Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

The 1917 LPs relate to legal titles, not styles; otherwise Maud, the queen of Norway, would have had to be styled HRH Princess Maud when she was in the UK.

The issue of styles and titles in the case of dynastic marriages is complicated and, as I said, I don't fully understand it.


After getting married Princess Maud was referred to in the UK as HRH Princess Charles of Denmark even though she was still technically HRH Princess Maud in her own right. Of course, later, she became HM The Queen of Norway.



Princess Marina, who was also a princess in her own right, but in this case a foreign one, became only HRH The Duchess of Kent upon marriage. She was later known as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent by special dispensation of the British monarch and not by virtue of having been born a princess in her own right.

 

[Lilyflo]

Apologies. I think I have fixed the link; please try it again.

I hope that you are right, but I see no evidence that Queen Elizabeth has evolved on this issue over the last 20 years.

Thanks for the update on the link. It must have changed since then because some married women use their own name on their badge in the royal enclosure at Royal Ascot. A woman doesn't have to use her husband's name if she chooses not to.

 

[royal-blue]

If a British princess of the blood was to marry a woman, would the wife be a princess to? Do the titles only refer to opposite sex relationships?

 

[Gawin]

Thanks for the update on the link. It must have changed since then because some married women use their own name on their badge in the royal enclosure at Royal Ascot. A woman doesn't have to use her husband's name if she chooses not to.

Yes, we had a similar discussion about this a year ago. Another forum member posted to a link to an article from the DM: "Royal Ascot changes outdated tradition by allowing married ladies to use their christian names on royal enclosure badges":

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-208.html#post2209247

But this doesn't address the Queen's preferences regarding members of the Royal family.

 

[Lumutqueen]

If a British princess of the blood was to marry a woman, would the wife be a princess to? Do the titles only refer to opposite sex relationships?

There's no royal titular act (can't think of the correct term right now) nor LPs that cover same sex marriage, so there's no definitive answer to your question.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If a British princess of the blood was to marry a woman, would the wife be a princess to? Do the titles only refer to opposite sex relationships?

Under the current rules derived from common law, only men who are married to women share their rank and title with their spouses.

The Cameron government took steps in 2016 towards expanding this right to titled women, as well as titled men who are married to men, but Mr. Cameron left office before any results were achieved.

However, in light of Queen Elizabeth's preference for styling married women as e.g. "Mrs. Michael Tindall", it would be interesting to see how she would handle the forename and surname issue if a female member of her family married a woman.

 

[Lilyflo]

Yes, we had a similar discussion about this a year ago. Another forum member posted to a link to an article from the DM: "Royal Ascot changes outdated tradition by allowing married ladies to use their christian names on royal enclosure badges":

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-208.html#post2209247

But this doesn't address the Queen's preferences regarding members of the Royal family.

No, but neither is it evidence that HMQ would NOT adhere to a granddaughter's preference for using her own Christian name if she requested it. So we all draw our own conclusions and mine is that if Zara had strong objections to being labelled 'Mrs Michael Tindall' in this context, she wouldn't be.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, but neither is it evidence that HMQ would NOT adhere to a granddaughter's preference for using her own Christian name if she requested it. So we all draw our own conclusions and mine is that if Zara had strong objections to being labelled 'Mrs Michael Tindall' in this context, she wouldn't be.

I am happy to agree to disagree, but out of interest, what are your reasons for concluding that Elizabeth would not label her granddaughter in those terms if Zara strongly objected?

Yes, we had a similar discussion about this a year ago. Another forum member posted to a link to an article from the DM: "Royal Ascot changes outdated tradition by allowing married ladies to use their christian names on royal enclosure badges":

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-208.html#post2209247

But this doesn't address the Queen's preferences regarding members of the Royal family.

Yes, my impression is that the rule change was implemented by the management of the Royal Ascot rather than the Queen. (And it is worth noting that it happened only several years ago.) Quoting from the article:

Royal Ascot have ended centuries of tradition by allowing married ladies to use their own christian names on royal enclosure badges.

Until now, wives badges were styled with their husband’s name (i.e Mrs John Smith). The move will be seen by some as the track shedding an outdated practise and finally moving into the 21st century.

Ascot spokesman Nick Smith said: ‘It is a choice we wanted to offer ladies. Some like the more traditional approach and others now have the option to be referred to by their own names.’

 

[Lilyflo]

I am happy to agree to disagree, but out of interest, what are your reasons for concluding that Elizabeth would not label her granddaughter in those terms if Zara strongly objected?

I think it's because HMQ has shown over decades that she's prepared to move with the times (but not ahead of them).

 

[Pranter]

Yes I believe she prefers to use Zara Tindall in her riding life doesn't she? She's obviously happy to be styled in the traditional way here though. My point is that Zara doesn't have a title, whereas the others do, they don't lose them on marriage and they've chosen to continue using them.

She's referred to as Zara Phillips in the Equestrian world now too.



LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

If a British princess of the blood was to marry a woman, would the wife be a princess to? Do the titles only refer to opposite sex relationships?

As a British princess doesn't raise her husband to princely status why would anyone assume that she would raise a wife so such a status?

A British prince marrying a man would be a different situation as a British prince does raise his wife to being a princess so maybe if Prince George did marry a man that man would become a Prince as well ... as well as a King when George becomes King.

Until the situation arises I doubt we will have a definitive answer to that question.

 

[Iluvbertie]

OK I see now what you mean. Was Princess Alexandra was ever referred to as Princess Alexandra of Kent after her marriage? I don't think she was.

Informally she was for many years ... well into the 70s I have magazines still using that style for her.

The CC stopped using that style shortly after her marriage from what I can see.

The CC only referred to Eugenie as Princess Eugenie - no 'of York' when she accompanied the Queen to the Maundy Service in 2019 but at Trooping she was Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A British prince marrying a man would be a different situation as a British prince does raise his wife to being a princess so maybe if Prince George did marry a man that man would become a Prince as well ... as well as a King when George becomes King.

Until the situation arises I doubt we will have a definitive answer to that question.

We do have a definitive answer to that question.

The inequality between men married to women, who can raise their spouses to their rank, and all other married people and civil partners, who cannot, has been raised many times in the media and in Parliament. Always, the various governments have conceded that the inequality exists. As shown clearly by the 2016 government announcement which I posted a day ago, the Cameron government not only definitively recognized the inequality but intended to take steps towards a resolution.

At the moment there are a number of titled men who are married to men, including the Duke of Edinburgh's relative Lord Ivar Mountbatten. Nobody, as far as I know, is arguing that they have raised their husbands to their rank.

The convention that a wife takes the rank and style of her husband is not derived from any written act or letters patent that could potentially accommodate new readings after the reform of the marriage laws. To the contrary, it is a part of the unwritten and age-old rules of common law, and (as has been discussed for years in relation to the Duchess of Cornwall) would require legal action to change.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_144_22945.htm

As a British princess doesn't raise her husband to princely status why would anyone assume that she would raise a wife so such a status?

One view is that it is men who have the right (to raise their wives to their rank). Another view is that it is women who have the right (to take the ranks of their husbands). I agree with your view, which has historical basis, but the other view is not unreasonable.

 

[JGio]

Is Princess Beatrice now a countess?

I’m Italian and I think she is. The Republic does not recognize titles, but does NOT abolished them. You can use them if you want. Also, if your family was a comital one, it will always be, at least at a courtesy level. In Italy most nobles use their titles (newspapers, graves, lectures, ...). So, it’s fitting for Count Alessandro to use his title, and to have his son use it. I just believe Buckingham Palace does not want to use it because against the law of the UK. But in Italy even the Official Site of The Italian Republic cites noble titles when The President have audiences with titled people. There’s nothing wrong.

Also, Beatrice wouldn’t be “Countess Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi”, but “Countess Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi” or just the “Countess Mapelli Mozzi”. In Italy women do not take their husband’s name and all noble women in Italy are known by their christening name and husband’s surname.

 

[Denville]

We do have a definitive answer to that question.

The inequality between men married to women, who can raise their spouses to their rank, and all other married people and civil partners, who cannot, has been raised many times in the media and in Parliament. Always, the various governments have conceded that the inequality exists. As shown clearly by the 2016 government announcement which I posted a day ago, the Cameron government not only definitively recognized the inequality but intended to take steps towards a resolution.

At the moment there are a number of titled men who are married to men, including the Duke of Edinburgh's relative Lord Ivar Mountbatten. Nobody, as far as I know, is arguing that they have raised their husbands to their rank.

The convention that a wife takes the rank and style of her husband is not derived from any written act or letters patent that could potentially accommodate new readings after the reform of the marriage laws. To the contrary, it is a part of the unwritten and age-old rules of common law, and (as has been discussed for years in relation to the Duchess of Cornwall) would require legal action to change.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_144_22945.htm


I

thought that a few years ago, law was changed so that men who married other men, who had a knighthood were able to use some kind of title.. when a man who has a knighthood married a woman, she had the titile Lady.. but the law was then changed so that a man marrying a man who was a knight also had a title? I don't know what applies to a man who marries a peer or someone with the courtesy title Lord Ivar..

 

[Gawin]

I’m Italian and I think she is. The Republic does not recognize titles, but does NOT abolished them. You can use them if you want. Also, if your family was a comital one, it will always be, at least at a courtesy level. In Italy most nobles use their titles (newspapers, graves, lectures, ...). So, it’s fitting for Count Alessandro to use his title, and to have his son use it. I just believe Buckingham Palace does not want to use it because against the law of the UK. But in Italy even the Official Site of The Italian Republic cites noble titles when The President have audiences with titled people. There’s nothing wrong.

Also, Beatrice wouldn’t be “Countess Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi”, but “Countess Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi” or just the “Countess Mapelli Mozzi”. In Italy women do not take their husband’s name and all noble women in Italy are known by their christening name and husband’s surname.

Countess Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi certainly has a nice ring to it, especially with the Italian pronunciation, doesn't it? ?

 

[Jacknch]

thought that a few years ago, law was changed so that men who married other men, who had a knighthood were able to use some kind of title.. when a man who has a knighthood married a woman, she had the titile Lady.. but the law was then changed so that a man marrying a man who was a knight also had a title? I don't know what applies to a man who marries a peer or someone with the courtesy title Lord Ivar..

This article explains the current situation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_nobility_and_royalty

...despite the legalization of civil partnerships for same-sex couples in 2004, spouses of ennobled civil partners have not been allowed the extension of title and privilege from their spouses' ennoblements as those accorded to married opposite-sex spouses of ennobled persons.

Several years on, there has been no change or, by all accounts, attempts to change the status quo.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I’m Italian and I think she is. The Republic does not recognize titles, but does NOT abolished them. You can use them if you want.

"Abolished" means simply that legal recognition of the titles has been revoked. If the government were to criminalize even the social use of courtesy titles, that would be a step further than abolition. At least that is the usage I have observed.

In Italy most nobles use their titles (newspapers, graves, lectures, ...). So, it’s fitting for Count Alessandro to use his title, and to have his son use it. [...] But in Italy even the Official Site of The Italian Republic cites noble titles when The President have audiences with titled people. There’s nothing wrong.

Interesting, thank you. Given the circumstances, I agree there is nothing wrong with persons such as Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi using unofficial noble titles as a courtesy. All the same, I respect Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi for his choice to keep to his legal "title" of "Mr."

I just believe Buckingham Palace does not want to use it because against the law of the UK.

It is not against the law of the UK to socially use an unrecognized title. The Italian titles "Don" and "Donna" were used for the parents of the Duke of Kent's daughter-in-law in the engagement announcement from the palace. If Edoardo referred to himself as Count, I am sure Buckingham Palace would use it as well.

Also, Beatrice wouldn’t be “Countess Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi”, but “Countess Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi” or just the “Countess Mapelli Mozzi”. In Italy women do not take their husband’s name and all noble women in Italy are known by their christening name and husband’s surname.

Unfortunately, Buckingham Palace imposes the British custom of using the husband's forename, even on persons who use foreign titles. The mother of the Duke of Edinburgh is referred to as Prince Andrew of Greece, in spite of Greek princesses being known by their own forenames.

This article explains the current situation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_nobility_and_royalty

...despite the legalization of civil partnerships for same-sex couples in 2004, spouses of ennobled civil partners have not been allowed the extension of title and privilege from their spouses' ennoblements as those accorded to married opposite-sex spouses of ennobled persons.

