Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[duchessrachel]

I have several questions about the Prince/Princess title which I will put in boldface. I have been reading books recently on the British Royal Family. I just finished two on Queen Mary. It seems that back then the titles of Prince/Princess were more liberally given out. Maybe I am just misunderstanding because, honestly, I get so confused sometimes on who is who in those books that I have begun to keep lists every time a person is mentioned for the first time so that I can remember who they are. What are the rules for who is given the title of Prince/Princess in the BRF? I know that Princess Anne refused titles for her children and heard that Edward and Sophie did not want their children to be Prince/Princess. So why are Bea and Eugenie princesses? Also, I know the Queen made sure that William and Kate's children would be Prince/Princesses. If she had not done so, would their titles have changed to Prince/Princess upon William's succession to the throne? It seems to me that it would be easier just to make a rule saying that those people in direct succession to the Throne that cannot drop down in line due to the birth of someone else are prince/princess. It is just all so confusing to me and I want to understand. Thanks.

 

[Somebody]

What are the rules for who is given the title of Prince/Princess in the BRF? I know that Princess Anne refused titles for her children and heard that Edward and Sophie did not want their children to be Prince/Princess. So why are Bea and Eugenie princesses? Also, I know the Queen made sure that William and Kate's children would be Prince/Princesses. If she had not done so, would their titles have changed to Prince/Princess upon William's succession to the throne? It seems to me that it would be easier just to make a rule saying that those people in direct succession to the Throne that cannot drop down in line due to the birth of someone else are prince/princess. It is just all so confusing to me and I want to understand. Thanks.

There are very clear rules:
- Children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign are HRH with titular dignity of prince or princess
- The children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are also princes and princesses (until recently the rule was that the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was also a prince, but the Queen has extended this to all his children)

So, to clarify the current situation:
- Peter and Zara were never to be Royal Highnesses with the titular dignity of Prince and Princess; if their father had accepted a (noble) title, their titles would have derived from his titles.
- Beatrice and Eugenie are entitled to HRH and princess as male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign.
- Louise and James were entitled to HRH and prince(ss), however, the Queen decided otherwise and that is why they are now known als Lady Louise and Viscount Severn (as children of a normal earl)
- George would have been HRH prince George of Cambridge independent of the Queen's Letters Patent; Charlotte (and her future brother/sister) would have been Lady (or Lord) until their grandfather's (so Charles', not William's!) ascension to the throne had the queen not issues the Letters Patent.

Something you didn't ask, but might wonder: Harry's children won't be HRH and prince(ss) under the Queen's reign, the eldest son will take his father's secondary title and the others will be known als Lord and Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. According to the current rules, they will become HRH and prince(ss) when Charles ascends the throne (if he never does and William becomes King instead, Harry's children will never be entitled to HRH and prince(ss)); however, we've seen with the children of Edward and Sophie that this is not a given (the Sovereign can always decide otherwise), so we have to see how it all plays out.

Hope this clarifies; if not, feel free to ask further questions.

Moderators, could you please move the question above and my answer to the appropriate thread as this is about the British and not the Swedish royal family titles. Thanks!

 

[Pranter]

I would be very surprised to not see Harry's children made HRH if the Queen is still alive when they are born...UNLESS he objects to the titles.


LaRae

 

[Spheno]

I have several questions about the Prince/Princess title which I will put in boldface. I have been reading books recently on the British Royal Family. I just finished two on Queen Mary. It seems that back then the titles of Prince/Princess were more liberally given out. Maybe I am just misunderstanding because, honestly, I get so confused sometimes on who is who in those books that I have begun to keep lists every time a person is mentioned for the first time so that I can remember who they are. What are the rules for who is given the title of Prince/Princess in the BRF? I know that Princess Anne refused titles for her children and heard that Edward and Sophie did not want their children to be Prince/Princess. So why are Bea and Eugenie princesses? Also, I know the Queen made sure that William and Kate's children would be Prince/Princesses. If she had not done so, would their titles have changed to Prince/Princess upon William's succession to the throne? It seems to me that it would be easier just to make a rule saying that those people in direct succession to the Throne that cannot drop down in line due to the birth of someone else are prince/princess. It is just all so confusing to me and I want to understand. Thanks.

You can find all rules on these pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_prince
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_princess

 

[Skippyboo]

I would be very surprised to not see Harry's children made HRH if the Queen is still alive when they are born...UNLESS he objects to the titles.


LaRae

The more children that the Cambridges have Harry's children get pushed more and more into the Beatrice and Eugenie zone of not really needed. It would not be too shocking if Harry's went the same route as Edward and Sophie with no HRH for the kids.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Frankly with Henry, I would be surprised if his children had HRHs. They don't need them, and they'll have a better life without them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There are TWO Letters Patent that cover the HRH titles currently in force in the UK, along with a third issuing of The Queen's Will.

1. 1917 Letters Patent. This gives HRH to the children of the monarch, all male line grandchildren, the eldest son of the eldest son and the wives of the males who qualify. This means the following are HRHs:

a) children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward
b) male-line grandchildren of a monarch - - from Charles - William and Harry; from Andrew -
Beatrice and Eugenie, from Henry, 3rd son of George V - Richard - The Duke of Gloucester; from George -
4th son of George V - Edward - The Duke of Kent, Alexandra and Michael
c) eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch - George
d) spouses of the males listed above - Camilla, Sophie, Kate, Birgitte - The Duchess of Gloucester, Katherine - The Duchess of Kent and Marie-Christine (aka Princess Michael of Kent)

So why not Louise and James. In 1999 the Queen's Will was made known that the children of Edward and Sophie would be styled as the children of an Earl rather than HRH. I personally wrote to BP to confirm that that meant they were no longer HRHs and have had that confirmed by BP itself.

2. The other LPs are the 2012 LPs that the Queen issued to cover all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - hence Charlotte and the new baby are/will be HRH Prince/Princess, whereas under the 1917 LPs only George would be HRH.

Given what happened in 1999 I don't expect that Harry's children will be HRH in the Queen's reign and she may even follow the 1999 announcement and let it be known that Harry's children will be styled as the children of a Duke/Earl or whatever title he is given with Charles and William agreeing with that idea. With a third child for the Cambridge's there is even less need for anymore HRHs in that generation given the antipathy to the 3rd and 4th HRHs in William and Harry's generation. Harry's children won't be called upon to do royal duties so being a Lord/Lady would be more beneficial than being HRH.

I suspect that the intention is to eventually limit the HRH to the children of the monarch and the heir to the throne but not to the younger children's children and with Charlotte not passing on HRH it would also make sense that any younger brothers don't have that right when they will be lower in the line of succession.

Andrew's children are HRHs because they are the children of a son of the monarch. Nothing needed to be done to have them so styled while for Anne separate LPs would have been needed to give them any title. Remember that the Queen was born the first child of the Duke of York - the same position as Beatrice.

It should be noted that in 1948 George VI had to issue LPs giving HRH to all the children of The Princess Elizabeth otherwise Charles would have been born Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth and Anne born as Lady Anne Mountbatten. Even though Elizabeth was the heiress to the throne she was still only a girl and so, like her aunt Mary, sister Margaret and daughter Anne didn't have the automatic right to pass on HRH to her children.

Any earlier rules that applied before 1917 were ended with the LPs issued that year.

 

[duchessrachel]

There are very clear rules:
- Children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign are HRH with titular dignity of prince or princess
- The children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are also princes and princesses (until recently the rule was that the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was also a prince, but the Queen has extended this to all his children)

So, to clarify the current situation:
- Peter and Zara were never to be Royal Highnesses with the titular dignity of Prince and Princess; if their father had accepted a (noble) title, their titles would have derived from his titles.
- Beatrice and Eugenie are entitled to HRH and princess as male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign.
- Louise and James were entitled to HRH and prince(ss), however, the Queen decided otherwise and that is why they are now known als Lady Louise and Viscount Severn (as children of a normal earl)
- George would have been HRH prince George of Cambridge independent of the Queen's Letters Patent; Charlotte (and her future brother/sister) would have been Lady (or Lord) until their grandfather's (so Charles', not William's!) ascension to the throne had the queen not issues the Letters Patent.

Something you didn't ask, but might wonder: Harry's children won't be HRH and prince(ss) under the Queen's reign, the eldest son will take his father's secondary title and the others will be known als Lord and Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. According to the current rules, they will become HRH and prince(ss) when Charles ascends the throne (if he never does and William becomes King instead, Harry's children will never be entitled to HRH and prince(ss)); however, we've seen with the children of Edward and Sophie that this is not a given (the Sovereign can always decide otherwise), so we have to see how it all plays out.

Hope this clarifies; if not, feel free to ask further questions.

Moderators, could you please move the question above and my answer to the appropriate thread as this is about the British and not the Swedish royal family titles. Thanks!

Thanks for that answer. That clears up a lot.

 

[cepe]

Thanks for that answer. That clears up a lot.

As per Iluvberties post, George would not have been automatically Prince/HRH because he would have been the great grandson of the Monarch. Hence the need for LPs 2012

 

[Iluvbertie]

As per Iluvberties post, George would not have been automatically Prince/HRH because he would have been the great grandson of the Monarch. Hence the need for LPs 2012

Actually George would have been - but Charlotte and the new baby wouldn't have been.

George is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and was covered by George V LPs but younger siblings weren't going to be HRHs until Charles became King.

That left the scenario of a first born girl, being the future monarch under the Succession to the Crown Act, being born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and then the younger brother being the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales who wouldn't be the monarch being HRH Prince George from birth.

Hence the 2012 LPs to give the HRH to all of William's children so regardless of gender of the first born child it would be royal from birth.

 

[Skippyboo]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

No, George would have been covered by the 1917 LP as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. If George was a girl, then she would not be an HRH when born even though she would be a future monarch per the 1917 LP.

The first boy was the only with a HRH per the 1917 LP, any other kids were non HRHs. The other kids is what the Queen corrected with the new LP.

 

[NoShades]

The tradition in the UK is that males in the royal family are created royal dukes on their wedding day. I don't see the Queen deviating from this at all or give Harry any kind of a "lesser" title than his brother. It just doesn't work like that.

As been stated before Edward was a one off thing with it intended that Edward be created the Duke of Edinburgh after the Queen and the DoE pass on. Edward will just become a royal duke on a different occasion than his wedding day. A duke is actually the highest ranking of a peer in the UK. Its interesting to note too that a prince is not a peer in the UK but the title "prince(ss) is used to denote a close relative of a monarch.

When the Queen (or the monarch) creates a royal duke, it is not a courtesy title. The Prince of Wales is not a courtesy title nor is The Princess Royal a courtesy title. Courtesy titles are those that are used by a spouse or a child of a peer or a royal. They take their titles and styles from the peer. Prince Michael of Kent is not a peer with any other title than "prince". Marie Christine takes her title and style from her husband and is therefore known as Princess Michael of Kent as a courtesy. If Harry wasn't to get any peerage upon his marriage, then Meghan would be Princess Henry of Wales.

The ins and outs of titles in the UK is a fascinating subject.

Would it not have been possible for Edward to be made the Duke of Wessex after marriage, and then inherit his Father's title as well when the time comes? I'm not an expert on this so thanks in advance.

 

[miss whirley]

When Charles becomes King, William will then be The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. He will still keep those titles should Charles create him The Prince of Wales. One doesn't replace titles but adds onto them. Charles is still very much The Duke of Cornwall which is why Camilla has her title of The Duchess of Cornwall to use. She is also very much The Princess of Wales but has chosen to be styled with Charles' older title.

If it is created a duke, looks like a duke and walks like a duke, it will most certainly be a duke forevermore. Sorry... just had to do it and wake up my funny bone.

Well, Cornwall does get replaced by Lancaster, eventually.

 

[Curryong]

I don't think there's been a double Dukedom granted since Queen Victoria gave the title of Duke of Clarence and Avondale to Prince Eddy, who died young, (George V's older brother) and that was a different case anyway.

 

[Osipi]

Well, Cornwall does get replaced by Lancaster, eventually.

Right. I should have said that titles accumulate until one becomes the monarch and then all previous titles revert to the crown. That is the reason why both the Queen and Philip will have to pass on before Charles can create Edward The Duke of Edinburgh. If the Philip predeceases the Queen, Charles inherits his father's title as the eldest son and heir.

With Harry its a lot simpler. He will most likely be created a duke when he marries and that's it for life.

 

[Curryong]

? I suppose the short answer to NoShades original question would be 'No' I guess, as no younger son of the British monarch bears two dukedoms at the same time or one after the other, just the eldest, the heir to the throne, who has Cornwall and Rothesay (in Scotland.)

 

[NoShades]

Well, Wessex as an area/place doesn't exist today so I assume the title Earl & Countess of Wessex is a courtesy title. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I am truly fascinated in knowing.

? I suppose the short answer to NoShades original question would be 'No' I guess, as no younger son of the British monarch bears two dukedoms at the same time or one after the other, just the eldest, the heir to the throne, who has Cornwall and Rothesay (in Scotland.)

Sorry, just seen this. I'm all over the place today

Anyway thanks for explaining.

But when Charles is King , William I think will be made Prince of wales ? Or he may forgo the title n remain Duke of Cambridge.

The point is that William anyway will have a higher title / placement in the firm as it is . So if Harry is made a duke on his wedding then he will remain one forever .

Hi, yes that's right - it's just from how I've studied the way the Queen confers titles on the Windsor males, it appeared to me she styles according to position of birth and in an orderly way. For example, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York and so on. Yes, Charles has a couple of dukedoms, but first and foremost he is the Prince of Wales. And as it will likely be quite a while before there's a change of guard with regard to Charles' ascension to the throne, I'm not sure the Queen will feel it right that William and Harry along will their wives should hold the same rank & position at the same time. Especially in a very hierarchical system. I'm not sure I'm making any sense.

 

[Curryong]

Well yes it is a hierarchical system. I'm not sure that the titles are always 'in order' though. For instance, the title of Duke of York is traditionally the title given to the monarch's second son. Queen Victoria deviated from that, however, when her second son became Alfred Duke of Edinburgh.

It just happens to be that Charles has only two children, and as the elder, William, is second in line to the throne, then naturally he will move up to Duke of Cornwall, then Prince of Wales when Charles becomes king.

It is more noticeable I suppose when there are only two sons, but of course all Queen Victoria's three younger sons were Dukes and therefore of the same rank, and all King George V's younger sons were of the same rank as Dukes too, until Albert, the second son ascended the throne as George VI after the Abdication.

 

[Jacknch]

Many thanks Curryong, that's exactly the information I was trying to work out myself.

So, we can expect all the sons of a monarch or grandsons of a monarch (who would of-course eventually become sons of a monarch themselves) to become Dukes upon marriage.

 

[miss whirley]

Many thanks Curryong, that's exactly the information I was trying to work out myself.

So, we can expect all the sons of a monarch or grandsons of a monarch (who would of-course eventually become sons of a monarch themselves) to become Dukes upon marriage.

Eventually in theory, maybe not always in reality. Even if Charles were to die tomorrow, and thus Harry will never be the son of a monarch, I'm still sure that The Queen would give Harry a Dukedom on his wedding day.

 

[Queen Claude]

I believe that Harry will get a dukedom upon marriage but there is not a precedent for it since when George V got his dukedom he was the heir. Theoretically his grandmother may not grant Harry a dukedom and his wife will be Princess Henry.

If things happen as expected then William will have three dukedoms: Cambridge, Cornwall and Rothesay.

 

[miss whirley]

I believe that Harry will get a dukedom upon marriage but there is not a precedent for it since when George V got his dukedom he was the heir. Theoretically his grandmother may not grant Harry a dukedom and his wife will be Princess Henry.

If things happen as expected then William will have three dukedoms: Cambridge, Cornwall and Rothesay.

Yes, I thought of that. But George was still single and only 26 when his elder brother died, and he became the heir's heir. Had his brother lived, I think he would of still became The Duke of York in QV's lifetime.

QV's youngest son was made a Duke at 28. So I think George would have been made a Duke at around the same age or at the very least when he was getting ready to marry. His brother's death just fast forwarded things a bit.

 

[Skippyboo]

Victoria gave out peerages before marriages. Eddy had a peerage. George V made Bertie and Henry Dukes well before their marriage. George was the only one that got his Dukedom around his wedding. He got it a month before.

However, we have not seen this behavior from Queen Elizabeth. Andrew, Edward and William all got their peerages on their wedding day. So it would be expected she would do the same for Harry.

 

[padams2359]

Let's not forget, although Harry is the second son of a future monarch, he cannot be made Duke of York until Andrew passes, and Charlotte cannot be named Princess Royal until Anne passes. If Andrew had a son, the title would probably never be available to Harry. It just so happens that the current and last Dukes of York only had daughters.

 

[Skippyboo]

Charlotte can't be named Princess Royal until her father is King, even if Anne has passed prior to that point.

With the age difference between Charles and Andrew, it's quite likely when Andrew passes William is King so Harry isn't the second son of the monarch when the York Dukedom is free. Kate could be carrying the next Duke of York right now.

 

[LauraS3514]

Let's not forget, although Harry is the second son of a future monarch, he cannot be made Duke of York until Andrew passes, and Charlotte cannot be named Princess Royal until Anne passes. If Andrew had a son, the title would probably never be available to Harry. It just so happens that the current and last Dukes of York only had daughters.

As has been said above, the title of Duke of York has not passed from father to son by inheritance since 1460, when Richard Duke of York was killed in battle and his son Edward Earl of March succeeded him. This Edward Duke of York became Edward IV later that same year. Since that time, all Dukes of York have either died childless or have become King, with the exception of the current Duke, Prince Andrew, who has only daughters who cannot succeed him.

My guess is that the next Duke/Duchess of York could conceivably be George's oldest child - given absolute primogeniture. Scenario: William is King and George is a young man and Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall. Andrew passes after a long life, leaving York vacant. At a suitable time (marriage, etc.) George's oldest child becomes Duke OR Duchess of York. That would keep the title in the royal family, becoming the "new" tradition - that Duke/Duchess of York is the title for the Sovereign's grandchild who is the Heir to the Heir.

 

[Countessmeout]

As has been said above, the title of Duke of York has not passed from father to son by inheritance since 1460, when Richard Duke of York was killed in battle and his son Edward Earl of March succeeded him. This Edward Duke of York became Edward IV later that same year. Since that time, all Dukes of York have either died childless or have become King, with the exception of the current Duke, Prince Andrew, who has only daughters who cannot succeed him.

My guess is that the next Duke/Duchess of York could conceivably be George's oldest child - given absolute primogeniture. Scenario: William is King and George is a young man and Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall. Andrew passes after a long life, leaving York vacant. At a suitable time (marriage, etc.) George's oldest child becomes Duke OR Duchess of York. That would keep the title in the royal family, becoming the "new" tradition - that Duke/Duchess of York is the title for the Sovereign's grandchild who is the Heir to the Heir.

Highly unlikely it would be George's oldest child.

Actually its highly possible it will be baby three if its a boy, George's new sibling. Or girl if they decide to join the 21st century and give daughters titles since equal inheritance. The reality is Andrew will be 58 when the kid is born. Royals are marrying older. If new baby is in his thirties when he marries, like Harry and even his dad almost, Andrew would be in his late eighties or nineties. There is no saying he will live as long as his parents.

There seems to be little reason to institute a 'new tradition'. Since George's eldest child will be prince of wales one day, the title would merge. More likely if George's new sibling is married in Andrew's life time, it will be his second child who is Duke of York.

Be nice if they joined the twenty first century, and when Charlotte married she was made duchess of x in her own right. But never holding my breath on that.

 

[LauraS3514]

Highly unlikely it would be George's oldest child.

There seems to be little reason to institute a 'new tradition'. Since George's eldest child will be prince of wales one day, the title would merge. More likely if George's new sibling is married in Andrew's life time, it will be his second child who is Duke of York.

Be nice if they joined the twenty first century, and when Charlotte married she was made duchess of x in her own right. But never holding my breath on that.

Well, with Kent, Gloucester, and, after Edward's creation, Edinburgh, slated to leave the RF for the foreseeable future, having York "reserved" for the Heir's Heir would keep this very historic title in the family, by the fact that it does merge. Giving it to younger sons (or daughters) would see it leaving the family. Unless, of course, it is a "life" peerage, such as those in Sweden - but there has never been a "life" dukedom created in the UK.

 

[miss whirley]

Let's assume C3 is a boy. Even if Andrew dies before he marries, and York is available, I bet he gets the Cambridge ducal title instead. It would be sentimental because of his parents, and he, himself, will have likely used Cambridge as a last name in his early years.

 

[Countessmeout]

Well, with Kent, Gloucester, and, after Edward's creation, Edinburgh, slated to leave the RF for the foreseeable future, having York "reserved" for the Heir's Heir would keep this very historic title in the family, by the fact that it does merge. Giving it to younger sons (or daughters) would see it leaving the family. Unless, of course, it is a "life" peerage, such as those in Sweden - but there has never been a "life" dukedom created in the UK.

Its not that historic. It doesn't have that long of a history as a royal title. Before George V, it hadn't been used in almost 200 years. Since the Yorks came to the throne, it has only been bestowed on six.