Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Charlotte1]

Regarding Catherine curtseying to her daughters, isn't that a yes? As blood Princesses they outrank her in the Queen's private precedence of Blood princesses outranking married Princesses. Technically Sophie's daughter Louise outranks her as a blood Princess, therefore she should in theory curtsey to her own daughter.

No!!!!! HRHs are all of equal rank they DO NOT curtsey to each other! Precedence is not who curtseys ( or bows ) to who but rather where one should stand in a formal line up.

Precedence can also be changed, the Queen did that a few years ago when she decided that when the female members come together those who were a closer relationship to her would outrank those who 'married in '.

Re: previous post Lord Snowdon's second wife Lucy has the title Countess of Snowdon ( not Lady!). She is still the Countess of Snowdon as the decree absolute in the divorce has never gone through. Princess Margaret always used her title 'Princess Margaret' she was listed as HRH Princess Margaret, the Countess of Snowdon.

Finally her former husband's name is Antony not Anthony, they are 2 separate names.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Re: previous post Lord Snowdon's second wife Lucy has the title Countess of Snowdon ( not Lady!). She is still the Countess of Snowdon as the decree absolute in the divorce has never gone through. Princess Margaret always used her title 'Princess Margaret' she was listed as HRH Princess Margaret, the Countess of Snowdon.

After her divorce Margaret was HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, no The. Lucy held/holds the title The Countess of Snowdon, and can be known as Lady Snowdon trust me.
They're not too different names where I come from

Regarding Catherine curtseying to her daughters, isn't that a yes? As blood Princesses they outrank her in the Queen's private precedence of Blood princesses outranking married Princesses. Technically Sophie's daughter Louise outranks her as a blood Princess, therefore she should in theory curtsey to her own daughter.

Catherine would only have to curtsey to her child if she was alive when it became Monarch. Sophie and Catherine do not curtsy to Anne for example.

 

[Artemisia]

Regarding Catherine curtseying to her daughters, isn't that a yes? As blood Princesses they outrank her in the Queen's private precedence of Blood princesses outranking married Princesses. Technically Sophie's daughter Louise outranks her as a blood Princess, therefore she should in theory curtsey to her own daughter.

Firstly, ranking in the Order of Precedence does not indicate who must curtsey to whom; it's just than - ranking on official events. It just stipulated who sits where, or who arrives when, or who walks behind whom. I haven't seen, say, the Duchess of Gloucester curtseying to Princess Beatrice although the latter does outrank her. In practice, the only people British Royals curtsey to are the Queen and Prince Philip.

Secondly, you are confusing Official and Private Orders of Precedence. In the Official Order of Precedence (which is the one used for all state, official and semi-official events - the only ones when ladies might consider curtseying to each other), Kate (wife of the Sovereign's grandson) comes immediately after the Queen (the Sovereign), the Duchess of Cornwall (wife of the Sovereign's eldest son) and the Countess of Wessex (wife of the Sovereign's younger son). As such, Kate not only outranks Princess Beatrice - and all other blood Princesses - but also will outrank any children she will have.

In fact, Kate will always outrank any and all of her children until one of them ascends to the Throne. That's because during the Queen's reign, William and Kate's children will be only the Sovereign's great-grandsons (meaning, they are not even included in the Order of Precedence), during Charles' reign, Kate (as Duchess of Cornwall) will be the first lady in the Kingdom after Camilla (the Queen Consort), and during William's reign she'll be the first lady in the Kingdom (as the Queen Consort). Only if Kate outlives William and her son or daughter ascends to the Throne, will she be outranked by her own child (the Monarch).

 

[vkrish]

Oh please for God's sake stop all this stuff..

NO ONE CURTSIES ANYONE EXCEPT THE QUEEN AND PRINCE PHILIP (sovereign and consort).
I dont understand the thrill people get by imagining someone curtseying to their kids.
Precedence has nothing to do with curtseying.
Anne never curtsied even Charles..Why will she or anyone curtsey anyone else..
Dont go with the tabloid lines.."will have to bend her knees to her" it is so amateur reporting..
Catherine will do just as the QM and Queen Mary did..curtsey him/her , only at the coronation..

