Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[BeatrixFan]

I very much doubt it. Charles and Diana's marriage was non-existant by that time. They were both having extra-marital relationships and the divorce would have come sooner or later.

The marriage would have ended sooner or later so it would have been a divorce before he was King or after.

 

[ysbel]

John Major said when he announced the separation that there was no reason that Diana wouldn't become Queen in due time.

However, several legal pundits contradicted him right after he said it.

The official divorce five years later solved the ambiguity. Diana wouldn't become Queen.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It's very much a matter of snobbery with most titles apres Divorce. For example - Margaret, Duchess of Argyll carried on using the title Duchess of Argyll since her death even though she'd been long divorced from the Duke and even after the headless man business. She liked being a Duchess, she believed she could still use the title so she did. It was snobbery at it's best and most glamorous.

 

[yvr girl]

I think she would have been Queen

No. If they legally seperated with motion to divorce then the divorce would have been rushed through and finalised and Diana would have been Diana, Princess of Wales or Charles might have granted her a peerage.

It was a few year between the legal separation and the initial divorce proceedings.

As the legal wife of the King, she would have been Queen. I do think that they would have rushed the divorce along though, and she would never be crowned.

 

[Anonymoose]

It was a few year between the legal separation and the initial divorce proceedings.

As the legal wife of the King, she would have been Queen. I do think that they would have rushed the divorce along though, and she would never be crowned.

I agree.

An example of this was that when he became King, George IV's big concern was his wife, Caroline. They had been seperated for years and years, but they were still legally married. He had tried to get divorced from her while still Prince of Wales, but no luck.

To prevent her from been crowned he tried to get divorced from her again and there was a big trial- quite a sensation at the time! But even as King of Great Britian he couldn't get a divorce from her! (Big change from Herny VIII's time!)

He solved the problem by refusing to allow her to enter Westminister Abbey during the coronation. She was turned away at the door. 3 weeks later Caroline died and her coffin was affixed with a plate that read Caroline, Injured Queen of England. And she is still listed as his Queen, which probably has George IV rolling over in his grave...

So unless they changed the Act of Succession (or the law...) since then, it seems that if a guy isn't divorced when he becomes King, his wife will be Queen.

 

[Heiress Victoria]

another question ... can someone without a royal title be considered part of the "official" royal family?? e.g.: will zara and peter philips receive the a state income or any other privilege reserved only for members of the royal family??..

 

[Elspeth]

Hardly any members of the royal family receive state income these days. People like the Phillips children will be considered part of the family by the Queen, but officially they really aren't part of the royal family in terms of doing public duties and representing the monarch at functions.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

The word Prince/Princess is not just a title it is also a style of address and rank of nobility. This is all so confusing that not even King George VI realised that when he gave Phillp, the Duke of Edingbourgh the stlye of HRH, this did not give him the title and style of Prince.

Although in the United Kingdom the only people to be called 'Prince' are members of the Snr Royal Family, the rank of Prince is actualy of less status than that of Duke. Therefore Prince Andrew was 'promoted' to Duke of York. However in the United Kingdom the word Prince is also a style as it is exclusive to Royalty. Therefore the Duke of York is still also known as Prince Andrew. Therefore, Beatrix and Euginie are not just Princesses of Great Brtiain they are Princesses of the Dukedom of York. Charles is HRH Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. His sons are thus HRH Prince William of Wales, Prince of the United Kingdom and HRH Prince Henry of Wales, Prince of the United Kingdom etc etc.

The main confusion is caused because the Nobility system in the United Kingdom is smaller and 'tidyer' than the continant where the Nobility System is far more extensive. In the UK many titles have been dropped completly.

The title of Prince and Princess is not a style of rank it is a title only. The various forums of address such as Royal Highness, Your Grace, ect are styles.The only form of Prince/ss that is a "style" in the UK is that of The Princess Royal which is a style not a title. William, for example, is styled His Royal Highness and titled as Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. Although, he is "offically" known as Prince William of Wales which is the custom. It is also a custom that children of the monarch would be given a secondary title of nobility such as Duke of X.

