Questions About Titles

[Warren]

Originally Posted by branchg

Wallis was entitled by marriage to be "HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor", but was specifically denied royal rank by letters patent issued by George VI. The legality of the King's actions have been doubted ever since, but it was never revisited by The Queen and The Duchess remained Her Grace only.

The interesting aspect to this is the conflict between royal writ and common law. Common law holds that the wife takes the title and style of her husband (in this case, the HRH). However, as Fount of Honour, the Sovereign specifically denied Wallis the equal style, and in effect 'demoted' her. So whereas it is generally held that common law is supreme, it can be over-ridden by letters patent issued by the Sovereign.

As branchg says, the legality of George VI's action has been questioned, but of course never tested in a court of law.

[BeatrixFan]

And not likely to be tested unless a Royalist lawyer with a shovel decides to he fancies getting Wallis the HRH.

[HRH Kerry]

Originally Posted by branchg

A woman who marries a prince of the UK automatically becomes "HRH Princess Husband's Christian Name" as the wife of a son or grandson of The Sovereign. If their husband is also a peer, they take their style as the wife of a peer, rather than their legal title as a princess. But they are both by virtue of marriage.

Wallis was entitled by marriage to be "HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor", but was specifically denied royal rank by letters patent issued by George VI. The legality of the King's actions have been doubted ever since, but it was never revisited by The Queen and The Duchess remained Her Grace only.

I do realize that this was the case but talk about cruel. The ultimate slap in the face! With hindsight and all that was said and done, I can kind of understand why Edward later said, 'those ice-viened #itches'. (Referring to Queen Elizabeth and The Queen Mum.)

[branchg]

It was contrary to common law and practice, but it was also made clear when the matter was researched there is no constitutional basis for the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, which was implemented by George II and his successors to conform to practices in the German duchies and kingdoms. Until raised to the peerage, the members of the royal family were always commoners in English precedent.

The styles presently enjoyed are personal, granted by the fount of honour and recognized as a gift of the Crown.

[Polly]

In Australia, she was never alluded to as anything other than Princess Alice within my and my parents' lifetimes. I don't know about the UK, but Australia usually follows its lead in these things.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by HRH Kerry

I do realize that this was the case but talk about cruel. The ultimate slap in the face! With hindsight and all that was said and done, I can kind of understand why Edward later said, 'those ice-viened #itches'. (Referring to Queen Elizabeth and The Queen Mum.)

And he was most unfair to describe Queen Elizabeth II in this way. The decision had nothing to do with her after all. She did not alter the Duchess of Windsor's style and title when she became Queen out of deference to her mother's feelings - perfectly understandable in my opinion. Further, The Queen went out of her way to mend the breach with her uncle, so far as it was possible for her to do so. If ever The Queen was utterly blameless in anything, this would be it!

[branchg]

The Duke was referring to his niece's initial decision (later quietly reversed) to end the 10,000 pound sterling he was receiving from his brother as a voluntary allowance in a letter to his wife. He believed his mother and sister-in-law were responsible for convincing The Queen to end it, which was probably true.

He never raised the issue of his wife's rank with The Queen. In 1949, he discussed it in detail with The King (again) during a personal visit and received a letter from his brother making it clear it would make no sense for Wallis to become a Royal Highness when he abdicated the throne to marry her.

[Elspeth]

If it made sense for him to retain his HRH having abdicated the throne, and having abdicated because (among other things) it was made clear to him that morganatic marriage didn't exist in Britain, then there was no way it could have been made clear that it would make no sense for her to become a Royal Highness, because it was the decision to deny it that made no sense in the context of a lack of morganatic marriage.

[branchg]

I agree. If The King really wanted to deny Wallis royal rank, then he should have issued letters patent revoking his brother's right to hold it (which he certainly could have done).

[Polly]

Well, all of these things...'should have done...', '...could have done...' don't take into account the feelings of ordinary people at the time.

Wallis Simpson, whom I believe was indeed badly done by, was absolutely abhorred in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. In fact, in my family, she was hated with intense passion. Edward, of course, had been dearly loved, which made Wallis' 'crime' seem even worse.

When the British PM contacted the Australian PM for our view on a marriage arrangement which would allow Edward to remain King, the Australian PM said that the Australian people wouldn't stand for it. This was untrue! At the time, the Australian people knew absolutely nothing about it! It was deliberately kept out of the newspapers. In fact, one of my grandfathers returned to Australia from the UK, via the US, and brought with him American newspapers which were full of Wallis and Edward and all his newspapers were confiscated by Customs and the police.

Wallis Simpson was poorly treated in my view. My understanding is that it was expressly at the wishes of the then Queen, who despised Wallis and prevailed on her husband to thus humiliate Wallis. There was never any chance that anyone, anywhere, would defend Wallis or her rights, legal or otherwise. To be honest, I think that most sniggered at Wallis ('serves her right!') and were very happy that she was refused the title.

[branchg]

Well, the truth is Wallis was not an honourable woman to become Queen Consort and Edward was very selfish in abdicating the throne to marry her. Royal life is governed by duty and it was his duty to marry appropriately or not at all.

As The Sovereign, he was Supreme Governor of The Church of England and divorce was a social disgrace at the time. He knew this and still made a very conscious decision to abdicate.

I do think, however, that Wallis was unfairly blamed and punished for The Duke's own selfishness. Once he abdicated, she really had no choice but to see it through and marry him. She was marrying a prince of the UK who remained HRH and she had the right to be HRH as his lawful wife.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Polly

In Australia, she was never alluded to as anything other than Princess Alice within my and my parents' lifetimes. I don't know about the UK, but Australia usually follows its lead in these things.

I would like to differ in one respect to this statement - in my family, and part of Australia, any reference I ever heard to Prince Philip's mother was always as Princess Andrew of Greece. Princess Alice when used was in reference to Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

I distinctly remember asking my grandmother, in the 1960s, why a woman would have a name like Andrew and she then explained to this child (as I then was) that as Princess Andrew wasn't born a Princess of Greece she couldn't be Princess Alice of Greece but had to take the name of her husband when in Greece. I thought it strange at the time but understand it now.

In 1969, when she died, our local paper definitely referred to her as 'Princess Andrew of Greece'. I had that paper for many years, until a fire destroyed my parent's garage in the 1980s. There was no reference, in that article to Princess Alice at all - just Princess Andrew of Greece, mother of the Duke of Edinburgh. Maybe the fact that I grew up in a very small rural town we were still keeping some older titles whereas the big cities were becoming less so by the late 60s. Remember that we were only getting about five hours a day of TV at that time too.

I never heard the use of the name Princess Alice except with regard to Princess Alice of Athlone, who died in 1981 aged 97. She was the last surviving grandchild of Queen Victoria and I remember reading about her in the 1960s and 1970s whenever I could as a link to Victoria. My grandmother still had relatives living in England who sent her papers and letters about the royals until her death. I loved reading their views on things and of these people.

[banda_windsor]

i don't know if there's anyone who asked this question or not, but i just wondering, do beatrice and eugine will inherits their father's title and become the duchess of york, someday?

can someone explain to me about the succession law of the Dukedom. Is there any reigning duchess in UK?

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by banda_windsor

i don't know if there's anyone who asked this question or not, but i just wondering, do beatrice and eugine will inherits their father's title and become the duchess of york, someday?

can someone explain to me about the succession law of the Dukedom. Is there any reigning duchess in UK?

Under the current Letters Patent for the Dukedom of York neither Beatrice nor Eugenie would inherit the title as the LPs specified 'males' of the body not children.

This is just a terminology point but Duchesses/Dukes do NOT reign - only the monarch reigns. Dukes etc hold a title and administer their lands but the term isn't reign.

As for Duchesses in their own right I simply don't know but that is not an impossibility - it would depend on the LPs at the time of the creation of the Dukedom. The Dukedom of Fife, at one time, was inherited by a female I believe but generally speaking no titles, except the monarchy, itself passes to a female. The notable exceptions are the Dukedom of Fife, early in the 20th C and the Earldom of Mountbatten of Burma but that was because at the time of the creation there was very limited chance of a male heir.

As things currently stand neither the York Dukedom nor the Wessex Earldom can be passed on as the two current holders only have daughters (but a son for Edward would change that).

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by banda_windsor

i don't know if there's anyone who asked this question or not, but i just wondering, do beatrice and eugine will inherits their father's title and become the duchess of york, someday?

can someone explain to me about the succession law of the Dukedom. Is there any reigning duchess in UK?

As far as I'm aware, Beatrice is not in the 'running'.

Isn't this title usually given to the second son of the sovereign? So is it possible Harry could, at some point, inherit the Dukedom?

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

As far as I'm aware, Beatrice is not in the 'running'.

Isn't this title usually given to the second son of the sovereign? So is it possible Harry could, at some point, inherit the Dukedom?

For Harry to get the Dukedom of York Andrew would have to be dead at the time when Harry came up for a title. Harry couldn't get the title while there is an incumbent.

As Harry is likely to be due to get a title within the next 10 years and Andrew is only 47 it is highly unlikely that Harry would get that title.

In addition, even if Andrew did die before Harry got that title it is not usual to give a regrant of a title while someone who held the 'of xxx' part of the title was still alive e.g. Eugenie and Beatrice, unless that title has given way to a higher one e.g. the children of George V and George VI all became 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc' replacing the 'of York' with a higher title which is why both George V and Elizabeth II felt able to grant the title during the lifetime of said uses of the 'of York' part of the title.

It is more likely that legislation giving non-gender specific legislation would be passed allowing for Beatrice to inherit that title than for Harry to get it.

It seems an anomoly to me that Beatrice could become Queen but not Duchess of York in her own right.

[Madame Royale]

A thorough explanation. Muchly appreciated.