The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3181  
Old 09-30-2017, 07:45 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
But were they known as such while their husbands were alive? Or was it only after (once they were Dowagers)?
That is what I am wondering about as well - furthermore, some have suggested that Alexandra and Mary being princesses by birth also made a difference - however, that wouldn't apply to Queen Elizabeth (the current queen's mother).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3182  
Old 09-30-2017, 08:03 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
That is what I am wondering about as well - furthermore, some have suggested that Alexandra and Mary being princesses by birth also made a difference - however, that wouldn't apply to Queen Elizabeth (the current queen's mother).


Alexandra and Mary didn't use their foreign royal titles post marriage. It's fair to argue that Mary didn't even hold her foreign titles after 1917 - her brothers all relinquished their German titles during the war. It's safe to say that the only thing that kept her from doing similar was that Mary wasn't seen as still being a Princess of Teck after her marriage.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3183  
Old 10-01-2017, 01:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 569
Here is link to the Westminster Abbey website showing a copy of an invite to the coronation of Their Majesties King George V and Queen Mary. So it seems that, at least in 1911, the Queen was known by her given name.

Westminster Abbey » George V
Reply With Quote
  #3184  
Old 10-01-2017, 02:25 PM
Princess Squirrel's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 58
Titles

Again, I've never understood why the BRF are so precious about not allowing the title of Prince or Princess through marriage. Other European royal houses allow it. I do think the BRF think they are better and the most important royal family in Europe and probably the world! It's amazing that the 'powers that be' don't want Ms Middleton to ever be referred to as Princess Catherine when she will one day be officially Queen Catherine! I think William would agree with me. Not only did he put her occupation on their childrens' birth certificates as 'Princess of the United Kingdom' but he has said that people can refer to her as Princess Catherine if they want to.
Reply With Quote
  #3185  
Old 10-01-2017, 02:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,212
I'm sure he meant that he wasn't going ot faint if people got it wrong and called her "Princess Cath" just as they called his mother Princess Diana. It didnt' mean that he felt she should have the title of Princess Catherine. I don't see what the problem is, the rule is that royal daughters get the Titlte Princess First name.. not wives.
Reply With Quote
  #3186  
Old 10-01-2017, 02:32 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,387
Its one thing that has impressed me about the British monarchy and the way they do things. They not only adhere to the traditional ways of doing things but with not "adapting" like many European countries do as far as titles and coronations/installments, they keep the past very much alive. That is what the monarchy in the UK does. It preserves the past and gives the sense on continuity to things that, I think, are starting to be lost in other countries.

Some things do need to change in adapting to the 21st century and the world but the more they can hold onto where they've been and where they've come from, the more of a sense of stability and continuity remains. At least that's how I see it.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #3187  
Old 10-01-2017, 02:57 PM
Princess Squirrel's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 58
Titles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its one thing that has impressed me about the British monarchy and the way they do things. They not only adhere to the traditional ways of doing things but with not "adapting" like many European countries do as far as titles and coronations/installments, they keep the past very much alive. That is what the monarchy in the UK does. It preserves the past and gives the sense on continuity to things that, I think, are starting to be lost in other countries.

Some things do need to change in adapting to the 21st century and the world but the more they can hold onto where they've been and where they've come from, the more of a sense of stability and continuity remains. At least that's how I see it.
While I agree about coronations etc, I think allowing Prince and Princess by marriage would not be harmful in any way, and may even be a good thing for tradition.
Reply With Quote
  #3188  
Old 10-01-2017, 03:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,212
But what would be the point of it? It would only create problems if a royal marriage ends in divorce and the woman Invovled wants out of the RF and does not want to be hung around with a royal title.
In most other European monarchies there seems to be more flexibility about giving up one's rights in the succession, that if say a Prince makes a controversial marriage, he just usually gives up his place..but that isn't the tradtion in Britain..
Reply With Quote
  #3189  
Old 10-01-2017, 03:55 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,513
In the UK prince/ss is a courtesy title. Even for the children born into the royal family. Harry and William are not princes in their own right, these are simply courtesy titles based on their relationship to the queen. Why should their spouse be made a princess in their own right, when they aren't?

Perhaps the tradition could be changed, in that they could be allowed the courtesy of being referred to as by their own name. As was done with Alice and Marina. But that was done when they were widows and after many years of service.
Reply With Quote
  #3190  
Old 10-01-2017, 04:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
In the UK prince/ss is a courtesy title. Even for the children born into the royal family. Harry and William are not princes in their own right, these are simply courtesy titles based on their relationship to the queen. Why should their spouse be made a princess in their own right, when they aren't?

Perhaps the tradition could be changed, in that they could be allowed the courtesy of being referred to as by their own name. As was done with Alice and Marina. But that was done when they were widows and after many years of service.
I had the impression that that was what people were alluding to - the courtesy to be known by their own name. I agree that there is no need to make them princesses in their own right (although exceptions are made - even in the UK - for husbands of the heir/monarch, most recently in Sweden with prince Daniel; his sister-in-law is as far as I know not a princess in her own right, while he is a prince in his own right).

Currently, I believe only the Belgian royal family made their princesses by marriage also princesses in their own right (and Lorenz prince of Belgium in his own right, but more than 10 years into his marriage and a few years after his children had received that title) - as they decided that the courtesy rule does no longer apply.

In the Netherlands only Queen Máxima was made a princess in her own right. This was done to treat her in the same way as the husbands of the three previous monarchs who all became princes of the Netherlands in their own right. All other princesses by marriage are princesses by courtesy, but with the use of their own name, not their husbands.
Reply With Quote
  #3191  
Old 10-01-2017, 04:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,853
It’s just an extension of how wives have traditionally been styled under common law.

Mrs Michael Middleton is no different from Princess William or Princess Harry.

A wife taking her husbands name. We can say it’s old fashion but so are many traditions at court.
Reply With Quote
  #3192  
Old 10-01-2017, 04:26 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its one thing that has impressed me about the British monarchy and the way they do things. They not only adhere to the traditional ways of doing things but with not "adapting" like many European countries do as far as titles and coronations/installments, they keep the past very much alive. That is what the monarchy in the UK does. It preserves the past and gives the sense on continuity to things that, I think, are starting to be lost in other countries.

Some things do need to change in adapting to the 21st century and the world but the more they can hold onto where they've been and where they've come from, the more of a sense of stability and continuity remains. At least that's how I see it.
Allowing the royals to marry non-royals (and divorced people), no longer using the husband's family name as the name of the house, and changing the order of succession are huge leaps away from tradition, so sticking to the use of the husbands first name for princesses by marriage might be traditional, but of very little weight compared to the enormous changes away from the 'traditional way of doing things' that you so highly value.

Furthermore, I am under the impression that most countries stick to their tradition regarding titles. The traditions are most of the times quite different (other than Spain probably), but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that the British are better at sticking to their traditions; I would even argue that most of the no longer reigning houses are more traditional than the BRF.
Reply With Quote
  #3193  
Old 10-01-2017, 04:29 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
It’s just an extension of how wives have traditionally been styled under common law.

Mrs Michael Middleton is no different from Princess William or Princess Harry.

A wife taking her husbands name. We can say it’s old fashion but so are many traditions at court.
Agreed. However, I was merely pointing out, as have others before, that making the wifes princesses in their own right is not necessary. A change of address is sufficient. I guess in all of society the use of Mrs 'husband's name' surname is more common in English speaking countries than in other western countries.
Reply With Quote
  #3194  
Old 10-01-2017, 07:46 PM
Princess Squirrel's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 58
Mrs Husband's First Nane

I hate, loathe and detest being called Mrs Mark Husband's Surname. His grandmother used to do it, but I told his mom to get her to stop. I still get things addressed to Mr & Mrs Mark XXXX from his dad and an aunt. Reminds me that I've had enough and I am going to say something.
Reply With Quote
  #3195  
Old 10-01-2017, 09:08 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,008
Well I like it.

I married him and am proud to have his name.

IT's an individual thing that the majority of us can choose or not.

It doesn't apply to the BRF. House rules are house rules
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #3196  
Old 10-01-2017, 11:02 PM
Princess Squirrel's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 58
Ruled

Rules can always be changed. As someone already said, they changed the rules of succession recently so a girl doesn't get trumped to the monarch's job by her baby brother, and most people agreed with that. Years ago they changed the rules so the Queen was no longer exempt from paying income tax. Again, most were happy with the change. Women will never have reached true equality so long as a married lady is treated as an extension of her husband. I'm proud to be Mrs Oursurname, for the sake of family unity. But I am my own person not just his wife, so I don't want to lose my own first name. Imagine if no rules had ever been changed for the benefit of women? Women wouldn't be able to vote, get a mortgage, become a doctor or a solicitor. I wouldn't have been able to have my husband live in the UK with me. As recently as the 1970s, women could not get UK visas for their foreign husbands, but men could get visas for foreign wives.

I find it kind of ironic that to be officially Mrs Squirrel Oursurname, I'd have to divorce my husband!
Reply With Quote
  #3197  
Old 10-27-2017, 01:10 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Is there any point where the title of Albany will revert back or no longer be an option for those descendants? It's been some time now since it's been used.


LaRae
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
When there are no male-line decendents left (not likely, as there are currently 14; all cousins or second/third cousins to king Carl Gustaf of Sweden) or probably if all potential claimants renounce their rights to the title for themselves and their off-spring?!

However, we should probably discuss this in the general British titles topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Kinda surprised they haven't renounced them already since there is obviously no interest in holding the title.


LaRae
However, there also isn't much reason for them (especially the current claimant) to renounce... If the BRF would reach out to them and ask for it they might consider but I don't see them doing it spontaneously. However, even if only one would not agree and suddenly reclaim the title (that they were stipped off and that has no legal standing in Germany) that would probably cause more trouble than creating a new title if that would be necessary at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #3198  
Old 10-27-2017, 02:39 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,045
Asking them to renounce their title sets all sorts of precedence however. This year Albany - so why not next year Cambridge???
Reply With Quote
  #3199  
Old 10-27-2017, 02:43 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 399
There is quite a difference between asking to renounce a title that they have been stripped off a century ago compared to a title that is currently in use. However, I don't expect the BRF to do so, as I said previously, creating a new title is far easier and less risky.
Reply With Quote
  #3200  
Old 10-27-2017, 04:24 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,477
British laws don't allow to renounce a title. Only current title holder can disclaim his peerages "for life". After his death his heir inherits all titles.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, kate, queenmother, 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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1896 11-14-2017 06:35 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 750 10-25-2017 04:30 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 02:39 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
austria best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of calabria earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein line luxembourg monarchy myth news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess sofia eveningwear princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia suits queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises