Questions About Titles

[tripitaka]

Originally Posted by 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).

This is what has always troubled me about that particular affair. Courtesy styles are not held by those to whom they apply; they're vested in the peerage itself.

By the logic of the Wallis case, seems to me the Queen could deny courtesy titles to anyone. E.g., she could decide that the Duke of Devonshire's heir presumptive is a punk and can't call himself "Marquess of Hartington."

But who knows, after Diana got an even worse shaft. Does Buckingham not get that when they play fast and loose with custom and tradition, they are undermining their own position?

[BeatrixFan]

Well, be fair - Di got the same treatment as Fergie. When you divorce, you lose out. Which is how it should be isn't it?

[sirhon11234]

Actually the Princess of Wales got a better deal than Fergie. She lost her HRH but retained her title and precedence at court. Diana also recieved a good lump some of money.

[BeatrixFan]

Well money makes the world go round. I wonder how much the Government charge for an HRH these days?

[sirhon11234]

Alot I presume.

[tripitaka]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well, be fair - Di got the same treatment as Fergie. When you divorce, you lose out. Which is how it should be isn't it?

Except in all other usages of courtesy titles, you keep your style until you remarry.

Don't get me wrong, I would have no problems with this if Sarah had become plain old Ms. Sarah Ferguson upon divorce. It's the fact that she lost one of her courtesy titles but not the other that's odd to me. She is HRH Sarah, Duchess of York, or she's Ms. Sarah Ferguson, not something in-between, if tradition is to be maintained.

Alternatively, if royal styles at the whim of the monarch and customs relating to courtesy titles do not apply, why not make Princess Michael Princess Christine, or whatever her name is? To deny her that, if you accept the view that royal styles are at the whim of the monarch, is just silly. Rigid insistence upon tradition is the only thing that can possibly justify making a woman give up her own name.

Oh well I'm probably the one who's even vaguely troubled by this. I just feel that once the crown, in the modern age, is perceived to be making it up as it goes along to suit its whims, it's all over.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

Except in all other usages of courtesy titles, you keep your style until you remarry.

Don't get me wrong, I would have no problems with this if Sarah had become plain old Ms. Sarah Ferguson upon divorce. It's the fact that she lost one of her courtesy titles but not the other that's odd to me. She is HRH Sarah, Duchess of York, or she's Ms. Sarah Ferguson, not something in-between, if tradition is to be maintained.

She lost her royal status but like the wife of any divorced peer she is entitled to keep the 'title' as part of her name.

Alternatively, if royal styles at the whim of the monarch and customs relating to courtesy titles do not apply, why not make Princess Michael Princess Christine, or whatever her name is? To deny her that, if you accept the view that royal styles are at the whim of the monarch, is just silly. Rigid insistence upon tradition is the only thing that can possibly justify making a woman give up her own name.

Princess Micheal can't be Princess Christine unless the Queen issues LPs granting her the title and style of a Princess of the UK. She has only done that once in her reign - to her husband.

No other wife of a son, or cousin, has been given the title 'Princess' in their own right.

Oh well I'm probably the one who's even vaguely troubled by this. I just feel that once the crown, in the modern age, is perceived to be making it up as it goes along to suit its whims, it's all over.

It isn't making it up as it goes along.

The Queen was put in a situation that hadn't occurred before so had to deal with the situation clearly and decided, rightly, that the ex-wives were to lose their royal status but not their rights as divorced wives of peers.

That Diana was given a precedence was also an indication that she was the mother of a future king and in a unique position.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Actually the Princess of Wales got a better deal than Fergie. She lost her HRH but retained her title and precedence at court. Diana also recieved a good lump some of money.

Diana was married to one of Britain's richest men. Sarah was married to a person who had, besides his royal title, not so very much wealth on his own. That made a lot of difference in the 'lump sum' she received.

There was no difference in precedence to Sarah and Diana. Both were divorced spouses of a Royal Peer. Both lost their royal status and rank. Both used the social tradition that former wifes of Peers could use their former husband's name. A very pecular British custom which is unknown to the Continent.

On the Continent a lady who divorces retains to the style she was known before the marriage. That is all.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

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

It is, but it's always been the case. Women haven't been barred from succeeding to the throne, but they've almost never been eligible to inherit peerages.

[branchg]

There was a very big difference in the precedence of Diana and Sarah after their divorces, not the least of which Diana retained her dignity as a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of HRH.

The Queen made it clear in a statement from the Palace that Diana remained a member of the royal family, would continue to enjoy her royal privileges including access to The Queen's Flight and her residence at Kensington Palace, and would retain her precedence on all national and royal occasions.

Sarah received none of those concessions and is no longer regarded as a member of the royal family.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Henri M.

Diana was married to one of Britain's richest men. Sarah was married to a person who had, besides his royal title, not so very much wealth on his own. That made a lot of difference in the 'lump sum' she received.

There was no difference in precedence to Sarah and Diana. Both were divorced spouses of a Royal Peer. Both lost their royal status and rank. Both used the social tradition that former wifes of Peers could use their former husband's name. A very pecular British custom which is unknown to the Continent.

On the Continent a lady who divorces retains to the style she was known before the marriage. That is all.

At the request of her Majesty The Queen Diana retained her precedance at court because she was the mother of the future king of england.

[tripitaka]

Chrissy, you're seeing a lot more consistency than I am in all this.

1. Wallis married an HRH and remained plain old Wallis despite the fact that the LP granting the Dukedom of Windsor specified the dignity of a son of the sovereign for Edward.
2. Sarah became HRH when she married Andrew, lost it along with membership in the RF when they divorced.
3. Diana became HRH and lost it when she divorced Charles, but remained a member of the RF.

Looking at that, I cannot come to the conclusion that Sarah and Diana gained the HRH as a consequence of marriage to an HRH, because Wallis did not get HRH.

Nor can I conclude that HRH denotes membership in the RF because Diana lost the HRH and stayed in the RF. You clearly can be a member of the RF and not be HRH.

All I can conclude is that the sovereign bestows and takes away HRH as she sees fit. They are not properly termed courtesy titles; they function more like the GCVO or KG. Diana being the mother of a future king, and Wallis being hated, are reasons that explain why the Queen did what she did, but they are not Constitutional principles that explain how this process works. I'm ok with everything the Queen did, I just wish she'd done it in a way that establishes clear and consistent principles for the future.

But I believe HRH/princes have divorced before, not the heir but HRH/princes nonetheless. What happened in those instances?

PS - edit to add, Princess Michael doesn't need princely dignity to be Princess Christine, all she needs is a peerage in her own right. (I think authorities split on the issue though.) I don't believe the Queen ever had the power to bestow princely dignity on Phillip anyway.

[branchg]

Wallis was denied the rank of HRH by letters patent issued in 1937 by George VI. Sarah and Diana both enjoyed the qualification of Royal Highness, as the wives of sons of the Sovereign, not in their own right. The Queen also issued letters patent in 1996, stating a former wife of a prince of the UK would be not be entitled to the rank of HRH upon divorce.

As discussed in previous threads, the rank and style of Royal Highness is not constitutional and is granted by the fount of honour to provide a personal style to their children and grandchildren. Before the Hanovers came along, the children of a reigning King of England were simply Lord/Lady until raised to the peerage. The titles of Prince of Wales and Princess Royal were the only princely styles granted until 1714.

A person can be a member of the royal family without being a Royal Highness, such as Peter and Zara Philips, who are commoners. Peerages can be bestowed by The Sovereign as they see fit, but the rank of HRH is enjoyed at the discretion of the fount of honour.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

Chrissy, you're seeing a lot more consistency than I am in all this.

1. Wallis married an HRH and remained plain old Wallis despite the fact that the LP granting the Dukedom of Windsor specified the dignity of a son of the sovereign for Edward.
2. Sarah became HRH when she married Andrew, lost it along with membership in the RF when they divorced.
3. Diana became HRH and lost it when she divorced Charles, but remained a member of the RF.

I never mentioned Wallis and wouldn't do so as times change and her situation was different in that she married an abdicated king who had caused a lot of angst within his family, the government and the Empire at the time.

Diana was given a one off special treatment as she was the mother of the future king and for no other reason. Had she had no children she would have been treated the same as Sarah.

Another way of looking at this is how would Sarah be treated if William and Harry both died without legitimate issue of their own meaning that Sarah would be the mother of the future Queen. I am sure in that situation that she would be given the status offered to Diana for that simple reason.

In general terms Sarah and Diana were treated the same - loss of HRH on divorce but Diana was given a separate treatment due to being William's mother only.

Looking at that, I cannot come to the conclusion that Sarah and Diana gained the HRH as a consequence of marriage to an HRH, because Wallis did not get HRH.

Why else would Diana and Sarah get the HRH. When they entered the Abbey/Cathedral they weren't HRH but when they left they were. What had happened in between - they got married. The same with the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent - got the HRH when they got married, as did the Queen Mum and the present Duke of Gloucesters mother (the Duke of Kent's mother already had it in her own right as a Princess of Greece).

In other words Wallis is the only exception and not the rule.

The rule is very clear - on marriage to a male HRH the lady gets the HRH.

Nor can I conclude that HRH denotes membership in the RF because Diana lost the HRH and stayed in the RF. You clearly can be a member of the RF and not be HRH.

Of course you can or do you say that the children of Princess Anne aren't members of the Royal Family?

All I can conclude is that the sovereign bestows and takes away HRH as she sees fit.

No - the monarch has general guidelines which are used except in very exceptional circumstances - of which there have been two in the last century.

Take another look at the number of sons/grandsons of British monarchs (those with the HRH) in the 20th century since the 1917 LPs who married non royals and tell me how many of those wives did not get the HRH on marriage.

6 sons, 3 grandsons - of whom ONE wife didn't get the HRH on marriage. The sons are George V sons - David, Bertie and Henry (George's already was HRH), and the grandsons are Richard, Edward, Michael, Charles, Andrew and Edward. In other words the exceptional circumstances surrounding Edward's abdication have to be considered in understanding why she was treated differently to the wives of his brothers, nephews and grandnephews who wives all got the HRH on marriage.

They are not properly termed courtesy titles; they function more like the GCVO or KG. Diana being the mother of a future king, and Wallis being hated, are reasons that explain why the Queen did what she did, but they are not Constitutional principles that explain how this process works. I'm ok with everything the Queen did, I just wish she'd done it in a way that establishes clear and consistent principles for the future.

The rules are consistent - marry an HRH Prince and you get HRH - unless you do something really bad such as cause an abdication.

Divorce an HRH Prince and lose the HRH unless you are the mother of the future monarch.

But I believe HRH/princes have divorced before, not the heir but HRH/princes nonetheless. What happened in those instances?

Since the 1917 LPs this hasn't happened except for Diana and Sarah so earlier examples would have been covered by different conventions.

PS - edit to add, Princess Michael doesn't need princely dignity to be Princess Christine, all she needs is a peerage in her own right. (I think authorities split on the issue though.)

No she needs the LPs to give her a title of Princess. e.g. the wife of most titled people in Britain are not entitled to call themselves Princess xxx. The title is of a lower rank.

To be Princess Christine she would need to be created it and the Queen want to that. To be given the title of Duchess in her own right wouldn't let her be called Princess Christine but Christine, Duchess of xxx. The same with any other peerage in her own right.

I don't believe the Queen ever had the power to bestow princely dignity on Phillip anyway.

On what grounds to you say that?

The Queen is the Fount of all Honours and she could give him that title if she so chose. The only title she couldn't give him is King as Queen Victoria had already received advice to the effect that only the Parliament could create a King.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by branchg

There was a very big difference in the precedence of Diana and Sarah after their divorces, not the least of which Diana retained her dignity as a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of HRH.

The Queen made it clear in a statement from the Palace that Diana remained a member of the royal family, would continue to enjoy her royal privileges including access to The Queen's Flight and her residence at Kensington Palace, and would retain her precedence on all national and royal occasions.

Sarah received none of those concessions and is no longer regarded as a member of the royal family.

Has this precedence ever become visible after the divorce? With other words: were there ever official royal events with more royals in which the precedence of the divorced Diana showed?

I believe on this board a fellow poster called it a 'dead letter' because most likely this precedence would only become visible on royal events regarding her sons in which she, as their mother, was expected to attend (weddings, baptisms).

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Henri M.

Has this precedence ever become visible after the divorce? With other words: were there ever official royal events with more royals in which the precedence of the divorced Diana showed?

I believe on this board a fellow poster called it a 'dead letter' because most likely this precedence would only become visible on royal events regarding her sons in which she, as their mother, was expected to attend (weddings, baptisms).

I can't think of any event off the top of my head between the divorce and her death but things such as the Queen's 50th wedding anniversary in November 1997 would certainly have seen this as an example.

Did Diana attend the Trooping of the Colour or Garter ceremony in 1997? These events would give some idea how it was to work if she attended.