Questions About Titles

[summrbrew2]

why are the british royals given lower titles when they marry?

[Alexandria]

Hi summrbrew2!

What do you mean that British royals are given lower titles when they marry?

As far as I can understand, they are still princes or princesses when they marry, though many of them also receive dukedoms (word?) or other titles that follow their name. For example, when Prince Edward married Sophie Rhys-Jones, he became Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (and will one day take up his father's title Duke of Edinburgh), thereby also making Sophie Countess of Wessex.

Charles has always been the Prince of Wales, before and after his marriage to Diana. And Andrew has always been the Duke of York. Princess Anne chose no titles for her children.

Princess Margaret's son is Viscount Linley (and his wife Serena Vicountess Linley). His son Charles will one day inherit his father's title. But I don't think Charles' sister Margarita will receive any title as titles are passed on through the male lineage. Princess Margaret's daughter is Lady Sarah Chatto with no titles for her husband or either of her sons, because again of the male lineage.

As for the rest of the family, the Queen has been trying to decrease the size of the monarchy, espescially those supported by the civil list. I think even Prince Andrew's daughters Beatrice and Eugenie will no longer be referred to as Princesses when they reach the age of 18. (I'm a bit fuzzy on this one, however.) They will however most certainly not receive any titles from the reigning monarch. But had Prince Andrew had a son, his son would've carried on the title of Duke of York.

Whew! That was a long winded explanation! :P I hope it was what you were looking for!

Alexandria

[summrbrew2]

thanks for the explanation. i got confused because i figured that when sophie married edward she would be a princess, but shes only a countess. i didnt know that the men kept thier origonal titles as well.

[samitude]

Prince Andrew received the title Duke of York upon his wedding day I believe. I don't think he's had this title since he was a baby.

Also, Viscount Linley's daughter is referred to as the Honorable Margarita Armstrong-Jones. Her brother Patrick is the Honorable Charles Armstrong-Jones and will become Viscount Linley when his father gains the title Earl of Snowdon which will be upon the present Earl of Snowdon's death. At least that's the way I understand this.

I believe Sophie didn't want the title of princess. She would have received it by marrying Edward, but asked not to.

[sinulord]

Originally Posted by samitude

Prince Andrew received the title Duke of York upon his wedding day I believe. I don't think he's had this title since he was a baby.

Also, Viscount Linley's daughter is referred to as the Honorable Margarita Armstrong-Jones. Her brother Patrick is the Honorable Charles Armstrong-Jones and will become Viscount Linley when his father gains the title Earl of Snowdon which will be upon the present Earl of Snowdon's death. At least that's the way I understand this.

I believe Sophie didn't want the title of princess. She would have received it by marrying Edward, but asked not to.

No, that is not the case. Sophie would only be officially addressed as Princess Sophie if she had been born a princess ie. a princess of the blood royal. Since she is not a princess by birth, she can only take on Prince Edward's title, and will keep it till either death or divorce.

Originally Posted by branchg

If she abdicated, she would revert to the style and title of HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. Since she is The Sovereign, she can only be HM The Queen and nothing else at the present time. The fount of honour cannot be a Peer.

If Queen Elizabeth II of the UK abdicated, she may also choose to be addressed as HM The Queen Mother of the UK, rather than revert to her title before accession.

Originally Posted by Australian

I think it is possible, I think HM Queen Juliana of The Netherlands demoted to HRH Princess Juliana on her abdication.

No, she wasn't demoted. She chose to be addressed so.

Originally Posted by selrahc4

Interesting question since he is not a peer. "Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent"? "Marie-Christine Windsor"?
"Marie-Christine von Reibnitz-Troubridge-Windsor"?

If the case of divorce, she no longer has any right to the name Windsor.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by sinulord

If Queen Elizabeth II of the UK abdicated, she may also choose to be addressed as HM The Queen Mother of the UK, rather than revert to her title before accession.

That would require an Act of Parliament (which would probably be easy since the abdication does too), as it would grant the style and title of a Queen to a person no longer entitled to it. She couldn't simply choose to be so.

When Edward VIII abdicated, he immediately became HRH Prince Edward (and was announced as so for his radio address), just as the Queen would become HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

[magnik]

Originally Posted by wbenson

That would require an Act of Parliament (which would probably be easy since the abdication does too), as it would grant the style and title of a Queen to a person no longer entitled to it. She couldn't simply choose to be so.

When Edward VIII abdicated, he immediately became HRH Prince Edward (and was announced as so for his radio address), just as the Queen would become HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

Do you think that after so many years of reign when HM Queen Elizabeth II f.ex. abdicate people will start call her HRH Princess Elizabeth or the Duches of Edinburgh... She always will be HM Queen Elizabeth II.


