Questions about British Styles and Titles

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

It is unfortunate that they misspelled the surname of both Savannah and Isla Phillips. Perhaps there's only one "l" because the writer of the press release got confused with the spelling of The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

They did however spell the parents' (Autumn Phillips and Peter Phillips) surnames correctly in the release.

Hopefully they won't have to reprint all the wedding programmes between now and Friday.

Let's hope it is indeed printed correctly on the wedding programmes! As they are members of the royal family, they should know how to spell this surname since at least 1973 when the engagement between The Princess Anne and Mark Phillips was announced.

[JessRulz]

Posts about Sarah and the flowergirl's exchange at the wedding have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...8-a-45619.html thread.

[cdm]

Are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward also Princess and Princes of Edinburgh as their father is the Duke of Edinburgh?

[Iluvbertie]

Yes and No.

Charles and Anne were 'of Edinburgh' when they were born but their position as children of the monarch trumps any titles they may have from Philip.

Andrew and Edward were never 'of Edinburgh' as their mother was already the Queen.

Charles, Andrew and Edward have substantive titles of their own and when that happened they were no long 'of Edinburgh' just as William and Harry are no longer 'of Wales' as they are 'of Cambridge' and 'of Sussex' respectively.

[Duke of Leaside]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

... just as William and Harry are no longer 'of Wales' as they are 'of Cambridge' and 'of Sussex' respectively.

I would respectfully argue that William and Harry are not "of Cambridge" and "of Sussex" respectively but rather they ARE "Cambridge" and "Sussex" respectively.

When thinking of Prince and Princesses "of X" I think it's easier to understand if one thinks of "X" as a person rather than a place. George is of "Cambridge" because he is the son of (The Duke of) Cambridge. George is not of the geographic place Cambridge because his father is the Duke of Cambridge. He is of his father who is (The Duke of) Cambridge.

You could (and I believe this may be how it works in Japan) call George, "Prince George of William". Eugenie could have been "Princess Eugenie of Andrew" but now that she's married, she is no longer of Andrew (i.e. of York) she is HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

Also peers often (more in the past than now), would sign their names simply by the peerage (although princes (peers or not) generally just sign their first Christian name only).

So Earl Mountbatten would sign "Mountbatten" and the Duke of Westminster would sign "Westminster", not "Grosvenor".

Sorry if this is long-winded, but by thinking of the X in "of X" as a person rather than a place, it (at least to me) made more sense of how all the titles work and interact.

[Biri]

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

When thinking of Prince and Princesses "of X" I think it's easier to understand if one thinks of "X" as a person rather than a place. George is of "Cambridge" because he is the son of (The Duke of) Cambridge. George is not of the geographic place Cambridge because his father is the Duke of Cambridge. He is of his father who is (The Duke of) Cambridge.

So Harry's child should be Prince(ss) [name] of Sussex.
In Denmark Prince Joachim's children are:
Prince Nikolai of Denmark
Prince Felix of Denmark
Prince Henrik of Denmark
Princess Athena of Denmark
- although their father is not the heir of the throne and there is no threat he'll ever be (giving that the heir has four children)


The same with the children of Prince Laurent - Princess Louise of Belgium, Prince Nicholas of Belgium, Prince Aymeric of Belgium.


I completely don't understand why Prince Constantijn's children are Count and Countesses of Nassau; in the case of late Prince Friso's daughters I understand they are Countesses de Nassau and not Princesses of the Netherlands because their parents' marriage was not approved by Parliament, but what about their cousins?

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

You could (and I believe this may be how it works in Japan) call George, "Prince George of William". Eugenie could have been "Princess Eugenie of Andrew" but now that she's married, she is no longer of Andrew (i.e. of York) she is HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

In Russia she would be "Princess Jewgieniya Andreevna"


Also peers often (more in the past than now), would sign their names simply by the peerage (although princes (peers or not) generally just sign their first Christian name only).
[/QUOTE]

[Anna Catherine]

Originally Posted by Biri

So Harry's child should be Prince(ss) [name] of Sussex.

[/QUOTE]

If I understand correctly, Harry’s children will be titled as children of a Duke while the Queen is alive since he is the second son/non-heir and the baby will be the great-grandchild of the sovereign. Once Charles becomes King they will be HRH Prince/ss of Sussex as a grandchild of the sovereign . For now, a son would be [Name], The Earl of Dumbarton and a daughter would be The Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor.


I was wondering what the baby’s style would be since they wouldn’t be entitled to HRH.

[Mbruno]

If I understand correctly, Harry’s children will be titled as children of a Duke while the Queen is alive since he is the second son/non-heir and the baby will be the great-grandchild of the sovereign. Once Charles becomes King they will be HRH Prince/ss of Sussex as a grandchild of the sovereign . For now, a son would be [Name], The Earl of Dumbarton and a daughter would be The Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor.


I was wondering what the baby’s style would be since they wouldn’t be entitled to HRH.

Harry's first son, if he is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



[Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton


and will be referred to simply as Earl of Dumbarton or Lord Dumbarton.



Harry's first daughter, if she is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lady [Name].



Likewise,Harry's second son if he is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled


Lord [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lord [Name].


No matter when they are born, any of Harry's children, when Charles becomes king, will be styled

HRH Prince/Princess [Name] of Sussex

unless Charles decides that, like Viscount Severn and Lady Louise, they should continue to be styled only as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

[Anna Catherine]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Harry's first son, if he is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



[Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton


and will be referred to simply as Earl of Dumbarton or Lord Dumbarton.



Harry's first daughter, if she is borm while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lady [Name].



Likewise,Harry's second son if he is borm while the Queen is still alive, will be styled


Lord [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lord [Name].


No matter when they are born, any of the Harry's children, when Charles becomes king, will be styled

HRH Prince/Princess [Name] of Sussex

unless Charles decides that, like Viscount Severn and Lady Louise, they should continue to be styled only as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

So would they be Your Grace or Your Highness or neither?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Anna Catherine

So would they be Your Grace or Your Highness or neither?

They would be neither His/Her Grace nor His/Her Highness while the Queen is still alive, They would be His/Her Royal Highness when Charles becomes king unless he decides otherwise.


BTW, as I mentioned before, "His/Her Grace" applies only to (non-royal) titular dukes and their wives or widows. A titular earl is entitled to the predicate "The Right Honourable" whereas a courtesy earl (for example, the eldest son of a duke) doesn't use any predicate (he is only "Earl of xxx").

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

I would respectfully argue that William and Harry are no longer "of Cambridge" and "of Sussex" respectively but rather they ARE "Cambridge" and "Sussex" respectively.

When thinking of Prince and Princesses "of X" I think it's easier to understand if one thinks of "X" as a person rather than a place. George is of "Cambridge" because he is the son of (The Duke of) Cambridge. George is not of the geographic place Cambridge because his father is the Duke of Cambridge. He is of his father who is (The Duke of) Cambridge.

Cambridge/of Cambridge can also be thought of as the family name used for their daily lives by William's branch of the royal family (whereas they use Mountbatten-Windsor for any official document requiring a last name).

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

You could (and I believe this may be how it works in Japan) call George, "Prince George of William".

In the Japanese imperial family the name of the father's branch of the imperial family is given to his children, but they do not receive his given name. For instance, the children of the emperor's second son bear the name of their father's branch (Akishino), but not his given name (Fumihito).

???? - ???

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

Eugenie could have been "Princess Eugenie of Andrew" but now that she's married, she is no longer of Andrew (i.e. of York) she is HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

Princess Eugenie has remained "of York" for the time being, though it was reported that she probably will change her name in the near future.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2158546

https://www.royal.uk/official-photog...sbanks-wedding

Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack Brooksbank have released four official photographs from their Wedding day.

Originally Posted by Biri

I completely don't understand why Prince Constantijn's children are Count and Countesses of Nassau; in the case of late Prince Friso's daughters I understand they are Countesses de Nassau and not Princesses of the Netherlands because their parents' marriage was not approved by Parliament, but what about their cousins?

They are Countesses and Count of Orange-Nassau because the Dutch government made the decision to limit royal titles to the individuals who were closest to the throne.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Biri

So Harry's child should be Prince(ss) [name] of Sussex.
In Denmark Prince Joachim's children are:
Prince Nikolai of Denmark
Prince Felix of Denmark
Prince Henrik of Denmark
Princess Athena of Denmark
- although their father is not the heir of the throne and there is no threat he'll ever be (giving that the heir has four children)

[/QUOTE]

In Denmark they have two forms of the "of Denmark". Blood princes and princesses, who are in line are prince and princess "til Denmark" while the princes' wifes are "af Denmark" because they married into the Royal family and take their title from their husbands.

You can see this at kongehuset.dk - Frederick is Konprins til Denmark, Mary is Kronprinsesse af Denmark.


[/QUOTE]

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Anna Catherine

So would they be Your Grace or Your Highness or neither?

Neither.

'Your Grace' is the style for a Duke, Duchess or a Bishop not anyone else.

'Your Royal Highness' is for someone who is an HRH

All other peers and their wives - such as Marquises, Marchionesses, Earls, Countesses, Viscounts and Viscountesses are - My Lord/Lady

If you watch Downton Abbey the Earl is always called 'My Lord' or 'His Lordship'.

David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl Snowdon would be referred to as 'My Lord' and both is wife and sister as 'My Lady' even though they are grandchildren of a King.

The Duke of Gloucester would be 'Your Royal Highness' or 'His Royal Highness' but his son will be 'Your Grace' or 'His Grace' as he won't be an HRH.

[HRHDuchessofAlbany]

I really hope they dont pass the patent and allow them to be Earl/Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. I feel like if the letters are pushed, they will recieve so much backlash. (I actually read the comments at Dailymail and other blogs, theyre horrific) i know theres a lot of people who think the Princesses of York should renounce their HRHs.

[Marlo]

Their children not being prince/princess will send out the wrong message. IMO

[Terri Terri]

But they won't be princes/princesses if QEII is still alive anyway!

[American Observer7]

Originally Posted by Terri Terri

But they won't be princes/princesses if QEII is still alive anyway!

They can and will be if the Queen steps in and I'd bet odds she will because she did it for William's kids and she'll do the same for Harry.

If she hasn't done so already.

Originally Posted by Marlo

Their children not being princes will send out the wrong message. IMO

Agreed.


The Queen will do it for Harry and she likes Meghan.

[Pranter]

I think it will be interesting to see...after all Harry and Meghan may not want their children to have titles.


LaRae

[RoyalHighness 2002]

It really wouldn't make sense for the Queen's collateral great-grandchild to have a princely style and title while her collateral grandchildren have been 'stripped' of theirs and use noble titles and styles. This would totally contradict Charles proposed wish to streamline the RF and would probably lead to a lot of criticism.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Marlo

Their children not being princes will send out the wrong message. IMO

I hadn’t thought of that but you are absolutely right. Under the circumstances prince and/or princess would be the right way to go.