Questions About Titles

[tripitaka]

Looking at the posts above I guess it is a lot more straightforward than I've been thinking. But I still wonder why these exceptions are allowed regarding Wallis and Diana but the Queen insists on the letter of the 1917 LP regarding the HRH/prince for Zara and Peter. It's clear to me from this discussion that she could make them HRH/prince/ss, and no would care, and it might make please Zara. I keep hearing that she's miffed she doesn't have a title. No clue whether that's true.

But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana. Which I think is a punk move on his part, don't care if he does it, but could you wait til the Queen is dead before you undo her actions?

Anyway I think my confusion on all this is because I'm approaching it legalistically. There's all sorts of outrages against the common law going on here and it bothers me.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana.

What form did this "declaration" take? (I don't count rumored second-hand accounts that attribute "Don't worry, Mummy, I'll give it back when I'm King" to a 14-year-old).

[BeatrixFan]

Over my cold dead but perfectly manicured and coiffed body. If he does do that then the House of Windsor deserves to die and whats more I'll make a placard.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Over my cold dead but perfectly manicured and coiffed body. If he does do that then the House of Windsor deserves to die and whats more I'll make a placard

I'll second that.

[tripitaka]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

What form did this "declaration" take? (I don't count rumored second-hand accounts that attribute "Don't worry, Mummy, I'll give it back when I'm King" to a 14-year-old).

Jesus please tell me this was more than an adolescent aside -- I read it in Daily Mail a long time ago. I understand DM is no longer reflexively pro monarchy anymore but I assumed higher standards when it comes to the RF.

A quick Google search yielded this:

The Queen had set a precedent for her action by denying Sarah, Duchess of York the title "Her Royal Highness" following her divorce from Prince Andrew. However, the Queen could have allowed Diana, as the mother of the future King, to retain the title-but chose to issue the Letters Patent instead. This is supported by the fact that Prince William has stated publicly that he will restore his mother's title of "Her Royal Highness" following his ascension to the throne.

Site is The Diana Ring - Frequently Asked Questions. The statement is unsourced.

[BeatrixFan]

The Diana Ring is not at all reliable and there is absolutely no evidence to support what they're saying. They are totally deluded - Prince William has never publicly said he'd give that woman her HRH back.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

The statement is unsourced.

What a surprise!

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

Jesus please tell me this was more than an adolescent aside -- I read it in Daily Mail a long time ago. I understand DM is no longer reflexively pro monarchy anymore but I assumed higher standards when it comes to the RF.

A quick Google search yielded this:



Site is The Diana Ring - Frequently Asked Questions. The statement is unsourced.

You must understand that there are heaps of statements in the press allegedly stated by various members of the RF attributed to 'friends', 'sources' etc but... in reality there is no evidence to support these statements.

For a statement to be believable the source must have a name and be clearly identified as being able to back up their statement.

There are many alleged comments that relate to private conversations for instance.

As for William's comment - there was some comment made shortly after the divorce attributed to some 'friends from school' but absolutely nothing officially from Wiliam directly.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

Looking at the posts above I guess it is a lot more straightforward than I've been thinking. But I still wonder why these exceptions are allowed regarding Wallis and Diana but the Queen insists on the letter of the 1917 LP regarding the HRH/prince for Zara and Peter. It's clear to me from this discussion that she could make them HRH/prince/ss, and no would care, and it might make please Zara. I keep hearing that she's miffed she doesn't have a title. No clue whether that's true.

Exceptional circumstances called for exceptions to the normal rules which accounts for Wallis and Diana.

As for Zara and Peter - Anne didn't want her children to have titles (a title was offered to her husband and was refused). Margaret's children have titles because of their father's title not because their mother was a princess.

But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana. Which I think is a punk move on his part, don't care if he does it, but could you wait til the Queen is dead before you undo her actions?

William hasn't official said this - some of his unnamed 'friends from school' allege that he said this - there is a difference.

Anyway I think my confusion on all this is because I'm approaching it legalistically. There's all sorts of outrages against the common law going on here and it bothers me.

Common law is what is being applied (along with the LPs of 1917) except where separate LPs have been issued e.g. the creation of the Duke of Windsor title. It is a later LP which denied Wallis - just as the LPs for Lord Mountbatten's title allowed female inheritance whereas the Duke of York's allows for only male inheritance.

Would you really expect Diana to be seated in the row with the other daughters of Earls at a royal function where her sons are present? That is why the precedent situation was allowed.

You are aware, of course, that Diana's continuing to use 'Princess of Wales' is no different to Sarah continuing to use 'Duchess of York'. In both cases they are using the correct form as divorced wives of peers.

[tripitaka]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Exceptional circumstances called for exceptions to the normal rules which accounts for Wallis and Diana.

As for Zara and Peter - Anne didn't want her children to have titles (a title was offered to her husband and was refused). Margaret's children have titles because of their father's title not because their mother was a princess.

When you say titles were offered for Zara and Peter, do you mean HRH/prince? Or a peerage? If it's the former, I owe the Queen an apology, because I've been thinking she was sticking to the 1917 LP and that on this score she is an appallingly bad grandmother. Anyway if indeed an HRH/prince was offered and Anne declined, I don't like that move on Anne's part. She should have asked for Peter and Zara to decide for themselves at age of majority. As it stands, if it's true that Zara wants the HRH, as a practical matter she cannot take it, even if the Queen offered. Oh and I've assumed all along that Zara and Peter will both get peerages when they marry, am I wrong?

By the way, if the Queen offered HRH to Peter and Zara, it seems the 1917 LP is completely dead now. She should formally declare it dead, if this hasn't been done already, since the sexism in that document is just appalling. Especially in light of the fact that Anne is the best of her generation.

Common law is what is being applied (along with the LPs of 1917) except where separate LPs have been issued e.g. the creation of the Duke of Windsor title. It is a later LP which denied Wallis - just as the LPs for Lord Mountbatten's title allowed female inheritance whereas the Duke of York's allows for only male inheritance.

Imho common law is not being applied, it's being violated. The LP denying Wallis the HRH was probably not legally valid and the Queen was told as much; it just was never challenged because no one wanted to dwell on the issue.

The problem I can't get around is that courtesy titles are not a grant of the sovereign, they are a consequence of being in a certain relationship to someone who holds a substantive dignity, which may or may not have been conferred by the sovereign. As was noted during the time, Wallis is automatically HRH upon marriage; for that not to happen, Edward would have to lose his HRH. As a matter of common law. The Queen cannot just take away Wallis's HRH because it doesn't exist, it would be like trying to steal the Mona Lisa from MoMA.

My take on this is that it seems like a blatantly illegal action was allowed during a moment of crisis, and somehow established itself as a precedent. (That seems to happen a lot everywhere.) But as a matter of law, Sarah Ferguson, and Diana also, were both deprived of a common law benefit that should stand even against the sovereign.

Would you really expect Diana to be seated in the row with the other daughters of Earls at a royal function where her sons are present? That is why the precedent situation was allowed.

Well -- if the Queen had followed the common law principles that ordinarily govern courtesy titles, Diana is HRH The Princess of Wales after divorce and this situation never arises in the first place. The precedent problem was created by the Queen's decision to issue the new rule that you lose HRH when you divorce.

You are aware, of course, that Diana's continuing to use 'Princess of Wales' is no different to Sarah continuing to use 'Duchess of York'. In both cases they are using the correct form as divorced wives of peers.

But Prince(ss) of Wales is not a peerage. It's odd to me it should be treated as analogous to the dukedom of York rather than HRH. Actually does anyone know if Diana/Sarah were entitled to call themselves Princess Charles/Andrew after divorce?

[branchg]

The styles, titles and rank represented by HRH Prince/Princess of the UK are personal only to the children and grandchildren of The Sovereign, recognizing their status as being close to the succession of the throne. Constitutionally, they are commoners until raised to the peerage, although obviously in official and social precedence, they outrank all Peers of the Realm due to proximity to the Crown.

These styles are expressly granted by letters patent and can be modified, withdrawn or granted as The Sovereign expresses as the fount of honour.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana.

1. HRH, an abbrevation for "His/Her Royal Highness" is no title but a form of adress like "The Right Honourable" or "The Most Reverend" or "Mylady" or "Sir" or even "Madam". A form of adress reflects your standing in society and is used in social interaction. "Lady Diana" was no title, but a form of adress to reflect her standing in society as daughter of an Earl. The only ones with a title in her family were her father the Earl Spencer and her brother the Viscount Althorp.

2. A title can be a royal title (Prince, Princess), a title from the peerage (Duke, Earl, whatever), an academic title (professor, doctor, rector magnificus, etc.), an episcopal title (deacon, bishop, archbishop. cardinal). Diana never had a title on her own, but by custom and tradition she used the titles of her spouse, by virtue of marriage. By the end of her marriage she logically lost the use of these titles and, also logically, the corresponding form of adress. So she was not "robbed" of the HRH. It was a logical consequence of her divorce from The Prince of Wales. She reverted to her style as daughter of an Earl and her form of adress became 'Mylady' (but most used 'Madam').

3. A form of adress has a meaning in social interaction. The question is if a dead person is able to have any social interaction at all..... Also bear in mind that it eventually can be between 30 and 40 years after Diana's death that her son becomes The King. I dare to doubt that a King wants to "restore" a form of adress to someone who has lost it by divorce and is already almost dead for 4 decades then.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by tripitaka

When you say titles were offered for Zara and Peter, do you mean HRH/prince? Or a peerage? If it's the former, I owe the Queen an apology, because I've been thinking she was sticking to the 1917 LP and that on this score she is an appallingly bad grandmother.

No HRH was offered to anyone.

Mark Philips was offered a peerage on marriage to Princess Anne and he refused it, in consultation with his wife and future mother-in-law (the Queen). As the father didn't have any title the children don't get any title either.

Princess Margaret's husband was given a title, by the present Queen, so her nephew and niece have the courtesy titles that go with being the children of an Earl.

Anyway if indeed an HRH/prince was offered and Anne declined, I don't like that move on Anne's part.

Just as Edward and Sophie have decided that Louise isn't to use the HRH (and there is a lot of debate about whether the fact that the Queen has made her will known is enough to deny Louise the HRH - personally I am not sure) Anne decided that her children would be styled as the children of the daughter of a monarch who wasn't married to a peer of the realm. Anne made a decision after careful thought about the futures of her children.

She should have asked for Peter and Zara to decide for themselves at age of majority.

Once it was decided by Anne and Mark that Mark not have a title there was no chance for Peter and Zara to make a decision as Mark had already made that decision - he wasn't going to have a title and therefore his children don't have a title.

As it stands, if it's true that Zara wants the HRH, as a practical matter she cannot take it, even if the Queen offered.

Under the 1917 Zara has never been entitled to the HRH as she is a descendent of a daughter not a son of the monarch.

Oh and I've assumed all along that Zara and Peter will both get peerages when they marry, am I wrong?

There is no suggestion that I have ever seen that they will get titles. I would be extremely surprised if either of them did so.

I don't think the Queen will give titles to any of her grandchildren at marriage except for William and Harry as they will, in the fullness of time, they will be the children of the monarch.

By the way, if the Queen offered HRH to Peter and Zara, it seems the 1917 LP is completely dead now.

She never offered the HRH to Peter and Zara because the 1917 LPs exclude them as they are her daughter's children.

Just the same as Margaret's children can't get the HRH under the 1917 LPs (and Margaret is also the daughter of a monarch). In fact if special LPs weren't issued in 1948 Prince Charles would have been born as a Lord and not an HRH Prince. In this special circumstance an exception was made to the 1917 LPs allowing for the children of the daughter of a monarch to be HRH from birth.

She should formally declare it dead, if this hasn't been done already, since the sexism in that document is just appalling. Especially in light of the fact that Anne is the best of her generation.

The 1917 LPs are certainly not dead and are very much in force and are applied. ALL LPs are sexist - they pretty well all only allow for male inheritance, with one or two notable exceptions such as Mountbatten. e.g. Prince Andrew's daughters can't inherit his Dukedom of York and nor can Louise inherit her father's Earldom. Why make an issue of the 1917 LPs which were designed to reduce the number of HRHs and as females are in the line of succession below their brothers, regardless of birth order, it makes sense to restrict the HRH to one less generation than for the males.

Imho common law is not being applied, it's being violated. The LP denying Wallis the HRH was probably not legally valid and the Queen was told as much; it just was never challenged because no one wanted to dwell on the issue.

As the monarch has the power to issue LPs covering titles it was certainly within the monarch's power to issue the LPs that were issued for the Duke of Windsor title, including the fact that it was not a title that covered the wife - unusual yes but illegal I doubt it.

The problem I can't get around is that courtesy titles are not a grant of the sovereign, they are a consequence of being in a certain relationship to someone who holds a substantive dignity, which may or may not have been conferred by the sovereign.

Courtesy titles are just that - a courtesy that indicates your relationship to a particular person e.g. Viscount Linley is NOT a peer of the realm, even if it sounds as if he is. His Viscountancy simply indicates that he is the heir to his father's title - Earl Snowdon. He is, of course, the grandson of a monarch but not an HRH any more than Zara or Peter are.

As was noted during the time, Wallis is automatically HRH upon marriage; for that not to happen, Edward would have to lose his HRH.

No - as the LPs creating the Duke of Windsor title made a special exception Wallis was not automatically an HRH.

As a matter of common law. The Queen cannot just take away Wallis's HRH because it doesn't exist, it would be like trying to steal the Mona Lisa from MoMA.

The Queen didn't take away the HRH - Wallis was married for nearly 15 years before the Queen became Queen. George VI issued the relevant LPs restricting the HRH to the Duke alone and not to his wife, or his children, which under the 1917 LPs were also entitled to it. In other words George specifically issued new LPs to cover his brother's situation and made it different to those normally issued. The present Queen could issue similar LPs if she so chose but she hasn't done so.

My take on this is that it seems like a blatantly illegal action was allowed during a moment of crisis, and somehow established itself as a precedent. (That seems to happen a lot everywhere.)

There was discussion over whether or not the abdication meant that Edward has actually lost ALL his titles and styles as a royal or whether he had kept some. As the interpretation was that he had given up all styles and titles he had to be recreated HRH and therefore the LPs creating him Duke of Windsor clearly stated that it applied only to him. It would have meant that any wife of his wouldn't get the HRH by the way - not just Wallis.

But as a matter of law, Sarah Ferguson, and Diana also, were both deprived of a common law benefit that should stand even against the sovereign.

No they weren't.

They gained the HRH because they were the wives of HRH and as that came with the marriage it went with the divorce.

They have kept the style of divorced wives of peers, just like any other divorced wife of a peer. The divorced wife of a Duke ceases to be Your Grace but also keeps the right to use the Duchess of xxx as part of their name like Diana and Sarah did.

As Diana and Sarah were the first, since 1917, to divorce the Queen issued LPs to clarify the situation - the HRH came with the marriage and left with the divorce but the rest of the style was the same as for any other divorced wife of a peer.

Well -- if the Queen had followed the common law principles that ordinarily govern courtesy titles, Diana is HRH The Princess of Wales after divorce and this situation never arises in the first place.

No - the common law precedent was the the wife of the peer loses any style that relates to address e.g. HRH, Your Grace but keeps the right to use their Christian name and the title Duchess/Princess/Countess etc of xxx. Hence Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah, Duchess of York - no The in there. The 'The' is reserved for the actual wife not the divorced wife.

The precedent problem was created by the Queen's decision to issue the new rule that you lose HRH when you divorce.

The precedent problem was created because Diana was the mother of the future king and for no other reason. Sarah doesn't have that precedece at all and she also lost the HRH.

The rule wasn't new at all - it had been applying to Duchesses etc for years. What she did was clarify it for divorced wives of HRHs - as there hadn't been one since 1917 it was necessary to clarify the divorced status of her ex-daughters-in-law.

But Prince(ss) of Wales is not a peerage. It's odd to me it should be treated as analogous to the dukedom of York rather than HRH.

As Burke's Peerage refers to the Prince of Wales as a peerage I suspect that it is. The title Prince of Wales is the most senior title of Prince Charles so of course Diana continued to use that title after her divorce. To start calling herself Diana, Duchess of Cornwall would have had people really confused.

Actually does anyone know if Diana/Sarah were entitled to call themselves Princess Charles/Andrew after divorce?

I believe that they are not entitled to use the Princess Charles/Andrew after divorced as they are just that divorced and therefore use the divorced form in the same way as other divorced wives of peers do.

[Henri M.]

Lots of thanks to Chrissy57 for her outstanding answers. It is clear that the titulature in the royal houses and the nobility, in essence not so complicated at all, is a problem for many, the media not excluded.