Why isn't Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh yet?

The title of Duchess of Dockside is still being considered.

Dockyard Doris!

Apologies, R2.

Read in a DL thread that Charles inherited the title automatically as the eldest son. He will give the title to Edward once he ascends the throne.

Tbf I've been wondering at that, too.

Why was Edward created Earl of Wessex in the first place? He could've been Duke of Sussex, Duke of Cambridge or whatever royal dukedom was available at the time.

Once his mother is gone, Charles is going to cut Edward loose from his benefits just like he’s going to knife Andrew. He never could stand competition.

[quote] Why was Edward created Earl of Wessex in the first place?

He's always had a thing about medieval times, so he asked his mother to resurrect an ancient title. He has an immature and fantasy based view on history.

Who wants to be the Duke of Sussex? There are no land or other assets attached to it.

Edward and Sophie are being brought forward as working royals and will not be "knifed."

I have heard that Charles may not give it to Edward ever.

Charles falls asleep every night counting the pounds he’s going to yank back from Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and all the kids. Anne will be spared.

r4 is partially correct. Charles as the eldest son automatically inherited his father's dukedom. He has to keep it for life, he can't just drop it or assign it to someone else.

When he becomes King, all of his current titles "merge" with the Crown, which is to say they are no longer attached to him personally and can be assigned to others; in another example, the Prince of Wales title will be freed up to grant to William. It will be at this point that Charles can grant the Edinburgh dukedom to Edward, or to anyone else for that matter. It will be at his will.

There has been talk that he might not grant it to Edward, as had been his father's - and his mother's - wish. I find that doubtful, as he isn't on the outs with Edward (that would be Andrew) and it would be bad public form to be seen denying his father's wishes.

Should re-phrase in my post above at r11, Charles as eldest son automatically inherits his father's dukedom, and under normal circumstances would have to keep it for life. But because he's in line to become the monarch eventually, it will 'merge' into the Crown once he's King.

[quote]Charles falls asleep every night counting the pounds he’s going to yank back from Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and all the kids. Anne will be spared.

Nonsense. He's not thinking of this. Well, perhaps sometimes about Andrew yes, but in general no.

His siblings will continue to receive monies from the monarch's funds relational to the public royal duties and work they manage to undertake and complete. The work, that is, that King Charles assigns to them, if any.

He will very likely continue to heavily lean on Anne to perform duties. He will probably continue to use Edward and Sophie for a time, at least until William's children come of age and can work. Andrew is complete toast.

R12 It isn't up to the Queen. Charles automatically inherited the title as Philip's oldest son. It is, therefore, up to Charles to confer the title on Edward when he becomes king. The Queen can't take a title from one son and give it to another. Charles owns it now, and thus has three royal ducal titles: Cornwall, Rothesay (his Scottish ducal title), and Edinburgh.

So it will have to wait until Mum is raptured.

Once QEII is six feet under, Charles is going to kick all the Yorks to the curb, root and stem. Pedo, Fergie and the idiot daughters will never be seen at any royal event ever again.

We haven't heard any more about "HRH Princess Louise", either.

[quote]I find that doubtful, as he isn't on the outs with Edward (that would be Andrew) and it would be bad public form to be seen denying his father's wishes.

Agreed. There will be headaches enough without borrowing trouble.

R10 Andrew and the kids aren't on the Sovereign Grant. Anne and Edward and Sophie are still working royals. Their kids aren't. Their cut is fairly minimal. Annw works hard and until William's kids are at least 18, Charles needs more hands on deco than just his heir and Kate.

He'll keep Anne and the Wessexes on side as long as he has to. He won't need to fund William any longer, because William will have the riches of the Duchy of Cornwall.

But there will be a gap unless the Queen hangs on for much longer than expected.

That's why all the rumours about Charles trying to shoehorn the Sussexes back in after the Queen dies.

Fortunately for Britain, the Sussexes keep those bridges burning, making it impossible. Harry's little memoir should finish off the remaining bits of the bridges.

r14, r12 here. Re-read my post; I said nothing about the Queen giving the title from one son to the other. I was very clear that Charles inherits it, then will have rights to grant it again once he's the monarch.

Prince Philip said he didn't want any pansy to have the title.

18 year old Royal children do not take on substantial royal duties at 18. Never have. Charles and Edward went to university. Anne entered equestrian competition. Andrew went in the navy. Prince William undertook his first solo visit overseas at age 23. As eventual heir, George will likely go to university and definitely go into one of the forces. Charles will need Anne, Edward and Sophie for as long as they're willing to work.

One maybe is Charles granting the Edinburgh dukedom only for the period of Edward's life, so it reverts to the Crown without creating another line of distant titled relations, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Call me crazy but I thought I vaguely remember reading some story in DM about Edward being in a snit or something about Duke title. There was some minor royal tussle going on that made its way into the tabloids and then it all kind of went quiet after that. Some little dust up between Charles and Edward around the time (if I remember correctly) Charles made some shocking (for him) statement along the lines of "wanting to keep monarchy very lean and mean and that titles are not automatically conferred on family members as previously thought." I am grossly paraphrasing here but that one comment sent some ripples in the media.

Then subsequent to that Charles (or spokespersons) trying to tamp down concerns and comfort people (and Edward) that nothing would change procedurally after TQ's death. I hope I'm not making this up. Maybe someone has also been following this strange story but in more detail.

I always find it interesting (and I"ve mentioned this a few years ago on DL) that you rarely see Edward and Sophie together at major galas, parties, events. Yes, sometimes they are seen together but on the whole, largely separate lives it seems. Anyway, that's probably for another thread. But it's interesting how Edward was not at the Cathedral last week for big Xmas carols singsong. Sophie was there - alone. Again. I sometimes think that Edward is pulling a 'work to rule' thing on Charles and doing only min. work in protest at Duke of E. title kerfuffle. .

[quote] George will likely go to university and definitely go into one of the forces.

Is there a force of fabulous!?

R22 I recall reading similar things, but it’s been a while..

I don’t doubt for even a second that Edward will inherit the DoE title.

8 December 2021

St. James's Palace

The Earl of Wessex, Chancellor, this morning visited the Centre for Sustainable and Circular Technologies at the University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, Somerset.

His Royal Highness, Chancellor, afterwards presided at Degree Congregations at the University of Bath.

The Countess of Wessex this afternoon attended a Carol Service held by The Duchess of Cambridge in Westminster Abbey, London SW1.

So he was in Bath all day, she was at the carol service that afternoon.

Despite all the horse shit spread about Charles' selfish control issues and ego and Edward being pathetic by talking about the matter to JOURNALISTS (for Christ's sake!), the simple fact is that an automatic inheritance of the royal ducal title by the superior family male is just that - automatic and not anything to bother commenting on, as the same would happen when Andrew dies or if Gloucester or Kent were to finish their present runs at some point.

No one would presume to attempt to do anything with the title during the life of the widow of the Duke of Edinburgh. That is unseemly. Plus the title ultimately is in the hands of the monarch to dispose where she would, given the necessary processes were followed. But when Elizabeth is gone Edward will receive the title, as was promised.

[quote] One maybe is Charles granting the Edinburgh dukedom only for the period of Edward's life, so it reverts to the Crown without creating another line of distant titled relations, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Does Beatrice inherit the York dukedom upon Andrew’s death, and does Archie inherit the Sussex title upon Harry’s?

Beatrice no (heirs male of the body), Archies, I'd guess yes. Depends on the wording of the entail.

R27 Beatrice won’t. Archie will, theoretically. However as Archie’s woke parents don’t want him to be known by his courtesy title “Earl of Dumbarton” I assume that they won’t want him to inherit the title bestowed on his father by the hated royal family,

^ you kidding? She'd love nothing more.

It’s called “sarcasm”, R30.

I see, R31. Thanks. Sarcasm is so difficult to write well.

The irony, R32, you commenting on people who don’t write “well” - according to you.

I assume that you meant “Are you kidding?”.

You write clearly yourself. I admire your determination and encourage you to keep trying. You'll get there!

The York dukedom will be disappear when Andrew dies, since he will have had no male issue. It will probably be re-created again if and when Louis marries, if Andrew is dead by then, because it is usually given to the British monarch's second son after it becomes available.

Other countries with monarchies are doing away with collateral branches of their royal families, so it would wise for Britain to do the same.

Years ago Charles wanted Beatrice and Eugenie to relinquish their title of princess and become Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie. I would have loved to have seen Andrew's face when he first heard of that proposal.

R37. Beatrice and Eugenie are grandchildren of the monarch through the male line (Andrew); therefore, they automatically are entitled to the title of princess. Charles couldn't take it away from them because it was part of the Letters Patent of 1917.

Charles never suggested they give up their titles of princess and be called Lady.

Why doesn’t the queen just make Edward a duke if she and Philip wanted him to be one? She can do it.

R39 No, she can't. Charles inherited the title when Philip died. It isn't hers to give, any more than she can take some of Charles' money and give it to Edward. Only Charles can give Edward the Edinburgh title. She can give another, currently empty ducal title to Edward if that idiot Charles refuses to part with the Edinburgh one, but not one that Charles inherited from his father.

I doubt she would at this point, though. Edward passed up the traditional ducal title the Queen would have given en him on his wedding day for the lower earldom because hed been assured of Philip's one day.

Charles has two older and therefore higher ranking ducal titles. Refusing to honour his father's clearly stated wish won't engorge the monarchy and would make Charles look petty and serve as a first-class demonstration of the empty idiocy of a monarchy concerned with bullshit like this.

Give it quietly up, Charles, and if you're really that interested in following the example recently set by the Swedish and Danish monarchies, make sure your Mum issues LPs that limit those automatic HRHs only to children of direct heirs, so the Sussex kids far away in America and being raised as Americans by two grifters who were delighted to tun off with the bennies of royalty but didn't want to do the work, don't get them.

I never heard that Charles wanted the York kids to give up their HRHs. They were born HRHs for the same reason his two kids were. Even Charles isn't that dumb.

Charles should make mommy issue that Letters Patent. Not specifically because of the Sussexes, but because of grifters in general.

You want the titles, the place within the line of succesion, and the perks that go with being royal? You will have to work for "the crown" then. And by work, I mean work, as in regarding the entire thing like a proper job. Which means no cherry-picking.

You can't be arsed to work for "the crown"? That's ok -- but no titles, no place within the line of succession, and no perks then. It's up to you.

r40, she could make him Duke of Dustbins or whatever, if she wanted to - create a new title. Charles would be well advised to keep Edinburgh as a title for his eldest grandson, to acknowledge Scotland with a well-known title that can thereafter stay within the main line (Rothesay goes to the heir along with prince of Wales, plus its an utterly insignificant place). If Eddie gets it, it's gone for good. Alternatively, all titles outside the main line could be for life only.

What exactly do you Brits mean “working royals”? What sort of work do these freeloaders do besides open those little curtains over plaques.

A few points: Harry can't deny Archie the use of the title Duke of Sussex after Harry is dead. It's up to Archie to use or not use the title. The rumor that Edward was angry because Charles will deny Edward the title Duke of Edinburgh is purely just a rumor; it was published by any reputable newspaper. Working royals do, in fact, open "those little curtains" above plaques, but they also visit my organizations, do foreign tours on behalf of the British government, and participate in religious and military ceremonies. Charles, Anne, and William also hold investitures on behalf of the Queen. Granted, it's not manual labor and, for this work, they are given a lavish lifestyle. They also put their lives at risk from terrorists and crazies. I was astonished five days after the London underground and bus bombing in 2005 to see with my own eyes the Queen and Prince Philip driving very slowly up The Mall, standing in their vehicle, completely exposed to the crowds.

R43 Ffs, Charles's Princes Trust that he built from the ground up is one of the world's most successful youth help charities in the world. Idris Elba is one of its grada. Why don't you ask him? Philip helped found the WWF. Their patronage of charities hos those charities bring in money. Diana was patroness of Dr. Barnardos ami gates many others. Kate worked for years on that Five Under Five project, and helped edit and write the Hold Still book documenting Britain in the pandemic in photos-it was a best seller and the proceeds were shared between the National Portrait Gallery and a mental health organization. Then there were her portraits of Britain's few remaining Holocaust survivors, with whom she forged enduring bonds.

Their job isn't to save the world. Their job is to bring their considerable cachet and influence to help the people who are trying to save the world.

That plaque unveiling shit as their only function was over by the 1980s. It's 2022.

The plaque, by the way, isn't the purpose of a visit. It is to mark that there was a visit. Maybe it's on a new wing. Maybe it's next to a tree (I gather more trees are good things these days.) But anyway, I can sort of see how when someone representing the head of state drops by you might make an effort to note it.

[quote] Charles is going to cut Edward loose from his benefits just like he’s going to knife Andrew. He never could stand competition.

Oops.

In the unlikely change that Scotland holds another referendum and the majority vote is to leave the UK would the Duke of Edinburgh title have to be dropped?

I can't think of any reason why. It confers no powers related to the location and the official line is Scotland will keep the monarch as head of state, like Canada or New Zealand or Australia.

Hopefully parliment will strip harry of his titles. The piece of shit.

As I understand it, the current position of the Scots Nats party is that the existing monarch would remain as queen or king of Scots - one person, two titles, as it was in the 17th century, before the Act of Union. They may then move towards a referendum on becoming a republic, but that would be well down the list of the vast amount of adjustments needed for Scotland to fully detach from the UK.

Sorry, didn't finish - , so R48, the Scottish titles would remain. They could stay anyway in theory - the Mountbatten earldom is 'of Burma' and that ain't in the UK of course.

HM is the font if all honors. She created her husband a Prince of GB and she created him the DoE. As a lesser title she is now, also, the Dowager Duchess if Edinburgh. Because these are Royal Duchies, there is nothing to prevent her from simply issuing LsP, and creating Edward DoE. But if she does it 1) she will probably do it on the anniversary of Philip's death (end of mourning) and 2) not because of her son's but her beloved DIL, Sophie. She will want to leave Sophie with one of her titles and a Duchess.

What would Charles III do, revoke his mother's LsP?

OK, this I how I would write this as a Royal Fanboi. I shall wait and see.

Liz’s father George VI created Philipp DofE. He had to give up his Greek(Danish) title of Prince upon becoming a subject of HM George VI. She then later made him a prince of the UK in the late 50s.

r53 you are mostly correct in that the current Queen can create dukedoms and confer them on individuals of her choice. This in her role as "Fount of All Honour" in the UK.

However, she can't do this with the Edinburgh dukedom, because it currently has a holder, her son Charles. He inherited it the moment his father, Philip, passed away, as he was his eldest son. It's not currently available for re-creation and conferment. She'd have to grant Edward a different dukedom, if she chose to do so.

The moment Charles becomes King, at his mother's death, most of his current titles (Edinburgh, PoW) "merge" back into the crown, and are then available for granting out to others. William, for example, will eventually be made Prince of Wales. It remains to be seen what Charles will do with the Edinburgh dukedom, as he alone will then have the power to re-create and confer it to whomever he chooses.

[quote][R39] No, she can't. Charles inherited the title when Philip died. It isn't hers to give, any more than she can take some of Charles' money and give it to Edward. Only Charles can give Edward the Edinburgh title. She can give another, currently empty ducal title to Edward if that idiot Charles refuses to part with the Edinburgh one, but not one that Charles inherited from his father.

Similarly to r55, Charles can grant Edward the Edinburgh dukedom eventually, but only after TQ dies and he is King. It's only at that point in time that Charles can re-create it and grant it if he so chooses.

The Queen currently has no say in the matter, and really no way of knowing what Charles intends to do, only what he tells her he plans to do (and he can lie to her, or decide to change his mind later). She can make her wishes known to Charles, but there is nothing she can do about the matter, it's solely in his hands.

[quote]Beatrice and Eugenie are grandchildren of the monarch through the male line (Andrew); therefore, they automatically are entitled to the title of princess. Charles couldn't take it away from them because it was part of the Letters Patent of 1917.

Charles can't take away the princess titles from the York girls, but his mother the Queen certainly can. She can do whatever she wishes about it, she can overrule the LP of 1917 anytime she chooses, either by issuing a new LP on the matter that supersedes the previous one, or by simply making her wishes officially known. Charles will eventually gain the right to make these same decisions, once he is King.

The Yorks were automatically entitled at birth to be HRH Princesses, due to the standing LP of 1917. But that LP, like any LP, can be over-written or superseded by the monarch at anytime.

[quote] In the unlikely change that Scotland holds another referendum and the majority vote is to leave the UK would the Duke of Edinburgh title have to be dropped?

If Scotland left the UK, they would still have the monarchy--the Queen would by separately the Queen of Scotland (as the legal successor of James VI) entirely separately from being the Queen of the United Kingdom.

Scotland would have to undergo further legislation (probably involving another referendum) to get rid of the monarchy.

R2, I remember the drag act Dockyard Doris well. The character was an old music hall turn, singing very old songs and telling shaggy dog stories. He played the London and Brighton gay pub cabaret circuit for years, and was a really lovely man.

Maybe it isn’t important right now, if ever?

Sorry for the dumb question. Why does the automatic HRH only come from the dad? A baby inherits DNA from both parents. Is it only because of that damn Letters Patent from 1917? That was over 100 years ago. Sophie has Elizabeth's DNA just as Beatrice does, except it came through Anne instead of Andrew. So what? Is sperm more royal than egg?

Sophie is Anne’s sister-in-law, not her daughter.

