Non-British Styles and Titles

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Esmerelda

It's to designate the heir more clearly as the Dutch have equal primogeniture. Her daughter Amalia will be Princess of Orange in her own right, not because of marriage to the Prince of Orange. Does anyone know if Maxima will be Queen one day or, like her father-in-law continue as a princess?

When the Bill of Consent for the marriage was discussed in Parliament it was said that it would be decided when Willem-Alexander becomes King if Máxima will become Queen or remain Princess.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Esmerelda

It's to designate the heir more clearly as the Dutch have equal primogeniture. Her daughter Amalia will be Princess of Orange in her own right, not because of marriage to the Prince of Orange.

Okay, I understand it now, even though I still find it unnecessary.

[Esmerelda]

I think it makes sense. If a man can't take his wife's title, the same should apply to a woman. They haven't decided if Maxima will be Queen, though. There hasn't been a Queen Consort of the Netherlands for 3 generations so maybe they're just used to a specific title for the monarch.

[IloveCP]

Were Prince Clause and Henrik considered "commoners"?And also Mathilde?

[PrincessKaimi]

Sometimes, I think Prince Charles is capable of being quite a remote and strict monarch. It will be fascinating to see what he does in his reign. Perhaps taking away the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie, but instituting equal primogeniture will seem balanced in his view. I will bet good money that he would never, ever take any title away from his own sons.

It would be easy, I would think, in Charles's mind to demote his siblings' children, especially with Andrew's foibles.

Charles will have enough people to support with just Harry and Harry's future wife/family without also having to support Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Reading history, I know that being a princess is a guarantee of absolutely nothing, except, perhaps, the ability to marry much better than the rest of us.

Which is why I keep asking what Mr. Clark (Princess Beatrice's beau) does for a living. I'm fairly certain he has no title. So if she marries him, does she retain her title??

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi

Charles will have enough people to support with just Harry and Harry's future wife/family without also having to support Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Reading history, I know that being a princess is a guarantee of absolutely nothing, except, perhaps, the ability to marry much better than the rest of us.

Which is why I keep asking what Mr. Clark (Princess Beatrice's beau) does for a living. I'm fairly certain he has no title. So if she marries him, does she retain her title??

Charles might have Harrys wife and future possible children but they might not arrive for another 30 years. So as the older generation pass away or retire from work, who will work for the BRF? You have Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise and James should they choose to do royal duties.
Mr. Clark works for Virgin, that's all I know and I am not surprised.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

Were Prince Clause and Henrik considered "commoners"?And also Mathilde?

I suppose that depends on your definition of a commoner. According to the British standard, both Claus and Henrik were commoners before they married.

Claus' father was a member of untitled German nobility and his mother was a Baroness.. but since he carried no title or peerage of his own before his marriage, I would consider him a commoner - aristocratic to be sure, but a commoner nonetheless.

Henrik on the other hand, was a Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin from birth. His father was Friedrich Francis II, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and his mother was Princess Marie of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt. Clearly he was born of higher nobility than Claus, but I would also consider him a commoner before marriage.

The German titled nobility has a different structure, whereby all the children receive titles from birth, but those titles are courtesies and only the eldest son and heir becomes invested with the actual peerage.

Henrik was the youngest child of Friedrich Francis II, and therefore did not inherit his father's title. That honor went to his eldest half-brother, Friedrich Francis III.

[PrincessKaimi]

Thank you, LumutQueen.

I suppose that Prince Edward himself (and Sophie) could be pressed to do more, right? It will be interesting to see if, after Prince William's time with the SAR team runs out, he begins to take on duties that lead to himself and Kate doing the level of appearances that Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla are doing. It's going to take a while, I'd think, for the young couple to get up to that level of constant appearances.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Charles might have Harrys wife and future possible children but they might not arrive for another 30 years. So as the older generation pass away or retire from work, who will work for the BRF? You have Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise and James should they choose to do royal duties.
Mr. Clark works for Virgin, that's all I know and I am not surprised.

I think that the idea is that there will be fewer working royals and thus fewer royal engagements at all.

The idea, to me, is that as the current crop of cousins passes away they won't be replaced with a new crop of cousins but that William, Kate and Harry's eventual spouse (I exclude Harry as he will be serving in the army, I suspect, for at least another 20+ years) to pick up the slack.

We have only recently been told that the York girls have been told to get their own careers as they don't have a future for the firm. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie pay price for row over Duke of York's trade role - Telegraph
"It has been made clear that the Princesses should pursue their own careers and have no formal roles," a courtier claims. "The Prince of Wales is keen that the Royal family should be seen to have 'slimmed-down'."

[Lumutqueen]

I read your similar comment somewhere else, cannot remember where. A coutier claims? Haha that's hardly solid evidence. Charles reducing engagements sounds very un-royal and more time saving.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I read your similar comment somewhere else, cannot remember where. A coutier claims? Haha that's hardly solid evidence. Charles reducing engagements sounds very un-royal and more time saving.

It has been reported for over a decade that Charles wants to slim down the size of the royal family and to do that means either fewer engagements or more engagements for fewer people - I suspect that latter.

I really do think that Charles would like to only have his family regarded as royal when he is King - that his siblings can continue with their existing roles but that their children fade into the background completely.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for instance, only his descendents appear on the balcony at things like the Trooping the Colour each year.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi

Which is why I keep asking what Mr. Clark (Princess Beatrice's beau) does for a living. I'm fairly certain he has no title. So if she marries him, does she retain her title??

Yes, she will keep her HRH and still be a princess of York, even if she marries someone untitled. She would then be:

HRH Princess Beatrice of York, Mrs. Clark

Her husband will remain Mr. Clark and not receive any title.

If she marries, say, the Earl of Nonsuch, she would add that title to her own.. becoming:

HRH Princess Beatrice, The Countess of Nonsuch

or simply be known as:

HRH The Countess of Nonsuch

[Diarist]

Please can I try to help with a little more background information?

The British Royal family has encountered the problem of a Princess marrying a spouse without a title on seveal occasions: In 1973, when the Princess Royal was still known as Princess Anne, she married the then Lieutenant Mark Phillips (later Captain Mark Phillips]. After her marriage, the Princess was referred to as 'HRH Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips' in the Court Circular etc

A decade or so earlier, Princess Alexandra had married the Hon Angus Ogilvy, who was the younger son of the 12th Lord Airlie. It was reported that Angus Ogilivy was offered a peerage but that he and Princess Alexandra had declined this. During the first part of her marriage, the Princess was known as 'HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon Mrs Angus Ogilivy'. Her Husband was subsequently honoured by the Queen and made a Knight Commander of the Royal Vicotrian Order, ['Sir Angus Ogilvy] whereupon the princess was known as Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

Should Princess Beatrice marry her boyfriend, then, as HM Quee Catherine as said above, she will become HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs David Clark. It is all part of the Uk law that a woman is entitled to the use of 'her husband's style and title', [whether her husband is a Prince or (merely) an Esquire]

Hope this helps,

Alex

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine

I suppose that depends on your definition of a commoner. According to the British standard, both Claus and Henrik were commoners before they married.

Claus' father was a member of untitled German nobility and his mother was a Baroness.. but since he carried no title or peerage of his own before his marriage, I would consider him a commoner - aristocratic to be sure, but a commoner nonetheless.

Henrik on the other hand, was a Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin from birth. His father was Friedrich Francis II, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and his mother was Princess Marie of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt. Clearly he was born of higher nobility than Claus, but I would also consider him a commoner before marriage.

The German titled nobility has a different structure, whereby all the children receive titles from birth, but those titles are courtesies and only the eldest son and heir becomes invested with the actual peerage.

Henrik was the youngest child of Friedrich Francis II, and therefore did not inherit his father's title. That honor went to his eldest half-brother, Friedrich Francis III.

Henrik wasn't a commoner. Mecklenberg Schwerin was an independent country within the Holy Roman Empire and the North German confederation and the German Empire afterwards. As such his father and brother were monarchs and he was the son of a monarch and therefore royalty.

[Esmerelda]

Originally Posted by Diarist

Please can I try to help with a little more background information?

The British Royal family has encountered the problem of a Princess marrying a spouse without a title on seveal occasions: In 1973, when the Princess Royal was still known as Princess Anne, she married the then Lieutenant Mark Phillips (later Captain Mark Phillips]. After her marriage, the Princess was referred to as 'HRH Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips' in the Court Circular etc

A decade or so earlier, Princess Alexandra had married the Hon Angus Ogilvy, who was the younger son of the 12th Lord Airlie. It was reported that Angus Ogilivy was offered a peerage but that he and Princess Alexandra had declined this. During the first part of her marriage, the Princess was known as 'HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon Mrs Angus Ogilivy'. Her Husband was subsequently honoured by the Queen and made a Knight Commander of the Royal Vicotrian Order, ['Sir Angus Ogilvy] whereupon the princess was known as Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

Should Princess Beatrice marry her boyfriend, then, as HM Quee Catherine as said above, she will become HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs David Clark. It is all part of the Uk law that a woman is entitled to the use of 'her husband's style and title', [whether her husband is a Prince or (merely) an Esquire]

Hope this helps,

Alex

Isn't Princess Anne referred to as the Princess Royal? Or is this not her official title?

[Lumutqueen]

Anne is now referred to as Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, but prior to 1987 she was Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Esmerelda

Isn't Princess Anne referred to as the Princess Royal? Or is this not her official title?

Princess Anne has been HRH The Princess Royal since 13 June 1987, when she was granted the title.

The title of Princess Royal must be created by the sovereign, is granted for life and only one Princess Royal may exist at a time.. meaning that there can be no other lady invested in the title until Princess Anne dies.

She is still HRH The Princess Anne, but is known at HRH The Princess Royal.

[PrincessKaimi]

And I would think that she would remain The Princess Royal for at least another 30 years, and will be doing royal duties all that time. By that time, William and Kate's children will be taking over the less duties and William will be very busy indeed.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by fearghas

Henrik wasn't a commoner. Mecklenberg Schwerin was an independent country within the Holy Roman Empire and the North German confederation and the German Empire afterwards. As such his father and brother were monarchs and he was the son of a monarch and therefore royalty.

Precisely why I said it depends on your definition of a commoner.

I have generally followed the British standard of what a commoner is.. and according to that standard, a person is a commoner if they do not personally hold a peerage.

It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is royal.

I consider Henrik a commoner because he did not hold a peerage in his own right.. his title "Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin" was a courtesy title.

In the British example, Prince William of Wales was a commoner until he married and became HRH The Duke of Cambridge. Now that he holds a peerage in his own right, he is no longer a commoner.

There is no doubt that Prince William has always been royal, but that has nothing to do with whether he was a commoner or not.

And Mecklenburg-Schwerin was an independent state of the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire, but it was at no time an independent country, to my knowledge. In reviewing the history of the duchy, they were in fact one of the poorer states in the Empire.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine

Precisely why I said it depends on your definition of a commoner.

I have generally followed the British standard of what a commoner is.. and according to that standard, a person is a commoner if they do not personally hold a peerage.

It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is royal.

I consider Henrik a commoner because he did not hold a peerage in his own right.. his title "Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin" was a courtesy title.

Maybe according to the British system. But he never was British. And in Mainland Europe a different system was in existance which put people into a class system. On top of the "Stände-Gesellschaft" (the German word for it) were the souverains and their families, topped by the Imperial famiy in the Holy Roman Empire and the monarchs of the countries of the other parts of Europe. Then came the nobility, which included all members of noble families. Second "class" were the clerics and third the "burghers" - La bourgeoise who had rights within the cities they lived in (some were called patricians, according to the Ancient Roman system). All others were "commoners", most of which were "owned" by their landowners as they belong to the "common land" which was given to nobles or clerics by the king including the people who lived there.

Thus calling a German member of Royality a "commoner" is denegrading him.