Non-British Styles and Titles

[NGalitzine]

Not sure but Marquis de Baux is the official title given to the heir apparent to the throne, borne by Albert before his succession.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Baroness of Books

I'm surprised the title of Marquis of Baux precedes Duke de Valentinois since a marquis is a lesser title than a duke. Any reason that you know, Artemisia?

Most other titles are by courtesy (from France, for instance) and not necessarily recognised on international scale.
The Marquis of Baux title, on the other hand, is the title of the Sovereign Prince of Monaco that passes, whenever possible, from the reigning Prince to the Heir Apparent to the Throne. Prince Albert has had the title since 1958; when his eldest son is born, he'll have it.

It's a bit like Prince Charles' title of Earl of Chester; it is mentioned immediately after the title of the Princes of Wales and before the title of the Duke of Cornwall - even though "Duke" obviously outranks "Earl" (His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay...). That's because the title of Earl of Chester actually goes with the title Prince of Wales. Similarly, the title of Marquis of Baux more or less goes with the title Sovereign Prince (or Hereditary Prince), hence its precedence over titles which would, under normal circumstances, outrank it.

I must add that this is my interpretation - there might be other reasons as well.

[Baroness of Books]

Thank you both, NGalitzine and Artemisia, for the explanation.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by kbk

Artemisia, are queen consorts really obliged by the protocol to curtsy to queens regnant? Isn't that a wife takes the rank and precedence of her husband?

Baroness of Books already gave a great answer; I'll just elaborate a little more.

Think of US Presidents and First Ladies; the latter may be the "First Lady" of the country (taking her rank and precedence from her husband) but she isn't the in the office or doing the ruling - she is just a spouse. Thus, she is equal to other First Ladies, but not to Presidents.

Similarly, Queens Regnant are Heads of States, whereas Queens Consort are just wives of Head of States; as such, the former outranks the latter.
A Queen Regnant (or any Head of State, whether elected or reigning) doesn't have to curtsey to anyone at all. A Queen Consort takes her rank from her husband and as such is, usually, the first lady in the Kingdom; however, they are still outranked by Queens Regnant, so yes, they do have to curtsey to them.

An easy way to remember who must curtsey to whom (this is true for Britain and most European Monarchies):
- A Queen Regnant (or any Head of State) doesn't curtsey to anyone.
- A Queen Consort must only curtsey to Reigning Heads of State (Kings and Queens Regnant).
- A Queen Mother must only curtsey to Reigning Heads of State (Kings and Queens Regnant), as well as the current Queen Consort.
- A Queen Dowager must only curtsey to Reigning Heads of State (Kings and Queens Regnant), as well as the current Queen Consort, and the Queen Mother.

[SLV]

What is the difference between a Queen Dowager and a Queen Mother. Are they not the same?

[Baroness of Books]

Even better explanation, Artemisia, great analogies. The prime example of queen dowager, queen mother and queen regnant all in one scenario would have been Queen Mary as dowager, Queen Elizabeth as queen mother and the Queen as regnant. And I'll venture into the difference between a queen dowager and a queen mother by saying that the first is a widowed queen who is not the mother of the current sovereign (i.e. Queen Mary) but the latter is also a widowed queen who has a child on the throne - mother of the sovereign - and therefore a queen mother. A queen mother can be a queen dowager, but not necessarily the reverse. Queen Mary was actually queen mother when both Edward VIII and George VI were on the throne, but was always known as Queen Mary. Hope I got this all straight!

Carol Middleton will never be a queen mother, however, although her daughter will eventually be a queen. She must have been a queen herself. That was also the case with Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII but never a queen herself, who was officially known as "My Lady the King's Mother."

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by SLV

What is the difference between a Queen Dowager and a Queen Mother. Are they not the same?

Not necessarily.

- A Queen Mother is a widowed Queen Consort who is also the mother of the current Monarch.
For example, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was the Queen Mother as widow of George VI and mother of Elizabeth II.

- A Queen Dowager is a widowed Queen Consort who is not not the mother of the current Monarch.
For example, if Charles becomes King and Camilla outlives him, she will be Queen Dowager, not Queen Mother (since the next Monarch, Prince William, is not her child).

It is possible to be both a Queen Mother and a Queen Dowager, although not simultaneously.
For instance, Queen Mary (consort of George V) was Queen Mother from 1936 to 1952 (from the death of George V and during the reigns of her sons - Edward VIII and George VI), and Queen Dowager from 1952 to 1953 (from the reign of her granddaughter, Elizabeth II, and until her death).

Usually, all types of Queens are known simply as "Queen Name", without the addition of Regnant, Consort, Mother, or Dowager.

[SLV]

Thank you. That explains the difference.
It does mean that for say 90% of the time they are the same. Not every (future) male monarch remarries and thereby creates the situation of a Q. Dowager who is not also the Q. Mother. Diana would have been both had she and Charles not divorced (and she niet died). Just like Queen Elizabeth's mother was both and the Queens Mary and Alexandra before her.
Or am I still missing something?

[Artemisia]

In English and British histories, there have been plenty of examples when the new Monarch was not the son the previous Queen Consort. Sometimes, it was because of a remarriage, sometimes - because the previous Queen Consort didn't have children, and sometimes there were other reasons altogether. For instance, Queen Victoria's mother (Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld) was never a Queen of any kind, whereas the previous Queen Consort, Queen Adelaide (widow of William IV) was obviously a Queen Dowager, and not a Queen Mother.

You are absolutely correct in regards to Charles and Diana situation. If they hadn't divorced, Diana would have become Queen Consort when Charles ascended to the Throne. If she outlived him, she would have been Queen Mother. Had she outlived William as well, she would have either remained a Queen Mother (if William were succeeded by Prince Harry), or become a Queen Dowager (if William were succeeded by his own child). Of course, she would have been known simply as "Queen Diana" all along.

- Queen Alexandra was Queen Consort from 1901 to 1910 (the reign of her husband, Edward VII), and Queen Mother from 1910 to 1925 (from the reign of her son, George V, and until her death). She was never Queen Dowager.

- Queen Mary was a Queen Consort from 1910 to 1936 (the reign of her husband, George V), Queen Mother from 1936 to 1952 (the reigns of her sons, Edward VIII and George VI), and Queen Dowager from 1952 to 1953 (from the start of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and until her death).

- Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was Queen Consort from 1936 to 1952 (the reign of her husband, George VI) and Queen Mother from 1952 to 2002 (from the start of her daughter's reign and until her death). She was never Queen Dowager.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by duchessrachel

If something were to happen to William-heaven forbid- before he and Kate have a child, what would her position be in the family should she choose not to remarry?

Unless and until Kate remarries, she'll be considered member of the British Royal Family.
She'll also retain her style of Royal Highness and British Princess by marriage (Princess William).

- If that happens while William is still the Duke of Cambridge, Kate will become the Dowager Duchess of Cambridge. Most probably, she'll just continue being known and styled as the Duchess of Cambridge (without "Dowager).

- If it happens after Prince Charles' accession to the Throne but before William is invested as the Prince of Wales (the title is not automatic), Kate will be styled as the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall (the automatic title of Heir Apparent to the Throne who is also the Sovereign's eldest surviving son), and will be known as such.

- If it happens after William is invested the Prince of Wales, Kate will become the Dowager Princess of Wales and will be known as such.

- If it happens after William's accession to the Throne, Kate will become the Queen Dowager. In everyday life, however, she'll continue being styled and titled as Her Majesty Queen Catherine without the "Dowager".

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Have we ever seen Queen Sonja or Queen Silvia curtsey to QMII? They do see each other rather frequently so if this is the case photographic evidence of a consort needing to make a curtsey to a regnant must be available. I don't recall either Sonja or Marie Therese dropping a curtsey to QEII at the Windsor luncheon.
Is there any photograph of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother or Queen Ingrid or Queen Fabiola ever dropping a curtsey to a visiting reigning monarch. Once widowed they all attended many state events for visiting foreign sovereigns so there should be photographic evidence of this requirement to curtsey.

I pointed out what protocol rules are - not necessarily how current Monarchs (and their spouses) choose to interpret it.
If all protocol rules were followed, we'd witness a very interesting and equally ridiculous display every time two royals (not to mention, many of them) met.

By protocol, a Head of State outranks everyone else - including the spouses of Heads of State. They (Heads of State) are ranked by the year they took office. However, a visiting head of State usually has lower rank (regardless of the date he ascended to the Throne or was elected to the Office) than the host one.

These days, royals operate much more relaxed rules than, say, a century or even a couple of decades ago. Basically, Kings and Queens greet each other based on how close they are, or how formal/informal they want the greeting to be. Queen Rania of Jordan and most other Queens Consort didn't curtsey to Queen Elizabeth (although, strictly speaking, they had to). Grand Duchess Maria Teresa did a semi-bob which was interrupted when the Queen hugged her instead. Queen Margarita of the Bulgarians tried to curtsey but again, the Queen hugged her interrupted the attempt.

Younger royals also choose who to show respect to by curtseying or bowing, whether they have to or not. Princess Charlene (wife of a Head of State) chose to curtsey to the Queen (which she had to by protocol) and Camilla (which she most definitely didn't have to). The Duchess of Cambridge curtseyed to the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester (although she outranks them) and pretty much all Queens, Kings, Crown Prince and Princesses (including Crown Princess Margareta of Romania).

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

Unless and until Kate remarries, she'll be considered a member of the British Royal Family.

- If it happens after Prince Charles' accession to the Throne but before William is invested as the Prince of Wales (the title is not automatic), Kate will be styled as the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall (the automatic title of Heir Apparent to the Throne who is also the Sovereign's eldest surviving son), and will be known as such.

When Charles succeeds to the throne, William will add Cornwall to his existing ducal title thus becoming The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, just as George V was at one time formally titled and known as 'The Duke of Cornwall and York'.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Warren

When Charles succeeds to the throne, William will add Cornwall to his existing ducal title thus becoming The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, just as George V was at one time formally titled and known as 'The Duke of Cornwall and York'.

I always wondered about George V's title prior to becoming the Prince of Wales. Shouldn't the highest title outrank the lower one? And the Duke of Cornwall (as title of the Heir Apparent to the Throne) is undoubtedly higher than the Duke of York, despite both being Royal Dukedoms.

To my understanding, the only times when two Dukedoms are used is when the title is actually dual - such as "Duke of Kent and Strathearn" (title of Queen Victoria's father). Cornwall and York are obviously separate Dukedoms, so why use both as a title?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

Cornwall and York are obviously separate Dukedoms, so why use both as a title?

Because he was the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of York so he was formally titled 'The Duke of Cornwall and York'.

Link: Parliament of Australia

The Opening of the First Federal Parliament

The First Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was opened at the Melbourne Exhibition Building on 9 May 1901. The new King of England, Edward VII, sent his son and heir, the Duke of Cornwall and York, to Australia as his representative. The Duke drove through Melbourne streets lined with cheering crowds to the Exhibition Building, where he declared the Parliament open in front of 12 000 guests.

v thumbnails
1. Parliament of Australia (the above)
2. Wikipedia (Titles of George V)
.

[auntie]

The right way to do it is Queen Mary's way. She was such a fickle for protocol and royal etiquette. Today the custom is that a consort doesn't curtesy to a regnant. I would be appaled had the queen mum had to curtesy to king Carl Gustavo, or any other monarch

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by auntie

The right way to do it is Queen Mary's way. She was such a fickle for protocol and royal etiquette. Today the custom is that a consort doesn't curtesy to a regnant. I would be appaled had the queen mum had to curtesy to king Carl Gustavo, or any other monarch

But that's where respect comes into it, I doubt King Carl would ever have accepted or even expected a curtsey from The Queen Mother.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

I always wondered about George V's title prior to becoming the Prince of Wales. Shouldn't the highest title outrank the lower one? And the Duke of Cornwall (as title of the Heir Apparent to the Throne) is undoubtedly higher than the Duke of York, despite both being Royal Dukedoms.

To my understanding, the only times when two Dukedoms are used is when the title is actually dual - such as "Duke of Kent and Strathearn" (title of Queen Victoria's father). Cornwall and York are obviously separate Dukedoms, so why use both as a title?

The title Duke of York was created for him so it was his until it merged with the Crown.

The title Duke of Cornwall was automatic as he was the eldest surviving son of the monarch and the heir apparent.

As a result - like Frederick Prince of Wales before him (he was Duke of Cornwall and Edinburgh for the first two years of his father's reign) - he was known by both titles - the one he had in his own right and the one he gained due to his position in relation to the monarch.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

But that's where respect comes into it, I doubt King Carl would ever have accepted or even expected a curtsey from The Queen Mother.

No, I doubt king Carl Gustaf expected a curtsey from her or from others, if I remember it right he did abolish that the staff at the Royal Court had to curtsey to him (and to other members of the royal family) when he became king in 1973.

[Tsar bobo Iv]

im not sure if this has been asked yet but you know how these queen like mary of teck Alexandra of Denmark had the places they were born in included in their titles what if Wallis was queen would she been title wallis of america

[Furienna]

No, she would have been "Queen Wallis" or "Wallis Simpson". The "of X" thing is only used for consorts, who were royals (or at least aristocrats) already before the marriage.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Tsar bobo Iv

im not sure if this has been asked yet but you know how these queen like mary of teck Alexandra of Denmark had the places they were born in included in their titles what if Wallis was queen would she been title wallis of america

The "of Teck" or "of Denmark" were used to indicate the royal or noble families or houses the brides came from. And perhaps more practically, they helped to avoid confusions with previous Queens with the same name (there have been, for example, quite a few Queens Mary).

Wallis didn't come from a royal/noble family, nor had there been previous Queens sharing her name. Thus, she would have been known simply as Queen Wallis, or more informally, Wallis Simpson (rather like the Duchess of Cambridge is sometimes called Kate Middleton).

Think of Grace Kelly; no one called her Grace of America before or after her marriage; she was either Princess Grace, or Grace Kelly.