The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 07-27-2005, 12:17 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
I wish that Charles would have the bottle to simply say 'My wife will be known by her titles as Princess of Wales and, in due course, Queen'. The UK public might grumble at first but in the end they would respect his guts. Don't you think so branchq?
Honestly, I think that would have been a public-relations disaster. If he'd married someone other than the person widley perceived as the cause of all Diana's problems, it would have been an option and, as you say, people might have grumbled but they'd have learned to live with it. For Camilla to use the Princess of Wales title would have caused a lot of resentment. Maybe eventually people would have settled down, but I wouldn't bet on it. I do think that if Charles becomes king, Camilla will become queen unless it should happen sometime in the next year or two.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-27-2005, 12:20 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
"Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, is thus also Lady Diana, Duchess of Cornwall, and because the title is regarded merely as a name, the status held by the wife of a duke is lost, as is the prefix of a duchess ("Her Grace"). Accordingly, although it appears not yet to have been clearly explained by the Government to the general public, following the analogy of a divorced duchess, Lady Diana, Princess of Wales is no longer a princess, just as Lady Diana, Duchess of Cornwall is no longer an English duchess. The rank of princess came with marriage and it went when the marriage ended."

If her actual title was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, how come the Palace never bothered to say so? She was "Diana, Princess of Wales" as far as the Palace was concerned, from the time of her divorce.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-27-2005, 12:28 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Branchq,

Quote:
That does not change the fact they are correctly known as HRH the Prince Andrew/Edward, Duke of York/Earl of Wessex.
Can you back that up? I would honestly like to see a link.

The sites I provided appear to say the contrary, that once the royal peerage is granted the title becomes simply HRH The Duke of York. These sites include the official court circular, the official website of Buckingham Palace, and now here is Debrett's

Debrett's Etiquette - Correct Forms Of Address

Quote:

Royal Family
On 11 December 1917, it was ordained that "The children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title, or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names, or with their titles of honour; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."
It then lists how to write to the RF and it says, simply, 'The Duke of York'.

Branch you seem to be arguing against positions I don't hold - in this case, that I am arguing that the Duke of York is not or ceased to be a Prince. A royal Duke is always a Prince, by definition.

I am talking here about titles.

Prince Andrew is never, ever styled HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Never. That is not a real title. He is a Prince, and his name is Andrew, and the day before his marriage he was styled HRH The Prince Andrew. However, on the day of his marriage, he was created Duke of York. It is incorrect to address a letter to him to 'HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York'. It is correct to address it to HRH The Duke of York. This is because the royal dukedom of York, only ever held by a Prince, is a higher title than merely a Prince of the United Kingdom. A Prince of the United Kingdom who is also a Royal Duke will use that title. Hence The Duke of Gloucester, not Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester; hence The Duke of York, not Prince Andrew, Duke of York. All royal Dukes are Princes yet all use simply the royal ducal style.

If you click on the Debrett's link above and click on R for Royal Family it will give you the correct styles to use when writing to members of the Royal Family. It is HRH The Duke of York, not HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-27-2005, 12:33 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I don't know why that line came out bold, I didn't bold it
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-27-2005, 12:46 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Elspeth

Quote:
I do think that if Charles becomes king, Camilla will become queen unless it should happen sometime in the next year or two.
I certainly hope so. I think that the monarchy in England is in some danger unless they stop playing around with titles. for all the talk of a "Scandanavian" monarchy I have not seen the Scandanavians mess with titles and precedence in the way the present British RF is doing. Thank goodness Andrew stood strong for the rights of his daughters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-27-2005, 01:38 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Elspeth

I certainly hope so. I think that the monarchy in England is in some danger unless they stop playing around with titles. for all the talk of a "Scandanavian" monarchy I have not seen the Scandanavians mess with titles and precedence in the way the present British RF is doing. Thank goodness Andrew stood strong for the rights of his daughters.
While I do concede playing with titles may be dangerous, in the case of Camilla it is warranted. Many people, British and Non-British alike, do not want to see her crowned Queen (Put me at the front of the line). I continue my prayer that Her Majesty the Queen lives another 30 years. . . . . . No one sings God Save the Queen more fervently than I do!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-27-2005, 02:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Honestly, I think that would have been a public-relations disaster. If he'd married someone other than the person widley perceived as the cause of all Diana's problems, it would have been an option and, as you say, people might have grumbled but they'd have learned to live with it. For Camilla to use the Princess of Wales title would have caused a lot of resentment. Maybe eventually people would have settled down, but I wouldn't bet on it. I do think that if Charles becomes king, Camilla will become queen unless it should happen sometime in the next year or two.
I agree. From a political standpoint, I think it would have been impossible for Tony Blair to advise the Queen to approve the marriage if Camilla were to be assume her primary title "Princess of Wales". Even though questioning from Parliament later confirmed (embarassingly to Clarence House), that legally Camilla IS Princess of Wales, but choosing to be known by her lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall, it still provided a PR "out" for now.

The issue will certainly become very dicey if the Queen suddenly died and Charles ascended the throne in the next few years. I think the Government would have no choice but to pass an Act of Exclusion permitting Camilla to assume the title of HRH Princess Consort, even though they don't want to. I don't think the British public is ready for Queen Camilla yet.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-27-2005, 02:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I am talking here about titles.

Prince Andrew is never, ever styled HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Never. That is not a real title. He is a Prince, and his name is Andrew, and the day before his marriage he was styled HRH The Prince Andrew. However, on the day of his marriage, he was created Duke of York. It is incorrect to address a letter to him to 'HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York'. It is correct to address it to HRH The Duke of York. This is because the royal dukedom of York, only ever held by a Prince, is a higher title than merely a Prince of the United Kingdom. A Prince of the United Kingdom who is also a Royal Duke will use that title. Hence The Duke of Gloucester, not Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester; hence The Duke of York, not Prince Andrew, Duke of York. All royal Dukes are Princes yet all use simply the royal ducal style.
Frothy,

You're arguing over silly semantics here. Andrew is formally known as HRH the Prince Andrew, Duke of York. As a matter of practice and form, he is correctly addressed by his style "HRH the Duke of York" since everyone knows he is a son of the Sovereign and a Royal Highness. He is a son of the Sovereign and entitled to be known under letters patent as "HRH the Prince Andrew". In addition, the Queen granted him additional subsidiary titles and honours upon marriage. If he had a male heir, these peerages would continue to pass down to the eldest male descendant as "Dukes of the Blood Royal" without the style of "Royal Highness".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-27-2005, 02:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
If her actual title was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, how come the Palace never bothered to say so? She was "Diana, Princess of Wales" as far as the Palace was concerned, from the time of her divorce.
Again, this is just semantics and PR. The Queen reluctantly concluded it would not be possible, given Diana's demands during the settlement talks, to grant her the title of Princess of the UK and style of HRH in her own right after the divorce, so they fudged around on the issue of what Diana actually was, given the public's reverence of her position as a royal.

Technically, Diana was most certainly NOT entitled to use a coronet over a stylized D as a lozenge on her stationary, or keep any royal jewels, such as Queen Mary's tiara or emerald necklace, use the Queen's Flight or retain any precedence whatsoever as a divorcee. But all of these things were granted, she continued to be regarded as royal by the Government, she was given a curtesy most of the time, etc;

In death, she received more honours than a princess of the UK by birth would have been entitled to, so in the end, it's clear Diana was royal despite the divorce and treated accordingly as the mother of Prince William.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-27-2005, 02:55 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:

You're arguing over silly semantics here. Andrew is formally known as HRH the Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
No, he is not. I have provided you with evidence to the contrary:

Buckingham Palace's website
Debrett's
The Court Circular

He is formally known as HRH The Duke of York. There is no title HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York.

If you have some evidence other than your assertion that Andrew is formally known in a way where he is not styled by the above authorities, please let me see it. The letters patent are referred to in the paragraph excerpted from Debrett's; Andrew is now known by HRH and his title of honour, in this case, The Duke of York.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-27-2005, 03:06 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
Technically, Diana was most certainly NOT entitled to use a coronet over a stylized D as a lozenge on her stationary, or keep any royal jewels, such as Queen Mary's tiara or emerald necklace, use the Queen's Flight or retain any precedence whatsoever as a divorcee. But all of these things were granted, she continued to be regarded as royal by the Government, she was given a curtesy most of the time, etc;

In death, she received more honours than a princess of the UK by birth would have been entitled to, so in the end, it's clear Diana was royal despite the divorce and treated accordingly as the mother of Prince William.
This is what I'm saying - that there's no "techincally" these days. It's all messed up and anything goes. Of course the Queen can grant whatever she likes to anyone.

If she WAS royal, leave the HRH in place. If not, then not!

Had she lived, there would have had to be some resolution, for when she married again, what would they have done? she would always have been the mother of the future King.

Now I must pin my colours to the mast and say I am a big fan of the Waleses (the current ones). I think that what Branchq has posted about court precedence is very disturbing. What nonsense to grant her one legal and one court status. For HM to make her rank below the blood princesses at court is like saying that it was not a true marriage.

It's a sad state of affairs that things like Camilla's stylishness are what is winning the public round.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-27-2005, 03:28 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
No, he is not. I have provided you with evidence to the contrary:

Buckingham Palace's website
Debrett's
The Court Circular

He is formally known as HRH The Duke of York. There is no title HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York.

If you have some evidence other than your assertion that Andrew is formally known in a way where he is not styled by the above authorities, please let me see it. The letters patent are referred to in the paragraph excerpted from Debrett's; Andrew is now known by HRH and his title of honour, in this case, The Duke of York.
Check it out my friend:

http://www.debretts.co.uk/royal_conn...ce_andrew.html
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-27-2005, 03:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
More info on formal address of a royal duke:

Prince
CORRESPONDENCE: On the envelope, (i) the son of a Sovereign "His Royal Highness The Prince [Edward]"; (ii) other Princes "His Royal Highness Prince [Michael of Kent]"; (iii) Duke "His Royal Highness The Duke of [Gloucester]". Commencement, "Sir". Conclusion, "I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Royal Highness's most humble and obedient servant".
PERSONAL ADDRESS: "Your Royal Highness", and thenceforward as "Sir". See also Royal Family

Also from Debrett's website.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-27-2005, 03:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
This is what I'm saying - that there's no "techincally" these days. It's all messed up and anything goes. Of course the Queen can grant whatever she likes to anyone.

If she WAS royal, leave the HRH in place. If not, then not!

Had she lived, there would have had to be some resolution, for when she married again, what would they have done? she would always have been the mother of the future King.

Now I must pin my colours to the mast and say I am a big fan of the Waleses (the current ones). I think that what Branchq has posted about court precedence is very disturbing. What nonsense to grant her one legal and one court status. For HM to make her rank below the blood princesses at court is like saying that it was not a true marriage.

It's a sad state of affairs that things like Camilla's stylishness are what is winning the public round.
Frothy,

You can be royal without the style of Royal Highness (such as Peter and Zara Phillips or Lady Sarah Chatto), which is exactly what Diana was. Regardless of the formalities, Diana was still the mother of a future king and remained a member of the royal family with many privileges and precedence granted by the Queen.

Who knows what would have happened if Diana was alive today? Much would have depended on whether she remarried and remained in the UK or moved on to another country for more privacy (something she considered). There is also the major question of whether Charles and Camilla would even have agreed to marry while Diana was still alive (highly doubtful in my opinion), and whether the Queen would have supported a remarriage (extremely unlikely).

Court precedence has always been determined by the Sovereign and often differs from official precedence. It's not a new development, but simply the way royal life is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-27-2005, 05:20 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I'm with Frothy on this one.

Once again I'm not a Camilla advocate, but having married the Prince of Wales, she ought to be entitled to have the same amount of deference paid to her as was paid to Diana. Otherwise, the marriage begins to look like a morganatic marriage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:47 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: singapore, Singapore
Posts: 311
I heard she was born with a fused labia. But she does look like a transexual and sounds like one too.

*****

Edited by Elspeth to add that "she" in this post refers to Lady Colin Campbell.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
I'm with Frothy on this one.

Once again I'm not a Camilla advocate, but having married the Prince of Wales, she ought to be entitled to have the same amount of deference paid to her as was paid to Diana. Otherwise, the marriage begins to look like a morganatic marriage.
Camilla has the same official precedence in the UK that Diana enjoyed as the wife of Prince Charles, regardless of what her style or title actually is. The Queen, as Sovereign and fount of honour, could have denied Camilla the right to assume any style or rank enjoyed by Prince Charles (something that was speculated on as very possible prior to the marriage being announced) by issuing letters patent. Prince Charles refused to consider any such thing and insisted Camilla be HRH and a princess of the UK.

The only difference is Camilla, in deference to public, and no doubt private, sensitivities of being seen as replacing Diana, requested she be styled as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales. Legally, though, she is Princess of Wales unless letters patent were issued denying the rank and style to her.

Court precedence was applied accordingly and Camilla follows the princesses of the blood royal, which is simply a matter of formal protocol, and does not matter at events in public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 364
But branchg, there is something different happening here. Even you conceded earlier in this post that Diana did not feature behind Princess Alexandra in Court Precedence during her marraige to Prince Charles so what has changed?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:27 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by james
But branchg, there is something different happening here. Even you conceded earlier in this post that Diana did not feature behind Princess Alexandra in Court Precedence during her marraige to Prince Charles so what has changed?
Camilla, at this time, does not hold the same precedence at court that Diana did as Princess of Wales. Diana's precedence at court came after the Queen, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne, but before Princess Alexandra and the wives of the princes of the blood royal.

Camilla comes after the Queen, Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra, but before the wives of the princes of the blood royal at court. I don't know the exact reasons, but I assume the Queen felt Camilla should not come before Princess Alexandra while styled as Duchess of Cornwall. Maybe Princess Alexandra was unhappy about it? Or with the death of her husband, Sir Agnus, she should have new precedence as a widow? We simply don't know.

Regardless, it doesn't particularly matter unless they were strictly following protocol by requiring curtesies and bows among each other based on their style, dignity and precedence (which was done in the reigns of Victoria, Edward VII and George V). So for instance, Camilla would be required to drop a curtsey to Princesses Alexandra and Anne, and Peter Phillips would have to curtesy to his mother and all other Royal Highnesses, which is never done.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Peter Phillips would have to curtesy to his mother and all other Royal Highnesses, which is never done.
Oops!!! I meant bow....LOL.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
order of precedence, protocol


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Danish Orders and Monograms davo Royal House of Denmark 156 08-08-2014 12:36 PM
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM
Princess Madeleine at the Ball of the Order of Innocence; 2003 Josefine Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill 62 11-19-2005 04:27 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace poland pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:28 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]