Questions about British Styles and Titles

[branchg]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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/pho...religieuse.pdf

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince

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.

[Molly2101]

Originally Posted by 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/pho...religieuse.pdf

I noticed they called them Prince and Princess of Wessex. Ridiculous error, and like you mentioned - it was not the only error in the guest list. I sincerely hope when they received their invitation it had their correct titles on it! As much as I wish our British wives received the Princess title upon their marriage like other Royal families do, they should respect Edward and Sophie and use their correct styles and titles. I think people refer to them as The Duke and Duchess of Wessex a lot, primarily because they assumed that Edward is a Duke like his brothers.

[Noble Consort Ming]

Originally Posted by Molly2101

As much as I wish our British wives received the Princess title upon their marriage like other Royal families do,.

Don't they already receive the courtesy title of princess through their husbands? Like Princess Michael of Kent. And isn't Catherine technically Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge? I realize they are not made princesses in their own right but most women marrying into other European royal families are not made princesses in their own right either. Princess Maxima is one exception and I believe maybe Princess Mathilde.

[Molly2101]

They do have the Princess style from their husband (Princess Charles, Princess Edward and Princess William) but you are right, they are not a Princess in their own right. Princess Maxima is an exception, but what about Princess Mary, Princess Marie, Princess Claire (Prince Laurent of Belgium's wife) and Princess Mabel (Prince Frisco of the Netherland's wife)? They became "Princess" upon their marriages.

It is just British tradition that the wives of Prince's do not become a Princess, but it is a shame as i'd love to have a Princess Sophie or Princess Catherine, though Catherine will no doubt be referred to as Princess anyway.

[branchg]

It's simply a matter of styling. They do become Princesses automatically with marriage as a Royal Highness. In most cases, their husband is a Peer, so their titles reflect the feminine form of the Peerage, but with royal rank.

[HRHThePrince]

So The Duke of Windsor was right....


The Queen Mother was the power behind the throne.

[Iluvbertie]

In Britain a wife takes her husband's styles and titles when they are higher than their own in their own right so the wives of British princes are princesses but if their husband has a title in his own right then his wife will be known by that title rather than the style of Princess.

The present Duchess of Gloucester, when she first married was known as HRH Princess Richard of Gloucester but when her father-in-law died and her husband became HRH The Duke of Gloucester she was raised to the title of wife of a peer of the realm rather than the wife of a younger son.

[HRHThePrince]

The Queen is a traditionalist who will not override the LP of her grandfather, King George V, in regards to granting princely titles to the younger children of William & Kate. I have no doubt that they'll stay Lord & Lady until Charles or William ascends the throne.

[Artemisia]

George VI was no less a traditionalist, and yet he issued Letters Patent granting the children of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh the style of Royal Highness and title of Princes/Princesses. If he hadn't done so, Charles would have been (Lord Charles) The Earl of Merioneth and Anne - Lady Anne Mountbatten.

Personally, I have no doubts that should the Duchess of Cambridge's first child be a girl, or if her second child is born during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, then appropriate Letters Parent will be issued.