Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

...IT is the cash that is (excuse the pun) king in this debate about a slimmer BRF.

As the monarch pays the members of her family to do royal duties there is no cost to the taxpayers. Charles and whoever follows him will have to decide who he/she wishes to support and make sure that all other people are well aware that they have to support themselves and that is all.

The Sovereign Grant - will be the same whether there is one or 101 doing royal duties - and whether or not there is even a monarch as that is the cost of the official duties of the Head of State.
.

 

[branchg]

I do think that the intention is to reduce the HRHs by simply not having the children of the younger sons use it to the point it becomes the expectation without issuing LPs stopping it.

I agree the future will be a slimmed down monarchy with less HRHs. And I think Harry's children will not be HRH even after Charles becomes King. Once William has one or two children, the succession is secured.

 

[Princess B]

I think Harry's children will be HRH's.

The monarchy will eventually be slimmed down.

Queen Victoria had 8/9 children all HRH and passed down the male line. KGV had 4/5 children, all males passed on titles, KGVI had 2 daughters of which only QEII has passed on titles whose male descendants have passed on titles ( excluding the Earl of Wessex).

Look at the monarchy since QV's time it has slimmed down.

Lets consider the family 20 years later-

The Queen, DoE, Gloucester's and Kents would have passed away.

Only Prince Charles' ( then king) siblings will be HRH and Prince Andrews daughters who won't be able to pass them on.

Prince Williams children (I'm guessing he won't have more than 2-3), the Duchess of Cambridge, Harry, his wife and children (2-3) will be HRH's.

Another 20 years from then-

William an Harry's families and Princess Beatrice and Eugenie. There may be 1 or 2 of Charles' siblings or their spouses alive but it's unlikely or they'll be really old and would pass away soon.

So during Williams reign it seems like there will be 15-20 HRH's max.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

That's exactly what I think. The Royal Family will be slimmed down naturally, there's no need to take titles and styles away.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Currently the HRHs are:

Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Spophie, Anne, Richard, Brigtte, Edward, Katherine, Michael, Marie-Christine, Alexandra and a soon to be Baby Cambridge - a total of 20.

In 20 years there will probably be: Charles (84), Camilla (85), William (51), Kate (51), 2 children (20 and say 18), Harry (48), a spouse c40), 2 children (c10 and 8), Andrew (73), Beatrice (44), Eugenie (42), Edward (69), Sophie (68), Anne (82), Richard (87), Brigtte (86), Michael (91), Marie-Christine (88) - a total of 21 - so an increase not a decrease if Harry's kids are HRHs.

Add another 20 years and we will probably have something like: William (71), Kate (71), 2 kids (40 and 38) and 4 grandkids (16, 14, 12, 10), (if the eldest is a girl it will also pass on the HRH as the heiress apparent while a younger girl won't - so I am suggesting 4 grandkids with HRH - a girl first and then a boy) Harry (68), spouse (60), 2 kids (30 and 28), Andrew (93), Beatrice (65), Eugenie (62), Edward (89) and Sophie (87) - a total of 17.

That is hardly a reduction over 40 years with Wiliam only having 2 kids and each of them having 2 along with Harry having 2.

I am assuming of course that The Queen's children have similar longevity to Philip and herself and that Andrew doesn't remarry a much younger woman and have more children - who would also be HRHs (and I still think that is a possibility for Andrew - I can see him marrying a women 20 or so years his junior and having two more children, particularly ttrying for a son to inherit York)

I do think some people don't realise how young the Gloucester are as one suggestion has them gone in 20 years - they are only a year or 3 older than Camilla and Charles as are the Michaels of Kent. These cousins of The Queen may be the same generation but they are nearly 20 years younger having been born in the war years - gap is similar to that between Peter and Zara to Louise and James who are closer in age to Peter's children despite being the same generation as Peter.

Note that I haven't included Louise and James into the above lists because they don't use the HRH but if they are added then there are 2 more in each count.

I have also obviously come up with fictional ages for Harry's spouse and children but that is simply to put some sort of idea in there - he may never marry, or marry a woman closer in age or older or....

I have also only assumed 2 children for each of William and Harry but they could decide on more which would add numbers or fewer in which case the numbers might be lower. I have also given only 2 children to William's 2 children but again that could change between 0 and whatever.

 

[Skippyboo]

In the 20 yrs scenario, only Charles and Camilla as King and Queen plus Ed & Sophie would be working royals maybe Anne and Andrew. The Kents and Gloucesters will stop duties.

William, Kate and Harry plus Blonde Haired Harry Wife will be the only working royals of that generation. Depending on the amount of kids the Cambridges have ( I don't think their will be a 10 yr gap between kids. They need to pop out the kids before William becomes Prince of Wales. 2015 for baby c 2) Harry's kids may need to Hrh to do royal duties when they to age 25 or so as the royals as the queens children die off.

 

[robsmom]

Currently the HRHs are...a total of 20.

In your scenario, should you add 2 to account for William or Harry having boys and in order to have the grandchildren Wiilliam or harry's son (s)would presumably have a wife. If you assume that each has one boy and one girl, there would be 2 more wives. Also, Let's say the soon to be baby C is a girl who would be a Queen, it is not out of the question to think that her husband would be made an HRH at some point (think Prince Phillip). This would put the estimate right back at 20. That just seems to be the magic number, give or take a few.
.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I was wondering why is The Wife of a King known as a Queen Consort but the Husband of a Queen is known as a Prince and not a King Consort?

For example George V, George VI and Edward VIII wives (Alexandra, Mary and Elizabeth) were known as Queen (Consort) but Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth husbands (Albert and Philip) were known as Prince (Consorts).

I suppose it have to do with the fact that Kings outranks Queens and so there husbands are known as prince consorts and not King to prevent them from outranking their wives the Queen Regent.

Both Mary I and Mary II Spouses (Philip, William) were both kings as they ruled together with their respective spouse.

Same with Queen Juliana if the Netherlands who husband was a prince and not a King.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In the normal course of events a King is higher in rank than a Queen so the husbands of Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth remained as Princes when their wives became Queen (or the case of Philip was created a Prince 5 years later - yes I know he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark but he gave up that title and so needed to be recreated as a Prince in 1957).

Only Albert has ever been The Prince Consort as an official title while George of Denmark and Philip have been just Prince Consorts - but not an official title - just like a Queen Consort isn't an official title.

Why Philip II of Spain was a King in his own right and so able to keep that title.

William was different again - as Stadholder he was the effective Head of State but he was also 3rd in line in his own right so making him joint monarch with right of keeping the throne after Mary's death prevented a situation whereby he would have been Consort, cousin and then King in his own right. There is also the view that Mary insisted on him having that position believing that a man should be the head of the family and that she couldn't be in anyway below him (an old-fashioned Christian idea but prevalent at the time) and the fact that William did arrive in England at the head of an army

Can't continue this now as have to go to work

 

[Ish]

The thing with Philip and William III was that they were both kind of special examples.

Philip (who wasn't yet King of Spain. He married Mary in 1554 and became King of Spain in 1556) was a king in his own right (his father gave him Naples and his claim to Jerusalem just to ensure that he was a king), and kind of used his gender in order to elevate his position in England. The Marriage Act basically made it so that they were co-reigning, despite him having no claim to the English throne whatsoever.

It's this behaviour that can be seen as having influenced later queens (and their governments). Not wanting to be rules by her husband, Elizabeth I never married. Not wanting the German consort of the queen to rule, Victoria's government wouldn't let her make him king.

The debate on Mary and William can be seen two ways. It's important here to remember that the pair of them were usurping the throne from Mary's father (and William's uncle). One side of the argument here is that Mary insisted that her husband be made her co-ruler because of his gender and wouldn't accept the throne unless that was done. The other is that because it was a usurpation what was really wanted (by the government) was a male ruler who could provide more stability in the backlash that was to follow, but they needed to have legitimacy in the reign via a Stuart monarch, it was only in the combination of both William and Mary that they were able to do such.

 

[PrincePatrick]

I'm sure this has been discussed/covered already, but is the baby technically/granted by courtesy the title HRH The Earl of Strathearn?

 

[wbenson]

That's not the custom, and the only thing governing courtesy titles is custom, so no.

 

[PrincePatrick]

Gotchya! Thanks I suppose Prince William was never known as the Earl of Chester or Earl of Carrick... Silly me

 

[NGalitzine]

Princes do not use courtesy titles. For example neither William or Richard of Gloucester were ever known as HRH Earl of Ulster, likewise Edward of Kent was never HRH Earl of St Andrews.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm sure this has been discussed/covered already, but is the baby technically/granted by courtesy the title HRH The Earl of Strathearn?

As a Prince of the Realm he wouldn't use his father's second title. That is for non-royal heirs e.g. the current Duke of Kent, when heir to his father, was known as HRH Prince Edward of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester's older brother was HRH Prince William of Gloucester even though they were the heirs to their father's titles and the present Duke of Gloucester was also known as Prince Richard of Gloucester from birth and 2nd in line to the Dukedom, to heir apparent to the Dukedom only changing when he became the Duke and thus a peer of the realm. Their sons use the courtesy titles because they aren't Princes and James, Viscount Severn also uses the courtesy title because he isn't using the HRH Prince - had Edward allowed his son to use HRH Prince then young James wouldn't use Viscount Severn but would be HRH Prince James of Wessex.

This little one will be HRH Prince xxx of Cambridge for the rest of the Queen's reign when he will become HRH Prince xxxx of Cornwall and Cambridge. He will then become HRH Prince xxxx of Wales, if Charles creates William as Prince of Wales and then the little one will become a peer of the realm when William becomes King unless he is so old that he is given a title in his own right e.g. on marriage.

Let's get him a name though first as that will be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

[Skippyboo]

When William becomes King, the baby is automatically the Duke of Cornwall. He doesn't have to be created a peer. That is assuming that William becomes King before the baby gets married. If not,then he would get a peerage like his dad did.

After becoming King, William would then have to name his son Prince of Wales.

 

[Ish]

When William becomes King, the baby is automatically the Duke of Cornwall. He doesn't have to be created a peer. That is assuming that William becomes King before the baby gets married. If not,then he would get a peerage like his dad did.

After becoming King, William would then have to name his son Prince of Wales.

Duke of Cornwall is a peerage.

 

[Princess Robijn]

Correct, but he wouldn't have to be created Duke of Cornwall. It is an automatic title for the oldest son of the Monarch who is also the heir to the throne. Therefor, as soon as Prince William becomes King, the Prince will be the (new) Duke of Cornwall.

 

[Ish]

Correct, but he wouldn't have to be created Duke of Cornwall. It is an automatic title for the oldest son of the Monarch who is also the heir to the throne. Therefor, as soon as Prince William becomes King, the Prince will be the (new) Duke of Cornwall.

True. I just wanted to point it out that Duke of Cornwall is a peerage. I probably could have done it better - Baby Watch has screwed with my sleep schedule.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

This might be an immensely stupid question, but does the title "Prince and Great Steward of Scotland" that Prince Charles hold as heir apparent, have a female counterpart? You know, if little Prince George had been a girl, would she one day have become Princess and Great Stewardess of Scotland or is that title reserved for the wife of a male heir apparent only?

 

[branchg]

The Scottish titles of the heir are for the eldest son and heir to The Sovereign, just like the English titles. There is no provision for a female heir holding those titles in her own right. The wife of the heir is styled "The Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew and Princess of Scotland".

The Sovereign could create a female heir "Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester" in her own right as those titles are granted at-will.

 

[Dman]

Palace inquest after Prince William names Kate as his Princess-
Palace inquest after Prince William names Kate as his Princess | Royal | News | Daily Express

 

[Iluvbertie]

It seems that different 'spokemen' for BP said different things in 2011 e.g. the Express had an expert say:

“The Duchess of Cambridge would have been Her Royal Highness Princess William if she had not been given her new title, but it is not correct to say she is a Princess now.”

while the Guardian had the following statement:

Explaining the slightly confusing picture, a palace spokesman said: "She is not a princess in her own right. That title has not been conferred on her. Her title is that of duchess. So she is not Princess Catherine. And to call her Princess William of Wales is misleading."


Hence we have one spokesman saying 'it is not correct' and another saying 'to call her Princess William... is misleading'. Two different things:

1. - not a princess at all - so a morganatic marriage

2. she is a princess but has a higher title and so it would be misleading to use her lower title.

 

[Ish]

Is William still "of Wales"? I always thought that the "of wherever" was more of a courtesy title in relation to one's father's titles and that when one got his/her own titles they ceased to be "of whatever Dad is."

 

[royalistbert]

Simple soulution let all wives of Princes be called Princess and keep their own name for example, Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. It would so much easier.

 

[Jacknch]

Is William still "of Wales"? I always thought that the "of wherever" was more of a courtesy title in relation to one's father's titles and that when one got his/her own titles they ceased to be "of whatever Dad is."

Except William is still known as William Wales in the forces - how many names and titles can one have?!

I am shocked the palace need to double check on whether Catherine is a princess or not! If she is a Princess of the United Kingdom, then...erm...she is a princess, unless the term "princess" is no longer a title and is now simply a job description!

 

[wbenson]

I am shocked the palace need to double check on whether Catherine is a princess or not!

They had to in 1923 as well. Lord Stamfordham (the King's private secretary) didn't think that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon would become a princess on marriage.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_144_22945.htm

" Though late in the day to do so, I write to ask whether it is correct to assume that by the fact of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon marrying the Duke of York she becomes legally ipso facto "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York" - also, that although her husband is a Prince she is not a Princess and could not become so except were the King to create her a Princess under an Order in Council ?"

The response was:

"In reply to your letter of yesterday as to the style, title and,signature of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon after her marriage, I am desired by the Home Secretary to say that in his view there is no question that, under the settled general rule of a wife taking the status of her husband, Lady Elisabeth will, on her marriage, automatically become "Her Royal Highness", and will acquire the status of a Princess. She will not, of course, use that style any more than the Duke of York uses the style of Prince, and will become "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York"."

 

[Roslyn]

I find this most amusing. If William can get it wrong, or at least be confused by it, no wonder the rest of us do.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is William still "of Wales"? I always thought that the "of wherever" was more of a courtesy title in relation to one's father's titles and that when one got his/her own titles they ceased to be "of whatever Dad is."

Correct. He ceased to be 'of Wales' when he was created The Duke of Cambridge.

He continued to use 'Wales' in the military for convenience, in the same way that many women continue to use their maiden names after they marriage e.g. Zara still uses Philips when competing.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The interesting thing is the use of words:

The Guardian says that last word was 'misleading' while The Royalist (which has everything else the same) has the last word as 'incorrect'. The Express says that the spokeperson said that 'it is not correct to say that she is a Princess now'.

The use of the words is significant.

Which BP spokeperson said anything? None is named. Exactly what did they say? Was it 'incorrect' or 'misleading' or something else? Are the reports interpreting that last word rather than reporting it verbatim? How many spokespeople were asked that day - is that why there are different words used?

If verbatim then there were at least two different versions put out or is it that The Guardian's report from 29th April, 2011 is the one that was stated at the time and that it has been changed/interpreted differently ever since? Other reports I have seen from 29th April use the word misleading - but are they just copying The Guardian or did they also get that work independently on the day?