Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
McKeen said:
That sounds reasonable to me. It's hard for me to imagine that Charles would strip the HRH just because he doesn't like them. But with the change to an eldest child inheriting the throne regardless of gender perhaps a change would be to have only the children of the heir apparent and monarch be HRH instead of letting male line grandchildren have it, i.e. Andrew's daughters are princesses and Anne's children have no titles.

Equal primogeniture has yet to be signed into law.
 
Being a Royal Highness means you are expected to carry out public duties on behalf of The Sovereign as a working member of the family. The reality is Beatrice and Eugenie are not going to be doing that in the future.

The public's expectations have evolved to a general consensus that the senior members of the family who are serving should be supported. Everyone else should be living their own lives without any indirect cost to the taxpayers.

In line with that, the family should be downsized in terms of HRH to reflect the new realities.
 
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH. They may be "advised" to completely lower their "profile" and they will most likely never be "working royals". So even with HRH, they will be practically living like Peter and Zara.
If "reforms' are really needed, Charles should start with his own family. He should limit HRH Prince(ess) to only William's kids, and not Harry's kids. Because harry's kids are going to be Beatrice and Eugenie of next generation..
 
...I think Charles will deprive them simply because he doesn't like Andrew all that much and apparently has little time for the girls or Sarah - if various reports are to believed he called them 'twits' or something else equally unsavoury (twits in case you don't know is a colloquial term meaning 'idiot' - hardly flattering).
I dont understand why so many people are hell-bent to 'believe' that Charles hates his brothers, their wives and kids, and thinks they are useless. Is there any 'authentic' source for that (not inside' ones)? just because he doesnt kiss them or hug them or paste a broad smile or adoring look in front of media, doesnt mean he hates them.
And why Charles..Is may be very much the Queen's idea to downstream the royal family..She herself did it in Diamond Jubilee..She must have advised Charles to plan for future,,
Why do we mix Business and Family?
Giving HRH, getting on balcony, giving KG/KT/GCVO, Civil List is all business. Anyone in his place has to bring reforms, for the institution to survive.
Dealing with your family, siblings, nieces their lives is all personal family thing.
The latter need not be announced/exhibited in front of media..
I am surprised so many mix up these two, making charles someone who cant love anyone or who hates everyone and planning to torture them when he becomes King..attributing all negativity to him..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH.

Sorry, but there is a question of stripping them of their titles. You cannot say for certain that there isn't.

I dont understand why so many people are hell-bent to 'believe' that Charles hates his brothers, their wives and kids, and thinks they are useless.

Nobody has ever said that Charles hates his brothers, or their children or that he thinks they are useless. You will find no reports to confirm this theory, neither will you find anything where Charles stated he wished to scale down the monarchy. Everything comes from 'senior figures' and 'sources'. But on an official ceremony like the Diamond Jubilee, and you only see William, Catherine and Henry on the balcony - would you think otherwise? :whistling:

And why Charles..Is may be very much the Queen's idea to downstream the royal family..She herself did it in Diamond Jubilee..She must have advised Charles to plan for future,,

And many people say that the appearances at the Diamond Jubilee were ideas given to The Queen by Charles, who several say is 'running the show'. I don't see what Charles has to plan for, of all the futures in the world his is almost set out for him.


Why do we mix Business and Family?

You do realise which family you are referring to don't you? In royal families, business and family mix all the time. Their job is their title, which they get as a family, simply by being born. If the 90s showed anyone anything is that royal family life definitely mixes, heavily with business. Taking away someone's HRH, someone who's lived with it all their lives, is a big deal.


I am surprised so many mix up these two, making charles someone who cant love anyone or who hates everyone and planning to torture them when he becomes King..attributing all negativity to him..

Could you please show me where anyone suggested that Charles would torture his nieces when he becomes King? Where did anyone say he can't love anyone?


As male line grandchildren, Beatrice and Eugenie are entitled to their titles. So let them keep them. These are provisions set out in 1917, and in the years to come the royal family is going to shrink and shrink until only 5 people are left to do the job of 15.
 
Nobody has ever said that Charles hates his brothers, or their children or that he thinks they are useless. You will find no reports to confirm this theory, neither will you find anything where Charles stated he wished to scale down the monarchy.

Actually if you read back a couple of pages you will find posters who claim that Charles does feel his brothers are useless and his nieces are twits, but you are correct I have never seen any indication of that from Charles himself or read of any such claims from his staff.
 
I think The Prince of Wales love his sibilings and truly appreciate their contribution to the work of the "Firm." I also think he love and adore his nieces. I think The Queen is the one that really wanted to present the future of the Monarchy in her Jubilee year. I also think we may see this same thing for her Coronation celebrations next year.
 
I don't see that it is anything to do with the public what titles a person holds - and HRH Prince/Princess is simply a title.

They aren't supported by the public so it is none of the public's business if they are called Lady Beatrice/Lady Eugenie or Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie - they are still titles and they get them from their father.
 
Actually if you read back a couple of pages you will find posters who claim that Charles does feel his brothers are useless and his nieces are twits, but you are correct I have never seen any indication of that from Charles himself or read of any such claims from his staff.

Thansks NGalitzine..I did find such posts thats why I said. I could have quoted all of them but didnt know how to quote more than one post. Lumutqueen in simply pouncing on me..

And Lumutqueen..here are some clarifications..

Not mixing business and family..I mean that because Charles doesnt give his brothers KT or make his nieces working royals, doesnt mean he doesnt like them..Both are different..Got it?

And regarding reforms, whatever they may be, what I say is Charles may not be fully responsible. Queen and DoE would have thoroughly discussed with him what all is going to happen once they pop off, and put forth their views and suggestions. The trimming of family on Balcony might very well be their own idea as much as we think its Charles'.

You are not getting that point because a few pages back people were just mixing up things saying Charles will downgrade them just because he doesnt like them and all..
 
vkrish said:
Not mixing business and family..I mean that because Charles doesnt give his brothers KT or make his nieces working royals, doesnt mean he doesnt like them..Both are different..Got it?

Actually, I don't. Because Charles can't do either of the things you suggest whether he wishes to or not.
 
I think it will be the same as the Kents and the Gloucesters. An apartment in a palace in exchange for royal appearances here and there. It will be the status quo. The K&Gs were once in the same positions. They are no longer directs, and their children are not Royal. Charles is still very much into some traditions. He has two children, like his grandfather, and the Royal family was small. It ebbes and flows in size. A thousand years people, it all repeats itself, but survival is the utmost. I am sure in the last few hundred years, the monarchy was not asked to limit numbers digging in the Privy Purse.
 
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH. They may be "advised" to completely lower their "profile" and they will most likely never be "working royals". So even with HRH, they will be practically living like Peter and Zara.
If "reforms' are really needed, Charles should start with his own family. He should limit HRH Prince(ess) to only William's kids, and not Harry's kids. Because harry's kids are going to be Beatrice and Eugenie of next generation..

That's exactly what a lot of people on this forum are saying.
 
There is absolutely no question of stripping Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH. They may be "advised" to completely lower their "profile" and they will most likely never be "working royals". So even with HRH, they will be practically living like Peter and Zara.
If "reforms' are really needed, Charles should start with his own family. He should limit HRH Prince(ess) to only William's kids, and not Harry's kids. Because harry's kids are going to be Beatrice and Eugenie of next generation..

Well it would not be without some precedence. HH Prince Alistar of Connaught lost his rank as a British prince under the 1917 Letters Patent and became Lord MacDuff. Although George V did not officially remove the style and title from HH Princess Maud of Fife he simply decided that on her marriage she should become known as Lady Carnegie. Something similar could happen to Beatrice and Eugenie on their marriages, becoming Lady Beatrice Smith and Lady Eugenie Jones even if their husbands are not titled themselves. There are always ways around things if the monarch wants it to happen. One thing about the British monarchy is that it is very adaptable which is likely why it has survived so long.
 
Well it would not be without some precedence. HH Prince Alistar of Connaught lost his rank as a British prince under the 1917 Letters Patent and became Lord MacDuff.
Interesting is that when Alastair was born, his status and title was not obvious for many. So there were certain projects to regulate the King's first cousin once removed's status and title through a Letters Patent. There were sugggestions made to the King that he should confirm in there Alastair's status and title of Prince, the same what he did with the children of the Duke of Brunswick, for whom he confirmed their titles and status of British princes as male-line descendants of George III. But, the said 1917 changes put the question of personal Letters Patent on Alastair away and he became stripped of his status by limiting it to only two (plus the eldest of the PoW's eldest).
Although George V did not officially remove the style and title from HH Princess Maud of Fife he simply decided that on her marriage she should become known as Lady Carnegie.
But the Letters Patent of 1917 you are referring to did not implicate the Princess Louise's daughters' styles and titles. Their royal status came from their grandfather Edward VII's decision and George V did not take any actions to remove or alternate his father's will on that. He did not like it that the Fife girls were given royal status while being female-line descended from a monarch and he even did not want to allow his nieces to wear Princesses' robes at his coronation. Are you sure it was under his pressure that Maud of Fife chose to not use her princely title and royal style after her marriage to Lord Carnegie? Maybe she just wanted it? Patricia of Connaught did the same.

And anyway, both Maud of Fife and Patrcia of Connaught formally remained Princesses of the UK and their status was unchanged. It was a matter of style and address only. Do we think of the same for a potential removal of the York girls' royal status?
 
Last edited:
reform is not required - evolution is doing the job instead. The Kents and Glos. have something like 10-15 years left; Anne about 20; Andrew 25; Sophie and Edward - about 25-30. But all of these reducing in capacity over those time scales. Thse will not be "replaced" by their children. So the family will reduce.

Charles will not, I think, take any drastic action. New LPs will depend on the marriages/off-spring of William and Harry. Lots of children by both is a different future and requirement to, say, Harry or William not having any children. The scale of this will see whether or not Harry's children would be Prince/Princeess

If neither have any children then HRH Princess Beatrice and her children take a position centre stage. So all options should remain available
 
Exactly. Natural Selection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
During the funeral for the Queen Mother, Garter styled her as the "Most high, most mighty and most excellent Princess Elisabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother"

Is this the usual formal style for a deceased queen consort or did HM specially grant her mum this style for her funeral?
 
It was granted by The Queen as the correct style would have been The Princess Albert. But since she granted her two aunts the courtesy of using their names, of course she would certainly do the same for her mother when reciting her styles and titles at her funeral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. What about the "Most high, most mighty and most excellent" ?

List of titles and honours of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a very old fashioned and traditional form of styling royals and top nobles in the most formal way. For example, King James was styled as the most high and mighty Prince James by the translators and editors of the King James Bible.

John Logan: Analogia honorum (1677)
  • "A Duke hath the Title of Grace; and being written unto is styled, Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince. And Dukes of the Royal Blood are styled, Most High, most Mighty, and Illustrious Princes."
  • [A Marquiss] "hath the Title of most Noble, most Honourable, and Potent Prince"
  • "An Earl had formerly the Title of Prince; but now it is Most Potent and Noble Lord, as also The Right Honourable and truly Noble."
  • [A Viscount] "hath the Title of the Right Honourable and truly Noble, or Potent Lord"
Randle Holme: The Academy of Armory (1688)
  • "A Duke is Stiled, and Esteemed Princely, and generally Gracious, and Excellent: the High and Mighty Prince, or Most High Potent and Noble Prince.
  • [The Marquess] "is Stiled as the Duke, Earl, and Viscount are by the King (Consanguinei Nostri) our cousins: and if he be written unto, he is titled the most Noble, and Potent Lord: or the Right Honorable and Grand (or puissant) Seignor.
  • [The Earl] "is stiled the most Noble and Potent Lord, or the thrice honourable and puissant Seignior, W. Earl of A. Viscount B. Baron F. and G. Knight of the thrice Noble Order of the Garter, &c.
  • "the Viscount is stiled, The Right Honourable Lord, or The Right Noble and Potent Lord, or grave Seignior, &c." [Baron]: "The Right Noble Lord A. B. Baron D, &c."
The Laws of Honour (1724)
  • "A Duke hath the Title of Grace, and being writ to, is stil'd, most High, Potent and Noble Prince: And Dukes of the Blood are stil'd, most High, most Mighty, and Illustrious Princes." (p. 15) "Dukes are usually stil'd by the King or Queen our Right Trusty and Right entirely Beloved Cousin, and when of the Privy Council, then with the Addition of Counsellors." (p. 17)
  • "A marquis hath the stile of most Noble, most Honourable and Potent Prince" (p. 38) "Marquisses are usually stil'd by the King or Queen our Right Trusty and Entirely Beloved Cousin, and when of the Privy Council, then with the Addition of Councellors." (p. 40)
  • "An Earl had formerly the Stile or Title of Prince, as FDukes and Marquisses have, but now it is most Potent and Noble Lord: As also, the Right Honourable and truly Noble." (p. 44) "Earls are usually stil'd by the King (or QUeen) Our Right Trusty and right Well-Beloved Cousin; and when the Privy-Council, then with the Addition of --- and Counsellors." (p. 47)
  • "A Viscount hath the Title of Right Honourable, and truly Noble, or Potent Lord. ... usually stil'd our right Trusty and well Beloved Cousin ... (p. 104)
  • "Most noble and Right Honourable Barons ... Right Trusty and Well-beloved" (p. 149)
The Style of Prince outside the Royal Family

The Style of Prince outside the Royal Family
 
"Dukes of the Royal Blood are styled, Most High, most Mighty, and Illustrious Princes." - Thats cool. So can William use this style or is it too old fashioned?
 
:previous:

Technically speaking, yes, William - as a Royal Duke - can use the styling.
However, I really don't see that ever happening in real life apart from some extremely ceremonious occasions because, let's face it, the styles are very old-fashioned.
 
Very old fashioned indeed and would sound more than a bit pompous if used in an introduction so perhaps the only time you might hear it used would be at a funeral where Garter King of Arms would read out all his titles and honours.
 
Where would 'His Royal Highness' be inserted I wonder?

HRH, The Most High, most Mighty, and Illustrious Prince William, Duke of Cambridge etc

I just think this is such a cool style to use lol
 
Last edited:
Very old fashioned indeed and would sound more than a bit pompous if used in an introduction so perhaps the only time you might hear it used would be at a funeral where Garter King of Arms would read out all his titles and honours.

I'm sure that style of him will be used at leat two times, in the official proclamation of his accession and at his funeral, as you've pointed it out.

Where would 'His Royal Highness' be inserted I wonder?

HRH, The Most High, most Mighty, and Illustrious Prince William, Duke of Cambridge etc

I just think this is such a cool style to use lol
I like it very much too. The styles sound great. :cool:
HRH/HH/HSH are not in there. I think that most high, mighty, excellent and illustrious is good enough. ;) As for the Dukes, in the most formal cases their style is usually abbreviated to Most Noble.
 
Last edited:
During the funeral for the Queen Mother, Garter styled her as the "Most high, most mighty and most excellent Princess Elisabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother"

Is this the usual formal style for a deceased queen consort or did HM specially grant her mum this style for her funeral?

I can't find the recording anymore (it was on the BBC's On This Day site, which is no longer as active as it used to be), but I believe it was used for Queen Mary as well.

Edit: I found it!
 
Last edited:
I can't find the recording anymore (it was on the BBC's On This Day site, which is no longer as active as it used to be), but I believe it was used for Queen Mary as well.

Edit: I found it!
The difference is she was a princess (by birth, in her own) and for Queen Mum her personal style of princess was used by courtesy as she was a princess but it was the Princess Albert not Princess Elizabeth.
Generally, sovereigns and queens dowager are surely introduced in that style at their funerals and the sovereigns are also given it in the official proclamations of their accession.
Do you know any examples of such usage for ordinary members of the Royal Family in our times?
 
I was under the impression from other questions I have asked that once a person is married to the monarch they gain royal status in their own right. So then they are a princess of the united kingdom.
 
I was under the impression from other questions I have asked that once a person is married to the monarch they gain royal status in their own right. So then they are a princess of the united kingdom.

Actually when Philip married Princess Elizabeth, he became HRH The Duke of Edinburgh by her father George VI. He did not become HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh until Queen Elizabeth II endowed him with that title in 1957. It is not automatic that one becomes a prince or princess of the UK in their own right by marrying a sovereign.
 
Last edited:
Women become princesses by virtue of taking their husbands styles under common law but a man doesn't become a prince by marrying a princess.

It is officially announced that, in accordance with the settled general rule that a wife takes the status of her husband, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York, with the status of a Princess.

Times of April 28, 1923

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom