Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Denville]

At the end of the day, the King will be bound by the advice of the PM. There is a reasonable chance that the PM at the time may advise that the wife of the King is the Queen, and the matter will end there.

I think so.. anyway Camilla's title will still derive from her husband,, ie Albert was Prince Consort, because he was Victoria's husband.. that' was the "precedent" that was mentioned years ago, for Cam to be Princess Consort..so IMO she wotn be a Princess in her own right, like Eugenie or Anne..

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is "princess/prince in their own right" a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom, or is it merely an informal description applied by royal watchers? I am not aware of any legal rights or privileges that are held by Philip but not by Camilla and Catherine, or vice versa.

 

[Denville]

Is "princess/prince in their own right" a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom, or is it merely an informal description applied by royal watchers? I am not aware of any legal rights or privileges that are held by Philip but not by Camilla and Catherine, or vice versa.

Prince and Princess are just titles that signify closeness to teh monarch, as far as I know. But married in princesses have had their HRHs removed.. because their title and closeness to the monarch derives from their marriage...

 

[Darius1]

Yes, that's indeed what I explained.



Using Letter Patent means that she would be created a princess in her own right, just like Philip was created a prince in his own right (although they did not give him the title of Prince Consort).

I sincerely doubt that Charles can just make his will be known to bestow a title on someone - I still think that requires a bit more than that (if not, why didn't the queen use that method for the younger Cambridge titles or to create peerages for both William and Harry?); so far, that method has only been used to withhold a title that would otherwise be used (and Sophie stated not that long ago that their children can still decide to use the style of HRH and title of prince if they would wish to do so; so, from her perspective the 'queen's will' is only about use not about rights). In any case, a very different situation compared to bestowing a title on someone - as would be needed to make Camilla a princess consort instead of queen.

I understand from the Wessex case that The Queen's will was sufficient to state that Louise and James would not use HRH. There were no Letter Patent to deprive them of this. I believe there was some debate as to whether a BP Comms was sufficient for The Queen's will to be known and it was agreed that yes. The legalities of these titles are incredibly interesting.

 

[Osipi]

I think so.. anyway Camilla's title will still derive from her husband,, ie Albert was Prince Consort, because he was Victoria's husband.. that' was the "precedent" that was mentioned years ago, for Cam to be Princess Consort..so IMO she wotn be a Princess in her own right, like Eugenie or Anne..

Its also to be noted that Albert was a "prince" before Victoria was even a twinkle in his eyes. He was also Victoria's first cousin meaning they came from the same family line. ?

 

[Denville]

Its also to be noted that Albert was a "prince" before Victoria was even a twinkle in his eyes. He was also Victoria's first cousin meaning they came from the same family line. ?

Yes I know that. But the precedent was given that Camilla instead of being queen would be Princess Consort, just as Albert had been Prince Consort...

 

[Somebody]

Please note that I have been consistent in that, as fair as I know, Camilla does not need to be created a Princess in her own right, but can merely be styled as such.

Yes, I know that you have been consistent but I still don't understand how that could work If I understood I might agree with you. So far, I don't see how someone can be styled as something they are not; or in the case of women by another title than either their own title or a title that is derived from their husband's titles... However, if you have examples where people have officially been styled by something that they are not somehow entitled to, I'd love to know.

 

[Denville]

Yes, I know that you have been consistent but I still don't understand how that could work You cannot be styled as something you are not or for women either your own title or by a title that is not derived from your husband's titles... However, if you have examples where people have officially been styled by something that they are not somehow entitled to, I'd love to know.

She can in essence say "Im Queen but I want to be known as Princess Consort..>" just like she could say "IM princess of Wales but I want to be known as Duchess of Cornwall"

 

[Osipi]

She could also (with Charles' approval) stand up and say "From this day forward, I have decided that I want to be officially and forevermore styled and addressed only as "Gladys". With approval by Charles, the king and with Camilla's wishes being made know, we'd have a King Charles and Gladys.

Now that tickles my funny bone to no end. ?

 

[Denville]

She could also (with Charles' approval) stand up and say "From this day forward, I have decided that I want to be officially and forevermore styled and addressed only as "Gladys". With approval by Charles, the king and with Camilla's wishes being made know, we'd have a King Charles and Gladys.

Now that tickles my funny bone to no end. ?

I don't know if you picked the name Gladys randomly.. but if tis a reference to the names Charles and Cam had for each other it might not go down well...

 

[Osipi]

I don't know if you picked the name Gladys randomly.. but if tis a reference to the names Charles and Cam had for each other it might not go down well...

Oh I was definitely thinking along the lines of Fred and Gladys.

Creating a style simply as "Gladys" is as possible as just creating "Princess Consort". They both come out of nowhere with nothing really to support them other than a "want". In fact, Camilla being known as "Gladys" is really more intimately pertaining to who she is than is "Princess Consort" when you think about it.

Along with being totally fanciful and once again relying on a brain not totally caffeinated yet, what if when the time comes, William and Catherine put their heads together and deem a good one for Catherine would be to add a few things. "Princess Consort and Vizier to the King".

Once started, there's no telling how many variants can be used when self styling takes root in tradition.

 

[Somebody]

Is "princess/prince in their own right" a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom, or is it merely an informal description applied by royal watchers? I am not aware of any legal rights or privileges that are held by Philip but not by Camilla and Catherine, or vice versa.

An important difference is that Philip wasn't a prince until he himself was created a prince; and that he is Prince Philip (not Prince Elizabeth) while Camilla is Princess Charles and Catherine is Princess William. So, being able to use your own name could be considered a 'privilege' that comes with being created a prince of the UK versus only being married to a prince or princess of the realm.

 

[Lilyflo]

My understanding is that any difficulties around Camilla being styled as Princess Consort have been ironed out long ago (it's been 15 years now). So if that's what happens, there won't be any problems for them or for future Queens Consort. However, I don't think it will be the style she uses because Charles (and other BRF members) will most likely persuade her to be styled as Queen (to match her status). She'll be a Queen Consort and despite the grumblers (and perhaps some of the tabloid media) there just aren't enough people so invested in objecting to 'Queen Camilla' to cause a huge problem, constitutional crisis or revolution about it.

 

[Somebody]

Yes I agree. But people seem to disagree. However although Cam isn't that popular, I suspect in the end it will be simpler for her to become known as Queen...

How do you suggest it works? Could Charles also decide that any other person could be known as Duke or Duchess while they nor their spouse are Duke or Duchess; just because he likes that person or because he or she is a family member? Or could the queen now or Charles in the future just release a press release that mentions that from now on Beatrice's and Eugenie's husbands are known as princes? Without any paperwork needed?

 

[Prinsara]

Yes, I know that you have been consistent but I still don't understand how that could work If I understood I might agree with you. So far, I don't see how someone can be styled as something they are not; or in the case of women by another title than either their own title or a title that is derived from their husband's titles... However, if you have examples where people have officially been styled by something that they are not somehow entitled to, I'd love to know.

The Queen's aunt, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Not wanting to be "Dowager" after her son's accession, she simply asked her niece if she could be styled the same as her late sister-in-law Marina. Despite not actually being a princess (except technically being the late Princess Henry) the Queen apparently had no objections whatsoever.

Alice is, I think, the only case of gaining the title in the BRF without birth or marriage.

 

[Somebody]

Its also to be noted that Albert was a "prince" before Victoria was even a twinkle in his eyes. He was also Victoria's first cousin meaning they came from the same family line. ?

Yes I know that. But the precedent was given that Camilla instead of being queen would be Princess Consort, just as Albert had been Prince Consort...

Was he legally 'the prince consort'? Or was he formally 'prince Albert' (as he was born a prince and was not stripped of his title, unlike Philip, who therefore needed to be reinstated as prince), who happened to be the queen's consort?

 

[Mbruno]

Is "princess/prince in their own right" a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom, or is it merely an informal description applied by royal watchers? I am not aware of any legal rights or privileges that are held by Philip but not by Camilla and Catherine, or vice versa.

I don't know if it is "a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom", but there is at least one difference that is legally meaningful: Philip is (or at least may be) referred to in official documents as HRH The Prince Philip, whereas Catherine and Camilla are never referred to as HRH Princess Catherine or HRH Princess Camilla. In other words, Philip has the legal right or privilege to use the titular dignity of Prince prefixed to his Christian name whereas Catherine and Camilla do not have the same right or privilege.

Was he legally 'the prince consort'? Or was he formally 'prince Albert' (as he was born a prince and was not stripped of his title, unlike Philip, who therefore needed to be reinstated as prince), who happened to be the queen's consort?

I believe he was formally given the title of Prince Consort in 1857 (i.e., long after he and Victoria had married).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22015/page/2195


Prior to the said Letters Patent mentioned in the Gazette, he was HRH Prince Albert. Note that Albert was originally only an HSH in accordance with his German titles. He was elevated to the rank of HRH in 1840 (a few days before his marriage to Queen Victoria, I think).


https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19821/page/241

 

[Prinsara]

Was he legally 'the prince consort'? Or was he formally 'prince Albert' (as he was born a prince and was not stripped of his title, unlike Philip, who therefore needed to be reinstated as prince), who happened to be the queen's consort?

Just "Prince Albert" up to 1857. Proclaimed "The Prince Consort" 1857-1861.

 

[Somebody]

She can in essence say "Im Queen but I want to be known as Princess Consort..>" just like she could say "IM princess of Wales but I want to be known as Duchess of Cornwall"

That's a completely different situation. Charles is BOTH the prince of Wales and the duke of Cornwall. So, Camilla currently is both the princess of Wales AND the duchess of Cornwall (and several other things such as Duchess of Rothesay - which she uses in Scotland); and she chose to style herself as the Duchess of Cornwall.

Camilla will no longer be 'Princess Charles' (nor the princess of Wales) but only 'HM The Queen'. Not sure whether an argument could be made for her to be styled as the Duchess of Lancaster instead, as that will be Charles' only other title if I'm not mistaken... (However, the Queen is currently 'the Duke of Lancaster' - so not completely sure whether that could work)

 

[Somebody]

The Queen's aunt, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Not wanting to be "Dowager" after her son's accession, she simply asked her niece if she could be styled the same as her late sister-in-law Marina. Despite not actually being a princess (except technically being the late Princess Henry) the Queen apparently had no objections whatsoever.

Alice is, I think, the only case of gaining the title in the BRF without birth or marriage.

She was a princess by marriage (her husband was not only Duke of Gloucester but also a prince of the UK); but indeed her being allowed to use her first name along with princess was an exception to a different rule (that is that those who are 'married-in' can be only known by their title in combination with their husband's first name).

 

[Osipi]

That's a completely different situation. Charles is BOTH the prince of Wales and the duke of Cornwall. So, Camilla currently is both the princess of Wales AND the duchess of Cornwall (and several other things such as Duchess of Rothesay - which she uses in Scotland); and she chose to style herself as the Duchess of Cornwall.

Camilla will no longer be 'Princess Charles' (nor the princess of Wales) but only 'HM The Queen'. Not sure whether an argument could be made for her to be styled as the Duchess of Lancaster instead, as that will be Charles' only other title if I'm not mistaken... (However, the Queen is currently 'the Duke of Lancaster' - so not completely sure whether that could work)

Well... it would have probably bordered on the ridiculous for Philip to be styled as "The Duchess of Lancaster" as his wife was the Duke so that didn't even register anywhere as a possibility.

For Camilla to use "The Duchess of Lancaster" would be a first but yet totally in line with the British tradition of a wife taking her her titles and styles from her husband. Like having the choice between "The Princess of Wales" and "The Duchess of Cornwall", Camilla would be selecting her style from a title her husband, the King and also the Duke of Lancaster holds.

Is it really going to be *that* big of a priority though when Charles becomes king that quibbling about styling is going to fill the front pages? I don't think so. Far more important at the time will be a nation in mourning and remembering the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. At that time, it could be announced that formally, we have Charles the Green and Gladys and it'd be buried on page 10 in small print.

 

[Somebody]

I don't know if it is "a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom", but there is at least one difference that is legally meaningful: Philip is (or at least may be) referred to in official documents as HRH The Prince Philip, whereas Catherine and Camilla are never referred to as HRH Princess Catherine or HRH Princess Camilla. In other words, Philip has the legal right or privilege to use the titular dignity of Prince prefixed to his Christian name whereas Catherine and Camilla do not have the same right or privilege.





I believe he was formally given the title of Prince Consort in 1857 (i.e., long after he and Victoria had married).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22015/page/2195


Prior to the said Letters Patent mentioned in the Gazette, he was HRH Prince Albert. Note that Albert was originally only an HSH in accordance with his German titles. He was elevated to the rank of HRH in 1840.


https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19821/page/241

Thanks! It's always great to read the historical documents - it almost seems to have been done in relation to the birth (or more precisely) presentation of their youngest daughter. So, in his case, Letters Patent were indeed needed to make him the Prince Consort (just as I'm arguing would be needed for Camilla - if Charles would want to give her that title). Until that moment he was 'The Prince Albert' (and apparently, it was very important that all the church books were corrected immediately so nobody would ever mistakenly refer to him as The Prince Albert ?).

 

[Heavs]

That's a completely different situation. Charles is BOTH the prince of Wales and the duke of Cornwall. So, Camilla currently is both the princess of Wales AND the duchess of Cornwall (and several other things such as Duchess of Rothesay - which she uses in Scotland); and she chose to style herself as the Duchess of Cornwall.

Camilla will no longer be 'Princess Charles' (nor the princess of Wales) but only 'HM The Queen'. Not sure whether an argument could be made for her to be styled as the Duchess of Lancaster instead, as that will be Charles' only other title if I'm not mistaken... (However, the Queen is currently 'the Duke of Lancaster' - so not completely sure whether that could work)

The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster because she holds the title in her own right, she isn't the wife of the title holder. The Duchess of Lancaster could theoretically work I suppose, I think Camilla suits the word "Duchess" but I don't believe it's been seriously suggested.

Personally I would prefer Camilla to just be Queen. It's simpler, sounds better than "Princess Consort" IMO and there have been a lot Queens Consort both that have done worse than Camilla and still had the title. Although there are also problems with that attitude. Unlike Princess of Wales which was so very associated with her, Diana was obviously never Queen.

I don't think it will affect Charles's popularity as King all that much either way however:

Is it really going to be *that* big of a priority though when Charles becomes king that quibbling about styling is going to fill the front pages? I don't think so. Far more important at the time will be a nation in mourning and remembering the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. At that time, it could be announced that formally, we have Charles the Green and Gladys and it'd be buried on page 10 in small print.

Oh there will be quibbling. If not when the nation is first in mourning then in the run up to the Coronation et al.

 

[Prinsara]

She was a princess by marriage (her husband was not only Duke of Gloucester but also a prince of the UK); but indeed her being allowed to use her first name along with princess was an exception to a different rule (that is that those who are 'married-in' can be only known by their title in combination with their husband's first name).

She was a princess by marriage, but she didn't ask to be Princess Henry, which she was. She asked to be known as "Princess Alice", which she was not and never had been, yet became simply at the pleasure of the monarch. That's the answer to your question about someone being known as something they're "not", as far as I can determine.

Sovereign's choice, fount of honour, you are what the monarch says you are.

 

[Fijiro]

I don't know if it is "a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom", but there is at least one difference that is legally meaningful: Philip is (or at least may be) referred to in official documents as HRH The Prince Philip, whereas Catherine and Camilla are never referred to as HRH Princess Catherine or HRH Princess Camilla. In other words, Philip has the legal right or privilege to use the titular dignity of Prince prefixed to his Christian name whereas Catherine and Camilla do not have the same right or privilege.





I believe he was formally given the title of Prince Consort in 1857 (i.e., long after he and Victoria had married).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22015/page/2195


Prior to the said Letters Patent mentioned in the Gazette, he was HRH Prince Albert. Note that Albert was originally only an HSH in accordance with his German titles. He was elevated to the rank of HRH in 1840.


https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19821/page/241

That is because, by the QEII, Prince Philip was officially created the Prince of United Kingdom and styled His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (by letter patent in 1957)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So far, I don't see how someone can be styled as something they are not; or in the case of women by another title than either their own title or a title that is derived from their husband's titles... However, if you have examples where people have officially been styled by something that they are not somehow entitled to, I'd love to know.

Doesn't the common law of England permit anyone to call themselves whatever they like, outside of official documents, provided it is not for fraudulent purposes?

The website of the UK government seems to support that.

Overview

You do not have to follow a legal process to start using a new name. But you might need a ‘deed poll’ to apply for or to change official documents like your passport or driving licence.​

So, in his case, Letters Patent were indeed needed to make him the Prince Consort (just as I'm arguing would be needed for Camilla - if Charles would want to give her that title).

I'm not sure their use proves that they were needed, but it does create a precedent.

How do you suggest it works? Could Charles also decide that any other person could be known as Duke or Duchess while they nor their spouse are Duke or Duchess; just because he likes that person or because he or she is a family member? Or could the queen now or Charles in the future just release a press release that mentions that from now on Beatrice's and Eugenie's husbands are known as princes? Without any paperwork needed?

I suspect the circumstances would be more important than the legal technicalities. Should King Charles announce that a thousand of his friends would become Dukes and Duchesses, there would surely be widespread objections even if Parliament passed a bill giving its stamp of approval. Should he announce that his wife will be known as Princess Consort, I suspect very few people will spare any thought on the question of whether paperwork ought to have been issued.

The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster because she holds the title in her own right, she isn't the wife of the title holder.

A female holder of a peerage normally uses the feminine form of the title. See for example the female members of the House of Lords, who are styled Baroness or Lady.

 

[Mbruno]

A female holder of a peerage normally uses the feminine form of the title. See for example the female members of the House of Lords, who are styled Baroness or Lady.

For some reason which I don't understand, the Life Peeresses in the House of Lords are called "Baroness" whereas the wives of Barons normally prefer to use "Lady" instead, although they are also "baronesses" strictly speaking.

I do realise that I should have said Queen Victoria thought Duchess was just for the wife of the title holder and decided to be Duke of Lancaster.

There were British duchesses in their own right in the past, e.g. the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough . I don't think there is any today, but there are a few countesses and several (hereditary) baronesses in their own right.

 

[Heavs]

A female holder of a peerage normally uses the feminine form of the title. See for example the female members of the House of Lords, who are styled Baroness or Lady.

I do realise that. I should have said Queen Victoria thought Duchess was just for the wife of the title holder and decided to be Duke of Lancaster.

Anne Boleyn was allegedly created a Marquess deliberately instead of a Marchioness but that might just have been the feminine spelling of Marquis or Marquys at the time, and has little baring on the discussion.

For some reason which I don't understand, the Life Peeresses in the House of Lords are called "Baroness" whereas the wives of Barons normally prefer to use "Lady" instead, although they are also "baronesses" strictly speaking.

There is no actual peerage in the UK for Lord/Lady those are more informal titles for other ranks or courtesy titles for children/siblings.

 

[Prinsara]

Not really a current title, but hasn't the Queen been greeted with "Vive La Duchesse" when she's gone to Normandy?

 

[Mbruno]

There is no actual peerage in the UK for Lord/Lady those are more informal titles for other ranks or courtesy titles for children/siblings.

I know that. I was just noting that a life baroness is normally called, e.g. "Baroness Williams", whereas a hereditary baroness or baroness in her own right is normally referred to e.g. as Lady + [Designation of the Title].


On your other point, the feminine form of Marquis is Marquise, both of which are actually French words. The equivalent in Spanish would be Marqués and Marquesa.