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 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 24   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: British Royal News 2020.  (Read 41901 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lilyrose

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 90

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 197





Ignore
« Reply #135 on: January 15, 2020, 04:00:35 AM »

Edward is only an Earl. Perhaps QEII was running out of titles, perhaps she found it unnecessary because his issue would be way down the succession anyway.

Edward was given an earldom I think with the understanding that he is going to be Duke of Edinburgh when Philip and the Queen pass (because when Philip dies, it goes to Charles as the oldest son and even if Charles passed it up, it would go to William and even if he abdicated to George, I'm not sure a child can assent to abdicating a child and even if George could, certainly Louis cannot and even if Charles and his five male descendants were all capable of passing it off, I can easliy see Andrew being petty about it; but when the Queen dies, Charles' lower titles revert back to the Crown and he will be free to give the dukedom to Edward without having to get his two infant grandsons to assent to abdicating the title  Laugh bounce)

What I'm interested in is how Louise and James will be styled when/if Edward finally becomes Duke of Edinburgh--stay the same (well, James' title might get an upgrade) or will Charles/William want to include them in the slimmed down monarchy once they realize how 15 people is going to quickly become 4-6 in the next 15 years and be Princess Louise and Prince James.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 837

Offline Offline

Posts: 3376





Ignore
« Reply #136 on: January 15, 2020, 04:28:24 AM »

You can not abdicate a peerage.  What you can do is disclaim a peerage within one year of inheritance...that peerage then goes into a sort suspended animation until your death at which title your heir inherited a the peerage.  Peerage ms can only be passed down by the death of the holder. 

Since 1999 (if not before) the plan has been that once both Philip and The Queen have died Charles will recreated the dukedom for Edward.   As when Charles becomes monarch all of his titles merge with the crown and therefore sort of cease to exist...well the heir stuff is different but thatís not the subject of this discussion.  Once Edward is a The Duke of Edinburgh as his heir James will be Earl of Wessex (no The).  The probability of James and Louise ever using HRH Prince/Princess is basically zero...regardless of where you land in the ďare they even still eligibleĒ debate.  Also they will never be working royals...just like the York girl will never be working royals.  The BRF does not actually need a giant workforce and would get on just fine with just the current and future monarchs plus spouses working.  It would be different but different can be a good thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.or...1963#Disclaiming_peerages
Logged
SQ

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 125

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 384





Ignore
« Reply #137 on: January 15, 2020, 04:56:43 AM »

In the UK parliament has to pass legislation to remove a title.

A peer can refuse a title (can't think of the correct term) but only in the first year after gaining the title. That law was past in 1963.

The Titles Deprivation Act also only removed the title from the holders. It allowed male line descendants to reclaim the title if they want to do so (and over 100 years later they haven't but they still can). They weren't removed from the line of succession either.

The interesting title change to me is what happened in 1936. Edward VIII abdicated but when the BBC were going to introduce him to the public for his speech they indicated they were going to use Mr Edward Windsor but George VI said 'no, he will always be the son of the monarch and thus HRH The Prince Edward'.

I know the Queen issued the LPs to remove HRH from divorced wives but the 1917 LPs didn't deal with that possibility (didn't actually deal with non HRH wives marrying into the family either - that was done by George V simply saying that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon would become HRH The Duchess of York on marriage to HRH The Duke of York. Had George V said 'no HRH' at that time than none of the wives, other than Marina, would have been HRH. Marina was born HRH in her own right. Diana would thus have been Lady Diana, Princess of Wales - Lady in her own right and Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. Sarah, Catherine and Meghan would have all had just a title as they had no honorific so no HRH and just the titles.

Luvcharles, I don't know if you've heard about this but I read in another forum that George VI also didn't want Edward to be Mr. Edward Windsor because then he could be eligible to run and be a member of the House of Commons. Taking his hrh and just being Duke of Windsor would qualify him to sit in the House of Lords. So they went with HRH Duke of Windsor.
Logged
Lady Alice

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

Reputation: 1857

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5321





Ignore
« Reply #138 on: January 15, 2020, 05:25:28 AM »

In the UK parliament has to pass legislation to remove a title.

A peer can refuse a title (can't think of the correct term) but only in the first year after gaining the title. That law was past in 1963.

The Titles Deprivation Act also only removed the title from the holders. It allowed male line descendants to reclaim the title if they want to do so (and over 100 years later they haven't but they still can). They weren't removed from the line of succession either.

The interesting title change to me is what happened in 1936. Edward VIII abdicated but when the BBC were going to introduce him to the public for his speech they indicated they were going to use Mr Edward Windsor but George VI said 'no, he will always be the son of the monarch and thus HRH The Prince Edward'.

