The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1681  
Old 11-24-2012, 03:04 PM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi
Actually when Philip married Princess Elizabeth, he became HRH The Duke of Edinburgh by her father George VI. He did not become HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh until Queen Elizabeth II endowed him with that title in 1957. It is not automatic that one becomes a prince or princess of the UK in their own right by marrying a sovereign.
That is by marrying a male monarch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl
Thanks for the link.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1682  
Old 11-24-2012, 03:33 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 438
I believe The Letters Patent of 1917 were completely personal to George V. His grandchildren would be Princes and Princesses throughout his lifetime and theirs, as is the case now. His great affection of the Princess Elizabeth was obvious. He probable felt that he would never see female line great grandchildren. He was correcting the orders of QV, who basically made everyone she was related to, or would make all of her decendents Princes or Princesses no matter how far they would now be from the sovereign.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1683  
Old 11-24-2012, 05:22 PM
kbk kbk is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toruń, Poland
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
It is officially announced that, in accordance with the settled general rule that a wife takes the status of her husband, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York, with the status of a Princess.
Times of April 28, 1923
I did not say that Queen Mum was not a princess at all. I wanted to emphasize here the difference between a princess by birth and in her own right (and style) and a princess by marriage only, who takes her status, title and style from her husband (and in the UK is even styled a Princess plus her husband's name). The first one was, for example, Queen Mary, born Princess Mary of Teck, and the second one (and first in history since Catherine Parr, the sixth and final wife of Henry VIII) was Queen Mum, born a commoner styled Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was a Princess of the UK by marriage styled as The Princess Albert not Princess Elizabeth but under her daughter's will and according to old customs, she was styled like that at her funeral. It was because, first, her precedessors were all styled like that and second, her sisters-in law (except the Duchess of Windsor) were given the personal princely style by EII too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
I believe The Letters Patent of 1917 were completely personal to George V. His grandchildren would be Princes and Princesses throughout his lifetime and theirs, as is the case now. His great affection of the Princess Elizabeth was obvious. He probable felt that he would never see female line great grandchildren. He was correcting the orders of QV, who basically made everyone she was related to, or would make all of her decendents Princes or Princesses no matter how far they would now be from the sovereign.
Before the Letters Patent of 1917, male-line great-grandchildren of a Sovereign were also Princes and Princesses of the UK by birth but with the lesser style of Highness. Thus, the only child of Prince Arthur of Connaught, a grandson of Victoria through her son Arthur, Duke of Connaught, Alastair, was styled His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught since his birth until the said Letters Patent of 1917 stripped him of that status and he become a commoner by law known as Earl of Macduff. Actually, he was the only member of the immediate Royal Family who was affected this way by George V's changes. Of course, there were the Hanoverian royal relatives of the King, far more descended in male-line from George III than Alastair was from Victoria, who were recognised with their titles of Princes and Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland (not the UK) by the King several years before he revoked it all by limiting the princely titles and status in his Letters Patent of 1917.
Until 1917 additionally male-line great-grandchildren were British princes and princesses by birth, so it's not like you said that Victoria wanted everyone descended from her to be British princes and princesses. It's true she was elevating her relatives in their styles, like her Battenberg female-line grandchildren, who were raised in the UK from their German Serne Highness to Highness, but they were never considered Princes of Blood Royal of the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #1684  
Old 11-24-2012, 05:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeOfAster View Post
I was under the impression from other questions I have asked that once a person is married to the monarch they gain royal status in their own right. So then they are a princess of the united kingdom.
A man cannot take the status of his wife in the UK. In Philip's case, George VI created him a Royal Highness the day before his wedding to The Princess Elizabeth, and The Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich the next morning. At that point, Philip was a Duke of the Realm with royal rank in his own right when he married the future Queen.

In 1957, The Queen formally issued Letters Patent creating Philip a Prince of the UK in his own right with the style of "The Prince Philip".

A woman does automatically take the status of her husband upon marriage. As we saw in 1936 when Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, but suggested she take a lesser style and title other than Queen, to make it more acceptable.

The Government and the Dominions agreed the wife of The King is automatically Queen in her own right and no other style or title applies. Since they refused to introduce legislation allowing The King to marry her morganatically, he abdicated the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #1685  
Old 11-24-2012, 06:29 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
The Queen issued Letters Patent dated August 21st, 1996 which regulated royal style & titles after divorce. As such, the Princess of Wales & the Duchess of York, lost the style and prefix of Royal Highness.

Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
Reply With Quote
  #1686  
Old 11-24-2012, 07:28 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
In all probability, she wouldn't have to. Despite the divorce and the loss of the style of Royal Highness, the Queen made sure Diana (as mother of the future King) was still accorded the same precedence and ranking she had during her marriage to Prince Charles - meaning she was the third lady in the Kingdom after the Queen and the Queen Mother.

Now, had Diana lived, she would have certainly had lower precedence than Camilla (the current wife of the Prince of Wales) but it is likely the Queen would have still accorded her a precedence above that of William and Harry's wives.

I think it would have largely depended on how well Diana's relationship with the Royal Family would be (and there were signs of improvement at the time of her death, at least in regards to Prince Charles), or how popular she remained (and her popularity was on the decline before her death; most articles on Diana immediately preceding her death were highly critical). If she maintained good, cordial relations with the Queen and Prince Charles, I daresay her precedence wouldn't have changed (meaning right now it would be The Queen -> The Duchess of Cornwall -> Diana, Princess of Wales -> The Countess of Wessex -> The Duchess of Cambridge). However, if she became a controversial figure due to her lifestyle or other issues, she would have most probably lost her precedence, mother of the future King or not. Likewise, had Diana re-married, I'm almost certain she would have been accorded a much lower precedence (certainly below Sophie and probably Kate too), or would have none at all.

Of course, this is just speculation on my part' no one can predict how things would have been had Diana lived.
Reply With Quote
  #1687  
Old 11-24-2012, 07:55 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
The Queen issued Letters Patent dated August 21st, 1996 which regulated royal style & titles after divorce. As such, the Princess of Wales & the Duchess of York, lost the style and prefix of Royal Highness.

Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
Wise, Elizabeth. People may have wanted more for Di - but when you think about this in general it makes perfect sense. Without this, when people re-marry, there is a real mess.

EDIT: Having just read Artemisia's post below - I get that being the boy's MOM counted for something, but still give Elizabeth credit because it is easier to make an exception, than to take something back when an engagement, death, birth of other children, etc. happens.
Reply With Quote
  #1688  
Old 11-24-2012, 08:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,186
Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

The link above has the Letters Patent regarding former wives and below is the announcement as it appeared in the Gazette for anyone thats interested

Buckingham Palace
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996, to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness.

(London Gazette, issue 54510, Aug 30, 1996, p. 1/11603.)
Reply With Quote
  #1689  
Old 11-24-2012, 09:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Most accounts have stated The Queen was willing to allow Diana to remain HRH after the divorce, but Diana decided to relinquish it in favor of a larger financial settlement and the freedom to live her life without constant oversight from the Palace. Others have stated Diana refused to settle for "HRH Princess Diana" and demanded to be "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales", which is technically the style of the wife of The Prince of Wales, and was declined by The Queen.

Either way, she did remain a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of her royal rank.
Reply With Quote
  #1690  
Old 11-27-2012, 07:48 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
From what I've read, the Queen is all about continuity & tradition. Is there any particular reason why Prince Michael of Kent was never granted a peerage on marriage, other than being the youngest son of King George V's youngest son?

I'm sure The Queen wasn't to thrilled with him marrying a Catholic. Could this be the reason?
Reply With Quote
  #1691  
Old 11-27-2012, 07:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,287
I think the reason he has no peerage is because he is the younger son, he was never expected to undertake any official engagements, and there simply was never a reason to give him a peerage when he married. She also never gave Prince Richard of Gloucester a peerage when he married. Richard was a younger son expected to continue with his private career as an architect and not undertake royal engagements. Also in both cases their children would not be princes needing a terratorial designation but would be using the Windsor surname.
Reply With Quote
  #1692  
Old 12-07-2012, 02:32 AM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The idea of creating a female heir "Princess of Wales" in her own right was discussed when The Queen turned 18. George VI declined to consider it, stating the title was for the wife of The Prince of Wales and pointing out a female heir would still take the style and title of her husband upon marriage.
But was the Queen ever known as the Duchess of Edinburgh before she became Queen? I thought she was always called Princess Elizabeth, even after she was married.
Reply With Quote
  #1693  
Old 12-07-2012, 02:38 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by McKeen View Post
But was the Queen ever known as the Duchess of Edinburgh before she became Queen? I thought she was always called Princess Elizabeth, even after she was married.
The Queen was indeed called the Duchess of Edinburgh until she ascended to the Throne.
For instance, when the birth of Prince Charles was announced, she was called "Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh" - the standard form of address of the Princess Elizabeth from the point of her marriage to the Duke of Edinburgh and until her accession to the Throne.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/a-prince-is-born
Reply With Quote
  #1694  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:40 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,498
Posts discussing Diana's loss of the HRH at her divorce have been moved to the Diana's Styles and Titles thread;
Posts discussing the future of the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall titles have been moved to the Impacts and ramifications of the proposed legislation thread.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #1695  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:04 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
...The Government and the Dominions agreed the wife of The King is automatically Queen in her own right and no other style or title applies.
Doesn't that mean then that Camilla cannot use the title Princess Consort when Charles becomes King?
Reply With Quote
  #1696  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,358
As the situation currently exists Camilla will be Queen because to do anything else means establishing the concept of Morganatic marriage in the UK and that will take legislation.

Now - whether she is known as Queen Camilla or Princess Camilla is a different point - she can use any title she likes but that doesn't mean she won't be The Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #1697  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:17 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by McKeen View Post
Doesn't that mean then that Camilla cannot use the title Princess Consort when Charles becomes King?
That's the understanding as things are right now.
Regardless of how Camilla is referred to she will legally be the Queen Consort.

One loophole I see (if they are hell bent for Camilla to be styled as The Princess Consort while legally remaining the Queen Consort) is for King Charles to make Camilla The Princess Consort in her own right. In that case, Camilla will legally have both titles and can choose to be known under the lesser of the two, rather like she is known under the lesser of her two titles right now. In that case, she should be referred to as The Queen Consort on all official (state) events but can probably be addressed to as The Princess Consort on more private or semi-official ones.

If, however, the title of The Princess Consort isn't granted to Camilla in her own right, she will have as much right to call herself one as I can call myself Queen of Armenia - none.


This whole mess could have been avoided if they hadn't made the ridiculous Princess Consort announcement in the first place; I understand the reasoning behind it but really!
Reply With Quote
  #1698  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:20 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As the situation currently exists Camilla will be Queen because to do anything else means establishing the concept of Morganatic marriage in the UK and that will take legislation.

Now - whether she is known as Queen Camilla or Princess Camilla is a different point - she can use any title she likes but that doesn't mean she won't be The Queen.
Apart from the concept of morganatic marriage not existing in Britain, they can't go via that rout any more; by being accepted as The Princess of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, etc, Camilla has already been established as non-morganatic (equal) wife of the Prince of Wales.

As for Camilla using any title she likes - she can only use those titles she will legally have. As wife of the King, she will automatically be Queen Consort. But she will not be Princess Consort and cannot just use the style out of blue. In order for Camilla to have the right to the title, she will have to be created The Princess Consort in her own right, enabling her to use the lesser of her two titles whenever needed.
Reply With Quote
  #1699  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:45 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,358
For her not to use the title Queen they do have to pass legislation to make the marriage unequal and as Charles won't have the title 'Prince' she will also cease to have the style 'Princess'. As a result she will have to move up to the style of Queen but the intention is that she won't do that.

A woman takes her husbands titles and styles and Chalrles will no longer be a "Prince" so Camilla will cease to be a "Princess". That leaves her with a couple of options - take the style Queen Camilla, revert to Camilla Parker-Bowles, revert to Camilla Shand.

To give her the title Princess Consort the marriage will have to be declared morganatic and that will take parliament to pass legislation to strip her of the title The Queen and that will then be the case. The fact that they didn't do in 2005 only complicates the situation but they can still do that in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #1700  
Old 12-08-2012, 01:06 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468
I don't see how giving Camilla the title of The Princess Consort in her own right will make the marriage morganatic. As wife of the King, Camilla will be Queen Consort but, having the title of the Princess Consort in her own right, she will have the use of both titles and can choose to be known under her second-highest one. Being known as the Duchess of Cornwall didn't turn the marriage into a morganatic one, did it?

A woman takes her husband's titles and styles but that doesn't mean she loses the ones she has in her own right (although they are rarely used after marriage). Princess Alexandra didn't stop being a Princess after marrying Angus Ogilvy. Another very, very rough example (and yes, I know the circumstances are very different): when Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna married Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, she immediately took her husbands styles and titles and became HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh. However, she also maintained the style she was hers in her own right - Imperial Highness. What I mean to say with this example, if Camilla is created a Princess Consort in her own right, she will remain one regardless of the fact Charles will cease to be a Prince the moment he ascends to the Throne.

Of course, legally Camilla will be The Queen Consort unless Acts of Parliament in the UK and other countries of the Realm are passed - and I don't see that happening.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1115 01-14-2015 02:50 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
australia best outfit camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cornwall duke of cambridge fashion fashion poll france funeral germany hereditary grand duchess stéphanie infanta leonor king abdullah of jordan king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima official visit picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince frederik prince harry prince of wales princess ariane princess charlene princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary style princess mette-marit princess victoria queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague tiara united states of america wedding willem-alexander


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]