The British monarchy and peerage are very olds institution. Most of their rules follow centuries of past practice. Over the centuries and, in particular, over the past century, some of the rules have changed but most have not. Most titles of nobility pass through the male line only. Andrew's dukedom of York can only pass to a son, for example, and thus will be extinct after he dies, i.e., the title will not pass to his daughters. There are exceptions that are usually made when the title is first bestowed. The style HRH works the same way. It passes through the male line only to grandchildren of the monarch. If Charles were to die before Elizabeth, Harry's children would never have the style HRH (under the current Letters Patent) unless the monarch specially granted them the style.

And, by the way, the peerage system was invented long before the discovery of DNA.

[quote] Why does the automatic HRH only come from the dad? A baby inherits DNA from both parents.

DNA is a concept that only goes back to the 1950s; the concept of patrilineal titles goes back centuries, even millennia before then.

The whole system of royalty is outdated and patriarchal, but if you think about it for five minutes you'll see it would not work at all if titles were inherited through both the male and the female lines.

[quote] If Charles were to die before Elizabeth, Harry's children would never have the style HRH (under the current Letters Patent) [bold]unless the monarch specially granted them the style. [/bold]

That would never happen. Let's be realistic.

R53 - She is the fount of all honour within the rules. And poster upthread is right: it was her father who created Philip DoE, not the Queen, who was Princess Elizabeth at the time of her marriage.

But even so she cannot seize something inherited by one son and just hand it to another. She can create dukes and earls, but she cannot horn in on an inheritance of one child and pass it on to another.

Edward will get the DoE title at Charles' pleasure ONLY and ONLY if and when Charles becomes King.

If Charles and the Queen come to some private agreement and announce that Charles has voluntarily agreed to surrender that title now so that his father's wishes can be honoured, that's one thing.

But the Queen cannot, repeat, can NOT, take it away from the son who inherited it from a father who was granted it by her father in 1947.

She has the power, theoretically, to remove whatever it was in her power to give, but as the Edinburg title was never in her power to give, nor did she grant it as did the Sussex title, removing it is off her inlaid fruitwood desk.

[quote] But even so she cannot seize something inherited by one son and just hand it to another. She can create dukes and earls, but she cannot horn in on an inheritance of one child and pass it on to another.

Let's be clear: she absolutely CAN. But she WOULDN'T. There's a big difference.

R63 - Which is exactly what she did with William's kids, who are the GREAT-grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line, NOT the GRAND-children. The only reason William's kids have HRHs is because the Queen issued LPs announcing that they would all carry the HRH as soon as Kate was safely past her first trimester with her first child.

And that's why Meghan was so pissed off. She thought her 7th in line kid should be on a par with a direct heir, born 3rd in line.

And that's why Charles wants the monarchy slimmed down, so it doesn't go through these tortuous triangulations in the next generation.

The Queen should have taken the Sussex title and issued those LPs about HRHs for direct heirs only early on.

She's already looking at bad PR around the idiot son she spoiled rotten and should have reigned in (you should pardon the pun) long ago. If she leaves it to Charles, he'll have to start his reign with another racism firestorm.

I've seen things so badly bungled.

^*NEVER seen things so badly bungled

OK thank you. Sorry, I was thinking of Zara but I typed Sophie by mistake, because a recent post mentioned Sophie and that name was still on my mind.

R61 / R71, it was also only the Perth Agreement (2011? 2012?) that made sure that William's first-born kid, irrespective of its sex, would be the next monarch. If their first child would've been a girl and the next kid a boy, the boy would've inherited the throne.

Thanks to the Perth Agreement, Charlotte remained where she was in the line of succession despite Louis being born. Prior to the Perth Agreement, she still ranks above her younger brother in the line of succession.

The main reason for patrilineal descent is that in olden days, the nobility were expected to serve in all of the King’s battles. It was expected that many more titles would become extinct and revert to the crown. Mobility is actually more of an anachronism than hereditary monarchy. The monarch serves a role as a figurehead head of state, whereas the nobles don’t do much at all, especially since the Blair administration reforms of the House of Lords.

[quote] Mobility is actually more of an anachronism

Tell me about it.

R74 wins the thread

R6 must be one of those naive Americans who doesn't understand the order of succession or the unchanging fact that there is absolutely no competition whatsoever to the eldest son.

Charles has never worried about competitor for the throne, but has, his whole adult life, been obsessed with competition for public approval and attention.

Even though Charles inherited the Dukedom of Edinburgh on his father's death, it is submerged into his other titles, including Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, so the dukedom of Edinburgh exists, but no longer in use as a ranking title. Similar situations have existed before in English and Scottish history when the same title has been created twice when the original holder is still living. If Edward were made Duke of Edinburgh, Charles would be the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh of the first creation and Edward would be the first Duke of Edinburgh of the second creation.

Oh lord.

R78, there’s still time. Go and get yourself fucked. You’ll feel much better for it. Love from the whole of Datalounge xxx

R76 is American pretending to be British. Calm yourself down, bitch.

[quote] Oh lord

I think we should leave god out of it. It's just not helpful.

The moment for leaving God out of it has passed.

With her forty thousand acres.

She is not Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh. She wears the Crown. All other titles go except the titles of the crown (Duke of Lancaster.) She was Duchess of Edinburgh until her accession. Google it.

r78 not sure what you mean by 'submerged'. He is the Duke of Edinburgh, period. He may not use it as his main 'title' (he is known as the Prince of Wales to most of the public), but he is still the Duke of Edinburgh.

You will have to detail the instances of a title being created when the original holder is still living, I'm curious about these. You are correct about the Edinburgh creations.

Not at all, American at r81.

R53 George VI actually created Philip Duke of Edinburgh the day before his wedding. For one whole day - he outranked Elizabeth who was a mere ‘Princess’ and a commoner by dint of the fact that she was not a member of the Peerage. Before Charles was born, George VI then had to issue Letters Patent ensuring that the children of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh could receive HRH styles and Prince or Princess titles. Due to the antiquated, and only partially addressed dilemma of the female next in line, Elizabeth was never Heir Apparent, but always Heiress Presumptive. The ‘Presumptive’, would have disappeared had the Queen Mother happened to produce a male child before (or indeed, after) the King died. There was a rumour that due to her only being 51, a pregnancy test was carried out before Elizabeth could have been declared Queen. The new Act has quite a few holes in it as regards absolute primogeniture in the British Peerage system. If it is good enough for the Sovereign, then the likes of Beatrice should be able to inherit the Dukedom of York.

R87 is mistaken. Philip never outranked Elizabeth, and Elizabeth was never a commoner. Royalty always has precedence before peers. If you draw a line between royalty and commoners, all of the aristocracy are commoners. However, in the order of precedence, royal comes before the peerage, which comes before non-titled commoners. Check your "Burke's Peerage" to see the very precise order of precedence, which includes the archbishops and bishops.

Thanks r88 for clearing up r87's statement "he outranked Elizabeth who was a mere ‘Princess’ and a commoner". I got a good chuckle out of it though.

[quote] The new Act has quite a few holes in it as regards absolute primogeniture in the British Peerage system. If it is good enough for the Sovereign, then the likes of Beatrice should be able to inherit the Dukedom of York.

I'd love Charlotte to end up becoming The Duchess of York in her own right.

I know that given the present law this is impossible -- but one may be allowed to dream.

Wouldn't it be delicious if Charlotte got the York title? Of course there needs to be done something about the current holder of the title ... but I think DL fave Charlotte can work out a plan of, ummm, "dealing with that problem".

I'd love to see Harry being stripped of his titles, then the title being granted to Prince Louis.

Imagine the snit fits taking place in MonDeceito Manor.

*then the title Duke of Sussex being granted ...

[quote]I'd love Charlotte to end up becoming The Duchess of York in her own right.

Nothing is impossible. They fiddled with the Mountbatten earldom to let a daughter inherit.

Depending on the model come that far away day, Charlotte could get her own dukedom if she's to serve the crown in a full time role. But she is likeliest to get Princess Royal once Princess Anne dies in thirty odd years.

R93, I haven't thought of her very likely becoming Princess Royal one day, thank you.

Anyway, I want Charlotte to be a Duchess, too. Not by marriage, but because of being William's second child. It's pretty unfair that only male offspring can get a royal ducal title in its own right.

Question for those who are into all that titles stuff: Let's assume Camilla gets Queen Consort. Is the title "Duchess of Cornwall" "gone" anyway once she gets Queen Consort due to her rising to the next level, in terms of royal titles stuff? And if it isn't "gone", can she hand the Duchess of Cornwall title back to the Crown so that the title will be available again? (Preferably to be given to Princess Charlotte, hehehe.) Or is the Duchy of Cornwall being held only by the first (male) in line to the throne?

I know Camilla isn't Duchess of Cornwall in her own right but only because of Charles being the Duke of Cornwall.

The moment Charles becomes king, William becomes Duke of Cornwall and, thus, Kate is Duchess of Cornwall. They will be referred to as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge. (When Edward VII became king, his son and the son's wife, the Duke and Duchess of York, who later would become King George V and Queen Mary, were referred to as "the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York." The king's eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall. He does not automatically become Prince of Wales, however. The monarch would need to create him Prince of Wales. (If, however, Charles should predecease Elizabeth, William would inherit the title Prince of Wales.) R94 raises a good question about royal dukedoms being given only to sons of the monarch and not daughters. Given changing values in society and the Perth Agreement, one might expect this to change in the future. However, the monarchy can sometimes move slowly on such matters.

Nobody's going to willingly give up their inheritance of the Duchy of Cornwall. It comes with a gigantic private paypacket: it's a very rich area. I think it's the major source of Charles's income (and his subsidy to his sons). So don't expect Charles or William to part with it until they take the Crown.

The imbalance is going to be addressed.

[quote] The king's eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall. He does not automatically become Prince of Wales, however. The monarch would need to create him Prince of Wales. (If, however, Charles should predecease Elizabeth, William would inherit the title Prince of Wales.)

Hmmmm, the last sentence (the one in brackets) doesn't make sense to me: If Charly bit the dust, why would William inherit the title Prince of Wales straight away whereas under normal circumstances, the heir to the throne needs to be specifically appointed PoW. At least to my mind, there's no reason for William to "inherit" that particular title when he can be created PoW just the way his father was.

When Charles dies, William automatically inherits all of his titles. But the "creation" of the title Prince of Wales is at the discretion of the monarch. That's just the way it works.

Princes of Wales is not a title that is inherited. It is granted, every time.

R76 - Are you demented? We all KNOW that in Charles' generation the eldest son got it all.

But that doesn't mean that he wasn't acutely aware of a few other facts of life that were not so palatable.

One day, addressing an audience somewhere, some cheeky sort raised his hand and asked, "Sir, to what do you attribute your success with women?"

Without missing a best, Charles replied drily with a gesture upward, "It's the ears."

The place broke up, but don't think for a moment that Charles didn't know that he was a geeky, awkward sort - with a sister who one courtier slily characterised as "twice the man he is" and who was her father's child in a way Charles would never be; a disappointment to his father. who was very much a man's man; and with (when Andrew was young) a handsome younger brother who's face was up on millions of teen girls bedroom walls, just as Charles' son, William, would be one day.

I don't think Charles has had an easy ride. Maybe he would have liked to be in Andrew's shoes, and be good-looking, able to marry more freely, not worry about providing heirs and waiting so long for his birthright that at 74 he's bowing to men whose parents wisely stepped out of the way so their forty-something sons could take over whilst relatively youthful and strong.

The Queen fucked so much up that I'm at last beginning to lose what was my enduring fondness for her.

^*missing a beat (not best)

As far as the Duke of Edinburgh title, can one of Charles' sons inherit that title from him? Or does it have to be created again by the monarch?

If Charles does create a DoE for Edward while Charles is the monarch, will there be 2 dukedoms of Edinburgh, as described in R83? One for Charles, one for Edward? In that case will they have to duke it out? Who has the bigger baton?

Oh for fuck’s sake can’t you Americans just leave it alone? You don’t get it - you think it’s all a Game of Thrones scenario. Move along and leave it to the British and the other Commonwealth realms.

Bollocks! The hall monitor has arrived to smite my inquisitive wonderment of all things British!

We've done this to death....

Prince Edward was enamored with "Lord Wessex" character from Shakespeare in Love. The prince did ask HM to make him "Duke of Wessex" but no such dukedom has existed in GB for ages if ever IIRC. There was however a Godwin, Earl of Wessex going back to (circa) 1019, so that is what Prince Edward got because basically it is what he wanted.

HM wasn't totally happy that her youngest son would not be a duke, and later on scheme was hatched to make Edward "duke of Edinburgh" via convoluted chain of events that also involves a handshake agreement with Prince Charles, who becomes (or rather became) d of E as of right upon his father's demise.

Yes, the monarch is font of all honors and thus can create anyone anything he or she likes. But taking away someone's birthright is against law and can only happen under certain circumstances and must involve Parliament. Last time in recent memory involved a few of George V's German cousins and the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917.

While on face of things it would seem best for HM to stop all this shillyshallying and just make Prince Edward a duke before she dies, there are other issues.

First and foremost the BRF is running out of "names" due to mixture of longevity and several other reasons.

Not just any territorial name is good enough for a royal dukedom, and many of the best are already in use, and have heirs. There are others such as Connaught, Cumberland, Albany, Clarence, are out thanks to historical connotations. Windsor is also out for obvious reasons...

Thus on face of things HM and Prince Phillip plan to "give" Prince Edward the d of E is one of best solutions. It doesn't create another new dukedom, and the name is a very good one without any controversy attached.

None of this bodes well for the two princes of Prince William. In due time Duke of Cambridge will become king, and if tradition still holds then what will his sons get upon marriage?

A who's who of dukes!

And they're not all bad looking either...

Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton.....

Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 16th Duke of Hamilton, as Scottish men go isn't so bad looking.

I think the only reason Charles might withhold the title from Edward is because it has become synonymous with Philip. If the Queen lasts a few more years, then I guess that link will be broken a bit, but if she were to die soon and Edward suddenly became the Duke of Edinburgh it would feel a bit strange to lots of Brits.

It's the same reason the Duke of Windsor title has never been resurrected - i.e. it belonged to the much disgraced Edward who abdicated the throne. Any future royal couple known as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor would evoke memories of Edward and Wallis Simpson. Not the best association for them!

As others have said, Edward apparently has a bit of an obsession with titles (notice how he accepted titles for his children, despite Anne rejecting them for hers) so I think it'd upset him if he wasn't made DoE on his mother's death.

R103

Titles of, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Merioneth, Baron of Renfrew, Baron Greenwich, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, all became Prince Charles's upon his mother becoming monarch automatically. If Prince Charles predeceases his mother those titles along with "Prince of Wales" would flow to heir apparent (Prince William).

Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich were titles Prince Charles inherited from his father as eldest son via letters patent remainder to same. Thus if Prince Charles dies before becoming king those personal titles would go to *his* eldest son (heir) Prince William.

Letters patent creating titles for royal princes operate same as other peers pretty much. Remainder is to heirs of peer's body from legally married spouse via primogeniture. Only difference is that if a prince (or princess) becomes monarch their titles merge back into the crown.

What does any of that have to do with what r6 claimed, r101?

"and Edward suddenly became the Duke of Edinburgh it would feel a bit strange to lots of Brits" - Just imagine what it will be like when the Queen dies and Charles suddenly becomes King, r111. Charles himself "suddenly" became the Duke of Edinburgh as soon as Philip died.

The most likely thing is that once Charles becomes king he will make Edward the Duke of Edinburgh. There's absolutely no reason for that to happen right now, though.

[quote]In an interview back in June to mark the centenary of his late father’s birth, [Edward] was asked by the BBC: ‘You will be the next Duke of Edinburgh, when the Prince of Wales becomes king, that is quite something to take on?’ He replied: ‘It was fine in theory, ages ago when it was sort of a pipe dream of my father’s… and of course it will depend on whether or not the Prince of Wales, when he becomes king, whether he’ll do that, so we’ll wait and see. So yes, it will be quite a challenge taking that on.’

Those Harry and Meghan figurines are just hilarious, lol.

It seems a dukedom is suspended once its owner behaved like a dick.

So the Sussex dukedom will also be suspended in the future.

R114 Well, death is inavoidable! I stand by what I said, though - when titles are so closely associated with one Royal, people do find it a bit weird if it's then applied too quickly to another royal.

Look at Camilla... she has the Princess of Wales title, but uses the Duchess of Cornwall for very obvious reasons...

R111 Edward's children were born with titles. He's the Queen's son, his children are the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line, just like Andrew's and Charles's children. They were entitled to use the style and title of HRH AT BIRTH.

Edward, in fact, chose to accept an earldom rather than a higher ranking royal ducal title and have his technically HRH kids go by their aristocratic titles, Lady and Viscount, instead of HRH. They are easy h entitled at 18 to choose to take up the HRHs they were born to.

Anne didn't refuse titles for her children. She and her then commoner husband declined a title for HIM. As children only inherit titles from their fathers, no title for Mark Phillips meant no titles for their children. They could inherit no title from her.

You had the cart entirle the wrong way round.

It is Edward who showed a decent and realistic regard for his children's place in the line of succession by declining a royal ducal title in favour of one that allowed the kids a choice. And, on Philip's assurance that one day in the future, Edward would receive the DoE title.

And not for nothing, but Edward showed some appreciation for English history in choosing the Wessex title: it's far more historically distinguished than the Sussex ducal title the Queen gave Harry.

The Wessexes have been working steadily for 20 years as second tier royals, without complaint. Their daughter just turned 18, blossoming into a quiet and unassuming young woman who has obviously turned down the option of going from her accustomed Lady Louise to HRH Princess Louise, which is what she was technically born to.

