Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

Following the Belgian and Dutch definition of "princess in her own right", the British consorts would be considered to be princesses in their own right, for the reason that they are princesses on a legal level.

As per my previous post (which was posted after yours). I'd like to stress that there is a huge difference between Belgium and the Netherlands. Only the queen is legally a princess (next to the aunts of the king and his two Bourbon Parma cousins), for all others it is a courtesy title and has nothing to do with being princess in their own right. Legally they don't even have their husbands surname. Nonetheless, nobody would ever consider calling princess Laurentien 'prinses Constantijn' nor would princess Anita be called 'prinses Pieter-Christiaan'. That's not our custom.

 

[Denville]

Yes, I read somewhere that some in the British government aren't in favor of gender neutral peerages not because they support the current rules but because they prefer to see the titles die out completely for lack of male heirs.

Why would the government care?

 

[Mbruno]

The reason that Máxima was made a princess in her own right is that her predecessors (Claus, Bernhard, Hendrik) had been made princes in their own right as they couldn't take their wife's rank. It wasn't necessary for Máxima (as women take their husband's titles - using their own names) but that's why it was done... All other women married into the royal family in the last 20 years are also known as 'princess 'own first name'.

Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis, male or female consorts of the heir to the throne can be created Princes or Princesses of the Netherlands in their own right by royal decree (Article 8.2(c)). If I understand it correctly, that is not normally the case for spouses of other children of the monarch who are not themselves the heir to the throne, although Article 8.2(e) seems to provide a loophole under which that would still be possible.

 

[Ish]

St. Andrews? Lord Downpatrick will use the Earl of St Andrews title when his grandfather passes and his father becomes Duke of Kent. Or is there a different St Andrews title?

I forgot about the Earl of St Andrews, to be honest.

There is a precedent for a Duke of St Andrews though - William IV was Duke of Clarence and St Andrews. I doubt it's likely to be used in the future given that it's an Earldom and it's a Scottish location and the preference is for a English location as the Dukedom now (instead of an English and a Scottish Dukedom, as we saw during the Hanoverian reigns).

 

[Somebody]

I don't see ducal titles becoming inheritable in maternal line anytime soon, so the chances that Gloucester and Edinburgh may become extinct are by no means neglible. York and Cambridge of course will be available in the next generation and we don't know what will happen to Sussex. In any case, there are other available dukedoms which the Royal Family could use as mentioned in this thread (Ross, Kendal, Buckingham, etc.) besides the obvious ones like Clarence, and, in the unlikely event that they ran out of titles completely, a new one could still be created.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make. It certainly not a done deal that a title granted to a monarch's son will be gone forever as long as it's male only. If it would be changed into male preference it would be far more likely.

Personally, I think a good move would be to use earldoms more often (as was done in Edward's case) and leave dukedoms only for people in direct line to the throne.

However, those directly in line to the throne typically don't need a ducal title being granted to them as most of the time they are duke of Cornwall (and prince of Wales) by the time they need a title. What might be an interesting move is to reserve one ducal title for the heir's heir. Just as the monarch's heir is always the Duke of Cornwall, the same title could be given to all heirs of the heir if applicable (although no duchy that would provide income would be linked to it),.

 

[Somebody]

The remainder to William’s dukedom is ‘heirs males’ but yes a peerage for Harry could include the remainder ‘heirs female’ or ‘heirs general’ although The Queen seems to be old school.

Changes wil come under Charles, not The Queen.

Agreed. I don't expect the queen to make such changes. If Harry will be granted a dukedom it will most likely be 'heirs male of the body'.

If the idea would be for Charles to change that and if Harry's title would be the first to apply that to, I see two complications:
1. If the queen would like to grant Harry at least an earldom and leave the dukedom for Charles, Harry's future secondary titles would have different rules than the ducal title.
2. I expect that Edward expects to be granted the Edinburgh title with 'heir males' so the titles stays within Philip's male line descendants (something thst is very important to Philip), so how would thst be explained - male preference could work (but create the same issue as above with difference between main and secondary titles); gender neutral would be comp,icated.

So, would this be a reason not to grant Harry any title yet by the queen?

Given that the sucession rights changed for those born since October 28, 2011, it would make sense to only make change regarding ducal titles and the rules applied to them for titles granted to this same group. So starting with William's children.

 

[Somebody]

Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis, male or female consorts of the heir to the throne can be created Princes or Princesses of the Netherlands in their own right by royal decree (Article 8.2(c)). If I understand it correctly, that is not normally the case for spouses of other children of the monarch who are not themselves the heir to the throne, although Article 8.2(e) seems to provide a loophole under which that would still be possible.

Exactly. That law was written (around the time the king and queen married) as such precisely because of what I described. Husband's of heir would need to be created a prince (as is also the case for Amalia's future spouse), it isn't a necessity for wifes of the heir but to treat them equally in this respect, they also can be created a princess. Of course, the wives still beccome queens and the husbands don't become kings...

 

[Rudolph]

It’s been well over a 100 years since a dukedom has been created outside the royal family.

Margaret Thatcher was the last Prime Minister to create hereditary peers outside the RF.

The Queen has been sovereign for 65 years and has created less than a handful of hereditary peers. Three of them are in the family. York, Wessex and Cambridge.

 

[Mbruno]

2. I expect that Edward expects to be granted the Edinburgh title with 'heir males' so the titles stays within Philip's male line descendants (something thst is very important to Philip),

Again, the only reason why that could be conceivably important to Philip would be to make sure that the future Dukes of Edinburgh bear the name "Mountbatten" rather than the name of Lady Louise's future husband, or the names of the husbands of any future female firstborns. It may be difficult for some posters to accept it, but patrilineal naming is still the norm in the UK and maintaining a title within the same family over multiple generations is a valid concern that has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As per my previous post (which was posted after yours). I'd like to stress that there is a huge difference between Belgium and the Netherlands. Only the queen is legally a princess (next to the aunts of the king and his two Bourbon Parma cousins), for all others it is a courtesy title and has nothing to do with being princess in their own right. Legally they don't even have their husbands surname. Nonetheless, nobody would ever consider calling princess Laurentien 'prinses Constantijn' nor would princess Anita be called 'prinses Pieter-Christiaan'. That's not our custom.

I agree; what I meant to underscore is that in Belgium and the Netherlands, there is a difference between being legally a princess and being a titleless wife who is called a princess out of courtesy, while in Britain, all of the wives are, in actuality, legally princesses.

I think the husband's first name was the custom in the olden days, as Princess Amalia of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, for example, was called Princess Hendrik of the Netherlands in 19th century records.

Queen Anne was called Princess Anne of Denmark because I suppose that was her title in Denmark. In other words, it was a Danish title, not a British one, and therefore governed by Danish rules rather than British rules. As a matter of fact, the title of "princess" was not normally used in England to refer to a monarch's daughter prior to the Hanoverians. Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I for example were simply called "Lady Mary" and "Lady Elizabeth" prior to their accession to the throne. [...]

You may be correct, and thank you for adding further information with respect to the title of Lady. On the other hand, at the British court, Princess Maud of Wales was called Princess Charles of Denmark and Princess Margaret of Connaught was called Princess Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and Norway, following the British rules instead of the Scandinavian rules.

 

[Rudolph]

Look at Prince Philip’s mother. In Britain Princess Alice was styled Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But the rules can be changed. As I stated they aren't written in stone. For example, the Queen issued Letters Patent ("changed the rules") in order to allow George and Charlotte to be HRHs and not HHs.

If rules can't be changed we wouldn't be discussing titles for Harry or William's children in the first place. We'd be discussing titles for the children of the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein. Because if rules can't be changed the Act of Settlement would never have been passed.

George V banned HH in the UK in 1917 when he issued the LPs that cover who is and who isn't an HRH. Under those same LPs George would have been HRH anyway.

Under George V's LPs the following were/are automatic HRHs:

Elizabeth, Margaret, Edward, Alexandra, Michael, William, Richard (his male line grandchildren - his own children had been raised to HRHs by Queen Victoria in 1898)

Andrew, Edward - born as the children of the monarch

William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James - male-line grandchildren of the Elizabeth II through her sons.

George - the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Spouses of the men listed above - Katherine, Marie-Christine, Birgitte, Sarah, Sophie, Kate and Diana and Camilla.

Yes I have

a) left out Charles and Anne
b) included Louise and James
c) left out Charlotte and the new baby

a) special LPs were needed in 1948 to give HRH to Charles and Anne when George VI issued the LPs to give the right to HRH from birth to the children of The Princess Elizabeth (without those LPs Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth - he would have been able to use Philip's second title as a courtesy) and Anne would have been Lady Anne Mountbatten.

b) The Queen didn't issue LPs to strip Louise and James of HRH but made Her Will known - which has the same effect (I have confirmed this with BP - wrote a letter asking this very question and was told that they are not and never will be HRH as the Queen's Will was made known). Given the reported 'smaller royal family' idea going around the decision is clear that the children of the younger sons won't be HRHs over time.

c) special LPs were issued to give HRH to all of William's children not just his eldest son. They didn't want a situation to arise where the first child was a girl and born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and then a son born as HRH Prince George when they were changing the law to allow the girl to be the future Queen.

The rules that have been changed by since 1917 have been done for clear reasons but mainly to ensure a 'future monarch' is born as HRH.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It’s been well over a 100 years since a dukedom has been created outside the royal family.

Margaret Thatcher was the last Prime Minister to create hereditary peers outside the RF.

The Queen has been sovereign for 65 years and has created less than a handful of hereditary peers. Three of them are in the family. York, Wessex and Cambridge.

Four - Snowdon.

 

[Gawin]

Again, the only reason why that could be conceivably important to Philip would be to make sure that the future Dukes of Edinburgh bear the name "Mountbatten" rather than the name of Lady Louise's future husband, or the names of the husbands of any future female firstborns. It may be difficult for some posters to accept it, but patrilineal naming is still the norm in the UK and maintaining a title within the same family over multiple generations is a valid concern that has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

I understand your points but the very fact that (1) a son's descendants are considered family but a daughter's aren't, and (2) surnames are passed down by fathers but not mothers is based on gender discrimination.

Laws regarding names & titles are based on customs that developed when women had few, if any, rights. Just because the laws & customs have been enshrined & hallowed by time doesn't change that fact. A woman didn't pass her surname to her children because once she married she essentially became her husband's property and no longer had her own surname. And her children weren't considered part of her father's family because they belonged to her husband's.

Yes, some people considers male-only succession a valid concern. But others consider gender equality to be an equally valid concern. It can't simply be ignored because some people don't like it and it's never been done that way. Why does the first group get to automatically trump the second? I'm sure there were some in 1837 who preferred to see the House of Hanover remain on the throne and weren't happy when an upstart Saxe-Coburg-Gotha arrived on the scene in 1841.

If Philip's title needs to stay with the Mountbattens then Louise can pass the Mountbatten name to her children. Besides, if the patrilineal line is important why are we referring to Mountbatten instead of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg? Philip's father wasn't a Mountbatten. And his maternal grandfather, from whom Philip adopted the Mountbatten surname, was born a Battenberg. And his father was a Prince of Hesse.

We still have Grimaldis in Monaco despite the fact that the last male died in 1731. The name & title passed to his daughter and her descendants. And when the last male of the second Grimaldi line died in 1949 his name and title passed to his daughter's son.

 

[Gawin]

Why would the government care?

It has been suggested that the government should abolish male primogeniture in the peerage. But you are correct, most government officials really don't care one way or the other because they simply don't care about the peerage in the first place.

See, for example, this article:
To the manor born: The female aristocrats battling to inherit the title | The Independent

 

[Gawin]

George V banned HH in the UK in 1917 when he issued the LPs that cover who is and who isn't an HRH. Under those same LPs George would have been HRH anyway.

Under George V's LPs the following were/are automatic HRHs:

Elizabeth, Margaret, Edward, Alexandra, Michael, William, Richard (his male line grandchildren - his own children had been raised to HRHs by Queen Victoria in 1898)

Andrew, Edward - born as the children of the monarch

William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James - male-line grandchildren of the Elizabeth II through her sons.

George - the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Spouses of the men listed above - Katherine, Marie-Christine, Birgitte, Sarah, Sophie, Kate and Diana and Camilla.

Yes I have

a) left out Charles and Anne
b) included Louise and James
c) left out Charlotte and the new baby

a) special LPs were needed in 1948 to give HRH to Charles and Anne when George VI issued the LPs to give the right to HRH from birth to the children of The Princess Elizabeth (without those LPs Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth - he would have been able to use Philip's second title as a courtesy) and Anne would have been Lady Anne Mountbatten.

b) The Queen didn't issue LPs to strip Louise and James of HRH but made Her Will known - which has the same effect (I have confirmed this with BP - wrote a letter asking this very question and was told that they are not and never will be HRH as the Queen's Will was made known). Given the reported 'smaller royal family' idea going around the decision is clear that the children of the younger sons won't be HRHs over time.

c) special LPs were issued to give HRH to all of William's children not just his eldest son. They didn't want a situation to arise where the first child was a girl and born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and then a son born as HRH Prince George when they were changing the law to allow the girl to be the future Queen.

The rules that have been changed by since 1917 have been done for clear reasons but mainly to ensure a 'future monarch' is born as HRH.

This was very informative, thank you for posting it. Obviously I was wrong when I stated an LP was necessary to prevent William's children from being HH rather than HRH. I believe it was necessary when the future George V's children was born and I didn't realize the HH was dropped altogether in 1917.

 

[Jacknch]

Please be reminded that THIS thread is to discuss British Styles and Titles generally. For discussion on a possible Dukedom for Prince Harry, please use the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/possible-dukedom-for-harry-and-meghan-43903.html thread. Thank you.

 

[Somebody]

As peerages are only inherited by the eldest son (but could easily be changed to eldest child or eldest son and if no son, eldest daughter), there wouldn't be a huge influx of titled people.

This is quite different on most on continental Europe; if titles can be inherited both in male and female line the number of titled people will multiply as the higher title will mostly be picked over the lower/not titled... I don't think that wouldd be the way to go but for the UK that's not a concern (other than that the royal family needs to hand out one or two more titles per generation).

 

[Iluvbertie]

This was very informative, thank you for posting it. Obviously I was wrong when I stated an LP was necessary to prevent William's children from being HH rather than HRH. I believe it was necessary when the future George V's children was born and I didn't realize the HH was dropped altogether in 1917.

George V's children were born HH but Queen Victoria issued the new LPs to raise them to HRH in 1898 so only Edward, Bertie and Mary ever held the HH while Henry - the last one born in her reign - was born HRH.

What his LPs did was limit the rights of daughters and younger sons from HRH during the reign of the great-grandparent (had his LPs applied in the 1890s then Edward would have been born HRH but Bertie, Mary and Henry as Lord/Lady and then they would have been raised to HRH when Queen Victoria died.

I suspect that if there had been no call for gender equality for the monarch then the Queen wouldn't have issued the new LPs in 2012.

 

[Denville]

It has been suggested that the government should abolish male primogeniture in the peerage. But you are correct, most government officials really don't care one way or the other because they simply don't care about the peerage in the first place.

See, for example, this article:
To the manor born: The female aristocrats battling to inherit the title | The Independent

when you say "government" I had assumed you meant people in the Govt, ie the cabinet and other members. But if you mean Civil servants that's a whole other bag.
And from what I've seen a lot of aristocrats who have titles don't like the idea of the title goin in the female line.
However from a political point of view, now, the peerage have lost their postion completely in terms of legislating.. so from a political point of view I cant see why the Govt would have an opinion.

 

[Mbruno]

when you say "government" I had assumed you meant people in the Govt, ie the cabinet and other members. But if you mean Civil servants that's a whole other bag.
And from what I've seen a lot of aristocrats who have titles don't like the idea of the title goin in the female line.
However from a political point of view, now, the peerage have lost their postion completely in terms of legislating.. so from a political point of view I cant see why the Govt would have an opinion.

Not entirely. There are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, including two ex-officio seats and 90 seats to which only dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, or hereditary barons can be elected. So hereditary peerage is still attached to political privileges in the UK.

 

[Denville]

yes I kow but the idea is to remove the hereditary peers' power and it has largely gone.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Not entirely. There are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, including two ex-officio seats and 90 seats to which only dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, or hereditary barons can be elected. So hereditary peerage is still attached to political privileges in the UK.

I'd add, out of 700-800 total seats, aren't there a fair number of hereditary peers who do not participate? With only about 400 actually places to sit in the chamber?

It seems to way a to dilute political power of the HOL.

 

[Gawin]

when you say "government" I had assumed you meant people in the Govt, ie the cabinet and other members. But if you mean Civil servants that's a whole other bag.
And from what I've seen a lot of aristocrats who have titles don't like the idea of the title goin in the female line.
However from a political point of view, now, the peerage have lost their postion completely in terms of legislating.. so from a political point of view I cant see why the Govt would have an opinion.

I'm sorry, I should have said Parliament not government. In the United States we when we say government we mean all three branches including Congress (equivalent to your Parliament) but in the UK that's not the case. My mistake.

Opponents of male primogeniture want Parliament to pass legislation abolishing it, so in that sense it is a political issue, just as other social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) become political when legislatures debate their regulation.

But as you point out a lot of aristocrats don't support this movement. Between that and the fact that many MPs don't care about the peerage in the first place it's a lost cause.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

After their four day state visit to Portugal, Queen Elizabeth II issued a proclamation that granted Philip the title and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. What is a titular dignity?

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is the fancy way of saying 'title'.

 

[Rudolph]

Interesting video. Prince Andrew having been raised to the peerage in 1986, was formally introduced to the House of Lords in 1987. His escorts were the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

Members of the royal family no longer hold seats in the House of Lords so this was the last time we witnessed this ancient tradition.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Princess Mary married Henry Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles on February 28, 1922. Her title and style became Her Royal Highness The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles. Would Princess Mary have ever been addressed as a Viscountess in speech as "My Lady"?

 

[Lady Nimue]

Interesting video. Prince Andrew having been raised to the peerage in 1986, was formally introduced to the House of Lords in 1987. His escorts were the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

Members of the royal family no longer hold seats in the House of Lords so this was the last time we witnessed this ancient tradition.

Why do members of the royal family no longer hold seats in the House of Lords? When did that change and why? Anyone?

 

[Rudolph]

It was in 1999 when Tony Blair ‘reformed’ the House of Lords. Kicking out hereditary peers.

BBC News | UK Politics | Royals lose voting rights