Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Royal Titles  (Read 5483 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Celia

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 269

Offline Offline

Posts: 1036





Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2017, 12:57:04 AM »

I bet Harry might have to wait for a while.  He might get an earldom to start with, like Edward.  He's a second son, and York has usually gone to second sons...  And York has historically gone back to the crown after only one generation.  I mean, you have to go all the way back to Edward IV, who was the 4th duke of York before he seized the throne.

Henry VIII, duke of York before his brother died
Charles I, duke of York before his brother died
James II,  duke of York before his brother died
Henry, duke of York, Cardinal Stuart
Frederick, Prince of Wales had several sons, one of whom was duke of York, but no children
George III had many sons, one of whom was duke of York, but no children
George V, duke of York until his father created him prince of Wales
George VI, duke of York until his brother abdicated
Andrew, duke of York with only daughters.
Logged
Margaret

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 587

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1800





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2017, 02:38:30 AM »

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.

Kate takes those titles because of tradition, for the same reason as an ordinary UK woman generally takes her husband's surname on marriage.  It goes back to the time when married women had no separate legal identity and became part - the lesser part - of their husband's identity.  Married women could not sue their husbands for damages if they were injured in a car accident because of their husband's negligent driving, because you cannot sue yourself.  It took legislation to give women their own legal identity and rights in respect of property.  This taking of the husband's name - style and titles in respect of royals and aristocrats - is a hangover from those times.  And Kate will cease being a princess if she and William divorce because her holding of that title is dependent on their marriage.  

I think it is interesting that William thinks prince and princess are occupations.
Logged
rosella

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 627

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2656





Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2017, 04:28:14 AM »

Considering how long the Windsors live, if Harry is in line for the Dukedom of York as has been suggested, he might well be waiting a very very long time. Andrew is now 57, having been born in February 1960. If he lasts for as long as his parents then Harry could well still be waiting to be given the Dukedom in 2055 (or more!) Edward was only given an Earldom because TPTB and the Queen herself probably could not realistically see both the monarch and consort living until their late 90s or onwards, and therefore the expectation was that Edward would be a Duke like his brother by his fifties. He's now nearly 53.

Not all second sons have become Duke of York and it really is usually reserved for the second son of a monarch already on the throne, not a grandson. George V was only made DOY because of the shock of his older brother's early death. I do expect to see Harry being awarded a dukedom on his wedding day, like his brother, and IMHO, it's likely to be Sussex.
Logged
Celia

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 269

Offline Offline

Posts: 1036





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2017, 04:29:50 AM »

It's not William's thinking that prince(ss) is an occupation --it's the way it is in the UK. If you look at William's own birth certificate, it says the same thing  for the father's occupation:  Prince of the United Kingdom.
Logged
A Citizen not a Subject

Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 223

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 501





Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2017, 06:10:36 PM »

I think William was given Cambridge because it is not expected to be too long term; in due course he'll be Prince of Wales, or at the very least the Duke of Cornwall, and eventually King.  Harry's title, what ever that turns out to be, will be the same throughout the rest of his life.
Logged

I live in hope that one day I will be able to elect my Head of State.
Antevorta

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 333

Offline Offline

Posts: 792





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2017, 08:47:38 PM »

I'm probably alone in this thought but I genuinely hope Harry goes completely off script, totally random and requests HM to grant him the Dukedom of Suffolk or Cumberland or something totally different and unexpected.

I would be rather bored with him being created Duke of Sussex or Clarence.  I also doubt that Harry will ask for an Earldom, simply because Charles has already said that he, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and future wife will carry the bulk of the royal load in the future.  Once Charles is King and William is POW, IMHO, it would look odd if Harry were styled below that of a Duke. 
Logged
SpittingImage

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 54

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 179





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2017, 12:48:32 AM »

I'm probably alone in this thought but I genuinely hope Harry goes completely off script, totally random and requests HM to grant him the Dukedom of Suffolk or Cumberland or something totally different and unexpected.

I would be rather bored with him being created Duke of Sussex or Clarence.  I also doubt that Harry will ask for an Earldom, simply because Charles has already said that he, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and future wife will carry the bulk of the royal load in the future.  Once Charles is King and William is POW, IMHO, it would look odd if Harry were styled below that of a Duke. 

I'm very sure that Cumberland (or Cumberland & Teviotdale) will never be considered. As an other poster already mentioned, the C & T dukedom was suspended by the 1917 Deprivation of Titles act, & technically EA of Hanover (or his descendant) could request its reinstatement.

In addition to that rather insurmountable legal glitch, "Butcher" Cumberland was responsible for bloody and brutal repression in Scotland, at and after the battle of Culloden. Even if the title WERE available, it would be INCREDIBLY tactless (for want of a better word) to revive it.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 01:01:08 AM by SpittingImage » Logged
Antevorta

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 333

Offline Offline

Posts: 792





Ignore
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2017, 01:49:00 AM »

I'm probably alone in this thought but I genuinely hope Harry goes completely off script, totally random and requests HM to grant him the Dukedom of Suffolk or Cumberland or something totally different and unexpected.

I would be rather bored with him being created Duke of Sussex or Clarence.  I also doubt that Harry will ask for an Earldom, simply because Charles has already said that he, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and future wife will carry the bulk of the royal load in the future.  Once Charles is King and William is POW, IMHO, it would look odd if Harry were styled below that of a Duke.  

I'm very sure that Cumberland (or Cumberland & Teviotdale) will never be considered. As an other poster already mentioned, the C & T dukedom was suspended by the 1917 Deprivation of Titles act, & technically EA of Hanover (or his descendant) could request its reinstatement.

In addition to that rather insurmountable legal glitch, "Butcher" Cumberland was responsible for bloody and brutal repression in Scotland, at and after the battle of Culloden. Even if the title WERE available, it would be INCREDIBLY tactless (for want of a better word) to revive it.

Oh.  Oops, I didn't know that about Cumberland. Fair point then Spitting Image!  I'll stick with Suffolk unless I messed that up too. If I did, then please everyone, just ignore my posts.  Blush

Point was though, I just want Harry to pick a random Dukedom to throw everyone off.
Logged
ChocCharley
Banned
Banned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 9

Offline Offline

Posts: 40





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2017, 02:41:19 AM »

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.

Kate takes those titles because of tradition, for the same reason as an ordinary UK woman generally takes her husband's surname on marriage.  It goes back to the time when married women had no separate legal identity and became part - the lesser part - of their husband's identity.  Married women could not sue their husbands for damages if they were injured in a car accident because of their husband's negligent driving, because you cannot sue yourself.  It took legislation to give women their own legal identity and rights in respect of property.  This taking of the husband's name - style and titles in respect of royals and aristocrats - is a hangover from those times.  And Kate will cease being a princess if she and William divorce because her holding of that title is dependent on their marriage.  

I think it is interesting that William thinks prince and princess are occupations.
The female "royals" take their title and position from their husbands. Women have campaigned for many years not to be defined by their husbands' roles but these women who give up their identity, religion and nationality just to have the prestige of their husbands, have, IMO, set the womens' movement back by many steps.
Why cant they remain private citizens just as the men who marry royalty do ? Why is it all about LOOKER ME ?
Logged
SpittingImage

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 54

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 179





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2017, 02:52:40 AM »

I'm probably alone in this thought but I genuinely hope Harry goes completely off script, totally random and requests HM to grant him the Dukedom of Suffolk or Cumberland or something totally different and unexpected.

I would be rather bored with him being created Duke of Sussex or Clarence.  I also doubt that Harry will ask for an Earldom, simply because Charles has already said that he, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and future wife will carry the bulk of the royal load in the future.  Once Charles is King and William is POW, IMHO, it would look odd if Harry were styled below that of a Duke.  

I'm very sure that Cumberland (or Cumberland & Teviotdale) will never be considered. As an other poster already mentioned, the C & T dukedom was suspended by the 1917 Deprivation of Titles act, & technically EA of Hanover (or his descendant) could request its reinstatement.

In addition to that rather insurmountable legal glitch, "Butcher" Cumberland was responsible for bloody and brutal repression in Scotland, at and after the battle of Culloden. Even if the title WERE available, it would be INCREDIBLY tactless (for want of a better word) to revive it.

Oh.  Oops, I didn't know that about Cumberland. Fair point then Spitting Image!  I'll stick with Suffolk unless I messed that up too. If I did, then please everyone, just ignore my posts.  Blush

Point was though, I just want Harry to pick a random Dukedom to throw everyone off.

No problem, Antevorta Smiley. I had to go & look up the Suffolks: the last one was executed for treason, after being earlier pardoned on a different, similar charge Wink!

It's a minefield (!!), but it's fun looking up some of my half-remembered history!
Logged
gudgeon

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1031

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2974





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2017, 04:03:56 AM »

thank you Celia, very interesting topic...............
what will Harry get ?


There is already a thread discussing possible dukedoms for Harry:  https://royaldish.com/index.php?topic=10923.240

My personal choice would be Avondale and Ross (a double-dukedom!), because I like the way that sounds. However, I agree with Rosella and think he'll end up getting Sussex and will get it upon marriage.

 
« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 04:11:30 AM by gudgeon » Logged

My adventures in baking: http://bakedtoorder.blogspot.com/ 
identitycrisis

Warned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 32

Offline Offline

Posts: 92





Ignore
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2017, 04:33:33 PM »

There's an Earldom of Suffolk currently in existence that is held by the Howard family. Suffolk is highly unlikely to be granted as a dukedom, as a result.
Logged
Herazeus
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 609

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1053





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2017, 07:50:22 PM »

I bet Harry might have to wait for a while.  He might get an earldom to start with, like Edward.  He's a second son, and York has usually gone to second sons...  And York has historically gone back to the crown after only one generation.  I mean, you have to go all the way back to Edward IV, who was the 4th duke of York before he seized the throne.

Henry VIII, duke of York before his brother died
Charles I, duke of York before his brother died
James II,  duke of York before his brother died
Henry, duke of York, Cardinal Stuart
Frederick, Prince of Wales had several sons, one of whom was duke of York, but no children
George III had many sons, one of whom was duke of York, but no children
George V, duke of York until his father created him prince of Wales
George VI, duke of York until his brother abdicated
Andrew, duke of York with only daughters.


Duke is York is reserved for second sons. This was the settlement of the war of the roses, and has been the way since then. If you look at birth order of each person listed, and when they were granted York, you will see that they were all second sons with a living older brother who was the named POW. Whilst it is not always given out eg Victoria didn't use it all, it has always been given to a second son of a sitting monarch. Always.

That said, the initial creation of York wasn't significant. It was a title given to the 4th son of the king and would have remained insignificant and or become lost to the royal family if not for successive generational events that upgraded the holders with regards line of succession until it merged with the crown via Edward 4. He was the first monarch to give it to his own second son as the first son was already POW.

The Tudors, wishing to appease the Yorkist faction, created the tradition of naming the second son York in a move that copied the popular Edward 4.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 08:23:28 PM by Herazeus » Logged
Herazeus
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 609

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1053





Ignore
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2017, 07:54:35 PM »

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.

Many aristocratic families are not too distant relatives of the royal family.

If you go by HRH/prince style criteria, then great-grandchildren cease to be royal which is why Gloucester and Kent will cease to be royal dukedoms in the great-grandchildren generation.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 08:00:57 PM by Herazeus » Logged
Celia

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 269

Offline Offline

Posts: 1036





Ignore
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2017, 08:26:52 PM »

Herazeus, the title of duke of York was *not* "always" given to the second son of a "sitting monarch."  Frederick was never king, but his second son was indeed created duke of York by his grandfather.  George V's father was not a sitting monarch when he received the title. 

I'm very interested in the Wars of the Roses --where did you read about a "settlement" about the title from the Wars of Roses? 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: