Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

3.2k Excellent
  1. This is interesting. Here's how I, a very much non-expert, thinks it would go, assuming that the Viscount title is a courtesy title obtained through the father and not a actual title that the husband got in his own right: She won't be a dowager viscountess for multiple reasons. To be a dowager anything, she needs to have been the wife of the title-holder and that husband would need to be the direct ancestor of the current title-holder. Her husband was never a title-holder. Her father-in-law held all those titles, allowing his son to use one of his as a courtesy. She was technically never the wife of a peer. The closest case I could find (with a quick search, though) was the Viscount Grandison title during the reign of William III. The 4th Viscount Grandison, George Villiers, had a son, Edward, who married and had an heir. Edward ended up dying before his father. Upon the death of George, Edward's son became 5th Viscount Grandison. Within a month, his mother and Edward's widow, Katherine, was granted a patent by the king which gave her the privileges of the title and precedence as if Edward had survived and became Viscount because that was not something that she automatically got because she was married to an heir or was the mother of a peer. The situation is different because there were no courtesy titles involved, but I don't think a courtesy title would be something that could be automatically attached to the wife of the person using it if that person is no longer there, because it wasn't their own title to begin with. The wife of the actual title-holder holds all the feminine forms of those titles, her daughter-in-law is just allowed use of one as a courtesy. So technically, the mother-in-law would be the one that could use Dowager [Title] for all her titles. Again, not an expert but that's how I'm working it out in my head.
  2. Oh, Princess Mabel can't be posted without a clearer shot of her train. For me, that took it from, "Okay, quirky, I guess" to "Oh, that's something. WOW."
  3. Charlotte's future husband, if she has one, is likely not getting a dukedom at all - since they are the highest-ranking hereditary titles, they have only been handed out to princes in over 100 years. One was offered to Winston Churchill after WWII, but that was an exception. The only way that it may happen with Charlotte's husband is if she becomes the heir to the throne. Otherwise, if he gets a title, it'd likely be an earldom. Prince Edward has taken over a lot of his father's duties, including much of those dealing with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, so I think the family, Charles included, is on the same page as to what will eventually be given to Edward. Edward (and Sophie) will likely be the strongest support for Charles, other than the Cambridges, when he becomes king. And the dukedom will cease to be royal once it gets past Edward's son. I know! My history-loving ass sure likes reading up on the whole thing, though. At least now, the titles are limited to being just titles (and land/property for most and the possibility of being in the House of Lords) and not, like, having the power to raise private armies from your lands in order to fight some other noble with his own armies or a disliked monarch. ETA a small, related tangent: When Elizabeth I came to the throne, there was exactly one duke in all of England: the Duke of Norfolk. She had him executed for treason and, for the next 30+ years until after her death, there were no dukes in England. The potential power of a duke was too much of a hassle for her, so she just avoided it. There were barely any marquesses or viscounts. She was just done with peers of the realm having any sort of power.
  4. She can't pass along the Duke of Edinburgh title in her lifetime because it will pass along to Charles as Philip's oldest son. It's only when it merges with the Crown (Charles becoming king) can it be created anew and given to Edward. Both the Queen and Philip have to pass away in order for the title to go to Edward. Philip so the title passes on to his heir and the Queen so that heir becomes king, merging the title with the Crown. It won't be a continuation of Philip's dukedom, but a new creation.
  5. Yes, children of princes are styled as the children of dukes if they don't have a higher ranking title. And Lord/Lady (along with The Honorable) is a type of courtesy title.
  6. Yes, as the great-grandchildren of the Sovereign through the direct male-line, they get courtesy titles as children of a duke (so Lord/Lady). They keep that their whole lives, but their children don't get it from them.
  7. All male-line grandchildren of the monarch are prince/princesses, entitled to the style of HRH. This is because titles are inherited from fathers - the exception being the monarch. Peter and Zara would never have been HRH or Prince/Princess, as they are female-line grandchildren, but they could have had (courtesy) titles if their father had agreed to a peerage, which he didn't. And, as mentioned, the Wessex children are entitled to the HRH and Prince/Princess title, they just aren't being used, which is what the Wessexes have chosen. The rules on who is entitled to an HRH/Prince/Princess largely come from George V's 1917 letters patent. George VI issued one of his own when Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles, which stated that all of her children with Prince Philip would be HRH with the title of Prince/Princess because under the earlier LP, they would be entitled to none of that while their grandfather was alive as they would not be male-line grandchildren of the king, even though their mother was next in line for the throne. Then Elizabeth issued her own LP before Prince George was born, stating that all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be entitled to HRH/Prince/Princess, as under the original 1917 LP, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales got that. The process of switching the Crown inheritance to one of absolute primogeniture was already underway and this took care of the potential issue of a future queen not being an HRH or Princess at birth while her younger brother would be. The Cambridges ended up having a son as their eldest anyway, but moving forward, that issue is taken care of.
  8. Seriously. This letter is basically the same thing they stated on the media section of their site. We get it. You don't have to keep reiterating it, just get on with it.
  9. I clicked on it while thinking Carlos II was surely going to be #1, and there he is, being the introductory photo and first person. His family tree was a nightmare. All his great-grandparents descended from Joanna of Castile and Philip I. Anna of Austria (the Duchess of Bavaria) was his great-great-aunt, great-great-great-aunt, great-great-great-grandmother and great-great-great-great-grandmother (twice over). He was his own mother's first cousin and his father's great-nephew. It's mind-boggling - he could have been in a room with 85 people and that would still be more people than are in the previous 8 generations of his family.
  10. I think the best reaction H&M could have had to their organization's name coming out would be to just confirm that it is indeed their organization and that more details would be released at a more appropriate time. Going into how the name came to be about just made that into a story itself. With the longer statement, it comes across as if they announced it rather than the whole thing actually being the result of a reporter keeping an eye out for trademarks. Give the bare minimum until all is set in place and ready to be announced.
  11. Technically, yes - Caroline as an HRH outranks the non-reigning HSH in her family. She took up his HRH because it outranked her HSH - a woman will take the rank of her husband if his rank is higher than hers. But that's really going into technicalities. I don't think it's given much weight, especially as the House of Hanover no longer reigns over anything. Monaco recognizes Ernst August as a Prince and HRH, but the style had no legal standing. Taking it further, His/Her Imperial Highness (as in Japan) would outrank an HRH. But this ranking system is left over from a time when kingdoms/empires were dominant on the world stage, territories fell under their control, and their marriages and alliances took a closer look at the status of those being used for those purposes. Now it just seems to be sovereigns, their heirs, and the rest. Heads of State are equal, but there is an order of precedence when they are all thrown together. Queen Elizabeth comes first among them simply because she's held her office for the longest time. 'Emperor' technically outranks 'Queen,' going by the rules of the old world, but in modern times, Emperor Naruhito would be among the last in the order of precedence among Heads of State because he just got that role last year. You can see this order of precedence in action during the enthronement of Naruhito - Carl Gustav of Sweden (became king in 1973) was seated between the Sultan of Brunei (1967) and the king of Eswatini (1986) during the ceremony. Those same people were seated at the main table during the banquet, along with king of Lesotho (1996), I believe, with CG and the Sultan being next to the Emperor and Empress. If Queen Elizabeth were in attendance, she would have bumped everyone down one notch and would have the place next to the Emperor (with the Sultan next to the Empress). Everyone's equal, but precedence is determined by how long a HoS has been in that position.
  12. The HRH in the British royal family is reserved for the children of the monarch, the male-line grandchildren of the monarch, and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (it previously was limited to the son of the eldest son, but this was changed before the birth of Prince George). So with this current family, all of Elizabeth's children are HRH and all of her grandchildren, except for Princess Anne's children, are HRH. The children of the Earl of Wessex are technically HRH, but are not styled as such at the request of their parents. Of her great-grandchildren, only the Cambridge children are currently HRH. When Prince Charles ascends the throne, Harry's son, Archie, would technically be HRH but it will probably be like the Wessex situation, where they don't use it. The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, as mentioned, along with their siblings, are HRH due to their being grandchildren of George V. That ends with them. They will pass along their dukedoms to their sons, but those dukedoms will cease to be royal. Senior royals are just members of the royal family who carry out regular engagements on behalf of the monarch, represent the royal family, and are in close proximity to the throne. Prince Albert is His Serene Highness, but as the sovereign of Monaco, he outranks Prince Charles. Same goes for Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg, it's just how their titles evolved from their nations' statuses within larger kingdoms/empires that no longer exist.
  13. I feel bad for chuckling at this. It makes her sound like some sort of ghost from an old English legend.
  14. This would include people like the Private Secretary, those who work for him like all the staffers in the Press Office, people who work in the Treasury, etc. - jobs like those could technically be done remotely, as complicated as it would be. A corded phone also works if there is a power outage, so the lines of communication will always be open.
  15. I've said it before: he physically reminds me of King Koopa/Bowser.
  • Create New...

Customize font-size