Non-British Styles and Titles

[Stefan]

It's to designate the heir more clearly as the Dutch have equal primogeniture. Her daughter Amalia will be Princess of Orange in her own right, not because of marriage to the Prince of Orange. Does anyone know if Maxima will be Queen one day or, like her father-in-law continue as a princess?

When the Bill of Consent for the marriage was discussed in Parliament it was said that it would be decided when Willem-Alexander becomes King if Máxima will become Queen or remain Princess.

 

[Furienna]

It's to designate the heir more clearly as the Dutch have equal primogeniture. Her daughter Amalia will be Princess of Orange in her own right, not because of marriage to the Prince of Orange.

Okay, I understand it now, even though I still find it unnecessary.

 

[Esmerelda]

I think it makes sense. If a man can't take his wife's title, the same should apply to a woman. They haven't decided if Maxima will be Queen, though. There hasn't been a Queen Consort of the Netherlands for 3 generations so maybe they're just used to a specific title for the monarch.

 

[IloveCP]

Were Prince Clause and Henrik considered "commoners"?And also Mathilde?

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Sometimes, I think Prince Charles is capable of being quite a remote and strict monarch. It will be fascinating to see what he does in his reign. Perhaps taking away the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie, but instituting equal primogeniture will seem balanced in his view. I will bet good money that he would never, ever take any title away from his own sons.

It would be easy, I would think, in Charles's mind to demote his siblings' children, especially with Andrew's foibles.

Charles will have enough people to support with just Harry and Harry's future wife/family without also having to support Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Reading history, I know that being a princess is a guarantee of absolutely nothing, except, perhaps, the ability to marry much better than the rest of us.

Which is why I keep asking what Mr. Clark (Princess Beatrice's beau) does for a living. I'm fairly certain he has no title. So if she marries him, does she retain her title??

 

[Lumutqueen]

Charles will have enough people to support with just Harry and Harry's future wife/family without also having to support Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Reading history, I know that being a princess is a guarantee of absolutely nothing, except, perhaps, the ability to marry much better than the rest of us.

Which is why I keep asking what Mr. Clark (Princess Beatrice's beau) does for a living. I'm fairly certain he has no title. So if she marries him, does she retain her title??

Charles might have Harrys wife and future possible children but they might not arrive for another 30 years. So as the older generation pass away or retire from work, who will work for the BRF? You have Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise and James should they choose to do royal duties.
Mr. Clark works for Virgin, that's all I know and I am not surprised.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Were Prince Clause and Henrik considered "commoners"?And also Mathilde?

I suppose that depends on your definition of a commoner. According to the British standard, both Claus and Henrik were commoners before they married.

Claus' father was a member of untitled German nobility and his mother was a Baroness.. but since he carried no title or peerage of his own before his marriage, I would consider him a commoner - aristocratic to be sure, but a commoner nonetheless.

Henrik on the other hand, was a Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin from birth. His father was Friedrich Francis II, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and his mother was Princess Marie of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt. Clearly he was born of higher nobilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Marie_of_Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt than Claus, but I would also consider him a commoner before marriage.

The German titled nobility has a different structure, whereby all the children receive titles from birth, but those titles are courtesies and only the eldest son and heir becomes invested with the actual peerage.

Henrik was the youngest child of Friedrich Francis II, and therefore did not inherit his father's title. That honor went to his eldest half-brother, Friedrich Francis III.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Thank you, LumutQueen.

I suppose that Prince Edward himself (and Sophie) could be pressed to do more, right? It will be interesting to see if, after Prince William's time with the SAR team runs out, he begins to take on duties that lead to himself and Kate doing the level of appearances that Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla are doing. It's going to take a while, I'd think, for the young couple to get up to that level of constant appearances.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles might have Harrys wife and future possible children but they might not arrive for another 30 years. So as the older generation pass away or retire from work, who will work for the BRF? You have Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise and James should they choose to do royal duties.
Mr. Clark works for Virgin, that's all I know and I am not surprised.

I think that the idea is that there will be fewer working royals and thus fewer royal engagements at all.

The idea, to me, is that as the current crop of cousins passes away they won't be replaced with a new crop of cousins but that William, Kate and Harry's eventual spouse (I exclude Harry as he will be serving in the army, I suspect, for at least another 20+ years) to pick up the slack.

We have only recently been told that the York girls have been told to get their own careers as they don't have a future for the firm. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie pay price for row over Duke of York's trade role - Telegraph
"It has been made clear that the Princesses should pursue their own careers and have no formal roles," a courtier claims. "The Prince of Wales is keen that the Royal family should be seen to have 'slimmed-down'."

 

[Lumutqueen]

I read your similar comment somewhere else, cannot remember where. A coutier claims? Haha that's hardly solid evidence. Charles reducing engagements sounds very un-royal and more time saving.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I read your similar comment somewhere else, cannot remember where. A coutier claims? Haha that's hardly solid evidence. Charles reducing engagements sounds very un-royal and more time saving.

It has been reported for over a decade that Charles wants to slim down the size of the royal family and to do that means either fewer engagements or more engagements for fewer people - I suspect that latter.

I really do think that Charles would like to only have his family regarded as royal when he is King - that his siblings can continue with their existing roles but that their children fade into the background completely.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for instance, only his descendents appear on the balcony at things like the Trooping the Colour each year.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Which is why I keep asking what Mr. Clark (Princess Beatrice's beau) does for a living. I'm fairly certain he has no title. So if she marries him, does she retain her title??

Yes, she will keep her HRH and still be a princess of York, even if she marries someone untitled. She would then be:

HRH Princess Beatrice of York, Mrs. Clark

Her husband will remain Mr. Clark and not receive any title.

If she marries, say, the Earl of Nonsuch, she would add that title to her own.. becoming:

HRH Princess Beatrice, The Countess of Nonsuch

or simply be known as:

HRH The Countess of Nonsuch

 

[Diarist]

Please can I try to help with a little more background information?

The British Royal family has encountered the problem of a Princess marrying a spouse without a title on seveal occasions: In 1973, when the Princess Royal was still known as Princess Anne, she married the then Lieutenant Mark Phillips (later Captain Mark Phillips]. After her marriage, the Princess was referred to as 'HRH Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips' in the Court Circular etc

A decade or so earlier, Princess Alexandra had married the Hon Angus Ogilvy, who was the younger son of the 12th Lord Airlie. It was reported that Angus Ogilivy was offered a peerage but that he and Princess Alexandra had declined this. During the first part of her marriage, the Princess was known as 'HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon Mrs Angus Ogilivy'. Her Husband was subsequently honoured by the Queen and made a Knight Commander of the Royal Vicotrian Order, ['Sir Angus Ogilvy] whereupon the princess was known as Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

Should Princess Beatrice marry her boyfriend, then, as HM Quee Catherine as said above, she will become HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs David Clark. It is all part of the Uk law that a woman is entitled to the use of 'her husband's style and title', [whether her husband is a Prince or (merely) an Esquire]

Hope this helps,

Alex

 

[fearghas]

I suppose that depends on your definition of a commoner. According to the British standard, both Claus and Henrik were commoners before they married.

Claus' father was a member of untitled German nobility and his mother was a Baroness.. but since he carried no title or peerage of his own before his marriage, I would consider him a commoner - aristocratic to be sure, but a commoner nonetheless.

Henrik on the other hand, was a Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin from birth. His father was Friedrich Francis II, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and his mother was Princess Marie of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt. Clearly he was born of higher nobility than Claus, but I would also consider him a commoner before marriage.

The German titled nobility has a different structure, whereby all the children receive titles from birth, but those titles are courtesies and only the eldest son and heir becomes invested with the actual peerage.

Henrik was the youngest child of Friedrich Francis II, and therefore did not inherit his father's title. That honor went to his eldest half-brother, Friedrich Francis III.

Henrik wasn't a commoner. Mecklenberg Schwerin was an independent country within the Holy Roman Empire and the North German confederation and the German Empire afterwards. As such his father and brother were monarchs and he was the son of a monarch and therefore royalty.

 

[Esmerelda]

Please can I try to help with a little more background information?

The British Royal family has encountered the problem of a Princess marrying a spouse without a title on seveal occasions: In 1973, when the Princess Royal was still known as Princess Anne, she married the then Lieutenant Mark Phillips (later Captain Mark Phillips]. After her marriage, the Princess was referred to as 'HRH Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips' in the Court Circular etc

A decade or so earlier, Princess Alexandra had married the Hon Angus Ogilvy, who was the younger son of the 12th Lord Airlie. It was reported that Angus Ogilivy was offered a peerage but that he and Princess Alexandra had declined this. During the first part of her marriage, the Princess was known as 'HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon Mrs Angus Ogilivy'. Her Husband was subsequently honoured by the Queen and made a Knight Commander of the Royal Vicotrian Order, ['Sir Angus Ogilvy] whereupon the princess was known as Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

Should Princess Beatrice marry her boyfriend, then, as HM Quee Catherine as said above, she will become HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs David Clark. It is all part of the Uk law that a woman is entitled to the use of 'her husband's style and title', [whether her husband is a Prince or (merely) an Esquire]

Hope this helps,

Alex

Isn't Princess Anne referred to as the Princess Royal? Or is this not her official title?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Anne is now referred to as Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, but prior to 1987 she was Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Isn't Princess Anne referred to as the Princess Royal? Or is this not her official title?

Princess Anne has been HRH The Princess Royal since 13 June 1987, when she was granted the title.

The title of Princess Royal must be created by the sovereign, is granted for life and only one Princess Royal may exist at a time.. meaning that there can be no other lady invested in the title until Princess Anne dies.

She is still HRH The Princess Anne, but is known at HRH The Princess Royal.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

And I would think that she would remain The Princess Royal for at least another 30 years, and will be doing royal duties all that time. By that time, William and Kate's children will be taking over the less duties and William will be very busy indeed.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Henrik wasn't a commoner. Mecklenberg Schwerin was an independent country within the Holy Roman Empire and the North German confederation and the German Empire afterwards. As such his father and brother were monarchs and he was the son of a monarch and therefore royalty.

Precisely why I said it depends on your definition of a commoner.

I have generally followed the British standard of what a commoner is.. and according to that standard, a person is a commoner if they do not personally hold a peerage.

It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is royal.

I consider Henrik a commoner because he did not hold a peerage in his own right.. his title "Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin" was a courtesy title.

In the British example, Prince William of Wales was a commoner until he married and became HRH The Duke of Cambridge. Now that he holds a peerage in his own right, he is no longer a commoner.

There is no doubt that Prince William has always been royal, but that has nothing to do with whether he was a commoner or not.

And Mecklenburg-Schwerin was an independent state of the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire, but it was at no time an independent country, to my knowledge. In reviewing the history of the duchy, they were in fact one of the poorer states in the Empire.

 

[Kataryn]

Precisely why I said it depends on your definition of a commoner.

I have generally followed the British standard of what a commoner is.. and according to that standard, a person is a commoner if they do not personally hold a peerage.

It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is royal.

I consider Henrik a commoner because he did not hold a peerage in his own right.. his title "Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin" was a courtesy title.

Maybe according to the British system. But he never was British. And in Mainland Europe a different system was in existance which put people into a class system. On top of the "Stände-Gesellschaft" (the German word for it) were the souverains and their families, topped by the Imperial famiy in the Holy Roman Empire and the monarchs of the countries of the other parts of Europe. Then came the nobility, which included all members of noble families. Second "class" were the clerics and third the "burghers" - La bourgeoise who had rights within the cities they lived in (some were called patricians, according to the Ancient Roman system). All others were "commoners", most of which were "owned" by their landowners as they belong to the "common land" which was given to nobles or clerics by the king including the people who lived there.

Thus calling a German member of Royality a "commoner" is denegrading him.

 

[fearghas]

Maybe according to the British system. But he never was British. And in Mainland Europe a different system was in existance which put people into a class system. On top of the "Stände-Gesellschaft" (the German word for it) were the souverains and their families, topped by the Imperial famiy in the Holy Roman Empire and the monarchs of the countries of the other parts of Europe. Then came the nobility, which included all members of noble families. Second "class" were the clerics and third the "burghers" - La bourgeoise who had rights within the cities they lived in (some were called patricians, according to the Ancient Roman system). All others were "commoners", most of which were "owned" by their landowners as they belong to the "common land" which was given to nobles or clerics by the king including the people who lived there.

Thus calling a German member of Royality a "commoner" is denegrading him.

Exactly as such Henrik was not a commoner

 

[fearghas]

I have generally followed the British standard of what a commoner is.. and according to that standard, a person is a commoner if they do not personally hold a peerage.

.

Can you point out where this standard is? I had always thought that the British system was that you had Royalty and everyone else, regardless of whether they had a title or not, were commoners. The commoners were then divided up between aristocracy, clergy, etc Though there weren't any hard divisible lines between them

 

[Iluvbertie]

Can you point out where this standard is? I had always thought that the British system was that you had Royalty and everyone else, regardless of whether they had a title or not, were commoners. The commoners were then divided up between aristocracy, clergy, etc Though there weren't any hard divisible lines between them

Actually no - the British are divided between nobles - those who could have a seat in the unreformed House of Lords and Commoners - those who could vote for and be elected to the House of Commons. Most royals are actually commoners e.g. Princess Anne can vote and could be elected to the House of Commons so she is a royal commoner. Diana was also a commoner - as again she could be elected to the House of Commons.

William, until the morning of the 29th April was also a commoner - a royal commoner but still a commoner. He is now a noble. Kate is still a commoner - but she went from being a garden or ordinary type commoner to being a royal commoner but she is still a commoner. She can still vote for and be elected to the House of Commons.

The vast majority of British people have always been commoners with fewer than 1000 being nobles. Of the Royal Family the following are not commoners - The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Cambridge, The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester and The Duke of Kent. The rest of them are commoners - including those with the style of HRH Prince/Princess.

 

[ladongas]

Excuse me...

...for not having read all the pages of this thread, just in case my question was already answered!

But, why are some earls referred to as Earl Spencer, Earl Percy, etc, and others are Earl of Whatever, and Lord Snowdon seems never to be referred to as Earl Snowdon or Earl of Snowdon? Or is it all good?

 

[Diarist]

Hello Ladongas,

So far as English titles are concerned, I was always taught that it all depends on what the individual's title is; in other words, in what terms the Earldom has been granted - basically whether or not there is a 'geographical' element to the title: [If there is a geographical element to the earldom, then the word 'of' is used.]

So far as Diana's brother is concerned, The full title of the Earldom is 'The Earldom of Spencer', based on the surname, not a geographical 'Earldom'. Thus, the incumbent is simply known as 'Earl Spencer'. The Earl's family surname is also 'Spencer'. The reason for this can be seen in the fact that The first Earl Spencer, was a John Spencer, who was initially created Baron Spencer and Viscount Spencer in 1761 and then 'advanced' to the Earldom of Spencer in 1765. [There is no 'geographical' element to the Earldom]

Princess Margaret's husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, was granted the Earldom of Snowdon [geographical place].

Earl Percy bears [one of the] subsidiary titles of the Duke of Northumberland. [Note the Dukedom is Northumberland, a 'geographical' one].

[the house of Percy was founded by William de Percy, around the time of the Domesday book. Note that there is no geographical designation; later the family was granted the Dukedom].


I hope this helps,

Alex

 

[Kataryn]

I read it once a bit differently, can't recall where but checked on Wikipedia if it makes sense and it does, so here is another explanation.

The Earls without the "of" are mostly those who are from an old family with baronet or baron status. Thus the common usage was that they used their family name plus a geographical part (which was skipped when they were elevated to Earldom).

Eg Baron Cadogan of Oakley, head of the reknown but before him untitled Cadogan family became Earl Cadogan.

Sir Robert Shirley, 7th baronet, inherited the Barony of Ferrers of Chartley through his mother's line and was created Earl Ferrers in 1711.

James Waldegrave, 2nd Baron Waldegrave and 5th Baronet Waldegrave of Hever Castle became Earl Waldegrave in 1729.

John Spencer, grandson of the Spencer Earl of Sunderland, but not his grandfather's heir, was created Baron Spencer of Althorp and Viscount Spencer in 1761 and Earl Spencer and Viscount Althorp in 1765.

Allan Bathurst, Baron Bathurst of Battlesden became Earl Bathurst in 1772.

 

[ladongas]

Thank you, dear Diarist!

Hello Ladongas,

So far as English titles are concerned, I was always taught that it all depends on what the individual's title is; in other words, in what terms the Earldom has been granted - basically whether or not there is a 'geographical' element to the title: [If there is a geographical element to the earldom, then the word 'of' is used.

I had a feeling that it was something to do with place names, but you have made it nicely clear for me.

 

[Next Star]

I always thought commoners had no title at all rather it be royal or noble
.It is does not make sense to me to call a count a commoner or even a duke one either.Yes Mrs.Wills is a commomer she holds no title royal or
noble at all unless her husband is granted a title by a reigning monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

A Duke in Britain is a noble but only the Duke is noble in his family - not his wife or children - so the Duke of Hogwarts is noble but the Duchess of Hogwarts is not noble (but is an aristocrat).

As the Duke of Hogwarts probably has a subsidiary title, such as Earl of Godric's Hollow, his eldest son will use that title as a courtesy but it is not a substantive title so the son isn't a noble but is an aristocrat. The son will become a noble when he inherits all his father's titles. Thus there are people with titles who aren't noble - simply because they use a title 'by courtesy' while someone else holds the actual title.

It mightn't make sense in one way but does in another as the son using the title actually isn't the title holder and thus is no different to his siblings who are also commoners (although called Lord or Lady).

Throughout British history you will often come across people with 'titles' sitting in the House of Commons and that is because despite the title they use they are still commoners e.g. in the 19th C the eldest sons of many Dukes etc sat in the House of Commons while their fathers sat in the House of Lords but the instant their fathers died they had to give up their seats in the Commons to go to the Lords. This was because there weren't a lot of acceptable careers for young aristocrats (and eldest sons weren't encouraged to have military careers) but politics was acceptable and even expected - tradition being a major reason as the nobility had always been the leading advisers of the monarch. So the eldest son could wait at home twiddling his thumbs and wasting the family fortune or have a seat in the Commons, learning the job of being a politician until they became the actual title holder.

 

[Esmerelda]

Love the Harry Potter analogy.