Non-British Styles and Titles

[Lumutqueen]

Might want to check this wiki page out, Royal and noble styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[qzwxec]

Originally Posted by GrandDuchess

When Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones got married in 1999 - Queen Elizabeth II created the styles of Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn for Prince Edward, and Sophie became the Countess of Wessex. They are both HRH's.

As you might know, it was also descided that their children will not get the titile of HRH, only the courtesy titles that are for the son or daughter of an Earl. Therefore, their firstborn is known as Lady Louise Windsor.

However LEGALLY Louise and James are HRH and Princess and Prince, and if at 16 (legal age in Britain) they want to use HRH and Prince or Princess I don't think unless whoever is King by that time (we must assume the Queen will be gone by then) expressly forbids them to use it, that they can legally be known as HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh and HRH Prince James of Edinburgh.

(As we all know there is an agreement that at the time of Prince Philip's death, that title will be recreated for Edward who then will become Duke of Edinburgh).

[qzwxec]

Originally Posted by moosey60

When Sophie Rhys-Jones married Prince Edward, I believe she rejected the title "Princess".

NO....totally NO.
She is HRH Princess Edward, The Countess of Wessex shortened, by convention to HRH The Countess of Wessex. She is a Princess and shares her husbands name.

Originally Posted by Lord Sosnowitz

Yes, but I think she is a princess as Princess Alice, same situation, I think.

Yes just as Alice was a Princess-Consort.
Later in life, the Queen allowed Alice to use the title of HRH Princess Alice, (Dowager) Duchess of Gloucester, but legally she was not a princess in her own right but shared her late husbands name. The Queen even made it official when in the Court Circular she was referred to as Princess Alice. It was a way of the Queen showing some respect & love towards her aunt.

Originally Posted by wymanda

I remember reading that Princess Marina, who was born a Princess, and Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone were unhappy that the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester was permitted to be known as Princess Alice. Their reasoning was that she was only entitled to be known as Princess Henry or Dowager Duchess of Gloucester as she was not and never had been a Princess in her own right.

Does anyone know if she was made a Princess after her husbands death and, if so, was this done by Letters Patent?

From what I understand it was only done by convention by the Queen. The Queen loved her late Aunt and to show her respect allowed her to use Princess Alice, instead of Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, which is considered old fashioned.

[Diarist]

If I could help with some information:

Wymanda, I don't think that Marina could have been upset about the use of 'Princess' as a courtesy title by Princess Alice, because Marina died almost 10 years before the Duke of Gloucester!!!!! The article you read was therefore factual incorrect in this regard. Unless the author of the article has some way of communicating with the dead. I can't comment on what Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone thought though, as she did not die until 1981ish.

The phrase 'sharing of one's title' is perhaps a little misleading: the reason that Sophie is 'The Countess of Wessex' is because UK law [ although it should be noted that sometimes things are a little different under Scottish law when it comes to titles] is that any wife [royal or not] has the 'right to her husband's style and title' This is most noticeable with the aristocracy and the royal family, but it applies in all walks of life: Thus Susan Smith marries Mr Michael Jones and formally is entitled to be address as 'Mrs Michael Jones'.

One more tiny correction: the legal age of majority in the UK is 18, not 16.


Hope some of this helps,

Alex

[HRHHermione]

My guess is that if James and Louise are ever going to use their HRHs, it'll be after their father is created Duke of Edinburgh. If we don't see them used then, I think we can assume they'll never use the titles and instead always choose to be styled as the children of a duke. That's pure speculation on my part though.

[PrincePatrick]

Part of me thinks that I would feel gipped at not being able to use the title that was my birth right, but look at how well Peter and Zara turned out... There is something to be said for having that HRH Target taken off your back, but there's something special about being a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom isn't there? I honestly can't say whether I would insist on having my HRH/Prince style restored or not, but I definitely see why their parents would have insisted that they be raised with styles of children of an Earl.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

My guess is that if James and Louise are ever going to use their HRHs, it'll be after their father is created Duke of Edinburgh. If we don't see them used then, I think we can assume they'll never use the titles and instead always choose to be styled as the children of a duke. That's pure speculation on my part though.

As it is possible that won't happen for another 15 years or so (it can't happen until both the Queen and Philip are dead - if it happens at all) and they will have grown to adulthood without it and not be needed or wanted as working royals I see no need for them to ever start to use the HRH.

I wouldn't be surprised if Charles actually formalises their status by issuing new LPs to restrict the HRH to the grandchildren of a monarch only from the heir and not from younger children (thus stopping Harry's children being HRH as well as stripping it from Beatrice and Eugenie). This would fit in with the smaller royal family idea as well.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by qzwxec

(As we all know there is an agreement that at the time of Prince Philip's death, that title will be recreated for Edward who then will become Duke of Edinburgh).

That is NOT the case.

The title has to merge with the crown before it can be regranted and that can't happen until the death of both The Queen and Philip as Charles is the heir apparent to the Edinburgh title.

There are various scenarios by which the title can reach Edward, although the most probable is that after the death of both his parents Charles becomes King and recreates the title for his younger brother but there are also scenarios by which the title mightn't be available for regrant

e.g. William has a daughter first and then a son. With the change to gender blind succession the daughter will inherit the crown. Then William and Charles, die before the present Queen - the daughter becomes heir apparent to the Queen but the son becomes Duke of Cambridge immediately and Duke of Edinburgh on the death of his great-grandfather.

[Grandduchess24]

For whom is the title His / her illustrious highness usually for? Because I've discovered a duke with thus title and his children are princes/princesses

[Artemisia]

His/Her Illustrious Highness is a style used by certain members of the European aristocracy. Initially, the style was reserved for the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire; over the years, however, it came to be used by members (usually cadet) of German and Austrian Princely families such as Salm, Schonburg, Waldburg and others. Mostly, the style is used by most mediatised princely counts and countesses, as well as by Russian Princely (but not Imperial) Families.

Illustrious Highness is one of the lowest styles of address for royalty. For example, when Grand Duke Ludwig III of Hesse-Darmstadt created Julia Hauke (the wife of his younger brother) Countess of Battenberg, he gave her the style of Illustrious Highness; later, the Countess and her children were elevated to Serene Highness.

[Royal Smurfness]

When the mother of Queen Elizabeth married King George, she became queen.
When Prince Philip married Queen Elizabeth, he did not become King.
Why is that so?

[branchg]

Because a King technically outranks a Queen, even if the female is regining as Sovereign. Therefore, a consort is limited to being a Prince of the UK and/or a Royal Duke.

Philip married the present Queen when she still heiress presumptive of George VI. The King created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich and granted him the rank of HRH. But he did not create him a Prince of the UK.

The King also issued Letters Patent after Elizabeth became pregnant granting their children the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, rather than courtesy styles as the children of a Peer. After she became Queen, she announced that Philip would have place, pre-eminence and precedence next to The Sovereign at all times, granting him rank ahead of Prince Charles as heir to the throne.

In 1957, she issued Letters Patent granting Philip the style and rank of a Prince of the UK in his own right and his title became "HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh".

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Royal Smurfness

When the mother of Queen Elizabeth married King George, she became queen.
When Prince Philip married Queen Elizabeth, he did not become King.
Why is that so?

Simple answer; wives assume their husbands’ styles and titles, but husbands do not assume their wives’ styles and titles.

In Britain (and most other countries), a man can only be King if he is the Monarch – if he inherited the Throne from his predecessor. Prince Philip isn't a King because he is not the Monarch and was not next in the Line of Succession at the time of George VI's death. His wife is the Monarch, which is why all his styles and titles are his own - and not through his wife.

On the other hand, the King’s wife is always a Queen. When the Duke of York ascended to the Throne as George VI, his wife automatically became his Queen Consort. Similarly, when Prince Charles becomes King, Camilla will be his Queen Consort, and when it is William's turn - Kate will be the Queen Consort.

It is the same not only in Britain, but in most counties of the world. Queen Margrethe of Denmark’s husband, Prince Henrik, is not a King, and neither was Prince Claus – Queen Beatrix of the Netherland’s husband. On the other hand, in some countries such as my own - Armenia - the husband of a female Monarch usually assumed the title of a King and became her co-regnant Monarch.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by branchg

After she became Queen, she announced that Philip would have place, pre-eminence and precedence next to The Sovereign at all times, granting him rank ahead of Prince Charles as heir to the throne.

'Except where otherwise provided by an Act of Parliament'. -


This means that in Parliament e.g. as a member of the House of Lords Charles took precedence over his father (not on the occasions when Philip accompanied The Queen to the State Opening). This would therefore only have happened on the days that both Charles and Andrew formally took their seats in the House of Lords assuming Philip attended Charles' day and that both Philip and Charles formally attended the day Andrew took his seat. I can't find any reference to that happening though.

[Frelinghighness]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

As it is possible that won't happen for another 15 years or so (it can't happen until both the Queen and Philip are dead - if it happens at all) and they will have grown to adulthood without it and not be needed or wanted as working royals I see no need for them to ever start to use the HRH.

I wouldn't be surprised if Charles actually formalises their status by issuing new LPs to restrict the HRH to the grandchildren of a monarch only from the heir and not from younger children (thus stopping Harry's children being HRH as well as stripping it from Beatrice and Eugenie). This would fit in with the smaller royal family idea as well.

