Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Roslyn]

Wow! This is exactly my point - an exponentially convoluted sticky mess. Everything in life cannot be politically correct. Although this is a lighthearted subject, political correctness is beginning to degrade society into utter chaos. :/

The fact a situation may be, as you describe it, "an exponentially convoluted sticky mess", is not sufficent reason to not try to remedy it.

The present system is based on blatant sex discrimination, and in my opinion an effort should be made to correct that imbalance, and I do not consider it to be a lighthearted subject. In my opinion this is a serious and important issue that should not be belittled by assigning to discussions on how it may be rectified the disparaging term "political correctness".

 

[hernameispekka]

The fact a situation may be, as you describe it, "an exponentially convoluted sticky mess", is not sufficent reason to not try to remedy it.

The present system is based on blatant sex discrimination, and in my opinion an effort should be made to correct that imbalance, and I do not consider it to be a lighthearted subject. In my opinion this is a serious and important issue that should not be belittled by assigning to discussions on how it may be rectified the disparaging term "political correctness".

I agree. That stuff will be a bit uncomfortable for a while is no reason not to do it. It always is when change is implemented. After a while it just becomes the new normal. It's not like the titles are simple now anyways.

 

[padams2359]

What about adopted children of peers? This has also been an issue of titles moving on to others even though the first child was a male.

 

[Skippyboo]

Or children born out of wedlock?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Roslyn]

Illegitimate children and adopted children still cannot inherit substantive titles, although, in a Royal Warrant dated 30 April 2004, HM was graciously pleased to ordain and declare that adopted children could thenceforth use "such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of the Realm". So, yes, the system is rife with discrimination: as to gender, legitimacy, and status.

Even the Succession to Peerages Bill does not seek to give inheritance rights to illegitimate or adopted children, only to women and those who claim through women, and only permits women to take if there are no available men.

That Bill had its second reading on 15 September. I commend it to anyone with an interest in the subject. Lords Hansard text for*11 Sep 2015 (pt 0001), commencing 12.21pm. Lots of interesting submissions. For example, Human Rights lawyer Lord Pannick said:

"The only area of public life that I am aware of that retains institutional discrimination against women is the hereditary peerage. I can think of only one argument in favour of such prejudice: that the hereditary peerage is so absurd and anachronistic an institution—why on earth should a person’s status depend on that of his or her father—that we cannot expect to apply basic principles of fairness in that context. But that will not do. The peerage is not a private club. Indeed, 92 hereditary Peers, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is a distinguished example, sit in this House helping to make the laws of the land. The peerage cannot claim to be exempt from the basic principles of fairness that govern the rest of our society."

No mention of adopted children, so it seems blood is still more important than fairness, and only if it is contained within a person born in wedlock, not even one who is legitimised by their parents' subsequent marriage!

Lord Fellowes of West Stafford (Julian Fellowes) spoke about his wife's particular interest in the subject.

The Earl of Clancarty observed: "There are those who say, “But what about the expectations of young men?”—to which the reply is, “What about the expectations of women?”. In contemporary times this cuts both ways. The hopes of young women are as valid as the hopes of young men. The previous Government said that this change would be,

“far more complicated to implement fairly".

"The answer to that is clear. If the Government can sort this out for the Royal Family, with all the international complications involved, a simple, effective Bill can do the same for the other titles which the Crown owns and has responsibility for."

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charlotte though will be eligible to hold a title that is totally unique to her in her generation - Princess Royal (assuming William is King). No other woman can hold it and there will be no one in the next generation as Charles only has daughters.


She could still be given an hereditary title in her own right of course but only if other woman are able to inherit their father's titles - in my opinion.

 

[Roslyn]

Charlotte could certainly be given a hereditary title in her own right. It depends on the words of limitation used in the Letters Patent. Perhaps if she were given one, that would provide impetus for a move towards legislation to enabling all women who are the first born and who, if they were male, would have taken the title that currently would go to a younger son, or more remote male relative.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if, by the time Charlotte is an adult, there have already been changes along those lines.

Or, preferably (IMO), removing hereditary peerages completely.

 

[VictoriaB]

Or, preferably (IMO), removing hereditary peerages completely.

This I agree with.

I have no problem with anyone who performs outstanding service to their country being honoured in some way. The problem with hereditary peerages is that those who are currently having the privileges and benefits of the title have done nothing to earn them. They are living on the deeds of their ancestors.

My preference would be for an elected second chamber but if we have to have peerages then make it life peerages (with no honorary title for the spouse) so that the person who is honoured has earned the honour rather than through accident of birth.

 

[Roslyn]

This is the reason I think they should be abolished. And the hereditary element of baronetcies can go, too, for the same reason.

Here's one of those peers who is living on the deeds of his ancestors: G'bye Pommies - Telegraph He has all the qualities that we expect in the upper echelons of society. Isn't he just the sort of outstanding fellow who should be an earl? (Though part of me thinks it's absolutely delicious that he is. )

 

[NotHRH]

The fact a situation may be, as you describe it, "an exponentially convoluted sticky mess", is not sufficent reason to not try to remedy it.

The present system is based on blatant sex discrimination, and in my opinion an effort should be made to correct that imbalance, and I do not consider it to be a lighthearted subject. In my opinion this is a serious and important issue that should not be belittled by assigning to discussions on how it may be rectified the disparaging term "political correctness".

I respect your opinion but I do not agree with it. HM King Philippe of Belgium has rectified the "exponentially convoluted sticky mess" that had some serious long-term consequences - there would have been way too many HRH Prince/ss of Belgium according to the wishes of his father HM King Albert II. I guess laws were made, according to the wishes of KAI I, that all of his descendants would be HRH Prince/Princess of Belgium. Wow - he must have a serious inflated ego. People say Philippe is goofy - but he made a very intelligent decision concerning this matter. Kudos to him for being wise enough to look into the near future and see the convoluted mess that would eventually present itself.

 

[EllieCat]

I wonder that King George never made his daughter (now Elizabeth II) Princess of Wales, as the heir of a monarch. Certainly when he first became King she was too young and there was a possibility of another child being born to K George (Bertie) and Q Elizabeth; at that time a boy would have superseded his sister. But as the years went on and Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret became adults, why did Princess Elizabeth not become Princess of Wales? I don't recall reading anything about this anywhere.

 

[Roslyn]

I suspect it never entered Elizabeth's father's mind.

 

[Ish]

I wonder that King George never made his daughter (now Elizabeth II) Princess of Wales, as the heir of a monarch. Certainly when he first became King she was too young and there was a possibility of another child being born to K George (Bertie) and Q Elizabeth; at that time a boy would have superseded his sister. But as the years went on and Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret became adults, why did Princess Elizabeth not become Princess of Wales? I don't recall reading anything about this anywhere.

It was discussed but ultimately the King decided against it because the title Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales, and not a substantial title in its own right.

I'm fairly certain that it was accepted that Elizabeth would become Queen, and that there would be no male heir - or any further children for that matter. Elizabeth was 10 when her father became King, Margaret 6. I believe both were born via Caesarian, so I wouldn't be surprised if after Margaret's birth they tried to not have further children.

 

[Roslyn]

It was discussed but ultimately the King decided against it because the title Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales, and not a substantial title in its own right.

I'm surprised that it was even discussed, for the very reason that Princess of Wales is a courtesy title for the PoW's wife. Do you have a reference for those discussions, Ish? I'd like to know when they took place, and with whom. Though unlikely, it was always possible that Queen Elizabeth would die and George would marry again and have a son.

 

[Curryong]

There may well have been a chance, if only a minute one, that the Queen could have become pregnant again and given birth to a boy after Margaret in spite of the difficulties in giving birth. That minuscule chance remained right up until the king's death, didn't it, as far as we know?

Anyway, surely, as Elizabeth was a princess by birth, giving her a courtesy title such as Princess of Wales (which would be of a lower 'status') wouldn't make sense. Also, when she married her husband could hardly have become Prince of Wales!

 

[Roslyn]

I should know better than to comment before checking around a bit, including in my own books. Sir Alan Lascelles' (Private Secretary to King George VI at the time) diaries of 1943 and 1944 mention the issue in some detail, and so does the BBC. BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Royal plans to beat nationalism There was considerable discussion about it in the press and amongst politicians coming up to Princess Elizabeth's 18th birthday. I can't pinpoint whether it was Welsh nationalism that precipitated consideration of the issue, but it seems it may have been, and thus Elizabeth was being considered as a handy political pawn.

Lascelles' view was that constitutionally the remote contingencies, of the King & Queen having a son or the Queen dying and the King remarrying and having a son, could not be rejected as negligible, and on 27 September 1943 he informed The Times' editor, Robin Barrington-Ward, that, should there be a serious demand for making Elizabeth Princess of Wales, he would be safe in reminding his readers that she was, after all, only Heiress Presumptive, not Apparent, and to let them draw their own conclusions.

Lascelles commented on the issue further on 8 January 1944 in connection with correspondence received on the subject, and which he sent on to the King. He thought there would be a lot of talk about it in the following four months and expected it to be brought up in the House of Commons, the Commons having the right to approach the Sovereign on the subject, citing the example of the petition by them to Edward III in 1376 to make Richard of Bordeaux Prince of Wales. On 13.1.44, Their Majesties consented to Lascelles writing to the Lord Chancellor to draft a press announcement that the King did not propose to change Princess Elizabeth's style and title for the present. There had apparently been a "spate" of "press comment and general chatter" on the subject and Lascelles thought it a good idea to nip it in the bud.

As an aside, I find it interesting that at this point Lascelles noted, "It is so much easier to do this before the waters have started to rise than to bury your head in the sand, and trust that the flood won't incommode you, which is the usual technique of the Royal Family in the face of such threatened agitations".

On 27th January Cabinet was discussing the matter and came to the conclusion that if anyone was going to make an announcement on the subject if should be the Home Office, not Buckingham Palace. Lascelles did not care which one did it, noting "my motive throughout is to get somebody to make some decision before an undignified controversy erupts in Parliament and Press. But I suspect that some of the Cabinet rather favour her being made Princess of Wales - possibly the PM himself, whose pictorial imagination is no doubt fired by a vision of Princess Elizabeth looking charming on the steps of Carnarvon Castle, and blushingly acknowledging the loyal acclamations of a pan-Welsh Eisteddfod. That, of course, is all very nice; but I doubt if any of them have really thought out the full implications of such a step - particularly what I described in a letter to John Martin (Lord Chancellor) as the physiological contingencies".

On 2nd February Lascelles described events at a luncheon that day, and noted that Churchill had dissuaded the King from making any definite pronouncement to the effect he didn't propose to change Elizabeth's title, preferring to leave it to Brendan Bracken (Minister for Information) to "damp down" any Press publicity about it. Lascelles was disappointed, calling it a reversion to "ostrich" tactics, "which won't stop the Welsh going on being troublesome, nor private individuals from writing foolish letters". Making Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales was very appealing to some politicians as "bait to catch Welsh votes".

It is noteworthy that that evening Lascelles joined the King for dinner with the PM, three Chiefs of Staff, General Eisenhower, Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, General Omar Bradley, and Field-Marshall Montgomery. There were, after all, a few other things going on in Europe at the time, particularly plans for something that would eventually take place on the 6th June!

9th February 1944 Cabinet discussed the announcement to be made about Elizabeth and it was agreed it would be made from BP, not No. 10, and on 10th February Cabinet "made no bones about the Princess Elizabeth announcement (that there be no change), and, having cabled it to the four Governors-General, I hope to get the wretched thing published here on Saturday", which it was.

 

[EllieCat]

Re Princess Elizabeth and The Princess of Wales title.

Thanks, Ish and Roslyn, especially Roslyn for the detailed reply which was very interesting indeed. Titles and Styles can be so tricky...

 

[Ish]

Roslyn, just to add to your comments Wikipedia references Ben Pimlott's biography of the Queen on the issue and does link it to Welsh nationalism; essentially during the war there was a rising in Welsh nationalism resulting in a desire to more closely affiliate her with Wales - initially it was suggested that she become Constable of Caernarfon Castle of patron of Udd Gobaith Cymru, then it was suggested she become Princess of Wales by Welsh politicians on her 18th birthday (at which point her father would have been 49, her mother 44), but it was rejected.

 

[Roslyn]

Thanks for that, Ish. It's quite an interesting subject, which so many historical decisions are when you look into them and consider them in conjunction with what else was happening in society at the time. So many factors can be in play and influence decisions, and those factors vary with the circumstances.

Anyway, surely, as Elizabeth was a princess by birth, giving her a courtesy title such as Princess of Wales (which would be of a lower 'status') wouldn't make sense. Also, when she married her husband could hardly have become Prince of Wales!

But Princess of Wales is only a courtesy title in the hands of the wife of the Prince of Wales. The proposal under consideration was to make Elizabeth the female equivalent of Prince of Wales, as a substantive title. Her husband didn't become a prince by reason of marrying her, but because he was created one, and that wasn't until 1957, and he certainly didn't become King when she became Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Going on the precedence established by Princess Alexandra - the last princess who was also the granddaughter of a monarch to marry - there would be no title for either of the husband's of Beatrice or Eugenie. Alexandra's husband wasn't given a title when they married.


Since then Anne, the daughter of a monarch, has married twice with neither husband being given a title, although there were reports that Mark was offered a title which he and/or Anne turned down.


The Duke of York title won't merge with the Crown, unless Andrew ends up as king. It will become extinct on his death unless there is either a change in the legislation to allow for daughters to inherit titles or for the Queen to issue new LPs to allow for female heirs to be able to inherit when there are no male heirs.

 

[miss whirley]

Going on the precedence established by Princess Alexandra - the last princess who was also the granddaughter of a monarch to marry - there would be no title for either of the husband's of Beatrice or Eugenie. Alexandra's husband wasn't given a title when they married.


Since then Anne, the daughter of a monarch, has married twice with neither husband being given a title, although there were reports that Mark was offered a title which he and/or Anne turned down.


The Duke of York title won't merge with the Crown, unless Andrew ends up as king. It will become extinct on his death unless there is either a change in the legislation to allow for daughters to inherit titles or for the Queen to issue new LPs to allow for female heirs to be able to inherit when there are no male heirs.

I can't see this happening, at least during the timeframe that would affect Beatrice. Do you see a different likelihood?

 

[Rudolph]

The Duke of York title will go extinct. Parliament won't change the remainder and no new title will be issued.

Even the Cambridge dukedom just issued in the 'progressive' year of 2011 stated 'heirs male' only. No girls allowed.

As for Dave himself getting a title when he marries Bea, not going to happen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I can't see this happening, at least during the timeframe that would affect Beatrice. Do you see a different likelihood?

I can see a change in the legislation to make all titles gender blind - which would allow Beatrice to inherit her father's title. Andrew is only 55 and given the longevity of his parents a good chance to live for another 30+ years. That therefore could happen within the timeframe to make it relevant to Beatrice. The issue comes up every so often and, I suspect will continue to do so, until either the daughters who are passed over for younger brothers get the legislation changed, as it has already changed for the monarchy itself, or the entire system of titles is abolished.

Would the Queen issue new LPs? Personally I don't think so but then again Andrew is reportedly her favourite child and maybe he can convince her to issue those LPs - say as a wedding gift for Beatrice

 

[Skippyboo]

If you change it for Bea and then wouldn't you have to change it for Louise so she not her brother inherits her father title.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

Changes to the Succession is different from peerages. Succession has always been governed by parliament. Honours have always been the prerogative of the Sovereign.

There's never been anything to stop the Queen creating peerages with the remainder of 'heirs of the body' or even 'heirs general' as opposed to 'heirs male'

William's dukedom was 'heirs male' even with the proposed changes to the Act of Succession. The Prime Minister didn't force her to do otherwise.

If parliament were to force all existing remainders to peerages to be altered, it would be an extraordinary thing. Personally I don't see it happening.

 

[miss whirley]

If you change it for Bea and then wouldn't you have to change it for Louise so she not her brother inherits her father title.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

That's a very good point. It wouldn't be fair to Louise.

 

[Roslyn]

If you change it for Bea and then wouldn't you have to change it for Louise so she not her brother inherits her father title.

If the "Succession to Peerages Bill" currently before Parliament were to pass through both Houses and become law, males would still have priority as, within each group of siblings, males in order of birth and their issue succeed before females. So James would still take Wessex and Louise would only inherit if James predeceased her without issue. In the case of Beatrice and Eugenie, they are both girls so that provision is not relevant; Beatrice would inherit, provided Andrew does not remarry and have a son.

 

[Skippyboo]

Well that isn't fair either. If you are going to change, make it gender neutral and oldest inherits like they did for the succession.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[miss whirley]

That's silly. If they're going to change it from the "salic law" model, they might as well make it equal primogeniture. What's the point of a half-ass, male-cognatic model. By changing the current system you're acknowledging that there is discrimination, and yet you're not giving it a fair solution. At least by supporting the current system you can defend it on the basis of history and tradition. It should be all or nothing.

 

[Rudolph]

As of today there is no act governing the remainder of peerages. Nothing is to stop the Queen from creating a title with whatever remainder she likes.

Honours have always been granted by royal prerogative. Once a peerage has been created, it can only be altered by parliament but this is different from the creating of a title.