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.
Does anyone got the announcement of her wedding to prince Michael?

Was she introduced in it as Miss Marie Christine or Baroness Marie Christine.
 
Does anyone got the announcement of her wedding to prince Michael?

Was she introduced in it as Miss Marie Christine or Baroness Marie Christine.

On Prince Michael's own website which is linked to from the royal family site Princess Michael is called Baroness Marie Christine in the section about their marriage and family.


Marriage & Family - Prince Michael of Kent


Her royal monogram features the letters MC rather than just M.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone got the announcement of her wedding to prince Michael?

Was she introduced in it as Miss Marie Christine or Baroness Marie Christine.


Apparently she was referred to as "Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz" when the Queen gave her official consent to the marriage (The Times, June 1, 1978, p. 1, col. 3). Unfortunately, the Privy Council order was never published in the London Gazette.

Peter Lane included a copy of the wedding invitation in his 1986 biography of Princess Michael. The invitation called the couple (1) His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent, and (2) The Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz.
 
Apparently she was referred to as "Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz" when the Queen gave her official consent to the marriage (The Times, June 1, 1978, p. 1, col. 3). Unfortunately, the Privy Council order was never published in the London Gazette.

Peter Lane included a copy of the wedding invitation in his 1986 biography of Princess Michael. The invitation called the couple (1) His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent, and (2) The Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz.

Interesting, thank you. It seems then that, unlike most British women, she reverted to her maiden name when she divorced her first husband.
 
As of now I don't think he is.

Fair enough. I don't know either way. I suppose being a prince doesn't preclude a man from holding the courtesy title of lord as well.

I can't think of anywhere that would have a definitive answer.
 
Does anyone know what title Queen Victoria would have had if she'd been replaced as monarch by a posthumous child of William IV as per the 1830 Regency Act?

Would she have reverted back to HRH Princess Victoria of Kent or maybe continue to be known as HM Queen Victoria. Just no longer THE queen.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know what title Queen Victoria would have had if she'd been replaced as monarch by a posthumous child of William IV as per the 1830 Regency Act?

Would she have reverted back to HRH Princess Victoria of Kent or maybe continue to be known as HM Queen Victoria. Just no longer THE queen.

Interesting question. As the coronation did not take place till after the chance of the birth of a posthumous heir to William IV the impediment of an anointing of Victoria did not exist so the way was clear for the new heir to replace Victoria in accordance with the legislation and the proclamation. But Victoria would have been the legitimate monarch until the child's birth so she could (should) not be demoted. I think - as you suggest - she would have remained as HM Queen Victoria, just not THE Queen. I think that the lack of an anointing should have been enough to assuage the fears of anyone who was worried about having two living monarchs.
 
The relevant Sections of the 1830 Regency Act below, per Wikki, but still…


  • Section 1 vested the regency in Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, if Victoria became queen while under 18, with the title "Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". The regent was to have all the powers of a monarch, except those prohibited by section 10. The regency would end when Victoria became 18 or if Queen Adelaide gave birth to a child of King William after his death.
  • Section 2 required the Privy Council to proclaim Victoria's accession to the throne, and modified the oath of allegiance by adding to the end the words "Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort". This version of the oath was to be used "until Parliament shall otherwise order".
  • Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.
So it does appear from this that a bizarre situation would arise in which Queen Adelaide would act as Regent, a ‘dead’ Queen Victoria would go on living but no longer as monarch and King William’s posthumous baby would become the new King or Queen.
I get the feeling that as the years went on Queen Victoria would be granted a title on her own as a royal Duchess, just to simplify things. Then, if and when she married Albert she would settle in Germany as his wife and a Princess of Saxe Coburg.
 
Last edited:
I'm very angry with myself for not persevering and reading the actual 1830 Regency Act, which I would usually do. The answer is indeed there.
 
Here is a copy of the original Act of 1831.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/regency_act.htm#1831


However in my previous post (post 5978) I went to Wiki which provided a copy, in 21st century language, of the relevant sections. And the summary provided the answer, viz that Victoria would retain the title of Majesty and Queen but would no longer be regarded as the reigning sovereign. That would pass to William’s posthumous child, who would be the new monarch (under his/her mother’s regency until the age of 18 years.)
 
Last edited:
Thank you for both the link and the summary, Curryong. :flowers:

However, having read both, I do not see any regulations in the Act addressing the titles that Victoria would hold after she ceased to be the reigning Sovereign. If I have overlooked them, please point them out to me.
 
  • Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.
In 1831, when this Act became law, obviously Alexandrina Victoria, although heir to her uncle, was still a minor and just a Princess. However, after she had been proclaimed Queen following his demise, and news came that Queen Adelaide was expecting a child, Victoria would still be monarch until that child was born alive. Obviously she would not have been crowned during that time, but she would still reign.

I may be completely wrong in my reading of this and as you say, the Act certainly does not spell her titles out but if Victoria was on the throne for say six months of 1837 following William IV’s death I cannot see Parliament demoting her to being Princess Alexandrina Victoria again afterwards.

It would have been a very strange situation and it’s just as well that it didn’t happen that way!
 
Last edited:
I may be completely wrong in my reading of this and as you say, the Act certainly does not spell her titles out but if Victoria was on the throne for say six months of 1837 following William IV’s death I cannot see Parliament demoting her to being Princess Alexandrina Victoria again afterwards.

But Parliament did not interfere when King George VI demoted King Edward VIII to Prince Edward after Edward had reigned for nearly a year.

Having read the complete Regency Act at the Heraldica link, the only section which I think might be interpreted to address Victoria's situation after the cessation of her reign in favor of William IV's hypothetical posthumous child is Section 5:

"V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That upon the Birth of such Child the Two Houses of Parliament shall forthwith assemble, and all the Laws and Regulations now in force in regard to the Meeting, the Sitting, the Continuance, the Prorogation, and the Dissolution of Parliament, and to the Continuance of the Privy Council, and of Persons in their Offices, Places, and Employments, upon the Demise of the Crown and the Accession of the Successor, shall be deemed and taken to apply to the Succession of such Child, in the same Manner as if such Child had succeeded to the Crown upon the Demise of Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria, and as Her Heir."​

This section might be interpreted as declaring Victoria to be legally dead as regards the constitutional succession, but it's not clear to me what the consequences of that would be on her title.
 
Yes, but the abdication of King Edward VIII was a completely different situation, wasn’t it?

It is a pity that Parliament was not clear about Victoria’s titles if the Queen Consort was to bear the King’s posthumous child.

However, perhaps in view of Queen Adelaide’s history, five stillbirths and one daughter who died at a few months old, they regarded it as very unlikely that any such child would survive. Adelaide was in her mid forties by 1837.
 
It's certainly an intriguing what if.

To continue with the hypothetical, Victoria could have acceded to the throne twice. If a posthumous child of William iv had lived for x number of years & then died before having a child of their own then Victoria would have become monarch for a second time. And this time for the rest of her life.

She could have been Victoria I & II.:lol:
 
Last edited:
But Parliament did not interfere when King George VI demoted King Edward VIII to Prince Edward after Edward had reigned for nearly a year.

George did not demote Edward; Edward voluntarily demoted himself and legally renounced the position, title (and style) of "King". Obviously he had to be called something else. The BBC wanted to introduce him for his speech as "Mr Edward Windsor" and I'm fairly certain it was the new King who pointed out he was still the son of a monarch and thus "HRH The Prince Edward" introduction.

This section might be interpreted as declaring Victoria to be legally dead as regards the constitutional succession, but it's not clear to me what the consequences of that would be on her title.

I'm not sure how this would have worked out, either, but who was going to be Regent for this hypothetical baby and why wouldn't Victoria have been acceptable? Seems more sensible then taking a functioning adult off the throne — and leaving it open to the continued gaze of the King of Hanover, which pretty much nobody in Britain wanted. In which case she might have been "The Princess Regent" or even "Queen Regent", no?
 
Last edited:
It states in the 1831 Act, posted upthread in both its original and 21st century forms, that as soon as a surviving posthumous heir was born, its mother Queen Adelaide would be appointed Regent.

Of course, she may not have survived the childbirth, that certainly wasn’t a given in those days, in which case Victoria may well have been chosen, or perhaps a younger son of King George III. Ernest, Duke of Cumberland would probably have been delighted!

However, if Victoria had been appointed as Regent by Parliament following Adelaide’s death then she would have remained in power for another 18 years (under the aegis of Parliament of course) and perhaps with the support and assistance of a husband.

The odd situation would have continued but at least if Victoria’s title had been say Princess Regent that would have removed any future ambiguities. If Adelaide had been Regent I doubt that she would have had the power, on her own, to demote Victoria back to being a Princess.
 
Last edited:
George did not demote Edward; Edward voluntarily demoted himself and legally renounced the position, title (and style) of "King".

Was His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 intended to renounce the title along with the position? While it mentions that "His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown", one might read "cease to be King" as ceasing to hold the position of the King.


It states in the 1831 Act, posted upthread in both its original and 21st century forms,

I do not think the Regency Act 1831 has ever been updated into a 21st century form. The Wikipedia article that you posted above is not quoting a different form of the Act, the writer or writers are merely paraphrasing the original contents of the 1831 Act using their own words.

Further Regency Acts were subsequently passed (most recently in 1953), as seen on the Heraldica page, but I believe these were fresh Acts rather than updates of the Regency Act 1831.


The odd situation would have continued but at least if Victoria’s title had been Regent that would have removed any future ambiguities. If Adelaide had been Regent I doubt that she would have had the power, on her own, to demote Victoria back to being a Princess.

Sections 1 and 3 of the Regency Act 1831 (and thank you for posting it :flowers:) state that the Regent, whether that be the Duchess of Kent or Queen Adelaide, will have "full Power and Authority [...] under the Style and Title of Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". I believe that means that when their power and authority ceased with the termination of their regency, then their right to the title of "Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" would correspondingly cease.
 
Last edited:
That was a mistake by me. Thanks for pointing it out. I meant to have typed ‘in 21st century wording’ not ‘forms’. Careless of me, especially as I do know about the subsequent Regency Acts.

In ‘future ambiguities’ I meant Victoria possessing the title of Princess Regent rather than Queen while the heir was still growing up, not after he/she came to the throne. However Queen Adelaide was likely to have lived and been Regent.

That still doesn’t resolve the problem of what Victoria’s titles would have been following her brief ‘reign’ in 1837 before the birth of Adelaide’s baby, for me, anyway! And of course, as has been pointed out, that child may well have not survived. In that case it would have been Queen Victoria on the throne for the rest of her life!
 
Last edited:
The issue with Victoria succeeding a hypothetical posthumous child however is the wording of the act:

Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.

This wording would mean that somehow they would have to bring Victoria 'back to life'. Now the issue would be - if the child died suddenly with this wording Victoria was already regarded as 'dead' and so Ernest would have inherited ... with the consequent issues that would have given rise to.

Fortunately all hypothetical.
 
Wouldn't it have been very difficult to get Victoria back on to the throne when her cousin's ascension would have hinged on her already being treated as "dead" and disposed (not deposed)? If she couldn't be treated as heir to the child, it seems quite hard to just recall her if need be.

And I realize that both Adelaide and the Duchess of Kent were meant to be regents for minor children, but the Act was drafted when Victoria was 11 or 12. It doesn't seem that anybody bothered to take into account Victoria herself succeeding with the sworn loyalty of the Privy Council. I'm not sure that non-British Adelaide who was never in line for the throne, even with a child, would have thought it wise or even wanted to be Regent in place of her already-acceded adult niece. Even if she did, I'm fairly sure enough Parliamentary support could and would have been found to clarify a position for Victoria, and it might be that given the unique option, the former Sovereign should be Regent, not the foreign mother. Or perhaps the King of Hanover would have won over enough of them. :)
 
The issue with Victoria succeeding a hypothetical posthumous child however is the wording of the act:

Sections 3, 4 and 5 were to apply if, after King William's death and Victoria's accession, Queen Adelaide gave birth to his posthumous child. In that event the child would become monarch, Queen Adelaide was to become regent, the Privy Council was to proclaim the accession of the new sovereign "without delay", both Houses of Parliament were to assemble, and the laws concerning the demise of the Crown were to apply as though Queen Victoria had died and the new monarch was her heir.

This wording would mean that somehow they would have to bring Victoria 'back to life'. Now the issue would be - if the child died suddenly with this wording Victoria was already regarded as 'dead' and so Ernest would have inherited ... with the consequent issues that would have given rise to.

Fortunately all hypothetical.

That is the wording of the Wikipedia article. Though it is an adequate summary, the real wording of the Act (post 5982) was


"V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That upon the Birth of such Child the Two Houses of Parliament shall forthwith assemble, and all the Laws and Regulations now in force in regard to the Meeting, the Sitting, the Continuance, the Prorogation, and the Dissolution of Parliament, and to the Continuance of the Privy Council, and of Persons in their Offices, Places, and Employments, upon the Demise of the Crown and the Accession of the Successor, shall be deemed and taken to apply to the Succession of such Child, in the same Manner as if such Child had succeeded to the Crown upon the Demise of Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria, and as Her Heir."​


So, upon the succession of the posthumous child, Victoria would be regarded as "dead" in regards to the meetings of Parliament, the continuance of the Privy Council, etc. But that does not necessarily imply she would be regarded as "dead" in regards to all laws.


That was a mistake by me. Thanks for pointing it out. I meant to have typed ‘in 21st century wording’ not ‘forms’.

In ‘future ambiguities’ I meant Victoria possessing the title of Princess Regent rather than Queen while the heir was still growing up, not after he/she came to the throne. However Queen Adelaide was likely to have lived and been Regent.

Understood. Thank you for clarifying.
 
Not with Ernest’s lack of popularity within Parliament, and his reputation generally among the ruling classes, Pinsara! I think there was a sigh of relief all round when he eventually went off to Hanover.
 
Last edited:
Well, Carryon, given that the baby's only and immediate heir was pretty much loathed throughout the land, I suspect Parliament would have been jumping trying to do something to shore up their "late" Sovereign Lady Victoria. And that there would have been far bigger problems in Britain than "what do we call her now".
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Was His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 intended to renounce the title along with the position? While it mentions that "His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown", one might read "cease to be King" as ceasing to hold the position of the King.

If you freely give up the position of Sovereign in 1936, and all the rights for yourself and any descendants, and cause multiple crises while doing so, and do it in a context where there is absolutely no precedent for abdication whatsoever, by what right can you still expect to be called King without "former" or "ex" attached to it? It's a privilege, not a right, as the saying goes.

And this wasn't the one the status-conscious David seemed surprised or upset about. I think he knew he was signing away the address with the rest of it.

He complained about quite a lot, but never "how dare they stop calling me 'your majesty'", so to him, even, it apparently made sense.
 
Concerning the Privy Council declarations of 1960 and 1917, on most occasions when I have inquired or commented on the potential legal restrictions which they may or may not impose on female-line descendants of the Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor families, members of this forum have answered that the vast majority of UK children are given their father's name and the female Windsors and Mountbatten-Windsors are guaranteed to follow tradition. I am well aware of all of this, and have said as much many times. I simply do not see how it is relevant to the legal questions involving the Privy Council declarations.

However, it is obvious that many do consider it to be relevant, so perhaps there is a point I am overlooking. Could anyone explain how the law, or the interpretation of the law, is affected by the tradition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom