Royal Gossip
June 23, 2017, 06:00:03 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Royalty: Q&A  (Read 27108 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 718



« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2011, 10:27:19 pm »

Because HM The Queen didn't gave him the formal title of "Prince Consort" tehe She made him a "Prince of GB and NI" in 1957 but not "Prince Consort" (before he was just Duke of Edimburg, not a british prince by right)...
Logged

Take a bow Waitie Katie

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13868



« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2011, 11:16:46 pm »

But didn't she try to make him king?  Embarrassed Do you think it was her desire or was she advised to do so?
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Mia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 718



« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2011, 11:48:55 pm »

Since his marriage, Prince Philip was only HRH Philip Duke of Edimburg, not a prince in his own right. When HM ascended to the throne, she express the wish to raise his position. Originally HM wanted to make him "Prince of the Commonwealth", a new title sugested by a member of the parliament. She wrote a letter to Churchill and the foreign secretary asking their opinion, Churchill prefered the title of "Prince Consort", the foreign secretary the title "Prince of the realm". There was a meeting of the Commonwealth prime ministers and HM asked Churchill to consult them about PP title. They never really reached a conclusion and Prince Philip himself express the wish to not have a new title. The British goverment recommended "Prince Consort" or "Prince Royal" and then "His Royal Highness the Prince", HM rejected because she still prefered "Prince of the Commonwealth". This one was dropped when sent a letter to the Commonwealth Governors-General asking their opinion. HM said that she only would go for it if it was unanimous, which it wasn't.

The whole thing was dropped for a while but in ealy 1957 it was published an article discussing PP title and the British PM at the time went against previous goverment suggestions and adviced the Queen to make PP "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (and all countries she's monarch), which happened a few weeks later when the letter patent was issued and he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

If you're interested, were is a link with the letters exchanged between members of the goverment about this:

Title of Prince: HRH Philip Duke of Edinburgh

(The letter patent is also there)

 BFF2
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 11:56:22 pm by Mia » Logged

Take a bow Waitie Katie

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13868



« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2011, 11:55:58 pm »

Wow, wonderful explanation  thumbsup Thank you!
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Mia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 718



« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2011, 12:16:27 am »

You're welcome BFF2 I spent way too much time reading royalty stuff easter-James
Logged

Take a bow Waitie Katie

Dahlia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2011, 06:04:06 pm »

I know that for example HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden would become HRH Princess Madeleine of Great Britain, if she had married William ( bye).
But what is about a HRH Princess, whos family doesn´t reign anymore?

Thanks
Logged
Mia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 718



« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2011, 07:09:44 pm »

I believe that Madeleine wouldn't become automatically a princess of GB if she married William, even if she's the daugther of a reigning monarch. She would need a letter pattent from the Queen creating the title for her... The same for another P HRH Princess of a deposed RF, I think...

You have the example of Prince Philip. He was a prince from a reigning RF and when he married HM he abdicated his greece and danish titles but he didn't became a Prince of GB, he was only HRH The Duke of Edimburg. He only became HRH Prince Philip (Prince of GB) when a letter pattent was published granting him the title.
Logged

Take a bow Waitie Katie

Dahlia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2011, 09:32:49 pm »

How complicated. But it´s better so I guess. Thank you.  flower
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13868



« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2011, 02:32:51 pm »

I agree with Mia, she wouldn't be Princess Madeleine of GB but only HRH Princess William. I suppose that the queen would have to agree to let her use the title of Princess Madeleine. The same with a princess from a non reigning princess, although to mere mortals the non reigning are a bit ridiculous the royals maintain the traditions. Princess Astrid for example is HRH but also HIH even when his husband is from a non regning family.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Dahlia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2011, 09:38:16 pm »

Interesting how in other RFs the women get the title automatically, but at the BRF the Queen/King has to allow it. I prefer this way a little bit more. Or like Henri of Luxembourg, who gave the Princess title to his DIL after a certain time.

Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13868



« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2011, 10:40:08 pm »

Wait I don't think it works that way, Henri have to give the title of princess to Tessy because Louis (?) had renounced to his rights.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Mia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 718



« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2011, 10:56:02 pm »

Prince Louis renounced to his and his children succession right when he married Tessy in 2006 but kept his title. GD Henri gave Tessy and their children titles in Luxembourg National Day in 2009 but that didn't changed Louis status, he's no longer in the succession line and neither his children.

The titles for Tessy and the boys was kind of a present, it wasn't a necessary thing...
Logged

Take a bow Waitie Katie

Windsor
royal watcher

Offline Offline

Posts: 4



« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2011, 02:58:52 am »

^^

In England titles cannot pass to females.

Actually, titles of nobility have passed down to women on several occasions. It all depends on the Letters Patent and the terms it sets for the title to pass down the line.
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12878



« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2011, 05:50:39 pm »

So there are not only paternal titles (earl, duke ect.) that go from father to eldest son but also maternal titles (baroness or duchess) that were granted specifically to women and which go down the line from mother to eldest daughter??
do you have examples of this cases, I'm just curious because I've never heard of maternal titles in the UK...
Or do you mean paternal titles which were in inherited by the eldest daughter because there was no surviving son? because that's more an special case then the rule no?
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13868



« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2011, 06:57:35 pm »

^^

In England titles cannot pass to females.

Actually, titles of nobility have passed down to women on several occasions. It all depends on the Letters Patent and the terms it sets for the title to pass down the line.

But I meant in general it's not like in Spain where if there was no male heirs it had always passed to the female.  dontknow

Akasha I just read a couple of days ago of an example of this:

All quotes from: http://theesotericcuriosa.blogspot.com/2010/03/relatively-royal-on-royal-fringe-meet.html

Quote
Once it eventually became apparent that the Duke and Duchess would not have a surviving son, Queen Victoria signed Letters Patent creating a second Dukedom of Fife, along with the Earldom of Macduff in the Peerage of the United Kingdom with a special remainder: in default of a male heir. Thus, these peerages would pass to the daughters of the 1st Duke and then to their male descendants. This new patent was created on April 24, 1900.

Quote
Princess Alexandra who succeeded to his Dukedom, becoming the Duchess of Fife and Countess of Macduff in her own right, now came into her own.

I recommend to read the whole post is highly interesting and it explains all about the Fife's.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Dahlia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2011, 02:07:19 pm »

What if a Royal or noble lady with a title marries into the BRF and refuse the British title and keep her name. Is this possible?
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13868



« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2011, 02:03:33 pm »

I suppose you can as if you marry and don't want to use your husband name.  dontknow
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Dahlia
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2011, 10:21:37 pm »

Makes sense. But imagine the headline: princes wife refuses his title! What´s wrong with her?  tehe
Logged
Grace and Diana Fan
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2011, 03:12:32 pm »

Just wondering, because, when Diana married Charles, over the years I have heard 2 different reports about how many people were in attendance. 2,500 was said once, and then I read that it was 3,500. Which is true, and how many can the Cathedral really fit?

 lips
Logged
Yooper
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11112


Moderator


« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2011, 05:56:06 pm »

No matter how large it is, it's got seating/kneeling/standing for two too many this time around.
Logged


\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\"  Thomas Jefferson
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!