About Queen Juliana after that what is write on wikipedia after her abdication she was was officially styled as Her Majesty Juliana, Queen Mother of the Netherlands, but she wished to be known as HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by magnik

Do you think that after so many years of reign when HM Queen Elizabeth II f.ex. abdicate people will start call her HRH Princess Elizabeth or the Duches of Edinburgh... She always will be HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Oh, I know that's what people would call her, it's just not what she would be without an Act of Parliament or a section in the abdication act granting it to her.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by magnik

About Queen Juliana after that what is write on wikipedia after her abdication she was was officially styled as Her Majesty Juliana, Queen Mother of the Netherlands, but she wished to be known as HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands.

She was styled as HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands after her abdication. the same as her mother Wilhelmina. Only after the died the are referred as HM Queen of the Netherlands. I think in the case of Wilhelmina there was even a decree from Juliana. In the case of Juliana she is only reffered as HM Queen since after the funeral. You will see that on the offiicial memorial page she is referred as Princess Juliana in the Press Releases.

It is also in the Act of the membeship of the Royal House that an abdicated monarch will become HRH Prince/Princess. So if Beatrix abdicates she becomes HRH Princess Beatrix.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by sinulord

But wont they give her the option before the enactment of the new title? I'm sure the British parliament (and whoever else is in charge of this matter) would be courteous enough to do so.

I'm sure they would, but they wouldn't be obligated to do so.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by sinulord

No, that is not the case. Sophie would only be officially addressed as Princess Sophie if she had been born a princess ie. a princess of the blood royal. Since she is not a princess by birth, she can only take on Prince Edward's title, and will keep it till either death or divorce.

If Queen Elizabeth II of the UK abdicated, she may also choose to be addressed as HM The Queen Mother of the UK, rather than revert to her title before accession.

If the case of divorce, she no longer has any right to the name Windsor.

Sophie automatically became "HRH The Princess Edward" as the wife of a son of the Sovereign on her wedding day. Since her husband was created The Earl of Wessex by The Queen, she takes her style as HRH The Countess of Wessex, but remains a princess by marriage.

The Queen could not be known as anything other than "HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh" upon abdication, unless the Act provided for a different style or title.

Marie-Christine would be entitled to the style of "Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent" with a divorce, the same as Diana and Sarah and consistent with the style of former wives of peers.

[Alexandria]

Hi Samitude!

Yes, I forgot about Margarita being an Honorable Margarita ...

And I do recall now that Sophie did not want to be Princess Sophie, just as the Earl and Countess of Wessex have asked that their children receive no titles either.

All this makes me ask: Why did Princess Michael of Kent take on that title rather than being Princess Marie-Christine (is that her name?) of Kent?

[samitude]

I don't know. You should post that on the European Royals message board. They would know.

[Mandy]

Hi everyone,

Sarah upon her marriage to Andrew became Princess Andrew. The Queen also gave them the title of Duke & Duchess of York.

The same rules applied in Sophie's case. She became Princess Edward. The Queen also gave them the title of Earl & Countess of Wessex.

Princess Michael of Kent, wife of Prince Michael, remained as such because they received no other title.

[summrbrew2]

ok, so now i think my question has changed. why do they use their duke and duchess or count and countess titles over their prince and princess ones?

[Josefine]

Originally posted by summrbrew2@Apr 12th, 2003 - 5:39 pm
ok, so now i think my question has changed. why do they use their duke and duchess or count and countess titles over their prince and princess ones?

Im bumping Up this thread


I hope someone can help you out

[sara1981]

i understand!

i know someone have title because Prince Edward and Sophie got married in June 1999 she not become Princess both decided becomes Earl and Countess of Wessex.

When Prince Charles and Princess Diana got married summer 1981 when Diana got title! when Wills and Harry become title when both was born still title even!

I had no idea Princess Anne's kid cant become title when she got married to first husband in 1973 but she have choose!

And also Duke of York's girls have title when both was born still have title till 18 someone said that! maybe reach to 18 year old!

Sara Boyce

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by sara1981

i know someone have title because Prince Edward and Sophie got married in June 1999 she not become Princess both decided becomes Earl and Countess of Wessex.

Sophie did become a Princess when she married Edward. She would have been known as HRH The Princess Edward had he not recieved his peerage. She is a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

[Henri M.]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) :
With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Buckingham Palace is at this moment issuing the following statement. It reads as follows:

"It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. Their Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce and their constitutional positions are unaffected. This decision has been reached amicably, and they will both continue to participate fully in the upbringing of their children.

Their Royal Highnesses will continue to carry out full and separate programmes of public engagements, and will from time to time attend family occasions and national events together.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathise with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness particularly hope that the intrusions into the privacy of the Prince and Princess may now cease. They believe that a degree of privacy and understanding is essential if Their Royal Highnesses are to provide a happy and secure upbringing for their children, while continuing to give a whole-hearted commitment to their public duties."

That is the text of the announcement. I am sure that I speak for the whole House--and millions beyond it--in offering our support to both the Prince and Princess of Wales. I am also sure that the House will sympathise with the wish that they should both be afforded a degree of privacy.

The House will wish to know that the decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the throne is unaffected by it ; the children of the Prince and Princess retain their position in the line of succession ; and there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course. The Prince of Wales's succession as head of the Church of England is also unaffected. Neither the Prince nor the Princess is supported by the civil list, and this position will remain unchanged.

I know that there will be great sadness at this news. But I know also that, as they continue with their royal duties and with bringing up their children, the Prince and Princess will have the full support, understanding and affection of the House and of the country.

[Henri M.]

Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) :
May I, first, thank the Prime Minister for making a statement to the House? I am sure that the whole House will share the feeling of sadness that he has expressed at the announcement of the separation and will share the hope that a greater degree of privacy might result for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children in what would be a difficult time for any family. We associate ourselves entirely with the expression of support for the Prince and Princess of Wales in the carrying out of their public duties.



Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) :
I wish to associate myself and my right honourable Gentlemen and right honourable Friends with the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. These will be difficult times for the royal family, and the whole House will wish to extend to them our sympathy, especially to the Prince and Princess of Wales, and to assure them that whatever decisions they take on these purely personal matters, they can be assured of our continued support in future. I wish to reinforce the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing the hope that they will indeed be allowed a period of months--or longer if possible--in which they may have a degree of privacy and peace. I thank the Prime Minister for having expressed so clearly the constitutional position and for having expressed what are, I am sure, sentiments that will be felt by all parties in the House. In particular, I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Prince and Princess of Wales for their past and continued service to the nation.


The Prime Minister :
I am sure that the right honourable and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the right honourable Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have spoken for the country in what they have had to say and that I need comment no further upon their remarks.


Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup) :
I think that the House would wish me, as Father of the House, to express the understanding of the whole House of the action which has been taken and which has been so clearly described by the Prime Minister. It must be one of the saddest announcements made by any Prime Minister in modern times. I am sure that the whole House feels exactly the same way about it. I also support the plea which has already been made for Their Royal Highnesses to be granted privacy. May I suggest, in my position, that perhaps we in the House, in the questions we ask and the speeches we make, might give leadership in extending privacy to their Royal Highnesses.


Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) :
Does the Prime Minister understand that the statement was received by my party with deep regret and great sympathy for the royal family? May I support what the Prime Minister said in requesting a period of quietness for those who find themselves in this unfortunate situation? The last thing that any family needs at such a time is a forest of television or other cameras pointed in its direction. Indeed, if fewer cameras had been pointed in its direction and fewer comments made, perhaps this might not have happened.


Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) :
On behalf of my party, I should like to associate myself with what the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties have said. The royal couple, especially their family, need our sympathy and our prayers. I trust that what has been said in the House about press coverage will be heeded and that the family will have a time of quiet and calm to get over this problem.


Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) :
Does the Prime Minister accept that even a family of great wealth and position has felt the strains which have resulted in divorce--in separation--and in difficulties for the marriage? Is not it true that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people go through similar strains and are afflicted by an equal degree of sadness? Is not it also true that poor housing, low pay and rotten conditions of employment place much greater strains on marriages and that it will be a welcome day when the Government make a statement to the House to relieve those strains, not only those affecting the narrow royal family?


The Prime Minister :
I think that the whole House will endorse many of the remarks that have been made in the last few minutes by right honourable Friends and right honourable Gentlemen. To ensure that there is no dispute or misunderstanding, may I make the point beyond any dispute that their Royal
Highnesses have separated--both the Prince and the Princess have made it clear that they have no plans to divorce.


Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) :
Does the Prime Minister realise that probably the most controversial part of what he said was that there would be no constitutional changes? Would not it be fair to say that, as a result of the occurrences in recent months and the pushing of the self-destruct button by the monarchy, we could now be witnessing the end of the monarchy and that the reigning Queen could be the last? That could not be blamed on those of us who believe that there is no need for a monarchy in this land now.

I therefore ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind the fact that the shattering announcement will result in changes in our constitution. It is high time that we stopped this charade of swearing allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors, because we do not know from time to time who they are.


The Prime Minister :
The honourable Gentleman does not, I believe, speak for the nation, or for any significant part of it. The affection for the monarchy and for members of the royal family in this country is deep, widespread and enduring. We live in a monarchy and, if I may speak personally, I hope and believe that we always will.


Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston) :
May I say, Madam Speaker, how greatly I and my right hon. and honourable Friends, and, I am sure, many Opposition Members, resent and reject the remarks by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I would not wish the voice of this House to say anything other than that we are loyal subjects of Her Majesty, and we fully appreciate what she does for this nation, which is immeasurable.


Madam Speaker :
Order. We now move on. Thank you, Prime Minister.