The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 03-27-2011, 07:46 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,099
I wouldn't have a book written by Kitty Kelley in my house. She is not a good author in my book (I know who cares what Zonk thinks). Her sources are questionable.

First of all, the Snowdon being referred to his first name, like Madonna! What nonsense. I think the article is very tongue in cheek, somewhat sarcastic. I mean she has to bring up the late Duke of Clarence possibly being Jack the Ripper. Not mentioning of course, that I believe this theory has been disproved some time ago. So she isn't looking to write a legtimate article.

I can't imagine Mr. Kidd getting it wrong about the title for Edward and the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title. Moreso the author didn't understand or tried to edit her notes. But hey, anything is possible I guess.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 03-28-2011, 08:19 AM
sproketti's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore, United States
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
I think the article is very tongue in cheek, somewhat sarcastic. I mean she has to bring up the late Duke of Clarence possibly being Jack the Ripper. Not mentioning of course, that I believe this theory has been disproved some time ago. So she isn't looking to write a legtimate article.
I read this article from the actual newspaper while having breakfast the other morning. It was in the Style section which is for show business and entertainment articles. It was definitely supposed to be light-hearted reading. It made *me* laugh, at any rate. I think it did capture the intimidated feeling Americans sometimes get when faced with anything they feel is properly British, or at least sounds that way, which I think is why we see a lot of infomercial hosts on TV these days that use British accents.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 03-29-2011, 01:03 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
I feel like I'm going in circles. There were some questions about styles and titles on another thread, I thought the posts were moved over here, and on this thread, there's a discussion about Kitty Kelly.

Perhaps I need to go back a few pages.

I went back, and find the topic somewhat derailed. No matter, it will come up again.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 03-29-2011, 11:49 AM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 262
I add a big "you go girl" to Zonk! She is so right about Kitty Kelley. Garbage in, garbage out! And, unfortunately, a lot of Americans gobble that stuff up. I have a subscription to Tatler and am struck by the difference in coverage of the upcoming wedding than you find in People (which seems actually a lot better than some). I picked up a copy in an airport yesterday and thought how much more we who use the forum know than even the mainstream papers and magazines like People do. And it seems also that they are somewhat behind the information curve.

I've lived in England so am more informed than many of my countrymen, but that's not a criticism of my fellow Americans. My criticism is leveled at the Kitty Kelley's of this world who write sensationalist faux-journalism.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 03-29-2011, 12:12 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
How could someone be a Prince of the Realm if only his wife was styled by courtesy HRH? When would that ever happen? Is there an example of it (Maybe I would understand, then).

But let me try and get one part straight. A person can have a title, such as Princess, and not be HRH, but which could be granted as a courtesy? (Am I anywhere close?)

The Queen is automatically HRH, right? Who else is automatically HRH, if anyone? I would think the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, at minimum. Again, am I getting it at all?

The title HRH is not always by courtesy, then (if it belongs automatically to the Queen).

But to whom, other than the Queen, does it belong automatically, I guess is my question. Maybe the answer is simple!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 03-29-2011, 09:32 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,138
The 1917 Letters Patent of George V determine who is automatically and HRH. Under those LPs the current HRH's are:

Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne - children of the monarch

William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard of Gloucester, Edward of Kent, Michael of Kent, Alexandra of Kent - male-line grandchildren of the monarch (although Louise and James aren't using it).

The wives of any of the above.

Note Anne's children, like Margaret's and Mary's (George V's daughter) don't get it because they are female line grandchildren.

The only other HRH in Britain is Philip who was given the title by special LPs in 1957.

The main reason for giving the men Dukedoms was to stop them being able to stand for election to the House of Commons by giving them a seat in the House of Lords but that reason has now gone - yes all the members of the royal family except for the Queen can vote and stand for election (but they don't).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 03-29-2011, 10:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177

Just a minor correction, if I may? DoE was granted the HRH as well as the Dukedom of Edinburgh, etc when he married then Princess Elizabeth. However he never got the Prince of the Realm title until 1957, even though people thought he was a prince before then (due to some confusion over the grant of HRH and that he previously was a Prince (of Greece and Denmark))
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 03-30-2011, 12:41 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,138
Of course - I should have made that clearer - HRH of the UK in 1947 with his Dukedom but 'The Prince of the UK' in 1957.
He is the exception to the 1917 LPs, which is what I meant and didn't make clear - thanks for that clarification.

To be clear to everyone else:

Philip - born 1921 - as HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
sometime in 1947 renounced Greek and Danish titles - although no documents have ever been produced
November 1947 - created HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
1957 - created The Prince Philip of the UK

People often say that George VI didn't know that he hadn't created Philip a Prince but there is a report that somewhere at either Balmoral or Sandringham a courtier recorded Philip's presence as Prince Philip and George VI crossed out the work 'Prince'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 03-30-2011, 03:33 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 253
And the Queen is HM, Her Majesty, not HRH, though she was HRH before her accession to the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 03-30-2011, 04:31 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post

Just a minor correction, if I may? DoE was granted the HRH as well as the Dukedom of Edinburgh, etc when he married then Princess Elizabeth. However he never got the Prince of the Realm title until 1957, even though people thought he was a prince before then (due to some confusion over the grant of HRH and that he previously was a Prince (of Greece and Denmark))
The point is that the British only accept their own Royalty as HRH when they are British citizens. All other Royals are foreigners and are of course awarded their rank as long as they don't want to become British citizens.

So Philip of Greece and Denmark was HRH as long as he was a Greek citizen. But when he applied for British citizenship, he lost his style. As he only applied for British citizenship in order to marry Elizabeth, he got his rank back. His cousin Katherine, HRH Princess of Greece and Denmark wanted to become a British citizen (and subject) on marrying a British subject. She was given letters patent so she, while not a HRH in Britian, was considered the "daughter of a duke"when it came to precedence and the style "Lady Katherine". Outside of the Uk, especially in Denmark, she of course was still HRH Princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark. In the Uk she was Lady Katherine with the quite elevated rank of the daughter of a duke.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #851  
Old 03-30-2011, 05:29 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
I think I'm getting it. So the automatically created HRH's are one group, and the by courtesy HRH's are another group.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 03-30-2011, 07:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
I think I'm getting it. So the automatically created HRH's are one group, and the by courtesy HRH's are another group.

I don't know what you mean by 'by courtesy HRH's'?

I can't think of anyone who is an HRH 'by courtesy'.

The LPs state that the children, male line grandchildren, eldest son of the eldest son and the wives of male HRH's are all automatically HRH.

The only one who doesn't meet that criteria was Philip who was created an HRH by his future father-in-law in November, 1947 and a Prince by his wife in 1957.

Camilla, Sophie, Brigitte, Katherine and Marie-Christine (Princess Michael) all gained HRH automatically on marriage - and would lose it just as automatically on divorce according to the LPs issued in August 1996 (when Diana divorced Charles, but interestingly enough months after Sarah and Andrew divorced).

Kate Middleton will be HRH automatically she says 'I Do', William says 'I Do' and the Archbishop proclaims them 'man and wife' (or whatever term he uses on the day e.g. husband and wife).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old 03-30-2011, 08:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
I think I'm getting it. So the automatically created HRH's are one group, and the by courtesy HRH's are another group.
The children and male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign are automatically HRH Prince/Princess of the UK by right of birth because they are in lineal succession to the throne. This is a courtesy style reflective of their royal rank and precedence, outranking hereditary Peers of the Realm who are titled, because they are closer to the throne in their own right.

Their wives, consistent with common law and practice in the Peerage, automatically enjoy the status, style and rank of their husbands, which means they automatically become HRH Princess of the UK upon marriage. If their husbands are created Peers, their wives then take their titles as the wife of a Peer (i.e. The Countess or Duchess of X) but with royal rank as HRH.

Males do not share their wives' rank, so in the case of Philip, he was granted his own title with royal rank by George VI before marrying The Queen. This was mainly done to ensure The Princess Elizabeth was marrying a man of equal rank who was not a commoner (i.e. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh). Once she was The Sovereign, she issued Letters Patent elevating Philip to the style and rank of a Prince of the UK in 1957.

The style and rank of "HRH Prince/Princess of the UK" is a courtesy title. Anyone who is not The Sovereign or a Peer is a commoner in the UK. They enjoy this style and rank as a personal honour, whereas a Peerage is hereditary and eventually loses royal rank when it passes to the great-grandchild of a Sovereign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 03-30-2011, 08:45 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Can you explain a bit more about Peerage? There are royal and not royal Peers, right? (I feel so stupid and I know I've read the answer before, but until one applies it frequently to particular cases, it doesn't make sense).

Can someone give examples of non-royal Peers? Those remain hereditary forever? (But just not entitled to the style of royal, right?) Can they be passed to females - but then end since she cannot give the title to her spouse?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 03-30-2011, 09:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,138
A non-royal peer would be someone like the Duke of Marlborough or Duke of Wellington. Both of these titles started as rewards for service to the country and monarch in wars. They were never held by members of the royal family.

There are two types of peerages though. The ones above are hereditary but there are also life peerages that end with the current holder. Most older titles are hereditary to males only.

Some titles have, at times, allowed for female inheritance - the Mountbatten title in particular - but that was because at the time it was created Lord Mountbatten only had daughters and really no chance of having a son so it was created with a remainder that allowed for inheritance to pass to his daughters but after his eldest daughter the remainder is normal in male only (until or unless there are no males from the eldest daughter in which case the younger daughter's line of male descendents can claim).

Royal peers include The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester and The Duke of Kent. Except for the Duke of Cornwall title all of these have the normal 'male heirs of the body' remainders and thus can only be inherited by the male line.

The Duke of Cornwall title will always be a royal dukedom as it requires the holder to be both the eldest son of the monarch and the heir to the throne. This is the same with The Duke of Rothesay title in Scotland as it has the same criteria.

All of the other titles could cease to be held by someone who is an HRH Prince xxx. The next Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will both be great-grandchildren of the monarch and thus won't be HRH Prince xxx (the present Earls of Ulster and St Andrews respectively).

The Duke of Edinburgh title will eventually also cease to be royal - when it reaches James' son most likely (although there are other possibilities with that title). The Wessex title will also cease to be held by a royal when held by James' son.

The York title will become extinct again when Andrew dies (unless he remarries and has a son or the LPs are re-issued allowing for Beatrice to inherity) and thus a regrant will see it pass to probably William's son and then eventually to a non-royal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 03-30-2011, 10:34 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
I'm getting it. I also found the online chart of peerages, which shows how they become extinct - that helps too.

I think Branchg just answered that. I had thought there was some debate about Diana, Princess of Wales - and that had the Queen permitted, she could have kept HRH by courtesy (I could be totally confused). At any rate, I think Branchg answered my question.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 03-30-2011, 11:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The children and male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign are automatically HRH Prince/Princess of the UK by right of birth because they are in lineal succession to the throne. This is a courtesy style reflective of their royal rank and precedence, outranking hereditary Peers of the Realm who are titled, because they are closer to the throne in their own right.

Their wives, consistent with common law and practice in the Peerage, automatically enjoy the status, style and rank of their husbands, which means they automatically become HRH Princess of the UK upon marriage. If their husbands are created Peers, their wives then take their titles as the wife of a Peer (i.e. The Countess or Duchess of X) but with royal rank as HRH.

Males do not share their wives' rank, so in the case of Philip, he was granted his own title with royal rank by George VI before marrying The Queen. This was mainly done to ensure The Princess Elizabeth was marrying a man of equal rank who was not a commoner (i.e. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh). Once she was The Sovereign, she issued Letters Patent elevating Philip to the style and rank of a Prince of the UK in 1957.

The style and rank of "HRH Prince/Princess of the UK" is a courtesy title. Anyone who is not The Sovereign or a Peer is a commoner in the UK. They enjoy this style and rank as a personal honour, whereas a Peerage is hereditary and eventually loses royal rank when it passes to the great-grandchild of a Sovereign.

I am confused by your post here.

The HRH's are automatic.

To me a 'courtesy' title is one that a person uses but one that they don't hold as a substantive title or in their own right e.g. Earl of St Andrews, Earl of Ultster, Viscount Severn. These titles are courtesy titles as held by someone as a indication of their position but not a substantive title. The substantive holder of the title Earl of St Andrews is the Duke of Kent but his eldest son uses that title as a 'courtesy' title. The same with the Earl of Ulster and Viscount Severn in relation to the Duke of Gloucester and Earl of Wessex respectively. The uses of these titles, in their own rights, are simply Lords as the sons of peers.

Those who hold the HRH do so by right of birth or marriage but not 'courtesy' as such. The LPs of 1917 make it clear who holds the titles and no one holds it as a 'courtesy' but as a right based on either those LPs or the specific ones regarding Philip in 1947 and 1957.

Is 'courtesy' the word that we really should be using here as 'courtesy titles' are a specific form of title used by someone who isn't the actual holder of the title?

Surely you aren't suggesting, in using the term 'courtesy' that HRH isn't a style a person holds in their own right?

I am getting confused.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 03-30-2011, 11:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
I think Branchg just answered that. I had thought there was some debate about Diana, Princess of Wales - and that had the Queen permitted, she could have kept HRH by courtesy (I could be totally confused). At any rate, I think Branchg answered my question.

Actually Diana was formally stripped of the HRH by LPs, which would indicate that LPs were required to stop her using HRH - no courtesy about it.

The same with the Duchess of Windsor. The LPs created the Dukedom specified that that Duchess wasn't to get the HRH - which would have been hers by right on marriage under the 1917 LPs.

This is why I am confused. No one I can think of has ever had HRH as a courtesy - they have had them by right of birth or marriage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 03-31-2011, 08:41 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
To me a 'courtesy' title is one that a person uses but one that they don't hold as a substantive title or in their own right e.g. Earl of St Andrews, Earl of Ultster, Viscount Severn. These titles are courtesy titles as held by someone as a indication of their position but not a substantive title.

Those who hold the HRH do so by right of birth or marriage but not 'courtesy' as such. The LPs of 1917 make it clear who holds the titles and no one holds it as a 'courtesy' but as a right based on either those LPs or the specific ones regarding Philip in 1947 and 1957.

Surely you aren't suggesting, in using the term 'courtesy' that HRH isn't a style a person holds in their own right?

I am getting confused.
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 03-31-2011, 08:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Actually Diana was formally stripped of the HRH by LPs, which would indicate that LPs were required to stop her using HRH - no courtesy about it.

The same with the Duchess of Windsor. The LPs created the Dukedom specified that that Duchess wasn't to get the HRH - which would have been hers by right on marriage under the 1917 LPs.

This is why I am confused. No one I can think of has ever had HRH as a courtesy - they have had them by right of birth or marriage.
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince William and Prince Harry 1018 01-14-2014 04:22 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 AM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 708 08-13-2013 06:19 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess astrid of belgium princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia relationship royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]