Had HM not given Andrew the title of Duke of York his wife would have been known as HRH The Princess Andrew and his children would have been HRH Princess Beatrice of nothing. Children of a monarch are given use of 'The' prior to their title while everyone else rates as a "mere" Prince/ss minus the prestigous use of 'The.' For example Anne was known as HRH 'The' Princess Anne after her mother's ascension until her gift of the style Princess Royal where as before her mother's ascension she was HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh minus 'the.'

The rank/title of Prince is always higher than that of a Duke in the UK. Because, Prince/ss are always Royal in the UK and even the most junior of royals ranks higher than a garden Duke. In other parts of Europe this was not always the case, however, that is how it is in the UK. In Germany, for example, The Duke (Herzog/in) von (or zu) X may have been of higher rank than a ordinary Prince. This is due to there being numerous reigning Duke's of semi-independant Dukedoms the same goes for Grand Duchies, Margraves, ect...However, they were almost always Prince/ss, also.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

Hardly any members of the royal family receive state income these days. People like the Phillips children will be considered part of the family by the Queen, but officially they really aren't part of the royal family in terms of doing public duties and representing the monarch at functions.

The children of HRH The Princess Royal are members of the royal family they just happen to be commmoners. One can be without title or style and also be a member of the royal family. Zara and Peter have precedence at court as members of the royal family and rank even before non royal Dukes.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

Iona isn't a peeress in her own right but I remember there being a big bet on between a few friends of mine. Some said that she would lose the Duchess title, some said she'd keep it. We phoned Burkes and they said that she would lose her title and would become Mrs Lars Swensen and although she could use Iona, Duchess of Argyll socially and it probably wouldn't be question (a la Raine), at court she'd be presented to the Queen as Mrs Lars Swensen not as Her Grace, the Dowager Duchess of Argyll.

She would be presented to the Queen and anyone else as Iona, Duchess of Argyll with the same precedence as while she was married even if she were to remarry.

Ex-Wives of peers have always continued to be known as Jane, Duchess of York or Jane, Lady McCartney after their divorce. However, the "title" is always to follow their name and never to include "The."

This has always been the normal custom and was upheld in 1901 in Cowley v. Cowley. This case serves as the legal precedent for the current manner of address and title for ex-wives and their precedence. Meaning that, Iona is properly addressed as Iona, Duchess of Argyll even after her divorce and even if she were to remarry 5 times. And, she retains the precedence that she gained as a result of her marriage after divorce even if she chooses to remarry.

Iona is free to call herself Iona, Duchess of Argyll for the duration of her life. Sarah Ferguson is free to reamain Sarah, Duchess of York for the duration of her life as are all ex-wives of peers.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

It's very much a matter of snobbery with most titles apres Divorce. For example - Margaret, Duchess of Argyll carried on using the title Duchess of Argyll since her death even though she'd been long divorced from the Duke and even after the headless man business. She liked being a Duchess, she believed she could still use the title so she did. It was snobbery at it's best and most glamorous.

As per, Earl Cowley v. Countess Cowley in 1901 (which is still the precedent used to determine how to address the ex-wife of a peer) She was right in saying that she could still use the title. It really isn't snobbery. I actually think it's rather generous to allow the remarried ex-wife of a Duke, Earl, ect. to continue to use the title as part of her name and retain her precedence. Cowley v. Cowley only upheld the social custom that had been in use for centuries.

Catherine Parr remained Queen Catherine after her divorce and remarriage to Lord Seymour of Sudeley.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

i know someone have title because Prince Edward and Sophie got married in June 1999 she not become Princess both decided becomes Earl and Countess of Wessex.

Sophie did become a Princess when she married Edward. She would have been known as HRH The Princess Edward had he not recieved his peerage. She is a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

 

[branchg]

I have a doubt.. what would have happaned if The Queen had died when Charles and Diana were separated but not yet divorced.. (when she still had the tilte of HRH the princess of wales).. would she had been crown queen??..

