Thread: Brits: Explain Your Monarchy

Originally Posted by danielpalos

So, what can a person with a title accomplish in modern times?

Guaranteed placement in the British military's equivalent of OCS? I imagine it might carry enough weight in socialite circles that one could do a lot with organizing charitable activities, but other than that, it's just cool to sit down and have a drink with a Duke. Or even a sandwich with an Earl.


Speaking of, what's Harry got going for him title wise? Is he just a prince or does he hold some other title as well?

Originally Posted by Porras

Speaking of, what's Harry got going for him title wise? Is he just a prince or does he hold some other title as well?

His official name/title is HRH Prince Henry of Wales. When he gets married, he'll almost certainly be made a Duke. If he never marries, then he'll remain as above.

BTW, I wonder how many people realise that his name is actually Henry, but Harry is just the name his parents called him by?

I assumed Harry wasn't on his birth certificate, but I would have guessed Harold if anyone had mentioned it.

Originally Posted by noahath

His official name/title is HRH Prince Henry of Wales. When he gets married, he'll almost certainly be made a Duke. If he never marries, then he'll remain as above.

BTW, I wonder how many people realise that his name is actually Henry, but Harry is just the name his parents called him by?

Unless he uses one of his middle names he'd be King Henry IX in the unlikely event of him becoming king.

Originally Posted by Agentorange

A lot of us brits call it The Daily Hate

And a lots of Brits read it. It's the second most popular newspaper in the UK after The Sun.

That's compared to the left-wing bible The Guardian, whose readership is falling dramatically.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

So, what can a person with a title accomplish in modern times?

A person with a title leads the United States of America. He's known as the "President" and the "Commander-in-Chief."

Originally Posted by Porras

Guaranteed placement in the British military's equivalent of OCS? I imagine it might carry enough weight in socialite circles that one could do a lot with organizing charitable activities, but other than that, it's just cool to sit down and have a drink with a Duke. Or even a sandwich with an Earl.


Speaking of, what's Harry got going for him title wise? Is he just a prince or does he hold some other title as well?

Prince William is the first Duke of Cambridge in 100 years.

Here are all of them:

Styled (1660)
Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge. (1660–1661), eldest son of James, Duke of York (later James II of England & VII of Scotland), died in infancy having only been styled Duke.

First creation (1664)
James Stuart, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1663–1667), second son of James, Duke of York (later James II & VII), died in infancy

Second creation (1667)
Edgar Stuart, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1667–1671), fourth son of James, Duke of York (later James II & VII), died in infancy

Styled (1677)
Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677), fifth son of James, Duke of York (later James II & VII), died in infancy having only been styled Duke

Third creation (1706)
George, Electoral Prince of Hanover, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1683–1760), only son of George, Elector of Hanover (later George I of Great Britain and Ireland), and, in time, would become Duke of Cornwall, Prince of Wales and then King in 1727, at which point all of his British honours merged in the crown

Fourth creation (1801)
Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1774–1850), seventh son of George III
Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge (1819–1904), only son of the 1st Duke, died without legitimate issue and his honours were extinct.

Fifth creation (2011)
Prince William, 1st Duke of Cambridge (born 1982), first son of Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales.


Prince Harry's full title is His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales. As a British prince he has no surname. Instead he uses the name of the area over which his father holds title. In this case it is "Wales".

Prince Harry is also serving in the British Army and is training to be an Apache helicopter pilot. He is a Captain in The Blues and Royals attached to the Army Air Corps.

He also has a few honorary military titles in the United Kingdom and Canada. He is Honorary Air Commandant of RAF Honington near Ixworth, Suffolk; Commodore-in-Chief of Small Ships and Diving; and, along with Prince William, is an honorary member of the Canadian Rangers.

Originally Posted by Sir Drinkalot

And a lots of Brits read it. It's the second most popular newspaper in the UK after The Sun.

That's compared to the left-wing bible The Guardian, whose readership is falling dramatically.

The Guardian ? Don't read it myself. But just because something is popular reading doesn't of necessity mean that it's views are morally right, after all Mein Kampf was pretty popular reading in Germany at one time.....

Not that I'm suggesting that the Mail is on a par with Mein Kampf because it isn't. Simply pointing out that popular doesn't mean much.

You mention the Sun, Britains most popular paper, well a lot of people take what the Sun says as gospel truth.....yet a couple of years ago in an article about how wonderful the British military was the Sun had a list called ' Wars we have won ' ( or something pretty smiliar ) and in that list was:........The American War of Independence

Originally Posted by Sir Drinkalot

A person with a title leads the United States of America. He's known as the "President" and the "Commander-in-Chief."

It's not a hereditary title. Democracies like to think they offer equality of opportunity for everyone, that is to say everyone can become the richest man in the country, or prime minister, or president. But not everyone can inherit a title, which is why they're a sticking point for many democrats.

British monarchy can be described in two words: societal rudiment.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

It's not a hereditary title. Democracies like to think they offer equality of opportunity for everyone, that is to say everyone can become the richest man in the country, or prime minister, or president. But not everyone can inherit a title, which is why they're a sticking point for many democrats.

Under our form of federal government, a republican form of government is proscribed from establishing nobility as enumerated in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Funnily enough, it was a republic which gave the world the title of "duke". Ancient Rome.

Today, Duke remains the highest titular peerage in France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Originally Posted by Agentorange

You mention the Sun, Britains most popular paper, well a lot of people take what the Sun says as gospel truth.....yet a couple of years ago in an article about how wonderful the British military was the Sun had a list called ' Wars we have won ' ( or something pretty smiliar ) and in that list was:........The American War of Independence

The British DID win the American War of Independence. It was a British civil war fought between Britain and her colonists in North America. And the British Army, which won most of the battles, suffered only 20,000 deaths, whereas the American colonists suffered 50,000. And victory only came for the American colonists after they had the help of the French, a nation who have a bad record in wars, and even then it ruined the Froggy economy.

In most other cases the war would have been a British victory, but the British public got weary of the war and so the Commons voted to put an end to it in 1782.

Following that was the War of 1812 against the Yanks.

In that war, Britain suffered 1,600 fatalities and the US suffered 2,260.

Here's a review of a book on the American War of Independence which kills many of the myths and romanticisms many Americans like to believe in about the war:





At last, a book that scrapes away all the patriotic, American propaganda and rhetoric surrounding this conflict for the last two-hundred years and produces an unbiased, accurate, even-handed and honest version of events for the first time.

The American War has deliberately been distorted ever since it was fought by American historians eager to promote their 'creation myth' in the style they're have liked it to have happened; namely righteous, noble, American heroes battling evil, dastardly, incompetent British redcoats. But this isn't the reality.

This book is a detailed overview of the whole of the American War that manages to resist the modern American failing of lapsing into self-indulgent, patriotic wallowing and just tells us what happened, when, where and why.

Most American writers would have you believe that the British were military inept buffoons during this war, but that isn't the truth, just patriotic boasting to divert attention away from their defeats.

Also, the idea that the American Rebels won the war by sniping at the dumb, inept British redcoats from behind trees with accurate rifles is false. In fact, both sides used riflemen, but mostly smooth-bore muskets.

George Washington is correctly exposed as a mediocre general who lost two-thirds of the battles he fought against the British and spent most of the war on the defensive. Of the battles he won, he had a large numerical advantage over the enemy in each. Washington certainly wasn't the great military genius his sycophantic admirers would have us all believe today.

Interestingly, the myth about 'British tyranny' provoking the American Colonies to rebel is examined and smashed. In fact, the American Colonies had all the freedoms that the Britons back home did. Trouble started when a radical, hard-line group of the American elite came to power and wanted to break away to pursue their own, selfish, agenda.

Only when this demand was refused did the cries about 'British tyranny' begin. But if you're an American Rebel trying to engineer a war and stir up unjustified trouble, what else are you going to say to encourage fellow Americans to join the army and hate the British! British tyranny towards the American Colonies was merely a myth to justify the war.

Also, there were thousands of Americans who didn't support the Rebels and wanted to remain loyal to Britain. Some even supported the British by fighting in the British Army. However, loyalist activity like this is all but erased from the American version of evens, in the same way the French don't want to talk about their collaboration during WWII.

The reality was that the British won most of the battles and captured most of the biggest settlements. The Rebels spent most of the war on the defensive, usually retreating instead of risking pitched battles where possible. The French came in and saved the Rebels by giving them money and military aid!

That's more or less the truth of it, as demonstrated in this book. Of course, modern Americans don't want people to know that, so they assault us with fanciful, Brit-bashing, historically inaccurate, drivel on paper and film such as Mel Gibson's 'The Patriot' instead.

For example, the idea, popular amongst Americans today, that the Rebels won the Battle of Bunker Hill. In fact, as this book convincingly demonstrates, the British actually won the battle but the Americans are too proud to admit it and thus claim victory even today!

This is a great book! Acquire and read at all cost if you want to know about the REAL American War rather than the popular American nonsense that gets pu about.

It really does explode some outrageous myths and puts it straight for once and all...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Ind.../dp/1841763438