Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

Of course she can. She is the only person in the realm with the authority to do so.

You're maybe conflating peerages with royal styles and titles. Peerages require an act of parliament to 'strip' someone but not HRH/prince/ss

When it comes to royal styles, 'The Queen can giveth and The Queen can taketh away'

What some have been discussing is if Harry for whatever reason didn't seek/get permission to marry and marries anyway. Would there be some sort of 'punishment' for lack of better word.

By statute he would be excluded from the line of succession but titles are the prerogative of the sovereign.

Although a different set of circumstances, Edward VIII's abdication made him in the words of Geoffrey Ellis 'A Private citizen of the crown, who by implication has also lost the right to style himself H.R.H.'


Would Harry's exclusion from the line of succession be viewed as him becoming a 'private citizen of the crown and therefore not entitled to style himself HRH'

Ultimately it would be up to the Queen (or Charles) to decide.

In any case, even if the Queen could strip Harry of his royal title, the relevant point is that new LPs would still be needed. What I and other posters were arguing is that the Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about royal titles and, similarly, the Letters Patent 1917 say nothing about succession rights. If Harry married without consent, the only legal effect under the Succession to the Crown Act would be that he and hs descendants wouldn't have succession rights, but his HRH status as a grandson of a sovereign in male line and the HRH status of his children (for the same reason when Charles became king) would be preserved under the LPs 1917, which have not been repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act

Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. In fact, there are hundreds of people in the line of succession to the British throne, but only 14 of them are currently HRHs, meaning that being in the line of succession is not a sufficient condition to be an HRH. Conversely, there were people in the past who were not in the line of succession, but were HRHs nonetheless in their own right (for example, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Michael of Kent), meaning that being in the line of succession is not a necessary condition either to be an HRH in the UK.

 

[duke of poliganc]

Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. In fact, there are hundreds of people in the line of succession to the British throne, but only 14 of them are currently HRHs, meaning that being in the line of succession is not a sufficient condition to be an HRH. Conversely, there were people in the past who were not in the line of succession, but were HRHs nonetheless in their own right (for example, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Michael of Kent), meaning that being in the line of succession is not a necessary condition either to be an HRH in the UK.

last time i checked there was about 4000 in the line to succession .

 

[Rudolph]

In any case, even if the Queen could strip Harry of his royal title, the relevant point is that new LPs would still be needed. What I and other posters were arguing is that the Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about royal titles and, similarly, the Letters Patent 1917 say nothing about succession rights. If Harry married without consent, the only legal effect under the Succession to the Crown Act would be that he and hs descendants wouldn't have succession rights, but his HRH status as a grandson of a sovereign in male line and the HRH status of his children (for the same reason when Charles became king) would be preserved under the LPs 1917, which have not been repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act

Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. In fact, there are hundreds of people in the line of succession to the British throne, but only 14 of them are currently HRHs, meaning that being in the line of succession is not a sufficient condition to be an HRH. Conversely, there were people in the past who were not in the line of succession, but were HRHs nonetheless in their own right (for example, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Michael of Kent), meaning that being in the line of succession is not a necessary condition either to be an HRH in the UK.

Of course there are people in the line of succession who aren't HRH but all the groups of people stated in the LPs of 1864 and the LPs of 1917 were in the line of succession. Up until Edward VIII, other than wives, there was never a royal highness outside the line of succession.

It was the spirit of the LPs.

The abdication was a one off, so it's difficult to extrapolate but exclusion by virtue of abdication must be viewed differently from exclusion from marrying a catholic (at the time) as to why Prince Michael of Kent remained an HRH.

You're right, Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about titles but that's not surprising since this has always been the sovereign's personal prerogative.

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that if Harry purposely did marry without permission, he and his children could be 'denied' HRH

This is all hypothetical as the Queen will give Harry permission to marry.

 

[Mbruno]

Of course there are people in the line of succession who aren't HRH but all the groups of people stated in the LPs of 1864 and the LPs of 1917 were in the line of succession. Up until Edward VIII, other than wives, there was never a royal highness outside the line of succession.

It was the spirit of the LPs.

The abdication was a one off, so it's difficult to extrapolate but exclusion by virtue of abdication must be viewed differently from exclusion from marrying a catholic (at the time) as to why Prince Michael of Kent remained an HRH.

You're right, Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about titles but that's not surprising since this has always been the sovereign's personal prerogative.

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that if Harry purposely did marry without permission, he and his children could be 'denied' HRH

This is all hypothetical as the Queen will give Harry permission to marry.

Since it is a hypothetical scenario anyway, it is not worth speculating.

Let me just take the opportunity to fix my previous typo: I meant the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, not 2017.

 

[Ish]

If, however, Charles never became king, Harry's children would be only Lord/Lady [name] Mountbatten-Windsor forever , unless they got some other title later, wouldn't they ? In other words, they would be great-grandchildren of a former sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II), but they wouldn't be grandchildren of any sovereign (as Elizabeth's successor would be their uncle William instead of their grandfather).

I think that would depend on the circumstances.

Technically, as the LPs stand they would never be styled as the grandchildren of the monarch, but rather as the child of the monarch. Depending on the circumstances, the monarch might wish to issue LPs to change that though.

I think in the hypothetical situation where Harry marries without consent, LPs wouldn't be forthcoming in this regards. However, were something to happen to Charles and Harry married with consent, I think both the Queen and William would be willing to issue LPs (depending on who was monarch), if Harry and his wife wanted it.

The queen can't issue LP stripping a person of his peerage or baronetage title, but she can strip of the style and title of Royal Highness. It's her right (see Sarah, Duchess of York).

No, that's not what happened there.

Sarah never had titles in her own right, neither did Diana. They held their titles as the wives of British princes, and when they ceased to be the wives of British princes the Queen had to decide how that was to be handled; were they now HRHs in their own right, or were they no longer HRHs.

If you look at the 1997 LPs it doesn't actually name Sarah (or Diana). Rather it addresses the ex-spouses of people who were covered by the 1917 LPs and basically states that the 1917 LPs don't apply to them.

The monarch can grant titles to specific people using LPs, and can remove titles from groups of people using them (as happened in 1917 and 1997), but they can't use LPs to strip royal titles from individuals.

 

[Spheno]

The monarch can grant titles to specific people using LPs, and can remove titles from groups of people using them (as happened in 1917 and 1997), but they can't use LPs to strip royal titles from individuals.

They can.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/27901/supplement/2421

 

[Denville]

It is all moot as harry's not going to marry without permission or marry anyone unsuitable.

 

[Spheno]

It is all moot as harry's not going to marry without permission or marry anyone unsuitable.

It's not about Harry. It's about new Succession to the Crown Act and all royals.

 

[Skippyboo]

Harry is just being used for discussion purposes as he is someone who would need permission but losing the place in succession would not really be a big deal since he isn't a direct heir. In the past, there would be no questions about titles but now there can be.

 

[Rudolph]

It makes no sense to say the sovereign can grant the style and not restrict it. It's been done in the past.

The LPs of 1898 granted the style HRH to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales

The LPs of 1917 restricted this to the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.

The LPs 0f 2012 again expanded this to all children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.

The Law Officers from the House of Lords said in 1937.

"The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"

In our hypothetical case Harry would be a 'particular circumstance'

 

[Ish]

They can.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/27901/supplement/2421

How is that an example of LPs being used to strip someone of a title?

Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenburg was born a Her Highness.

In 1906, her uncle elevated her to a Her Royal Highness, as shown in the LPs. This was done to elevate her status a bit for her engagement to the King of Spain.

It makes no sense to say the sovereign can grant the style and not restrict it. It's been done in the past.



The LPs of 1898 granted the style HRH to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales



The LPs of 1917 restricted this to the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.



The LPs 0f 2012 again expanded this to all children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.



The Law Officers from the House of Lords said in 1937.



"The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"



In out hypothetical case Harry would be a 'particular circumstance'

Rudolph, I think you're misunderstanding what I've said here.

The monarch can grant or remove titles from groups of people. The monarch can grant titles to specific people. The monarch cannot strip titles from specific people.

The LPs of 1864 restricted the use of the HRH Prince/Princess in a general way, saying that HRHs were the children of the Sovereign and the male-line grandchildren of a sovereign.

The LPs of 1898 expanded this use in a general way, allowing for the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales also be HRH Prince/Princess.

Royal Warrents were issued by Queen Victoria and Edward VII elevating specific people who were not covered by the 1864 and 1898 LPs; notably the daughters of Louise, Princess Royal and the Duke of Fife (who were not born royal, were elevated to HH Princess), the children of Prince and Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (who would have been HSH under Christian's titles, but were elevated to HH), and Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (who was elevated to HRH until her marriage).

In 1917 the LPs were issued to limit the use of the HRH, but only took titles from individuals who had previously held them only through other previous, general coverages. The Schleswig-Holsteins remained HHs, and the daughters of Princess Louise remained HRHs, they just chose (after marriage) to not utilize these titles. The people who had been HHs under the old rules lost those titles (there were no children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, then being the future Edward VII, who was still unmarried).

The 1937 LPs granted Edward Windsor the title HRH The Duke of Windsor after his abdication, essentially establishing that an abdicated monarch is not covered as a child or male-line grandchild (or for that matter a son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales), all of which he still was through the 1917 LPs. It was also established in a general way, saying that the wife and children of the Duke of Windsor were not extended the same styles and titles that they would have otherwise been entitled to under the 1917 LPs; and I say "in a general way" because at the time the Duke of Windsor was not married so technically Wallis wasn't being denied the title, a hypothetical wife of the Duke of Windsor was being denied the title.

The Law Office in 1937 was not saying that the monarch could issue LPs specifically stripping someone of a title previous LPs had granted. They were saying that when the monarch issued LPs they could dictate the way in which the title was shared. Before the part you quoted, the Law Office said that precedent dictated that the wife of an HRH also be an HRH, "unless some appropriate express step can be and is taken to deprive her of it."

Basically, the statement your quoting is saying "your brother isn't covered by LPs anymore and if you word the LPs carefully you can deny Wallis Simpson from sharing her husband-to-be's titles without creating morganatic law."

 

[Rudolph]

Rudolph, I think you're misunderstanding what I've said here.

The monarch can grant or remove titles from groups of people. The monarch can grant titles to specific people. The monarch cannot strip titles from specific people.

I do understand what it is you're saying but I don't agree.

Why would this anomaly exist in your opinion? Why would the sovereign have the personal prerogative to grant the style to an individual but not the prerogative to remove it?

Parliament's consent isn't required to 'strip' someone of royal highness because parliament's consent isn't required to grant someone royal highness in the first place.

Peerages are a different beast all together. There is an entire body of statute, case and constitutional law surrounding peerages. Only the government can grant them and only the government can revoke or alter them.

It's done in sovereign's name but it's government doing it.

The reason for doing this is to peerages there is attached a constitutional role, the right to sit in the House of Lords. Peers play a role in the government and legislation.

Also there is a change in the status of the individual. Being elevated from commoner to noble entitled a person to trial in the House of Lords (since abolished)

And although today most peers are life peerages, there are still over 90 hereditary peers in the House of Lords.


None of this considerable body of law applies in anyway to royal highnesses and princes/esses

These styles and titles carry with them zero privileges or status. Princess Anne has no more legal rights, privileges or status under the law than Zara Tindall.

Unlike peerages, there are no rights attached to royal styles that can be defended in a court of law.

In Britain being a royal highness and prince or princess denotes nothing more than a degree of relation to the sovereign. Sons, daughters, male-line grandchildren etc.

It's nothing more than a courtesy and doesn't require an act of parliament to 'strip' someone of it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. [...]

The HRH is not tied to the succession rights in the Netherlands. The following person do (did) not (or no longer) enjoy succession rights but are (were) HRH:

HRH Princess Beatrix (abdicated)
HRH Princess Juliana (abdicated)
HRH Princess Wilhelmina (abdicated)
HRH Prince Friso (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Irene (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Christina (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Máxima (by creation and elevation)
HRH Prince Claus (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Bernhard (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Hendrik (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Princess Mabel (by courtesy)
HRH Princess Laurentien (by courtesy)

 

[Mbruno]

""

The HRH is not tied to the succession rights in the Netherlands. The following person do (did) not (or no longer) enjoy succession rights but are (were) HRH:

HRH Princess Beatrix (abdicated)
HRH Princess Juliana (abdicated)
HRH Princess Wilhelmina (abdicated)
HRH Prince Friso (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Irene (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Christina (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Máxima (by creation and elevation)
HRH Prince Claus (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Bernhard (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Hendrik (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Princess Mabel (by courtesy)
HRH Princess Laurentien (by courtesy)

Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis, the title of "Prince of the Netherlands" explicitly expires when a person ceases to be a member of the Royal House. A former monarch after abdication is automatically a member of the Royal House and a Prince of the Netherlands, which explains why Beatrix is an HRH today, but other relatives of the current King up to the second degree of consanguinity are members of the Royal House only as long as they have succession rights. That is why Prince Friso, for example, when he lost his succession rights, ceased to be a Prince of the Netherlands and retained only his previous title of Prince of Orange-Nassau.

Now, in principle, someone who is not a Prince of the Netherlands should not be entitled to the predicate HRH and, therefore, post-2002, HRH status is, in principle, indeed tied to succession rights. Prince Friso was an exception since, although he ceased to be a Prince of the Netherlands, Queen Beatrix allowed him by royal decree to keep the HRH predicate even though that was illogical. Beatrix's sisters are also a different situation because they were excuded from the line of succession prior to the 2002 law and, therefore, never ceased to be princesses of the Netherlands.

Mabel and Laurentien are HRHs only by courtesy, so their examples are immaterial to the discussion; Máxima is a princess of the Netherlands in her own right, which is possible under the law in the case of the wife of the heir to the throne and the consort of the monarch, but my previous remark was about "princes/princesses of the blood", and not about princesses by marriage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The HRH is not [legally] tied to the succession rights in the Netherlands. [...]

Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis, the title of "Prince of the Netherlands" explicitly expires when a person ceases to be a member of the Royal House. [...] Now, in principle, someone who is not a Prince of the Netherlands should not be entitled to the predicate HRH [...]

The Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis ties the title "Prince of the Netherlands" to succession rights, but it does not legally tie the predicates HRH or HH to any title.

wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis - BWBR0013729

 

[Mbruno]

"

The Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis ties the title "Prince of the Netherlands" to succession rights, but it does not legally tie the predicates HRH or HH to any title.

wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis - BWBR0013729

True, but Princess Margriet's sons, who are only "princes of Orange-Nassau", but not "princes of the Netherlands", use the style only of "Highness" rather than "Royal Highness", which is why Queen Beatrix's decision about Prince Friso's style was illogical or, at least, inconsistent. I suppose it is (or should be) self-evident that someone who is not a "prince of the Netherlands" should not be an HRH in the Netherlands.

In fact, the Dutch government gave very bad advice to Queen Beatrix not only in the case of Prince Friso, but also with respect to Prince Constantijn's children.

 

[Mbruno]

I have a question which some of you, I hope, might be able to answer: is the title of "Princess Royal" also granted by Letters Patent as the title of "Prince of Wales" ?

 

[Rudolph]

^^^ No. The style is honorary and carries with it no precedence. It's granted by royal warrant.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis ties the title "Prince of the Netherlands" to succession rights, but it does not legally tie the predicates HRH or HH to any title.

wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis - BWBR0013729

HRH and HH are no titles but a form of address. Exactly like Your Eminence to a Cardinal, Your Excellency to an Ambassador or Lord/Lady/Your Lordship/Your Ladyship.

It is not tied to the membership of the Royal House or to the line of succession. The fact that the princes/princesses de Bourbon de Parme (no members of the Royal House and no successors) which belong to the Nobility of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are HRH is an example. The same counts for Princess Beatrix, Princess Máxima (as is her legal title) and the late Prince Friso. No successors either but HRH: Prince Michael of Kent, Prince Alexander of Belgium, Prince Louis of Nassau, etc.

That Prince Friso remained a HRH is logic. He was a prince of the blood royal. In Belgium, the United Kingdom, in Luxembourg, in the Netherlands, etc. we have seen different examples of persons no longer in succession, or never had succession rights, but remained a HRH.

It would be weird when Prince Friso would meet Prince Ernst August of Hannover, a royal without throne with his former country as part of a republic, that he then is HRH Prince Ernst August but Friso is suddenly denoted to HH because he did not seek an Act of Consent for his marriage. Note that HH Prince Pieter-Christiaan and HH Prince Floris were not "demoted" either when they married without an Act of Consent. They simply kept the form of address they enjoyed.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

When Charles becomes King, will William automatically be Prince of Wales?

When His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, becomes His Majesty The King Charles III (or George VII), will Prince William automatically be the next Prince of Wales, or will the Wales title merge in with the crown for King Charles?

 

[Skippyboo]

William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall when Charles becomes King. He has to be created Prince of Wales. It's not something that he automatically inherits.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Charles becomes King, William's titles will change.

He will become HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, Duke of Rothesay etc etc.

Cornwall and Cambridge will be together based on the precedent set by George V who when from January 1901 until November that year as HRH The Duke of Cornwall and York everywhere except in Scotland where he was simply HRH The Duke of Rothesay.

At some time after his accession - could be that day, the next day, a week, a month, six months, a year, or years afterwards - Charles may create William as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

Charles was only Duke of Cornwall from 1952 until 1958. He had to wait the longest of any heir apparent to be created Prince of Wales after becoming eligible.

George V had to wait nearly 10 months

Edward VIII had to wait 6 weeks

Edward VII had to wait about a month - born 9th November and created PoW in December.

George IV was much the same.

George III also had to wait about 6 weeks after the death of his father (he was never Duke of Cornwall etc as he wasn't the eldest living son of the monarch AND heir apparent - he was heir apparent only after his father died while his uncle was the eldest living son).

George II was created Prince of Wales when his father arrived in England after his accession but took two years to give that title to his own son, Frederick.

From this it is clear there are now rules about when a monarch created their heir as Prince of Wales ranging from a month to 6 years.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall when Charles becomes King. He has to be created Prince of Wales. It's not something that he automatically inherits.

So I guess Charles would create the title for his son, William? I always thought that it was automatic, since William is Charles' heir.

 

[Skippyboo]

When Charles becomes King, will William automatically be Prince of Wales?

He will in time. Charles can only make William, Prince of Wales. He can't give the title to someone else like Harry instead of William. Can't imagine that Charles will make William wait too long to be created Prince of Wales since he is an adult not a little kid like Charles was when his mom became Queen

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Given Charles's age when he becomes King, I'd say that William's investiture would have to be pretty quick, 18 months tops. He would still become Duke of Cornwall and Rothsay automatically and have access to the duchy revenues, which is what really matters.

Personally what scares me is the field day the papers and glossies will have when Kate becomes "Princess of Wales" - brace yourselves kiddies, it'll be a bumpy ride(!)

 

[Lady Nimue]

Given Charles's age when he becomes King, I'd say that William's investiture would have to be pretty quick, 18 months tops. He would still become Duke of Cornwall and Rothsay automatically and have access to the duchy revenues, which is what really matters.

Personally what scares me is the field day the papers and glossies will have when Kate becomes "Princess of Wales" - brace yourselves kiddies, it'll be a bumpy ride(!)

Why?

 

[Ish]

So I guess Charles would create the title for his son, William? I always thought that it was automatic, since William is Charles' heir.

It's not a hereditary title, in fact none of the titles Charles has at this time are hereditary. They each have specific rules around their creation, restricting who can hold them and are not passed down in a manner similar to how other titles (including the Crown) would be.

William is Charles' heir apparent, which means that in time when Charles is King he will meet the requirements for each of the titles Charles currently holds. Some (like Duke of Cornwall) happen automatically, others (like Prince of Wales) have to be created.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There may not even be an investiture. That was a 20th invention by George V that Elizabeth also followed but no previous Princes of Wales have had such an event and neither of the two who were invested were all that impressed with the ceremonies.

It made sense in a way for Charles as it allowed him to publicly swear allegiance to his mother but William will be able to do that at the accession council and again at the coronation.

Given that a coronation will take about a year or more to plan and take place it is doubtful that the country would want to have a second major such event at about the same time as the coronation - no need.

1911 was a different situation than the 21st century and people are more questioning about the ceremonies and costs of the royal family (rightly or wrongly).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why?

Have you read any of the current press coverage on Kate? It is often vitriolic and will only get worse if she doesn't do something about it.

Then there are the other forums - many of which are also totally anti-Kate and William and many turning against Harry as well.

These days the media is in many forms but very little of it seems all that supportive of Kate.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Have you read any of the current press coverage on Kate? It is often vitriolic and will only get worse if she doesn't do something about it.

Didn't know. Oh.

Then there are the other forums - many of which are also totally anti-Kate and William and many turning against Harry as well.

Another surprise.

These days the media is in many forms but very little of it seems all that supportive of Kate.

That's a shame. Sorry to hear it. Thank you for the answers, Iluvbertie.