Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[BrazilianEmpire]

May I ask what the two different interpretations are? Royal styles and titles are a matter of Royal Prerogative and not open to interpretation. HM can change styles and titles as she pleases and HM may express her will and pleasure in whatever way she deems appropriate. Letters Patent being just one of the ways, as is a press release, Royal Warrant or verbal decree. I can provide examples if need be.

Here's the explanation -

Lady Louise Windsor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ish]

Lady Louise is not a princess by virtue of the fact HM made her will and pleasure know publicly on this.

That's one interpretation of it.

The other is that she is because LPs haven't been issued stating otherwise.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Lady Louise is not a princess by virtue of the fact HM made her will and pleasure know publicly on this.

I don't think Her Majesty has said that Lady Louise isn't a Princess, she simply said she would be titled as the daughter of an Earl.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Lady Louise is not a princess by virtue of the fact HM made her will and pleasure know publicly on this.

Lady Louise is a Princess by virtue of the fact she's the daughter of a male line child of the Monarch. Edward and Sophie, with permission from The Queen, to make their childrens lives easier, requested they use the titles and styles of children of an Earl not a Princes until they are old enough to choose for themselves.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

HM is not bound by the 1917 LPs and she can change them as often as she likes.

Can you say when the Queen said that the Wessex children aren't a Prince and a Princess?

She simply said that they would be titled as children of an Earl. That doesn't means that they aren't a Prince and a Princess.

 

[Lumutqueen]

HM is not bound by the 1917 LPs and she can change them as often as she likes.

What? The Letters Patent still exist and it's instruction are still in use by the royal family. To change or alter anything in the 1917 LPs, HM has to issue a new once, just like she did last year for Cambridge babies to be.

The passage from the 1917 LP's in regards to royal titles;

Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.

Therefore Lady Louise Windsor should be known of Princess Louise of Wessex. However like previously mentioned, with permission from The Queen, Louise and James use the styles of children of an Earl.

At the funeral of the Queen Mother, HM styles he mother as a princess without LPs. Using her royal prerogative and will and pleasure, the Queen Mother is a princess.
The same with Alice of Gloucester, no LPs were needed to elevate her to princess (and indeed no reason was given at all) and the Queen simply exercised her Royal Prerogative and made her a princess

From her husband death in 1952 to her death in 2002, The Queen Mother's title was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Where's the Princess?

The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester was allowed to style herself Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester because she didn't want to use the title Dowager. It was basically like just putting Princess in front of your name and it was allowed because she had been married to a Prince.

 

[cepe]

Thank you Lumutqueen. I struggle with some of this but I couldn't understand that a Sovereign would, willy nilly, override the wishes of the predecessors unless, of course, circumstances had changed. And with the changes to primogeniture about to be enact ed in the UK, then the recent LPs were a necessity.

 

[Lumutqueen]

HM made her will and pleasure know that James and Louise will not be HRH.

James and Louise are not HRH and prince/ss, the Queen made her will know that they will be styled as the children of a non-royal earl.

No she didn't. She didn't say anything along those lines. She allowed her two grandchildren to be styled as children of Earl's rather than of a Prince to ease their growing up life. She never deprived them of their birth right titles to be known as Prince and Princess.

Current sovereigns are not bound by previous LPs, they are only a guideline and the current king or queen can change or alter any previous LPs as much and as often as they like.

You're wrong. If HM is not bound by previous LP's then why last year did she have to issue new ones in regards to the styles and titles of the children of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge? Because the 1917 LPs would only allow for a first born son to be HRH and other children would be styled Lord and Lady. The Queen saw fit to remedy this by issuing new ones.

HM can issue new ones when she likes, like she did last year, but she is still bound by old ones.

Could I inquire as to where you are getting all these incorrect facts from?

Why does HM have to use a legal document to exercise her royal prerogative? Can anyone answer me this?

