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 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Royal Titles  (Read 19854 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
luvcharles

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1220

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3175





Ignore
« Reply #75 on: August 28, 2020, 09:48:57 AM »

Quote
After all HRH was supposed to be for life as well.

HRH is for life. Harry is still HRH and will be until he dies, unless the rules are changed by Charles or William which I can't see either of them doing. Harry is a male-line grandchild of the monarch. He will be the child of the monarch at some time in the future.

George VI made it clear that even Edward VIII, after the abdication was still HRH The Prince Edward as he would always be 'the son of a monarch'.

Harry has agreed to not use HRH. He hasn't lost that style and won't lose it.

Quote
Diana and Sarah lost their HRH. Diana was the mother of a future monarch.
Harry gave up use of the HRH because he was told if he didn't it would be taken away.

Harry was not told he would have HRH taken away. He will always be HRH as he was born HRH. He was only told he couldn't use it for commercial reasons - same as Beatrice and Eugenie.

The only way he could lose HRH would be to change the rules to limit HRH to only the heir apparent in each generation ... so Harry, Charlotte, Louis, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Anne, Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra would also have to lose it. HRH won't be removed for one person.

Diana and Sarah gained HRH by marriage. The Queen took it away when they divorced.

Quote
When the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, you said their sons' dukedoms will cease to be royal.  How far down their male lines will the dukedoms be retained?  Could these titles go on for generations as long as there are male heirs?  These usual royal dukedoms could be out of the running to be granted again to a new generation?

Both titles have male heirs for the next two generations - The Duke of Gloucester has a son (Earl of Ulster) and grandson who will in turn be Dukes of Gloucester. Assuming that Lord Culloden (the Duke's grandson) has a son then the title will continue.

Kent has more male heirs - his own son and grandson - Earl of St Andrews and Baron Downpatrick along with Lord Nicholas Windsor and his three sons and finally Prince Michael and Lord Frederick.

Quote
They last as long as there are male heirs. Kent was only royal since Queen Victoria's father in any case. Gloucester is ancient, and will cease to be royal, but there are loads of other traditionally royal dukedoms to be granted: Kendal, Clarence, Ross, Albany, Edinburgh.
And I would like to see a Duke of Cardiff ,Caernarfon,or Belfast. Cumberland and Windsor should probably be avoided though, since they have poor associations.

Albany, like Cumberland, is unavailable. Although removed by the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 from the then holders there is provision for any future descendants to claim them back. Both have multiple male heirs.

Carnarfon is already a Marquisate - subsidiary title for the Duke of Chandos so not going to be turned into a Dukedom. It is also separately already an Earldom.

There is also a Baron Cardiff of Cardiff Castle as a subsidiary title to the Marquis of Bute.

Edinburgh will, in the normal course of events, go to Edward - when both The Queen and Philip die the intention, announced on his wedding day, is that Charles will recreate the title for Edward.


« Last Edit: August 28, 2020, 10:05:29 AM by luvcharles » Logged
lynaH

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 92

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 254





Ignore
« Reply #76 on: August 28, 2020, 05:39:54 PM »

Quote
After all HRH was supposed to be for life as well.

HRH is for life. Harry is still HRH and will be until he dies, unless the rules are changed by Charles or William which I can't see either of them doing. Harry is a male-line grandchild of the monarch. He will be the child of the monarch at some time in the future.

George VI made it clear that even Edward VIII, after the abdication was still HRH The Prince Edward as he would always be 'the son of a monarch'.

Harry has agreed to not use HRH. He hasn't lost that style and won't lose it.

Quote
Diana and Sarah lost their HRH. Diana was the mother of a future monarch.
Harry gave up use of the HRH because he was told if he didn't it would be taken away.

Harry was not told he would have HRH taken away. He will always be HRH as he was born HRH. He was only told he couldn't use it for commercial reasons - same as Beatrice and Eugenie.

The only way he could lose HRH would be to change the rules to limit HRH to only the heir apparent in each generation ... so Harry, Charlotte, Louis, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Anne, Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra would also have to lose it. HRH won't be removed for one person.

Diana and Sarah gained HRH by marriage. The Queen took it away when they divorced.

Quote
When the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, you said their sons' dukedoms will cease to be royal.  How far down their male lines will the dukedoms be retained?  Could these titles go on for generations as long as there are male heirs?  These usual royal dukedoms could be out of the running to be granted again to a new generation?

Both titles have male heirs for the next two generations - The Duke of Gloucester has a son (Earl of Ulster) and grandson who will in turn be Dukes of Gloucester. Assuming that Lord Culloden (the Duke's grandson) has a son then the title will continue.

Kent has more male heirs - his own son and grandson - Earl of St Andrews and Baron Downpatrick along with Lord Nicholas Windsor and his three sons and finally Prince Michael and Lord Frederick.

Quote
They last as long as there are male heirs. Kent was only royal since Queen Victoria's father in any case. Gloucester is ancient, and will cease to be royal, but there are loads of other traditionally royal dukedoms to be granted: Kendal, Clarence, Ross, Albany, Edinburgh.
And I would like to see a Duke of Cardiff ,Caernarfon,or Belfast. Cumberland and Windsor should probably be avoided though, since they have poor associations.

Albany, like Cumberland, is unavailable. Although removed by the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 from the then holders there is provision for any future descendants to claim them back. Both have multiple male heirs.

Carnarfon is already a Marquisate - subsidiary title for the Duke of Chandos so not going to be turned into a Dukedom. It is also separately already an Earldom.

There is also a Baron Cardiff of Cardiff Castle as a subsidiary title to the Marquis of Bute.

Edinburgh will, in the normal course of events, go to Edward - when both The Queen and Philip die the intention, announced on his wedding day, is that Charles will recreate the title for Edward.



The titles removed in 1917 are never being restored. Parliament can easily make it permanent that as they haven't petitioned to get them back in over 100 years, the titles are permanently forfeit. So Albany can be granted.T he reason the Cumberland title is impossible is the associations with "Butcher Cumberland". It cannot happen as long as Scotland remembers the Culloden Massacre. So knowing the Scots, until eternity.


Also there are loads of places associated with more than one title, belonging to different peers. As long as it isn't the same rank, they can recreate it as a dukedom without issue. You yourself mentioned one instance.

Edinburgh will go to Edward, then James after him, so that one is going to be out of the running soon.
York and Cambridge however, will be ready to be recreated for the next generation.

Also perhaps I was wrong about Windsor. Edward VIII is being slowly rehabilitated and forgotten at the same time. Perhaps one of George's grandsons can be given it.
Logged
Tsarina

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 87

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 175





Ignore
« Reply #77 on: August 28, 2020, 09:06:11 PM »

The titles are suspended/deprived. But their heirs *can* petition for them back, however thatís highly unlikely. I canít see them assigning these titles to anyone else while any descendants are still living, it would require the titles to first be completely stripped from those descendants.

Truthfully there are plenty of dukedoms still left for use for any future grandsons. Every peerage was created separately - which is why so many of them have gone extinct due to not having male heirs despite having female heirs. There is technically no act that can be/has been passed that applies to all peerages that will allow females to inherit. They can also just create new titles that apply to different/new/old areas as they did for Prince Edward with Earl of Wessex.

I also believe the Brits are highly superstitious and for that reason will not use titles with any negative connotations. No royal babies have been named John for years and I doubt there will be any, any time soon. There havenít been any direct male heirs with the first name Arthur since Henry VIIIís older brother. Queen Alexandra removed the opals form the oriental circlet both because she didnít like them and because she thought them bad luck. Thereís even been discussion if Charles should take the regnal name of George like his grandfather due to the associations with the previous Kings Charles.

This could all change in the course of the next five decades of course.

