Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

I fail to see what the controversy is. Andrew or William are legally princes, as they are also legally dukes, earls and barons. HRH The Duke of xxx is simply their short style under British custom. Note that official documents such as passports and birth certificates that we have seen before use e.g. HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge.

And the short style where princes are referred to by their main peerage is not something that is “ mandated” by the current Queen. It has been the standard way of referring to British princes since the 18th century at least ( maybe by French influence ?). It is by no means technically incorrect though to refer to William or Andrew as “Prince William” or “ Prince Andrew” as, again, that is legally their titular dignity.

I don't know about a controversy, but what I noticed is that there is a divide between the customs in Queen Elizabeth's household and the customs among members of the British public (the contrast is between the current queen and the current members of the public, rather than between the current queen and earlier monarchs).

This is not the case across all monarchies; in Norway, for example, the King's niece is referred to as Cathrine Ferner Johansen by both the monarch and the public, in contrast to Britain where the Queen's granddaughter is referred to as Zara Tindall by the public and Mrs. Michael Tindall by the monarch.

I'm interested in the causes of these differences, and whether the monarchy in the future might follow the public's lead (e.g. by referring to Zara as Mrs. Zara instead of Mrs. Michael).

 

[Mbruno]

I don't know about a controversy, but what I noticed is that there is a divide between the customs in Queen Elizabeth's household and the customs among members of the British public (the contrast is between the current queen and the current members of the public, rather than between the current queen and earlier monarchs).

This is not the case across all monarchies; in Norway, for example, the King's niece is referred to as Cathrine Ferner Johansen by both the monarch and the public, in contrast to Britain where the Queen's granddaughter is referred to as Zara Tindall by the public and Mrs. Michael Tindall by the monarch.

I'm interested in the causes of these differences, and whether the monarchy in the future might follow the public's lead (e.g. by referring to Zara as Mrs. Zara instead of Mrs. Michael).

Again I don’t think Mrs Michael Tindall , Lady Nicholas Windsor or Princess Michael of Kent is something that is imposed by this Queen in particular. As I see it, the Royal Household is just sticking with the traditional naming conventions in the UK , which are applied to the Royal Family, to the families of non-royal peers, and to “ common” families indistinctively.

I can’t tell if saying Mrs Michael Tindall as opposed to Mrs Zara Tindall is becoming old-fashioned in the UK or not, but , in Zara’s case, I guess the public and the tabloids still refer to her as ‘Zara’ because that is the name by which she was known for most of her life before she got married. That is probably the reason why many people still call the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, or still use Meghan Markle to refer to the Duchess of Sussex even though , in both cases, using their maiden names is completely wrong.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Again I don’t think Mrs Michael Tindall , Lady Nicholas Windsor or Princess Michael of Kent is something that is imposed by this Queen in particular. As I see it, the Royal Household is just sticking with the traditional naming conventions in the UK , which are applied to the Royal Family, to the families of non-royal peers, and to “ common” families indistinctively.

I can’t tell if saying Mrs Michael Tindall as opposed to Mrs Zara Tindall is becoming old-fashioned in the UK or not, but , in Zara’s case, I guess the public and the tabloids still refer to her as ‘Zara’ because that is the name by which she was known for most of her life before she got married. [...]

Hopefully other posters can offer more clarity on the matter, but I cannot recall ever seeing Zara referred to as Mrs. Michael Tindall (except when quoting the Royal Household) in reports from the British media, nor in comments from Britons on social media, which makes it appear as if it is no longer the naming convention among members of the public.

 

[Curryong]

My view is that the British public take their cue from the media, especially the tabloids, when referring to royals or their relatives. Hence Tim Lawrence, not giving his naval rank, Zara Tindall, etc.

The tabloids tend to veer towards writing about both 'Prince William' and 'Prince Harry' and 'the Duke of Cambridge' and 'Duke of Sussex' in their reports, while their wives are more often than not 'Kate Middleton' and 'Meghan Markle'.

These outlets seem to think that the public won't recognise these two women under their correct styling and IMO they may well continue to do this for several years more. It's just a way of ensuring that readers recognise who they're writing about! On the other hand it would be very strange if the Royal Household and the CC abandoned the formalities.

 

[Mbruno]

My view is that the British public take their cue from the media, especially the tabloids, when referring to royals or their relatives. Hence Tim Lawrence, not giving his naval rank, Zara Tindall, etc.

The tabloids tend to veer towards writing about both 'Prince William' and 'Prince Harry' and 'the Duke of Cambridge' and 'Duke of Sussex' in their reports, while their wives are more often than not 'Kate Middleton' and 'Meghan Markle'.

These outlets seem to think that the public won't recognise these two women under their correct styling and IMO they may well continue to do this for several years more. It's just a way of ensuring that readers recognise who they're writing about! On the other hand it would be very strange if the Royal Household and the CC abandoned the formalities.

I think they might eventually drop styles like Princess Michael or Lady Nicholas if that kind of styling becomes obsolete in formal British usage, but I don’t see it happening in the near future ( probably not in my life time).

BTW, I don’t think Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank or Lady Helen Taylor for example are in the same category as Princess Michael or Lady Nicholas because , even under traditional conventions, they at least get to keep their first names.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My view is that the British public take their cue from the media, especially the tabloids, when referring to royals or their relatives. Hence Tim Lawrence, not giving his naval rank, Zara Tindall, etc.

The tabloids tend to veer towards writing about both 'Prince William' and 'Prince Harry' and 'the Duke of Cambridge' and 'Duke of Sussex' in their reports, while their wives are more often than not 'Kate Middleton' and 'Meghan Markle'.

These outlets seem to think that the public won't recognise these two women under their correct styling and IMO they may well continue to do this for several years more. It's just a way of ensuring that readers recognise who they're writing about! On the other hand it would be very strange if the Royal Household and the CC abandoned the formalities.

Thank you for the perspective! I think the suggestion that the issue of reader recognition stands in the way of formal or correct styling of royal duchesses and dukes is very credible.

Regarding styling commoners (Mrs. Zara Tindall vs. Mrs. Michael Tindall), I'm not sure it is a matter of formality. Even within the British Parliament, where highly formal, traditional conventions are followed, married female MPs are referred to under their own first names, instead of those of their husbands.

 

[Mbruno]

Thank you for the perspective! I think the suggestion that the issue of reader recognition stands in the way of formal or correct styling of royal duchesses and dukes is very credible.

Regarding styling commoners (Mrs. Zara Tindall vs. Mrs. Michael Tindall), I'm not sure it is a matter of formality. Even within the British Parliament, where highly formal, traditional conventions are followed, married female MPs are referred to under their own first names, instead of those of their husbands.

Politicians , as any other women with a professional career, obviously need to be identified by their given names. It would be odd if Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon or Jo Swinson for example didn’t use their first names, wouldn’t it ? Ironically, a country housewife is probably still more likely to be addressed in the traditional male-centric style than high profile women. Even some wives of peers with a name recognition of their own are often cited by their maiden names or don’t always use their husbands’ title in part because of what Curryong said, i.e. because they are best known to the public by the names they used before getting married or still use those names professionally.

With the changing role of women in society and more ( if not actually most) women now having their own careers and professional lives, I do see the traditional British styling of married women becoming eventually obsolete. I just don’t see the Court Circular or the Royal Household leading the way in abandoning it before that usage is broadly socially recognized as obsolete, and that will probably take time.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Politicians , as any other women with a professional career, obviously need to be identified by their given names. It would be odd if Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon or Jo Swinson for example didn’t use their first names, wouldn’t it ? Ironically, a country housewife is probably still more likely to be addressed in the traditional male-centric style than high profile women. Even some wives of peers with a name recognition of their own are often cited by their maiden names or don’t always use their husbands’ title in part because of what Curryong said, i.e. because they are best known to the public by the names they used before getting married or still use those names professionally.

I agree, and Parliament seems to be in agreement as well, but the Royal Household clearly feels differently. For them, the professional equestrian Zara Tindall is Mrs. Michael Tindall, and I don't think they would have done things differently if she were a professional politician instead.

