Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Kataryn]

Diana was never Princess Diana. Only a Princess born as a Princess in the UK can use Princess and their own names e.g. Princess Anne, Princess Charlotte etc.

Wives of British princes use their husband's names so Diana was Princess Charles.

Fortunately for her Charles had higher titles than simply Prince for her to use 'Prince of Wales', 'Earl of Chester','Duke of Cornwall', 'Duke of Rothesay' etc. Diana, like Camilla, could use the feminine form of all of these titles - so Princess of Wales, Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay etc. The only one of these titles Camilla has not used is Princess of Wales but she is entitled to do so. As she uses Countess of Chester she has also to be Princess of Wales as both Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester were given to Charles in the same Letters Patent.

Diana was stripped of HRH at the time of her divorce,which is also when Sarah lost HRH. Sarah had remained HRH from the time of her own divorced until Diana's divorce.

After their divorces they followed the custom in the UK and used their own names with the feminine form of their husband's senior title so HRH The Princess of Wales became Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York became Sarah, Duchess of York.

I think Diana could have reverted back to her own courtesy title and could have used Lady Diana Mountbatten-Windsor as well.

 

[Denville]

I think Diana could have reverted back to her own courtesy title and could have used Lady Diana Mountbatten-Windsor as well.

I can't see why she would do that. She was entilted to be Diana Princess of wales unless she remarried...

 

[Kataryn]

I can't see why she would do that. She was entilted to be Diana Princess of wales unless she remarried...

Well, she didn't do it, we all know. But she could have decided that having a courtesy title is better than having none - Diana, Princess of Wales was just a name while "Lady Diana" would have been a titled style.

 

[Osipi]

Well, she didn't do it, we all know. But she could have decided that having a courtesy title is better than having none - Diana, Princess of Wales was just a name while "Lady Diana" would have been a titled style.

Actually it boils down to that regardless of which "title/style" she preferred to use, they're still both courtesy titles. She was able to use "Lady" because her father was Earl Spencer. She was able to use "Princess of Wales" because her ex-husband is The Prince of Wales. She opted for the more "esteemed" courtesy title as I see it. She never held a title or style of her own.

 

[Denville]

Actually it boils down to that regardless of which "title/style" she preferred to use, they're still both courtesy titles. She was able to use "Lady" because her father was Earl Spencer. She was able to use "Princess of Wales" because her ex-husband is The Prince of Wales. She opted for the more "esteemed" courtesy title as I see it. She never held a title or style of her own.

I would have said that most people would opt for the Princess title, rather than Lady Diana...

 

[AdmirerUS]

As I recall it, there was this whole thing in the tabloids of the time about her being "The People's Princess." It was very awkward and I think even she recognized it. That moniker implied so many things:
-Sod off Charles, you can divorce her but we will love her even when you don't. In fact a lot of the public found her more princess than they found him Prince-like.
-The corollary to that which is that the BRF cannot unmake a princess if we, the public don't ascent
-She is OURS - meaning she is a belonging/puppet/plaything of the public. I always thought Di wanted the Admiration of the public but thought the kind of all access pass that was in effect at the time to be a bridge too far. She did not want to be dictated to by anyone at the time of the divorce.
I've always believed (and let's not go off topic and chase this on this thread) that the whole thing was just so very awkward for the BRF and Di, that the eventual Camilla/not Queen decision happened because the whole mess with Di's title had been usurped by the public.
Her Majesty's Royal Will simply could not be imposed on this situation and that must have been difficult, indeed.
Ugly times back then.

 

[Osipi]

The way I see it, Diana's courtesy title was resolved a year before she was tragically killed. She was afforded the courtesy title that denotes that she is an ex-wife of The Prince of Wales. This same courtesy title was given to not only Sarah, Duchess of York but also legally to the wives that the 9th Earl Spencer was divorced from. Its just the way it works in the UK and the British title/style system.

 

[jacqui24]

Didn’t the People’s Princess thing really take off after Tony Blair’s speech after Diana’s death? Besides I really don’t think Diana would’ve minded that.

Anyways, speaking of Lady Diana. Would Diana revert back to that had she remarried?

 

[Osipi]

I think its very possible that she would have reverted to Lady Diana, Mrs Khan if she had married Hasnat Khan or Lady Diana, Mrs. Al-Fayed or Lady Diana, Mrs. Hewitt. Once she remarried, she would no longer be eligible to use "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy styling whereas because of who her father was, she would always remain "Lady".

 

[jacqui24]

Wouldn’t she just be Lady Diana [married name] like her sisters? Instead of Lady Diana, Mrs. [married name].

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Actually it boils down to that regardless of which "title/style" she preferred to use, they're still both courtesy titles. She was able to use "Lady" because her father was Earl Spencer. She was able to use "Princess of Wales" because her ex-husband is The Prince of Wales. She opted for the more "esteemed" courtesy title as I see it. She never held a title or style of her own.

I agree, Osipi. The words "Princess of Wales" or "Duchess of York" in the styles Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York are sometimes called "last names", but that is not truly correct. Although they are not peerage titles that grant legal rights to the holder, it would be more correct to call them courtesy titles instead of last names.

For illustration, in a hypothetical situation wherein either one went on to have another child from a subsequent relationship (with no remarriage), and she and her partner decided that their child should receive the mother's last name, I do not think the child would be e.g. "John Duchess of York", rather "John Ferguson" or perhaps "John Mountbatten-Windsor".

Thanks, it's indeed more specific based on the situation that the expectation has been that it's the male line that will carry on the crown.

Yes, and even the expectation that every king would produce a son healthy enough to outlast him, given that even when the heir is a male-line grandson of the king, or a brother of the king, he is excluded from the duchy of Cornwall.

 

[Denville]

The way I see it, Diana's courtesy title was resolved a year before she was tragically killed. She was afforded the courtesy title that denotes that she is an ex-wife of The Prince of Wales. This same courtesy title was given to not only Sarah, Duchess of York but also legally to the wives that the 9th Earl Spencer was divorced from. Its just the way it works in the UK and the British title/style system.

yes of course it was.

 

[Osipi]

For illustration, in a hypothetical situation wherein either one went on to have another child from a subsequent relationship (with no remarriage), and she and her partner decided that their child should receive the mother's last name, I do not think the child would be e.g. "John Duchess of York", rather "John Ferguson" or perhaps "John Mountbatten-Windsor".

I find that the use of Mountbatten-Windsor in this scenario to be questionable. Its my understanding that the Queen's will for the use of that surname is limited to her descendants that are in need of a surname to use. The declaration specifically says:

"Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

Should Sarah and a partner (not married) have a child, I seriously doubt the Queen would be pleased or amused for the child to bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor as genetically, the child would be of absolutely no blood relation to the BRF whatsoever. My guess then that the child would be (name) Ferguson.

 

[Mbruno]

The title Duke of Cornwall is the title automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir, so a rather important title.

Technically the title of Duke of Cornwall can be held only by the eldest living son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent. If the heir apparent happens to be for example a grandson of the monarch rather than a son, my understanding (I may be wrong) is that he doesn't become Duke of Cornwall. Likewise, an heir presumptive such as a sibling of a monarch who doesn't have any children of his own can't be the Duke of Cornwall either. The latter used to be true also for a daughter of a monarch who was an heiress presumptive (hence QEII for example was never Duchess of Cornwall herself). I don't know if that will change in the future with the introduction of equal primogeniture post-2011.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I find that the use of Mountbatten-Windsor in this scenario to be questionable. Its my understanding that the Queen's will for the use of that surname is limited to her descendants that are in need of a surname to use. The declaration specifically says:

"Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

Should Sarah and a partner (not married) have a child, I seriously doubt the Queen would be pleased or amused for the child to bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor as genetically, the child would be of absolutely no blood relation to the BRF whatsoever. My guess then that the child would be (name) Ferguson.

I think the theoretical child would carry the last name of the father, married or not.

Technically the title of Duke of Cornwall can be held only by the eldest living son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent. If the heir apparent happens to be for example a grandson of the monarch rather than a son, my understanding (I may be wrong) is that he doesn't become Duke of Cornwall. Likewise, an heir presumptive such as a sibling of a monarch who doesn't have any children of his own can't be the Duke of Cornwall either. The latter used to be true also for a daughter of a monarch who was an heiress presumptive (hence QEII for example was never Duchess of Cornwall herself). I don't know if that will change in the future with the introduction of equal primogeniture post-2011.

I was thinking about this also. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. The eldest living child of the monarch and therefore heir apparent should be the Duke of Cornwall no matter gender.

 

[Denville]

I was thinking about this also. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. The eldest living child of the monarch and therefore heir apparent should be the Duke of Cornwall no matter gender.

but that's not the case. The queen was not Duchess of Cornwall..

I think its very possible that she would have reverted to Lady Diana, Mrs Khan if she had married Hasnat Khan or Lady Diana, Mrs. Al-Fayed or Lady Diana, Mrs. Hewitt. Once she remarried, she would no longer be eligible to use "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy styling whereas because of who her father was, she would always remain "Lady".

She would have been Lady Diana Surname of her husband, not "Lady Diana Mrs Surname

 

[Somebody]

As a recent example within the family is Lady Davina still known as Lady Davina Lewis or did she return to being Lady Davina Winsor (I assume the first)

 

[Denville]

As a recent example within the family is Lady Davina still known as Lady Davina Lewis or did she return to being Lady Davina Winsor (I assume the first)

I assume she is using her married name, the same name as her children

 

[Countessmeout]

As I recall it, there was this whole thing in the tabloids of the time about her being "The People's Princess." It was very awkward and I think even she recognized it. That moniker implied so many things:
-Sod off Charles, you can divorce her but we will love her even when you don't. In fact a lot of the public found her more princess than they found him Prince-like.
-The corollary to that which is that the BRF cannot unmake a princess if we, the public don't ascent
-She is OURS - meaning she is a belonging/puppet/plaything of the public. I always thought Di wanted the Admiration of the public but thought the kind of all access pass that was in effect at the time to be a bridge too far. She did not want to be dictated to by anyone at the time of the divorce.
I've always believed (and let's not go off topic and chase this on this thread) that the whole thing was just so very awkward for the BRF and Di, that the eventual Camilla/not Queen decision happened because the whole mess with Di's title had been usurped by the public.
Her Majesty's Royal Will simply could not be imposed on this situation and that must have been difficult, indeed.
Ugly times back then.

The term 'people's princess' didn't exist in her life time. It was a term coined by Tony Blair after she died.

 

[JR76]

The term 'people's princess' didn't exist in her life time. It was a term coined by Tony Blair after she died.

True but the term was used a few times about Princess Anne in the 80s

 

[Denville]

True but the term was used a few times about Princess Anne in the 80s

was it? I have never heard it used of anyone but Diana...….

 

[JR76]

was it? I have never heard it used of anyone but Diana...….

I've seen newspaper articles where it's used. It didn't stick though.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think its very possible that she would have reverted to Lady Diana, Mrs Khan if she had married Hasnat Khan or Lady Diana, Mrs. Al-Fayed or Lady Diana, Mrs. Hewitt. Once she remarried, she would no longer be eligible to use "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy styling whereas because of who her father was, she would always remain "Lady".

You mean: Lady Diana Khan or Lady Diana Al-Fayed or Lady Diana Hewitt.
No "Mrs".

See Lady Sarah Chatto, Lady Davina Lewis, Lady Rose Gilman but also see Diana's sisters Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Lady Jane Fellowes.

No use of "Mrs". Only Lady [first name] [spouse's surname].

 

[Osipi]

Got it and have checked off my "learn something new today box". Thanks to those that have corrected me.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the theoretical child would carry the last name of the father, married or not.

Osipi was commenting in answer to my statement about what surname the theoretical child would carry in a scenario where they took their surname from their mother instead of their father.

I find that the use of Mountbatten-Windsor in this scenario to be questionable. Its my understanding that the Queen's will for the use of that surname is limited to her descendants that are in need of a surname to use. The declaration specifically says:

"Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

Should Sarah and a partner (not married) have a child, I seriously doubt the Queen would be pleased or amused for the child to bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor as genetically, the child would be of absolutely no blood relation to the BRF whatsoever. My guess then that the child would be (name) Ferguson.

In reality, the queen's feelings would most likely be respected, and in any case Sarah/Diana would probably have remarried if they had wished to have further children after divorce.

But legally, the question is another permutation of the hypothetical that was addressed in this thread several days ago regarding Eugenie's legal name. After some reflection, I agree with Roslyn that the wording of the declaration allows different understandings of it to be at least arguable.

 

[JSH]

but that's not the case. The queen was not Duchess of Cornwall..

But that's not what the commenter said. The idea is that the eldest child of the monarch should be Duke of Cornwall regardless of gender, just as the monarch is Duke of Lancaster regardless of gender.



Something will have to be done in regard to that since there will be a greater likelihood of female monarchs in the future now. The Duke of Cornwall title cannot be limited to males only anymore IMO.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

but that's not the case. The queen was not Duchess of Cornwall.

Yes, that is currently how it still is, a female is not Duke of Cornwall, only males. But the point Mbruno and I were making is—male primogeniture is no longer the law of the land for the monarch, so a female should be Duke of Cornwall if in the same position as a male who would be DOC.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Technically the title of Duke of Cornwall can be held only by the eldest living son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent. [...] I don't know if that will change in the future with the introduction of equal primogeniture post-2011.

I was thinking about this also. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. The eldest living child of the monarch and therefore heir apparent should be the Duke of Cornwall no matter gender.

But that's not what the commenter said. The idea is that the eldest child of the monarch should be Duke of Cornwall regardless of gender, just as the monarch is Duke of Lancaster regardless of gender.

[...]

Something will have to be done in regard to that since there will be a greater likelihood of female monarchs in the future now. The Duke of Cornwall title cannot be limited to males only anymore IMO.

When the British government introduced equal primogeniture in the succession to the crown, it stated that it did not wish to introduce female succession to the duchy of Cornwall because "a huge amount of consultation would be required". I am not entirely clear about the implications of that statement, but my speculation is that the government's statement may have been implying the current Duke of Cornwall (who is consulted on legislation concerning the duchy) is opposed to it, as there were unconfirmed reports that he was opposed to introducing equal primogeniture in the succession to the crown.

My understanding is that Cornwall is considered a peerage as well as a duchy, so I am confident that a theoretical female holder would take the feminine form of the title just as other peeresses in their own right are known by the feminine forms of their titles, unless it happens far in the future and the masculine forms are by then considered gender-neutral.

 

[Gawin]

Yes, that is currently how it still is, a female is not Duke of Cornwall, only males. But the point Mbruno and I were making is—male primogeniture is no longer the law of the land for the monarch, so a female should be Duke of Cornwall if in the same position as a male who would be DOC.

Yes, at some point in the future Parliament might pass an act allowing female heirs to become Duchess of Cornwall in keeping with new succession rules.

 

[Kataryn]

Yes, that is currently how it still is, a female is not Duke of Cornwall, only males. But the point Mbruno and I were making is—male primogeniture is no longer the law of the land for the monarch, so a female should be Duke of Cornwall if in the same position as a male who would be DOC.

I guess if something happened to George, the queen and Charles would approach that topic for the sake of Charlotte, but thus far there is no need to change something because change always has the danger that you end up somewhere you don't want with a democratic government involved. AFAIK the queen while being just the heir presumptive, received an income from the Duchy of Cornwall through her father. And after her, it's 3 generations of male heirs, Charles, William, George (and who knows what George's first child will be). So absolutely no reason to wake sleeping dogs.