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.
I always thought the addition of "The" was for the son and daughter of the Monarch.

As Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward were all HRH The Prince/Princess, whereas the grandchildren were just HRH Prince/Princess.
 
Beatrice and Eugenie will drop the 'of York' official at the time of their marriages as Alexandra dropped 'of Kent' when she married. They will add some reference to their husband e.g. HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon, Lady Ogilvy - which is now how Alexandra is officially referenced in the CC on occasions while other times she is simple Princess Alexandra but no longer 'of Kent'.

My thinking was more on the Charles becoming King would trigger the title change for Harry but not for the York girls.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Can someone confirm or otherwise clear up...

Mark Phillips was never a HRH, right?

Was he then considered a "royal" or not?
And is Zara technically "royal?" (see: http://ukroyaltitles.tumblr.com/post/14512220408/dispelling-myths-the-phillips-reality)
I ask because on the Zara thread there is an Aussie News clip in which Zara is referred to as the only royal to ever win an Olympic medal. Is that technically true?
Thanks for any clarity. I've made more mistakes on this thread than anyone can count, so now I ask. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Can someone confirm or otherwise clear up...

Mark Phillips was never a HRH, right?

Was he then considered a "royal" or not?
And is Zara technically "royal?" (see: Dispelling myths: The Phillips Reality)
I ask because on the Zara thread there is an Aussie News clip in which Zara is referred to as the only royal to ever win an Olympic medal. Is that technically true?
Thanks for any clarity. I've made more mistakes on this thread than anyone can count, so now I ask. :lol:

No, Mark Phillips was never an HRH, but by his marriage he was a member of the royal family. In MY opinion, Zara and Peter Phillips are as royal as their cousins, even though they do not hold any titles. Imagine if the Princess Royal decided to go about as Mrs Anne Laurence (or rather Lady as he is a Sir), I shouldn't imagine she would be any less royal!

BTW, I don't remember any mistakes you have made, so if you did they were small ones lol
 
Questions about British Styles and Titles

Member of royal family but not HRH. Zara is not first royal to win a Olympic medal. Constantine of Greece won a gold in 1960 for sailing.

There have been several royal Olympic participants.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Can someone confirm or otherwise clear up...

Mark Phillips was never a HRH, right?

Was he then considered a "royal" or not?
And is Zara technically "royal?" (see: Dispelling myths: The Phillips Reality)
I ask because on the Zara thread there is an Aussie News clip in which Zara is referred to as the only royal to ever win an Olympic medal. Is that technically true?
Thanks for any clarity. I've made more mistakes on this thread than anyone can count, so now I ask. :lol:

According to Princess Anne, her children are not royal, they just have the Queen as their grandmother.
 
According to Princess Anne, her children are not royal, they just have the Queen as their grandmother.

Hahaha, well I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with Princess Anne! Nonetheless, they still have royal blood in their veins!
 
I guess it depends on how people want to define royal and how many degrees of separation from the monarch do we extend the definition.

Personally I limited it to HRH and Prince/ss. For me HRH the Duke of Gloucester is most certainly royal but I don't consider the same with Zara.

Zara is certainly a member of the Queen's family but I don't consider her a member of the Royal Family.

Others have different definitions though.
 
Not necessarily.

Harry will be moved to the less important status while William will move up as time goes on and so making that distinction is all that is happening now. The same with any future legitimate children - William's will be born HRH but Harry's (unless new LPs are issued for his children or he doesn't become a father until after his father's accession) won't be.


Prince William's children are the only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are currently entitled to be princes/princesses as children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. I assume then that Harry's children, if born before the Prince of Wales ascends the throne, will bear no title other than Lord/Lady xxx Windsor. What happens though after Charles becomes king ? Would Harry's children become princes then ?
 
I would say there is also a difference between being Royal and a member of the Royal Family.

I have no difficulty accepting the grandchildren of a monarch as Royal (Peter, Zara, David Linley & Sarah Chatto). To me there is no difference between them and their cousins who happened to be born to male children of the monarch. I would not consider them to be members of the Royal Family though.

On the other hand Camilla, Catherine, Sophie and Brigitte are members of the Royal Family but I don't consider them as being Royal because they have no blood relationship with the monarch. To me they are no more Royal than than Tim, Mark or Tony Snowdon (or than I am).

Like Rudolph says it comes down to personal opinion. The Queen and Palace can have as many lists as they want setting out who they consider Royal/a member of the Royal Family but people will still make up their own minds.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Prince William's children are the only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are currently entitled to be princes/princesses as children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. I assume then that Harry's children, if born before the Prince of Wales ascends the throne, will bear no title other than Lord/Lady xxx Windsor. What happens though after Charles becomes king ? Would Harry's children become princes then ?


Yes they would. In the same way, Diana was born the Honorable Diana Spencer as the daughter of a Viscount. She became Lady Diana Spencer when her father succeeded to the Earldom.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Prince William's children are the only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are currently entitled to be princes/princesses as children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. I assume then that Harry's children, if born before the Prince of Wales ascends the throne, will bear no title other than Lord/Lady xxx Windsor. What happens though after Charles becomes king ? Would Harry's children become princes then ?

Yes Harry's children become HRH and Prince/ss when Charles is King. Born in the Queen's reign they are 'mere' Lords and Ladies

Nothing can stop the Queen from bumping them up to HRH and Prince/ss during her reign but I don't really see this happening
 
Last edited:
In the broad context Zara winning a medal at the Olympics, I think the use is okay. Mark Phillips won a bronze in Seoul while he was still married to Anne. I wouldn't call him a royal medal winner. Zara has royal blood while Mark was just married to one which can change but Zara's always going to be granddaughter of a Queen.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Prince William's children are the only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are currently entitled to be princes/princesses as children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. I assume then that Harry's children, if born before the Prince of Wales ascends the throne, will bear no title other than Lord/Lady xxx Windsor. What happens though after Charles becomes king ? Would Harry's children become princes then ?

Assuming that Harry is given further titles upon his marriage his children's titles will be:

  • Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, with the eldest son using Harry's second highest title during the Queen's reign
  • HRH Prince/Princess X of Y (with Y being the territorial designation of Harry's peerage) after the Queen's reign
  • Harry's heir will then later become HRH Whatever Harry's Title Is after Harry's passing if it passes to a son; the peerage will cease to be a royal one when it passes onto Harry's grandson
  • Any of Harry's daughters will go on to be HRH Princess X, The Feminine Equivalent of their Husband's Titles on their marriage; his daughters-in-law will be HRH Princess X of Y (with X being their husband's name and Y being the territorial designation of Harry's peerage)
 
I would say there is also a difference between being Royal and a member of the Royal Family.

I have no difficulty accepting the grandchildren of a monarch as Royal (Peter, Zara, David Linley & Sarah Chatto). To me there is no difference between them and their cousins who happened to be born to male children of the monarch. I would not consider them to be members of the Royal Family though.


When the new Succession to Crown Act 2013 comes into force, male preference in the order of sucession will be abolished and, therefore, it won't make sense anymore to grant the rank of HRH to male-line grandchildren of the monarch while denying it to the children of the monarch's daughters.

Rather than distinguishing different grandchildren of the monarch based on their parents' gender, the best solution in my personal opinion would be to do as in Continental Europe and grant the HRH rank solely to the children of the heir apparent. All other grandchildren of the monarch would be therefore untitled, or titled only as children of a peer if their parents held a peerage.
 
The Letters Patent issued in 2012/13 aren't specifically for William's children. It was what is known as a "group conferral" (a single document defining a limited or unlimited class of people who receive them). Meaning it will apply to all future children of a Prince of Wales.

Groups conferrals as was the case in 2012/13 are almost always passed under the Great Seal of the Realm

Letters Patent or Royal Warrant issued ad personam or an individual basis deals with a single person (Harry's children for example) and aren't usually passed under The Great Seal although they can and have been in the past.

Either way the effect is the same.
 
Can someone confirm or otherwise clear up...

Mark Phillips was never a HRH, right?

Was he then considered a "royal" or not?
And is Zara technically "royal?" (see: Dispelling myths: The Phillips Reality)
I ask because on the Zara thread there is an Aussie News clip in which Zara is referred to as the only royal to ever win an Olympic medal. Is that technically true?
Thanks for any clarity. I've made more mistakes on this thread than anyone can count, so now I ask. :lol:

Mark was never an HRH, nor has Zara ever been. She is considered by some to be royal in a broad sense, particularly in regards to the tabloids, but she's not actually royal. She is family to royals but not herself a member of the royal family.

Princess Margaret once said of her children "aren't royal - they just happen to have the Queen for an aunt" (Anne is often attributed of having said something similar), while Zara herself points out that she's not a princess. She's not royal, she's just related to royals.
 
The Letters Patent issued in 2012/13 aren't specifically for William's children. It was what is known as a "group conferral" (a single document defining a limited or unlimited class of people who receive them). Meaning it will apply to all future children of a Prince of Wales.

Groups conferrals as was the case in 2012/13 are almost always passed under the Great Seal of the Realm

Letters Patent or Royal Warrant issued ad personam or an individual basis deals with a single person (Harry's children for example) and aren't usually passed under The Great Seal although they can and have been in the past.

Either way the effect is the same.

Well, no. It will apply to all future children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The exact wording is "all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". This means that Harry's children aren't in any way affected, but one day George's children will. Although, even then it only counts if William is made Prince of Wales.

Also, the LPs were for 2012, not 2013.
 
^^^ Eldest son is what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

2012/13 in the sense it passed under The Great Seal of the Realm in 2012 but was released in 2013. Officially 2012
 
Last edited:
Questions about British Styles and Titles

It would only come into play with a great grandchild of the sovereign and a heir. So if George has a kid while Charles is King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
If George has a kid while Charles is King if William has been made Prince of Wales.
 
When has someone who was eligible not been named Prince of Wales ? If George has a kid, you can safely assume that Charles got around to naming William Prince of Wales at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The interesting thing with those LPs is that if the eldest child is a girl they will need to issue new LPs as the girl will be the heir apparent but the children won't be born HRH under these LPs. However the children of a younger child, not heir apparent, but still a son will automatically by HRH.

That 'slip' was a way of showing The Queen's dislike of the change to first child inheritance I suspect as she has set it up so that if the current situation - of a great-grandchild being born who is also the future monarch - results in the heir being a girl then they are back to new LPs again. She could have prevented that by stating 'eldest child' rather than 'eldest son'.
 
Well, George VI had to issue a LP to allow for Charles and Anne to be HRHs , other wise they would have been born styled as children of a Duke. If there is a girl heir apparent, they probably just do the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The interesting thing with those LPs is that if the eldest child is a girl they will need to issue new LPs as the girl will be the heir apparent but the children won't be born HRH under these LPs. However the children of a younger child, not heir apparent, but still a son will automatically by HRH.

That 'slip' was a way of showing The Queen's dislike of the change to first child inheritance I suspect as she has set it up so that if the current situation - of a great-grandchild being born who is also the future monarch - results in the heir being a girl then they are back to new LPs again. She could have prevented that by stating 'eldest child' rather than 'eldest son'.

That's an interesting take on it. I wonder if it was more of a "Charles is expected to be the last Prince of Wales" kind of take on things. Either way it's an interesting way of wording it - she probably would have been better off saying "the children of the eldest child of the heir apparent" just to cover all the bases... but then, the BRF doesn't tend to cover all bases with their LPs.

When has someone who was eligible not been named Prince of Wales ? If George has a kid, you can safely assume that Charles got around to naming William Prince of Wales at some point.

I disagree, I don't think we can assume such a thing.

First of all, we're assuming that when Charles is King the Welsh will want the title to continue. We don't know that, and I kind of wouldn't be surprised if the Welsh spoke up against it the title wasn't used.

Second of all, assuming that there are no objections to the title, there is often a bit of a gap between when the person becomes heir apparent and when the title is conferred - Charles himself was heir apparent for 6 years before becoming PoW.

Thirdly, Edward III, Henry VI, and (according to the PoW's website) Edward VI were never PoW, despite being eligible. There are several others who died shortly after their births who also weren't PoW despite being eligible.
 
In the case of Honours it's the sovereign's will and pleasure that matters. How the Queen expresses her pleasure depends on the Honour.

Sometimes Letters Patent passed under the Great Seal on the advice of parliament is required as in the case of Peerages for example. When the Queen created William Duke of Cambridge Letters Patent were required.

Letters Patent are simply a way that the Sovereign signifies making an alteration or proclamation that doesn't go through Parliament but they aren't the only way.

In the case of royal titles and styles the matter is completely different. Unlike Peerages, royal titles and styles confer no legal entitlements upon the recipient. The Queen can style her family as she pleases

A good example for an individual is Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester. No formal grant of the title of Princess was ever made.

Her husband died on June 10, 1974, and after his funeral she ceased to be "the duchess of Gloucester". Normally she would have become the dowager duchess of Gloucester. Instead, the Court Circular refers to her as "Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester" starting on July 13, at the first mention of her after the funeral.There is no grant of the style Princess recorded at the College of Arms either.

However a grant of Arms in 1981 is recorded as follows by Garter King of Arms :

"The armorial bearings of Her Royal Highness Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester as widow of His Royal Highness the late duke have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen"

One example of the Queen expressing her will and pleasure through an instrument other than Letters Patent
 
Mark was never an HRH, nor has Zara ever been. She is considered by some to be royal in a broad sense, particularly in regards to the tabloids, but she's not actually royal. She is family to royals but not herself a member of the royal family.

Princess Margaret once said of her children "aren't royal - they just happen to have the Queen for an aunt" (Anne is often attributed of having said something similar), while Zara herself points out that she's not a princess. She's not royal, she's just related to royals.
Thanks Ish. It's what I thought, but I do get tangeled up on this thread. I appreciate the assist!
 
The interesting thing with those LPs is that if the eldest child is a girl they will need to issue new LPs as the girl will be the heir apparent but the children won't be born HRH under these LPs. However the children of a younger child, not heir apparent, but still a son will automatically by HRH.


That was exactly what I meant before: the LPs are outdated in view of the new succession rules that will come into force with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Parliament should take the opportunity to repeal the LPs and pass legislation regulating royal titles and styles in line with Continental practice, i.e. restricting HRH status to the monarch's children and children of the heir apparent only. The monarch's consort and the heir apparent's consort could also be made princes or princesses in their own right and the title of Prince/ss of Wales for the heir apparent should also be enshrined in law in line with the titles of Prince of Orange in the Netherlands and Prince of Asturias in Spain. All other members of the Royal Family, including the remaining grandchildren of the monarch who are not born to the heir apparent, would be untitled, or else hold the titles or honorifics to which they would be entitled according to British peerage rules assuming their parents are peers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom