Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Friedrich Karl II]

Surely Catherine will be queen assuming that she is still alive/no divorce/monarchy is not abolished when William becomes king. It would be bit odd if she wouldn't become king despite that she is still with William.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In orders of precedence King is always a higher title than Queen, that's just the way it works. That's why Queen Regnant's spouse is always made a Prince, unless he is a King in his own right see Mary 1 and Phillip II of Spain.

Again, can you please provide an instance where a King was accorded a higher place in an order of precedence than a Queen on the basis of their titles?

(For example, an instance of Queen Elizabeth II being given a lower place in the order of precedence at a European royal gathering than a European King who ascended the throne at a later date than she did.)

 

[Lumutqueen]

Will Kate be queen when William is King?

Can you provide an instance when a royal holding the title of King outranked a royal holding the title of Queen on the basis of their titles?

There’s no outranking when the title holder is Queen Regnant as that is equivalent in rank.

However a King outranks a Queen Consort (King Felipe would outrank Queen Maxima).

Which I assume is what Queen Mathilde was referring to.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There’s no outranking when the title holder is Queen Regnant as that is equivalent in rank.

However a King outranks a Queen Consort (King Felipe would outrank Queen Maxima).

Which I assume is what Queen Mathilde was referring to.

I agree with your characterization of how it works, but others have advanced the proposition that rank and precedence is currently based on the title rather than the position (of reigning monarch/consort) and so (according to their proposition) a king consort would outrank a queen regnant.

 

[Heavs]

Again, can you please provide an instance where a King was accorded a higher place in an order of precedence than a Queen on the basis of their titles?

(For example, an instance of Queen Elizabeth II being given a lower place in the order of precedence at a European royal gathering than a European King who ascended the throne at a later date than she did.)

Within their own Royal Houses and Courts is what I and others meant. If Prince Phillip or Prince Henrik had the title "King" within the UK or Denmark then they would technically (based on the old precedence) outrank their wives - Henrik in particular publicly ranted a lot about this, and you can see the discussion of that in the Denmark forum -about why he could never get what he wanted. Lord Mountbatten also had to be firmly slapped down and told that the House of Windsor wasn't going to become the House of Mountbatten, although that's a slightly different issue it is all based on the old gender disparity:

Kings were automatically higher than Queens because Kings were men and thus couldn't be given the title "King Consort" whilst a Queen was a lower rank than King -within each individual Kingdom and thus wives could be given the title without anyone thinking they were running the place. Because the system is/was so highly patriarchal King automatically = boss. Thus the obviously lower "prince" when his wife was actually The Boss.

These days when monarchs from different countries are meeting up it is usually done on date crowned and they also keep/kept in Constantine of Greece and Michael of Romania and other monarchs who were deposed within that as well.

I believe that is the modern way and it used to be done differently but I can't find any exact examples.

ETA I believe that since being a Prince Consort happens so rarely (because of the old male primogeniture) there isn't even an official precedence for him and he is usually issued special Letters Patent granting him his place - also something that caused massive trouble in Denmark when Henrik ranked behind his son the Crown Prince.

 

[kathia_sophia]

I always believed that the title "King" outranks the title "Queen", that's why Queen Regnants can only have as husbands prince consorts and not King consorts. When they established this? That I don't know, but it sounds that it goes way way back, all before equal rights came into question. That's why in history, the King consort of a Queen Regnant co-ruled with her. As far as I've read, there's no King consort in history who acted like the prince consorts we have today (just as husbands of a Queen regnant and not as co-rulers).


Now the question is, how will this continue in the 21st century? Tradition is important, but so is human rights and its progress. Quite interesting discussion. For me, it would be right and equal for all, if King Regnants had princess consorts as their wives (like in Morocco, although that system is what King Mohammed created himself). With this rule, only the monarchs could own the title of King/Queen. But, that's just my opinion.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Within their own Royal Houses and Courts is what I and others meant. If Prince Phillip or Prince Henrik had the title "King" within the UK or Denmark then they would technically (based on the old precedence) outrank their wives - Henrik in particular publicly ranted a lot about this,

There was no old precedence in Denmark itself, as Queen Margrethe II is the first de jure regnant queen of Denmark. (Queen Margrethe I was strictly speaking a queen consort.) Henrik's title was, according to the Danish court, modeled on the recent male consorts in the Netherlands and Great Britain.

