Posted on 04/29/2011 12:22:43 AM PDT by naturalman1975
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS ISSUED BY THE PRESS SECRETARY TO THE QUEEN
The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.
Background:
DUKEDOM: Cambridge:
In 1706 George Augustus (subsequently George II) the only son of George Ludwig, Elector of Hanover (subsequently George I of Great Britain) was created with other titles Duke of Cambridge. On the accession of his father to the throne in 1714 he also became Duke of Cornwall and was created Prince of Wales. On his own accession to the throne in 1727 the Dukedom of Cambridge merged with The Crown and ceased.
Cambridge was previously a Royal Dukedom and four sons of James, Duke of York (afterwards James II) who died in infancy were all created Duke of Cambridge. As an Earldom Cambridge was a medieval Royal title. Edward IV was Duke of York and Earl of Cambridge till proclaimed King of England in 1461 when his titles merged with The Crown.
His father and grandfather both Richard Plantagenet were both Earls of Cambridge and the latter was also Duke of York. Edmund of Langley, 5th son of Edward III and great-grandfather of Edward IV, was created Earl of Cambridge in 1362 and Duke of York in 1385.
The Dukedom of Cambridge created in 1801 became extinct on the death of the 2nd Duke of Cambridge in 1904. Cambridge existed as a Marquessate from 1917 when it was conferred on Queen Mary’s brother till 1981 when the 2nd Marquess died and the title became extinct.
EARLDOM: Strathearn
Strathearn has had Royal connections since Robert Stewart, High Steward of Scotland, was created Earl of Strathearn in 1357. In 1371 he succeeded his Uncle as King of Scotland becoming Robert II and the Earldom merged with The Crown Robert II created his 5th son David, Earl of Strathearn in 1371. Subsequently in 1427 the 6th son of Robert II was created Earl of Strathearn.
In 1766 George III’s younger brother Prince Henry Frederick was created Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn. He died without issue in 1790 and in 1799 Queen Victoria’s father was created Duke of Kent and Strathearn. These Dukedoms became extinct on his death in 1820. Finally, Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, 3rd son of Queen Victoria was created Duke of Connaught and Strathearn in 1874. He died in 1942 and was succeeded by his grandson who died the following year 1943 since when Strathearn as a title has been extinct.
BARONY: Carrickfergus:
An Irish Viscountcy of Chichester of Carrickfergus now held by the Marquess of Donegall was created in 1625 but Carrickfergus alone only existed as a title between 1841 and 1883. The 3rd Marquess of Donegall was created Baron Ennishowen and Carrickfergus, of Ennishowen, co: Donegal and Carrickfergus, co: Antrim. He died in 1883 being succeeded by his brother and the Barony became extinct.
Carrickfergus is County Antrim’s oldest town. The word means Rock of Fergus and as an urban settlement it predates Belfast. It is on the north shore of Belfast Lough and is the site of Carrickfergus Castle which dates from circa 1180 and is one of the best preserved Castles in Ireland.
There was a Henry IX who made a claim... from Scotland...
No. Until recently, it did give a person the right to sit in the House of Lords (the upper House of the British Parliament) but 'reforms' under Blair's Labor government removed that right. The members of the House of Lords are now nearly all 'Life Peers' chosen by the government for life, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes... well, let's not go there.
For example, William is now the Duke of Cambridge. What does that imply? Does William now have any control over Cambridge? Does he have a veto power on who becomes the next mayor of Cambridge?
No. There are a couple of titles in Britain that still convey some powers for historical reason, but only a few. Most are simply traditional honours.
Or is “Duke of Cambridge” nothing more than an empty honorary title?
It can't be called an honourary title, because that term actually has another meaning (ie, Generals Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, etc, Admiral Nimitz, and quite a few other senior US officers before and since were all honourary Knights - Britain honoured them for their service as allies, but US law meant they could not, of course, bear foreign titles), but it is symbolic, rather than meaning anything concrete.
I would say the situation requires the monarchy to act, parliament is doing nothing about the Islamic invasion of Britain and the lawlessness.
Britain has become a Monty Python script... and it isn't funny anymore...
Henry Benedict Stuart did style himself Henry IX, but he was never acknowledged in any way (even the Catholic Church would not acknowledge him, though they did acknowledge his father and brother, and he was a Cardinal), and so he would not affect the numbering of actual monarchs.
Even if that was true (and personally, I don't believe it is), the Crown would still not have the power to intervene. Parliament is supposed to deal with those issues. The Monarch can only interfere with Parliament in certain particular cases.
The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn - even if she shared your concerns, all she can do is tell the Prime Minister in private that they shared them.
This is British constitutional law and convention, and the Monarch must follow it. She cannot interfere just because she thinks there's a problem.
Not to mention the Duke of Paducah...
The Prince of Wales has never said any such thing. If a magazine article said he did, it was lying.
Besides anything else, he would not have the power to do that. A King of the United Kingdom can abdicate - in which case somebody else would become King (William, if Charles abdicated). He cannot dissolve the monarchy. Parliament has that power - the King does not.
I have been watching this beautiful wedding. It was stunning.
My only question is why FOX sent that crude clod, Shempherd Smith over their to mock and behave like a hilljack.
They might both be deposed shortly, either by Britons themselves, Muslims or the E.U... by their own inactions...
I'm still hunting for the article, but I did read that. It was an interview with him; IIRC it was an organic gardening magazine. He did say that he would disolve the monarchy because it had outlived its purpose. The main focus of the article was on HRH's green views of things and his farming practices. The monarchy quote may have been a throw away, but it was in the piece. I'll send the link once I find it; like I said, it was 10-15 years ago.
I am looking forward to watching it. My seat was on the wrong side of the screen in the middle of the Abbey. I saw everybody walk past, and I could hear what was going on, but could see nothing of the actual ceremony.
I have believed for a long time that the next King will be William, not Charles.
Not sure why exactly, just a feeling...
Britain endured terrorist attack after terrorist attack after terrorist attack from Irish Republican terrorists. It just deals with them when it has to. The Islamists are still rank amateurs in comparison.
The scene inside the Abbey was gorgeous. A great event and done to perfection.
It was not overdone. Bravo.
“Baron Carrickfergus”
Sounds like something the Monty Python folks would have had fun with.
It certainly isn’t impossible. Just nowhere near as simple as some people seem to think. Nor likely.
If the Queen reaches much over 100 - as her mother did - Charles would be very close to, or over 80 and William would be in his mid-40s. In that type of situation, Charles might well abdicate. But he is not likely to do it unless he is very old - and more importantly, unless William has already had a decent chance to have his own life.
I have believed for a long time that the next King will be William, not Charles.
Not sure why exactly, just a feeling...
**********************
Because Charles is always snakebit perhaps?
Does not the Queen herself actually have the power to control succession?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.