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
 
  #1821  
Old 02-09-2013, 11:20 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
Did you read anything that i wrote?
Yes, and several people explained it to you. Not only why Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester was styled the way she was, but why it wasn't odd that The Countess of Wessex is also HRH The Princess Edward. Read the replies to your questions before accusing people of not reading them at all.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #1822  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:58 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
Listen closely, I said in an earlier post sometime ago Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone felt that if the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester didn't want to be known as a Dowager, instead of asking permission to be called Princess Alice, out of respect for her, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria, she should have been known as HRH The Prince Henry, Duchess of Gloucester as a princess-by-marriage. From the beginning I always said she could have been known by that title—others argued against it saying she COULD NEVER BE KNOWN AS THAT!

Again, after I posted it many members of this website told me it was WRONG & incorrect for Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone to suggest that the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester use such a title. And one of the members who said it was incorrect is I1uvbertie. This is what he wrote me:


“To a certain extent because she was born a Princess and The Duchess of Gloucester wasn't.

It is never done to refer to a wife as HRH The Princess male name, The Duchess of xxxx e.g. HRH The Princess Richard, The Duchess of Gloucester isn't the correct form and HRH The Princess Henry, The Duchess of Gloucester was never the late Princess Alice's style - when she married she lost any name officially at all but simply became HRH The Duchess of Gloucester. To revert to HRH The Princess Henry would be to deny the fact that she had married a peer of the realm and indicate that she had married an untitled son. On her becoming a widow the options were to insist on HRH The Dowager Duchess of
Gloucester or allow her the special style of HRH Princess Alice.”


So YES, it was odd to me that many members on this forum said it was incorrect for Princess Alice to be styled HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester, but then flip the script & now say (since its officially on the Royal Family’s website) its correct & okay for Sophie to be styled HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. The Queen has the right to make any decision she wants regarding titles, and she decided to grant Alice this request.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1823  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:12 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,759
Sophie is NOT styled as HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. She's styled as HRH The Countess of Wessex. You're confusing titles with styles. Titles are what you hold, styles are what people refer to you as. For example, Camilla holds the title The Princess of Wales. She is styled as The Duchess of Cornwall. Catherine holds the title HRH Princess William, but she's styled as The Duchess of Cambridge. Sophie is legally, by virtue of marring Edward, HRH The Princess Edward, yada yada yada.....but that's not her style.

In regards to Princess Alice, she held the title HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester, but her style was HRH The Duchess of Gloucester. When she was widowed and her son became HRH The Duke of Gloucester, what was de rigeur for the widowed wife of a peer was to be known as The Dowager Duchess/Countess of ________. She didn't like the word "dowager", and she couldn't be simply HRH The Duchess of Gloucester, because that was her daughter-in-law. So she asked if she could be styled as HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, and the Queen consented. It's not the correct form in the BRF for the widowed wife of a peer to be known as HRH The Princess ________, Duchess/Countess of _________. It wasn't an option for her to take. That's why people were telling you it was incorrect for her to be styled that way after her husband died. It was also why people were telling you there was nothing odd with Sophie being HRH The Princess Edward so forth and so on, because legally that's what she is......but again, that's not how she's styled.
__________________
"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
  #1824  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
Well I took the liberty to contact both Debrett's Peerage & Burke's Peerage, the latter being less helpful, but they did give a formal response. I used the same email with both of them. Here is what I wrote & how they responded regarding the legal style and title of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

To Debrett's Peerage

From: D Johnson [mailto:XXXXXX@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 February 2013 05:30
To: Peerage
Subject:




Hello,



My name is Dameon. I have been in a debate with someone regarding the legal title of the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. I read in a biography of The Queen that Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria objected to the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester being styled as "Princess Alice", and felt that if she didn't want to be known as a Dowager, she should have been styled HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester instead as a princess by marriage.



Many have argued that styling her The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester after her hsband's death was incorrect. However, after scanning the British Monarchy website, I noticed that in the Titles & Honours section for the Countess of Wessex, it explicitly states that she can be known as HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex, even though she is officially styled HRH The Countess of Wessex.



All I would like to know is could the late Princess Alice have been known as HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester, as pointed out by Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone?


Debrett's Peerage Response


Dear Dameon

Thank you for your interesting e-mail.

I took the liberty of sending it to a friend, Robert Horley, who has contributed much valuable work to the Debrett on all matters royal and titled, and he has sent me a considered reply (below), which he is happy for me to pass on to you. Also below is my rather less considered reply.

Best wishes
Charles Kidd

(Charles Kidd) Hello Robert, I seem to remember being told that HM waived this slightly irregular style (Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) out of deference to her aunt wishing to enjoy a similar style as Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent - although of course I realise that the latter was already a princess in her own right. I am sure she should really have been either the Dowager or Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester, as this chap suggests - or am I wrong? C



(From Robert Horley) I've often pondered this and frequently searched for an 'official' notification for the change in Alice's style after she became a widow and I've concluded there is no such official notification in the public domain.
The first Court Circular reference to her as Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester is on the 13 July 1974, when she and her son and daughter-in-law attended a memorial service for her husband at Peterborough Cathedral. She is similarly described in the Court Circular of 23 July, when she attended a memorial service for her husband at Westminster Abbey. So it's clear The Queen made her decision between the death of The Prince Henry on 9 June and this first reference on 13 July.
I believe the strict legal status of the wife or widow of Prince Henry is that she is the Duchess of Gloucester. Any other style given to her (Dowager, Princess Henry or Princess Alice) is in the gift of The Queen.
How The Queen chooses to style her relatives is up to her and not subject to the laws of the land and, as such, cannot successfully be challenged in a court of law. It was clearly a departure from what had happened in the past, but is no less valid for that. My understanding is The Queen wanted to honour her aunt in this way: for the long service she had given (and, as it turned out, the decades of service she was to give) - although your explanation makes equal sense!
Nor does she have to publish her decision anywhere. Not issuing Letters Patent or a Warrant, does not make the decision any less valid. The Queen does of course sometimes allow an explanation to be published, as in the case of the Earl of Wessex and his children.
I hope this helps but do come back to me if you want to discuss further.



Burke's Peerage Response




Dear Mr Johnson,

HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester – yes.

Kind regards,

Burke’s Peerage Editorial Team



78 Pall Mall, London, SW1Y 5ES, United Kingdom

Reply With Quote
  #1825  
Old 02-14-2013, 09:29 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,759
That's all well and good, but people still answered your question on several fronts. If you're not satisfied with the quality of the responses you received, that's not our problem.
__________________
"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
  #1826  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:08 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
You have a very bad attitude I've noticed... and it is sad. You come off as if your answer & those of others are law & shouldn't be questioned. By the way you responded, I can tell that it bothered you that I reached out to historical & genealogical societies that are considered experts in the topic at hand. And according to them, what I said for sometime is actually correct, when others like you said it wasn't.
Reply With Quote
  #1827  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:39 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,759
Why would it bother me? I don't actually care. I just found it incredibly snotty of you to say "did you read anything that I wrote" after several people took the time to answer your question. Whether they were right or wrong isn't the point. It was the tone of your response to those people that hocked me off. If you felt that those people didn't answer your question to your satisfaction, there were better, less obnoxious ways for you say it, rather then coming off like they wasted your precious time.

So it's not me who has the bad attitude. Myself and the others in this thread answered you to the best of our knowledge. If that knowledge wasn't enough, what exactly should we do? Apologize?
__________________
"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
  #1828  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:11 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 146
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
Reply With Quote
  #1829  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:37 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
You have a very bad attitude I've noticed... and it is sad. You come off as if your answer & those of others are law & shouldn't be questioned. By the way you responded, I can tell that it bothered you that I reached out to historical & genealogical societies that are considered experts in the topic at hand. And according to them, what I said for sometime is actually correct, when others like you said it wasn't.
You asked a question, it was answered and in great detail by one member here Which had to have taken up quite a bit of her time to do so considering how indepth she answered your question. You then proceed to treat us in a very arrogant manner, act like you had been ignored completely and/or you got the wrong answer, which you were not treated as nor received the wrong answer to your question.

You then proceed to tell us you've contacted "the experts" w/your question and look at that!!! You pretty much got the same answer as was given you here by at least four different people. Since it's "Debrett's" and therefore the experts, I guess that trumps whatever you were told here. I honestly can't believe you went to all of that trouble and for what? The only reason I can think is to rub our faces in "just how wrong we were", only those who answered your question didn't tell you anything different from what you were told by Debrett's, so...

Why didn't you do that in the first place?

BTW...I've checked the thread for Iluvbertie's posts and from the one I did see going back through the last three pages, there was nothing in it that matches up w/what you say you were told by him/her. That means she/he sent you a Private Message. Posting what another member has told you in the form of a PM out in the open on the board for all to see, unless she/he gave you permission to do so and I doubt it, is not cool and quite rude to boot.

Which leads me to this...

You come on here, basically treat us as an arrogant rude clique who need educating from "the experts" on the subject at hand since you felt you didn't get what you wanted and then have the outright nerve to start calling others on the thread calling you out for your behaviour as rude, arrogant and in need of an attitude adjustment?

Pot calling kettle black much?
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #1830  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:39 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
To my knowledge, there has never been a Princess of Wales in her own right. Several previous Princesses of Wales did go on to become Queen Consorts and some of them that didn't, retained the title of Dowager Princess of Wales after their husband's death. A good example of this would be Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII's first wife. On divorce, she was then known as the Dowager Princess of Wales until her death. This is unique to her because she had been previously married to Henry's older brother who was a Prince of Wales.

To date there have been 10 Princesses of Wales. The list and dates can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_of_Wales
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1831  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:44 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
Neither is listed in Wikipedia's list of Princes of Wales or Princesses of Wales (the later of which states that the is a courtesy title for the consort of the Prince of Wales). I believe I've read that at one point during the reign of Henry VIII (presumably before his first divorce) Mary was given many of the privileges of Prince of Wales without being given the title, so it stands to reason that she was treated as such without being such.

Regardless, though, as the birth of Edward proves, neither was the heir apparent at any point in their life. As the children of the monarch they were at best the heir presumptive and could be (and were) displaced by the birth of the monarch's legitimate male heir - and at one point, I believe, there was even talk of displacing Mary in favour of her illegitimate male half-brother. Later in their lives they were each the heir presumptive of the monarch, their sibling, and could be displaced by the birth of a legitimate child (regardless of gender). None of the children of Henry had children themselves, thus each of his legitimate children became monarch in succession.
Reply With Quote
  #1832  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:47 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
First off, this is another production by Dr David Starkey and I keep meaning to watch it over at YouTube, but haven't done as of yet. Too many things to do and too little time in the day. Anyway...

AFAIK and from what I've read over the years, Mary was indeed created Princess of Wales and was sent to Ludlow Castle in Wales, w/a household in keeping w/her Station and Rank. When Henry divorced Katherine of Aragorn and also declared Mary as illegitimate and a bastard unfit to any Rights of Succession to the Throne, the title was also taken from her.

To my knowledge, while Elizabeth was proclaimed as a Princess and Heiress to the Throne until her Mother's fall from Grace, she never was granted the title Princess of Wales. Now it could have happened and we just don't know about it, but considering after she was born Anne and Henry were still confident of having a son and wanting to leave that title open for lack of a better term, I doubt it.

Now that's how I've read in various books over the years, but I could also be wrong and I'm sure someone on here will come and correct me if that's the case. After all, we're all here to learn, right?
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #1833  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post
You asked a question, it was answered and in great detail by one member here Which had to have taken up quite a bit of her time to do so considering how indepth she answered your question. You then proceed to treat us in a very arrogant manner, act like you had been ignored completely and/or you got the wrong answer, which you were not treated as nor received the wrong answer to your question.

You then proceed to tell us you've contacted "the experts" w/your question and look at that!!! You pretty much got the same answer as was given you here by at least four different people. Since it's "Debrett's" and therefore the experts, I guess that trumps whatever you were told here. I honestly can't believe you went to all of that trouble and for what? The only reason I can think is to rub our faces in "just how wrong we were", only those who answered your question didn't tell you anything different from what you were told by Debrett's, so...

Why didn't you do that in the first place?

BTW...I've checked the thread for Iluvbertie's posts and from the one I did see going back through the last three pages, there was nothing in it that matches up w/what you say you were told by him/her. That means she/he sent you a Private Message. Posting what another member has told you in the form of a PM out in the open on the board for all to see, unless she/he gave you permission to do so and I doubt it, is not cool and quite rude to boot.

Which leads me to this...

You come on here, basically treat us as an arrogant rude clique who need educating from "the experts" on the subject at hand since you felt you didn't get what you wanted and then have the outright nerve to start calling others on the thread calling you out for your behaviour as rude, arrogant and in need of an attitude adjustment?

Pot calling kettle black much?

Very well said.

I have no record of contacting this person via PM - and I have my PMs back to last June but may have written something like this on another thread or somewhere else.

I found this posters response rude and then condescending and so they are now on my mental 'ignore' list - in other words I will simply skip everything they say, not reply to anything they post etc.
Reply With Quote
  #1834  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:49 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 146
Thanks. I just wonder why he would say, "And Elizabeth was proclaimed Princess of Wales... Now there were two Queens, and two Princesses of Wales." I guess it is just the dweebish British royal historian equivalent of literary hyperbole.

Hmm, the more I look, the more I find websites that say Mary was actually invested as Princess of Wales. I wonder what the original source is for all of these claims. I'm sure there's a simmering debate amongst historians as to the reliability of whatever source has led people to list her as a Princess of Wales. Was it based on some clergyman's diary entry, and mentioned nowhere else? Has she been erased from the line of Princes (and potentially Princess) of Wales because her tenure was so short? Surely someone on this forum has some solid info on this matter.
Reply With Quote
  #1835  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:57 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?
Neither Lady Mary (future Mary I) nor Lady Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I) or Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II) were ever Princesses of Wales. It is not an automatic title and the Sovereign has to grant it to the heir apparent to the throne. None of them were Heiresses Apparent (all were heiresses presumptive) and none was ever created the Princess of Wales.

In Mary's case, she had been heiress presumptive to the Throne for many years and when it became apparent Catherine of Aragon would not have any further children, some people (Henry VIII included) started referring to her as The Princess of Wales. However, the title was never officially hers.

At no point was Lady Elizabeth called the Princess of Wales; there was always a strong chance Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn would have a son, or Henry would marry again and have a son with his next wife, as did indeed happen.

Princess Elizabeth was likewise never created The Princess of Wales. Admittedly, when it became apparent George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) would have no further children, some senior politicians suggested the Princess - as heiress apparent to the throne in all but name - could be granted the title. However, George VI is said to have been opposed to the idea, maintaining that the Princess of Wales has always been the wife of the Prince of Wales, and there was never a woman who held the title in her own right.


This said, there is actually no reason at all why a woman couldn't be created The Princess of Wales in her own right. Some titles of the Heir Apparent require the holder to be male: for instance, the title The Duke of Cornwall can only be held by the Heir Apparent who is also eldest son of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales title, however, merely requires for the holder to be Heir Apparent to the Throne. If the Succession to the Crown Act is passed, then the first-born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be Heir(ess) Apparent regardless of gender. If a girl, she absolutely could one day become The Princess of Wales in her own right.
Reply With Quote
  #1836  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:57 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 1,685
I don't know and it's odd that Starkey, if this is the production I'm thinking of, would say something like that if it wasn't documented somewhere. He usually does a pretty good job of his fact checking, so...Hmmm....

Now you're *really* making me want to watch this. Has to wait till sometime tomorrow at least, as I've up too late already and I have a Dr's appt tomorrow too.
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #1837  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:06 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
Neither Lady Mary (future Mary I) nor Lady Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I) or Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II) were ever Princesses of Wales. It is not an automatic title and the Sovereign has to grant it to the heir apparent to the throne. None of them were Heiresses Apparent (all were heiresses presumptive) and none was ever created the Princess of Wales.

In Mary's case, she had been heiress presumptive to the Throne for many years and when it became apparent Catherine of Aragon would not have any further children, some people (Henry VIII included) started referring to her as The Princess of Wales. However, the title was never officially hers.

At no point was Lady Elizabeth called the Princess of Wales; there was always a strong chance Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn would have a son, or Henry would marry again and have a son with his next wife, as did indeed happen.

Princess Elizabeth was likewise never created The Princess of Wales. Admittedly, when it became apparent George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) would have no further children, some senior politicians suggested the Princess - as heiress apparent to the throne in all but name - could be granted the title. However, George VI is said to have been opposed to the idea, maintaining that the Princess of Wales has always been the wife of the Prince of Wales, and there was never a woman who held the title in her own right.


This said, there is actually no reason at all why a woman couldn't be created The Princess of Wales in her own right. Some titles of the Heir Apparent require the holder to be male: for instance, the title The Duke of Cornwall can only be conferred to a Heir Apparent who is also eldest son of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales title, however, merely requires for the holder to be Heir Apparent to the Throne. If the Succession to the Crown Act is passed, then the first-born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be Heir(ess) Apparent regardless of gender. If a girl, she absolutely could one day become The Princess of Wales in her own right.
But was this a legal requirement in the 1520s/30s as it might be today? The sense I get is that legal documents must be filed today to create someone with a title. And even if legal documents were required back then as well, isn't whatever the Sovereign says the end all be all, as the font of titles or whatever? In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales? Perhaps there are court records/circulars that refer to "The Princess of Wales". Would that be enough to make it "official," or are Letters Patent the only way to make a title official?
Reply With Quote
  #1838  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
George III was, of course, heir apparent after the death of his father, Frederick Prince of Wales.

Now George couldn't be Duke of Cornwall even though he was the heir apparent because he wasn't the eldest son of the King but George II conferred the title Prince of Wales on him.
Reply With Quote
  #1839  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:26 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincePatrick View Post
In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales?
I think the answer to this comes back to the difference between titles and styles. Queen Elizabeth II allowed Princess Alice to be known as such as a courtesy. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was affectionately known as the Queen Mum but you would never see Queen Mum in the history books. From my limited forays into medieval history, its struck me that even back then there were meticulous records kept and if Henry VIII had created Mary a Princess of Wales, it would be in on record as such. As much as having a son and heir meant to Henry, I don't see that he would have done this only to have her displaced by a future son.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1840  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:43 AM
PrincePatrick's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think the answer to this comes back to the difference between titles and styles. Queen Elizabeth II allowed Princess Alice to be known as such as a courtesy. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was affectionately known as the Queen Mum but you would never see Queen Mum in the history books. From my limited forays into medieval history, its struck me that even back then there were meticulous records kept and if Henry VIII had created Mary a Princess of Wales, it would be in on record as such. As much as having a son and heir meant to Henry, I don't see that he would have done this only to have her displaced by a future son.
Good points. I just wish they included footnotes with documentaries like this.
__________________

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
belgium best outfit brussels camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess catharina-amalia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll felipe vi funeral hereditary grand duchess stéphanie jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia margrethe ii maxima nobility official visit oranje-nassau picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince harry prince of wales princess alexia (2005 -) princess beatrice princess caroline princess catharina-amalia princess claire princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mette-marit princess victoria queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sofia hellqvist state visit stockholm sweden the hague 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 08:54 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]