AdmirerUS
Majesty
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,034
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
Cepe, Lumutqueen, vkrish, et al: what a lovely, civil, fascinating discussion. This is why I belong to the forums! Thank you all.
I am not asking whether a daughter can inherit.
If HRH Prince ABC, son of a monarch wants his kids to grow up simply as Mr X Mountbatten-Windsor, and no other title whatsoever, then at the time of creating him a peer, if the monarch simply omits the "heirs body male", then it is possible right?
That the peerage no longer exists after the said Prince dies, and title reverts to Crown instead of passing to his son..
Were/Are there any peerages created without the tag "heirs body male"?
If a son of monarch wants his kids to grow up as real-commoners (not half-way like Edward) no prefixes/no suffixes/styles/titles, just Mr X M-W then can/will the monarch create him a peer just for himself, so that after his death the title reverts to Crown, instead of passing on to his son.
Any precedence?
Or any chances of adopting this method in future as "modernisation"?
Well according to the 1917 Letters Patent the children of the monarchs male line grandchildren are styled as the younger children of a duke. This is why Prince Michael's children are styled Lord and Lady even though he has no peerage.
In your scenario the monarchs son does have a peerage so then his children automatically get a courtesy title and are not plain Mr or Miss rather like the children of the Earl of Wessex.
I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.
There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.
True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.
To answer your question, the children of Life Peers are styled as the children of Barons.
Anyone can chose to be known as Mr or Miss, but it still remains that as the children of a peer they also have courtesy styles and titles.
I am not asking whether a daughter can inherit.
If HRH Prince ABC, son of a monarch wants his kids to grow up simply as Mr X Mountbatten-Windsor, and no other title whatsoever, then at the time of creating him a peer, if the monarch simply omits the "heirs body male", then it is possible right?
That the peerage no longer exists after the said Prince dies, and title reverts to Crown instead of passing to his son..
Edward does A LOT for the DoE award, as does Sophie. It's on fitting that he become the next DoE when his father passes away so he can carry on the award. James will eventually become His Grace, Duke of Edinburgh and I am sure he will support the award, whether he does it or not.
Edward declined being made a Duke at his wedding because the discussion about him becoming DoE had obviously happened, thus he probably felt it wasn't right to be made a Duke twice.
I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.
There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.
True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.
This kind of topic confuses me to the point really being unable to pay much attention. The basic points are looking like firstly it is a title of nobility, second it has nothing to do with personal financial gain, third it is a matter of tradition, something about saying thanks in Russian I think it is spa-zi-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-bah, (?)(thank you) or bal-shoy spa-see-boe (?)(thank you very much), anyway as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example.
How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.
Basicially (and don't quote me on this), I believe its in recognition to contributions made in their respective fields. The arts, science, community service and the like. Its The Queen's way of saying thank you and acknowledging what they've accomplished.
The Honors thread here is a good place to read up on this subject. It has a massive wealth of information and has been ongoing here since 2005.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-honours-thread-8379.html
as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example. Who is supposed to address them by that duke title?
Oh ok just a place to comment with reference to learn.. so it's more of a household title kind of a family name thing that relates to politics and family business? There are so many names, so many titles. So, lol, it's kind of just easier to refer to them as names without title when doing study on history until you get to the point where the title is part of the history your reading.
The House of Lords is composed of members of the Peerage; traditionally this was all members who held title of nobility (in their own right) in Britain or its predecessor states. Since 1999 it has only been composed of those individuals who have received a life peerage, and not those who have a hereditary peerage - therefore, only those members of the nobility who have received recognition for their accomplishments, and not those who are members on the merits of their ancestors. Members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections, nor are they allowed to hold a seat in the House of Commons.So they get votes?
The members of the BRF have many interactions with people who are not titled, and we see this in their friendships and companions. A perfect example is Kate, whose family had no aristocratic connections or titles prior to Kate's schooling, yet she married a future king. Camilla, Sarah, and Sophie are all also not from aristocratic families, although in the case of both Camilla and Sarah their families were ones who were well connected (both in friendship and family ways) well before their marriages.What about just personal companions can't they just have personal companions or friends without title? I guess there is too much money and politics involved or something. I might be misunderstanding, but, it seems like anyone they do any interaction with has to have some kind of status and title, job or reason for the interaction, which makes sense, really it does for the positions they are in. I don't see the benefit of them having interactions with others who do not have some sort of royal job or duty or with some sort of title of nobility.
