The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4621  
Old 10-14-2019, 01:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its occurred to me too that if we look at the younger working royals today, for the most part what we see as far as titles go, is a bunch of Dukes and Duchesses. Of course, they're addressed at HRH/TRH but would that honorific style of address really be missed all that much?

In years to come, should there be a need for more working family members for the "Firm", we could see an event attended by The Duke of Sussex along with Earl Dumbarton or The Duke of Edinburgh along with Earl Wessex and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. (I think I got that right).

So, its possible that if Charles does limit the use of HRH Prince/Princess to the monarch's heir and family and the heir's heir and family, things wouldn't really *look* that much different to the "Firm" and to the general public. Not being HRH Prince/ss may not really affect the "Firm" much at all.

In restricting the HRH Prince/Princess more, what we'll see as far as working royals will be those with titles and styles that are more the working person's title in his/her own right (as in a peerage of the UK) rather than a title denoting how close he/she is in relationship to the monarch.

Just a few thoughts here.
I think a Duke's lack of the HRH rank would remain apparent to the public because, with the possible exception of the Gloucesters and Kents, the HRH Dukes and Duchesses are widely referred to as Prince X and Princess Y by the public even if that is technically incorrect.

I also think it is a possibility that at some point in the future - perhaps when William is king - the British royal family will follow the example of the Belgian and Swedish royals and style even royals with ducal titles as Prince and Princess rather than Duke and Duchess.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4622  
Old 11-06-2019, 05:20 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Interesting new poll from Public First:

http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-cont...1/PF_Royal.pdf
[...]

Carried out 28th - 31st Oct, 1005 UK adults surveyed

The poll posed questions to Britons rather than the international public, so this is another example – of many – of references being intended for a British audience but nonetheless not using the styles mandated by the British queen. For instance, the poll uses the style "Prince Andrew" for the royal who is called The Duke of York by the Royal Household and the style "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)" for the royal who is called The Duchess of Sussex by the Royal Household.

Though they were not included in the poll, the divide between Queen Elizabeth's and the public's styling choices is even more widespread in the language they use about her married granddaughters. Elizabeth appears to be intent on describing her granddaughters as Mrs. Michael Tindall and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, but I have never known the British media to use "Mrs. Michael" or "Mrs. Jack" towards either woman.

Taking into consideration that the British public knows how to style royals in the way approved by Queen Elizabeth, it appears that the different language used by the public is deliberate, not careless.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4623  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:22 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The poll posed questions to Britons rather than the international public, so this is another example – of many – of references being intended for a British audience but nonetheless not using the styles mandated by the British queen. For instance, the poll uses the style "Prince Andrew" for the royal who is called The Duke of York by the Royal Household and the style "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)" for the royal who is called The Duchess of Sussex by the Royal Household.

Though they were not included in the poll, the divide between Queen Elizabeth's and the public's styling choices is even more widespread in the language they use about her married granddaughters. Elizabeth appears to be intent on describing her granddaughters as Mrs. Michael Tindall and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, but I have never known the British media to use "Mrs. Michael" or "Mrs. Jack" towards either woman.

Taking into consideration that the British public knows how to style royals in the way approved by Queen Elizabeth, it appears that the different language used by the public is deliberate, not careless.
I fail to see what the controversy is. Andrew or William are legally princes, as they are also legally dukes, earls and barons. HRH The Duke of xxx is simply their short style under British custom. Note that official documents such as passports and birth certificates that we have seen before use e.g. HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge.

And the short style where princes are referred to by their main peerage is not something that is “ mandated” by the current Queen. It has been the standard way of referring to British princes since the 18th century at least ( maybe by French influence ?). It is by no means technically incorrect though to refer to William or Andrew as “Prince William” or “ Prince Andrew” as, again, that is legally their titular dignity.
Reply With Quote
  #4624  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:28 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I fail to see what the controversy is. Andrew or William are legally princes, as they are also legally dukes, earls and barons. HRH The Duke of xxx is simply their short style under British custom. Note that official documents such as passports and birth certificates that we have seen before use e.g. HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge.

And the short style where princes are referred to by their main peerage is not something that is “ mandated” by the current Queen. It has been the standard way of referring to British princes since the 18th century at least ( maybe by French influence ?). It is by no means technically incorrect though to refer to William or Andrew as “Prince William” or “ Prince Andrew” as, again, that is legally their titular dignity.
I don't know about a controversy, but what I noticed is that there is a divide between the customs in Queen Elizabeth's household and the customs among members of the British public (the contrast is between the current queen and the current members of the public, rather than between the current queen and earlier monarchs).

This is not the case across all monarchies; in Norway, for example, the King's niece is referred to as Cathrine Ferner Johansen by both the monarch and the public, in contrast to Britain where the Queen's granddaughter is referred to as Zara Tindall by the public and Mrs. Michael Tindall by the monarch.

I'm interested in the causes of these differences, and whether the monarchy in the future might follow the public's lead (e.g. by referring to Zara as Mrs. Zara instead of Mrs. Michael).
Reply With Quote
  #4625  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I don't know about a controversy, but what I noticed is that there is a divide between the customs in Queen Elizabeth's household and the customs among members of the British public (the contrast is between the current queen and the current members of the public, rather than between the current queen and earlier monarchs).

This is not the case across all monarchies; in Norway, for example, the King's niece is referred to as Cathrine Ferner Johansen by both the monarch and the public, in contrast to Britain where the Queen's granddaughter is referred to as Zara Tindall by the public and Mrs. Michael Tindall by the monarch.

I'm interested in the causes of these differences, and whether the monarchy in the future might follow the public's lead (e.g. by referring to Zara as Mrs. Zara instead of Mrs. Michael).
Again I don’t think Mrs Michael Tindall , Lady Nicholas Windsor or Princess Michael of Kent is something that is imposed by this Queen in particular. As I see it, the Royal Household is just sticking with the traditional naming conventions in the UK , which are applied to the Royal Family, to the families of non-royal peers, and to “ common” families indistinctively.

I can’t tell if saying Mrs Michael Tindall as opposed to Mrs Zara Tindall is becoming old-fashioned in the UK or not, but , in Zara’s case, I guess the public and the tabloids still refer to her as ‘Zara’ because that is the name by which she was known for most of her life before she got married. That is probably the reason why many people still call the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, or still use Meghan Markle to refer to the Duchess of Sussex even though , in both cases, using their maiden names is completely wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #4626  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:21 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Again I don’t think Mrs Michael Tindall , Lady Nicholas Windsor or Princess Michael of Kent is something that is imposed by this Queen in particular. As I see it, the Royal Household is just sticking with the traditional naming conventions in the UK , which are applied to the Royal Family, to the families of non-royal peers, and to “ common” families indistinctively.

I can’t tell if saying Mrs Michael Tindall as opposed to Mrs Zara Tindall is becoming old-fashioned in the UK or not, but , in Zara’s case, I guess the public and the tabloids still refer to her as ‘Zara’ because that is the name by which she was known for most of her life before she got married. [...]
Hopefully other posters can offer more clarity on the matter, but I cannot recall ever seeing Zara referred to as Mrs. Michael Tindall (except when quoting the Royal Household) in reports from the British media, nor in comments from Britons on social media, which makes it appear as if it is no longer the naming convention among members of the public.
Reply With Quote
  #4627  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,883
My view is that the British public take their cue from the media, especially the tabloids, when referring to royals or their relatives. Hence Tim Lawrence, not giving his naval rank, Zara Tindall, etc.

The tabloids tend to veer towards writing about both 'Prince William' and 'Prince Harry' and 'the Duke of Cambridge' and 'Duke of Sussex' in their reports, while their wives are more often than not 'Kate Middleton' and 'Meghan Markle'.

These outlets seem to think that the public won't recognise these two women under their correct styling and IMO they may well continue to do this for several years more. It's just a way of ensuring that readers recognise who they're writing about! On the other hand it would be very strange if the Royal Household and the CC abandoned the formalities.
Reply With Quote
  #4628  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
My view is that the British public take their cue from the media, especially the tabloids, when referring to royals or their relatives. Hence Tim Lawrence, not giving his naval rank, Zara Tindall, etc.

The tabloids tend to veer towards writing about both 'Prince William' and 'Prince Harry' and 'the Duke of Cambridge' and 'Duke of Sussex' in their reports, while their wives are more often than not 'Kate Middleton' and 'Meghan Markle'.

These outlets seem to think that the public won't recognise these two women under their correct styling and IMO they may well continue to do this for several years more. It's just a way of ensuring that readers recognise who they're writing about! On the other hand it would be very strange if the Royal Household and the CC abandoned the formalities.
I think they might eventually drop styles like Princess Michael or Lady Nicholas if that kind of styling becomes obsolete in formal British usage, but I don’t see it happening in the near future ( probably not in my life time).

BTW, I don’t think Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank or Lady Helen Taylor for example are in the same category as Princess Michael or Lady Nicholas because , even under traditional conventions, they at least get to keep their first names.
Reply With Quote
  #4629  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:22 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
My view is that the British public take their cue from the media, especially the tabloids, when referring to royals or their relatives. Hence Tim Lawrence, not giving his naval rank, Zara Tindall, etc.

The tabloids tend to veer towards writing about both 'Prince William' and 'Prince Harry' and 'the Duke of Cambridge' and 'Duke of Sussex' in their reports, while their wives are more often than not 'Kate Middleton' and 'Meghan Markle'.

These outlets seem to think that the public won't recognise these two women under their correct styling and IMO they may well continue to do this for several years more. It's just a way of ensuring that readers recognise who they're writing about! On the other hand it would be very strange if the Royal Household and the CC abandoned the formalities.
Thank you for the perspective! I think the suggestion that the issue of reader recognition stands in the way of formal or correct styling of royal duchesses and dukes is very credible.

Regarding styling commoners (Mrs. Zara Tindall vs. Mrs. Michael Tindall), I'm not sure it is a matter of formality. Even within the British Parliament, where highly formal, traditional conventions are followed, married female MPs are referred to under their own first names, instead of those of their husbands.
Reply With Quote
  #4630  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Thank you for the perspective! I think the suggestion that the issue of reader recognition stands in the way of formal or correct styling of royal duchesses and dukes is very credible.

Regarding styling commoners (Mrs. Zara Tindall vs. Mrs. Michael Tindall), I'm not sure it is a matter of formality. Even within the British Parliament, where highly formal, traditional conventions are followed, married female MPs are referred to under their own first names, instead of those of their husbands.
Politicians , as any other women with a professional career, obviously need to be identified by their given names. It would be odd if Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon or Jo Swinson for example didn’t use their first names, wouldn’t it ? Ironically, a country housewife is probably still more likely to be addressed in the traditional male-centric style than high profile women. Even some wives of peers with a name recognition of their own are often cited by their maiden names or don’t always use their husbands’ title in part because of what Curryong said, i.e. because they are best known to the public by the names they used before getting married or still use those names professionally.

With the changing role of women in society and more ( if not actually most) women now having their own careers and professional lives, I do see the traditional British styling of married women becoming eventually obsolete. I just don’t see the Court Circular or the Royal Household leading the way in abandoning it before that usage is broadly socially recognized as obsolete, and that will probably take time.
Reply With Quote
  #4631  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Politicians , as any other women with a professional career, obviously need to be identified by their given names. It would be odd if Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon or Jo Swinson for example didn’t use their first names, wouldn’t it ? Ironically, a country housewife is probably still more likely to be addressed in the traditional male-centric style than high profile women. Even some wives of peers with a name recognition of their own are often cited by their maiden names or don’t always use their husbands’ title in part because of what Curryong said, i.e. because they are best known to the public by the names they used before getting married or still use those names professionally.
I agree, and Parliament seems to be in agreement as well, but the Royal Household clearly feels differently. For them, the professional equestrian Zara Tindall is Mrs. Michael Tindall, and I don't think they would have done things differently if she were a professional politician instead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
With the changing role of women in society and more ( if not actually most) women now having their own careers and professional lives, I do see the traditional British styling of married women becoming eventually obsolete. I just don’t see the Court Circular or the Royal Household leading the way in abandoning it before that usage is broadly socially recognized as obsolete, and that will probably take time.
I very much agree. In fact, the point I was attempting to suggest is that the styling "Mrs. husband's first name" already appears to be obsolete in broader British society, but the Royal Household adheres to it nonetheless - exemplified by the current situation in which usage of "Mrs. Michael Tindall" is seemingly limited to the Royal Household itself. At the same time, the monarchy hasn't faced any backlash for Queen Elizabeth's refusal to follow the current conventions, which might be one of the factors explaining why.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 782 10-28-2019 08:29 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 886 04-11-2019 06:26 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 04:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
administrator archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bangladesh belgian royal belgian royal family birthday celebration crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of sussex dutch royal family family search felipe vi french royalty friendly city future future wife of prince hussein general news germany greece hamdan bin mohammed headship hill house of bernadotte jerusalem king salman lithuania lithuanian palaces meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco royal monarchism mountbatten netflix nobel prize norway history official visit pakistan prince charles prince daniel prince harry princely family of monaco princess benedikte princess margaret qe2 queen paola rown royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia savoy saxony south africa spanish history state visit state visit to denmark sweden tracts trump valois visit from sweden


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×