Questions about British Styles and Titles

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

It makes sense - especially as she is the daughter of a duke in addition so should have been HRH The Princess Anne, Lady Anne Philips... Daughters of dukes, marquesses or earls are never just plain Mrs., they are Lady first name last (name of husband or family) name.

Don't forget, her father is a ROYAL Duke. When she was born, until her mother became the Queen, she was HRH Princess Ann of Edinburgh. She was never known as Lady Ann, just as Beatrice and Eugenie are not.

[branchg]

Charles and Anne were HRH Prince/Princess of the UK via letters patent issued by George VI. Otherwise, as female-line grandchildren of The Sovereign, they would indeed have simply been Lord/Lady Windsor as the children of The Duke of Edinburgh until Elizabeth became Queen.

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by branchg

Charles and Anne were HRH Prince/Princess of the UK via letters patent issued by George VI. Otherwise, as female-line grandchildren of The Sovereign, they would indeed have simply been Lord/Lady Windsor as the children of The Duke of Edinburgh until Elizabeth became Queen.

they were '...of Edinburgh' as well until their mother became Queen.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

they were '...of Edinburgh' as well until their mother became Queen.

Actually Charles would have been known as the Earl of Merioneth - the second title of the Duke of Edinburgh and traditionally this title is used by the heir to a Dukedom (or other title). e.g. Earl Spencer's heir is known as Viscount Althorp and Lord Snowdon's son is known as Viscount Linley because these titles are the second title of their father's. Without the Letters Patent of 1948 Charles wouldn't have used the Lord Charles title but the Earl of Merioneth one (he still can use that of course because he is also the heir to the Dukedom of Edinburgh) but I have never seen it listed amongst his titles - another slight to his father who once famously said, when talking about the names of his descendents "I am just an ameoba"

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

. Without the Letters Patent of 1948 Charles wouldn't have used the Lord Charles title but the Earl of Merioneth one (he still can use that of course because he is also the heir to the Dukedom of Edinburgh) but I have never seen it listed amongst his titles

Actually, Chrissy, I don't think that's the case. It would be only a courtesy title, not a substansive peerage, to be used only if he held no peerage of his own (which he does, of course).

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

Actually, Chrissy, I don't think that's the case. It would be only a courtesy title, not a substansive peerage, to be used only if he held no peerage of his own (which he does, of course).

It is a coutesy title of course!! Silly me!

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Actually Charles would have been known as the Earl of Merioneth - the second title of the Duke of Edinburgh and traditionally this title is used by the heir to a Dukedom (or other title). e.g. Earl Spencer's heir is known as Viscount Althorp and Lord Snowdon's son is known as Viscount Linley because these titles are the second title of their father's. Without the Letters Patent of 1948 Charles wouldn't have used the Lord Charles title but the Earl of Merioneth one (he still can use that of course because he is also the heir to the Dukedom of Edinburgh) but I have never seen it listed amongst his titles - another slight to his father who once famously said, when talking about the names of his descendents "I am just an ameoba"

He was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh from birth until his mother became Queen. A prince because of the Letters of Patent and of Edinburgh because his father was a Royal Duke.

By the way, I believe the ameoba comment was regarding the Mountbatten last name not being used.


Charles, Prince of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[branchg]

The point is what he would have been styled if his grandfather had not issued letters patent in 1948 providing the children of Elizabeth and The Duke would be HRH Prince/Princess.

In that case, Charles would have been Lord Charles Windsor, but styled Charles, Earl of Merioneth as a courtesy derived from being the eldest son of a Duke.

[HRH Queen Mary]

Originally Posted by branchg

The point is what he would have been styled if his grandfather had not issued letters patent in 1948 providing the children of Elizabeth and The Duke would be HRH Prince/Princess.

In that case, Charles would have been Lord Charles Windsor, but styled Charles, Earl of Merioneth as a courtesy derived from being the eldest son of a Duke.

Sorry to disagree, but i think he would be called Lord Charles Mountbatten, deriving from his father

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by HRH Queen Mary

Sorry to disagree, but i think he would be called Lord Charles Mountbatten, deriving from his father

He would have been styled Charles, Earl of Merioneth as a courtesy title derived from his father. At the time, the family had no personal surname, other than York or Wales if that was your father's ducal or princely title (Beatrice of York, William of Wales, etc.).

[auntie]

I can't recall if I have asked this before, but if Harry gets married and has children whislt the Queen is still alive, and they are styled Lord/Lady etc., when Charles ascends the throne, will they be restyled as prince/ess being the grandchildren of a monarch from a male line? Or the way they are born is the way it stays?!
Another point, were there any prince/ess of UK from Qvictorias grand or great grandchildren, who wouldn't be style do today?

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by auntie

I can't recall if I have asked this before, but if Harry gets married and has children whislt the Queen is still alive, and they are styled Lord/Lady etc., when Charles ascends the throne, will they be restyled as prince/ess being the grandchildren of a monarch from a male line? Or the way they are born is the way it stays?!
Another point, were there any prince/ess of UK from Qvictorias grand or great grandchildren, who wouldn't be style do today?

Yes any children Harry gets during the lifetime of the present Queen will be Lord/Lady and also the children of William with the exception of his oldest son. But if William has first a daughter and the a son the daughter will be Lady and the son Prince.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by auntie

I can't recall if I have asked this before, but if Harry gets married and has children whislt the Queen is still alive, and they are styled Lord/Lady etc., when Charles ascends the throne, will they be restyled as prince/ess being the grandchildren of a monarch from a male line? Or the way they are born is the way it stays?!
Another point, were there any prince/ess of UK from Qvictorias grand or great grandchildren, who wouldn't be style do today?

Both William and Harry's children would be Lord/Lady Windsor until their father became King. If William has an eldest son, he is automatically a Royal Highness and Prince of the UK under the 1917 Letters Patent.

The Queen may also choose to issue letters patent providing William and Harry's children will enjoy the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK since they are close to becoming the grandchildren of The Sovereign after her death.

Victoria's grandchildren remained HRH Prince/Princess of GB and Ireland if so granted by HM via letters patent after George V issued the 1917 Letters Patent. They lost any German honours and titles immediately.

Victoria's great-grandchildren generally remained Prince/Princess of GB and Ireland (again if she specifically granted it via letters patent) as a courtesy, but they lost their precedence and qualification of Highness under George V.

[Australian]

I have a question, it may be a bit silly but anyway...it is regarding the title of Count. There is the Earl and Countess of Wessex, but why isn't Edward the Count of Wessex and Sophie is the Countess of Wessex? IS there a difference between an Earl and a Count? I have always wondered why they are not knows as the Count and Countess of Wessex. It is always Earl and Countess, why?

[coco]

Originally Posted by Australian

I have a question, it may be a bit silly but anyway...it is regarding the title of Count. There is the Earl and Countess of Wessex, but why isn't Edward the Count of Wessex and Sophie is the Countess of Wessex? IS there a difference between an Earl and a Count? I have always wondered why they are not knows as the Count and Countess of Wessex. It is always Earl and Countess, why?

I think Earl and Count is the same. I looked into my German-English dictionary and both titles were translated with "Graf". Therefore it has to be the same . . .

[Claire]

Originally Posted by coco

I think Earl and Count is the same. I looked into my German-English dictionary and both titles were translated with "Graf". Therefore it has to be the same . . .

They are the same - it is just a division that was caused by the translation from Old English - there were earls and when the Romans came over the only word they could place to it that was similar was count. It is a latin, old english mess.

[Claire]

Here is an odd one for you.

It was announced after the wedding of the Earl of Wessex that his children with the Countess of Wessex would not receive the title of HRH. I don't want to get into debate of whether their was or wasn't a letter patent. But a friend of mine noted that as the announcement was made in regard to the children of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex, what about when they became the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh? Will another announcement need to be made, or will Louise suddenlty get a title overnight?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Claire

Here is an odd one for you.

It was announced after the wedding of the Earl of Wessex that his children with the Countess of Wessex would not receive the title of HRH. I don't want to get into debate of whether their was or wasn't a letter patent. But a friend of mine noted that as the announcement was made in regard to the children of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex, what about when they became the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh? Will another announcement need to be made, or will Louise suddenlty get a title overnight?

Depends on the letters patent that king Charles will issue then. Because as long as he is not the king, he will inherit the dukedom of Edinburgh from his father. When he becomes king, the title will merge with the crown and then he can recreate it for his younger brother. In the letters patent there will surely be a paragraph concerning the title of the children of the new duke of Edinburgh.

At the moment they are all playing around with styles: Charles' wife is HRH The Princess of Wales, but let herself be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex is styled simply as Her Ladyship, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

[wbenson]

The daughter of a non-royal Duke is styled the same as the daughter of a non-royal Earl. So long as Edward and Sophie make it clear their children aren't going to use the styles of Royal Highness and Prince(ss), Louise won't be called anything different. Neither would a possible female child. A possible male child would go from being Viscount Severn to Earl of Wessex if they don't use HRH and Prince.

[RoyalProtocol]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

HRH Princess Louise of Wessex is styled simply as Her Ladyship, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

Her Ladyship is a creation of fiction, HRH Princess Louise of Wessex is simply The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

Another non related question: If Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother had remarried (a severly doubtful situation) would she have become simply Mrs. John Smith, LG LT etc. or would letters have been issued to allow her to retain a part of her title eg. HM The Queen Mother, Mrs. John Smith Etc. which sound silly, also what would have happened if she had married a member of a foreign royal family.