Questions About Titles - Page 23

zembla · #**441** 10-24-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

They would not be within the line of succession, so the Letters Patent of 1917 would not apply. As was done many times in the past with George III's sons and successors, The Sovereign could create them Peers if he/she wished.

What does that mean?

branchg · #**442** 10-24-2007, 09:40 AM

For instance, the child is born John Smith (taking their mother's name), but is actually the child of a Prince of the UK. The Sovereign recognizes John by creating him The Earl of Hampton.

Melania · #**443** 11-24-2007, 10:12 PM

From my understanding, Prince Philip was never crowned consort, instead, he was the first person to pledge his allegiance to the queen...

My question is, why was Prince Philip never crowned consort? I know the Queen has wanted to give him a higher title, like prince of the commonwealth or prince of the realm, but why never consort?

I also have another question, but on a different topic. When the kingdoms of Britain and Hanover were ruled by the same monarch, is that similar to today in the way that QEII rules Great Britain and Australia, Canada, etc.? Is that kind of the same idea... same monarch, different crowns, but united together?

Thanks if you can help answer my questions.

wbenson · #**444** 11-24-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melania

My question is, why was Prince Philip never crowned consort?

To be "crowned" as such, he would have to be a King, which would have been nearly impossible (even Victoria couldn't pull that one off). Why not consort? I'm not really sure, but I think that had Philip really wanted it, he would have gotten it. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who wants a lot of attention due to titles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melania

I also have another question, but on a different topic. When the kingdoms of Britain and Hanover were ruled by the same monarch, is that similar to today in the way that QEII rules Great Britain and Australia, Canada, etc.? Is that kind of the same idea... same monarch, different crowns, but united together?

Exactly. It's the same end result, though the evolution was different. (The other Commonwealth realms branched off from the UK, whereas the personal union between Britain and Hanover happened by succession to the various thrones).

Australian · #**445** 11-24-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melania

is that similar to today in the way that QEII rules Great Britain and Australia, Canada, etc.?

Just to be picky, the Queen does not rule, she reigns.

cmkrcwi · #**446** 11-25-2007, 12:27 AM

I don't believe the situations of Hanover and Canada/Australia etc. are the same at all. King George I was already Elector of Hanover when he succeeded to the British throne so he became King of both countries. In the case of Canada and other commonwealth countries, I believe Britain colonized those countries so that's how they became part of the realm.

wbenson · #**447** 11-25-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmkrcwi

I don't believe the situations of Hanover and Canada/Australia etc. are the same at all. King George I was already Elector of Hanover when he succeeded to the British throne so he became King of both countries. In the case of Canada and other commonwealth countries, I believe Britain colonized those countries so that's how they became part of the realm.

How they came to be is quite different, but the legal separation is quite the same now.

Charlotte1 · #**448** 11-25-2007, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

Why not consort? I'm not really sure, but I think that had Philip really wanted it, he would have gotten it. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who wants a lot of attention due to titles.

He was offered the title "Prince Consort" and refused it.

coco · #**449** 11-25-2007, 08:22 AM

I have a question.
I think it is true if you marry a prince you have to become a princess. And if your Prince becomes a king, you have no choice, you have to become a queen. And if you marry a queen, it's not possible for you to become a king. And the son of a Prince and a non-princess is a prince and a son of a Princess and a non-prince is no Prince . . . . is everything I said true?
Now my question: is it in some occasions possible to choose if you want to get a title? Maybe for lower titles? So that the parents can choose for a title of their son?

magnik · #**450** 11-25-2007, 08:44 AM

alt.talk.royalty FAQ: British royalty and nobility

A Glossary of European Noble, Princely, Royal and Imperial Titles

wbenson · #**451** 11-25-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coco

I think it is true if you marry a prince you have to become a princess. And if your Prince becomes a king, you have no choice, you have to become a queen. And if you marry a queen, it's not possible for you to become a king.

Correct. The last thing (marrying and becoming a King) used to be somewhat common in other countries, but only happened once in England, when Mary I's husband (later Philip II of Spain) used the title King Consort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coco

And the son of a Prince and a non-princess is a prince and a son of a Princess and a non-prince is no Prince . . . . is everything I said true?

It's true under the current letters patent. If the Queen wanted, she could change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coco

Now my question: is it in some occasions possible to choose if you want to get a title? Maybe for lower titles? So that the parents can choose for a title of their son?

If it comes simply by being married to someone, you can't choose whether or not you get it (unless you want to choose not to get married), but you certainly can choose whether or not you want to use it.

Parents can choose what their child will be called, but they can't change whether or not they have a title if that comes immediately from inheritance. A good example is Lady Louise. She's technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, but her parents have decided that she should be styled as if her father wasn't a son of the Queen.

branchg · #**452** 11-27-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

Parents can choose what their child will be called, but they can't change whether or not they have a title if that comes immediately from inheritance. A good example is Lady Louise. She's technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, but her parents have decided that she should be styled as if her father wasn't a son of the Queen.

With the consent of the Sovereign only. The 1917 Letters Patent grant the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male-line the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. Unless The Queen issued a royal warrant or new letters patent, Louise remains a princess legally.

wbenson · #**453** 11-27-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

With the consent of the Sovereign only. The 1917 Letters Patent grant the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male-line the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. Unless The Queen issued a royal warrant or new letters patent, Louise remains a princess legally.

I'm sure they got the Queen's consent, but it wasn't formal consent nor legalized. She is still a princess, but the Palace seems to have adopted a brute-force method of changing styles. (Say it many times as loud as you can and it becomes true.)

future princess · #**454** 12-13-2007, 06:09 AM

until what generation can the term "blue blood" be used by a person or to pertain to a person? like for example the Queen, The Princess Royal and Zara Phillips. can Zara be called "blue blood" even if she doesnt carry a title? if so that does also include her children & grandchildren??

what about for the Princesses of York,their future children & grandchildren???

Quinto · #**455** 12-16-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgiea

That is true Skydragon. Again I did not think of all the advances in medical care. But you still have to have good genes too.

When referring to HRH Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family, please use the appropriate etiquette and refer to them by their proper titles, otherwise you are being rude; also, please do not infer that HRH Prince Charles does not have "good genes" running through the blood in his Royal veins.

These discussions are most unpalatable to me as a Royalist.

Q.

BeatrixFan · #**456** 12-16-2007, 03:24 PM

Actually, and I refer to Debretts, it's quite proper to discuss the Royal Family as Prince X and Princess X. The HRH etc is really not nessecary.

Skydragon · #**457** 12-16-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinto

When referring to HRH Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family, please use the appropriate etiquette and refer to them by their proper titles, otherwise you are being rude; also, please do not infer that HRH Prince Charles does not have "good genes" running through the blood in his Royal veins.
These discussions are most unpalatable to me as a Royalist.

I will address Charles, Camilla or any other member of the Royal Family as I have always done and will certainly not take advice from someone who appears to be trying her outmost to alienate every member on here.

{edited for consistency - Elspeth}

BeatrixFan · #**458** 12-16-2007, 04:10 PM

Having been in domestic service for all of 10 minutes, I'm aware of forms of address. I'd recommend you get a copy of Debretts Forms of Address and possibly Debretts Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners. In a very informal chat setting like this, full styles (not titles) are not really required though sometimes we do say HRH as an abbreviation. Usually though it's first names.