And yes, Artemisia is right,

PRINCESSES OF BLOOD OUTRANK PRINCESSES BY MARRIAGE, BUT ONLY OF THEIR GENERATION, NOT THE PREVIOUS GENERATION.
Bea&Eu cannot outrank Sophie, similarly Will/Harry's daughters cannot outrank Kate/Princess Harry..

 

[Lumutqueen]

There's no need to shout. Precedence rules are complicated, they're confusing and in parts difficult to understand. Things overlap, certain rules make other rules obsolete. Curtseying is sometimes linked to Precedence, which if you think about it makes sense. That's why it gets confusing. Which leads people to ask questions about them and since this is a discussion forum it is allowed.

 

[vkrish]

I am not shouting. I am just clarifying. I dont have anything against the person who asked this question. I was just angry on the tabloids. Remember the day Kate was placed below Beatrice and Eugenie, all tabloids started screaming 'Kate should bend knees to B&E', with just explaining the situation. The simple create a frenzy and mislead the people. That was I was saying.
Ifanyone was offended by my impatience, please forgive me.

 

[Sister Morphine]

No disrespect intended, but using caps lock online is considered "shouting" since everything is done via text. That's probably why Lumutqueen said you didn't need to yell.

 

[Zonk]

Internet protocol has been explained. Vkrish apologized in case he offended anyone.

Time to move on.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As we don't see these people when they first meet each other in private we don't know who might curtesy to whom. So for someone to say that they only ever courtsy to The Queen and Philip, in private, would mean that they are a member of the family as only members of the family would be involved.

We do know that The Queen has issued a 'private precedence' for ladies only that places blood princesses ahead of wives - but that only applies if the only people present are women and in private. As soon as any man is present then the precedence is that associated with the precedence of the males and females combined.

Public and private precedence aren't the same thing - one applies only when the family is together and the other when they are in public and on state occasions.

 

[lizardofoz]

[QUOTE...it is almost certain that Camilla will in fact be The Queen Consort, but will just opt to be known (at least initially) as The Princess Consort. The wife of a British Monarch is automatically a Queen and to legally deny Camilla that right Acts of Parliament would need to be passed in all sixteen Commonwealth Realms [/QUOTE]

There is no mention or title of 'queen consort' under the Australian constitution. The Queen reigns as 'Queen of Australia'. Other members of the royal family use their UK titles as courtesy titles in an official capacity when in Australia or performing duties on behalf of Australia. Why would the Parliament of Australia therefore need to pass a law to deny Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the title of Queen when the Prince of Wales ascends to the throne?

 

[Artemisia]

Some of the Realms (Australia, Tuvalu and I think a couple of others too) will not indeed need any legislations concerning Camilla's title.
However, the majority of the Realms, and certainly the UK, would need to pass Acts of their respective Parliaments to legally deny Camilla the title Queen Consort.

 

[HRHThePrince]

I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?


I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.

 

[Artemisia]

I am in agreement with you. Letters Patent make granting (or revoking) royal styles and titles official.

Since Letters Patent were not issued in regard to Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, they are still a Princess and a Prince of the United Kingdom from the legal point of view. Perhaps Her Majesty deliberately avoided LPs in the event Louise and James will opt to use their royal styles and titles upon reaching the age of majority, or if they eventually become working members of the Royal Family (and will need their titles).

It is my personal opinion that as long as new Letters Patent cancelling those of 1917 are not issued, the latter remain in force. The Queen is obviously not afraid to make changes since she has already amended one clause of the Letters Patent 1917 (granting all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and not just the first-born son).

 

[Artemisia]

Princess Alice was never legally a Princess in her own; she was allowed to use the title by the Queen. The Queen Mother was called "Princess Elizabeth" at her funeral because she held the title of a British Princess from the point of her marriage to the Duke of York and until his accession to the Throne.

