Questions About Titles - Page 7

**Elspeth** · #**121** 03-01-2006, 08:57 PM

I think it'll come into it more and more, though. The younger royals are living their lives outside the close royal-aristocratic circle far more than previous generations.

BeatrixFan · #**122** 03-01-2006, 09:00 PM

Unfortunately. Chavvy brides seem to be in fashion at the moment where Royalty is concerned.

branchg · #**123** 03-01-2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

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.

George VI had to issue letters patent granting Elizabeth's children the rank of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess of the UK because under his father's 1917 Letters Patent, only the male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign were entitled to it. There is no consideration in the 1917 Letters Patent for the heir to the throne being female.

It had nothing to do with Prince Philip's status.

branchg · #**124** 03-02-2006, 12:04 AM

William and Harry are both likely to marry British aristocrats for the sake of the Crown. There will be a lot of pressure on both from the Household to do so.

Lady Marmalade · #**125** 03-02-2006, 02:25 PM

Yes, it did in a partial manner, have to also do with his status as a naturalized "commoner".

branchg · #**126** 03-02-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

Yes, it did in a partial manner, have to also do with his status as a naturalized "commoner".

Princess Margaret married a commoner and so did Princess Anne. Their children were styled after their father's surname and/or peerage.

Elizabeth's children were elevated by George VI to HRH and Prince/Princess of the UK because they were the children of a future Sovereign. Nothing more or less.

ysbel · #**127** 03-02-2006, 09:53 PM

It seems a curious oversight that George V didn't foresee a female heir. After all, his grandmother, Victoria, had been one at one time.

branchg · #**128** 03-02-2006, 11:48 PM

True, but it is within the will of the Sovereign regardless. The Queen offered to elevate Princess Anne's children to the rank of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess of the UK, but both Anne and Mark were in agreement their children would not hold royal rank.

Edward and Sophie also requested their children not hold royal rank, even though The Queen has not yet issued a Royal Warrant or Letters Patent specifically allowing Louise to relinquish her titular dignity or rank as HRH Princess Louise of Wessex.

Lady Marmalade · #**129** 03-03-2006, 12:20 AM

No...there was some issue as well with Philip not being an HRH after becoming a naturalized citizen...and then marrying the future queen.

We are BOTH correct...

branchg · #**130** 03-03-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

No...there was some issue as well with Philip not being an HRH after becoming a naturalized citizen...and then marrying the future queen.

We are BOTH correct...

Philip was HRH before marrying The Queen because George VI made him one prior to the wedding. So she was marrying a person of equal rank.

Lady Marmalade · #**131** 03-03-2006, 01:58 PM

Technically yes, but he renounced his title, status, and everything else, when he became a naturalized British subject. He became plain ole' Lt. Philip Mountbatten RN. Therefore in the eyes of the country he was reduced to commoner status. :)

Again, we are both correct...it is not hard to admit.

ysbel · #**132** 03-03-2006, 03:49 PM

branchg and Lady Marmalade,

You seem to be going back and forth with the result of confusing the rest of us. At first it seemed you were in agreement so its hard to figure out the point either of you is arguing.

I hate to use an old debating term but can you restate your opinion and state the reason why you believe the way you do in simple easy words for the rest of us to understand? You should also provide some sources so that we can keep within forum policy.

This is an interesting topic but the way you're going back and forth, its hard to follow and we should really be quoting sources at some point to avoid too much speculation and keep within policy.

Thanks.

ysbel
British forums moderator

Lady Marmalade · #**133** 03-03-2006, 06:37 PM

I do not need to have sources in the sense of needing to back up my facts. We are both correct and I will clarify why.

Philip was born an HRH Prince of Greece. When he became a British citizen he relinquished his HRH and title of Prince of Greece.

He then became Lt. Philip Mountbatten RN, commoner...NO royal status recognized by Great Britain.

When he became engaged to the then Princess Elizabeth he was still known as such.

SCENARIO:

Had he NOT been elevated by George VI to HRH Duke of Edinburgh and just remained Philip Mountbatten (and George VI DID NOT issue new Letters of Patent), his children would NOT have had titles even though their mother was the future Queen.

REALITY:

George VI did issues new Letters of Patent and did grant Philip a Dukedom and other lesser titles with the distinction of being an HRH so that his children would have the necessary precedence as children of the heir and future queen should, which as we see, they do.

We were both correct and just more or less creating great dialogue about what could have, and what actually did, happen. :)

**Elspeth** · #**134** 03-03-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

I do not need to have sources in the sense of needing to back up my facts.

If a moderator has asked you for sources, then you do need to have them. Perhaps you could provide a link to a website that explains when Prince Philip gave up his Greek titles and what that meant in terms of his status as a member of the Greek royal family.