Why wasn't Edward made a royal duke upon marriage? Aren't his children styled as Ear/countess children, not royal dukes?

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Frelinghighness

Why wasn't Edward made a royal duke upon marriage? Aren't his children styled as Ear/countess children, not royal dukes?

The decision to grant Prince Edward only an Earldom was indeed a surprising one because the sons of the Sovereign usually do get Dukedoms upon marriage. However, at the time of Prince Edward's marriage it was also announced that he'll eventually inherit the title of the Duke of Edinburgh from his father; if he had been created a Duke, that would mean he'd have two Dukedoms - an unfair advantage over other Royal Dukes. This way, he'll eventually have a title of a Duke (Edinburgh), Earl (Wessex) and Viscount (Severn) - in other words, a pretty standard package for a Royal Duke.

Prince Edward's children are indeed styled as children of an Earl - upon their parents' request. However, legally James and Louise are a Prince and Princess with the style of Royal Highness; no one has cancelled Letters Patent 1917 so far, and according to those all male-line grandchildren of the Monarch are automatically entitled to those styles and titles.

[Frelinghighness]

Thank you for clearing that up. Why would he inheirit the duke of Edinburgh title, was it decided then, or if that the way that title goes, youngest male of sovereign?

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Frelinghighness

Thank you for clearing that up. Why would he inheirit the duke of Edinburgh title, was it decided then, or if that the way that title goes, youngest male of sovereign?

The rules of inheritance of the title as the same as with most other peerage titles - from father to eldest son. Thus, under normal circumstances, Prince Charles is the one to inherit it. However, it was decided by the Royal Family that Prince Edward should inherit that particular title from his father.

Most probably, the title will be inherited by Prince Charles by normal means of succession, who then will re-create it for his younger brother when he becomes King.
You can read about future of the title in this thread - The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title.

[Madame Royale]

as well as stripping it from Beatrice and Eugenie

No, I can't see Charles stripping his nieces of a style they have held since birth. Both women being in either their late twenties or mid to late thirties by the time it could happen? Why that would be a terrible injustice toward either woman. Quite frankly it would appear rather harsh of him to do so.

This isn't war torn Britain with a need to disassociate from ancestral distinctions, but a mere revision of who will infact makes up the working royal family. This does not then suggest that titles granted before the time of his succession are going to be repealed upon review of the current system. Beatrice and Eugenie could very well retain their style and title and work in whatever reputable job they desired. Both women appear sensible and intelligent so I doubt there would be any need for concern regarding the dignity of their titles nor for the reputation of the immediate royal family.

I think it more likely that Charles will grant Letters Patent regarding the use of royal styles from the time of his accession and there after, but not prior too. It would be a real cheek for him to do so as it was not only entitled, but granted by his mother, the sovereign of the day.

The only two people who's official (royal) styles and titles I could imagine him rescinding are Louise and James but as they have never used what is rightfully theirs, at their parents request, then it wouldn't much matter.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

No, I can't see Charles stripping his nieces of a style they have held since birth. Both women being in either their late twenties or mid to late thirties by the time it could happen? Why that would be a terrible injustice toward either woman. Quite frankly it would appear rather harsh of him to do so.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely Prince Charles actually removes the title from his nieces. However, it would not be without a precedence for that: when George V issued his 1917 Letters Patent, many a British Princess (more remote that granddaughters of a Monarch) suddenly found themselves without the titles they were born with. Among them were:

- Princess Frederica of Hanover
A great-granddaughter of George III of the UK, and daughter of George V of Hanover, she had been a British Princess for 69 years.

- Princess Marie Louise of Hanover
A great-great-granddaughter of George III of the UK, granddaughter of George V of Hanover, and daughter of Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, she had been a British Princess for 38 years.

- Princess Alexandra of Hanover
A great-great-granddaughter of George III of the UK, granddaughter of George V of Hanover, and daughter of Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, she had been a British Princess for 35 years.

- Princess Olga of Hanover
A great-great-granddaughter of George III of the UK, granddaughter of George V of Hanover, and daughter of Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, she had been a British Princess for 33 years.

- Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
A great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, granddaughter of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and daughter of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, she had been a British Princess for 9 years.

- Princess Caroline Matilda of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
A great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, granddaughter of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and daughter of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, she had been a British Princess for 5 years.

- Frederica of Hanover (Queen Frederica of Greece)
A great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria (on maternal side) and great-great-great-granddaughter of George III (on paternal side), she had been a British Princess from her birth in 1917 and until the Letters Patent 1917 came into effect.