Letter's Patent formalise things, they are a record of what each Monarch has organised. They have existed in one form or another since 1201. Such as the 1917 LPs which set out the conditions for royal titles. It's a message left for future monarchs to understand how things should be done.

In today's world The Queen exercises her royal prerogative in line with her governments wishes. She doesn't act alone anymore.

 

[NGalitzine]

From her husband death in 1952 to her death in 2002, The Queen Mother's title was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Where's the Princess?

At her funeral in 2002 when the QMs titles were read out she was called Princess Elizabeth, Queen Mother and Queen Dowager etc

 

[Iluvbertie]

May I ask what the two different interpretations are? Royal styles and titles are a matter of Royal Prerogative and not open to interpretation. HM can change styles and titles as she pleases and HM may express her will and pleasure in whatever way she deems appropriate. Letters Patent being just one of the ways, as is a press release, Royal Warrant or verbal decree. I can provide examples if need be.

I stated it in the post to which you replied and in my previous post:

1. Some people argue that because no LPs were issued that in effect Louise and James, as male-line grandchildren of the monarch, are HRH Prince/Princess but not using that styling under the 1917 LPs.

2. Others argue that all that is needed to deprive them of the style of HRH Prince/Princess is the Queen's will being made known - which we know she did in 1999.

Arguing by using the giving of a style isn't the same as the revoking of a style. To deny Wallis the style of HRH as the wife of an HRH was specified in LPs but that may have been because David didn't want it as much as the need to deprive someone of that style by LPs whereas with Louise and James the deprivation is in line with the parents' wishes - which is also why others argue that in fact they are a Prince and a Princess as they should have the right at 18 to take on the style they are entitled to under the 1917 LPs.

 

[cepe]

I've always seen the titles of Louise and James the same as Camilla. There is a "higher" title by right, but the choice (as opposed to rule, law, LP etc.) has been to use the lesser title.

Is that too simplistic?

 

[Lumutqueen]

...Is that too simplistic?

Nope. That pretty much sums it up neatly.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No - it ignores The Queen's will being made known and that is the crux of the matter - has she actually deprived them of their HRH Prince/Princess by making her will known in this matter or hasn't she.

It isn't a matter of them having a 'higher' style but rather whether they still have HRH at all.

Camilla is using one of Charles' titles - can't be deprived of one without being deprived of them all and she hasn't been so she holds all of them but in the case of Louise and James we aren't sure - has the Queen stripped them of their rights under the 1917 LPs or not?

That is what the issue is about.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She hasn't said in any way whatsoever that 'the children of The Earl and Countess of Wessex will not ever be allowed to use their rightful titles as Prince and Princess' or did I miss that announcement?

They are using Lady and Lord (if James didn't have a title) to keep under the radar and out of the limelight, when they come of age I imagine they will get a choice.

 

[Iluvbertie]

You are missing the point.

The point is: what does she have to do to deprive them of their rights under the 1917 LPs?

There are two arguements:

1. Issue new LPs - she hasn't done that - your argument.

OR

2. Let her will be known - has she actually done that in allowing them to use the styles of an Earl - that is the alternative interpretation - that she has actually deprived them based on letting her will be known.

The evidence for the above is this:

We all know that HRH The Duchess of Kent prefers to be known as Katherine Kent but how is she referred to in official communiques such as the CC - HRH The Duchess of Kent. How has Louise been referred to in that same communication - Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

We can go round and round on this - as we have done before - the simple answer is that there are two interpretations of what has happened and both have evidence to support those interpretations.

James doesn't have a title - he is allowed, by convention, to use one of his father's titles. People with titles are peers of the realm - James isn't.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Using that argument, Camilla isn't the Princess of Wales, because she's referred as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall at Court Circular and other official documents.

 

[Osipi]

Using that argument, Camilla isn't the Princess of Wales, because she's referred as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall at Court Circular and other official documents.