With the changing role of women in society and more ( if not actually most) women now having their own careers and professional lives, I do see the traditional British styling of married women becoming eventually obsolete. I just don’t see the Court Circular or the Royal Household leading the way in abandoning it before that usage is broadly socially recognized as obsolete, and that will probably take time.

I very much agree. In fact, the point I was attempting to suggest is that the styling "Mrs. husband's first name" already appears to be obsolete in broader British society, but the Royal Household adheres to it nonetheless - exemplified by the current situation in which usage of "Mrs. Michael Tindall" is seemingly limited to the Royal Household itself. At the same time, the monarchy hasn't faced any backlash for Queen Elizabeth's refusal to follow the current conventions, which might be one of the factors explaining why.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I very much agree. In fact, the point I was attempting to suggest is that the styling "Mrs. husband's first name" already appears to be obsolete in broader British society, but the Royal Household adheres to it nonetheless - exemplified by the current situation in which usage of "Mrs. Michael Tindall" is seemingly limited to the Royal Household itself.

Evidently, I was wrong, as the newspaper announcement of Princess Alexandra's granddaughter's engagement identifies her parents as "Mr and Mrs James Ogilvy".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1194536080399306753

Still more surprisingly, the fiancé's parents (who were said to be Swedish) are likewise identified as "Mr and Mrs Patrik Vesterberg". I am not aware that this style was used in Sweden (if it is, please correct me), as even the Royal Court of Sweden identifies married women by their own first names. Prince Daniel's mother, for instance, is styled in guest lists published by the court as Mrs Ewa Westling and not Mrs Olle Westling. Thus I wonder if the newspaper requires married women to be identified in this way.

 

[JSH]

But you're comparing "Mr and Mrs <given name> <family name>" with "Mrs <given name> <family name>". It's not the same.



It is a whole lot simpler to state 'Mr and Mrs <his given name> < family name> than to state "Mr <his given name> and Mrs <her given name> <family name>.



"Mrs <his given name> <family name> is a very different situation. There is no reason to prefer that over "Mrs <her given name> <family name>".

 

[Osipi]

I think you may have a point here. Saves a lot of confusion in the long run. Imagine if the newspaper announcement of an attendance of The Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson and had to print their entire full names. We'd have:

Prince Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Duke of Windsor today attended with his wife, Mrs. Bessie Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Warfield (she resumed her maiden name by deed poll in 1937), Duchess of Windsor.

Not exactly sure if I got the wording right on this but it makes for a good example of just using simpler wording as "The Duke and Duchess of Windsor" attended.

 

[Somebody]

Based on the discussion in the Wessex children's titles-thread, I decided to work out the in my opinion most likely options had Elizabeth had a brother whose family would have been on the throne instead of her(s).

In the case of Philip keeping his Greek royal titles, the titles/names would be as follows - if I am not mistaken (I am using the first name of the 'married-in' women as that is what the Greek royals themselves seem to be doing as well):
Prince Philip and princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark

Prince Charles and princess Camilla of Greece and Denmark
Prince William and princess Catherine of Greece and Denmark
Prince George of Greece and Denmark
Princess Charlotte of Greece and Denmark
Prince Louis of Greece and Denmark
Prince Henry and princess Meghan of Greece and Denmark
Prince Archie of Greece and Denmark

Princess Anne of Greece and Denmark
Sir Timothy Laurence
Peter and Autumn Phillips
Savannah Phillips
Isla Phillips
Zara and Mike Tindall
Mia Tindall
Lena Tindall

Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark
Princess Beatrice of Greece and Denmark
Princess Eugenie of Greece and Denmark and mr Jack Brooksbank

Prince Edward and princess Sophie of Greece and Denmark
Princess Louise of Greece and Denmark
Prince James of Greece and Denmark

In the case of Philip being forced to give up his Greek title, taking up the surname Mountbatten and being awarded the title of Earl of Merioneth, baron Greenwich (comparable to how both Mary's and Margaret's husbands were treated). Note: I am not completely sure about the use of all the British courtesy titles, so feel free to correct if needed.

The Princess Elizabeth, countess of Merioneth and the earl of Merioneth

Lord and Lady (baron and baroness) Greenwich
The Hon. mr and mrs William Mountbatten
George Mountbatten
Charlotte Mountbatten
Louis Mountbatten
The Hon. mr and mrs Henry Mountbatten
Archie Mountbatten

Lady Anne Laurence
Sir Timothy Laurence
Mr and mrs Peter Phillips
Savannah Phillips
Isla Phillips
Mr and mrs Mike Tindall
Mia Tindall
Lena Tindall

The Hon. Andrew Mountbatten
Beatrice Mountbatten
Mr. and mrs. Jack Brooksbank

The Hon. mr and mrs. Edward Mountbatten
Louise Mountbatten
James Mountbatten

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Based on the discussion in the Wessex children's titles-thread, I decided to work out the in my opinion most likely options had Elizabeth had a brother whose family would have been on the throne instead of her(s).

In the case of Philip keeping his Greek royal titles, the titles/names would be as follows - if I am not mistaken (I am using the first name of the 'married-in' women as that is what the Greek royals themselves seem to be doing as well):
Prince Philip and princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark

The latest precedent in the British royal family is usage of the husband's first name even for women who marry foreign princes, regardless of the foreign family's own usages. In the announcement of Elizabeth and Philip's engagement Philip's mother was Princess Andrew; thus Elizabeth would have been "Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark" in the UK, had Philip kept his Greek titles.

In the case of Philip being forced to give up his Greek title, taking up the surname Mountbatten and being awarded the title of Earl of Merioneth, baron Greenwich (comparable to how both Mary's and Margaret's husbands were treated). Note: I am not completely sure about the use of all the British courtesy titles, so feel free to correct if needed.

I believe your examples are all correct with the exception of Elizabeth and Philip and Charles and Camilla, who would be

HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Countess of Merioneth, and The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Merioneth
Lord and Lady Greenwich

Princess Elizabeth would retain her title and add the title awarded to her husband, as it was done in reality before she ascended the throne. Philip, as a non-royal earl in the peerage, would take the prefix of The Right Honourable.

Apart from Scottish barons, British barons are addressed as Lord and Lady.

 

[Somebody]

If Charles would issue LPs to rearrange for the future how the styles and titles should work in the new era with absolute primogeniture; how would all of you suggest that the LPs be worded (or: who should have which styles/titles)?

 

[Somebody]

The 1917 LPs:

Whitehall, 11th December, 1917.
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th ultimo, to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons 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 other titles of honour; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; 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.

If the decision would be made that only children of direct heirs are to be HRH and prince(ss)... ossible LPs under Charles' reign could be:

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern-Ireland, to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom, the children of the Prince or Princess of Wales and the children of the Prince or Princess of Wales' heir apparent, born within a recognized marriage, 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 other titles of honour; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted prior to or during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and remaining unrevoked.

Note: I don't think it is necessary to include any specifications for the other children as the general rules of the British nobility will automatically apply; so for example Archie will remain to be entitled to his father's subsidiary title (and James' eldest son will be Viscount Severn, once Edward has become the Duke of Edinburgh and James moved on to be the Earl of Wessex (although I am not sure how that will work for a title that is granted later and not at the same time; so that would only apply if the Wessex and Severn titles become subsidiaries of the Duke of Edinburgh title)).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would also suggest omitting the "save as aforesaid" clause. The same clause included in the 1917 Letters Patent has not been complied with, and the result has been the existence of contradictory Letters Patent.

Additionally, if a future monarch intends to reserve entitlement to be HRH Prince/ss to children born in wedlock, they may need to state their intention in the letters patent. In 1917 it was to all intents and purposes impossible that a prince or princess would legally recognize a child born out of wedlock, but the legal and cultural situation has changed, and even if the prince or princess chose not to legally recognize their child, I suppose a "King Albert II of Belgium" situation could occur.

 

[Mbruno]

I would also suggest omitting the "save as aforesaid" clause. The same clause included in the 1917 Letters Patent has not been complied with, and the result has been the existence of contradictory Letters Patent.

Additionally, if a future monarch intends to reserve entitlement to be HRH Prince/ss to children born in wedlock, they may need to state their intention in the letters patent. In 1917 it was to all intents and purposes impossible that a prince or princess would legally recognize a child born out of wedlock, but the legal and cultural situation has changed, and even if the prince or princess chose not to legally recognize their child, I suppose a "King Albert II of Belgium" situation could occur.

It had never occurred to me that the 1917 LPs could in theory apply to children born out of wedlock.

 

[Somebody]

I would also suggest omitting the "save as aforesaid" clause. The same clause included in the 1917 Letters Patent has not been complied with, and the result has been the existence of contradictory Letters Patent.

I understand your concern although I would think that a new king would intend to make all-encompassing directions and might include such a clause because of that.

Additionally, if a future monarch intends to reserve entitlement to be HRH Prince/ss to children born in wedlock, they may need to state their intention in the letters patent. In 1917 it was to all intents and purposes impossible that a prince or princess would legally recognize a child born out of wedlock, but the legal and cultural situation has changed, and even if the prince or princess chose not to legally recognize their child, I suppose a "King Albert II of Belgium" situation could occur.

Great point. How would you phrase that? Referring to an 'approved' marriage as in some monarchies won't work now only the first 6 in line need approval; so, would a reference to 'born within a recognized marriage' suffice?

 

[Mbruno]

I understand your concern although I would think that a new king would intend to make all-encompassing directions and might include such a clause because of that.


Great point. How would you phrase that? Referring to an 'approved' marriage as in some monarchies won't work now only the first 6 in line need approval; so, would a reference to 'born within a recognized marriage' suffice?

It would suffice to use the same language from m the Dutch Law on membership of the Royal Famiky, e.g, “ children born of a marriage of the King. “

 

[Tatiana Maria]

IMHO you start at this from the wrong end. The LPs make laws so that an existing situation is adapted to how it should be. Not the other way round. If they dont fit anymore they are changed. So if George would have a girl first, she would be the heiress apparent. Her children of course would be HRH Prince/Princess. There is no way the children of the heiress apparent would be Mr/Miss fathers name while the children of a younger brother of said heiress would be prince/princess. That is simply unthinkable, thus it will not happen, LP or not. The RF may be old-fashioned but not that much!

Indeed. George VI himself issued LPs to make Princess Elizabeth’s children HRH princes/princesses because she was the heiress.

[...]

The British RF , however, seems to be more reactive then proactive and both Charles and William might feel there is no need to deal with that issue until it comes up in a concrete situation.

The opinion I gave earlier in the thread was based on these assumptions:

At the time Elizabeth II issued the 2012 letters patent, she was aware that a new succession law was nearly certain to be put in place (the consensus of the Commonwealth realms was announced in 2011) and that if the Duke of Cambridge had a firstborn daughter (George was not yet born), the daughter would most likely be a future Queen, and would likely have children of her own to follow her on the throne.

There are three possibilities for how Elizabeth would want that situation to be addressed:

1.) She would want the future Queen's children to be Prince/ss.
2.) She would want the future Queen's children not to be Prince/ss.
3.) She would want the decision to be made when the situation arises, by the future monarch at that time.

As I see it, although I know others disagree:

1.) In the first scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Sovereign would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess.

2.) In the second scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was, in reality, the solution she decided on.

3.) In the third scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the current Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was the only solution which would have avoided addressing future situations.


I agree that the second scenario would make Queen Elizabeth II even more old-fashioned than her father. But it is difficult for me to understand the point of issuing letters patent of general application, if she was anticipating that they would be applied on just one occasion (before Charles or William adjusted them to the new rules of succession).

It would be akin to her father King George VI hypothetically issuing letters patent declaring that "the children of the eldest daughter of the Sovereign" would enjoy the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, but at the same time anticipating that Elizabeth would revoke them before Anne had children (who would be royal under those hypothetical LPs).

But I accept that, as another poster implied in the Wessex thread, Queen Elizabeth may merely have wanted to emphasize that she was granting the titular dignity to William's children owing to their position as children of an heir apparent of an heir apparent under the then succession law, as opposed to making a personal exception for William's family.

 

[Kataryn]

Thank you for the perspective! I think the suggestion that the issue of reader recognition stands in the way of formal or correct styling of royal duchesses and dukes is very credible.

Regarding styling commoners (Mrs. Zara Tindall vs. Mrs. Michael Tindall), I'm not sure it is a matter of formality. Even within the British Parliament, where highly formal, traditional conventions are followed, married female MPs are referred to under their own first names, instead of those of their husbands.

The rules are pretty clear but have seen modern transformations and it's up to you (as the person who wears the name) to use the version you prefer in your private life.

The media does not care about which styles to use and uses the one they think will make it either clear who they are talking about or the one with the right undercurrents for their story.



Eg even the tabloids seem to have stopped to use "Camilla Parker Bowles" now that the time will cime when she will be the queen and stick to either purely "Camilla" or "Camilla Duchess of Cornwall" or "Duchess Camilla" or "The Duchess (of Cornwall)".

 

[Mbruno]

The opinion I gave earlier in the thread was based on these assumptions:

At the time Elizabeth II issued the 2012 letters patent, she was aware that a new succession law was nearly certain to be put in place (the consensus of the Commonwealth realms was announced in 2011) and that if the Duke of Cambridge had a firstborn daughter (George was not yet born), the daughter would most likely be a future Queen, and would likely have children of her own to follow her on the throne.

There are three possibilities for how Elizabeth would want that situation to be addressed:

1.) She would want the future Queen's children to be Prince/ss.
2.) She would want the future Queen's children not to be Prince/ss.
3.) She would want the decision to be made when the situation arises, by the future monarch at that time.

As I see it, although I know others disagree:

1.) In the first scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Sovereign would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess.

2.) In the second scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was, in reality, the solution she decided on.

3.) In the third scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the current Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was the only solution which would have avoided addressing future situations.


I agree that the second scenario would make Queen Elizabeth II even more old-fashioned than her father. But it is difficult for me to understand the point of issuing letters patent of general application, if she was anticipating that they would be applied on just one occasion (before Charles or William adjusted them to the new rules of succession).

It would be akin to her father King George VI hypothetically issuing letters patent declaring that "the children of the eldest daughter of the Sovereign" would enjoy the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, but at the same time anticipating that Elizabeth would revoke them before Anne had children (who would be royal under those hypothetical LPs).

But I accept that, as another poster implied in the Wessex thread, Queen Elizabeth may merely have wanted to emphasize that she was granting the titular dignity to William's children owing to their position as children of an heir apparent of an heir apparent under the then succession law, as opposed to making a personal exception for William's family.

When Elizabeth II issued the 2012 LPs, my understanding is that she was not concerned about the future children of a hypothetical firstborn daughter of the Cambridges. Instead, her goal was merely to guarantee that , if the Cambridges’ first child were a girl, she would be a princess and an HRH. That was consistent with the status the girl would have under the new succession laws.

As I said, the Queen is naturally conservative and won’t make changes until they are needed. William’s firstborn child wouldn’t have children of his/her own for another 30 years or so. Therefore, there was no need to address that issue.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When Elizabeth II issued the 2012 LPs, my understanding is that she was not concerned about the future children of a hypothetical firstborn daughter of the Cambridges. Instead, her goal was merely to guarantee that , if the Cambridges’ first child were a girl, she would be a princess and an HRH. That was consistent with the status the girl would have under the new succession laws.

As I said, the Queen is naturally conservative snd won’t make changes until they are needed. William’s firstborn child wouldn’t have children of his/her own for another 30 years or so. Therefore, there was no need to address that issue.

Is that not what I numbered as the third possibility? I think I addressed the reasons why I've had some doubts concerning that scenario (although I do recognize that it cannot be ruled out):

There are three possibilities for how Elizabeth would want that situation to be addressed:

1.) She would want the future Queen's children to be Prince/ss.
2.) She would want the future Queen's children not to be Prince/ss.
3.) She would want the decision to be made when the situation arises, by the future monarch at that time.

As I see it [...]

3.) In the third scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the current Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was the only solution which would have avoided addressing future situations.

[...]

But it is difficult for me to understand the point of issuing letters patent of general application, if she was anticipating that they would be applied on just one occasion (before Charles or William adjusted them to the new rules of succession).

It would be akin to her father King George VI hypothetically issuing letters patent declaring that "the children of the eldest daughter of the Sovereign" would enjoy the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, but at the same time anticipating that Elizabeth would revoke them before Anne had children (who would be royal under those hypothetical LPs).

 

[wyevale]

In exactly the same way as Camilla is legally 'the Princess of Wales', so the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is legally 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor'

https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/2019/12/archie-mountbatten-windsor-really-is.html

 

[Denville]

In exactly the same way as Camilla is legally 'the Princess of Wales', so the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is legally 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor'

https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/2019/12/archie-mountbatten-windsor-really-is.html

actutally by courtesy, Archie is Earl of Dumbarton.. since usually the eldest son take his fathers second title...

 

[wyevale]

^ Perhaps the 'courtesy' nature of the Dunbarton earldom is an issue ?

The 'expert' however seems certain that [even if that is so], Archie is legally a Lord..

 

[Osipi]

I would imagine that Archie is in the same position as Edward's son, James, is. Everywhere I've looked, James is referred to and addressed as James, Viscount Severn. Logically then, had the Sussexes not announced that Archie would be a plain "master", he would be addressed as Archie, Earl Dumbarton.

Edward's daughter, Louise, though is referred and addressed as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. Perhaps it is the second son who doesn't carry a courtesy subsidiary title from his father that would be addressed as Lord (X)?

 

[wyevale]

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount, and Archie is [legally] a Lord, despite his parents choosing to call him something else..

 

[Osipi]

With the Queen making her will be known though, doesn't that invalidate what they "legally" hold as the titles and styles of the royal family is at the Queen's will and pleasure? Just as the Queen made her will known in 1996 that both Diana and Sarah, being divorced, were no longer entitled to the HRH honorific.

With the Wessex children, the Queen did make her will known as to what titles they would hold but I don't believe that with Archie there was any kind of communication from the Queen as to her will and pleasure in the matter only that the Sussexes themselves deemed that Archie will be a plain "Master Archie" until his grandfather becomes King and then would be Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl Dumbarton unless his grandfather makes *his* will be known and changes things.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In exactly the same way as Camilla is legally 'the Princess of Wales', so the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is legally 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor'

https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/2019/12/archie-mountbatten-windsor-really-is.html

The article simply states that the writer's "mole in the College of Arms certainly thinks" that Archie will be named as Lord Archie on legal documents.

However, he is not named as Lord (or Earl) on his birth certificate, which to my knowledge is the only published legal document in which Archie is mentioned.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...icate-reveals-Meghan-gave-birth-Portland.html

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount,

It is arguable, but the position taken by Buckingham Palace is that the Wessex children are not legally HRH Princess and Prince.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-156.html#post1984176

With the Queen making her will be known though, doesn't that invalidate what they "legally" hold as the titles and styles of the royal family is at the Queen's will and pleasure? Just as the Queen made her will known in 1996 that both Diana and Sarah, being divorced, were no longer entitled to the HRH honorific.

With the Wessex children, the Queen did make her will known as to what titles they would hold but I don't believe that with Archie there was any kind of communication from the Queen as to her will and pleasure in the matter only that the Sussexes themselves deemed that Archie will be a plain "Master Archie" until his grandfather becomes King and then would be Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl Dumbarton unless his grandfather makes *his* will be known and changes things.

I think the fact that Archie is named without a courtesy title in official publications, including press releases and the monarchy website, is acknowledgement of the queen's approval.