Princess and Prince - title

[Mike]

When Prince William and Prince Henry marry, will their new wives have
the title of Princess or Lady? Princess XXXXX of Wales?

How come Princess Ann's husband is not titled a Prince?

When Princess Beatrice and Princess Engenie marry, will their husbands
be Prince or just The Rt. Hon. Sir? Prince XXXX of York?

Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Why is Lady Louis not the Princess of Wessex? If Lady Lousie marry,
what will her husband's title be? Lord?

Why Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips do not have the title of Prince,
Princess, Lady, or Lord?

Who will inherited the title The Duke of Gloucaster? The Earl of
Ulster? What will his wife Dr. Claire Booth be? Duchess?

How come Lady Davina's husband, Gary Lewis, is not titled yet? Maori?

Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

How come Prince Michael's wife is a Princess when he lost the right of
succession? Will Lord Frederick be Prince Michael if he marry? Why is
Lady Gabriella not a princess? Why are Lord Frederick and Lady
Gabriella behind Princes Alexandra in the order of succession?

Were all the females educated at Wycombe?
no infighting please.

Thank you.
Michael

[Peter Tilman]

Post by Mike
When Prince William and Prince Henry marry, will their new wives have
the title of Princess or Lady? Princess XXXXX of Wales?

HRH Princess William of Wales and HRH Princess Henry of Wales, unless (as is
likely) they are given peerages on marriage, in which case they'd be HRH The
Duchess of Sussex (or whatever).

Post by Mike
How come Princess Ann's husband is not titled a Prince?

Because women do not transmit titles to their husbands.

Post by Mike
When Princess Beatrice and Princess Engenie marry, will their husbands
be Prince or just The Rt. Hon. Sir? Prince XXXX of York?

They'll be untitled, unless given a peerage because of their marriage (as
was Lord Snowdon, for instance).

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Neither. The Dukedom of York was created with remainder to the heirs male of
the body of Prince Andrew, and so, unless he remarries and has a son or the
remainder is altered by Act of Parliament (which is extremely unlikely), it
will become extinct on his death. He could be given a second Dukedom
allowing female succession, but this is also unlikely to happen.

Post by Mike
Why is Lady Louis not the Princess of Wessex?

Legally she is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. She's known as Lady Louise
Windsor because the Queen allowed the children of the Earl and Countess of
Wessex not to use their Royal styles but simply to use the styles of the
children of an Earl.

Post by Mike
If Lady Lousie marry,
what will her husband's title be? Lord?

Again, nothing, unless given a peerage.

Post by Mike
Why Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips do not have the title of Prince,
Princess, Lady, or Lord?

Because the only women who can transmit courtesy titles to their children
are a Queen Regnant and a suo jure peeress, and the Princess Royal is
neither of these.

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title The Duke of Gloucaster? The Earl of
Ulster? What will his wife Dr. Claire Booth be? Duchess?

Yes and yes. His wife will be Her Grace The Duchess of Gloucester. (And at
the moment she's the Countess of Ulster, not Dr Claire Booth.)

Post by Mike
How come Lady Davina's husband, Gary Lewis, is not titled yet? Maori?

See above.

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)?

Because they aren't Roman Catholics nor are they married to Roman Catholics.

Post by Mike
Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

Lord St Andrews will, and then Lord Downpatrick. Lord Nicholas could
theoretically inherit it (if Lord St Andrews and Lord Downpatrick died
before him without leaving further heirs), but Lady Helen and her children
could not, as, like the Dukedom of York and the vast majority of peerages,
it was created with remainder to heirs male, and so cannot be inherited
either by a woman or through the female line.

Post by Mike
How come Prince Michael's wife is a Princess when he lost the right of
succession?

Whether or not a person is in the line of succession does not affect their
Royal style (or any style, for that matter).

Post by Mike
Will Lord Frederick be Prince Michael if he marry?

No. Prince Michael of Kent is a Prince by virtue of being the grandson of a
Sovereign (George V) in the male line. The title is not hereditary.

Post by Mike
Why is
Lady Gabriella not a princess?

Because the great-grandchildren of Sovereigns in the male line are accorded
not Royal styles but the styles of the younger children of a Duke.

Post by Mike
Why are Lord Frederick and Lady
Gabriella behind Princes Alexandra in the order of succession?

They aren't. They are 30 and 31 (I believe) and Princess Alexandra is 32.

Post by Mike
Were all the females educated at Wycombe?

I don't know, sorry.

[Gidzmo]

From ***@cam.ac.uk on 1/19/2005
(with quoting from Mike's posting as appropriate)

Post by Peter Tilman

How come Princess Anne's husband is not titled a Prince?

Because women do not transmit titles to their husbands.

IIRC, there was a peerage offered to both of Anne's husbands. Both declined.

Princess Margaret's husband became the 1st Earl Snowdon shortly after their
marriage.

Post by Peter Tilman
Legally she is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. She's known as Lady Louise

Windsor because the Queen allowed the children of the Earl and Countess of
Wessex not to use their Royal styles, but simply to use the styles of the
children of an Earl.

What would happen when Louise becomes old enough to understand the decision (or
reaches adulthood)? Could she decide for herself to use the Royal style?
IIRC, the agreement between the Queen and the Wessexes was never put in
writing.

Post by Peter Tilman

If Lady Lousie marries, what will her husband's title be? Lord?

Again, nothing, unless given a peerage.

But then, like Zara Philips, she could always marry someone who has a title
(even a courtesy title).

Setting the record straight on the Kent branch of the family:

22. HRH The Duke of Kent (b. 1935)
*The Earl of St. Andrews (m. a RC)
*Baron Downpatrick (conv. to RC)
23. Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor (b. 1992)
24. Lady Amelia Windsor (b. 1995)
*Lord Nicholas Windsor (conv. to RC)
25. Lady Helen Taylor (b. 1964)
26. Columbus Taylor (b. 1994)
27. Cassius Taylor (b. 1996)
28. Eloise Taylor (b. 2003)
29. Estella Taylor (b. 2004)
*HRH Prince Michael of Kent (m. an RC)
30. Lord Frederick Windsor (b. 1979)
31. Lady Gabriella Windsor (b. 1981)
32. HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (b. 1936)
33. James Ogilvy (b. 1964)
34. Alexander Ogilvy (b. 1996)
35. Flora Ogilvy (b. 1994)
36. Marina Ogilvy (b. 1966)
37. Christian Mowatt (b. 1993)
38. Zenouska Mowatt (b. 1990)

Source:
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/uk-succession.html

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Gidzmo
(with quoting from Mike's posting as appropriate)

Post by Peter Tilman

How come Princess Anne's husband is not titled a Prince?

Because women do not transmit titles to their husbands.

IIRC, there was a peerage offered to both of Anne's husbands.
Both declined.

I have never heard of an offer to Rear-Admiral Laurence.

Post by Gidzmo
Princess Margaret's husband became the 1st Earl Snowdon shortly after their
marriage.

Post by Peter Tilman
Legally she is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. She's known as Lady Louise

Windsor because the Queen allowed the children of the Earl and Countess of
Wessex not to use their Royal styles, but simply to use the styles of the
children of an Earl.
What would happen when Louise becomes old enough to understand the decision
(or reaches adulthood)? Could she decide for herself to use the Royal style?
IIRC, the agreement between the Queen and the Wessexes was never put in
writing.

I think it can be assumed that if Louise wanted to use it,
she would do so only if the Queen had no objection.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Gary Holtzman]

Post by Mike
When Prince William and Prince Henry marry, will their new wives have
the title of Princess or Lady? Princess XXXXX of Wales?

Princess.

Post by Mike
How come Princess Ann's husband is not titled a Prince?

Women in Britain take their titles from their husbands, but not the other way. Thus when
Mr. John Smith marries Miss Jane Doe, she becomes Mrs. John Smith but he does not
become Mr. Jane Doe. Same principle for royals.

Post by Mike
When Princess Beatrice and Princess Engenie marry, will their husbands
be Prince or just The Rt. Hon. Sir? Prince XXXX of York?

None of these. They will have whatever title they had before marriage, unless (and it is
unlikely) the sovereign chooses to give them a title.

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Neither.

Post by Mike
Why is Lady Louis not the Princess of Wessex? If Lady Lousie marry,
what will her husband's title be? Lord?

The Queen (apparently following the desire of the Earl and Countess of Wessex) has
decided that she should be known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, not Princess
Louise of Wessex. Again, her husband's title will not be affected by her own.

Post by Mike
Why Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips do not have the title of Prince,
Princess, Lady, or Lord?

Because their father is neither royal nor noble.

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title The Duke of Gloucaster? The Earl of
Ulster? What will his wife Dr. Claire Booth be? Duchess?

Yes and yes.

Post by Mike
How come Lady Davina's husband, Gary Lewis, is not titled yet? Maori?

Nothing to do with his ethnicity. It is, once again, that men do not take titles from their
wives. Are you noticing a pattern?

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will

Because they are not Roman Catholics.

Post by Mike
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

Lord Downpatrick.

Post by Mike
How come Prince Michael's wife is a Princess when he lost the right of
succession? Will Lord Frederick be Prince Michael if he marry? Why is
Lady Gabriella not a princess? Why are Lord Frederick and Lady
Gabriella behind Princes Alexandra in the order of succession?

Please see the FAQ at www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.htm It should answer many of
your questions.

Post by Mike
Were all the females educated at Wycombe?

Which females?

Post by Mike
no infighting please.
Thank you.
Michael

[Don Aitken]

Post by Mike
When Prince William and Prince Henry marry, will their new wives have
the title of Princess or Lady? Princess XXXXX of Wales?

This is all in the FAQ, but I suppose it does no harm to review it
again.

Post by Mike
How come Princess Ann's husband is not titled a Prince?
When Princess Beatrice and Princess Engenie marry, will their husbands
be Prince or just The Rt. Hon. Sir? Prince XXXX of York?
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?
Why is Lady Louis not the Princess of Wessex? If Lady Lousie marry,
what will her husband's title be? Lord?
Why Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips do not have the title of Prince,
Princess, Lady, or Lord?
Who will inherited the title The Duke of Gloucaster? The Earl of
Ulster? What will his wife Dr. Claire Booth be? Duchess?
How come Lady Davina's husband, Gary Lewis, is not titled yet? Maori?
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?
How come Prince Michael's wife is a Princess when he lost the right of
succession? Will Lord Frederick be Prince Michael if he marry?

All of those questions can be answered by applying these general
rules; the results are left as an exercise for the reader:

1. A wife acquires the rank, style, and title of her husband. Thus the
wife of a Prince is a Princess, the wife of a Duke is a Duchess, and
so on.
2. A husband acquires nothing through marriage; only what is conferred
on him personally.
3. Titles, other than the crown (which means dukedoms in this
context), are inherited by *male* offspring only; if there are none,
they die out.
4. The religious disqualifications for inheriting the Crown have no
effect on any other title.
5. The rank of Prince/Princess is not inherited, strictly speaking. It
is acquired by being, either at birth or at any later time, a child of
the sovereign, or a child of a *son* of the sovereign, or the eldest
son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. It goes to men and women
equally, and is held for life.
6. And the one which trumps the others; the styles and titles of the
Royal Family are what the Queen says they are. This is the one that
explains Lady Louise.

Post by Mike
Why are Lord Frederick and Lady
Gabriella behind Princes Alexandra in the order of succession?

They aren't. So long as they are eligible at all, they can, being
children of her brother, only be ahead of her.

[Rico]

Post by Mike
When Prince William and Prince Henry marry, will their new wives have
the title of Princess or Lady? Princess XXXXX of Wales?

If they (William and Henry have their own peerage granted to them before the
marriage, the wives are, HRH Title (Duchess, Countess...) of Where ever from
marriage, if not then HRH Princess William or HRH Princess Henry, of Wales.

Post by Mike
How come Princess Ann's husband is not titled a Prince?

He was not born as a male line grandchild of a British monarch, or entitled
to any other princely titles from birth, as other already stated the
courtesy of HRH Prince/ss styling is from a husband not a wife.

Post by Mike
When Princess Beatrice and Princess Engenie marry, will their husbands
be Prince or just The Rt. Hon. Sir? Prince XXXX of York?

That will all depend on whether the monarch at the times of their respective
marriages decideds to give them a title, otherwise they will be known by the
titles in their male lines, for the same reasons that neither of Princess
Annes husbands have princely titles.

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Neither will inherit, at the Dukes death, the monarch of the day could
regrant the dukedom in one of the Princesses of Yorks favours, with a
completely different remainder, so that future female lines could inherit.

Post by Mike
Why is Lady Louis not the Princess of Wessex? If Lady Lousie marry,
what will her husband's title be? Lord?

She is Princess Louise of Wessex, but her parents have asked, with The
Queens consent to have her known publicly with the title given to a daughter
of a duke. When and if she decides to be known as HRH Princess Louise of
Wessex is up to her, unless there are new rules made for the right to HRH
Prince/ss being written that prevent her from doing so.

Post by Mike
Why Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips do not have the title of Prince,
Princess, Lady, or Lord?

They are not Prince or Princess because they are not male line grandchildren
of the monarch. They are neither Lord or Lady because their father was not
given/held or was in succession to a peerage.

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title The Duke of Gloucaster? The Earl of
Ulster? What will his wife Dr. Claire Booth be? Duchess?

Under its current creation, whenever there is someone known as the Earl of
Ulster, that person inherits the Dukedom of Glouster. Claire Booth will be
both Dr (as its hers by right) and Her Grace The Duchess, but will probably
be known as HG The Duchess.

Post by Mike
How come Lady Davina's husband, Gary Lewis, is not titled yet? Maori?

Thats a very stupid assumtion to use his ethnic background as a way of
preventing him from having a title.

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the eldest
childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that the elder
two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that their mother
is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at birth that prevents
them from being in the line of succession to the throne and to his peerage
title.

Post by Mike
How come Prince Michael's wife is a Princess when he lost the right of
succession? Will Lord Frederick be Prince Michael if he marry? Why is
Lady Gabriella not a princess? Why are Lord Frederick and Lady
Gabriella behind Princes Alexandra in the order of succession?

Prince Micheal didn't loose his title, so his wife does the normal thing of
taking the his name and title at marriage.

Lord Fredrik and Lady Gabriella are male line Great grand children of a
monarch and as such do not automatically have the right to HRH Prince or
Princess. If Lady Gabriella had married a Prince then she would become a
princess.

Post by Mike
Were all the females educated at Wycombe?
no infighting please.
Thank you.
Michael

[Anne]

Rico <***@bigpond.net.au.au> wrote in message news:AbGHd.125308$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
very large snip

Post by Rico

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the eldest
childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that the elder
two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that their mother
is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at birth that prevents
them from being in the line of succession to the throne and to his peerage
title.

WRONG - all of the children of the Earl and Countess os St. Andrews were
born after their parents' marriage, baptised in the Church of England, and
all were in the line of succession to the throne.
However their son chose to convert to Roman Catholicism (the religion of his
mother, and the religion by conversion of his paternal grandmother and of
his uncle Lord Nicholas Windsor) and was confirmed a member of the Roman
Catholic church, thus forfeiting his place in the succession.

The Earl of St. Andrews lost his place in the succession by his marriage to
a member of the Roman Catholic Church, as did Prince Michael of Kent. Both
couples chose to have their children baptised into the Church of England,
allowing the children to choose for themselves whether or not to retain
their place in the line of succession.

[Tina Kramer]

"Rico" <***@bigpond.net.au.au> wrote in message news:AbGHd.125308$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
SNIP>

Post by Rico

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the eldest
childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that the elder
two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that their mother
is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at birth that prevents
them from being in the line of succession to the throne and to his peerage
title.

I think you have the Earl of St. Andrews mixed up with Viscount Lascelles
whose two eldest children indeed were born before his marriage. If I'm not
mistaken Baron Downpatrick -- the Earl's eldest son -- is no longer in line
to the throne because he became a Catholic. I believe Lady Marina Charlotte
is still in the line of succession.

Tina

[Rico]

Post by Mike
SNIP>

Post by Rico

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady

Helen's

Post by Rico

Post by Mike
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the

eldest

Post by Rico
childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that the

elder

Post by Rico
two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that their

mother

Post by Rico
is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at birth that

prevents

Post by Rico
them from being in the line of succession to the throne and to his

peerage

Post by Rico
title.

I think you have the Earl of St. Andrews mixed up with Viscount Lascelles
whose two eldest children indeed were born before his marriage. If I'm not
mistaken Baron Downpatrick -- the Earl's eldest son -- is no longer in line
to the throne because he became a Catholic. I believe Lady Marina Charlotte
is still in the line of succession.
Tina

Realised that hand have posted a correct answer.

[Rico]

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

PREVIOUS ANSWER (read it wrong, hence the answer)
The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the eldest
childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that the elder
two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that their mother
is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at birth that prevents
them from being in the line of succession to the throne and to his peerage
title.

CORRECT ANSWER


The earl is out of succession because of his marriage to a catholic. His
children are in line to succession because they are being raised as
protestants.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Rico

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

PREVIOUS ANSWER (read it wrong, hence the answer)
The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the
eldest childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that
the elder two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that
their mother is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at
birth that prevents them from being in the line of succession to the
throne and to his peerage title.

CORRECT ANSWER
The earl is out of succession because of his marriage to a catholic.
His children are in line to succession because they are being raised as
protestants.

STILL WRONG!!

The children are NOT being raised as Protestants;
as they become old enough,they are being confirmed in the Catholic
church,which removes them from the succession.Only the eldest has
had this happen so far,but expect it to happen to the others,or
their Catholic parents will be rather upset.

Lord Downpatrick's eventual succession to the Dukedom is undisturbed,
as the Act of Settlement says nothing about peerages,only the Throne;
if he were born out of wedlock he would not be eligible for the Dukedom.
Since it was created with remainder to heirs-male,his sisters can not
inherit the peerages regardless of religion.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[c***@hushmail.com]

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Rico

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

PREVIOUS ANSWER (read it wrong, hence the answer)
The Earl of St Andrew's two older children were born while he was not
married. If he had been married (to their mother) at the time of the
eldest childs birth they would be in line to the throne, I assume that
the elder two are protestant from the question. It's not the fact that
their mother is catholic its the fact that they were illegitimate at
birth that prevents them from being in the line of succession to the
throne and to his peerage title.

CORRECT ANSWER
The earl is out of succession because of his marriage to a

catholic.

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Rico
His children are in line to succession because they are being raised as
protestants.

STILL WRONG!!
The children are NOT being raised as Protestants;
as they become old enough,they are being confirmed in the Catholic
church,which removes them from the succession.Only the eldest has
had this happen so far,but expect it to happen to the others,or
their Catholic parents will be rather upset.
Lord Downpatrick's eventual succession to the Dukedom is undisturbed,
as the Act of Settlement says nothing about peerages,only the Throne;
if he were born out of wedlock he would not be eligible for the Dukedom.
Since it was created with remainder to heirs-male,his sisters can not
inherit the peerages regardless of religion.

What exactly does papist mean in the Act of Settlement?

Suppose that the following things happen:

All persons in the Order of Succession ahead of the Earl of Saint
Andrews die and the Parliament has made no prior provision for this.

This is not implausible. It is around thirty persons or so and this
newsgroup has on occasion mentioned the presence of about this number
of persons starting the order of succession on some events. Yet the
Parliament does not seem to make very thorough regency acts.

When the Accession Council, or whoever has survived from them, meet -
who is the Sovereign?

Seems plausible that the Earl of Saint Andrews is not. And suppose that
Edward, Lord Downpatrick is not. Then the elder of the girls - Lady
Marina?

Now, imagine that she protests that she does not want to be Queen. She
also declares that she has, in fact, already been confirmed Catholic.
However, it is not a publicly known fact - she seems to be lying. She
also declares that she'd rather die a martyr for Popish faith than rule
as a heretic queen. Further, she declares that if she is declared a
queen against her wishes, she wants to exclude herself by openly
professing Popish faith immediately, or abdicate from throne and
profess Popery.

But the would-be Regent, Lady Helen Taylor cannot do anything - under
the Regency Act, she or any other Regent is unable to give Royal Assent
to any Act of Parliament affecting the succession to the Throne. Thus,
there is no way to pass an Act of Abdication until Marina comes of age.

The Accession Council has the bad experience of having faced another
distressed girl four and half centuries ago who also said she did not
want to be Sovereign, and forcing her to be one. Queen Jane was
beheaded - and so were the councillors who did it.

If Marina really is a Papist, the next in the Order of Succession is
Lady Amelia. She, however, tells the same story. She is younger. So it
is even less credible that she should have been confirmed as she
claims, and there is slightly more chance that she might change her
mind. But if you believe one minor, what legal grounds do you have to
disbelieve another?

If Amelia also is a Papist, then Helen is Queen.

But Edward, the Baron Downpatrick, also speaks out. Let us assume that
the whole scenario happens before next year, so he is not yet 18. He
complains that if the Accession Council wants to discount the
professions of Popery on the part of Marina and Amelia just because
they are minors, his own admitted confirmation should also not matter,
because he is a minor, too. And he wants to be a King even if a
Catholic one. So there is a plausible argument for Edward.

Now, the surviving members of the Accession Council are faced with 4
plausible Sovereigns under different but plausible readings of the Act
of Settlement. Who are they to proclaim? And if they disagree among
each other, how are they going to decide who to proclaim? Vote? How
many votes in Accession Council are required for someone to be the
Sovereign of UK? Is plurality on the first vote enough or should runoff
votes be held in the Council?

[W***@gmail.com]

Post by c***@hushmail.com
What exactly does papist mean in the Act of Settlement?

This has never been determined. It cannot be determined until a person who is,
or can be considered to be, a "papist" is called upon to ascend the Throne.

[Francois R. Velde]

Post by W***@gmail.com

Post by c***@hushmail.com
What exactly does papist mean in the Act of Settlement?

This has never been determined. It cannot be determined until a person who is,
or can be considered to be, a "papist" is called upon to ascend the Throne.

Or become regent or perform the functions of a counsellor of State.

[c***@hushmail.com]

Post by Francois R. Velde

Post by W***@gmail.com

Post by c***@hushmail.com
What exactly does papist mean in the Act of Settlement?

This has never been determined. It cannot be determined until a person who is,
or can be considered to be, a "papist" is called upon to ascend the Throne.

Or become regent or perform the functions of a counsellor of State.

Who grants those latter titles?

Accession of a Sovereign is determined by the Accession Council. Need
for Regency because of medical condition of the Sovereign is determined
by three of the spouse of Sovereign, Speaker of Commons and three
senior judges. But who decides whether or not a potential Regent or
Counsellor of State is in his or her turn a Papist or medically unfit
for the functions, so that the next person in the Order of Succession
has to be called for?

[Don Aitken]

Post by W***@gmail.com

Post by Francois R. Velde

Post by W***@gmail.com

Post by c***@hushmail.com
What exactly does papist mean in the Act of Settlement?

This has never been determined. It cannot be determined until a

person who is,

Post by Francois R. Velde

Post by W***@gmail.com
or can be considered to be, a "papist" is called upon to ascend the

Throne.

Post by Francois R. Velde
Or become regent or perform the functions of a counsellor of State.

Who grants those latter titles?
Accession of a Sovereign is determined by the Accession Council.

This is often said, but I am sure it is completely wrong. The
Accession Council has no power to "determine" anything

Post by W***@gmail.com
Need
for Regency because of medical condition of the Sovereign is determined
by three of the spouse of Sovereign, Speaker of Commons and three
senior judges. But who decides whether or not a potential Regent or
Counsellor of State is in his or her turn a Papist or medically unfit
for the functions, so that the next person in the Order of Succession
has to be called for?

An excellent question, to which there is probably no good answer.

[s***@example.com]

Post by c***@hushmail.com
Accession of a Sovereign is determined by the Accession Council.

Not so. Upon the death or abdication of a monarch, the throne and
the prerogatives of the Crown pass at once - there is no
interregnum: "the king never dies" - person next in succession.
Roman Catholics and persons marrying Roman Catholics are excluded by
statute.
Immediately upon a demise of the Crown, it is *customary* to convene
an Accession Council to proclaim the new monarch. But if that was
not possible - e.g. because of a war - that would not affect the
fact that a new monarch existed.
See De Smith and Brazier's 'Constitutional and Administrative Law',
eighth edition, pages 129-130; and Bogdanor's 'The Monarchy and the
Constitution page 43-45, and especially the 1994 correspondence
between the then Lord President of the Council and Tony Benn quoted
on page 45:

"The succession can, however, be altered only by Act of Parliament.
In 1994 the Labour MP Tony Benn, a republican, wrote to the Lord
President of the Council, Tony Newton, declaring that, upon the
summoning of the Privy Council to proclaim a new sovereign,
following the demise of Elizabeth II, he would express his
opposition to the proclamation. Newton, however, replied that the
heir apparent - the Prince of Wales - 'would succeed immediately and
automatically to the Throne on the death of the Sovereign', the
right of succession being set out in the Act of Settlement and
alterable only by parliament. Thus the registering of an objection
at the meeting of the Privy Council to proclaim the new sovereign
would have no legal effect.

In terms of common-law doctrine, the sovereign never dies, but is
immediately succeeded by his or her successor."

[Francois R. Velde]

Post by s***@example.com

Post by c***@hushmail.com
Accession of a Sovereign is determined by the Accession Council.

Not so. Upon the death or abdication of a monarch, the throne and
the prerogatives of the Crown pass at once - there is no
interregnum: "the king never dies" - person next in succession.
Roman Catholics and persons marrying Roman Catholics are excluded by
statute.
Immediately upon a demise of the Crown, it is *customary* to convene
an Accession Council to proclaim the new monarch.

The custom goes back to the accession of James I in 1603. Until then, the
monarch himself issued the proclamation announcing his accession, which was
essentially a news flash. Now, the news flash is issued by prominent subjects
who, at the same time, declare publicly their allegiance, which they owe anyway.
Announcing the accession is not the same as determining or making it happen,
anymore than announcing the demise of the previous sovereign is the cause of his
or her death.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Francois R. Velde

Post by s***@example.com

Post by c***@hushmail.com
Accession of a Sovereign is determined by the Accession Council.

Not so. Upon the death or abdication of a monarch, the throne and
the prerogatives of the Crown pass at once - there is no
interregnum: "the king never dies" - person next in succession.
Roman Catholics and persons marrying Roman Catholics are excluded by
statute.
Immediately upon a demise of the Crown, it is *customary* to convene
an Accession Council to proclaim the new monarch.

The custom goes back to the accession of James I in 1603. Until then, the
monarch himself issued the proclamation announcing his accession, which was
essentially a news flash. Now, the news flash is issued by prominent subjects
who, at the same time, declare publicly their allegiance, which they owe anyway.

Exactly.

As during the coronation where those assembled are
presented with their "undoubted King/Queen]" and
told it is their duty to pay homage...it is not the
homage that makes the Sovereign.

Post by Francois R. Velde
Announcing the accession is not the same as determining or making it happen,
anymore than announcing the demise of the previous sovereign is the
cause of his or her death.

And where the disclaimed Viscount Stansgate has declared that
if alive at the time he will refuse to sign the accession proclamation
for the present Prince of Wales,he is not in any way preventing the
accession if he does so...I would hope that his refusal would be
taken to constitute his resignation from the Privy Council.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[c***@hushmail.com]

Post by s***@example.com

Post by c***@hushmail.com
Accession of a Sovereign is determined by the Accession Council.

Not so. Upon the death or abdication of a monarch, the throne and
the prerogatives of the Crown pass at once - there is no
interregnum: "the king never dies" - person next in succession.
Roman Catholics and persons marrying Roman Catholics are excluded by
statute.
Immediately upon a demise of the Crown, it is *customary* to convene
an Accession Council to proclaim the new monarch. But if that was
not possible - e.g. because of a war - that would not affect the
fact that a new monarch existed.
See De Smith and Brazier's 'Constitutional and Administrative Law',
eighth edition, pages 129-130; and Bogdanor's 'The Monarchy and the
Constitution page 43-45, and especially the 1994 correspondence
between the then Lord President of the Council and Tony Benn quoted
"The succession can, however, be altered only by Act of Parliament.
In 1994 the Labour MP Tony Benn, a republican, wrote to the Lord
President of the Council, Tony Newton, declaring that, upon the
summoning of the Privy Council to proclaim a new sovereign,
following the demise of Elizabeth II, he would express his
opposition to the proclamation. Newton, however, replied that the
heir apparent - the Prince of Wales - 'would succeed immediately and
automatically to the Throne on the death of the Sovereign', the
right of succession being set out in the Act of Settlement and
alterable only by parliament. Thus the registering of an objection
at the meeting of the Privy Council to proclaim the new sovereign
would have no legal effect.
In terms of common-law doctrine, the sovereign never dies, but is
immediately succeeded by his or her successor."

Of course, Tony Benn does not seem to offer no legal objections to the
accession.

But the part of the Act of Settlement regarding the disqualifications
of a Sovereign seems to define the disqualifying acts rather broadly
and unspecifically. It is not just unequivocal and public commitment to
Popish faith that disqualifies a heir - there are other possibilities.

Suppose that on the demise of crown, or at some other time, Tony Benn
or some other member of the Accession Council or someone else claims
that some acts Charles has done or which they allege he has done
disqualify him under the Act of Settlement.

Who then is the Sovereign?

If they are right, does the proclamation of Charles by some or most or
all members of the Accession Council actually make him King?

If they are right, is William then King (supposing they do not also
allege William to be disqualified)? And are they then within their
rights to convene as an Accession Council and proclaim William as King?

If both Charles and William are proclaimed King, who then is?

Assuming that the claims are not obviously absurd nor obviously true -
it depends either on unclear facts or unclear reading of the Act of
Settlement.

[Graham Truesdale]

Post by c***@hushmail.com
What exactly does papist mean in the Act of Settlement?
All persons in the Order of Succession ahead of the Earl of Saint
Andrews die and the Parliament has made no prior provision for this.
This is not implausible. It is around thirty persons or so and this
newsgroup has on occasion mentioned the presence of about this number
of persons starting the order of succession on some events. Yet the
Parliament does not seem to make very thorough regency acts.
When the Accession Council, or whoever has survived from them, meet -
who is the Sovereign?
Seems plausible that the Earl of Saint Andrews is not. And suppose that
Edward, Lord Downpatrick is not. Then the elder of the girls - Lady
Marina?
Now, imagine that she protests that she does not want to be Queen. She
also declares that she has, in fact, already been confirmed Catholic.
However, it is not a publicly known fact - she seems to be lying. She
also declares that she'd rather die a martyr for Popish faith than rule
as a heretic queen. Further, she declares that if she is declared a
queen against her wishes, she wants to exclude herself by openly
professing Popish faith immediately, or abdicate from throne and
profess Popery.
But the would-be Regent, Lady Helen Taylor cannot do anything - under
the Regency Act, she or any other Regent is unable to give Royal Assent
to any Act of Parliament affecting the succession to the Throne. Thus,
there is no way to pass an Act of Abdication until Marina comes of age.
The Accession Council has the bad experience of having faced another
distressed girl four and half centuries ago who also said she did not
want to be Sovereign, and forcing her to be one. Queen Jane was
beheaded - and so were the councillors who did it.
If Marina really is a Papist, the next in the Order of Succession is
Lady Amelia. She, however, tells the same story. She is younger. So it
is even less credible that she should have been confirmed as she
claims, and there is slightly more chance that she might change her
mind. But if you believe one minor, what legal grounds do you have to
disbelieve another?
If Amelia also is a Papist, then Helen is Queen.
But Edward, the Baron Downpatrick, also speaks out. Let us assume that
the whole scenario happens before next year, so he is not yet 18. He
complains that if the Accession Council wants to discount the
professions of Popery on the part of Marina and Amelia just because
they are minors, his own admitted confirmation should also not matter,
because he is a minor, too. And he wants to be a King even if a
Catholic one. So there is a plausible argument for Edward.
Now, the surviving members of the Accession Council are faced with 4
plausible Sovereigns under different but plausible readings of the Act
of Settlement. Who are they to proclaim? And if they disagree among
each other, how are they going to decide who to proclaim? Vote? How
many votes in Accession Council are required for someone to be the
Sovereign of UK? Is plurality on the first vote enough or should runoff
votes be held in the Council?

If it is of any assistance, the Bill of Rights 1689
http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16891216.htm
has provisions about the Declaration that a new Sovereign must take
'on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or
her
coming to the crown,' or at their Coronation, whichever shall occur first.
I assume that this provision was to ensure that they had to take the Oath
before they had a chance to get an Act of Parliament passed to change
the provision. This was amended in Anne's reign
http://groups.google.co.za/groups?q=g:thl2324682516d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
selm=3aba8b27.30018844%40news.freeuk.net
to say that Parliament would last for 6 months after the monarch died.
This worked until and including Victoria's accession. But during her
reign, legislation was passed that said that the death of the Sovereign
did not dissolve Parliament at all. So, when in 1910 George V
decided that he did not like the form of the Declaration, he was able
to get the Accession Declaration Act 1910 passed by the last
Parliament which his father had summoned, so as to change the
Declaration that he would have to take at his own first Parliament or
Coronation.

But anyway. The reason why I mention this Act is that it says that 'if ...
such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown ...shall be
under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make
.. the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the
meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after
such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.'

Marina-Charlotte turned 12 on 30th September 2004, and Amelia
will do so on 24th August 2007. It may be that whoever had to sort
out such a situation would make use of this provision.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Mike
When Prince William and Prince Henry marry, will their new wives have
the title of Princess or Lady? Princess XXXXX of Wales?

Automatically, Princess William of Wales or Princess Henry of Wales. A
peerage may be conferred upon Prince William or Henry, making them HRH
The Duchess/Countess of XXXXXX.

Post by Mike
How come Princess Ann's husband is not titled a Prince?

Princesses don't automatically give rank as princes do. However, it is
normal for a princess's husband to be given a title of some sort,
though Mark Phillips and Timothy Laurence declined peerages.

Post by Mike
When Princess Beatrice and Princess Engenie marry, will their

husbands

Post by Mike
be Prince or just The Rt. Hon. Sir? Prince XXXX of York?

Not Prince XXXXX of York, for sure. However, they may be given
peerages.

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Neither. Their gender prevents them from inheriting a dukedom. However,
if female succession were allowed, it would be the elder Beatrice.

Post by Mike
Why is Lady Louis not the Princess of Wessex? If Lady Lousie marry,
what will her husband's title be? Lord?

Again, not likely Lord, though maybe given a peerage. By the time she
marries, Lady Louise may have chosen to use her princely title.

Post by Mike
Why Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips do not have the title of Prince,
Princess, Lady, or Lord?

