The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Curryong]

If that is taken to its logical conclusion then Queen regnants would be allowed to have their husbands crowned as Kings. Which, in terms of status and precedent would make no sense at all!

 

[AC21091968]

From memory (correct me if I'm wrong), most royal titles were created/gifted for men, either 'royal-by-blood' or married into the royal family. Their wives (either married into royal family or 'royal-by-blood') then take the female version of the title. For example, the title "Duke of Edinburgh" was gifted to Prince Philip upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth by George VI. Princess Elizabeth's full title became Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh between her wedding and accession to the throne. She essentially took the "female version" of her husband's Duke of Duke of Edinburgh title. George VI simply did not create "Duchess of Edinburgh" for his daughter.

I think this does extends to some Honours and Baronets. For example, Denis Thatcher, 1st Baronet carries the Thatcher Baronetcy not his wife Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, despite Margaret Thatcher was the former Prime Minister of the UK. Margaret Thatcher herself did sit in the House of Lords.

Another example is Sir Philip May, who was knighted at (2019) Dissolution Honours. His wife, Theresa May, Lady May was not knighted, despite being the former Prime Minister of the UK.

 

[LauraS3514]

I mentioned on post #362 of Titles of the Wessex Children thread, that there is possibility for Charles to issue a new Letter Patent once he became King. This is based on the assumption that he wants to "slim down" the monarchy or more specifically reduce the number of Prince and Princesses title and HRH styles.

A possibility is that the title of Prince/Princess and style of HRH to (When Charles is the King) is restricted to

• Children of the (present or past) Monarch [William, Harry, Anne, Andrew and Edward]
• Children of the eldest child (direct heir) of the Monarch [George, Charlotte and Louis]
• Children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Monarch [Children of George]

.

This hypothetical new LP with the above conditions could be drafted in such a way as to only effect those persons born after 2000 - this would then only include Archie, Louise, and James as the only ones who would be HRH under the 1917 LP of those currently living. Or, they could choose the same date as the new Succession to the Crown Act, 2013, which would then only effect Archie.

 

[Darius1]

So you don’t think it’s discriminatory that a female cannot pass on her title/rank to her children and only males can pass it on? What’s so special about these men that only they can pass on their rank to the kids and not women? Especially in this case it is the women who was born royal who has the title and not the man. You don’t see any discrimination in that nonesense?

If we start to go down the route of fairness and discrimination we open a very unsavoury can of worms that ultimately questions the fairness of having an inherited title at all, even an hereditary monarchy.

As none of us are likely to be affected with the male primogeniture issue, or as Princesses being unable to pass our titles to our offspring I don't see why we need to question it. Neither Princess Margaret nor Princess Anne appear to have had an issue with it or felt themselves to be discriminated against. The entire system is discriminatory at some level, but it has worked for millennium and does not discriminate against anybody other than members of the Royal Family.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes I know that titles are traditional and archaic and they are inherited and not earned thru merit..if it’s not earned thru merit then why in the 21st century do they still go by the rule that only the men can inherit and pass on the title. Last time I checked when a child is born they take half their dna from their dad half from their mom. You don’t get extra dna if you are born a boy and you do not get less dna if you are born a girl. If the children have the same set of parents then you get the same dna equally. If it’s not about merit then what qualifies a man to inherit and pass on their title and what disqualifies a woman from doing the same. Other than being born with different body parts.

I think that, historically, the main reason was related to inheritance. The family estate was tied to the holder of the title and male primogeniture ensured that the estate would remain in the same (patrilineal) family over different generations.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Much as I respect these countries does anybody outside of Italy or Germany actually know who their respective Heads of State are? The soft power of the British Monarchy and the role played by its members as representatives on the world stage is of enormous value to the UK and will be increasingly important in a post-Brexit world.

That assumed "soft power" is really not the - for outsiders- relatively chaotic and disfunctional looking royal family. That assumed "soft power" was a whole symbiosis of what Britain once was and meant to the world, in history, in culture, in global outreach, in language, in military power, in reputation and in perspective.

My guess is that Germany's "soft power" with its invisible President, actually is greater because of the immense intrinsic leverage in financial, geopolitical and strategic positions, coupled with a longstanding steadfast course of their political leaders and institutions.

Assumed "soft power" can not work without leverage. I do not think the most sparkly and most gracious smiling Queen has any milligram of influence on the current negotiations between the UK and the EU, to name something.

 

[Darius1]

I think very little could sway to EU in the intractability and desire to make Brexit as difficult as possible - but this is for a different forum. The UK remains the 6th largest world economy and has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, strong relationship with one of the only remaining superpowers and influence with the Commonwealth of Nations. The British Royal Family remains the only truly "global" royal family whose actions and activities are followed around the world. Over the years we have heard innumerable accounts of how a visit from The Queen, or a seat close to her at a State Banquet have positively influenced diplomatic outcomes.

 

[AC21091968]

I think your idea makes a lot of sense. To me the most efficient and non-discriminatory way of determining royal styles and titles should be proximity to the monarch, through the main line.

Younger sons should start to be treated the way daughters always have been. I see no reason why Louis, but not Charlotte, needs to be given a royal dukedom in the future and also feel there’s no need for his future children to be anything other than Mr/Miss X Mountbatten-Windsor. IMO it’s easier to add special provisions for unusual circumstances - for example if George was unable to have children and it became clear that Charlotte’s descendants would be the future main royal line - than it is to take away something that’s already been given.

I agree that Charlotte and Louis should be "ideally" treated the same and also probably need to be brought up with the possibility or even certainty of not being working royal. This way they would have adequate qualifications or at least prepared for future careers and employment. I also agree with you that "it's easier to add special provisions for unusual circumstances" than to "take something away that's already given". I do think there will be less "family tension" or media attention if titles are given for special circumstances than titles being taken away that were previously granted by old LPs.

Thank you camelot23ca for your opinion on the ideal situation where it's better to give out titles under special circumstance, than to take the already placed titles away

This hypothetical new LP with the above conditions could be drafted in such a way as to only effect those persons born after 2000 - this would then only include Archie, Louise, and James as the only ones who would be HRH under the 1917 LP of those currently living. Or, they could choose the same date as the new Succession to the Crown Act, 2013, which would then only effect Archie.

I think the 2013's date of Succession to the Crown Act is a good cut-off for the effect to occur (to those born after this 2013 date). This way Lady Louise Windsor (born in 2003) and James, Viscount Severn (born in 2007) can still have the choice of using HRH Prince/Princess when they turn 18 (though unlikely to actually use them, according to the Countess of Wessex). Also by considering the 2013's date, Louise and James could possibly to be treated similarly as with other children of the younger sons of the Queen, rather than treating them separately or almost associating them with the Queen's great-grandchildren, due to their closeness with age.

Savannah Phillips (born in 2010) and Isla Phillips (born in 2012), the Queen's eldest two great-grandchildren are unlikely to hold any titles in the future, based on old and new LP.

Archie would be affected if the cut-off is 2013 (for now). He would not be able to enjoy HRH style and Prince title if this new hypothetical LP is to be followed. Again, I think it's better for Archie to start with no title (under the hypothetical LP when Charles becomes King) and then possibly be given one under special provision, rather than having a title and then be taken away.

Thank you LauraS3514 for your suggestion on the date/year of birth that determine who will be affected by this new hypothetical LP.

 

[Durham]

That assumed "soft power" is really not the - for outsiders- relatively chaotic and disfunctional looking royal family. That assumed "soft power" was a whole symbiosis of what Britain once was and meant to the world, in history, in culture, in global outreach, in language, in military power, in reputation and in perspective.

My guess is that Germany's "soft power" with its invisible President, actually is greater because of the immense intrinsic leverage in financial, geopolitical and strategic positions, coupled with a longstanding steadfast course of their political leaders and institutions.

Assumed "soft power" can not work without leverage. I do not think the most sparkly and most gracious smiling Queen has any milligram of influence on the current negotiations between the UK and the EU, to name something.

What this says about Britain (& I don't disagree) could equally be said about France. History moves on & great powers decline while others rise.

That said, I'm not convinced that Britain's soft power is over shadowed by that of Germany on the wider world stage. In Europe certainly. Blighty still packs a powerful punch for it's size despite post war degradations. Whether that continues, & what the role of the monarchy is in that, is an open question.

 

[Durham]

As none of us are likely to be affected with the male primogeniture issue, or as Princesses being unable to pass our titles to our offspring I don't see why we need to question it. Neither Princess Margaret nor Princess Anne appear to have had an issue with it or felt themselves to be discriminated against. The entire system is discriminatory at some level, but it has worked for millennium and does not discriminate against anybody other than members of the Royal Family.

I think this made sense when we had male preference primogeniture but now we don't it would seem odd for any children of Louis to have royal status while those of Charlotte wouldn't (despite them being higher in the line of succession). Although I take your point about the totality of the system being discriminatory anyway.

Less complicated in the end to limit royal status to the direct line as others have said.

In fact I'd go further & limit it those individuals born to be monarch. Their siblings could have the same courtesy titles as the younger children of dukes as indeed that's what they would be.

 

[LauraS3514]

Thank you camelot23ca for your opinion on the ideal situation where it's better to give out titles under special circumstance, than to take the already placed titles away.

<snip>

I think the 2013's date of Succession to the Crown Act is a good cut-off for the effect to occur (to those born after this 2013 date). This way Lady Louise Windsor (born in 2003) and James, Viscount Severn (born in 2007) can still have the choice of using HRH Prince/Princess when they turn 18 (though unlikely to actually use them, according to the Countess of Wessex). Also by considering the 2013's date, Louise and James could possibly to be treated similarly as with other children of the younger sons of the Queen, rather than treating them separately or almost associating them with the Queen's great-grandchildren, due to their closeness with age.

Savannah Phillips (born in 2010) and Isla Phillips (born in 2012), the Queen's eldest two great-grandchildren are unlikely to hold any titles in the future, based on old and new LP.

Archie would be affected if the cut-off is 2013 (for now). He would not be able to enjoy HRH style and Prince title if this new hypothetical LP is to be followed. Again, I think it's better for Archie to start with no title (under the hypothetical LP when Charles becomes King) and then possibly be given one under special provision, rather than having a title and then be taken away.

Thank you LauraS3514 for your suggestion on the date/year of birth that determine who will be affected by this new hypothetical LP.

I forgot to mention that it would be preferable for this LP to be issued by the current Queen; otherwise, one of the first acts of the new reign would be for the King to "disinherit" one (or more) of his grandchildren. Not exactly the best way to start the reign - it would be a PR nightmare in certain quarters. Remember, under the 1917 LP Archie (and any siblings) automatically become HRH Prince/ess the instant Charles becomes King so having Charles issue the LP would mean stripping the Sussex kids of something they would already have, instead of them never getting it in the first place.

 

[KellyAtLast]

It would be a test for King Charles. Will he be for the crown or will he let his emotions and personal relationships dictate his decisions. I would like to see what he does let him make that decision it’s HIS grandchild after all.

 

[Curryong]

Charles will abide by the wishes of Archie's parents (plus for any siblings born before the reign) just as happened with the Wessex children. And Archie will inherit the Dukedom of Sussex in the fullness of time anyway, if he doesn't want to use the Earldom as an adult so he'll hardly be disinherited.

 

[KellyAtLast]

Charles will abide by the wishes of Archie's parents (plus for any siblings born before the reign) just as happened with the Wessex children. And Archie will inherit the Dukedom of Sussex in the fullness of time anyway, if he doesn't want to use the Earldom as an adult so he'll hardly be disinherited.

I stand by my comment. Will he let his personal relationship dictate his decisions or can he put those feelings aside and think with his brain.

 

[Osipi]

For a man that has spent an entire lifetime learning the role of monarch at his mother's knee and has shown over decade upon decade his own dedication to his role of Prince of Wales even to the point of actually rewriting and defining what his role entails, tells me this man can and will put the monarchy first in any decisions that he will have to make. Its in his blood. He's already been involved in far more decisions concerning the future of the monarchy than I'd care to count.

The "Firm" doesn't wait for things to happen. They plan everything to the minute detail for anything that *may* happen even.

 

[AC21091968]

I stand by my comment. Will he let his personal relationship dictate his decisions or can he put those feelings aside and think with his brain.

Like I mentioned in the previous post, if Charles does decide not to make exemptions for family members born before 2013 or the issued date this new hypothetical LP, their titles will be removed. In other words, those who are legally HRH Prince/Princess under 1917, but not the hypothetical LP will be stripped of their title, which includes

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent​

I personally think that removing HRH style and Prince/Princess titles from the Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy could potentially be a PR disaster for Charles. This happens because they have been supportive of the Queen for around 50 years by doing their royal duties with little or no fuss, despite little press coverage, apart from local newspapers. It has nothing to do with Charles feeling or using "his brains", it's more about whether or not he appreciate his mother's cousins' dedication and duty to the country.

Of course there is a possibility that Charles decided that George V's male-line grandchildren be exempt from this new LP, so that Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent will not be stripped of their title. I do think problem will arise if Charles make exemption on the male-line grandchildren of George V and himself (when he becomes king), but not the Queen's male-line grandchildren. It would appear that he is deliberately "punishing" his nieces and nephew (Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor and Jame, Viscount Severn) out of spite. Charles could also make exemption on his grandchildren only (Archie and his siblings affected), but I don't think it would look good either, as the Queen's cousins will still lose their title.

I agree with LauraS3514 that it would be preferable if this new hypothetical LP gets issued and acted whilst the Queen is still the Monarch, because it would not put Archie in an awkward position.

 

[Excalibur]

I stand by my comment. Will he let his personal relationship dictate his decisions or can he put those feelings aside and think with his brain.

If Charles had let his personal relationship dictate his decisions during "Megexit", things would have turned out much differently IMO. Charles had to have been aware for quite some time of Harry's difficulties in living life in the royal fishbowl, but knew that allowing him to walk away before now would not have been good for the monarchy. I am sure that it broke father Charles' heart to "show Harry the door" back in January, but he did what was best for the future of the monarchy.

 

[Somebody]

Like I mentioned in the previous post, if Charles does decide not to make exemptions for family members born before 2013 or the issued date this new hypothetical LP, their titles will be removed. In other words, those who are legally HRH Prince/Princess under 1917, but not the hypothetical LP will be stripped of their title, which includes

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn (legally style as Prince/Princess X of Wessex), Prince Richard, [The Duke of Gloucester], Prince Edward [The Duke of Kent], Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent​

I personally think that removing HRH style and Prince/Princess titles from the Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy could potentially be a PR disaster for Charles. This happens because they have been supportive of the Queen for around 50 years by doing their royal duties with little or no fuss, despite little press coverage, apart from local newspapers. It has nothing to do with Charles feeling or using "his brains", it's more about whether or not he appreciate his mother's cousins' dedication and duty to the country.

Of course there is a possibility that Charles decided that George V's male-line grandchildren be exempt from this new LP, so that Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Prince Michael of Kent will not be stripped of their title. I do think problem will arise if Charles make exemption on the male-line grandchildren of George V and himself (when he becomes king), but not the Queen's male-line grandchildren. It would appear that he is deliberately "punishing" his nieces and nephew (Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor and Jame, Viscount Severn) out of spite. Charles could also make exemption on his grandchildren only (Archie and his siblings affected), but I don't think it would look good either, as the Queen's cousins will still lose their title.

I agree with LauraS3514 that it would be preferable if this new hypothetical LP gets issued and acted whilst the Queen is still the Monarch, because it would not put Archie in an awkward position.

The above would be the weirdest thing for him to do and I don't see it happening. If he indeed would like to limit HRH and prince(ss) of the UK to the children of the monarch, the heir apparent and the heir apparent's heir apparent, I see several options to do so without impacting(too many) of those currently HRHs.
1) Pick a cut-off date: the new rules apply to anyone born after date X (most logical imho is to use 28 October 2013 if dated retrospectively, date of issue or date of Charles' ascension to the throne).
2) Limit the new rules to his descendants and have all others keep their titles according to previous LPs.
3) Apply the rules from now on but let those who enjoyed the style and title under the previous monarch keep their style and right.

I hope in whichever case they clearly specify whether Louise and James are entitled to style and title as male-line grandchildren as currently BP and Sophie disagree on this issue.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If we start to go down the route of fairness and discrimination we open a very unsavoury can of worms that ultimately questions the fairness of having an inherited title at all, even an hereditary monarchy.

The hereditary monarchy and hereditary peerage have already started down the route of diminishing unfairness and diminishing discrimination by many standards: race, religion, class, rule of law, etc.

I disagree that it is unsavory for members of the public to question the fairness of titles or monarchies, or that such questions should be used to excuse unfairness and discrimination, but in any event that can of worms was opened in the UK long before there was much controversy over sexist laws of inheritance.

The precedent in UK is that a child generally inherits their father's rank. Nothing discriminatory, simply a structure that has provided coherence for generations.

So you don’t think it’s discriminatory that a female cannot pass on her title/rank to her children and only males can pass it on? What’s so special about these men that only they can pass on their rank to the kids and not women? Especially in this case it is the women who was born royal who has the title and not the man. You don’t see any discrimination in that nonesense?

As none of us are likely to be affected with the male primogeniture issue, or as Princesses being unable to pass our titles to our offspring I don't see why we need to question it. Neither Princess Margaret nor Princess Anne appear to have had an issue with it or felt themselves to be discriminated against. The entire system is discriminatory at some level, but it has worked for millennium and does not discriminate against anybody other than members of the Royal Family.

By "the entire system", do you mean the 1917 Letters Patent or the patriarchal structure of society (both were mentioned in your conversation)? The first has not been in place for a millenium, the second discriminates against many non-members of the Royal Family, and how well either has worked is questionable.

None of us are likely to be directly affected by most of the specific questions discussed on this forum, but KellyAtLast was only replying to your assertion that male-only inheritance is nondiscriminatory.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The unfortunate case in Belgium has showed it again: limit the number of princes and princesses of the Royal House as much as possible. In Spain, Norway, Netherlands and Luxembourg the title of the Royal House has been limited to children of a King and children of a Heir, for life.

Under HM King Charles III :

HRH The Prince William
HRH The Prince Harry
HRH The Princess Anne
HRH The Prince Andrew
HRH The Prince Edward

HRH Prince George
HRH Princess Charlotte
HRH Prince Louis

And that was it. The remnant which still carries the title of a Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland (the Gloucesters, the Kents, the York) keep their current titulature out of courtesy, prudence and benevolence. They will fade out in time.

 

[AC21091968]

Indeed, the Gloucesters and Kents will probably follow the footsteps of the Duke(s) of Fife and their families. Queen Victoria created (or more specifically elevated) the title for Alexander William George Duff (from The Earl of Fife) in 1900, two days after his wedding to Princess Louise of Wales, later the Princess Royal (granddaughter of Queen Victoria and daughter of the then Prince and Princess of Wales, later Edward VII and Queen Alexandra).

The title did pass down through a female line, since the 1st Duke's eldest son died stillborn. The current holder is David Carnegie, 4th Duke of Fife. Ever since the 2nd holder (who was HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife), they are no longer HRH Prince/Princess. Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife at one point was a Liberal MP (House of Commons) for Elginshire and Nairnshire from 1874 to 1879, until he was became Earl of Fife.

Unlike the Dukedom of Fife, the Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will more likely pass down through a male line and carried Windsor as their surname.

I do think the Gloucesters and Kents will certainly be included in major events, but not hold royal titles.

Speaking of Queen Victoria's descendant, the great-grandson of Princess Alice Countess of Athlone, Ian Liddell-Grainger is a Conservative MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset. He is in the line of succession to the British throne. The Earl of Athlone title (unlike Duke of Fife) has become extinct, because the 1st Earl died without "survived" male heir.

It would not surprise me if the future descendants of Gloucesters and Kents do enter politics (local councillor or MP), though there will be some "mud slinging" and dirty tactics from opposition candidates from being descendent for George V and family members of hereditary peers, like Ian Liddell-Grainger have experienced. That's the nature of politics I guess.

 

[Somebody]

Indeed, the Gloucesters and Kents will probably follow the footsteps of the Duke(s) of Fife and their families. Queen Victoria created (or more specifically elevated) the title for Alexander William George Duff (from The Earl of Fife) in 1900, two days after his wedding to Princess Louise of Wales, later the Princess Royal (granddaughter of Queen Victoria and daughter of the then Prince and Princess of Wales, later Edward VII and Queen Alexandra).

The title did pass down through a female line, since the 1st Duke's eldest son died stillborn. The current holder is David Carnegie, 4th Duke of Fife. Ever since the 2nd holder (who was HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife), they are no longer HRH Prince/Princess. Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife at one point was a Liberal MP (House of Commons) for Elginshire and Nairnshire from 1874 to 1879, until he was became Earl of Fife.

Unlike the Dukedom of Fife, the Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will more likely pass down through a male line and carried Windsor as their surname.

I do think the Gloucesters and Kents will certainly be included in major events, but not hold royal titles.

What do you mean by 'will probably/most likely'? All of this is arranged by LPs and I don't see any reason why they would upgrade their titles - but your 'probably' and 'most likely' seems to leave room for other alternatives: what would those be in your opinion?

The current status is: as the future dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't royal highnesses (because they aren't children or grandchildren in male-line of the monarch but only 'great-grandchildren'), these dukedoms cease to be 'royal dukedoms' upon the death of the current holder. Their eldest sons will be 'His Grace The Duke of Gloucester/Kent'. And their eldest (and only) sons after them - as the remainder for both titles is for 'heirs male of the body lawfully begotten'. It seems rather unlikely that the remainder would suddenly be changed - they haven't done it for prince Andrew, so there is little reason to do so for the queen's cousins for which the title is safe at least until the fourth generation (current dukes are the second of their creation and both have at least one male-line grandson).

 

[AC21091968]

What do you mean by 'will probably/most likely'? All of this is arranged by LPs and I don't see any reason why they would upgrade their titles - but your 'probably' and 'most likely' seems to leave room for other alternatives: what would those be in your opinion?

The current status is: as the future dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't royal highnesses (because they aren't children or grandchildren in male-line of the monarch but only 'great-grandchildren'), these dukedoms cease to be 'royal dukedoms' upon the death of the current holder. Their eldest sons will be 'His Grace The Duke of Gloucester/Kent'. And their eldest (and only) sons after them - as the remainder for both titles is for 'heirs male of the body lawfully begotten'. It seems rather unlikely that the remainder would suddenly be changed - they haven't done it for prince Andrew, so there is little reason to do so for the queen's cousins for which the title is safe at least until the fourth generation (current dukes are the second of their creation and both have at least one male-line grandson).

I was trying to be less absolute. What I meant on "probably following the footsteps of the Duke of Fife", is that there might be possibilities where there are no male heirs after some generations, causing the title to become extinct. For example, the line of succession of the Duke of Gloucester, after Prince Richard (2nd Duke) is

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster --> Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden​

Both Earl of Ulster and Lord (Baron) Culloden do not have younger siblings. If Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden have no "survived" male heirs, after his death, the Duke of Gloucester will become extinct.

I am in no way wishing on the extinction of titles.

In terms of the future Duke of Gloucesters and Kents carrying the Windsor surname and be addressed as His Grace, I was thinking there could be possibility that the title pass down to daughters or female line's (if no male heirs) similar to the Dukedom of Fife. However, Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife was granted HH Princess by her grandfather Edward VII and so did her sistster HH Princess Maud. Princess Alexandra herself became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife when she married Prince Arthur of Connaught. So you're right that both Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will pass through male-lines, given that the Dukedom of York has not been done for Princess Beatrice to inherit.

Another title that I think did pass to a daughter is Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

 

[Somebody]

I was trying to be less absolute. What I meant on "probably following the footsteps of the Duke of Fife", is that there might be possibilities where there are no male heirs after some generations, causing the title to become extinct. For example, the line of succession of the Duke of Gloucester, after Prince Richard (2nd Duke) is

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster --> Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden​

Both Earl of Ulster and Lord (Baron) Culloden do not have younger siblings. If Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden have no "survived" male heirs, after his death, the Duke of Gloucester will become extinct.

I am in no way wishing on the extinction of titles.

In terms of the future Duke of Gloucesters and Kents carrying the Windsor surname and be addressed as His Grace, I was thinking there could be possibility that the title pass down to daughters or female line's (if no male heirs) similar to the Dukedom of Fife. However, Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife was granted HH Princess by her grandfather Edward VII and so did her sistster HH Princess Maud. Princess Alexandra herself became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife when she married Prince Arthur of Connaught. So you're right that both Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will pass through male-lines, given that the Dukedom of York has not been done for Princess Beatrice to inherit.

Another title that I think did pass to a daughter is Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

Thanks for the clarification. I am aware that especially the title Duke of Gloucester is at risk with only one heir in each generation; however, I don't see them making any special provisions to ensure a 'fifth Duchess of Gloucester' (which by that time only had a royal prince as a great-grandfather) while they don't do it for a 'second duke of York' who is a princess herself. It seems that mainly happens/ed when at the time a title is given it is already clear that there won't be a male-heir.

Of course, it might be that future titles (if handed out) will be given a 'heirs to the body lawfully begotten' but the queen didn't go that round in her latest ones, and I don't expect that to happen to the Duke of Edinburgh title either when it is awarded to Edward.

In the case of the Dukedom of Fife (actually the first duke of Fife held the dukedom twice, once with male-heir and once with male-heir but with the exception of the daughter's of princess Louise), the only daughters that could inherit were the daughters of Princess Louise. Hence, why there was a '2nd Duchess of Fife', from then on it is back to the original 'male-only inheritance'. This additional creation (11 years after the first) was made because it had become clear that their wouldn't be any male-heirs, so it was effectively a way to ensure that one of Louise's children would be the next Duchess of Fife, because she had no surviving son. After that, it would depend on any heirs available in male-line of any of the 1st Duke's (and princess Louise's) children. These daughters also were made princesses a few years later by her father (then king). So, there would be precedent for princess Charlotte to be Princess Royal and have her children be princes and princesses as well (not sure whether they would award a dukedom to her husband though).

A similar principle applies to the Earldom Mountbatten of Burma: the only daughters (or their male descendants) that may inherit it are the daughters of the first Earl. Any daughters of subsequent generations are excluded.

...to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne...and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten; and in default of such issue to every other daughter lawfully begotten of the said Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten...

So, this would be akin to the queen (or future king) issues a new LP to hand the duke of York the exact same titles a second time (not going to happen!) and include the special provision that the title will be passed on to his daughters and their male-line descendants.

However, we should probably move any further discussion on titles to the appropriate thread

 

[victor1319]

I don't want to interrupt the discussion here, nor do I want to hijack the thread... but:

The whole discussion about the titles seems to be somewhat hollow and empty, since the whole Prince-Harry-affair. Until now I was not able to find any point against Harry, except that he is alledgedly not following the rules and left the flag and duty.

But de facto is he just outdoing the regular Windsors with his "good deeds"... He is even more "woke" and eco-conscious and pro-diversity. That is all!

And this brings me to my question: What is the "Duty", what is the raison d'être of the most prominent royal House on this planet?

I can't see them as something else than just more legit and more official "Harrys"!

And seen as such, I wonder on a more abstract level, what the Windsors could do to differentiate themselves from other charity firms. Ok, there will be in a forseeable future the thingy with the Commowealth as "hinterland" for the UK. But apart from this the House of Windsor has an utter lack of a special characteristics... - besides it's very old history and tradition. But "old" can also mean outdated and dusty!

 

[padams2359]

The Future of the British Monarchy

This monarchy has survived for 1000 years with its traditions. The York title to tightly associated with the second son of a monarch. To make provisions for it to move further away from the immediate royal family is unprecedented. It may not be available for William to give it to Louis, or possibly Caroline, but it will mostly be available for George to give it to his second son.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This monarchy has survived for 1000 years with its traditions. The York title to tightly associated with the second son of a monarch. To make provisions for it to move further away from the immediate royal family is unprecedented.

Was the York title not given to Prince Albert and Prince Andrew with the standard provisions of heirs male of the body lawfully begotten? That would have provided for it to move further away from the immediate royal family, if only Albert and Andrew had had sons.

 

[Stefan]

Was the York title not given to Prince Albert and Prince Andrew with the standard provisions of heirs male of the body lawfully begotten? That would have provided for it to move further away from the immediate royal family, if only Albert and Andrew had had sons.

Yes the York Title has opnly remained so close to the Throne and could be given to the second son because the Title Holder did either have no sons (Frederick, Albert/Geoge VI., Andrew) or did become King

 

[LauraS3514]

Yes the York Title has opnly remained so close to the Throne and could be given to the second son because the Title Holder did either have no sons (Frederick, Albert/Geoge VI., Andrew) or did become King

The last time the Duke of York title passed from father to son via direct inheritance was in December 1460 when Richard, the 3rd Duke of York, was killed in battle and his eldest son Edward Earl of March succeeded him. Edward would become King Edward IV in 1461. Since that time, the succeeding Dukes of York either died without male heirs or became King - including Andrew's two predecessors (George V and George VI).

 

[Durham]

York is such a special city. Seat of the only other Archbishop, Primate of England. Historic capital of the the North of England.

Maybe Duke of York could be given to the heir along with Cornwall & Chester in a new tradition.