I think young Harry will get by just fine without a Dukedom. He's a handsome young chap, I'm sure there are women out there who would marry him even without the prospect of him becoming a Duke.
I believe that JohnLoony would also put him on his shortlist.
@Easterross I know it was announced that Prince Edward would get the Edinburgh title but the only way it can happen is through a fifth creation after it merges into the crown. When Prince Phillip dies Charles will accede to the title.
@TheScreamingEagles You are correct that this is a fourth creation but a recreated title always starts as 1. So Prince Phillip is 1st Duke of Edinburgh. When the title is recreated for Edward he will also be 1st Duke of Edinburgh.
The title of Duke of York is usually reserved for the second son of the monarch which will be slightly thorny if the present incumbent enjoys Windsor longevity with Prince Harry in the wings.
Sorry Harry you may have a long and futile wait .... Duke of Clarence ?!?
They haven't had much luck with Clarence's really. Sussex is a possibility or they could go really off piste with Kendal or a Scottish based one like Ross which have been used in the past in Royal circles. They could always invent a nice new one for him, but he needs to find himself a wife first.
They may go for the Prince Edward/Edinburgh route - Harry becomes Earl of Sussex and then Duke of York when Prince Andrew dies.
The problem comes again if Prince William has a second son !!
I think young Harry will get by just fine without a Dukedom. He's a handsome young chap, I'm sure there are women out there who would marry him even without the prospect of him becoming a Duke.
It would not be an original creation. Richard II made the earl of Oxford, Robert de Vere, Marquis of Dublin and Duke of Ireland, and even allowed royal writs in Ireland to run in the duke's name.
They haven't had much luck with Clarence's really. Sussex is a possibility or they could go really off piste with Kendal or a Scottish based one like Ross which have been used in the past in Royal circles. They could always invent a nice new one for him, but he needs to find himself a wife first.
I think Duke of Sussex is probable. That said, a person whose opinion on matters relating to the peerage I value greatly, suggests Duke of Cumberland. Whether that would be proper, however, given the provisions of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, is questionable.
No it would not because I believe successors to the title can apply for the deprivation to be rescinded.
There is a family issue using Clarence, Albany, Cumberland and several others which German members of the family ask to have restored from time to time.
Ross is traditionally an Earldom and given to the 2nd son of the monarch so many of us were surprised when Andrew was made Earl of Inverness and not Earl of Ross.
The other thing to remember is that it is possible to have the same title at different levels. We have both an Earldom and Dukedom of Sutherland. There is the Duke of Devonshire and the Earl of Devon. There are lots of English counties which do not have Ducal titles attached to them so the Monarch is not short of places to choose from. I cannot ever see Lancaster, Cornwall or Rothesay separated from the Monarch. Remember the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster not the Duchess of Lancaster.
@Easterross I know it was announced that Prince Edward would get the Edinburgh title but the only way it can happen is through a fifth creation after it merges into the crown. When Prince Phillip dies Charles will accede to the title.
@TheScreamingEagles You are correct that this is a fourth creation but a recreated title always starts as 1. So Prince Phillip is 1st Duke of Edinburgh. When the title is recreated for Edward he will also be 1st Duke of Edinburgh.
Unless a special shifting remainder is attached to the title. A possibility should the Queen and Duke want his creation to be maintained.
Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.
Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.
Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.
Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?
No. Four were commoners :
Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.
The other eight are royal :
Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh. Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn
Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.
Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.
Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.
Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.
Sorry Jim you are wrong. When Edward was granted his titles on marriage, the Queen decreed that Edinburgh would pass to Edward (as his father's favourite son). So the Earl of Wessex will become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.
Err, the current Duke of Edinburgh is the fourth incarnation of that title.
Easterross means second Duke of the 1947 creation.
I'm watching a show on Sky Atlantic, and they've shown that Bashar Al-Assad's iPod contains tracks such as I'm too sexy by Right Said Fred and Sexy and I Know It by LMFAO
Given my musical tastes, perhaps it's lucky I'm not Directly Elected Dictator of this country.
The title of Duke of York is usually reserved for the second son of the monarch which will be slightly thorny if the present incumbent enjoys Windsor longevity with Prince Harry in the wings.
Sorry Harry you may have a long and futile wait .... Duke of Clarence ?!?
They haven't had much luck with Clarence's really. Sussex is a possibility or they could go really off piste with Kendal or a Scottish based one like Ross which have been used in the past in Royal circles. They could always invent a nice new one for him, but he needs to find himself a wife first.
They may go for the Prince Edward/Edinburgh route - Harry becomes Earl of Sussex and then Duke of York when Prince Andrew dies.
The problem comes again if Prince William has a second son !!
York has only been associated with second sons of monarchs because so often they acceded to the throne and the title merged. I think they may just invent to be honest.
I'm watching a show on Sky Atlantic, and they've shown that Bashar Al-Assad's iPod contains tracks such as I'm too sexy by Right Said Fred and Sexy and I Know It by LMFAO
This is why you people like monarchy so much, isnt it? It's basically one long gossip to you.
Neil, the monarchy is the spine which holds the skeleton of this country together. Added to the fact that many of us include its members within our respective family trees makes their machinations even more interesting.
I'm watching a show on Sky Atlantic, and they've shown that Bashar Al-Assad's iPod contains tracks such as I'm too sexy by Right Said Fred and Sexy and I Know It by LMFAO
His musical taste is a bit gay.
Right Said Fred are on the show now, and reworked I'm too sexy for him.
"You're too awful for this earth, too awful it hurts"
There is a family issue using Clarence, Albany, Cumberland and several others which German members of the family ask to have restored from time to time.
Ross is traditionally an Earldom and given to the 2nd son of the monarch so many of us were surprised when Andrew was made Earl of Inverness and not Earl of Ross.
The other thing to remember is that it is possible to have the same title at different levels. We have both an Earldom and Dukedom of Sutherland. There is the Duke of Devonshire and the Earl of Devon. There are lots of English counties which do not have Ducal titles attached to them so the Monarch is not short of places to choose from. I cannot ever see Lancaster, Cornwall or Rothesay separated from the Monarch. Remember the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster not the Duchess of Lancaster.
It would not be seen as proper to create a title with the same territorial designation for a new person, it would be more usual to make the Earl of X the Duke of X. I'm sure they'll find a mechanism.
No it would not because I believe successors to the title can apply for the deprivation to be rescinded.
That is the apparent effect of s. 2 of the Act of 1917. However, section 3(2) provides that '[t]he powers conferred upon His Majesty by this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers of His Majesty.' It is an undoubted prerogative of the crown to create hereditary peerages. The dukedom of Cumberland is forfeit to the crown and thus vacant, and where a dukedom is vacant, it has always been an undoubted prerogative of the crown to grant another the title. In those circumstances, the argument is, that the crown may raise a person to the dignity of the said dukedom, notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of the Act of 1917.
@Easterross I know it was announced that Prince Edward would get the Edinburgh title but the only way it can happen is through a fifth creation after it merges into the crown. When Prince Phillip dies Charles will accede to the title.
@TheScreamingEagles You are correct that this is a fourth creation but a recreated title always starts as 1. So Prince Phillip is 1st Duke of Edinburgh. When the title is recreated for Edward he will also be 1st Duke of Edinburgh.
Unless a special shifting remainder is attached to the title. A possibility should the Queen and Duke want his creation to be maintained.
My understanding is that the existing Letters Patent in favour of today's birthday boy have been amended to include Edward's succession so he will be 2nd Duke of the 4th creation. If it relies on a 5th creation, Charles could in theory change the position established by his mother. However maybe we have within the membership of PB one of the Heralds who will know for sure.
I quite agree with N Palmer over no. 18. That's plain bullying by the government.
It was only a few weeks ago that the government was terrorising us all over Russian hackers who would empty our bank accounts via our computers and now they want to insist that the elderly must be put at risk of fraud or lose the services to which they are entitled and for which they have paid.
As a professional investigator I know more than enough about the vulnerabilities of the online world to be very wary indeed about depending on it for stuff that matters. To force people into it is rank stupidity by the government.
This is why you people like monarchy so much, isnt it? It's basically one long gossip to you.
The public would gladly take an oath of allegiance to the crown. Who in their right mind would take an oath to Blair, to Cameron, or to some specious document a politician had managed to persuade Parliament to approve?
Too much misuse, we are slightly partisan, only slightly mind?
Hm, true. I guess it could make posters of less-popular political persuasions feel a bit unloved (since they wouldn't get liked). Maybe it is better the way it is.
Too much misuse, we are slightly partisan, only slightly mind?
Hm, true. I guess it could make posters of less-popular political persuasions feel a bit unloved (since they wouldn't get liked). Maybe it is better the way it is.
What we really need is a "that's the most stupid thing ever written on the internet, you deserve to be buggered senseless by a honey badger" button.
This is why you people like monarchy so much, isnt it? It's basically one long gossip to you.
The public would gladly take an oath of allegiance to the crown. Who in their right mind would take an oath to Blair, to Cameron, or to some specious document a politician had managed to persuade Parliament to approve?
Why do you feel the need to take an oath of allegiance to a person at all?
I cannot see the Crown granting a new creation of the Duchy of Cumberland unless there is a YES vote on 18th September. The most infamous holder of the title remains a dirty name in Scotland after almost 300 years. Just ask Jack W. Even the Sweet William flower is referred to as the Stinking Billy in Scotland.
@Easterross I know it was announced that Prince Edward would get the Edinburgh title but the only way it can happen is through a fifth creation after it merges into the crown. When Prince Phillip dies Charles will accede to the title.
@TheScreamingEagles You are correct that this is a fourth creation but a recreated title always starts as 1. So Prince Phillip is 1st Duke of Edinburgh. When the title is recreated for Edward he will also be 1st Duke of Edinburgh.
Unless a special shifting remainder is attached to the title. A possibility should the Queen and Duke want his creation to be maintained.
My understanding is that the existing Letters Patent in favour of today's birthday boy have been amended to include Edward's succession so he will be 2nd Duke of the 4th creation. If it relies on a 5th creation, Charles could in theory change the position established by his mother. However maybe we have within the membership of PB one of the Heralds who will know for sure.
Times like these I rue the loss of the like button. TSE, can you sort this out?
I shall speak to the powers that be.
How quickly we forget the reasons we got rid in the first place! (Though I suppose neither of the main protagonists post here much these days.)
Back in the early days, I recall the like button wasn't actually used that much. Then there was a bit of an arms race with one of the other (less favourable) buttons.
@Easterross I know it was announced that Prince Edward would get the Edinburgh title but the only way it can happen is through a fifth creation after it merges into the crown. When Prince Phillip dies Charles will accede to the title.
@TheScreamingEagles You are correct that this is a fourth creation but a recreated title always starts as 1. So Prince Phillip is 1st Duke of Edinburgh. When the title is recreated for Edward he will also be 1st Duke of Edinburgh.
Unless a special shifting remainder is attached to the title. A possibility should the Queen and Duke want his creation to be maintained.
My understanding is that the existing Letters Patent in favour of today's birthday boy have been amended to include Edward's succession so he will be 2nd Duke of the 4th creation. If it relies on a 5th creation, Charles could in theory change the position established by his mother. However maybe we have within the membership of PB one of the Heralds who will know for sure.
No the letters patent are untouched, so the choreography as it stand is that if the DoE predeceases HM then Charles inherits Edinburgh and upon his accession can recreate for his brother. If HM predeceases DoE then the title merges straight into the crown and can be recreated. I believe there is a presumption against amending Letters Patent you didn't draw up hence why the Edinburgh remainder is unchanged.
Why do you feel the need to take an oath of allegiance to a person at all?
That was why I included 'some specious document a politician had managed to persuade Parliament to approve', otherwise known as a 'written constitution'...
Too much misuse, we are slightly partisan, only slightly mind?
Hm, true. I guess it could make posters of less-popular political persuasions feel a bit unloved (since they wouldn't get liked). Maybe it is better the way it is.
What we really need is a "that's the most stupid thing ever written on the internet, you deserve to be buggered senseless by a honey badger" button.
Too much misuse, we are slightly partisan, only slightly mind?
Hm, true. I guess it could make posters of less-popular political persuasions feel a bit unloved (since they wouldn't get liked). Maybe it is better the way it is.
What we really need is a "that's the most stupid thing ever written on the internet, you deserve to be buggered senseless by a honey badger" button.
TSE it is probably a comment like that which got you 111 approvals. I remember many happy late evenings around 5 or 6 years ago reading as you narrated stories of your many and incredibly varied sexual exploits. Some would have even made Sean T blush
Times like these I rue the loss of the like button. TSE, can you sort this out?
I shall speak to the powers that be.
How quickly we forget the reasons we got rid in the first place! (Though I suppose neither of the main protagonists post here much these days.)
Back in the early days, I recall the like button wasn't actually used that much. Then there was a bit of an arms race with one of the other (less favourable) buttons.
The increasingly hysterical posts from a poster insisting that she really didnt care about being trolled through the like button were enough to convince me that getting rid of it was the right call.
Times like these I rue the loss of the like button. TSE, can you sort this out?
I shall speak to the powers that be.
How quickly we forget the reasons we got rid in the first place! (Though I suppose neither of the main protagonists post here much these days.)
Back in the early days, I recall the like button wasn't actually used that much. Then there was a bit of an arms race with one of the other (less favourable) buttons.
The increasingly hysterical posts from a poster insisting that she really didnt care about being trolled through the like button were enough to convince me that getting rid of it was the right call.
People are weird, and I tend to ignore them (except from when they give me internet points). :')
The like button was a useful way to order the thread to catch up, at least for the first PB disqus incarnation. Amongst the backslapping it would highlight the interesting bits of the thread.
Times like these I rue the loss of the like button. TSE, can you sort this out?
I shall speak to the powers that be.
How quickly we forget the reasons we got rid in the first place! (Though I suppose neither of the main protagonists post here much these days.)
Back in the early days, I recall the like button wasn't actually used that much. Then there was a bit of an arms race with one of the other (less favourable) buttons.
The increasingly hysterical posts from a poster insisting that she really didnt care about being trolled through the like button were enough to convince me that getting rid of it was the right call.
If you are confused by titles Rod, try understanding the succession to Scottish Clan Chiefships. A total nightmare. 2 brothers, cousins of David Cameron are each chief of a clan. The elder Merlin is Chief of Clan Hay because his mother was and her title was senior to their father's baronetcy. The younger is Chief of Clan Moncrieffe having succeeded his father. Numerous other clan chiefs have had to drop or change their surnames in order to inherit, usually from a grandmother.
So, if we were to add the following buttons, would that be acceptable?
"Like", "Agree", "Disagree" and "WTF"
Agree and disagree sound quite civilised, and could be used for political discussions. Like could be for funny/witty comments etc, and WTF could be the aforementioned "honey badger" button.
Too much misuse, we are slightly partisan, only slightly mind?
Hm, true. I guess it could make posters of less-popular political persuasions feel a bit unloved (since they wouldn't get liked). Maybe it is better the way it is.
What we really need is a "that's the most stupid thing ever written on the internet, you deserve to be buggered senseless by a honey badger" button.
Too much misuse, we are slightly partisan, only slightly mind?
Hm, true. I guess it could make posters of less-popular political persuasions feel a bit unloved (since they wouldn't get liked). Maybe it is better the way it is.
What we really need is a "that's the most stupid thing ever written on the internet, you deserve to be buggered senseless by a honey badger" button.
TSE it is probably a comment like that which got you 111 approvals. I remember many happy late evenings around 5 or 6 years ago reading as you narrated stories of your many and incredibly varied sexual exploits. Some would have even made Sean T blush
It was that honey badger comment.
When someone suggested Dave might have to resign because his ratings went down one day, after a perceived faux-pas (Shopping in Morrisons, I think), I was like the fieldwork was 4 days before that.
@Richard_Nabavi (if you're still around): What's your take on this preposterous attempt by the government to force "British values" down the throats of children?
May I say as someone not of the Tory tribe,how much democratic politics benefits by Tory women,like Anna Soubry and Sarah Woolaston,2 intelligent people who are prepared "to say what they mean and mean what they say" by their deeds and not just their words.Both should go far.Then again,this is the Tory party.
May I say as someone not of the Tory tribe,how much democratic politics benefits by Tory women,like Anna Soubry and Sarah Woolaston,2 intelligent people who are prepared "to say what they mean and mean what they say" by their deeds and not just their words.Both should go far.Then again,this is the Tory party.
Referring to the thread header and the topic of badges, maybe we should have one called "Violator" for people who accuse ICM of push polling of mention Jim'll fix it
Referring to the thread header and the topic of badges, maybe we should have one called "Violator" for people who accuse ICM of push polling of mention Jim'll fix it
But that would malign the name of Depeche Mode's best ever album!
May I say as someone not of the Tory tribe,how much democratic politics benefits by Tory women,like Anna Soubry and Sarah Woolaston,2 intelligent people who are prepared "to say what they mean and mean what they say" by their deeds and not just their words.Both should go far.Then again,this is the Tory party.
Erm only one party has ever had a woman leader.
The Green party has had two! No men yet though but they're generally useless anyway.
A TNS poll, published today, shows that overall support for independence dipped slightly at the end of last month by one point to 34 per cent among those certain to vote, with support for the Union remaining at 44 per cent compared with the previous month.
May I say as someone not of the Tory tribe,how much democratic politics benefits by Tory women,like Anna Soubry and Sarah Woolaston,2 intelligent people who are prepared "to say what they mean and mean what they say" by their deeds and not just their words.Both should go far.Then again,this is the Tory party.
Erm only one party has ever had a woman leader.
The Green party has had two! No men yet though but they're generally useless anyway.
I think Jim was referring to serious political parties, Neil!
May I say as someone not of the Tory tribe,how much democratic politics benefits by Tory women,like Anna Soubry and Sarah Woolaston,2 intelligent people who are prepared "to say what they mean and mean what they say" by their deeds and not just their words.Both should go far.Then again,this is the Tory party.
Erm only one party has ever had a woman leader.
By the technical rules of the Labour party Margaret Becket was fully their leader.
(but I think volcanopete might have been suggesting the Tory party isn't currently a fan of plain-speaking and bluntness).
May I say as someone not of the Tory tribe,how much democratic politics benefits by Tory women,like Anna Soubry and Sarah Woolaston,2 intelligent people who are prepared "to say what they mean and mean what they say" by their deeds and not just their words.Both should go far.Then again,this is the Tory party.
Erm only one party has ever had a woman leader.
The Green party has had two! No men yet though but they're generally useless anyway.
I think Jim was referring to serious political parties, Neil!
I can assure you there is very little laughter involved, Sunil.
May I say as someone not of the Tory tribe,how much democratic politics benefits by Tory women,like Anna Soubry and Sarah Woolaston,2 intelligent people who are prepared "to say what they mean and mean what they say" by their deeds and not just their words.Both should go far.Then again,this is the Tory party.
Erm only one party has ever had a woman leader.
By the technical rules of the Labour party Margaret Becket was fully their leader.
(but I think volcanopete might have been suggesting the Tory party isn't currently a fan of plain-speaking and bluntness).
Yebbut only for two months - May to July 1994. Like IDS, she never led a party into a GE.
Comments
I know it was announced that Prince Edward would get the Edinburgh title but the only way it can happen is through a fifth creation after it merges into the crown. When Prince Phillip dies Charles will accede to the title.
@TheScreamingEagles
You are correct that this is a fourth creation but a recreated title always starts as 1. So Prince Phillip is 1st Duke of Edinburgh. When the title is recreated for Edward he will also be 1st Duke of Edinburgh.
The problem comes again if Prince William has a second son !!
Are you a Levenson Gower, or one of those that watches the old Duke on the hill? How is the old" Chooks" nose?
Ross is traditionally an Earldom and given to the 2nd son of the monarch so many of us were surprised when Andrew was made Earl of Inverness and not Earl of Ross.
The other thing to remember is that it is possible to have the same title at different levels. We have both an Earldom and Dukedom of Sutherland. There is the Duke of Devonshire and the Earl of Devon. There are lots of English counties which do not have Ducal titles attached to them so the Monarch is not short of places to choose from. I cannot ever see Lancaster, Cornwall or Rothesay separated from the Monarch. Remember the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster not the Duchess of Lancaster.
Given my musical tastes, perhaps it's lucky I'm not Directly Elected Dictator of this country.
@ProfTomkins: Extremely disturbing if true: "Smear campaign against @UK_Together supporter Clare Lally orchestrated by FM's office http://t.co/5x1FTu719O”
"You're too awful for this earth, too awful it hurts"
Plus are Right Said Fred a bit gay?
I'm a fan and not gay.
+10 :-)
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/10/Cameron-bottles-it-doesn-t-even-mention-Juncker-at-meeting-of-top-EU-politicians?utm_content=buffer2185f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
He's such an easy man to read. No content whatsoever; an empty soul!
Where will it all end!
Too much misuse, we are slightly partisan, only slightly mind?
It was only a few weeks ago that the government was terrorising us all over Russian hackers who would empty our bank accounts via our computers and now they want to insist that the elderly must be put at risk of fraud or lose the services to which they are entitled and for which they have paid.
As a professional investigator I know more than enough about the vulnerabilities of the online world to be very wary indeed about depending on it for stuff that matters. To force people into it is rank stupidity by the government.
Admit, you lot want her as your Queen.
Irish people love Brit Queens called Elizabeth, Number I was popular in Ireland, wasn't she?
unless you consider the "dislikes" as a badge of honour?
(double points if someone requests you get barred)
....................................................................
And with that time for a little Caledonian shut eye.
Good night fair PBers .....
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Earl of Derby was from Liverpool, but the Earl of Liverpool had no connection with the city...
"Titles are confusing."
Not really. it is advanced networking with added willy waving.
How many of those clan chiefs know the real meaning of clan and chief?
So, if we were to add the following buttons, would that be acceptable?
"Like", "Agree", "Disagree" "LOL" and "WTF"
No PMSL button then?
But as pointed out, they could all be mis-used.
WTF? You have seen how childish we get on here at times?
That's Lots of Love isn't it? I remember someone telling me
:')
I like these new innovations.
When someone suggested Dave might have to resign because his ratings went down one day, after a perceived faux-pas (Shopping in Morrisons, I think), I was like the fieldwork was 4 days before that.
Incontinent might be useful?
Will TSE be allowed to wear leopard kitten heels?
What's your take on this preposterous attempt by the government to force "British values" down the throats of children?
A TNS poll, published today, shows that overall support for independence dipped slightly at the end of last month by one point to 34 per cent among those certain to vote, with support for the Union remaining at 44 per cent compared with the previous month.
(but I think volcanopete might have been suggesting the Tory party isn't currently a fan of plain-speaking and bluntness).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27783326
Time for her to call "mayday"?