The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 11-29-2009, 08:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Richland Center, United States
Posts: 108
Branchg keeps repeating a falsehood though. Princess Marina did not become "The Princess George" upon marriage. She became HRH The Duchess of Kent because that was her husband's official style and title. A woman marrying into the British royal family takes her husband's official title(s). If Princess Marina had married The Duke of Kent before he was given that title, she would indeed have been HRH Princess George because that HRH The Prince George would have been his official title.

Similarly the late Princess Alice of Gloucester was never Princess Henry because her husband's official title by the time of their marriage was HRH The Duke of Gloucester.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 11-29-2009, 09:44 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Princes continue to be "The Prince Forename" when they are elevated to the peerage. For an example of this, see this order in council, where the Duke of York, one of two counsellors of state giving approval to the order, is referred to as "His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York." Accordingly, his wife at the time was "Her Royal Highness The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York" (and Countess of Inverness and Baroness Killyleagh).
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 11-30-2009, 03:58 AM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
Thank you Wbenson......now that is sorted! I thought I was going doo-lally and had misread or misunderstood Dickie Arbiter and Lord St John et al. when they were being prickly about Diana......I always believed that the same rule applied to other British Royal brides.....even the Queen Mother would have technically been HRH The Princess Albert, Duchess of York upon marriage..... as well as being 'generally' known simply as HRH the Duchess of York I assume? A Dukedom comes after a Princely title in the order of Precedence in England, although by custom the Prince forename bit tends to be dropped and replaced by the shorter 'HRH the Duke of...' it does not mean that the 'Prince forename' adage is completely dropped all together or that it may no longer be used! It is just a custom! People still refer to the HRH The Duke of York simply as HRH The Prince Andrew or even HRH Prince Andrew even now! The latter may be incorrect but the former is acceptable even if it is not absolutely correct....he should really be known as HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York if we are going to be pedantic and 'uber' correct about it! With regards to the incumbent Dukes of Gloucester and Kent the 'The' is dropped before their Princely titles!

I tend to recall that in Britain, a Princely title takes precedence before a Dukedom! (Prince Michael of Kent takes precedence as an HRH before all non royal Royal Dukes of the realms of England, Scotland, GB, Ireland and the UK.) The Princely title is generally contracted in general terms to 'HRH' the Duke of .... or HRH the Duchess of ....... rather than eg:- HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York who is generally known as HRH the Duke of York....it is shorter and simpler.....but all royal Dukes officially retain and may use officially their princely titles in conjunction with Ducal titles as do/may their wives 'technically' and by right! The only time I think this has been changed was when Wallis was forbidden the right to become an HRH and therefore HRH (The) Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor or as happens by custom simply HRH the Duchess of Windsor, but instead had to make do with the style and precedence as Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor, which technically made her the last Duchess in the order of precedence in the British Isles after Caroline, Duchess of Fife and the Dowager and incumbent Duchesses of Westminster during her lifetime! It proved to be a very crafty and clever way to get back at Edward VIII as his wife subsequently had to give precedence to so many other Duchesses - Royal or otherwise!
__________________
C.C

'I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.'
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 11-30-2009, 06:28 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,373
I have been wondering something.

I am sure that you are aware that descendents of George II have to seek permission from the monarch to contract a legal marriage (assuming that the Farran exemption isn't correct and as it hasn't been challenged I don't want to get into that argument) so my query is this? When did Edward VIII, as The Duke of Windsor, seek permission from George VI to marry? I have tried to google this but can't find any reference to an order being given in council so my next query is - if The Duke of Windsor didn't get George VI's permission to marry - was he actually legally married to Wallis?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 11-30-2009, 06:52 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,092
Possible the fact that Edward knew what the answer was, and didn't bother to ask. He must have stated that he wanted to marry her, he was given the option marry her or keep the throne. He chose to renounce his throne and marry her.

If he renounced the throne, does that still mean he has to ask permission?

Quote:
The Duke of Windsor married Mrs. Simpson, who had changed her name by deed poll to Wallis Warfield, in a private ceremony on 3 June 1937, at Château de Candé, near Tours, France. When the Church of England refused to sanction the union, a County Durham clergyman, the Reverend Robert Anderson Jardine (Vicar of St Paul's, Darlington), offered to perform the ceremony, and the Duke accepted.
Because they married in france does have a difference?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:47 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,321
If they need only the permission of the Sovereign, it is possible that the then King Edward VIII had allowed himself to marry Wallis.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 11-30-2009, 08:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
The Duke of Windsor was exempt from the Royal Marriages Act when the Act of Abdication became law. Obviously, a King relinquishing the throne to marry a woman opposed by the Government as suitable to become Queen Consort would be allowed to marry her after formally giving up his position as The Sovereign due to such opposition.

However, as we all know, he still paid the price when George VI issued letters patent in 1937 stating the Duke would remain HRH, but it was explicitly denied to his wife and any children. The reasoning here being The Duke renounced the throne on behalf of himself and any future descendants due to his marriage, therefore, it followed the wife and children would not hold royal rank, being limited to the Peerage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 11-30-2009, 08:53 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,175
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?
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 11-30-2009, 09:01 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 11-30-2009, 01:48 PM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
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!
__________________
C.C

'I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.'
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 11-30-2009, 02:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,373
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 11-30-2009, 03:59 PM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
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!
__________________
C.C

'I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.'
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 11-30-2009, 06:02 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,175
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!
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 11-30-2009, 11:41 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Richland Center, United States
Posts: 108
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 12-01-2009, 12:01 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,134
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."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 12-01-2009, 12:21 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
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.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
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."
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 12-01-2009, 02:34 AM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
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!
__________________
C.C

'I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.'
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 12-01-2009, 02:38 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
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

Quote:
(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.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 12-01-2009, 02:50 AM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
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!!!!!
__________________

__________________
C.C

'I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.'
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dukedom, royal dukes, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal Titles Zina Royal Family of Brunei 23 01-10-2014 12:11 PM
Royal, Princely and Comital Titles MAfan Royal Families of Italy 31 11-26-2011 03:30 AM
Moroccan Royal Names and Titles bjanka66 Royal Family of Morocco 61 07-05-2011 07:21 PM
Royal Titles Through the Generations IslandDweller Royal House of Norway 13 02-24-2008 08:26 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince joachim prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]