The Duchess of Cornwall is what she is known as so that is what is used for the CC. In Scotland though, Charles is known as the Duke of Rothesay and Camilla as the Duchess of Rothesay. It just happens that Camilla had a few of Charles' titles she could choose from to be known as. Doesn't mean she doesn't hold the other titles legally. I supposed if she really wanted, with the Queen's approval, she could be known as The Princess Charles even.

 

[Ish]

^^^ And by that very logic, just because Louise is known as Lady Louise in the CC doesn't mean it's her only title/styling.

The point is that we don't know for sure, one way or the other, if Louise and James are simply a Lady and a Lord or if they're also a Princess and a Prince. And in all honesty, we probably won't ever know for certain - unless Charles as king issues LPs to change the conditions under which the title/style is issued.

Right now we could say that Louise is simply a Lady and doesn't hold the title Princess. Or we could say that she is both and just uses the Lady as her primary, much like how Camilla uses the Duchess of Cornwall as her primary. When Louise turns 18 she may decide she wants to be known as a Princess - in which case we will be lead to believe that it's been her title all along, and she's only now using it. Or it could be that it hasn't been her title at all, but HM is choosing to restore it to her as her right, because after all this is her granddaughter (and one she's fairly close with at that).

The point of the matter is that the only people who know for sure whether or not Louise and James are in fact a princess and a prince are the members of the family. In my opinion, I think it's probably safer to say that they are and just continue to refer to them as their parents have said they want to be called, until such a time as we are given verifiable proof that they are not a princess and a prince.

 

[branchg]

I believe Lady Louise and Viscount Severn will have the right to choose, when they become adults, if they want to be a Princess and a Prince.
But I believe they'll choose to stay just as children of an Earl. Eventualy, the Earl of Wessex will become the Duke of Edinburgh, and they'll become children of a Duke.

Perhaps. But more likely, The Queen simply announced the change for now, leaving it to her successor to issue Letters Patent modifying the criteria of the 1917 Letters as to who will enjoy the style and rank in the future.

I predict HRH will be limited to the children of The Sovereign, the children of the heir to the throne, and the children of the eldest child of the heir. The male-line grandchildren will be styled as children of a Duke, and the male-line great grandchildren will use surnames.

Lady Louise is a Princess by virtue of the fact she's the daughter of a male line child of the Monarch...

My interpretation is Louise and James legally remain HRH because the 1917 Letters Patent automatically entitle them to that status. At the request of their parents, they are styled as the children of an Earl with The Queen's consent.

Since Letters Patent are an instrument of law from the Crown, it would require new Letters Patent to deprive them of their right to royal rank at birth. The Queen's announcement simply states what her Will is in terms of how they are styled, but does not remove their right to princely status.

As such, they are automatically HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James at birth, but are not currently using that style. Instead, they are known as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn with the consent of The Sovereign.

The Queen's Will is all that is required in determining what style the members of the royal family use or hold. Only if created a Peer does the person then have a title, which could only be removed by an Act of Parliament.

HRH Prince/Princess are courtesy styles that can be conferred or removed at any time by The Sovereign and Letters Patent are a formality. There is no constitutional basis for a princely dignity or royal rank.
.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Is the Queen still the Duchess of Edinburgh?

Of course the title of Queen is higher than Duchess of Edinburgh, but is Her Majesty entitled to use this title, as the wife of the Duke?

 

[branchg]

No. The Sovereign is the fount of all honours and she cannot hold the title of a wife of a Duke as a reigning Queen. Her husband was granted precedence and place next to HM, but he is a Peer and Prince of the UK, making him her subject.

If she abdicated the throne, she would again be HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh as the daughter of The Sovereign and wife of a Duke.

 

[vkrish]

I have seen almost all vintage videos of BRF (Pathe/BBC) on Youtube, and read pretty much regarding news and reporting of late 40s and early 50s, I can say pretty confidently that NO WHERE HAS Princess Elizabeth been referred to as Duchess of Edinburgh, before her accession.
She was always referred to as The Princess Elizabeth.
Even if they attended together, they were always mentioned as Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh, NEVER EVER as The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.
(I actually long to see one reference of her as Dss of E, something practical, other than Wiki).
So though she is automatically the DssOfE the moment she married The DoE , that title is absolutely irrelevant in her case, past, present or future..

 

[Iluvbertie]

The documents my mother has from the expected tour of Australia in 1952 refer to them as TRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh and The Duke of Edinburgh - official documents from the UK to the British High Commission in Canberra. The books I have about their family life at that time as well - TRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh and The Duke of Edinburgh at Home.

The Court Circular in The Times from a number of dates in the late 40s and early 50s that my mother kept for different reasons also refer to her as TRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh..

Like Kate is often called Kate or Andrew, Andrew colloquially she was still called Elizabeth or The Princess Elizabeth but official HRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh.

 

[Artemisia]

She was always referred to as The Princess Elizabeth.
Even if they attended together, they were always mentioned as Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh, NEVER EVER as The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.

I have seen/heard videos where Princess Elizabeth was referred to as the Duchess of Edinburgh. Among them, is the BBC announcement of the birth of her son.

BBC - Archive - Princess Elizabeth - The Birth of HRH Prince Charles

 

[cepe]

From the responses to the original question "Is the Queen still Duchess of Edinburgh" - the responses that say yes all seem to refer to her when she was Princess Elizabeth. So I understand HRH PRincess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, in the same way I understand HRH Princess MArgaret, Countess of Snowdon.

BUT - once she became Queen - does this still apply? Can a Monarch still carry the title of the wife of a peer (I know that they cannot be a peer in their own right).

 

[Artemisia]

Her Majesty was the Duchess of Edinburgh only until her accession to the Throne. Once she became a Queen, she - as a Monarch - also became the fount of all honours and as such could not hold a peerage title of her own, or one by marriage.

 

[vkrish]

Thank you Artemisia and cepe for clearing that and that BBC source.
This is the first one I heard of her being referred to as DssOfE. I missed it bcos it wasnt a vid on Youtube..

 

[branchg]

She was referred to as The Princess Elizabeth as the heiress presumptive and eldest child of George VI. However, she was also The Duchess of Edinburgh as the wife of a Peer.

Obviously, as the heir to her father, her own royal rank and style took precedence over her title as the wife of a Duke, but she held both.

 

[LauraS3514]

The Court Circular announcing the birth of Prince Charles began "Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was safely delivered..." I THINK the rest was "of an infant prince at (time) today. Her Royal Highness and her son are both doing well." I don't have my books in front of me for the exact wording of the second half of the announcement, but the first part I know is correct.

 

[Lord Pemberley]

I recently read a comment on another thread relating to the Earl and Countess of Strathearn's recent engagements in Scotland and wondering when Baron and Baroness Carrickfergus would have their first official engagements in their area. Is it correct that this is how William and Catherine will be known in Northern Ireland?

This got me to thinking, I know that The Prince of Wales is known as The Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, as this is the traditional title held by the heir to the Scottish throne, however wasn't aware that other members of the Royal Family used Scottish titles in Scotland and had always thought that they simply used their senior title? Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York, Duke of Kent etc. Is there a historical precedent for this? I can just about see that Prince Andrew could be known as Earl of Inverness in Scotland (as he doesnt have any sons) but if Prince Richard say, were to be referred to as Baron Culloden in Scotland, this would surely cause confusion with his grandson, who uses the Baron Culloden title by curtesy?

Conversely even if using appropriate titles for the region of the UK only applies those members of the Royal Family in direct line to the throne (ie Charles and William use Scottish titles in Scotland) then shouldn't it be the same for England, Wales and Northern Ireland? If so Prince Charles would use Duke of Cornwall in England, Prince of Wales in Wales and also have a Northern Irish Title. Similarly William would need a Welsh Title to complement Cambridge, Strathearn and Carrickfergus. (I do think there was a certain irony that despite living in Wales, the titles that the Queen conferred on Prince William did not include anything to reflect this.)