Quite a few things.
Pension, uniform allowance , reserved parking, etc.
Will Harry be made Duke of York upon Andrew’s death? Either by Charles or William?
Or will he like Andrew be relegated to corgi leash-holder?
That was the whole basis of the comedy in the British sitcom Keeping Up Appearances, a really great series that I highly recommend to those who haven’t seen it. Patricia Routledge is terrific at portraying a snobbish housewife trying to climb the social ladder, but is beset by relatives who are very distinctly working class!
The article neglected on thing, at least for naval MoH winners. MoH winners can use the officer’s gangway no matter their rank.
According to my grandfather (BB-43), a junior officer was taught this fact much to his embarrassment.
The are saluted even by Generals/Admirals although technically they are saluting the award.
“I did not know that” thanks.
Leaving aside any bad feeling there might be within the family, since Harry is a non-working royal there’s no reason for granting him any new titles. Plus, he already has a ducal title; why would he need another?
Duke of York is a title traditionally conferred on the second son of the sovereign when he is, or is expected to be, second in the line of succession. Harry is already down to fifth place, and is unlikely ever to be second.
So maybe Charlotte, Duke of York.
No, but she might (if and when nature vacates the title, and if and when King William decides it’s appropriate) become Princess Royal.
Well, maybe. Now that the succession is gender-neutral, when William is on the throne she will likely be second in line, after her older brother George. Once the succession is gender-neutral, it’s not clear why you want to have a difference in treatment as regards ducal titles for princes and princesses. If you’re going to give any of them ducal titles, why not all of them? And why not “York” for the second child, regardless of gender?
I think the last offer of one might have been to Churchill, who apparently turned down a Dukedom because his son wanted to follow him as a Member of Parliament, and it would have excluded him from the House of Commons - he would have had to sit in the House of Lords as an hereditary peer. Ironically less influential than being in the Commons.
It was customary for retiring PMs to be offered a hereditary Earldom, the last being Macmillan in 1963. Since his successor had taken advantage of a recent change in the law to allow him to disclaim his 17th century earldom to be able to stand for election to the Commons having become PM, he could hardly expect it back on leaving the PM-ship - which was very soon after anyway.
If I were in the Commons, I would support a law permitting any current noble to decide if his or her title would pass to male or female heirs in order of birth, as succession to the Crown now does. For any noble who didn’t decide by a particular deadline, say a year from passage of the bill, the title would continue to pass as it had up to then.
Possible but unlikely, I’d say. The British monarchy takes the long view; the historical tide will probably someday shift and a worthy young royal will get a dukedom. King William V may very well wish to bestow dukedoms on his children when they marry, as his grandmother did for both him and his brother.
But the speculation is that by then they may be life peerages instead.
To be fair, post-WW2 in part because of how the family’s demographics have worked out there hasn’t been a large level of rank inflation or proliferation of hereditaries. Outside of the current King’s own direct line, among the descendants of George VI only two “heirs male”, Margaret’s and Edward’s one each, have or will be carrying on a hereditary earldom.
It remains to be seen in the long run how this will tie in to the restriction in the number of “working royals” that both Charles and Wills have indicated they favor (to limit it only to those who can and will give it full time attention).
RESERVED PARKING! In some places, that’s a big thing.
Could Andrew be evicted from the Royal Lodge for not keeping up the property or does the peppercorn rent include upkeep?
I understand that he is required by the terms of the lease to keep up the property, and the lease is specific about what this entails — i.e. repainting inside and out ever X years, repointing the stonework every Y years, etc.
With his £1 millioon annual allowance from the King cut off, unless he has substantial private income that we don’t know about it’s hard to see how he can afford to do this. He can ride it out for a while — I don’t know when the next repointing is due — but at some stage he would be in sufficient default on his obligations under the lease that the landlord would be justified in taking action.
Current newspaper reports that he is negotiating to leave the place may reflect his acceptance that, financially, he needs accommodation that he can afford, and he can’t afford this place.
he is now andrew mountbatten windsor.
wow! that is quite something.
Andrew stripped of ‘prince’ title and will move out of Royal Lodge - BBC News
Does he have any income left from his (former) Royal status? Or must he hunt for a job now? And look for a cheap flat?
And that is that. He vacates, moves to someplace like Wood Farm on the privately held Sandringham estate as a royal pensioner of Charles III, stripped of titles and safely out of the public eye in quietly retired disgrace (so the Royal family no doubt fervently hopes).