Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

[branchg]

The style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK only takes precedence over Peers of the Realm due to proximity to succession to the throne. This is true regardless of whether you have a royal style or not. For example, Peter Philips takes precedence over The Duke of Norfolk as the grandson of The Sovereign in the female line, but The Duke of Fife does not, even though he is a great-grandson of George V.

Until elevated to the Peerage, Princes and Princesses are technically commoners, albeit with superior precedence and royal rank as HRH.

The Duchess of Windsor was actually granted precedence after the female HRH in 1937 (The Queen, Queen Mary, Princess Elizabeth, Princess Margaret, The Duchess of Kent, The Duchess of Gloucester, The Princess Royal, The Duchess of Windsor). The Duke of Windsor was originally granted precedence before his brothers, but after Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

All of this foundered as the chasm grew between The Duke and his family in exile and it became clear Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary would refuse to receive The Duchess.

[Connie Cutmantle]

Branchg you do come up with some lovely nuggets of information! I had no idea Wallis was given special precedence! I just thought her rank corresponded to 1937, the year of the Dukedom's creation!

Subsequently, even though she was barred from using the style and precedence of an HRH, her position was not then, that far down the ducal order of precedence! It is interesting to see then, that George VI and his courtiers did incorporate special provisos - thus making sure that Wallis' position of precedence was not that junior!

[Iluvbertie]

As the King controls the use of titles and he specifically said that Wallis was NOT to have an HRH it was legal because only the monarch can create legal titles and so the monarch is able to deny a person the right to use such a title.

As for the second question - I am not sure that he was after he became King as he was still a descendent of George II and all his descendents, except those from females who married into foreign royal houses (and thus the argument about the Farran Exemption) are covered. The Act of Abdication didn't, as far as my reading of it goes, exclude the requirement that he abide by all Acts of Parliament that preceded that Act of Abdication.

[Connie Cutmantle]

Oooh Zonk and Iluvbertie good point about the Royal Marriages Act and why it did not come into play! Very odd! But then again maybe had the Act been applied in this case it would have been very very ugly indeed! But then again Edward VIII had renounced his rights so perhaps this did make a difference to his position and that of his future wife and her right to carry his titles. This was only altered when George VI barred Wallis from having the HRH but she was allowed to take the title of Duchess! But then again didn't George Cambridge renounce his rights before marrying Sarah Louisa Fairbrother, or did he simply marry her and then the Royal Marriages Act came into force, barring her from taking any of his titles! Very interesting angle!

[Zonk]

I believe the marriage of George Cambridge and Sarah (as well as the other brothers) led to the Royal Marriages Act, and frankly, that was probably one of the smartest thing George III EVER did! Think of some of the disasters that were prevented!

In the Windsor Story (pg 248) the only time the Royal Marriages Act is mentioned is prior to Edward abdicating.

But we are off topic, but I thank branchg and Iluvbertie for asking my question as it relates to Wallis' HRH. George VI did have the legal right to deny it and pretty much, that sums it up!

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Well since we are talking about the Duke of Windsor, without getting into reflections on the characteristics of the Duke and Duchess, do you think that by denying the Duchess the HRH was legal. I am asking from a legal standpoint, not a personal (i.e. it was a personal vendetta, etc.).

Wasn't she technically a HRH?

And why was the Duke exempt from the Marriages Act?

It was legal with the issuance of letters patent stating the rank and style of HRH would be limited to The Duke alone. Since the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is entirely within the gift of The Sovereign, George VI was unquestionably within his rights as the fount of all honours to decide what was appropriate under unprecedented circumstances.

The Duke was exempted from the Royal Marriages Act because he made the ultimate sacrifice of abdicating his throne to avoid a constitutional conflict with the Government over his choice of a wife.

Legally, The King did not require consent from his Ministers or the Church to marry, but the constitutional right of the Government to advise the Crown of its opposition came into play once he asked for formal advice on the morganatic question. At that point, he had lost the battle.

For George VI to tender opposition under the RMA would have been pointless after the Abdication, as the Privy Council likely would have been opposed to him doing so.

[cmkrcwi]

FTR, my remarks on this thread are only meant to pertain to the British Royal Family. The rules may be different in other monarchies.

I believe Wbenson is wrong. The only time a royal wife is "Princess husband's first name" is when that is his official title. When the current Duke of Gloucester and his wife were married, she became HRH Princess Richard of Gloucester because his official title was HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester. Once he succeeded to the dukedom, she became HRH The Duchess of Gloucester because his official title was now HRH The Duke of Gloucester.

[Mermaid1962]

This is my understanding as well. I've never heard of Princess Marina referred to as "The Princess George The Duchess of Kent" or her daughter-in-law, Katherine, being referred to as "The Princess Edward The Duchess of Kent."

[wbenson]

The Duke of Gloucester is still a prince of the United Kingdom, though, per the letters patent issued by George V in 1917. If princely status didn't matter after becoming a peer, it wouldn't have been possible (or at least it would have been pointless) for the Duke of Edinburgh to be created a prince in 1957. Before that, he was simply HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. After the grant by the Queen, he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, which gazetted ("...His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh shall henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh"). Now, as the Duke of Gloucester isn't the son or spouse of the sovereign, he isn't The Prince Richard, but Prince Richard he remains. Now, what I'm about to bring up is hardly an unimpeachable source by any means, but recently the Countess of Wessex unveiled a plaque that referred to her as "Princess Edward." (I think it also had "Countess of Wessex" on it. I wish I could find the picture.)

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

This is my understanding as well. I've never heard of Princess Marina referred to as "The Princess George The Duchess of Kent" or her daughter-in-law, Katherine, being referred to as "The Princess Edward The Duchess of Kent."

Katharine doesn't get a "The." But if she was in an extremely uncharacteristic mood, she could style herself "Her Royal Highness Princess Edward, Duchess of Kent, Countess of Saint Andrews, Baroness Downpatrick, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order."

[Connie Cutmantle]

But does no one know the stance/ethics?choices made pertaining to George Cambridge and Sarah Louisa Fairbrother? The Royal Marriages Acts was brought into effect because of what George Cambridge's uncles Henry Cumberland and William Gloucester did, and not what he did when he married Louisa!

My question pertains to the link between George Cambridge marrying Sarah Louisa Fairbrother and Edward, Duke of Windsor marrying Wallis! From what I have recently read here, the issue of Wallis's automatic rights and those of the former Edward VIII were altered by his renouncement of his rights to the throne and I was curious as to why Wallis was still allowed to be known as Duchess of Windsor when George Cambridge's wife was not! (Perhaps George C. did not renounce his rights oprior to his marriage...maybe this would have made a difference as has been suggested here?!)

I am under the impression, having read back through the last few posts, that because Edward VIII abdicated 'his' position as a former King but as an extant Prince of the realm was different to other Princes of the BRF, his position required special attention! I can only assume that neither of the wives of George Cambridge or Augustus Sussex were permitted to use the ducal titles of their husbands due to some clause in the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which was subsequently void and thus invalid where the Duke of Windsor and Wallis were concerned, or at least as far as George VI was concerned....if not, did the Act of Abdication really null and void the Royal Marriage Act 1772 with regards to the Duke of Windsor(because he renounced his rights to the throne perhaps?) Hmmmmmm....???? It appears to me that George VI had every right as the reigning sovereign to use the Royal Marriage Act 1772 to prevent Wallis from becoming Duchess of Windsor, but instead chose to compromise and just forbade her the HRH style, in a separate and unique move! I hope some one can tidy this little query up!!!!!!

I do ponder whether perhaps because one renounces one's rights to the throne and still keeps one's Princely titles, a future wife may be eligible to take her husband's titles with the all important approval and consent of the sovereign, as has happened in the case of the Michaels! It is most interesting!

[wbenson]

The Act did indeed exempt the Duke (and all of his hypothetical descendants) from the requirements of the Royal Marriages Act.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=6214

(3) The Royal Marriages Act 1772 shall not apply to His Majesty after His abdication nor to the issue, if any, of His Majesty or the descendants of that issue.

[Connie Cutmantle]

Thank you so much Wbenson for clarifying that for me....you are an absolute star! Also thank you for reiterating the point about Princes and Dukes! You do it so much better than I could ever even try to!!!!!

[branchg]

The Duke of Cambridge married Sarah Fairbrother without permission from Queen Victoria, making the union illegal under the Royal Marriages Act. While he could have declared his intention to marry under the Act and waited to see if Parliament would object, the fact Mrs. Fairbrother was an actress with children from numerous lovers made it highly unlikely he would have received consent.

Since the union was not recognized under the Act, she could not take the style of HRH or the title of Duchess of Cambridge. She and their two children were later known by the name "FitzGeorge".

[Mermaid1962]

Right. I was comparing Princess Marina, as the daughter-in-law of the king with the present Duchess of Gloucester. What can I say, wbenson? I was posting very late at night!

Originally Posted by wbenson

Katharine doesn't get a "The." But if she was in an extremely uncharacteristic mood, she could style herself "Her Royal Highness Princess Edward, Duchess of Kent, Countess of Saint Andrews, Baroness Downpatrick, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order."

[Renata4711]

I must say I admire the detailed knowledge that some of you have!
I've lived in England and Scotland almost all of my life, but I would find it hard to draw up a family tree of all the Windsors and their relatives - nor could most people I know.
Perhaps we take our monarchy for granted. Having said that, I got quite excited when the Queen came up to Scotland this summer to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood !

[Iluvbertie]

There is a difference between Edward VIII who did renounce his rights and people like Prince Michael who simply lost his place with NO renounciation involved.
His position didn't change when he married. The fact that she is a Roman Catholic would only become an issue if he was to become King, in which case he couldn't but otherwise nothing changed.
Edward, however, gave up all his rights and the rights of his descendents.

[cmkrcwi]

Once again, a royal wife takes her husband's official title. If his title is Prince First Name, her official title becomes Princess First Name. If his title is The Duke of , she becomes The Duchess of, or in the case of The Earl of Wessex, Countess of. A royal prince who becomes a royal duke retains the rank of Prince of the United Kingdom and his wife retains the rank of Princess of the United Kingdom as long as they are married. However, their official titles cease to be Prince and Princess and become Duke and Duchess.

[Connie Cutmantle]

I always assumed that Sophie is technically and quite properly HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex but is generally just known as HRH the Countess of Wessex. I suppose Camilla whom we all generally refer to as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall is also technically HRH The Princess Charles, as Diana was until 1996. I understand where you are coming from cmkrcwi.......Royal Dukes and Duchesses and now the Countess of Wessex do not use the Prince and Princess part of their titles......I just wanted to point out that technically the wife of an HRH Duke or Earl technically becomes Princess 'Husband's Christian name' upon marriage! Although it may rarely be used Sophie is - HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex known simply as HRH the Countess of Wessex.

[Royal Fan]

I Thought they retained both the Style Prince and Duke.

[Iluvbertie]

They do.
Charles has been Duke of Cornwall since the instant his mother became Queen and yet he is most often referred to as Prince Charles despite being a Duke since 1952. The same with Andrew and Edward - despite their respective titles they are still referred to as The Prince Andrew and The Prince Edward.

Based on that their wives are also The Princess Charles, The Princess Andrew and The Princess Edward but due to the husbands' other titles they tend to use those.