Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks for that clarification. So, in short, children of PEERS do get courtesy titles; independent of which parent. Would that only apply to hereditary peers or also to life peers?

According to Debrett's, the children of life baron/esses have the same courtesy titles as the children of hereditary baron/esses. (There are no life peers who hold a rank above baron as a life peerage.)

 

[AC21091968]

Thanks for that clarification. So, in short, children of PEERS do get courtesy titles; independent of which parent. Would that only apply to hereditary peers or also to life peers?

For Life Peers, yes, their children are entitled to style themselves with the prefix The Honourable (i.e. The Hon. [First Name] [Family Name]), however they cannot inherit the peerage themselves. Most Life peers are Barons and Baronesses, hence their children are The Hon. From Debrett's website, courtesy titles include Lord, Lady or The Hon.

A courtesy title is a title such as Lord, Lady or The Hon, which is usually borne by the sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, brothers, sisters and sisters-in-law of a peer.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/courtesy-titles/

P.s. Tatiana Maria beat me to it and gave a better answer

 

[Moran]

My impression is that for a long time, perhaps even before The Queen ascended to the throne, there hasn't been any new princes or princesses "of Great Britain". Just the ones going with the teritorial designation their father has been given. And long before, the only princes and princesses "of Great Britain" would have been the children of the sovereign and it did not pass to the daughters' children. Princess Anne's husband being offered an earldom would be traditional, but her children just being offered a HRH (without a territorial designation) - considerably less so. Am I right? So there was no reason for The Queen to offer such a thing, especially when Anne and Mark Philips had refused the earldom already.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the UK when you're HRH Prince/ss you're automatically "of Great Britain" though often known by another territorial designation like "Kent" "Gloucester" "York" etc.

My impression is that for a long time, perhaps even before The Queen ascended to the throne, there hasn't been any new princes or princesses "of Great Britain". Just the ones going with the teritorial designation their father has been given. And long before, the only princes and princesses "of Great Britain" would have been the children of the sovereign and it did not pass to the daughters' children.

Princes/ses who did not use a territorial designation derived from their father's dukedom have always been known without any territorial designation. "Of Great Britain" appears to be an "explanatory" designation rather than a component of the title.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Prince_of_what

For instance, the 1917 Letters Patent simply confers "the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess", and there is no mention of a territorial designation attached to "Prince or Princess".

 

[Heavs]

Princes/ses who did not use a territorial designation derived from their father's dukedom have always been known without any territorial designation. "Of Great Britain" appears to be an "explanatory" designation rather than a component of the title.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Prince_of_what

For instance, the 1917 Letters Patent simply confers "the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess", and there is no mention of a territorial designation attached to "Prince or Princess".

Yes in the BRF it does seem that there is no official territorial designation "of Great Britain". It's only used when when reporting about members in the context of other countries or other royalty "Princess Beatrice of Great Britain attended the wedding of such and such in France along with Prince Amedeo of Belgium" for example.

Unlike in Sweden where "HRH ...of Sweden" is now restricted but Leonore still has "Princess". Or in Luxembourg where Grand Ducal family members can be "HRH Prince Gabriel of Nassau" but not "of Luxembourg".

I was discussing the post that said the Queen offered Anne's children "HRH and even Prince/ss of Great Britain" when the BRF don't make that distinction unlike some other Houses.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Unlike in Sweden where "HRH ...of Sweden" is now restricted but Leonore still has "Princess". Or in Luxembourg where Grand Ducal family members can be "HRH Prince Gabriel of Nassau" but not "of Luxembourg".

Precisely, and also in Belgium, where "HRH ... of Belgium" is now restricted but Anna Astrid still has "Princess" prefixed to her first name, and in the Netherlands, where the King's cousins are "HH Prince Maurits of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven" but senior royals are "HRH Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands".

Spain always has restricted "HRH Infanta/Infante of Spain", but in the early 20th century, certain other family members were "HRH Prince/ss of the House of Bourbon" or "HRH Prince/ss of Bourbon".

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks for that clarification. So, in short, children of PEERS do get courtesy titles; independent of which parent. Would that only apply to hereditary peers or also to life peers?

Life peers are restricted in the UK to the rank of baron. I believe their children are styled "The Honourable" just like children of hereditary barons.

 

[Heavs]

I actually didn't know that about children of Life Peers, that's interesting, thank you.

 

[Denville]

Children of peers whether life or hereditary, get courtesy titles. But I can't see any scenario where either Anne or Mark P would have accepted a title such as an earldom for EITHER of them.. just so that their kds could be Vct X and Lady Zara Phillips. They didnt want the kids to have titles...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And according to what forum members, journalists, royal reporters, writers, bloggers and other people with insight into the modern history of the House of Windsor have all said for years that LP further restricting royal titles was going to come anyway had Harry married Princess Madeleine of Sweden, the landlady of the local pub or a biracial American actress. That Harry and his wife were intended to become core members of the working Royal family was always intended but their children never was.

Speaking of Princess Madeleine, it is interesting that Anglophone royal watchers almost unanimously cheer the "slimming down" of the rules regulating the number of family members with royal titles and/or working roles under King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King Philippe of Belgium, King Harald V of Norway, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. It appears that the future King Charles III of the UK is the only (future) European monarch whom royal watchers treat in a different fashion for his (rumored) plans to "slim down".

 

[Mbruno]

Children of peers whether life or hereditary, get courtesy titles. But I can't see any scenario where either Anne or Mark P would have accepted a title such as an earldom for EITHER of them.. just so that their kds could be Vct X and Lady Zara Phillips. They didnt want the kids to have titles...

I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.

 

[Osipi]

I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.

Perhaps, as it was the 70s and the era where men were called "male chauvinist pigs", it was Mark Phillips that really didn't want a title or anything that seemed to be something given by his wife's family to "elevate" him to the position of seeming to be "equal". This is just a thought that floated through my mind and may be from the outer reaches of space (where my mind resides without enough of a caffeine infusion).

Perhaps also as Peter was born in 1977, there was the plan already starting to formulate about limiting and restricting not only titles and styles in the royal family itself, but also looking at the fact that during the last half of the 20th century, peerages were starting to be predominately life peers instead of hereditary peers. The last three hereditary peerages (excluding royal peerages) were created in 1984, when Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton, and William Whitelaw and George Thomas were created Viscounts.

The monarchy always looks ahead not only to be relevant but also to adapt and conform to the times. As we've seen with the issue recently talked about elsewhere with the LPs for the Cambridge children, it was done to adapt and conform the monarchy to the act of parliament changing the rule of succession in 2013. It's not a sudden thing but has been gradually happening over time. I don't think there were too many people in the 70s that would have sworn that QEII would still be on the throne in 2021 at 94 years old.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.

I suppose the "harm" might be found in the cultural conception of aristocrats as a snobbish and privileged group. The Phillips branch of the British royal family has preferred to present themselves as relatively down-to-earth.

Interestingly, the commentary I've seen in regard to the non-royal cadet branches of other European royal houses is inclined towards portraying them as beneficiaries of their privileged family names (such as Bourbon, Orange-Nassau or Bernadotte af Wisborg), rather than their titles such as duke or count.

 

[Moran]

Speaking of Princess Madeleine, it is interesting that Anglophone royal watchers almost unanimously cheer the "slimming down" of the rules regulating the number of family members with royal titles and/or working roles under King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King Philippe of Belgium, King Harald V of Norway, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. It appears that the future King Charles III of the UK is the only (future) European monarch whom royal watchers treat in a different fashion for his (rumored) plans to "slim down".

Yes. And only in regards to his second son. I remember there was much cheering when it was decided that those...*insert ugly epithete, rinse and repeat* Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn't be working royals.

 

[JR76]

Yes. And only in regards to his second son. I remember there was much cheering when it was decided that those...*insert ugly epithete, rinse and repeat* Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn't be working royals.

Boom [emoji95]

 

[Somebody]

Perhaps, as it was the 70s and the era where men were called "male chauvinist pigs", it was Mark Phillips that really didn't want a title or anything that seemed to be something given by his wife's family to "elevate" him to the position of seeming to be "equal". This is just a thought that floated through my mind and may be from the outer reaches of space (where my mind resides without enough of a caffeine infusion).

Perhaps also as Peter was born in 1977, there was the plan already starting to formulate about limiting and restricting not only titles and styles in the royal family itself, but also looking at the fact that during the last half of the 20th century, peerages were starting to be predominately life peers instead of hereditary peers. The last three hereditary peerages (excluding royal peerages) were created in 1984, when Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton, and William Whitelaw and George Thomas were created Viscounts.

The monarchy always looks ahead not only to be relevant but also to adapt and conform to the times. As we've seen with the issue recently talked about elsewhere with the LPs for the Cambridge children, it was done to adapt and conform the monarchy to the act of parliament changing the rule of succession in 2013. It's not a sudden thing but has been gradually happening over time. I don't think there were too many people in the 70s that would have sworn that QEII would still be on the throne in 2021 at 94 years old.

I'd say The Hon. Angus Ogilvy refusing an earldom set the tone for the next generations. Had he accepted the earldom like Antony Armstrong-Jones did only 2 years earlier (interestingly, the queen didn't offer him an earldom upon his wedding but only when his wife was pregnant with their first child); it would have been easier for Mark Phillips to also accept an earldom. Of course, he could have accepted it as he married the queen's daughter and not her cousin but he still might have felt pressured to follow Angus's example. Interestingly, the bridegroom of the next blood princess to marry -Eugenie- wasn't even offered an earldom (at least as far as is known); nor was her sister's bridegroom.

 

[Denville]

Mark Phillips didn't want an earldom.. It was out of line with the general publc thinking by 1977.. for someone to get a title just for marrying a Princess. If he and Anne didn't want him to have a title or for their children to have a title, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Denville]

I don't mean to dispute their motives, but isn't that unreasonable though?


I understand they might not want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] as that may be seen as having some kind of burden attached thereto (mostly in the UK only though). What harm would there be to their children though to be Viscount xxx or Lady Zarah Phillips? And Peter could even one day inherit an earldom, which, in the UK, still implies some non-neglible legal rights and privileges with practically zero burden.

There was never any prospect of their being HRH...

 

[Kataryn]

I think that the offer of peerages to commoners who married into the Royal family ended when the idea of a real existing court as a social meeting place ended. When HM ended the debutant presentations and the court balls, she acknowledged that the time of the peerage as the highest social level was over. Money had taken the place of birth in many cases and the young queen preferred to see "worthy" people being invited to audiences, dinners and garden parties, no matter what their rank was.



When the Royal family still was organized like a family with the souvereign in the middle and all of the family around her or him and the female family members allowed to marry into the peerage (including younger sons), they needed a titled husband to have a "married name" to be announced with which was a peerage title. From WWI (1917) these titles had to be British.


Today it is no problem for Anne, Eugenie and Beatrice to be married to commoners and the title of a Royal duke sounds better than to announce "prince and princess Henry of Wales" when there is only one Prince of Wales and his sons are grown up. especially as Harry and his wife were surely meant to be invited for state dinners like William and Catherine, as they did state visits in the queen's name. (I still can't believe what they gave up...)

 

[Mbruno]

Someone else posted in another forum a copy of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's marriage certificate that was published in The Sun.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NINTCHDBPICT000642859103.jpg?strip=all&w=960


I wonder why The Prince of Wales is not also cited as HRH The Prince of Wales considering that Harry is cited as HRH Prince Henry of Wales.


It is also interesting that the marriage was solemnized between Rachel Meghan Markle and "Henry Charles Albert David of Wales" suggesting the use of "of Wales" as a surname, which is incorrect in my opinion.



It has been mentioned in this forum that Anne and Andrew actually used "Mountbatten-Windsor" in their marriage certificates even though they do not normally use a surname. I don't know if that claim is true, but, assuming it is, could it be because, as the Queen's children, neither one was a prince/princess "of" some territorial designation?

 

[Somebody]

Someone else posted in another forum a copy of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's marriage certificate that was published in The Sun.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NINTCHDBPICT000642859103.jpg?strip=all&w=960


I wonder why The Prince of Wales is not also cited as HRH The Prince of Wales considering that Harry is cited as HRH Prince Henry of Wales.


It is also interesting that the marriage was solemnized between Rachel Meghan Markle and "Henry Charles Albert David of Wales" suggesting the use of "of Wales" as a surname, which is incorrect in my opinion.



It has been mentioned in this forum that Anne and Andrew actually used "Mountbatten-Windsor" in their marriage certificates even though they do not normally use a surname. I don't know if that claim is true, but, assuming it is, could it be because, as the Queen's children, neither one was a prince/princess "of" some territorial designation?

Interesting detail. Also note how Charles is mentioned in two very different ways, as the 'The Prince of Wales' (indeed without HRH unlike 'HRH Prince Henry of Wales') as father of the groom and only as Charles (without a surname and excluding any of his other names; unlike Harry, whose full 4 names are used at that point) as a witness.

Why are the fathers' names and rank/profession included in an official wedding certificate and are the names of the mothers deemed irrelevant. Seems a rather outdated practice that could have easily been changed by now.

 

[VictoriaB]

It has been mentioned in this forum that Anne and Andrew actually used "Mountbatten-Windsor" in their marriage certificates even though they do not normally use a surname. I don't know if that claim is true, but, assuming it is, could it be because, as the Queen's children, neither one was a prince/princess "of" some territorial designation?

Registration of Anne's marriage to Mark Phillips

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/deta...e-the-princess-royal-and-news-photo/839250824

And Andrew

https://imsvintagephotos.com/prince-andrew-and-sarah-ferguson-39-s-wedding-record-with-280171

 

[Prinsara]

Registration of Anne's marriage to Mark Phillips

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/deta...e-the-princess-royal-and-news-photo/839250824

And Andrew

https://imsvintagephotos.com/prince-andrew-and-sarah-ferguson-39-s-wedding-record-with-280171

The mess of signatures are very sweet; poignant even.

 

[Somebody]

Registration of Anne's marriage to Mark Phillips

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/deta...e-the-princess-royal-and-news-photo/839250824

And Andrew

https://imsvintagephotos.com/prince-andrew-and-sarah-ferguson-39-s-wedding-record-with-280171

So, the name for the condition changed from 'Bachelor/Spinster' to 'Single'

And the solved the occupation of the Duke nicely by making 'Duke of Edinburgh' both part of his name and his occupation all at once.

Interesting how lots of family members (including underaged) signed the marriage certificates.

 

[VictoriaB]

So, the name for the condition changed from 'Bachelor/Spinster' to 'Single'

And the solved the occupation of the Duke nicely by making 'Duke of Edinburgh' both part of his name and his occupation all at once.

Interesting how lots of family members (including underaged) signed the marriage certificates.

I remember at the time of Andrew and Sarah's wedding there was criticism in the press of Diana because she signed on behalf of William and Harry. While, of course, William was a page boy, Harry was not there and William should have signed his own name if he was able to.

 

[Mbruno]

Registration of Anne's marriage to Mark Phillips

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/deta...e-the-princess-royal-and-news-photo/839250824

And Andrew

https://imsvintagephotos.com/prince-andrew-and-sarah-ferguson-39-s-wedding-record-with-280171

So it is confirmed that both Andrew and Anne used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor and that Prince Philip was referrred to as HRH and also as KG and OM.

Harry instead used "of Wales" as a proxy for his surname and, for the Prince of Wales, neither HRH nor any post-nominal letters were used.

The inconsistency in British documents neve ceases to surprise me, see also the latest controversy about Archie's birth certificate.

 

[AC21091968]

Registration of Anne's marriage to Mark Phillips

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/deta...e-the-princess-royal-and-news-photo/839250824

And Andrew

https://imsvintagephotos.com/prince-andrew-and-sarah-ferguson-39-s-wedding-record-with-280171

Thank you VictoriaB for sharing the links of Princess Anne & Mark Phillips' and Prince Andrew & Sarah's marriage certificates.

It's very interesting how much has changed including Bachelor/Spinster to Single and signatures of the Royal Family members at the bottom half of the marriage certificates. I wonder what has caused the change from Mountbatten-Windsor to "of Wales" as surnames.

So it is confirmed that both Andrew and Anne used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor and that Prince Philip was referrred to as HRH and also as KG and OM.

Harry instead used "of Wales" as a proxy for his surname and, for the Prince of Wales, neither HRH nor any post-nominal letters were used.

The inconsistency in British documents neve ceases to surprise me, see also the latest controversy about Archie's birth certificate.

I have to agree with you Mbruno, that the inconsistency in British documents for royal family members have been astounding.

 

[Somebody]

Thank you VictoriaB for sharing the links of Princess Anne & Mark Phillips' and Prince Andrew & Sarah's marriage certificates.

It's very interesting how much has changed including Bachelor/Spinster to Single and signatures of the Royal Family members at the bottom half of the marriage certificates. I wonder what has caused the change from Mountbatten-Windsor to "of Wales" as surnames.


I have to agree with you Mbruno, that the inconsistency in British documents for royal family members have been astounding.

As was already suggested above. It could be that Harry still had a territorial designation unlike his aunt and uncle who were just 'The Prince(ss) X'; and probably preferred that option - an option that they didn't have. It would be interesting to know what Eugenie and Beatrice used. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 'of York'.

 

[Somebody]

If Archie plus sibling(s) are HRH then the BRF will have again missed an opportunity to be seen as less expansive. It should ideally have started with the daughters of the DofY. Then it'll be the children of Louis & then for fairness the children of Charlotte & then we're back to square one.

Why H&M raised this question in the way they did is beyond me. But they shouldn't be allowed to control the narrative. If the next monarch wishes to make changes then he should do so without fear of blackmail from H&M over questions of race.

Oh the irony of a republic founded in bloody rebellion against the British Crown & now feting a British prince.

With all that is currently going on, I'd say the easiest way would be to decide that for those born since the implementation of equal primogeniture (so since Oct 28, 2011) only the children of the monarch, children of the heir apparent, and children of the heir apparent's heir apparent will be Royal Highnesses. That would be a natural point to start that distinction as the rules of succession changed ensuring that children of a princess could be ahead of children of her sibling-prince, which would make it a bit awkward if the latter's would have higher titles than their cousins higher up in line...

Upon marriage each of those royal highnesses could be granted a dukedom which will ensure that both male and female line grandchildren of a (future) monarch will be styled as children of a duke - except for those that are themselves grandchildren of a (future) monarch who will be HRH and prince(ss).

In practice this would mean that Charlotte's and Louis's children will be styled equally but different than George's children. While Harry's children would be styled the same as those future children (of C and L) as well as they are in a comparable position.

 

[Durham]

With all that is currently going on. I'd say the easiest way would be to decide that for those born since the implementation of equal primogeniture (so since Oct 28, 2011) only the children of the monarch, children of the heir apparent, and children of the heir apparent's heir apparent will be Royal Highnesses. That would be a natural point to start that distinction as the rules of succession changed ensuring that children of a princess could be ahead of children of her sibling-prince, which would make it a bit awkward if the latter's would have higher titles than their cousins higher up in line...

Upon marriage each of those royal highnesses could be granted a dukedom which will ensure that both male and female line grandchildren of a (future) monarch will be styled as children of a duke - except for those that are themselves grandchildren of a (future) monarch.

In practice this would mean that Charlotte's and Louis's children will be styled equally but different than George's children. While Harry's children would be styled the same as those future children (of C and L) as well as they are in a comparable position.

Yes that all makes sense. I like the idea of using 2011 as a cut off date. It's fair. In fact I'd go further & discontinue the granting of dukedoms entirely. So the children of C & L would be untitled like the those of the Princess Royal.