Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lady could be the either the daughter of a peer, the wife of a peer or the wife of a knight. e.g. The wife of a peer, other than a duchess, is often called 'lady' rather than say 'countess' although officially it would be Countess.

When in written form it would be the more formal Countess but to her face 'my lady' or 'Lady xxx'

Thanks, but...If she were the daughter of a peer, wouldn't she be Lady Gaga, rather than Lady Finger (assuming she was named
Gaga Finger)? Would Sophie ever be called Lady Wessex? I just couldn't figure what peer would have a last name like Stafford Chomondely Brown. And if her husband was 'only' a KBE, would she have been so snobbish (if you didn't see it, she was very grand)?
 
Archduchess Zelia said:
I believe that Charles Armstrong-Jones is called Patrick by the family to avoid any confusion between him and the Prince of Wales.

On one of the documentaries on the queens life, they show the family in the room off the balcony before a balcony appearance after trooping the colour. Viscount Linley is calling to his son,Charles in the scenes where he was running about and he was trying to get his attention. He definitely was calling him Charles. It was a few years back.
 
Thanks, but...If she were the daughter of a peer, wouldn't she be Lady Gaga, rather than Lady Finger (assuming she was named
Gaga Finger)? Would Sophie ever be called Lady Wessex? I just couldn't figure what peer would have a last name like Stafford Chomondely Brown. And if her husband was 'only' a KBE, would she have been so snobbish (if you didn't see it, she was very grand)?

Daughter - Lady Diana
Wife - Lady Spencer (Spencer the title not Spencer the surname)
 
On one of the documentaries on the queens life, they show the family in the room off the balcony before a balcony appearance after trooping the colour. Viscount Linley is calling to his son,Charles in the scenes where he was running about and he was trying to get his attention. He definitely was calling him Charles. It was a few years back.

I remember that too, it was from Monarchy At Work. David definitely called him Charles, not Patrick. Just noticed Charles' full name has Inigo, does anyone know where that comes from?

Is it possible that once Charles becomes King, and writes new Letters Patent, he could strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their Princess style, and have them styled as Lady?
 
Is it possible that once Charles becomes King, and writes new Letters Patent, he could strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their Princess style, and have them styled as Lady?

Yes, it is possible.

The title of a British Prince or Princess is entirely at the will of the Sovereign and can be granted or revoked at any time. If Charles decides to downsize the Royal Family, he can issue new Letters Patent whereby Beatrice and Eugenie will be styled and titled as children of a Duke - that is to say, Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie.

In all probability, the changes would not be directed against the York Princesses personally but will concern the entire Royal Family. For instance, Charles could issue Letters Patent limiting the style of Royal Highness and title of a Prince/Princess to the children of the Monarch and children of the Heir Apparent to the Throne (in his own reign, that would mean William, Harry, and William's - but not Harry's - children).

That has happened before: when George V issued his Letters Patent of 1917 specifying who was entitled to the title of British Princes and Princesses (children, male-line grandchildren of the Monarch, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales), several royals who had been British Princes and Princesses were ones no more.

Those royals were:
- John Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (great-grandson of Queen Victoria)
- Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (great-grandson of Queen Victoria)
- Prince Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (great-grandson of Queen Victoria)
- Prince Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover (great-great-great-grandson of George III)
- Prince George William of Hanover (great-great-great-grandson of George III)

- Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha (great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria)
- Princess Caroline Mathilde of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha (great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria)
- Princess Frederica of Hanover (great-granddaughter of George III)
- Princess Marie Louise of Hanover and Cumberland (great-great-granddaughter of George III)
- Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland (great-great-granddaughter of George III)
- Princess Olga of Hanover and Cumberland (great-great-granddaughter of George III)
- Princess Fredrica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg (great-great-great-granddaughter of George III)
 
Last edited:
:previous:

Artemesia - that is very interesting - I had no idea. But do you think that it was more about distancing the BRF from the germanic background rather than merely reducing those holding titles?

IMO, I don't think Charles would take away the titles from the Yorks. IT could cause a major rift in the family.
 
:previous:

Artemesia - that is very interesting - I had no idea. But do you think that it was more about distancing the BRF from the germanic background rather than merely reducing those holding titles?

IMO, I don't think Charles would take away the titles from the Yorks. IT could cause a major rift in the family.

Well HH Prince Alistar of Connaught, grandson of 1st Duke of Connaught, suffered the same fate under the 1917 Lettiers Patent. He ceased being a British prince and became Lord Macduff. Until his death he was heir to both the Connaught & Strathern dukedoms through his father and to his mothers Fife dukedom.
 
Thanks, but...If she were the daughter of a peer, wouldn't she be Lady Gaga, rather than Lady Finger (assuming she was named
Gaga Finger)? Would Sophie ever be called Lady Wessex?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that although a non-royal countess would be addressed as Lady xxx, in the case of The Countess of Wessex, she would be properly addressed as Your Royal Highness rather than my lady, wouldn't she?
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that although a non-royal countess would be addressed as Lady xxx, in the case of The Countess of Wessex, she would be properly addressed as Your Royal Highness rather than my lady, wouldn't she?

you are correct.
 
:previous:

Artemesia - that is very interesting - I had no idea. But do you think that it was more about distancing the BRF from the germanic background rather than merely reducing those holding titles?

IMO, I don't think Charles would take away the titles from the Yorks. IT could cause a major rift in the family.

I would definitely agree that it was a measure to distance the British Royal Family from their German relatives. At about the same time as the Letters Patent 1917, Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was passed (unlike the former, it was not an LP but an Act of the Parliament), which ordered those who had born arms against the United Kingdom and/or its allies during World War I to be deprived of their British titles (peerage and royal alike).

At the same time, the Letters Patent of 1917 was one of the first documents which very clearly defined who was entitled to which titles and styles. Just think of it, before the LP, a great-great-great-granddaughter of a Monarch (such as Frederica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg) was entitled to the title of a British Princess.

While I doubt Charles will actually strip his nieces of their royal titles, I think some sort of Letters Patent will be passed though; downsizing the Royal Family is not just a whim of Charles - it is a necessity in our times. Perhaps the changes will not concern living members of the Royal Family but only Charles' own descendants.
 
:previous:

Artemesia - that is very interesting - I had no idea. But do you think that it was more about distancing the BRF from the germanic background rather than merely reducing those holding titles?

IMO, I don't think Charles would take away the titles from the Yorks. IT could cause a major rift in the family.

I think things are not entirely cordial now (;)) and would get much colder.

How do you think the public in Britain would take it, if Beatrice and Eugenie were "unmade" princesses. Would it be overwhelmingly liked, loathed or would it be no big deal?
 
My guess is it would be no big deal for the public if they ceased to be HRH and princess. They might even like it themselves and feel the loss would give them more opportunities to live their own lives, although I doubt their father would like it and no doubt the DM would have a field day writing stories about family discord.
 
Last edited:
At the moment, the general public are more concerned about costs. They do not believe that royals who make no public contribution by way of royal duties should have any public money either directly or indirectly (ie protection officers). At present I think the public believe they are funding, in some way, these 2 girls hence the negative comments which appear.

I think Charles would risk looking rather mean/petty if he did this (even though the Yorks are not universally popular) which would not help his cause with those who are unsure about his suitability to be monarch.

IT seems unnecessary anyway because the Yorks children will not be HRH's and I dont think titles would be offered either. The Wessex children don't use their HRH's and probably never will.

Setting in place limitations on the "royals" in the future and giving real clarity on expenditure would be a good start for him.
 
How does Prince Michael hold the title of prince and HRH? The reason I ask is because his grand father was died at the time of his birth so I thought that the 1917 rules say he could not hold this title.
 
Michael is a male line grandson of a monarch so under the 1917 Letters Patent he is a Prince of the United Kingdom. It is not necessary for the monarch to still be alive for the male line grandchild to be an HRH.
 
Michael is a male line grandson of a monarch so under the 1917 Letters Patent he is a Prince of the United Kingdom. It is not necessary for the monarch to still be alive for the male line grandchild to be an HRH.
Thank you so much I was thinking that his grandfather had to be alive! Thanks again
 
In fact of the grandchildren of King George V who hold the HRH only 3 of the 7 were born during his reign - Elizabeth, Margaret and Edward of Kent - the others Alexandra and Michael of Kent, and William and Richard of Gloucester were all born after his death.

Margaret and William are now deceased while Edward and Richard are better known as TRH The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.
 
Last edited:
I agree with slimming down the Royal family, and I also agree with changing LP to making the title of British Prince and Princess to a select few. I cannot see Charles changing it so Harry's children would not be HRH, but I could be wrong.

I can't ever see the Wessex children choosing to use their HRH style when they turn 18. They have been raised out of the limelight, and will probably have seen how Peter and Zara's lives are and want to continue in that way. As much as I wish we could call them Princess Louise and Prince James, I understand the reasoning behind their parents' choice.

Regarding the York Princesses losing their title, I only asked because I wondered how it would be accepted in the family if they were "stripped" of their title. If we are to believe the paper's, Andrew was not overly impressed at not being included in the Diamond Jubilee carriage procession or balcony appearance, so I can't imagine he would take too kindly to his daughter's losing their titles...I could be wrong though and have misread Andrew completely.
 
I don't think Charles would strip them of the HRH.

The number of HRHs will decrease naturally over time anyway - unless William and Kate have masses of kids and I can't see them doing that these days.

In 30 years assuming William and Harry each of two children there will be the following HRHs in all likelihood:

Andrew, Edward, Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, and four children plus spouses of males - so 9 (I am assuming that in 30 years time that all those currently 60+ in years will be deceased).

Currently there are 12 born plus spouses (not including Louise and James) which isn't all that many anyway.

Of the 4 children I am giving William and Harry only their sons can currently pass on HRH for one generation (except a first born daughter of William's after the new legislation is passed and the 1917 LPs adjusted as I expect them to be).
 
I would definitely agree that it was a measure to distance the British Royal Family from their German relatives. At about the same time as the Letters Patent 1917, Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was passed (unlike the former, it was not an LP but an Act of the Parliament), which ordered those who had born arms against the United Kingdom and/or its allies during World War I to be deprived of their British titles (peerage and royal alike).

At the same time, the Letters Patent of 1917 was one of the first documents which very clearly defined who was entitled to which titles and styles. Just think of it, before the LP, a great-great-great-granddaughter of a Monarch (such as Frederica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg) was entitled to the title of a British Princess.

While I doubt Charles will actually strip his nieces of their royal titles, I think some sort of Letters Patent will be passed though; downsizing the Royal Family is not just a whim of Charles - it is a necessity in our times. Perhaps the changes will not concern living members of the Royal Family but only Charles' own descendants.

George V issued a royal warrant in 1914 granting the style and title of "HH Prince and Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" to Frederica and her siblings as male-line descendants of George III, through their father, The Duke of Brunswick-Luneberg, a son of The Duke of Cumberland. They were not entitled to this style otherwise. This grant by George V was automatically revoked with the issuance of the 1917 Letters Patent.

I think it's highly likely Beatrice and Eugenie will, in fact, lose their right to be HRH Princess of the UK. Their cousins, Louise and James of Wessex, are not using their royal rank and it would be consistent with a "downsized" royal family. I also think Harry's children will not become HRH.

It makes sense Charles will issue new Letters Patent limiting the HRH to the children of The Sovereign, the children of the heir to the throne and the eldest child of the eldest child of the heir.
 
Last edited:
I don't think KC3 will change any of the existing titles as far as the Yorks go. Correct me if I am wrong, but the children of PE & PB will not be HRH because they will not be the male line grandchildren of a Monarch? I think KG5 thought this threw and planned that the titles will just fall off as time goes by, and the subsequent generations will just move into the peerage. The only issue is the male line children of Prince Edward, and he has taken care of that voluntarily. I don't think there will be this big shake up that people are anticipating.
 
I don't think KC3 will change any of the existing titles as far as the Yorks go. Correct me if I am wrong, but the children of PE & PB will not be HRH because they will not be the male line grandchildren of a Monarch?
Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie's children will be just female-line great-grandchildren of the Monarch and thus would not not be entitled to any styles or titles unless they inherit them from their fathers (that is to say, if either or both girls marry noblemen/royals). Their children .

I'm not sure whether the York sisters will actually be deprived of their titles (any potential changes could be implemented for future generations only), but like branchg, I'm fairly certain that in times to come the style of Royal Highness and title of a British Prince/Princess will be limited to the children of the Sovereign and children of the Heir Apparent.
 
I can foresee Richard, Edward and Alexandra all remaining HRH for life, as well as the royal duchesses Katharine and Brigitte (Katharine already has dropped HRH informally), and Princess Michael. Of course, so would Anne, Edward and Andrew.

Beatrice and Eugenie should not be allowed to remain HRH when Louise and James are not using it. That makes no sense to me. William's eldest child would become The Sovereign and pass on royal rank, but Harry's children should not hold royal rank unless they are next in-line (i.e. William does not have issue).
 
I see no reason to deprive Beatrice and Eugenie of the HRH just because Edward and Sophie decided that their children wouldn't use it - different times and circumstances led to different situations.

I think Charles will deprive them simply because he doesn't like Andrew all that much and apparently has little time for the girls or Sarah - if various reports are to believed he called them 'twits' or something else equally unsavoury (twits in case you don't know is a colloquial term meaning 'idiot' - hardly flattering).

I also wouldn't be surprised to see the girls voluntarily give up the HRH on their wedding days and move right away from the royal circus - see them making their own lives and only attend the really big royal events e.g. Coronations and funerals.

I do the future of the BRF centring on Charles, William and Harry and the rest will simply slip by the wayside. Enjoy seeing the extended family during the rest of the Queen's reign as I suspect that the next reign will see the drop off of the cousins and neices and nephews (not his siblings) and then William will extend that so that Harry's children aren't appearing either.
 
Well, I believe Beatrice and Eugenie have already been told to get jobs and will eventually lose their royal protection officers, so that doesn't indicate a future as Royal Highnesses. The fact is they are minor members of the royal family and will certainly continue to move down the list once William and Catherine start having children.

I believe Charles has made it quite clear he thinks both of his brothers are useless, but who knows if he extends that dislike to their children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beatrice already has a job and they lost their security over a year ago.

They won't be working royals but that won't stop them being HRHs.
 
That sounds reasonable to me. It's hard for me to imagine that Charles would strip the HRH just because he doesn't like them. But with the change to an eldest child inheriting the throne regardless of gender perhaps a change would be to have only the children of the heir apparent and monarch be HRH instead of letting male line grandchildren have it, i.e. Andrew's daughters are princesses and Anne's children have no titles.

I wonder if this will change with the change to the oldest child rather than oldest son being able to inherit the throne?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if this will change with the change to the oldest child rather than oldest son being able to inherit the throne?

That's a thought that came to me recently too. Up until now, the bloodline of the royal house has been male line descent. Would equal primogeniture of the heir apparent also mean that the matriarchal line be just as valid as the patriarchal line?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom