Questions About Titles

[MAfan]

I meant exactly this before, Jonny...

[jonnydep]

mafan,
perhaps charles and anne was honorary prince and princess in the full knowlege that they would be as such upon the kings death upon the asscession of thier mother princess elizabeth.........

[lumutqueen]

Princess Anne before her mothers accesion was
HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh

Prince Charles was
HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

I suppose when Anne was created Princess Royal and Charles Prince Of Wales that was creating them Princes/Princess.

[MAfan]

No, before that; when they were born, they were "only" the children of a Duke, according to british laws; so I guess the King had created them Princes.
Later, QE created them Prince of Wales and Princess Royal.

[jonnydep]

yes it does look like that they were honorary prince / princess, i do know that issue of princesses in the uk have no such rank, for example the children of princesses margaret and anne

[Marsel]

By Letters Patent of King George V, both Charles and Anne couldn't have the titles of British Prince and Princess, as well as the style Royal Highness at the time of their birth for they were not male-line children or grandchildren of the Sovereign. They would, instead, have the styles and titles of the children of Royal Duke (Charles would have Philip's secondary title - Earl of Merioneth, and Anne would be titled by courtesy as Lady Anne Mountbatten).

However, in October 1948, George VI issued new Letters Patent granting any children of Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh the titles of British Princes and Princesses and the style Royal Highness, thus ensuring that the children of the Heiress Presumptive have the Royal and Princely status.

[jonnydep]

a very very very very, big thankyou for the adove., you are a star. i am happy with that.
i now remember reading something of the sort many years back, but you know how it is, very often you forget these things over time.
cheers jonny

[branchg]

Originally Posted by MAfan

And in a certain way, also Charles and Anne...or not?

Not really. George VI issued letters patent in 1948 stating the children of The Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh would enjoy the style and attribute of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, knowing he would not have a son to displace her as the heir and a spare was on the way (Charles was born shortly afterward).

But they would have assumed the style and rank automatically once their mother became The Sovereign in 1952.

[jonnydep]

thank you for your reply, it is helpful

thus charles and anne was not offically created prince / princess, but would enjoy the style...... etc, as tough they where prince and princess.
sounds very much like what i meant by honorary prince / princess to me.

(edit, yes both charles and ann was prince and princess of the realm, as per the letters and patant of king george VI OF 1948. i have since be made aware that i was mistaken to think otherwise, please see post number 650 below)

so, mafan, i hope this clears it up for you !!!!!!

jonny

[branchg]

Originally Posted by jonnydep1

thus charles and anne was not offically created prince / princess, but would enjoy the style...... etc, as tough they where prince and princess.
sounds very much like what i meant by honorary prince / princess to me.

No, they were born HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Anne because that's what the 1948 Letters Patent stated. Otherwise, under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V, they would have been styled as the children of a Duke as female-line grandchildren do not take the status of HRH, but from their father instead.

For example, Princess Anne married Mr. Mark Phillips and had two children. Mark declined to accept a peerage from The Queen, so his children are Mr. Peter Phillips and Ms. Zara Phillips as female-line grandchildren of The Sovereign. If Anne had been heiress presumptive and The Queen had no sons, she also would have likely issued letters patent stating they were HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as the spares.

In fact, it was reported The Queen did offer to issue letters patent elevating Peter and Zara to HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as the rest of her grandchildren (as male-line descendants) would be so entitled. Anne declined the offer, desiring a more normal upbringing for her children without the burden of being HRH.

To confuse the matter even further, HRH The Earl of Wessex's children are not styled HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, even though under the 1917 Letters Patent, they are automatically entitled to it. Instead, they are being styled as the children of a Peer (James, Viscount Severn and The Lady Louise Windsor), rather than HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex.

[denverjeff]

Hi All,

I believe I read somewhere else that only the children of the Queen use a "the" before Prince/Princess and that the other Princes and Princessess do not. Since I read that I have not been able to find it again. Do I have it right?

Thanks,
J

[branchg]

Originally Posted by denverjeff

I believe I read somewhere else that only the children of the Queen use a "the" before Prince/Princess and that the other Princes and Princessess do not. Since I read that I have not been able to find it again. Do I have it right?

Yes, the children of The Sovereign use the distinction of "The Prince/Princess" to signify their precedence over other members of the royal family who hold the rank of HRH (the grandchildren of The Sovereign in the male-line).

[jonnydep]

Originally Posted by branchg

To confuse the matter even further, HRH The Earl of Wessex's children are not styled HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, even though under the 1917 Letters Patent, they are automatically entitled to it. Instead, they are being styled as the children of a Peer (James, Viscount Severn and The Lady Louise Windsor), rather than HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex.

to my understanding,
this was done, in view of reducing the numbers of princes / princesses within the royal family in future years.
i think i had read or heared somewhere that.......eventually it is hoped that princes within the royal family will only consist of the soveriegn siblings, the soveriegns children, the soveriegns grandchildren via the heir apparent.....etc
please correct me if i am wrong !!!!

[branchg]

Yes, that is what I believe the intention was in Edward and Sophie's children not using the style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. In the future, it is likely the rank of HRH will be limited to the children of The Sovereign, the spare to the throne and their eldest son.

But for now, the 1917 Letters Patent remain in effect unless The Queen issues fresh letters patent changing her grandfather's guidelines. So, James and Louise are indeed Prince and Princess of the UK, they just aren't using it.

[jonnydep]

Originally Posted by branchg

So, James and Louise are indeed Prince and Princess of the UK, they just aren't using it.

this reminds me, of the use of titles concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall. as the wife of the prince of wales she is by law entitled to use the title princess of wales, but for what ever reason she does not choose to use it. the same will apply when she is the princess consort, when charles becomes king !!
i am correct yes......

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by jonnydep1

this reminds me, of the use of titles concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall. as the wife of the prince of wales she is by law entitled to use the title princess of wales, but for what ever reason she does not choose to use it. the same will apply when she is the princess consort, when charles becomes king !!
i am correct yes......

Camilla can choose to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, instead of the Princess of Wales, because she holds both titles. Camilla can choose to be known under any of the titles and can be known under any of the titles she legally holds. In Scotland, for example, Charles and Camilla are known as the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay.

The situation with the Princess Consort title is completely different; once Charles becomes King, Camilla will automatically become Queen. She cannot be known or styled by the title 'Princess Consort', which is a lesser title (and she doesn't/won't hold in any case).

Camilla may be created as Princess Consort in her own right (although that would requite both Letters Patent and another Act of the Parliament), but still in order for her to be legally Princess Consort, an Act should be passed in the Parliaments of England, Scotland and each of the countries of the Realm. And unless such an Act is passed (which I think is highly unlikely), Camilla will legally be Queen Consort and will be styled as one.

I am not sure whether there is a legal loophole that would enable Camilla to be known as Princess Consort but legally be Queen Consort. I suppose technically she can choose to be known under any name (from Pocahontas to Tooth Fairy), as long as she isn't impersonating anyone. But that’s legal experts’ debate.


From a personal point of view, I find this Princess Consort thing utterly ridiculous; the wife of the King is Queen, and that’s the end of it.
I wouldn’t mind if all future spouses of the Monarch are known and styled as Prince(ss) Consorts (which would need an Act of Parliament, of course), because that would be somewhat fair. But to make an exception for one woman is not just unfair, it is simply offensive.
Much more sensible would be granting the husband of Queen Regnant the title of "King Consort", rather than demoting Queen Consorts to Princess Consorts (mind you, the husband of the female Monarch isn't even Prince Consort, with the exception of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband).

[Elspeth]

Continuing the discussion in the Lady Jane Grey thread about whether it's possible for there to be a female Heiress Apparent (rather than Heiress Presumptive), and the scenario which makes this possible (if the heir apparent to a reigning monarch dies having left daughters but no sons, in which case the eldest daughter couldn't be displaced by any later-born royal children and would thus be Heiress Apparent), I was wondering if this means that an Heiress Apparent would be eligible to be created Princess of Wales in her own right.

From what I've been reading about the title, "Prince of Wales" can be bestowed only on the Heir Apparent. So far in history all our female monarchs were previously Heiresses Presumptive, which if I remember right is the reason why George VI refused to make Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales. But since it's at least theoretically possible for there to be an Heiress Apparent - such as, for example, if some awful accident wiped out Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew before any of them had any more children - then I wonder if the title would be bestowed on Beatrice.

[H.M. Margrethe]

Originally Posted by jonnydep

this reminds me, of the use of titles concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall. as the wife of the prince of wales she is by law entitled to use the title princess of wales, but for what ever reason she does not choose to use it. the same will apply when she is the princess consort, when charles becomes king !!
i am correct yes......

I think that the reason for Camilla not jusing the titel as Princess of Wales is in respect for both the late Princess Diana and her 2 children William and Harry.

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Continuing the discussion in the Lady Jane Grey thread about whether it's possible for there to be a female Heiress Apparent (rather than Heiress Presumptive), and the scenario which makes this possible (if the heir apparent to a reigning monarch dies having left daughters but no sons, in which case the eldest daughter couldn't be displaced by any later-born royal children and would thus be Heiress Apparent), I was wondering if this means that an Heiress Apparent would be eligible to be created Princess of Wales in her own right.

From what I've been reading about the title, "Prince of Wales" can be bestowed only on the Heir Apparent. So far in history all our female monarchs were previously Heiresses Presumptive, which if I remember right is the reason why George VI refused to make Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales.

There are a lot of scenarios when a female can be Heiress Apparent, although it is certainly more common to have a male Heir Apparent.

If, for example, William were to have only one daughter and predecease his father, it would be perfectly obvious that the girl is Heiress Apparent.
However, she would not be invested as "Princess of Wales" in her own right, as the title would be inferior to her title of a Princess of the United Kingdom (as of current situation). This is because the title of "The Princess of Wales" in its female form simply does not exist; it is merely a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales. In order for this to be changed, Legislation(s) and Letters Patent are to be introduced.

There is a scenario where Heiress Apparent would likely be invested as Princess of Wales in her own right without the need of Legislations or Letters Patent (regarding the Princess of the United Kingdom title, that is), and the title would not be inferior to the one she already holds. If William were to die, leaving sole daughter in Queen Elizabeth II's lifetime, his daughter would not automatically be Princess of the United Kingdom, as she wouldn’t be male-line grandchild of the Monarch (not that it is likely she wouldn't be created one upon or even before her birth, but it is possible she isn’t by the time of William's death). In that case, a decision might have been made to invest her as Princess of Wales, rather than grant her the style and title of the Princess of the United Kingdom. Both outcomes would require Letters Patent.

<>... So far in history all our female monarchs were previously Heiresses Presumptive... <>

There was actually a case in English History when a female was considered Heiress Apparent - Henry VIII's daughter Princess Mary. When it became apparent he will have no legitimate male Heirs from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (and before he started having 'doubts' about the legitimacy of the marriage), Henry bestowed Mary with many of the rights and properties traditionally given only to the Prince of Wales, most importantly, the official Seal of Wales for correspondence (some of Mary's correspondence sealed with the Seal survive to this day). During that period, she was often referred to as Princess of Wales as well.
While Mary was never created the Princess of Wales, she was closest a female ever got to, and that includes the present Queen.

But since it's at least theoretically possible for there to be an Heiress Apparent - such as, for example, if some awful accident wiped out Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew before any of them had any more children - then I wonder if the title would be bestowed on Beatrice.

If some terrible accident like the one you mentioned indeed happened and a female was left as an Heiress Apparent, I believe Legislations would be passed and Letters Patent would be issued to grant her all the titles and style befitting Heiress Apparent, including the title "Princess of Wales" in her own right. The Letters Patent would have to specify that her title of the Princess of Wales would not be inferior to her title of "the Princess of the United Kingdom".
If it comes to a situation like that, then it would be only one step to adopting Equal Primogeniture, in which case a female title of "The Princess of Wales" would be created, so that the Heir(ess) Apparent of the Sovereign, regardless of gender, is invested as Prince(ess) of Wales.


That would open another issue, of course; question of the titles of the spouse of the Prince(ss) of Wales.

[branchg]

"Prince/Princess of the UK" are styles signifying place and precedence to The Sovereign, whether in your own right or by marriage. "Prince of Wales" is technically superior since it reflects The Principality of Wales, which is not really a Peerage, but is treated as one since it is created by The Sovereign for the male heir in his own right and takes precedence over the highest rank of Duke.

But being a plain "Prince X" is inferior to being created a Peer in the sense of being a commoner, albeit with rank and precedence that is superior to non-royal Peers. In the UK, everyone is considered a commoner unless you are The Sovereign or a Peer. This is one reason why Diana refused to accept being "HRH Princess Diana" during the divorce negotiations, as she felt it would be inferior to being "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales". As we know, she lost her royal rank but kept her royal style until she remarried.

The issue of creating an heiress presumptive "Princess of Wales" in her own right was examined when The Queen was still The Princess Elizabeth. The conclusion of the Privy Council and constitutional experts was the title was reserved for the wife of the Prince of Wales and not an heiress to the throne.

If they eventually reform succession of titles to reflect equal primogeniture, then it would make sense to allow a female heir to assume the title in her own right.