Discussion:
Prince Harry engaged?
(too old to reply)
sionevar
2007-08-19 18:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.

The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.

The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Turenne
2007-08-19 18:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....

Richard
theunscot
2007-08-19 18:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
Turenne
2007-08-19 18:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I know; but I reckon that the press will persist with Princess
Chelsy, don't you? :)

Richard
Turenne
2007-08-19 18:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Yes, I know; but I reckon that the press will persist with Princess
Chelsy, don't you? :)
Smacks of Queen Susan of Albania.

R
theunscot
2007-08-19 18:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I know; but I reckon that the press will persist with Princess
Chelsy, don't you? :)
Richard
Unfortunately, that's true. I'd imagine Harry would get a peerage
upon marriage so she'd end up as Duchess of... or Countess of...
perhaps Duchess of Ginger? ;-)
Graham Truesdale
2007-08-24 22:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
you mean Princess Harry
Yes, I know; but I reckon that the press will persist with Princess
Chelsy, don't you? :)
They have managed to grasp that 'Princess Marie-Christine' is incorrrect.
--
Please do not feed the troll
Candide
2007-08-25 05:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Turenne
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
you mean Princess Harry
Yes, I know; but I reckon that the press will persist with Princess
Chelsy, don't you? :)
They have managed to grasp that 'Princess Marie-Christine' is
incorrrect.
Post by Graham Truesdale
--
Please do not feed the troll
Yet they still insist on "Princess Diana".

Candide
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-08-19 21:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
Normally, the Family Firm tries to keep things like engagements, weddings,
jubilees, etc. from running into one another. Spacing these things helps
with the budget, focuses attention on the Family at appropriate intervals
with having too many lavish displays on top of one another. While Peter's
not in the same category as his cousin - the Firm may want to split things
up.

-- Stephen J Stillwell jr
Katipo
2007-08-21 01:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until a
suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.

Katipo I
Charles von Hamm
2007-08-21 04:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom before his
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would like to
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.

Charles von Hamm
Don Aitken
2007-08-21 16:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom before his
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would like to
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.
The practice is that sons or grandsons of the sovereign get their
peerages strictly in birth order. I can't find any case in which this
has been departed from.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Katipo
2007-08-22 01:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom before his
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would like to
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.
The practice is that sons or grandsons of the sovereign get their
peerages strictly in birth order. I can't find any case in which this
has been departed from.
What has happened in the past when they haven't married in birth order?

Katipo I
William Reitwiesner
2007-08-22 10:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom before his
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would like to
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.
The practice is that sons or grandsons of the sovereign get their
peerages strictly in birth order. I can't find any case in which this
has been departed from.
What has happened in the past when they haven't married in birth order?
Until fairly recently, these peerages were granted when the recipients
were young adults or even infants. The idea of delaying the peerage
until the marriage of the prince is a recent invention.
Members only
2007-08-22 10:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Reitwiesner
Post by Katipo
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom before his
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would like to
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.
The practice is that sons or grandsons of the sovereign get their
peerages strictly in birth order. I can't find any case in which this
has been departed from.
What has happened in the past when they haven't married in birth order?
Until fairly recently, these peerages were granted when the recipients
were young adults or even infants. The idea of delaying the peerage
until the marriage of the prince is a recent invention.
About 150 years or so.
Candide
2007-08-22 10:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:06:58 -0400, "Charles von Hamm"
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be
know as
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom before his
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would like to
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.
The practice is that sons or grandsons of the sovereign get their
peerages strictly in birth order. I can't find any case in which this
has been departed from.
What has happened in the past when they haven't married in birth order?
Katipo I
Believe the tradition of granting sons of the monarch peerages and other
honours for that matter at the time of their marriage is of rather a
recent invention, previously sons of monarchs received honours not long
after reaching manhood, if not earlier. IIRC George III's sons were all
made royal dukes before their marriages, as were two of Queen Victoria's
sons.

Candide
theunscot
2007-08-22 14:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
Post by Katipo
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:06:58 -0400, "Charles von Hamm"
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did
with
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be
know as
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom
before his
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would
like to
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.
The practice is that sons or grandsons of the sovereign get their
peerages strictly in birth order. I can't find any case in which
this
Post by Katipo
has been departed from.
What has happened in the past when they haven't married in birth
order?
Post by Katipo
Katipo I
Believe the tradition of granting sons of the monarch peerages and other
honours for that matter at the time of their marriage is of rather a
recent invention, previously sons of monarchs received honours not long
after reaching manhood, if not earlier. IIRC George III's sons were all
made royal dukes before their marriages, as were two of Queen Victoria's
sons.
Candide
That's correct - George IIIs sons were all given their peerages before
marriage, as were Victoria's sons. The first to come close to
coinciding with marriage is HRH The Prince George who became Duke of
Kent in 1934, about 6 weeks prior to his wedding. Since then, seems
that they are given with marriage as was the case for the current Duke
of York and Earl of Wessex.
theunscot
2007-08-22 15:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Katipo
Post by Katipo
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:06:58 -0400, "Charles von Hamm"
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did
with
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
until
a suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be
know as
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Katipo
the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Do you think that Harry might be given a dukedom or an earldom
before his
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
older brother, in his grandmother's lifetime? I, personally, would
like to
Post by Katipo
Post by Charles von Hamm
see some marquessates if dukedoms aren't going to be given.
The practice is that sons or grandsons of the sovereign get their
peerages strictly in birth order. I can't find any case in which
this
Post by Katipo
has been departed from.
What has happened in the past when they haven't married in birth
order?
Post by Katipo
Katipo I
Believe the tradition of granting sons of the monarch peerages and other
honours for that matter at the time of their marriage is of rather a
recent invention, previously sons of monarchs received honours not long
after reaching manhood, if not earlier. IIRC George III's sons were all
made royal dukes before their marriages, as were two of Queen Victoria's
sons.
Candide
That's correct - George IIIs sons were all given their peerages before
marriage, as were Victoria's sons. The first to come close to
coinciding with marriage is HRH The Prince George who became Duke of
Kent in 1934, about 6 weeks prior to his wedding. Since then, seems
that they are given with marriage as was the case for the current Duke
of York and Earl of Wessex.
Once slight exception to what I said above - George III's son Augustus
Frederick first married in 1793, 8 years prior to becoming Duke of
Sussex (1801), however the marriage was annulled after one year on the
grounds that it hadn't been sanctioned by the King. He then remarried
30 years later, again without the permission/approval of the King.
c***@gmail.com
2007-08-21 14:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until a
suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Katipo I- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This is an arcane question that has no basis in modern legal reality,
but wouldn't it be more sensible, for the sake of consistency, to have
titles based on the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms be dukedoms rather than
earldoms ? Most of the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (the Heptarchy) were
larger than the modern counties ( on which many present-day earldoms
are based). In the case of modern counties which have the same name as
an old kingdom (such as Kent) it probably doesn't make any difference.
But some of the old kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, Sussex, East Anglia,
etc) encompassed territorial units considerably larger than modern
counties. It seems to make more sense to have the larger historical
territory awarded to a duke and the smaller one awarded to a count,
rather than vice-versa. It would improve people's sense of their own
history also. Otherwise it confuses people's historical sense (modern
day students' sense of history and geography is confused enough as it
is). It also seems to defeat the purpose of the original title when
the smaller geographic unit (the county) has a higher title (dukedom)
than the larger geographic unit (the old kingdom) which has a lesser
title (earldom). I know this could be considered anal, but for the
sake of consistency, wouldn't it make more sense?
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-08-21 14:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Katipo
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made
official
until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until a
suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Katipo I- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This is an arcane question that has no basis in modern legal reality,
but wouldn't it be more sensible, for the sake of consistency, to have
titles based on the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms be dukedoms rather than
earldoms ? Most of the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (the Heptarchy) were
larger than the modern counties ( on which many present-day earldoms
are based). In the case of modern counties which have the same name as
an old kingdom (such as Kent) it probably doesn't make any difference.
But some of the old kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, Sussex, East Anglia,
etc) encompassed territorial units considerably larger than modern
counties. It seems to make more sense to have the larger historical
territory awarded to a duke and the smaller one awarded to a count,
rather than vice-versa. It would improve people's sense of their own
history also. Otherwise it confuses people's historical sense (modern
day students' sense of history and geography is confused enough as it
is). It also seems to defeat the purpose of the original title when
the smaller geographic unit (the county) has a higher title (dukedom)
than the larger geographic unit (the old kingdom) which has a lesser
title (earldom). I know this could be considered anal, but for the
sake of consistency, wouldn't it make more sense?
After they were kingdoms, they were (or at least some were) governed by
jarls, from whence we get the word "earl" - under the reign of the
Confessor - there were jarls or earls of Herefordshire, Northumbria, Wessex,
Kent, Mercia. So earl is more correct historically.

-- Stephen J Stillwell jr
c***@gmail.com
2007-08-21 16:23:00 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 21, 10:39 am, "Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell"
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Katipo
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made
official
until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until a
suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Katipo I- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This is an arcane question that has no basis in modern legal reality,
but wouldn't it be more sensible, for the sake of consistency, to have
titles based on the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms be dukedoms rather than
earldoms ? Most of the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (the Heptarchy) were
larger than the modern counties ( on which many present-day earldoms
are based). In the case of modern counties which have the same name as
an old kingdom (such as Kent) it probably doesn't make any difference.
But some of the old kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, Sussex, East Anglia,
etc) encompassed territorial units considerably larger than modern
counties. It seems to make more sense to have the larger historical
territory awarded to a duke and the smaller one awarded to a count,
rather than vice-versa. It would improve people's sense of their own
history also. Otherwise it confuses people's historical sense (modern
day students' sense of history and geography is confused enough as it
is). It also seems to defeat the purpose of the original title when
the smaller geographic unit (the county) has a higher title (dukedom)
than the larger geographic unit (the old kingdom) which has a lesser
title (earldom). I know this could be considered anal, but for the
sake of consistency, wouldn't it make more sense?
After they were kingdoms, they were (or at least some were) governed by
jarls, from whence we get the word "earl" - under the reign of the
Confessor - there were jarls or earls of Herefordshire, Northumbria, Wessex,
Kent, Mercia. So earl is more correct historically.
-- Stephen J Stillwell jr- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. I hadn't previously been aware that the old Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms were later ruled by earls(jarls).I imagine that they were
Saxons. Just guessing, but I imagine that the title of "earl" (as used
in Britain) is older than that of "duke" (though I think "duke" comes
from the Latin "dux", which must represent some type of Roman title).
Incidentally, do you know the names of any of the earls of these old
kingdoms/earldoms, or what their lineages were? Again I'm only
guessing, but I imagine that they were close relatives of the old
Anglo-Saxon Kings and they probably lost their earldoms after the
Normans came. It would be interesting to know what became of them.
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-08-21 20:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
On Aug 21, 10:39 am, "Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell"
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Katipo
Post by theunscot
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has
proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made
official
until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic
excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before
his
elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
you mean Princess Harry ;-)
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until a
suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Katipo I- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This is an arcane question that has no basis in modern legal reality,
but wouldn't it be more sensible, for the sake of consistency, to have
titles based on the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms be dukedoms rather than
earldoms ? Most of the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (the Heptarchy) were
larger than the modern counties ( on which many present-day earldoms
are based). In the case of modern counties which have the same name as
an old kingdom (such as Kent) it probably doesn't make any difference.
But some of the old kingdoms (Wessex, Mercia, Sussex, East Anglia,
etc) encompassed territorial units considerably larger than modern
counties. It seems to make more sense to have the larger historical
territory awarded to a duke and the smaller one awarded to a count,
rather than vice-versa. It would improve people's sense of their own
history also. Otherwise it confuses people's historical sense (modern
day students' sense of history and geography is confused enough as it
is). It also seems to defeat the purpose of the original title when
the smaller geographic unit (the county) has a higher title (dukedom)
than the larger geographic unit (the old kingdom) which has a lesser
title (earldom). I know this could be considered anal, but for the
sake of consistency, wouldn't it make more sense?
After they were kingdoms, they were (or at least some were) governed by
jarls, from whence we get the word "earl" - under the reign of the
Confessor - there were jarls or earls of Herefordshire, Northumbria, Wessex,
Kent, Mercia. So earl is more correct historically.
-- Stephen J Stillwell jr- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. I hadn't previously been aware that the old Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms were later ruled by earls(jarls).I imagine that they were
Saxons. Just guessing, but I imagine that the title of "earl" (as used
in Britain) is older than that of "duke" (though I think "duke" comes
from the Latin "dux", which must represent some type of Roman title).
Incidentally, do you know the names of any of the earls of these old
kingdoms/earldoms, or what their lineages were? Again I'm only
guessing, but I imagine that they were close relatives of the old
Anglo-Saxon Kings and they probably lost their earldoms after the
Normans came. It would be interesting to know what became of them.
They are easy enough to trace --
Godwin was appt Earl of Wessex by Cnut. His daughter later married Edward
the Confessor and his son - Harald became first Earl of Wessex and then King
Harald I.

Godwin's son, Sweyn, was Earl of Herefordshire died 1052
Godwin's son, Tostig, was Earl of Northumbria - killed at Stamford Bridge in
1066.
Godwin's son, Leofwine, was Earl of Kent - killed at Stamford Bridge in
1066.

Outside Godwin's family - Earl Siward of Northumbra, Earl Leofric of Mercia
(Husband of Lady Godiva), Earl Algar.

-- Stephen J Stillwell jr
Hovite
2007-08-22 17:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katipo
If it is true, then presumably the Queen will repeat what she did with
Edward and make Harry Earl of one of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until a
suitable Dukedom becomes available. That way Chelsy would be know as the
Countess of the anglo-saxon kingdom in question.
Katipo I
Duke of Sussex is available.
sionevar
2007-08-19 18:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
theunscot
2007-08-19 19:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never happen),
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
sionevar
2007-08-19 19:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never happen),
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
I'm very well aware of that. I was being facetious.
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-08-19 19:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never happen),
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then divorced
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?

When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and she
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is. Once she
divorced, she was no longer The princess of Wales - she was Diana,
princess of Wales.

If Chelsy marries while Henry is still mere Prince Henry of Wales,
Chelsy would be Princess Henry of Wales.

Once she divorces, she would no longer be Princess Henry - she would
be what?
Turenne
2007-08-19 19:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Once she divorces, she would no longer be Princess Henry - she would
be what?
Good question; there are plenty of divorced wives of younger sons of
marquesses and dukes to go by. From memory, they stayed as they were.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that she would remain Princess
Henry (Harry) till she remarried.

Richard
Candide
2007-08-19 19:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Once she divorces, she would no longer be Princess Henry - she would
be what?
Good question; there are plenty of divorced wives of younger sons of
marquesses and dukes to go by. From memory, they stayed as they were.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that she would remain Princess
Henry (Harry) till she remarried.
Richard
Those women stay as they were simply because while not wishing to remain
married to a peer's son, they still want the perks of being known or at
least related to a peer.

Candide
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-08-19 19:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Once she divorces, she would no longer be Princess Henry - she would
be what?
Good question; there are plenty of divorced wives of younger sons of
marquesses and dukes to go by. From memory, they stayed as they were.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that she would remain Princess
Henry (Harry) till she remarried.
Richard
Does it mean that any and all women who have married Prince Henry and
have not remarried in their part are Princess Henry? With, at most,
HRH Princess Henry distinguishing the current wife and all the exes
being just Princess Henry without HRH?
Turenne
2007-08-19 20:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Turenne
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Once she divorces, she would no longer be Princess Henry - she would
be what?
Good question; there are plenty of divorced wives of younger sons of
marquesses and dukes to go by. From memory, they stayed as they were.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that she would remain Princess
Henry (Harry) till she remarried.
Richard
Does it mean that any and all women who have married Prince Henry and
have not remarried in their part are Princess Henry? With, at most,
HRH Princess Henry distinguishing the current wife and all the exes
being just Princess Henry without HRH?
Didn't Coco Chanel decline the Duke of Westminster when he asked her
to marry him, noting: "There are plenty of Duchesses of Westminster,
but only one Coco Chanel."

Richard
Candide
2007-08-19 19:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never happen),
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then divorced
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and she
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is. Once she
divorced, she was no longer The princess of Wales - she was Diana,
princess of Wales.
If Chelsy marries while Henry is still mere Prince Henry of Wales,
Chelsy would be Princess Henry of Wales.
Once she divorces, she would no longer be Princess Henry - she would
be what?
Chelsy Wales or perhaps Chelsy Windsor. Or even Chelsy
Windsor-Mountbatten.


Certainly do not seem PH getting a dukedom anytime soon, (if ever)
especially as his uncle has to wait for the demise of both his parents
to get the DofE. Would seem quite like queue jumping to elevate PH
before PE, still PH could get something upon his marriage. Hopefully
this exercise is nothing more than conjecture. PH seems still far to
immature to marry, and one does not see much in the Davis girl that
would make her suitable, for she like PH seems too immature for
marriage.

Prince Harry still, IMHO has too much of "Jack the Lad" in him to settle
down, so unless this Davis girl is willing to turn a blind eye it might
be better off for all concerned if they never married. We've already
witnessed the bitter and very public display of one Wales marriage, not
sure if the country and indeed the monarchy could stand another so soon.

Candide
kim
2007-08-19 19:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never happen),
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then divorced
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and she
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?

(kim)
Candide
2007-08-19 19:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never
happen),
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then
divorced
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and she
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
(kim)
Yes, that is correct, and indeed HM announced upon the marriage Camilla
would be styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". However to purists, under
current laws and customs upon marriage a wife is bestowed with ALL her
husband's worldly goods, including titles and styles. Thus Camilla is
the PssofW weather she chooses to use the title or not.

Candide
Rico
2007-08-20 09:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess
Yvonne :-)
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never
happen),
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then
divorced
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and
she
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
(kim)
Yes, that is correct, and indeed HM announced upon the marriage Camilla
would be styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". However to purists, under
current laws and customs upon marriage a wife is bestowed with ALL her
husband's worldly goods, including titles and styles. Thus Camilla is
the PssofW weather she chooses to use the title or not.
Candide
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be known
by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the throne that
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.
Members only
2007-08-20 09:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess
Yvonne :-)
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never
happen),
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then
divorced
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and
she
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
(kim)
Yes, that is correct, and indeed HM announced upon the marriage Camilla
would be styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". However to purists, under
current laws and customs upon marriage a wife is bestowed with ALL her
husband's worldly goods, including titles and styles. Thus Camilla is
the PssofW weather she chooses to use the title or not.
Candide
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be known
by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the throne that
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.
LONDON: UK royal Harry - the youngest son of Charles and third in the
line of succession to the throne of England - has asked his girlfriend
Chelsy Davy to marry him and she has agreed.

The couple declared their love for each other when they were on a
recent safari break in Botswana. However, they do not intend to become
officially engaged until Chelsy finishes her studies and Harry has
seen active army service overseas.

"Harry and Chelsy are serious about each other and are both keen to
make more of a commitment. Neither of them can imagine living without
the other. (But) it will be 18 months down the line before they go
public about their engagement," a friend said.

By then 22-year-old Harry is likely to have a desk job in Britain, and
his girlfriend - who is recovering well after an emergency appendix
operation on Thursday - will have finished her course in politics at
Leeds University.


I had to laugh at the line about Harry's desk job after the Iraq
fiasco. The poor guy is doomed to a lifetime of desk jobs.

Members Only
Candide
2007-08-20 11:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess
Yvonne :-)
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never
happen),
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then
divorced
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and
she
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
(kim)
Yes, that is correct, and indeed HM announced upon the marriage Camilla
would be styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". However to purists, under
current laws and customs upon marriage a wife is bestowed with ALL her
husband's worldly goods, including titles and styles. Thus Camilla is
the PssofW weather she chooses to use the title or not.
Candide
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be known
by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the throne that
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.
It falls to the monarch to announce how members of the RF are to be
called, and HM did indeed issue a statement, which was read in
Parliament that CPB would be known as the DssofC. HM also, among other
things moved CPB down at notch or two in the order of precedence.

PC and his bride can make all the announcements they wish, but it is
MOST certain approval came from HM before anyone said anything in pubic.

Candide
Members only
2007-08-20 12:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess
Yvonne :-)
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters
Patent
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never
happen),
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles
she
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then
divorced
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales,
and
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
she
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
(kim)
Yes, that is correct, and indeed HM announced upon the marriage
Camilla
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
would be styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". However to purists, under
current laws and customs upon marriage a wife is bestowed with ALL
her
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
husband's worldly goods, including titles and styles. Thus Camilla
is
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
the PssofW weather she chooses to use the title or not.
Candide
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be
known
Post by Rico
by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the
throne that
Post by Rico
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.
It falls to the monarch to announce how members of the RF are to be
called, and HM did indeed issue a statement, which was read in
Parliament that CPB would be known as the DssofC. HM also, among other
things moved CPB down at notch or two in the order of precedence.
PC and his bride can make all the announcements they wish, but it is
MOST certain approval came from HM before anyone said anything in pubic.
Candide
Don't you mean PC and his wife ? This might come as a shock Candide
but Charles and Camilla do sleep together.
kim
2007-08-20 12:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess
Yvonne :-)
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters
Patent
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never
happen),
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles
she
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then
divorced
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales,
and
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
she
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
(kim)
Yes, that is correct, and indeed HM announced upon the marriage
Camilla
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
would be styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". However to purists, under
current laws and customs upon marriage a wife is bestowed with ALL
her
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
husband's worldly goods, including titles and styles. Thus Camilla
is
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
the PssofW weather she chooses to use the title or not.
Candide
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be
known
Post by Rico
by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the
throne that
Post by Rico
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.
It falls to the monarch to announce how members of the RF are to be
called, and HM did indeed issue a statement, which was read in
Parliament that CPB would be known as the DssofC. HM also, among other
things moved CPB down at notch or two in the order of precedence.
PC and his bride can make all the announcements they wish, but it is
MOST certain approval came from HM before anyone said anything in pubic.
In that case King Charles III can make any announcement he likes on the
subject :o)

(kim)
Rico
2007-08-21 04:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess
Yvonne :-)
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters
Patent
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never
happen),
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles
she
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then
divorced
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales,
and
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
she
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
(kim)
Yes, that is correct, and indeed HM announced upon the marriage
Camilla
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
would be styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". However to purists, under
current laws and customs upon marriage a wife is bestowed with ALL
her
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
husband's worldly goods, including titles and styles. Thus Camilla
is
Post by Rico
Post by sionevar
the PssofW weather she chooses to use the title or not.
Candide
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be
known
Post by Rico
by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the
throne that
Post by Rico
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.
It falls to the monarch to announce how members of the RF are to be
called, and HM did indeed issue a statement, which was read in
Parliament that CPB would be known as the DssofC. HM also, among other
things moved CPB down at notch or two in the order of precedence.
PC and his bride can make all the announcements they wish, but it is
MOST certain approval came from HM before anyone said anything in pubic.
Candide
Her Majesty may have given the approval but it was C&C who actually made the
announcement.
Jan Böhme
2007-08-20 15:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Candide
2007-08-20 19:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rico
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be known
by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the throne that
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.-
That's a bit stickier. Camilla can of course use every title she's
entitled to, and is under no obligation to use the highest one
available. However all her husband's honours will merge with the crown
upon his ascension, so for her to go by anything else than Queen after
that, her husband the Sovereign will have to confer this something
else upon her.

And I can't say that I'm absolutly thrilled at this prospect. To me,
this looks a lot like implementing morganatic marriages in the British
RF through the back door. Either Charles shouldn't have married
Camilla at all or he has done so fully and completely.

Jan Böhme

No, it's nothing of the kind (introducing morganic marriage into the
RF), but a way to allow something that was going to happen anyway, the
marriage of PC and CPB; occur without totally driving the Diana-maniacs
up the wall. As it tis some see the couple of having their cake and
eating it as well, and that consumption is taking place on a woman's
grave. Think had Diana not died in the manner she did, and there was
only the nasty divorce, opposition to CPB being formally known as the
PssofW might not have caused so much concern.

There is also the fact that CPB's hands are not totally clean in this
matter, well at least not to everyone and thus giving her the whole bag
of tricks formally would seem as rewarding loose behaviour. Suppose the
RF and it's advisors are hoping that by the time PC comes to the throne
feelings will have cooled. Many voices have been raised in Parliament
and elsewhere about what would happen if the now DssofC is not made
queen when her husband succeeds. Though a regency is not in the cards,
IIRC there are other matters that fall to a queen consort, and don't
think many fancy having to dig up everything and cross out "queen or
queen consort" and fill in whatever CPB is would be called instead of
queen.
Graham Truesdale
2007-08-25 21:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Snip
There is also the fact that CPB's hands are not totally clean in this
matter, well at least not to everyone and thus giving her the whole bag
of tricks formally would seem as rewarding loose behaviour. Suppose the
RF and it's advisors are hoping that by the time PC comes to the throne
feelings will have cooled. Many voices have been raised in Parliament
and elsewhere about what would happen if the now DssofC is not made
queen when her husband succeeds. Though a regency is not in the cards,
IIRC there are other matters that fall to a queen consort, and don't
think many fancy having to dig up everything and cross out "queen or
queen consort" and fill in whatever CPB is would be called instead of
queen.
Such as whether she is entitled to whales' tails for her corsets ;-)
--
Please do not feed the troll
Gary Holtzman
2007-08-20 19:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Post by Rico
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be
known by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the
throne t=
hat
Post by Rico
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.-
That's a bit stickier. Camilla can of course use every title she's
entitled to, and is under no obligation to use the highest one
available. However all her husband's honours will merge with the crown
upon his ascension, so for her to go by anything else than Queen after
that, her husband the Sovereign will have to confer this something
else upon her.
Logically, you would seem to be correct. The fact of the matter is, though, they
don't seem to operate that way anymore. They just announce things. The Royal
Household are not pedants.
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Members only
2007-08-20 21:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Candide
Post by Rico
That was Charles and Camilla who announced which title she would be
known by. It was also them who announced that on his assention to the
throne t=
hat
Post by Rico
she will continue to remain a HRH with the dignity of princess.-
That's a bit stickier. Camilla can of course use every title she's
entitled to, and is under no obligation to use the highest one
available. However all her husband's honours will merge with the crown
upon his ascension, so for her to go by anything else than Queen after
that, her husband the Sovereign will have to confer this something
else upon her.
Logically, you would seem to be correct. The fact of the matter is, though, they
don't seem to operate that way anymore. They just announce things. The Royal
Household are not pedants.
--
Gary Holtzman
Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.
--------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
Gary you know, I know and everyone else knows here, that the problem
these days is the media. They set the agenda in terms of names, of
course whether they are right or wrong. WE can't stop that.
Stan Brown
2007-08-20 06:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and she
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
She is, and she is also The Princess of Wales. She agreed before her
marriage not to use the Wales title.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Rico
2007-08-28 04:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by kim
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and she
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is.
I though Camilla was "Duchess of Cornwall"?
She is, and she is also The Princess of Wales. She agreed before her
marriage not to use the Wales title.
They (Charles and Camilla) decided which title she would use, the queen
probably just agreed with the decision.

t***@comcast.net
2007-08-20 04:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by theunscot
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
No, actually she couldn't. Unless HM were to issue Letters Patent
making Chelsy a princess in her own right (which will never happen),
she'd always be Princess Harry, and any other courtesy titles she
would garner from her marriage.
What exactly would Chelsy be if she were married to and then divorced
from Henry, and Henry had never hold any peerage during their
marriage, being just Prince Henry of Wales?
When Charles was married to Diana, he was The Prince of Wales, and she
was The Princess of Wales, just like Camilla now is. Once she
divorced, she was no longer The princess of Wales - she was Diana,
princess of Wales.
If Chelsy marries while Henry is still mere Prince Henry of Wales,
Chelsy would be Princess Henry of Wales.
Once she divorces, she would no longer be Princess Henry - she would
be what?
Probably she would be styled as ex-wives of Peers are; but in this
case since there is no actuall Peerage she'd simply be styled as
"Chelsey, Princess Henry" until she re-married.
Stan Brown
2007-08-20 06:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by sionevar
Post by Turenne
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
Have you ever read this newsgroup? The wife of a prince is Princess
Hisname, not Princess Hername. Diana was not Princess Diana during
*or* after her marriage to Charles.

Prince Harry's wife would be Princess Harry of Wales. In the old
days, before Tony Blair, Harry would have received a dukedom on his
marriage and his wife would be HRH The Duchess of Something.
Nowadays, who knows?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
sionevar
2007-08-20 23:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by sionevar
She could always go by her middle name, and become Princess Yvonne :-)
Have you ever read this newsgroup? The wife of a prince is Princess
Hisname, not Princess Hername. Diana was not Princess Diana during
*or* after her marriage to Charles.
Stan, as I said in a previous reply, I was being facetious.
Candide
2007-08-19 19:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made
official until
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
Liaisons! What's happened to them? Liaisons today.
Sacha
2007-08-19 22:01:36 UTC
Permalink
On 19/8/07 19:30, in article
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
Princess Harry. Unshudder.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'
David / Amicus
2007-08-19 23:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Princess Chelsy?


Could have been worse! Thankfully they'll never be a Queen Diana!
Members only
2007-08-19 23:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Princess Chelsy?
Could have been worse! Thankfully they'll never be a Queen Diana!
I wonder what William and Harry would think of your last very
insensitive comment.

Members Only
AGw. (Usenet)
2007-08-19 23:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Princess Chelsy?
Could have been worse! Thankfully they'll never be a Queen Diana!
What's wrong with "Diana"? It's got an older pedigree than "Charles"
after all!
--
AGw.
address in header goes nowhere; replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
kim
2007-08-20 01:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Princess Chelsy?
Could have been worse! Thankfully they'll never be a Queen Diana!
I remember Daily Mirror columnist Paul Callan making a derogatory remark
about Queen Silvia of Sweden. He said they'll be having a "Queen Noreen"
next! Well, a lot Daily Mirror readers were called "Sylvia" or "Noreen" and
that was about the last thing he ever wrote for them.

(kim)
Jan Böhme
2007-08-20 08:34:12 UTC
Permalink
David
2007-08-20 15:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Jan Böhme
2007-08-20 17:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Charles von Hamm
2007-08-20 03:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
On 19/8/07 19:30, in article
Post by Turenne
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Princess Chelsy....shudder....
Richard
Princess Harry. Unshudder.
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.

Charles von Hamm
Gary Holtzman
2007-08-20 19:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated. The Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was not called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla. The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana, Princess of
Wales.
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Charles von Hamm
2007-08-21 04:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated. The Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was not called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana, Princess of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.

Charles von Hamm
Breton
2007-08-21 12:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated. The Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was not called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana, Princess of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.

If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].

Breton
theunscot
2007-08-21 15:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated. The Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was not called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana, Princess of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.
If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].
Breton
Yes, it would be wrong.

Chelsy will never be "Princess Chelsy" as she was not born a
princess. And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only (with the exception of The
Duke of Edinburgh)
Breton
2007-08-22 17:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only
The following extract from ATR's FAQ may help you:

The wife of a prince takes her husband's Christian name in her title
as do all married royal women. This is because it is the correct
style
for any married woman ('Mrs' followed by her husband's Christian
name
and then his surname.) When a woman is known as 'HRH Princess [her
Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or
York,
etc...]', this indicates she is a princess by birth. When a woman
is
known as 'HRH Princess [her husband's Christian name] of
[Gloucester,
or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]', this indicates she is
a
princess by marriage. That is why it is correct for the former
Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz to be known as 'HRH Princess
Michael of Kent' instead of being known as 'HRH Princess
Marie-Christine of Kent'.


The situation is slightly different when a woman is married to a
prince who happens to be a royal duke or the Prince of Wales. When
a
woman is married to a royal duke she is known, for example, as
'HRH
The Duchess of Kent', not 'HRH Duchess [her husband's or her
Christian
name] of Kent'. When a woman is married to the Prince of Wales, she
is
known as 'HRH The Princess of Wales', not 'HRH Princess [her
husband's
or her Christian name] of Wales'.


Breton
theunscot
2007-08-22 18:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by theunscot
And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only
The wife of a prince takes her husband's Christian name in her title
as do all married royal women. This is because it is the correct
style
for any married woman ('Mrs' followed by her husband's Christian
name
and then his surname.) When a woman is known as 'HRH Princess [her
Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or
York,
etc...]', this indicates she is a princess by birth. When a woman
is
known as 'HRH Princess [her husband's Christian name] of
[Gloucester,
or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]', this indicates she is
a
princess by marriage. That is why it is correct for the former
Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz to be known as 'HRH Princess
Michael of Kent' instead of being known as 'HRH Princess
Marie-Christine of Kent'.
The situation is slightly different when a woman is married to a
prince who happens to be a royal duke or the Prince of Wales. When
a
woman is married to a royal duke she is known, for example, as
'HRH
The Duchess of Kent', not 'HRH Duchess [her husband's or her
Christian
name] of Kent'. When a woman is married to the Prince of Wales, she
is
known as 'HRH The Princess of Wales', not 'HRH Princess [her
husband's
or her Christian name] of Wales'.
Breton
Yes, hopefully that will be helpful for those who aren't already
aware. However, I was referring to the capitalized definite article
"The" preceding 'Prince' or 'Princess', as in 'The Prince Andrew'
etc. That is restricted to the child of a monarch. When Charles
accedes, his sons will become The Prince William and The Prince Henry
(Harry). The only exception to this (that I know of) is the Duke of
Edinburgh who was given the style of 'The Prince Philip' when he was
made a prince of the UK in 1957.
Turenne
2007-08-22 19:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.

Richard
Turenne
2007-08-22 19:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.
Richard
correction 'reason why'
James Dempster
2007-08-22 20:14:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:45:58 -0700, Turenne
Post by Turenne
Post by Turenne
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.
Richard
correction 'reason why'
Generally they have titles from England, Scotland and Ireland.
Presumably the lack of Welsh titles is because Wales is a Principality
and not a kingdom.

Take the sons of the current monarch

Prince Charles is

Prince of Wales
Duke of Cornwall & Rothesay
Earl of Chester and Carrick
Lord of the Isles
Baron of Renfrew (apparently feudal)

One Welsh, two English and four Scottish titles

Prince Andrew is

Duke of York
Earl of Inverness
Baron Killyleagh

One English, one Scottish, one Irish.

He also is often known by the Scottish title when carrying out duties
in Scotland.

Prince Edward is

Earl of Wessex
Viscount Severn

One English and one dubious (English or Welsh)

As for those of an earlier generation, the Duke of Gloucester is also
Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden and the Duke of Kent is Earl of St
Andrews and Baron Downpatrick. Admittedly Culloden is unfortunate.

The most recently used Scottish titles - Albany and Strathearn have
the disadvantage of still being potentially extant in the persons of
the heirs of those Dukes excluded in 1917. I cannot imagine Irish
titles such as Connaught ever being granted again. The other Scottish
titles are well in the past such as the Dukedoms of Kintyre or Ross or
exist as lesser grades of the peerage such as Bothwells dukedom of
Orkney, now held as an Earldom.

Admittedly Wessex was an interesting innovation in that it was a new
TD but I can't think of a suitable Scottish region worthy of a dukedom
that isn't currently held. Do you have any suggestions?

James



James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
Turenne
2007-08-22 20:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Further to James' observations

I was really referring to their primary TDs none of which are Welsh or
Scottish. It always appeared to me that Culloden, Inverness St Andrew
etc. was simply paying lip service to the Scots and Duke of say,
Kircudbright,Stirling or Melrose would send out the right message.
(The three examples I've just given are crummy, but you get the
point:)

I take your point about the PofW but I was excluding his titles as
they are inherited, and not new creations.

Richard
Gary Holtzman
2007-08-23 02:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Further to James' observations
I was really referring to their primary TDs none of which are Welsh or
Scottish. It always appeared to me that Culloden, Inverness St Andrew
etc. was simply paying lip service to the Scots and Duke of say,
Kircudbright,Stirling or Melrose would send out the right message.
(The three examples I've just given are crummy, but you get the
point:)
In the past there were royal dukes of Connaught (Ireland) and Albany (Scotland).
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
N***@gmail.com
2007-08-23 00:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Turenne
2007-08-23 09:37:17 UTC
Permalink
James Dempster
2007-08-23 23:36:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:37:17 -0700, Turenne
Post by James Dempster
Admittedly Wessex was an interesting innovation in that it was a new
TD but I can't think of a suitable Scottish region worthy of a dukedom
that isn't currently held. Do you have any suggestions?
Dál Riatia, the Isles, the Picts, and Strathclyde are all ancient
Kingdoms. Alba is another possibility, but it might be too close to
Albany.
Strathearn was used as a Royal Dukedom several times. It's been
available since 1943, when the last Duke of Connacht and Strathearn
died. The Highlands, Glasgow, and the Borders have never been used,
but would do quite nicely. Arbroath would also be a good choice, if
the Queen wanted to please Scots nationalists. Grampian is another
possibility -- it's a former administrative region that includes
Aberdeen and Moray.
There are many traditional Counties available -- Peebles, Lanark,
Wigtown, Kinross, Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Stirling, Forfar, Banff,
Cromarty, and Ross. Kirkcudbright only has a dormant Lordship. Others
only have a Lord (Nairn and Renfrew) or Viscount (Ayr).
Obviously some of them are unsuitable -- HRH the Duke of Peebles? No.
But there are almost two-dozen to choose from.
Nick
Some good suggestions Nick, though Glasgow is currently an earldom and
Kinross, a barony. I like Grampian though.
Richard
As a lifelong resident of the area of the former Grampian Regional
Council I do not. The local authority was no great shakes as a body
and the other association is with a defunct and often all too
parochial TV station.

Worse still it is a spelling error.

I'd accept Duke of Grampian only after the creation of a Duke of
Humberside


James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
Hovite
2007-08-24 09:55:24 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 24, 12:36 am, James Dempster
Post by James Dempster
Worse still it is a spelling error.
Derived from the Graupius Mons of Tacitus, which was probably
Bennachie.
Hovite
2007-08-22 20:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Turenne
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.
Richard
correction 'reason why'
They usually take one title from each kingdom. For example, the
current monarchs second son is "Baron Killyleagh, Earl of Inverness,
and Duke of York", but only the highest rank is actually used.
Don Aitken
2007-08-22 20:23:09 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:42:53 -0700, Turenne
Post by Turenne
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.
The practice is to include a title from any three of England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland; the senior title can come from any of
them. Thus, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich,
or Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh, or Duke of
Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden. The inclusion of Wales
dates from the Edinburgh patent of 1947 - before that it was one each
from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Between the unions of 1707 and 1800 all royal dukes were given double
titles with an English and a Scottish placename, such as Duke of York
and Albany, but with more than two countries that gets too unwieldy.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Turenne
2007-08-22 20:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Don, Hovite and I seemed to have posted simultaniously: All I was
saying is that maybe in future the senior title should be Scottish or
Welsh to aid in UK cohesion.

Richard
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2007-08-22 23:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Don, Hovite and I seemed to have posted simultaniously: All I was
saying is that maybe in future the senior title should be Scottish or
Welsh to aid in UK cohesion.
There's no insuperable rule that limits these territorial designations
to the British Isles, as far as I know. Just for argument's sake, let us
say that Prince Harry had been posted to Iraq and had distinguished
himself there militarily. When he got married, he could theoretically
have been raised to an Earldom of Basra. Not that any of that has
anything to do with the real world; I'm just saying.

Personally, I'd like to see a revival of an Earldom of Mercia.
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-08-22 21:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.
Richard
Haven't they in the past taken Scottish titles - Duke of Albany?
Strathearn?

And Irish ones - Connaught?

As far as Welsh ones go -- The current Duke of Wales has Merioneth as a
secondary title.

-- Stephen J Stillwell jr
Rico
2007-08-24 15:06:04 UTC
Permalink
The territoral designation of all princes and princesses is United Kingdom
of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, unless they are using the territorial
designation of their own, or their fathers peerage. One could say that
Willam and Harry are princes of Cornwall (not sure if this is the fact) when
they are in Scotland as that is the title that Charles uses there.
Post by Turenne
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.
Richard
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-08-24 16:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rico
The territoral designation of all princes and princesses is United Kingdom
of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, unless they are using the
territorial designation of their own, or their fathers peerage. One could
say that Willam and Harry are princes of Cornwall (not sure if this is the
fact) when they are in Scotland as that is the title that Charles uses
there.
What is the title Charles uses in Scotland? It certainly is NOT Cornwall.
It is Rothesay.

Stephen J Stillwell jr
Rico
2007-08-26 05:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by Rico
The territoral designation of all princes and princesses is United
Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, unless they are using the
territorial designation of their own, or their fathers peerage. One
could say that Willam and Harry are princes of Cornwall (not sure if this
is the fact) when they are in Scotland as that is the title that Charles
uses there.
What is the title Charles uses in Scotland? It certainly is NOT Cornwall.
It is Rothesay.
Stephen J Stillwell jr
My mistake (Charles has to many titles to remember)
Rico
2007-08-26 05:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rico
The territoral designation of all princes and princesses is United Kingdom
of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, unless they are using the
territorial designation of their own, or their fathers peerage. One could
say that Willam and Harry are princes of Rothesay(not sure if this is the
fact) when they are in Scotland as that is the title that Charles uses
there.
Post by Turenne
Post by Hovite
Duke of Sussex is available.
Is there any reason that the sons of the sovereign don't take their
territorial designations from Scottish or Welsh counties/towns. At a
time that the awful Alex Salmond is pushing for Scottish independence,
it would send out the right signals to Scottish voters. I'm not
including the P of W.
Richard
Rico
2007-08-24 15:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Breton
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated.
The
Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was
not
called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana,
Princess
of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.
If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].
Breton
Yes, it would be wrong.
Chelsy will never be "Princess Chelsy" as she was not born a
princess. And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only (with the exception of The
Duke of Edinburgh)
You are correct in the statement that Chelsy will never be officially
Princess Chelsy (in the same way that Diana was never officially Princess
Di(ana). You are however incorrect in saying that she will never have the
definitive before titular status. While it is true that if she and Harry
were to marry in The Queens lifetime they will not have the definitive
before prince/ss, (unless he is given a peerage as a principality, not
likely though), Harry will be entitled to it as soon as his father becomes
king, when that happens his spouse will also have the definitve as she will
have the feminine of his titles immedeatly on marriage.

Also you are incorrect in saying that the children of The Duke of Edinburgh
always had the definitive, neither Anne, nor Charles were born as The Prince
or The Princess (forname) of Edinburgh, they did not gain the definitive
until February of 1952, (Andrew and Edward always had the definitve as they
were born during their mothers reign).
theunscot
2007-08-24 17:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rico
Post by theunscot
Post by Breton
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated.
The
Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was
not
called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana,
Princess
of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.
If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].
Breton
Yes, it would be wrong.
Chelsy will never be "Princess Chelsy" as she was not born a
princess. And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only (with the exception of The
Duke of Edinburgh)
You are correct in the statement that Chelsy will never be officially
Princess Chelsy (in the same way that Diana was never officially Princess
Di(ana). You are however incorrect in saying that she will never have the
definitive before titular status. While it is true that if she and Harry
were to marry in The Queens lifetime they will not have the definitive
before prince/ss, (unless he is given a peerage as a principality, not
likely though), Harry will be entitled to it as soon as his father becomes
king, when that happens his spouse will also have the definitve as she will
have the feminine of his titles immedeatly on marriage.
Also you are incorrect in saying that the children of The Duke of Edinburgh
always had the definitive, neither Anne, nor Charles were born as The Prince
or The Princess (forname) of Edinburgh, they did not gain the definitive
until February of 1952, (Andrew and Edward always had the definitve as they
were born during their mothers reign).
I'm sorry but you're not correct. Chelsy would not get the definitive
article before her title as this is limited to children of the monarch
only (not their spouses).

And I never said that the children of the Duke of Edinburgh always had
the definitive article. I said that The DofE is an exception to the
'rule' - he was made HRH The Duke of Edinburgh in 1947 and in 1957 The
Queen made him a Prince and styled him THE Prince Philip, Duke of
Edinburgh. Thus he is (as far as I know) the only exception to the
'restriction' that the definitive article is only used for children of
a monarch.
Breton
2007-08-24 17:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Rico
Post by theunscot
Post by Breton
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated.
The
Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was
not
called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana,
Princess
of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.
If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].
Breton
Yes, it would be wrong.
Chelsy will never be "Princess Chelsy" as she was not born a
princess. And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only (with the exception of The
Duke of Edinburgh)
You are correct in the statement that Chelsy will never be officially
Princess Chelsy (in the same way that Diana was never officially Princess
Di(ana). You are however incorrect in saying that she will never have the
definitive before titular status. While it is true that if she and Harry
were to marry in The Queens lifetime they will not have the definitive
before prince/ss, (unless he is given a peerage as a principality, not
likely though), Harry will be entitled to it as soon as his father becomes
king, when that happens his spouse will also have the definitve as she will
have the feminine of his titles immedeatly on marriage.
Also you are incorrect in saying that the children of The Duke of Edinburgh
always had the definitive, neither Anne, nor Charles were born as The Prince
or The Princess (forname) of Edinburgh, they did not gain the definitive
until February of 1952, (Andrew and Edward always had the definitve as they
were born during their mothers reign).
I'm sorry but you're not correct. Chelsy would not get the definitive
article before her title as this is limited to children of the monarch
only (not their spouses).
Plain wrong I'm afraid. Here's a sample entry in the Court Circular of
July 22:

"The Earl of Wessex, Royal Colonel, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, and The
Countess of Wessex, Royal Colonel, 5th Battalion The Rifles, this
evening attended a Reception and Sounding Retreat to mark The Rifles'
Regimental Day at Windsor Castle."

It's quite clear that any spouse of a child of the Monarch gets the
definitive. There are many other examples.

Breton
theunscot
2007-08-24 17:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by theunscot
Post by Rico
Post by theunscot
Post by Breton
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname,
surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I,
too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated.
The
Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was
not
called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess
Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana,
Princess
of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be
known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry
of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess
Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.
If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].
Breton
Yes, it would be wrong.
Chelsy will never be "Princess Chelsy" as she was not born a
princess. And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only (with the exception of The
Duke of Edinburgh)
You are correct in the statement that Chelsy will never be officially
Princess Chelsy (in the same way that Diana was never officially Princess
Di(ana). You are however incorrect in saying that she will never have the
definitive before titular status. While it is true that if she and Harry
were to marry in The Queens lifetime they will not have the definitive
before prince/ss, (unless he is given a peerage as a principality, not
likely though), Harry will be entitled to it as soon as his father becomes
king, when that happens his spouse will also have the definitve as she will
have the feminine of his titles immedeatly on marriage.
Also you are incorrect in saying that the children of The Duke of Edinburgh
always had the definitive, neither Anne, nor Charles were born as The Prince
or The Princess (forname) of Edinburgh, they did not gain the definitive
until February of 1952, (Andrew and Edward always had the definitve as they
were born during their mothers reign).
I'm sorry but you're not correct. Chelsy would not get the definitive
article before her title as this is limited to children of the monarch
only (not their spouses).
Plain wrong I'm afraid. Here's a sample entry in the Court Circular of
"The Earl of Wessex, Royal Colonel, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, and The
Countess of Wessex, Royal Colonel, 5th Battalion The Rifles, this
evening attended a Reception and Sounding Retreat to mark The Rifles'
Regimental Day at Windsor Castle."
It's quite clear that any spouse of a child of the Monarch gets the
definitive. There are many other examples.
Breton
I was specifically referring to usage with 'Prince/Princess', but
regardless, I stand corrected. I was unfortunately given some
incorrect information and didn't thoroughly check it all before I
responded.

However, I don't believe the definitive in 'The Earl of Wessex' is due
to his being HM's son. For example, neither 'The Duke of Westminster'
or 'The Countess Mountbatten of Burma' are royal, yet the definitive
is used.
Breton
2007-08-24 19:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
However, I don't believe the definitive in 'The Earl of Wessex' is due
to his being HM's son.
I think it is, since if he wasn't the Earl of Wessex, he'd be "The
Prince Andrew".

Breton
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-08-24 20:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by theunscot
However, I don't believe the definitive in 'The Earl of Wessex' is due
to his being HM's son.
I think it is, since if he wasn't the Earl of Wessex, he'd be "The
Prince Andrew".
Breton
No it isn't the The Prince is separate from The Earl. And the Earl of
Wessex is The Prince Edward.

If you are going to open your mouth - get the facts right.
Rico
2007-08-26 05:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by Rico
Post by theunscot
Post by Breton
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well
(I,
too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated.
The
Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was
not
called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana,
Princess
of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince
Henry
of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to
Princess
Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.
If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].
Breton
Yes, it would be wrong.
Chelsy will never be "Princess Chelsy" as she was not born a
princess. And second, she will never be "The" Princess...that being
restricted to children of a monarch only (with the exception of The
Duke of Edinburgh)
You are correct in the statement that Chelsy will never be officially
Princess Chelsy (in the same way that Diana was never officially Princess
Di(ana). You are however incorrect in saying that she will never have the
definitive before titular status. While it is true that if she and Harry
were to marry in The Queens lifetime they will not have the definitive
before prince/ss, (unless he is given a peerage as a principality, not
likely though), Harry will be entitled to it as soon as his father becomes
king, when that happens his spouse will also have the definitve as she will
have the feminine of his titles immedeatly on marriage.
Also you are incorrect in saying that the children of The Duke of Edinburgh
always had the definitive, neither Anne, nor Charles were born as The Prince
or The Princess (forname) of Edinburgh, they did not gain the definitive
until February of 1952, (Andrew and Edward always had the definitve as they
were born during their mothers reign).
I'm sorry but you're not correct. Chelsy would not get the definitive
article before her title as this is limited to children of the monarch
only (not their spouses).
When Charles becomes king Harry will be HRH The Prince Henry, his wife HRH
The Princess Henry.
Post by theunscot
And I never said that the children of the Duke of Edinburgh always had
the definitive article. I said that The DofE is an exception to the
'rule' - he was made HRH The Duke of Edinburgh in 1947 and in 1957 The
Queen made him a Prince and styled him THE Prince Philip, Duke of
Edinburgh. Thus he is (as far as I know) the only exception to the
'restriction' that the definitive article is only used for children of
a monarch.
My mistake
h***@hotmail.com
2007-08-21 17:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Charles von Hamm
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Charles von Hamm
With "Prince Harry" nothing but an informal name, or a nickname, surely
she'll be referred to incorrectly as "Princess Chelsy" as well (I, too,
would shudder). I can only hope for Princess Henry... Or a change of
Chelsy's name.
I don't see why this is a "surely" as you and others have stated. The Countess of
Wessex is not called Princess Sophie, the former duchess of York was not called
Princess Sarah, the Duchess of Cornwall is not called Princess Camilla.
The only
case where popular usage makes this error is with the late Diana, Princess of
Wales.
Had Sarah not been always married to a Duke? Has Sophie not always been
married to an Earl? Had it not been controversial for Camilla to be known as
princess anything? If Harry had always been referred to as Prince Henry of
Wales in the media, etc, I could definitely see references to Princess Henry
of Wales. But, unless he is given a dukedom, marquessate, etc prior to
marrying Chelsy (if he does), I can definitely foresee references to a
Prince Harry and a Princess Chelsy, as wrong as it may be.
Charles von Hamm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would not be wrong. HRH The Prince Henry of Wales; HRH The Princess
Chelsy of Wales.
If Harry is made a Duke: HRH The Duke of [Name}; HRH The Duchess of
[Name].
Breton- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Is it alright to refer to Dad as Prince Elizabeth ?
Members only
2007-08-19 22:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
Good on the boy, I am sure Chelsy will make a fine addition to the RF,
alongside Mark Phillips; Diana Spencer, Sarah Ferguson and Camilla
Parker-Bowles. YOu have to admit the RF have taste.

Members Only
Members only
2007-08-21 05:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by sionevar
Some of the Sunday tabloids are reporting that Prince Harry has proposed to
his girlfriend Chelsy Davis.
The article also claims that the engagement will not be made official until
Chelsy has completed her postgrad course and Harry has completed his
overseas service.
The papers in question are not exactly bastions of journalistic excellence,
but I wonder if Harry will end up walking down the aisle before his elder
brother...
What has Buck Palace said on the matter. Nothing ?

Members Only
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...