The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2361  
Old 11-20-2013, 05:09 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Would not Philip had to renounce his titles as part of the naturalization process that he went thru before becoming engaged? He definitely stopped using them then.

If Harry married a British peeress, she would keep her title but she would use the highest title which would mostly likely be her husband's if Harry is given a dukedom on marriage.
It's debated whether or not Philip renounced his titles or simply stopped using them - if I'm correct, there is no evidence to support the belief that he actually renounced them, he just doesn't use them.

That line of thinking makes me wonder if technically speaking his children, male-line grandchildren, and great-grandson are also Prince(sse)s of Greece and Denmark, but just choose to not use such titles. While certainly not a definitive source by any means, the Wikipedia page for the Danish Royal Family still includes the DoE in the list, as well as other individuals who would be on par with the DoE's children in terms of descent.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2362  
Old 11-20-2013, 05:10 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I just found a web page for the Barony of Cromar which has a lot of information about the Duchess of Fife and the Connaughts. I can't vouch for its accuracy but it seems thorough. Cromar - Legacy On the page dedicated to the Duchess of Fife, it says, "After their marriage, Alexandra was generally referred to as HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, or in some documents HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught (Duchess of Fife). This followed the tradition of a wife taking the style and title of her husband, even although Alexandra was a peeress in her own right."
I am more inclined to believe this website and it's depiction of Alexandra's titles than Wikipedia.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2363  
Old 11-20-2013, 07:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
It's debated whether or not Philip renounced his titles or simply stopped using them - if I'm correct, there is no evidence to support the belief that he actually renounced them, he just doesn't use them.

That line of thinking makes me wonder if technically speaking his children, male-line grandchildren, and great-grandson are also Prince(sse)s of Greece and Denmark, but just choose to not use such titles. While certainly not a definitive source by any means, the Wikipedia page for the Danish Royal Family still includes the DoE in the list, as well as other individuals who would be on par with the DoE's children in terms of descent.
There is a thread on this under The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh section. But Philip's descendants are not Prince and Princess of Greece & Denmark because he renounced his right of succession to the Greek throne before naturalization to British citizenship. He dropped his Greek title and style in favor of Lt. Philip Mountbatten, RN.

The King created him a Royal Highness and Duke of the Realm shortly before marrying The Queen. The King also issued Letters Patent in 1948 declaring Philip's children would be HRH Prince/Princess of the UK at birth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2364  
Old 11-20-2013, 07:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
There is a thread on this under The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh section. But Philip's descendants are not Prince and Princess of Greece & Denmark because he renounced his right of succession to the Greek throne before naturalization to British citizenship. He dropped his Greek title and style in favor of Lt. Philip Mountbatten, RN.

The King created him a Royal Highness and Duke of the Realm shortly before marrying The Queen. The King also issued Letters Patent in 1948 declaring Philip's children would be HRH Prince/Princess of the UK at birth.

The information I have which is from BP at the time of the wedding and their first visit to Australia in 1954 - given to employees at the British High Commission in Canberra where my mother worked in 1947 and friends past on the official stuff knowing her interest for the 1954 visit is that Philip was still in the line of succession to both thrones and held his Greek and Danish titles until the changes in the succession laws in 1953.

I will go with those official documents sent from BP around the world as to the official status of Philip - he was until 1953 but not after that in regards to Denmark.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2365  
Old 11-20-2013, 11:43 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,775
If Prince Philip wasn't a Prince after his British nationalisation and marriage, why did the 1948 Letters Patent relating to his children with Elizabeth describe him as His Royal Highness Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh?

Though the 1947 Letters Patent did not describe him as a Prince, they allowed him to keep using any other appellations and titles of honour to which he was entitled. His situation is analogous with that of Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Prince Henry of Battenberg who were made Royal Highnesses by Queen Victoria. They continued to be known as Princes. The 1917 Letters Patent only stopped people using German titles and unless Philip expressly renounced his Greek and Danish titles he was still entitled to them. If he did renounce them, why isn't there some record of it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2366  
Old 11-21-2013, 05:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
George VI did not issue a royal warrant recognizing Philip's title as a Prince of Greece & Denmark in the UK. He ceased to be known by that and assumed the name of Philip Mountbatten as a British subject. Hugo Vickers biography of Princess Andrew, which The Duke was extensively interviewed for, makes clear he renounced his right of succession to the Greek throne with permission from George II of Greece prior to assuming British nationality.

Shortly before marrying The Princess Elizabeth, he was created a Royal Highness and Duke of Edinburgh, but not a Prince of the UK, by The King. The reference in the 1948 Letters Patent may have been an error of courtesy, but The King made it clear later he had not created Philip a Prince of the UK. The Queen did so in 1957 with Letters Patent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2367  
Old 11-22-2013, 03:48 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
George VI did not issue a royal warrant recognizing Philip's title as a Prince of Greece & Denmark in the UK. He ceased to be known by that and assumed the name of Philip Mountbatten as a British subject. Hugo Vickers biography of Princess Andrew, which The Duke was extensively interviewed for, makes clear he renounced his right of succession to the Greek throne with permission from George II of Greece prior to assuming British nationality.

Shortly before marrying The Princess Elizabeth, he was created a Royal Highness and Duke of Edinburgh, but not a Prince of the UK, by The King. The reference in the 1948 Letters Patent may have been an error of courtesy, but The King made it clear later he had not created Philip a Prince of the UK. The Queen did so in 1957 with Letters Patent.
Prince Philip renounced his right of succession, but not necessarily his titles. They are separate entities altogether. A UK example would be Prince Michael -- out of the line of succession (for the time being) but still a Prince.
And while King George VI may have stated he had not created Philip a Prince, that doesn't mean he didn't recognize that Philip was a Prince -- albeit a Prince of Greece and Denmark, not of the UK. His Letters Patent of 1948 referred to him as "His Royal Highness Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2368  
Old 11-22-2013, 10:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
Prince Philip renounced his right of succession, but not necessarily his titles. They are separate entities altogether. A UK example would be Prince Michael -- out of the line of succession (for the time being) but still a Prince.
And while King George VI may have stated he had not created Philip a Prince, that doesn't mean he didn't recognize that Philip was a Prince -- albeit a Prince of Greece and Denmark, not of the UK. His Letters Patent of 1948 referred to him as "His Royal Highness Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh".
The King noted in correspondence the correct style was "HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" in the UK, not "Prince Philip". The Sovereign's Will was made clear to the Lord Chancellor and that was it.

The Vickers biography also stated that Philip relinquished his titles upon naturalization and was legally Philip Mountbatten until created a Duke on his wedding day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2369  
Old 11-23-2013, 12:53 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The King noted in correspondence the correct style was "HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" in the UK, not "Prince Philip". The Sovereign's Will was made clear to the Lord Chancellor and that was it.

The Vickers biography also stated that Philip relinquished his titles upon naturalization and was legally Philip Mountbatten until created a Duke on his wedding day.
I think this is the crux of the issue and why people are actually arguing about different things:

Philip wasn't a Prince IN the UK but he was still a Prince in Denmark and Greece.

Marina was the same - she wasn't Princess Marina in the UK but Princess George - but she was still Princess Marina in both Greece and Denmark.

Different countries have different laws and conventions around titles and styles and this is the case here.

The problem with the Vickers biography is that there is no substantive documentation to agree with his view - substantive documentation being legally recognised as opposed to a comment in a letter or the view of the person concerned - no official statement was ever released by the Kings of Greece or Denmark to strip Philip of his titles so he stopped using them as opposed to being stripped of them. He may have believed that the letters in which he indicated he desire and the King's reply were enough but I am not convinced that legally that was the case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2370  
Old 11-23-2013, 01:20 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,158
Then to add on top of all that, wasn't it discovered that Philip didn't need to be naturalized as a citizen of the UK as he was descended from Electress Sophia of Hanover. His mother Princess Alice of Battenberg was born at Windsor Castle.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #2371  
Old 11-23-2013, 02:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
It was established in the early 1950s, when Ernst of Hanover went to court over the issue and yes it turned out that Philip was born a British citizen regardless of where his mother was born - simply because he was a descendant of the Sophia. Those born after 1948 don't have that citizenship but those born before do - so Margrethe of Denmark for instance is also a British citizen as well as Queen of Denmark but her children aren't.

Regarding Alice being born at Windsor - that is one of my favourite Philip stories - when The Queen ascended to the throne they went to Windsor and one of the courtiers who was taking Philip around said something like 'you will like living her sir' to which Philip replied - 'I know my mother was born here'. He could have added that his grandmother was born there as well as she was with his great-grandmother born in BP. Interestingly The Queen has to go back to her great-grandfather to find an ancestor born in one of the 'palaces' or 'castles' as George VI was born at Sandringham and George V at Marlborough House.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2372  
Old 03-02-2014, 05:23 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
I read that the Earl of Mountbatten discussed with King George VI about making Philip a Prince of the UK & that The King refused. I always wondered why was George VI so set against making Philip a British prince?? I mean he and Elizabeth (at the time) were of equal status... like her he was a prince from birth and an HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2373  
Old 03-02-2014, 09:56 PM
fandesacs2003's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 3,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
I read that the Earl of Mountbatten discussed with King George VI about making Philip a Prince of the UK & that The King refused. I always wondered why was George VI so set against making Philip a British prince?? I mean he and Elizabeth (at the time) were of equal status... like her he was a prince from birth and an HRH.
But she was the heir to the throne and daughter of a ruling monarch and he wasn't, so they were not really equals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2374  
Old 03-04-2014, 06:14 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
I read that the Earl of Mountbatten discussed with King George VI about making Philip a Prince of the UK & that The King refused. I always wondered why was George VI so set against making Philip a British prince?? I mean he and Elizabeth (at the time) were of equal status... like her he was a prince from birth and an HRH.
This is commonly attributed to some combination of "the King didn't like Prince Philip" or "the (then) Queen didn't like Prince Philip," but that's not exactly accurate. The thing is that regardless of whatever George VI or his wife felt towards their son-in-law, the man wasn't exactly the ideal consort to a future British monarch.

For starters, the DoE and HM were not on the same level. HM was the daughter of the monarch and, at the time, the heir presumptive. The DoE, on the other hand, was the grandson of a deceased monarch and cousin to the then current monarch, making him more on the level of the Gloucesters or Kents.

Secondly, while the DoE's belonged to the Greek and Danish Royal Families he was of a questionable background given the time - in the post-war period even being foreign wasn't exactly desirable. The DoE's mother was ethnically very German - two of her grandparents were born in Germany, a third in Poland, and her father was born in Austria. He had four sisters who collectively married five German men, one who was a member of the SS and another who fought in the German army during the war. The DoE had gone to school in Germany for two years before moving to Gordonstoun. That said, the DoE was very British in his connections - his mother was born in Britain, as was his maternal grandmother (who had been the granddaughter of Queen Victoria), his maternal grandfather had held an important role in the British navy, and his uncle, Earl Mountbatten, was a very significant British statesman. He was a very British candidate for consort, he just wasn't necessarily British enough.

There is also the question of the DoE's British family, though. As decorated as Louis Mountbatten was, he certainly has proven to be a bit pushy when it comes to his royal nephew's family. The BRF tends to prefer that in-laws stay more in the background, but Louis Mountbatten wasn't exactly one to do so. He wanted his nephew, and his family, to be as important in this marriage, as the Princess' family, which wasn't exactly appealing to the Princess' father. Prior to the marriage, the DoE was not equal to his bride-to-be. At best he was a junior member of a foreign royal family who had essentially grown up in exile from his native country. If we take into account the fact that he renounced - regardless of whether or not he legally and formally did so is irrelevant - his titles then entering into his marriage, the DoE was little more than a British naval officer who had aristocratic and royal relations. I think, ultimately, George VI wanted to keep his son-in-law and his son-in-law's family in check a bit, and was able to do so by not creating the DoE a Prince of the United Kingdom.

There is also the fact that overall, the Princess Elizabeth was higher than her husband-to-be, and the King felt it important to keep her higher than him. When marrying someone equal to or higher than them women tend to lose their status and instead take on their husband's. This isn't necessarily true of royal women who marry men who are beneath them, or at least beneath them in the realm that they are royal. If George VI had made his son-in-law a Prince then his daughter would have become Princess Philip, much like how Kate is now Princess William even if she doesn't normally use that title. By making him just a Duke, albeit one with the style of HRH, the King ensured that his daughter's status wasn't diminished through her marriage. It's with this same kind of logic that the DoE isn't now King Consort - giving him a title equal to his wife's diminishes her status.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2375  
Old 03-04-2014, 06:40 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
What I meant was by royal standards they were equal. They held princely titles and the style of Royal Highness from birth. Remember, King George V modernized the British Monarchy by allowing his children to marry commoners instead of royalty as was the custom before his reign. Though commoners may have married into the BRF throughout its long history, it was still not the norm. Had it not been for George V's meddling & had everything stayed the same(Royalty-Marry-Royalty), Prince Philip would have been a suitable husband for a heiress presumptive and future queen regnant. The only small objection I could possibly see would be his impoverishment. And seeing as Queen Victoria and some of her daughters married poor German princes, and George V having married Queen Mary of Teck (whose family was somewhat impoverished), I doubt that objection would hold water.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2376  
Old 03-10-2014, 03:54 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 19
Highnesses

Highness (His or Her Highness, abbreviated HH) was the style accorded princes of the British Royal Family who were the male-line great-grandchildren of a British sovereign (and the wives/widows of great-grandsons), except the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. On 20 November 1917 King George V revoked authorization for use of that style. At the time the only person to lose directly affected was HH Prince Alistair of Connaught, who became the Earl of Macduff. Several others lost their status as princes or princesses of Great Britain, but retained the style of Highness through their German princely titles.

The children and grandchildren in the male-line of a British sovereign were and are addressed as Royal Highness (His or Her Royal Highness, abbreviated HRH), as are the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (decree of 31 May 1898). The sovereign has the right to grant or revoke use of the style of Highness, as with other styles.

What if the style of Highness was restored? Who would be eligible today?
  • The Earl & Countess of Ulster
  • The Earl & Countess of St Andrews
  • Lord & Lady Nicholas Windsor
  • Lord & Lady Frederick Windsor
  • Lady Davina Lewis
  • Lady Rose Gillman
  • Lady Helen Taylor
  • Lady Gabriella Windsor

How would people feel about restoring the style of Highness to the extended British Royal family?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2377  
Old 03-10-2014, 04:45 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Most people in Britain would oppose it as they would like to see fewer people with titles rather than more. There have been suggestions that Beatrice and Eugenie might be asked to relinquish their titles of HRH or that Charles will strip them of them when he becomes King. That would also mean no HRH for Harry's children in time.

It is confusing enough with the children of sons getting HRH and not the children of daughters but to add another layer for the children of grandsons who have HRH would just take it over the top.

The above list shows just how silly it is for male line children of younger sons to have HRH and not the children of daughters as there are many people ahead of these in the line of succession who are plain Mr and Mrs with no title at all - simply because they are through a female line.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2378  
Old 03-10-2014, 06:57 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 19
I agree with the silliness. It makes no sense to remove the gender bias in the succession while retaining it in deciding who qualifies as a royal.

Personally, I think a better system would be to simply declare that Royal Highnesses are those descendants of a Sovereign born prior to the end of His/Her Reign, and their spouses.

It inherently limits the size of the royal family, and has no gender bias.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2379  
Old 03-10-2014, 07:13 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 19
I guess they originally assumed that the children of daughters would have their own titles derived from the princes their mothers married.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2380  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:12 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,538
Sadly, I could see that happening. I do not trust Charles an inch when he becomes King. He seems hell bent on ensuring it is JUST him, Camilla, William and Catherine and their son and Harry. I would not put it past him to try and get noble titles for Camilla's children down the road when he becomes King.

You to think it about it from a psychological point of view. This whole Princess Consort thing is just a burst of wind. Unless Parliament changes the law, Camilla will be queen when he ascends.

I shudder to think of his siblings, nieces and nephews, their families, his mother's first cousins and their families all shoved to the side out of the way completely when he becomes King.

This is a man, albeit a supportive one, who is very spoiled as we have seen and very much the "victim" in his own mind from letters, interviews, published books, etc. who felt he was wronged in life in many ways. He was jealous of Diana's popularity, and I am sure he is not exactly thrilled about how popular William and Catherine are. While I am sure he loves his family, is tickled pink to be a grandfather, he is just waiting to finally get his own way.
__________________

__________________
Lady M
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Major Royal Events 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:06 AM.

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]