Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Concerning Earl of Harewood (Charlie's second cousin)?

So he has four kids from Margaret Messengers.

"The two older children were born out of wedlock. They were subsequently legitimated by the marriage of their parents and given the titles befitting children of a Viscount. Only her two younger children, legitimate from birth, fall within British peerage regulations, are heirs to the Harewood titles.

His elder son, Benjamin, is thus merely titled as "Hon.", whereas his younger bro, 1,5 year younger than him, is Viscount & will inherit the estate one day.

Why didn't the Earl do something about this and ask the queen, his aunt, to make an exception, since it's unfair for his elder son? I know this is THE rule, but Mountbatten could make a special remainder to make her daughter his heiress, although an earldom should be extinct or revert to a cousin if there's no male heir. It's against the rules, too.

Thinking how the elder son is thinking about it?

Update:

What I mean by "unfair" is that the four of them were born to the same mother, so they are full siblings. Just because the father & mother decided to marry a bit later, the elder son lost his rights, and the girl wasn't even called "Hon." until later, tho' she's actually entitled to be called Lady.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I might be able to provide a bit of insight on this. The Earl is my uncle and to be honest, no one really gives a toss about titles and whatnot in my family. My father never uses the title "The Honourable" even though he is the previous Earl's younger son. I don't have a title at all. We like to lead as normal a life as possible, all that rubbish attention-mongering is best left to people like Lady Victoria Hervey who milks her name for all it's worth. She and Kim Kardashian should do a show together...

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    No, sorry, this is how it works, the Queen can't change it, and of course the Earl knew that. Frankly, years ago, the two older children would not have had any titles at ALL. Progress was made when it was decided that they could and also that adopted children of peers could be titled. (That last happened only in 2004.)

    The Queen could bestow separate titles on those two older children if she felt there was some reason to do so, but she doesn't have the power to alter the terms of inheritance already attached to the earldom and other peerages.

    In other words, she would have to create entirely new peerage titles, and that's not going to happen, because new hereditary peerages are now extremely rare and mostly confined to royals.

    Now, the fact that you think this is all so "unfair" indicates that you attach a significant amount of value to titles and peerages. Evidently, the 7th Earl didn't care as much as you do. Whether his children, The Honourable Emily and the Honourable Benjamin, care I can't say, but I don't presume to speak for them, and you probably shouldn't either.

  • Paco
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    The requirement is not that you be married before conceiving, just that you marry before giving birth. Prince Charles goddaughter got married while visibly pregnant. So, the action was a very deliberate one, and the Queen is not going to rectify the situation.

    The Lascelles family has produced multiple children over several generations out of wedlock.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.