|
|
|
#401
07-17-2007, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The wife of the King must be Queen Consort as there is no other style or title for her use. A very different situation than being both a princess of the UK and a duchess by virtue of marriage.
|
|
#402
07-18-2007, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm sorry I barged in here and started rambling to no point, but I think I've found a way to express this coherently. In the Wallis case, the Yorks wanted to deny Wallis the HRH. Legal opinion was unanimous: the sovereign does not have that power. That a woman who marries takes her husband's rank is well-settled; whatever Edward has, Wallis gets. Edward is HRH. Therefore Wallis is HRH. The only way to stop it is to take away Edward's HRH. But the sovereign insisted that a way be found for Edward to remain HRH while Wallis does not become one. An exchange of memos between legal experts at Parliament and Buckingham jury-rigged a justification that might get to the desired result: 1. "HRH" is a style that describes the substantive dignity of being in the line of succession in the degree specified by the 1917 LP. 2. By abdicating, Edward gave up his place in the line of succession and hence the substantive dignity that gave him the right to use the "HRH". 3. Edward is therefore no longer entitled to use the HRH style, but since the 1917 grants the style to a son of the sovereign, and nothing can change the fact that Edward was born the son of a sovereign, he might continue to use the HRH style. 4. It is to be understood however that since Edward no longer has an absolute claim to the HRH by virtue of the substantive dignity of being in the line of succession, his use of the style after Abdication is by gift of the sovereign under the terms of the 1917 LP. 5. Since Edward's HRH is a gift and not an entitlement, and since Common Law is clear that you cannot derive a greater benefit from a lesser, Wallis's marital courtesy claim to HRH is no less conditional than Edwards. 6. Therefore it is up to the sovereign whether or not Wallis gets HRH. That's what happened. It was never the case that the sovereign has any control over marital courtesy titles by virtue of being the font of honour, or because abdication created a situation not contemplated by law. The principle that a woman takes her husband's rank, and that Wallis is entitled to a valid HRH, was affirmed at the outset and was never questioned. A defect had to be found in Edward's HRH. It was not, Chrissy, that Edward forfeited his HRH and the sovereign reissued it with the caveat that it doesn't go to Wallis; the sovereign does not have that power. The HRH Edward got in effect carried no rank, which is what the wife is entitled to, and that's why it could be denied. How do we get from there, to Sarah and Diana losing HRH, when that a woman keeps her husband's rank upon divorce is no less well-settled than that she takes it upon marriage? Chrissy notes that HRH might work like "Her Grace" being lost by the divorced wife of a duke. But in that example the woman keeps the rank of her husband, by taking the dukedom as her surname. The requirement is not identical language, the requirement is the same rank. But Sarah and Diana, they lost their rank despite no defects in the HRH's of their husbands. That Diana kept some form of the Wales desigation isn't enough, by the logic of the Wallis case, because only HRH describes the rank of being in the line of succession.
|
|
#403
07-18-2007, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is no question The Duke had the right, as a son of George V, to remain HRH despite the Abdication so long as The Sovereign continued to recognize him as such. The problem with denying Wallis the title was in allowing Edward to retain it himself, which was a mistake on the King's part. There was no such thing as a morganatic marriage in Great Britain and, yet, it was created by the Crown and the Government in 1937 to punish Edward for marrying her after giving up the throne.
On the other hand, it was clear from reviewing the letters patent of George II, George III, Victoria and Edward VII on conferring HRH and Prince/Princess of the UK that the intent was to grant recognition to those members of the royal family in close succession to the throne. Obviously, there was no thought given to a divorce or abdication at that time, so it was reasonable to assume new letters patent could be issued to deal with those situations.
|
|
#405
08-28-2007, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Their daughter would've been Princess (name) of Wales.
__________________
Diana, Princess of Wales - She became an icon in life and a legend in death.
|
|
#406
08-28-2007, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No, she'd have been known as Princess [Name] of Wales while Charles was Prince of Wales and then she'd have just been The Princess [Name] once he became King. The Prince of Wales title is reserved for sons.
__________________
. . .
|
|
#407
08-28-2007, 01:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Some people make headlines, while others make history." Philip Elmer-Dewitt, in Time Magazine
|
|
#408
08-28-2007, 01:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If they have children before the Charles becomes king there children will be known as Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor.
__________________
Diana, Princess of Wales - She became an icon in life and a legend in death.
|
|
#409
08-28-2007, 02:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Some people make headlines, while others make history." Philip Elmer-Dewitt, in Time Magazine
|
|
#410
08-28-2007, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Warren; 08-29-2007 at 08:35 AM. Reason: merge
|
|
#411
09-01-2007, 07:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Completly unrelated but I was wondering if Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester should not have been corectly referred to as HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester or HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester.
I understand why Princess Marina adopted this style after all she was a Princess in her own right,Alice was on The Lady Alice Montague-Douglas-Scot before her marriage. I was under the impression that only princess of the Blood Royal could be know as HRH (The) Princess Own Name (Anne, Alexandra, Margaret, Beatrice etc.) while others were HRH (The) Princess husbands name (Micheal of Kent etc.) While I am aware that Her Majesty approved of the style Her Royal Highness adopted should correct form, social etiquette precedent and Buckingham Palace's obsession with doing things properly not have dictated that she remain The Princess Henry after all a widow remains Mrs. John Smith while only a divorcee is correctly Mrs. Jane Smith.
__________________
HM The Queen and HRH The Prince Philip,Duke of Edinburgh, 60 years of devoted service. God Save The Queen!
Last edited by RoyalProtocol; 09-01-2007 at 07:09 PM.
|
|
#412
09-01-2007, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Princess Alice
Quote:
|
|
#413
09-01-2007, 09:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Didn't the Queen create Alice a Princess in her own right to enable her to use Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester?
__________________
Abnormal Service has been resumed.
|
|
#415
09-02-2007, 01:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
How come Princess Anne, Princess of Royal daughter Zara Phillips and her son don't have titles of their own?
__________________
"Some people make headlines, while others make history." Philip Elmer-Dewitt, in Time Magazine
|
|
#416
09-02-2007, 03:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Grandchildren of the sovereign through a female line don't automatically hold any style or title, and their father wasn't granted one of his own.
Had, say, Mark Phillips been granted the title of "Earl of Anywhere", with the subsidiary title of "Viscount Nonsuch," Peter would be "Viscount Nonsuch," and Zara would be "The Lady Zara Phillips."
|
|
#417
09-02-2007, 03:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
May I make a technical point - Anne's title is 'The Princess Royal' not Princess OF Royal (I am just pointing out a minor error of no real consequence and I hope that I am not causing offence in giving you the correct wording of Anne's title).
|
|
#418
09-02-2007, 04:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
. . .
Last edited by Elspeth; 09-02-2007 at 04:19 AM. |
