The Royals!

Films, TV shows, and books of the 'modern' era
Post Reply
klondike

Re: Kate and William

Post by klondike »

Remember too, that the Bruce's royal lineage ended with his grandson, a very weak & disliked ruler compared to other Scottish kings, and the House of Tudor terminated in England with the death of unwed, childless Elizabeth I, whose reign was followed by the ascension of her cousin's son, James VI, of House Stuart, then ruler of Scotland, creating him James I of the new Great Britain.
Specifically, the patrilineal descendants of the Family of Bruce of that Ilk were reduced, largely, to commoner status within a century or so of losing Scotland's throne.
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10068
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Kate and William

Post by Rita Hayworth »

Maybe Stuart can help me out ... or anyone can.

Royal Lineup

Queen Elisabeth
Prince Charles, Duke of Wales
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Prince Harry of Wales, when he get married (its possible ...) what new title he will get
Duke of (I need someone to fill in the blank here) ...

Just out of curiosity ... members :?:
feaito

Re: Kate and William

Post by feaito »

OK, so back then (in the 1920s) the son or a daughter of a member of the British Nobility was considered a Commoner as prospective husband or wife for a Prince of Royal Blood. Probably back then Royals only were supposed to marry sons/ daughters/grandchildren of Kings and Queens or of Heads of Ruling Houses. Interesting.
feaito

Re: Kate and William

Post by feaito »

kingme wrote:Maybe Stuart can help me out ... or anyone can.

Royal Lineup

Queen Elisabeth
Prince Charles, Duke of Wales
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Prince Harry of Wales, when he get married (its possible ...) what new title he will get
Duke of (I need someone to fill in the blank here) ...

Just out of curiosity ... members :?:
I think It'd be

The Queen -Elizabeth-
The Prince of Wales, Charles, who also holds the title of Duke of Cornwall & others.
The Duke of Cambridge, Prince William
and Prince Harry, who hasn't been given any title yet as far as I know. Should he be addressed as Prince Harry of Wales? I thought that only Charles as the direct heir to the throne could be adressed as "of Wales".
klondike

Re: Kate and William

Post by klondike »

Again, Alison and/or Stuart are likely better authorities on the subject (n.p.i.), but I believe the nearest brother to the Heir Apparent is titled Duke of York.
(At least, I believe that's Charles' brother Andrew's official title.)

P.S: When in Scotland, Charles is most properly referred to as the Duke of Rothesay.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Kate and William

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Wendy, I've bought a Hello magazine, I'll look out for your mystery lady.

George VI was a handsome man, I'm glad you've cleared it up about Elizabeth Bowes Lyon being a commoner, a lot of these rules are complicated. To the hoi polloi she wouldn't have been considered a commoner because she was the daughter of an Earl. Kate, the granddaughter of a miner, she's from the people definetly one of us.

The Queen Elizabeth - note her husband the Duke of Edinburgh, whereas William's wife will be Queen, a King automatically outranks a Queen so for Phillip, a Duke and A Prince

This is a good article explaining who is who and who outranks who.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Family
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
feaito

Re: Kate and William

Post by feaito »

klondike wrote:Remember too, that the Bruce's royal lineage ended with his grandson, a very weak & disliked ruler compared to other Scottish kings, and the House of Tudor terminated in England with the death of unwed, childless Elizabeth I, whose reign was followed by the ascension of her cousin's son, James VI, of House Stuart, then ruler of Scotland, creating him James I of the new Great Britain.
Specifically, the patrilineal descendants of the Family of Bruce of that Ilk were reduced, largely, to commoner status within a century or so of losing Scotland's throne.
I hadn't seen this post Klon, thanks for the info.
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Kate and William

Post by JackFavell »

I finally found a picture of Lady Gabriella Windsor - she's on the left here in blue. She is wearing gloves! You can't see it very well, but her hair was pulled around in a loopy chignon, with the hat attached just behind the roll. The flower and feather are over the top of the chignon so the whole thing was perfectly fitted together, like a sculpture. It was really well done, crisp and stylish. The two others pictured are Viscountess Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto. Now I just need to find the rose lady.

Image
Vecchiolarry
Posts: 1392
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 10:15 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: Kate and William

Post by Vecchiolarry »

Hi,

Klondike:
You have explained it all rather well indeed.

To put a finer point on it - here's how it was all explained to me by my grandmother years ago.
She interacted with many nobles and aristocrats in Britain, France and Italy and although I was sometimes present, I hadn't a clue who was who (or what was what really!!) and largely just bowed to everybody...

Royalty:
Kings, Queens, Emperors, Empresses
Grand Dukes & G. Duchesses
Princes & Princesses
Royal Dukes & R. Duchesses (those created by the Monarch -eg- William & Catherine....

Nobles:
Dukes & Duchesses
Marquesses & Marchionesses (France: Marquis & Marquess)

Aristocracy:
Earls & Countesses (France: Comte & Comtess)
Baron & Baroness
Landed Lords & Ladies

I hope this helps!
Today, all this could have changed and everything is upside down. But, in the 50's, this is how I was brought up...

Larry
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Kate and William

Post by JackFavell »

Can you answer another question? Are the Windsors, Kents, Ulsters, Gloucesters, and Wessexes all related and were given these separate titles somewhere back in time, spreading the family out into different sections?

Are the Philips not titled because Philips himself had none, is this correct? What about the Laurences?

What the heck is a Viscountess, as in Viscountess Linley?

Some help would be appreciated greatly. :D :D
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Re: Kate and William

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Now you're really testing me.

King George V had six children. I died, 5 remained, Edward abdicated, Albert, George VI was Duke of York which was passed to Prince Andrew. Third and fourth sons Henry became Duke of Gloucester which his son inherited, George became Duke of Kent which his eldest son inherited, but George's daughter Alexandra was a Princess but her children carry no title, Prince Michael of Kent is the youngest son, his children are Lords and Ladies but their children have will no title. Same with Princess Margaret's children, they are Viscount and Lady, it seems you are entitled to a title for longer if you married the son and not the daughter. Wessex is a title given to Edward, like the Duke of York title it does not get passed to the next generation but is retained by the monarch to be bestowed on others, the exception is Edinburgh which has been promised to the Earl of Wessex. Mark Phillips refused a title, therefore his children aren't titled. I think in time the Gloucester and Kent titles might get retained by the monarch.

Have I muddied the waters further? I'm working from memory, it's a confusing subject, I think the link on the post above will help you unravel it further.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Vecchiolarry
Posts: 1392
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 10:15 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: Kate and William

Post by Vecchiolarry »

Hi,

Yes Alison, you have explained it quite nicely.

Sorry about leaving out Viscounts & Vicountesses, but they come below Earl and Countess.
Usually they are the children of an Earl & Countess.
Also, to further complicate things - there are Baronets & Baronetesses - just below Barons and Baronesses....

Isn't this all very interesting???!!! My dear friend, Moira Lister, really had no time for all this hoopla; and used to say, "Just call me Lady Muck!!".....

Larry
klondike

Re: Kate and William

Post by klondike »

Aw, heck, folks, let's really cut loose and round it out with the old Scottish designation of Belted Earl, referring to an adult Clan Chief who had commanded military forces by order of the King of Scotland, and had been awarded the title thereafter by the King himself.
Beyond the recognition of being so named, it carried the nearly exclusive privilege of bearing arms in the King's presence, and having the authority to rally troops to the Nation's defense without first receiving a Royal Decree of War.
Legitimate sons of a Belted Earl were only Earls themselves if they inherited clan-held titles recognized by the throne, and/or replicated those exact same achievements of their fathers.
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Kate and William

Post by JackFavell »

Alison, I thought that was as clearcut as it could possibly be - thank you! I had thought the separate families had been those of the brothers and sisters of the king, but wasn't sure.

I think I like any words starting with Vi - Viscount (or Vicomte), Vicuna, Villa....yes, I could live with any of those words quite nicely.

Klondike, I prefer my Earl's suspendered:

Image
feaito

Re: Kate and William

Post by feaito »

As a descendant of one Earl of Leicester I feel flabbergasted of being considered a commoner :wink:

Signed, Le Duc D'Angouleme de la Rochefoucauld et de Praslin
Post Reply