Because princesses do not extend titles to their children.

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title The Duke of Gloucaster? The Earl of
Ulster? What will his wife Dr. Claire Booth be? Duchess?

First of all, the Duke of Gloucester's son is "Earl of Ulster", not
"The Earl of Ulster." Anyway, he will inherit the title, and become
"His Grace The Duke of Gloucester." His wife, who is already "Countess
of Ulster," will be "Her Grace The Duchess of Gloucester".

Post by Mike
How come Lady Davina's husband, Gary Lewis, is not titled yet? Maori?

Women don't transfer titles.

Post by Mike
Why is the Earl of St Andrews's 2 kids (out of 3) in the line of
succession when he is not (marriage to a Roman Catholic)? Who will
inherited the title The Duke of Kent? Baron Downpatrick or Lady Helen's
sons or Lord Nicholas Windsor?

Again, no "the" in his title. Anyway, Earl of St. Andrews is not in the
line of succession because he married a Catholic. His son has been
accepted by the Catholic church; his 2 younger daughters have not yet
(stress on yet, because it is likely they will convert sometime).
Therefore, they can still succeed. However, while Catholocism can bar
one from inheriting the throne, it bars no one from inheriting
peerages. So, Earl of St. Andrews will inherit the title of Duke of
Kent.

Post by Mike
How come Prince Michael's wife is a Princess when he lost the right of
succession? Will Lord Frederick be Prince Michael if he marry? Why is
Lady Gabriella not a princess? Why are Lord Frederick and Lady
Gabriella behind Princes Alexandra in the order of succession?

Catholocism bars one from ever becoming King, but not from much
anything else. He is still a prince, his wife still becomes a princess.
Lord Frederick will not be Prince Michael... I don't know where you got
that idea. Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella do not have princely
titles because though children and paternal grandchildren of a UK
monarch hold princely titles, great-grandchildren and their descendants
in the male line are only Lords and Ladies.

Post by Mike
Were all the females educated at Wycombe?
no infighting please.

I don't know... :-P

[Gary Holtzman]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Neither. Their gender prevents them from inheriting a dukedom. However,
if female succession were allowed, it would be the elder Beatrice.

It is not the females cannot inherit a dukedom per se; it is just that most dukedoms,
including that of York, are created with an heirs-male-of the body succession.

[Mike]

Thank you very much to all for your replies and answers.
Mike

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Gary Holtzman

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Neither. Their gender prevents them from inheriting a dukedom. However,
if female succession were allowed, it would be the elder Beatrice.

It is not the females cannot inherit a dukedom per se; it is just that most dukedoms,

(each and every one existing in Britain,
with very narrow exceptions for Marlborough)

Post by Gary Holtzman
including that of York, are created with an heirs-male-of the body succession.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Don Aitken]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:06:02 -0600, Louis Epstein

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Gary Holtzman

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Mike
Who will inherited the title Duchess of York: Princess Beatrice or
Princess Engenie?

Neither. Their gender prevents them from inheriting a dukedom. However,
if female succession were allowed, it would be the elder Beatrice.

It is not the females cannot inherit a dukedom per se; it is just that most dukedoms,

(each and every one existing in Britain,
with very narrow exceptions for Marlborough)

And:

Hamilton - ultimate remainder to "legitimate heirs whatsoever".
Buccleuch - "heirs of his body who shall succeed to the estates of the
earls of Buccleuch".
Queensberry - ultimate remainder, which came into effect in 1810, to
the first duke's heirs general.
Montrose - as for the earldom, which, by the charter of 1706, includes
"heirs female".
Roxburghe - according to the novodamus of 1643.

For more on these, see my post of 28 May 2003.

[c***@virgin.net]

By the time she marries, Lady Louise may have chosen to use > her

princely title.

She cannot choose any such thing. The sovereign decides if she is to be
a princess or not. The sovereign has decided not.

A future sovereign may decide differently, but it will be up to
her/him, not Lady Louise.

[Charles von Hamm]

Post by m***@gmail.com

By the time she marries, Lady Louise may have chosen to use > her

princely title.
She cannot choose any such thing. The sovereign decides if she is to be
a princess or not. The sovereign has decided not.
A future sovereign may decide differently, but it will be up to
her/him, not Lady Louise.

The Queen *allowed* her to be known by the style of an Earl's daughter. She
is still a Princess.

Charles

[Stan Brown]

Post by m***@gmail.com

By the time she marries, Lady Louise may have chosen to use > her

princely title.
She cannot choose any such thing. The sovereign decides if she is to be
a princess or not. The sovereign has decided not.

No, the sovereign has agreed that she need not use her HRH. Since the
1917 Letters Patent have not been amended, Princess Louise of Wessex is
an HRH even if she chooses not to use that style when grown.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by m***@gmail.com

By the time she marries, Lady Louise may have chosen to use > her

princely title.
She cannot choose any such thing. The sovereign decides if she is to be
a princess or not. The sovereign has decided not.
A future sovereign may decide differently, but it will be up to
her/him, not Lady Louise.

What decision the Sovereign has made has been expressed in a manner
chosen to allow for maximum future flexibility.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.