I'm afraid that part of the article does not correctly explain the situation in the United Kingdom. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples are both now eligible for marriage and civil partnership; these are different legal institutions and legally a spouse is distinct from a civil partner. In addition, "extension of title and privilege from their spouses' ennoblements" is not "accorded to married opposite-sex spouses" as a category. It is solely accorded to noble men with female spouses. A noble woman is not allowed to extend her title and privileges to her husband. Thus, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi is not a prince in spite of being married to a princess.

Several years on, there has been no change or, by all accounts, attempts to change the status quo.

Several attempts have been made to change the status quo. Please see my earlier post (quoted by Denville) above, which links to one of those attempts.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm afraid that part of the article does not correctly explain the situation in the United Kingdom. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples are both now eligible for marriage and civil partnership; these are different legal institutions and legally a spouse is distinct from a civil partner. In addition, "extension of title and privilege from their spouses' ennoblements" is not "accorded to married opposite-sex spouses" as a category. It is solely accorded to noble men with female spouses. A noble woman is not allowed to extend her title and privileges to her husband. .

BTW, that is not unique to the UK. Among the European countries where the nobility is still legally recognized , I believe that Spain is the only one where noble women are able to extend their privileges to their husbands. And, nowadays BTW, those privileges are restricted in practice only to the use of a title and a honorary prefix like Excelentísimo Señor or Ilustrísimo Señor for example.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, even if the husband adopts his wife’s family name or if their children use their mother’s family name , they don’t acquire her nobility or title .

 

[JGio]

"Abolished" means simply that legal recognition of the titles has been revoked. If the government were to criminalize even the social use of courtesy titles, that would be a step further than abolition. At least that is the usage I have observed.

It is not against the law of the UK to socially use an unrecognized title. The Italian titles "Don" and "Donna" were used for the parents of the Duke of Kent's daughter-in-law in the engagement announcement from the palace. If Edoardo referred to himself as Count, I am sure Buckingham Palace would use it as well..

Unfortunately, Buckingham Palace imposes the British custom of using the husband's forename, even on persons who use foreign titles. The mother of the Duke of Edinburgh is referred to as Prince Andrew of Greece, in spite of Greek princesses being known by their own forenames.

With abolition we mean they simply don’t exist anymore, while a missed recognition is that they exist and can be carried on but not to the eyes of the State. Title legally don’t exist. But the outcome is the same..

Of course she’s just Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, no comital title for her. But from the Italian heraldry point of view, she is Contessa Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi, not Contessa Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. Italy does it differently. If she were accorded the title by BP, she would be Countess Edoardo, but it’s not the case.

I think it’s just Edoardo's choice to be Mr., he seems so down-to-earth and private, and a title may sound posh. But I thought there was a law prohibiting foreigners the usage of their foreign titles in the UK.

 

[Mbruno]

With abolition we mean they simply don’t exist anymore, while a missed recognition is that they exist and can be carried on but not to the eyes of the State. Title legally don’t exist. But the outcome is the same..

Of course she’s just Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, no comital title for her. But from the Italian heraldry point of view, she is Contessa Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi, not Contessa Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. Italy does it differently. If she were accorded the title by BP, she would be Countess Edoardo, but it’s not the case.

I think it’s just Edoardo's choice to be Mr., he seems so down-to-earth and private, and a title may sound posh. But I thought there was a law prohibiting foreigners the usage of their foreign titles in the UK.

If I understand it correctly , Edoardo’s father owns two big villas / family seats in Italy . Does he visit Italy often ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"Abolished" means simply that legal recognition of the titles has been revoked. If the government were to criminalize even the social use of courtesy titles, that would be a step further than abolition. At least that is the usage I have observed.

With abolition we mean they simply don’t exist anymore, while a missed recognition is that they exist and can be carried on but not to the eyes of the State. Title legally don’t exist. But the outcome is the same..

I think I am unclear on your definition of "don't exist anymore". In your definition, titles continue to exist after they have stopped legally existing, so, what would be necessary to make a title non-existent?

Of course she’s just Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, no comital title for her. But from the Italian heraldry point of view, she is Contessa Beatrice Mapelli Mozzi, not Contessa Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. Italy does it differently. If she were accorded the title by BP, she would be Countess Edoardo, but it’s not the case.

Understood. But Italians would also recognize her British royal title and coat of arms too, surely?

I think it’s just Edoardo's choice to be Mr., he seems so down-to-earth and private, and a title may sound posh. But I thought there was a law prohibiting foreigners the usage of their foreign titles in the UK.

I think Lady Nicholas's parents were living in the UK when they were accorded the Don/Donna title by Buckingham Palace. Many other examples can be cited of persons socially using foreign titles (some legal, others not) while in the UK, such as members of the former royal families of Greece and Hannover. The policy (not a law) applies only to legal recognition of foreign titles.

 

[JGio]

I think I am unclear on your definition of "don't exist anymore". In your definition, titles continue to exist after they have stopped legally existing, so, what would be necessary to make a title non-existent?

It would be necessary to say they’re abolished, while they just wrote “are not recognized by the Republic”. However, practically the outcome would be the same in daily life.

Understood. But Italians would also recognize her British royal title and coat of arms too, surely?

Yes. Italy does recognizes her titles, obviously.

I think Lady Nicholas's parents were living in the UK when they were accorded the Don/Donna title by Buckingham Palace. Many other examples can be cited of persons socially using foreign titles (some legal, others not) while in the UK, such as members of the former royal families of Greece and Hannover. The policy (not a law) applies only to legal recognition of foreign titles.

Yes. Maybe BP changed their mind about the usage of such title.
Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Mbruno]

I think Lady Nicholas's parents were living in the UK when they were accorded the Don/Donna title by Buckingham Palace. Many other examples can be cited of persons socially using foreign titles (some legal, others not) while in the UK, such as members of the former royal families of Greece and Hannover. The policy (not a law) applies only to legal recognition of foreign titles.

On January 11, 1999, Queen Elizabeth II made an official declaration to the Privy Council under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 consenting to " a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco".


The boldfaced title is not recognized in the Federal Republic of Germany as far as I know. Nevertheless, the Queen used it officialy. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, Ernst August is cited in his British passport as "His Royal Highness".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On January 11, 1999, Queen Elizabeth II made an official declaration to the Privy Council under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 consenting to " a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco".


The boldfaced title is not recognized in the Federal Republic of Germany as far as I know. Nevertheless, the Queen used it officialy. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, Ernst August is cited in his British passport as "His Royal Highness".

Interesting. The HRH is not recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany, but it apparently recognizes the remaining titles in the legal surname of the family, which, according to an interview with his son, is "Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland" ("Prince of Hanover Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg Royal Prince of Great Britain and Ireland").

All the same, the UK government policy does not seem to discriminate between legally legitimate and illegitimate foreign titles:

Foreign Titles

By Royal Warrant of 27 April 1932, the use in England and Wales of foreign titles of nobility was discontinued, and existing warrants licensing the use of such titles were revoked – with certain named exceptions. In Scotland, a foreign title may continue to be recognised and registered by the Lord Lyon. However, IPS maintains the right to provide a policy that is consistent throughout the UK. In consequence, at present a foreign title will not be shown on a British passport unless they hold a valid Royal warrant.

This will affect all those who may quite legitimately hold a foreign title, but which is not recognised in the UK. The personal details page of the passport will only show their forenames, family names and place and date of birth.

However, an observation indicating that ‘THE HOLDER IS ALSO KNOWN AS (foreign title)’ will be included in the passport.

So I am not sure on what basis Ernst August's titles were used officially in the UK.

It would be necessary to say they’re abolished, while they just wrote “are not recognized by the Republic”. However, practically the outcome would be the same in daily life.

Thank you for clarifying! From my personal experience, "abolished" in English is commonly used to mean the same, and so that is all I mean to imply whenever I use the word.

 

[Mbruno]

Interesting. The HRH is not recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany, but it apparently recognizes the remaining titles in the legal surname of the family, which, according to an interview with his son, is "Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland" ("Prince of Hanover Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg Royal Prince of Great Britain and Ireland").

All the same, the UK government policy does not seem to discriminate between legally legitimate and illegitimate foreign titles:



So I am not sure on what basis Ernst August's titles were used officially in the UK.

Based on the text you quoted, I suppose he must have s special royal warrant.

I wonder if the same applies to all descendants of Sophia of Hanover.

 

[Gawin]

On January 11, 1999, Queen Elizabeth II made an official declaration to the Privy Council under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 consenting to " a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco".


The boldfaced title is not recognized in the Federal Republic of Germany as far as I know. Nevertheless, the Queen used it officialy.

It appears the Queen customarily used foreign titles when granting permission for marriages under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act (1772), even when the parties involved were British citizens.

For example:

Marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Welf Heinrich etc. of Hanover and Princess Sophie Alexandra of Ysenburg and Budingen.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1360155

Marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Michael George Charles Franklin of Kent and the Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz, formerly Mrs Thomas Troubridge (Note: the 1 Aug 1978 date cannot be correct as the couple married on 30 June. According to an article in The Times (1 June 1978, p. 1, col. 4), the Queen granted permission for the marriage on 31 May 1978).
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1360162

His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Georg of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Countess Monika of Solms-Laubach, as well as His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover and Chantal Hochuli.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/48638/page/7956

His Royal Highness Prince Ludwig Rudolph Georg Wilhelm Philipp Friedrich Wolrad Maximiliam of Hanover and Her Serene Highness Countess Ysabelle Maria Elisabeth Thurn and Valsassina-Como and Vercelli.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/51069/page/11789

This is only speculation on my part, but perhaps the Queen repeated whatever names/titles the applicants provided when requesting permission.

Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, Ernst August is cited in his British passport as "His Royal Highness".

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not back the statement with a source.

The Wikipedia entry for Ernst August's father Ernst August (1914-1987) states: "Nonetheless, a problem arose as foreign royal titles can't be entered into a British passport. Therefore, the titles Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg could not be mentioned there, nor could the British titles due to the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. The name which was finally entered into his British documents, was thus Ernest Augustus Guelph, with the addition of His Royal Highness. Guelph is thus also the British last name of his siblings and children, all styled Royal Highnesses in the United Kingdom."

But the source it cites only refers to the German passport of his grandson Ernst August (born 1983): https://www.haz.de/Hannover/Aus-der...Hannovers-Prinz-Ernst-August-im-HAZ-Interview

 

[Carin]

Do we know for a fact that she is "obviously happy to be styled in the traditional way"? She has expressed happiness in interviews with being untitled, but I haven't found an interview in which she shares her feelings about being styled "Mrs. Michael Tindall".



But if she followed the custom of taking the husband's style, she would be styled "HRH Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" (as in the old usage of the grand-ducal family of Luxembourg) rather than "HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank". My point was that the combination of "Princess" and "Mrs." by which Princess Alexandra was designated before her husband was knighted was used for her only, prior to the marriage of Princess Eugenie.

I remember when Princess Anne was married to Mark Phillips she was known as HRH Princess Anne Mrs Mark Phillips. I am not sure about Princess Margaret, but I think her husband did not get his title until PM was pregnant with her first baby. Anyway if you want more information look up the relevant Princess on Wikipedia and look at titles and styles.

 

[Carin]

See here for an update regarding the title of Princess Eugenie of York: Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?




Thanks.

In 2000, a woman who requested to use her own given name instead of her husband's given name was refused permission by the Queen's representative. Reading this, I believe that Queen Elizabeth would use "Mrs. Michael" and "Mrs. Jack" whether or not her granddaughters objected.

A competing horse has more independence | World news | The Guardian




The 1917 LPs relate to legal titles, not styles; otherwise Maud, the queen of Norway, would have had to be styled HRH Princess Maud when she was in the UK.



And that decision was only made with the marriage of Princess Alexandra, she being the first British princess to marry a husband without a title and still remain styled as a princess.

No, it was definitely Princess Margaret. She married Mr Antony Armstrong Jones. He did not get his Earldom until just before the birth of their first child.

 

[JR76]

While Princess Margaret was the first princess to marry a man without the title her cousin Princess Alexandra was the first, as stated by Tatiana Maria above, to use the combination of Princess & Mrs. Princess Margaret was, as evident in for instance in The London Gazette of November 1 & November 25 1960, styled as The Princess Margaret before her husband received his title.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/42183/page/1

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/42202/page/1