Questions about British Styles and Titles

[branchg]

Widows who remarry lose their title and styles held through marriage. Same thing for divorcees.

[BeatrixFan]

Iona isn't a peeress in her own right but I remember there being a big bet on between a few friends of mine. Some said that she would lose the Duchess title, some said she'd keep it. We phoned Burkes and they said that she would lose her title and would become Mrs Lars Swensen and although she could use Iona, Duchess of Argyll socially and it probably wouldn't be question (a la Raine), at court she'd be presented to the Queen as Mrs Lars Swensen not as Her Grace, the Dowager Duchess of Argyll.

[Heiress Victoria]

I have a doubt.. what would have happaned if The Queen had died when Charles and Diana were separated but not yet divorced.. (when she still had the tilte of HRH the princess of wales).. would she had been crown queen??..

[BeatrixFan]

No. If they legally seperated with motion to divorce then the divorce would have been rushed through and finalised and Diana would have been Diana, Princess of Wales or Charles might have granted her a peerage.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

No. If they legally seperated with motion to divorce then the divorce would have been rushed through and finalised and Diana would have been Diana, Princess of Wales or Charles might have granted her a peerage.

Well what if that didn't happen and Charles ascended the throne and Diana was crowned Queen Consort. Then they divorced would she be known as Diana, Queen Consort of G.B. or Charles would grant her, her own peerage.

[Sister Morphine]

If Charles ascended the throne before they could divorce, I don't know if they would have gone through with it. I mean, have you heard of a Queen divorcing a King?

[BeatrixFan]

It doesn't work like that. You don't seperate for a laugh - you seperate to divorce. The divorce would have been rushed through. You couldn't have a Queen Consort running about who wasn't married to a King, which she wouldn't be once they divorced. The divorce would have been sped through, Diana would have been given a peerage and she wouldn't have been crowned Queen Consort.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

It doesn't work like that. You don't seperate for a laugh - you seperate to divorce. The divorce would have been rushed through. You couldn't have a Queen Consort running about who wasn't married to a King, which she wouldn't be once they divorced. The divorce would have been sped through, Diana would have been given a peerage and she wouldn't have been crowned Queen Consort.

Not always. Some people do separate and then get back together. It happens quite frequently.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

If Charles ascended the throne before they could divorce, I don't know if they would have gone through with it. I mean, have you heard of a Queen divorcing a King?

King Henry VIII and the Shah of Iran divorced.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

King Henry VIII and the Shah of Iran divorced.

I guess I meant recently. I know that the King and Queen of Belgium nearly separated, but worked it out.

[BeatrixFan]

Not always. Some people do separate and then get back together. It happens quite frequently.

Not when you're the Prince of Wales. Once it's announced, it happens.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Not when you're the Prince of Wales. Once it's announced, it happens.

I know this is all a moot point, but don't you think it in the realm of possibility that if after they announced their separation, the Queen suddenly died and he became King, they'd rescind that?

[BeatrixFan]

I very much doubt it. Charles and Diana's marriage was non-existant by that time. They were both having extra-marital relationships and the divorce would have come sooner or later.

The marriage would have ended sooner or later so it would have been a divorce before he was King or after.

[ysbel]

John Major said when he announced the separation that there was no reason that Diana wouldn't become Queen in due time.

However, several legal pundits contradicted him right after he said it.

The official divorce five years later solved the ambiguity. Diana wouldn't become Queen.

[BeatrixFan]

It's very much a matter of snobbery with most titles apres Divorce. For example - Margaret, Duchess of Argyll carried on using the title Duchess of Argyll since her death even though she'd been long divorced from the Duke and even after the headless man business. She liked being a Duchess, she believed she could still use the title so she did. It was snobbery at it's best and most glamorous.

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

No. If they legally seperated with motion to divorce then the divorce would have been rushed through and finalised and Diana would have been Diana, Princess of Wales or Charles might have granted her a peerage.

It was a few year between the legal separation and the initial divorce proceedings.

As the legal wife of the King, she would have been Queen. I do think that they would have rushed the divorce along though, and she would never be crowned.

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

It was a few year between the legal separation and the initial divorce proceedings.

As the legal wife of the King, she would have been Queen. I do think that they would have rushed the divorce along though, and she would never be crowned.

I agree.

An example of this was that when he became King, George IV's big concern was his wife, Caroline. They had been seperated for years and years, but they were still legally married. He had tried to get divorced from her while still Prince of Wales, but no luck.

To prevent her from been crowned he tried to get divorced from her again and there was a big trial- quite a sensation at the time! But even as King of Great Britian he couldn't get a divorce from her! (Big change from Herny VIII's time!)

He solved the problem by refusing to allow her to enter Westminister Abbey during the coronation. She was turned away at the door. 3 weeks later Caroline died and her coffin was affixed with a plate that read Caroline, Injured Queen of England. And she is still listed as his Queen, which probably has George IV rolling over in his grave...

So unless they changed the Act of Succession (or the law...) since then, it seems that if a guy isn't divorced when he becomes King, his wife will be Queen.

[Heiress Victoria]

another question ... can someone without a royal title be considered part of the "official" royal family?? e.g.: will zara and peter philips receive the a state income or any other privilege reserved only for members of the royal family??..

[Elspeth]

Hardly any members of the royal family receive state income these days. People like the Phillips children will be considered part of the family by the Queen, but officially they really aren't part of the royal family in terms of doing public duties and representing the monarch at functions.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Splodger

The word Prince/Princess is not just a title it is also a style of address and rank of nobility. This is all so confusing that not even King George VI realised that when he gave Phillp, the Duke of Edingbourgh the stlye of HRH, this did not give him the title and style of Prince.

Although in the United Kingdom the only people to be called 'Prince' are members of the Snr Royal Family, the rank of Prince is actualy of less status than that of Duke. Therefore Prince Andrew was 'promoted' to Duke of York. However in the United Kingdom the word Prince is also a style as it is exclusive to Royalty. Therefore the Duke of York is still also known as Prince Andrew. Therefore, Beatrix and Euginie are not just Princesses of Great Brtiain they are Princesses of the Dukedom of York. Charles is HRH Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. His sons are thus HRH Prince William of Wales, Prince of the United Kingdom and HRH Prince Henry of Wales, Prince of the United Kingdom etc etc.

The main confusion is caused because the Nobility system in the United Kingdom is smaller and 'tidyer' than the continant where the Nobility System is far more extensive. In the UK many titles have been dropped completly.

The title of Prince and Princess is not a style of rank it is a title only. The various forums of address such as Royal Highness, Your Grace, ect are styles.The only form of Prince/ss that is a "style" in the UK is that of The Princess Royal which is a style not a title. William, for example, is styled His Royal Highness and titled as Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. Although, he is "offically" known as Prince William of Wales which is the custom. It is also a custom that children of the monarch would be given a secondary title of nobility such as Duke of X.

Had HM not given Andrew the title of Duke of York his wife would have been known as HRH The Princess Andrew and his children would have been HRH Princess Beatrice of nothing. Children of a monarch are given use of 'The' prior to their title while everyone else rates as a "mere" Prince/ss minus the prestigous use of 'The.' For example Anne was known as HRH 'The' Princess Anne after her mother's ascension until her gift of the style Princess Royal where as before her mother's ascension she was HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh minus 'the.'

The rank/title of Prince is always higher than that of a Duke in the UK. Because, Prince/ss are always Royal in the UK and even the most junior of royals ranks higher than a garden Duke. In other parts of Europe this was not always the case, however, that is how it is in the UK. In Germany, for example, The Duke (Herzog/in) von (or zu) X may have been of higher rank than a ordinary Prince. This is due to there being numerous reigning Duke's of semi-independant Dukedoms the same goes for Grand Duchies, Margraves, ect...However, they were almost always Prince/ss, also.