Questions about British Styles and Titles

[Warren]

Discussion of the Royal Family Order has been moved to the Royal Orders and Decorations thread.

[HRHThePrince]

I would like to seek the opinions of others regarding King Edward VII's decision of creating his Duff granddaughters British princesses with the style of Highness. I'm fully aware that as granddaughters in the female line of the Sovereign they weren't entitled to princely rank.

However, I feel that Edward did this because up until the marriage of his sister, Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, daughters & male line granddaughters of the Sovereign normally contracted marriages with other foreign princes entitling there children to princely status, albeit lower(Queen Victoria elevated her grandchildren to the prefix of Highness). Edward as Prince of Wales made it known he disagreed with his sister marrying a non-royal duke. So to have his daughter marry someone other than a prince I'm sure was unacceptable in his eyes, though tolerable. And his reason behind creating his Duff granddaughters Princesses of Great Britain & Ireland was in effect a way to show that they would've held princely styles & titles if his daughter hadn't insisted on marrying a subject.

If possible, could others give any other reason of why Edward VII would've done this? I just can't see another reason.

[Louise1210]

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]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince

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'