Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Curryong]

But unless Charlotte married a Prince or a Peer (quite unlikely IMO) her children wouldn’t receive any titles anyway.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Strictly speaking, although Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, they have still kept the York appellation, whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi.

But any criticism will do where Harry?s concerned, won?t it? [...] So what does the media want?

Can you point to an example where "the media", or anyone, criticized Prince Harry for keeping his surname instead of being Mr. Markle? I have never seen this criticism even from his detractors. His cousins Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, on the other hand, have been subjected to criticism on social media for keeping their maiden names professionally rather than being Mrs. Brooksbank and Mrs. Mapelli Mozzi.

I think what people took issue with was the idea that Charles (or whoever) would want to change the LP for the grandchild(ren) of mixed racial background. They have every right to do whatever they want but you have to admit if that had occurred many would have questioned why...

You sure? I think many would question why it would start with Archie. There is a reason why many reacted the way they did. Right or wrong, it is a valid question.

I am not sure what you mean by "it". If he does not become a prince in the next reign, Archie will neither be the first grandchild of a British monarch not to be a prince (nor are Peter Phillips or Viscount Severn), nor the first grandchild of a British monarch not to be entitled to be a prince by the LP which is in force (neither is Peter Phillips).

Even if Peter and James had been princes, however, who else could the change have started with?

 

[Durham]

But unless Charlotte married a Prince or a Peer (quite unlikely IMO) her children wouldn’t receive any titles anyway.

Yes I know. It was a reply to a post about giving dukedoms to both the younger children of a future William V in order to be fair. I was saying it would be best to discontinue dukedoms full stop so that all the children of a monarch's younger offspring (regardless of their sex) would be untitled like those of the present Princess Royal.

 

[Mbruno]

Can you point to an example where "the media", or anyone, criticized Prince Harry for keeping his surname instead of being Mr. Markle? I have never seen this criticism even from his detractors. His cousins Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, on the other hand, have been subjected to criticism on social media for keeping their maiden names professionally rather than being Mrs. Brooksbank and Mrs. Mapelli Mozzi.

On top of that, Harry seems to have used Sussex (or rather "of Sussex") as a de facto surname in his marriage certificate, unlike for example his aunt and uncle (Anne and Andrew) who chose to use Mountbatten-Windsor.


Applying the same reasoning, Beatrice and Eugenie using York could be interpreted simply as their keeping their maiden name for professional purposes, which many married women do nowadays, even in the UK. I wouldn't interpret it as a deliberate intention to highlight a connection with the Royal Family as the OP suggested.

 

[Curryong]

Take a look at the criticisms of Harry using his Dukedom of Sussex title and the title of Prince (which he was born with) in his two new jobs (even though they are on CVS on the two company/organisation sites and therefore probably not written by himself) for examples of what I have written about.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Take a look at the criticisms of Harry using his Dukedom of Sussex title and the title of Prince (which he was born with) in his two new jobs (even though they are on CVS on the two company/organisation sites and therefore probably not written by himself) for examples of what I have written about.

It seems my question was unclear. This is the comment to which it was directed (and I have edited the quote in my previous post to be clearer).

Strictly speaking, although Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, they have still kept the York appellation, whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi.

But any criticism will do where Harry?s concerned, won?t it? [...] So what does the media want?

Neither Beatrice and Eugenie have dukedoms, and neither of them use their Princess titles, or any other titles, in their jobs. Thus, your comment "But any criticism will do where Harry's concerned, won't it?", with the implication that Beatrice and Eugenie had done the same as Harry without receiving criticisms, could only be referring to their use of York as their surname instead of their spouses' surnames, which you in fact referred to:

"whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi."​

My question then is: When did Prince Harry receive criticism for using Sussex instead of Markle as his professional surname (as opposed to using his titles of Prince or Duke professionally)?

 

[Denville]

It seems my question was unclear. This is the comment to which it was directed (and I have edited the quote in my previous post to be clearer).



Neither Beatrice and Eugenie have dukedoms, and neither of them use their Princess titles, or any other titles, in their jobs. Thus, your comment "But any criticism will do where Harry's concerned, won't it?", with the implication that Beatrice and Eugenie had done the same as Harry without receiving criticisms, could only be referring to their use of York as their surname instead of their spouses' surnames, which you in fact referred to:

"whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi."​

My question then is: When did Prince Harry receive criticism for using Sussex instead of Markle as his professional surname (as opposed to using his titles of Prince or Duke professionally)?

but he doesn't really use Sussex as his professional name, does he? I thought he was known as Harry duke of Sussex or "the Duke of Sussex" just refraining from using HRH because he is not allowed to use it in commercial dealings.

 

[Curryong]

Why would Harry be using Markle either professionally or in his private life? Markle is his wife’s maiden and professional name.

Harry could use Mountbatten Windsor as a surname (just as Eugenie could use Mrs Brooksbank (or Princess Eugenie as far as I’m concerned in all spheres of her life.)


However, Harry has never used Mountbatten Windsor. He has at times used ‘of Wales’ and ‘Sussex’. As he was born a Prince and was given a dukedom by the Queen it’s not as if he is assuming something that wasn’t rightfully his.


Other people have objected to his doing so, but I can’t see why he isn’t entitled to use either ‘Sussex’ as other Peers, royal and otherwise, do, or the Prince title he was born with in all sectors of his life. Don’t see why he has to adopt the name of Mr Mountbatten Windsor when he isn’t in order to satisfy others who assert he’s trading off his name.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However, Harry has never used Mountbatten Windsor. He has at times used ‘of Wales’ and ‘Sussex’. As he was born a Prince and was given a dukedom by the Queen it’s not as if he is assuming something that wasn’t rightfully his.

Other people have objected to his doing so, but I can’t see why he isn’t entitled to use either ‘Sussex’ as other Peers, royal and otherwise, do, or the Prince title he was born with in all sectors of his life. Don’t see why he has to adopt the name of Mr Mountbatten Windsor when he isn’t in order to satisfy others who assert he’s trading off his name.

Again, my question is: Who are the people who have objected to his using "of Wales" and "Sussex" as surnames but not objected to Beatrice and Eugenie using "York" as a surname?

Why would Harry be using Markle either professionally or in his private life? Markle is his wife’s maiden and professional name.

In my opinion, there is no need for him to take his wife's name.

In your earlier post, however, you stated: "whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn't be 'of York' at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi".

Applying the same comment to Prince Harry, it would read: "whereas if he really wanted to drop his links to royalty he wouldn't be 'of Sussex' at all, but would be Mr Markle".

 

[Heavs]

Criticising Beatrice and Eugenie for continuing to use "York" which they have done since school when both "York" and "of York" are mud in the eyes of the GB public and a lot of the world seems to be missing the point. Clearly being a well connected member of the BRF opens doors for all of them but:

Harry isn't using Harry Sussex or Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, the company used "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" as much as it possibly could, even when "Harry" would have seemed more natural. All that was missing was the HRH which would have been there if HM hadn't forbidden it in commercial ventures.

Harry is also the one that has talked very negatively about the BRF so it continues to raise eyebrows that he's the one most intent on using his title whereas his cousins who've never said a word don't use their titles officially for work and use their territorial designation as a surname which until 2 years ago or 9 months ago was the least well known option they had. It's not immediately identifiable as from the BRF (like Windsor it's an actual surname for non royals) because it's not unique like Mountbatten-Windsor.

The girls don't loose their HRH Princess if they become "Mrs Brooksbank" or Mrs Mapelli-Mozzi so that isn't the reason they keep it either.

Unless Beatrice suddenly starts using HRH Princess Beatrice, Countess Mapelli-Mozzi I don't see an issue.

 

[Curryong]

Except the custom is, in Britain at least, and Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice are all British, that for centuries women have taken their husbands’ names on marriage, not the other way around. I’m not aware of any British men who hold titles who have assumed their wives maiden names after marriage in their professional lives. Perhaps you know of some?

And I’m aware that some women keep their maiden names after marriage for professional purposes. However York is not a surname for either Beatrice or Eugenie in the usual sense of the word. ‘Of York’ maybe.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Except the custom is, in Britain at least, and Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice are all British, that for centuries women have taken their husbands’ names on marriage, not the other way around. I’m not aware of any British men who hold titles who have assumed their wives maiden names after marriage in their professional lives. Perhaps you know of some?

That is precisely the reason why I am requesting an example of Prince Harry receiving more criticism than Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie (as was implied in the comment which I will quote again for clarity's sake) for keeping their respective unofficial surnames rather than using their spouses' names, because I was under the impression that it was the other way around.

Strictly speaking, although Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses, they have still kept the York appellation, whereas if they really wanted to drop their links to royalty they wouldn?t be ?of York? at all, but would be Mrs Brooksbank and Mrs Mapelli Mozzi.

But any criticism will do where Harry?s concerned, won?t it? [...] So what does the media want?

 

[BriarRose]

However York is not a surname for either Beatrice or Eugenie in the usual sense of the word. ‘Of York’ maybe.

Actually, as the daughter of a royal duke, Beatrice's name and surname are correct as "Beatrice York".

Beatrice, Eugenie, William, and Harry all used their fathers' royal titles as their surname, without an "of".

For example, William was "William Wales" at Eton. William even used WW as his initials on his uniform during sporting competitions. At Sandhurst, Harry was Officer Cadet Wales, and later became Captain Wales.

William's children use Cambridge as their surname at school, without an "of".

It's not clear what the Queen used as a surname while her father was a Duke, as she didn't attend school. By the time she married her father was no longer the Duke of York, and she used "Windsor" on her marriage certificate.

However, Harry is not Harry Sussex, but Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. I believe he can go by Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, but I doubt his passport and other legal documents use that name. This is why I am neutral about him choosing to continue to identify himself as the Duke of Sussex- it is his legal name.

 

[Prinsara]

However, Harry is not Harry Sussex, but Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. I believe he can go by Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, but I doubt his passport and other legal documents use that name. This is why I am neutral about him choosing to continue to identify himself as the Duke of Sussex- it is his legal name.

His legal name isn't legally recognized in his new place of residence, though. I am very sure he's not filling out his IRS or immigration paperwork as "The Duke of Sussex". And as a duke, he is "Sussex" as per UK custom, so "Harry Sussex" would be an acceptable alternative. Anything would seem more palatable than grandstanding on a title from a system he fled, dislikes, and disparages.

 

[Denville]

His legal name isn't legally recognized in his new place of residence, though. I am very sure he's not filling out his IRS or immigration paperwork as "The Duke of Sussex". And as a duke, he is "Sussex" as per UK custom, so "Harry Sussex" would be an acceptable alternative. Anything would seem more palatable than grandstanding on a title from a system he fled, dislikes, and disparages.

I would have said that Harry Windsor would be better. In the US, there isn't the tradition of titles. and even calling himself Harry Sussex isn't relaly what happens in the US. In England it IS acceptable for a peer to use his title as his signature or for royal kids to use their parents title as a temporary surname.. such as William going by William Wales or Beatrice being Beatrice York. But why do it in the US and why do it at ALL when you have gone on tv and attacked your family, its traditions, and complained that being a prince and a British royal wasn't what you wanted out of life and you are rejecting it.

 

[Kataryn]

I would have said that Harry Windsor would be better. In the US, there isn't the tradition of titles. and even calling himself Harry Sussex isn't relaly what happens in the US. In England it IS acceptable for a peer to use his title as his signature or for royal kids to use their parents title as a temporary surname.. such as William going by William Wales or Beatrice being Beatrice York. But why do it in the US and why do it at ALL when you have gone on tv and attacked your family, its traditions, and complained that being a prince and a British royal wasn't what you wanted out of life and you are rejecting it.

If we start to be picky this way, he should be Henry Windsor, as Harry is just his nickname... And if he was so against all connections to the British Royal family, he could have asked King Constantine and queen Margarethe to restore his titles of "Greece and Denmark" and go by Henry Greece-Denmark. A lot of people in the US are named after the places their ancestors came from...

 

[Denville]

If we start to be picky this way, he should be Henry Windsor, as Harry is just his nickname... And if he was so against all connections to the British Royal family, he could have asked King Constantine and queen Margarethe to restore his titles of "Greece and Denmark" and go by Henry Greece-Denmark. A lot of people in the US are named after the places their ancestors came from...

oh come, there's nothing wrong with calling himself Harry, that's what he's alwasy been known as...and it si a well known diminutive of Henry.
Why woudl he do that????Why try and tie himself to a monarchy that's now vanished and has zero chance of return and that probably noone in the US has ever heard of. I would have thought if he doesn't like "Mountbatten Windsor" he could take his wife's name.. which is in line with feminist thinking. A nd they could all be Markles..

 

[Heavs]

Well that would be insane if Harry started trying to use titles that don't even legally exist anywhere anymore. But there's absolutely no need for him to do that even hypothetically and drag even more people into this mess and start a diplomatic incident.

Nothing is being legally taken away from him or even unofficially taken away. The Queen simply asked them not to use HRH in their private commercial ventures. Which they aren't but are sailing close to the wind by plastering DDOS everywhere they can, which is surely not in the spirit of what they agreed to and doesn't make any sense considering they themselves have said about the BRF and its existence and lifestyle.

The Greek Royal Family simply use "Greece" when they need a surname. e.g. Theodora is "Theodora Greece" in her acting career.

 

[Denville]

Well that would be insane if Harry started trying to use titles that don't even legally exist anywhere anymore. But there's absolutely no need for him to do that even hypothetically and drag even more people into this mess and start a diplomatic incident.

Nothing is being legally taken away from him or even unofficially taken away. The Queen simply asked them not to use HRH in their private commercial ventures. Which they aren't but are sailing close to the wind by plastering DDOS everywhere they can, which is surely not in the spirit of what they agreed to and doesn't make any sense considering they themselves have said about the BRF and its existence and lifestyle.

The Greek Royal Family simply use "Greece" when they need a surname. e.g. Theodora is "Theodora Greece" in her acting career.

True, except that I dont think she ASKED, I think the queen insisted and had she not done so, I wouldn't care to bet that they wouldn't have marketed themselves as HRH the D and Duchess of Sussex...
I htink that my suggestion of choosing to use his wife's name would be good, they could be Harry, Meghan and Archie Markle and no need for any names that they have no real connextion with or that are connected to a lifestyle they despise.

 

[Mbruno]

I would have said that Harry Windsor would be better. In the US, there isn't the tradition of titles. and even calling himself Harry Sussex isn't relaly what happens in the US. In England it IS acceptable for a peer to use his title as his signature or for royal kids to use their parents title as a temporary surname.. such as William going by William Wales or Beatrice being Beatrice York. But why do it in the US and why do it at ALL when you have gone on tv and attacked your family, its traditions, and complained that being a prince and a British royal wasn't what you wanted out of life and you are rejecting it.

I agree. The use of a peerage's designation as informal surname is standard in the United Kingdom and peers and eldest sons of peers whose title designation differs from the family name in fact don't normally use their real family name, except in the observations page in their UK passports. By analogy, it is natural that Beatrice and Eugenie use York as surname for private purposes.


Harry's situation is different. THe use of the designation of a title as surname (e.g. Harry Sussex) or the use of titles per se (e.g. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex) are not common in the United States. Instead, the natural thing for him in the US would be to use his family name, i.e. Mountbatten-Windsor, in any US documents. I assume Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, from a US perspective, is now akin to "his stage name" like Lady Gaga or Queen Latifah.

 

[AC21091968]

Michael Rhodes has written a post on Peerage News Blog that courtesy titles are derived by courtesy of the Crown. Most of the Rhodes' content are already been discussed repeatedly on The Royal Forum. Yes, Rhodes focused mostly on the Sussexes, but he also mentioned about William Cavendish, the eldest son of the (12th) Duke of Devonshire, who continued to be known as Earl of Burlington rather than the more senior Marquess of Hartington. He is professionally known as Bill Burlington when working in the art galleries.

To Harry and Meghan, a note: courtesy titles are derived by courtesy of the Crown.
https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/2021/03/to-harry-and-meghan-note-courtesy.html

 

[Prinsara]

Interesting. You can only disclaim an inherited peerage, not one you were created.

 

[Denville]

Interesting. You can only disclaim an inherited peerage, not one you were created.

well if you are offered a new peerage the time to decline it is then and say you dont wnat it. If you inherit one, its not chosen... so its right that people have the right to give it up if you want to.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Henry IV gave his son Thomas the titles of Duke of Clarence and Earl of Aumale. Thomas died without children.
What became of the title of Earl of Aumale?

 

[Iluvbertie]

After the Hundred Years War the spelling of the name was changed from Aumale to Albemarle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_and_dukes_of_Aumale#Earls_of_Aumale_(1412)

Thus we then had the Duke of Albemarle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Albemarle

And now the Earl of Albemarle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Albemarle

This is the current holder of the Earldom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Keppel,_10th_Earl_of_Albemarle

His heir apparent is Augustus Keppel, Viscount Bury

 

[Durham]

Interesting. You can only disclaim an inherited peerage, not one you were created.

Now I didn't know that. Food for thought.

 

[BriarRose]

I'm not sure why there would be a law for a newly created peer to disclaim their peerage. They consented to the peerage at the time of its creation. The entire point of a hereditary peerage is that it will be yours for life, then pass to your heir. It's not supposed to be in an 'opt-in, then opt-out when you change your mind' system.

On the other hand, if you inherited a peerage, you never personally consented to its creation. The opportunity to disclaim was introduced so that members of the peerage could avoid their automatic seat in the House of Lords, and the peerage was then held in abeyance until they passed away. Now that there is no automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords, disclaimers are likely rare.

Parliament can always amend or revoke a monarch's Letters Patent which created a hereditary peerage. If there is a hereditary peer who wants his peerage dissolved, they can seek relief from Parliament (and Parliament may, or may not, pass such revocation).

 

[Durham]

Yes that all makes sense. I hadn't read the 1963 legislation that closely so I just presumed that the ability to renounce a peerage was available to all.

Of course this question has come up now because of a very different circumstance that the original framers of the legislation would not have envisaged.

 

[JessRulz]

To avoid the same discussion taking place in multiple threads, please use the below thread to discuss the Duke of Edinburgh title:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/royal-dukes-royal-duchies-and-royal-ducal-titles-7948.html

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No she didn't. Edward VII created his British born female line grand daughters princesses but as HH not HRH. And his son George V did not agree with the decision which is why his daughters's sons were not princes.

No other British monarchs have done this.

King George V, despite disagreeing with his father's decision, created the Duke of Teck (son of Princess Mary of Cambridge) HH and made his cousins Helena Victoria and Marie Louise HH Princesses in 1917 when they renounced their German titles of Princess of Schleswig-Holstein.

Queen Victoria created her British female-line grandchildren HH.

The children of the future Queen Anne were referred to as HH and HRH.

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