New title for Princess Anne?

[Somebody]

But they are private individuals and adults, they know the sensible things to say. Plus I truly doubt they feel their parents made any mistake with refusing titles. The late Queen being their grandmother was enough and it’s not as if they were liked less for not have titles. They would never have the privacy to do their commercial ventures if they had these titles because of too much media attention. You can’t compare them to the British peerage in the hypothetical scenario because none of the peers have the Queen as a granny as well having a peerage.

The alternative for them was never to become prince and princess but to be Lord and Lady. I doubt that would have garnered that much more media intrusion.

 

[Heavs]

What do you expect them to say?

They could hardly say that were sad that they missed out on titles and wished that their parents had accepted them.

Well given that certain members of other royal families and members of his own family have made it perfectly clear that they value titles it was not out of the realm of possibility that he could say that he "wondered what life would be like if he had a title..." but he never has.

It is of course possible that he secretly wishes he was Earl of Something or Viscount Something but at the very least he *is* being sensible in publicly saying (many times) that he and Zara consider themselves very lucky. But what is "sensible" doesn't always come in to these things for some people. So they both gain points there.

They're clearly full members of the family, clearly have access to all the same perks that their titled cousins do and clearly have a lot of connections to help them succeed in life. With that in mind I believe their words that they're content with how things happened. One need only look at how Beatrice and Eugenie have been treated in the press to see that "Princess" is not all it's cracked up to be sometimes.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The alternative for them was never to become prince and princess but to be Lord and Lady. I doubt that would have garnered that much more media intrusion.

I was not talking about Prince or Princess titles at all, they definitely would have far more media attention if they had the titles now, than if they didn’t because there was already media attention around them from their parents divorce, their half-siblings, their marriages, as well as their respective careers mainly Zara’s Olympic career and endorsement deals, plus Zara’s dating history. Believe you me, they had a fair amount of attention being untitled as well being the Queen’s grandchildren.

 

[Royalguru]

But they are private individuals and adults, they know the sensible things to say. Plus I truly doubt they feel their parents made any mistake with refusing titles. The late Queen being their grandmother was enough and it’s not as if they were liked less for not have titles. They would never have the privacy to do their commercial ventures if they had these titles because of too much media attention. You can’t compare them to the British peerage in the hypothetical scenario because none of the peers have the Queen as a granny as well having a peerage.

Another person in the exact same position as Peter Phillips as a grandson of a monarch has had no problems in achieving commercial success with a title.

The current 2nd Earl of Snowdon is a grandson and nephew of a monarch and gad no problem establishing his furniture business as Viscount Linley.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Another person in the exact same position as Peter Phillips as a grandson of a monarch has had no problems in achieving commercial success with a title.

The current 2nd Earl of Snowdon is a grandson and nephew of a monarch and gad no problem establishing his furniture business as Viscount Linley.

First off, the David Linley was the son of Princess Margaret and Tony Armstrong-Jones, who had a job, so David Linley was expected to make his own way at some point. Plus David doesn’t use his title for his business and it’s called David Linley furniture not Viscount Linley. Also, David Linley was the nephew of the late Queen and now cousin of the current King so he’s in a different position to Peter. Zara and Peter got a lot of attention for being the Queen’s grandchildren and whereas the Linley’s have generally been more private. The Queen has more nieces and nephews than grandchildren so it’s a different scenario.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

So its okay for an older son to inherit over a younger son? But when its female thats discrimination

You will actually find people arguing for equality actually do want gender equality. No one is arguing against birth order descrimination

The only way for antique institutions to survive is to modernize. Did you see anyone fighting to eliminate birth order to the throne? Nope. Equal inheritance based on gender was what people sought for.

They already saw to house of lords. Now doing as Spain has and introducing equality is a needed step.

Ridiculous Charlotte is ahead of Louis, but still given less. Princess royal is a title but no peerage. Nothing to pass on.

Not to mention in Spain, women in Spain could always get titles if their brother dies or had no children. Spain only implemented the new rules because of the Socialist party that came to power at the time. The rule of titles and inheritance are different in Spain, plus they pay a tax to receive or use their titles it’s not automatic.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You can’t really compare because the number of Spanish peers is far more than British peers. Plus the number of titles accumulated by both groups are under different traditions because in Spain, titles can be split amongst family members but in the U.K, the titles don’t work that way.

