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
 
  #1781  
Old 01-22-2013, 10:31 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468

Some of the Realms (Australia, Tuvalu and I think a couple of others too) will not indeed need any legislations concerning Camilla's title.
However, the majority of the Realms, and certainly the UK, would need to pass Acts of their respective Parliaments to legally deny Camilla the title Queen Consort.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1782  
Old 02-03-2013, 03:43 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?


I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1783  
Old 02-03-2013, 03:50 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468

I am in agreement with you. Letters Patent make granting (or revoking) royal styles and titles official.

Since Letters Patent were not issued in regard to Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, they are still a Princess and a Prince of the United Kingdom from the legal point of view. Perhaps Her Majesty deliberately avoided LPs in the event Louise and James will opt to use their royal styles and titles upon reaching the age of majority, or if they eventually become working members of the Royal Family (and will need their titles).

It is my personal opinion that as long as new Letters Patent cancelling those of 1917 are not issued, the latter remain in force. The Queen is obviously not afraid to make changes since she has already amended one clause of the Letters Patent 1917 (granting all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and not just the first-born son).
Reply With Quote
  #1784  
Old 02-03-2013, 05:31 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468
Princess Alice was never legally a Princess in her own; she was allowed to use the title by the Queen. The Queen Mother was called "Princess Elizabeth" at her funeral because she held the title of a British Princess from the point of her marriage to the Duke of York and until his accession to the Throne.

There may not be a legal right attached to a peerage but there are practices which are, and have always been, observed.
Reply With Quote
  #1785  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,465
Alice, like The Queen Mum were both princesses of the UK from the time of their marriages but not Princess Elizabeth or Princess Alice.

When The Duke of Gloucester died Alice asked if, instead of being known as HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester or HRH The Princess Henry she could be known by her own first name and The Queen agreed.

The fact that Henry's younger brother, George, had married Princess Marina - a Princess in her own right even if technically in the UK she shouldn't have used the style of Princess Marina she did do so - particularly after the marriage of her son and so the arrival of a second Duchess of Kent.

The Queen Mum was of course known as HM Queen Elizabeth so it would have been strange to have her titles read up at the funeral as HRH The Princess Albert, HM Queen Elizabeth - it makes more sense for her to be both Queen and Princess Elizabeth - as I expect it will be for both Camilla and Catherine in the future.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see Catherine referred to officially as Princess Catherine when Charles becomes King - so that the British are in line with the rest of Europe and a woman who marries into the family is as much a princess own name as one who married into the Danish or Norwegian royal families.
Reply With Quote
  #1786  
Old 02-03-2013, 10:28 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post


Princess Alice was never legally a Princess; she was allowed to use the title by the Queen. The Queen Mother was called "Princess Elizabeth" at her funeral because she held the title of a British Princess from the point of her marriage to the Duke of York and until his accession to the Throne.

There may not be a legal right attached to a peerage but there are practices which are, and have always been, observed.
Alice and Elizabeth automatically became Princesses with marriage to sons of The Sovereign. Although the tradition is a princess by marriage does not use the style with their own name, they still have precedence and place as wives of male-line grandsons or sons and The Sovereign can choose to allow it.

Wives of Peers have the same rights and privileges their husbands hold and assume a title upon marriage. Princesses are royal, but this is simply a style signifying precedence and place to The Sovereign through their husband. Unless created a Peer, a Prince remains a commoner.
Reply With Quote
  #1787  
Old 02-03-2013, 10:32 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468

I am aware of that although my wording was not perfect (corrected that).
I was responding to another post (now deleted) who suggested Alice became a Princess in her own right although no Letters Patent were released to the effect. Obviously, I meant Alice wasn't a Princess in her own right (one who can prefix "Princess" to her name) although of course she was a Princess by marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #1788  
Old 02-03-2013, 01:13 PM
Rebafan81's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Marshallville, United States
Posts: 1,069
I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.
Reply With Quote
  #1789  
Old 02-03-2013, 01:22 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 862
No way. I am totally with the British way. The Scandivanian way somehow takes out the magic of titles. Everyone is either Prince or Princess. When they say Crown Princess we dont know whether she is heiress or heir's wife.
British way is real royal. Just the full style with title perfectly gives you the entire information about the marital+birth+precedence status of that person.
Naturally some may feel it difficult to understand but once you follow closely for a few days, you will get used to it very well, no rocket science.
I love the British way of giving each and every person a distinct title instead of calling everone Prince/ess..
And of course distinction is perfectly acceptable between Princesses of birth and marriage..
Come on, once we are into royalty, we cant talk too much of 'equality', right?

And Rebafan81, not being styled "Princess Catherine" is not going to diminish her in any way.
And as far as William being Crown Prince, forgive me, I feel the title Crown Prince (that too since used commonly and collectively) can never be as regal as Prince of Wales. Maybe that is totally personal..lol
Reply With Quote
  #1790  
Old 02-04-2013, 09:37 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebafan81 View Post
I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.
What do you mean by "becomes the Crowned Prince"? There is no such thing as a "Crowned Prince" in the BRF. The next step up for William is becoming the Prince of Wales, but that's not what you're thinking of, I don't think.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #1791  
Old 02-04-2013, 10:53 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468

Actually, to be pedantic, the next step for William is in all probability to become the Duke of Cornwall.
Reply With Quote
  #1792  
Old 02-04-2013, 11:51 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 862
Ya but again, Prince of Wales is more practical and widely used title, than Duke of Cornwall, though not automatic as the latter.
But I still find Prince of Wales more glamorous and regal than both Duke of Cornwall and Crown Prince.
Reply With Quote
  #1793  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:08 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468

I am not contesting that.

I was just pointing out that the moment Charles becomes King, William will automatically be the Duke of Cornwall (the next step), whereas he'll need to be created The Prince of Wales at some point. It is possible William will be Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge for at least a couple of years before he becomes the Prince of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #1794  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:18 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,134
Yeah, I think William's future Investiture ceremony as The Prince of Wales will take sometime to plan out. I'm thinking maybe a year or two after Charles's Coronation.
Reply With Quote
  #1795  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:48 PM
Noble Consort Ming's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Detroit, United States
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebafan81 View Post
I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.
Except that the Scandinavian princesses who married into the royal families are still not princesses in their own right. I used to think they were but it was pointed out to me here some time ago that they are not. As far as I know only Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was created a princess of the Netherlands in her own right upon marriage.
__________________
Avatar: King Faisal of Saudi Arabia(while a prince) as a teenager shortly before his first marriage(I know, I know, he's so young).
Reply With Quote
  #1796  
Old 02-04-2013, 01:10 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Consort Ming View Post
Except that the Scandinavian princesses who married into the royal families are still not princesses in their own right. I used to think they were but it was pointed out to me here some time ago that they are not. As far as I know only Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was created a princess of the Netherlands in her own right upon marriage.
You are right, none of the wives of the Scandinavian Heirs to the Throne are Princesses in their own right. For instance, Mary's proper title is not "Crown Princess" Mary but May, Crown Princess of Denmark.

Apart from Maxima, Stephanie of Luxembourg and Mathilde of Belgium were also created Princesses in their own right of their respective countries. Thus, Stephanie is Princess Stephanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Mathilde is Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant.

The tradition of creating the wife of the heir to the throne a Princess of the realm in her own right (albeit for the duration of the marriage) appears to be limited to Benelux countries only.
Reply With Quote
  #1797  
Old 02-04-2013, 01:19 PM
Noble Consort Ming's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Detroit, United States
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post

Apart from Maxima, Stephanie of Luxembourg and Mathilde of Belgium were also created Princesses in their own right of their respective countries. Thus, Stephanie is Princess Stephanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Mathilde is Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant.

.
I forgot about Mathilde and didn't know about Stephanie. I remember now that Mathilde's family was also elevated to the rank of counts upon her marriage.
__________________
Avatar: King Faisal of Saudi Arabia(while a prince) as a teenager shortly before his first marriage(I know, I know, he's so young).
Reply With Quote
  #1798  
Old 02-04-2013, 02:51 PM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?

I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.
The Earl and Countess from way back on their wedding day said their children would be style the way they are. The Queen did this for Wills child because with the current laws only the male line children of the monarch and the male son of the Prince of Wales and the grandson of the POW would be styled Prince. If wills has a daughter she would be Lady Cambridge and a future Queen so she Made sure this future Queen would be a Princess.
Reply With Quote
  #1799  
Old 02-04-2013, 03:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Yeah, I think William's future Investiture ceremony as The Prince of Wales will take sometime to plan out. I'm thinking maybe a year or two after Charles's Coronation.

There is no need for an investiture in order for William to become Prince of Wales. Only Charles and Edward VIII have been publicly invested in recent centuries, or maybe at all.

Most have just been created PoW shortly after birth, shortly after their parent became monarch or in the case of George III shortly after his father's death.

Elizabeth took the longest time to create Charles PoW - he became Duke of Cornwall in the early hours of the 6th February 1952 but he wasn't created Prince of Wales for over 6 years.

Edward VII took nearly 11 months before creating George V PoW. For most of 1901 George was known as The Duke of Cornwall and York and holding those combined titles officially opened Australia's first parliament in Melbourne (we had become a federation on 1st January 1901).

George V created Edward VIII PoW 6 weeks after his accession as King. His investiture took place the same year as the coronation only three weeks after the coronation of his father. George V's was crowned on the 22nd June and Edward was invested on 13th July.
Reply With Quote
  #1800  
Old 02-04-2013, 05:59 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?


I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.

Edward and Sophie wanted their children styled as the children of an earl, so they are. They are legally Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex, which when they're 18, they can assume as their rightful titles if they so choose. Nothing was denied to their children, nothing was stripped from them. There was no intentional slight of the Wessex couple on behalf of the Queen. Don't look for something that doesn't exist.

HM issued Letters Patent in regards to the Cambridge's future child because regardless of the child's gender, they will be the future monarch. As a result of the Letters Patent from her grandfather in 1917, only a son would be guaranteed a princely title, as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. A daughter would be merely Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor. Without new Letters Patent granting a princely status to the child regardless of gender, the future queen would be born without a title. It's no different than what George VI did for the-then Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. If he hadn't issued Letters Patent granting their children a princely status, as grandchildren in the female line do not carry titles, Charles would have been born Lord Charles Mountbatten, instead of HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh. So there's precedent for elevating a child's status befitting their future role, when they otherwise would not be entitled to it.
__________________

__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
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 birth camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death denmark duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll france funeral general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie 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 charles prince daniel prince frederik prince of wales princess ariane princess beatrice princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary style princess mette-marit princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden united states of america victoria 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 11:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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