Does the 1917 letters patent need updating (Not Harry related)

[LadyOfACertainAge]

As we’ve now updated the order of succession to remove male preference does it makes sense that only the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line are princes/princesses?

Surely it should be all grandchildren or even even just the children of the eldest child? Else we could be in a position where Charlotte’s children are not automatically entitled but Louis’ children are.

It different to Princess Anne as Peter was behind his three uncles when born and likely to keep dropping back as at least one of them would have children. If Charlotte has children before George they would be 3rd in line.

They are described as hangers on because they get a nice lifestyle due to being minor Royals. It is like Pippa and her husband being "working" Royals.

Well no it isn't! Cos Pippa is only an in-law!

I didn't mean "hangers on" in that sense as they have worked harder than the younger generation.

I really meant as grandchildren of the Monarch, but not in the direct line of succession going forward we should not title them Prince/ss.

(I meant hanging on as they are really old 😊)

I think it's wrong to remove current titles (as the Danes have just done) btw

When ER II became Queen, the Duke of Gloucester was 4th in line to the throne and a counsellor of state.

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, Novella, but we currently living in a world where getting what someone should be called wrong could be criminal conduct.. So this, to be honest, is hardly a big deal.

@gingercat02 Pippa is the sister of a future Queen who has married into the Royal Family.

The Duke of Gloucester married into the Royal Family. He married the first cousin of Queen Elizabeth. He is more distantly related to the Royal Family than Pippa is. Pippa will become equivalent to one of Philips siblings.

The Duke of Gloucester is a very minor Royal. That is why some see them as hangers on.

@CanOfPop The Duke of Gloucester was actually the oldest son of a younger brother of Edward VIII and George VI. His grandfather was George V. He was first cousin to QEII. He has been a senior working royal for his entire adult life. I appreciate he’s old now, and so due to ageism is taken as having little value, but the least you could do is actually find something out about the person you’re dismissing there!

The Duke of Gloucester did not "marry in"

The first Duke was the son of George V, the current Duke is his son (and cousin to the Queen) and is the last of the royals in that line (his DC have the titles of the dukedom, but no royal ones)

The women who married the Queen's cousins have the titles that go with their husband's (the Duchesses and Princess Michael) The husband of Princess Alexandra (the only DD in the two families) has no title and nor do her DC

(Sorry, correction as others have said, the Duke of Gloucester was actually a second son. His older brother William was killed in a plane crash when the now Duke was in his early 20s, since when he’s been a working royal. And still is)

@Serenster I looked at the family tree. It is complicated and had problems working out the relationships.
Okay if I accept what you say he is the modern equivalent of Princess Eugenie. And when William and Kate are crowned the equivalent of Princess Lillibet.

Some people do think Lillibet and Eugenie are minor Royals, some do not.

the royals are the most extreme of extreme conservatives! In what way are they tempering ANY of the vile policies of this government? They couldn’t give less of a shit if they tried 🤬.
They're likely more old school conservatism in many respects, but I doubt they're borderline fascists like the current conservative government.

They have a specific constitutional role with background influence.

I'm a republican, but the idea of having someone like Boris Johnson as a head of state with huge power is chilling, so for now I'm content to have a slower decline of monarchy and would rather see an increase in formal checks and balances on extremist governments. It's a compromise I'd be willing to make now that I wouldn't have been interested in a decade ago

His position, when you put it into context, isn’t the same as Eugenie’s though. Due to the young deaths of other people it was very different.

He’s basically what Eugenie would be when William takes the throne if Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were both dead. And Princess Beatrice.

So he’d be a Eugenie working with a King William who only had Kate, Harry, Princess Anne, Eugenie, James and Louise as working royals…

Not Eugenie as William’s cousin as they are now.

I know there were deaths. But in terms of relations he is equivalent to Princess Eugenie.

Look at Lillibet who is an equivalent. When William and Kate take to the throne most of the Royals we now know will be dead or very elderly. There will be William and Harry and their wives and children. Harry and Meghan have left so there will only be William, Kate, their children. Archie and Lillibet and more distantly related Royals. Maybe Lillibet will be asked to step in to help out like the current Duke of Gloucester was.

He is the Queen’s cousin.

So would only be equivalent to Lilibet when George takes the throne. Not when William takes it.

If when George takes the throne he has only his partner, his mother, Charlotte and one uncle/aunt then Lilibet may, like the Duke of Gloucester, be asked to work. That would be the equivalent example.

I know there were deaths. But in terms of relations he is equivalent to Princess Eugenie

And in terms of function, she would only be the equivalent if Princess Beatrice had died before her father (and before she had children) and then Andrew had died, and Eugenie had taken on royal duties on the same footing as Anne and Edward

Andrew is not a working royal so in terms of this scenario us equivalent to being dead.

You do not like it compared to the younger generation because you would indeed see Eugenie and Lillibet as minor Royals.

Not that I like any of them.

But I'm quite annoyed that James has been upped to an earl whilst his elder sister remains 'Lady'.

I hate the whole system!

@CanOfPop none of them work so there’s no such thing as a working royal.

In her current role Eugenie is a minor royal. The Duke of Gloucester has not been.

Your comparison is the issue.

The Duke of Gloucester is a minor Royal.
The Royal Family is not about what you do you know, it is not a meritocracy. It is literally about your birth parents and birth order.

which was not the original point about hangers on… The point was about hangers on who did no work. Like Eugenie…

Changing point midway through just makes discussion absolutely pointless.

Nope. I explained clearly why people say he is a hangar on. You tried to argue with my explanation as wrong. I explained why I was right. And now you try and claim I said something I never did.
Why don't you admit you lost the argument?

No, your original point was that he was a “married in minor royal”

The Duke of Gloucester married into the Royal Family. He married the first cousin of Queen Elizabeth. He is more distantly related to the Royal Family than Pippa is. Pippa will become equivalent to one of Philips siblings.

The Duke of Gloucester is a very minor Royal. That is why some see them as hangers on.

Then your point was that he was like Eugenie in the current family set up or Lilibet when William is King.

Both of which are wrong.

You’re chopping and changing as and when it suits.

@YetMoreNewBeginnings Go back to my original post. My point was that he is perceived as a hanger on by many because he is a minor Royal.
You arguing he is not a minor Royal was the response, although you saw everyone in the equivalent positions to Charles and William as minor Royals.
You then argued the Duke of Gloucester is different as he "works" hard. As if the Royal Family is a meritocracy. It is not.
William has always done very little "work". He is still the Heir and a senior Royal, not a minor Royal. Because your position has no relationship to what you actually do.

Go back to my original post.

I did. You didn’t even know who he was given your married in comment. That’s when you said he was minor - a married in royal who married the Queens cousin…

My point is that you don’t get the position he has in the family (hence why you still keep getting your generational comparisons wrong) which is why you see him as minor.

it’s fine - You don’t get his position so you think one thing. I do, so I think different

Yes, so if Beatrice has pre-deceased him too, and Eugenie had taken on the working Royal role, then she would be in the same position as the Dule of Gloucester.

But as she hasn't, then the comparison doesn't really hold up. It may be the same degree of kindred, but it's not the same function in The Firm