There has been a long-simmering feud between Prince Charles and Prince Andrew for years, really. But the feud got ramped up this year, as it is believed that Andrew has basically asked his mother, the Queen, to intervene. The feud is about a lot of things, but the main argument these days is that Andrew isn’t a fan of Charles’ idea for a “streamlined monarchy” with only William, Harry and Kate getting any kind of priority and/or status. Andrew wants his two daughters, Eugenie and Beatrice, to always retain their HRH-status, and to be acknowledged as full-time working royals, with all of the perks and status that come along with that. The Queen is said to be in agreement with Andrew, mostly because she’s very fond of Eugenie and Beatrice, but who knows what will happen long-term, especially when Charles is king?
Well, apparently Andrew is thinking long-term. Especially now that it’s looking more and more like Eugenie is close to announcing her engagement to her long-time boyfriend Jack Brooksbank. Eugenie, I feel, plays the long game more than Beatrice. Eugenie seems to have made peace with the Duchess of Cambridge and the Middletons, and Eugenie has taken an apartment at Kensington Palace this year too. She seems to want to do what it takes to become a working royal. And now Andrew is advocating on her behalf (and on behalf of Beatrice) that his daughters’ future husbands should be given earldoms, lest his girls be treated like mere commoners once they marry.
While all of the Queen’s children got to be HRH, only those grandchildren born to the monarch’s sons do so. Thus, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie – daughters of Prince Andrew – are HRHs but Peter and Zara, children of Princess Anne, are not.
Now Andrew wants to improve the status of his daughters by persuading the Queen and her heir Prince Charles to allow their future husbands to have earldoms.
‘Otherwise his daughters’ children will be commoners, defined as one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy or to royalty,’ my source explains. Imagine!
In case anyone is wondering, it really is that easy to get an earldom. The Queen only has to, like, sign a paper or publicly declare it, and BOOM! Jack Brooksbank gets an earldom. I remember in the lead-up to then-Kate Middleton’s wedding to Prince William, there was so much conversation about what title she would get, and how gaudy it could possibly be. In the end, I’m glad that Kate was only made into a duchess. Something I’ve always wondered about blood princesses though… when they marry, can they choose to keep their “maiden name/maiden title”? Like, say Eugenie marries Jack. Can she publicly declare, “I’m keeping my maiden name” and she’ll just be Princess Eugenie, rather than Mrs. Brooksbank? Anyway, I think it’s interesting that Andrew wants to get this settled right now, while his mother is alive. Because you know King Charles isn’t going to give Bea and Eugenie’s husbands any earldoms.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Streamlining camp
Don’t they actually have to have husbands first?
One would think.
Seems like a way of enticing potential husbands.
“See what you get if you marry my daughters!”
Well, any potential husband would have to be prepared to be the sole breadwinner money-wise. So a title is the least they should get for feeding and clothing and paying for them. 😛
Yes, plus given the high divorce rate all over the world, what happens if one (or both) of the girls end up in multiple marriages? Do all of their subsequent husbands get earldoms? Does the ex-husband get to keep his title or does that get taken away and given to the next husband?
My guess would be that in case of divorce the husband keeps the title as that is attached to him himself legally.
Great question Sherry! Fergie has continued to use her title. And Tony seems to have kept his when he divorced Margaret, and he remarried. There is a political question too. Wikipedia mentions that Lord Snowdon was given peerage so he could retain his seat in the House of Lords. I’m not from the UK, so I wonder if this means an Earldom would automatically give the husbands a seat in the House of Lords or if another peerage needs to be bestowed to have a seat due to some referendums.
Sharon Lea, as long as Andrew or Fergie don’t remarry, she retains that title.
Being given a peerage title automatically grants you a seat in the house of lords. The house has been reformed to remove most of the hereditary lords, but it’s not good far enough or it’s gone in the wrong direction because most of the peers seem to be political appointees.
It depends on whether they are created hereditary peers or life peers. Hereditary peers no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords (except some who were grandfathered in and others who were also created life peers at the time).
Since they would want to pass on the title to their children (and they’re likely thick enough that they would have no interest in sitting in the House of Lords) they would be created hereditary peers.
Also, Fergie kept her title but lost the HRH in the divorce (as did Diana).
@lightpurple are you kidding me? I will never be a royal, but these women were born into royalty. Why should they need husbands before having a royal title (which all the grandchildren deserve imo)??
She was saying shouldn’t there actually be husbands before any discussion of giving husbands an earldom.
Upperclass welfare. Get jobs.
True. But if they were men would they get to keep their HRH titles when they married? Really not sure how that business works.
Yes.
They get to keep their HRH titles as women. The ‘problem’ is their children will have no title at all (like Zara and Peter Phillips).
Yet if they were males, their children would have titles. Sexist!
Oh, I’m looking forward to reading the comments.
YES!!! Loving the comments on the royals here. Spot on!
In other words, because they are better than us, and their children should be better than our children too.
I hate this whole system and I wish we could just get rid of it once and for all.
It’s such a scam.
I agree, but if they were male their royal status wouldn’t be in question. The whole thing is nonsense, but it’s also sexist nonsense heaped on top of elitist nonsense. Gah.
@bettyrose- Good point. Royalty is just as misogynistic as it is antiquated and elitist.
Frankly, I think England would get more bang for its buck with the York sisters than it does with Workshy Will and Katie Bucket.
I am not sure Eugenie and Beatrice would work more than WK. Beatrice took nearly 20 holidays this year or the year before.
But E and B would definitely give the impression they liked to do royal duties. and they would look interesting fashion-wise.
ha Bitchy – maybe that could be part of the agreement, if titles are bestowed, then a certain number of engagements must be taken each year baring any serious health condition.
Okay. the United States threw off the shackles of royal proclamation 2.5 centuries ago but sexism and misogyny are alive and well and perhaps in more fulsom health than in Ol’ Blighty. The UK afterall is on a female head of state (QE) and her second female head of govt while the USA got so frazzled at the thought of a female Prezzie, she elected herself a racist sexist bombast mocked by every free and critical thinking person.
I wouldn’t point too hard at the sexism in relatively meaningless title appointments. Just my thoughts
+ 1
Andrew is scum. He turns people off to the monarchy.
Boy, I wish my problems were “Hmm. my daughters’ non-existent husbands should really be declared Earls.”
Royals are a spit in the face to working people anyway. We should get rid of them all.
Oh, Andy, it’s too bad you can’t just buy Earldoms with your airmiles.
😂😂😂😂👏👏👏 Perfection! hahahahaha!!!!
Can anyone explain the whole title system to me or send me a link so I can be in the know?
She would keep her title on marriage – a woman only stops using her title if her husband’s title is higher. Therefore, Lady Diana Spencer became the Princess of Wales but her older sister Sarah, who married a Mr. became Lady Sarah Fellows.
She would be addressed as Lady Sarah. If she had been a Miss Spencer, marrying a Sir Robert Fellows, he would be Sir Robert and she’d be Lady Fellows.
It’s not a matter of keeping a maiden name, she is entitled to keep her birth title forever (Princess Margaret was a Princess until the day she died). No declaration is necessary – she’d have to announce if she wasn’t keeping her title. This is more to make sure Andrew’s GRANDCHILDREN aren’t commoners (which was the argument used to justify Princess Margaret’s husband getting a title)
But the children will be commoners. Won’t someone think of the children??
OMG I just choked on my tea!! 🙂 🙂
Just a minor correction…it was actually Diana’s sister Lady Jane who married Robert Fellowes. He was later knighted and became Sir Robert Fellowes and she remained Lady Jane Fellowes…then he was made a baron and is now Lord Fellowes, I think she is still styled Lady Fellowes? I may have it all wrong….maybe LAK or Sixer can clarify.
That’s right.
Whoops, sorry. I was getting her two sisters mixed up.
If the husband became a Baron, then she is also a Baroness. That would be her “legal” title, as opposed to her social title of Lady.
They keep theit titles and add their husband’s last name, like the Queen’s cousin Princess Alexandra. She’s known as Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy (her husband was born The Honourable Angus Ogilvy and later Sir Angus Ogilvy)
I was thinking the same thing. Princess Alexandra’s husband didn’t get a title when he married her.
I believe he turned one down at the time they married.
Same with Mark Phillips. Some Princesses in the past (granddaughters of the monarch like Alexandra) chose their husband’s name–ie Princess Patricia of Connaught (granddaughter of Queen Victoria) who married Alexander Ramsay in 1919. She became officially Lady Patricia Ramsay but kept her precedence of a princess.
Firstly as loathsome as Andrew is, this article is a distraction.
Anonymously briefing the DM and other outlets is so easy and Andrew and the girls are easy targets. Especially anything that makes Andrew look like the pompous idjit.
It’s been the Queen’s policy to offer Earldoms to the husbands of the female blood princes on marriage.
She offered earldoms to Alexandra, Anne and Margaret’s husbands. Only Margaret’s husband took up the offer. Apparently Alexandra’s husband regretted turning it down.
Based on precedent, B&E’s future spouses are likely to be offered Earldoms for similar marrying blood princes reasons, but that is the Queen’s policy.
We don’t know whether Charles will continue this policy when he is monarch, but it’s increasingly likely that he will reduce not expand the official royal family.
On similar note, perhaps Edward better firm up his DoE suggested title before HM dies because Charles won’t want to appear to expand the family by granting his brother a royal dukedom when he is monarch.
A discussion about potential titles for B&E’s future husband’s titles is completely absurd when Andrew has already been turned down on their own status, so i don’t think this story is true, but it is serving a purpose.
On a different note, a princess remains a princess even as a Mrs. Her princess style preceeds her mrs title whatever that may be.
I recall reading that when the Queen’s aunt (Princess Mary) married the Earl of Harewood, she was always called the Princess Royal and did not go by Countess Harewood. I’ve been on a tour of the house (it’s lovely!), and they’re very proud of having a Princess Royal in the family up there in Yorkshire! But then her kids were titled, not mere commoner riff raff like the rest of us. 🙂
Lol
That’s because Princess Royal was her title in her own right–that trumps being called by your spousal title.
She was known as Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles then later Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood. She became Princess Royal after her aunt’s death in 1931 and was known as that until her death.
What about Princess Anne’s first and 2nd husbands – they didn’t get titles but if there is precedence but I agree this is a distraction. But from whom, drama with the Cambridges? There has to be something serious going on behind the scenes; we’ve had stories about how amazing Carol is, Harry and Meghan, Willy making horrible speeches and now this.
Me thinks there maybe a divorce or leaving the line of succession announcement coming soon. All is not well at Amner.
“They didn’t get titles” is incorrect-the Queen offered and they did not accept. BIG difference.
It was less important with the second husband as he and Anne didn’t have any children. No one in the RF cares about the spouses, it’s all about the blood descendants.
Well, there’s the uproar about Harry’s flying to visit Meghan and his team lying to reporters about where they were going. Maybe that’s what they’re trying to distract from . . .
Digital Unicorn, I’m not sure of an Amner Announcement. The CC has quietly listed engagements for Kate over the last couple of days that haven’t been covered here. I don’t think she is dumb enough to let go.
Yup, Me, I suspect you are on to the whole of it with Harry and Meghan. It seems as if the Royal Reporters are less than pleased about that whole situation – even if it doesn’t seem a big deal to us. Apparently Poor Jason lied to Richard Palmer’s face as Harry was boarding the plane. I am kind of wondering if they will announce and engagement soon. In theory, she could move in with him at KP and receive Royal Protection.
I hope the York girls and their future husbands have the good sense to turn any titles down. I also hope Charles has the good sense to let them do royal duties when its his turn on the throne. if not, Charles, Camilla, the Cambridges , Harry and Mrs Prince Harry will have a lot of weight to carry. And we already know the Cambridges cant pull their own weight
The Queen will soon be a doddering old woman; if Eugenie and Beatrice want their children to have even minor titles, as Pss. Margaret’s children got after the Queen made Anthony Armstrong-Jones the Earl of Snowdon upon his marriage to her sister, they’d better hurry up the weddings.
Because once Charles is in the driver’s seat, that is OVER. And the Queen may be sympathetic, but she might want to remember that the British taxpayer is about to pay into a multi-million pound refit of Buck House. And if Harry marries Markle, that will be another mouth on the Sovereign Grant, and then Harry’s kids . . .
On the whole, I agree with Charles. Wm and Kate already have two kids and will probably have one more, Harry’s not even started yet . . .
Give it up, Andrew. I know it’s more fun being a “working royal” and getting all that deference and all those perks than slaving away at a real job 8 hours a day, five days a week, but . . . maybe they should have gone to law school of medical school?
I absolutly LOVE YOUR POST.
For all the flak Charles gets, and for all the charisma he lacks, I do actually think that he’s got an actual head on his shoulders unlike Andrew and the dreaded KW. I think prince Harry also came out as all right as a pampered f-cking royalty can (though the lack of pressure coming from being… what, now 3rd in line? 4th? has made life a little less butt-puckered for him).
As far as I’m concerned, streamlining the royalty is a good idea.
this is the type of problem in these peoples lives that is actually a problem. what a life.
Eugenie…what an unfortunate name.
and her sister…she has an interesting look…that’s all i say about it.
I really don’t like the name Eugenie, either.
It’s a Royal name connected to Queen Victoria (Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain, I think). She was the daughter of Victoria’s daughter Princess Beatrice.
The Duke and Duchess of York were making it clear from the beginning how very Royal their daughters were (no non-traditional names like Peter and Zara for them).
It’s a little know fact, but Fergie is obsessed with Victoria. She wrote a foreword to a book about her, named her children after Victoria’s children ( Eugenie’s other names are Victoria Helena) and grand children and produced the film THE YOUNG VICTORIA.
She actually wrote two books on Victoria. Or perhaps ‘wrote’ is more accurate. Her Victoria obsession was well chronicled back in the day. Princess Victoria Eugenie (daughter of Princess Beatrice of Battenberg and later Queen of Spain) was herself named for the stylish (and Spanish born) Empress Eugenie of France and was her goddaughter. All the Eugenies names have the French pronunciation.
Isn’t Princess Anne still very much royally titled? And her husband isn’t an earl either. Andrew needs to put on his big boy pants and deal with the fact that he will likely have “commoner” grandchildren. … who don’t even exist yet.
Of course the real solution is to get rid of all royalty and aristocracy but no one’s having that, sadly.
She is the Princess Royal these days. And her husband isn’t titled. Don’t know if he was offered one, but Mark Phillips was and did not take it. She gets her title, but her children do not. It really is an antiquated and sexist system, especially when you figure that Anne’s the most hard working of the bunch.
I thought Anne didn’t want her children to have titles?
Her children wouldn’t have gotten a title anyways. The HRH comes only if the father is son of the queen/king. Zara and Peter would have received a title if their father had one. The situation though is different with Edward’s kids since they should be styled as HRH princess Louise of Wessex and HRH prince James of Wessex, but the queen decided not to grant them the HRH styling and to just have them styled as daughter and son of an earl so that they could lead a “normal” life. I call the bs right there since living in a palace surrounded not “normal” and these kids even without a title wouldn’t get to live a normal life just in virtue of who is their grandmother.
I believe they are HRH simply by virtue of their birth, just as the York girls have their titles as children of Andrew. It is their mother Sophie who prefers that they aren’t known by the titles, the title is legally there, but they just don’t use them. In the same way that Camilla is actually the Pss of Wales but prefers to used the lesser Duchess of Cornwall title (for obvious reasons).
“While all of the Queen’s children got to be HRH, only those grandchildren born to the monarch’s sons do so. Thus, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie – daughters of Prince Andrew – are HRHs but Peter and Zara, children of Princess Anne, are not.”
Or Andrew could just have gone the way Eddie did – chosen to let his children go without the HRH’s. I know Louise and James are technically HRH’s but choosing to not the use the titles is a smart move IMO. As is streamlining the royal family. If the UK is going to keep on a royal family it really doesn’t need to be large. Andrew is a spoiled snob.
Different eras. And a PR exercise to make the royal family more popular.
B and E were born at a time when they were fully expected to be working royals as adults.
James and Louise were born at a time the royals were not popular at all, with the public still sore about Diana’s death. Concessions were made to try to show that the family had changed to reflect the classless society of Britain (i know!), including not using high status titles etc. Using lesser titles was a good way of restoring public goodwill.
Same reason Camilla chose to use her husband’s second title rather than his first.
Well, the royals aren’t popular now, least of all Andrew and his daughters. There is literally nothing stopping them from doing the smart thing and giving up their titles. *This* isn’t helping the family at all. You would think that was what they were about really..
I think the entire thing has been so publicly played out that it has become a matter of pride.
And Anne is no better. Whilst she understands that she can’t pass on titles, she is in there ensuring her own status is recognised. The ‘blood princesses’ nonsense started with her and Alexandra.
If that had played out as publicly as this one is playing out, many people wouldn’t view Anne so favourably.
@ LAK
The blood princesses nonsense started with the Queen who knew about such rules because they are in the old court documents about order of precedence.
As far as I remember an Irish duke has to walk behind an English duke, too.
So the Queen established the rule that born princesses are worth more than married-in princesses. I am not astonished that she believes in the worth and value of blood … most bloodstock owners do. It is bordering on racism, not quite racism yet but definitely close.
Well, the Queen wasn’t the one to repel this blood princess nonsense. If she had wanted to give order of precedence to those who have worked harder or longer for the crown I could understand it. But the phrase “blood princess” definitely implies something else than merits.
Bitchy: it wasn’t that simple. And it was Anne and Alexandra who caused the change. They refused to curtsey and or give way to Charles’ wives. Order of precedence demanded it, but they threw hissyfit about it and pulled rank based on ‘blood Princes’ status which they argued was higher status than a in-law whose title was courtsey of marriage to their brother.
They were particularly put out about it over Camilla.
The Queen reworked it to appease them such that ‘blood princes’ have higher status than in-laws. And it’s remained the same ever since.
When there is a new royal wedding, the new rules are made very clear though in the case of Kate Middleton there was a backlash when the media realised that ‘blood princes’ now included adult B and E who aren’t supposed to enjoy any privileges at all even where they were negotiated before they were of age.
I’m sure that when Harry marries, there will be another round of ‘blood princes’ shenanigans. And B and E will be blamed again.
There would’ve been a &@$&storm if Camilla had used the Princess of Wales title. Then they couldn’t even commit to her being called Queen down the line.
When it comes to Edward he will inherit his father’s title Duke of Edinburgh when Phillip dies. I don’t think Charles can do anything about it. That is why he didn’t get a dukedom when he got married.
And the Queen could still be alive. And I believe his son James will inherit his title Earl of Wessex.
Younger sons don’t automatically inherit. Something will have to be done to gift the title to Edward. It might be understood but if Charles is King, he doesn’t have to follow through (though publically going against the wishes of the Queen and Prince Phillip wouldn’t play well in the press).
The Dukedom of Edinburgh won’t naturally confer on Edward for reasons involving precedence. The Dukedom in its present incarnation will then lapse and be recreated for Edward. At least it’s assumed it will but if that’s the wishes of EII and the DOE I’m sure Charles would abide by it.
Can’t the queen just do a letters patent to set that out, similar to how she made Philip an HRH? She can settle this now if she wants.
There are many things she could settle now, but when has she ever settled anything without first being pushed to crisis point?
The Queen can’t do anything about the title until Philip dies, then she will make Edward DofE, however in the unlikely event that Philip outlives the Queen, Charles will be entirely in charge of who if anyone is made the DofE when Philip dies (Edward can not just inherit it) , it is entirely Charles’ call even if the Queen makes her wish known in writing he will not be legally bound by it.
Do these titles have any real benefit other than social cachè? Like, if the queen gives Jack an earldom, does that mean he gets a castle somewhere and an annual income?
No
If I marry a royal person not titled, I want to be an Earless, and I will expect minions to come with it! And turrets. Definitely turrets.
Baroness,
I was speaking to someone about locations recently and apparently there are lots of castles dotted around north England. Not on the scale of Hogwarts, but i think we can find you a nice 2 up 2 down scaled down model. With turrets and disused moats. Minions are alot harder to procure.
😊
@ Bluhare
If you are female it would be “Countess Bluhare”, male is “Earl Bluhare” 😉
@bluhare
Countess Bluhare, we have castles to spare here in north England. Some of them are even falling down so they need a bit of restoration and patch up, but you can take hold of one at any time lol
You just need to come up here and choose one. They will be a bit drafty at first though 😀
I hereby volunteer to get the minions in for countess Bluhare – and look I already found some!
http://www.minionnation.co.uk/images/shareimage.jpg
Awww they’re so pleased to see you Countess Bh….
Frisbee: You rock😂
I will be an Earless. No countess for me; and I’m going to outrank my husband. Earless bluhare does not believe in primogeniture. She is quite pleased that Frisbee has found minions for her already (and is musing promoting her to head the minions to prevent that pesky union thing. We don’t want them getting too full of themselves).
LAK, excellent idea re two up/down castles. The servants won’t have to clean so much, and I’m a big believer in not wearing them out too quickly.
Oops sorry your Earlessness *dofs non existent cap while grabbing equally non-existent forelock* happy to accept the post of head minion wrangler, I already have the sheepdog to round them up. Thank you *walks backward to nearest exit*
LAK – so do you!
I miss you when you go away, Frisbee.
Now that I think about it, Earless makes one sound like one does not have any auditory equipment.
bluhare ((( THANK YOU))) I miss me when I get the stress related illness of totally losing my sense of humour for a bit as well. Earless out of context does sounds difficult doesn’t it – a bit like a walking frame is only minutes away! However, when you’re swanning around in the Roller with the incredibly good looking Butler, Gardeners, Chef’s, et al all hanging on to your every word nobody will question it. They might get a bit worried about the short women, the sheep dog and the little yellow fella’s though…
@Chaine, Earldom comes with snobbery only.
accessories (cash, tiara, intelligence) not included
As a Canadian I find this discussion so astonishing. An accident of birth can make so much difference in British Royal Family and aristocracy. Considering that when Richard III’s remains were dna tested against the Duke of Beaufort’s family an “anomaly” was found. Though RIII’s maternal dna checked out with known female descendants of his older sister, his dna didn’t match as expected with the Beaufort family . So what I am saying is that if all these “toffs” had dna tests I wonder how many would hold up?? How would the current royal family hold up with dna tests? Always been rumors about Prince Andrew…..
There is a maxim among the aristos: “Never comment on a likeness in another’s child.” It’s there for good reason.
The rumours about Andrew are less important as there is no doubt as to his mother’s identity and that’s who he inherited from.
The rumours about Queen Victoria, however…….
Ah, but didn’t it used to come with a position in the government? Before the House of Lords was nixed?
@ Chaine
Yes, those titles are worth gold.
You get a lot of social recognition especially in Great Britain and that makes you suitable for employment in positions in which you have to impress your opposite. Believe it or not: for example there are many titled individuals in the higher ranks of Banks!!! Even in Germany where there is no more aristocracy. Titles attract (gullible) clients.
Also if you have a title you can lend your title to societies, charities or even party organisers who print your name and title in order to attract more people.
Of course, the titled person gets paid for lending their name.
This is why I don’t understand the point of creating these new titles that don’t come with any income producing property. Why would you want a title that doesn’t really “mean” anything? It used to be if you were an aristocrat, you didn’t work because you didn’t have to. You lived off of the income produced by your land or investments. Unless they marry into old or big money (like Pippa), the York girls and their husbands will have to work for a living once Charles becomes king. No taxpayer funded “working royal” sinecures for them. So what’s the use in calling themselves the earl of this or that? Wouldn’t it be kind of humiliating to be an earl who works in an office and has a boss and co-workers?
Reminds me of the Dowager Countess on Downton Abbey asking “What is a weekend?” If you never worked a day in your life, every day is Saturday or Sunday.
I thought Princess Anne (aka the Princess Royal) *chose* to have her kids not have titles, but then their dad, Captain Mark Phillips, never took a title either, correct?
Alittle from column A and alittle from column B.
Titles are passed on via the male line only. Anne can’t and couldn’t pass on any titles to her children even if she wished to do so. Same position as B and E.
Anne’s husband refused a title which means the kids were untitled.
Mostly true.
But it is possible even in Britain to pass titles through the matrilinear line. The Queen has to give permission.
I’m fairly sure the Mountbatten Earldom passes to a daughter before a male relative (sons still take priority). Louis Mountbatten asked for it to be that way because he had two daughters and no sons.
The matrilineal line is the exception and very rare and only granted on condition it is held by one female and inherited by her first direct descendant male.
Parliament also has to approve the special order that grants the title to the one female who holds it. In otherwords, the female is simply a title placeholder until a male heir is produced.
It is only granted in a situation where there are daughters, but no sons.
Further, in those cases where this special order has been granted, the family in question is recognised for national service as well as close personal ties with the monarch – see the Mountbatten Earldom ( his daughter inherited and on her death it will pass to a male heir), or 2nd Duke of Marlborough who was actually a duchess ( Duchess Henrietta, 2nd Duchess of Marlborough) because the 1st duke had no sons. 3rd Duke of Marlborough was her sister Anne’s son, Charles, because Henrietta had no sons. Title was not held by Anne at any time. It went 1st duke to Henrietta to Charles.
I just checked the Daily Mail’s article on this. If the comment section is any indication, Andrew is not well-liked. It seems most of the “commoners” commenting think he’s a pompous ass.
I’m starting to believe there aren’t too many people the DM commenters do like. They love Drumpf, though, if that tells you anything.
That’s what I noticed Olenna, but then again we know that there are people that are paid to ‘show support’ for him, so I wonder.
It is also strange how many people claim to not like Meghan on that site. Makes me wonder if the voting is real or if Harry has a lot of fans that had hoped to marry him? I like Meghan, she is a working girl, nothing bad about her in the gossip columns all these years and she is a pretty girl.
Sharon Lea, I think there are a lot of emotionally-challenged people who cannot tolerate PH dating anyone, but the fact that his girlfriend is bi-racial and not just some vapid posh girl just burns their azzes. Their outlet is to act out via comments on the DM.
You may hate the DM but its the second most popular new site in the UK and its no wonder the palace PR always goes through the comment boards.
I guess that’s why some people post the same thing over and over again on some DM articles. Ya know, just in case the palace PR didn’t get their opinions the first time.
@Olenna, well I have to disagree with your comment on why a lot of people do not like MM. Its not about her race and you can see the DM comments and barely talk about her race, Its her attention seeking ways and the fact Harry breached protocol. I don’t think they will marry.
Kitty, that “attention seeking ways” reason is so played out. Here’s my suggestion: If people don’t like her or approve of her “attention seeking ways”, they should stop following her IG account (which they probably never knew existed before November 2016), stop reading the DM and the other rags’ who troll and regurgitate everything she posts in her IG account, stop dwelling on her suitability for dating or marrying someone they have no control over in the first place, and stop blaming her for every misstep PH makes. He’s a grown-azz man and if he and his handlers can’t manage financial transparency (which is only a very recent complaint), then put the blame where it belongs. Some people will think of anything, no matter how contradictory their own reasons are, to make her look like a gold-digging, manipulative so-and-so because they just don’t like her. So, my final suggestion to any one of these PH girlfriend naysayers is, “Grow the fu*k up. If he wanted your emotionally unstable azz, he would be dating you, not her. Now, go find a real boyfriend.”
Obviously we have different point of views on the matter and respect your opinion. But I think it won’t work out and it won’t result to marriage in my opinion.
Kitty, thanks. Your opinion is as good as mine. We’ll just have to wait and see how the relationship evolves. Personally, I don’t care who he marries and if this relationship doesn’t work, then so be it. But, I must say that I haven’t read anything about her that warrants the level of disrespect I’ve seen in the tabloids. So, I’ll leave it at that.
Just an FYI Kaiser- A duchess is higher in rank than an earl and countess so Kate is as high as you can go exclusive of the royal family. I’m not sure why you’re relieved that she was “only” made a duchess.
Also, Princess Anne and Mark Phillips chose to have the kids grow up without the weight of a title.
I took that to mean that Kaiser was relieved that Kate was not styled as “Princess Catherine”. I’m sure Carole Middleton was absolutely gutted to settle for “Duchess”.
Actually, Kate wasn’t “made” anything. She became an HRH and a duchess automatically when she married a Duke. Her status is linked to, and dependent upon, her marriage. She essentially lost her own identity and became part of William’s when she became a married woman. If she and William were to divorce, she would no longer be a duchess, she would be merely Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, with “Duchess of Cambridge” operating essentially as a surname, not a title, as was the case with Diana and Fergie.
“In the end, I’m glad that Kate was only made into a duchess.”
There is an order in these titles.
Duke / Duchess ranks higher than Earl.
And a “Royal” Duchess outranks run of the mill Duchess…..LOL.
I wonder how many times Elizebeth rolls her eyes at her kids and thinks the nanny must have dropped them by the head onto the floor.
Love the comment! You win! 😂😂😂😂😂
She would be Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Brooksbank (without an earldom)
From a purely gossip PoV if this happens (and am sure it will – Andrew is TQs fave child) it will have W&K spitting nails as they (or should i say Carole) has been campaigning for a title for the past 5 years for the Middletons. Queen Carole would not be amused.
Gosh, I don’t ever want to read Earl Or Lord James or even the Honorable James Middleton. OMG.
I say why not. Once Charles is king then Andrew will see who really is the boss!
Ok duke, earl, lord – is there a ranking system to it?
Royal Duke, Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, Baronet. A baron does not use the title Baron, but rather is known as Lord ‘Surname’.
I’ve read conflicting info on a baronet. Some say the title is hereditary, some say not.
My understanding is that barons and baronets can be “life peers”, meaning the title doesn’t pass from the title holder. That’s usually a position given to a distinguished person, like a politician (Margaret Thatcher is Baroness Thatcher for life, she won’t pass on the title), or a businessman or public figure. Some baronets are hereditary (Kit Harington comes from a long line of Harington Baronets), and some aren’t. If you look at the list of investitures on Wikipedia, it looks like from the 1960s it got more common to give people lifetime titles, not hereditary ones. In the last fifty years, QEII has been relatively stingy with hereditary titles, especially once you take out the ones created during royal marriages.
Baronets have a Standing Council who have to approve the next in line but they nearly always do. They’re technically outside the official peerage, hence “Burke’s Peerage & Baronetage” book of their genealogies.
Back in the day, a really bad king could be gotten rid of through murder or war. Seems unfair to keep the titles without the risk.
Horrible! But I laughed… 🙂
😂😂😂😂😂😆
What does this mean for Prince Harry’s future kids? Will they have titles?
Yes they will. I have a hunch that The Queen who probably will still be alive in 10 years will change the LP so that Harry’s kids will be HRH Prince and Princess since Harry is the son of a future King.
At the moment, Harry’s kids are only entitled to Lord/Lady per the children of a Duke…..being the spare of the heir is tough! Lol
Once Charles is King, everyone is upgraded to royal titles to become The Prince Henry ( Harry loses the ‘of wales’, gains definitive ‘The’), and the kids become HRH Princ(ess) because they will have moved up a step to *child/grandchild of a monarch. Only they qualify for that style and status.
*this status used to extent to the eldest son of the first born of the Prince of Wales, but it was extended to cover all kids of the eldest son of the POW. Notice that gender of eldest child of the POW was not changed in the rush to create the extension to grant all *his* children royal status.
If this extension hadn’t been made, William’s kids would have been HRH Prince George of Cambridge and Lady Charlotte of Cambridge.
I know but if The Queen lives longer and if Harry and his future wife(whoever that is) are popular with the public I think a lot would want to see a baby Prince or Princess. I have a hunch.
This isn’t really about Beatrice or Eugenie , it’s about Fergie. Make the daughters working royals and you have Fergie back in the fold .
Fergie and Andrew are total freeloaders. That’s not to say that the rest (William, etc) aren’t over privileged, but at least they make appearances, support more charities and take fewer holidays than Beatrice and Eugenie.
They all take as many holidays, but the media focuses on the Yorkies as if they are the worst offenders whilst exaggerating every single occassion they step out of Britain.
If the same measure was used for the other royals, you would be appalled eg Harry is on permanent holiday seeing as he only worked 2 official engagements in the spring, Invictus in the summer and this recent tour of the Caribbean.
If you look closer, you’ll see that my Harry paragraph is nonsense, but i’m using the same measure applied by the media to the Yorkies.
I’m sure it’s far too late to ask this question, but here goes. I’m wondering why none of the Queen’s four granddaughters were named Elizabeth. It seems like a total suckup move Andrew would have done. And I thought Charlotte might have gotten the name. I’m assuming Elizabeth is being saved for when a girl is born first who will inherit the throne, thusly being named, Elizabeth III. But they re-use names habitually anyway, so I don’t get it. The number of Marys, Janes, Annes, and Sarahs are legion.
Beatrice’s middle name is Elizabeth.
Beatrice Elizabeth Mary. Kills several stones in one go whilst also major suck up to various Queens past and present.
1. Victoria’s youngest daughter, Beatrice
2. Queens named Elizabeth, the Queen and the Queen mother
3. the Queen’s Grandmother, Queen Mary.
4. the Queen herself is also a Mary ie Elizabeth Alexandrine Mary so double suck up to once and present Queens.
You have to wait at least two generations for the name-check. Wouldn’t want to appear “thirsty” or “extra”!
Isn’t Charlotte’s middle name Elizabeth? I thought she was named Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. I doubt any daughters would have the first name Elizabeth as long as the Queen is living. Perhaps Harry will if he has a daughter after his grandmother passes.
Thanks everyone! I specifically meant first name – close but no cigar. Love the idea of Harry using the name. A little ginger Elizabeth.
This has been a very fascinating conversation. I’m an American lawyer and learned a lot reading this today. I took British Legal History but did not learn much of this.
Yes, they can keep their birth titles. If they marry someone who outranks them, they become Her Royal Highness/Majesty Beatuge or whatever. So if you’re born to a title, you can keep it or upgrade, you are not forced to downgrade unless, say, you abdicate the throne for an American divorcee. Princess Anne did downgrade to Mrs. Mark Whoever because she wanted to be submissive to her obnoxious brute of a husband, and she didn’t make that mistake the second wedding.
It’s pretty clear that Wills and Kate are not pulling their weight as working royals, so it makes sense to cast the net wider. That said, I’m not sure these two have star power. Maybe if they worked at it, like you said.
Also: god, Andy was gorgeous back in the day. Mind you, so were we all, back in the day. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/cd/d8/84/cdd8842f199495b8f0782d3707433a4a.jpg
Oh for f-cks sake. I absolutely despise these people and their ludicrous rules, feuds and grudges. No one gives two shits about whatever made-up title mummy gives your offspring or your offspring’s husbands.
Prince Andrew must be the most pointless individual ever to walk the earth. I believe he is pictured under the textbook definition of “parasite”.
Thank you to one and all for a very educating and delightful read. Your insights and knowledge are awesome! Good night ☺
It must be terrible to be his daughters. Their boyfriends will only be interested in potential royal titles. Still, the Queen will probably put her foot down and should.
Ivanka must be taking notes.