It's Charles who is the title-obsessed petty shite, not Edwatd. Which is why, despite their hideous treatment of him, the Queen, William and Kate, and the institution to which they owe their undeserved position, Charles can't bear to see his own son and grandchildren without royal titles. It is likely his pleas to the Queen that have kept her from stripping the Sussexes of their title and issuing LPs limiting the automatic HRH only to children of direct heirs.

Tree up wrong barking, as Graham Norton puts it.

"when titles are so closely associated with one Royal, people do find it a bit weird if it's then applied too quickly to another royal." - considering royal titles are passed on exactly at the moment one royal dies to their heir, this doesn't really make sense, r117. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase "The King is dead! Long live the King!"?

The title Duke of Edinburgh immediately passed to his eldest son when Philip died. Charles is the current Duke of Edinburgh.

If she used the Princess of Wales title, millions of women would be queuing up to punch her in the cunt. Diana casts a long shadow.

R118 - The Queen offered Anne the choice of titles for her children, though, even though her husband was a commoner. Dickie Arbiter has been quoted as saying: “It was a masterstroke of the Princess Royal when she decided not to give her children titles. Growing up as a commoner allowed Zara to thrive as her own woman, and there has never been pressure on her to conform. She has benefited from it in all sorts of ways.”

Also, Zara told The Times: “I’m very lucky that both my parents decided to not use the title and we grew up and did all the things that gave us the opportunity to do.”

I think it's good Louise hasn't become a Princess. Like Zara, it will allow her to carry on a more 'normal' life, but also I'm in favour of keeping the RF fairly small. Something The Queen and Charles are rumoured to think.

R119 - I think you misunderstand me. I'm fully aware Charles now has the Duke of Edinburgh title, but he's not actively using it. It was the active use I was referring to the public not easily accepting. As I said, Camilla could have restyled herself as The Princess of Wales when she married Charles, but she chose the Duchess of Cornwall instead because The Princess of Wales was (and still is) so closely associated with Diana. Sorry for repeating myself, that point seems to have been ignored. (Good to see R120 gets it at least.)

I don't think the great British public will give a damn that Edward takes the title Duke of Edinburgh. First and foremost, I don't think the great British public spends a great deal of time contemplating royal titles. Second, if they do, they are well used to sons inheriting titles from the father and seem to sleep as well as previously. For that matter, the greatest title - king or queen - has gone one to the other with some regularity and all is well.

Not a dishy duke but not an elegant earl: William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke.

You are all missing the point with your obsession with titles. The grandchildren have grown up with extraordinary privilege and live charmed lives. They don’t need titles. People will still roll out the red carpet forever.

[quote]Zara told The Times: “I’m very lucky that both my parents decided to not use the title and we grew up and did all the things that gave us the opportunity to do.”

If she had the title, what would that have prevented her from doing?

What is the relationship like between Charles and Edward?

FYI: The UK dukedoms of Marlborough, Buccleuch, Roxeburghe, Northumberland and Fife can pass to and/or through a female.

[quote]As others have said, Edward apparently has a bit of an obsession with titles (notice how he accepted titles for his children, despite Anne rejecting them for hers) so I think it'd upset him if he wasn't made DoE on his mother's death.

Edward doesn't have an "obsession" with the dukedom, he was firmly promised it by both is father (the titleholder) and his mother, the Queen, for many years. The Queen herself as much said so back in 1999, when she publicly and clearly stated that the Edinburgh dukedom, would, 'in due time', go to Edward after his parents' deaths.

One would assume this was all done with the input of Charles, who would be required to 're-create' the dukedom once he's King. But these are the Windsors, so you can't bank on anything being discussed and decided with clarity. But don't blame Edward for having the expectation that he'd received his father's title - his parents have firmly stated this wish.

r126 the Charles-Edward relationship is not thought to be a bad one, they aren't particularly close given their large age gap, but there was always thought to be at minimum a mutual respect.

Charles has always been notoriously spikey in all his family relations. With his parents, his siblings (he loves Anne, but they are chalk & cheese in terms of personality), his 1st wife, his sons, his in-laws - the list goes on. He is a decent and intelligent man, but can be difficult. It would behoove him, imo, to keep his better-behaved family relations close at hand, and in his inner circle, the closer he comes to accession.

Lol, r129.

[quote]Yes, the monarch is font of all honors and thus can create anyone anything he or she likes. But taking away someone's birthright is against law and can only happen under certain circumstances and must involve Parliament. Last time in recent memory involved a few of George V's German cousins and the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917.

Correction: the monarch is Fount of all Honour in the UK and can create much anything in terms of titles that he/she likes. They also have full control over all HRH and Princely rank usage, and can retract those at will, either via an official LP (the preferred method) or by letting her wishes be firmly known aloud.

It is the retraction of royal ducal titles, once given, that is the basis of much debate. Eg., the Sussex dukedom was granted by her, there are many who believe she as the power to retract it or "take it back" during her lifetime. Same with the York dukedom. Again, this is considered open to discussion by many.

Non-royal dukedoms - those that have been held by a family line for some time, and are no longer "royal" or close in relation to the crown, or those that were given out by prior monarchs, are not though to be within the monarch's power to retract. Parliament would need to decide something like this.

r18 the Wessex children had their titles decided before their birth, when TQ made a public statement in 1999 on the occasion of their parents' marriage, re the title and form of address of their future children. She made it clear they would be styled as the children of an Earl, thereby officially 'mothballing' their right to use the HRH and prince/princess rank.

There is misunderstanding that an official LP must be issued to overrule the standing LP of 1917, which currently lays out who gets an HRH and princely rank. Not so - the monarch can simply make their wishes publicly known in their capacity as Fount of all Honour, and that holds until such time as they might again publicly reverse a decision. Therefore, Louise and James are not thought to have the HRH right at birth, given the prior statement. It's why Louise isn't using HRH now, since she just turned 18. Her grandmother has not allowed it.

It's why the Sussexes are in a grey area re their HRH usage. They had it up until early 2020 certainly. But then TQ issued her (vague-ish) statement about them not being allowed to use HRH, due to their leaving for Canada. Some see this as putting the HRH in 'abeyance' for the time being; others see it as removing the HRH from them as is her right. BP's notoriously and deliberately fuzzy language keeps it in a grey area.

though = thought in r131

The Queen surely would have had to remove the HRH, which she didn't. Under 1917, he's still a prince and an HRH so his wife accorded certain courtesies.

R125 I believe the expectation on her to perform Royal duties would have been greater. Instead, she's been able to get on with leading her life as she wants. It's also quite refreshing she married Mike Tindall who's definitely a commoner and has no hint of snobbery about him. They seem really happy, too.

Oh, also, I forgot to add a thanks to 'Title Troll #5' for sharing their extensive knowledge!

Mike Tindall is Zara’s bit of rough - and more power to her!

The entire RF seems to like Mike. I hope he's a really good fuck and a good Daddy and continues to keep her happy.

So Charles and Edward must be merely "quite fond of" each other, which in practical terms means "just leave the gift and get out!'

Mike Tindall was no doubt the first alpha in the family since Philip and Anne (and now William).

You forgot me r140.

When Mike married Zara his nose was shaped like an S or a Z due to various soccer injuries. A few years ago he was having severe breathing problems and doctors told him he needed to have his nose straightened to improve his inhalation. He had the surgery and his nose is now straight as an arrow. If you look at before and after photos, the difference is glaringly obvious but he's hot as Hell either way.

Rugby.

I stand corrected, r143.

There are so many photos of Mike being allowed to play with the Cambridge children. Almost none of Harry with them.

Mike Tindall went to a private school founded by Elizabeth I, he's not that much of a common man.

Well, then common among the upper class.

From above link...

"Of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, we do, will grant and ordain for us, our heirs and successors, that hereafter there be and shall be one Grammar School of Queen Elizabeth at Wakefield, for the teaching, instructing and bringing up of children and youth in grammar, and other good learning, to continue to that use forever."

To think then and now there are scores of mandarins in HM's government who write these sort of things.

That was written in the sixteenth century, r148. It was probably clear and precise language for the day. Believe it or not, British civil servants don't write like that anymore, but you do find similar language in the 1632 Charter of Maryland:

[quote]Know Ye therefore, that We, encouraging with our Royal Favour, the pious and noble purpose of the aforesaid Barons of Baltimore, of our special Grace, certain knowledge, and mere Motion, have Given, Granted and Confirmed, and by this our present Charter, for Us our Heirs, and Successors, do Give, Grant and Confirm, unto the aforesaid Caecilius, now Baron of Baltimore, his Heirs, and Assigns, all that Part of the Peninsula, or Chersonese, lying in the Parts of America...

Both the Grammar School of Queen Elizabeth at Wakefield charter and the Charter of Maryland might sound convoluted but they're actually quite clear and precise, in the language of their day, as to what they intend to do and where the power for this to be done accrues from. Even today, laws, statutes, etc. have to be written in what might seem like a convoluted way but which offer a strict legal interpretation, cover all aspects and are exact about their intention.

[quote]The Queen surely would have had to remove the HRH, which she didn't. Under 1917, he's still a prince and an HRH so his wife accorded certain courtesies.

He may still have his princely title (and therefore, by extension, his wife as well as a courtesy). Re-read my post: she did - albeit in a vague and fuzzy way - 'remove' Harry (and Meghan's) HRH. She made a clear statement that they were not to use it anymore, upon leaving their official royal roles and moving to Canada. She stopped their usage of the HRH, which is fairly akin to removal, even if by implication.

TQ has shown that HRH usage doesn't need to be 'all or nothing'. She didn't have to put out a harsh statement, or issue a fresh LP, in the case of the Sussexes. The situation wasn't that dire - it was upsetting, certainly - it didn't warrant harsh, divisive treatment. She essentially deftly "mothballed" Harry's (and by extension, Meghan's) HRH styling/form of address while they live overseas.

Should they ever return to the UK, and take up working royal life again, look for their HRH usage to be reinstated by HM.

Title Troll #5 ^^ at r150.

What we really need is a sticky at the top of the DL, covering the following:

Why Princess Anne declined titles for her children, or why they weren’t hers to decline?

Prince Edward and the Duke of Edinburgh title - will Charles go with his parents’ wishes or crush Edward’s hopes and dreams?

Beatrice and Eugenie - euro trash who’ve never worked in their lives or titled hardworking misunderstood gals

Andrew and Fergie - are they getting remarried or is Fergie just a sad drunk being used by her fat pompous ex because she knows too much?

The Queen Mother’s trust funds for the grandchildren - real or imagined?

Why do Americans bang on about fighting a war so as not to need to bow before royalty, and refuse to do so, even though there is no longer a requirement for anyone to do so?

One imagines majority of British don't give a toss if Prince Edward is called duke of Edinburgh or duke of Earl..... Just give him something and be done.

As for Mike Tindall suppose it is a particularly British thing not to have his nose done sooner, but really, head on it's a bit of shock.

R153 As a rugby player he dealt with the break until he retired, after which he got it fixed.

Otherwise he ran the risk of it being broken again while playing.

[quote] It is the retraction of royal ducal titles, once given, that is the basis of much debate. Eg., the Sussex dukedom was granted by her, there are many who believe she as the power to retract it or "take it back" during her lifetime. Same with the York dukedom.

She doesn't have the power. They are more than just titles. Unlike HRH and Prince or Princess, they are peerages Only Parliament can revoke a peerage, but of course, they would do it as with any Act of Parliament, in the name of the monarch.

[quote]She doesn't have the power. They are more than just titles. Unlike HRH and Prince or Princess, they are peerages Only Parliament can revoke a peerage, but of course, they would do it as with any Act of Parliament, in the name of the monarch.

You are more than likely correct on that. But what is the written or accepted rule or regulation on the subject? There is only the most recent precedent of the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act to go by, that involved Parliamentary action.

A petition to Parliament in 2020, asking them to weigh in on removal of the Sussex dukedom, was soundly denied under the notion that "use of Royal titles are a matter for Her Majesty the Queen and not the Government or Parliament" (see link).

More from that response:

[quote]You might be interested to know that the Titles Deprevation Act 1917 was specifically for use during the First World War and for those who have "during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies" and not for a general removal of titles.

The title Princess of Wales will pass in due course from Diana to Catherine, and everyone will be as happy about that as they were about her getting the engagement ring. Happier, since they now know how great she is at her job.

Camilla will almost certainly get to be queen consort, but she knows PoW is a poisoned chalice for her.

The title Princess of Wales has already passed on to Camilla, r157. It will pass in due course from Camilla to Catherine.

R156 - Parliament does not want to touch this issue with Boris Johnson's ten foot pole!

Well, I wouldn't want to touch Boris ...

The government publicly punted back to the Queen when it got a petition to remove Harry's ducal title.

The truth is, Parliament won't do it unilaterally, so the Queen would have to make the request. Without that, the government won't lift a finger. If she does, it would only be if she feels she has a good enough case. And of she does, the government is likely to give its assent.

So, although Parliament may have to sign off on it as a technicality, it's still down to the Queen in a practical sense. She does have the power in that respect. It's up to her to get that ball rolling and she knows the government won't balk her at that point.

Her problem te Harry's ducal title isn't Parliament.

It's Andrew and, secondarily her weak, guilt ridden, thin-skinned heir.

If William were PoW by now, the only problem would be Andrew.

They should make a board game out of all this. "The Heir and The Spare." You go around the board collecting titles, selling them and trading them with other players. The goal is to collect the right set of titles in the right order to become The Monarch. In the meantime, a stack of cards (similar to Monopoly's "Chance" stack) called Letters Patent represents the decisions of the current Monarch (not a player) or a random life-changing circumstance. And of these can throw a wrench in your plans. You can lose your last title, or strategically bestow a title on a competing player. Every time you pass "Go," you collect 200,000 pounds, but you have to do a ribbon cutting ceremony with the giant scissors. On another square you collect 100,000 pounds for opening the little curtains in front of a plaque, but it's all such a bother. There are "danger characters, such as the prince who faces sex charges and costs you a million pounds, or the interloper from America - if you marry her, you lose all the titles you have collected. Or the People's Princess, who blows the lid off your indiscretions, costing you a lot of money and damaging your reputation, and the only way to stop her is to have her discreetly killed off. At last you have collected the titles to ascend to the throne, and the Monarch passes away, so you win, by becoming the new Monarch, but - ugh - who even wants it any more.

[quote] Why Princess Anne declined titles for her children, or why they weren’t hers to decline?

Anne has never been impressed by titles. When you're a daughter of the Queen, I suppose you don't need to be. Also, at the time of her marriage, Britain was going through many changes and Anne likely saw that titles then were more of a hindrance and that being grandchildren of the monarch alone was sufficient to give them a leg up in having successful lives without giving them titles.

Technically, Anne never declined titles for her children. She declined a peerage on behalf of her husband. The peerage would have given the children titles. (As in the case of Tony Snowdon.) Anne's first husband never showed any interest in becoming a peer anyway.

[quote] The Queen Mother’s trust funds for the grandchildren - real or imagined?

Real, sort of. Not the grandchildren, but the great-grandchildren. People think it was just a story because it was known the QM was in need of money to support her lavish lifestyle, so how could she establish any trust funds, but It was because she set up the trusts for her great-grandchildren that left her short of cash as she didn't think she'd live as long as she had. As she continued on living and continued to spend money she no longer had, the Queen and Prince Charles provided financial help.

^ Yes. Exactly.

R163 - ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO BRING THAT SHIT UP AGAIN AFTER IT WAS MADE CLEAR BY HARRY'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRUST - AND HE IS ONE OF HER GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN?!

There was no Queen Mother trust for the great-grandchildren. She left her entire estate to the Queen.

There is not one fucking single shred of evidence for those trusts - taxes, filings, bank records, nothing.

THERE WERE NO FUCKING TRUSTS LEFT BY THE QUEEN MOTHER TO ONE FUCKING SINGLE SOLITARY GREAT-GRANDCHILD.

^ LOL. Do you circle in the hope of being triggered?

[quote] IT WAS MADE CLEAR BY HARRY'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRUST

Harry's representatives would never lie. About anything. Ever.

And as for Princess Anne - apart from everything else, how stupid would it have been for her to be an HRH, her kids to have titles, and the only member of the family without one was Dad?!

Edward's kids were born HRHs, but he set things up so that they never used it. If Charles stops being the wet mess twat that he is and when he becomes King confers the Edinburgh dukedom on Edward after his decades of public service as Philip wished, Edward's son, Viscount Severn, will become the heir to the dukedom when Edward dies, just as right now he's the heir to the Wessex earldom. Lady Louise will still go on being called Lady Louise - the exact equivalent of the title Diana held as the daughter of an earl before she married, likewise the Queen Mother, the former Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of an earl until she married.

If the Queen refuses to take the bloody titles from the two shites who didn't give f.a. about her and the monarchy that gave them so much, the least she can do is issue LPs limiting automatic HRHs only to children of the direct heir.

R167 - Oh, please. You can't hide trusts. Harry and all those other great-grandchildren aren't sheltered from Inland Revenue the way the Queen and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were. Any investigative journalist with a few well placed moles and worth spit would have found it by now.

It was always nothing but a rumour. Always.

We fucking knew about the trusts Diana left, who was far more controversial, and who only had it to leave them because of her divorce settlement.

Get over it. All Harry and William have is Diana's trusts and whatever Papa gave them, subject to normal taxes.

