Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Lumutqueen]

It is all very confusing and I am still trying to process it, but, given that Henry, Duke of Sussex ( I guess that is how he is being called now) is no longer using the titular dignity of Prince with the attribute or style of Royal Highness, but is still a descendant of Queen Elizabeth II, will he take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with HM’s declaration to the Privy Council in 1960 ?

He still has his peerage to use as his surname, should he need one however he can use Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While there has been no official statement on the matter, a number of correspondents reported being told last year, by royal sources, that King Charles would continue to apply the Letters Patent of 1917 during his reign.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.
​

At that time he fully expected Harry and Meghan to remain full-time working members of the family. It would be really inconsistent if the children of working members of the family (Edward & Sophie) aren't royal highnesses while the child(ren) of 'an independent member of the family' would become a royal highness.

I never thought it to be a good idea that Archie became a HRH as long as Louise and James aren't - but now it's even more obvious because when the decision on Louise and James was made their parents weren't expected to be full-time working members of the royal family. We'll have to wait and see whether Archie's future (non) title is also part of the 'deal' that the BRF reaches with Harry and Meghan. Imho it would be best to clear that out straight away.

I disagree with that as well. There have been rumors that the Sussexes DO intend for Archie to become an HRH in time. And there is some logic to not having him use a courtesy title in that case. So that there is no confusion when he changes from one title to another. If Archie used Lord Dumbarton now, he would not use it after becoming Prince Archie. So simpler to use nothing now and just start using a title then.

Has anything been said today on whether or not the reported informal agreement that King Charles will maintain the use of the 1917 Letters Patent in the next reign will remain valid?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Has anything been said today on whether or not the reported informal agreement that King Charles will maintain the use of the 1917 Letters Patent in the next reign will remain valid?

No there hasn't.

 

[wyevale]

Deleted......

 

[Somebody]

The Buckingham Palace announcement is unclear to me:

"The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

Does 'no longer using' it mean they have lost their style of royal highnesses or are they still royal highnesses who just don't use it anymore?

And what are 'HRH titles'? Is 'prince' considered a HRH title but Duke is not (as it is a peerage)?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

The Buckingham Palace announcement is unclear to me:



Does 'no longer using' it mean they have lost their style of royal highnesses or are they still royal highnesses who just don't use it anymore?

And what are 'HRH titles'? Is 'prince' considered a HRH title but Duke is not (as it is a peerage)?

HRH is a style which is used by a royal titled Prince, Henry’s Dukedom also provides him with a title.

Henry hasn’t had his birthright title of Prince removed by parliament so he still has that and his style of HRH. He is choosing not to use them. That means Meghan can’t either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Buckingham Palace announcement is unclear to me:

"The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

Does 'no longer using' it mean they have lost their style of royal highnesses or are they still royal highnesses who just don't use it anymore?

Reporters were informed that the Duke and Duchess will retain their HRH titles after they have stopped using them, and that Harry will remain a prince (I assume that implies Meghan will remain a princess).

Lumutqueen posted quotes from the ITV reporter Chris Ship in the following post:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...als-january-2020-a-47071-157.html#post2284805

And what are 'HRH titles'? Is 'prince' considered a HRH title but Duke is not (as it is a peerage)?

My reading is that "HRH titles" means "the titles of His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness".

I given that Henry, Duke of Sussex ( I guess that is how he is being called now)

The changes will not take effect until spring. Today's update to the Sussex website refers to the couple as Their Royal Highnesses.

 

[Somebody]

HRH is a style which is used by a royal titled Prince, Henry’s Dukedom also provides him with a title.

Henry hasn’t had his birthright title of Prince removed by parliament so he still has that and his style of HRH. He is choosing not to use them. That means Meghan can’t either.

I am aware of the difference between style and title, which is why the BP statement was so confusing when speaking about 'HRH titles'.

I've asked for clarification on this. All other non royal dukes are known as The Duke of XXX. RRs are stating that Henry will now be known as Henry, Duke of Sussex. Which is incorrect, his peerage is separate to his HRH and was given to him via LPs. They have every right, in my understanding, to be known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

I agree that they have every right to be known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They will however be the only dukes without a style (as they cannot use His/Her Grace if they formally are still HRH).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

HRH is a style which is used by a royal titled Prince, Henry’s Dukedom also provides him with a title.

I am aware of the difference between style and title, which is why the BP statement was so confusing when speaking about 'HRH titles'.

While some royal watchers make a difference between "style" and "title", no such difference exists in British law. The London Gazette notice of the 2012 Letters Patent refers to Royal Highness as a "style, title and attribute".


The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/60384/page/213

 

[Lumutqueen]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

While some royal watchers make a difference between "style" and "title", no such difference exists in British law. The London Gazette notice of the 2012 Letters Patent refers to Royal Highness as a "style, title and attribute".

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/60384/page/213

Ohkay, the fact that royal highness is initially referred to as a style in your ever so helpfully bolded statement, and it goes on to refer to Prince and Princess as titular. I know what I’ll be sticking with thanks.

It’s also not just some royal watchers either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have no objection to the terms that you or any other member of the forum choose to "stick with" (and which I have sometimes used myself). (I am not sure who you are referring to in the comment you added, as some royal watchers are certainly aware of the legal language.)

However, because the very next word in the Gazette refers to Royal Highness as a "title", I conclude that the Queen has no objection to referring to HRH as a title, as in today's statement.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The actual wording of the Declaration of 1960 is as follows:

.
Declaration of 1960

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

Prince William and his children seem to be in a limbo as far as that declaration is concerned as they are not children of the Queen , but at same time they are “descendants of the Queen enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess.” Therefore, based solely on the wording of that declaration, they don’t bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, but are not included either in the category of persons (“ I and My children”) who are explicitly known as the “ House and Family of Windsor”.

In the absence of any new provision regarding descendants of the Queen ( other than her immediate children ) who are HRHs , does the previous declaration of 1952 apply and William’s name ( and his children’s name) should be simply Windsor instead of Mountbatten-Windsor ?


Ideally, to clarify those issues, I suppose King William V should issue a declaration when he ascends to make it known how he and his descendants are to be named.

. Declaration of 1952

My Lords,
I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor

EDIT: I am aware that, in practice, Anne, Andrew and William have used the family name Mountbatten-Windsor in the past . I just can’t see how that usage is compatible with the wording of Her Majesty’s 1952 and 1960 declarations to the Privy Council.

I suspect the basis for the past usage is that Anne, Andrew, Edward and William were not "enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess" in the documents where they used the family name Mountbatten-Windsor, even though they do enjoy them on most occasions. For example, in Anne's marriage certificate (linked to in an earlier post) she was listed simply as "Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor", without using "Royal Highness" or "Princess".

Yes, it's powerless as a legal document. It relies on the Queen's powers of persuasion as head of a family, not her legal authority as head of state. People's families ultimately don't have to listen to them if they don't want to. As we've seen quite recently, even the Queen's wishes for the future of her family are not always followed.

Very interesting! And indeed I hope that the queen and her successors have not / will not attempt to enforce it legally.

 

[Spheno]

Henry hasn’t had his birthright title of Prince removed by parliament so he still has that and his style of HRH. He is choosing not to use them. That means Meghan can’t either.

Parliament has nothing to do with this title. The queen can do what she wants with HRH and Prince.

Parliament deals with peerages only.

 

[Mbruno]

While some royal watchers make a difference between "style" and "title", no such difference exists in British law. The London Gazette notice of the 2012 Letters Patent refers to Royal Highness as a "style, title and attribute".


The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/60384/page/213

My understanding is that "Prince" or "Duke" are referred to in British legal language as "dignities" (or "titular dignities"). For example,

Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.

What really matters though is that, in public and private acts that concern them, the princes of the United Kingdom bear both the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince prefixed to their Christian names, which are then followed by whatever other titles that they may hold. That is why William appears on George's birth certificate as His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge.


That is also why I think it is a big deal that Harry is dropping the use of both 'HRH' and 'Prince' as prefixes to his name (I am still waiting for official confirmation from the Palace, other than a hearsay tweet).


Just as a comparison, the King of Sweden recently stripped five of his yoiung grandchildren of the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess of Sweden. However, they were allowed to keep Prince/Princess prefixed to their Christian names as a matter of courtesy. The same courtesy applied to the King's sisters who married morganatically under the old pre-1980 succession law.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is why I think it is a big deal that Harry is dropping the use of both 'HRH' and 'Prince' as prefixes to his name (I am still waiting for official confirmation from the Palace, other than a hearsay tweet).


Just as a comparison, the King of Sweden recently stripped five of his yoiung grandchildren of the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess of Sweden. However, they were allowed to keep Prince/Princess prefixed to their Christian names as a matter of courtesy. The same courtesy applied to the King's sisters who married morganatically under the old pre-1980 succession law.

You make a valid point, but on the other hand the Swedish grandchildren and sisters were formally stripped of their HRH and "of Sweden" titles, whereas the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have merely agreed to refrain from using their HRH titles. Additionally, Buckingham Palace has not been clear about whether the agreement even extends to the titular dignity of Prince and Princess, or whether it applies to third parties, such as the companies with which they may sign deals in the future, or even Buckingham Palace itself (will they still be styled TRH when they attend a family event which appears in the Court Circular?).

For the moment, my instinct is that it will likely be no more than a more lenient version of the agreement between the King of Norway and Princess Märtha Louise for her to refrain from using her title to promote her business. But your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Somebody]

Yes Archie has the title, they did accept it, he's simply not using it at this time was their wording. Unless something changes Archie will be HRH when Charles is the King.

LaRae

Not sure what kind of 'acceptance' you are referring to. Archie is entitled to use his father's secondary titles; Harry and Meghan cannot take that away so couldn't accept it either in my understanding.

Under the current circumstances imho it would be absurd for Archie to become HRH prince Archie of Sussex while his parents are prohibited from using their 'HRHs'. So, I am quite sure that won't happen - we'll just have to see how they will go about it (announce it some time in the near future or wait for Charles ascension to clarify this issue).

 

[Kataryn]

What is it with Harry's title as "Sir" Henry, because he is a Knight Commander of the Victoria Order? Could they call themselves Sir Henry and Lady Mountbatten-Windsor instead of Henry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex?

 

[Roslyn]

I can't imagine him doing that, not if he has any sense... though I suppose recent events suggest he doesn't have much of that. Isn't Harry new form of address His Grace, the Duke of Sussex?

 

[miss whirley]

In my view Harry and Meghan are in the same boat as Louise and James. They are legally HRHs by Harry's birthright, but "in practice" it won't be used or acknowledged. Harry will only be seen as a peer now.

 

[Kataryn]

I can't imagine him doing that, not if he has any sense... though I suppose recent events suggest he doesn't have much of that. Isn't Harry new form of address His Grace, the Duke of Sussex?

I found that Royal Dukes use their "HRH" "instead" of His Grace, thus I believe there could be arguments that Harry indeed is "His Grace" when he doesn't use HRH. But who knows in the Uk...


Edit: Merriam-Webster's homepage claims as well that all dukes are "Your Grace" but the Royal dukes use their higher HRH instead.

 

[Roslyn]

I found that Royal Dukes use their "HRH" "instead" of His Grace, thus I believe there could be arguments that Harry indeed is "His Grace" when he doesn't use HRH. But who knows in the Uk...


Edit: Merriam-Webster's homepage claims as well that all dukes are "Your Grace" but the Royal dukes use their higher HRH instead.

So if Harry isn't using HRH he will be His Grace. But, as you say, it is the UK and this is Harry. He might just want to be known as Harry, The Duke of Sussex. I would love him to just use Harry Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Just "Sir" is perfectly fine. Even for Charles or Philip. In daily practice everyone uses "Sir" instead of "Your Royal Highness". I understood Harry is and remains a Prince of the United Kingdom, is and remains a Duke of Sussex, is and remains in the line of succession. So essentially not very much is changing, just placing hinself in the periphery of the monarchy.

There is NO change in titles and style. Just in usage.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Parliament has nothing to do with this title. The queen can do what she wants with HRH and Prince.

Parliament deals with peerages only.

My understand is the opposite it’s been spoken often over the last couple of weeks that an act of parliament is needed to remove Henry’s HRH and Princely status.

 

[Spheno]

My understand is the opposite it’s been spoken often over the last couple of weeks that an act of parliament is needed to remove Henry’s HRH and Princely status.

No. Parliament only makes decisions about peerages as peers are part of British Parliament. HRH and Prince title are regulated by Letters patents from the queen.

 

[Lumutqueen]

No. Parliament only makes decisions about peerages as peers are part of British Parliament. HRH and Prince title are regulated by Letters patents from the queen.

Doesn't the Title Deprivation Act of 1917, show that parliament can remove HRHs and Prince Title?

 

[Mbruno]

Doesn't the Title Deprivation Act of 1917, show that parliament can remove HRHs and Prince Title?

Parliament can do whatever it wants in the UK, because there is no written constitution and Parliament is sovereign (even more so after Brexit). Parliament could even abolish the monarchy or all peerages if it wanted to.


Of course, the Queen is also part of Parliament and she would ultimately have to consent thereto by giving the royal assent, which she and all her ancestors have been doing uninterruptedly since 1707. And, based on recent precedent, a major decision such as abolishing the monarchy wouldn't be taken without a popular referendum.

 

[Spheno]

Doesn't the Title Deprivation Act of 1917, show that parliament can remove HRHs and Prince Title?

This act is firstly about peerages.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So if Harry isn't using HRH he will be His Grace. But, as you say, it is the UK and this is Harry. He might just want to be known as Harry, The Duke of Sussex. I would love him to just use Harry Mountbatten-Windsor.

Buckingham Palace appears to have issued a statement to the press corps - because the information is included in most of the articles covering details of the agreement which were left out of the official statement - that the couple will be known as "Harry, Duke of Sussex" and "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" once the agreement goes into effect in spring 2020. (One correspondent cited it as "Harry, The Duke of Sussex", but he seems to be the exception to the rule.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51107687

It is indeed a departure from the customary usages for British dukes, but it may be a more practical decision taking into account the couple's plans to work in North America. I suppose many Americans and Canadians would find it easier to recognize "Harry" and "Meghan" than "His/Her Grace".

A second possibility, if the expectation is that Harry will also stop using his Prince title (which is yet to be officially confirmed), is that the guidance on calling him "Harry, Duke of Sussex" may be intended to guide the media away from calling him "Prince Harry".

Doesn't the Title Deprivation Act of 1917, show that parliament can remove HRHs and Prince Title?

As Mbruno noted, it can indeed, but if the monarch takes the initiative then Parliament's assent is not required. British monarchs have customarily conferred or removed HRH/HH and Prince(ss) titles without referring the matter to Parliament, although on some occasions the government has been consulted.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm

 

[Mbruno]

This act is firstly about peerages.

But it also affected titles or dignities conferred by LPs or royal warrants and not linked to a peerage, for example HRH and the dignity of prince. In fact,at least one grandson in male line of Queen Victoria who was an HRH and a British prince under the LPs of 1917 ceased to be so in the UK:

• Charles Edward, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow

 

[Denville]

Buckingham Palace appears to have issued a statement to the press corps - because the information is included in most of the articles covering details of the agreement which were left out of the official statement - that the couple will be known as "Harry, Duke of Sussex" and "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" once the agreement goes into effect in spring 2020. (One correspondent cited it as "Harry, The Duke of Sussex", but he seems to be the exception to the rule.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51107687

It is indeed a departure from the customary usages for British dukes, but it may be a more practical decision taking into account the couple's plans to work in North America. I suppose many Americans and Canadians would find it easier to recognize "Harry" and "Meghan" than "His/Her Grace".

A second possibility, if the expectation is that Harry will also stop using his Prince title (which is yet to be officially confirmed), is that the guidance on calling him "Harry, Duke of Sussex" may be intended to guide the media away from calling him "Prince Harry".




As Mbruno noted, it can indeed, but if the monarch takes the initiative then Parliament's assent is not required. British monarchs have customarily conferred or removed HRH/HH and Prince(ss) titles without referring the matter to Parliament, although on some occasions the government has been consulted.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm

the queen can remove HRH and Prince titles but not peerages. She could say that Harry is not now a prince or an HRH but to remove the dukedom, it would have to go through parliament.