Questions about British Styles and Titles

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by branchg

With the consent of the Sovereign only. The 1917 Letters Patent grant the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male-line the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. Unless The Queen issued a royal warrant or new letters patent, Louise remains a princess legally.

I'm sure they got the Queen's consent, but it wasn't formal consent nor legalized. She is still a princess, but the Palace seems to have adopted a brute-force method of changing styles. (Say it many times as loud as you can and it becomes true.)

[future princess]

until what generation can the term "blue blood" be used by a person or to pertain to a person? like for example the Queen, The Princess Royal and Zara Phillips. can Zara be called "blue blood" even if she doesnt carry a title? if so that does also include her children & grandchildren??

what about for the Princesses of York,their future children & grandchildren???

[Quinto]

Originally Posted by georgiea

That is true Skydragon. Again I did not think of all the advances in medical care. But you still have to have good genes too.

When referring to HRH Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family, please use the appropriate etiquette and refer to them by their proper titles, otherwise you are being rude; also, please do not infer that HRH Prince Charles does not have "good genes" running through the blood in his Royal veins.

These discussions are most unpalatable to me as a Royalist.

Q.

[BeatrixFan]

Actually, and I refer to Debretts, it's quite proper to discuss the Royal Family as Prince X and Princess X. The HRH etc is really not nessecary.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Quinto

When referring to HRH Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family, please use the appropriate etiquette and refer to them by their proper titles, otherwise you are being rude; also, please do not infer that HRH Prince Charles does not have "good genes" running through the blood in his Royal veins.
These discussions are most unpalatable to me as a Royalist.

I will address Charles, Camilla or any other member of the Royal Family as I have always done and will certainly not take advice from someone who appears to be trying her outmost to alienate every member on here.

{edited for consistency - Elspeth}

[BeatrixFan]

Having been in domestic service for all of 10 minutes, I'm aware of forms of address. I'd recommend you get a copy of Debretts Forms of Address and possibly Debretts Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners. In a very informal chat setting like this, full styles (not titles) are not really required though sometimes we do say HRH as an abbreviation. Usually though it's first names.

[wbenson]

Personally, I think that His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Great Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Honorary Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, Chief Grand Commander of the Order of Logohu, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty will do quite a good job as King.

[Jo of Palatine]

BTW - why does Charles not have a "Sir" in his list of titles? As he is a Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter, he surely has a right to be called Sir Charles? Like eg. Sir Guy David Innes Ker, the 10th Duke of Roxburghe - I took this style from the Roxburghe homepage, thus it should be correct.

[BeatrixFan]

His HRH outranks his Sir so he doesn't use it.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

His HRH outranks his Sir so he doesn't use it.

But somehow I thought that titles you inherit are lesser than those you earn yourself?

[BeatrixFan]

I've never heard of that before but I'm orf to fish out the Debretts.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I've never heard of that before but I'm orf to fish out the Debretts.

Oh, please, do!

I seem to remember that a peer only used the "Sir" in front of his christian name if he was awarded the knighthood himself, but not if one of his direct line ancestors had been a baronet (which would allow this heir to use the title "Sir" in addition to bein the marquess of X or the duke of Y.). But I can be wrong.

[RoyalProtocol]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Oh, please, do!

I seem to remember that a peer only used the "Sir" in front of his christian name if he was awarded the knighthood himself, but not if one of his direct line ancestors had been a baronet (which would allow this heir to use the title "Sir" in addition to bein the marquess of X or the duke of Y.). But I can be wrong.

HRH The Prince of Wales, KG (etc. etc.) is the correct form, he is not Sir Charles as the Prince outranks this, The only time I've seen sir used for a member of the RF was HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh

[branchg]

Philip was never "Sir". His proper style after his marriage was HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh until formally created a Prince of the UK by letters patent in 1957.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by branchg

Philip was never "Sir". His proper style after his marriage was HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh until formally created a Prince of the UK by letters patent in 1957.

Actually, he was "Sir Philip Mountbatten" for a very short period of time, as he was given the Order of the Garter before being made an HRH, and then another day passed before his peerage was granted.

[RoyalProtocol]

Originally Posted by branchg

Philip was never "Sir". His proper style after his marriage was HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh until formally created a Prince of the UK by letters patent in 1957.

He was gazatted as HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh at the time of the birth of The Prince Charles, check the London Gazette

[branchg]

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

He was gazatted as HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh at the time of the birth of The Prince Charles, check the London Gazette

That's very odd. Having the style and rank of HRH takes precedence over being "Sir".

[RoyalProtocol]

Originally Posted by branchg

That's very odd. Having the style and rank of HRH takes precedence over being "Sir".

I realise its odd, but The King wanted to make a point that while he was an HRH he wasn't a Prince just a Knight of The Garter.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol

He was gazatted as HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh at the time of the birth of The Prince Charles, check the London Gazette

When the letters patent making Charles a Prince and a Royal Highness were gazetted, he was styled as "His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh," which is still odd as he wasn't technically a Prince.

Gazette Website: PDF Navigator

When he was granted his peerage, he was gazetted as "HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten, KG, RN" though, which makes sense as he was an HRH (as of the previous paragraph) but not a Duke. I think it's the peerage style that trumps "Sir," not the HRH.

Gazette Website: PDF Navigator

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent
under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the
20th instant, to confer the dignity of a Duke of the
United Kingdom upon Lieutenant His Royal Highness
Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R'.N., and«the heirs
male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style
and title of BARON GREENWICH, of Greenwich in the
County of London, EARL OF MERIONETH, and DUKE
OF EDINBURGH.

[sinulord]

Originally Posted by samitude

Prince Andrew received the title Duke of York upon his wedding day I believe. I don't think he's had this title since he was a baby.

Also, Viscount Linley's daughter is referred to as the Honorable Margarita Armstrong-Jones. Her brother Patrick is the Honorable Charles Armstrong-Jones and will become Viscount Linley when his father gains the title Earl of Snowdon which will be upon the present Earl of Snowdon's death. At least that's the way I understand this.

I believe Sophie didn't want the title of princess. She would have received it by marrying Edward, but asked not to.

No, that is not the case. Sophie would only be officially addressed as Princess Sophie if she had been born a princess ie. a princess of the blood royal. Since she is not a princess by birth, she can only take on Prince Edward's title, and will keep it till either death or divorce.

Originally Posted by branchg

If she abdicated, she would revert to the style and title of HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. Since she is The Sovereign, she can only be HM The Queen and nothing else at the present time. The fount of honour cannot be a Peer.

If Queen Elizabeth II of the UK abdicated, she may also choose to be addressed as HM The Queen Mother of the UK, rather than revert to her title before accession.

Originally Posted by Australian

I think it is possible, I think HM Queen Juliana of The Netherlands demoted to HRH Princess Juliana on her abdication.

No, she wasn't demoted. She chose to be addressed so.

Originally Posted by selrahc4

Interesting question since he is not a peer. "Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent"? "Marie-Christine Windsor"?
"Marie-Christine von Reibnitz-Troubridge-Windsor"?

If the case of divorce, she no longer has any right to the name Windsor.