Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Skippyboo]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

The Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. She was styled as HRH The Duchess of Kent. She asked the Queen for permission to use HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent only after her son Edward married and there was a new HRH The Duchess of Kent.

So Princess Madeline of Sweden would still be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge if married to William.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Countessmeout]

Not necessarily. Madeleine would more likely have been HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Duchess of Cambridge. Along the lines of Princes Astrid of Belgium, or Princess Caroline of Monaco who both have titles from birth as well as their husbands.

In the UK she would likely be simply referred to as HRH Duchess of Cambridge.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen also made her husband Philip a Prince of the U.K. Something her father didn't do when they got married.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Countessmeout]

It was a different time back then. For a man to marry into a royal family and gain his wife's titles was unheard of. Anne's husbands were never made Princes of the UK. Mark was said to have been offered a title, but like Philip, it was not a Prince title, but likely would have been an Earl like Margaret's. Beatrice and Eugenie's husbands it would be nice if the girls were given a title when they wed (like their male relatives are) but I have a feeling we will have to wait for Charlotte's marriage years from now to see that.

Denmark and the Netherlands were ahead of the game, Claus and Henrik were both made HRH Prince when they married. When Daniel got it in Sweden there was real debate to what title he would be given.

 

[Dman]

She is still Princess William even with the Duchess of Cambridge title because William is still Prince William at the same time he is Duke of Cambridge. Camilla is Princess Charles, Sophie is Princess Edward etc. It just not their primary title. The Queen is the Duchess of Edinburgh too but she isn't being addressed as that.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

That's right! I think kids, the media and others are used to the princess titles associated with a girl marrying a Prince.

 

[Skippyboo]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

Anne and Margaret weren't the heir to the throne like Elizabeth was. George VI made Philip a HRH , a Duke with 2 lower titles plus a Knight of Garter when he married. He just didn't make him a Prince of the U.K. Charlotte's husband isn't going be a made a Prince unless something has happened to George and she is William's direct heir.

Just think if Tony and Mark were made Princes of the U.K. in their own right like Philip. They would still be after their divorces.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

It was a different time back then. For a man to marry into a royal family and gain his wife's titles was unheard of. Anne's husbands were never made Princes of the UK. Mark was said to have been offered a title, but like Philip, it was not a Prince title, but likely would have been an Earl like Margaret's. Beatrice and Eugenie's husbands it would be nice if the girls were given a title when they wed (like their male relatives are) but I have a feeling we will have to wait for Charlotte's marriage years from now to see that.



Denmark and the Netherlands were ahead of the game, Claus and Henrik were both made HRH Prince when they married. When Daniel got it in Sweden there was real debate to what title he would be given.

Beatrice and Eugenie aren't likely to get titles when they marry (nor their husbands) because they're not of a comparable status to their cousin.

William's father will one day be King, so he got a title when he married - Harry will likely also get a title for the same reason (William will one day be King, which is why his children have royal titles). It's comparable to how the sons of the then Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) were made royal dukes, as their father was the future King.

Beatrice and Eugenie's father is not likely to become King, so neither they nor their husbands are likely to be given titles - much like how Prince Michael of Kent wasn't created a Duke on his marriage.

 

[Countessmeout]

Anne and Margaret weren't the heir to the throne like Elizabeth was. George VI made Philip a HRH , a Duke with 2 lower titles plus a Knight of Garter when he married. He just didn't make him a Prince of the U.K. Charlotte's husband isn't going be a made a Prince unless something has happened to George and she is William's direct heir.

Just think if Tony and Mark were made Princes of the U.K. in their own right like Philip. They would still be after their divorces.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Not necessarily. It could be handled the same way as Alexandra in Denmark, she lost the title upon remarriage. Both Mark and Tony remarried.

The reality is the UK is modernizing. With females gaining equal rights to the throne, its not hard to consider they will be treated equally. As Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and focus on his line, Charlotte and her future husband will called upon to support George down the line. It is not a stretch to think we will see something similar to Sweden, Charlotte being granted a Duchy and her husband taking her titles upon marriage.

Again we can't look and say...it wasn't done in the past so it wont be done now. Things are modernizing and changing.

 

[Ish]

Not necessarily. It could be handled the same way as Alexandra in Denmark, she lost the title upon remarriage. Both Mark and Tony remarried.

Alexandra's not a good comparison. She may have been Princess Alexandra, but the title was still derived from her marriage. She wasn't created a Princess in her own right.

Alexandra became Princess Alexandra by right of marriage and Countess of Fredericksborg in her own right. Thus, when she remarried she lost the title she had due to her first marriage (Princess), but retained the one she had in her own right (Countess).

I'm not certain about Denmark, but I know in Britain the monarch has the ability to bestow titles (both Noble and Royal) on individuals, and can issue LPs that affect Royal titles (granting them, like the Queen did with Prince Philip, or limiting their use, like George V did in 1917), but in order to take away a title bestowed on a specific person, Parliament is required. So, if they had wanted to make Anthony not an Earl because of his marriage Parliament would have had to do it - the Queen couldn't. Same if they had made him (or Mark) a Prince in their own right.

The reality is the UK is modernizing. With females gaining equal rights to the throne, its not hard to consider they will be treated equally. As Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and focus on his line, Charlotte and her future husband will called upon to support George down the line. It is not a stretch to think we will see something similar to Sweden, Charlotte being granted a Duchy and her husband taking her titles upon marriage.

I could see Charlotte being granted her own hereditary Duchy on her marriage (especially if the Princess Royal title is unavailable). Her husband taking her titles upon marriage would require a reworking of the title system in Britain though.

 

[Rudolph]

The Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. She was styled as HRH The Duchess of Kent. She asked the Queen for permission to use HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent only after her son Edward married and there was a new HRH The Duchess of Kent.

So Princess Madeline of Sweden would still be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge if married to William.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Quite right. In Britain even Philip's mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg was styled Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark

Madeline would require the Queen's permission to use her own name

 

[Dman]

By the time George and Charlotte get married, their father will be King. Their spouses will receive titles.

 

[Skippyboo]

George's will automatically. Charlotte's doesn't have to accept one if he doesn't want it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

George's will automatically. Charlotte's doesn't have to accept one if he doesn't want it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

True, but I'm just saying that a title would likely be offered.

 

[Rudolph]

At court the old rules still apply. When Miss Jane Jones marries Mr John Smith her style is then Mrs John Smith, not Mrs Jane Smith. Kate becomes Princess William, not Princess Catherine

But as we see, the press uses all sorts of names for royals. At an event yesterday, Kate asked the children what is her name and they shouted out 'Princess Kate' so what can you do

 

[CyrilVladisla]

An Empress is the consort of an Emperor. However, if the Princess succeeded to the throne and reigned in her own right, would she be the Empress Regnant? Queen Victoria was a Queen Regnant. She became Empress of India.

 

[Curryong]

I believe so. Except for Victoria, though, there have been few Empress Regnants in modern history. In ancient times the Chinese had one reigning empress and I think the Japanese had a couple.

 

[Roslyn]

An Empress is the consort of an Emperor. However, if the Princess succeeded to the throne and reigned in her own right, would she be the Empress Regnant? Queen Victoria was a Queen Regnant. She became Empress of India.

Empress is a word similar to Queen, though different because Queen is a different word from King, whereas Empress is the feminised form of Emperor. As with Queen, you can have Empress-Regnant, Empress-Consort, and Empress-Dowager. However, although, during the period of the British Empire, the Queen-Empresses who were only Empress-Consorts added the initial "R" after their signature, only Victoria, who was the only Empress-Regnant, and thus the one who had the Imperator status, added the initials "RI" for Regina Imperatrix, which is an interesting exception to the coverture rules, and now I need to find out why.

Actually it seems Alexandra may not have used the "R", either, which is interesting and something else for me to research.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Do viscounts' sons use secondary titles as courtesy titles if their fathers have such titles available?

 

[Curryong]

They're always Honourables as far as I know, as in the Hon. Robert .....
Unless they've been knighted, of course.

 

[GrahamM]

How Edward VIII showed he wasn’t cut out to be King 17 YEARS before he took the throne | Daily Mail Online

The issue is one of law (whether, in law, Wallis Simpson was 'Her Royal Highness'); it has nothing to do with opinions as to 'fitness'. In fact, Edward VII was extremely popular with 'the masses', who probably shared his opinions about the pomposity and rigidity of protocol surrounding the Royal Family (mainly put there by jobsworths). In any event, it is not a good idea to bring 'fitness' into the argument since many other members of the Royal Family are of questionable fitness themselves.

 

[MARG]

He may have been extremely popular with the masses however, you have to remember the fact the up until that cruise the "masses" of the UK and Commonwealth had no idea that Wallis existed.

The cruise blew it out of the water and suddenly The King, I mean Our King is cavorting around with a divorcee. An American divorce to be exact, they're having an illicit affair and she's still married to her second, yes that's right, her second husband . . . no, he wasn't on the cruise!

Everything has its time and place, and in 1936 England divorcees were both a rarity and an oddity and, more importantly, they were not received in polite society. Up until the cruise, the government managed to muzzle the press and while America was gaga over the fact that the King of England was 'dating' an American woman, his subjects hadn't a clue.

As to pomposity and rigidity, this was just the way society was in the 30's and 40's, and, although the war brought an avalanche of divorce petitions and subsequent decrees, divorced women were still not treated well at all levels of society.

 

[GrahamM]

There are arguments on both sides of course - though I don't like to admit it. You see I'm a rottweiler for the underdog.

 

[Rudolph]

I don't think you can have read the linked paper. The King could use the royal prerogative to deprive Edward of his title of HRH, but what he could not do was to deprive Wallis of the title of HRH if Edward was an HRH - because, under the Common Law, which the monarch cannot override, Wallis took the rank, title and style of her husband. So, since Edward was undeniably an HRH from birth and did not (and could not) renounce that title, Wallis took the title HRH on her marriage to him. If you read the paper, you will see that the experts agree on this. PS The monarch is most definitely not the fount of all honour in this country. It's an interesting story but a long one.

On his abdication, the King became Edward Windsor, constitutionally speaking, he was dead.

Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney General said it was his opinion the King became a private citizen when he abdicated.

Clearly the sovereign has the prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles and it's precisely common law that gives him/her the prerogative.

In fact, when the Queen issued the Letters Patent of 1996 to deal with former wives, the Letters Patent of 1937 dealing with the Duke of Windsor were specifically mentioned in the preamble as precedent for her will and pleasure.

Parliament has never contested the sovereign's prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles.

 

[GrahamM]

On his abdication, the King became Edward Windsor, constitutionally speaking, he was dead.

Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney General said it was his opinion the King became a private citizen when he abdicated.

Clearly the sovereign has the prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles and it's precisely common law that gives him/her the prerogative.

In fact, when the Queen issued the Letters Patent of 1996 to deal with former wives, the Letters Patent of 1937 dealing with the Duke of Windsor were specifically mentioned in the preamble as precedent for her will and pleasure.

Parliament has never contested the sovereign's prerogative to regulate royal styles and titles.

1. Edward was born an HRH. He did not lose this on his abdication.
2. Using the royal prerogative, the King could have removed this title from him but he didn't.
3. Edward therefore remained an HRH.
4. Under Common Law Wallis became an HRH on her marriage to him. It is this operation of the Common Law that the King had no power to over-rule; that is, if Edward was an HRH then his wife became an HRH.

That's all there is to it. All the points you raise are either wrong, irrelevant or unsubstantiated. All my points are explained in my paper.

 

[Osipi]

1. Edward was born an HRH. He did not lose this on his abdication.
2. Using the royal prerogative, the King could have removed this title from him but he didn't.
3. Edward therefore remained an HRH.
4. Under Common Law Wallis became an HRH on her marriage to him. It is this operation of the Common Law that the King had no power to over-rule; that is, if Edward was an HRH then his wife became an HRH.

That's all there is to it. All the points you raise are either wrong, irrelevant or unsubstantiated. All my points are explained in my paper.

Actually, as I have read recently here in these forums, HRH is not a title but a form of address such as Your Grace, Your Excellency or Your Majesty. When Edward abdicated, his brother created him The Duke of Windsor. The mechanics of common law made Wallis The Duchess of Windsor.

Therefore, using the royal prerogative, Edward was still His Royal Highness, The Duke of Windsor but the HRH was not granted to The Duchess of Windsor. In divorce, both Sarah, Duchess of York and Diana, Princess of Wales lost their HRH because of the royal prerogative of HM, The Queen yet legally kept the style denoting that both women were, at one time, married to the title holders (Andrew and Charles).

 

[GrahamM]

Actually, as I have read recently here in these forums, HRH is not a title but a form of address such as Your Grace, Your Excellency or Your Majesty. When Edward abdicated, his brother created him The Duke of Windsor. The mechanics of common law made Wallis The Duchess of Windsor.

Therefore, using the royal prerogative, Edward was still His Royal Highness, The Duke of Windsor but the HRH was not granted to The Duchess of Windsor. In divorce, both Sarah, Duchess of York and Diana, Princess of Wales lost their HRH because of the royal prerogative of HM, The Queen yet legally kept the style denoting that both women were, at one time, married to the title holders (Andrew and Charles).

I think we need to work through this step by step.

1. Was Edward an HRH at birth?
2. Did he lose that rank, title and style on abdication? If so, how?

Whatever you call it, it is either something to which a person can be entitled in law (and so potentially not entitled in law) or it isn't. If the latter then anyone can properly call themselves 'HRH' (because it has no legal status) and that is the end of the discussion.

 

[Rudolph]

When Edward abdicated he ceased to be royal. HM, HRH or otherwise. The issue was though, when Edward gave his abdication speech, the King told the BBC he should be announced as his 'HRH Prince Edward'. This was a public statement and to go back on it was thought to be punitive. The public may not like it.

So this is basically what happened. You're correct that under common law a wife takes her husbands rank and styles but royal styles have always been the prerogative of the sovereign going back to Queen Victoria.

When Edward abdicated he was no longer in the line of succession and there has never been an HRH not in the line of succession other than spouses of an HRH.

The King's ministers said if the sovereign can grant the style of HRH, the sovereign can limit the style of HRH

So the Letters Patent issued state that even though my brother abdicated and even though by abdicating he is no longer in the line of succession or royal, I am willing to grant to him personally the 'style, title or attribute' of royal highness but it will be for him only. Not for his wife or any children.

Why should people be expected to curtsey to a woman who can't become Queen?

That the King had the prerogative to do it is unquestionable, it was more a matter of politics. Edward was still popular and the new King didn't want the public to think he was being vindictive. So he allowed his brother to use HRH personally but not for anyone in his family

 

[GrahamM]

When Edward abdicated he ceased to be royal. HM, HRH or otherwise. The issue was though, when Edward gave his abdication speech, the King told the BBC he should be announced as his 'HRH Prince Edward'. This was a public statement and to go back on it was thought to be punitive. The public may not like it.

So this is basically what happened. You're correct that under common law a wife takes her husbands rank and styles but royal styles have always been the prerogative of the sovereign going back to Queen Victoria.

When Edward abdicated he was no longer in the line of succession and there has never been an HRH not in the line of succession other than spouses of an HRH.

The King's ministers said if the sovereign can grant the style of HRH, the sovereign can limit the style of HRH

So the Letters Patent issued state that even though my brother abdicated and even though by abdicating he is no longer in the line of succession or royal, I am willing to grant to him personally the 'style, title or attribute' of royal highness but it will be for him only. Not for his wife or any children.

Why should people be expected to curtsey to a woman who can't become Queen?

That the King had the prerogative to do it is unquestionable, it was more a matter of politics. Edward was still popular and the new King didn't want the public to think he was being vindictive. So he allowed his brother to use HRH personally but not for anyone in his family

If Edward was, in law, an HRH before the abdication then there must have been some legal step taken to remove that title from him. Can you point me to that legal step? The only actual legal step that I know of is His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. Can you tell me where in this Act Edward's title of HRH was removed?

 

[Osipi]

If Edward was, in law, an HRH before the abdication then there must have been some legal step taken to remove that title from him. Can you point me to that legal step? The only actual legal step that I know of is His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. Can you tell me where in this Act Edward's title of HRH was removed?

I can think of a perfect example. Lets take The Earl of Wessex and the plan that, in time, he will be created The Duke of Edinburgh. Now, things have to happen before this can occur. 1.) Both HM, The Queen and the present Duke of Edinburgh have to pass away. 2.) When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown including the title of Duke of Edinburgh (which he would inherit if his father dies before his mother). He is no longer The Prince Charles, The Duke of Cornwall or the Prince of Wales or any of his previous titles and styles that he now holds. It is Charles' prerogative as the monarch then to created The Duke of Edinburgh title for Edward.

Now all this has been done. Charles decides to abdicate and retire with Camilla to the far reaches of Antarctica to raise Emperor penguins. All his titles and styles he held as King (Duke of Lancaster etc) are inherited by William leaving Charles without anything. It would be up to William to decide just what his father's titles and styles would be. Could be anything William chooses.

The kicker is that when Edward VIII became King, all his princely titles reverted to the Crown. He only held those that a King would have.

At least this is how I understand it.

 

[Rudolph]

If Edward was, in law, an HRH before the abdication then there must have been some legal step taken to remove that title from him. Can you point me to that legal step? The only actual legal step that I know of is His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. Can you tell me where in this Act Edward's title of HRH was removed?

The abdication was a one off. There was no provision for it in the constitution and King George V's LP of 1917 made no provision for it. That the son of King George V would be neither Prince of Wales nor sovereign was unthinkable.

He went from being HRH The Prince of Wales to HM King Edward VIII. He abdicates, so now what? Like I said there is no provision for it in the constitution. No statue as to what becomes of a King who gives up the throne.

There was a lot of back and forth. Some thought he should be a royal highness, some thought he was nothing but a private citizen.

In the end though, on the advice of the government, it was decided that because no HRH has ever not been in the line of succession and Edward by Act of Parliament was no longer in the line of succession, the grant of HRH to Edward was a 'gift' to be enjoyed only by himself for the reasons I already stated.

The Queen used basically the same logic in 1996. Because people who are royal highnesses are either in the line of succession or the spouse of a royal highness in the line of succession, former wives would no longer be HRH as they were no longer the wife of a prince in the line of succession.