When John Major made the announcement The Prince and Princess of Wales were separating, but Diana remained in line to become Queen Consort in due course, the Commons made clear the next day she could not become Queen if separated from Prince Charles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When John Major made the announcement The Prince and Princess of Wales were separating, but Diana remained in line to become Queen Consort in due course, the Commons made clear the next day she could not become Queen if separated from Prince Charles.

Could you please provide a link to this annoucement that she couldn't be queen after the separation.

I have not been able to find one - only that she would in fact be Queen Consort (as happened with the separate wife of George IV who had to lock the doors of Westminster Abbey to prevent her being crowned).

I don't remember this - in fact the opposite is my recollection - that until the divorce she would be Queen and crowned alongside him if that situation arose.

Again - please let me know where you found this as I have googled everything I can think of and come up with Yes she would still be Queen and that there was no constitutional change. There were people who didn't believe that she could be queen and made their voices heard at the time of the announcement by John Major but that isn't the same as a statement from the Parliament - which would have taken a vote in each house to reach that conclusion - as a separated wife is still a legal wife and takes all her husbands titles etc.


It would also change the argument that many people are making regarding Camilla and her position as future Queen consort using the argument that Britain doesn't have morganatic marriage. If it was proclaimed that Diana was not able to be Queen while only separated from Charles then from December 1992 until the divorce in 1996 Charles and Diana were effectively morganatically married - in the sense that the wife wasn't to take the titles of the husband and therefore wasn't his equal any more - strange to take a marriage that wasn't morganatic and then declare that it became a morganatic marriage due to the couple separating - with no intention of divorce at that time.

 

[Henri M.]

From the Hansard: The Prince and Princess of Wales 1

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) :
With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Buckingham Palace is at this moment issuing the following statement. It reads as follows:

"It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. Their Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce and their constitutional positions are unaffected. This decision has been reached amicably, and they will both continue to participate fully in the upbringing of their children.

Their Royal Highnesses will continue to carry out full and separate programmes of public engagements, and will from time to time attend family occasions and national events together.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathise with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness particularly hope that the intrusions into the privacy of the Prince and Princess may now cease. They believe that a degree of privacy and understanding is essential if Their Royal Highnesses are to provide a happy and secure upbringing for their children, while continuing to give a whole-hearted commitment to their public duties."

That is the text of the announcement. I am sure that I speak for the whole House--and millions beyond it--in offering our support to both the Prince and Princess of Wales. I am also sure that the House will sympathise with the wish that they should both be afforded a degree of privacy.

The House will wish to know that the decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the throne is unaffected by it ; the children of the Prince and Princess retain their position in the line of succession ; and there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course. The Prince of Wales's succession as head of the Church of England is also unaffected. Neither the Prince nor the Princess is supported by the civil list, and this position will remain unchanged.

I know that there will be great sadness at this news. But I know also that, as they continue with their royal duties and with bringing up their children, the Prince and Princess will have the full support, understanding and affection of the House and of the country.

 

[Henri M.]

From the Hansard: The Prince and Princess of Wales II

Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) :
May I, first, thank the Prime Minister for making a statement to the House? I am sure that the whole House will share the feeling of sadness that he has expressed at the announcement of the separation and will share the hope that a greater degree of privacy might result for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children in what would be a difficult time for any family. We associate ourselves entirely with the expression of support for the Prince and Princess of Wales in the carrying out of their public duties.



Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) :
I wish to associate myself and my right honourable Gentlemen and right honourable Friends with the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. These will be difficult times for the royal family, and the whole House will wish to extend to them our sympathy, especially to the Prince and Princess of Wales, and to assure them that whatever decisions they take on these purely personal matters, they can be assured of our continued support in future. I wish to reinforce the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing the hope that they will indeed be allowed a period of months--or longer if possible--in which they may have a degree of privacy and peace. I thank the Prime Minister for having expressed so clearly the constitutional position and for having expressed what are, I am sure, sentiments that will be felt by all parties in the House. In particular, I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Prince and Princess of Wales for their past and continued service to the nation.