If the world knows about those, why would there have been some deep dark secret about what that charming old lady left a few great-grandchildren?! You think Zara's and Peter's taxes would be so hard to get into?!

And, by the way, she only HAD four great-grandchildren when she died. Peter, Zara, William, and Harry.

Please. Stop being so gullible.

More importantly, why am I not Queen yet??

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The Queen determines who gets the Order of the Garter, not the government. Government controls many other honors, though, including other knighthoods.

If Blairr had an ounce of integrity, he'd gracefully decline.

But then again, if he had an ounce of integrity, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

And he wouldn't be making millions as a "consultant" to the murderous Sauds.

The Queen has control over who gets the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, The Royal Victorian Order, and The Order of Merit.

There are two other orders that are thought defunct which were never officially shelved, but are simply awarded, but the Queen could do so if she wished. One is the Order of St. Patrick, but hasn't been issued since Ireland was split into the Republic and Northern Ireland in 1922. Because Northern Ireland still exists, it would be a political hot potato for civil relations between Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain.

The other is the Order of Victoria and Albert which was for women only. People consider it the same thing as today's Royal Family Order, but it wasn't as Queen Victoria gave it to whomever she liked whether they were a member of the Royal Family or not. It hasn't been awarded since the reign of Edward VII. I think it was 1902 when he gave it to his niece Princess Patricia of Connaught. This is the other order that the Queen still has the right to bestow.

At the risk of further enflaming the Trust Fund Troll, I must point out that at the time of her death, the Queen Mother had 9 great-grandchildren: Peter Philips, Zara Philips, Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Samuel Chatto, Arthur Chatto, and Charles Armstrong-Jones.

Monarch can give anyone she or he wishes a title, royal or otherwise. What binds monarchs in recent memory is tradition and conventions. If HM wanted to make some nobody a peer (hereditary or life), she could do so without recommendation of her government. PM and others may (and possibly would) squawk, but who is going to butt heads with HM?

Britain does not have a written constitution per se like USA that lays out powers of various branches of government. In theory Queen Elizabeth II has same powers as Elizabeth I, however today those powers are exercised in monarch's name by her/his government.

Last British monarch to seriously push the envelope was Queen Victoria, and mostly when she was just a young woman newly arrived on throne. In her later years QV admitted she might have done things differently....

It was how HM came to the throne (via abdication crisis of Edward VIII), that has shaped much of her views on, well shall we say how to do her job....

Grey Men, senior royals at time, and others drummed into Princess then Queen Elizabeth how her uncle almost cost the family firm their jobs. HM has been very careful ever since to remain within boundaries of what Britain's unwritten constitution lays down for a monarch.

People who know these things and watch HM realize the score. When same sex marriage finally passed Parliament many voices worried that HM would not grant her assent to the bill. Rubbish... If anyone had bothered listening to HM's speech when she opened Parliament that year it was clear SSM was going to become law.

What HM did do was achieve a few carve outs. "Queen Consort" is reserved exclusively for female legally wedded to a male monarch, and "Princess of Wales" refers to legal female spouse of Prince of Wales.

Where HM does exercise unchallenged powers is in matters relating to royal family. Despite moaning by Dianamanics HM stripped Diana, Princess of Wales, along with Sarah, duchess of York of their "HRH", busting them down the ranks to commoners. HM also made it clear via letters patent all royal wives who divorce will go same way.

Prince Charles wasn't bothered by Diana remaining royal, and wasn't keen on seeing her lose her royal status, but Mama laid down the law.

R170, hun, you'll never be.

I thought it was Charles who pushed for the HRH to go. No one will ever know who decided what around that fiasco, unless there are papers in the royal archive released in 3022 or something.

The Queen does have the decision over the Garter but I can't believe - though I have no basis - that Buckingham Palace did not engage with the government on the matter. It's precedent that former PMs join the Garter. Delaying Blair blocked everybody else - Brown, Cameron, May and, no doubt his chief concern, Bojo the First.

To leapfrog Blair would have been overtly political, which she would never do. She'd rather get kicked in the ass for following precedent than kicked in the ass for showing a preference. Perhaps she did in delaying Blair. He left office in 2007 and she admitted fifteen new knights and ladies (not including family) before the 2022 appointments that created Sir Tony.

Mirror claims Charles wanted the HRH stripped.

So does Express.

Here the BBC says the Spencers said Diana voluntarily relinquished it.

As I said, we'll never really know.

Touche; I forgot those!

The Title Troll

^^* Which, given the QM's nearly constant state of debt (the Queen had to pay them off repeatedly during the old lday's life), makes it even less likely that she left all those kids a tidy sum.

She was cash poor because in the UK you avoid 40% death duties (estate tax) if you gift the inheritance at least seven years prior to your death. Aristocrats do it all the time to preserve capital. It is reasonable to assume the widow of a King did exactly that, especially if the lady died in overdraft with an estate comprised largely of physical assets. Sorry, I Beetlejuiced.

R177, the monarch by convention cannot refuse to sign Acts of Parliament into law without causing a constitutional crisis. Parliament has the right to remove her if she did .

Similarly, the Queen’s Speech is written by the Government, and lays out the Government’s legislative programme for the forthcoming session of Parliament. The Queen has no input, she merely gets to read it.

R186

Yes, one knows this, and your post is basically what one stated.

Again Queen Victoria was last British monarch to push that envelope. Ladies of the Bedchamber affair was but one instance in point where the Queen did what she shouldn't.

Sticking with same example, everyone who follows such things knew same sex marriage in UK was in the bag once it passed Parliament. There was simply no question of HM not granting assent to the bill as it was duly passed by her government.

When Britain brought back monarchy after chopping off head of Charles I and having a "Glorious Revolution", a few points were made quite clear.

Monarchs of GB are on their throne by Grace of God and will of the People. The latter being expressed via Parliament. Constitutionally HM would be required to sign her own death warrant if it came to that. Also it is Parliament who decides who sits on throne. That body was responsible for the Hanoverians replacing Stuarts, and in theory could boot the Windsor-Mountbattens off the throne for anyone else they choose.

Americans obsessing about the monarchy again. You have enough problems of your own.

[quote]Here the BBC says the Spencers said Diana voluntarily relinquished it.

Sure she did. Just like Meghan will voluntarily relinquish her Duchess title any minute now.

R169 - What about Beatrice and Eugenie? I think they were alive at the time of death of the Queen Mother.

R189 - I read somewhere many years ago (and could be 100% wrong) that Diana voluntarily relinquished her style of "HRH" in exchange for more cash in her divorce settlement from Charles.

Diana had no choice as to whether her HRH was relinquished. It wasn't a matter of haggling.

You were there?

"Aristocrats do it all the time to preserve capital." - Everyone does it all the time, r185, but it's mainly on physical assets, i.e. immovable property, houses.

Also, r185, you got it the wrong way around. "Death duties" in the UK are called inheritance tax and mostly burden immovable property, i.e. a house or palace. If you give that away seven years before your death then no tax is paid on it provided you didn't financially benefit from it (e.g. lived in it but didn't pay rent).

While alive, you can give tax-free gifts of cash of any amount if they are paid regularly, come out of your normal expenditures and don't affect your income. A good example of this would be a grandparent paying their grandchildren's school fees. It would have made sense if the Queen Mother did something like this for her grandchildren.

Where, r193? Diana had no control over the use of HRH - that's a fact. She had that honorific simply because she had been married to Charles. On what basis could she have kept it after divorcing him?

I'm a lesbian, so don't know much about this kind of thing, but is it possible that William is really this big?

I remember that when Margaret died her children had sell her grandest tiara, the one in the bathtub photo, to help pay the taxes on the rest of her estate.

^ Forgot to add the add the bathtub pic, below.

Wasn't there a lot of speculation that when William became King, he would restore her HRH? Would that have been a realistic expectation?

Speculation is simply people making things up r200. No, it isn't a realistic expectation.

Margaret must have had some terrible financial advice, r198. But I guess that shows that the Queen Mother didn't leave much for her grandchildren (or children, in the case of Margaret).

Inheritance Tax is a tax on the estate [bold](the property, money and possessions) of someone who’s died.[/bold]

No tax is due on any gifts you give if you live for 7 years after giving them - unless the gift is part of a trust. This is known as the 7 year rule.

What counts as a gift

Gifts include:

money

household and personal goods, for example, furniture, jewellery or antiques

a house, land or buildings

stocks and shares listed on the London Stock Exchange

unlisted shares you held for less than 2 years before your death

So, no, it is not mostly immovable property.

The tiara Margaret's children sold was possibly bought by Margaret herself, but some thought either her mother or sister bought it for her as a wedding gift. It's odd that the royal family didn't buy it back from her children.

A few things: r200 is correct, there has been speculation that William will restore Diana's HRH after he becomes King. I find that to be realistic, myself. It's known that Charles approached Earl Spencer the day of Diana's funeral, with an offer to restore her HRH posthumously; Spencer refused the offer.

It's been rumored that Charles later discussed it with William, and they agreed to let William be the one to eventually restore it.

Re Margaret's Poltimore Tiara: it was sold to pay death duties, and also to sate her son David Linley's insatiable need for wealth and cash. As has been said of him, "he'd sell the chair you're sitting in right out from under you if he thought he'd make a profit".

There was a story that during the estate auction of Margaret's belongings, a piece of one of the ornate gates (or something similar) from Kensington Palace came up on offer, it somehow made it's way into the auction collection. The Queen and her courtiers were not amused: a quick call from BP to both Sotheby's and Linley, and it was quickly pulled, to David's chagrin and embarrassment.

It always struck me as odd how they deferred to the Spencer family on matters relating to dead Diana. Her two sons were under the same roof, and while they were young, they seem never to have been consulted. If anyone should have decided it was William and Meghan's present husband.

R205, the word "speculation" can mean made-up stuff, as in this case. "Speculation" that William might do that is just speculation, it has nothing to do with anything William himself has said, done or thought.

"It's known that Charles approached Earl Spencer the day of Diana's funeral, with an offer to restore her HRH posthumously; Spencer refused the offer." - This is ridiculous nonsense to the highest degree.

R203, inheritance tax absolutely is mostly about immovable property because a house is almost always the most expensive item in anyone's estate and it's what most of the tax will be charged on (the only reason it wouldn't be is because the parent made arrangements before their death to deal with it so as as to reduce inheritance tax). It's also the value of the immovable property that is most likely to push the threshold up. That's why the very first item on the UK government's inheritance tax website is "Passing on a home" and "Rules on giving gifts" comes after that (and gifts include immovable property).

[quote]"It's known that Charles approached Earl Spencer the day of Diana's funeral, with an offer to restore her HRH posthumously; Spencer refused the offer." - This is ridiculous nonsense to the highest degree.

Sorry chap, but this was widely reported by the press, including the BBC. See the archival link - the Beeb reported on the train conversation, only instead of Charles approaching Spencer it was Robert Fellowes (which is the same thing, really).

A 'discussion' ensued, and although the report states "though no offer to restore the title was made", you can be certain the intricacies around such an offer were thoroughly discussed.

[quote]It always struck me as odd how they deferred to the Spencer family on matters relating to dead Diana. Her two sons were under the same roof, and while they were young, they seem never to have been consulted. If anyone should have decided it was William and Meghan's present husband.

Not really odd, in that the boys were both minors at the time. Her siblings were therefore her main adult "heirs" and legally entitled to make decisions about her funeral and other affairs. Prince Charles seems to have been partly consulted on a lot of things in the immediate aftermath of her death, but it was up to Earl Spencer to decide her burial spot and other related matters.

^^ Robert Fellowes not just being HM’s private secretary but Charles Spencer’s brother-in-law.

As well as being a distant cousin of Fergie. Very small world at that level.

I hope you had advice, R208, because you're so literal minded your ability to interpret has been sorely impaired.

And with two sons I see it as really odd. So fuck off you absolutist asshole.

Lol r209, there's no evidence for any of that except the BBC reporting second-hand gossip. What was "widely reported" was the same gossip being circulated around.

The only credible claims in that are:

[quote]Buckingham Palace has moved to end speculation that the title "Her Royal Highness" could be restored posthumously to Diana, Princess of Wales.

And:

[quote]Constitutional historian Lord Blake told the BBC such a move would have been without precedent. "It's never been done before - There's no example that I know of." he said.

[quote]"I'm by no means sure that it would have been entirely wise to do it at this juncture, after all Princess Diana herself let it be known after the divorce that she did not want to continue as HRH."

More likely, what was discussed was this kind of nonsense:

[quote]Palace officials said the princess had ``voluntarily relinquished″ it, but many of her admirers were outraged. A campaign to posthumously restore the title began after her Aug. 31 death in Paris, according to The Sun newspaper.

Let one person's experience of paying inheritance tax instruct us all. Especially since it was no doubt on the same scale as the Queen's Mother's estate.

Pompous fool.

Shrug, r213. Why so angry? it's only a mild discussion, nothing absolutist about it all.

It's entirely plausible that behind the scenes they consulted William and Harry, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they did. It's just that as minors they couldn't make official decisions or statements on their own, or sign any documentation. Most of that fell to Earl Spencer, for better or worse.

You just know everything, don't you, R214? Such certainty. Distant relative or just a servant with really good hearing?

R212, when you're dealing with inheritance - and any legal - issues you need to be literally minded. Of course I have a lawyer (the one who drew up my parent's will) and I spent a long time poring over the UK government's website on related issues. Everything has to be exact and clear. I even had a valuator come to the house to assess the value of its contents, although the only items that concern them are valuables such as jewellery, vintage furniture and crystal.

Inheritance tax in the UK is nuts. It's fairly different from other countries, many of which don't even have inheritance tax. Even the US, where there is a similar system, has much higher thresholds. In the UK, you may have to start paying inheritance tax of 40% if the parental home you are inheriting was worth £325,000, although in most cases it's £500,000. The average price of a house in London is more than £500,000 though.

R217, do you mean the person on the train who overheard?

Are you from the UK, r215?

re the pic @ R197

BIG dick energy indeed

Hello! :-)

That would be the famous Poltimore tiara, which Princess Margaret bought at auction (who actually coughed up the money is another matter) just before her wedding.

Members of BRF have to pay death (estate) taxes just like everyone else, so Princess Margaret's heirs did what scores of noble and or whatever British families have done since years after WWI and certainly WWII, sold off assets to raise ready money.

Much of this came from ending of allowing fee entail. Families could no longer tie up assets in multigenerational trusts (see Downton Abbey), that kept family fortunes intact including largely protecting them from death duties.

R204 The Poltimore Tiara - was purchased as a wedding present for Margaret, and could be taken off its base and used as a necklace. It was purchased for her because all the ones she had worn before were part of the royal collection, leant by her sister or mother.

This one was solely hers. It's not as if her daughter or daughter in law or granddaughter were ever going to need it. And Lynley's ex wife is a very rich heiress in her own right.

Some Asian git bought Princess Margaret's "Poltimore tiara" from that famous sale at Christies.

Other jewels from late Princess Margaret either were sold at same auction, or went to members of BRF including PM's children.

^* Just standing in for the Tiara Troll here.

Christies auction of PM's jewels.

Finally....

In all great British royal and noble families there are (or were) at least two sets of stones (jewels). Those that belonged to the family (and usually were part of a trust), and what a peeress, queen or princess owned as personal property.

For imperial or royal families things pretty much worked this way across Europe. There were "state" jewels, and personal property of various queens, empresses, princesses, grand duchesses, etc...

We know what happened to Romanov jewels (though much remains unaccounted for, likely looted or otherwise stolen), along with whatever jewels from Russian noble families Lenin and his henchmen confiscated by force if necessary.

^^* Well, I should have known better than to stand in for the Tiara Troll - mea culpa, Margaret DID buy it for herself, at a staggeringly cheap price. Here is the real info from no less a source than The Court Jeweller.

"On the advice of Deputy Master of the Household Patrick Plunkett, this tiara was acquired for Princess Margaret prior to the official announcement of her engagement to Antony Armstrong-Jones. This is how you see it termed, “acquired for Princess Margaret”; some say it was selected by Margaret and purchased by the Queen or the Queen Mother as Margaret’s wedding gift and others say Margaret bought it for herself. The tiara was originally made by Garrard for Florence, Lady Poltimore, wife of the second Baron Poltimore, in the 1870s. It was auctioned by the fourth Baron Poltimore in 1959 and was purchased for £5,500 at the time."

Poltimore tiara was not very old by historical standards, and PM was the only royal connection. People moaned and wailed when some of PM's jewels were sold (including this tiara), but in end that was the logical choice.

There were death duties to be paid by PM's estate and more to point what was anyone else going to do with the thing...

HM has scores of tiaras both from her own personal collection and state jewels she rarely wears if ever.

Jaysus, she bought it for 5500lbs and it sold for $1.7 million. Even accounting for inflation that's a mind-blowing ROI.

She was so pretty before the rot from the marriage set in. Gorgeous colouring, huge blue eyes with the dark hair . . . what a shame.

If and when Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh, what would be some legal consequences? Is there land waiting for him that is associated with the title? Any other privileges? Or is it just one more line in his email signature and nothing else?

R232

Never discount effect of royal provenance! Especially Asian, Middle Eastern and Eastern European gits who are nobodies but have tons of loot.

Jewels that once belonged to Queen Marie-Antoinette fetch vast sums even for what they are. Remove ownership of the tragic queen consort of France and Navarre and prices likely would be lower.

Pretty much the latter, R233 - although Edward is patron of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards Scheme - so it would dovetail nicely with that. I suspect that this was behind the original decision for him to assume the title eventually.

If a king had a male spouse, would he still be known as the Queen Consort?

R233, the title only.

5500L in 1959 = 136K L today.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

That's her "I'm gonna getcha!" face.

There is no land or Castle or anything else associated with either the Edinburgh or Sussex or Cambridge or York ducal titles.

Only with the Duchies of Cornwall (for the Sovereign's eldest son), and the Duchy of Lancaster, whose holdings and revenues belong to the Sovereign.

For real ducal wealth, land, and castles, the dukes of Norfolk, Northumberland, Bucchleuch, and young Hugh Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminister, would be far better catches.

Pippa almost nailed George Percy, the heir to the Northumberland dukedom.

Can you imagine if Carole Middleton had pulled that off?! One daughter in Buckingham Palace and the other as Her Grace the Duchess of Northumberland?!

One reason duchies are no longer created outside of BRF is that a dukedom is a very exalted state, and requires extensive wealth (in theory) to keep up.

Ages ago a duke (along with his subsidiary titles) would have been given vast lands from which he and his family could derive income. Thus is still largely true today as some of the wealthiest families in UK have landholdings going back centuries.

Hugh Grosvenor, the 7th Duke of Westminster is the lad at top of British society marriage market.

[quote]Wasn't there a lot of speculation that when William became King, he would restore her HRH? Would that have been a realistic expectation?

I'm quite sure it was what she intended while she was alive. (She probably thought we'd be up to William by now.) As things are, he'll probably let sleeping dogs lie and let Kate and Charlotte take the attention that still wants to return to Diana today.

Diana would be sixty-one this year, and with things going as they are with HM could be one or more decades (imagine) before either Prince of Wales or Prince William do any moving up.

Like Marilyn Monroe, cult of Diana largely grew out of her sad and unfortunate early end. Had she lived several more decades who knows where public opinion would lay.

Any push to make Diana, princess of Wales "HRH" in "king" William's time would lie in her having behaved herself post divorce years. Considering Diana was bit of a lose cannon before her divorce and afterwards, who knows what she would have gotten up to ten, twenty or more years on.

Diana didn't seem like sort of woman that would have been long without a man. If things with Dodi didn't lead to marriage, who knows where she may have turned next.

Can you imagine Diana taking sides and inserting herself into the spectacle that has become Prince Harry and the Markle woman?

She would have been out of control for a decade or so but I think eventually calmed down, especially as her sons grew up, r244. She would have been absolutely delighted with Kate and her grandchildren. Things might have turned out very differently for Harry as well, if Diana had been around. If she'd lived, today she would have been a doting grandmother and hopefully have managed to deal with her inner demons.

All the talk about restoring her HRH posthumously is nonsense. A posthumous HRH is also meaningless, as it's a title people are introduced. No dead royals are referred to as HRH.

"All the talk about restoring her HRH posthumously is nonsense."

There was some chatter after the Duchess of Windsor died, that at some predetermined point mid flight as her body was being flown back to UK for burial, finally Wallis Simpson would get the HRH long denied her in life. Rubbish!

Why would HM and or government stoop to giving Wallis something after her death when it no longer mattered. HRH would be engraved on her grave marker, but what is the good of that?

In end it really wouldn't have mattered IMHO. People (many who ought to know better), still would refer to "Princess Diana" if she lived, crane their necks and otherwise still have treated her as if Diana, princess of Wales was a royal.

"For real ducal wealth, land, and castles, the dukes of Norfolk, Northumberland, Buccleuch, and young Hugh Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, would be far better catches."

R240 - I would put the Duke of Beaufort and the Duke of Roxeburghe in the above group of dukes along with the non-dukes such as the Marquess of Bath and the Marquess of Bute.

[quote] Hugh Grosvenor, the 7th Duke of Westminster is the lad at top of British society marriage market.

He is 30 by now, right? Isn't it time to work on a male heir? If I remember correctly, his parents had two daughters before he was born. Quite some responsibility for one man.

R248 - I may be wrong but I think Hugh Grosvenor, the 7th Duke of Westminster has been dating the same girl/woman for years.

For years it was assumed that Margaret bought the Poltimore tiara herself, out of her own funds. After the Snowdon divorce someone in the Royal Household said that the Queen bought it for her sister.

Hughie has been off and on with the Event Planner Harriet.

R251 - Who?????

Charles might want Edinburgh for Harry, because Queen Victoria’s second son Alfred bore the Edinburgh title. Edward won’t be main line anymore once his mother dies. Maybe Charles can make Edward Duke of Wessex.

Why on earth would Charles want another title for Harry?

He can have a female heir, r248.

Harry can consider himself lucky if he's allowed to keep the Sussex title.

R255 - The Dukedom of Westminster can only pass through and/or to a male.

Prince Charles long has said when his time comes there will be a focus on a smaller and tighter BRF. This is one reason why Prince Andrew has been so keen to get what he can for his daughters out of HM.

Thus wouldn't expect to see tons of new HRH being created, and as HM's cousins (Gloucester and Kent) pass on so will go their royal status. Their male heirs will get the dukedoms, but subsequent males won't be "HRH" or princes because they are neither sons nor grandsons of a monarch.

That will change in the next few years though, r257.

Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) bill far as one knows has not become law. If you R259 can prove different, please do tell.

As things now stand peerage is self limiting. Within any given generation one person rises (the heir), while rest of family (siblings) do not.

Where there are no male heirs, and one cannot be found despite extensive search, the title goes extinct, this further puts a limit on hereditary peerages. Over years many illustrious and sometimes ancient peerages have gone extinct for want of male heirs.

Yes, there are certain peerages and baronies that can be inherited by females. These normally are however unique situations, and or baronies with writs centuries old.

Background....

R253 I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

Harry, firstly, already had a ducal title of his own.

Secondly, on what planet, nay, in what universe would Charles start his reign by giving the miserable shite who did that interview whilst Philip was dying, Philip's ducal title??!!

Instead of to the son Philip wanted the title to go to, who, unlike the Sussexes, has been working quietly for the monarchy for 30 years?

Oh, yes, I can just see the British public hearing that!

The pitchforks and torches will light up Britain from Inverness to the Mall.

^*And there is no dukedom of Wessex. It's an ancient, historic title but never exceeded the rank of Earl.

Charles Owens Edward and Sophie that title.

If Charles wants his reign to start with even more bad juju, well . . .

^*Charles owes . . .

[quote] Similarly a "duchess" is only the female wife of a duke.

Really???

[quote] Similarly a "duchess" is only the female wife of a duke.

[quote] Really?

[quote] -The 2nd Duchess of Fife & the 3rd Duchess of Hamilton

Oh, don't forget us...

R266

Those were special circumstances.

Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton

^ What a beaut!

Besides anyone other than argumentative old queens on DL understood meaning of post.

Absent extraordinary efforts letters patent granting virtually all peerages in UK are remainder to males in order of primogeniture. Yes, there are those where a female can inherit, but again we're speaking of a small minority.

Far as same sex marriage is concerned again "no", the male spouse of a duke is nor will not ever be a duchess. Ditto for earl (countess), marquess (marchioness), and so forth.

Have we discussed what happens if George, who this board like to cheekily imply may be less than enthused about female companionship when he comes of age, ends up gay as a goose? William is on the record saying he would be 100% fine with and supportive, but what of the line of succession? Heirs must come from the body and they must be legitimate. It seems to me that George would either be forced by circumstance into a sham marriage (that everyone would know was a sham and that i cannot see being allowed or tolerated by the church or the public) with a woman, or would have to accept that in all likelihood his sister's oldest child would inherit the throne.

Sarah Spencer, Diana's older sister, almost landed George Grosvenor, the previous Duke of Westminster. That would have been quite a coup, too. Losing him sent her into a wicked bout of anorexia.

[quote] Similarly a "duchess" is only the female wife of a duke.

And yet a female can be duke.

Speaking of the Duchess of Fife and of the potential Duke of Wessex R264 - there is precedent. When Queen Victoria’s granddaughter married the Earl of Fife, QV created him Duke of Fife, presumably as one of her granddaughters marrying a mere Earl would have been considered infra dig.

Their descendant David Carnegie 4th Duke of Fife is the current Duke.

And if you really want to make your head hurt, trace the way that the dukedom passed from the original duke to the current line.

And I’ll MARY! myself for the above.

They'd have to change the heirs of the body rule to give a gay monarch a legitimate son or daughter. An adopted child or a surrogate child will not do under the current guidelines.

More likely, a gay George would remain childless (though perhaps married to a man) and let the crown go to Charlotte's line after his death. OR, they'd keep the gay thing quiet and have him marry a game woman willing to bear heirs and enjoy the status and her own lovers, leaving George free to enjoy his boys on the side. Wouldn't be the first time a monarch had that deal.

And the current Duke is, R274?

George isn't gay. He reportedly has a raging cousin-crush on the bossy Savannah Phillips. He'll be just like grandpa and marry a jolly mommy figure. The Windsor men love those.

An openly gay Prince of Wales or otherwise heir presumptive (or apparent) would cause a constitutional crisis.

Twenty, thirty or whatever years on in Britain (as in HM's government) hasn't "evolved" enough to accept fact off the bat there wouldn't be heirs of such a monarch's body via legally married spouse, what happens then.....

There are scores of heirs from Electress Sophia, and Duke of Cambridge certainly has done his share. Prince George has two siblings, so that's sorted. It would just be understood from start throne will be making a lateral pass. Not much different than Edward VIII and whole abdication crisis that brought Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret closer to the throne than they otherwise would have been.

Of course other large worry is that monarch is also head of C of E. A gay head of Church of England likely would even decades from now make some heads spin.

Next to females being allowed to inherit peerages as of right, other big thing is going to be the whole "heirs of body..." by legally married spouse. While numbers aren't great there obviously gay royals and peers (hereditary), who if eldest sons won't see their sons inherit rank, titles or styles. Only way it can happen is if said peer or royal married a woman first, produced heirs, then put the woman away and marry or whatever the sex of his preference.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I said it will change in a few years r260, I didn't say the law had already been passed, and the very fact that there is a draft bill suggests it will be. The Duke of Westminster can also bequeath his actual wealth and assets to whoever he wants, which is not the same as his title. Yes, there's always the risk of him dying within the next few years, but if he were to live even only until 55, that's still another 25 years in which the law will undoubtedly be changed or he can have a son.

"An openly gay Prince of Wales or otherwise heir presumptive (or apparent) would cause a constitutional crisis." - Not really. If he has siblings, as he is most likely to, then they will succeed.

True, but wherever possible it is preferable for direct passes, not lateral.

Then there also is distinct possibility that said gay "prince of Wales" or other heir apparent (or presumptive) will cause all sorts of scandal (like Edward VIII) by refusing to be crowned unless can marry the person he loves and have that person made some sort of recognized royal consort.

I mean that was the whole arguments about legalizing same sex marriage; putting gay spouses on same footing as everyone else.

A gay heir to the throne will be able to marry his partner and have him recognised as some sort of royal consort. Then the crown will pass to a sibling or a niece or nephew.

For fuck's sake, Lady Bracknell, he is thirty years old. It's 2021, not 1721. By no definition is he getting on. Jesus, when you old dolls start discussing Queens and poshies....

r277, The Queen calls herself Duke of Normandy as the ruler of the Channel Islands.

[quote] An openly gay Prince of Wales or otherwise heir presumptive (or apparent) would cause a constitutional crisis.

Looks like poor George then needs to remain too busy to date. Or he could be "bi", with or without quotation marks.

R282 - If Hugh Grosvenor dies with no male heir the Dukedom of Westminster is extinct but the Marquessate of Westminster lives on.

There currently is no heir to the Dukedom of Westminster. The Earl of Wilton is heir presumptive to the Marquessate.

It would not cause a constitutional crisis. The throne passes to the next in line. If, in this instance, George was gay the throne goes next to Charlotte and her children. The sovereign of the day could give the spouse a title. Same sex marriage is legal in the UK, if not solemnized in the CoE, so that box is ticked. The only real problem would be for the church, which won't perform gay marriages and is out of step with the majority view. But that's not a constitutional crisis.

A gay Royal couple would probably get what Charles and Camilla got: a civil marriage ceremony followed by some sort of blessing of union ceremony in a church.

Charles needs to face the fact he is an old man with health issues. I can absolutely see him cutting off Andrew and the other Yorkies. But Edward and Sophie will remain very much a part of things. Edward will get his title of Duke of Edinburgh when Charles becomes king, and William will be Prince of Wales. No one wants to do all the grand openings of shopping centers, least of all Charles, so he needs some Royals to supplement his own activities. The fact is, William and Catherine are lazy. They show up and wok for a while, then disappear for a while. So the cousins will fill in. And I have a feeling Beatrice and Huge, the Yorkies will get re activated when Charles dies. King William will call on his cousins to cut a lot of ribbons. With any luck, Andrew will be gone by then.

"The fact is, William and Catherine are lazy"

R293 - You are so correct.

Not a Kate Middleton fan, but if she really is a devoted mother, the best thing that could come of that is a generation of royal siblings who are close, with a warm relationship and no resentment over who’s the heir and who’s the spare. Margaret, Andrew, and Harry all ended up stunted, with addiction issues, and difficult relations with their siblings (and to be fair their siblings didn’t particularly make an effort to be good siblings…).

[quote]The Duke of Westminster can also bequeath his actual wealth and assets to whoever he wants, which is not the same as his title.

His wealth is tied up in innumerable complicated family trusts that are not easily accessible. He really doesn't have the right to bequeath it to anyone, as the trusts would have rules governing this.

He likely has a decent amount of his own personal wealth that he himself controls, but how much of this exists separately from the ducal trusts is unknown.

[quote]No one wants to do all the grand openings of shopping centers

They don't open vast numbers of shopping centers. You embrace your stupid, fine. Curious, but fine. For the benefit of the rest of us, just be quiet.

^ Take a Valium.

^ Post useful content.

Love the intern who asserts that "W and C are lazy," then immediately answers himself "u r right." Toot toot

W and C are doing fine and quite strong in the polls. Besides projects like Earthshot and the children/mental health initiatives etc, making a strong family is the best thing they can do

So, Charles can give the Dukedom of Edinburgh to Edward if he wants to, but the Queen won't let him. I didn't realize it was that simple.

R296, isn't the source of the Westminster wealth land ownership through private companies, the Grosvenor Estate and the Grosvenor Group? Which belongs to the family, rather than the duke or the duchy.

R301, Charles isn't the monarch so he can't give the title away anyway. Moreover, even if he wanted to do it, the right time for that is when he is king.

Charles is the current Duke of Edinburgh but he isn't free to give the title away or bestow it on someone else until he becomes Monarch, at which point the title "merges with the Crown" and then as Monarch he can bestow it on someone else as he sees fit. There is supposedly an agreement within the family that he will bestow it on Edward.

But with this family who knows?

[quote]Why isn't Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh yet?

Two words:

"Cum Breath"

R272, as long as Charlotte or Louis provide children "of the body", no problem, I guess.

Everything you didn't want to know about Duke of Westminster and his wealth....

While yes, it is true much of the duke's wealth is tied up in trusts and the family businesses if you will, make no mistake; "Hughie" is loaded.

Finally.....

[quote]isn't the source of the Westminster wealth land ownership through private companies, the Grosvenor Estate and the Grosvenor Group? Which belongs to the family, rather than the duke or the duchy.

What I meant is the wealth belongs to the "Family" and not necessarily the dukedom, but its tied up in trusts that wouldn't allow the current Duke to simply bequeath or give it to whomever he wanted. He's beholden to the rules governing the trusts.

I don't think Charles should give Eddie the duke of Edinburgh title. it's the most recognisable Scottish title the royals have and if it goes to Edward (who has no serious Scottish connection or role) , it's gone for good, as he has a son to succeed him. Better to keep it in the main line of succession - use it for a king or queen's eldest grandchild instead of an inconsequential title like Cambridge. If Edward had to be a duke, elevate Wessex to a dukedom, as has been suggested. I don't think there should be any more hereditary titles created outside the line of succession. No non-royal hereditaries have been created now for decades and it's not appropriate to add any more royal ones. The alternative, which could be done, is make these titles for life only, a sort of higher status life peerage (something itself created during the current reign).. Edward could be duke of Edinburgh, but it would then revert back to be available for George, say.

As opposed to that famous son of Scotland, Philip of Greece and Denmark?

That's kind of my point, r310, it's family wealth, not the duke's/dukedom's wealth. I'm sure the current duke would love a direct heir (male or female), but the estate is not his but the family's (his siblings and their families).

Won't George end up Duke of Cambridge? William won't need that title when he's king. I've always assumed George will stay Cambridge and Louis will be Duke of York. Charlotte will be Princess Royal eventually.

That said, I agree that Royal dukedoms should be life peerages only. They are given on expectation of service to the crown. Sons of Royal dukes rarely end up serving in that capacity anymore, so a hereditary peerage is pointless.

^

Who gives a fuck?

WTF are you doing in this thread, R315? The whole point of it is discussing the titles.

Step One: Queen is raptured.

Step Two: Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay, and Edinburgh, becomes King Charles III, and presumably gives his brother, Edward, the Edinburgh title like a sensible fellow.

Step Three: At that time, Prince William becomes Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall AND Rothesay, and he may pass to Prince George the title of Duke of Cambridge. Or, the title is put into abeyance until George marries, and then either Charles or William, whoever's arse is on the throne, confirms George as the Duke of Cambridge. I think the Cambridge title is intended to pass from eldest son to eldest son.

Step Four: Prince Louis gets married and either Charles or William, whoever is handing out the goodies, passes on the Edinburgh title to Louis, if Charles hasn't done right by Edward. (Personally, it is my guess that Charles wants the Edinburgh title for Louis, not Harry.) Alternatively, if Randy Andy has done everyone a favour and followed Mum, Charles or William will do the traditional thing and create the second son Duke of York on Louis' wedding day.

Step Five: Princess Charlotte marries Crown Prince Christian of Denmark and becomes Crown Princess Charlotte and the future Queen Consort of Denmark and sticks her tongue out at all of them as she walks down the aisle.

What about when George gives up his claim to go throw pottery on a Grecian island?

That's when being The Spare pays off, Harry!

When William is King, George will be Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc. in due course - all the titles that go to the heir to the throne. Cambridge will become a subsidiary title. When their father becomes Prince of Wales, the children will be known as Prince George of Wales, etc., because the most senior title is the one used. At school or in the arm he'd be called George Wales. If William died before becoming PoW, yes, George would inherit William's present titles.

The big question about the Duke of Westminster is, will his lady friend end up like Kate (getting the ring and the MRS after a decade) or like Bea (discarded after a decade, with him quickly marrying someone else)?

Place your billionaire bets!

The Duke of Westminster is a job for Wendi Deng.

I must add that George VI wanted the fabulously wealthy Johnny Dalkeith, Duke of Buccleuch, for Princess Margaret. If he'd lived, he probably would have brought that marriage about. Instead he died, she took up with his equerry, then after that went to shit, she was briefly engaged to the fabulously wealthy but untitled Billy Wallace, but broke that off when he cheated on her (irony), then finally married vicious social climber Antony Armstrong-Jones, who'd have fucked a letterbox if it didn't fuck him first, and cheated on her with half of London.

Sometimes it's better not to marry the one who is the best in bed, is what I'm saying.

Johnny Dalkeith spent the second half of his life in a wheelchair (horse fell on him while hunting). I don’t think Margaret would have coped very well with that.

^ Well duh. She didn't cope well with anything.

Which was my point, R325.

Billy Wallace would have been the better choice. He was of her circle, knew her very well, and knew the rules. He'd have probably cheated some more, but he wouldn't have been a prick about it the way Snowdon was. He also died youngish in 1977, so Margaret could have enjoyed being a rich widow and had all the boytoys she wanted while still relatively young. The Queen liked Billy, and she probably would have given him a dukedom of his own.

R324 - but if she had married him, he would never have had the horse accident. Butterfly effect.

Fair point, R328. Although it’s possible that by then she would have been happy to have him out of the house - well, castle, really - he had a few - for the day while she settled in with her afternoon bottle of gin.

[quote] Sometimes it's better not to marry the one who is the best in bed, is what I'm saying.

Thanks to my pussywhipping skills, I am MEGHAN, THE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX now.

...or because every woman with sense ran the other way R330

They are right, it's about time they modernise the monarchy's face and titulature. Let's introduce titles such as Duke and Duchess of Ghetto-upon-Thames, Marquis and Marchioness of the NHS, Count Liposuction and Countess Botox, Sir Greggs and Lady Asda; as well as perhaps improving the monarchy's image by offering Lady Colin Campbell the hand of Prince George, to recognise the merits of the staunch defender of the monarchy as well as support popular culture and diversity and inclusion.

R332, time for bed, honey.

I’m going to throw this in here because I can’t even tell if it’s been addressed. However, regarding Letters Patent and Royal titles. The 1917 act stratified who was what. We all understand that male-line grandchildren are HRH Prince(ss) [Christian name]. Note that it took another LP to allow Princess Patricia of Connaught to stop being an HRH and princess. So the gray areas and vagueness referred to upthread seem deliberate. There is only one way in to being Royal and one way out.

I cannot imagine anyone, upon accession, removing titles. Changing the rules, à la the Perth Agreement? Sure. But when Charles becomes king, all five grandchildren will become HRHs unless the Sussexes petition to be “demoted” but they are both, like it or not, HRHs as much as anyone.

Sorry, ^**, the three Cambridges already are of course but note that that too took another LP issuance.

If the Duke of Bedford (smells cookies served on the family gold plated plates) can marry and produce an heir, surely the Duke of Westminster can.

Speaking of letterboxes, we still need a few Royals around for this:

So if Edward eventually becomes Duke of Edinburgh will that title be then handed down to his son or can King William give it to one of his sons?

A "king" Charles (or rather HM government)would have to create letters patent bestowing dukedom of Edinburgh same as any other peerage. Normally such hereditary peerages are remainder to male heirs via primogeniture.

Also as per there would be one or more subsidiary titles granted along with dukedom of E. In this case these most surely would be those of Prince Phillip that also went to Prince Charles after his father died; Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.

Prince Edward was made The Earl of Forfar (a Scottish title) on his 55th birthday, so everything else would trail along creating a rather substantial name.

Jesus it was tacky when the Sussexes announced the name Lilibet and it became instantly clear that the royals (esp. the Queen) were horrified rather than touched by this “tribute”.

Who started all this title stuff in the first place?

For you R341

Or....

More....

Relating to royal titles including the coveted "HRH".

For years, through the 70s and 80s and even into the early 90s, there was a popular and widespread rumor that Charles would choose Arthur as his regnal name.

Has Charles or the Palace ever said that he will indeed reign as Charles III?

At this point Prince Charles might consider himself well off if he just gets to inherit. At rate things are going HM may just outlive Prince of Wales....

Odds are off "king Charles III" due to unfortunate rule and end of Charles I. But OTOH Charles II was a widely beloved monarch and considered one of the greatest kings.

In addition Dukes of Buccleuch, Richmond, Grafton and St Albans all descend in an unbroken male line from Charles II various illegitimate children who were risen up into peerage. Diana, Princess of Wales, was descended from two of Charles's illegitimate sons: the Dukes of Grafton and Richmond. Diana's son, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, second in line to the British throne, is likely to be the first British monarch descended from Charles II.

Prince of Wales has several names he can chose from; his given Christian names are: Charles Philip Arthur George. There hasn't been a "king Arthur" in ages. Phillip would honor his father, the late Prince Phillip. George rather has been done to death, but another would be "King George VII".

King Arthur didn’t exist. It’s just a story.

Isn't there a lot of historical debate about that r348? Certainly there was no grand round table and war over a Queen Guinevere, but there may have been an early local leader/warrior on whom some of the original stories were based?

Probably a composite of several people at best. I’ve been to Tintagel. The New Age types queuing up in full Arthurian costume are hilarious. They all look like fat prog rock fans.

Fuck you ignorant kids.

Arthur as an alleged 6th century war leader is first attested in a text written three centuries later. Other texts of around then and a little later describe him as a giant or demi-god - some sort of supernatural being. He didn't become 'King Arthur' till the 12th century. This is also when the 'Arthur will return' idea came into being - there were several returning heroes in earlier Welsh texts but these are Owain,. Cadwallader and others, not Arthur.

The other reason I suspect Charles really wants the Edinburgh title for the younger son of William, is because the boy is named after Charles' beloved Uncle "Dickie", Lord Louis Mountbatten. Philip's surname was formally Mountbatten after he became a British citizen and the family surname is now Mountbatten-Windsor.

Tying the Edinbugh title to a son who is also Louis Mountbatten-Windsor must be very appealing to Charles.

And that's not even factoring in how the current holder of the York title has sullied it. Why would Charles or William want to hand Duke of York to Louis after Andrew has disgraced it so thoroughly?

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

R353 needs to do some research into the life story of Lord Louis Mountbatten.

The name Louis is pretty common in the BRF, just like in other royal or princely dynasties (French Louis, German Ludwig, etc). It's a regal name well-liked among kings and princes. The page linked is a list of monarchs named Louis / Ludwig etc

One of William's second names is Louis.

Btw, Louis is also one of Prince George's second names.

Except Elizabeth and her father, was it common to choose a name that deviated from the monarch's Christian name? I can see why Elizabeth and her father would be reconsidering. They were not assumed to be the future monarch. But I always thought that whoever was assumed to become monarch would get their regal name right at birth and probably stick to it. What were former kings' Christian names before they became kings?

Elizabeth, r357? She didn't change her name and she was entirely expected to be the future monarch, even before Edward ascended to the throne. Her father was literally Edward's direct heir. What was not expected was that Edward would marry and have children.

From what I've understood, George VI, formerly Albert, chose George as his regnal name to emphasise continuity after a difficult period for the royal family. He also honoured his brother George, who had died in the war. Albert is also a very untraditional name for a British monarch and George was already one of his middle names.

Edward VII was called Albert as his first name and known as Bertie all his life - his mother Victoria wanted the name of her beloved Albert to be used for the next king. Bertie chose Edward instead.

Hughie's wild card is gonna get it.

R358, King George VI (called Albert before coming to the throne) did not use the regnal name George to honor his brother, George Duke of Kent, because George VI came to the throne in 1936 and George Duke of Kent did not die until 1942.

R338, if Charles when he becomes king gives Prince Edward the title Duke of Edinburgh, the title would be inherited by Edward's son James. It would not be William's to give to his younger son. If James should predecease Edward having had no sons himself, whoever is monarch at the time would be able to bestow it again.

Making titles inheritable by daughters and sisters, the way the crown now is, is terribly overdue.

If James dies after Edward with no sons the title could also be bestowed again.

[quote] Elizabeth? She didn't change her name and she was entirely expected to be the future monarch, even before Edward ascended to the throne.

Elizabeth and Albert/George were not assumed to become monarchs when they received their Christian names. It was possible, but not the plan. Everybody assumed Edward would become and remain king. And while Albert did change his name, Elizabeth was encouraged to reconsider hers, too, when she took over from George. "Reconsider" doesn't mean that she actually would. It was her choice, and she made the choice to keep her Christian name.

The way I see it, these two reconsidered their names. But did others who had a reasonable expectation to become king reconsider, too? Like the popes? Or did they all keep their birth given name?

Alexandrina Victoria = Queen Victoria.

The way I see it, modern times have changed the way future monarchs will handle regnal names. In Charles's case, I doubt he'll use anything other than his Christian name: King Charles III.

Yes I know he's expressed interest in the past in taking another name once King. But he's been known to the public for seven decades by a single name. To suddenly take on a different name, at his late age, would be strange and jarring to the same public he'd be trying to win over. While at same time, valiantly attempting to establish "Queen Camilla" as a popular concept. It would all be a bit much.

A relatively young monarch might be able to play with this concept, taking a different regnal name. They could use modern media saturation to encourage acceptance.

It will be King Charles and Princess Camilla. They're still wary of the Diana effect, especially with The Crown raking everything up again. Camilla doesn't seem to care much, anyway.

But Charles cares, massively, r365. He is hellbent on having her widely accepted as Queen. She is automatically Queen anyway, the minute he becomes King.

He will do what it takes to make it happen. I dare say I wondered if last week's announcement re bestowment of the Order of the Garter on Camilla - a bit earlier than was anticipated? and by the current Queen, rather than later on by her husband - was not only a signal of this intent, but a bit of a barter between Charles and his mother. You grant my wife a high order at this point in time, I'll firm up my promise to grant the Edinburgh dukedom to your precious youngest son after you die, when it's in my power to grant. That type of deal.

Don't disbelieve that the present-day Windsors aren't capable of this, a lot.

Diana fanatics will be crying tears of blood while watching Queen Camilla get crowned besides her husband

Charles has said for many years that he wants to simplify the ceremony. It might look more like what they have in the Netherlands, Belgium or Spain. It would make more sense. The Queen’s coronation was like a Shinto ritual. A majority of the UK’s population at the time actually believed she had been chosen by God. Times have changed.

I think Charles’s determination to shitcan all his relatives and “simplify” everything will turn out to be a deglamorizing mistake in the long term. And hundreds of charities will have no patron. I think he just doesn’t want to share the limelight with his relatives. He has a little bit of Markle in him: it is all me, me, me.

I understand that Edward asked his mother to be made Earl of Wessex, rather than Duke of somewhere, after he married because he saw the title in 'Shakespeare in Love'. He is not an intellectual titan.

Interestingly, too, I also read that there was a plan in royal circles for Edward and Sophie to make their principal residence Edinburgh, even before becoming its duke, since a royal as a permanent fixture was supposed to stop the trend towards Scottish independence. Since then, royal circles have evidently looked again at Edward and Sophie, noted how popular Scottish independence is becoming, and decided that plan just isn't going to cut it - hence William and Kate instead have been delegated the job of 'keeping' Scotland, apparently principally by telling everyone how much their university years at St Andrews meant to them.

[quote] The Queen’s coronation was like a Shinto ritual. A majority of the UK’s population at the time actually believed she had been chosen by God. Times have changed.

A coronation like that is a bit ridiculous considering how much the country/commonwealth has shrunk. If Scotland really leaves, will they rename the United Kingdom to Little Britain?

A little gossip about the late Duke of Edinburgh and Tony Blair's knighthood. Seems credible. He kept Fergie out the door all those years. She must be feeling encouraged about her prospects, even if they are with Andrew.

From The Times: Congratulations to Sir Tony Blair, who had to wait 14 years after leaving No 10 to get his knighthood from the Queen – twice as long as John Major and only four years short of Ted Heath’s record.

But what changed Her Majesty’s mind? One theory is that the Duke of Edinburgh held up the honour after taking exception to Blair’s decision to decommission the royal yacht Britannia in 1997 and his alleged grandstanding behaviour during the funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. The Duke’s death in May meant that opposition within Buckingham Palace weakened. “I heard that he was the blockage,” a Westminster source told me.

Former Tory MP Gyles Brandreth, author of Philip – The Final Portrait, says he never heard Prince Philip being rude about Sir Tony, but that the late Duke did “make disparaging remarks” about Blairite initiatives.

Charmingly, Brandreth also reveals that the Duke took something of a shine to Leo – the Blairs’ youngest child, who was famously conceived during a visit to Balmoral after Cherie left her contraception at home – once teaching him to sing the whole of the National Anthem.

I wonder if Charles will change the name of the House to Mountbatten.

I don't think they should give hereditary Royal dukedoms to the daughters of the monarch and heir. That just makes the problem worse. They should limit HRH Prince/Princess to the direct line of succession. If the younger Princes or Princesses act as full-time working royals when they're grown up, give them life peerages. That way, important dukedoms don't slip out of the royal grasp, and we don't end up with pointless peerages given to descendants.

Growing up, Victoria's family nickname was Drina.

Princess Elizabeth and Prince Phillip were away (Africa?) when news reached them that George VI was dead. Among first order of business (after all the bowing to new monarch) was what would be her name. When asked Elizabeth simply replied "my own of course".... And that was that.

Albert only really entered BRF naming of male children thanks to Victoria and her besotted love of Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg Gotha.

George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert)

Edward VII (Albert Edward)

Prince Alfred (Alfred Ernest Albert), Duke of Saxe Coburg-Gotha

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (Arthur William Patrick Albert)

Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany (Leopold George Duncan Albert)

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Leopold Charles Edward George Albert)

If QV had anything to say about things (and she did) her sons and grandsons had Albert somewhere among their Christian names. By time of her great-grandchildren onward things lessened.

R371, the proposed term is already RumpUK.

Oh, please. The "majority" of the British public had ditched the Divine Right of Kings by 1953. Christ, where do people get this shit?!

That the country looked and felt different is absolutely true. But that's not the same thing. And, the post-WWII years were still hard ones here.

The coronation, with it's new young Queen, was viewed to be a symbol of a hopeful new era for Britain, combining the comfort of ritual and tradition with a look toward the future.

The film of the coronation played to packed cinemas across the world-including in America, where the concept of monarchy was done away with 150 years earlier.

It's a different era now and adjustments have to be made in how the monarchy works. It needs to figure out how much to sling down and to retain enough of pomp and ritual to keep its mystique.

But the biggest adjustment isn't so much the kind of coronation as who should be crowned.

In that sense, Britain is in a similar position to that of 1953: it needs a refreshed view badly.

And it isn't going to get it with King Charles III.

^*slim (not sling) down

If it were William and Kate being crowned, the government would probably go all out. As it is, a big splashy coronation for an eightysomething monarch of tarnished reputation seems pointless.

William. and the public reaction to him, I just don't get. He is SO dull, such a personality-free blancmange. He wasn't always this way, I think, but it all seems to have been stamped out of him following Diana's death and his comments blaming the press.

I get why this was done - to make him a safe pair of hands for the monarchy - but it beats me how the public can get excited about the prospect of him coming to the throne;

Say what you like about Harry and Meghan - I am not a huge fan - but at least they have some of their own thoughts and some depth about them.

William (and Kate)’s public image is an example of overcorrection by trying to fix the problems of the prior generation. They try so hard to appear the flipside of Charles and Diana that they’ve been somewhat neutered as human beings and turned into cardboard cutouts.

Are you kidding, R381? Harry and Meghan follow the refrigerator magnet school of philosophy. Their 'charity' is just a money hustle and tax shelter. William and Kate spend real time supporting real causes, and they don't make their contributions all about them.

Who looks to the monarchy for excitement? That isn't the job. It's meant to embody tradition, stability, continuity. Excitement comes and goes.

That is certainly the thinking now, after the tumult of QEII’s children. But I suspect too much blah will lead to new and different problems.

Kate's birthday portraits are out. Not flattering in my view because she looks entirely unlike herself.

What's different? Is it the hair, which doesn't seem as voluminous? Or is it just she's make up free for the most part? I keep thinking she's young Celine Dion. If you can access the white gown picture is the nicest, in my view.

She looks lovely, imo

I think she's terrifc... the genuine article.... and deplore... someone else, so am hating I don't like the pictures but I really don't. I just don't think they flatter.

The red gown picture is the best, beautiful. But all three are far too retouched/edited, just unnecessary. The B&W shots look like she went to an Olde Time Photo shop.

I think they tried to make her too ethereal in the black and whites, if that makes sense. The portraits seem to be a throwback to the old oil paintings that added glow to their subjects, except now the photographer added a gauzey effect. It's also odd to see a profile portrait. They don't seem to be done much anymore.

R381 Stop fobbing us off with that I'm Not A Huge Fan . . . In fact you are, and all your posts are a clever But . . . Compared to Meghan and Harry . . .

Depth? Thoughts of their own?

Harry and Meghan, her especially, are trend riders and parrot whatever the latest Woke Thing is. They have the depth of amoebas and she perjured herself under oath.

William's the only adult male in the room in that family.

Yeah, boring.

Daughter of an airline hostess she may be, but no one can deny Kate Middleton is a beauty. Can quite see why young Prince William wasn't totally adverse to KM setting her cap for him, and then proceeding to make it her life's work to nab PM.

Beautiful photos. As these are going to the National Portrait Gallery, they aren't family personal informal.

The red dress one is phenomenal.

Say what you will r381 about Prince Willilam (dull, blancmange, etc), I just think after all the Sussex shenanigans, psycho dramas on the world stage, shocking hubris, I will stop here...), it is so incredibly refreshing and comforting to see "Alpha Wills" in command, in control, self-assured, and not acting like a hapless, clueless teenage delinquent on steroids like his bro. Boring is good in this case.

Trust.

^^^^ Prince **William**

The monarch is not meant to be a sparkling personality. The monarch is not an actor. The monarch embodies the state and is meant to be dignified, amiable, and charitable. It's like they've said of the Queen: "The Queen is friendly, the Queen is NOT your friend." William's deepening persona is perfect for a future king.

Kate does look lovely in those pictures, but I honestly think it's time for the cascading locks to go. They don't work with her maturing face.

No really, I am not a fan of the Sussexes. I agree that they are shameless grifters. Their shallow, regurgitated identity politics does grate a little too.

But really, if you were offered the chance to go for a beer with William or with Harry, is anyone really choosing William? No you aren't. Be real.

I'd choose William. Harry would get drunk, whine about how hard his life is, puke on your shoes, and stick you with the bill.

[quote] William's deepening persona

Ha ha ha

[quote]But really, if you were offered the chance to go for a beer with William or with Harry, is anyone really choosing William? No you aren't. Be real.

Who would choose an idiot nonce who would openly urinate on your shoes, then blithely not remember the details and blame it on YOU?! That's Harry's alcoholism and raging self-pity talking, with a horrid history that Charles and the Palace tried to cover up.

Blithe and habitually drunk Harry, in the tradition of his Grandpa Johnny, the Earl Spencer before Charles, was drunk and barely conscious for a great part of his adult life that involved handling weapons around fellow "Paki" and "Raghead" soldiers he had to denigrate on video to establish his faux, propped, and illegitimate superiority denigrating his fellow ethnic soldiers.

The idiot was propped up at Eton and later Sandhurst and mostly laughed and passed on as a sense, not too bright self-professed gamer, jockey of all trades for Britain and actually gleefully claimed Taliban kills through his activity

Charles has decided not to be known as King Charles and in honor of Princess Diana he will take the name King Diana and his wife will be known as Queen Charles.

"Alexandrina" was actually a throw away name given at last minute to Princess Victoria at her christening.

The officiating priest or whatever stopped when naming the child feeling sure a royal infant would have more than a single Christian name. All eyes turned to George IV (who had already held up proceedings by arriving late), and HM seemed more interested in a certain lady who accompanied him than actual ceremony.

Anyway HM barked out "give her the name of the godfather (Tsar Alexander of Russia), but it cannot follow that of the mother (Princess Victoria, Duchess of Kent). So "Alexandrina Victoria" it was....

Though her mother often called her "Drina", Princess Victoria apparently never cared much for "Alexandrina", and once she became queen it was dropped.

[quote]But Charles cares, massively. He is hellbent on having her widely accepted as Queen. She is automatically Queen anyway, the minute he becomes King.

Will she be entitled to be "Queen" or does she have to settle for "Queen Consort?"

Why didn't Phillip get to be "King" or "King Consort?" Elizabeth and Phillip were already married when she became Queen.

R405

Under English/British/Scottish laws a wife is legally endowed with all her husband's worldly goods upon marriage, least far as name, title and rank are concerned. It does not however work other way round, men do not automatically take their wives names upon marriage. That being said historically some men who married heiresses or other females did legally change their name to that of wife's family.

Phillip of Spain became King of England upon his marriage to Mary I. Next was William of Orange, spouse of Mary II, but he was the last. Parliament refused both Albert of Saxe Coburg-Gotha and Prince Phillip of Greece the crown matrimonial. Queen Victoria was very much put out, but her government wouldn't budge on the matter. HM did what she could for Prince Albert via letters patent or whatever granting him status and so forth, but far as Parliament was concerned his chief duties were in HM's bedroom.

All this being said regardless of the howling by Dianamanaics, CPB is "Princess of Wales", and will be queen consort the moment Prince Charles becomes king. Now whether CPB will be crowned queen and be known as what she is (queen consort) is up for debate I suppose.

To settle another matter, with queen reagents one simply refers to them by name (Elizabeth) or "HM". Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Elizabeth..... those are queen consorts. Will give you it is common enough to refer to a female monarch as "the queen". After all people should know who one is speaking about since there isn't a queen consort.

This was the trouble with Queen Elizabeth and HM having same name. The Grey Men and others believed common public would confuse the two queens. Queen Elizabeth couldn't use "dowager" because Queen Mary was still living, and besides the title was an anathema as it conjured up an image of some relic roaming about in heavy weeds.

Queen Mother was settled upon and that was that.

[quote]Why didn't Phillip get to be "King" or "King Consort?" Elizabeth and Phillip were already married when she became Queen.

IDK whether there was a protocol reason for it. My mother firmly believed (we're talking in the 60s and 70s) that the Queen didn't let him become Consort because of the foot-in-mouth issue. The theory went that HM thought it was better that he was doomed always to walk behind her and create havoc in her wake, rather than before she got there.

One of Victoria's ministers said it best in response to yet another push by HM to make Prince Albert "king".

"Ma'am, let us not get into the habit of making kings, lest we also get into habit of unmaking them", or words to that affect.

Only Parliament can grant crown matrimonial, and again they simply have not been in any mood since William of Orange.

It didn't help matters that both Prince Albert and Prince Phillip for that matter were basically penniless royals who came to England as royal bridegrooms with little more than they stood up in.

In Prince Albert's case Victoria was told that Parliament had heard from the people they were tired of footing the bill ( via taxes) for a litany of penniless German princes and princesses that married into BRF. Ministers went further by telling HM that the people wouldn't stand for a "foreigner" interfering in British affairs.

Well they could have saved their breath with that last bit. Either by design or just luck Prince Albert became quite "king" in all but name. Much of this had to do with Victoria constantly being pregnant, thus often indisposed.

Fast forward a hundred years or so and there were even less reasons to make Prince Phillip "king". Again PP had no money, his family was deposed, and world was quite a different place from even Victoria's time.

Not thrilled with his "stud" status, Prince Phillip famously remarked "I am an amoeba"....

As with Queen Victoria HM did what she could for her husband. Chief among them was the whole "Mountbatten-Windsor" surname change. This was big because apparently (IIRC) Prince Phillip was out of joint that his children would not carry his name.

I have always disliked that vulgar Poltimore tiara.

R405. the wife of a King is automatically, in Britain, the Queen Consort. A reigning queen, like Queen Eliabeth II, is a Queen Regnant. The only other type of Queen is a Queen Dowager, the widow of a King.

Philip could not be King because the husband of a Queen Regnant is not a king in Britain in modern times. In the sixteenth century, Queen Mary Tudor's husband, Philip of Spain, was granted the title King of England for her lifetime, but Parliament put many restrictions on his authority. Parliament created Queen Mary II and King William III joint monarchs in the seventeenth century. But in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the husbands of Queen Anne and Queen Victoria (both queens regnant) were not considered kings. Anne's husband, a Prince of Denmark, was given the British title Duke of Cumberland, and Queen Victoria made her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prince Consort of Great Britain. Philip, who had given up his title Prince of Greece and Denmark prior to marrying Princess Elizabeth, was made Duke of Edinburgh by her father, King George VI. Years later, when Queen, Elizabeth gave him the title Prince of Great Britain.

Allegedly there are plans to call Camilla 'princess consort' once her husband gets promoted. Not sure why and how they would want to go through with that. If she is queen consort, let her be queen and call her that.

They are to be King Charles and Camilla, the Other Woman.

My sympathies lie more with Diana, in a mess where it's hard to sympathize with anybody, but calling Camilla anything other than Queen, what would it solve? What would it change? She's married to him. If he'd remarried anyone other than Camilla, this wouldn't be a question. Everybody fucked up. There is no direct line to Diana's death from anything that happened, except if the marriage had worked but neither of them were able to do it.

William has relased his birthday portrait.

All William needs to release is his CV including future prospects.

The rest doesn't matter. George VI and Queen Elizabeth were boring, too.

They saved the monarchy.

Disna was fun. Margaret was fun. Edward and Wallis were fun. Harry and Meghan were fun.

And we know how well they did in the royal survivor game.

[quote] Say what you like about Harry and Meghan - I am not a huge fan - but at least they have some of their own thoughts and some depth about them.

Hahahaha ... HAHAHAHA!

...

Thanks for the laugh, idiot.

You do have to applaud the Monarchy's PR teams for their job on Camilla. With very limited material to work with, they've managed to move the public from a position of outright loathing to vaguely sullen indifference. She will be crowned Queen when the time comes, I'd bet my last euro on it. Charles would regard it as a devastating humiliation were she not.

Why do you all say that Charles is preoccupied with titles? I've never read anything to suggest that.

R418: Huh?

He has spent his entire life waiting to inherit his own big title. He is long past retirement age and still hasn't started what he surely regards as his life's work.

You'd have to be preoccupied with titles if you were in that situation or you'd have some kind of breakdown.

All the other kings for the past 1000 years have had their wives named Queen. If Camilla isn't, Charles will see it as a humiliation of him'. He clearly has his own vision of where the institution of monarchy should go, and doesn't want to be just a stopgap after the Elizabeth II era.

Because only men can inherit titles. The best Princess Edward can do is marry a Duke, and then be called Duchess.

Humiliated!

>Say what you like about Harry and Meghan - I am not a huge fan - but at least they have some of their own thoughts and some depth about them.

I'm going to give this poster the benefit of the doubt and assume they are, like most people, only vaguely following the Sussex Saga as it plays out. For anyone paying close attention (such as myself, and I understand this is going to get me called a fat klan granny) it's actually astounding how *little* Harry and Meghan have to say.

As for William and Kate I believe both are strong introverts who have gone out of their way to keep their true selves unknown to the public. Doesn't mean they're secretly interesting, but it also doesn't mean they're boring either. We don't know. Their public personas are sober, steady and serious, which I can see being interpreted as boring quite easily. Meghan and Harry have put their entire asses on display so it's actually possible to make a call in their case.

Concerned European, I'm genuinely interested in why you think Harry and/or Meghan have "depth." I'm not asking so I can insult you, either. My curiosity is good faith.

R419, it's not just a title, Charles will succeed his mother as head of state. While she is rather old, Charles is still younger than the head of state of your own country.

"Their public personas are sober, steady and serious, which I can see being interpreted as boring quite easily." - Because, r423, that's how they should be as public servants, representatives of the monarch and, in William's case, future head of state.

[quote]Say what you like about Harry and Meghan - I am not a huge fan - but at least they have some of their own thoughts and some depth about them

So much so that they were only able to raise $50K for their bogus charitable enterprise Archewell IN TWO YEARS?

I would like the "Sussex Squadies" or Klan Grannies (TM?) to address their stupidity and inchoate objectives that make sense? Or look like gems in a Gainesville, Florida mashup amongst the deepest trailer park dwellers?

R370

"I understand that Edward asked his mother to be made Earl of Wessex, rather than Duke of somewhere, after he married because he saw the title in 'Shakespeare in Love'. He is not an intellectual titan."

Prince Edward asked HM to be created "Duke of Wessex" out of his infatuation with character from Shakespeare in love. Wessex is not one of the names used by royal dukes, so it was vetoed. There was an Earl of Wessex centuries ago, so there you are...

We've done this already. There are only a limited number of names associated with royal dukedoms. Many are taken (and have heirs), others are not used because of various connotations associated with last holder. Windsor likely will not be used again if ever for a century or longer.

I agree R424, I was trying to signal to the poster I was addressing that I am open to alternate interpretations and am not going to call him a STUPID FUCKING CUNT FUCK OFF CUNT!!!1!!1 simply because we disagree. I truly am interested in people who see Harry and Meghan as decent, interesting people. Not stans, they're nuts. But regular people with a positive opinion. To this day no one has actually been able to clearly articulate why they give the Sussexes the benefit of the doubt. Even the stans, when questioned, do nothing but accuse you of racism and fatness and not being a duchessness.

PS. If that story about Edward wanting the Earl of Wessex title because of a movie is true then holy fuck. I don't think anyone in the BRF is an intellectual heavyweight but still, that's hilariously bad.

Spencer family including current Earl Spencer have long maintained they have more (British) royal blood in their veins than the German family who currently occupy the throne. So it would suit their purposes to put it about that Diana gave up the HRH voluntarily, as if it were something she didn't care about because she was better than the Saxe Coburg-Gotha/Windsor/Windsor-Mountbatten family.

Bullocks!

Diana was gobsmacked first time when HM said *enough*and said it was time for Prince and Princess of Wales to divorce. Second slap came when she was stripped of her royal status.

Again it didn't make much of a difference to common people, as the "People's Princess" long had been (and still is) styled, "Princess Diana". This even by media and news outlets that should know better (such as NYT), and fact Spencer family, despite what they may think are not royal.

Diana was either thick, mentally imbalanced, or bit of both. Whatever it was she believed that a Princess of Wales could go on national television and admit she had adulterous affairs, and also call the succession into question by stating her son (Prince William) should directly succeed HM instead of Prince Charles. One or both are acts of treason....

Diana was lightly dealt with by only being divorced and losing her royal status. Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard suffered far worse fates. No one believed they were going to bring back beheading just for Diana, but she and that bastard Hewitt had a very lucky escape.

[quote] they've managed to move the public from a position of outright loathing to vaguely sullen indifference.

What is Camilla's image in the UK right now? All I know is the thing she had going with Charles during his marriage with Diana. So I am getting the 'homewrecker' image. The only other image I know of her is, uh, the one that Tracey Ullman creates of her so nicely. Going by THAT image she is the only one in the entire royal family I would want to have a beer with.

[quote] One or both are acts of treason....

Now that's a bit rich. Spying for Russia is treason. Talking about your husband's infidelity is poor decorum at the worst. Let's cut out the hyperbole, shall we?

[quote] , I'm genuinely interested in why you think Harry and/or Meghan have "depth." I'm not asking so I can insult you, either. My curiosity is good faith.

R422 That's cool, I'm more than happy to have a good-faith conversation about it. I probably should have taken greater care in expressing myself in that last post, because I suspect in reality you and I might not be too far apart.

I do agree that on many subjects Harry and Meghan don't have very much to say beyond identity politics tropes and observations on self care. Harry's recent intervention on mental health (people should quit their jobs if their mental health is being harmed) was probably kind of well-meaning but hilariously overprivileged and clueless given how hard it is for the majority of people to support themselves, particularly now in mid-pandemic. Meghan's children's book was a world of cringe.

I grew up in the UK though I live in Ireland now. I remember the furore in 2003 when 20 year old Harry dressed up as an SS officer to a birthday party. My view of him then was that he was a standard posh English twat. He is not super bright, just like the rest of them, but I think he has come a long way since then. Probably his experiences in the army had a major, and on-balance positive, effect on him.

I view the British monarchy as an absurd institution for many reasons, including the fact that it forces these people to live in gilded cages. From his recent pronouncements it's clear that Harry has been deeply unhappy for a long time. I give him credit for being able to make the break from the machine and carve out a totally different life for himself. Anne, Andrew, and Edward haven't been able to do that (though kudos to Anne for her sporting career) and have basically spent their lives as royal functionaries (and probably as less salubrious things in Andrew's case).. Harry has never known anything else than the totally controlled existence of the monarchy, and I don't underestimate how difficult it has been for him to break away from it and de facto give up his titles.

With regard to politics, I give both Sussexes huge credit for their comments about the Commonwealth. The UK takes an even more rose-coloured view of its imperial past than the United States does, so these comments are always going to be hugely provocative, but the fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth was founded as a continuation of the Empire, and to some degree it whitewashes the empire as a racist and imperialist project. Generations have passed through British schools without being taught the full picture of British and imperial history, which is why fierce debates over slaver's statues are happening. So for even raising this issue - which I do think took courage - I applaud them both.

So yeah - those are the positives. The negatives, like the grifting, the cringey attempts to shoehorn Meghan into Disney productions, the trademarked pyjamas, the attentiion-seeking, &c, are the reasons I don't describe myself as a huge fan. I've probably focused on Harry rather than Meghan in my explanation above - I'm not sure I've fully made up my mind about Meghan yet. I was keener on her in the beginning than I am now tbh.

R430

Diana didn't just "talk" about her husband carrying on with CPB, but admitted she had an affair with James Hewitt.

"Diana claimed that she never met Andrew Morton but that she allowed her friends to speak to him. His subsequent book, Diana: Her True Story would lead to Diana and Charles agreeing to a legal separation. Diana confirmed the accuracy of the Squidgygate tapes of a telephone conversation she had with James Gilbey; however, she denied the charges of having an affair with him and harassing Oliver Hoare. Diana said that she was in a unique position as the separated wife of the Prince of Wales, and that she would "fight to the end, because I have a role to fulfill and I've got two children to bring up". She confirmed her extramarital affair with James Hewitt and was hurt at his cooperation for a book about their relationship. Diana spoke of her difficulty at coping with constant media attention, which she labelled "abusive and ... harassment".'

R423, You're quite right, but the difference is that our current President Michael D Higgins didn't spend his entire life waiting and preparing to be President. He's been an academic, a mayor, a parliamentarian, a government minister, and to top it all off is a published poet too. His two immediate predecessors, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese were also academics as well as campaigning lawyers. Robinson went on to a major UN career, while McAleese took a doctorate in canon law and has started some very fundamental debates about reform of the Catholic church.

All three are far more substantial and impressive people than any British royal. In fact the Irish Presidency offers one of the most quietly effective arguments for republicanism I am aware of.

R429, below are her latest popularity numbers from YouGov. 33% like her, 28% dislike her, the rest are neutral. Those are actually very good numbers considering how hated she used to be. It was somewhat unfair, and probably more than a little sexist, given that it was Charles who cheated on Diana: but the still-monarchist public probably decided that it couldn't hate Charles so Camilla would be the scapegoat instead.

She has mainly done fairly low-key things like cooking competitions for kids and, interestingly, an Instagram book club. It's worked in that most of the public have forgotten why they hated her. There might well have been the temptation to do a big TV interview at one point to try and win the public over decisively but I suspect the softly softly approach was the wiser one, given how often big TV interviews blow up in the royals' faces.

ConcernedEuropean, you're Irish so obviously you're not unbiased against the Brits. Do you have the same issues with the Dutch, Spanish, Scandinavian, etc. royal families?

[quote]Diana was lightly dealt with by only being divorced and losing her royal status. Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard suffered far worse fates. No one believed they were going to bring back beheading just for Diana, but she and that bastard Hewitt had a very lucky escape.

That is the most absurd post of the day. What a whopper.

The same issues, but maybe not to the same degree. I wouldn't support monarchies anywhere, because I think there is huge value in being an equal citizen able to choose your own head of state at the ballot box, rather than being the subject of a family which keeps the position of head of state as its personal property.

The Dutch and Scandinavian monarchies (less so the Spanish) are at least bit more frugal and a bit less scandal-prone than the British one, and have modernised more successfully, but ultimately I think the institution of monarchy can never really be made compatible with a democratic society.

There are a lot of things I dislike about the US system too, believe me, but the phrase 'there are no kings in America' has *huge* value. So it's always perplexing and a little disappointing to see the way so many Americans dribble over the British monarchy. The fusion of this feudal institution with modern day celebrity culture is a fascinating, if bizarre, historical development.

All that said, and while I've been fairly snarky in these posts, I don't have many real objections to *most* of the royals as individuals - in different circumstances you could see them living fairly blameless lower middle-class lives in a provincial English town, and frankly, many of them might prefer that.

I did think the Queen's visit to Ireland in 2011 was a hugely positive step, and you could see how important it was to her to get it right. It's actually quite sad that she genuinely seems to believe she has a duty to die in the saddle rather than enjoy a peaceful retirement. At least the continental monarchies have had the good sense to make abdication a normal and expected development.

If I may be blunt, Concerned European, you are far more thoughtful and measured than I imagined you could be, when you dial back the snark. I'd be interested in reading you but I am guessing you value being a smug cunt more, based on your track record. Tonight's quite a departure for you.

Hey R439, Thanks (ummm, I think). You would find me different in real life. I take the 'pointless bitchiness' part of Datalounge seriously, I enjoy the outlet it gives me for snark and being a smug cunt since I try and struggle against those tendencies in my offline professional and social lives. But I'll take your comment under advisement and try and mix in a bit more thoughtfulness in at least some of the threads.

HM Queen Camilla, HM Camilla Queen Consort, HM/HRH The Duchess of Lancaster, or what, Charles like his mother, creates Our Milla Princess of the UK in her own right?

Other options? Opinions?

Personally, I would like Our Milla to become Queen only when her ex dies.

As an American, I find the "We have no Kings in America" line to be laughable. We LOVE building dynasties, even if they aren't officially part of the Constitution.

America's royalty is made up of robber barons and tacky celebrities.

Americans long to have a royal family. For 3 generations, people have been hailing the Kennedys as our royal family. RFK Jr is their Prince Andrew.

Philip didnt become King because King automatically outranks Queen. For this reason, only a blood heir to the throne can be King, not married-ins.

The real question is why did Elizabeth only make Philip a Prince of the UK instead of Prince Consort? The official answer is that he didn't want to be Prince Consort but a Prince in his own right, as he had been before his marriage. But the rumor for decades was that she was so deeply hurt when she finally accepted the reality of his infidelities that she refused to make him Consort and in revenge she took up her own affair with Lord Porchester.

It's all so silly now but those really were the rumors that went around decades ago.

Silly? Look at photos of Porchester and then her third child and favorite son Andrew. Who's the Daddy there?

[QUOTE] Diana was lightly dealt with by only being divorced and losing her royal status

I beg to differ.

R445

Rubbish. We've done this; at least on three or more occasions Parliament created consorts of queen regents "king".

In a hierarchical society like UK there can only be one person at top; that normally is monarch. If one examines orders of precedence for UK the sovereign (male or female) is at top of list. If the monarch is a male his queen (consort) has top precedence over all other ladies, but she does not have equal rank with king. Hence Prince Phillip walked several paces behind his wife, same as queen consorts did with their husbands.

Where monarch is queen regent, she is top dog so to speak. There isn't a corresponding spot for male consorts especially a "king". This would have to be sorted out by Parliament and or letters patent.

"April 18, 1948

King George VI has issued an order of Precedence at court. His new son-in-law, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh is the "third man of importance" below the King at court functions, unless "Philip is escorting Princess Elizabeth," reports the Chicago Tribune.

The Duke of Edinburgh's position at court ranks below the King's two brothers, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Windsor, But for "joint precedence" list, Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Duke of Edinburgh are directly after King George and Queen Elizabeth.

Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary are at the top of the precedence for women, followed by Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Margaret, the Princess Royal (Mary), the Duchess of Gloucester and the Duchess of Kent."

Note, after Princess Elizabeth became monarch she eventually issued letters patent altering order of precedence placing Prince Phillip above heir to throne (Prince Charles). While this may seem natural and as things should be, again remember normally via orders of precedence the heir (Prince of Wales, eldest son of sovereign) takes second spot in male line. Thus unless things were changed Prince Phillip would have been second in line after Prince Charles was born, then dropping to third and fourth after Prince Andrew then Prince Edward. The sons of HM would literally out rank their father.

As to R446, following link sums up the convoluted and complicated story of just how Prince Phillip became so instead of Prince Consort. It involved a strong willed Elizabeth II who like Victoria I, Mary I, Mary II and Anne was determined to get best deal for her husband possible. Churchill, Parliament, the Grey Men, and even Commonwealth nations had other ideas on matter however. HM originally wanted to create Phillip "Prince of The Commonwealth".

R446, I think the answer to why Philip was never titled Prince Consort is simpler than that. There may have been four reasons: first, there has only been one person who had the title Prince Consort in Great Britain, and that was Victoria's husband Albert. Elizabeth and Philip (who are both Albert's descendants) may have felt the title was too associated with Prince Albert. Second, there really is no such title in the British system; Queen Victoria simply made it up. Wives of kings are, officially, queens consort, but they are never referred to as such in day-to-day language. Third, titling Philip Prince Consort would have created an anomaly should he outlive his wife, the Queen. In such a circumstance, he would no longer be Prince Consort and a new title would have had to be created for him by the Queen's successor. Finally, Philip, given his strong personality, may not have liked the title Prince Consort given that it defined him only with regard to his role relative to his wife. Philip knew he had to walk two steps behind and that she was the center of attention, but he may have asked whether he had to have a title that defined him with regard to her, on top of everything else.

ConceredEuropean, I agree with your posts totally, that’s how I feel as well.

And as an American (of Irish extraction), I disagree with the other poster who thinks Americans long for a royal family. We like our celebrities and our dynasties and don’t do an effective job of economic equality, that’s absolutely true and just a slice of our many problems here. But the one thing we got right was insisting that all men are born equal and leaders depend on the consent of the governed - we didn’t and still aren’t living up to the former statement in practice, but committing to that as an ideal has been the basis of any success we’ve had as a nation.

People in the UK don’t get their knickers in a twist about this stuff. We don’t understand why Americans do. It’s not part of our daily reality.

You mean low key things like her passionate support for addressing domestic abuse?

And, actually, morganatic marriages in which the King's wife aren't crowned Queen have occurred in the last 1,000 years, dear "concerned" European. It's one way to make an unpopular royal marriage palatable, and, in fact, was an option offered to Edward re Wallis. It was one of the three options sent out to the Commonwealth nations for consideration during the short period leading up to the Abdication.

When the answers came back, it was clear the only two choices left to Edward were Abdication or keeping Wallis on as royal mistress, as he was never going to give her up.

It hasn't happened often, but it has happened. In the event, Charles's marriage to Camilla wasn't morganatic.

Meanwhile, in my view, the touchy, thin-skinned, wavering, aging Charles has far more against him than just Queen Camilla. It's obvious at this point that only someone so deep in denial that they can't tell night from day can't see that the only way to save the monarchy from it's own mistakes is to show some spine, put Andrew's and Harry's titles in abeyance, and get Charles to do the decent thing and step aside for William and Kate

Otherwise, his reign will be the end of the monarchy.

It's gone from being a half-humourous abstract concept to one that I one alarmingly plain.

The British monarchy needs 50 years of very old Sovereigns like it needs another Norman Conquest.

It has one shot left: the hugely popular Cambridges.

Don't forget that Prince Charles has the option of reigning just a short while and then abdicating. Even if his mother was unwilling to do so, Charles may himself feel that, in a modern monarchy, the monarch abdicates when he or she becomes very old. It's commonplace in the Netherlands, for example.

Interesting story about Kate's photoshoot in the The Telegraph... scalped from an interview with the photographer in an Italian publication.

The reason she looks different is minimal make up compared to what she normally wears and in most photos her hair is blown behind her.

She preferred as the "official" of the officials the red dress photo, which is why it is most prominent of those released.

The children preferred the more traditional picture in profile, in the white or lilac dress.

Re. the notion of abdication it is easy to imagine he will make a change depending on how serious he is about redesigning the monarchy and then the substance of the changes he makes. But does it have to be one or the other - stay or go? The British tradition is not abdication, which doesn't rule it in or out but does suggest precedent, on which the British rely greatly. Charles might at a certain again allow for a regency to provide for duties of state or very simply and less formally devolve more duties to William, like what's largely being done now. It's interesting, too, that despite William's reported desire to do things differently they embraced tradition with a new or addendum letters patent making his children princes, princess and HRH from the get go. A pretty conventional move for parents not intending to involve all their children in the work of the monarchy. It is a comparatively small family and by the time William takes the throne a really small team. Unless Harry remarries and returns to the fold and gets redeemed (three big ifs) it's W, K and the three children and their spouses, though Charlotte will maybe model on Princess Anne, doing her official stuff solo?

There's a delicate balance to strike, it seems to me. Too big a family and you've got people wondering why so many and who's paying? Too few and people will wonder what they're paying for. I know a lot of people here advance the notion they'll start ditching official residences etc. and they may but Balmoral and Sandringham are private homes, BP is the DNA home of the monarch in the capital... whatever happens will be by degrees. The other monarchies in Europe are subject to the same carping about costs and luxury and what is the point, you just hear less about it because they command less press interest.

R454

Abdication is not an "option". Where did you get that rubbish?

One time it happened in British history Parliament basically said there was a demise in the crown (George VI) and called forward next in line who became Edward VIII. It was a complicated and nasty business that no one in BRF, UK or Commonwealth wants to repeat ever again.

Prince Charles has waited nearly all his life to become king, He's not going to "abdicate" and cut short what will be a short time on throne already.

While abdicating in favour of the next in line to the throne is pretty common in, say, the Netherlands, it's unheard-of in the UK. Perhaps Charles would abdicate if he fell ill severely, leaving him unable to fulfil his duties as a monarch. But Charles abdicating like Beatrix of the Netherlands - naaaaaaaaah, I don't think so.

[quote] The reason she looks different is minimal make up compared to what she normally wears

It’s interesting that they’re acknowledging that she looks different, but this doesn’t wash. The photos seemed over-edited, rather than her face being less touched up than usual.

Who cares, r459?

Only one consort became king in his own right. When James II's daughter Mary took the throne after the Catholic James got his ass kicked out, her husband and cousin William also became King despite the fact he was much further down in the line of succession.

If Charles is smart, and he inherits the throne in the next year or so, he'd do 8-10 years and then give a speech about how being king for life didn't make sense in the era of modern medicine, and hand over in his mid-eighties to William who would still only be around 50. It'd probably be the one really positive thing that future historians will highlight about his reign, and would be worth infinitely more than whatever he might do by clinging on to the sceptres and baubles until death.

Remember if Pope Benedict hadn't broke with tradition and resigned, he'd still be Pope now.

Doesn't Parliament have some say as to who qualifies to be members of "the Royal Family" officially and who gets to be on the dole for it? Will it strictly be up to King Charles to give Andrew or Harry the boot in the name of "streamlining" the royalty, or does Parliament have any say in the matter?

Harry was Charles' favorite child so Charles has to be devastated about Harry's betrayal. Charles and William always had a difficult relationship. Diana had used William as her confidante - which was unfair in a kid that young - and he held grudges against Charles that Harry didn't. Enter Meghan Markle. If they don't get divorced before the Queen's death - and I bet they will - Charles will have to cut Harry and kids out for good.

I'm betting on a Sussex divorce, a nasty custody battle, and then Harry making a fresh start in the UK with a new wife and kids. Like Patty Hearst, one day he will amaze us by how far he'll be able to get back into the fold after going astonishingly rogue.

R461, William of Orange was rather high on the succession list. When James II was king, prior to the birth of his son (James the Old Pretender), the line of succession was: 1. Mary, Princess of Orange, James's elder daughter; 2. Anne, Princess of Denmark, James's younger daughter; and 3. William, Prince of Orange, James's nephew and husband of Mary. When the Old Pretender was born, displacing Protestant Mary as first in line, both the Whigs and the Tories saw future generations of Catholic kings. William was invited to "restore their liberties," James went running, and Parliament invited William and Mary to be joint rulers. It was agreed that, should Mary die first -- which she did -- William would reign alone, to be followed by Anne. So, Anne had to give up her right to succeed Mary during William's lifetime. James and his son, as Catholics, were dropped, even thought their right by the rules of succession were better.

R461, there isn't a royal dole in the sense I'm guessing you mean: the civil list where various players got money (and back in the day there were a ton of them.)

Now there's the Sovereign Grant, which is a percentage of the revenues from the Crown Estate to fund many of the costs of running the monarchy, determined by an Act of Parliament.

The Queen gets private income from the Duchy of Lancaster, as the Sovereign has since 1760, when it was agreed with Parliament to surrender the revenues from the Crown Estate in exchange. (The Crown Estate generated just north of 269 M pounds last year. The Sovereign grant was 86M of that. The spending is explained at link.) I would venture a guess the money the Queen gives Edward and Sophie comes from SG, as they work on her behalf. Money for dear Andrew probably comes from her own funds, which are estimated to be about 250M pounds.

Critics complain the cost of monarchy does not include policing, the cost of visits borne by local municipalities and the cost of armed services where they particpate in official functions.

But will Harry ever be forgiven by the British public?

I believe the British public is most likely to take their lead from the family. If they can repair relations with a divorced Harry, I imagine there's a way back if he shuts up and works hard at doing what working members of the royal family do.

But come the divorce my money says he fucks off to Africa to raise elephants or something.

Why would or should Charles have to abdicate? He could remain the king until he dies. Are there any quasi-constitutional duties that only the monarch not the heir apparent or a regent could do? Sure, the monarchy needs some changes, and 80 year old Charles may not be the best suited for that project. But even today the monarchy is not a one-woman show. There are lots of (minor) adjustments already that were mainly made for William, not Charles.

R470, because he is not widely respected. It would hasten the end of the monarchy.

The monarchy is in no serious danger of going anywhere r471, so what matter? Charles will only be King for a short period, and then it's on to the long and thriving reign of the more-popular Cambridges.

Charles won't be the most popular monarch but he'll do just fine for his short-ish reign. He has put in the work as PoW, He's presentable, clean-living, articulate and know how to do the job. No one in the UK will be expecting him to inspire swooning or chest-beating loyalty from his subjects. He's neither widely beloved, nor widely hated.

R463, Parliament established the ground rules of who can succeed to the throne and would be able to change this (as it recently changed the law to strict primogeniture regardless of sex), but the monarch defines who is part of the active royal family, in terms of titles, roles and precedence.