Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Countessmeout]

Was Prince Charles ever referred to as Prince Charles of Edinburgh before February 1952? I don't believe he was, and wonder why not as his parents were of course the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh during King George VI's lifetime.

He was indeed and so was Anne. There is a clip about his baptism if you scroll down in this article and they talk about Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalt...rles-vintage-1948-christening-video-released/

 

[Curryong]

Thank you. Wiki said he had, but... It's logical that he would have been but I've honestly never heard it mentioned.

 

[Mbruno]

He was indeed and so was Anne. There is a clip about his baptism if you scroll down in this article and they talk about Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalt...rles-vintage-1948-christening-video-released/

It appears that Elizabeth's name was entered in the birth certificate as HRH The Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Duchess of Edinburgh.

 

[Countessmeout]

Thank you. Wiki said he had, but... It's logical that he would have been but I've honestly never heard it mentioned.

Yes Wikipedia often needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Anne's baptism. Sadly they don't mention Edinburgh but thought sweet to see the video of hers as well.

It appears that Elizabeth's name was entered in the birth certificate as HRH The Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Duchess of Edinburgh.

Similar to modern ones. William's for his kids says HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge. Since Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales, that would have been her proper signature.

 

[Durham]

It's a funny one this because Charles was a prince because of his mother & she just happened to be married to the Duke of Edinburgh. So even though it would appear he was styled as such arguably he wasn't really a prince of Edinburgh at all. On the other hand how else would he have been styled? Of nowhere like the daughters of Princess Helena after 1917?

Conversely he could just as easily have been styled of the UK I suppose.

Incidentally. If Charlotte of Wales & her baby had survived how would her child have been styled?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Incidentally. If Charlotte of Wales & her baby had survived how would her child have been styled?

Her husband was style His Royal Highness Prince Leopold ,Duke of Saxony between 1818-1831 prior to becoming the king of the Belgians.

Though not sure if the child would HSH or HRH 'Prince or Princess X'.

 

[Durham]

It's an interesting question. I wonder if someone has a definitive answer.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This question was originally posted in another thread, but it most likely belongs here:

Suppose that in the future, a female Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor chooses to continue using the (Mountbatten-)Windsor name on her identity documents after marriage and registers her legitimate children as (Mountbatten-)Windsors. Would King Charles/William/George have the power to change the legal registrations of her and her children without her consent on the basis of the royal proclamations of 1917/1960? Or could/would he sue her or have her charged with an offense?

 

[Gawin]

This question was originally posted in another thread, but it most likely belongs here:

Suppose that in the future, a female Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor chooses to continue using the (Mountbatten-)Windsor name on her identity documents after marriage and registers her legitimate children as (Mountbatten-)Windsors. Would King Charles/William/George have the power to change the legal registrations of her and her children without her consent on the basis of the royal proclamations of 1917/1960? Or could/would he sue her or have her charged with an offense?

I wonder about that as well.

Does the Queen's Privy Council declaration simply mean that "female descendants who marry and their descendants" do not automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (in accordance with the British tradition that women and their children take their husband's surname)?

Or does it go beyond that and also prohibit female descendants from adopting the surname for themselves and their children?

Likewise, although descendants in the male line automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, do they have the right to adopt another if they wish?

According to the government's website: "Under English law, a person may change their surname at will."

https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/594307/Name_change_-_English_April_2016.pdf

The Royal Family's website states (in reference to the Queen's Privy Council declarations of 1952 and 1960): "A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after."

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Of course, the purpose of the statement is to emphasize that Charles (and his successors) can override the Queen's decision. But if her Privy Council declaration doesn't have the force of law, and the law allows a person to change their surname at will, could any of her other descendants also ignore her "will and pleasure" by adopting or rejecting the Mountbatten-Windsor surname for themselves?

 

[JR76]

There are already British families with the surname of Windsor. Since the palace hasn't forced them to change their names I hardly believe that they would do so to an actual member of the Royal family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder about that as well.

Does the Queen's Privy Council declaration simply mean that "female descendants who marry and their descendants" do not automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (in accordance with the British tradition that women and their children take their husband's surname)?

Or does it go beyond that and also prohibit female descendants from adopting the surname for themselves and their children?

Likewise, although descendants in the male line automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, do they have the right to adopt another if they wish?

According to the government's website: "Under English law, a person may change their surname at will."

https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/594307/Name_change_-_English_April_2016.pdf

The Royal Family's website states (in reference to the Queen's Privy Council declarations of 1952 and 1960): "A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after."

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Of course, the purpose of the statement is to emphasize that Charles (and his successors) can override the Queen's decision. But if her Privy Council declaration doesn't have the force of law, and the law allows a person to change their surname at will, could any of her other descendants also ignore her "will and pleasure" by adopting or rejecting the Mountbatten-Windsor surname for themselves?

Thank you very much for finding these statements.

On the face of it, it appears King Charles (or whoever) would have an uphill battle to have a female member of the family charged with an offense for keeping her surname after marriage or adopting it for her children.

But would the King need to rely on prosecution? Could he simply order the registrar to change the name in the identity card or registration? And if he could, is it likely he would do so?

There are already British families with the surname of Windsor. Since the palace hasn't forced them to change their names I hardly believe that they would do so to an actual member of the Royal family.

But those families are not descendants of Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth II and the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 are not applicable to them.

 

[Heavs]

This question was originally posted in another thread, but it most likely belongs here:

Suppose that in the future, a female Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor chooses to continue using the (Mountbatten-)Windsor name on her identity documents after marriage and registers her legitimate children as (Mountbatten-)Windsors. Would King Charles/William/George have the power to change the legal registrations of her and her children without her consent on the basis of the royal proclamations of 1917/1960? Or could/would he sue her or have her charged with an offense?

Taking your Cosima Windsor example in the other thread, I can't think that anyone could force her to either take her husband's name instead of remaining Windsor or potentially hyphenating and then giving her children her own name or a hyphenated name. It's not the same as a title where there are LPs involved. And name changes after marriage aren't automatic, you have to register it with various departments. They may ask HM as a courtesy if she is ok with it.

HM (whoever it is by then) wouldn't need to rubber stamp her marriage unlike 1917 or 1960, it's difficult to see why they would want to officially interfere in how a distant relative names their child unless for example Cosima's brother declared that he didn't want to have children and wanted to attempt to make his sister and sister's daughter his heir in a situation where the Peerage inheritance laws had not changed and the name was part of that. Then they'd probably get interested in what was going on.

I truly don't see a situation where any of the potential monarchs are ordering registrars to change the names on a birth certificate or taking people to court to insist on using only the father's name. Surely that would be lunacy and there would be a big uproar about abuse of power.

I don't foresee a situation where either Bea or Eugenie want to hyphenate Baby Mountbatten-Winsdor-Brooksbank or Baby Mountbatten-Windsor-Mapelli Mozzi. HM being traditional about these things would almost certainly still very much prefer that they just took their father's name but we don't know if she'd actually try and forbid it officially or unofficially if one or both families (or theoretically Lady Louise and most likely her Uncle in the monarch role) wanted to do that. Probably not, especially as she doesn't seem to have insisted that her granddaughters stop using "of York" and allowed Princess Marina and Princess Alice to use those titles. Or insisted Archie use Earl of Dumbarton.

Like I said before. There will be some fun in royal watching circles if/when Bea has children and if they can or will be addressed as Conte or Nobile (I think for a girl?) or if the Queen will "officially" recognise it because of the children ala some continental royal families. Obviously that's all unlikely but an entertaining exercise.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Taking your Cosima Windsor example in the other thread, I can't think that anyone could force her to either take her husband's name instead of remaining Windsor or potentially hyphenating and then giving her children her own name or a hyphenated name. It's not the same as a title where there are LPs involved. And name changes after marriage aren't automatic, you have to register it with various departments. They may ask HM as a courtesy if she is ok with it.

Interesting. What would be the result if the departments did ask the King (whoever it may be by then) as a courtesy and received the answer that no, His Majesty is not OK with Lady Cosima retaining the Windsor name as a married woman? Would the departments then register a name change from Windsor to Smith (or whatever her husband's name might be) without her consent?

HM (whoever it is by then) wouldn't need to rubber stamp her marriage unlike 1917 or 1960, it's difficult to see why they would want to officially interfere in how a distant relative names their child unless for example Cosima's brother declared that he didn't want to have children and wanted to attempt to make his sister and sister's daughter his heir in a situation where the Peerage inheritance laws had not changed and the name was part of that. Then they'd probably get interested in what was going on.

I truly don't see a situation where any of the potential monarchs are ordering registrars to change the names on a birth certificate or taking people to court to insist on using only the father's name. Surely that would be lunacy and there would be a big uproar about abuse of power.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Many royal watchers and experts seem to believe the 1917 and 1960 statements are legally enforceable, but like you I wonder if taking a woman to court for her choice of family name would be entirely uncontroversial - even though most British women continue to follow the husband's-name tradition, some view it as a choice rather than as a legal obligation.

 

[Heavs]

Interesting. What would be the result if the departments did ask the King (whoever it may be by then) as a courtesy and received the answer that no, His Majesty is not OK with Lady Cosima retaining the Windsor name as a married woman? Would the departments then register a name change from Windsor to Smith (or whatever her husband's name might be) without her consent?

Since the royal family's own website makes it clear that this isn't "the law of the land" again I can't imagine a scenario where HM ordered various government departments not to allow someone to change their own name. It would almost certainly get described as "medieval". The lady in question might get questioned in the press and elsewhere about wanting "Windsor" for the perks/cache but that alone wouldn't stop it being thought of as an overbearing, problematic in many ways move.

Even if one of the members who still have to ask permission to get married, got married without permission and therefore lost their place in the succession the marriage would still be legal and trying to prevent the spouse from using M-W (as opposed to titles) probably wouldn't work because it's the ex royal's actual name.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Many royal watchers and experts seem to believe the 1917 and 1960 statements are legally enforceable, but like you I wonder if taking a woman to court for her choice of family name would be entirely uncontroversial - even though most British women continue to follow the husband's-name tradition, some view it as a choice rather than as a legal obligation.

It would be extremely controversial and guaranteed to make the institution look its most archaic and cruel for trying to "force" a woman to change to her married name in 2020 + and dictate what a family calls their children. And we've seen there's been no insistence that territorial designations of Bea and Eugenie have been forcibly removed or any anger that they keep using them (besides some press and commentators).

It's certainly not considered a legal obligation, even though most currently do follow it.

I just don't see that level of micromanaging what extended members of the family do or don't do. If closer family Eugenie and Jack surprisingly wanted M-W-B for their baby the Queen might not chose it herself but she might well give her blessing anyway, as she has for many things that might not have been to her personal (as opposed to official) approval. Especially as things have changed so much since 1960.

As an aside: Quite a few aristocratic families got their double, triple or even quadruple barrelled names from adding in female married in names of distinction or to stop a family name dying out because a gentleman only had daughters. Not that it applies here but it's not unknown for a family to want to reflect a pedigree from the mother's side in a name.

 

[Durham]

As an aside: Quite a few aristocratic families got their double, triple or even quadruple barrelled names from adding in female married in names of distinction or to stop a family name dying out because a gentleman only had daughters. Not that it applies here but it's not unknown for a family to want to reflect a pedigree from the mother's side in a name.

Indeed & there are some corkers!

Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is one such. Straight out of PG Wodehouse.

Maybe we should compile a list.

 

[AC21091968]

Indeed & there are some corkers!

Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is one such. Straight out of PG Wodehouse.

Maybe we should compile a list.

Richard Drax's (Conservative MP for South Dorset) full name is Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. Some people did believe that David Cameron (then Conservative Party leader) recommended him to change his name to Richard Drax during 2010's general election. But I do think that he is known as Richard Drax since his school days, because there's no way he could fit Richard Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax in his name tag.
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4132/contact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax

In some cases, the surnames were not hyphenated at all, so there is no "barrelled" surname. Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair (her full name) is the daughter of Somerset Struben de Chair and Lady Ann Juliet Dorothea Maud Wentworth-Fitzwilliam. None of Helena's surname were hyphenated, but her mother and previous Earl Fitzwilliam(s) or even male-line descendant are. Starting from Charles William Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, 5th Earl Fitzwilliam, their surnames were "Wentworth-Fitzwilliam". The title became extinct after the death of William Thomas George Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, 10th Earl Fitzwilliam.

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

She was referred as Helena de Chair, before she married Hon. Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Son of William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg and Gillian Shakespeare Morris), who is now a Conservative MP for North East Somerset. According to the peerage website, "her married name became Rees-Mogg", but I am not quite sure if she get to keep "Wentworth Fitzwilliam", as part of her full name (i.e. Her full name becomes Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam Rees-Mogg). On her private instagram account, she is Helena Rees-Mogg, which is picked up by her mother's (Lady Juliet) wikipedia page, under the children's subheading in the profile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Juliet_Tadgell

Her children carried their father's surname. Two of her children have "Wentworth" and "Fitzwilliam" as their middle names.
Person Page (F, #330392)

 

[Heavs]

I always think Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe is an extremely awkward name, it just doesn't flow which is one reason I suppose some of them officially just use "Calthorpe".



That was created by the first Baronet assuming his wife's name in addition to his own Anstruther.



At least a name like Vane -Tempest- Stewart flows much better.

 

[wbenson]

I'd be very surprised if the monarch's legal power to determine someone else's name by fiat didn't end when their own children reached the age of majority. English law is very relaxed about names; anyone can take any name they please so long as they don't do it to commit fraud. Even if, somehow, the monarch coerced a registrar into not recording a particular surname, a birth certificate is not binding on someone's choice of name.

Additionally, courts found in the 17th century that no new royal prerogatives could be created by the monarch, so unless monarchs had power to force people to give up their names before (at the latest) 1611, that would not be a power the monarch could just will into being by proclamation.

 

[Somebody]

So if Archie isn't eligible to be a Prince "yet," then how come William's children are? Is it because William is in direct line to the throne? Sorry, I don't mean to stray away from the Wessex children, since this is their thread, but I feel like all this ties together and it is easier to just ask here then to hop around to 20 different threads on each different kid.

Because the Queen issued a LP that awarded these styles and titles to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Without that LP only George (as eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) would have been HRH Prince George of Cambridge; his siblings would have been Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

However, given that the law changed and the eldest child regardless of gender was to be the future monarch, they didn't want to run the risk that if the eldest child was a daughter, she would be a 'Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor' while a younger brother (as the eldest son) would have been a HRH Prince Y of Cambridge', so a LP was issued before George's birth.

 

[Somebody]

My understanding is that when Charles gets on the throne he will make him a prince. Which is why they rejected a lesser title - not because they wanted him to be a commoner.

There is nothing for Charles to do to make him a prince. Archie will automatically become a prince UNLESS something is done about it.

And Archie is and will remain a commoner until he inherits his father's title of 'Duke of Sussex'. Only then will he be a peer. Whether he is known as Archie M-W, Lord Dumbarton or HRH Prince Archie of Sussex doesn't change the fact that he is a commoner.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you to Heavs and wbenson for your answers to my question on surnames.

According to the peerage website, "her married name became Rees-Mogg", but I am not quite sure if she get to keep "Wentworth Fitzwilliam", as part of her full name (i.e. Her full name becomes Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam Rees-Mogg).

It looks to me as if thepeerage.com website uses the phrase "her married name became [name of husband]" for each and every married woman, whether or not she truly uses her husband's name.

Without that LP only George (as eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) would have been HRH Prince George of Cambridge; his siblings would have been Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

To add onto your answer, that would have been on the basis of the rules (Letters Patent) set in 1917 by King George V.

However, given that the law changed and the eldest child regardless of gender was to be the future monarch, they didn't want to run the risk that if the eldest child was a daughter, she would be a 'Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor' while a younger brother (as the eldest son) would have been a HRH Prince Y of Cambridge', so a LP was issued before George's birth.

The royal court never published the Queen's rationale for elevating the Duke of Cambridge's potential future daughters and younger sons to Prince/ss. I agree that it is probable that the optics of a younger brother "outranking" an heiress to the throne were taken into account, but for all we know new LPs might have been issued regardless of the succession law.

 

[Excalibur]

The royal court never published the Queen's rationale for elevating the Duke of Cambridge's potential future daughters and younger sons to Prince/ss. I agree that it is probable that the optics of a younger brother "outranking" an heiress to the throne were taken into account, but for all we know new LPs might have been issued regardless of the succession law.

It could have been the same rationale used when King George VI issued LPs granting the Prince/ss title to all children of the then Princess Elizabeth. Since Phillip was not yet a Prince of the UK, their children would have been styled Lord/Lady as the children of a duke. So instead of Prince Charles, their first son would have been Lord Charles, Earl of Merioneth. Not very good optics for an heir to the throne being born a mere Lord.

 

[Somebody]

The royal court never published the Queen's rationale for elevating the Duke of Cambridge's potential future daughters and younger sons to Prince/ss. I agree that it is probable that the optics of a younger brother "outranking" an heiress to the throne were taken into account, but for all we know new LPs might have been issued regardless of the succession law.

True, while I am quite sure that was taken into account in the decision (because of that not issuing LPs would might have created a very unfortunate situation), you are of course right that without this change the queen might have decided the same.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I got this off my smart news app. This isn't where the article originated they copied it from another source but I can't remember the source. It's the same article however.


Could Camilla become queen if Charles dies?
https://parade.com/1123989/roisinkelly/will-camilla-be-queen-if-prince-charles-dies/


They based it on the fact that Camilla isn't William's mother so they say that she could become queen if Charles dies rather than the crown being passed to William.

 

[Denville]

I got this off my smart news app. This isn't where the article originated they copied it from another source but I can't remember the source. It's the same article however.


Could Camilla become queen if Charles dies?
https://parade.com/1123989/roisinkelly/will-camilla-be-queen-if-prince-charles-dies/


They based it on the fact that Camilla isn't William's mother so they say that she could become queen if Charles dies rather than the crown being passed to William.

how could she become queen rahter than William? I dont understand. And as for the title of Queen Mother that is for the mother of the King. As Cam isn't Williams mother, there's no way she could be queen Mother.

 

[Osipi]

I got this off my smart news app. This isn't where the article originated they copied it from another source but I can't remember the source. It's the same article however.


Could Camilla become queen if Charles dies?
https://parade.com/1123989/roisinkelly/will-camilla-be-queen-if-prince-charles-dies/


They based it on the fact that Camilla isn't William's mother so they say that she could become queen if Charles dies rather than the crown being passed to William.

Whomever came up with this line of thinking should be told that April Fool's Day has long passed.

All it takes is to simply look up the line of succession to the throne in the UK to realize that Camilla is *not* listed in any way, shape or form. The Queen dies, Charles is king. Charles dies and William is king and so forth it goes down the line of succession.

 

[TortillaChips]

So many people that I wanted to quote as I agree but lost track haha ?.

I am yet another one that has been following all of the drama and was very anti-Camilla at the start but watched them come together (in public ish), watched the wedding with pure delight and have been so impressed in what DoC has achieved over the years.

I know that there will still be a debate over her title when our current Queen sadly dies but Camilla will be my Queen and I hope that she has many years more in order to continue her wonderful work

 

[Mbruno]

So many people that I wanted to quote as I agree but lost track haha ?.

I am yet another one that has been following all of the drama and was very anti-Camilla at the start but watched them come together (in public ish), watched the wedding with pure delight and have been so impressed in what DoC has achieved over the years.

I know that there will still be a debate over her title when our current Queen sadly dies but Camilla will be my Queen and I hope that she has many years more in order to continue her wonderful work

I suppose she will be de jure queen, but, for practical reasons, might choose not to be called Queen or addressed as Your Majesty.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Du moment Charles is King, his lawfully wedded spouse at the moment, whoever that may be, is Queen.

And when the country faces the shock of the passing-away of a living embodiment of Britain after WWII, it will rally around the King leading the Nation in mourning. And sooner than everyone is aware, the new reality becomes the new normal: a new King ansld Queen, a new Duke and Duchess of Cornwall.

And the discussion "should she be Queen"? is ended, for once and for all.

 

[Winnie]

Du moment Charles is King, his lawfully wedded spouse at the moment, whoever that may be, is Queen.

And when the country faces the shock of the passing-away of a living embodiment of Britain after WWII, it will rally around the King leading the Nation in mourning. And sooner than everyone is aware, the new reality becomes the new normal: a new King ansld Queen, a new Duke and Duchess of Cornwall.

And the discussion "should she be Queen"? is ended, for once and for all.

Absolutely correct. Many might still complain about it in private but if they can't "get over it" that is their personal problem. The rule and laws will stand beside the new king.