For precedence in the United Kingdom one would need to look to the sixteenth century, as there have been no kings consort in England and Scotland after that era. I am not familiar with sixteenth-century orders of precedence in England or Scotland, but considering King Philip of England was not even crowned, I am skeptical of the idea that the English people, even in his own lifetime, viewed him as outranking his wife.

Lord Mountbatten also had to be firmly slapped down and told that the House of Windsor wasn't going to become the House of Mountbatten, although that's a slightly different issue it is all based on the old gender disparity:

I would describe that as equal treatment to female consorts. The House of Windsor did not become the House of Bowes-Lyon, and it will not become the House of Spencer or the House of Middleton in due course.

Kings were automatically higher than Queens because Kings were men and thus couldn't be given the title "King Consort" whilst a Queen was a lower rank than King -within each individual Kingdom and thus wives could be given the title without anyone thinking they were running the place.

These days when monarchs from different countries are meeting up it is usually done on date crowned and they also keep/kept in Constantine of Greece and Michael of Romania and other monarchs who were deposed within that as well.

I believe that is the modern way and it used to be done differently but I can't find any exact examples.

I know it is a widely circulated argument, both historically and in recent discussions, but as far as I can see it has never actually worked that way, at least not in modern times. As you said, Queen Elizabeth II has never appeared to be treated as "lower" than her fellow male European monarchs who were crowned at a later date but hold the title of King.

I always believed that the title +"King" outranks the title "Queen", that's why Queen Regnants can only have as husbands prince consorts and not King consorts. When they established this? That I don't know, but it sounds that it goes way way back, all before equal rights came into question.

Historically, kings consort were more common than princes consort.

Again, I would appreciate it if you could provide an example of a King outranking a Queen on the basis of his title.

That's why in history, the King consort of a Queen Regnant co-ruled with her. As far as I've read, there's no King consort in history who acted like the prince consorts we have today (just as husbands of a Queen regnant and not as co-rulers).

If so, then why was King Francisco, as consort to Queen Isabel II of Spain, banned from participating in government, while Prince Albert, as consort to Queen Victoria of Great Britain, effectively co-ruled with her?

 

[Somebody]

She has a title. It's a title by marriage.

If they divorce, she'll still have a title same as Sarah, Duchess of York has now.

Would she? Unlike Meghan, Sarah is a British citizen. Would British naming customs truly apply to an American after a divorce instead of American naming rules and customs?

If she legally changed her name to 'Mountbatten-Windsor' (I don't think we know for sure; or do we?), my guess would be that she would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor; or she could return to being Meghan Markle (reverting back to her maiden name just like she did after her first divorce).

 

[Heavs]

while Prince Albert, as consort to Queen Victoria of Great Britain, effectively co-ruled with her?

And was roundly despised when he tried to do so. Governments and Prime Ministers falling type of scandal. I believe it has been alleged that Victoria actually wanted to make him official co-reign-er as with William and Mary but was refused by Parliament because that would effectively put him in charge as Kings are higher in precedence within their own realms than Queens.

With regards to Meghan who knows? Things were changed for Diana and Sarah to be style like that (I think) so they could change again if Kate or Meghan got divorced. With Meghan potentially the fact that she (probably) wouldn't be using it anyway for a long time before the divorce might also affect the decision as well as her being American, a country which doesn't legally recognize titles anyway.

Regarding the previous topic in the Sussex thread this came from, I suspect if (big if) Meghan ever did want to run for office (even on a local level in California/LA) she and Harry would have to formally renounce the Dukedom et al. So that they can be seen politicking on the BRF name in US partisan politics. As much as that would ever be possible.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Would she? Unlike Meghan, Sarah is a British citizen. Would British naming customs truly apply to an American after a divorce instead of American naming rules and customs?

If she legally changed her name to 'Mountbatten-Windsor' (I don't think we know for sure; or do we?), my guess would be that she would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor; or she could return to being Meghan Markle (reverting back to her maiden name just like she did after her first divorce).

I’m only commenting on what’s happened previously, if Meghan and Henry divorce she is entitled to be styled Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. So yes they would “apply”, as citizenship has nothing to do with it.

As to whether Meghan chose to drop the style altogether, we’ll only know if the situation ever happens.

Lastly, why would she legally change her name to Mountbatten-Windsor when there is no need to do so? That’s not the surname her husband has (he doesn’t have one), as that would be the reason for legally changing it.

I’d like to point out, this comment has been brought here from another thread (General News Sussex), and therefore won’t be found on any previous pages.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And was roundly despised when he tried to do so. Governments and Prime Ministers falling type of scandal. I believe it has been alleged that Victoria actually wanted to make him official co-reign-er as with William and Mary but was refused by Parliament because that would effectively put him in charge as Kings are higher in precedence within their own realms than Queens.

Well, it is natural that a King regnant precedes his wife the Queen consort, as he is the sovereign and she is the spouse, and I suppose that in a co-reigning couple the king would tend to precede the queen owing to sexism. But the suggestion was that precedence was based on the title itself and that accordingly any person with the title of King (even a consort) would outrank any person with the title of Queen. And as I said, that has not been the practice.

Gawin, muriel, and Durham, thank you for the insightful replies. I have some followup questions to ask (which anyone is welcome to answer).

I notice two principal considerations in the suggested explanations.


(1) Adapting titles to changes in society: This consideration is not special to Britain; the majority of the other monarchies of Europe have also adapted titles to suit changing demands. But the other monarchies have generally used a more standardized approach.

The monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg issued decrees, and the government of the Netherlands passed a law, laying out the altered rules.

The monarchs of Sweden and Norway adapted titles case-by-case (like Queen Elizabeth II), but their decisions were based on impersonal criteria. For example, whenever the HRH title was deprived or withheld from certain members of the Swedish or Norwegian royal families, announcements were issued explaining that HRH was limited to family members who would hold an official public role.

But British monarchs do not explain their "adaptations" (if that is what they are) as alterations to the general rules (as in Belgium or Spain) or as carefully considered approaches to adapting the monarchy (as in Norway or Sweden). Rather, they explain them as the personal "wish" or "choice" of the individual family member. Why?


(2) Acceptance from the queen and the public when royal family members wish to break with tradition regarding their titles: If this is the chief reason for the British royal family's haphazard treatment of titles, then why is Britain an outlier amongst the European royal families?

Are the British queen and the British public more accepting of case-by-case breaks with tradition than the rest of Western Europe? Are members of the British royal family more inclined to want to be called by a non-traditional title or no title, compared to members of the other European royal families? And why?

If anyone is able to answer this question, I would still be grateful.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Would she? Unlike Meghan, Sarah is a British citizen. Would British naming customs truly apply to an American after a divorce instead of American naming rules and customs?

If she legally changed her name to 'Mountbatten-Windsor' (I don't think we know for sure; or do we?), my guess would be that she would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor; or she could return to being Meghan Markle (reverting back to her maiden name just like she did after her first divorce).

We were discussing this on another thread and all I know is US citizens aren't supposed to have titles. This is why when they knight a US actor they give him a different title. I don't know how this would work for Meghan if she got divorced or decided to run for office.

 

[Iluvbertie]

With regards to Meghan who knows? Things were changed for Diana and Sarah to be style like that (I think)

After their divorces Diana and Sarah were styled as the divorced wives of a British peer - name and former title.

Nothing was done specifically for them.

Earl Spencer divorced his first wife and she was then known as Victoria, Countess Spencer - same principle.

If Harry and Meghan were to divorce Meghan would be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. She could revert to her maiden name or use Mountbatten-Windsor as her married surname. She would lose the right to use Duchess of Sussex on remarriage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Okay quotes from the Court docs I can find [...]

"several member of the Royal Family do ‘undertake paid work’ including, for example, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York and Prince Michael of Kent". (The Sun)

Interesting that a court document (and not one in which she herself was involved) uses the name for Princess Eugenie that she uses for herself (of York) instead of the name that Buckingham Palace uses for her (Mrs. Jack Brooksbank).

In the 90s [...] they didn't expect her to take away Dianas HRH but she did.

Wouldn't that have been the expected decision given the practice that already existed in the peerage? For instance, a divorced wife of an Earl loses the style of The Right Honourable.

If anyone is able to answer this question, I would still be grateful.

Thinking of a potential answer to my own question, perhaps it relates to the reality of the British system that it already is the general practice to use a mix of titles within the same family? In the normal course of events, a single noble family might include a Duke and several Duchesses, a Marquess and a Marchioness, an Earl, Ladies and Lords, Honourables, and family members who are simply Mr. and Mrs.

 

[Mbruno]

Interesting that a court document (and not one in which she herself was involved) uses the name for Princess Eugenie that she uses for herself (of York) instead of the name that Buckingham Palace uses for her (Mrs. Jack Brooksbank).




Wouldn't that have been the expected decision given the practice that already existed in the peerage? For instance, a divorced wife of an Earl loses the style of The Right Honourable.




Thinking of a potential answer to my own question, perhaps it relates to the reality of the British system that it already is the general practice to use a mix of titles within the same family? In the normal course of events, a single noble family might include a Duke and several Duchesses, a Marquess and a Marchioness, an Earl, Ladies and Lords, Honourables, and family members who are simply Mr. and Mrs.

You and ILuvBertie are absolutely right: the Queen treated Sarah and Diana upon their divorces exactly as former wives of peers are treated in the UK with respect to titles and styles. That doesn't mean, however, that she could not have chosen to do things differently as, being the Queen, she can give out any titles or honours she wants to former members of her family (barring only possible clearance from the government).



Take for instance the contrarian example of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark. She let Alexandra keep her HRH and title of Princess after she and Joachim divorced and even made Alexandra a life countess, which was an additional title (Alexandra only ceased to be a princess "of Denmark", which is an important distinction in some countries like Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark properly). And, then, even when Alexandra remarried, she ceased to be a princess and an HRH, but remained a countess with the style of Excellency as a knight of the Elephant, I assume. Furthermore, in the Danish order of precedence, she comes right below the RF and at the same grade as the Counts of Rosenborg who are also former princes of Denmark.


It could be argued that, being the mother of a possible future King, Diana in particular should have kept some special status at least as long as she did not remarry. The Queen chose to be conservative though and follow the rules so to speak as they already exist, as you have again correctly said, for the peerage.

 

[Gawin]

Gawin, muriel, and Durham, thank you for the insightful replies. I have some followup questions to ask (which anyone is welcome to answer).

I notice two principal considerations in the suggested explanations.


(1) Adapting titles to changes in society: This consideration is not special to Britain; the majority of the other monarchies of Europe have also adapted titles to suit changing demands. But the other monarchies have generally used a more standardized approach.

The monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg issued decrees, and the government of the Netherlands passed a law, laying out the altered rules.

The monarchs of Sweden and Norway adapted titles case-by-case (like Queen Elizabeth II), but their decisions were based on impersonal criteria. For example, whenever the HRH title was deprived or withheld from certain members of the Swedish or Norwegian royal families, announcements were issued explaining that HRH was limited to family members who would hold an official public role.

But British monarchs do not explain their "adaptations" (if that is what they are) as alterations to the general rules (as in Belgium or Spain) or as carefully considered approaches to adapting the monarchy (as in Norway or Sweden). Rather, they explain them as the personal "wish" or "choice" of the individual family member. Why?


(2) Acceptance from the queen and the public when royal family members wish to break with tradition regarding their titles: If this is the chief reason for the British royal family's haphazard treatment of titles, then why is Britain an outlier amongst the European royal families?

Are the British queen and the British public more accepting of case-by-case breaks with tradition than the rest of Western Europe? Are members of the British royal family more inclined to want to be called by a non-traditional title or no title, compared to members of the other European royal families? And why?

I think the Queen is behind the "haphazard treatment of titles" within the BRF.

She strikes me as a traditionalist who prefers to maintain her grandfather George V's 1917 LP and only overrides them when necessary, on a case-by-case basis.

I believe she has only done this three times during her reign:

#1
In 1957 she issued LP granting her husband the style "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." He was already an HRH per her father's 1947 LP, having previously renounced his Greek and Danish titles.

#2
In 1999 she announced that the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex would not be styled HRH but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl. According to the press announcement, this decision was made with the Earl and Countess's agreement.

#3
In 2012 she issued LP stating 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." Otherwise, only the eldest son would have been an HRH, with the younger children styled as children of a Duke (Lord/Lady), including any older daughters who would precede their brother in the line of succession under the Succession to the Crown Act, at that time under consideration and made into law in 2013.

As you have pointed out, the 2012 LP do not apply to (1) the children of the eldest daughter of a Prince of Wales, even though she would be her father's heir, or (2) the children of a Princess who is herself the direct heir. In my mind, this is an example of the Queen's conservative approach.

The Queen also gave her consent to two other deviations from custom and tradition (not her grandfather's LP):

#1
In 1974 she allowed her uncle's widow to be styled "Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester" rather than the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. It's my understanding this was done at Alice's request.

#2
In 2019 she allowed her great-grandson to be styled "Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" rather than Earl of Dumbarton or Lord Dumbarton. This was done at the request of his parents.

 

[Durham]

I

In 1974 she allowed her uncle's widow to be styled "Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester" rather than the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. It's my understanding this was done at Alice's request.

Yes it was. She wanted to be known in the same way as her late sister in law Princess Marina & The Queen was happy for that to happen. Obviously Alice unlike Marina was not a princess by blood by HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester does sound rather mournful even if it is strictly correct. HRH The Princess Henry Duchess of Gloucester is even more of a mouthful.

 

[Mbruno]

We were discussing this on another thread and all I know is US citizens aren't supposed to have titles. This is why when they knight a US actor they give him a different title. I don't know how this would work for Meghan if she got divorced or decided to run for office.

I am not quite sure if I understood your point. As far as I know , from the UK perspective, non-Commonwealth citizens can be awarded knighthoods , but , in that case, they are considered “ honorary knights” and are not entitled to use the prefix Sir or Dame in. the UK. President Eisenhower for example was an honorary knight grand cross of the order. of the Bath if I am not mistaken.

From the US perspective, there are two restrictions as far as I understand it:

1. Persons who hold a public office in the US cannot in theory accept a title from a “ foreign prince or king ” without the consent of the Congress of the United States.

2. Foreign citizens who become naturalized US citizens have to renounce all foreign titles at the naturalization ceremony.

Other than that, I suppose there are no restrictions on US citizens carrying foreign titles. The titles won’t be recognized though in the US and won’t appear n passports or any other ID document.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes it was. She wanted to be known in the same way as her late sister in law Princess Marina & The Queen was happy for that to happen. Obviously Alice unlike Marina was not a princess by blood by HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester does sound rather mournful even if it is strictly correct. HRH The Princess Henry Duchess of Gloucester is even more of a mouthful.

But for what reason was it done for Marina? I would expect the fact that she was a (foreign) princess by blood to be irrelevant. Prior to 1961 (the year that Marina's eldest son took a wife), every prince of the United Kingdom had received a dukedom or the title Prince of Wales ahead of his marriage (and thus neither the princes nor their wives needed to use a given name), with Prince Arthur of Connaught as the unique exception. Arthur's wife was a British princess of the blood, but from marriage she was usually known as Princess Arthur of Connaught, not Princess Alexandra of Connaught.

 

[Gawin]

But for what reason was it done for Marina? I would expect the fact that she was a (foreign) princess by blood to be irrelevant. Prior to 1961 (the year that Marina's eldest son took a wife), every prince of the United Kingdom had received a dukedom or the title Prince of Wales ahead of his marriage (and thus neither the princes nor their wives needed to use a given name), with Prince Arthur of Connaught as the unique exception. Arthur's wife was a British princess of the blood, but from marriage she was usually known as Princess Arthur of Connaught, not Princess Alexandra of Connaught.

It seems she also did not want to be a Dowager Duchess. The following article was published in The Times, May 24, 1961, p. 12, col. 6, two weeks before her son the Duke of Kent married Katharine Worsley. So there were three deviations regarding styles, not two as I stated in my earlier post.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks! Is it clear whether "As Princess Marina, the Duchess of Kent will be reverting to her title before her marriage" was how it was put by Kensington Palace, or merely the assumption of The Times' reporter? I would have thought the "Princess" would refer to her British title, not her Greek one.

It is also worth mentioning that there was, likewise, no tradition of styling widows as Dowager Duchess in the British royal family. Marina was the first royal duchess in the British royal family to have her title taken over by a daughter-in-law during her (the mother-in-law's) lifetime.

 

[Somebody]

Thanks! Is it clear whether "As Princess Marina, the Duchess of Kent will be reverting to her title before her marriage" was how it was put by Kensington Palace, or merely the assumption of The Times' reporter? I would have thought the "Princess" would refer to her British title, not her Greek one.

It is also worth mentioning that there was, likewise, no tradition of styling widows as Dowager Duchess in the British royal family. Marina was the first royal duchess in the British royal family to have her title taken over by a daughter-in-law during her (the mother-in-law's) lifetime.

Technically, princess Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont had been in that position from 1905.

She was the duchess of Albany by marriage. In 1882 she married the duke of Albany, was pregnant of his son in 1884 when the duke died. Her son, the new duke of Albany got married in 1905 (but by that time was known as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; nonetheless, his wife was also Duchess of Albany). And it seems Helena's titles weren't revoked in 1919 (please correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say only her son's and his children's British titles were revoked; while she and her daughter kept those but at least her daughter relinquished her German titles and she probably did as well); so in the final 3 years she was the only Duchess of Albany again?!

 

[Gawin]

Thanks! Is it clear whether "As Princess Marina, the Duchess of Kent will be reverting to her title before her marriage" was how it was put by Kensington Palace, or merely the assumption of The Times' reporter? I would have thought the "Princess" would refer to her British title, not her Greek one.

I couldn't find an official announcement by Kensington Palace.

The British press called her "Princess Marina" during her engagement and "Duchess of Kent" following her marriage. I believe this what the reporter had in mind, without making a distinction between her Greek and British titles.

It is also worth mentioning that there was, likewise, no tradition of styling widows as Dowager Duchess in the British royal family. Marina was the first royal duchess in the British royal family to have her title taken over by a daughter-in-law during her (the mother-in-law's) lifetime.

Very interesting observation on your part! I wonder how the current Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester will chose to be styled if they survive their husbands.

 

[Gawin]

Technically, princess Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont had been in that position from 1905.

She was the duchess of Albany by marriage. In 1882 she married the duke of Albany, was pregnant of his son in 1884 when the duke died. Her son, the new duke of Albany got married in 1905 (but by that time was known as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; nonetheless, his wife was also Duchess of Albany). And it seems Helena's titles weren't revoked in 1919 (please correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say only her son's and his children's British titles were revoked; while she and her daughter kept those but at least her daughter relinquished her German titles and she probably did as well); so in the final 3 years she was the only Duchess of Albany again?!

Back to the Times Archive! The Court Circular referred to her as the Duchess of Albany at the time of her death in 1922.

 

[rob2008]

Would she? Unlike Meghan, Sarah is a British citizen. Would British naming customs truly apply to an American after a divorce instead of American naming rules and customs?

If she legally changed her name to 'Mountbatten-Windsor' (I don't think we know for sure; or do we?), my guess would be that she would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor; or she could return to being Meghan Markle (reverting back to her maiden name just like she did after her first divorce).

Like Tessy Antony, she might have to use the old title or constantly refer to it for the purposes making a living.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Technically, princess Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont had been in that position from 1905.

She was the duchess of Albany by marriage. In 1882 she married the duke of Albany, was pregnant of his son in 1884 when the duke died. Her son, the new duke of Albany got married in 1905 (but by that time was known as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; nonetheless, his wife was also Duchess of Albany).

That's right. But her daughter-in-law did not use the title, as she was known by her German royal title, and thus Helena could (and did) continue to be officially known as HRH The Duchess of Albany even while her daughter-in-law was the legal duchess, and the British royal family did not face the dilemma of how to differentiate a widowed royal duchess from her daughter-in-law until Marina and Katharine.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Technically, princess Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont had been in that position from 1905. [...] but at least her daughter relinquished her German titles and she probably did as well)

Helena seemingly would have remained a princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont, as the declaration of King George V by which the royal family relinquished its German titles covered only descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects. She was a British subject by marriage, but not a descendant of Queen Victoria, unless the British definition of "descendant" includes in-laws.

(Note that whereas George V's declaration concerning the family name of Windsor affected only male-line descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects, the relinquishment of German titles affected all descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects.)

Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor:
And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.​

 

[Somebody]

Back to the Times Archive! The Court Circular referred to her as the Duchess of Albany at the time of her death in 1922.

Thanks for looking it up. As I said, at that point there was no other duchess of Albany, however between 1905 and 1919 there was, so, it would be interesting to see whether she was still styled as the Duchess of Albany given that her daughter-in-law although being THE Duchess of Albany was styled as the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha.

 

[Somebody]

Helena seemingly would have remained a princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont, as the declaration of King George V by which the royal family relinquished its German titles covered only descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects. She was a British subject by marriage, but not a descendant of Queen Victoria, unless the British definition of "descendant" includes in-laws.

(Note that whereas George V's declaration concerning the family name of Windsor affected only male-line descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects, the relinquishment of German titles affected all descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects.)

Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor:
And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.​

Thanks! It seemed weird that she would have relinquished her birth titles, so glad to see that she wasn't required to do so as she was only an in-law and not a direct descendant.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks for looking it up. As I said, at that point there was no other duchess of Albany, however between 1905 and 1919 there was, so, it would be interesting to see whether she was still styled as the Duchess of Albany given that her daughter-in-law although being THE Duchess of Albany was styled as the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha.

Yes, the dowager was still styled as HRH The Duchess of Albany between 1905 and 1919; examples can be looked up in the official gazette of the British government.