|
Celia
|
I looked through this sub-forum and didn't find anything that fit the topic. Someone wandering OT on another thread wondered why the Cambridges received *that* title instead of another, saying that it was "lowly." The last incarnation of the dukedom of Cambridge was granted to a son of George III, which is pretty lofty, and the marquessate of Cambridge was granted to a grandson of that son.
So, I'm wondering, do people associate certain titles with status? Cornwall is always held by the eldest son of the monarch; Lancaster by the monarch (regardless of gender). Wessex is just an historical name for an ancient Saxon kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Olya
|
Good thing you created a thread.
I was actually never aware that some titles were considered more "prestigious" or "better" than others, in spite of being in the same rank (eg "duke" etc). I thought all dukes were on the same level, just "above" the others like viscounts etc. So to me the titles as such have no associations. But it is interesting to learn about it all and see what others think about it all.
As we see, even historic titles change, as mentioned on the other thread, eg the dukedom of York going thorugh a change so that male heirs can inherit, which means that it is not any longer reserved solely for the second son of a monarch.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antevorta
|
I looked through this sub-forum and didn't find anything that fit the topic. Someone wandering OT on another thread wondered why the Cambridges received *that* title instead of another, saying that it was "lowly." The last incarnation of the dukedom of Cambridge was granted to a son of George III, which is pretty lofty, and the marquessate of Cambridge was granted to a grandson of that son.
So, I'm wondering, do people associate certain titles with status? Cornwall is always held by the eldest son of the monarch; Lancaster by the monarch (regardless of gender). Wessex is just an historical name for an ancient Saxon kingdom.
I swear I remember reading somewhere in the days following the wedding, that William specifically asked HM for Cambridge. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
rosella
Banned
Banned
|
What I read was that William was shocked that he wouldn't stay as Prince William and he thought Kate would become Princess Catherine, lol. That's how much he knew about tradition and protocol. I certainly read that he didn't want he and his wife to be a Duke and Duchess because that sounded stuffy and old.
My guess is that after he'd got over the shock and was told that being a Royal Duke was of higher status than being a mere Prince, he and Kate mulled over what was offered. Gloucester and Kent were both off the board natch, (pretty unfortunate they will soon leave the royal family as they're both ancient and prestigious) as was York. I bet Clarence, Avondale and Sussex were offered. Clarence is ancient but that has an unlucky history and Avondale's always been the junior (Scottish) title, though it's not junior in Scotland. It's not that Cambridge is less prestigious, it's just that it's less old..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rosella
Banned
Banned
|
^ They always search for Royal precedents though, and my guess is TPTB took a look at the titles given to George III's sons. Cumberland couldn't be offered. Besides the unfortunate fact that an earlier Duke was known as 'Butcher' Cumberland, the last Dukes were German, and so that was unacceptable. So they probably looked at Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, who was Mary of Teck's grandfather, and a younger son of George III, and thought that was OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexasBear
|
Gloucester and Kent were both off the board natch, (pretty unfortunate they will soon leave the royal family as they're both ancient and prestigious) as was York. I guess that depends on how you define "royal family." The next generation in these dukedoms are the great-grandsons of a king. Will they ever represent the UK officially? Highly doubtful. But they are still descended from a (somewhat recent) monarch. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Celia
|
Cumberland couldn't be offered for the same reason Albany couldn't --these titles are still vested in someone (EA of Hannover and the prince of Coburg).
The royal family has rarely been so large as it has been since George III's family, Victoria's and now George V's descendants. I mean, Edward III had many sons, and they were the first to get dukedoms (yes? Or was it Henry II, giving French territories to his sons...).
Richard III had a brother duke of Gloucester; Henry VIII's illegitimate son was duke of Richmond. The Stuarts used Gloucester a few times. The Hanovers used Gloucester twice, Cumberland twice, Sussex once and Kent once. Victoria broke tradition by not giving York to her second son, but then she avoided most titles associated with her wicked uncles. I think it's interesting that she didn't give Kent to any of her sons, either.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Celia
|
Gloucester and Kent were both off the board natch, (pretty unfortunate they will soon leave the royal family as they're both ancient and prestigious) as was York. I guess that depends on how you define "royal family." The next generation in these dukedoms are the great-grandsons of a king. Will they ever represent the UK officially? Highly doubtful. But they are still descended from a (somewhat recent) monarch. They could still be involved in charitable work, though. You don't have to be royal to do that. The earl of St. Andrews is, and he was never a prince. But what makes these titles prestigious, in your opinion, Rosella? I'm genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
rosella
Banned
Banned
|
Why didn't Victoria give Kent to one of her sons? My guess is that her mother was still alive (until 1861) and still Duchess of Kent, and that would have caused confusion.
As for 'prestigious' I think that was discussed in the other thread (when it was OT,) in terms of the really ancient Dukedoms, the Clarences, Gloucesters, Yorks etc, being considered the most prestigious in the BRF because there is this long line of recipients stretching back into medieval history which have been given them, while ones like Cambridge and Kent are comparatively recent.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 01:12:51 AM by rosella »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexasBear
|
Gloucester and Kent were both off the board natch, (pretty unfortunate they will soon leave the royal family as they're both ancient and prestigious) as was York. I guess that depends on how you define "royal family." The next generation in these dukedoms are the great-grandsons of a king. Will they ever represent the UK officially? Highly doubtful. But they are still descended from a (somewhat recent) monarch. They could still be involved in charitable work, though. You don't have to be royal to do that. The earl of St. Andrews is, and he was never a prince. But what makes these titles prestigious, in your opinion, Rosella? I'm genuinely curious. Absolutely. Anyone can be involved in charitable work, regardless of the lottery of birth. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margaret
|
I looked through this sub-forum and didn't find anything that fit the topic. Someone wandering OT on another thread wondered why the Cambridges received *that* title instead of another, saying that it was "lowly." The last incarnation of the dukedom of Cambridge was granted to a son of George III, which is pretty lofty, and the marquessate of Cambridge was granted to a grandson of that son.
So, I'm wondering, do people associate certain titles with status? Cornwall is always held by the eldest son of the monarch; Lancaster by the monarch (regardless of gender). Wessex is just an historical name for an ancient Saxon kingdom.
I swear I remember reading somewhere in the days following the wedding, that William specifically asked HM for Cambridge. I think I read that, too, though it might be reconstruction on my part. I have always wondered whether William wanted Cambridge because of the Cambridge emeralds, some of which his mother wore, and the Cambridge Lovers' Knot tiara, associated with his mother, and the fact Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge was also known as the People's Princess, because of her philanthropic work. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
cordtx
Warned
|
He did list Catherine as Princess on George's birth certificate
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ghost
|
He did list Catherine as Princess on George's birth certificate
Well she IS a princess, princess William, as is princess Michael of Kent. I think it was explained somewhere on the board, but I do not remember where. There is the title he had from birth, she takes it with his name attached, and there is the title he was given on the occassion of their marriage that she gets with her name attached. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lynda
|
thank you Celia, very interesting topic...............
what will Harry get ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
