Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

No, it was definitely Princess Margaret. She married Mr Antony Armstrong Jones. He did not get his Earldom until just before the birth of their first child.

You're right, my apologies. Princess Margaret married before Princess Alexandra.

However, as JR76 pointed out above, the decision on how a princess who remained a princess but also used her husband's name should be styled was made with Princess Alexandra, as Princess Margaret did not (her legal family name presumably changed from Windsor to Armstrong-Jones on marriage, but she did not use it).

Anyway if you want more information look up the relevant Princess on Wikipedia and look at titles and styles.

I am afraid that, other than perhaps for British titles, Wikipedia is not a credible source on titles and styles. From what I have observed of it, much of what is written there (and to be fair, also on other sites, forums, and social media) on the titles and styles of the other European monarchies and nobilities are lies and half-truths. A search through my previous posts will bring up examples.

Of course, when Wikipedia (or any other site) cites a credible source for what it writes, that is a different matter.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The Princess Margaret being the most important word

 

[Denville]

so how was P Marg titled, after her marriage and before Antony was given the title Earl of Snowdon? by the way its been done in latter years, it should have been "Princess Marg, Mrs. Antony Armstrong Jones and then changed ot Pss M Countess of Snowdon, when he got his title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

so how was P Marg titled, after her marriage and before Antony was given the title Earl of Snowdon?

See post #5160:

While Princess Margaret was the first princess to marry a man without the title her cousin Princess Alexandra was the first, as stated by Tatiana Maria above, to use the combination of Princess & Mrs. Princess Margaret was, as evident in for instance in The London Gazette of November 1 & November 25 1960, styled as The Princess Margaret before her husband received his title.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/42183/page/1

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/42202/page/1

 

[Tatiana Maria]

She will only be duchess of Cornwall for a short time, Im sure Charles will create Will POW as soon as he can..

They will automatically become Duke and Duchess of Cornwall the second Charles becomes king but will have to wait until he decides to create William Prince of Wales. That, I'm sure, won't take that long.

That will depend on when, or even if, William is created Prince of Wales. Catherine won't be created anything.

It isn't a given that Charles will create William with that title. I expect he will do so but he doesn't have to do so. The Queen made him wait over six years. Edward VII made George V wait nearly 11 months. George V only waited a month before creating Edward VIII as PoW.

I can see him waiting until just before his coronation - or over a year.

The UK is on its own in keeping this procedure. All of the other European monarchies have now passed legislation or, in the Scandinavian monarchies where royal titles do not involve legislation, developed customs providing that the title of the heir is automatic when the heir is the child of the monarch.

It is one more instance (although a very trivial one) of how the UK has fallen behind the times in adapting its royal titles and styles; for me it is peculiar because the UK was once ahead of the times, such as when it came to allowing princesses who married beneath their rank to retain their status.

 

[Heavs]

The UK is on its own in keeping this procedure. All of the other European monarchies have now passed legislation or, in the Scandinavian monarchies where royal titles do not involve legislation, developed customs providing that the title of the heir is automatic when the heir is the child of the monarch.

It is one more instance (although a very trivial one) of how the UK has fallen behind the times in adapting its royal titles and styles; for me it is peculiar because the UK was once ahead of the times, such as when it came to allowing princesses who married beneath their rank to retain their status.

I don't know, it don't see it as behind the times. It's an oddity to be sure but not a discriminatory one. There are other instances where titles are certainly not equal between men and women and their husbands and wives but this is different.

I actually like that PoW is not necessarily automatic, and I like the fact that the Queen held off in creating Prince Charles until he was able to understand what it meant. They do get other titles automatically and the monarch can't actually stop their eldest from being the heir to the throne.

 

[Mbruno]

The UK is on its own in keeping this procedure. All of the other European monarchies have now passed legislation or, in the Scandinavian monarchies where royal titles do not involve legislation, developed customs providing that the title of the heir is automatic when the heir is the child of the monarch.

It is one more instance (although a very trivial one) of how the UK has fallen behind the times in adapting its royal titles and styles; for me it is peculiar because the UK was once ahead of the times, such as when it came to allowing princesses who married beneath their rank to retain their status.

The rule for British princesses is consistent with the rules that apply to daughters of peers who also retain their honorific prefix (e.g. Lady) when they marry beneath their rank.

 

[Heavs]

The rule for British princesses is consistent with the rules that apply to daughters of peers who also retain their honorific prefix (e.g. Lady) when they marry beneath their rank.

Allegedly that was supposed to be because a title was something that the Lady brought to the marriage, sometimes the only thing she had.

And some of it has to do with order of precedence E.g. daughters of an Earl ranking higher than younger sons of an Earl (who only get The Hon.) because there is no need for seniority because they and their children are not in the line of succession for the Earldom.

 

[Denville]

Allegedly that was supposed to be because a title was something that the Lady brought to the marriage, sometimes the only thing she had.

And some of it has to do with order of precedence E.g. daughters of an Earl ranking higher than younger sons of an Earl (who only get The Hon.) because there is no need for seniority because they and their children are not in the line of succession for the Earldom.

I think it was just due to precedence. The title didn't mean anything.. Lady Mary Smith Marrying Mr John Brown could not elevate her husbands to Lord John Brown or pass the title onto her children...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I suspect there might be some tension over Camilla's position. She has never sought the limelight for herself and she'll be aware of the popularity polls so I'm sure she'd be very happy to be 'Princess Consort' rather than Queen Camilla. I doubt that's what Charles has in mind though. He adores her and will want her to be his Queen in name as well as fact. I've said before that I hope they'll be brave and just do it. King Charles and Queen Camilla might have a rough time initially but if they hold their nerve through the transition (as they did with their wedding, which so many commentators said wouldn't happen) she'll be accepted.

Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.

Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right" just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles. ?

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.

Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

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

 

[Darius1]

Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

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

It would be a shame and a nasty precedent should Camilla not take the title of Her Majesty The Queen upon her husband's accession. The statement at their marriage was intended, understandably, to pre-empt any public disgruntlement at the time.
Things have moved on significantly since then and precedent should hold sway.

 

[muriel]

Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

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

A few thoughts:

> It is difficult to tell, at this stage, whether Camilla will or will not use the title of Queen when Charles. Personally I think she will (and should!) for what it is worth.

> If it was decided that she would not use the title of Queen, she will still
legally remain Queen. I cannot see the government of the day asking Parliament to enact legislation to take that title off her.

> It may well be that whilst she remains HM Queen Camilla, she is styled as HRH Princess Consort. That will be no more than a style, and can possibly be effected at the will of the monarch.

 

[Darius1]

A few thoughts:

> It is difficult to tell, at this stage, whether Camilla will or will not use the title of Queen when Charles. Personally I think she will (and should!) for what it is worth.

> If it was decided that she would not use the title of Queen, she will still
legally remain Queen. I cannot see the government of the day asking Parliament to enact legislation to take that title off her.

> It may well be that whilst she remains HM Queen Camilla, she is styled as HRH Princess Consort. That will be no more than a style, and can possibly be effected at the will of the monarch.

I agree - legally she will be HM The Queen - there is no getting around that except through legislation which would be discriminatory against Camilla (no other woman in the country is legally disentitled), and would set the precedent that no future wives of Kings are Queens.

If it was made known that she wanted to be known as Princess Consort the question would be why? She will be doing the work of Queen in any case.

Undoubtedly there will be those that will make hay of whatever the outcome is, but to go back to why the original communication was made, we have moved on, Charles and Camilla have been rehabilitated in the public consciousness, and hopefully the ghost of Diana is at rest.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If it was made known that she wanted to be known as Princess Consort the question would be why? She will be doing the work of Queen in any case.

That question will already have been asked in 2005, when Clarence House announced the "intention".

 

[Darius1]

That question will already have been asked in 2005, when Clarence House announced the "intention".

The answer then would have been public hostility to Camilla taking what was perceived to have been Diana's titles etc etc.

The answer to that question will have changed 15 years later.

 

[Mbruno]

Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

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

Correct. The only royal titles and styles that are currently regulated by law in the UK and other Commonwealth realms are the monarch's titles and styles. Decisions on the use of princely titles and the HRH style are solely at the discretion of the monarch.


Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.

 

[Somebody]

Correct. The only royal titles and styles that are currently regulated by law in the UK and other Commonwealth realms are the monarch's titles and styles. Decisions on the use of princely titles and the HRH style are solely at the discretion of the monarch.


Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.

So, elevating her to become a princess of the UK in her own right -as the first female consort ever- would appease the masses better? I don't think they realized that is needed to be able to make her a Princess Consort.

 

[muriel]

Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.

All he announced was an intention. There was no promise that he will be reneging on. Times and circumstances change. It has been 15 years, and Camilla has not put a foot wrong in her public life. She works hard for her chosen causes, and is there to support HM an Charles when required.

 

[muriel]

So, elevating her to become a princess of the UK in her own right -as the first female consort ever- would appease the masses better? I don't think they realized that is needed to be able to make her a Princess Consort.

I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think this will work out fine for them. If she is to hold the title of HRH Princess Consort, she will not need to be created as such, it is a style that canb be accorded to her by the monarch.

 

[Darius1]

Correct. The only royal titles and styles that are currently regulated by law in the UK and other Commonwealth realms are the monarch's titles and styles. Decisions on the use of princely titles and the HRH style are solely at the discretion of the monarch.


Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.

I don't think either Charles or Camilla are relatively unpopular. They have been solid workers since their marriage. Camilla has come across as down to earth, self-effacing and dignified and she seems to have made her husband a much more comfortable man in his own skin.

I think given their age, and potential indifferent health at the time of accession the public sense of fair play wouldn't begrudge them being King and Queen - it is the way things have always been done and, at the end of the day that's what the British like.

 

[Somebody]

I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think this will work out fine for them. If she is to hold the title of HRH Princess Consort, she will not need to be created as such, it is a style that canb be accorded to her by the monarch.

Can you explain how? What would 'according to her by the monarch' be but creating her a princess in her own right - just like the queen 'accorded the title of Prince of the UK' to her husband?!

She is already an HRH (style), while 'princess' is a title - that she currently holds as the wife of the prince of Wales but which she will loose upon her husband being elevated to king (and she by default to queen).

 

[Osipi]

When Charles becomes king, I don't think he's going to mess around with titles and styles on a whim or a fancy. He may have thought, at the time, the Princess Consort, was a good idea and that it would pacify the masses. As a king, though, making his will known isn't done every other Tuesday because he had a bright idea. It changes things.

I think the loose screw in the mechanism of creating the "Princess Consort" title for Camilla is that once that is done, like removing Diana's HRH which also removed Sarah's HRH, the Princess Consort title would apply to any future consorts of the King.

To do this exclusively for Camilla to appease Diana fans or even because that is what Camilla wants, is messing with British tradition which states that the wife of the King is the Queen. It would also single Camilla out as if she's some kind of an oddity in the mix. She isn't. IMHO she's the best choice ever to be Charles' queen.

 

[muriel]

She is already an HRH (style), while 'princess' is a title - that she currently holds as the wife of the prince of Wales but which she will loose upon her husband being elevated to king (and she by default to queen).

Camilla's current titles (HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, amongst others) are derived from those of her husband. Once Charles is King, his existing titles will merge with the crown, including those of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, which will pass to Catherine. Camilla will simply then be HM Queen Camilla.

Can you explain how? What would 'according to her by the monarch' be but creating her a princess in her own right - just like the queen 'accorded the title of Prince of the UK' to her husband?!

The monarch is the font of all honour. Whilst legally still being HM Queen Camilla, if I am not mistaken, Charles can style Camilla as HRH Princess Consort either through the issue of Letters Patent, or merely letting his will be known.

This second approach was used in relation to the titles of future children of Edward and Sophie at the time of their wedding.

 

[muriel]

When Charles becomes king, I don't think he's going to mess around with titles and styles on a whim or a fancy. He may have thought, at the time, the Princess Consort, was a good idea and that it would pacify the masses. As a king, though, making his will known isn't done every other Tuesday because he had a bright idea. It changes things.

I think the loose screw in the mechanism of creating the "Princess Consort" title for Camilla is that once that is done, like removing Diana's HRH which also removed Sarah's HRH, the Princess Consort title would apply to any future consorts of the King.

To do this exclusively for Camilla to appease Diana fans or even because that is what Camilla wants, is messing with British tradition which states that the wife of the King is the Queen. It would also single Camilla out as if she's some kind of an oddity in the mix. She isn't. IMHO she's the best choice ever to be Charles' queen.

Your point about setting a precedent for the future consorts of the monarch is an important one, and one I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[Somebody]

Camilla's current titles (HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, amongst others) are derived from those of her husband. Once Charles is King, his existing titles will merge with the crown, including those of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, which will pass to Catherine. Camilla will simply then be HM Queen Camilla.

Yes, that's indeed what I explained.

The monarch is the font of all honour. Whilst legally still being HM Queen Camilla, if I am not mistaken, Charles can style Camilla as HRH Princess Consort either through the issue of Letters Patent, or merely letting his will be known.

This second approach was used in relation to the titles of future children of Edward and Sophie at the time of their wedding.

Using Letter Patent means that she would be created a princess in her own right, just like Philip was created a prince in his own right (although they did not give him the title of Prince Consort).

I sincerely doubt that Charles can just make his will be known to bestow a title on someone - I still think that requires a bit more than that (if not, why didn't the queen use that method for the younger Cambridge titles or to create peerages for both William and Harry?); so far, that method has only been used to withhold a title that would otherwise be used (and Sophie stated not that long ago that their children can still decide to use the style of HRH and title of prince if they would wish to do so; so, from her perspective the 'queen's will' is only about use not about rights). In any case, a very different situation compared to bestowing a title on someone - as would be needed to make Camilla a princess consort instead of queen.

 

[muriel]

Using Letter Patent means that she would be created a princess in her own right, just like Philip was created a prince in his own right (although they did not give him the title of Prince Consort).

I sincerely doubt that Charles can just make his will be known to bestow a title on someone - I still think that requires a bit more than that (if not, why didn't the queen use that method for the younger Cambridge titles or to create peerages for both William and Harry?); so far, that method has only been used to withhold a title that would otherwise be used (and Sophie stated not that long ago that their children can still decide to use the style of HRH and title of prince if they would wish to do so; so, from her perspective the 'queen's will' is only about use not about rights). In any case, a very different situation compared to bestowing a title on someone - as would be needed to make Camilla a princess consort instead of queen.

Please note that I have been consistent in that, as fair as I know, Camilla does not need to be created a Princess in her own right, but can merely be styled as such.

 

[Denville]

Please note that I have been consistent in that, as fair as I know, Camilla does not need to be created a Princess in her own right, but can merely be styled as such.

I think that she can. Legally when Ch becomes king, she'll be queen but if Charles makes it known that she wants to be styled as HRH the Princess Consort, I think that would be OK.

 

[muriel]

I think that she can. Legally when Ch becomes king, she'll be queen but if Charles makes it known that she wants to be styled as HRH the Princess Consort, I think that would be OK.

That is precisely the point I am making. As Queen, she will not need to be created as a Princess of the realm in her own right, but can merely be styled as so, if such is the will of the monarch.

 

[Denville]

That is precisely the point I am making. As Queen, she will not need to be created as a Princess of the realm in her own right, but can merely be styled as so, if such is the will of the monarch.

Yes I agree. But people seem to disagree. However although Cam isn't that popular, I suspect in the end it will be simpler for her to become known as Queen...

 

[muriel]

Yes I agree. But people seem to disagree. However although Cam isn't that popular, I suspect in the end it will be simpler for her to become known as Queen...

At the end of the day, the King will be bound by the advice of the PM. There is a reasonable chance that the PM at the time may advise that the wife of the King is the Queen, and the matter will end there.