Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure there is any particular 'Royal source' in reality in many of these articles. I do believe that there were/are staff at both KP and BP that dislike(d) Meghan and werent averse to leaking all sorts of stuff about her to journalists including Royal correspondents.

[.....]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A number of posts have been edited or deleted as either being off topic, empty, or speculative.

Barring additonal information, it's time to move on.
 
A report with additional information: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rchies-birth-certificate-cause-toxic-row.html


Buckingham Palace, meanwhile, suggested on Sunday — in comments clearly discussed in advance with the Sussexes — that a ‘clerical error’ had precipitated the need formally to change the birth certificate.

For Royal-watchers, this was interesting. Immediately after Archie’s birth on May 6, 2019 — itself shrouded in much secrecy, as many will remember — Royal aides followed the template set by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for their children when it came to Archie’s birth certificate.

In this, they were led by the Queen’s highly experienced former deputy private secretary, Samantha Cohen. [...]

Mrs Cohen is not someone given to making significant errors, clerical or otherwise. And nor, for that matter, are the team at Westminster Register Office, who are well-versed in recording royal births.

In what was clearly designed to be the most tactful rejoinder possible, insiders gently insisted that no one ‘dictated’ anything.

One source told the Mail that the use of the word ‘dictated’ was an ‘unfortunate’ choice that might, they politely continued, have been ‘lost in translation’ from the U.S. Perhaps, they suggested, there could have been a misunderstanding about what ‘royal protocol’ required in this situation.

The New York Post, seemingly guided by the Sussexes’ representatives, suggested yesterday that the changes were required by the Garter Principal King of Arms and Senior Herald, Thomas Woodcock, a member of the Royal Household and chief adviser to the Queen on ceremonial matters and heraldry.

But when I spoke to the genial Mr Woodcock at the College of Arms yesterday, he was bemused by the suggestion. ‘This doesn’t ring a bell with me,’ he said. ‘I may have said some time that if you are the Duchess of Sussex then that is your name. “Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex” rather implies that you are a dowager, or widowed. That’s a bit old-fashioned.

‘I haven’t had any part in it but am very happy to take the blame, if that is what’s required.

‘It is undoubtedly my role to advise, and maybe I offered some thoughts in one context but they are being used in another. Whenever I am asked a question, I do try to answer it as honestly as possible. I just have no recollection particularly of being asked for any advice on how things should be entered on a birth certificate.’

His sense of bemusement is echoed by the Palace.

‘There is no set protocol with these things,’ one source told me. ‘The birth certificate is a civic document, so there are options on how it is filled out.
 
It is interesting that, per Garter and the anonymous Palace source, for British royals a "civic document" has more "options" than the "set protocol" used in other contexts (which ones?). In many other European countries, it would be the other way around.

I wonder whether those "options" would allow Princess Eugenie the freedom to decide whether she wishes to use Princess Eugenie, Princess Eugenie of York, or Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank when she or her husband register their child's birth.
 
It is interesting that, per Garter and the anonymous Palace source, for British royals a "civic document" has more "options" than the "set protocol" used in other contexts (which ones?). In many other European countries, it would be the other way around.

I wonder whether those "options" would allow Princess Eugenie the freedom to decide whether she wishes to use Princess Eugenie, Princess Eugenie of York, or Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank when she or her husband register their child's birth.

Indeed, you would think that civic documents are stricter and not less strict than for example royal protocols.
 
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/sussex/why-is-prince-harrys-irish-title-so-controversial-155384/


Prince Harry is best known as the Duke of Sussex – a title granted to him by The Queen in May 2018 upon his marriage to Meghan Markle. A lesser known title also bestowed upon him was Baron Kilkeel – a subsidiary peerage which the prince can use when he visits Northern Ireland. However, when it was announced that Harry would become the Baron Kilkeel, it caused controversy on the island of Ireland between Unionists and Irish Republicans.
Nothing to do with the man himself, but unfortunately it's due to the friction between Protestants and Catholics.
 
Last edited:
There is no smoke without a fire . . . unless someone lobbed a smoke grenade. I beggars belief that Harry and Meghan are supposedly the authors of their own misfortune about every little bit of "Official" muck ups. Yes, Meghan is not au fait with royal procedure but Harry surely, as indeed is Samantha Cohen.

It is all very murky if not downright fishy.
 
Y'know, I just thought of something. It really doesn't matter what is on a birth certificate or if it follows protocol or whatever. Both Harry and Meghan are adults and when Archie reaches his majority, all three of them could legally change their names to the Boat family and have first names of Wynken, Blynken and Nod if they choose to. Anyone can change their names legally unless there is intent to defraud. :D
 
So since Archie was born in London even to an American mother is he automatically an American or do they have to make him an American? And is he allowed to have titles as an American?
 
So since Archie was born in London even to an American mother is he automatically an American or do they have to make him an American? And is he allowed to have titles as an American?

He has American citizenship since he is the child of an American citizen. There's nothing he needs to do. He is allowed to have titles as an American. The only prohibition on titles in the US Constitution/US law is that an American citizen may not have titles bestowed on them/accept foreign titles - eg. Tom Hanks could not accept a knighthood. You don't lose titles you are born with or inherit.
 
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/sussex/why-is-prince-harrys-irish-title-so-controversial-155384/



Nothing to do with the man himself, but unfortunately it's due to the friction between Protestants and Catholics.

It has been custom for Princes of the United Kingdom to hold subsidiary Northern Irish titles since the foundation of Northern Ireland in 1921; Duke of Kent = Baron Downpatrick; Duke of York = Baron Killyleagh; Duke of Cambridge = Baron Carrickfergus. These titles have been in no way controversial. In the cases of Killyleagh, Carrickfergus and Kilkeel these are towns with a strong Unionist identity and history of service to the Crown.
 
Those are the baronies. The Duke of Gloucester's Earldom is Earl of Ulster and is used by his son and heir while his grandson uses Baron Culloden.
 
The only prohibition on titles in the US Constitution/US law is that an American citizen may not have titles bestowed on them/accept foreign titles - eg. Tom Hanks could not accept a knighthood. You don't lose titles you are born with or inherit.

It's not even that strict; the prohibition only applies to federal government officials. (I believe this is why presidents Reagan and Bush were made honorary knights grand cross of the Order of the Bath after their terms.)

Indeed, you would think that civic documents are stricter and not less strict than for example royal protocols.

English law is very loose on names compared to civil law jurisdictions. Nobody has a single official legal name that they are obligated to use on all official paperwork. This is also why the various royal surnames are so murky. There's a lot of room for people to make things up as they go along, and we're left trying to find order in the chaos.
 
Last edited:
Is Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington styled Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Wellington or Her Grace the Duchess of Wellington in the UK?
 
Technically, you can call yourself by any name you like without legally changing it. Most people of my age can remember a dear old Great Uncle Fred whose official name was actually John, or a dear old Great Auntie Dolly whose official name was actually Mary - it seemed to be quite common for people born in Edwardian times to become known by some random name which had nothing to do with what was on their birth certificate! It's much less common now, because you have to show ID for so many things, and it's pretty difficult to open a bank account in the name of Fred Smith if your birth certificate says John Smith. But Archie could choose to call himself anything, and it wouldn't actually be illegal.
 
So since Archie was born in London even to an American mother is he automatically an American or do they have to make him an American? And is he allowed to have titles as an American?


He is automatically American (actually a "natural born citizen of the United States") under US law. He doesn't have to claim US citizenship to become a citizen and he won't lose his citizenship unless he publicly and officially renounces it. As a natural born citizen, upon reaching the age of 35, he will qualify to become President of the United States if elected under the terms set out in the US constitution.

There is no impediment to natural born US citizens holding a foreign title of nobility or using it in a private capacity, but the title is not recognized by the United States or any state and will not appear in any US ID document. People who hold a federal public office are, however, barred from accepting foreign titles unless authorized by Congress (Section 9(8) of the US constitution).


Naturalized citizens of the United States, contrary to natural born citizens, are required to renounce any foreign title upon naturalization. Prince Harry for example, if he became a US citizen, would have to renounce all his titles (Prince of the United Kingdom, Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order).


Is Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington styled Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Wellington or Her Grace the Duchess of Wellington in the UK?


Good question. I would be strongly inclined to say "Her Grace The Duchess of Wellington" since her Prussian title is in principle not recognized in the UK. However, Prince Ernst of Hanover is known for example to be cited as "His Royal Highness" in official UK documents, so I am not sure what the official policy regarding foreign royal titles and styles actually is.
 
Last edited:
Is Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington styled Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Wellington or Her Grace the Duchess of Wellington in the UK?

What a great question! :flowers:

I think this could boiled down to whether UK recognise or legally consider foreign royal titles (Princess [First Name] of Prussia in her own birth right). I think there is more chance that the UK does not recognise Prussia's royal title, ever since George V relinquished German Titles.

So in this case, Princess Antonia is probably styled as Her Grace The Duchess of Wellington, as in the wife of a non-royal duke in the UK. The reason I specified in the UK, because the 9th Duke of Wellington is also 9th Prince of Waterloo (Prins van Waterloo) of both the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium, 9th Duke of Victoria (Duque da Vitória) of the Kingdom of Portugal and 10th Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo of Spain. If these foreign titles are not recognised in the UK, he is style as His Grace The Duke of Wellington (non-royal Duke).
 
Last edited:
Is Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington styled Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Wellington or Her Grace the Duchess of Wellington in the UK?

An interesting question, indeed! Having considered the Heraldica page on foreign titles (https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/foreigntitles.htm) it is my opinion that for official purposes in the UK, the wife of the current Duke of Wellington is Her Grace The Duchess of Wellington. She seems to be described as Princess Antonia of Prussia and Princess of Waterloo and by other foreign titles, either in her own right or by reason of her marriage, but those titles are all foreign. As I understand it, her husband does not hold any licence to use a foreign title in the UK, and neither does she. So their use of the foreign titles is unofficial. Prussia doesn't even exist any longer and the Prussian titles are not recognised in Germany, but people seem to like clinging to titles as long as they can.
 
Last edited:
Y'know, I just thought of something. It really doesn't matter what is on a birth certificate or if it follows protocol or whatever. Both Harry and Meghan are adults and when Archie reaches his majority, all three of them could legally change their names to the Boat family and have first names of Wynken, Blynken and Nod if they choose to. Anyone can change their names legally unless there is intent to defraud. :D

It depends on the country. For Meghan only the US-laws are relevant. Not sure what the rules are in the UK...

At least in the Netherlands, you cannot just change your name. You need to argue your case for a judge based on a very limited number of legal reasons.
 
I know that on some of her daughters school documents she was "simply" Marchioness of Douro/Lady Douro, with no "Princess Antonia" but I don't know if she has/does use it socially or formally at other times.
 
I wonder if the Duchess has attended anything official such a State Banquet or Gala dinner as the style might be on the guest list?
 
An interesting question, indeed! Having considered the Heraldica page on foreign titles (https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/foreigntitles.htm) it is my opinion that for official purposes in the UK, the wife of the current Duke of Wellington is Her Grace The Duchess of Wellington. [...] As I understand it, her husband does not hold any licence to use a foreign title in the UK, and neither does she. So their use of the foreign titles is unofficial. Prussia doesn't even exist any longer and the Prussian titles are not recognised in Germany, but people seem to like clinging to titles as long as they can.

Princess of Prussia is a legally recognized surname in Germany and I suppose she could also register it as a surname in the UK, but the families appear to be very traditional and I imagine would have expected her to change to her husband's surname on marriage.

There is no impediment to natural born US citizens holding a foreign title of nobility or using it in a private capacity, but the title is not recognized by the United States or any state and will not appear in any US ID document.

Is there confirmation of that? The recent comments from Palace staff seem to suggest that Meghan Markle changed her name to HRH The Duchess of Sussex in her US passport, and I once read a press report mentioning the usage of an abolished royal title in a US legal document.
 
Princess of Prussia is a legally recognized surname in Germany and I suppose she could also register it as a surname in the UK, but the families appear to be very traditional and I imagine would have expected her to change to her husband's surname on marriage.



Is there confirmation of that? The recent comments from Palace staff seem to suggest that Meghan Markle changed her name to HRH The Duchess of Sussex in her US passport, and I once read a press report mentioning the usage of an abolished royal title in a US legal document.


No, I don't have official confirmation of that. You could check the official guidelines for US passports to verify if it is possible to change your name in the passport to HRH The Duchess of Sussex for example. I would be surprised if it were possible to do that, but, again, I can't categorally say it is not without doing more research.
 
I wonder if the Duchess has attended anything official such a State Banquet or Gala dinner as the style might be on the guest list?

She has attended two - the State Banquets for the King of Spain and the President of Colombia. She was with her husband and they were listed as the Duke and Duchess of Wellington.

That is the way all Dukes of Wellington have been referred to in the CC going back to the first Duke.
 
No, I don't have official confirmation of that. You could check the official guidelines for US passports to verify if it is possible to change your name in the passport to HRH The Duchess of Sussex for example. I would be surprised if it were possible to do that, but, again, I can't categorally say it is not without doing more research.

My understanding is that this title would be noted on the "Observations Page", something like also known as HRH The Duchess of Sussex. I understand this is also the approach with actors/musicians stage names.
 
My understanding is that this title would be noted on the "Observations Page", something like also known as HRH The Duchess of Sussex. I understand this is also the approach with actors/musicians stage names.


I don't think she could do it on the photo page as a given name and a surname are required and I doubt HRH The Duchess of Sussex would qualify for either one. Having it included in the observations page (akin to a "stage name" as you said) could be a possibility, but I would still like to see credible confirmation. Where did the information that Meghan's US passport was changed to include her UK title come from?
 
Last edited:
She has attended two - the State Banquets for the King of Spain and the President of Colombia. She was with her husband and they were listed as the Duke and Duchess of Wellington.

That is the way all Dukes of Wellington have been referred to in the CC going back to the first Duke.

Thanks I had forgotten they attended the Spanish State Visit.
 
It has been custom for Princes of the United Kingdom to hold subsidiary Northern Irish titles since the foundation of Northern Ireland in 1921; Duke of Kent = Baron Downpatrick; Duke of York = Baron Killyleagh; Duke of Cambridge = Baron Carrickfergus. These titles have been in no way controversial. In the cases of Killyleagh, Carrickfergus and Kilkeel these are towns with a strong Unionist identity and history of service to the Crown.

Interesting points. It is true however that Prince Henry was created Earl of Ulster in 1928 which includes three counties in the present day Republic of Ireland. Although at the time Eire was a dominion & so technically these three counties were part of George V's realms. I wonder how controversial it was at the time. After all Ireland had only just emerged from a bitter civil war between pro & anti treaty forces.

It wouldn't be done now of course.
 
Last edited:
So many Irish titles once used are now extinct that were associated with the British Royal Family.

The main one's I can think of


Dukedom of Connaught/Connacht
Earldom of Athlone
Earl of Castlemaine
Earls of Ormonde (The Boleyns)
Earl of Munster
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom