I don't believe, I just can't believe that nobody has posted the arms of the new princess, at this late of a date....
You mean the new duchess?
On 28/05/2018 12:37 pm, 3ARwun wrote:
I don't believe, I just can't believe that nobody has posted the arms of the new princess, at this late of a date....
I see no new princess.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 8:40:33 AM UTC-5, Robert dCZ wrote:
You mean the new duchess?
Some would argue that a Duke technically outranks a Prince, some would not.
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:45:35 AM UTC-5, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
On 28/05/2018 12:37 pm, 3ARwun wrote:
I don't believe, I just can't believe that nobody has posted the arms of the new princess, at this late of a date....
I see no new princess.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
you're being captious because there is a difference between a commoner marrying a prince, and blah,blah,blah? yes, I know, I know...
Not quite agreed. There is a new designation that refers to the lady as "Princess Harry of Wales" but this does not make the lady a princess,
whereas a marriage to a dook definitely makes her a duchess though not
in her own right (de jure).
On 06/06/18 12:05, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Not quite agreed. There is a new designation that refers to the lady as "Princess Harry of Wales" but this does not make the lady a princess, whereas a marriage to a dook definitely makes her a duchess though not
in her own right (de jure).
So why was the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester almost invariably called Princess Alice after her husband's death?
Richard
Well Kate is going to become the Princess of Wales upon ascension of Charles to the throne by the merit of
William then becoming Prince of Wales. But short of Harry becoming Prince of Wales by some horrible fluke
of fate his newly acquired duchess will never be a princess.
And any children the new Duke and duchess may have will not have the honorific HRH themselves, and only
the actual heir becomes a Duke (or now duchess) upon the demise of Harry. All other children would
become commoners upon ascension of the heir unless they have titles bestowed on them by the monarch.
Do I remember the rules correctly?
What about the generation after that though?
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:14:00 AM UTC-4, Robert dCZ wrote:
What about the generation after that though?
I believe sons of a Duke's sons get to be Hons. So it would go Prince Harry, Prince Harry Jr, Lord Harry III, the Honourable Harry IV.
Nick
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:14:00 AM UTC-4, Robert dCZ wrote:
What about the generation after that though?
I believe sons of a Duke's sons get to be Hons.
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Smith wrote:
So why was the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester almost invariably called
Princess Alice after her husband's death?
Because in traditional British practice, the fact you're called a
Princess does not automatically make you a Princess. Which makes roughly
half of the people the British call "Princess" not Princesses.
On 11/06/18 16:43, NicholasIII@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:14:00 AM UTC-4, Robert dCZ wrote:
What about the generation after that though?
I believe sons of a Duke's sons get to be Hons.
Do you have a source that says the sons of the younger sons of a duke
(or marquess for that matter) are styled "The Hon."? The sources I can
find are inconclusive on that point.
Richard
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:17:01 PM UTC-4, Richard Smith wrote:
On 11/06/18 16:43, NicholasIII@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:14:00 AM UTC-4, Robert dCZ wrote:
What about the generation after that though?
I believe sons of a Duke's sons get to be Hons.
Do you have a source that says the sons of the younger sons of a duke
(or marquess for that matter) are styled "The Hon."? The sources I can
find are inconclusive on that point.
Nope. Just my memory, which is not particularly reliable.
I also could have sworn that the eldest of of the son of peer got to
be honorable in perpetuity, but I also can't find a source for that at
the moment.
On 08/06/18 04:05, NicholasIII@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Smith wrote:
So why was the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester almost invariably called
Princess Alice after her husband's death?
Because in traditional British practice, the fact you're called a
Princess does not automatically make you a Princess. Which makes roughly half of the people the British call "Princess" not Princesses.
I'm not talking about what the British public thought she should be
called. She was referred to as Prince Alice in the court circular too,
and one would hope they knew what they were talking about. However the answer appears to be the Queen specifically granted her permission to
use that style. The similar situation with Princess Marina, the Dowager Duchess of Kent, is more complicated as she was a Princess of Greece and Denmark in her own right.
Richard
Let us go back to basic principles. Royalty only extends to
grandchildren of the sovereign; after that they become 'non-royals'.
Peerages of the United Kingdom, unlike those of some other countries,
extend only to the actual holder of the title, so peers' children are
all commoners, including the eldest son before he inherits the title.
Journalists don't have time to look things up properly or to think
things through logically, and so regularly get titles wrong.
We should not be misled by their mistakes. Instead, apply the principles above: peerages apply only to the holder of the title, and courtesy
titles, if applied, only last for one generation.
On 14/06/18 06:06, Peter Howarth wrote:
Let us go back to basic principles. Royalty only extends to
grandchildren of the sovereign; after that they become 'non-royals'. Peerages of the United Kingdom, unlike those of some other countries, extend only to the actual holder of the title, so peers' children are
all commoners, including the eldest son before he inherits the title.
Agreed. But we're talking about courtesy titles here, and they're
titles borne by commoners.
Journalists don't have time to look things up properly or to think
things through logically, and so regularly get titles wrong.
Where do you expect journalists to look it up? I've tried quite a few
of the obvious sources, and very few of them address the issue of grandchildren of peers, other than the heir apparent of the heir
apparent who would normally get a secondary courtesy title, if one is available.
If you look instead for example in the common reference works, you often find errors in them, frequently due to them not being properly updated
when the holder of the substantive title dies.
Debrett's, which is generally well-regarded (perhaps more than it really deserves), is a good example of that. Look up Princess Margaret's granddaughter, Margarita Armstrong-Jones. As the daughter of an earl
(and not just one by courtesy) she unquestionably gets the title "Lady",
but Debrett's labels her "The Hon." instead.
Any recent changes to the use of courtesy titles will have been made
under an Earl Marshal's warrant or (less likely) letters patent, but
these are almost impossible to locate. In any case, most of these
styles has not been formally defined and is simply a matter of custom.
We should not be misled by their mistakes. Instead, apply the principles above: peerages apply only to the holder of the title, and courtesy
titles, if applied, only last for one generation.
Except that's definitely not true as there are some very clear cases
when grandsons gain a courtesy title. Lord Culloden (the eldest son of
the eldest son of the Duke of Gloucester) and Lord Downpatrick (the
eldest son of the eldest son of the Duke of Kent) are examples.
It's also pretty clear that the daughters of an earl by courtesy are all styled Lady, just as they would be for a substantive earl. For example, Lord Downpatrick's sister is consistently styled Lady Marina Windsor
when she appears in the daily Court Circular released by Buckingham
Palace. I think repeated use in the Court Circular can be considered to make the usage correct by precedence, regardless of what rules may exist
on the subject.
Similarly, children of viscounts by courtesy are styled Hon. An example
is the Princess Margaret's grandson, the current Viscount Linley.
Before the death of his grandfather, the first Earl of Snowdon, he was consistently styled The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones in the Court
Circular, just as he would have been if his father was a proper viscount rather than one by courtesy.
I think these examples make it very clear that the children of the
eldest son of a peer can frequently end up with a courtesy title.
This really only leaves the question of how the children of the younger
son of a duke or marquess are styled. The younger son will be styled "Lord", but does that mean his children get the style "The Hon."? If I
had to guess I'd say no, but it's not clear what principle if any we
should be applying. Amongst the aristocracy (as opposed to, say, Law
Lords or Lord Mayors), I can think of no other circumstances in which
the children of someone using the style Lord (whether by courtesy or otherwise) would not be styled "The Hon" or higher.
I cannot see any source addressing this question in the general case, so
the next best thing is to look for a definitive reference on a specific case. Within the descendants of Edward VII, I can only find one set of examples: the three sons of Lord Nicholas Windsor, who is a younger son
of the Duke of Kent. But so far as I can see, they have never appeared
in the Court Circular and I don't think Buckingham Palace ever announced their births. They're listed in line of succession given in Whitaker's Almanack as "The Hon. Albert Windsor", and they appear in Debrett's line
of succession without "The Hon.", but as noted above, I wouldn't
necessarily trust either of these sources.
Richard
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 294 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 243:55:58 |
| Calls: | 6,626 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,175 |
| Messages: | 5,320,318 |