Non-British Styles and Titles

[Isabel]

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

Yes, but didn't the Queen issue letters of patent that said in effect, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the HRH title is taken away?

One could reason that since Diana and Sarah were only HRHs due to their marriages, then that style would have ceased for them if they divorced anyway.

In the case of Sophie, if she divorced Edward, then more than likely she would at least be know as Sophie, Countess of Wessex....as Diana and Sarah at least kept their titles..

Yes, Diana and Sarah both lost their HRH's after their divorces. Diana was to be titled.....Diana, Princess of Whales, and Sarah....Sarah, Duchess of York. No HRH's.

[Lady Marmalade]

Thank you Isabel. :)

The titles can be a complex concept in some cases for understanding who gets called what in certain cases..

[BeatrixFan]

Diana was not an HRH at the time of her death, nor was she a Princess. Her title showed that she was a former Princess. She wasn't due deference befitting a Princess and however regal she may have behaved or considered herself, she was a commoner. The media may have christened her Princess Diana but she wasn't when she divorced, nor when she died. The new Princess of Wales is Camilla and she isn't Princess Camilla as I've seen pop up in places.

I personally think that on divorce, the woman should revert to her maiden name - Diana should have gone back to her Spencer title instead of trying to play the Princess card. She knew that the Press were thick and would still call her Princess Di - the sad thing is, I believe she came to think she still was.

[Warren]

I trust the subject of Diana is not going to take over this thread.

Here is Ysbel's original question:

Are there any other royal divorces where the wife kept the title or gave it up?

W

[ysbel]

Yes I know Diana dropped the HRH designation but she kept the Princess of Wales title. Now if my husband had fooled around on me, I'd rather keep the HRH which is pretty generic and drop the Princess of Wales title that is so closely associated with my cheating ex. Who wants to be forever reminded of one's philandering husband? But I don't think she had that option.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Warren

I trust the subject of Diana is not going to take over this thread.

Here is Ysbel's original question:

Are there any other royal divorces where the wife kept the title or gave it up?

W

Hi Warren,

Actually my question was both about Diana and other royal women who got divorced. I couldn't understand if her divorce was as rancorous as it was, that she would want to keep the Princess of Wales title that was so closely associated with her husband and guessed that protocol must have been a factor. So I was looking for other contemporary examples to go on.

There don't seem to be many other contemporary examples.

[BeatrixFan]

What if the Duke and Duchess of Windsor had divorced?

She was HRH The Duchess of Windsor (non-morganatic marriage and all that) even though she didn't use the title. So if she divorced the Duke, I assume she'd have been Wallis, Duchess of Windsor and not The Duchess of Windsor.

Confusing or what?

[Emilia]

I know it is not the same , but Queen Fabiola also hold her title " Queen" , instead of to become Princess , afther the death of King Boudewijn .

Does somebody knows why ?

[BeatrixFan]

I'd imagine to show her past position. Much like the Queen Mother. She used the title, HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother to show that she had been Queen at one time and to show that she was mother to the present Queen.

I can't imagine Fabiola being anything other than Queen Fabiola. :)

[Lady Marmalade]

I would agree with you BeatrixFan.

I like the fact HM QEII allowed consent for Alice to become HRH Princess Alice of Gloucester when her husband died so as to avoid confusion between herself and her daughter-in-law, the new duchess.

Now....what do you all think Princess Michael's title would be if they divorced, banking on the fact Prince Michael does not have any subordinate titles, like his brother, other than prince and I do not think HM would let her keep the title of princess. But, I could be wrong...

[BeatrixFan]

I imagine she'd lose the whole thing. She wouldn't become Michael, Princess of Kent would she? I think in that situation, the Queen would make her a Duchess or something.

[sesa]

This was the way it was explained to me when I was wondering about royal titles.
Titles are just like legal names for commoners. When you marry, usually, the wife takes on the husbands name. When they divorce, there is nothing that says they have to legally revert back to their madien name, so they are still legally know as Princess whatever, even though they are not legally a princess. Just like when commoners divorce, they go from a Mrs. back to a Ms. but the last name remains the same as the husbands. For Royalty, they loose the HRH but keep the title since it is part of the name. They are legally no longer "royal" unless they came from a royal bloodline themselves, and have no legal claim to the title, but they are still known as Princess of whatever since that is what they were formally known as these.
Not sure if I explained it correctly, but this is how is was explained to me, so it could be right, it could be very wrong. But it made sense to me!

[Lady Marmalade]

I think it makes sense as well.

For everything that had happened during the divorce, the one thing that made sense to me is why and how COULD SHE KEEP the HRH, when in fact it was only a part of the title for the duration of her marriage and if she became a widow.

I could see her keeping her title but it made sense not to be able to use HRH.

I just thought of something.

Princess Michael could also go back to her title of Baroness as that is what she was before she married.

But knowing her...she would keep the Princess title.... :)

I know I would...

So, when the Dukes of the Blood Royal die and their sons inherit their titles of Duke of Gloucester and Kent, that means they will be addressed as Your Grace, taking the style and rank of a Duke in the peerage, as the sons are not HRH.

[sesa]

Originally Posted by Emilia

I know it is not the same , but Queen Fabiola also hold her title " Queen" , instead of to become Princess , afther the death of King Boudewijn .

Does somebody knows why ?

Just because her husband died does not mean that she is demoted to a lower rank of Princess. She is still a queen in her own right since she was married to the King. Just like when commoners are married and the spouse dies, they are still known as "Mrs." Whatever. They do not revert back to Ms. or Miss because they are not single. They are widowed, hence keeping the "Mrs." .

[Sean.~]

Lady Marmalade]I do understand titles and the history as to why they renounced and had to change their titles to sound more English. Please do not insult me on here like that. You implied it by the way your sentences are typed.

Believe what you wish.

As we have seen in many countries, Germany, Japan, Russia, Greece etc., the recognition of titles and such may not be by their governments, but the families are still passing them down generation to generation and I think that is wonderful to ensure and instill the names and titles going down the line. No one is being hurt in the process.

More importantly, how can you state unequivocally that no one is being hurt in the process? Indeed, many who suffered under the monarchist regime in Greece would disagree (the majority did *vote* for abolishment, you know). As would entire peoples who suffered under the pograms of the tsars, and whose descendants are still marginalized in Russian society and/or are cognizant of what their ancestors underwent.

I was never erroneous in my postings on here in any sense. None of us, I assume are real royals or aristocrats on here.

Actually, several of your assertions were, in fact, shown to be incorrect. At least have the intellectual integrity to admit it. For example, your comments regarding the various styles of Highness & the royal "pecking order" (which I clarified in a previous post) were incorrect, as was your assertion that the Grimaldi's are a royal family when in fact they are a sovereign princely family. Not to mention your (alarming) claim that royals were innocent during the great wars (some were and some were not --- see my previous posts).

Furthermore, one doesn't have to be a royal or an aristrocrat to know the internecine details of these systems. In fact, in my experience royal hobbyists and scholars are more likely to now much more than many "royals" and aristocrats, as this is their hobby or line of work. For instance, Marlene Koenig (who specializes in QVD) is more likely to know about Queen Victoria's descendants than many of Queen Victoria's descendants themselves.

Indeed, many royals and aristocrats are very ill informed about their histories and/or the histories of other families, precedents, geneology, orders of chivalry, etc. As a result,they often look to many of the scholars or hobbyists who posts on these boards for help.

Just because the British peerage system is the one most well known, does not make the socially superior one.

Yes, but many, if not most, perceive it as such. That's the point.

Again, these families can call themselves whatever they wish too, legal and official or not.

Actually, it often does matter. Particularly if they want to live in certain places (see below) and/or if they want to avoid being the subject of ridicule.

If they want to use Princess of Hanover or Prussia or whatever rather than adding them as a last name such as Von Hapsburg, I dot believe anyone will protest.

You believe wrong then. Many have protested & many are offended (not to mention that those who use these titles them are often viewed as pretentious as rather ridiculous ). For an example, just take a gander at the 'Marie Chantal -- What do you think of her ?' thread, and you will see that many Greeks are, in fact, offended. And the Greek government has prostested on numerous ocassions to Downing Street. There were also protests in 1995 when Pavlos married MC & even back in the 1970s at Caroline of Monaco's wedding, when the Greek Ambassador insisted that Greece did not have a King (Constantine was an invitee) and refused to attend the pre-wedding ball.

Whether the country is now a republic or monarchy or communist, or whatever does not matter in the sense if the families wish their titles to pass generation to generation, they probably do not care if they are recognized officially and legally by the governments in the former countries they once ruled.

Pitty, because not caring or recognizing the will of legitimate governmets and people is one of the reasons many of them are relegated to titles of pretension as opposed to real ones. ;-)

Kidding aside, I don't think you or I are in a position to know their state of mind.

I hardly think any government in Europe will care too much given there are so many real problems to deal with in today's world. :)

More pressing problems nothwistanding, governments and people often do care. As stated in previous posts, it depends on how the monarchies ended in many of these countries. Otto had to renounce his claims to the Austrian throne to be let in again & titles there are still forbidden. Victor Emmanuelle & Filberto had to swear allegience to the republic before being allowed back a couple of years ago. I've already given examples on the Greek situation, and I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the Greek government fought Constantine tooth and nail with respect to his claims for compensation. And, as Idriel has pointed out, identity, names, titles, etc. are legal issues under the control of the government in every country.

Still, to a certain extent you are correct insofar as many of these so-called "royals" and wannabe royals/aristos are not taken seriously by most people. Rather, they are relegated to the back pages of Point de Vue where they look ridiculous while schmoozing with B list personalities, wannabes, and other questionable and sometimes unsavoury characters. One sees them and thinks "my, how the mighty have fallen!"

[Sean.~]

PS: No offence intended! I know you know far more than I do and I appreciate your posts. :)

Don't sell yourself short. You know quite a bit and made some extremely good points in response to the previous poster's claims.

[Lady Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Sean.~

Believe what you wish...

I believe wrong....hmm....just have to smile and shake my head..

Given what is going on the world with real issues facing governments, I do not think any average Austrian is going to care if Geza Von Habsburg calls himself Archduke.

I also do think any of our British friends will view their aristocracy as superior to another country's royalty, given the average British person probably could care less about their dukes, earls, etc.

Ex-King Constantine will still call himself king....Pavlos will still use the title crown prince...and their descendents, unless the Greek government forces them physically otherwise, will still be princes and princesses.

People have protested in the past...but in today's world, the minorty of people smarting from the ex-royals and ex-aristocracy using their titles has to be so very small...very, very small...

[magnik]

Maybe it was before but could anyone explain me what happen wit the titles of Prince of Wales and Duke of York.
King have two sons: Prince of Wales and Duke of York. Both have children.
After kiong's death the Prince of Wales become a king and his eldest son become POW.
What about king's younger son - did he become DOY or not?
If yes what will happen with his uncle - is he still a DOY or not? And what about his(uncle) children - titles?


Thanks:)

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by magnik

Maybe it was before but could anyone explain me what happen wit the titles of Prince of Wales and Duke of York.
King have two sons: Prince of Wales and Duke of York. Both have children.
After kiong's death the Prince of Wales become a king and his eldest son become POW.
What about king's younger son - did he become DOY or not?
If yes what will happen with his uncle - is he still a DOY or not? And what about his(uncle) children - titles?

The Duke of York would be the Duke of York until his death, and if he had any sons, they would inherit the title. There is no automatic in that the second oldest son is awarded the title, as far as I'm aware.

[auntie]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

The Duke of York would be the Duke of York until his death, and if he had any sons, they would inherit the title. There is no automatic in that the second oldest son is awarded the title, as far as I'm aware.

If the title is available, they are awarded that title. Hopefully Prince Andrew will still be around when Harry ties the knot(gets married), so maybe Prince William's second son (if he has one?)will be the next Duke of York