I know the Queen issued the LPs to remove HRH from divorced wives but the 1917 LPs didn't deal with that possibility (didn't actually deal with non HRH wives marrying into the family either - that was done by George V simply saying that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon would become HRH The Duchess of York on marriage to HRH The Duke of York. Had George V said 'no HRH' at that time than none of the wives, other than Marina, would have been HRH. Marina was born HRH in her own right. Diana would thus have been Lady Diana, Princess of Wales - Lady in her own right and Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. Sarah, Catherine and Meghan would have all had just a title as they had no honorific so no HRH and just the titles.

Luvcharles, I don't know if you've heard about this but I read in another forum that George VI also didn't want Edward to be Mr. Edward Windsor because then he could be eligible to run and be a member of the House of Commons. Taking his hrh and just being Duke of Windsor would qualify him to sit in the House of Lords. So they went with HRH Duke of Windsor.

The House of Lords aspect is moot now, after the restructuring thing done what, 20 years ago now?

I think it'd be a real kick if he were to just be HRH The Prince Henry, and M would HAVE to go by HRH Princess Henry (cold day in hell before she'll ever be called Princess Meghan by LP). It's really hard to mooch... er, merch that.
Logged

Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1285

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3776





Ignore
« Reply #139 on: January 15, 2020, 06:50:52 AM »


Error.
Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 871

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2444





Ignore
« Reply #140 on: January 15, 2020, 07:59:37 AM »

In the UK parliament has to pass legislation to remove a title.

A peer can refuse a title (can't think of the correct term) but only in the first year after gaining the title. That law was past in 1963.

The Titles Deprivation Act also only removed the title from the holders. It allowed male line descendants to reclaim the title if they want to do so (and over 100 years later they haven't but they still can). They weren't removed from the line of succession either.

The interesting title change to me is what happened in 1936. Edward VIII abdicated but when the BBC were going to introduce him to the public for his speech they indicated they were going to use Mr Edward Windsor but George VI said 'no, he will always be the son of the monarch and thus HRH The Prince Edward'.

I know the Queen issued the LPs to remove HRH from divorced wives but the 1917 LPs didn't deal with that possibility (didn't actually deal with non HRH wives marrying into the family either - that was done by George V simply saying that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon would become HRH The Duchess of York on marriage to HRH The Duke of York. Had George V said 'no HRH' at that time than none of the wives, other than Marina, would have been HRH. Marina was born HRH in her own right. Diana would thus have been Lady Diana, Princess of Wales - Lady in her own right and Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. Sarah, Catherine and Meghan would have all had just a title as they had no honorific so no HRH and just the titles.

Luvcharles, I don't know if you've heard about this but I read in another forum that George VI also didn't want Edward to be Mr. Edward Windsor because then he could be eligible to run and be a member of the House of Commons. Taking his hrh and just being Duke of Windsor would qualify him to sit in the House of Lords. So they went with HRH Duke of Windsor.

As an HRH he could sit in the House of Commons so giving him a peerage, Duke of Windsor, made him only eligible for the House of Lords. They did fear that he might stand for election for the House of Commons - or even start his own political party.

Logged
Pomme

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1106

Offline Offline

Netherlands Netherlands

Posts: 2782


Mary who?




Ignore
« Reply #141 on: January 15, 2020, 08:31:19 AM »

 Star  all round for your interesting contributions! Star
Logged

Talk to the hair, you slitherin' Skank
http://i.imgur.com/2mUIe.jpg
SvenskaSarah

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 226

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 805





Ignore
« Reply #142 on: January 16, 2020, 06:16:50 PM »

In the UK parliament has to pass legislation to remove a title.

A peer can refuse a title (can't think of the correct term) but only in the first year after gaining the title. That law was past in 1963.

The Titles Deprivation Act also only removed the title from the holders. It allowed male line descendants to reclaim the title if they want to do so (and over 100 years later they haven't but they still can). They weren't removed from the line of succession either.

The interesting title change to me is what happened in 1936. Edward VIII abdicated but when the BBC were going to introduce him to the public for his speech they indicated they were going to use Mr Edward Windsor but George VI said 'no, he will always be the son of the monarch and thus HRH The Prince Edward'.

I know the Queen issued the LPs to remove HRH from divorced wives but the 1917 LPs didn't deal with that possibility (didn't actually deal with non HRH wives marrying into the family either - that was done by George V simply saying that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon would become HRH The Duchess of York on marriage to HRH The Duke of York. Had George V said 'no HRH' at that time than none of the wives, other than Marina, would have been HRH. Marina was born HRH in her own right. Diana would thus have been Lady Diana, Princess of Wales - Lady in her own right and Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. Sarah, Catherine and Meghan would have all had just a title as they had no honorific so no HRH and just the titles.

Luvcharles, I don't know if you've heard about this but I read in another forum that George VI also didn't want Edward to be Mr. Edward Windsor because then he could be eligible to run and be a member of the House of Commons. Taking his hrh and just being Duke of Windsor would qualify him to sit in the House of Lords. So they went with HRH Duke of Windsor.

As an HRH he could sit in the House of Commons so giving him a peerage, Duke of Windsor, made him only eligible for the House of Lords. They did fear that he might stand for election for the House of Commons - or even start his own political party.




Which I imagine was a great threat considering his association with various nazis and his support of that party.
Logged
Paulina

Warned
Large Member
******

Reputation: 454

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1577





Ignore
« Reply #143 on: January 17, 2020, 01:01:26 AM »

Does Princess Anne have her own thread?

Here she is, getting on with things, not glamorous.

https://www.dailymail.co....land.html#reader-comments
Logged
Lady Liebe

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 401

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2259


Harlequin




Ignore
« Reply #144 on: January 17, 2020, 01:06:56 AM »

Does Princess Anne have her own thread?

Here she is, getting on with things, not glamorous.

https://www.dailymail.co....land.html#reader-comments

Yes she does. Time to bump it back up. I'll quote this over on her thread.
Logged

Do what you can, where you are, with what youíve got.   Teddy Roosevelt
CurleySharon

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 3

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 16





Ignore
« Reply #145 on: January 17, 2020, 01:27:34 PM »

Infanta Cristina of Spain was deprived of her dukedom title but she will be an infanta as long as she wants. I don't know about other royal houses.

AFAIK, her dukedom was revoked because the people of Palma were going to ask for it to be taken away.
Logged
CurleySharon

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 3

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 16





Ignore
« Reply #146 on: January 17, 2020, 01:30:42 PM »

In the UK parliament has to pass legislation to remove a title.

A peer can refuse a title (can't think of the correct term) but only in the first year after gaining the title. That law was past in 1963.

The Titles Deprivation Act also only removed the title from the holders. It allowed male line descendants to reclaim the title if they want to do so (and over 100 years later they haven't but they still can). They weren't removed from the line of succession either.

The interesting title change to me is what happened in 1936. Edward VIII abdicated but when the BBC were going to introduce him to the public for his speech they indicated they were going to use Mr Edward Windsor but George VI said 'no, he will always be the son of the monarch and thus HRH The Prince Edward'.

I know the Queen issued the LPs to remove HRH from divorced wives but the 1917 LPs didn't deal with that possibility (didn't actually deal with non HRH wives marrying into the family either - that was done by George V simply saying that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon would become HRH The Duchess of York on marriage to HRH The Duke of York. Had George V said 'no HRH' at that time than none of the wives, other than Marina, would have been HRH. Marina was born HRH in her own right. Diana would thus have been Lady Diana, Princess of Wales - Lady in her own right and Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. Sarah, Catherine and Meghan would have all had just a title as they had no honorific so no HRH and just the titles.

Why does it take an act of parliament to remove a title when it does not need one to grant a title ?
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 837

Offline Offline

Posts: 3376





Ignore
« Reply #147 on: January 17, 2020, 01:38:13 PM »

Because thatís how it works in the UK.  You canít compare whatís been done in other countries but what the history and process is it the UK. 

Please look up the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act for the example of UK titles being removed. 
Logged
CurleySharon

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 3

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 16





Ignore
« Reply #148 on: January 17, 2020, 01:38:36 PM »

Am I right in thinking that James and Louise are still technically and legally HRH Prince and Princess in the same way as Camilla is Princess of Wales?
Just because they have chosen not to use their titles does that require an act of parliament too ?

Also, should there have been an Act of Parliament to deprive the Earl of Dumbarton of his title ?

Thanks in advance.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 837

Offline Offline

Posts: 3376





Ignore
« Reply #149 on: January 17, 2020, 01:47:12 PM »

Please research the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act.  There you will see the yes a similar act would indeed cover the heirs to titles being removed by the new act.

For James, Louise, and Camilla’s stuff that was all done by choice.  Camilla’s choice to avoid public outrage if she used HRH The Princess of Wales.   The Wessex parents choice to read the writing on the wall and make it very clear that their kids would be raised to be independent. 

Parliament only gets involved for the removal of peerages nothing else.  The Queen can make changes to HRH Prince/Princess as she sees fit by either issuing new Letters Patent or simply letting her royal will be know. 

I know this is confusing, especially with the press screaming "take their titles", but sadly when you look at the process and history in the UK you quickly learn that it's a complicated process and therefore removal of peerages seems unlikely at this time...parliament is a bit busy right now. 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 02:09:20 PM by Oh_Caroline » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 24   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: