Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[Mbruno]

Intriguing. The royal aide who briefed the media in April expressly stated that she would become "Queen Camilla" on coronation day, so either the aide was misinformed, the aide was instructed to give out misinformation, or there was indeed a U-turn by the king within the last month. I wonder which it was.

At least adopting "The Queen" straightaway will spare us further complaints and speculations about Queen Camilla being "promoted" to The Queen.

It is a fluid situation. She was originally intended to be only "The Princess Consort". Then Queen Elizabeth II agreed with the proposal to make her "The Queen Consort", which, contrary to later spin by the courtiers, was probably meant to be permanent and not just a temporary title.


Later they annnounced that she would become "Queen Camilla" and, now apparently, they finally settled on "The Queen", which is the default anyway for the wife of a reigning British King.

It would be indeed odd to call her anything other than "The Queen" after she was anointed, crowned and enthroned in a "sacred" ceremony for those who believe in it.

Of course, "Queen Camilla" will still be used informally, as styles like "Queen Alexandra", "Queen Mary" or "Queen Elizabeth" were used before any of the former became widows.

 

[Prinsara]

Why is it that the "Princess X, Mrs. Husband's Name" style never seemed to apply to Margaret or Anne? (Or did it?)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why is it that the "Princess X, Mrs. Husband's Name" style never seemed to apply to Margaret or Anne? (Or did it?)

It was never applied to Margaret, who remained simply "The Princess Margaret" until her husband was created an earl. (Examples can be seen in The Gazette.) But it was applied to Anne, who was The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips from her first marriage until she was created Princess Royal.


Unrelatedly, the list of royal peers in the official Roll of the Peerage has been updated for the first time since the accession, and shows that King Charles III has continued with his mother's choice to use The Prince/The Princess only for the children of a sovereign. (This distinction was not made under previous monarchs.)

What puzzles me is why the Duke of Sussex's entry has been updated to state that he is also styled Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel, since I have never heard of him styling himself with either of his subsidiary peerages.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why is it that the "Princess X, Mrs. Husband's Name" style never seemed to apply to Margaret or Anne? (Or did it?)

When Margaret she was The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon and Anne was The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Philips (just checked the CC for the entry for Charles and Diana's wedding - knowing a specific date makes it easier to check and they both attended) and of course Princess Alexandra has been Princess Alexandra the Honourable Lady Ogilvy as well. She was Princess Alexandra the Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy from marriage until Angus was knighted when 'Mrs' was replaced with 'Lady'. There was also Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone.

I need to find an event at which Princess Margaret was present after her marriage and before Tony was made an Earl (didn't happen on his wedding day) to see how she was titled during that time. He was only made an Earl, at Margaret's insistence when she was expecting David and realised that her children would be untitled unless her husband was a peer. Found one - the wedding of The Duke and Duchess of Kent. At that ceremony the CC lists her as simply The Princess Margaret.

 

[Curryong]

Didn’t Princess Margaret and Anthony Armstrong Jones (not yet an Earl) attend King Baudouin of Belgium’s marriage to Fabiola in 1960, shortly after their own nuptials, as well? They were Queen Elizabeth’s representatives.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Didn’t Princess Margaret and Anthony Armstrong Jones (not yet an Earl) attend King Baudouin of Belgium’s marriage to Fabiola in 1960, shortly after their own nuptials, as well? They were Queen Elizabeth’s representatives.

They may have done but I am not up to 1960 in my analysis of the CC yet so don't have the full CC in front of me. I am aiming to have the 1950s finished by the end of this year. (1952-59). Hoping to do the 60s next year and the 70s after that with the 80s and 90s after that (unless I can get the 11 years I am missing from my current sources - The Times and the online British monarchy site).

I therefore went looking for an event that I knew they would attend and would be in the CC rather than trying to go through every day from when they married to find an entry. That is why I went for the Duke of Kent's wedding as I could go to the specific day without any real delays.

There will be many such entries I am sure.

