use my full list of names I've had over my lifetime, I'd have to have much, much longer checks to fit them all on. We use what is pertinent for ourselves at the times we need them. Nobody really cares (or even could tell you) what my confirmation name is as its irrelevant to who I am today. BTW: it's Bernadette if anyone is wondering. :lol:

but it doesn't matter, if you are named legally "Hillary Margaret", then you are still Hillary Margaret whether the surname is Clinton or Rodham or Rodham Clinton... I've never heard of people using thier confirmation namesthough

CyrilVladisla 01-14-2021 02:48 AM

In some of the Roman Catholic Churches, a person lists first name, middle name, Confirmation name, and surname. This is used in the church only. This is not used in the business world.

Jacknch 03-02-2021 05:21 PM

Closed for Moderator Review


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises