Furienna
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,438
- City
- Örnsköldsvik
- Country
- Sweden
I believe that Wallis should have gotten an HRH, as long as it was clear that she would lose it if she divorced David.
Last edited:
Indeed. She did become a duchess, but never a princess (and even as a duchess, she was never allowed a HRH to Edward's chagrin). And no, I don't believe that anybody would refer to the Duke of Windsor as "Prince Edward" either. He had been a prince until he became king, of course. But he was made a duke after his abdication, without being a prince again.well she was never a princess, as such was she? She married Edward after he had left the throne but he was not known then as a Prince.. and she was not allowed to share his style of HRH.. so it mystifies me why anyone would think of her as "Princess Wallis".
She was denied royal rank in its entirety. A decision riddled with hypocrisy of course but it’s all ancient history now and I don’t think it much bothered the Duchess.
Indeed. She did become a duchess, but never a princess (and even as a duchess, she was never allowed a HRH to Edward's chagrin). And no, I don't believe that anybody would refer to the Duke of Windsor as "Prince Edward" either. He had been a prince until he became king, of course. But he was made a duke after his abdication, without being a prince again.
Yep, when Edward VIII made his abdication speech, he was introduced as "His Royal Highness Prince Edward".Immediately after Edward abdicated he was referred to as Prince Edward, until he became the Duke of Windsor.
Immediately after Edward abdicated he was referred to as Prince Edward, until he became the Duke of Windsor.
All sorts of people, both official and private persons, are asking whether, when you marry, your wife will be made a "Royal Highness". It has never happened in all history that a woman who married a man who cannot succeed to the Throne has been so described; indeed, it is pointed out to me that, strictly speaking, you yourself lost the right to this title by the fact of abdication. As long ago as the time of Queen Victoria it was laid down that no one could be a "Royal Highness" who was not in the line of succession.
"entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the style title or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said style title or attribute"
Would Edward not have been given any peerage, he would have reverted to the style he was born with, that of a prince of the blood royal, and Wallis would have been "The Princess Edward" indeed. As we could see with the funerary arrangements of Edward and Wallis, both were buried with the honours of a prince (princess) of the United Kingdom, with their royal standard bedecking their coffin et al.
That makes sense. It may have been a bit hard on Wallis but I think that the RF made the right decision. Keeping David as DOW meant that he could not stand for parliament, had he been so inclined, and he could not whinge too much as he had willfully givne up his royal rank..but I know that the RF were worried bout Wallis leaving him... by the standards of the day, having had 2 divorces, it was considered that she might well have a third.. and clearly they DID fear her continuing to use the title even if she split up with David...
Technically, the Duke had the right to sit in the House of Lords as a peer of the realm but AFAIK no member of the Royal Family had exercised the right to actually attend and contribute to sittings since Edward VII as Prince of Wales. And even then that only happened occasionally.