Questions About Titles

[ysbel]

Thanks for clarifying a bit.

I think although Philip didn't specifically request the King of Greece to relinquish his titles, it would appear that by becoming a naturalized British citizen and taking the name Lt. Philip Mountbatten, he would in effect relinquish his titles in the eyes of the British law. Whether he would still have his titles in the eyes of the Greek law I don't know.

According to British law, it doesn't appear that he was naturalized under the Act of Naturalization for the Descendents of Electress Sophie. The British Home Office has a quite informative page on the law:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind...electress.html

Prince Ernst August of Hannover claimed citizenship under the act but the page doesn't mention Prince Philip. Futhermore, from this page, I gather that the rights of citizenship under the act wouldn't have given Philip the right to live in Britain. That wouldn't have helped him much.

It does appear that whether or not Philip had royal titles himself, they would not have made much difference to his children's titles because their mother was heiress to the throne. The only other Queen who married a member of the reigning house and had children was Queen Anne who married Prince George of Denmark. They had several children who died in infancy but one who lived to adulthood was simply styled, HRH Duke of Gloucester.

It appears that the confusion on Prince Philip's title at his marriage result from two things:

1. Husbands, unlike wives, don't automatically assume the titles of their royal wives,
2. Children generally inherit their titles from their fathers, not their mothers.
3. As stated above, George V didn't take into consideration the titles of the children of a female heir in his Letters of Patent. If he had, there would have been less confusion.

I think another source of confusion is what people refer to when they say upon marriage. Philip's status upon marriage would generally be considered his status he brought to the union when it was approved, not the status that the King conferred on him after approving the marriage. Yes, technically Philip was a Royal Highness at his marriage but that was only because George VI created him one in anticipation of the marriage. But the status that he brought into a proposed marriage was of a British commoner subject of royal ancestry.

So it appears that Philip had during his lifetime three statuses:

From birth to naturalization: Prince Philip of Greece (royal status-foreign)
From naturalization to the approval of the marriage: Lt. Philip Mountbatten (non royal status-British subject-commoner)
From approval of the marriage to late fifties, HRH Duke of Edinburgh (royal status-British) and thereafter Prince of the UK (royal status-British)

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by ysbel

According to British law, it doesn't appear that he was naturalized under the Act of Naturalization for the Descendents of Electress Sophie.

I wasn't saying that he used this act to become British subject, I was saying that he was British from day one, because this act is automatic. You don't have to ask for the British citizenship. If you fulfil the conditions, you automatically are.
Both the British government and Philip himself were unaware of that fact so he was naturalised through the usual process, even through that was not necessary.
I wonder if, would that fact been known at the time, Philip would have still been met by xenophobia and would have stop using his Greek title.

I think although Philip didn't specifically request the King of Greece to relinquish his titles, it would appear that by becoming a naturalized British citizen and taking the name Lt. Philip Mountbatten, he would in effect relinquish his titles in the eyes of the British law. Whether he would still have his titles in the eyes of the Greek law I don't know.

I had never considered that. Can someone bring more details

[branchg]

According to Vickers biography of Princess Andrew, Philip did ask King George II if he could relinquish his place in the Greek line of succession in order to become a naturalized British subject. It appears, however, he did not formally relinquish his title or rank as HRH Prince Philip of Greece & Denmark.

Since the use of a foreign title and rank in the UK is subject to the recognition and will of the Sovereign, it would seem he automatically ceased to be known by his birthright title and assumed the surname of Mountbatten instead.

[Warren]

In 'Philip' by Basil Boothroyd, it says that Lord Mountbatten was pushing King George VI to have a word with King George II of Greece to "get things moving" in regard to determining Philip's rights of succession. But the Greek King "wasn't too pleased to lose his promising young cousin from the roll of the Royal House". So it would appear that the Greek succession question may never have been (officially) resolved.

As to Philip assuming the surname of Mountbatten, Boothroyd says that he "wasn't madly in favour", as he preferred to be self-sufficient and didn't want to be tied to "the famous uncle". However, there were no acceptable alternatives on offer, and Mountbatten it was, more to Uncle Dickie's pleasure than Philip's.

For a few weeks after Elizabeth became Queen she kept the surname of Mountbatten. But in April 1952 it was declared in Council that she, her children and descendants, except for females who married, should be called Windsor. It was a change that George VI had put in motion before he died. Philip suggested "Family of Windsor of the House of Edinburgh" but that didn't appeal to anyone else. It was only by a Declaration in Council in 1960 that certain descandants of the Queen should be Mountbatten-Windsor.

Regarding the automatic British nationality of Philip, Burke's Royal Families of the World Vol 1 covers the court case launched by Prince Ernst August of Hanover in some detail. The House of Lords acting as a Court of Appeal determined the issue in EA's favour in 1956 (nine years after Philip and Elizabeth's marriage). This involved the cross-interpretations of the 1705 "Act for the naturalisation of the Most Excellent Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the issue of her body" and the the British Nationality Act of 1948.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Idriel

I wasn't saying that he used this act to become British subject, I was saying that he was British from day one, because this act is automatic. You don't have to ask for the British citizenship. If you fulfil the conditions, you automatically are.
Both the British government and Philip himself were unaware of that fact so he was naturalised through the usual process, even through that was not necessary.
I wonder if, would that fact been known at the time, Philip would have still been met by xenophobia and would have stop using his Greek title.

I had never considered that. Can someone bring more details

Well it appears that law was in effect for over 200 years without anyone ever using it until Ernst August of Hanover challenged the British courts after which the law was amended. So I agree it is possible that Prince Philip had certain rights under the act that he failed to execute when he became a British subject but if he failed to execute them, I think, for all practical purposes of his becoming a British subject it was as if he didn't have them.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by branchg

Since the use of a foreign title and rank in the UK is subject to the recognition and will of the Sovereign, it would seem he automatically ceased to be known by his birthright title and assumed the surname of Mountbatten instead.

The Sovereign seems to have full discretion over their own styles and titles but according to heralica.com the Privy Council and sometimes Parliament is involved in other matters concerning to styles and rank.

I wasn't able to find anything concerning foreign titles in particular but I would imagine the Sovereign would have to gain the consent of the Prime Minister at least to grant permission for a British subject to use a foreign title.

[branchg]

For foreign nationals who are not members of the British royal family, the Sovereign would have to consult with the Prime Minister in order to grant recognition to ensure there are no diplomatic issues.

In the case of Princess Marina, there was no issue and George V, George VI and Elizabeth II all permitted her to retain her rank and style as Princess of Greece & Denmark.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Warren

In 'Philip' by Basil Boothroyd, it says that Lord Mountbatten was pushing King George VI to have a word with King George II of Greece to "get things moving" in regard to determining Philip's rights of succession. But the Greek King "wasn't too pleased to lose his promising young cousin from the roll of the Royal House". So it would appear that the Greek succession question may never have been (officially) resolved.

Again, according to Vickers biography of Princess Andrew, George II of the Hellenes informed George VI he would allow Philip to renounce his right of succession to the Greek throne. There was never any discussion between the two Sovereigns as to whether Philip would relinquish his title and rank as HRH Prince of Greece & Denmark, so it appears he never did.

Becoming a British subject and assuming the name of Lt. Philip Mountbatten took care of the issue for him under British common law. He then was legally a commoner until George VI created him HRH The Duke of Edinburgh the night before his wedding to The Princess Elizabeth.

[plseyw]

I believe that Sophie Wessex is in fact a princess but uses her husband's title instead of princess, just like Sarah Ferguson was and is always called the Duchess of York and not Princess Sarah.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

In fact, the only thing that entitles one to use the title of Prince/ Princess Myname is being born into that title. Otherwise, for a woman it must be Princess Husband (Princess Michael) or else what we are used to seeing: Sarah, The Duchess of York (while married).

So, Princess Beatrice is such because she was born a Princess.

But Diana could never (correctly) be called Princess Diana because she was not born a Princess. She was therefore Diana, The Princess of Wales (while married). Nothing but birth entitles the use of Princess Myname.

(Editd to add: More in line with the exact comments in Plseyw: When a woman marries into royalty, she does marry into all of her husbands titles. So, yes, Sarah was a Princess, Princess Andrew. This is also shown in how Camilla chooses to use Duchess rather than Princess, even though upon marriage she automatically had the right to use the other titles (which she still legally has)- The Princess of Wales, The Duchess of Rothsay, etc.) Welcome, Psleyw: We both joined last summer and it's both our first day of posting!)

[branchg]

Upon marriage to a son or grandson of the Sovereign, a woman becomes a princess of the UK with the rank of Royal Highness ("HRH The Princess Andrew"). As a matter of form, they are styled after their husband's peerage, rather than Princess Husband Name, although that is part of their full titles as well.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by plseyw

I believe that Sophie Wessex is in fact a princess but uses her husband's title instead of princess, just like Sarah Ferguson was and is always called the Duchess of York and not Princess Sarah.

Sophie is "HRH The Princess Edward" legally, but does not use this style as her title since Prince Edward was granted peerages by The Queen the morning of his wedding. She is HRH The Countess of Wessex.

[ysbel]

On titles, I have a couple of questions.

The title of prince or princess, when were the younger members of the royal family first officially referred to as princes and princesses?

I do know the title of Princess Royal was first brought over by Henrietta Maria of France, consort of Charles I who wanted her eldest daughter to have a title similiar to the Princesse Royale in the French court.

I also read that George I was the first to create his younger sons and daughters princes and princesses because it was a common practice on the Continent but not in Britain. Before George I, only the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal were considered prince and princess. The younger siblings were called Lord or Lady. But the title of prince and princess seems to have been used before then, especially for the daughters of Henry VIII who were alternatively princesses or Ladies depending on the political situation.

There's also the title of Queen. Anybody that has studied the history of the English language knows that Queen is derived from 'cwen' an old word that just meant woman. In earlier medieval manuscripts, English does not seem to have a special title for the consort of a King. The women were referred to as the Lady Elinor (Eleanor of Aquitaine) or Lady Isabel (consort of Edward II) But by the time of Henry VIII, the title of Queen seems to be firmly in place.

Who was the first Queen Consort to be recognized as 'Queen' in the English language?

[branchg]

The use of Prince and Princess was a German practice brought over by the Hanoverians to Great Britain. Before that, they were simply peers or Lord/Lady. Same thing with Queen Consort.

I believe Caroline of Ansbach, consort to George II, was the first to be formally known and styled as HM Queen Caroline and addressed as Her Majesty.

[ysbel]

Hi branchg. I wasn't so much asking which was the first to be called Majesty but the first to be commonly known as Queen.

The wives of Henry VIII appear to be referred to as Queen's in legal and diplomatic documents. A letter from Thomas Cramner refers to the divorce of Queen Katherine and the coronation of Queen Anne (Boleyn). Cramner refers to Lady Catherine probably to stress her status after the divorce but he definitely refers to the coronation of the Queen (Anne). So the term Queen to denote a Queen Consort was seemingly already in use by then.

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/cranmer.html

I was just wondering when the usage of the word Queen started in England.

[branchg]

It was pretty inconsistent. Sometimes they were referred to as Queen, other times as Lady Anne or Ma'am. Given the terrible wars and murders of the time, I think most Kings probably viewed their wives as disposable at best! And lifetimes were generally quite short as well.

[ysbel]

No doubt like everything in the Middle Ages, the use of the word Queen was probably inconsistent but I'm still curious as to when the term Queen was first used. The meaning of consort or female monarch wasn't the original meaning of the word so there must have been a transition between the former meaning and the latter.

But on