 

[Prinsara]

Then the idea that Anne took the Princess Royal title several years after she was entitled to it simply to stop being Mrs. Mark Phillips has more weight.

I wonder why Margaret was the exception?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Then the idea that Anne took the Princess Royal title several years after she was entitled to it simply to stop being Mrs. Mark Phillips has more weight.

I wonder why Margaret was the exception?

Anne didn't 'take' the title.

She was given it by The Queen in 1987 about 22 years after she was eligible to be given it and nearly 14 years after she married Mark. She only became a full-time working royal in 1980 although she did have off some time in 1981 after Zara was born so she had to work for the Queen for about 7 years to earn it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder why Margaret was the exception?

I have no idea, but I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II was taking her time to formulate a decision on how to treat a royal princess's marriage to an untitled man. It was something which had never happened before. (Princess Patricia of Connaught married an untitled man, but renounced her own royal title at the same time.) Perhaps she simply allowed Margaret's title to remain as it was until she took a decision?

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that Margaret believed double-barreled surnames were overly posh, or something in that vein, but I cannot remember if the source was reliable.

 

[Somebody]

It was never applied to Margaret, who remained simply "The Princess Margaret" until her husband was created an earl. (Examples can be seen in The Gazette.) But it was applied to Anne, who was The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips from her first marriage until she was created Princess Royal.


Unrelatedly, the list of royal peers in the official Roll of the Peerage has been updated for the first time since the accession, and shows that King Charles III has continued with his mother's choice to use The Prince/The Princess only for the children of a sovereign. (This distinction was not made under previous monarchs.)

What puzzles me is why the Duke of Sussex's entry has been updated to state that he is also styled Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel, since I have never heard of him styling himself with either of his subsidiary peerages.

It's indeed weird that those subsidiary titles are only included for Harry. At least they should also be included for Edward. For the other Dukes their susidary title(s) is/are used by their descendants.

In Wlliam's case, two of his ducal titles are mentioned but Cambridge is left out. Unlike the other two, Cambridge is of course not related to him being the heir but still for about a day William was known as the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.

 

[Prinsara]

Anne didn't 'take' the title.

She was given it by The Queen in 1987 about 22 years after she was eligible to be given it and nearly 14 years after she married Mark. She only became a full-time working royal in 1980 although she did have off some time in 1981 after Zara was born so she had to work for the Queen for about 7 years to earn it.

I believe she was still entitled to it by her position, not whether she did a jot of work for the RF at all. And Anne herself still had to accept it and could have simply refused, like the idea of titling her children.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I believe she was still entitled to it by her position, not whether she did a jot of work for the RF at all. And Anne herself still had to accept it and could have simply refused, like the idea of titling her children.

She wasn't 'entitled' to it but 'eligible' for it.

The Queen could have given it to her any time after Princess Mary died in 1965 but she didn't do so until 1987. At one time it was even thought that Elizabeth wasn't going to give it to her at all.

Just as Charles could have been created Prince of Wales as early as the 6th February, 1952 when he became eligible for that title Elizabeth II decided to wait and made her children wait as well.

Charles and Anne both had the longest waiting time from eligible to be given a title and actually being given the title.

Neither were 'entitled' to the title - that implies it was something that there was nothing that the late Queen could do to stop them having those titles - there was - she could have not issued the necessary Letters Patent.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's indeed weird that those subsidiary titles are only included for Harry. At least they should also be included for Edward. For the other Dukes their susidary title(s) is/are used by their descendants.

The Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent cannot use their subsidiary titles of Earl of Wessex, Earl of Ulster and Earl of St. Andrews respectively because those subsidiary earldoms are in use by their non-princely sons.

At first, I wondered if the addition of "also styled Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel" (which only appeared in the most recent update, so it is not an accident) to the Duke of Sussex's entry meant that he is now entitled to use Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel (if he wishes) because he no longer has a son who is entitled to use his subsidiary peerages. (Since the previous update, his only son has become Prince Archie, and traditionally, princes do not use their father's peerage titles.)

However, if that was the reason behind it, then the Duke of York's entry should also have been updated with his subsidiary peerages, because he also does not have a son who is entitled to use those titles. But the Duke of York's entry was unchanged, so it is a mystery to me why he and the Duke of Sussex are now listed differently.

In Wlliam's case, two of his ducal titles are mentioned but Cambridge is left out. Unlike the other two, Cambridge is of course not related to him being the heir but still for about a day William was known as the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.

I think the entry for Prince William stating "also styled Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay" is correct because, based on the practice with Charles when he was Prince of Wales, William will indeed be styled HRH The Duke of Rothesay when undertaking duties in Scotland and HRH The Duke of Cornwall in connection with his duties as duke of Cornwall. But if he visits Cambridge, I assume he will still be listed as HRH The Prince of Wales instead of HRH The Duke of Cambridge.

 

[Somebody]

The Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent cannot use their subsidiary titles of Earl of Wessex, Earl of Ulster and Earl of St. Andrews respectively because those subsidiary earldoms are in use by their non-princely sons.

Exactly, that's why I pointed out the difference between those that themselves can be styled with their subsidiary titles: Andrew (who only has daughters) and Harry (who initially decided not to use it for his son and now his son is styled as hrh prince).

At first, I wondered if the addition of "also styled Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel" (which only appeared in the most recent update, so it is not an accident) to the Duke of Sussex's entry meant that he is now entitled to use Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel (if he wishes) because he no longer has a son who is entitled to use his subsidiary peerages. (Since the previous update, his only son has become Prince Archie, and traditionally, princes do not use their father's peerage titles.)

However, if that was the reason behind it, then the Duke of York's entry should also have been updated with his subsidiary peerages, because he also does not have a son who is entitled to use those titles. But the Duke of York's entry was unchanged, so it is a mystery to me why he and the Duke of Sussex are now listed differently.

Interesting theory about Harry but indeed, that would assume Andrew's subsidiary titles to also be listed as I already indicated. All in all, it seems they are just onconsistent, which isn't the first time...

I think the entry for Prince William stating "also styled Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay" is correct because, based on the practice with Charles when he was Prince of Wales, William will indeed be styled HRH The Duke of Rothesay when undertaking duties in Scotland and HRH The Duke of Cornwall in connection with his duties as duke of Cornwall. But if he visits Cambridge, I assume he will still be listed as HRH The Prince of Wales instead of HRH The Duke of Cambridge.

I was aware of the use of Rothesay in Scorland but had forgotten about the use of Cornwall in specific cases.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Exactly, that's why I pointed out the difference between those that themselves can be styled with their subsidiary titles: Andrew (who only has daughters) and Harry (who initially decided not to use it for his son and now his son is styled as hrh prince).

In your previous post, you wrote "At least they [subsidiary titles] should also be included for Edward", which confused me. I assume then that you meant to write Andrew instead of Edward, in which case I agree.

 

[Somebody]

In your previous post, you wrote "At least they [subsidiary titles] should also be included for Edward", which confused me. I assume then that you meant to write Andrew instead of Edward, in which case I agree.

My apologies, now I understand what caused the confusion. I intended to write Andrew... my bad.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Anne didn't 'take' the title.

She was given it by The Queen in 1987 about 22 years after she was eligible to be given it and nearly 14 years after she married Mark. She only became a full-time working royal in 1980 although she did have off some time in 1981 after Zara was born so she had to work for the Queen for about 7 years to earn it.

The Queen could have given it to her any time after Princess Mary died in 1965 but she didn't do so until 1987. At one time it was even thought that Elizabeth wasn't going to give it to her at all.

Just as Charles could have been created Prince of Wales as early as the 6th February, 1952 when he became eligible for that title Elizabeth II decided to wait and made her children wait as well.

Charles and Anne both had the longest waiting time from eligible to be given a title and actually being given the title.

Neither were 'entitled' to the title - that implies it was something that there was nothing that the late Queen could do to stop them having those titles - there was - she could have not issued the necessary Letters Patent.

Have Elizabeth II's reasons for delaying the Prince of Wales and Princess Royal creations, or for finally granting them, been confirmed, or is there only educated speculation?

 

[Prinsara]

I have no idea, but I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II was taking her time to formulate a decision on how to treat a royal princess's marriage to an untitled man. It was something which had never happened before. (Princess Patricia of Connaught married an untitled man, but renounced her own royal title at the same time.) Perhaps she simply allowed Margaret's title to remain as it was until she took a decision?

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that Margaret believed double-barreled surnames were overly posh, or something in that vein, but I cannot remember if the source was reliable.

I feel as though the chances were good Margaret did not care how her husband was addressed, as long she got to stay HRH The Princess. (She obviously didn't care about making an untitled marriage or even think about how her children would be affected until the issue actually presented itself... and Elizabeth, with the Townsend history and never anxious to make changes, was probably just as happy to leave things the way they were).

It makes the adoption of the Norwegian style (and its persistence) seem a bit arbitrary, though.

 

[Somebody]

Have Elizabeth II's reasons for delaying the Prince of Wales and Princess Royal creations, or for finally granting them, been confirmed, or is there only educated speculation?

I don't think she ever explained it.

Charles didn't have to wait that long... He was still only 9 years old when he was created prince of Wales:

Whitehall,
Saturday, July 26, 1958.
The QUEEN has been pleased to order Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal for creating His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland PRINCE OF WALES and EARL OF CHESTER.

Recent durations for Prince of Wales:
William: 1 day (age: 40)
George IV: 5 days (age: 5 days)
Edward VII: 1 month (age: 1 month)
Edward VIII: 1 1/2 months (age: 16th birthday)
George III: 3 weeks (age: 12)
George V: 9 1/2 months (age: 35)
Charles III: 4 years, 5 1/2 months (age: 9)

So, even while Charles had to wait the longest, he still was the youngest of those who weren't born as the heir apparent.

Anne had to wait much longer before she was made The Princess Royal. Given that it took place in the year after her younger brother got married, I wonder whether that might have anything to do with it. That the queen felt pressure to also grant her daughter this honor after Andrew had been made Duke of York on his wedding day.

She wasn't 'entitled' to it but 'eligible' for it.

The Queen could have given it to her any time after Princess Mary died in 1965 but she didn't do so until 1987. At one time it was even thought that Elizabeth wasn't going to give it to her at all.

Just as Charles could have been created Prince of Wales as early as the 6th February, 1952 when he became eligible for that title Elizabeth II decided to wait and made her children wait as well.

Charles and Anne both had the longest waiting time from eligible to be given a title and actually being given the title.

Neither were 'entitled' to the title - that implies it was something that there was nothing that the late Queen could do to stop them having those titles - there was - she could have not issued the necessary Letters Patent.

There was however someone else who had two wait slightly longer between being eligible and receiving the title of Princess Royal.

Princess Charlotte: September 1766 (birth) until June 1789 --> 22 years & 9 months
Princess Anne: March 1965 (death of great-aunt) - June 1987 --> 22 years & 3 months

 

[Prinsara]

Princess Charlotte: September 1766 (birth) until June 1789 --> 22 years & 9 months
Princess Anne: March 1965 (death of great-aunt) - June 1987 --> 22 years & 3 months

Charlotte, daughter of George III, was referred to in the family by the nickname of "Royal", so I'm not sure why she had to wait that long to actually be granted the title. In any case she was certainly viewed in the role far longer than Anne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There was however someone else who had two wait slightly longer between being eligible and receiving the title of Princess Royal.

Princess Charlotte: September 1766 (birth) until June 1789 --> 22 years & 9 months
Princess Anne: March 1965 (death of great-aunt) - June 1987 --> 22 years & 3 months

King George III's daughter Charlotte Augusta Matilda was styled as Princess Royal from birth, even if there was no formal creation. See for example this entry in the London Gazette in 1771 (when she was 4 years old) referring to "the Princess Royal".

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/11163/page/1/

It makes the adoption of the Norwegian style (and its persistence) seem a bit arbitrary, though.

Now I wonder why Queen Elizabeth II went a step further than even the Norwegian and Swedish monarchs with their unequally-married princesses, and styled Alexandra, Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie not only as Mrs. Husband's Surname (as was the case with the Norwegians and Swedes) but as Mrs. Husband's Forename and Surname.

 

[Prinsara]

Now I wonder why Queen Elizabeth II went a step further than even the Norwegian and Swedish monarchs with their unequally-married princesses, and styled Alexandra, Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie not only as Mrs. Husband's Surname (as was the case with the Norwegians and Swedes) but as Mrs. Husband's Forename and Surname.

I suppose because that was common English-speaking usage at the time of Alexandra, though it was becoming quite unfashionable by Anne's day. The question is why it has never adapted at all, as in Scandinavia.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I suppose because that was common English-speaking usage at the time of Alexandra, though it was becoming quite unfashionable by Anne's day.

True. However, even in the old-fashioned usage dating from the 19th century, it was the rule to use Mrs. Surname instead of the usual Mrs. Husband's Forename and Surname when referring to the highest ranking married woman using that surname.

For example, the wife of the head of an untitled family would be referred to as plain Mrs. Windsor, while her daughters-in-law would be referred to as Mrs. William Windsor, Mrs. Henry Windsor, et al.

On the same basis, the traditional rule was to style, say, wives of heads of state and government as plain Mrs. Surname, not Mrs. Husband's Surname, as they were presumed to outrank other untitled women of the same family name. Buckingham Palace seems to follow that rule more often for wives of prime ministers and the like, though they are very inconsistent.

I would have thought that being a royal princess and the husband of a royal princess would import enough social status to justify being addressed as the highest ranked Ogilvys/Phillipses/Brooksbanks/Mapelli Mozzis, even applying the old-fashioned rules.

The question is why it has never adapted at all, as in Scandinavia.

Good question indeed. Some royal watchers have argued that Elizabeth II was from an older generation than Harald V or Carl XVI Gustaf (who have each updated the rules within their royal families, including but not limited to making titles and names less gender discriminatory) and so should not have been expected to adapt as they have. But Charles III is younger than them both, and he has continued with the Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, Mrs. Michael Tindall, etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

King George III's daughter Charlotte Augusta Matilda was styled as Princess Royal from birth, even if there was no formal creation. See for example this entry in the London Gazette in 1771 (when she was 4 years old) referring to "the Princess Royal".

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/11163/page/1/




Now I wonder why Queen Elizabeth II went a step further than even the Norwegian and Swedish monarchs with their unequally-married princesses, and styled Alexandra, Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie not only as Mrs. Husband's Surname (as was the case with the Norwegians and Swedes) but as Mrs. Husband's Forename and Surname.

Britain has never recognised the concept of 'unequal' marriages or 'morganatic' marriages. The Europeans were always more 'snobbish' about that while the British always took the view that a wife was automatically raised to the status of the husband on marriage.

I have read that the Kaiser and a few others European royal houses thought that George V had lowered himself in marrying a mere Serene Highness rather than a Royal Highness in marrying Mary of Teck. Queen Victoria was scathing in her reply and totally opposed to the views of the Europeans on that issue.

 

[Prinsara]

True. However, even in the old-fashioned usage dating from the 19th century, it was the rule to use Mrs. Surname instead of the usual Mrs. Husband's Forename and Surname when referring to the highest ranking married woman using that surname.

For example, the wife of the head of an untitled family would be referred to as plain Mrs. Windsor, while her daughters-in-law would be referred to as Mrs. William Windsor, Mrs. Henry Windsor, et al.

On the same basis, the traditional rule was to style, say, wives of heads of state and government as plain Mrs. Surname, not Mrs. Husband's Surname, as they were presumed to outrank other untitled women of the same family name. Buckingham Palace seems to follow that rule more often for wives of prime ministers and the like, though they are very inconsistent.

I would have thought that being a royal princess and the husband of a royal princess would import enough social status to justify being addressed as the highest ranked Ogilvys/Phillipses/Brooksbanks/Mapelli Mozzis, even applying the old-fashioned rules.




Good question indeed. Some royal watchers have argued that Elizabeth II was from an older generation than Harald V or Carl XVI Gustaf (who have each updated the rules within their royal families, including but not limited to making titles and names less gender discriminatory) and so should not have been expected to adapt as they have. But Charles III is younger than them both, and he has continued with the Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, Mrs. Michael Tindall, etc.

The contrary argument is that at least with the British system, the names of both spouses are equally represented in the style. In the Scandinavian system a princess could have married any Mr. Ferner or Mr. Ambler, and it was unintentionally or intentionally a signal to the husbands that they were not that important.

The question of whether a woman wants her spouse's name used at all is another question. I wonder if the CC has Emily Thornberry down as Lady Nugee when in Parliament she is known as the former (although I do think the BRF has modernized with regards to addressing most people who are not them or slightly-extended family).

 

[JR76]

The contrary argument is that at least with the British system, the names of both spouses are equally represented in the style. In the Scandinavian system a princess could have married any Mr. Ferner or Mr. Ambler, and it was unintentionally or intentionally a signal to the husbands that they were not that important.

It has nothing to do with the husband being less important. In general in Scandinavia at the time a wife would be known by her husband's profession and his last name, but never by his first name. For example Fru Overlæge Mortensen (Mrs Chief Physician Mortensen) or Fru Kabinettssekreterare Knutsson (Mrs State Secretary Knutsson) with neither her nor her husbands first name mentioned. Once the increasingly unmanageable Swedish system of styling (called the Swedish style plague) started reforming during the same period the titles were often ditched and instead the common way of styling were Mr & Mrs Mortensen and Mr & Mrs Knutsson.

 

[LauraS3514]

[QUOTE
Now I wonder why Queen Elizabeth II went a step further than even the Norwegian and Swedish monarchs with their unequally-married princesses, and styled Alexandra, Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie not only as Mrs. Husband's Surname (as was the case with the Norwegians and Swedes) but as Mrs. Husband's Forename and Surname.[/QUOTE]

The way I've always understood it is that while I call myself "Sally Smith" (not my real name, by the way) "Mrs. John Smith" can be translated as "(Wife of) John Smith." This convention is pretty ingrained in countries that came out of the English tradition, especially the United States. It is slowly disappearing but will probably still be with us for another century, but I'll not be around to find out if I'm right.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Mistake. By accident

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Britain has never recognised the concept of 'unequal' marriages or 'morganatic' marriages. The Europeans were always more 'snobbish' about that while the British always took the view that a wife was automatically raised to the status of the husband on marriage.

I have read that the Kaiser and a few others European royal houses thought that George V had lowered himself in marrying a mere Serene Highness rather than a Royal Highness in marrying Mary of Teck. Queen Victoria was scathing in her reply and totally opposed to the views of the Europeans on that issue.

That’s true for the most part, but for the longest they (British) typically married other royals not because of laws like other Europeans but for diplomatic, and just because that’s how things were. The closest thing to unequal is a person marrying without consent of the sovereign. Yes the other royals thought lowly of Queen Mary for being a serene highness. But sometimes continental Europeans only accepted unequal unions when the continuation of their family lines were in jeopardy.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Britain has never recognised the concept of 'unequal' marriages or 'morganatic' marriages. The Europeans were always more 'snobbish' about that [...]

That is not entirely true. Please see my explanation here:

Morganatic Marriages In European Monarchies

But from that point of view: All the more reason to question why Queen Elizabeth II adapted a convention invented specifically for Scandinavian princesses who made unequal marriages for the princesses of her own family.