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

[Tatiana Maria]

I can't understand why The King is allowing her to continue to make these relentless appearances, and presumably money, from her title and connections?

The King is allowing his own son and daughter-in-law to make commercial appearances as Prince, Duke and Duchess. It would be hypocritical to apply a different standard to his own descendants versus others.

Charles is powerless in this - he has no ability (or right) to stop her. What she is doing might be distasteful, but she is not breaking the law. And she is not dependent on Charles for anything (Andrew is another matter), so he can't threaten to take things away from her if she doesn't behave. He can't even take her title - as the divorced wife of the Duke of York, she is legally entitled to call herself Sarah, Duchess of York. Only a second marriage to another man would change that, and I doubt that's going to happen.

My understanding is that in the United Kingdom everyone is legally entitled to call themselves whatever they wish, so while it would not be considered correct today (in the past it was), there isn't any legal remedy against a divorced or widowed peeress who chooses to continue using her former husband's title after a remarriage.

 

[Sionevar]

My understanding is that in the United Kingdom everyone is legally entitled to call themselves whatever they wish, so while it would not be considered correct today (in the past it was), there isn't any legal remedy against a divorced or widowed peeress who chooses to continue using her former husband's title after a remarriage.

Probably not, no. It might be viewed by society people as a breach of 'proper procedure' and good manners, but no actually laws would be broken.

There is actually a historical example - something I remember now from the book 'Aristocrats' by Stella Tillyard. Lady Emily Lennox married the man who eventually became the 1st Duke of Leinster. When she remarried after the Duke's death to a man who was a mere 'Mister', she continued to be known as the Dowager Duchess of Leinster. In the TV adaption of the book, this is viewed as a no-no and commented on.

 

[royal-blue]

If Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were to divorce, what would her title be after marriage? Surely it wouldn't remain the same? This would mean that if he were to remarry, there would be two Princess Michaels of Kent?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were to divorce, what would her title be after marriage? Surely it wouldn't remain the same? This would mean that if he were to remarry, there would be two Princess Michaels of Kent?

There is no royal precedent, but the wives of younger sons of non-royal peers continue to be styled as Lady John Smith or The Honourable Mrs. John Smith after their divorce or even after the remarriage of their ex-husband. (So, yes, there are sometimes two women who are simultaneously called Lady John Smith or The Hon. Mrs. John Smith.)

If we apply the same logic, then Princess Michael of Kent should continue to be called Princess Michael of Kent even if her husband were to divorce her and remarry, resulting in two Princesses Michael of Kent. But given that the Royal Family appended "Queen Mother" to the style of Queen Elizabeth (widow of King George VI) to prevent confusion between her and her daughter Queen Elizabeth II, my guess is that the family would also invent a formula for distinguishing the two wives.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

There is no royal precedent, but the wives of younger sons of non-royal peers continue to be styled as Lady John Smith or The Honourable Mrs. John Smith after their divorce or even after the remarriage of their ex-husband. (So, yes, there are sometimes two women who are simultaneously called Lady John Smith or The Hon. Mrs. John Smith.)

If we apply the same logic, then Princess Michael of Kent should continue to be called Princess Michael of Kent even if her husband were to divorce her and remarry, resulting in two Princesses Michael of Kent. But given that the Royal Family appended "Queen Mother" to the style of Queen Elizabeth (widow of King George VI) to prevent confusion between her and her daughter Queen Elizabeth II, my guess is that the family would also invent a formula for distinguishing the two wives.

Would she not be Marie Christine, Princess of Kent with the title after her name? I'm thinking of the post divorce titles of Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Would she not be Marie Christine, Princess of Kent with the title after her name? I'm thinking of the post divorce titles of Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York.

The post-divorce titles of Diana and Sarah followed the model of ex-wives of non-royal peers, who add their name before the title after divorcing.

But Princess Michael is not married to a royal peer, only to the younger son of a royal peer. Thus, it would make more sense to apply the model of ex-wives of younger sons of non-royal peers, who continue using the same title and do not add their name.

 

[Roslyn]

The post-divorce titles of Diana and Sarah followed the model of ex-wives of non-royal peers, who add their name before the title after divorcing.

But Princess Michael is not married to a royal peer, only to the younger son of a royal peer. Thus, it would make more sense to apply the model of ex-wives of younger sons of non-royal peers, who continue using the same title and do not add their name.

I am inclined to think that she would be just Marie Christine Kent.

Prince Michael doesn't have a peerage title, or any other style, title or attribute. He just the titular dignity of "Prince" because he is the son of a son of a sovereign. Thus the usages relating to divorced wives of younger sons of non-royal peers is not apt, in my opinion.

The 1996 Letters Patent only deal with the style, title or attribute of "Royal Highness" and provided that a divorced wife of a royal highness no longer has the right to use that style so uses her own first name with the former husband's title as her surname, hence "Diana, Princess of Wales".

Since "Prince Michael" is a name and not a title, Marie Christine could not become "Marie Christine, Princess Michael" or Marie Christine, Princess of Kent". Unless she chose to revert to her pre-marriage surname, she would have no option but to use her own forename with her untitled husband's surname just as any other divorced woman who was married to an untitled man.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

I am inclined to think that she would be just Marie Christine Kent.

Why would she not be Marie Christine Windsor?

 

[EllieCat]

Wasn't she a Baroness? So perhaps Baroness Marie Christine Windsor.

Poor Princess Michael; here we all are divorcing her off when I think the odds of her doing so is a million to one!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Roslyn, as I am not sure if I have understood your reasoning, please correct me as appropriate.

As you pointed out, the Letters Patent of 1917 designate "Prince or Princess" as a "titular dignity", whereas they designate the usage of Lady etc. for male-line great-grandchildren as "the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes".

Is your reasoning that since Princess is designated a "titular dignity" while (for example) Lady is designated a "style and title", the rules for the latter should not be extended to the former?

I honestly have no idea whether there is any substance to the distinction in terminology, but after giving it thought, it might be sensible to be more restrictive with Princess than with Lady. It is not clear to me if Sarah, Duchess of York lost the title of Princess when she divorced (since she, as with any other British royal duchess, never used the princess title even when she undoubtedly held it during the marriage, because the ducal title always took priority). But if Sarah ceased to be a princess on divorce, it would be logical for the same to happen to Marie-Christine.

However, I cannot picture a former royal princess being demoted to a plain Mrs. while the ex-wives of younger sons of non-royal dukes continue to be called Ladies. So perhaps, if the King opted against continuing to call her Princess after a divorce, he would style her as Lady.

Why would she not be Marie Christine Windsor?

Yes, if Princess Michael of Kent were to lose her royal title, she would lose the territorial designation "of Kent" as well, leaving only her legal surname.

 

[Count langley]

While anything can change is is likely she would become Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent without the HRH.

 

[Milla Rose]

While anything can change is is likely she would become Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent without the HRH.

I agree, this is probably what would happen.

 

[Roslyn]

Roslyn, as I am not sure if I have understood your reasoning, please correct me as appropriate.

As you pointed out, the Letters Patent of 1917 designate "Prince or Princess" as a "titular dignity", whereas they designate the usage of Lady etc. for male-line great-grandchildren as "the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes".

Is your reasoning that since Princess is designated a "titular dignity" while (for example) Lady is designated a "style and title", the rules for the latter should not be extended to the former?

I honestly have no idea whether there is any substance to the distinction in terminology, but after giving it thought, it might be sensible to be more restrictive with Princess than with Lady. It is not clear to me if Sarah, Duchess of York lost the title of Princess when she divorced (since she, as with any other British royal duchess, never used the princess title even when she undoubtedly held it during the marriage, because the ducal title always took priority). But if Sarah ceased to be a princess on divorce, it would be logical for the same to happen to Marie-Christine.

However, I cannot picture a former royal princess being demoted to a plain Mrs. while the ex-wives of younger sons of non-royal dukes continue to be called Ladies. So perhaps, if the King opted against continuing to call her Princess after a divorce, he would style her as Lady.


Yes, if Princess Michael of Kent were to lose her royal title, she would lose the territorial designation "of Kent" as well, leaving only her legal surname.

My reasoning was based on the premise that princess by marriage is a lesser status than duchess by marriage. Duchess is a courtesy title whereas princess is just a courtesy dignity. In the case of a divorced duchess, e.g. Sarah Duchess of York, "Duchess of York" is her surname. In the case of a divorced non-royal princess, there is no equivalent that I could think of, hence my suggestion of Kent, based in the example set by Katherine Kent, but of course Katherine is still The Duchess of Kent so can use the territorial designation. Windsor would indeed seem to be more appropriate for Marie-Christine.

Just my musings. There are no Letters Patent on point, and no precedent.

 

[padams2359]

I guess just look at how the Earl of Snowden’s ex wife progresses.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Given that King Charles III has agreed to the Sussex children possessing as well as using royal titles (it was his choice to make, as George V's 1917 letters patent are not binding on subsequent monarchs, in the same way that earlier monarchs' decisions on royal titles were not binding on George V), I see no good reason* why he should not offer the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto, Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall, and any future children of Princess Charlotte the option of taking on royal titles.

Snowdon, Sarah, Peter, Zara, and Charlotte's potential future children are as much grandchildren of a monarch as Archie and Lilibet. The fact that they are private non-working members of the royal family should be no impediment because Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet are not expected to become public working members of the royal family, either.

*I do not consider "But Prince Harry is a man and Princesses Margaret, Anne, and Charlotte are only women" to be a good reason. I am aware that the majority believes it is.

[...] Titles aren't created out of whole cloth on a whim. [...]

[...] if it is not a "whim" for Archie and Lilibet to carry royal titles, then neither would it be a "whim" for other private non-working grandchildren to do so.

Except there is no mechanism in place for the others to claim any sort of title, whereas with Archie and Lilibet it was already their birthright under the existing LP. Something that King Charles is very unlikely to change for the future.

With all due respect, I see no conflict between what you have written and what I wrote in my original post. As your last sentence appears to acknowledge, it is a voluntary choice to continue implementing the overtly sexist mechanisms laid down by the present sovereign's great-grandfather in 1917.

With respect back, any monarch will most likely only be concerned with the status of their own descendants and not their extended cousins. If King Charles did have an issue with the "sexist mechanisms" of the current LP, then he certainly would only limit changes to Charlotte going forward and not worry about Margaret's children or Anne's. Either way it wouldn't impact Archie or Lilibet unless changes were also made to male line children which would be very messy i.e. Denmark.

I see your point; however, if King Charles III did take issue with the sexist "mechanisms" (a word I used because you employed it and I thought it was very fitting) of the 1917 Letters Patent, I think it is much more likely that he would have planned to withhold Prince/Princess status from Prince Harry's children rather than planning to extend it to Princess Charlotte's children, since the former was the main possibility for modernizations to royal titulature to be floated in the press during the previous reign. Therefore, I do believe King Charles III has made a choice.

My reasoning was based on the premise that princess by marriage is a lesser status than duchess by marriage.

I understand that reasoning, but being (for example) Lady Colin Campbell by marriage is a lesser status than being a princess or duchess by marriage, and such Ladies traditionally continue using their courtesy titles after divorce.

I guess just look at how the Earl of Snowden’s ex wife progresses.

But his ex-wife is a former peeress and has never been a princess, whereas a hypothetical divorced Marie-Christine would be either a princess or former princess and has never been a peeress.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The King is allowing his own son and daughter-in-law to make commercial appearances as Prince, Duke and Duchess. It would be hypocritical to apply a different standard to his own descendants versus others.



My understanding is that in the United Kingdom everyone is legally entitled to call themselves whatever they wish, so while it would not be considered correct today (in the past it was), there isn't any legal remedy against a divorced or widowed peeress who chooses to continue using her former husband's title after a remarriage.

But which other royals use their titles in commercial work? None of the extended family use their titles professionally or for commercial work other than the Sussexes

 

[Marengo]

It's time to close this thread. Youc an find the new one here.