The Prime Minister :
I am sure that the right honourable and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the right honourable Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have spoken for the country in what they have had to say and that I need comment no further upon their remarks.


Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup) :
I think that the House would wish me, as Father of the House, to express the understanding of the whole House of the action which has been taken and which has been so clearly described by the Prime Minister. It must be one of the saddest announcements made by any Prime Minister in modern times. I am sure that the whole House feels exactly the same way about it. I also support the plea which has already been made for Their Royal Highnesses to be granted privacy. May I suggest, in my position, that perhaps we in the House, in the questions we ask and the speeches we make, might give leadership in extending privacy to their Royal Highnesses.


Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) :
Does the Prime Minister understand that the statement was received by my party with deep regret and great sympathy for the royal family? May I support what the Prime Minister said in requesting a period of quietness for those who find themselves in this unfortunate situation? The last thing that any family needs at such a time is a forest of television or other cameras pointed in its direction. Indeed, if fewer cameras had been pointed in its direction and fewer comments made, perhaps this might not have happened.


Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) :
On behalf of my party, I should like to associate myself with what the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties have said. The royal couple, especially their family, need our sympathy and our prayers. I trust that what has been said in the House about press coverage will be heeded and that the family will have a time of quiet and calm to get over this problem.


Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) :
Does the Prime Minister accept that even a family of great wealth and position has felt the strains which have resulted in divorce--in separation--and in difficulties for the marriage? Is not it true that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people go through similar strains and are afflicted by an equal degree of sadness? Is not it also true that poor housing, low pay and rotten conditions of employment place much greater strains on marriages and that it will be a welcome day when the Government make a statement to the House to relieve those strains, not only those affecting the narrow royal family?


The Prime Minister :
I think that the whole House will endorse many of the remarks that have been made in the last few minutes by right honourable Friends and right honourable Gentlemen. To ensure that there is no dispute or misunderstanding, may I make the point beyond any dispute that their Royal
Highnesses have separated--both the Prince and the Princess have made it clear that they have no plans to divorce.


Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) :
Does the Prime Minister realise that probably the most controversial part of what he said was that there would be no constitutional changes? Would not it be fair to say that, as a result of the occurrences in recent months and the pushing of the self-destruct button by the monarchy, we could now be witnessing the end of the monarchy and that the reigning Queen could be the last? That could not be blamed on those of us who believe that there is no need for a monarchy in this land now.

I therefore ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind the fact that the shattering announcement will result in changes in our constitution. It is high time that we stopped this charade of swearing allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors, because we do not know from time to time who they are.


The Prime Minister :
The honourable Gentleman does not, I believe, speak for the nation, or for any significant part of it. The affection for the monarchy and for members of the royal family in this country is deep, widespread and enduring. We live in a monarchy and, if I may speak personally, I hope and believe that we always will.


Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston) :
May I say, Madam Speaker, how greatly I and my right hon. and honourable Friends, and, I am sure, many Opposition Members, resent and reject the remarks by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I would not wish the voice of this House to say anything other than that we are loyal subjects of Her Majesty, and we fully appreciate what she does for this nation, which is immeasurable.


Madam Speaker :
Order. We now move on. Thank you, Prime Minister.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think that the House would wish me, as Father of the House

Typical Teddy. And trust the Beast of Bolsover to make stupid comments. He'll say anything as long as he doesn't have to do a days work. Anyway, thankyou for that Henri M. It does show us very clearly that Diana could have been crowned Queen but maybe that would have been a bad idea. One can hardly have a King and Queen entertaining and serving as ambassadors of the nation who loathe each other can one?

 

[branchg]

It would also change the argument that many people are making regarding Camilla and her position as future Queen consort using the argument that Britain doesn't have morganatic marriage. If it was proclaimed that Diana was not able to be Queen while only separated from Charles then from December 1992 until the divorce in 1996 Charles and Diana were effectively morganatically married - in the sense that the wife wasn't to take the titles of the husband and therefore wasn't his equal any more - strange to take a marriage that wasn't morganatic and then declare that it became a morganatic marriage due to the couple separating - with no intention of divorce at that time.

The succession to the throne rests with Parliament and can be modified at any time and for any reason. While Diana's constitutional position as the wife of the heir to the throne was unaffected, the consensus was she could not possibly be crowned Queen Consort if she did not wish to remain the true wife of the King.

Whether this would have actually affected her position as Queen or not is a moot question. Once legally separated, Diana and Charles were already on the road to an inevitable divorce.

The question of Camilla's status and title as the wife of the King is clear in law and practice. She is not legally separated under British law and is in line to become Queen in due course.

 

[sirhon11234]

What do the royals actually do at court?

 

[Sister Morphine]

What do the royals actually do at court?

I would imagine entertaining/meeting foreign dignataries and visiting royals constitutes a bulk of it. "Court" itself refers to the royal retinue, consisting of people like the ladies-in-waiting, chamberlains and stewards.

 

[wymanda]

Catherine Parr remained Queen Catherine after her divorce and remarriage to Lord Seymour of Sudeley.

Catherine Parr was never divorced! She married Seymour after the death of Henry VIII. She had been widowed at least twice prior to her marriage to Henry.

 

[Warren]

I would imagine entertaining/meeting foreign dignataries and visiting royals constitutes a bulk of it. "Court" itself refers to the royal retinue, consisting of people like the ladies-in-waiting, chamberlains and stewards.

"The Court" may otherwise be known as the Royal Household, with the traditional positions such as Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, Treasurer, Comptroller, Gold Stick, Mistress of the Robes, Ladies of the Bedchamber, Equerries etc etc, and the more contemporary Private Secretaries, Press Secretaries, various advisers, political, religious and military aides, and the administrative officers that keep the whole thing running smoothly.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The succession to the throne rests with Parliament and can be modified at any time and for any reason. While Diana's constitutional position as the wife of the heir to the throne was unaffected, the consensus was she could not possibly be crowned Queen Consort if she did not wish to remain the true wife of the King.

You have been asked for links to show this 'consensus' and have failed to do so.

Everything I have read about that time says the opposite - namely that no one raised that issue at all - even up to the divorce the understanding was that she would have been Queen, and like Queen Caroline before here could have claimed the right to be crowned - George IV had to lock the Abbey to stop her entering on coronation day.

Again - please provide links to support your suggestion - I have googled for statements dated 10th, 11th, 12th December (your original post said the next day) and no mention of this claim has appeared.

Whether this would have actually affected her position as Queen or not is a moot question. Once legally separated, Diana and Charles were already on the road to an inevitable divorce.

They both made it clear in 1992 that they didn't want a divorce but that doesn't change the fact that until 1996 they were still married and therefore Diana would have been Queen had Charles succeeded.

The question of Camilla's status and title as the wife of the King is clear in law and practice. She is not legally separated under British law and is in line to become Queen in due course.

Yes, but my point was that you suggested that Diana's status changed from equal wife to unequal wife after the separation.

People are suggesting that Camilla should be treated as an unequal wife and not take the title Queen Consort. In 1936 the Parliament told the king that Britain couldn't have a morganatically married wife - or another way of saying it was the King couldn't have an unequal wife.

Yet this is what you are suggesting happened sometime after the separation - that Charles and Diana were no longer in an equal marriage. If that is the case (and I don't agree) then the argument that Charles and Camilla can't be morganitically married falls down - as according to you Parliament, or at least the government, has made a statement stating that the marriage of the heir to the throne was for a time an unequal marriage.

Again I will ask for links to show this consensus you talk about.

 

[branchg]

Legally, Diana remained HRH The Princess of Wales until her divorce was finalized in August 1996 and in line to become Queen Consort. Whether she in fact would have been crowned as such if The Queen had died before their marriage was legally dissolved is an open question. It has nothing to do with being a morganatic wife or the situation facing Camilla with The Princess Consort nonsense.

There has never been a morganatic marriage for The King and the 1936 precedents make it clear the wife of the King is Queen.

 

[Warren]

I think Chrissy is trying to get some substantiation of this point, made in post #245:

the Commons made clear the next day she could not become Queen if separated from Prince Charles.

 

[Missyjojo88]

Commoner, Aristocrat, Noble

I would like to know where each member of the British royal family fall when it comes to being categorize as a commoner, aristocrat, or a noble. Of course starting with the Queen and ending with the Kents and their family. I will also assume that individuals might fall into more than one categories.

 

[ysbel]

I'm not sure how you distinguish aristocrat from noble, a title? I think aristocrat is an informal definition.

Every one with a HRH in front of their name is a royal and the Queen as HM is the head of the royal house of Windsor.

The heirs to the Royal Dukes I guess would be considered part of the nobility (Earl of St. Andrew, etc.)

Princess Margaret's son, Viscount Linley, as heir of the Earl of Snowdon would be a noble too.

As far as the rest, I guess you could call them aristocrats or commoners.

 

[wbenson]

Officially, anyone who doesn't hold a peerage title (i.e. any of the Queen's grandchildren, the Princess Royal, Prince Michael of Kent, etc.) is a commoner, but this is definitely not how the word works in popular culture. This definition as also been blurred by the House of Lords Act, 1999, by which hereditary peers are excluded from the House of Lords, and may run for seats in the House of Commons and vote in elections.

The following would be considered of noble rank in the royal family:

The Duke of Edinburgh
The Prince of Wales
The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex
The Earl of Snowdon
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent

Their wives are included in that, where applicable. The Queen is also not a commoner. Viscount Linley is considered a commoner (and until 1999, could vote in elections, run for a seat in the House of Commons), as his title is a courtesy title, not a substantive title.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

The Queen is also not a commoner. Viscount Linley is considered a commoner (and until 1999, could vote in elections, run for a seat in the House of Commons), as his title is a courtesy title, not a substantive title.

What happened in 1999 that he could not vote in the elections?

I thought that his title was because he was a royal. Why is a courtesy title? Because his father was a commoner when he married Margaret?

 

[wbenson]

What happened in 1999 that he could not vote in the elections?

I thought that his title was because he was a royal. Why is a courtesy title? Because his father was a commoner when he married Margaret?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. He could vote in elections before 1999, and can also vote in elections after 1999. He wasn't a peer before 1999, when it became possible for many peers to vote.

He is able to use the title of "Viscount Linley" as he is the eldest son of the Earl of Snowdon, who is also Viscount Linley. Traditional practice is for the heir to the title to use the second-highest title the current titleholder holds. The heir to the heir would use a 3rd highest title, if one existed. (Sometimes the heir doesn't use the second-highest title of their father (or in rare cases, mother) if the titles are similar (Earl of X and Viscount X, for instance, so that there is no confusion when referring to Lord X). What title is used is often a matter of family tradition.

The son of the Duke of Kent uses the title "Earl of St. Andrews", and the Earl of St. Andrews' son is "Lord Downpatrick" The son of the Duke of Gloucester uses the title "Earl of Ulster." If the Earl of Ulster ever has a son, he will be "Lord Culloden." A son that is a Prince, however, is "Prince Y of X." This is why Prince Charles was "Prince Charles of Edinburgh" after birth, and not "Earl of Merioneth", which is a subsidiary title of Prince Philip. As the Earl of Snowdon only holds one other title (Viscount Linley), Viscount Linley's son is styled as the son of a Viscount ("The Honourable").

The Earl of Snowdon was granted his title a year or so after marrying Princess Margaret, as he was indeed a commoner. Incidentally, he was given a life Barony in 1999 so that he could retain his seat in the House of Lords after Hereditary Peers (all but 90 or so) were excluded from the House.