Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Ish]

Also:

If she marries someone who is knighted, she becomes Her Royal Highness Princess X, Lady Y.

If she marries the younger son of a marquess her style is the same as that of if she married the younger son of a duke. Similarly, the styling for marrying a younger son of an Earl is the same for marrying the younger son of a viscount or baron.

If she marries someone completely without title, she becomes Her Royal Highness Princess X, Mrs. y.

 

[Ish]

Aside from his Greek titles, Prince Philip is a Prince of the United Kingdom, as he is married to the Queen.

If the Queen had ever divorced Philip, would he have remained a Prince in his own right?

Highly unlikely, I know, but likewise, if Philip had ever re-married after either divorce or being widowed, would his new wife have become a Princess?

Prince Philip is not a prince simply because he marrie the Queen. In Britain men do not take on the titles of their spouses. After he married her (long after) he was created a Prince of the United Kingdom of his own right. Divorcing the Queen would not change that unless she issued LPs striping him of his princely title.

 

[royal-blue]

This is an interesting idea. Would any children from this hypothetical second marriage have been prince/sses?

Obviously, Philip is not the son of a monarch, but when Charles and Anne were born they became prince and princess despite no being male-line grandchildren of a reigning monarch.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

This is an interesting idea. Would any children from this hypothetical second marriage have been prince/sses?

Obviously, Philip is not the son of a monarch, but when Charles and Anne were born they became prince and princess despite no being male-line grandchildren of a reigning monarch.

No, they wouldn't be Prince or Princesses.

Prince Charles and Princess Anne were only a Prince and a Princess because King George VI passed Letters of Patent stating that any children born to Princess Elizabeth would be Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom.

 

[Ish]

This is an interesting idea. Would any children from this hypothetical second marriage have been prince/sses?

Obviously, Philip is not the son of a monarch, but when Charles and Anne were born they became prince and princess despite no being male-line grandchildren of a reigning monarch.

Prince Philip's children from another marriage would not be prince(sse)s, they would be styled the children of a Duke.

Charles and Anne were given their titles at birth because of LPs issued by George V on 22 October 1948 granting the children of the then Princess Elizabeth the title of prince(ss). This is similar to the LPs that the Queen herself issued this past December regarding the children of Prince William.

 

[royal-blue]

It seems Philip became HRH upon marriage and a Prince later on so as was mentioned, he would probably lose the HRH upon divorce but remain a Prince. I assume he would remain HRH upon widowhood and remarriage, unless the new monarch revoked it.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

It seems Philip became HRH upon marriage and a Prince later on so as was mentioned, he would probably lose the HRH upon divorce but remain a Prince. I assume he would remain HRH upon widowhood and remarriage, unless the new monarch revoked it.

All depends of Letters of Patent. Without them, he would remain HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Grandma828]

Since he is such an advanced age we probably will never have to imagine anything of the sort.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Since he is such an advanced age we probably will never have to imagine anything of the sort.

Say this to the Duchess of Alba.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well, he's not a Prince of Greece and Denmark since 18 March 1947.

That issue is debateable and has been discussed in detail here:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...enship-and-greek-and-danish-titles-28085.html

If he divorces the Queen, it would be required Letters of Patent stating what will be his titles (if any). Otherwise, he will stay as HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

It would take legislation to change the 1957 and 1947 LPs that created him DoE and Prince of the UK - not LPs.

If a widowed Duke of Edinburgh ever remarries, his wife will became HRH the Princess Philip, Duchess of Edinburgh, unless new Letters of Patent are passed saying otherwise.

Correct - if Charles decided that his step-mother wasn't to share his father's titles and styles he could limit the LPs to apply to Philip only and not to a second wife or any subsequent children - I doubt that he would do so, or that it would even be necessary.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

It would take legislation to change the 1957 and 1947 LPs that created him DoE and Prince of the UK - not LPs.

Why? The Queen was able to went against the Letters of Patent of King George V, why she can't do the same with Letters of Patent that were passed by herself?

 

[Ish]

Why? The Queen was able to went against the Letters of Patent of King George V, why she can't do the same with Letters of Patent that were passed by herself?

When did she go against George V's LPs?

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

When did she go against George V's LPs?

When she stated the Wessex children would be styled as children of an Earl and all of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children would be Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom.

 

[Daphoenyx]

NGalitzine, BrazilianEmpire, Ish: THANK YOU SO MUCH!

It's all very clear to me now. Just one doubt remains: what happened in 1989 that changed the style of Princess Alexandra from "The Hon Mrs Angus Ogilvy" to "The Hon Lady Ogilvy"?

And I thought that "The Hon" and "Lady" would never be used together... Sometimes I feel

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The Honorable Angus Ogilvy was made a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order in 1988, so his wife became Lady Ogilvy.
She's "Honorable" because her late husband was the younger son of an Earl, and a Lady bacause he was a Knight.

 

[Ish]

When she stated the Wessex children would be styled as children of an Earl and all of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children would be Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom.

She didn't go against the LPs there.

The Wessex children hold the titles of male-line grandchildren of a monarch. They also hold the style of children of an earl. The Queen issued no LPs denying the Wessex children this right, she merely stated that as per their parents' wishes they will use their style instead of their titles. This is similar to Camilla using the title Duchess of Cornwall as her primary title instead of Princess of Wales, despite the latter being the higher title.

The Queen also does not go against George V's LP regarding the HRH status and princely titles in granting said status to the children of the Cambridges (nor did George VI's LP regarding the HRH status and princely titles regards to the then Princess Elizabeth's children). George V's LPs grants the use of the style/title to the monarch's children and male line grandchildren, and revokes the use of such styles from other individuals, as well as the other princely titles and related styling within Britain. It does not say that the only people who can use the style/title are those covered in the LP, and even states that those who have been granted titles will be allowed to continue to use them. The Queen's and George VI's LPs do not go against this, they merely grant additional style/titles to people born under circumstances that George V likely didn't predict.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George V changed the LPs of Queen Victoria from 1898 when he denied the HRH to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales except the eldest son. What QEII has done is simply take George V's LP in regard to the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales back to what they were under QV.

With regard to Louise and James there are two interpretations - one that they still are HRHs and the other that all that is needed to change the situation is that the Queen's will be made known - which it has been - and so they aren't so entitled anymore. As they are highly unlikely to ever use the HRH we will probably never know the true situation there.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why? The Queen was able to went against the Letters of Patent of King George V, why she can't do the same with Letters of Patent that were passed by herself?

She didn't 'go against' the LPs of George V - she added to them.

There is also a difference between the issuing of LPs to create a styling - such as HRH Prince/Princess - non-substantive words for commoners and those creating a peer of the realm, or LPs that create a noble such as the ones creating Philip a Duke - taking him from commoner status to that of a peer (as she did in 2011 with William when she made him a Duke - changed his status from commoner to peer - Kate remains a commoner).

 

[Daphoenyx]

Oh ok now I understand, thanks! I am somewhat familiar with peerages but absolutely NOT with knights of any order, so...

I looked at his page on Wikipedia and I could see that at some point he became a "Sir"... Thus his wife a "Lady"... Makes sense!

 

[wbenson]

Given that his peerages (1947) and princely title (1957) were created by Letters Patent so it would have taken an Act of Parliament to remove them, so in the event of divorce and remarriage I believe he would have continued to be HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and his new wife would have become HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh although I suppose it would have been possible to remove the HRH since that is a style and not a title and the Duchess of Windsor would be a sort of precedent for not having HRH and we know the Queen removed the HRH from Diana and Sarah.

His peerage would require an act of Parliament to remove, but I think his princely status could be taken away by further letters patent. It happened to Prince Alastair of Connaught and several German princes in 1917.

 

[Artemisia]

You are absolutely right.
Princely styles and titles are entirely at the will of the Sovereign who can grant, and revoke, them at any time. No Acts of Parliament are required.

 

[branchg]

His peerage would require an act of Parliament to remove, but I think his princely status could be taken away by further letters patent. It happened to Prince Alastair of Connaught and several German princes in 1917.

Most definitely, yes. The style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is entirely within the gift of The Sovereign and can be granted or revoked at any time. It is merely a style and status, not a title.

 

[branchg]

With regard to Louise and James there are two interpretations - one that they still are HRHs and the other that all that is needed to change the situation is that the Queen's will be made known - which it has been - and so they aren't so entitled anymore. As they are highly unlikely to ever use the HRH we will probably never know the true situation there.

The announcement of The Queen's will is sufficient for them to use their current styles, rather than the one they are automatically entitled to under Letters Patent. Since they are minors, their parents' wishes take precedence.

I suspect the 1917 Letters Patent will have been modified by the time they are legally adults, so they will no longer have the right to the HRH status.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The announcement of The Queen's will is sufficient for them to use their current styles, rather than the one they are automatically entitled to under Letters Patent. Since they are minors, their parents' wishes take precedence.

I suspect the 1917 Letters Patent will have been modified by the time they are legally adults, so they will no longer have the right to the HRH status.

I believe Lady Louise and Viscount Severn will have the right to choose, when they become adults, if they want to be a Princess and a Prince.

But I believe they'll choose to stay just as children of an Earl. Eventualy, the Earl of Wessex will become the Duke of Edinburgh, and they'll become children of a Duke.

 

[Molly2101]

I don't think Louise and James will ever use their HRH styles and title. They are being raised out of the spotlight and as rhey grow up and become of age, they will be aware of the issues their cousins Beatrice and Eugenie have had with their HRH style and issues with the press. They will see how "easy" they themselves have it (all the fortune of being sovereign's grandchildren, but no problems with HRH style).

 

[NGalitzine]

I would not be surprised if Charles III issued new Letters Patent limiting the HRH to the children of the monarch and of the heir apparent. Not necessarily removing the HRH from the those who had the HRH at the time but going forward.

 

[Molly2101]

^^^^ I think Charles will do that, thus limiting the size of the British Royal Family which in the long run will not necessarily be a bad thing. I can't see many future heir apparent's having more than 3 children (the Queen had 4, 3 of which were boys therefore a natural increase in HRH style), so that will be another way of limiting the size of the family.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I would prefer to see King George VII limiting the HRH to children of the Monarch and children of the Heir to Throne, and granting the HH to children of the younger sons, like in the Danish Royal Family.

But in fact, I don't think any change is necessary.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I would prefer to see King George VII limiting the HRH to children of the Monarch and children of the Heir to Throne, and granting the HH to children of the younger sons, like in the Danish Royal Family.

But in fact, I don't think any change is necessary.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The announcement of The Queen's will is sufficient for them to use their current styles, rather than the one they are automatically entitled to under Letters Patent. Since they are minors, their parents' wishes take precedence.

I suspect the 1917 Letters Patent will have been modified by the time they are legally adults, so they will no longer have the right to the HRH status.

As I said - there are two interpretations in existence, and this matter has been extensively debated on this board - I see no reason to argue it again.

Your interpretation is one of the two in existence (and the one that I agree with) but, as BrazilianEmpire says in the post after yours there is a different interpretation (with which I don't agree).