Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[padams2359]

Prince Phillip is just Prince Phillip. He is seldom referred to as Prince Phillip Mountbatten. The last names will drop over time.

 

[Ish]

Prince Phillip is just Prince Phillip. He is seldom referred to as Prince Phillip Mountbatten. The last names will drop over time.

Prince Philip's last name is kind of a special case though. As a royal he doesn't have a last name, he only adopted Mountbatten as a surname in the brief period of time between when he stopped using his Greek titles and when he was given British titles.

Women are frequently - although not always - remembered in history by their maiden names. Hence why Queens are frequently remembered after their death by their maiden names. Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Aragon, etc.

It isn't a problem to remember them as such in history - it's a good way of distinguishing between them. There's a good number of Annes, Marys, Catherines, and so on who have been Queens, so in using maiden names for Consorts and numbering for Regnants it becomes easier to distinguish between them.

To refer to a living individual by her maiden name when she has indicated a desire to be known by her married name is a different thing altogether. Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall, depending on what she's doing (professional vs. personal), so it isn't inaccurate for the press to call her by both. Catherine, however, is not Catherine, or Kate, Middleton outside of the court case in France, so it's not really accurate of the press to continue to call her such. It would be one thing if they alternated between Catherine and Kate, it's another when they toss in the Middleton.

That said I do think (or hope) that it's only a matter of time before they start getting it right. Camilla is usually referred to without the Parker Bowles, Sophie is usually referred to without the Rhys-Jones, etc.

 

[cepe]

Prince Philip's last name is kind of a special case though. As a royal he doesn't have a last name, he only adopted Mountbatten as a surname in the brief period of time between when he stopped using his Greek titles and when he was given British titles.

Women are frequently - although not always - remembered in history by their maiden names. Hence why Queens are frequently remembered after their death by their maiden names. Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Aragon, etc.

It isn't a problem to remember them as such in history - it's a good way of distinguishing between them. There's a good number of Annes, Marys, Catherines, and so on who have been Queens, so in using maiden names for Consorts and numbering for Regnants it becomes easier to distinguish between them.

To refer to a living individual by her maiden name when she has indicated a desire to be known by her married name is a different thing altogether. Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall, depending on what she's doing (professional vs. personal), so it isn't inaccurate for the press to call her by both. Catherine, however, is not Catherine, or Kate, Middleton outside of the court case in France, so it's not really accurate of the press to continue to call her such. It would be one thing if they alternated between Catherine and Kate, it's another when they toss in the Middleton.

That said I do think (or hope) that it's only a matter of time before they start getting it right. Camilla is usually referred to without the Parker Bowles, Sophie is usually referred to without the Rhys-Jones, etc.

Interesting - then why did he want the family name change to just Mountbatten (his name - famous quote about just being an amoeba - only man who can't give his name to his children) and then the change to Mountbatten-Windsor.?

EDIT: PS wrong thread I think but would appreciate answer, ty

 

[Baroness of Books]

Speaking off the top of my head, Philip's Uncle Louis Mountbatten had proposed the surname at the time of one of the christenings. Queen Mary or the QM didn't want a royal house based solely on the Mountbatten name stemming from the variation of the original German Battenburg name and so pressured to have Windsor linked. The Queen conceded to the change and as a result Philip was extremely angry over that; hence his amoeba remark. He was angry for quite awhile with the Queen, I had read.

 

[cepe]

So it is his surname - at least that's what I think.

 

[Ish]

Interesting - then why did he want the family name change to just Mountbatten (his name - famous quote about just being an amoeba - only man who can't give his name to his children) and then the change to Mountbatten-Windsor.?

EDIT: PS wrong thread I think but would appreciate answer, ty

I always find the amoeba comment rather ironic, given the origins of the name Mountbatten....

Mountbatten is the name that Philip's mother's English family adopted when they lost their German titles and adopted British names. The Battenbergs, headed by Philip's maternal grandfather Prince Louis of Battenberg, became the Mountbattens (with Prince Louis becoming the first Marquess of Milford Haven). This all happened after Philip's mother, Alice, married Andrew of Greece and Denmark, so she was never a Mountbatten.

When Philip became engaged to Princess Elizabeth he gave up his Greek titles (or stopped using them) and adopted an British surname, the name used by his mother's family. When Elizabeth became Queen it was debated that her children would belong to the House of Mountbatten, as per Philip's adopted surname, but it wasn't necessarily brought up by Philip himself.

It was, however, shot down by Queen Mary on the grounds that Philip didn't properly belong to the House of Mountbatten due to maternal descent, and Winston Churchill brought it up in Parliament where the government decided that the House would remain the House of Windsor. The amoeba comment can be seen as Philip's reaction to Parliament telling him that his children descendants wouldn't bear his name, a frustration with the situation (and the break from tradition; when Queen Victoria married her children didn't belong to her House). I always figured it was more of a comment made in anger as the result of an insult than a comment made to express his strong wish that his children be Mountbattens. That his children aren't "of Greece and Denmark" to me indicates that he doesn't necessarily feel the need for his children to bear titles and names he gives them.

The Mountbatten-Windsor happened in 1960 - after the death of Queen Mary and the retirement of Churchill. It doesn't apply to the House itself, just the surname of male-line, non-royal descendants, and I think it was just an attempt to show that at that point in time, post-Churchill, they were trying to find a bit of a middle ground.

It's significant (in my opinion) that the issue didn't come up while Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles or Anne (who were both styled "of Edinburgh" at birth), but did come up again after Andrew's birth. I wonder if some of the earlier position was taken because the idea of non-royal, male-line descendants was less likely with the first two children (more of Charles' descendants will be Royal than Andrew's, while none of Anne's will) than with the last two children.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I knew there was a better explanation; thanks, Ish!

 

[Ish]

Actually, the Louis Mountbatten bringing it up at a christening sounds pretty solid too. I'd read somewhere that part of the M-W had to do with him, but I couldn't remember what - likely he brought it up when Andrew was born and that (and the lack of a Queen Mary to oppose it) was what pushed the M-W into existence.

 

[Roslyn]

To refer to a living individual by her maiden name when she has indicated a desire to be known by her married name is a different thing altogether. Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall, depending on what she's doing (professional vs. personal), so it isn't inaccurate for the press to call her by both. Catherine, however, is not Catherine, or Kate, Middleton outside of the court case in France, so it's not really accurate of the press to continue to call her such. It would be one thing if they alternated between Catherine and Kate, it's another when they toss in the Middleton.

A name is merely a method of identifying a person and distinguishing them from others. As you say, Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall. And Kate is Catherine Middleton for some purposes and Duchess of Cambridge for others. They are the same person no matter that they call themselves one name and others choose to call them by one of their alternatives.

Kate apparently elected to take on William's style and titles and surname when she married him, but for three decades she was Kate Middleton and she'll probably always be Kate Middleton to me, for that is a name that identifies her as an individual rather than merely as an extension of her husband. She may choose not to answer to that name, of course, and that's her prerogative.

I have never used my husband's surname and I won't answer to it and I set people straight if they refer to me that way and I change name tags if I'm given one which attributes his surname to me, but I bet there are people out there who refer to me as Roslyn (husband's surname), and nothing I do is going to stop them doing it and I am not going to lose sleep over it.

And what does it really matter? Kate will call herself the name by which she wants to be known, and others will call her what they want to call her, and as long as it's not an insulting name, what's the problem? There is a perfectly valid reason to identify her, informally - I'm not suggesting that one should address her as such in correspondence or if one met her in person - as Kate Middleton, just as there is a perfectly valid reason to identify Camilla as Camilla Parker Bowles.

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

 

[Ish]

A name is merely a method of identifying a person and distinguishing them from others. As you say, Zara is both Zara Phillips and Zara Tindall. And Kate is Catherine Middleton for some purposes and Duchess of Cambridge for others. They are the same person no matter that they call themselves one name and others choose to call them by one of their alternatives.

Kate apparently elected to take on William's style and titles and surname when she married him, but for three decades he was Kate Middleton and she'll probably always be Kate Middleton to me, for that is a name that identifies her as an individual rather than merely as an extension of her husband. She may choose not to answer to that name, of course, and that's her prerogative.

I have never used my husband's surname and I won't answer to it and I set people straight if they refer to me that way and I change name tags if I'm given one which attributes his surname to me, but I bet there are people out there who refer to me as Roslyn (husband's surname), and nothing I do is going to stop them doing it and I am not going to lose sleep over it.

And what does it really matter? Kate will call herself the name by which she wants to be known, and others will call her what they want to call her, and as long as it's not an insulting name, what's the problem? There is a perfectly valid reason to identify her as her Kate Middleton, just as there is a perfectly valid reason to identify Camilla as Camilla Parker Bowles.

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Personally, I think it all amounts to respect.

You chose to be known by your maiden name and not your husband's surname. To insist on calling you by your husband's surname is to disrespect you.

However, if I chose to be known by my (not yet existing) husband's surname and not by my maiden name then it's disrespectful to insist on calling me by my maiden name.

The same applies to Catherine. She has indicated that she wants to go by the titles and styles she received upon marriage. To call her Kate Middleton is disrespectful because it is contrary to what she has indicated she is to be called.

It's the same thing with nicknames. If your name is Xy and you prefer to be called X, then it's not respectful to call you Xy. However, if you prefer to be called Xy, then it's not respectful to call you X or Y.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Mountbatten thing came up when Elizabeth became Queen with Louis Mountbatten saying something alone the lines of 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' assuming that Elizabeth had taken her husband's surname at the time of her marriage - as is customary.

Queen Mary was opposed to that for two reasons - she didn't really Louis Mountbatten and it was her husband who had changed the House and family name to Windsor.

Philip adopted Mountbatten when he was naturalised which was months before the engagement so he had a name in the navy to use.

The change in 1960 was advised on the grounds that by not using the father's name it implied that the children were in fact illegitimate as only the children of unwed mothers take their mother's surname and so Mountbatten-Windsor came about - to ensure that in the future there was no question about the legitimacy of the children - doubt that there ever would have been but who knows with some people.

 

[cepe]

I always find the amoeba comment rather ironic, given the origins of the name Mountbatten....

Mountbatten is the name that Philip's mother's English family adopted when they lost their German titles and adopted British names. The Battenbergs, headed by Philip's maternal grandfather Prince Louis of Battenberg, became the Mountbattens (with Prince Louis becoming the first Marquess of Milford Haven). This all happened after Philip's mother, Alice, married Andrew of Greece and Denmark, so she was never a Mountbatten.

When Philip became engaged to Princess Elizabeth he gave up his Greek titles (or stopped using them) and adopted an British surname, the name used by his mother's family. When Elizabeth became Queen it was debated that her children would belong to the House of Mountbatten, as per Philip's adopted surname, but it wasn't necessarily brought up by Philip himself.

It was, however, shot down by Queen Mary on the grounds that Philip didn't properly belong to the House of Mountbatten due to maternal descent, and Winston Churchill brought it up in Parliament where the government decided that the House would remain the House of Windsor. The amoeba comment can be seen as Philip's reaction to Parliament telling him that his children descendants wouldn't bear his name, a frustration with the situation (and the break from tradition; when Queen Victoria married her children didn't belong to her House). I always figured it was more of a comment made in anger as the result of an insult than a comment made to express his strong wish that his children be Mountbattens. That his children aren't "of Greece and Denmark" to me indicates that he doesn't necessarily feel the need for his children to bear titles and names he gives them.

The Mountbatten-Windsor happened in 1960 - after the death of Queen Mary and the retirement of Churchill. It doesn't apply to the House itself, just the surname of male-line, non-royal descendants, and I think it was just an attempt to show that at that point in time, post-Churchill, they were trying to find a bit of a middle ground.

It's significant (in my opinion) that the issue didn't come up while Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles or Anne (who were both styled "of Edinburgh" at birth), but did come up again after Andrew's birth. I wonder if some of the earlier position was taken because the idea of non-royal, male-line descendants was less likely with the first two children (more of Charles' descendants will be Royal than Andrew's, while none of Anne's will) than with the last two children.

Thank you. It is interesting that (then)Princess Anne signed her marriage certificate to Mark Phillips as Mountbatten-Windsor. No wonder there is sometimes confusion.

 

[Ish]

Thank you. It is interesting that (then)Princess Anne signed her marriage certificate to Mark Phillips as Mountbatten-Windsor. No wonder there is sometimes confusion.

She's not the only one, I believe Andrew also did so as well.

Royals have a few options when it comes to using a surname. They can use Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor (if they're male-line descendants of HM and the DoE), the place that they're "of", or just their titles.

 

[Roslyn]

Personally, I think it all amounts to respect.

I amended my post after you quoted it, to clarify that I am not suggesting it is appropriate to address people in correspondence or personally, by a name other than the one for which they have expressed a preference.

I otherwise stick by what I have said though. I do not consider it disrespectful to refer to someone informally by a valid name other than the one they choose to use, provided that name is not an insulting one.

 

[Dman]

I just think people should show some respect and call Catherine by her official title. The Queen's former press secretary, Dickie Arbiter has even mentioned that he gets ticked off by people calling Catherine by her maiden name. She's a senior member of the royal family and practically third lady of the land, so I call her Catherine and address her as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge when I talk about her here and when discussing her with others.

Someday, we'll be able to address her as HRH The Princess of Wales and then at some point, Her Majesty The Queen. It's going to be a pleasure to do so.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I just think people should show some respect and call Catherine by her official title. The Queen's former press secretary, Dickie Arbiter has even mentioned that he gets ticked off by people calling Catherine by her maiden name. She's a senior member of the royal family and practically third lady of the land, so I call her Catherine and address her as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge when I talk about her here and when discussing her with others.

I was just wondering how you suppose to greet William and Catherine in public (In person) if you meet them?

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I was just wondering how you suppose to greet William and Catherine in public (In person) if you meet them?

Your Royal Highness first, then you call them Sir and Ma'am during the conversation.

 

[Ish]

I was just wondering how you suppose to greet William and Catherine in public (In person) if you meet them?

I would expect "Your Royal Highness" or "Sir/Ma'am."

 

[Dman]

Yeah, 'Your Royal Highness' and 'Sir and Ma'am.' The bow and curtsey is all up to you. You don't have to do it if you don't like it.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Yeah, 'Your Royal Highness' and 'Sir and Ma'am.' The bow and curtsey is all up to you. You don't have to do it if you don't like it.

My mother taught me how to bow when I was four. And she taught my sister how to courtsey when they were four too.

 

[sarahedwards2]

My mother taught me how to bow when I was four. And she taught my sister how to courtsey when they were four too.

Shouldn't you have learned to bow from your father? Also, I think it should have been taught much earlier, around two-ish.

 

[Roslyn]

Shouldn't you have learned to bow from your father? Also, I think it should have been taught much earlier, around two-ish.

Bowing is a really easy thing to do; anyone can teach a small child how to do it, man or woman. And why on earth would a two year old need to know how to bow?

 

[Ish]

I think often (not always) the more complicated aspects of manners (ie beyond like "please," "thank you," and covering your mouth when you sneeze) ends up falling more into the role of the mother than the father.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think often (not always) the more complicated aspects of manners (ie beyond like "please," "thank you," and covering your mouth when you sneeze) ends up falling more into the role of the mother than the father.

Heck nowadays companies have been known to hire people to teach their up and coming managers proper manners, everything from how to dress, to what fork to use and how to read a wine list because such things are no longer learned at home.

 

[Ish]

That's because we live in a sad and cruel world.

Although, if there's a fancy way to read a wine list, I'm afraid to admit that I don't know it.

 

[Roslyn]

Blame that excellent Aussie invention the splayd for the shameful dearth of knowledge about what fork to use. You can slice, scoop and stab with your splayd, and in the comfort of your chair in front of the TV, so there's no need to bother with table settings at all.

I try to avoid dining at restaurants that are likely to give me more than one fork. They are bound to be very expensive and serve very small portions.

And now many ways are there to read a wine list?

 

[VictoriaB]

Blame that excellent Aussie invention the splayd for the shameful dearth of knowledge about what fork to use. You can slice, scoop and stab with your splayd, and in the comfort of your chair in front of the TV, so there's no need to bother with table settings at all.

I try to avoid dining at restaurants that are likely to give me more than one fork. They are bound to be very expensive and serve very small portions.

And now many ways are there to read a wine list?

In the very best restaurants the wait staff bring the cutlery for each course at that course. It saves the confusion having to work out whether you are picking up a salad fork or the fish fork.

The point about the wine list might be to prevent the horror of someone chosing a wine because they actually like it and committing the social faux pas of selecting a red wine with chicken or fish.

 

[Roslyn]

In the very best restaurants the wait staff bring the cutlery for each course at that course. It saves the confusion having to work out whether you are picking up a salad fork or the fish fork.

Now that's considerate!

The point about the wine list might be to prevent the horror of someone chosing a wine because they actually like it and committing the social faux pas of selecting a red wine with chicken or fish.

Oh, the shame of such a faux pas. I am a red drinker and I don't like white wine, so I have often breached that "rule". And, wandering wildly even further off topic, since you are from the Top End and will "get" it, I will mention something amusing that happened to me in Port Douglas a few years ago. I ordered red wine with a meal, and it was served at room temperature, because, I was assured by the waiter, red wine must be served at room temperature! It was January and the restaurant had fans but not air conditioning. Room temperature was well over 30 degrees celsius. I put ice in it.

 

[Ish]

Now that's considerate!

Oh, the shame of such a faux pas. I am a red drinker and I don't like white wine, so I have often breached that "rule". And, wandering wildly even further off topic, since you are from the Top End and will "get" it, I will mention something amusing that happened to me in Port Douglas a few years ago. I ordered red wine with a meal, and it was served at room temperature, because, I was assured by the waiter, red wine must be served at room temperature! It was January and the restaurant had fans but not air conditioning. Room temperature was well over 30 degrees celsius. I put ice in it.

The forks aren't as complicated as they look. If the table is set properly for your meal then you should have one set of cutlery for each meal, an you just start at the outside and work your way in, typically going up in size in fork until you get to the desert fork, which is smaller than the meat one.

My grandmother is one of those types who knows exactly what fork to use when, and where everything is supposed to go in a place setting, so growing up even though dinner at her place would only be a two course event (dinner and desert) setting the table was an elaborate event that the kids were tasked with and (lovingly) scolded when mistakes were made.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Where's the corner where this conversation went from titles to cutlery? I want to hop in a car and go back.