Questions About Titles

[Princejohnny25]

No, Euginie is a Princess of Canada. Some commonwealth realms have them as there own princesses or princes.

[Oppie]

I don't think so. I have never heard anyone refered to as Princess of Canada. Queen Elizabeth is refered to as the Queen of Canada, but I don't think anyone else has 'of Canada' or 'of New Zeland' ect as part of there title. (I don't even think Prince Philip does)

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by branchg

And another point. Camilla doesn't "call herself" anything. It was the Queen who agreed she would be styled "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay". You can't decide yourself what your title or style is. It is within the gift and order of the Sovereign as the fount of honour.

Camilla is the wife of the holder of the titles not the titleholder herself and therefore is entitled to use ALL of her husband's titles, like any other wife.

The only way she doesn't get to use all of Prince Charles titles is if the Queen specifically states that the wife isn't entitled to use one. The Queen has never issued such a statement.

The statement at the time of the engagement was that Camilla had decided to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall.

If the Queen had actually denied the title Princess of Wales to Camilla why did the government, when asked in Question Time shortly before the wedding, was it true that Camilla really would be the Princess of Wales even if she wasn't using that title - reply - YES.


Surely, if the Queen had said that Camilla wasn't to be the Princess of Wales her PM would know this fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4252931.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...537376,00.html


These sites and others refer to these questions being raised in the lead up to the wedding - clearly they indicate the Camilla really does have the title Princess of Wales and that she and Charles have made the decision for her not to use it - presumably with the Queen's permission.

[ksenia]

she is not the empress of india also. india is a republic now. Wasn't her mother the last empress of india?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Dane

If German titles were not stripped by King George V, what German titles would the Queen hold and her Grand Children?

Duke or Duchess of Saxony, Prince or Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by ksenia

she is not the empress of india also. india is a republic now. Wasn't her mother the last empress of india?

That is correct.

Victoria was the First Empress of India, followed as Emperor by Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI.

Their wives took the title Empress of India as the wife of the Emperor.

When India became a republic the monarch of Britain ceased to be the Emperor of India.

Lord Mountbatten was the last Viceroy of India and first Goveror-General.

[BeatrixFan]

I should have pointed out - these are the titles she would have held had all the countries retained her as Queen. Sorry to confuse.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

If the Queen had actually denied the title Princess of Wales to Camilla why did the government, when asked in Question Time shortly before the wedding, was it true that Camilla really would be the Princess of Wales even if she wasn't using that title - reply - YES.

These sites and others refer to these questions being raised in the lead up to the wedding - clearly they indicate the Camilla really does have the title Princess of Wales and that she and Charles have made the decision for her not to use it - presumably with the Queen's permission.

I didn't say Camilla didn't share all of her husband's titles....she does. My point is she is STYLED as Duchess of Cornwall and nothing else per The Queen. Similarily, Louise is legally "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" but styled The Lady Louise Windsor per The Queen.

Technically, The Queen should have issued a Royal Warrant confirming the style and title of both Camilla and Louise, but I assume she has chosen not to do so in order to leave the door open for both to assume their rightful style and title in the future.

[BeatrixFan]

Think of it as a titled widow.

The Duchess of Devonshire's husband died and she became The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. She is still a Duchess of Devonshire but she isn't THE Duchess, she's the Dowager. To confuse matters, the Duchess doesn't use the Dowager part because she says she feels too old.

It's the same with Camilla. She IS the Princess of Wales etc etc but she prefers to be known as The Duchess of Cornwall.

[Dane]

Hey guys, i was reading about the British Empire earlier and it said from the late 50's to the early 60's the british empire was breaking up, does that mean at the time of the accension and coronation of Her Majesty britain was still a empire? so doesnt that mean as head of a empire even if it was dismatling HM was Empress? even though british monarchs were styled Emperor/Empress of India which gained sovereignty in 1946!? the head of an empire would be a empress right? please help

[Elspeth]

"Empress" and "Emperor" in this case referred to India, not the Empire as a whole; that's why if you look at coins from the time of George V and George VI they say "Ind Imp," which is short for Imperator Indiae. The British Empire was replaced by the Commonwealth, and the Statute of Westminster bringing that change about pre-dated the Queen's reign; it was actually signed in George V's reign.

At least, that's how I think it works, but we have some far more knowledgeable people on this board, so stay tuned.

[Lady Marmalade]

Queen Elizabeth II was never Empress of India...

[Dane]

i know she was never empress of india, what im saying is that if britain was an empire at the time she took the throne the head of an empire is a emperor/empress so even if not called that she must have been an empress

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Dane

if britain was an empire at the time she took the throne the head of an empire is a emperor/empress so even if not called that she must have been an empress

Correct, that would be the case.

[Paula**]

Why some members of the B royal family have surname Mountbatten-Windsor and others only Windsor?

[crisiñaki]

Originally Posted by Paula**

Why some members of the B royal family have surname Mountbatten-Windsor and others only Windsor?

Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname for all the descendents of Queen Elizabeth II because of the hyphenation of her last name with her husband's (Philip Mountbatten)

The surname for other people like all the descendents of Prince Michael of Kent is Windsor (alone) since they carry the surname of King George V.

[Elspeth]

The Duchess of Devonshire's husband died and she became The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. She is still a Duchess of Devonshire but she isn't THE Duchess, she's the Dowager. To confuse matters, the Duchess doesn't use the Dowager part because she says she feels too old.

Too OLD to be a dowager? Leave it to the Mitfords to be contrary!

[Elspeth]

According to the Letters Patent issued in 1960, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor is for descendants of the Queen other than the princes and princesses and female descendants who marry. In other words, it doesn't apply to her children, who are princes and princess, or to her sons' children, who are princes and princesses (except for Lady Louise), or Princess Anne's children, who take their father's name, but Prince Harry's children will be Mountbatten-Windsors, as is Lady Louise, who isn't being styled a princess.

[crisiñaki]

Thanks for the explaining Elspeth:)

[branchg]

Harry's children will only take the Mountbatten-Windsor surname if he marries and has children before The Queen dies. Otherwise, he will be a son of the sovereign and his children will be prince/princess of the UK.