There may not be a legal right attached to a peerage but there are practices which are, and have always been, observed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Alice, like The Queen Mum were both princesses of the UK from the time of their marriages but not Princess Elizabeth or Princess Alice.

When The Duke of Gloucester died Alice asked if, instead of being known as HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester or HRH The Princess Henry she could be known by her own first name and The Queen agreed.

The fact that Henry's younger brother, George, had married Princess Marina - a Princess in her own right even if technically in the UK she shouldn't have used the style of Princess Marina she did do so - particularly after the marriage of her son and so the arrival of a second Duchess of Kent.

The Queen Mum was of course known as HM Queen Elizabeth so it would have been strange to have her titles read up at the funeral as HRH The Princess Albert, HM Queen Elizabeth - it makes more sense for her to be both Queen and Princess Elizabeth - as I expect it will be for both Camilla and Catherine in the future.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see Catherine referred to officially as Princess Catherine when Charles becomes King - so that the British are in line with the rest of Europe and a woman who marries into the family is as much a princess own name as one who married into the Danish or Norwegian royal families.

 

[branchg]

Princess Alice was never legally a Princess; she was allowed to use the title by the Queen. The Queen Mother was called "Princess Elizabeth" at her funeral because she held the title of a British Princess from the point of her marriage to the Duke of York and until his accession to the Throne.

There may not be a legal right attached to a peerage but there are practices which are, and have always been, observed.

Alice and Elizabeth automatically became Princesses with marriage to sons of The Sovereign. Although the tradition is a princess by marriage does not use the style with their own name, they still have precedence and place as wives of male-line grandsons or sons and The Sovereign can choose to allow it.

Wives of Peers have the same rights and privileges their husbands hold and assume a title upon marriage. Princesses are royal, but this is simply a style signifying precedence and place to The Sovereign through their husband. Unless created a Peer, a Prince remains a commoner.

 

[Artemisia]

I am aware of that although my wording was not perfect (corrected that).
I was responding to another post (now deleted) who suggested Alice became a Princess in her own right although no Letters Patent were released to the effect. Obviously, I meant Alice wasn't a Princess in her own right (one who can prefix "Princess" to her name) although of course she was a Princess by marriage.

 

[Rebafan81]

I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.

 

[vkrish]

No way. I am totally with the British way. The Scandivanian way somehow takes out the magic of titles. Everyone is either Prince or Princess. When they say Crown Princess we dont know whether she is heiress or heir's wife.
British way is real royal. Just the full style with title perfectly gives you the entire information about the marital+birth+precedence status of that person.
Naturally some may feel it difficult to understand but once you follow closely for a few days, you will get used to it very well, no rocket science.
I love the British way of giving each and every person a distinct title instead of calling everone Prince/ess..
And of course distinction is perfectly acceptable between Princesses of birth and marriage..
Come on, once we are into royalty, we cant talk too much of 'equality', right?

And Rebafan81, not being styled "Princess Catherine" is not going to diminish her in any way.
And as far as William being Crown Prince, forgive me, I feel the title Crown Prince (that too since used commonly and collectively) can never be as regal as Prince of Wales. Maybe that is totally personal..lol

 

[Sister Morphine]

I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.

What do you mean by "becomes the Crowned Prince"? There is no such thing as a "Crowned Prince" in the BRF. The next step up for William is becoming the Prince of Wales, but that's not what you're thinking of, I don't think.

 

[Artemisia]

Actually, to be pedantic, the next step for William is in all probability to become the Duke of Cornwall.

 

[vkrish]

Ya but again, Prince of Wales is more practical and widely used title, than Duke of Cornwall, though not automatic as the latter.
But I still find Prince of Wales more glamorous and regal than both Duke of Cornwall and Crown Prince.

 

[Artemisia]

I am not contesting that.

I was just pointing out that the moment Charles becomes King, William will automatically be the Duke of Cornwall (the next step), whereas he'll need to be created The Prince of Wales at some point. It is possible William will be Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge for at least a couple of years before he becomes the Prince of Wales.

 

[Dman]

Yeah, I think William's future Investiture ceremony as The Prince of Wales will take sometime to plan out. I'm thinking maybe a year or two after Charles's Coronation.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.

Except that the Scandinavian princesses who married into the royal families are still not princesses in their own right. I used to think they were but it was pointed out to me here some time ago that they are not. As far as I know only Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was created a princess of the Netherlands in her own right upon marriage.

 

[Artemisia]

Except that the Scandinavian princesses who married into the royal families are still not princesses in their own right. I used to think they were but it was pointed out to me here some time ago that they are not. As far as I know only Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was created a princess of the Netherlands in her own right upon marriage.

You are right, none of the wives of the Scandinavian Heirs to the Throne are Princesses in their own right. For instance, Mary's proper title is not "Crown Princess" Mary but May, Crown Princess of Denmark.

Apart from Maxima, Stephanie of Luxembourg and Mathilde of Belgium were also created Princesses in their own right of their respective countries. Thus, Stephanie is Princess Stephanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Mathilde is Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant.

The tradition of creating the wife of the heir to the throne a Princess of the realm in her own right (albeit for the duration of the marriage) appears to be limited to Benelux countries only.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Apart from Maxima, Stephanie of Luxembourg and Mathilde of Belgium were also created Princesses in their own right of their respective countries. Thus, Stephanie is Princess Stephanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Mathilde is Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant.

.

I forgot about Mathilde and didn't know about Stephanie. I remember now that Mathilde's family was also elevated to the rank of counts upon her marriage.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?

I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.

The Earl and Countess from way back on their wedding day said their children would be style the way they are. The Queen did this for Wills child because with the current laws only the male line children of the monarch and the male son of the Prince of Wales and the grandson of the POW would be styled Prince. If wills has a daughter she would be Lady Cambridge and a future Queen so she Made sure this future Queen would be a Princess.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yeah, I think William's future Investiture ceremony as The Prince of Wales will take sometime to plan out. I'm thinking maybe a year or two after Charles's Coronation.

There is no need for an investiture in order for William to become Prince of Wales. Only Charles and Edward VIII have been publicly invested in recent centuries, or maybe at all.

Most have just been created PoW shortly after birth, shortly after their parent became monarch or in the case of George III shortly after his father's death.

Elizabeth took the longest time to create Charles PoW - he became Duke of Cornwall in the early hours of the 6th February 1952 but he wasn't created Prince of Wales for over 6 years.

Edward VII took nearly 11 months before creating George V PoW. For most of 1901 George was known as The Duke of Cornwall and York and holding those combined titles officially opened Australia's first parliament in Melbourne (we had become a federation on 1st January 1901).

George V created Edward VIII PoW 6 weeks after his accession as King. His investiture took place the same year as the coronation only three weeks after the coronation of his father. George V's was crowned on the 22nd June and Edward was invested on 13th July.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?


I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.

Edward and Sophie wanted their children styled as the children of an earl, so they are. They are legally Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex, which when they're 18, they can assume as their rightful titles if they so choose. Nothing was denied to their children, nothing was stripped from them. There was no intentional slight of the Wessex couple on behalf of the Queen. Don't look for something that doesn't exist.

HM issued Letters Patent in regards to the Cambridge's future child because regardless of the child's gender, they will be the future monarch. As a result of the Letters Patent from her grandfather in 1917, only a son would be guaranteed a princely title, as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. A daughter would be merely Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor. Without new Letters Patent granting a princely status to the child regardless of gender, the future queen would be born without a title. It's no different than what George VI did for the-then Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. If he hadn't issued Letters Patent granting their children a princely status, as grandchildren in the female line do not carry titles, Charles would have been born Lord Charles Mountbatten, instead of HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh. So there's precedent for elevating a child's status befitting their future role, when they otherwise would not be entitled to it.