Questions About Titles - Page 6

branchg · #**101** 01-19-2006, 08:19 AM

My prediction is Harry's children will not be prince/princess of the UK, provided William has married and has children of his own. Once William has an heir, the likelihood of Harry's children succeeding becomes very small.

I think it is inevitable new letters patent will be issued to replace the 1917 Letters Patent of George V, perhaps after Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice marry. The rank of Royal Highness and titular dignity of prince/princess of the UK will very likely be restricted in the future to the children of the sovereign and the children of the Prince of Wales.

Paula** · #**102** 01-19-2006, 08:46 AM

Do you guys think in the future maybe will be a chance for equality for men and women in tittle stuff?

I never lose my hopes :p

Royal Fan · #**103** 01-19-2006, 12:07 PM

it could happen :)

JPhinala · #**104** 01-19-2006, 12:28 PM

You know how the son of the Prince of Wales is given the title prince, what if William had a son tommorow? Would he be given the title of Prince too or would he recieve some other title until William becomes the Prince of Wales?

BeatrixFan · #**105** 01-19-2006, 12:31 PM

Well, he would become a Prince but he wouldn't get a Dukedom etc until he was much older. But he'd be illegitimate so he'd be out of running for the throne.

**Elspeth** · #**106** 01-19-2006, 12:41 PM

Well, just as things were changed and clarified in 1948 to allow Charles to become HRH Prince Charles because of the unforseen consequence of the heir (Princess Elizabeth) being female, which wasn't allowed for in the Letters Patent of 1917, I expect they'd be changed again to cover the eventuality of a great grandson of the monarch in the eldest-son line.

This web page lists the Letters Patent that have been issued over the last few decades (the links are to pdf files). It's a fairly handy resource.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cuhags/info/proclp-w.htm

branchg · #**107** 01-19-2006, 02:54 PM

The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is automatically a Royal Highness and Prince of the UK under the 1917 Letters Patent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhinala

You know how the son of the Prince of Wales is given the title prince, what if William had a son tommorow? Would he be given the title of Prince too or would he recieve some other title until William becomes the Prince of Wales?

He would be HRH Prince X under George V's Letters Patent.
.

branchg · #**108** 01-19-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paula**

Do you guys think in the future maybe will be a chance for equality for men and women in tittle stuff?

I never lose my hopes :p

There is already equality at some level, but it is generally at the will of the Sovereign as fount of honour. Things would have to be drastically changed in common law to allow for equal inheritance of titular dignities and peerages.

RoyalProtocol · #**109** 02-28-2006, 10:15 AM

There are lots of possibilities and we will only fond out on the morning of their weddings!

MOLEY · #**110** 02-28-2006, 12:50 PM

I wonder if HM the queen had offered an earldom to prince michael of kent on his wedding day to baroness marie-christine then HRH and his wife would be TRH earl and countess of ????, it would have meant freddie would be a viscount and a new line of titled windsors in the future.

Lady Marmalade · #**111** 02-28-2006, 06:33 PM

It still astounds me that these things need to happen.

I know Philip was born a royal prince and had to denounce everything and become a British citizen, but to me he is was still royal and not common, even though the laws or whatever recognized him as such.

Common to me means someone not born into any royal family in any way.

If one uses the arguments then the current heirs to the Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein thrones are only half royal.

branchg · #**112** 02-28-2006, 10:10 PM

No one ever considered Prince Philip to be anything but royal. In fact, he is more royal than The Queen in Teutonic terms since her mother was technically a commoner as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.

By the standards of today's society, the Queen Mother was most certainly a high aristocrat, although not quite as aristocratic as Diana was.

branchg · #**113** 02-28-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOLEY

I wonder if HM the queen had offered an earldom to prince michael of kent on his wedding day to baroness marie-christine then HRH and his wife would be TRH earl and countess of ????, it would have meant freddie would be a viscount and a new line of titled windsors in the future.

Yes, they would have been styled as TRH Earl and Countess of Whatever, although technically Michael's correct full style would have remained HRH Prince Michael of Kent, The Earl of Whatever.

RoyalProtocol · #**114** 03-01-2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Yes, they would have been styled as TRH Earl and Countess of Whatever, although technically Michael's correct full style would have remained HRH Prince Michael of Kent, The Earl of Whatever.

I think you are mistaken, when a Royal Prince is given a title he uses the title instead of "Prince x" Take for example: The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester and The Duke of Kent. It is not corredt to say HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The exception is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, this is because at the time of his marriage he was given the title HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (having renounced his Greek Title of Prince). However in 1957 HM The Queen granted Him the title of The Prince Philip and this title was added before the Duke of Edinburgh part.

Princess Robijn · #**115** 03-01-2006, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

I think you are mistaken, when a Royal Prince is given a title he uses the title instead of "Prince x" Take for example: The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester and The Duke of Kent. It is not corredt to say HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The exception is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, this is because at the time of his marriage he was given the title HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (having renounced his Greek Title of Prince). However in 1957 HM The Queen granted Him the title of The Prince Philip and this title was added before the Duke of Edinburgh part.

This isn't true, they are styled, HRH The Duke of York, HRH The Earl of Wessex, but their official titles are HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York & HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex

RoyalProtocol · #**116** 03-01-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Robijn

This isn't true, they are styled, HRH The Duke of York, HRH The Earl of Wessex, but their official titles are HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York & HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex

I enquired with Buckingham Palace how to officially style Their Royal Highnesses and the form which I posted earlier was indeed correct, They said only their friends used the "prince x" form and officially the Dukedoms granted by the Queen should be used.

branchg · #**117** 03-01-2006, 08:45 AM

The correct form of address is HRH The Duke of York because royal princes are styled by their peerage. However, Andrew's full legal title remains HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York.

As a son of the sovereign, he is automatically HRH and Prince of the UK as his birthright. Peerages are granted at the will of the Sovereign.

branchg · #**118** 03-01-2006, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

The exception is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, this is because at the time of his marriage he was given the title HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (having renounced his Greek Title of Prince). However in 1957 HM The Queen granted Him the title of The Prince Philip and this title was added before the Duke of Edinburgh part.

That is incorrect. Philip is generally styled by his full titles because he was granted precedence before all of the princes of the blood royal and next to HM The Queen when granted the titular dignity in 1957 by Parliament.

As a matter of form, he is also addressed by his peerage as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, the same as his sons and other princes of the blood royal.

Lady Marmalade · #**119** 03-01-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

No one ever considered Prince Philip to be anything but royal. In fact, he is more royal than The Queen in Teutonic terms since her mother was technically a commoner as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.

By the standards of today's society, the Queen Mother was most certainly a high aristocrat, although not quite as aristocratic as Diana was.

I don't think it matters whether it is today or yesterday..

Both the Queen Mother and Diana came from aristocratic backgrounds.

As for Philip, I agree, he was, is, and will always be royal. But, when he became a naturalized citizen and married the then Princess Elizabeth, the new letters of patent had to be written up so their children would not be born into commoner status taking the precedence of peer's title only without the HRH.