Andrew's issues are a bit off topic for this thread, but the issue at hand there is that a man whom he is known to have been close friends with is a pedophile who recently was publicly accused of having utilized girls as sex slaves. Andrew's name (along with others) was brought into it when one of the girls named him as one of the people she had been forced to have sex with.See, so all this to do with Prince Andrew in the media and court room speculation about paid for hire courtesans in the past doesn't make a lot of sense.
In terms of heirarchy... they're not entirely based on the same level.So for study, is it duke, duchess, princess prince or hereditary name when researching the land held and history of the commonwealth, to aide in refrence?
So life peers, or peerage is a part of Parliament. Their titles? The curly wigged white hair dudes can be woman through the peerage act.
Being a member of the House of Lords does require having a peerage, hence the name "Lords" - it referred to the fact that those who sat in it were Lords, or peers. Its opposite is the House of Commons, which is made up of those elected by the "commons" or the commonfolk who weren't peers.The house of lords is a hereditary thing that requires some kind of summons, doesn't always have to be peerage, requires a letters patent for peerage respectfully
It's a bit more complicated than that.but there is some history in there about how Earls are an Anglo-Saxton thing, William the Conqueror, and Henry II didn't make dukes it was a Edward of England III thing, basically the titles are representations of land, Barons were ordered to attend Parliament, so Barons have had to do with Parliament in the past as representatives then led to house of commons, oh..k.. those titles, including marquees and viscounts all have to do with law and land.
So if it's the Order of the British Empire it's a Dame or Sir/Knight. Five classes, GBE,KBE/DBE,CBE,OBE,MBE . The British Empire Medal is associated or affiliated but recipients are not members of the order. So I guess their titles are also referring to the business they conduct or the status of their (?) Ok, so, King George V founded OBE to fill gaps in the British Honor System and from what I have read usually those in the orders were military officials, diplomats, peers, officials, civil servants and then there was the association with the Indian Royals and British Raj. How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.
I thought it was possible for a hereditary Peer to renounce his title. This happened when Viscount Stansgate renounced his peerage to become Tony Benn so that he could continue to sit in the commons.
Secondly, There are a small number of hereditary peers still sitting in the upper house (according to Parliament's website 88). I recall the idea was that the hereditary peers who were having their right to sit in the house removed were allowed to vote for some of their number who would continue to be members of the house. Since the Constitutional Reform Act, there have been rumblings that the Government should do away with this anomaly and remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit but it clearly hasn't happened yet.
Is this going to be the only way that HERIDITARY titles will enter the peerage from now on, through cadet branches of the British Royal family?
Tony Benn disclaimed his peerage for his lifetime in order to allow him to maintain his seat in the commons. It's an interesting case; he was an MP before his father's death and was denied his seat when he became Viscount Stansgate. Despite not being able to sit in the house, he still ran for and won a seat in the next election and campaigned for change - which ended up being supported by the Conservative Government who had several members facing the same issue. After the passage of the Peerage Act 1963 a peer could disclaim his/her title for their lifetime, thus being eligible to sit in the commons.
That said, the title didn't cease to exist. Tony Benn did not use his title and wasn't held back by it, but when he died his title was still passed on to his son.
After the death of the Queen and Prince Philip however, the title merges with the Crown, especially if Charlotte would ascend the throne as a young single woman. Harry would undoubtedly have a dukedom of his own by then and would likely be regent until Charlotte was 18.
Therefore if there is a new creation then the title could be given to Edward by the new monarch as per the family agreement. I don't believe that whoever is on the throne in this hypothetical scenario, that Edward would be subjected by the sovereign to being leapfrogged over. He obviously accepted the terms of the agreement at the time the Earldom of Wessex was created.
To cause this amount of possible complication there must have been some compelling reason for the Queen and Duke to wish Edward to get the title used by his father for so many decades.
When it merges with the Crown as it probably will when Charles ascends the throne it would be an unjustice for Charles to go against his parents' wishes in this matter.
The Queen would probably have done better to have bitten the bullet (in spite of the prevailing public atmosphere at the time of the Wessex wedding) and given Edward Cambridge or Sussex and have done with it. As it is he's had to wait for sixteen years already.