Lady Marmalade · #**135** 03-04-2006, 06:31 AM

Yes, please see the wonderful book written by Hugo Vickers, "Princess Alice". He provides a wonderful indepth chapter in regards to how Prince Philip became a natualized citizen of Great Britain and how HM King George VI elevated him to royal status just before his marriage.

I think the book does a great job in explaining not only what happened, but, gives excellent insight as to how other royals had their titles changed and for what reasons.

I love the book and have read it 4 times now.

He paints, I believe, a very fair and interesting picture on all of this.

Hope this helps, and I look forward to other members' comments and views. I learn from you all. :)

Idriel · #**136** 03-04-2006, 08:59 AM

Lady Marmalade, I have keep posting and deleting my answers to your posts, but here I go for good. There are some points I would like to challenge.

1. Philip renounced his Greeks titles:
Can you provide a source for that? AFAIK, he did not. As a matter of fact he ceased to used them but that does not mean he relished them. As a member of a reigning royal family, to lose his titles he would to formally present a request to King Paul or King Constantine II and Have this request formally accepted. There is no hint that either of this happened. Or there might, in this case please provide a link.

2. Philip was naturalised, thus he lost his titles:
Philip was born a British subject due to his quality of a non-catholic descendant in the male line of Electress Sophia (the Naturalisation act). Even through, he was also born a Prince of Greece and Denmark. I highlight this because you seem to believe there is a contradiction between being a Greek Prince and being a British subject.
Obviously there are none.

3. He was plain Lt Philip Mountbatten:
He wasn't plain Lt Philip Mountbatten. It was an honor to be Lt Philip Mountbatten. It was a rank he did earn through his merit, and was more prestigious that any titles he was born with. In social use, a military rank nearly always has precedence to a aristocratic rank. That did not mean he had no other titles. Now for the Mountbatten part, Philip needed a surname (since Prince of Greece and Denmark is not a surname). It was pretty obvious he was not going to use Glucksburg (spell.?) as it was WWII, so Mountbatten it was (nice English sounding name). Again, it did not mean he had lost any of his titles.

4. He was a commoner:
As a member of a reigning royal family (Greek Monarchy was abolished in the 70's) with more blue-blood than his own wife, he wasn't a commoner and was certainly not looked like this by anyone at the time.
Again, he you can prove that he relinquished is Greek title, we may agree on that one.

5. Your scenario:
I don't understand it. You say that because he was made HRH Duke of Edinburg, then his children obtained a title. But his children's titles had no link with his own. Charles and Ann were Princes of the United Kingdom when their one dad wasn't up until 1957 (7 years after the birth of Ann). So they did not inherit their titles from their dad. Beside, HRH is a style, not a title, and one does not 'inherit' it.
So I would agree with Branchg that Philip titles were irrelevant and that the future Queen's children would have been created Princes of the UK, regardless of who the dad was, or what were his titles.

Idriel · #**137** 03-04-2006, 09:01 AM

PS: my main sources for the statements above are Alt.Talk.Royalty.FAQ, Wikipedia, the Alexander Palace Forum and this very forum.

I trust you will disagree, Lady Marmalade, and I am looking forward to your answer. :)

HighGoalHighDreams · #**138** 03-04-2006, 09:46 AM

I was curious about this, because I'd heard in documentaries that Philip indeed renounced his titles and became a British citizen to marry Elizabeth.

This is what I found on www.royal.gov.uk- http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page413.asp

"Prince Philip adopted the family name of Mountbatten when he became a naturalised British subject and renounced his Royal title in 1947."

branchg · #**139** 03-04-2006, 10:39 AM

Philip relinquished the use of his style and title as a Prince of Greece & Denmark (and his place in the succession to the throne of Greece) as part of his naturalization to British citizenship in preparation for marriage to The Princess Elizabeth. The reason he did so was purely political.

At the time, he was under criticism from members of the Royal Household and the Establishment for not being worthy enough to marry the heir to the throne. In addition, the press was calling him "Phil the Greek" and a "foreigner", even though he had, in fact, spent most of his life in the UK, served with great distinction in the Royal Navy and was a British royal as a direct descendant of Queen Victoria.

Legally, it's true he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten, RN after becoming a British national, but that doesn't mean he wasn't royal. George VI granted him the rank of Royal Highness thinking it would automatically make Philip a Prince of the UK, which it did not. Later, The Queen and Parliament rectified this matter formally in 1957.

The issue of the rank and style of Elizabeth's children has been addressed. Under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V, the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the female line are not allowed the rank of HRH and Prince/Princess of the UK.

Regardless of who Elizabeth married, George VI would have issued letters patent granting her children the rank and title because she was the heir to the throne and