Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[louisa05]

18 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

British Peerages don’t work like that except in a very very specific and rare cases.Unless massive and historic changes are made Female Royals and Nobles wont inherit or pass on titles. In 20 years if the monarchy is still around maybe it will change for the younger girls but the likes of Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, Etc  are shut out. 

 

You misunderstood. Someone speculated that it could or should be changed to be inherited by a female heir and then said the Duchy of York could go to Bea then to Charlotte on her passing. I was pointing out that if the Duchy was changed to be inherited by a female, it would not pass from Bea to her second cousin, rather it would pass to her daughter. 
 

There are peerages that can be/have been inherited by females. It’s not unheard of. In the case of the Duchy of York, when given to Andrew, it was with Letters Patent that make it inheritable only to a male descendant. 
 

Article  about females inheriting: http://www.regencyresearcher.com/pages/femalepeer.html

Edited May 17, 2022 by louisa05

[tabitha2]

Yes, it does happen but it’s rare that a Royal peerage is inherited by a female and I just can’t  see them going through the whole procedure for someone who has never been or will be a working Royal. I don’t think Royal family or government  want bring anymore attention to Andrew related matters  than absolutely required either. 

[louisa05]

17 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Yes, it does happen but it’s rare that a Royal peerage is inherited by a female and I just can’t  see them going through the whole procedure for someone who has never been or will be a working Royal. I don’t think Royal family or government  want bring anymore attention to Andrew related matters  than absolutely required either. 

I didn’t say it was going to. Just corrected the notion that anything would bypass a child to go to a cousin. 

[tabitha2]

You’re  right my bad.. I forgot about Sienna

[EmCatlyn]

23 hours ago, louisa05 said:

If it could be inherited by a female, though, it would go from Beatrice to Sienna. 

I am not sure that they can’t / won’t change this so it can go to the second child of the king, who one day would be Charlotte.  This is a royal dukedom.  When Elizabeth was young, and it was clear she was the heir, it was discussed whether she might not be made Princess of Wales in her own right.  It was decided against it for several reasons, not the least of which was that it wasn’t worth the bother since it is pretty rare that a King has no sons.

Now the rules have changed and a daughter may inherit so they may change that and the York title as well.

I am not saying they will, but I am saying they might change all the titles that the crown holds so that they can be assigned to women as well as men.  Remember that these titles cannot pass from father to son because they are held by the monarch who only assigns them to his children (or grandchildren) for the duration of their lives.  

[louisa05]

17 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I am not sure that they can’t / won’t change this so it can go to the second child of the king, who one day would be Charlotte.  This is a royal dukedom.  When Elizabeth was young, and it was clear she was the heir, it was discussed whether she might not be made Princess of Wales in her own right.  It was decided against it for several reasons, not the least of which was that it wasn’t worth the bother since it is pretty rare that a King has no sons.

Now the rules have changed and a daughter may inherit so they may change that and the York title as well.

I am not saying they will, but I am saying they might change all the titles that the crown holds so that they can be assigned to women as well as men.  Remember that these titles cannot pass from father to son because they are held by the monarch who only assigns them to his children (or grandchildren) for the duration of their lives.  

No. The Letters Patent in 1986 which gave the title to Andrew allowed it to be inherited by a male child. It will not be because he had no son. The Duchy of York has at times in its history been handed down through succeeding generations. A surprising number of second sons given the title, however, have become King which meant the title merged with the Crown. That was the case for Prince Albert, the last Duke of York prior to Andrew, who became George VI. Had his brother not abdicated, though, the title would have been vacant on his death due to his only having daughters and would have thus reverted to the Crown for future use anyway. 

This Wiki has a rundown of the prior Dukes of York and when and how the title returned to the Crown in each case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York

Duchies are always inheritable. William's title as Duke of Cambridge will end up merging with the Crown when George inherits it and becomes King. Charles currently holds the title Duke of Edinburgh. It will merge with the Crown on his accession and at that time he may give it to someone else (presumably his brother Edward and then it would be passed to James). Archie will become Duke of Sussex on Harry's death. 

[EmCatlyn]

22 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

British Peerages don’t work like that except in a very very specific and rare cases.Unless massive and historic changes are made Female Royals and Nobles wont inherit or pass on titles. In 20 years if the monarchy is still around maybe it will change for the younger girls but the likes of Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, Etc  are shut out. 

 

I agree about regular British peerages, but the royal ones are different.  It is a fact that the Crown acquired the Duchy of York through the female line. (Henry VII, who claimed to be Lancaster, married  Elizabeth of York.)  It may well be much easier to recast these titles as titles that can be assigned to women as well as men — just as women can now be knighted and be given (new) peerages in their own right.

It is the old hereditary peerages which will find it difficult to incorporate female primogeniture because most of them are full of language like “male heirs of the body.”   I am not sure that is true of the peerages held by the crown.

 

4 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

No. The Letters Patent in 1986 which gave the title to Andrew allowed it to be inherited by a male child. It will not be because he had no son. The Duchy of York has at times in its history been handed down through succeeding generations. A surprising number of second sons given the title, however, have become King which meant the title merged with the Crown. That was the case for Prince Albert, the last Duke of York prior to Andrew, who became George VI. Had his brother not abdicated, though, the title would have been vacant on his death due to his only having daughters and would have thus reverted to the Crown for future use anyway. 

This Wiki has a rundown of the prior Dukes of York and when and how the title returned to the Crown in each case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York

Duchies are always inheritable. William's title as Duke of Cambridge will end up merging with the Crown when George inherits it and becomes King. Charles currently holds the title Duke of Edinburgh. It will merge with the Crown on his accession and at that time he may give it to someone else (presumably his brother Edward and then it would be passed to James). Archie will become Duke of Sussex on Harry's death. 

You may have that right.  My understanding was that most of those titles reverted to the crown, but I certainly hadn’t researched it.  I assumed “Duke of York” was like Princess Royal.   It is a fact that the title came to the crown through the female line, though. 

[louisa05]

10 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree about regular British peerages, but the royal ones are different.  It is a fact that the Crown acquired the Duchy of York through the female line. (Henry VII, who claimed to be Lancaster, married  Elizabeth of York.)  It may well be much easier to recast these titles as titles that can be assigned to women as well as men — just as women can now be knighted and be given (new) peerages in their own right.

It is the old hereditary peerages which will find it difficult to incorporate female primogeniture because most of them are full of language like “male heirs of the body.”   I am not sure that is true of the peerages held by the crown.

 

You may have that right.  My understanding was that most of those titles reverted to the crown, but I certainly hadn’t researched it.  I assumed “Duke of York” was like Princess Royal.   It is a fact that the title came to the crown through the female line, though. 

They revert to the Crown if they are vacant due to no heir or they merge with the Crown if the holder becomes king. If the holder has male heirs and does not become king, then they are passed down. 

[EmCatlyn]

22 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

They revert to the Crown if they are vacant due to no heir or they merge with the Crown if the holder becomes king. If the holder has male heirs and does not become king, then they are passed down. 

I had not known this about the Duke of York title. (As I said, I thought it was like Princess Royal.)  I knew that other titles that the Crown held could be assigned to pass on to heirs.

However, my original point may still hold in that what I was trying to say was that just as the inheritance of the Crown has dispensed with male primogeniture, it would seem possible that starting in the next generation, any peerages that the Crown bestows in the future could be passed to a daughter if the Letters Patent were written that way.

So imagine Andrew dies.  William is king.  Would he automatically give the York title to Louis or would he give it to Charlotte and give Louis another title?

Theoretically, because the title has to be “revived” in a sense, I think the inheritance rules can be redefined.   But I may be wrong.

Edited May 18, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Fix

[louisa05]

13 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I had not known this about the Duke of York title. (As I said, I thought it was like Princess Royal.)  I knew that other titles that the Crown held could be assigned to pass on to heirs.

However, my original point may still hold in that what I was trying to say was that just as the inheritance of the Crown has dispensed with male primogeniture, it would seem possible that starting in the next generation, any peerages that the Crown bestows in the future could be passed to a daughter if the Letters Patent were written that way.

So imagine Andrew dies.  William is king.  Would he automatically give the York title to Louis or would he give it to Charlotte and give Louis another title?

Theoretically, because the title has to be “revived” in a sense, I think the inheritance rules can be redefined.   But I may be wrong.

I think they could be changed with Letters Patent for those titles controlled by the Crown. 
 

As someone else said, that’s not the case with non-royal peerages. 

[EmCatlyn]

15 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I think they could be changed with Letters Patent for those titles controlled by the Crown. 
 

As someone else said, that’s not the case with non-royal peerages. 

I think I may be the one that said it about the non-royal peerages. 😉

 

[Topaz]

Once a title has become extinct or merged with the crown, any new creation is just that - new. If they are created again it’s completely separate. The traditionally royal titles get reused a lot but it’s a brand new title each time and can be created with new rules. It’s like having some traditional family names. Elizabeth II is named after her mother but they aren’t the same person. 
 

Changing existing titles is a much thornier issue and I doubt it will happen since it’s a very niche issue to spend parliamentary time on. Even if it passed straight through the Commons in some other bill, there are still 90-something hereditary peers in the Lords and they would certainly have something to say about it.

[LilaMae]

3 hours ago, Topaz said:

Once a title has become extinct or merged with the crown, any new creation is just that - new. If they are created again it’s completely separate. The traditionally royal titles get reused a lot but it’s a brand new title each time and can be created with new rules. It’s like having some traditional family names. Elizabeth II is named after her mother but they aren’t the same person. 
 

Changing existing titles is a much thornier issue and I doubt it will happen since it’s a very niche issue to spend parliamentary time on. Even if it passed straight through the Commons in some other bill, there are still 90-something hereditary peers in the Lords and they would certainly have something to say about it.

