Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Louise1210]

Second child of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

We could soon witness something that couldn't have been envisaged when George V issued letters patent in 1917,
These stated that the style of 'Prince/Princess' could only be granted to the following:
Sons/daughters of the Monarch.
Sons/daughters of the sons of the Monarch.
The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
We now have an eldest son of the Prince of Wales - The Duke of Cambridge, who has been married well over a year. He and his wife are both in their early thirties. It's reasonable to assume that they will have children very soon.
We could easily end up with a situation where second and subsequent sons and/or any daughters are not given the title 'Prince' at birth, even though they are very much in the direct line of succession.

 

[Kataryn]

They will be known as Lord/Lady Christian name Mountbatten-Windsor, just like Lady Louise, the Earl of Wessex' daughter. Though that applies only as long as the queen lives and she might issue Letters Patent, like her father did for her children.

 

[Louise1210]

I think the Letters Patent will be issued very soon after the Duchess of Cambridge tells the Queen that she is expecting.
I think it will be a shame if the children receive the title of Lord/Lady. Similarly, I was disappointed that the Earl of Wessex's children received the title Lord/Lady instead of Prince James and Princess Louise.
I wonder what the situation regarding the Cambridge's younger children will be if the Prince of Wales predeceases his mother.
That would have to be rectified very quickly.
If the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge had married a little earlier, we might even be soon looking at a situation of 'the eldest son, of the eldest son, of the eldest son of the prince of Wales'. A situation that would have been beyond belief for George V.

 

[Louise1210]

It's all fascinating stuff.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Edward didn't create his granddaughter Princess Alexandra and Princess Maud until 1905 when he made their mother Princess Royal, until then they were Lady Alexandra/Maud.

He "promoted" them when he promoted his eldest daughter.

How were daughters of other Princess Royals styled? (besides Zara Phillips)

 

[Lumutqueen]

How were daughters of other Princess Royals styled? (besides Zara Phillips)

- Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood had two sons.
- Victoria, Princess Royal's daughters were all Princess' mainly due to the fact she was married to the German Emperor and King of Prussia. They were all 'Princess of Prussia'.
- Charlotte, Princess Royal had no children. Same with Anne, Princess Royal (1727)
- Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange had a son.

 

[HRHThePrince]

Okay... I don't understand why you sent a rebuttal. I knew what there titles were before 1905... my post spoke about the reasons behind his decision to elevate them.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Proably because once the King made his daughter the Princess Royal, Lady Alexandra/Maud didn't have the appropriate regal and royal 'ring' to it so he made them princesses. Look at the Wessex children. We speculate all the time but no one really knows for sure why HM decided to style them as the children of a non-royal earl.

 

[HRHThePrince]

A king or queen regnant can change styles & titles as they see fit. However, Princess Louise's daughters weren't entitled to any "regal or royal ring"... a fact that King George V pointed out when he refused Alexandra & Maud the wearing of "Princess Robes" at his coronation. And regarding the Earl & Countess of Wessex... I'm very certain The Queen honored the wishes of Edward & Sophie by not styling their children as royal.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Things changed under George V. The 1917 LP basically set in 'stone' royal styles and titles (although as you point out, the sovereign can change royal styles and titles at any time and for any reason) and here in for me is the issue. The larger question is why do sovereigns do what they do and the answer for me at least is because it it their Royal Prerogative to do so. End of story IMO.

 

[HRHThePrince]

If that's the case there's no need for The Royal Forums in any capacity for bearing & debating the opinions & comments of others.

Edward VIII's Royal Prerogative was to marry Wallis Simpson, so I guess that should've been the "End of Story" lol.

 

[AdmirerUS]

A king or queen regnant can change styles & titles as they see fit. However, Princess Louise's daughters weren't entitled to any "regal or royal ring"... a fact that King George V pointed out when he refused Alexandra & Maud the wearing of "Princess Robes" at his coronation.

I've often thought how difficult this may all be for family members who reign. How would one say no to a female line granddaughter who is a princess in your eyes? How could one deny housing to a dear cousin when there are all those empty rooms? It tugs at ones heartstrings.

I am sure it became more difficult as descendents began to "opt out" of the royal choice - as Anne did for her children (and we assume the same for the Wessexes). One ends up with family who want in, but are not wanted or needed in, family who are wanted in but want out and all combinations in between. And that all gets played out on a public stage.

It's no wonder some rulers change the rules, I am sure. I know a lot of grandparents who have trouble denying their little dears a toy every trip to the store - much less the appellation of princess if it were in their power.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Okay... I don't understand why you sent a rebuttal. I knew what there titles were before 1905... my post spoke about the reasons behind his decision to elevate them.

I wasn't rebutting you. I only mentioned that when his daughter became Princess Royal. He made each of his granddaughters by her a Princess rather than just Lady.

Her daughters were 14 and 12 before he changed their status, so it did not have anything to do with their parent's marriage nor his coronation. It was the result of Princess Louise becoming Princess Royal.

I ask my question as it was related to another post about Zara/Princess Anne. I researched and I found no other Princess Royal with daughters who status changed except Louise's. (I thought someone with more royal knowledge may have more insight.)

 

[HRHThePrince]

Other than for members of the Royal Family, does The Queen need permission from the Prime Minister to create peerages? I know the Sovereign is Fount of Honour, but I was led to believe she only create titles under the express advice of the PM.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Other than for members of the Royal Family, does The Queen need permission from the Prime Minister to create peerages? I know the Sovereign is Fount of Honour, but I was led to believe she only create titles under the express advice of the PM.

I believe HM does need ministerial advice to create a peer outside the Royal Family.
I think HM created three peerages under PM Thatcher.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

You'll never see another dukedom created. There are 24 remaining Dukes, from a high of around 40 in Hanoverian times. and they will eventually die out and the last creation outside the Royal family was over 100 years ago.

Since Tony Blair ------- over the House of Lords, another great chapter in British history has been binned by the lefties. I'm not sure the remaining Dukes would care if their titles were revoked. Just my opinion.

 

[HRHThePrince]

Wow... the Queen is basically powerless. Its shameful that if she wanted to honour one of her long standing ladies-in-waiting with a peerage she'd have to consult her PM for approval. I believe the Sovereign of the United Kingdom should not have to seek advice when wanting to bestow a peerage to a non member of the Royal Family. Peerages are now awarded it seems by political merit. If memory serves me right, Her Majesty's father King George VI took back the sole discretion of conferring the Orders of the Garter & Thistle because it became to political. The prestige of the monarchy is declining it seems.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Her Majesty's father King George VI took back the sole discretion of conferring the Orders of the Garter & Thistle because it became to political. .

Exactly. Garter appointments were used to curry favour or reward friends.

The Garter and Thistle Orders, along with the Royal Victorian Order , The Order of Merit and The Order of St John are the last remaining honours within the gift of the sovereign.

Winston Churchill was offered a dukedom but he declined. I think it was to be 'Duke of London'

 

[branchg]

Other than for members of the Royal Family, does The Queen need permission from the Prime Minister to create peerages? I know the Sovereign is Fount of Honour, but I was led to believe she only create titles under the express advice of the PM.

In law, The Queen does not need to consult her Ministers to create a Peerage as this is a power within the sole perogative of The Sovereign. In practice, it has been done since the reign of Edward VII because the creation of new Peers in the House of Lords by the Crown was abused in the past to influence the direction of the Government. But this is a non-issue with the reform of the Lords in 1999.

I agree there will never be another Dukedom created outside of the royal family. The last time this was considered was for Winston Churchill after his final retirement from politics and it was understood beforehand he would decline it.

 

[HRHThePrince]

You said... "She does not need to consult her ministers to create a peerage as this is a power within the sole prerogative of The Sovereign".

Both you and I know that the moment The Queen goes against the consultation or advice of her PM it'll cause a constitutional crisis. True enough the Sovereign is the only one who can legally create hereditary or life peerages, but as a constitutional monarchy she "reigns by right of parliament" and cedes most of her royal prerogatives to her ministers.

Like King Edward VII exclaimed... "I'm just a rubber stamp. What duties am I allowed to fulfill? Just open ceremony... I ride first in the parade".

 

[branchg]

Well, that's the point. It is possible, but in practice, The Sovereign does notify the Government of their intent and that includes titles for members of the royal family.

 

[HRHThePrince]

Okay but we know that. Her power to grant peerages to members of the Royal Family isn't an issue for the government. However, her discretion to grant titles to non members of the RF is blocked by ministers...as titles are now granted mostly due to political affiliation.

I just feel the prestige of the monarchy is slowly dwindling because of too much political involvement.

 

[NGalitzine]

No need to thank me. I just feel the prestige of the monarchy is slowly dwindling because of too much political involvement.

Actually I think the removal of real political power from the monarch actually increased the prestige of the monarchy. No one wants political power in the hands of someone they had no part putting into power. Since the monarch has no political power they cannot be blamed for government screw ups, but can remain safely above politics as the symbol of the nation.

 

[branchg]

Okay but we know that. Her power to grant peerages to members of the Royal Family isn't an issue for the government. However, her discretion to grant titles to non members of the RF is blocked by ministers...as titles are now granted mostly due to political affiliation.

I disagree. Like many of Britain's constitutional traditions, the granting of hereditary peerages has evolved to a generally accepted principle whereby the practice is limited to sons of The Sovereign or the eldest son of the heir upon marriage. Life peerages are granted upon advice from the Prime Minister to the Crown. There is no reason to grant titles other than for those reasons, especially since the House of Lords reforms resulted in the end of hereditary Peers' rights.

No one is stopping The Queen from granting titles as she obviously accepts the guidelines as appropriate to today's society and Britain's parliamentary democracy.

 

[HRHThePrince]

Basically, hereditary peerages are out-- no longer granted except to members of the RF. I think an exception should be made to retiring Prime Ministers. The work that they do leave a lasting effect on the United Kingdom & its people... as such hereditary peerages should be awarded to them for service. Of course not a dukedom, but at least an earldom or viscountcy.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Apparently The Duke and Duchess of Wessex are attending the Luxembourg wedding this weekend, anybody know who these people are?
I can except maiden names etc and no title at all but really?! It's like calling Camilla The Queen.

 

[Charlotte_Aster]

Actually it looks like Earl and Countess of Wessex have children with the names Edward and Sophie "Leurs Altesses Royales le Prince Edward et la Princesse Sophie de Wessex"
Do royal houses never check proper titles of their invitees? There were some weird mistakes like these at the guest list of both CP Voctoria's wedding and QMargerhe's 70th Birthday Celebrations.
http://www.monarchie.lu/pictures/photos/mariage-princier/Liste-des-invites-Cerem-religieuse.pdf

 

[VictoriaB]

I think an exception should be made to retiring Prime Ministers. The work that they do leave a lasting effect on the United Kingdom & its people... as such hereditary peerages should be awarded to them for service.

I agree the work a Prime Minister does has a lasting effect - but the work their children and grandchildren do does not (with few exceptions). That's the point. A life peerage or a knighthood rewards the person who performs the outstanding work in whatever field, the hereditary peerage ultimately "rewards" someone who doesn't.

I think the decision to remove hereditary peerages was the correct one.

 

[HRHThePrince]

I read years ago that Queen Elizabeth II considered reversing her father's decision and grant Wallis, Duchess of Windsor the style of Royal Highness? However, not to upset her mother she decided against it. Is this true?


Is was also said The Queen cried at the Duchess's funeral... I wonder was it a feeling of guilt..

 

[branchg]

It is generally thought The Queen was willing to do it as public opinion in the mid-60s was overwhelming in favor and the press was increasingly sympathetic to the cause. But her mother remained adamantly opposed and The Queen wasn't going to force her into an uncomfortable position over it.

I'm sure The Queen herself had mixed feelings about The Duchess.