Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[Denville]

This. I personally see no need to create anymore hereditary peers. It is nothing personal but it just isn't the way the world is going. And no I don't think Archie should continue his father's title and don't think Charlotte or Louis should pass any dukedoms etc they get on to any children of theirs.

well there is nothing that can be done about the existing peerages. Harrys son will inherit the title Duke of Sussex and his son will inherit it unless all peerages are taken away and people are forbidden to use them

 

[FigTree]

well there is nothing that can be done about the existing peerages. Harrys son will inherit the title Duke of Sussex and his son will inherit it unless all peerages are taken away and people are forbidden to use them

Course there is. Royal peers are life long. Done in one swoop. I doubt any of the ones affected...Kent or Gloucester will care. Harry might. Or they turn to Earldoms after first generation. Which may be a nicer thing to do.

 

[Denville]

Course there is. Royal peers are life long. Done in one swoop. I doubt any of the ones affected...Kent or Gloucester will care. Harry might. Or they turn to Earldoms after first generation. Which may be a nicer thing to do.

so you're recommending that the current set of royal peers have their peerages taken away? I dont think you could do that without removing all peerages. It woudl have to be done by parliament as the laws of succession are legal restrictions......

 

[FigTree]

so you're recommending that the current set of royal peers have their peerages taken away? I dont think you could do that without removing all peerages. It woudl have to be done by parliament as the laws of succession are legal restrictions......

The only thing constant in life is change. And anything that stands still is done for.

They will have to make changes. How they do it is their own business. But we all know things don't stay the same. There is no appetite to keep passing royal Dukedoms down. I am sure the reformation act to the house of Lords was a hugh issue over 20 years ago. But no one doubts it was necessary.

 

[Denville]

The only thing constant in life is change. And anything that stands still is done for.

They will have to make changes. How they do it is their own business. But we all know things don't stay the same. There is no appetite to keep passing royal Dukedoms down. I am sure the reformation act to the house of Lords was a hugh issue over 20 years ago. But no one doubts it was necessary.

that was to remove peers from the legislative process, and it ended up as a compromise. This is to remove peers from the Britiish nation completely and I doubt if the govt wants to get involved with this given that there a lot more urgent crises to deal with.

 

[FigTree]

that was to remove peers from the legislative process, and it ended up as a compromise. This is to remove peers from the Britiish nation completely and I doubt if the govt wants to get involved with this given that there a lot more urgent crises to deal with.

What who said that? Just make the royals life long Peers. They aren't like the rest anyway. In that until Kent and Gloucester's sons are due to inherit one won't have been passed down in the family since Fife maybe. Long time. But it would now be speeding up, and daughters must be afforded the same as sons, so yes I think they should do something.

 

[Denville]

What who said that? Just make the royals life long Peers. They aren't like the rest anyway. In that until Kent and Gloucester's sons are due to inherit one won't have been passed down in the family since Fife maybe. Long time. But it would now be speeding up, and daughters must be afforded the same as sons, so yes I think they should do something.

You cant just change the sucession like that.

 

[FigTree]

You cant just change the sucession like that.

Well they've changed a lot lately without ever passing any ammendments. Things are always impossible until they aren't.

 

[Denville]

Well they've changed a lot lately without ever passing any ammendments. Things are always impossible until they aren't.

Im not a lawyer but when a peerage is granted it has the succession rules built into it. If it is an hereditary peerage then it goes to the male heir born in wedlock...(very occasionally there can be a female heir).
you cant make someone's hereditary peerage into a life peerage just like that - as far as I know - unless you pass a law getting rid of all hereditary peerages. and given the queen's conservative nature, I cannot imagien her ever being happy with such a thing.

 

[Somebody]

What who said that? Just make the royals life long Peers. They aren't like the rest anyway. In that until Kent and Gloucester's sons are due to inherit one won't have been passed down in the family since Fife maybe. Long time. But it would now be speeding up, and daughters must be afforded the same as sons, so yes I think they should do something.

You seem to forget that the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are the SECOMD dukes of this creation. It has been passed down from theur father.

In addition, there is no real difference between a royal dukedom and a non-royal dukedom (except for Lancaster, Cornwall and Rothesay that are tight to a position and not to a person). The only difference is whether the holder happens to be a royal highness or not. In the latter case they will be His/Her Grace instead.

As Denville and others pointed out, each peerage was given with specific instructions on how it will be passed down, so it would be most illogical, unfair and legally complicated to make changes to some and not the others. Moreover, their heirs have been using subsidiary titles, so it has been part of their lives too.

 

[FigTree]

You seem to forget that the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are the SECOMD dukes of this creation. It has been passed down from theur father.

In addition, there is no real difference between a royal dukedom and a non-royal dukedom (except for Lancaster, Cornwall and Rothesay that are tight to a position and not to a person). The only difference is whether the holder happens to be a royal highness or not. In the latter case they will be His/Her Grace instead.

As Denville and others pointed out, each peerage was given with specific instructions on how it will be passed down, so it would be most illogical, unfair and legally complicated to make changes to some and not the others. Moreover, their heirs have been using subsidiary titles, so it has been part of their lives too.

I didn't but they are working royals and were born with the title Prince. But that isn't going to be the case anymore. Well if they can't change it from now they can start with any Dukedoms given to Louis and Charlotte then. Make it a life peerage.

Sooner or later change will come whether they start today or 20/30 years time.

 

[Denville]

I didn't but they are working royals and were born with the title Prince. But that isn't going to be the case anymore. Well if they can't change it from now they can start with any Dukedoms given to Louis and Charlotte then. Make it a life peerage.

Sooner or later change will come whether they start today or 20/30 years time.

why do you feel the need for a change? Its not going to add greatly to the number of peers if a couple are added every reign. And Britain still has a large number of peers, they are not going to be done away with, unless the monarchy is ended.

 

[FigTree]

why do you feel the need for a change? Its not going to add greatly to the number of peers if a couple are added every reign. And Britain still has a large number of peers, they are not going to be done away with, unless the monarchy is ended.

Everything needs to evolve and move on. I think it's outdated and that we really don't need to add to the total of 24 Dukes or whatever we have any longer.

 

[Denville]

Everything needs to evolve and move on. I think it's outdated and that we really don't need to add to the total of 24 Dukes or whatever we have any longer.

if it is outdated then so is the monarchy and the peerage.

 

[FigTree]

if it is outdated then so is the monarchy and the peerage.

Slimming down and taking a more modern view of appointing life peerages to royals is in no way suggesting payouts should get rid of them but of course it's an outdated concept. No-one would create a monarchy or peers today but it's a link to our past and all our communal heritage. But they like everything have to adapt to live in a modern world. So that that link to the communal past continues to the present and future to represent the time in which it inhabits.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Queen has stopped granting hereditary peerages to subjects who are not princes of the blood royal and sons to a (future) Sovereign.

The most simple reason is that for decades succesive Governments have not recommended anyone. In theory, as Fons Honorum, the Queen is free to create peers to her royal wish and command. In practice the Queen will do nothing without a recommendation by the Government.

So the "problem" is already solved. For the foreseeable future we will see three royal Dukedoms to cease: Gloucester and Kent will become "regular" Dukedoms and York has no heirs male. And in that same future we will see one, maybe two new peers: Prince Louis and eventually (if he is not already Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay) Prince George.

All by all no explosion of peers. And every decade a handful of hereditary peerages will extinct and as no new hereditary peerages are created, it goes the same way as the Continental peerages (minus Spain): a 'glass dome' is placed over the historic institution which is the hereditary nobility, to fade away in all tranquillity.

 

[FigTree]

The Queen has stopped granting hereditary peerages to subjects who are not princes of the blood royal and sons to a (future) Sovereign.

The most simple reason is that for decades succesive Governments have not recommended anyone. In theory, as Fons Honorum, the Queen is free to create peers to her royal wish and command. In practice the Queen will do nothing without a recommendation by the Government.

So the "problem" is already solved. For the foreseeable future we will see three royal Dukedoms to cease: Gloucester and Kent will become "regular" Dukedoms and York has no heirs male. And in that same future we will see one, maybe two new peers: Prince Louis and eventually (if he is not already Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay) Prince George.

All by all no explosion of peers. And every decade a handful of hereditary peerages will extinct and as no new hereditary peerages are created, it goes the same way as the Continental peerages (minus Spain): a 'glass dome' is placed over the historic institution which is the hereditary nobility, to fade away in all tranquillity.

The government has for the longest time granted life long peers.

Anything sons get daughters should too. If Lilibet becomes a Princess, she too should be offered a peerage. Why should she be unique amoung her brothers and cousins. Now I'm not in favour of her becoming a Princess but the Principal stands. Beatrice should have the right to inherit her fathers Dukedom.

 

[Denville]

The government has for the longest time granted life long peers.

Anything sons get daughters should too. If Lilibet becomes a Princess, she too should be offered a peerage. Why should she be unique amoung her brothers and cousins. Now I'm not in favour of her becoming a Princess but the Principal stands. Beatrice should have the right to inherit her fathers Dukedom.

Bea doesn't have the right to inherit the dukedom, and I dont think that it can be changed.
but honestly of all the females, Lilibet is the one least suited ot having an hereditary duchy. She will grow up as an American in a republic. why on earht would she want a title of that kind?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Bea doesn't have the right to inherit the dukedom, and I dont think that it can be changed.
but honestly of all the females, Lilibet is the one least suited ot having an hereditary duchy. She will grow up as an American in a republic. why on earht would she want a title of that kind?

The Queen could issue new LPs recreates the title for Andrew and that gives equal inheritance rights to the daughters of Prince Andrew. There is a precedent for that with the Duke of Fife title, which was originally created with the normal remainder 'heirs male' but which was reissued for the same Duke when it was clear that there would be no son. That way the title passed to The Duke's elder daughter and then via the normal remainder with the proviso that if there are no male heirs from the elder daughter male heirs via the younger daughter can inherit.

As this Duke of Fife was only made a Duke (had been an Earl) because he married the eldest daughter of the then Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, it is a valid precedent.

Earl Mountbatten's situation is different as he had no titles when he was given his peerage title.

The Duke of Marlborough title also had changed LPs to ensure the title would continue when the 1st Duke's sons predeceased him. The current Duke descends from the 1st Duke's third daughter.

It is possible but The Queen won't do it. If she was going to do it she would have done it years ago.

 

[suztav]

I’ve always thought it was terribly unfair that Beatrice not inherit her father’s title.

 

[Stefan]

The Duke of Marlborough title also had changed LPs to ensure the title would continue when the 1st Duke's sons predeceased him. The current Duke descends from the 1st Duke's third daughter.

It is possible but The Queen won't do it. If she was going to do it she would have done it years ago.

If i remember right the succession to the Marlborough Title was changed by an Act of Parliament and not be creating it a second time

 

[Denville]

I’ve always thought it was terribly unfair that Beatrice not inherit her father’s title.

why? The title does not have any benefit financially or otherwise. Bea was not IMO ever going to be a working royal so she did not need it as a "brand name
" and she is I'm sure more than happy with being HRH Pss Beatrice.
I cant see the queen doing anything like recreating titles just to give Bea A dukedom, esp one that she probably does not want in the least. Its also just occurred to me that Dukedom of York will probably be left on the shelf for a long time after Andrew goes because of his reputation. Even if she liked the idea of being a royal duchess, would Bea want to be Duchess of York?

If i remember right the succession to the Marlborough Title was changed by an Act of Parliament and not be creating it a second time

that was a veyr very long time ago.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The Queen could issue new LPs recreates the title for Andrew and that gives equal inheritance rights to the daughters of Prince Andrew. There is a precedent for that with the Duke of Fife title, which was originally created with the normal remainder 'heirs male' but which was reissued for the same Duke when it was clear that there would be no son. That way the title passed to The Duke's elder daughter and then via the normal remainder with the proviso that if there are no male heirs from the elder daughter male heirs via the younger daughter can inherit.

As this Duke of Fife was only made a Duke (had been an Earl) because he married the eldest daughter of the then Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, it is a valid precedent.

Earl Mountbatten's situation is different as he had no titles when he was given his peerage title.

The Duke of Marlborough title also had changed LPs to ensure the title would continue when the 1st Duke's sons predeceased him. The current Duke descends from the 1st Duke's third daughter.

It is possible but The Queen won't do it. If she was going to do it she would have done it years ago.

Well guess what Queen Elizabeth II isn’t Queen Victoria meaning she’s not going to just gift peerages to low ranking family members. The Duke of Fife was already a peer before Queen Victoria élevated him to Duke.

The government has for the longest time granted life long peers.

Anything sons get daughters should too. If Lilibet becomes a Princess, she too should be offered a peerage. Why should she be unique amoung her brothers and cousins. Now I'm not in favour of her becoming a Princess but the Principal stands. Beatrice should have the right to inherit her fathers Dukedom.

She lives in America and will probably live there for most of her life so won’t be needing a peerage, and not all of the Queens family have titles so why should she?

 

[An Ard Ri]

The Duke of Marlborough title also had changed LPs to ensure the title would continue when the 1st Duke's sons predeceased him. The current Duke descends from the 1st Duke's third daughter.

Henrietta, 2nd Duchess of Marlborough was duchess 1722-1733 and the title past to her nephew ,who's mother Lady Anne was the 3rd daughter of of the 1st Duke of Marlborough.
Lady Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland died in 1716.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The government has for the longest time granted life long peers.

Anything sons get daughters should too. If Lilibet becomes a Princess, she too should be offered a peerage. Why should she be unique amoung her brothers and cousins. Now I'm not in favour of her becoming a Princess but the Principal stands. Beatrice should have the right to inherit her fathers Dukedom.

So you think hereditary peerages should not be granted but you want to advocate for daughters to get peerages? Make up your mind?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well guess what Queen Elizabeth II isn’t Queen Victoria meaning she’s not going to just gift peerages to low ranking family members. The Duke of Fife was already a peer before Queen Victoria élevated him to Duke.

My last line makes it clear that the Queen won't be doing this.

I was simply showing that there was a precedent. That doesn't mean that The Queen would follow suit ... and as I said 'It is possible but The Queen won't do it. If she was going to do it she would have done it years ago.'

 

[SirGyamfi1]

My last line makes it clear that the Queen won't be doing this.

I was simply showing that there was a precedent. That doesn't mean that The Queen would follow suit ... and as I said 'It is possible but The Queen won't do it. If she was going to do it she would have done it years ago.'

Also hereditary peerages and royal dukedoms and titles don’t necessarily operate the same way.

 

[Somebody]

The government has for the longest time granted life long peers.

Anything sons get daughters should too. If Lilibet becomes a Princess, she too should be offered a peerage. Why should she be unique amoung her brothers and cousins. Now I'm not in favour of her becoming a Princess but the Principal stands. Beatrice should have the right to inherit her fathers Dukedom.

If the argument is about gender equality: Lilibet wouldn't receive a peerage if she was a son either. She isn't the eldest child of a son of the monarch, so would never have been in line to receive one... Peerages aren't granted to grandchildren only to children of the monarch or future monarch.

(Feel free to ask prince Michael of Kent)

 

[FigTree]

So you think hereditary peerages should not be granted but you want to advocate for daughters to get peerages? Make up your mind?

No I don't BUT if they are to be they should be gender neutral. Daughters as well as sons.

 

[FigTree]

If the argument is about gender equality: Lilibet wouldn't receive a peeragevif she was a son either. She isn't the eldest child of a son of the monarch, so would never have been in line to receive one... Peerages aren't granted to grandchildren only to children of the monarch or future monarch.

(Feel free to ask prince Michael of Kent)

Not that I think Archie should be inheriting either but that would make her alone from Charles grandchildren.

Anyway doesn't really matter.