The Duchess of Cambridge

General Heraldry subjects
Jonathan Webster
Posts: 304
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 21:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Jonathan Webster » 29 Dec 2012, 13:08

GJKS wrote:
Jonathan Webster wrote:... rather than her son who would quarter them 2 and 4 with the arms of his father 1 and 3.

Surely that should read, respectively, '2 & 3' and '1 & 4'?


Yes, yes it should. :)

Jonathan Webster
Posts: 304
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 21:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Jonathan Webster » 10 Jan 2013, 10:14

Interestingly enough; it's just been announced that (via Letters Patent dated 31st December 2012), that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales; irrespective of gender, will be titled Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom. This supersedes the former rules (where only the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' eldest son was entitled to this designation.), and basically means the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (if female) will not be denied the title of Princess that a first-born brother would have been entitled to from birth.

I'm all for this, but wouldn't it be slightly ironic (given the current changes that are going through regarding the changes to the Royal succession, which by the way I'm also in favour of) if the baby pops out and it's a boy? :D

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Chris Green » 22 Jan 2013, 05:28

Here's the latest from the BBC on the royal succession:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21119034
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
steven harris
Posts: 170
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 12:22
Location: Pomfret, Connecticut

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby steven harris » 22 Jan 2013, 14:23

Chris Green wrote:Here's the latest from the BBC on the royal succession:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21119034

The article states that:
"The Succession To The Crown Bill will also remove a requirement for descendants of George II to seek permission to marry from the monarch, dating back to 1772, replacing it with a requirement for the first six people in the succession to seek the sovereign's consent."

It seems rather arbitrary to choose “the first six” in the line to have their bonds be subject to the crown. Why not just those who are HRH? That seems a bit more logical.
Steven A. Harris, Fellow
IAAH member since February 2008
https://goo.gl/btEhVg

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Chris Green » 22 Jan 2013, 15:30

Why not just those who are HRH? That seems a bit more logical.


I imagine because it is in the monarch's prerogative to say who shall or shall not be accorded the title HRH rather than Parliament's. He/she could, at least in theory, make the top 50 or more in line of succession HRH. If the new Act of Succession says 6, then it wouldn't matter whether those 6 were HRHs or plain Mr/Mrs/Miss.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 22 Jan 2013, 16:36

top six seems arbitrary, Of course I don't think the framers think that most of the current persons on the list will die without descendants.

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 613
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby JMcMillan » 22 Jan 2013, 16:46

The point is to prevent inappropriate marriages by people who are reasonably likely to succeed to the throne. There are a great many HRHs who aren't, and whose lives need no longer be encumbered by this requirement. Right now, the next six are HRH the Prince of Wales, HRH the Duke of Cambridge, HRH Prince Henry of Wales, HRH the Duke of York, HRH Princess Beatrice of York, and HRH Princess Eugenie of York.

HRHs whose marriages would no longer be controlled under the revised law: the Earl of Wessex (7th in line), the Princess Royal (10th), the Duke of Gloucester (21st), the Duke of Kent (30th), Prince Michael of Kent (nowhere in the line, having married a Catholic), and Princess Alexandra (41st). Not that any of these are particularly likely to marry again anyway, but it illustrates how remote from the throne existing HRHs are likely to become over time. For example, once the Cambridge's baby is born, Eugenie will be free of the requirement for royal permission to marry. Which makes sense, given how unlikely it is that she will ever be queen.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 23 Jan 2013, 13:06

But why 6? Is 6th much more likely to become monarch than 7th?

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby Chris Green » 23 Jan 2013, 15:02

But why 6? Is 6th much more likely to become monarch than 7th?


Statistically there isn't much in it. But legislation needs to be as precise as possible to avoid argument (and lawyers' fees) later.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
steven harris
Posts: 170
Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 12:22
Location: Pomfret, Connecticut

Re: The Duchess of Cambridge

Postby steven harris » 23 Jan 2013, 15:55

Is the prohibition against only marring/becoming a Catholic? What if a member in the line married or became a Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim - would that likewise disqualify them?
Steven A. Harris, Fellow
IAAH member since February 2008
https://goo.gl/btEhVg


Return to “General Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests