Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Pranter]

Thanks for this. Missed this first time round.

Welcome!


When it first came out I was like what in the world? Shouldn't they know how titles work over there?

LaRae

 

[Denville]

Welcome!


When it first came out I was like what in the world? Shouldn't they know how titles work over there?

LaRae

Does it really matter? Meghan will have to be known as Meghan Duchess of Sussex.. she wotn get any jobs as Meghan Markle...

 

[Stefan]

Does it really matter? Meghan will have to be known as Meghan Duchess of Sussex.. she wotn get any jobs as Meghan Markle...

But why can't she use Duchess Meghan of Sussex for example.

 

[Pranter]

Does it really matter? Meghan will have to be known as Meghan Duchess of Sussex.. she wotn get any jobs as Meghan Markle...

Does your correct name/title (Sir, Mr etc)? Yes it matters or ppl wouldn't use them at all.

She was able to get jobs before she met Harry using Meghan Markle. Not like she was sitting home eating bon bons waiting on some guy to come rescue her.



LaRae

 

[Lumutqueen]

https://time.com/5768763/buckingham-palace-harry-meghan-new-titles-divorce/


.....the Palace said the couple would be addressed moving forward as “Harry, Duke of Sussex” and “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.”.....


LaRae

Actually, they never said that. I pretty much live watched all the information reporting from December, it was reporters who took hints and ran with it. Official announcement wise, nothing has ever been mentioned about how they would be referred to, other than they would drop their HRHs.

 

[Durham]

But why can't she use Duchess Meghan of Sussex for example.

It's just not correct form at all. Maybe in the German speaking lands? But never here.

 

[Stefan]

It's just not correct form at all. Maybe in the German speaking lands? But never here.

I know the correct form is without the name at all. But to me Duchess Meghan of Sussex sound better then Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

 

[Durham]

I know the correct form is without the name at all. But to me Duchess Meghan of Sussex sound better then Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

A fair point. It's just that British usage is very clear. Ducal titles are territorial not personal, if that makes sense. I know that European traditions are different.

It's never Duke Cavendish or Duke Churchill but of Devonshire/Marlborough.

Only the younger children of dukes, marquesses & earls (daughters only) use their Christian names after lord/lady. Even that is by courtesy only since they are not actually peers. And even then the title of the parent is not used but the family name.

You may well already know all this.

The bottom line is that in Britain it just makes no sense & is totally alien to all accepted traditions & usage. It just sounds peculiar.

 

[Somebody]

But why can't she use Duchess Meghan of Sussex for example.

Because she isn't. She is 'Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex'. There is no such person as a 'Duchess Meghan'. The UK doesn't know any Duke 'first name' or Duchess 'first name'; only The Duke/Duchess of …; and if they are divorced or widowed names might be used prior to the title (although 'The Dowager Duchess of X - is perfectly clear if there is only one dowager) to distinct them from the current holder.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At the start of the transition, Buckingham Palace indeed communicated to reporters that the couple would be known from Spring as "Harry, Duke of Sussex" and "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". In addition to the report provided by Pranter in post #4827, note for instance the reports in the BBC and the Guardian, along with other reports.

Afterwards, the Palace reviewed their advice after it was brought to their attention that the Duchess would be using the same style as a divorced woman.

Apparently, the Palace subsequently communicated to reporters that the couple would be known simply as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.


However, it was announced on the couple's website that they would "formally" remain known as HRH The Duke of Sussex and HRH The Duchess of Sussex.

And indeed, the official website of Buckingham Palace continues to address the Duchess of Sussex as Her Royal Highness.


Regarding other European countries, I think it is appropriate for the separate countries of Europe to maintain their own systems, and the one is no more logical than the other. If German speakers use "Duchess Meghan", that is simply analogous to the way in which English speakers use British forms to name foreign royals.

 

[Durham]

So "Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex" is in fact wrong then. Which was my original query. Now we know for certain. Thank you Tatiana Maria.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So "Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex" is in fact wrong then. Which was my original query. Now we know for certain. Thank you Tatiana Maria.

Yes but from all possible wrongs this is a small wrongdoing.
It is much better than Duchess Meghan Markle anyway.

 

[Durham]

Yes but from all possible wrongs this is a small wrongdoing.
It is much better than Duchess Meghan Markle anyway.

Well yes I agree with you on that. I've never come across "Duchess Meghan Markle". Now that really is weird. Almost Yoda like.?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So "Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex" is in fact wrong then. Which was my original query. Now we know for certain. Thank you Tatiana Maria.

I'm not sure about that. Apparently, "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" was used for the credits of a Disney film, not an official document, and I would guess that it was approved by the Duchess's agents, who may have asked for her first name to be included to improve recognition, especially for foreign audiences.

 

[Lumutqueen]

However, it was announced on the couple's website that they would "formally" remain known as HRH The Duke of Sussex and HRH The Duchess of Sussex.



And indeed, the official website of Buckingham Palace continues to address the Duchess of Sussex as Her Royal Highness.

So these two are actually the only proper, verified, information from the palace and the Sussexes spokes people. Everything else is sources, and frankly hearsay.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So these two are actually the only proper, verified, information from the palace and the Sussexes spokes people. Everything else is sources, and frankly hearsay.

Proper, verified sources, including Buckingham Palace and the British government, often brief reporters without posting the information on their websites.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Proper, verified sources, including Buckingham Palace and the British government, often brief reporters without posting the information on their websites.

Do they? Because Palace sources, doesn’t mean squat to me. Unless it comes from The Royal Family in the form of a tweet, an announcement on the website, a placard in front of Buckingham Palace you get my drift. It’s not proper or verified.

If a reporter knows the information came from Buckingham Palace, then they can state that when they write their information. No need for Palace sources....

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Do they? Because Palace sources, doesn’t mean squat to me. Unless it comes from The Royal Family in the form of a tweet, an announcement on the website, a placard in front of Buckingham Palace you get my drift. It’s not proper or verified.

If a reporter knows the information came from Buckingham Palace, then they can state that when they write their information. No need for Palace sources....

To me it is clear that Buckingham Palace communicated the information to reporters (the Rhiannon Mills article cites it by name), and does not consider it improper to communicate through such channels (or they would not do it habitually). But everyone is free to form their own judgment as to what is proper and verified, which is why I posted the links.

 

[Kataryn]

When Harry registered the Travelix (?) webpage, he did not use his HRH but, as agreed, only his title. Which seems to be "Prince Henry Charles Albert David, duke of Sussex". That's correct, he is a prince of the Uk and Duke of Sussex.

What interests me is: how is the correct title of Meghan without the HRH? She, as his wife, shares his titles. So is she now "Princess Henry Charles Albert David, duchess of Sussex"? Or "Princess Henry, Rachel Meghan, duchess of Sussex"? Or just "Princess Henry, duchess of Sussex?" Or just Meghan, duchess of Sussex without the princely title?

 

[Denville]

When Harry registered the Travelix (?) webpage, he did not use his HRH but, as agreed, only his title. Which seems to be "Prince Henry Charles Albert David, duke of Sussex". That's correct, he is a prince of the Uk and Duke of Sussex.

What interests me is: how is the correct title of Meghan without the HRH? She, as his wife, shares his titles. So is she now "Princess Henry Charles Albert David, duchess of Sussex"? Or "Princess Henry, Rachel Meghan, duchess of Sussex"? Or just "Princess Henry, duchess of Sussex?" Or just Meghan, duchess of Sussex without the princely title?

She is Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex...

 

[muriel]

She is Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex...

I thought she is HRH The Duchess of Sussex, Princess Henry

 

[Denville]

I thought she is HRH The Duchess of Sussex, Princess Henry

But she's not allowed to use the HRH in business. I don't know if she can still use it in private life.. but for her official working life, she can't. And she's always Princess Henry.. but since she has the title of Duchess of Sussex that's what she's known by. Prince Michael of Kent did not get a dukedom, so his wife is known as Princess Michael.

 

[muriel]

But she's not allowed to use the HRH in business. I don't know if she can still use it in private life.. but for her official working life, she can't. And she's always Princess Henry.. but since she has the title of Duchess of Sussex that's what she's known by. Prince Michael of Kent did not get a dukedom, so his wife is known as Princess Michael.

If she really does not want to use royal titles, its Meghan Sussex as I see it.

 

[Denville]

If she really does not want to use royal titles, its Meghan Sussex as I see it.

that's stil using a royal title. if she doesn't want to use her titles, she can be known as Meghan Markle or Meghan M Windsor..

 

[Somebody]

When Harry registered the Travelix (?) webpage, he did not use his HRH but, as agreed, only his title. Which seems to be "Prince Henry Charles Albert David, duke of Sussex". That's correct, he is a prince of the Uk and Duke of Sussex.

What interests me is: how is the correct title of Meghan without the HRH? She, as his wife, shares his titles. So is she now "Princess Henry Charles Albert David, duchess of Sussex"? Or "Princess Henry, Rachel Meghan, duchess of Sussex"? Or just "Princess Henry, duchess of Sussex?" Or just Meghan, duchess of Sussex without the princely title?

If we go by other official documents (for example the birth certificate of George for Catherine); hers would be 'Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex'.

 

[Denville]

If we go by other official documents (for example for Catherine); hers would be 'Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex'.

I thought that was the style for divorced wives... for a married wife.. it is HRH The Duchess of Sussex...

 

[Somebody]

If she really does not want to use royal titles, its Meghan Sussex as I see it.

Sussex is her title; if she would not be using any title at all, she would be Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (assuming she took her husband's surname and not kept her own).

 

[Somebody]

I thought that was the style for divorced wives... for a married wife.. it is HRH The Duchess of Sussex...

The question was about what to use for business purposes; so when she is NOT allowed to use HRH. Of course, she is formally The Duchess of Sussex but if she would need to include her full name (so including first names); that would surely include 'Rachel Meghan', however, you might be right, that she would write it down as 'Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex'. My main point however was that she would not include the princess Henry-stuff in that case.

 

[Denville]

The question was about what to use for business purposes; so when she is NOT allowed to use HRH. Of course, she is formally The Duchess of Sussex but if she would need to include her full name (so including first names); that would surely include 'Rachel Meghan', however, you might be right, that she would write it down as 'Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex'. My main point however was that she would not include the princess Henry-stuff in that case.

No I doubt if she would be likely to call herself Princess Henry. but I thought that a month or 2 ago, the palace said that they would be known as Harry Duke of Suss and Meghan Duchess of S for business purposes.. but then had to backtrack becuase it was pointed out that using Megan D of S, was the form for a divorced wife. Like Diana Princess of Wales as opposed to The Princess of wales.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think Denville's argument is that as a married peeress she should not use her given name(s) at all. But in legal documents, it is correct form for peers and peeresses (no matter if they are royal or non-royal) to include their given names or even their surnames. As Somebody posted, the birth certificates for the children of the Duke of Cambridge (and for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) showed the given names (e.g. William Arthur Philip Louis) of both parents, though not their surnames.