Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Denville]

Well, IMO she doesn’t deserve to be paying any penalty just because some people can’t stand her and will never forgive her. I don’t think Camilla cares enough about it, but for me that’s not the point; she should be Queen.

Obviously the Palace feels differently.. since it was announced that she would be Princess Consort.

 

[muriel]

Obviously the Palace feels differently.. since it was announced that she would be Princess Consort.

Nothing set in stone. The carefully worded announcement at the time of the engagement of C&C referred to an intention that Camilla would take the title of HRH Princess Consort. That was nearly 16 years ago, the world has moved on, and it is entirely possible, that intentions may evolve.

 

[Betsypaige]

Obviously the Palace feels differently.. since it was announced that she would be Princess Consort.

No, Charles feels differently... but, not really; he wants her to be Queen, but as Camilla doesn’t seem to care, he’s not going to press it. I actually think that’s a good thing - he’s listening to his wife.

 

[muriel]

No, Charles feels differently... but, not really; he wants her to be Queen, but as Camilla doesn’t seem to care, he’s not going to press it. I actually think that’s a good thing - he’s listening to his wife.

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made in that statement. Neither Charles nor Camilla have expressed an opinion on the matter.

I think it will come down to the public mood at the time, and view of the government of the day. The PM of the day could very well advise King Charles that his wife should be known as Queen, and the matter will end there.

 

[Denville]

No, Charles feels differently... but, not really; he wants her to be Queen, but as Camilla doesn’t seem to care, he’s not going to press it. I actually think that’s a good thing - he’s listening to his wife.

He may want her to be queen but clearly at the time of their marriage, he wasn't at all sure and neither was the Palace as a whole, if the public would accept her as queen....

 

[Somebody]

So basically there are 3 possibilities for Camilla:

1. HRH The Dowager Princess of Wales
Precedent: Augusta of Saxe-Gotha (mother of George III)
Points to consider:
- Since the day she married Frederick, Augusta was known as Princess of Wales and her son married after he became king so no other Princess of Wales besides her.
- Even though she's actually the Princess of Wales, Camilla doesn't use that title for reason we all know about. So without Charles, would the public finally "let" her using it even with the additional "Dowager" added to it?
- Not to mention of the possibility that William would be made The Prince of Wales hence Catherine would be The Princess of Wales.

Marina of Greece and Denmark was princess by blood and with the death of his husband chose to be known as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent instead of putting "Dowager" in her title. Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas Scott followed suit of asking permission to use "Princess" even though she's born as a Lady (daughter of a Duke) as to not to be confused with her daugther in law.

Which bring us to next options:
2. HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
The issue with this title will be:
- The Wessex kids who are blood royal and entitled of the Princess/Prince title yet they don't use it (I doubt they will after they're 18), so public will ask why Camilla becomes Princess?
- Add to the above, this "rumour" about reducing titled royals, granting "Princess" to non-blood royal would guarantee another raised eyebrow from public.
- Since Archie would never be king's grandson from male line, he wouldn't be entitled of "Prince" title. Oh imagine the "outrage" from certain fraction when their beloved Archie is not Prince but Camilla Princess.

3. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
Precedent: Victoria of Saxe-Coburg (mother of Queen Victoria)
- Camilla has been known as one and to date nobody has any problem with it.
- With the passing of Charles before he's king would mean William wouldn't be Duke of Cornwall. So until George marries there'd be no other Duchess of Cornwall.

I say the safest route (with less media noise) will be to keep her current title.

I'd say option 3 is the most likely option, although I don't think queen Victoria's mother is fully comparable as the Duchess of Cornwall titled is linked to a certain position within the royal family - and in her case there wasn't a Duke of Kent who wasn't married to her. So having both a Duke of Cornwall (George eventually) and a Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) who aren't related to each other makes things a little awkward. So, she could formally be 'The Duchess Dowager of Cornwall' while in daily life be known as the Duchess of Cornwall.

An interesting comparison might be princess Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont
something comparable happened to the Duchess Dowager of Albany who formally was 'Dowager' but was known as 'The Duchess of Albany' because her daughter-in-law was known by a different title: Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; even her son had only been known as the Duke of Albany for the first 6 years of his life.

 

[Alison H]

It'd look weird for the country as well. State visit - their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain/Belgium/the Netherlands/Sweden/Norway meet the "His Majesty the King and HRH the Princess Consort" of the United Kingdom.


We don't honestly know what's being said behind the scenes, and it's an awkward subject to discuss openly because it's something that can only happen when the present Queen's no longer with us, which isn't something people really want to think about.

 

[Denville]

It'd look weird for the country as well. State visit - their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain/Belgium/the Netherlands/Sweden/Norway meet the "His Majesty the King and HRH the Princess Consort" of the United Kingdom.


We don't honestly know what's being said behind the scenes, and it's an awkward subject to discuss openly because it's something that can only happen when the present Queen's no longer with us, which isn't something people really want to think about.

But technically its seems that Maxima is not queen of the Netherlands..

 

[Betsypaige]

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made in that statement. Neither Charles nor Camilla have expressed an opinion on the matter.

I think it will come down to the public mood at the time, and view of the government of the day. The PM of the day could very well advise King Charles that his wife should be known as Queen, and the matter will end there.

I don't agree, there have been plenty of reports........obviously we aren't going to get any direct quotes from C and C, but where there's smoke, there's fire.

It shouldn't have anything to do with the public mood, that's my whole point. I Charles doesn't want to push it because Camilla doesn't care, that's another issue entirely.

 

[Denville]

I don't agree, there have been plenty of reports........obviously we aren't going to get any direct quotes from C and C, but where there's smoke, there's fire.

It shouldn't have anything to do with the public mood, that's my whole point. I Charles doesn't want to push it because Camilla doesn't care, that's another issue entirely.

Charles doesn't push it because it is a delicate matter and it probably WILL Depend on how the public mood is, closer to the time.. and what the Govt and palace advise. He knew when he married Camilla that she wasn't overly popular and while I think there was a time when she was more accepted I think that there is a bit of a swing against her in the last few years. Camilla may not care a huge amount but I think it is fair to say that she would like to share her husband's rank... and there was a period of time when the royal website dropped the bit about her being Princess Consort.. but in the last year or 2, it is not clear what is going to happen when Charles becomes king.
I think that because there was a time when it looked like her being queen might be accepted.. the royal website dropped the princess Consort stuff, but now they are not so sure that she's going to be accepted as queen. I think its possible that the public opinion is that she is not overly popular but generally the public has been Ok with her as C's wife for many years.. but they dont wnat her to be Princess of Wales or queen....

 

[Osipi]

Its possible that at the time that Charles and Camilla were to marry, along with choosing to be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. Camilla may have felt very iffy about stepping into a very public role. Although familiar with the day to day workings that Charles had done for years, the idea of a very public life for herself must have been a very scary thing. Especially when there had already been so much vitriol thrown at Camilla over the past. Top all that with the idea that someday she'd be Queen and you have a woman faced with a pretty daunting challenge ahead of her just because she was marrying the man she loves.

Time has passed and Camilla actually took to her roles like a duck takes to water. She's done a tremendous job as consort to her husband, taken on some very serious issues that has earned her the respect and admiration of not only the people she comes in contact with but also the Queen. She's proven herself to be an asset to the "Firm" and that is reflected by being named to the Queen's Privy Council in 2016. She was also awarded the Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order in 2012 which is the highest rank of chivalry awarded to females by the Queen. The proof is in the pudding.

It's all there in black and white that the years have shown that Camilla is most definitely "queen material" and should rightly carry that title when her husband becomes king. This is a couple that is in it together for the long haul as a team and they shouldn't settle for anything less. Public opinion doesn't get the job done supporting Crown and Country. Camilla has more than fulfilled her role and has done that in spite of popular opinion.

As they've answered when asked about the question of being Queen, we still just have to "wait and see". ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My big issue is obviously the titles. I think the Queen wasn’t as harsh on them as she needed to be in terms of the use of titles. IMO (and of course my opinion doesn’t even matter!) is that they shouldn’t be able to use the titles at all for any personal money-making ventures. They walked away from the family so they obviously wanted to be “private citizens” in a way,, and they have decided to settle permanently outside of the UK... so using their British titles is a bit ridiculous. But I think they know that it’s the titles that get them the connections and attention and that “Harry Mountbatten-Windsor” or “Meghan Markle” just doesn’t have the same weight as “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”

Harry would not be Harry Mountbatten Windsor if the Sussex title was dropped. He would simply go back to being Prince Harry of Wales, which he has been from birth, as one of the two sons of the Prince of Wales. (Edward VIII abdicated as King-Emperor he wasn't addressed as 'Mr Windsor' but as Prince Edward (temporarily) until he was given the Dukedom.)

I disagree. If the Duke dropped the use of his title for personal money-making ventures as proposed by the poster to whom you replied, I would expect him to use Harry Sussex. We see this with Princess Beatrice (Beatrice York) and Princess Eugenie (Eugenie York) in their professional ventures.

The address 'Mountbatten-Windsor' would never be used by any sons of the Prince of Wales. It simply isn't Harry's surname, so why would he use it?

Under the 1960 declaration, Mountbatten-Windsor is his legal surname regardless of whether he uses it, which royal princes as a rule do not. However, the name Mountbatten-Windsor was used on the marriage registrations of his aunt and uncles (links were shared here), and I see no reason why it should be different for him.

Even in 2005 the PM said that Camilla would be Queen and then parliament would have to pass legislation to strip her of that title. That was in the week leading up to the wedding.

I would like to see the link to this, please. I failed to discover it in the records of the House of Commons.

I assume she will indeed be HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cornwall (that would be the way it is dealt with in a normal duchy but I am not completely sure that it works that way as well with titles that are linked to positions in the line of succession).

In a normal non-royal British duchy, the dowager would be Her Grace Camilla, Duchess of X. While Dowager remains the official term, few women wish to use it today.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-263.html#post2334089

 

[Denville]

I disagree. If the Duke dropped the use of his title for personal money-making ventures as proposed by the poster to whom you replied, I would expect him to use Harry Sussex. We see this with Princess Beatrice (Beatrice York) and Princess Eugenie (Eugenie York) in their professional ventures.




Under the 1960 declaration, Mountbatten-Windsor is his legal surname regardless of whether he uses it, which royal princes as a rule do not. However, the name Mountbatten-Windsor was used on the marriage registrations of his aunt and uncles (links were shared here), and I see no reason why it should be different for him.




I would like to see the link to this, please. I failed to discover it in the records of the House of Commons.





https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-263.html#post2334089

quite right that M Windsor is Harry's legal surname.. and he could quite well use it. He is living in a republic, why would he be known as the Duke of Sussex or Prince Hary of Wales

 

[Somebody]

I disagree. If the Duke dropped the use of his title for personal money-making ventures as proposed by the poster to whom you replied, I would expect him to use Harry Sussex. We see this with Princess Beatrice (Beatrice York) and Princess Eugenie (Eugenie York) in their professional ventures.

Those situations are not entirely comparable. The princesses are using their father's title for a surname, while Harry would be using his own title for a surname (which is indeed not uncommon for peers; but imho not the same is children of a peer using their territorial designation).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2020-1...ll-audio-promises-podcasts-that-will-inspire/

Spotify’s New Multiyear Partnership with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Archewell Audio Promises Podcasts That Will Inspire

December 15, 2020

Telling and listening to uplifting and entertaining stories have been a vital part of many of our lives this past year. Today, Archewell Audio, the newly-formed audio-first production company created by Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, has announced a multi-year partnership with Spotify to produce podcasts and shows that tell these stories—and inspire even more.

[...]

As far as I know, most people in the English-speaking world would be more conscious of the association between "Prince" and royalty than "HRH" and royalty. It is odd that under the terms agreed with the Crown in January 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are supposed to not use their HRHs at all and yet the Duke is evidently allowed to use "Prince" even in his for-profit ventures.

It would make a great deal more sense if either he had been given permission to use his full title for commercial business with no restraints (in which case the same right should be granted to his York cousins, who so far do not use their HRH or Princess titles commercially), or if he was disallowed from using either HRH or Prince in his commercial ventures (as is done in most other European royal families).

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Before 1921, David Mountbatten, 3rd Marquess of Milford Haven was styled Viscount Alderney. Where did the title Viscount Alderney come from?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Viscount Alderney is the third title of the Marquis of Milford Haven.

From 1919 - 1921 the 3rd Marquis was the grandson of the 1st Marquis of Milford Haven and so used his third title.

From 1921 to 1938 he used his father's second title, Earl of Medina and then from 1938 to his death he used the title Marquis of Milford Haven.

When Prince Louis of Battenberg was made Marquis, in 1917, he was also made an Earl and a Viscount. Interestingly when a Dukedom is created it is normally also with an Earldom but the third title is a Barony e.g. Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden - the titles of the present Duke of Gloucester while Earl of Ulster is the title used by his son and Baron Culloden his grandson.

The Viscountcy hasn't been used since 1921 because there hasn't been an heir apparent to the heir apparent since then.

When the 2nd Marquis died, his son was unmarried.

When the 3rd Marquis died, his son was about to marry.

The 4th Marquis has a son, styled as the Earl of Medina but no grandson, as yet. The 4th Marquis's son will be 30 this year. If he were to marry and have a son while his father was alive then that son would start life as Viscount Alderney.

 

[Countessmeout]

Before 1921, David Mountbatten, 3rd Marquess of Milford Haven was styled Viscount Alderney. Where did the title Viscount Alderney come from?

As was his grandfather. Prince Louis of Battenberg was made Marquis of Milford Haven, Earl of Medina and Viscount Alderney in 1917.

As is customary the heirs use their father's subsidiary titles. David's father George was Earl of Medina. The current Marquis was born in 1961, some years after the death of his grandfather, so he was titled Earl of Medina on birth.

Aldernay refers to the northern most inhabited of the Channel Isles.

Milford Haven is in Wales, and Medina is on the Isle of Wight.

 

[An Ard Ri]

As was his grandfather. Prince Louis of Battenberg was made Marquis of Milford Haven, Earl of Medina and Viscount Alderney in 1917.

As is customary the heirs use their father's subsidiary titles. David's father George was Earl of Medina. The current Marquis was born in 1961, some years after the death of his grandfather, so he was titled Earl of Medina on birth.

Aldernay refers to the northern most inhabited of the Channel Isles.

Milford Haven is in Wales, and Medina is on the Isle of Wight.

I often wondered when they were choosing the titles names had the
Mountbatten's any links to the Isle of Wight, Channel Islands or Wales?

 

[Durham]

I often wondered when they were choosing the titles names had the
Mountbatten's any links to the Isle of Wight, Channel Islands or Wales?

Louis of Battenburg was a career naval officer. Presumably the locations are all linked by their naval/military associations & strategic importance:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wales/entries/cb7cf3f7-e741-3b78-80cf-26095e1526a5

The West View of Cowes Castle in the Isle of Wight

https://www.visitalderney.com/our-island/heritage/victorians-fortification/

 

[An Ard Ri]

And upon further reading there are quite a few Battenberg's buried at St Mildred's Church, Whippingham on the Isle of Wight!

 

[QueenMathilde]

What's the difference between "Her Serene Highness" (a la Grace Kelly) and
"Her Royal Highness"?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What's the difference between "Her Serene Highness" (a la Grace Kelly) and
"Her Royal Highness"?

In the olden days an individual known as Serene Highness was considered to be of much lower rank than one known as Royal Highness.

My impression is that there is no difference in practice today. The wife of the reigning prince of Monaco would take the same precedence as the wife of any other head of state.

 

[Somebody]

In the olden days an individual known as Serene Highness was considered to be of much lower rank than one known as Royal Highness.

My impression is that there is no difference in practice today. The wife of the reigning prince of Monaco would take the same precedence as the wife of any other head of state.

Among other royals, I had the impression that reigning princes are ranked lower than reigning kings and queens (who are ranked lower than emperors); among those of the same category it is all about tenure/the longest reign.

However, it seems that queen Elizabeth only went by 'start of reign' (independent of whether they were still reigning; and whether they were king/tsar/emperor/sultan/prince/grand duke) at the group pictures at her Diamond Jubilee.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I know that. I was just noting that a life baroness is normally called, e.g. "Baroness Williams", whereas a hereditary baroness or baroness in her own right is normally referred to e.g. as Lady + [Designation of the Title].

Wasn't that decision made to distinguish them from wives of barons as some life peeresses wanted it to be clear that they had earned their peerage on their own merits?

It seems that was probably the reason.

"What we are asking for is that we should be described in terms which distinguish us more clearly from the wives of peers."

This was the request of Barbara Wootton, the first woman peer. She and others fought a long and determined battle with the House of Lords' authorities to be called woman peers and not peeresses.

As late as 1970 there was still some resistance to this. This letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments is about a meeting between Wootton and other women peers with the Lord Chancellor, and refers to the claim of the "militant women peers". These included Baroness Wootton, Baroness Swanborough, and Baroness Hylton-Foster.​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On the other hand, if it means Archie (who under the current LP automatically becomes an HRH the moment his grandfather becomes King) is allowed to choose whether or not to use the HRH once he turns 18, then his situation would be similar to that of his Wessex cousins. According to Sophie, Louise and James don't use the HRH titles but "they have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” (interview in The Times, June 6, 2020).

It's come to my attention that Archie's birth was recorded in the London Gazette, as were the births of the Cambridge children and for that matter the York princesses, while the births of the Wessex children were not. Which may mark the intention that the Wessex children would not become HRHs whereas Archie would.

 

[JSH]

According to the Countess of Wessex (who would certainly know the facts), her children ARE HRHs, they just don't use that designation. Archie is not at all, for the time being.

 

[Claire]

It's come to my attention that Archie's birth was recorded in the London Gazette, as were the births of the Cambridge children and for that matter the York princesses, while the births of the Wessex children were not. Which may mark the intention that the Wessex children would not become HRHs whereas Archie would.

The Earl and Countess of Wessex were adamant that their children be kept out of the limelight from birth. No ceremonies were marked in London - or anywhere. There was no commemorative items for sale, there was no crier, no boards at Buckingham palace, no fireworks, no blue and pink lights on fountains. No bells in churches and no cannons.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

According to the Countess of Wessex (who would certainly know the facts), her children ARE HRHs, they just don't use that designation. Archie is not at all, for the time being.

These has been discussed many, many times here. There is no reason to think that The Countess of Wessex would know better than a professional person whose job it is to know this information, such person has stated in writing on authorization of Buckingham Palace that this is not the case.

Just because Sophie is styled as Her Royal Highness, this is not reason to think that she has made a particular study of the legalities of styles and titles.

 

[Heavs]

These has been discussed many, many times here. There is no reason to think that The Countess of Wessex would know better than a professional person whose job it is to know this information, such person has stated in writing on authorization of Buckingham Palace that this is not the case.

Just because Sophie is styled as Her Royal Highness, this is not reason to think that she has made a particular study of the legalities of styles and titles.

It's true we have no reason to think that she has made a study of titles and styles but I don't think we can dismiss what she says out of hand.

She's commenting on her own children, not some arcane point of protocol (which we have also seen can change). One would hope the exact details would have been discussed with her and Edward before and after they were born and the legal titles, their use of courtesy titles and what could happen in the future made clear.

She has made that comment despite wanting to keep her children as normal as possible so it wouldn't be that she desperately wants them to have it and is lying or fudging the truth. I'm not saying she's 100% right but I don't think we can completely dismiss that she had basis of some kind for saying that.

We've seen that one part of Buckingham Palace doesn't necessarily communicate with the other in regards to titles with Beatrice and Eugenie who still have "of York" on some official records and the CC and not on others. I know that is different from HRH but still.