Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[branchg]

Actually, I believe it was the Duke who insisted the servants address Wallis as HRH. He was adamant in that. I don't know whether she was bothered by it at all.

The Duchess said publicly and privately many times that she didn't care about the style. However, she did make it clear that her husband very much cared and was extremely offended.

I'm sure she was hurt by the slap, but since they were not welcomed in any case by the royal family in Britain, it probably didn't matter much anyway.

 

[branchg]

I thought I read his children could get HRH but not his wife

Any children born of the marriage would have been "Lord/Lady Windsor", rather than HRH Prince/Princess. The Duke renounced the throne on behalf of himself and any descendants and The King took the position they were not entitled to be HRH as they could never succeed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana and Sarah lost their HRH style automatically with divorce. They assumed superior rank upon marriage, which departed with divorce, the same as former wives of Peers. The Queen issued Letters Patent in 1996 confirming a former wife of a Prince of the UK was not entitled to enjoy HRH upon divorce, but both of them had already lost it.

The Letters Patent creating the Dukedom of Windsor for The Prince Edward were issued in March 1937. George VI issued additional Letters Patent in May 1937 a week before The Duke was due to marry stating he continued to enjoy the rank of HRH, but such attribute was limited to him alone and could not be shared by his wife and children.

If they had already lost it, why did Sarah continue to use it from her divorce until the LPs were issued stripping them both of the HRH?

Why even issue the LPs if they had already lost it?

The fact is that Sarah was still officially referred to as HRH Sarah, Duchess of York until the LPs were issued formally stripping her of the title which would indicate that she, and thus Diana, needed to be stipped. I have an invitation issued to my great-aunt from early August that year from BP which refers her to as HRH Sarah, Duchess of York. The invitation was to a charity event and was sent in May that year - months after the divorce. As it came from BP, and refers to her with HRH and was dated well after the divorce I believe that she remained HRH until the Queen formally issued the LPs at the time of Diana's divorce, thus stripping both ex-wives.

There was all the discussion about the issue with Diana because it wasn't automatic that they lost it on divorce at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What I mean is that "HRH Prince/Princess of the UK" is simply a style granted by the fount of honour (The Sovereign) via Letters Patent. It is not a title nor does it denote any status constitutionally. Until raised to the Peerage, Princes and Princesses of the UK are commoners, albeit with royal rank and precedence.

A person may be entitled by right of birth or marriage (depending on Letters Patent) to the style and rank, but it can be removed or denied at any time by The Sovereign. This is not the case for Peers of the Realm, although the House of Lords were reformed in 1999 and hereditary Peers lost their automatic rights to sit in the House.

As I thought - it was the use of the word 'courtesy' that was confusing the issue - not our understanding of the actual issue.

However, the Sovereign can also strip a peer of that title as well. As Peerages are also granted by LPs they can just as easily be stripped e.g. The Titles Deprivations Act.

 

[branchg]

However, the Sovereign can also strip a peer of that title as well. As Peerages are also granted by LPs they can just as easily be stripped e.g. The Titles Deprivations Act.

The Crown cannot remove a Peerage by writ of Letters Patent. Only an Act of Parliament can do that.

The Sovereign can remove the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess at any time without consulting the Government. It is purely a style within their gift as the fount of honour.

As far as I am aware, both Diana and Sarah retained their royal rank and style until their decree nisi was issued, followed by the decree absolute six weeks later. The Yorks divorced in May 1996, followed by the Wales in July 1996. The Queen issued Letters Patent in August 1996 stating a former wife would not be entitled to the style of HRH upon divorce.

 

[MRSJ]

Why was she ok with Sarah having the HRH for 3 months and Diana not having it at all? Did she just decide to wait until all divorces were final?

 

[branchg]

Given that Diana and Sarah were the first women to divorce sons of The Sovereign, I think the Letters Patent were designed to clarify a new reality for the royal family. Upon divorce, similar to existing practice in the Peerage, a former wife lost all status and rank derived from her marriage.

 

[Americanskipper]

In fact, it was reported The Queen did offer to issue letters patent elevating Peter and Zara to HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as the rest of her grandchildren (as male-line descendants) would be so entitled. Anne declined the offer, desiring a more normal upbringing for her children without the burden of being HRH.

This is something I hear alot, but I don't really understand. What is the burden of being HRH? Related to that (and in fact maybe it has the same answer, I don't know), what difference in practise does it make to Prince Edward having been made an Earl rather than a Duke?

 

[Royal_Eagle]

I suspect there are several reasons for not being HRHs:

- Being a HRH make it more difficult to have a 'normal' life, especially with career, because people will be more likely to assume that the person is using his/her HRH for his/her advantages. For example, Prince Edward got some flack for his film company work, even though he was rather far down the line of succession, and eventually it forced him to give it up do just Royal work.

- Also being a HRH attract usually unwanted attention and can play havoc with their private life. Who need that, especially for those further away from the Family?

- I'm not too sure of any real significance in the titles, except in social circles and order of precedence for state occasions (coronations, royal weddings, state banquets, etc) and they really don't apply to members of the Royal Family anyway, as they have higher precedence than normal peers.

That's just my guesses though.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1223268

As I thought - it was the use of the word 'courtesy' that was confusing the issue - not our understanding of the actual issue.

However, the Sovereign can also strip a peer of that title as well. As Peerages are also granted by LPs they can just as easily be stripped e.g. The Titles Deprivations Act.

A peer can only be deprived of his titles by an Act of Parliament, which holds true today just as in the past.

The Titles Deprivation Act can only be employed to strip the titles and/or royal dignity of a person who served or is serving in an enemy military force, has rendered assistance to, or voluntarily resides in an enemy nation.

This was the case in World War I, when many of the German royal families were more closely related to the BRF, and for which the Act was approved by Parliament.

But even though the four men targeted by the Act were deprived of their British titles and dignities, their successors would be allowed to (and can still) petition the British government for a restoration of those titles.

The peers who were stripped of their titles in 1917 were:

HRH The Duke of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha (Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, Baron Arklow
and Prince of the United Kingdom)

HRH The Crown Prince of Hannover (Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh
and Prince of the United Kingdom)

HRH The Duke of Brunswick (Prince of the United Kingdom)

The Viscount Taaffe (Viscount Taaffe and Baron Ballymote)

To date, none of the successors of these men have petitioned to have these titles restored.. and at this point, I believe it is unlikely to happen. But I also doubt the BRF will grant the affected titles to anyone else as long as there is a potential legitimate heir still alive.

The Taaffe title became extinct in 1967. The rest continue to have living heirs.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

Royal Eagle, I think you are on the right track. Princess Anne, especially, is first and foremost a practical person. Look at the publicity (much of it negative) that the York girls get and while the press doesn't ignore Zara and Peter, they have been given more freedom just to be themselves... Prince Andrew wanted his daughters to be princesses, and that has subjected them to much greater scrutiny...

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Yep, basically HRHs are expected to be role models for the Monarchy, and that's quite a burden for some, especially if they're not close to the Throne.

 

[wbenson]

The Titles Deprivation Act can only be employed to strip the titles and/or royal dignity of a person who served or is serving in an enemy military force, has rendered assistance to, or voluntarily resides in an enemy nation.

It's not even that general. It applied only to the first world war ("during the present war"). Stripping a peer's title for adhering to an enemy in any other war would require another act of Parliament to enable the action.

 

[Zonk]

Royal Eagle, I think you are on the right track. Princess Anne, especially, is first and foremost a practical person. Look at the publicity (much of it negative) that the York girls get and while the press doesn't ignore Zara and Peter, they have been given more freedom just to be themselves... Prince Andrew wanted his daughters to be princesses, and that has subjected them to much greater scrutiny...

Prince Andrew didn't want his daughters to be Princesses...they are Princesses by being the daughters of a Prince and the granddaughters of a Queen. Just as Louise is a Princess and James is a Prince. The difference is that Edward and Sophie want their children to have low key normal lives with different titles...it doesn't stop the fact that they are in fact a Prince and Princess.

Which begs the question...why do people keep point out what Edward and Sophie did ten years after Beatrice and Eugenie were born. It would be different if James and Louise were born first and than Beatrice and Eugenie. The fact is that the monarchy and the Yorks were at a different place when Beatrice and Eugenie were born first than when James and Louise were born. So at the time Andrew was doing what was natural.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

Reply to Zonk's question regarding the York daughters

Hi Zonk: I was thinking more of what happened in the BRF before Beatrice and Eugenie were born:

When Peter Phillips was born, the Queen offered to create him HRH and a prince, and Anne and Mark politely declined, and their reason was that they wanted them to have the chance at a more normal life. Andrew could have made the same decision, since it was a concept that was raised within his own family prior to the births of his children. Yes, it was their right as children of a monarch's son to be known as princesses, but the increased sensitivity of the time would have suggested that Andrew, like Anne, might have considered the wisdom of taking some of the pressure off of his own children, which is also the decision that Edward and Sophie ultimately made, as you indicated, some years later.

In the entire BRF, these are the two young people for whom I feel most empathy...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually in the late 80s the royal family was way more popular than it was by the early 90s. This is because of the euphoria around the marriages and births of the princes and then the princesses but by the early 90s things changed due to things like the Morton book and interviews etc.

Andrew's children were princesses simply by being born and nothing needed to be done. For Anne's children new LPs would have needed to be issued and in the mid-late 70s there was a stronger anti-monarchy feeling than there was 10 years later - mainly due to the fact that the Queen was no longer young, Charles was dating - and that was the focus - who would be his Queen - so to create new princes and princesses just because they were Anne's kids (when Margaret's kids and Mary's kids didn't get it - and Margaret and Mary were also the daughters of a monarch) would have seemed strange.

 

[MRSJ]

But isn't the point as 'strange' as it seemed QEII would have done it but Anne (the mother) wouldn't allow it, thus Andrew could have insisted his daughters be called Ladies and not Princesses...

Andrew could have said (like Edward has) we will use Lady Beatric of York until she is 18 then she can decide how shed like to be styled- I think Susanna's point is valid that he had a small precedence in Anne's children that there is another path- I actually heard Andrew demanded they we would be sytled as Princesses and not just Ladies...(which as we've seen w/ his brothers kids he could gave done)

 

[Diarist]

The British Tabloid Press [often on what I would describe as 'slow news days'] occassionally print articles alleging that the Duke of York is very protective of his daughters' 'status' and these articles then usually go on to say that the Duke 'demands' that Beartice and Eugenie are protected at all times by Royal Bodyguards etc.....

The point is that we have no way of knowing whether any of this is true. The alleged demand for Royal Protection Officers might well be nothing more than a policing decision to the effect that a step-up in security is required.

As to the point about the lack of titles for Zara and Peter, remember this: they might have no titles, but they both remain well up in the orders of sucession and precedence, outranking many of those people who are actually titled.....to me they have the best of both worlds:

Please forgive me for taking up space, but I thought that this would be quite useful to post as a reminder:

The Line of Succession

SOVEREIGN
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. Viscount Severn
9. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
10. The Princess Royal
11. Mr. Peter Phillips
12. Miss Zara Phillips
13. Viscount Linley
14. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
15. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
16. The Lady Sarah Chatto
17. Master Samuel Chatto
18. Master Arthur Chatto
19. The Duke of Gloucester
20. Earl of Ulster
21. Lord Culloden
22. The Lady Cosima Windsor
23. The Lady Davina Lewis
24. Miss Senna Lewis
25. The Lady Rose Gilman
26. Miss Lyla Gilman
27. The Duke of Kent
28. The Lady Amelia Windsor
29. The Lady Helen Taylor
30. Master Columbus Taylor
31. Master Cassius Taylor
32. Miss Eloise Taylor
33. Miss Estella Taylor
34. The Hon. Albert Windsor
35. The Hon. Leopold Windsor
36. The Lord Frederick Windsor
37. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
38. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy

I have emboldened Zara and Peter in Royal Purple, and have highlighted in blue 2 or 3 Royals with 'impressive titles' who are actually well below the children of the Princess Royal

I believe that Zara and Peter therefore do indeed have the best of both worlds - they have the advantages of being the Sovereign's grandchildren when it is advantageous to them, but are at the same time free to pursue their own lives and careers. Currently, Zara receives generous sponsorship from Land Rover to help support her equestrian activities...she is a first class rider and all other riders of the same calibre [actually, there aren't many riders anyway in this elite category, it's very select and Zara has done very well] all enjoy sponsorship from various sources. Zara is often seen in logo'd clothes etc proclaming her sponsor's name, in exactly the same way that other elite riders display the names of their sponsors...... it is just my gut feeling that if Zara had been titled, it would have 'underlined that she was related to royalty' and hindered her freedom to accept sponsorship, because it would have left her open to 'cashing in on her royal status' even though the Princess Royal has been quoted on several occasions as saying ' My children are not royal'

Put it this way, Zara and Peter have recognition in the order of succession, and their rank as children of the Sovereign's daughter places them pretty high on the list of precedence [both joint and by gender], and so I think they get the best of both worlds.

Finally, many continental friends of mine always find it very hard to understand how Zara and Peter can rank so highly in the line of succession and order of precedence!

Alex

 

[MRSJ]

Isn't everyone down one with the birth of Savannah Phillips?

Another question- Will Lady Sarah Chatto still be a 'Lady ' when her fathers title passes to her brother?

And one more , who is #24?

 

[Susanna Wynne]

Hi MRSJ:

Yes, I think Diarist would agree that Savannah is #12 and everyone after moves down one.

Yes, Lady Sarah will still be a "Lady" because she is the daughter of an Earl and takes the last name of her husband, but retains her courtesy title through her father's title. The additions will be that the Linley children will become "Lord Linley" (Charles will become Viscount Linley when his father becomes Earl of Snowdon), and Margarita will become Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones. They will both drop the style "The Hon."

And finally, I am guessing that Senna Lewis is the daughter of Lady Davina Lewis????

 

[Diarist]

Savannah Phillips - yes indeed, you're right. Better not send the author of the source to the Tower though ['was the Royal Family Website.] Presumably the Page of the Updating [that's a joke by the way!!] is having a go-slow [unless he is busy updating the private wedding list of William and Catherine [that's a joke, too]

Lady Sarah Chatto will always remain 'Lady'. She is entitled to be addressed thus by virtue of being the daugher of an Earl. [Lord Snowdon]. The fact that Viscount Linley will ultimately succeed to his father's title has no bearing on his sister's title.

Hope this helps,

Alex

PS - the style of 'Lady' for daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls was historically intended to make them 'more marriageable' in days gone by [we are talking centuries ago!]

44. Is the grandaugher of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester; her mother Lady Davina Lewis married Garry Lewis Esq, a New Zealander.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thank you Susanna,

I was typing as you were posting and did not see your post until mine was printed up. [I am a slow typist at the best of times] Fortunately our responses agree!

Thank you very much

Alex

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Another thing to consider about The Princess Royal's refusal of titles for her children, is the fact that they are much further removed from the succession and when they were born (as now) were highly unlikely to become monarch themselves.

Anne has three brothers that all come before her in the succession, and I'm sure she was well aware that her brothers would eventually have children of their own.. which would displace her and her children in the line in any case.

So why saddle her children with an HRH and royal obligations when in view of her place in the succession, it was unnecessary to begin with? For Peter and Zara, I think she made the right choice.. they seem to be happy being private people.

As for Andrew and his daughters, his position is a little more high-profile in terms of the succession, and his daughters' positions are nearer in the line. As Duke of York, it is fitting to have Beatrice and Eugenie styled HRH as male-line descendants of the Queen.. though I'm not saying it has been always easy for the girls carrying that dignity around with them everywhere.

 

[UKRoyalTitles]

UK Royal Titles

Hi everyone

I have started a new blog that looks at Royal Titles in the UK, particularly examining interesting quirks and questions around the different titles that royals use.

It's very early days, but check it out:

UK Royal titles

 

[pacomartin]

Another thing to consider about The Princess Royal's refusal of titles for her children, is the fact that they are much further removed from the succession and when they were born (as now) were highly unlikely to become monarch themselves.

Clearly she was a very self motivated person to become the level of athlete that she was. She wanted the same thing for her children. Maybe she viewed the title as a burden.

I think it is painful to see the way that the press picks over the bones of Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Particularly the comments about their bodies. Although nobody should be treated that way, it is a particularly cruel way to exploit teenage girls.

 

[pacomartin]

Since Savannah was born on 29 December 2010, it does seem strange that the royal website is still not updated. I read something on Wikipedia that said the couple will not even confirm her name really is Savannah.

I was looking the following website: Prince Michael Marriage and family which says

Eighth in line to the throne at the time of his birth, the Prince lost his right of succession, under the 1701 Act of Settlement, following his marriage because the Princess is a Roman Catholic. His children, however, still have a claim to the throne having been obliged to be brought up in the Church of England.

I wrote to the group with the following comment:
When Prince Michael was born he would be seventh in the order of succession, not eighth.

The order of succession when Prince Michal was born (4 July 1942) was:
#1) Princess Elizabeth - the present queen
#2) Princess Margaret - the queen's sister
#3) Henry Duke of Gloucestor - younger brother to George VI, and Prince Michael's uncle
#4) Prince William of Gloucestor - son of Henry, and Prince Michael's cousn
#5) George, Duke of Kent - father to Prince Michael
#6) Prince Edward - older brother to Prince Michael


The response was interesting

Dear Mr Martin ,
Prince Michael’s sister HRH Princess Alexandra was born in 1936.
Best Wishes,
Katerina

Miss Katerina Liapis
Personal Secretary to HRH Prince Michael of Kent GCVO
Kensington Palace
London
W8 4PU
Tel. 0207 938 3519
Fax. 0207 937 4310

I thought that was interesting since most of us know that boys go before girls. That response was dated 03 July 2008 and the website is still unchanged.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi Paco,

Yes, you are correct.
Princess Alexandra would have been displaced out of seventh place by Michael.

Surely, if this woman is Private Secretary to Prince Michael, she should know this; and also surely, Prince Michael himself should know it.

Strange!!

Larry

 

[IloveCP]

When Sarah married Andrew did she have a title of Princess Sarah,Duchess of York?

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Sarah married Andrew did she have a title of Princess Sarah,Duchess of York?

No - HRH The Princess Andrew, The Duchess of York, The Countess of Inverness and The Baroness Killyleagh.

Ladies who marry a Prince of the UK take the name and title of their husband so Sarah was The Princess Andrew, Diana was The Princess Charles, Sophie is The Princess Edward, Camilla is The Princess Charles, Brigitte is Princess Richard, Katherine is Princess Edward and Marie-Christine is Princess Edward. Catherine Middleton, if precedent is followed will be Princess William along with any other title that he may be given at the time of the wedding, unless the Queen gives permission otherwise.

It was and is always wrong to refer to any of the above ladies as Princess own name - so it was always wrong to refer to Diana as Princess Diana.

Most of these ladies, except Princess Michael, don't use that style because their husbands all have other titles which their wives may use instead e.g. Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex, Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent.

When Diana and Sarah were divorced they took the style of divorced peers of the realm - Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. These were/are not titles but styles that indicate that they are/were divorced wives of peers of the realms.

They change from HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York to Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. Both would have/will lose that styling if they ever remarry.

 

[UKRoyalTitles]

Royal Titles

Hi everyone.

This is a great thread. I've actually stated a blog that explores many of the questions people are raising here. it's early days, but check it out and leave comments:

http://ukroyaltitles.tumblr.com/

 

[IloveCP]

Was Diana considered a commoner even though she had the title of a "Lady"?The same thing with Mathilde.