What does that have to do with sexism?

You can’t compare the throne to the peerage because women could always ascend the throne vs the peerage.

Before Queen Victoria, women only ascended the English, Scottish and British thrones in the event that there were no available and politically acceptable men.

The House of Lords issue was not about equality, but simply about reducing the power of peers even further for the ends of political parties and was initiated by Tony Blair by reducing the number of peers in the nineties.

The House of Lords example was cited as an example of modernization, not an example of gender equality. Reducing the power of hereditary peers is, however, a modernization concerning class equality. It also indirectly reduced gender inequality in Parliament by reducing the number of male-only seats.

They would never have the privacy to do their commercial ventures if they had these titles because of too much media attention.

Another person in the exact same position as Peter Phillips as a grandson of a monarch has had no problems in achieving commercial success with a title.

The current 2nd Earl of Snowdon is a grandson and nephew of a monarch and gad no problem establishing his furniture business as Viscount Linley.

First off, the David Linley was the son of Princess Margaret and Tony Armstrong-Jones, who had a job, so David Linley was expected to make his own way at some point. Plus David doesn’t use his title for his business and it’s called David Linley furniture not Viscount Linley. Also, David Linley was the nephew of the late Queen and now cousin of the current King so he’s in a different position to Peter. Zara and Peter got a lot of attention for being the Queen’s grandchildren and whereas the Linley’s have generally been more private.

The first two listed items (being expected to make their own way and not using one's title for business) would or could also have been the case for the hypothetical ennobled Phillips children. Only the third item (being the grandchild of a living monarch) differentiates them from the Armstrong-Jones children.

The Queen has more nieces and nephews than grandchildren so it’s a different scenario.

Queen Elizabeth II had two niece/nephews and eight grandchildren.

 

[Mbruno]

Another person in the exact same position as Peter Phillips as a grandson of a monarch has had no problems in achieving commercial success with a title.

The current 2nd Earl of Snowdon is a grandson and nephew of a monarch and gad no problem establishing his furniture business as Viscount Linley.

There are currently 808 hereditary peers in the UK and, in addition, the sons of dukes, marquesses and earls in particular also normally use courtesy titles. As far as I know, having a title in the peerage has never been hailed as an impediment to a business career (even more so now when hereditary peers are no longer automatically members of the House of Lords).

Royal titles such as HRH Prince/Princess raise some questions, however, about possible conflicts of interest when people who hold them pursue a business career.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

There are currently 808 hereditary peers in the UK and, in addition, the sons of dukes, marquesses and earls in particular also normally use courtesy titles. As far as I know, having a title in the peerage has never been hailed as an impediment to a business career (even more so now when hereditary peers are no longer automatically members of the House of Lords).

Royal titles such as HRH Prince/Princess raise some questions, however, about possible conflicts of interest when people who hold them pursue a business career.

It’s not necessarily an impediment, but most of those peers in business choose to use a courtesy title as a last name for privacy. It’s not an issue of conflict of interest, but an issue of too much attention on the lives of non-working members of the BRF who happened to be the eldest grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

What does that have to do with sexism?




Before Queen Victoria, women only ascended the English, Scottish and British thrones in the event that there were no available and politically acceptable men.




The House of Lords example was cited as an example of modernization, not an example of gender equality. Reducing the power of hereditary peers is, however, a modernization concerning class equality. It also indirectly reduced gender inequality in Parliament by reducing the number of male-only seats.








The first two listed items (being expected to make their own way and not using one's title for business) would or could also have been the case for the hypothetical ennobled Phillips children. Only the third item (being the grandchild of a living monarch) differentiates them from the Armstrong-Jones children.




Queen Elizabeth II had two niece/nephews and eight grandchildren.

First off, my point about the Spanish nobility was because the poster brought up the changes in the Spanish nobility, and I am saying that it operates in different circumstances because noble titles in Spain could be inherited by women if they had no brothers or if they died and titles could be split amongst heirs which doesn’t apply to most of the British nobility.

Your rebuttal to the accession of the English throne just proved my point and you answered your question. Plus the poster was bringing up the changes in the succession Act of 2013 to the British peerage which are two different things.

The House of Lords issue was not about “modernization” but was brought about slowly when Lloyd George and Asquith, both of them commoners later on to be ironically ennobled used a parliament Act to significantly reduce the powers of hereditary peers for their political schemes. But to the point, Tony Blair used the reduction of the peers for his own aims.

Also, the children of her first cousins, the Dukes of Kent, Gloucester and Princess Alexandra count as nieces and nephews.

 

[Denville]

First off, my point about the Spanish nobility was because the poster brought up the changes in the Spanish nobility, and I am saying that it operates in different circumstances because noble titles in Spain could be inherited by women if they had no brothers or if they died and titles could be split amongst heirs which doesn’t apply to most of the British nobility.

Y
Also, the children of her first cousins, the Dukes of Kent, Gloucester and Princess Alexandra count as nieces and nephews.

no, they dont. Neices and nephews are one thing, first cousins once removed are another thing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

First off, my point about the Spanish nobility was because the poster brought up the changes in the Spanish nobility, and I am saying that it operates in different circumstances because noble titles in Spain could be inherited by women if they had no brothers or if they died and titles could be split amongst heirs which doesn’t apply to most of the British nobility.

The original poster's statement about Spain was: "Now doing as Spain has and introducing equality is a needed step."

Differences in the numbers of nobles, the distribution of titles, or the previous succession laws do not rebut her point about the Spanish nobility, which was that Spain has already introduced (gender) equality (in its nobiliary succession law).

Presenting evidence that gender inequality still persists in Spanish nobiliary law would rebut the point, but I'm not aware of any such evidence.

Your rebuttal to the accession of the English throne just proved my point and you answered your question.

It was not a rebuttal, but a clarification, as I don't think I understand what point your comment about the throne was intended to prove.

I am also not clear on what "your question" refers to. The only question I addressed to you was about your comment on Spanish nobles.

The House of Lords issue was not about “modernization” but was brought about slowly when Lloyd George and Asquith, both of them commoners later on to be ironically ennobled used a parliament Act to significantly reduce the powers of hereditary peers for their political schemes. But to the point, Tony Blair used the reduction of the peers for his own aims.

I understand your opinion, but many people in the UK do view it as a modernization (refer to the debates about removing the remaining hereditary peers for some recent examples).

 

[Meee]

I was thinking about this again yesterday and wondered whether the speculation has come from a belief that Charles may give new titles to those in his vision of the slimmed down monarchy / working royals.

Camilla, William and Kate have their new titles, and Edward is likely to receive the dukedom of Edinburgh in line with his parents’ wishes. Charles also needs him and Sophie to continue as working royals now that Meghan, Harry and Andrew are not, as he, Camilla and Anne might need to scale back their schedules before William’s children are old enough to take on those duties. Anne is the only working royal who wouldn’t have received anything new.

Anne could be given a title to symbolise that she is part of the firm under Charles, but choose not to use it. Her children could then opt not to use any courtesy title they might receive as a consequence.

I do think it’s a shame they weren’t entitled to Lord/Lady via Anne - there’s clearly a burden that Beatrice and Eugenie have that Louise and James do not, and the Queen’s oldest grandchildren were the only two that weren’t entitled to anything. The 1st Earl Snowdon showed the issue with marry-ins being given a peerage - his youngest daughter is entitled to be styled as Lady despite the styling obviously having been intended for nephews and nieces of the sovereign.

 

[Saragli]

I see it more likely that the King might bestow a title to Timothy Laurence rather than the Princess Royal. Like the DoE, he has been an exemplary partner to the Princess Royal, and I can see the King honouring him so. Technically Anne would get an extra title via her marriage, but, as they do not have children of their own he would have no one to pass it down to and Zara and Peter stay the same.

 

[Somebody]

First off, the David Linley was the son of Princess Margaret and Tony Armstrong-Jones, who had a job, so David Linley was expected to make his own way at some point. Plus David doesn’t use his title for his business and it’s called David Linley furniture not Viscount Linley. Also, David Linley was the nephew of the late Queen and now cousin of the current King so he’s in a different position to Peter. Zara and Peter got a lot of attention for being the Queen’s grandchildren and whereas the Linley’s have generally been more private. The Queen has more nieces and nephews than grandchildren so it’s a different scenario.

Also, the children of her first cousins, the Dukes of Kent, Gloucester and Princess Alexandra count as nieces and nephews.

David and Sarah still were grandchildren of a monarch - even though they were born after his death. Their granny was the queen mum who was alive until 2002.

And as others indicated, the queen had only one nephew and one niece by her sister - while she has 8 grandchildren. And this nephew and niece were often invited to 'smaller' family meetings - where the larger royal family was not invited.

By contrast, Charles had 6 nieces and nephews and 5 grandchildren. And nieces and nephews are indeed very different from first cousins once removed. Very few people would put Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James (his nieces and nephews) in the same group as Charles, Margarita, Samuel and Arthur (his first cousins once removed).

It’s not necessarily an impediment, but most of those peers in business choose to use a courtesy title as a last name for privacy. It’s not an issue of conflict of interest, but an issue of too much attention on the lives of non-working members of the BRF who happened to be the eldest grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II.

I don't think Louise and James receive that much more attention than Peter and Zara because they are styled as children of a peer and their cousins are not. All four of them are grandchildren of the late queen... so they do receive some attention, but I don't think the difference is in being styled or not.

I do think it’s a shame they weren’t entitled to Lord/Lady via Anne - there’s clearly a burden that Beatrice and Eugenie have that Louise and James do not, and the Queen’s oldest grandchildren were the only two that weren’t entitled to anything. The 1st Earl Snowdon showed the issue with marry-ins being given a peerage - his youngest daughter is entitled to be styled as Lady despite the styling obviously having been intended for nephews and nieces of the sovereign.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the issue'. The style being intended for nephews and nieces of the Sovereign? The intention was that children of a royal princess would have a style - therefore their husbands were offered a peerage (for example, the husband of princess Alexandra was also offered a peerage - but refused). In this case they were intended for grandchildren of the monarch (and in Alexandra's case it would have been for great-grandchildren). They were born children of a royal princess and grandchildren of a monarch - just not the current monarch but the previous one. This is somewhat comparable to the title prince and princess being used for children of a monarch (and male-line grandchildren) - Anne, Andrew and Edward didn't suddenly lose it because their brother became king. It does change their place in the order of precedence, but they remain children of a monarch - and no titles are taken away.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

David and Sarah still were grandchildren of a monarch - even though they were born after his death. Their granny was the queen mum who was alive until 2002.

And as others indicated, the queen had only one nephew and one niece by her sister - while she has 8 grandchildren. And this nephew and niece were often invited to 'smaller' family meetings - where the larger royal family was not invited.

By contrast, Charles had 6 nieces and nephews and 5 grandchildren. And nieces and nephews are indeed very different from first cousins once removed. Very few people would put Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James (his nieces and nephews) in the same group as Charles, Margarita, Samuel and Arthur (his first cousins once removed).



I don't think Louise and James receive that much more attention than Peter and Zara because they are styled as children of a peer and their cousins are not. All four of them are grandchildren of the late queen... so they do receive some attention, but I don't think the difference is in being styled or not.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'the issue'. The style being intended for nephews and nieces of the Sovereign? The intention was that children of a royal princess would have a style - therefore their husbands were offered a peerage (for example, the husband of princess Alexandra was also offered a peerage - but refused). In this case they were intended for grandchildren of the monarch (and in Alexandra's case it would have been for great-grandchildren). They were born children of a royal princess and grandchildren of a monarch - just not the current monarch but the previous one. This is somewhat comparable to the title prince and princess being used for children of a monarch (and male-line grandchildren) - Anne, Andrew and Edward didn't suddenly lose it because their brother became king. It does change their place in the order of precedence, but they remain children of a monarch - and no titles are taken away.

Louise and James aren’t over twenty years old and don’t really have much of a public profile is why they are hardly spoken of. Plus they are dependent children who live with parents so probably why no one speaks of them. Also their parents shield them from media attention and they themselves don’t get too much attention despite being working royals.

 

[Mbruno]

David and Sarah still were grandchildren of a monarch - even though they were born after his death. Their granny was the queen mum who was alive until 2002.

And as others indicated, the queen had only one nephew and one niece by her sister - while she has 8 grandchildren. And this nephew and niece were often invited to 'smaller' family meetings - where the larger royal family was not invited.

By contrast, Charles had 6 nieces and nephews and 5 grandchildren. And nieces and nephews are indeed very different from first cousins once removed. Very few people would put Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James (his nieces and nephews) in the same group as Charles, Margarita, Samuel and Arthur (his first cousins once removed).

David Linley and Lady Sarah never got the attention that Queen Elizabeth II's grandchildren got because, of course, King George VI had already long passed away by the time they were born. It would have been quite different if they had grown up as grandchildren of a living monarch. Still, Queen Elizabeth II was apparently close to Princess Margaret's chidren and they have always been included in the inner circle of the family.

It must be noted that Charles, Margarita, Samuel and Arthur are placed higher in the line of succession than the Gloucesters, the Kents and all of their descendants and, yet, they and their parents get less public attention and keep a lower profile than many of the Kent children and grandchildren for example, which I find curious.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The original poster's statement about Spain was: "Now doing as Spain has and introducing equality is a needed step."

Differences in the numbers of nobles, the distribution of titles, or the previous succession laws do not rebut her point about the Spanish nobility, which was that Spain has already introduced (gender) equality (in its nobiliary succession law).

Presenting evidence that gender inequality still persists in Spanish nobiliary law would rebut the point, but I'm not aware of any such evidence.




It was not a rebuttal, but a clarification, as I don't think I understand what point your comment about the throne was intended to prove.

I am also not clear on what "your question" refers to. The only question I addressed to you was about your comment on Spanish nobles.




I understand your opinion, but many people in the UK do view it as a modernization (refer to the debates about removing the remaining hereditary peers for some recent examples).

My point about the Spanish nobility was that they have always operated under different regulations and traditions such as women being able to inherit titles when brothers died or had no children, and titles could be shared between heirs.

I used rebuttal in place of ‘your response’, it wasn’t meant to come off combative. My point was that the peerage and succession to the throne are two different institutions. I was responding to a poster who brought up the throne in comparison to the peerage, they said no one complained about the changes in succession to the throne.

Also about the HOL issue, you can interpret any way you like.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I was thinking about this again yesterday and wondered whether the speculation has come from a belief that Charles may give new titles to those in his vision of the slimmed down monarchy / working royals.

Camilla, William and Kate have their new titles, and Edward is likely to receive the dukedom of Edinburgh in line with his parents’ wishes. Charles also needs him and Sophie to continue as working royals now that Meghan, Harry and Andrew are not, as he, Camilla and Anne might need to scale back their schedules before William’s children are old enough to take on those duties. Anne is the only working royal who wouldn’t have received anything new.

Anne could be given a title to symbolise that she is part of the firm under Charles, but choose not to use it. Her children could then opt not to use any courtesy title they might receive as a consequence.

I do think it’s a shame they weren’t entitled to Lord/Lady via Anne - there’s clearly a burden that Beatrice and Eugenie have that Louise and James do not, and the Queen’s oldest grandchildren were the only two that weren’t entitled to anything. The 1st Earl Snowdon showed the issue with marry-ins being given a peerage - his youngest daughter is entitled to be styled as Lady despite the styling obviously having been intended for nephews and nieces of the sovereign.

The “York girls don’t have a burden”? Are you sure about that? Louise and James get little issues because they are minors and are very private.

 

[Somebody]

Louise and James aren’t over twenty years old and don’t really have much of a public profile is why they are hardly spoken of. Plus they are dependent children who live with parents so probably why no one speaks of them. Also their parents shield them from media attention and they themselves don’t get too much attention despite being working royals.

David Linley and Lady Sarah never got the attention that Queen Elizabeth II's grandchildren got because, of course, King George VI had already long passed away by the time they were born. It would have been quite different if they had grown up as grandchildren of a living monarch. Still, Queen Elizabeth II was apparently close to Princess Margaret's chidren and they have always been included in the inner circle of the family.

It must be noted that Charles, Margarita, Samuel and Arthur are placed higher in the line of succession than the Gloucesters, the Kents and all of their descendants and, yet, they and their parents get less public attention and keep a lower profile than many of the Kent children and grandchildren for example, which I find curious.

Which goes to show that it is perfectly possible to be styled and still go about your life normally - even within the royal family and as grandchildren of the Sovereign. It is partly a personal choice how much attention you'll get - and while a prince(ss) title with the style royal highness will increase the attention being styled as children of an earl most likely wouldn't have made a difference for Peter and Zara.

The “York girls don’t have a burden”? Are you sure about that? Louise and James get little issues because they are minors and are very private.

That's not what she wrote - exactly the opposite actually. Mee indicated that Louise and James don't have the 'burden' of being styled as royal highnesses and prince(ss) - unlike their cousins Beatrice and Eugenie who do have that 'burden'.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My point about the Spanish nobility was that they have always operated under different regulations and traditions such as women being able to inherit titles when brothers died or had no children, and titles could be shared between heirs.

I used rebuttal in place of ‘your response’, it wasn’t meant to come off combative. My point was that the peerage and succession to the throne are two different institutions. I was responding to a poster who brought up the throne in comparison to the peerage, they said no one complained about the changes in succession to the throne.

Thank you for clarifying. You are right that my clarification wasn't meant combatively.

I think you misunderstood what the original post wrote. She was not claiming that the British nobility operated or should operate with all the same regulations and traditions as the Spanish nobility, but that its gender inequality should be eliminated. Spain was simply mentioned (in an aside) as a country which has done so. In the same manner, I might say "Charles III has now ascended the throne as Felipe VI did years ago" - in saying it, I would not be claiming all aspects of their ascensions operated the same way, or denying the differences between their ascensions such as Charles III's mother having died while Felipe VI's father only abdicated.

She was also not claiming that no one complained about gender-equal succession to the throne, but that no one complained about older brothers/siblings inheriting ahead of younger brothers/siblings.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Thank you for clarifying. You are right that my clarification wasn't meant combatively.

I think you misunderstood what the original post wrote. She was not claiming that the British nobility operated or should operate with all the same regulations and traditions as the Spanish nobility, but that its gender inequality should be eliminated. Spain was simply mentioned (in an aside) as a country which has done so. In the same manner, I might say "Charles III has now ascended the throne as Felipe VI did years ago" - in saying it, I would not be claiming all aspects of their ascensions operated the same way, or denying the differences between their ascensions such as Charles III's mother having died while Felipe VI's father only abdicated.

She was also not claiming that no one complained about gender-equal succession to the throne, but that no one complained about older brothers/siblings inheriting ahead of younger brothers/siblings.

Thank you for clarifying your viewpoints.

 

[Meee]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the issue'. The style being intended for nephews and nieces of the Sovereign? The intention was that children of a royal princess would have a style - therefore their husbands were offered a peerage (for example, the husband of princess Alexandra was also offered a peerage - but refused). In this case they were intended for grandchildren of the monarch (and in Alexandra's case it would have been for great-grandchildren). They were born children of a royal princess and grandchildren of a monarch - just not the current monarch but the previous one. This is somewhat comparable to the title prince and princess being used for children of a monarch (and male-line grandchildren) - Anne, Andrew and Edward didn't suddenly lose it because their brother became king. It does change their place in the order of precedence, but they remain children of a monarch - and no titles are taken away.

The children of Royal Princesses having to gain their style via a peerage granted to their father has the consequence that if the royal marriage is dissolved and the Princess’s former husband subsequently has further legitimate children, they too are styled via a peerage granted because their father had married a Princess long before their time. I used Antony Armstrong-Jones as an example as he is the only case I know of where this has become a reality. In the example of his creation as Earl of Snowdon, the Queen’s intention was obviously to give a style to David and Sarah, not for Frances to have it as well.

I am aware that Angus Ogilvy and Mark Phillips refused the offer, and I believe Angus thought it was wasn’t right for him to receive a peerage because he happened to marry a Princess; later worrying that he had set a precedent which meant that the monarch’s grandchildren were untitled. My point is that the granting of peerages to the monarch’s in-laws isn’t a particularly good vehicle through which to give styles to the children of a Princess. Now that divorce isn’t the taboo it used to be, the unintended styling of non-Royals is more likely. Had Mark Phillips accepted, Stephanie Phillips could also have been Lady Stephanie if her father and his second wife wished.

For the next Princess Royal, the obvious solutions are that only the eldest child of a monarch can pass on titles, or they all can if they so wish. If a peerage is granted, it should be to Charlotte. When George VI styled Elizabeth’s children, he specified the children of the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip. In hindsight a similar letters patent specifying the children of the marriage of Margaret and Antony and styling them as Lord and Lady would have been better. Thankfully the 1st Earl Snowdon’s second son is illegitimate so there isn’t anyone in the line of succession to the Earldom who isn’t a descendant of Princess Margaret.

 

[Biri]

The “York girls don’t have a burden”? Are you sure about that? Louise and James get little issues because they are minors and are very private.

Lawfully, Louise is already an adult woman.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for clarifying your viewpoints.

The original post was by Countessmeout, not me, but you're welcome.

I am aware that Angus Ogilvy and Mark Phillips refused the offer,

Earlier in the thread, Duc_et_Pair shared a pre-wedding interview of Princess Anne and Mark Phillips in which Mr. Phillips indicated he had not been offered a peerage (3:50):

By the way, would anyone be kind enough to transcribe his answers to the peerage questions? I could not make out his answer to the question "Could you accept one if you were offered one?"


But their daughter Zara (and Peter?) has indicated in her own interviews that their parents declined titles for them, so, either Mark Phillips was offered a peerage after the interview, Princess Anne was offered a peerage, or Queen Elizabeth II offered to confer titles on the children in spite of the parents having refused a peerage for themselves.

https://www.nowtolove.co.nz/celebrity/royals/zara-tindall-i-dont-think-of-myself-as-royal-40353

Zara Tindall: "My parents didn't give me or my brother titles, so we've been able to have a slightly more normal upbringing.
"As soon as you have got a title, it is very difficult to shed it. I'm very lucky that both my parents decided not to use the title. We grew up and did all the things that gave us the chance to do."​

 

[Prinsara]

But their daughter Zara (and Peter?) has indicated in her own interviews that their parents declined titles for them, so, either Mark Phillips was offered a peerage after the interview, Princess Anne was offered a peerage, or Queen Elizabeth II offered to confer titles on the children in spite of the parents having refused a peerage for themselves.

https://www.nowtolove.co.nz/celebrity/royals/zara-tindall-i-dont-think-of-myself-as-royal-40353

Zara Tindall: "My parents didn't give me or my brother titles, so we've been able to have a slightly more normal upbringing.
"As soon as you have got a title, it is very difficult to shed it. I'm very lucky that both my parents decided not to use the title. We grew up and did all the things that gave us the chance to do."​

Or Zara is mistaken in her own recollection. It's hard to know without a definitive record somewhere.

 

[Royalguru]

With the speculation in the Daily Mail that Zara and Mike Tindall should become full time royals to help now that King Charles is ill the question is what titles would they go by?

Would Mike be granted an Earldom?

 

[Countessmeout]

With the speculation in the Daily Mail that Zara and Mike Tindall should become full time royals to help now that King Charles is ill the question is what titles would they go by?

Would Mike be granted an Earldom?

They are not going to call completely private citizens out to work for Charles. Nor would they give them a title for helping a month or two.

If the current senior royals were not enough, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie would be the obvious. They both do a number of patronages anyways and they have no need for some title.

 

[Alison H]

Zara and Mike are very popular and already quite high profile, which I suppose is where the media talk is coming from, but they aren't going to give up their current lifestyle to become working royals, and no-one is going to ask private citizens to become working royals. Also, Zara and Peter have both spoken about how they're glad that they grew up without titles, so Zara isn't likely to want her children to have titles.

 

[Hallo girl]

Zara and Mike are very popular and already quite high profile, which I suppose is where the media talk is coming from, but they aren't going to give up their current lifestyle to become working royals, and no-one is going to ask private citizens to become working royals. Also, Zara and Peter have both spoken about how they're glad that they grew up without titles, so Zara isn't likely to want her children to have titles.

They receive enough stick about using royal connections as it is, there is no way they would be giving up their private enterprises to take on royal duties.

Like their cousins Beatrice and Eugenie they also are involved with some charities. In Mikes case Parkinsons charities.