Speculation is rife at the moment as to whether HRH Princess Beatrice of York will decide to marry boyfriend Dave Clark. The two have been seeing each other for over 6 years and many speculate that the time may be right soon for the two to marry.
Princess Beatrice of York is 6th in line to the throne, she isn’t expected to lead a life of royal engagements or public duties the Palace have made quite clear, but she is still a member of the Royal Family and has patronages and performs some engagements in her own right.
If she were to marry Dave Clark, a few things would change.
Firstly, it would be unlikely (but not completely impossible) that Dave Clark would be granted a title by Her Majesty, meaning he would remain a commoner.
If he was granted a title, it would likely be a non-royal peerage such as an Earldom, though this in itself is unlikely, as previously explained.
Because a woman takes her husband’s style and precedence unless hers is higher, (which it is), her precedence will not be affected.
She may choose, however, to follow past precedent and style herself as Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, Mrs Dave Clark or even just privately style herself as Mrs Clark. Equally she may choose just to continue being Princess Beatrice.
Traditionally, female royals drop their territorial designation when they marry, so either way, she probably wouldn’t be referred to as Princess Beatrice of York any more (rather just Princess Beatrice).
It is highly unlikely that the wedding would be a public event like that of Princess Beatrice’s cousin, Prince William and his wife the Duchess of Cambridge, but likely to be a private family affair like that of Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall.
Most likely, Dave Clark and Princess Beatrice would take up private residence together rather than occupying a royal palace, though they could well have St James’s Palace as a residence, where Beatrice already holds a flat.
Princess Beatrice would require Her Majesty The Queen’s consent to marry and even if the Succession to the Crown Act were in force, she would because she is one of the first six in line to the throne.
At the moment however, this is just speculation and we won’t find out for sure whether they are to marry until in about a month’s time (traditional gap between engagement and announcement in most royal cases).
photo credit: quinceandhoney via photopin cc
Since Princess Beatrice is a commoner as well, what is the importance of her marrying her commoner? She holds precedence, so her title remains, she is 6th from the Crown, so a lot of terrible things need to happen for her to inherit, seems sort of silly to elevate him to peerage.
Princess Beatrice is NOT a commoner! She is a Princess of the Blood!
Based on this article, legality wise, she is a commoner.
Second graf states “In the British system there are three legal standings people can hold. These positions are: The Sovereign, peers and commoners. Therefore technically and legally speaking if you are a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom and you do not hold a peerage title, and you are not the Sovereign, you are in fact a commoner.”
I was always told that if the child comes from a son of a king or queen, which Beatrice comes from Andrew, that it automatically makes them a Prince, or Princess of the blood, as the man said above. They are only considered commoners if they descend from a daughter. Henceforth, the Princess Royal’s children are commoners, while the rest are not. Even Prince Edward’s kids can demand the titles of Prince and Princess
when they reach their majority.
There are different ways of categorising persons according to their status. In the strictest definition, anyone who is no the Sovereign or a peer is a commoner (which includes, for example, Prince Harry and Princess Beatrice). Other definitions might also include the Royal Family, or Prince/Princesses of the Blood as its own category.
Yes, she is a commoner. There are only three legal positions in Britain, the Monarch, the Peerage and all the rest are commoners. I just wrote a blog post about this topic here on Royal Central. http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner-13637
There has been some discussion about making peerage tiles gender nuetral also. If that ever happens, and the Duke of York doesn’t remarry and have a son, there is a possibility that Princess Beatrice could become the Duchess of York in her own right.
That will NEVER happen! Apart from anything else, it is not possible to make such things retroactive. All existing peerages were created by Letters Patent detailing the succession to them and these cannot be altered without regranting ALL peerages under new Letters Patent.
Also, what that make her husband – he couldn’t be the Duke of York?
Presumably not. There are, of course, peeresses who hold hereditary peerages in their own right – the Countess of Sutherland, the Countess of Mar, Countess Mountbatten of Burma, for example. These are usually either very old Scottish peerages or ones with ‘special remainders’ written into their Letters Patent allowing them to pass to females. In all cases, however, husbands of suo jure peeresses are not entitled to any special courtesy title derived from their wife’s title. There are historical exceptions to this rule – such as the famous Warwick the Kingmaker, who was jure uxoris 16th Earl of Warwick by virtue of his marriage to Anne Beauchamp, suo jure 16th Countess of Warwick. Peers jure uxoris, however, seem to have been very rare.
Royal titles are different to, the nobles, they do not work in the same way most of the time, and the Queen can change them. For example changing peerage titles would not effect royal once. A seperate law would be needed.
Peerages all work in the same way irrespective of whether they’re royal or not – only a few titles operate outside of the usual conventions on the peerage (Dukedoms of Cornwall and Lancaster) – a separate law would not be required to affect royal peerages. Contrary to popular belief, altering and revoking peerages is outside of The Queen’s prerogative and requires an act of parliament.
Actually they would. Everything Royal is a done separate via acts of parliament. However in terms of titles, the Queen can change them via letter patents, and on the grounds of creating them as well. That power lies still with the monarchy. No act of parliament is needed. An act of parliament can be used to do the same thing and on a wider scales to cover all of them, as both are legally binding, acts more so. Letters patents would have to be issues for every single title, if the rules where going to be changed. The Monarchy would only change the rules if asked by a noble, and would judge it on the merit of the case. To case the rules no matter what acts of parliament are needed.
The Duke of York title is not the same as normal titles. Meaning that it is only given to the second son of the monarch. If the current Duke had a son, the son would not get the title. When the Queen dies, techcailly speaking Andrew will no Longer be the Duke of York. As when Prince Charles becomes king, Harry should legally and by tradition become Duke of York.
I’m afraid you’re wrong. Firstly, the theory of Parliamentary supremacy says parliament may regulate for anything, so a blanket change to all letters patent is possible via an act of parliament (incidentally, a bill intending to do such is in early stages in the House of Lords). The Queen’s prerogative only goes as far as the creation of titles, altering the succession to an existing title or revoking it is not within The Queen’s prerogative and can only be done by act of parliament.
The Dukedom of York, whilst by tradition given to the second son, is still an ordinary, hereditary dukedom and should Prince Andrew have a son, that son would inherit the title (and if the bill to change peerages’ succession makes it through Parliament, Princess Beatrice will inherit it).
I am not wrong. The Dukedom of York, will not go to the son or daughter of the current Duke of York. The Duke of York title has to be granted by the monarch, it is not an inherit title. In the same sense as other are. Some times it is not granted. E.g Prince William Duke of Cumberland was not made Duke of York. There are a couple of other times as well. If the Duke of York title was like others, it would pass to the next male heir in the family. It does not, it is only granted by the monarch on to the second son. If the Second son becomes king then the titles has to be re granted for that monarchs second son. As in the case of James Stuart. Note however, If the title was actually in fact a inherit title, then Edward Tudor would have become Duke of York and Henry Tudor when he was heir would have been Duke of York also, however Henry Tudor was only Duke of York, while his brother Arthur lived. He the brother died the titles Duke of York was removed, and he became the Duke of Cornwall, a title that goes to the first son of the monarch as heir.
No one is denying that if an Act of Parliament was passed to change succession to titles, to the first born, that this wont be legally binding. I have not denied that. I said it is large scale means of addressing the issues at hand. I know a bill is trying to be passed, it is nothing, new this issue has been around for a while.
However, the creations of titles do not need acts of parliament. 6 titles has been granted since 1965 and none of them have acts of parliament, before 1965 every title created and suspened etc have not had acts of parliament to grant and create them. The Queen could very easyily create a title that women can inherit. However, tradtion normally takes over and it does not happen.
As i HAVE pointed out it is done via Letters Patent. The last letter patent to change the rules of succession to a title happened in 1947, I will let you guess which one. And why. But that was done via Letters Patent. Changing the rules means creating new titles or rewording the titles. Clauses on how they pass down are laid out in letters Patent, as far as i am aware there is only 2/3 Dukedoms that can pass to women. Some of the much older title decent to “heirs of the body” The Queen can suspend titles, that is within her power, parliament have no say over that until 1917. However the monarch cannot revoke titles, unless under an act of par but that has pretty much always been the case. But I never mentioned that in the first place.
A lot of this is the monarch “could do” would they is another issue.
I think you’ve confused yourself more than anything else here. Dukedom of York may be granted to the second son traditionally, but it is still an hereditary title – its remainder clearly specifies “heirs male of his body lawfully begotten”.
I didn’t say granting titles needs an act of parliament, my point was that an act of parliament is needed to amend or revoke peerages, which is correct.
No acts of par are not needed to amend them, each title can be amended by the latter patent.
I am not confused, I know the history of the title Duke of York, but regardless of the letter patent and what is says, the title goes to the Second oldest son of the monarch.
If they followed the rules of the letter patent, the current Duke would more then likely no be the Duke of law at all.
I would say her wedding, as a royal princess, would be more on par with The Earl of Wessex’ wedding than with that of Princess Anne’s children. Edward had a small yet royal wedding. That is what I personally expect for Beatrice and Eugenie. They are royal princesses.
She should marry a foreign prince as was the case in the past, but, unfortunately, there aren’t many available Protestant princes in Europe who are of similar age. Carl Philip of Sweden could be a match, but he is about 9 years older and dating a porn star.
plus you forgot to mention that Carl Philip of Sweden is too good for her
How can he be too good for her if he is dating a pornstar? It is the other way around.
To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.
Join 378 other subscribers