Questions about British Styles and Titles

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Thank you for the perspective! I think the suggestion that the issue of reader recognition stands in the way of formal or correct styling of royal duchesses and dukes is very credible.

Regarding styling commoners (Mrs. Zara Tindall vs. Mrs. Michael Tindall), I'm not sure it is a matter of formality. Even within the British Parliament, where highly formal, traditional conventions are followed, married female MPs are referred to under their own first names, instead of those of their husbands.

The rules are pretty clear but have seen modern transformations and it's up to you (as the person who wears the name) to use the version you prefer in your private life.

The media does not care about which styles to use and uses the one they think will make it either clear who they are talking about or the one with the right undercurrents for their story.



Eg even the tabloids seem to have stopped to use "Camilla Parker Bowles" now that the time will cime when she will be the queen and stick to either purely "Camilla" or "Camilla Duchess of Cornwall" or "Duchess Camilla" or "The Duchess (of Cornwall)".

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The opinion I gave earlier in the thread was based on these assumptions:

At the time Elizabeth II issued the 2012 letters patent, she was aware that a new succession law was nearly certain to be put in place (the consensus of the Commonwealth realms was announced in 2011) and that if the Duke of Cambridge had a firstborn daughter (George was not yet born), the daughter would most likely be a future Queen, and would likely have children of her own to follow her on the throne.

There are three possibilities for how Elizabeth would want that situation to be addressed:

1.) She would want the future Queen's children to be Prince/ss.
2.) She would want the future Queen's children not to be Prince/ss.
3.) She would want the decision to be made when the situation arises, by the future monarch at that time.

As I see it, although I know others disagree:

1.) In the first scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Sovereign would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess.

2.) In the second scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was, in reality, the solution she decided on.

3.) In the third scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the current Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was the only solution which would have avoided addressing future situations.


I agree that the second scenario would make Queen Elizabeth II even more old-fashioned than her father. But it is difficult for me to understand the point of issuing letters patent of general application, if she was anticipating that they would be applied on just one occasion (before Charles or William adjusted them to the new rules of succession).

It would be akin to her father King George VI hypothetically issuing letters patent declaring that "the children of the eldest daughter of the Sovereign" would enjoy the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, but at the same time anticipating that Elizabeth would revoke them before Anne had children (who would be royal under those hypothetical LPs).

But I accept that, as another poster implied in the Wessex thread, Queen Elizabeth may merely have wanted to emphasize that she was granting the titular dignity to William's children owing to their position as children of an heir apparent of an heir apparent under the then succession law, as opposed to making a personal exception for William's family.

When Elizabeth II issued the 2012 LPs, my understanding is that she was not concerned about the future children of a hypothetical firstborn daughter of the Cambridges. Instead, her goal was merely to guarantee that , if the Cambridges’ first child were a girl, she would be a princess and an HRH. That was consistent with the status the girl would have under the new succession laws.

As I said, the Queen is naturally conservative and won’t make changes until they are needed. William’s firstborn child wouldn’t have children of his/her own for another 30 years or so. Therefore, there was no need to address that issue.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

When Elizabeth II issued the 2012 LPs, my understanding is that she was not concerned about the future children of a hypothetical firstborn daughter of the Cambridges. Instead, her goal was merely to guarantee that , if the Cambridges’ first child were a girl, she would be a princess and an HRH. That was consistent with the status the girl would have under the new succession laws.

As I said, the Queen is naturally conservative snd won’t make changes until they are needed. William’s firstborn child wouldn’t have children of his/her own for another 30 years or so. Therefore, there was no need to address that issue.

Is that not what I numbered as the third possibility? I think I addressed the reasons why I've had some doubts concerning that scenario (although I do recognize that it cannot be ruled out):

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

There are three possibilities for how Elizabeth would want that situation to be addressed:

1.) She would want the future Queen's children to be Prince/ss.
2.) She would want the future Queen's children not to be Prince/ss.
3.) She would want the decision to be made when the situation arises, by the future monarch at that time.

As I see it [...]

3.) In the third scenario, the solution most consistent with what she wanted would be to issue letters patent to declare that the children of the current Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would have the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. This was the only solution which would have avoided addressing future situations.

[...]

But it is difficult for me to understand the point of issuing letters patent of general application, if she was anticipating that they would be applied on just one occasion (before Charles or William adjusted them to the new rules of succession).

It would be akin to her father King George VI hypothetically issuing letters patent declaring that "the children of the eldest daughter of the Sovereign" would enjoy the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, but at the same time anticipating that Elizabeth would revoke them before Anne had children (who would be royal under those hypothetical LPs).

[wyevale]

In exactly the same way as Camilla is legally 'the Princess of Wales', so the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is legally 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor'

https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/201...really-is.html

[Denville]

Originally Posted by wyevale

In exactly the same way as Camilla is legally 'the Princess of Wales', so the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is legally 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor'

https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/201...really-is.html

actutally by courtesy, Archie is Earl of Dumbarton.. since usually the eldest son take his fathers second title...

[wyevale]

^ Perhaps the 'courtesy' nature of the Dunbarton earldom is an issue ?

The 'expert' however seems certain that [even if that is so], Archie is legally a Lord..

[Osipi]

I would imagine that Archie is in the same position as Edward's son, James, is. Everywhere I've looked, James is referred to and addressed as James, Viscount Severn. Logically then, had the Sussexes not announced that Archie would be a plain "master", he would be addressed as Archie, Earl Dumbarton.

Edward's daughter, Louise, though is referred and addressed as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. Perhaps it is the second son who doesn't carry a courtesy subsidiary title from his father that would be addressed as Lord (X)?

[wyevale]

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount, and Archie is [legally] a Lord, despite his parents choosing to call him something else..

[Osipi]

With the Queen making her will be known though, doesn't that invalidate what they "legally" hold as the titles and styles of the royal family is at the Queen's will and pleasure? Just as the Queen made her will known in 1996 that both Diana and Sarah, being divorced, were no longer entitled to the HRH honorific.

With the Wessex children, the Queen did make her will known as to what titles they would hold but I don't believe that with Archie there was any kind of communication from the Queen as to her will and pleasure in the matter only that the Sussexes themselves deemed that Archie will be a plain "Master Archie" until his grandfather becomes King and then would be Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl Dumbarton unless his grandfather makes *his* will be known and changes things.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by wyevale

In exactly the same way as Camilla is legally 'the Princess of Wales', so the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is legally 'Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor'

https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/201...really-is.html

The article simply states that the writer's "mole in the College of Arms certainly thinks" that Archie will be named as Lord Archie on legal documents.

However, he is not named as Lord (or Earl) on his birth certificate, which to my knowledge is the only published legal document in which Archie is mentioned.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Portland.html

Originally Posted by wyevale

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount,

It is arguable, but the position taken by Buckingham Palace is that the Wessex children are not legally HRH Princess and Prince.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1984176

Originally Posted by Osipi

With the Queen making her will be known though, doesn't that invalidate what they "legally" hold as the titles and styles of the royal family is at the Queen's will and pleasure? Just as the Queen made her will known in 1996 that both Diana and Sarah, being divorced, were no longer entitled to the HRH honorific.

With the Wessex children, the Queen did make her will known as to what titles they would hold but I don't believe that with Archie there was any kind of communication from the Queen as to her will and pleasure in the matter only that the Sussexes themselves deemed that Archie will be a plain "Master Archie" until his grandfather becomes King and then would be Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl Dumbarton unless his grandfather makes *his* will be known and changes things.

I think the fact that Archie is named without a courtesy title in official publications, including press releases and the monarchy website, is acknowledgement of the queen's approval.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The article simply states that the writer's "mole in the College of Arms certainly thinks" that Archie will be named as Lord Archie on legal documents.

However, he is not named as Lord (or Earl) on his birth certificate, which to my knowledge is the only published legal document in which Archie is mentioned.

Courtesy titles of children of peers are used in British passports, see Annex B in the link below. Archie's should be too.



https://assets.publishing.service.go...-passports.pdf

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Courtesy titles of children of peers are used in British passports, see Annex B in the link below. Archie's should be too.



https://assets.publishing.service.go...-passports.pdf

It depends though on just what passport Archie is traveling on. If I'm not mistaken, right now Archie holds dual citizenship in both the UK and the US. From what I've found with a quick search, with Archie perhaps traveling to the US during the Sussex 6 week hiatus, he would be traveling to the US under a US passport and not a British passport. Perhaps then for a return to the UK, he would use his British passport?

"The general rule of thumb for dual nationals going to one of their countries is enter and exit on that country's passport. Dual national US citizens must use their US passport when entering and leaving the United States, which after all makes sense: You're an American leaving, or returning to, America."

https://thepointsguy.com/guide/two-p...ice-the-charm/

Do we actually know what passports Archie holds?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Courtesy titles of children of peers are used in British passports, see Annex B in the link below. Archie's should be too.



https://assets.publishing.service.go...-passports.pdf

Would the passport guidance apply to an exceptional situation such to Archie's in which the child does not use the courtesy title that customary usage would entitle them to use?

[CyrilVladisla]

Originally Posted by wyevale

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount, and Archie is [legally] a Lord, despite his parents choosing to call him something else..

James's father Edward is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom. Thus why would not the general public assume that his son would not be Prince James?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

James's father Edward is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom. Thus why would not the general public assume that his son would not be Prince James?

Because the Queen issued her will and pleasure by stating that he would not be a Prince on Edward and Sophie's wedding day. Simple.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Osipi

With the Wessex children, the Queen did make her will known as to what titles they would hold but I don't believe that with Archie there was any kind of communication from the Queen as to her will and pleasure in the matter only that the Sussexes themselves deemed that Archie will be a plain "Master Archie" until his grandfather becomes King and then would be Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl Dumbarton unless his grandfather makes *his* will be known and changes things.

Archie wouldn't use 'Earl Dumbarton' AND Prince Archie of Sussex. If he does become a Prince he would simply be Prince Archie of Sussex.

If we go back to the present Dukes of Kent and Gloucester they never used their father's second title as they were Princes. The courtesy titles are only used when the heir isn't HRH Prince so HRH Prince Edward of Kent but his son was the Earl of St Andrews from birth and HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester. He didn't add Earl of Ulster when his older brother died but remain HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester until his father died when he became HRH The Duke of Gloucester.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by wyevale

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount, and Archie is [legally] a Lord, despite his parents choosing to call him something else..

no, the son of a peer isn't "legaly" a lord.. but is usualy known by the father's second title.. so usually Arche would be known as Earl of Dumbarton. But the Sussexes don't seeme to want him to be known as such.

[CyrilVladisla]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Because the Queen issued her will and pleasure by stating that he would not be a Prince on Edward and Sophie's wedding day. Simple.

One has to remember that Jame's grandmother is not only Elizabeth but the Queen as well. What the Queen declares goes.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

While there has been no official statement on the matter, a number of correspondents reported being told last year, by royal sources, that King Charles would continue to apply the Letters Patent of 1917 during his reign.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/m...-a4137941.html

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.

At that time he fully expected Harry and Meghan to remain full-time working members of the family. It would be really inconsistent if the children of working members of the family (Edward & Sophie) aren't royal highnesses while the child(ren) of 'an independent member of the family' would become a royal highness.

I never thought it to be a good idea that Archie became a HRH as long as Louise and James aren't - but now it's even more obvious because when the decision on Louise and James was made their parents weren't expected to be full-time working members of the royal family. We'll have to wait and see whether Archie's future (non) title is also part of the 'deal' that the BRF reaches with Harry and Meghan. Imho it would be best to clear that out straight away.

[JSH]

While it is true that the Wessex vs Sussex case would be inconsistent, the case of the Wessex children, IMO, was a one-time special case at their parents' request. I don't think anyone involved ever wanted it to be used as a precedent setting case.