Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Nudge]

I guess they originally assumed that the children of daughters would have their own titles derived from the princes their mothers married.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Sadly, I could see that happening. I do not trust Charles an inch when he becomes King. He seems hell bent on ensuring it is JUST him, Camilla, William and Catherine and their son and Harry. I would not put it past him to try and get noble titles for Camilla's children down the road when he becomes King.

You to think it about it from a psychological point of view. This whole Princess Consort thing is just a burst of wind. Unless Parliament changes the law, Camilla will be queen when he ascends.

I shudder to think of his siblings, nieces and nephews, their families, his mother's first cousins and their families all shoved to the side out of the way completely when he becomes King.

This is a man, albeit a supportive one, who is very spoiled as we have seen and very much the "victim" in his own mind from letters, interviews, published books, etc. who felt he was wronged in life in many ways. He was jealous of Diana's popularity, and I am sure he is not exactly thrilled about how popular William and Catherine are. While I am sure he loves his family, is tickled pink to be a grandfather, he is just waiting to finally get his own way.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree with the silliness. It makes no sense to remove the gender bias in the succession while retaining it in deciding who qualifies as a royal.

Personally, I think a better system would be to simply declare that Royal Highnesses are those descendants of a Sovereign born prior to the end of His/Her Reign, and their spouses.

It inherently limits the size of the royal family, and has no gender bias.

I don't agree with the idea of limiting the HRH to the children born in the reign of the present monarch e.g. HRH The Duke of Kent would still be HRH but both his sister and brother wouldn't be. The Duke of Gloucester's children also wouldn't be HRH but that would have been both of them.

Personally I believe it should just be the children of the monarch and the children of the heir to the throne and then stop. Any grandchildren of the monarch from the 2nd in line can wait until they are the children of the heir.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sadly, I could see that happening. I do not trust Charles an inch when he becomes King. He seems hell bent on ensuring it is JUST him, Camilla, William and Catherine and their son and Harry. I would not put it past him to try and get noble titles for Camilla's children down the road when he becomes King.

I totally disagree with this. He won't be giving titles to Camilla's children or the Middleton's (William probably will give his father in law a Dukedom but not Charles).

My argument about removing the HRHs from Beatrice and Eugenie is because I think the intention is to only have HRH for the heir's children and thus deny it to Harry's children, his own grandchildren. To do that to Harry would mean asking Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily renounce their titles or remove it - not from nastiness but to restrict HRH's from Harry's children.

You to think it about it from a psychological point of view. This whole Princess Consort thing is just a burst of wind. Unless Parliament changes the law, Camilla will be queen when he ascends.

The POW website continues to have the 'intention' up there and until that is removed there is no justification for thinking that Charles and Camilla actually won't do this. They already know that the PM of the day has said legislation will be required so either they know that that legislation will be brought forward or that there is another way that hasn't been made public.

I shudder to think of his siblings, nieces and nephews, their families, his mother's first cousins and their families all shoved to the side out of the way completely when he becomes King.

Charles isn't a fool and he knows that his siblings and his mother's HRH first cousins have worked for the nation and he won't stop them. As the Kent's are all already in their 70s with the Duke 80 next year and Alexandra the following year he probably won't have to worry too much about them - they will have retired or passed away by the time he becomes King. The Gloucester's are good friends, due to the age difference - Charles is closer in age to Richard than his mother is even though they are different generations.

There has never been any suggestion that he wants to stop his siblings or mother's cousins from continuing their work and those who say otherwise are basing that on their own perception of Charles which says more about them than Charles.

The suggestion has only ever been that Beatrice and Eugenie won't be needed and that hasn't come from Charles either but from a staff member back in the early 90s and never been confirmed by anyone.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I totally disagree with this. He won't be giving titles to Camilla's children or the Middleton's (William probably will give his father in law a Dukedom but not Charles).

My argument about removing the HRHs from Beatrice and Eugenie is because I think the intention is to only have HRH for the heir's children and thus deny it to Harry's children, his own grandchildren. To do that to Harry would mean asking Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily renounce their titles or remove it - not from nastiness but to restrict HRH's from Harry's children.




The POW website continues to have the 'intention' up there and until that is removed there is no justification for thinking that Charles and Camilla actually won't do this. They already know that the PM of the day has said legislation will be required so either they know that that legislation will be brought forward or that there is another way that hasn't been made public.



Charles isn't a fool and he knows that his siblings and his mother's HRH first cousins have worked for the nation and he won't stop them. As the Kent's are all already in their 70s with the Duke 80 next year and Alexandra the following year he probably won't have to worry too much about them - they will have retired or passed away by the time he becomes King. The Gloucester's are good friends, due to the age difference - Charles is closer in age to Richard than his mother is even though they are different generations.

There has never been any suggestion that he wants to stop his siblings or mother's cousins from continuing their work and those who say otherwise are basing that on their own perception of Charles which says more about them than Charles.

The suggestion has only ever been that Beatrice and Eugenie won't be needed and that hasn't come from Charles either but from a staff member back in the early 90s and never been confirmed by anyone.

Oops.. sorry, we forgot, you know everything about royalty.

Moving along.. I look forward to the day I see King William and Queen Catherine.

 

[cepe]

Sadly, I could see that happening. I do not trust Charles an inch when he becomes King. He seems hell bent on ensuring it is JUST him, Camilla, William and Catherine and their son and Harry. I would not put it past him to try and get noble titles for Camilla's children down the road when he becomes King.

You to think it about it from a psychological point of view. This whole Princess Consort thing is just a burst of wind. Unless Parliament changes the law, Camilla will be queen when he ascends.

I shudder to think of his siblings, nieces and nephews, their families, his mother's first cousins and their families all shoved to the side out of the way completely when he becomes King.

This is a man, albeit a supportive one, who is very spoiled as we have seen and very much the "victim" in his own mind from letters, interviews, published books, etc. who felt he was wronged in life in many ways. He was jealous of Diana's popularity, and I am sure he is not exactly thrilled about how popular William and Catherine are. While I am sure he loves his family, is tickled pink to be a grandfather, he is just waiting to finally get his own way.

If you are going to make a statement like that then you need to back it up.

There is no evidence anywhere that I can find to support Charles removing/reducing the existing role of any working members of the BRF. None.

I dont see the removal of any status in the future. Beatrice and Eugenie will keep their HRHs, there will be no titles when they marry and they will become v minor members of the family.

I dont see any titles being given out either, with the exception of Edward becoming Duke of Edinburgh. I toyed with the idea that Anne might like a title in her own right to pass on to Peter but I dropped that fairly quickly.

As for the Middleton's - no title for them either IMO.

 

[Ish]

I doubt Anne would want an inheritable title of her own for Peter to one day have, as the rumour is that at their marriage Mark declined a title, then when Peter was born they declined a title for him. If Anne wanted titles for her children, I think they'd have been shelled out by now.

Bertie, you mentioned the idea that William will create his father-in-law a Duke. I doubt that will go over well if and when it happens.

 

[cepe]

I doubt Anne would want an inheritable title of her own for Peter to one day have, as the rumour is that at their marriage Mark declined a title, then when Peter was born they declined a title for him. If Anne wanted titles for her children, I think they'd have been shelled out by now.

Bertie, you mentioned the idea that William will create his father-in-law a Duke. I doubt that will go over well if and when it happens.

I did say that I didn't think that Anne/Peter would want a title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt Anne would want an inheritable title of her own for Peter to one day have, as the rumour is that at their marriage Mark declined a title, then when Peter was born they declined a title for him. If Anne wanted titles for her children, I think they'd have been shelled out by now.

Bertie, you mentioned the idea that William will create his father-in-law a Duke. I doubt that will go over well if and when it happens.

I agree that it wouldn't go over well but I can see it happening. I do think that William will be convinced by Kate and the rest of the Middleton clan that it is inappropriate for the in-laws of the monarch and future monarchs to not have titles.

 

[Skippyboo]

Mike is almost the same age as Prince Charles. It is quite possible by the time William is King that Mike has passed. IMO, the Middletons have treated William like a son and welcomed him into their close knit family for years and William has returned their love and support. They are not out to snag a title. Their daughter just happen to fall in love with a future King who returned her love.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I think HRH titles should only be given to the monarch's children & grandchildren regardless of gender or gender of parent.

The great grandchildren should be given HH when they turn 25, if the monarch is still alive. If the monarch is not alive then they should be given titles of children of a Duke when they turn 25.

There are very few monarchs that have lived to see great grandchildren. With people marrying later & having children in their 30s, the chances of great-grandchildren who are 25 when their great grandparent is a monarch is very slim.

George should not have received the title of HRH or prince until Charles became king.

 

[Dman]

I don't think Mr & Mrs Middleton are out to get any titles as some would like to think but I think it would be nice if they're given an honorary award at some point down the line.

 

[cepe]

I don't think Mr & Mrs Middleton are out to get any titles as some would like to think but I think it would be nice if they're given an honorary award at some point down the line.

What do you mean by an honorary award?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Although I think it is possible that the Middleton's will get a title when William is King I would in no way support it - if it is just for being George's maternal family. Any honour, whether a title or anything else should be earnt and they haven't done anything all that marvellous to earn one.

 

[Roslyn]

I can't think of any reason the Middletons have done/are likely to do that would warrant the receiving of any honour. If one of them does, fine, but just being Kate's mother or father isn't enough.

The BBC News site says this: "British honours are awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or service" and "They are now awarded for prominent national or regional roles and to those making distinguished or notable contributions in their own specific areas of activity. The honour of an MBE, in particular, can be given for achievement or service in the community."

Perhaps babysitting services will be deemed enough.

 

[Nice Nofret]

.. and IF the Middletons WHERE given a title, it wouldn't be a Dukedom but rather a Knighthood Nowadays only Members of the royal family recieve anything more than that.

Mrs Thatcher got to be a Baroness ... not more

 

[cepe]

The only knighthood that Mike Middleton could possibly get is one that is within the gift of the Monarch. Knight Commander or Knight Grand Cross of the RVO.

But the chances of this happening are very remote and the climate about honours in GB (which is all I know about) would have to change. People are tired of politicians giving their friends honours for no good reason. The honours that the Queen gives directly are not noticed, mainly because the public dont know the people concerned - but they know the Middletons. It would be a mistake IMO to hand out an honour if they have not done anything to earn it - and having a future King as a grandson is not enough.

 

[branchg]

Personally I believe it should just be the children of the monarch and the children of the heir to the throne and then stop. Any grandchildren of the monarch from the 2nd in line can wait until they are the children of the heir.

I agree and this is likely to happen in the future, probably once Charles is King and issues new Letters Patent. Times have changed and I'm sure Harry's future children won't miss it.

 

[branchg]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

Bertie, you mentioned the idea that William will create his father-in-law a Duke. I doubt that will go over well if and when it happens.

There is zero chance of William creating his father-in-law a Duke. It has long been accepted practice the Crown no longer creates any peerages of that degree except for members of the royal family or on advice from the Prime Minister.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The argument could be made that as the in-laws of the King, when William is in that position and certainly as the relatives of George that they are part of the royal family in the future their blood will be in the royal family. 'Accepted practice' isn't a law but just a changed in ideas. As there is no political roles now attached to the creating of peers, after the first generation, it is possible to create a new peer and not ask the PM. Personally I hope it doesn't happen but I can see it happening in the future.

 

[Molly2101]

I have a question if the situation ever arose that the UK became a Republic. Does this mean that the Royal family would lose their "Royal Highness" titles and become simply, "His Grace/Her Grace, the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge/Gloucester/Kent/Edinburgh" etc?

 

[Lumutqueen]

I to also have a question, because of something you mentioned Molly!

When the DOE dies, his title goes to Charles and potentially merges with the crown, Charles then has to regrant it to Edward. However, does that regrant count for Edward alone or does it count for James as well?
Because we're talking about what one day will be the cousin of the King but one who will 99% sure have spent his entire life out of the air of royalty. Or because of the title, will James have to be a part of the lifestyle?

 

[Ish]

That would depend on whether or not the nobility is retained in Britain. I don't believe many other former monarchies-turned-republics continue to recognize any noble titles given under the previous regime, although I think during the Commonwealth period under Cromwell, Britain may have.

Most likely, they would simply become Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss Windsor/Mountbatten/Mountbatten-Windsor depending on their gender, marital status, descent, and preference.

However, there is a belief among royalists that "once a royal, always a royal." Thus, while they might legally simply be "Windsor" they'll continue to be recognized by their royal titles, particularly outside of Britain, similar to other deposed royal families.

 

[Ish]

The Dukedom will one day pass down to James, and then to his children, and so on.

The thing with royal dukedoms is that unless they're granted to the heir or the heir's heir then they're expected to one day cease to be royal. Currently, the heir apparents to the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester are not royals, meaning when the current dukes die they will cease to be royal dukedoms.

This will also happen with the Dukedom of Edinburgh. It will be a royal dukedom under Edward, a quasi-royal dukedom under James (likely he will not receive any CC recognition for his activities), and then will cease to be a royal dukedom at all with James' son. The organizations connected with the dukedom will continue, but will cease to have their royal connections (unless they take on a royal patron, which I could see as being likely).

 

[RoyalDaisy]

I to also have a question, because of something you mentioned Molly!

When the DOE dies, his title goes to Charles and potentially merges with the crown, Charles then has to regrant it to Edward. However, does that regrant count for Edward alone or does it count for James as well?
Because we're talking about what one day will be the cousin of the King but one who will 99% sure have spent his entire life out of the air of royalty. Or because of the title, will James have to be a part of the lifestyle?

The purpose in giving this title to Edward is that is will continue - so James and his heirs will have the title, as will the Kents and Gloucesters (and you couldnt get a more royal dukedom than Gloucester).

It doesnt mean that James or any of the other heirs have to be part of the lifestyle - it is a dukedom. Same with patronages - these families can continue them, but they wont be designated as "royal" (sorry repeating a bit I mentioned on another thread)

This is based on my opinion that James will not use HRH.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I have a question if the situation ever arose that the UK became a Republic. Does this mean that the Royal family would lose their "Royal Highness" titles and become simply, "His Grace/Her Grace, the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge/Gloucester/Kent/Edinburgh" etc?

In royal circles they would continue to be addressed by their royal styles.Many of the former royal houses of Europe (Greece,Romania,Bulgaria,Germany etc) are all addressed as 'Your Majesty,Royal Highnesses'. If Britain was to become a republic,I'm sure the Nobility would also be abolished along with the Royals.

 

[Skippyboo]

There are other places that the Queen is monarch. So if the UK became a republic tomorrow. The Queen is still Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

 

[Ish]

There are other places that the Queen is monarch. So if the UK became a republic tomorrow. The Queen is still Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

The Queen might still be royal and hold titles, but her family won't. The titles that the BRF hold currently are all under British law, only the monarch holds a title in any other realm (although, I suppose you could argue that the wife of a King of Canada would be the Queen of Canada). In order for the DoE, Charles, William, etc, to hold any titles new ones would have to be created, even within the realms that an official royal family is recognized.

Furthermore, there would have to be a serious restructuring of the role of the monarch and royal family in at least one of the realms to accommodate the fact that the family would likely be making a home base within it.

 

[royal-blue]

Are we likely to ever see the husband's of Princesses being given the title of Prince like in Sweden? The titles system in this country is still outdated and sexist to both genders.

 

[VictoriaB]

Are we likely to ever see the husband's of Princesses being given the title of Prince like in Sweden? The titles system in this country is still outdated and sexist to both genders.

Personally I doubt it except for the husband of a Queen Regent or man married to a woman who will become Queen Regent but that is a long, long way into the future. There's no guaratee Britain will still have a monarchy when the eldest child of Prince George marries.

I agree with you that it's sexist - my solution is that women are treated the same as the men and do not take titles.