There was an interesting story about females inheriting (or in most cases, not inheriting) peerages in the Atlantic a while ago:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/11/feminist-aristocrats-who-want-daughters-rights/617067/

While I can't say I'm massively into people having titles anyway, I can see the argument that if they do exist, women and girls need to have equal rights of inheritance. Personally, I also wonder whether the long-awaited male heirs are treated a lot better than their lowly sisters and what that sense of entitlement means in a country that is so overwhelmingly ruled by the aristocrats and upper classes.

[louisa05]

3 hours ago, LilaMae said:

There was an interesting story about females inheriting (or in most cases, not inheriting) peerages in the Atlantic a while ago:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/11/feminist-aristocrats-who-want-daughters-rights/617067/

While I can't say I'm massively into people having titles anyway, I can see the argument that if they do exist, women and girls need to have equal rights of inheritance. Personally, I also wonder whether the long-awaited male heirs are treated a lot better than their lowly sisters and what that sense of entitlement means in a country that is so overwhelmingly ruled by the aristocrats and upper classes.

Diana was the third girl and, as such, a disappointment at her birth. It is clear that she was well aware of that fact for most of her life. 

[FluffySnowball]

56 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Diana was the third girl and, as such, a disappointment at her birth. It is clear that she was well aware of that fact for most of her life. 

These families and systems are disgusting. How horrible... 

[louisa05]

18 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

These families and systems are disgusting. How horrible... 

Well, her parents were a million kinds of dysfunctional and I’m guessing would have been regardless  

 

[FluffySnowball]

1 minute ago, louisa05 said:

Well, her parents were a million kinds of dysfunctional and I’m guessing would have been regardless  

 

Yeah, I heard rumours about them. Still, to create a system that disadvantages girls and keep holding on to it in this day and age is disgusting in my opinion. As much as I can understand the appeal of tradition and fancy public events, I couldn't get behind a monarchy. 

[EmCatlyn]

Have we discussed Meghan and Harry’s “At Home” docuseries ?

Although it is not known if the children will appear, the cameras have been filming in Montecito.  It is also believed that the material shot in NYC some months ago and possibly some footage of their brief UK visit may be included.

[prayawaythefundie]

If this is true, they really must be desperate. 

Edited May 21, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[LilaMae]

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Have we discussed Meghan and Harry’s “At Home” docuseries ?

Although it is not known if the children will appear, the cameras have been filming in Montecito.  It is also believed that the material shot in NYC some months ago and possibly some footage of their brief UK visit may be included.

It would make sense if they were doing a docuseries because of the cameras following them in New York but I can't imagine Harry and Meghan allowing cameras to actually see everything about their lives. They've both spoken about hating cameras and the intrusion of the press, how are they suited to doing this?

[viii]

I doubt we will see very much inside their house and I doubt we will see the kids. 

[louisa05]

8 hours ago, LilaMae said:

It would make sense if they were doing a docuseries because of the cameras following them in New York but I can't imagine Harry and Meghan allowing cameras to actually see everything about their lives. They've both spoken about hating cameras and the intrusion of the press, how are they suited to doing this?

MM lives for the cameras. And I suspect H has exaggerated his aversion quite a lot considering how often he happily seeks them out. 
As far as this series, they will do what Netflix wants as they need the money and they need to deliver content to keep that contract. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 5/21/2022 at 11:52 AM, louisa05 said:

MM lives for the cameras. And I suspect H has exaggerated his aversion quite a lot considering how often he happily seeks them out. 
As far as this series, they will do what Netflix wants as they need the money and they need to deliver content to keep that contract. 

My take on it is that they are okay with the cameras if they can control/dictate the way they are presented.   Harry is definitely following Diana’s footsteps in that he hates the paparazzi but has no problem being interviewed or being followed by cameras with his permission. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 5/21/2022 at 2:56 AM, LilaMae said:

It would make sense if they were doing a docuseries because of the cameras following them in New York but I can't imagine Harry and Meghan allowing cameras to actually see everything about their lives. They've both spoken about hating cameras and the intrusion of the press, how are they suited to doing this?

According to Page Six, “The cameras have been allowed behind the scenes at their home in Montecito, Calif., and joined the Sussexes on their trip to NYC last September, ” (see link above).  The article further quoted a “highly placed Hollywood Insider” saying “I think it’s fair to say that Netflix is getting its pound of flesh.”

It is hard to know what will be shown, but I would guess some of the public rooms with a sight of Meghan doing her work for the world (whatever it is)  in her office and Harry reading aloud to the kids and maybe all four of them fixing dinner.  We will have to wait and see.

[viii]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

My take on it is that they are okay with the cameras if they can control/dictate the way they are presented.   Harry is definitely following Diana’s footsteps in that he hates the paparazzi but has no problem being interviewed or being followed by cameras with his permission. 

Which is completely fair. It blows my mind that some people can't understand the difference.