IMO I think assigning royal dukedoms should not continue if they do not assign one to Charlotte but do assign one to Louis when they marry. 
Logged
lynaH

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 92

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 254





Ignore
« Reply #78 on: August 28, 2020, 10:09:17 PM »

The titles are suspended/deprived. But their heirs *can* petition for them back, however thatís highly unlikely. I canít see them assigning these titles to anyone else while any descendants are still living, it would require the titles to first be completely stripped from those descendants.

Truthfully there are plenty of dukedoms still left for use for any future grandsons. Every peerage was created separately - which is why so many of them have gone extinct due to not having male heirs despite having female heirs. There is technically no act that can be/has been passed that applies to all peerages that will allow females to inherit. They can also just create new titles that apply to different/new/old areas as they did for Prince Edward with Earl of Wessex.

I also believe the Brits are highly superstitious and for that reason will not use titles with any negative connotations. No royal babies have been named John for years and I doubt there will be any, any time soon. There havenít been any direct male heirs with the first name Arthur since Henry VIIIís older brother. Queen Alexandra removed the opals form the oriental circlet both because she didnít like them and because she thought them bad luck. Thereís even been discussion if Charles should take the regnal name of George like his grandfather due to the associations with the previous Kings Charles.

This could all change in the course of the next five decades of course.

IMO I think
 assigning royal dukedoms should not continue if they do not assign one to Charlotte but do assign one to Louis when they marry. 
I think Parliament can easily completely strip the titles. Why not? 100 years is long enough to leave them in abeyance.
Edward VII changed the Fife Dukedom to allow females to inherit when his daughter had no sons. I'm not sure how he did it, but if it was done once, they can do it again.
Charlotte will be Princess Royal. That's better than a dukedom.

And yes, Clarence will probably never be used again. It's just far too unlucky. Pity, because it's so ancient.
Logged
Tsarina

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 87

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 175





Ignore
« Reply #79 on: August 28, 2020, 10:59:12 PM »

The titles are suspended/deprived. But their heirs *can* petition for them back, however thatís highly unlikely. I canít see them assigning these titles to anyone else while any descendants are still living, it would require the titles to first be completely stripped from those descendants.

Truthfully there are plenty of dukedoms still left for use for any future grandsons. Every peerage was created separately - which is why so many of them have gone extinct due to not having male heirs despite having female heirs. There is technically no act that can be/has been passed that applies to all peerages that will allow females to inherit. They can also just create new titles that apply to different/new/old areas as they did for Prince Edward with Earl of Wessex.

I also believe the Brits are highly superstitious and for that reason will not use titles with any negative connotations. No royal babies have been named John for years and I doubt there will be any, any time soon. There havenít been any direct male heirs with the first name Arthur since Henry VIIIís older brother. Queen Alexandra removed the opals form the oriental circlet both because she didnít like them and because she thought them bad luck. Thereís even been discussion if Charles should take the regnal name of George like his grandfather due to the associations with the previous Kings Charles.

This could all change in the course of the next five decades of course.

IMO I think
 assigning royal dukedoms should not continue if they do not assign one to Charlotte but do assign one to Louis when they marry.  
I think Parliament can easily completely strip the titles. Why not? 100 years is long enough to leave them in abeyance.
Edward VII changed the Fife Dukedom to allow females to inherit when his daughter had no sons. I'm not sure how he did it, but if it was done once, they can do it again.
Charlotte will be Princess Royal. That's better than a dukedom.

And yes, Clarence will probably never be used again. It's just far too unlucky. Pity, because it's so ancient.

They can strip the titles, but they havenít. I doubt itís of much concern to parliament now, there are more pressing matters.

The Dukedom of Fife wasnít altered, it had to be re-created so that the girls could inherit - several of the original titles of the 1st Duke (originally 6th Earl Fife) went extinct because he didnít have a male heir and they werenít re-created. The titles lost were: Marquess of Macduff, Earl Fife, Viscount Macduff, Baron Braco, and Baron Skene. The marquessate corresponded to the first creation of the dukedom while for the second creation in 1900 he was given the title Earl of Macduff. The current titles used as ďsubsidiaryĒ titles of the Duke of Fife arenít subsidiary titles in reality - they were inherited through Maudís husband the Earl of Southesk.

Princess Royal is a nice title, but itís a lifetime title - it wonít pass to her descendants and in that case it is not superior to a dukedom. I donít see why she should not or could not be both Princess Royal and a Duchess in her own right considering that she is ahead of Louis in the line of succession. Her children wouldnít have a subsidiary title but his would? That doesnít seem fair. Iím all for the Swedish system everywhere, a girl has just as much right to be a Duchess in her own right as a boy does to be a Duke.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2020, 11:12:33 PM by Tsarina » Logged
royalwessex
Banned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 44

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 92



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #80 on: September 23, 2020, 09:33:38 PM »

I'm just glad Princess Anne the Princess Royal is going to take over the captain generalcy of the Royal Marines.  Supercontent

Not that she needs anymore medals!!!! 

Check out that rack!!  Tongue https://www.instagram.com/p/BJzm1mCjy09/
Logged

@royalwessex
CyrilSebastian

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 774

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5976





Ignore
« Reply #81 on: November 29, 2020, 12:24:13 AM »

A guide to British royal titles   
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1221892
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 774

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5976





Ignore
« Reply #82 on: February 16, 2021, 01:07:31 AM »

The peerage title of Earl of Buckingham was created in 1377 for Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of King Edward III. The earldom passed to his son Humphrey.
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 774

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5976





Ignore
« Reply #83 on: April 14, 2021, 01:07:26 AM »

John, fourth son of King Henry IV, was created Earl of Kendal, Earl of Richmond and Duke of Bedford in 1414. The titles became extinct at his death.
Logged
Emac0914

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 86

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 253





Ignore
« Reply #84 on: April 14, 2021, 02:05:29 PM »

I hope that, after a suitable amount of time for mourning, the Queen bestowed the title of Duke of Edinburgh to Edward.  Think it would be a nice tribute to the Wessexes that the Queen does it, not wait for Charles to be king.  She is very close to them and think it would be a nice thing for her to get to do, more meaningful mother to son and daughter-in-law.
Logged
luvcharles

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1220

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3175





Ignore
« Reply #85 on: April 14, 2021, 02:13:41 PM »

The Queen can't bestow the title on Edward as Charles has already inherited the Duke of Edinburgh title.

When George VI created Philip as Duke of Edinburgh he included the standard remainder 'heirs male of the body lawfully begotten' so Charles inherited Philip's titles the instant Philip died.

That is why the 1999 announcement about Edward getting the Duke of Edinburgh title said when it was available as it won't be available until it merges with the Crown.

IF Charles, William and George were to predecease The Queen then it won't become available as Charlotte would become Queen and Louis would inherit both the Edinburgh and Cambridge Dukedoms along with the subsidiary titles.

The line of succession to Edinburgh is - Charles, William, George, Louis, Harry, Archie, Andrew, Edward and James. Until one of these men becomes King the title simply isn't available for Edward.
Logged
anneboleyn

Warned
Large Member
******

Reputation: 153

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 1400





Ignore
« Reply #86 on: April 14, 2021, 05:59:53 PM »

While it would be meaningful for the Queen to bestow it upon Edward, I think it's nice that there will be a couple of years to let it "rest" before it is actively used again. There is a lot of sentimental memories behind it right now that associate with Philip.
Logged

ďAnd she will keep coming back to life, over and over again, because beneath the skin of this gentle human lives a warrior unstoppable.Ē - Annabelle M. Ramos
CyrilSebastian

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 774

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5976





Ignore
« Reply #87 on: April 21, 2021, 11:25:39 PM »

Why is Prince Edward an Earl, not a Duke?     
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrdSZZa7q28
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 774

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5976





Ignore
« Reply #88 on: October 07, 2021, 01:52:05 AM »

Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester (died 1397), fifth son of King Edward III, was created Duke of Aumale by writ of summons on September 3, 1385. He was also made Duke of Gloucester very soon after. How often did he use the title Duke of Aumale?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: