Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Osipi]

No, Sarah on legal paper work would have been similar. They are all the same.

HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge

HRH Princess Harry, Duchess of X

HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York.

But when they require a last name, their title will not work. The children of a duke use the designation. Harry Wales, George Cambridge, Beatrice York. The wives seem to use the form that divorcees use ie Catherine Elizabeth, Duchess of Cambridge. Where the title stands as the surname.

Legally though, several of the Queen's children have used Mountbatten-Windsor when a surname is required. Both Andrew and Anne signed their marriage registry with the name Mountbatten-Windsor.

I believe George's birth registry listed Kate as Catherine Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cambridge. Kate's given names were required on the birth registry and I think that is the only time it would be used like that. She would only be styled as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge if she and William divorced. William filled in the birth registry starting with "His Royal Highness" (did not use HRH at all).

In France, the lawsuit was on behalf of Catherine Middleton and William Mountbatten-Windsor.

Wikipedia (I know, not always right on the money) states:

"The British monarchy now asserts that the name Mountbatten-Windsor is used by members of the Royal Family who do not have a surname, when a surname is required."

Photo of George's birth registration:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/royal-baby-birth-certificate-photo_n_3694870.html

 

[Ish]

Legally though, several of the Queen's children have used Mountbatten-Windsor when a surname is required. Both Andrew and Anne signed their marriage registry with the name Mountbatten-Windsor.

I believe George's birth registry listed Kate as Catherine Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cambridge. Kate's given names were required on the birth registry and I think that is the only time it would be used like that. She would only be styled as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge if she and William divorced. William filled in the birth registry starting with "His Royal Highness" (did not use HRH at all).

In France, the lawsuit was on behalf of Catherine Middleton and William Mountbatten-Windsor.

Wikipedia (I know, not always right on the money) states:

"The British monarchy now asserts that the name Mountbatten-Windsor is used by members of the Royal Family who do not have a surname, when a surname is required."

Photo of George's birth registration:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/royal-baby-birth-certificate-photo_n_3694870.html

Kate is listed as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge on both George and Charlotte's birth certificates.

However, if you look at Beatrice's birth certificate, Sarah is listed as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York. Likewise, if you look at William's birth certificate, Diana is listed as Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. No given names for either. Makes me wonder if William and Kate are just being different, or if the rules were changed in the 30 or so years between Beatrice and George's births. I can't find Louise or James' birth certificates online, so I'm not sure how Sophie was listed.

 

[quiet1ne]

That might have to do with being the child/daughter-in-law of the Monarch vs. the Grandchild/Granddaughter-in-law of the Monarch.

 

[Osipi]

Another factor is that perhaps the British registries accept British royal titles. Another thing is that perhaps the individual royals choose to use Mountbatten-Windsor over their royal styles. In Britain, its likely that both would be considered legal.

In the case of the French lawsuit, there was no choice but to use Mountbatten-Windsor. It would be the only name recognized as legal in France.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Wikipedia (I know, not always right on the money) states:

"The British monarchy now asserts that the name Mountbatten-Windsor is used by members of the Royal Family who do not have a surname, when a surname is required."

Wikipedia's source however are the LPs from 8th February 1960 which states:

Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

The date is quite interesting as I believe one of the reasons for this change is that HM was told that a child born with the mother's maiden name would be technically regarded as illegitimate and Andrew was due within weeks (born 17th February). Now how accurate that version of events is I am not sure but I suspect there may be a kernel of truth in it and hence the hyphenated name to attempt to satisfy both Philip and the Queen Mother.

 

[wbenson]

It's possible there's no definite answer at all to some of these questions. English law isn't as bothered about "legal names" as some other jurisdictions are, and individuals can change their names at will simply by using the new one. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't actually any rule for how a royal mother was supposed to be listed on a birth registry, and they were just winging it every time it came up. The forms aren't really set up for this kind of thing.

On the subject of official documents, Diana's passport was in the name of "Her Royal Highness Diana Frances The Princess of Wales" inside, with "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales" on the cover (the name is not on the cover on current passports).

 

[royal-blue]

If Prince Philip was to remarry after being widowed/divorced, would his new wife be a princess, seeing that Philip is a British prince in his own right? Also would she automatically be considered a member of the Royal Family?

 

[Osipi]

Woah. Now there's a thought and its a good one.

Should Philip remarry again after the death of the Queen, with Philip being HRH Prince Philip (he wouldn't be The Prince Philip upon becoming a widower, I think??), Duke of Edinburgh and being a prince of the UK in his own right, his new wife would be HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh but would also be Princess Philip.

The Queen was a princess of the blood royal when she married so she was The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

I think she would be considered as much a part of the royal family as Camilla is. She would be stepmother to the King or step grandmother to the King.

 

[Mbruno]

Woah. Now there's a thought and its a good one.

Should Philip remarry again after the death of the Queen, with Philip being HRH Prince Philip (he wouldn't be The Prince Philip upon becoming a widower, I think??), Duke of Edinburgh and being a prince of the UK in his own right, his new wife would be HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh but would also be Princess Philip.

The Queen was a princess of the blood royal when she married so she was The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

I think she would be considered as much a part of the royal family as Camilla is. She would be stepmother to the King or step grandmother to the King.

I believe all of Philip's titles and styles would remain unchanged if he became a widower as those are personal titles granted to him in his own right by LPs and not tied to his marital status.

 

[Ish]

Woah. Now there's a thought and its a good one.

Should Philip remarry again after the death of the Queen, with Philip being HRH Prince Philip (he wouldn't be The Prince Philip upon becoming a widower, I think??), Duke of Edinburgh and being a prince of the UK in his own right, his new wife would be HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh but would also be Princess Philip.

The Queen was a princess of the blood royal when she married so she was The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

I think she would be considered as much a part of the royal family as Camilla is. She would be stepmother to the King or step grandmother to the King.

The DoE was created a Prince of the United Kingdom and the Duke of Edinburgh in his own right, neither of which would be taken from him if he became a widower or divorced the Queen - unlike Sarah, Diana, the Queen Mother, his titles are his, not courtesy titles.

Thus, a second wife of his would be HRH The Princess Philip, the Duchess of Edinburgh, or more commonly HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks Ish. Its always that "The" part that still comfuzzles me. He would still be The Prince Philip then. Good to know. ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

He would continue to hold the 'The' as that is the wording in the London Gazette:

The Queen has been pleased to declare her will and pleasure that his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh shall henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Ish]

Thanks Ish. Its always that "The" part that still comfuzzles me. He would still be The Prince Philip then. Good to know. ?

I believe (and I'm bad about getting this right) that "The Prince/The Princess" means "this person is/was the child of a monarch". So, Charles, Andrew, and Edward are all "The Prince" and Anne is "The Princess." Grandchildren and great-grandchildren have no "The" before Prince/Princess - so, William, Harry, and George are simply "Prince". Peers, however are always "The Duke/Earl/etc" regardless of any relation to the monarch - so William might "only" be "HRH Prince William", but he's also "HRH The Duke of Cambridge".

When the Queen made the DoE a British Prince she was elevating him in statu to be higher than his children - so he had to be a "The Prince".

I would expect that in the even that the DoE outlives the Queen, he'd be given a status similar to what the Queen Mother had - that is, ahead of everyone except for the King and his Consort.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That would be a decision for the new monarch. He would actually have to make such an announcement. Maybe Charles would do that and maybe he wouldn't.

What will be even more interesting is what William would do with Camilla if she outlives Charles?

 

[Leopoldine]

That would be a decision for the new monarch. He would actually have to make such an announcement. Maybe Charles would do that and maybe he wouldn't.

What will be even more interesting is what William would do with Camilla if she outlives Charles?

Camilla wouldn't want "anything done" with her. She'd go to Ray Mill and put her feet up.

 

[Countessmeout]

Charles will have seen Camilla financially cared for if she outlives him. She will likely retreat comfortably to Ray Mill, Dowager Queen. If she is still in good health she may continue with her patronages she is dedicated to. From time to time, she may be invited to join in on family occasions.

 

[Spheno]

If Prince Philip was to remarry after being widowed/divorced, would his new wife be a princess, seeing that Philip is a British prince in his own right? Also would she automatically be considered a member of the Royal Family?

It's interesting question. Obviously, as peer's wife his hypothetical second wife would be The Duchess of Edinburgh.

Second part is more difficult and less obvious. Would she be HRH, a princess and member of the Royal Family? There are two possible scenarios:
1) BRF/ monarch/ goverment accept her and happy for prince Philip. Then she (second wife) would be HRH The Princess Philip, the Duchess of Edinburgh and a member of BRF.
2) BRF/ monarch/ goverment don't accept this second wife. Then there is a Wallis Simpson scenario. Prince Philip still remain a prince and HRH, but a new LP prevents this second wife from sharing her husband's style of "Royal Highness". She wouldn't be a member of BRF.


Edit: I forgot about the third (catastrofic) scenario. Scandals, divorce, etc.
In this case prince Philip would lost his HRH and prince's title (new LP) . His wife would be The Duchess of Edinburgh.

 

[Denville]

What a thougth. Unless one is saying "what would have happened if the queen had passed away in the 70s" I cant imagine Philip at his age remarrying....

 

[Spheno]

What a thougth. Unless one is saying "what would have happened if the queen had passed away in the 70s" I cant imagine Philip at his age remarrying....

It's not about the prince Philip. It's about a man in his (quite unique) position.

 

[Denville]

Well it is about P Philip.

 

[Denville]

Camilla wouldn't want "anything done" with her. She'd go to Ray Mill and put her feet up.

yes why would anyting be "done with her"? She would still be the widow of the King.. (assuming Charles was King) and would be treated with respect and as part of the family but she would probably gradauly retire from active duties to private life...

 

[Gaudete]

I imagine in that scenario, the most likely would be that they’d use the Alice of Gloucester precedent and she’d be styled HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[wyevale]

Assuming she had been Queen, I think she'd be known as Queen Camilla...

 

[Gaudete]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

Of course yes, apologies, I was responding to what would happen if Charles predeceased the Queen. As the widow of a King however then she’d just be HM Queen Camilla for the rest of her life.

 

[Osipi]

I would imagine that if Charles died before the Queen and still The Duke of Cornwall, then William as his heir, would not become The Duke of Cornwall as he doesn't fit the requirements of being the eldest son of the monarch and heir apparent to the Crown. Therefore, I think Camilla would retire to Ray Mill but still be styled as The Duchess of Cornwall as Charles' widow.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

What on earth is 'Ray Mill?'

 

[Gaudete]

What on earth is 'Ray Mill?'

It's Camilla's private home. ?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2d/46/ac/2d46acb7d6ab4bdbb73345efba1cff00.jpg

 

[Princess Squirrel]

It's Camilla's private home. ?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2d/46/ac/2d46acb7d6ab4bdbb73345efba1cff00.jpg

Lol sounds like my dad grinding corn (his name was Ray!)

 

[Somebody]

When did George III's son's get their dukedoms, from their father or grandfather?

A precedent/tradition is difficult to determine. Adult sons of a Prince of Wales have not occurred very often.

The most relevant examples might be the grandsons of king George II by the prince of Wales. All younger brother's of king George III got their dukedom around their 21st birthday. Their father was never king as he passed away before their grandfather. King George III himself got his dukedom upon his father's passing, his brother Edward in the week of his 21st birthday under the reign of (grandfather) king George II) and his other brothers while he was king (again when they turned 21).

King George's sons were all born during his reign so were granted their titles by their father - his father never became king and he only got married after ascending the throne.

So yes, there is a precedent that would suggest that Harry will be granted his dukedom (upon marriage - as that seems to be the queen's time table) before his father ascends the throne (and that isn't depended on him actually being the son of a monarch. King George III's brothers never were but still received their dukedoms.

Since Harry may be the Kings Son within a few years, it seems absurd to make him change Titles twice in a short period... just give him Sussex on his wedding day, and 'there's an end to it', no need to faff about.

That might apply to children they might have and will certainly be the case for William, so not necessarily a problem - but no reason not just to grant him the ducsl title right away (unless they somehow like to tie it to any titles of his children - if there is no intention of making them princes and princesses ever).

 

[Mbruno]

The most relevant examples might be the grandsons of king George II by the prince of Wales. All younger brother's of king George III got their dukedom around their 21st birthday. Their father was never king as he passed away before their grandfather. King George III himself got his dukedom upon his father's passing, his brother Edward in the week of his 21st birthday under the reign of (grandfather) king George II) and his other brothers while he was king (again when they turned 21).

King George's sons were all born during his reign so were granted their titles by their father - his father never became king and he only got married after ascending the throne.

So yes, there is a precedent that would suggest that Harry will be granted his dukedom (upon marriage - as that seems to be the queen's time table) before his father ascends the throne (and that isn't depended on him actually being the son of a monarch. King George III's brothers never were but still received their dukedoms.

There is an important difference though that King George. Ii's grandsons got their dukedoms after their father had already passed, didn't they ? Prince Charles on the other hand is obvioulsly pretty much alive