Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[MARG]

In point of fact she would actually be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall! Just as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was still Queen.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Or perhaps Camilla Duchess of Cornwall. Or perhaps, in the case of the last Duchess of Gloucester, the current monarch (William) will give her the title Princess. So Princess Camilla Duchess of Cornwall. It seems that so many things are open to change now.

In point of fact she would actually be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall! Just as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was still Queen.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Or perhaps Camilla Duchess of Cornwall. Or perhaps, in the case of the last Duchess of Gloucester, the current monarch (William) will give her the title Princess. So Princess Camilla Duchess of Cornwall.

Doesn't she have the write to the title Princess already?

 

[Osipi]

Doesn't she have the write to the title Princess already?

Yes. She is The Princess of Wales but is styled as The Duchess of Cornwall out of respect for the Late Diana, Princess of Wales. I think in such a case like this she most likely would prefer to continue being known as Duchess of Cornwall as that is what she had been styled as for the years she was married to Charles.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Doesn't she have the write to the title Princess already?

She is legally-speaking, the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and a couple other titles thrown in there. She is not though, a princess in her own right. She is merely a princess by way of marriage the same as Diana was. Everyone always called her "Princess Diana", but that wasn't entirely accurate. She was Princess Charles of Wales, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc.


The same as if Kate were to marry William, she'd be Princess William of Wales. She wouldn't be Princess Katherine of Wales.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She is legally-speaking, the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and a couple other titles thrown in there. She is not though, a princess in her own right. She is merely a princess by way of marriage the same as Diana was. Everyone always called her "Princess Diana", but that wasn't entirely accurate. She was Princess Charles of Wales, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc.


The same as if Kate were to marry William, she'd be Princess William of Wales. She wouldn't be Princess Katherine of Wales.

Yes that what I already knew.
Couldn't she be Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall?

 

[branchg]

She is "HRH The Princess Charles" as the wife of a son of The Sovereign. As her husband is the heir to the throne, she is also "The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew and Princess of Scotland".

If Charles died before becoming King, she would remain HRH The Duchess of Cornwall as a widow. Since there wouldn't be a new Duchess until William had a son who then married, it is likely she would remain styled The Duchess of Cornwall until her death.

While William as King could certainly grant her the style of "HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" as The Queen did with The Duchess of Gloucester, it wouldn't be likely to happen as the circumstances are different.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Yes that what I already knew.
Couldn't she be Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall?

She already is. She just chooses to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall out of deference to Diana having been Princess of Wales. It doesn't mean that legally she isn't any of those things. It's her own preference not to be styled publicly as "Princess", but she still is one.

 

[Hereditary Thane]

Michelleq

HSH Princess Victoria (later Queen Ina of Spain) was elevated to the status of HRH shortly before her marriage. HSH Princess May of Teck became a RH on her marriage to the Duke of York, later Prince of Wales and then King George V. The grand daughters of Edward VII, who's mother was The Princess Royal, were made princesses but afforded only the style Her Highness. HH is below the rank of HRH but above the rank of HSH.

Zonk

You may well be correct but I do not think the noble brothers, Henry and Louis of Battenberg were ever given the style HRH, or made princes of Great Britain and Ireland by their mother in law and grandmother in law, Queen Victoria. Henry married a HRH and Louis a HDH, but all their children remained Serene Highnesses until 1917. After which time they were given peerages or the courtesy titles of Lord and Lady. The same with the Teck family.

 

[Warren]

Prince Henry of Battenberg was granted the style of Royal Highness by Queen Victoria on the day of his wedding to Princess Beatrice to give him equal rank with his wife.
In December 1886, five weeks after the birth of their first child, a Royal Warrant by Queen Victoria granted the style of Highness to their issue.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Has anyone heard of the possible elimination of her title, HRH? I could have dreamed it. Same for Eugenie.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Has anyone heard of the possible elimination of her title, HRH? I could have dreamed it. Same for Eugenie.

About 10 or so years ago it was rumoured that there was a suggestion that they were going to downsize the royal family and thus reduce the number of HRHs to the children of the monarch and the children of the eldest child (which would also mean in the future that Harry's children wouldn't get HRH even in Charles' reign). I believe the suggestion came from Charles and may even be that when he realised that stripping Beatrice and Eugenie would have to mean no HRH for Harry's children in the future the idea seemed to drop - at least from within the royal family sources itself (I am simply guessing here as to why the idea hasn't really been floated by those ubiquitous 'royal sources' since)

As there are currently only 14 who have the HRH by birth and another 6 by marriage and 7 of those are through their relationship to George V (namely grandchildren in the male line - Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra), 2 more aren't using it (Louise and James) there are only 11 who have it from the Queen and 4 of them are over 60 and 3 more over 40 there are only 4 under 30 it seems that Beatrice and Eugenie will keep theirs and become full time royals replacing the Gloucesters and Kents in time, particularly if William and Harry take their time about adding HRH's through marriage.

 

[sliver_bic]

They'll probably let those who have it keep it, let nature thin the numbers and then set up the stricter system as suggested above. You'll only have two people left who can pass the title along anyway and I doubt they're going to have four or five kids each so I doubt the numbers will ever get that high again even without a rule change.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

When a commoner bride marries a prince,she takes his title and given name. Kate'a proper title would be HRH Princess William of Wales.But people and the media would not call her by her proper title;they'd probably call her "Princess Kate"since they are not overly concerned with proper titles. She'd become the Princess of Wales when Charles ascends the throne and William,as heir apparent would assume the titles of Prince of Wales Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick and Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. Will William also have an investiture service after his father becomes king...does he need the investiture ceremony to formally adopt these titles?

There is no assumption of the title "The Prince of Wales." It is bestowed at the pleasure of the sitting monarch. When Charles becomes King, it will be up to him whether William is ever elevated to the Wales title.

 

[Lumutqueen]

TYou'll only have two people left who can pass the title along

Two people left to pass what title?

I doubt the numbers will ever get that high again even without a rule change.

Charles doesn't want the numbers to get higher, or stay the same. He wants them to get less.

Eugenie and Beatrice will not loose their HRH until William has children and/or The Duke of Duchess of Kent, Gloucester and Prince Michael and his wife pass away.

 

[Duchessmary]

Why would they lose their HRH if William has children? They're the Duke of York's daughters, and entitled to the HRH.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes they are entitled to it, but if Prince Charles wants to reduce the HRH's, Eugenie and Beatrice will be the first to go. When William and Harry marry and have children that adds two other HRH's for the wives, and however many for the kids they have.
The wives of W & H can take over whatever duties Bea and Eugenie do.

That's when I think they will loose their HRH's, after William and Harry have kids.

 

[Zonk]

They won't lose their HRH's. As already pointed out, the number of HRH's will decrease anyway due to death. The only current HRH's that can pass on their titles will be Charles, Andrew, Edward (if he decides to let his kids be HRH's), William and Harry. The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent titles will be held by His Grace's in the next generation and Beatrice and Eugenie will be needed to perform royal duties when the current generation dies out before William and Harry marry (for example, if they don't marry until their mid to late 30's). I had a conversation with someone last night and we figured out that most of the current HRH's are in their 60's and 70's (Anne, Charles, Edward Kent, Prince Phillip, Princess Alexandra and the Queen). I mean really, they are already at or past retirement age but won't truly retire. In addition, Beatrice and Eugenie can't pass on their HRH titles so it doesn't really matter.

So if you want to get technical in 10 to 20 years the royal family could exist of Charles, Anne, Edward, Sophie, Andrew, Camilla, Beatrice, Eugenie, William and Harry. There is more than enough work to go around.

 

[sliver_bic]

Two people left to pass what title?

Only William and Harry can pass along the HRH everyone else either isn't having any more children or can't pass it on so there would be no reason to strip the York girls.

Charles doesn't want the numbers to get higher, or stay the same. He wants them to get less.

Eugenie and Beatrice will not loose their HRH until William has children and/or The Duke of Duchess of Kent, Gloucester and Prince Michael and his wife pass away.

It's unlikely that either William or Harry will pop out four or five kids, so the numbers won't inflate and Harry's kids wouldn't be able to pass it on and if Charles were to be skipped on the throne then Harry technically couldn't pass it on either since he has it via being a male line grandchild of the monarch though I think that William would issue letters patent to his kids as you never know what could happen.

If the Wales boys have two kids each that's ten* HRH's n that generation, four in William and Harry's family's each and the York girls, in a few decades and, barring William or his kids not taking the throne, seven of them can't pass it on (William's wife, Harry and his family and the York girls). By then you'll probably have the law changed so that the eldest child, regardless of gender will inherit and the HRH is only the monarch and they're immediate family.

Yes they are entitled to it, but if Prince Charles wants to reduce the HRH's, Eugenie and Beatrice will be the first to go. When William and Harry marry and have children that adds two other HRH's for the wives, and however many for the kids they have.
The wives of W & H can take over whatever duties Bea and Eugenie do.

That's when I think they will loose their HRH's, after William and Harry have kids.

I would think the first to go might be the Queen's cousins, probably Michael of Kent as he and his wife perform no duties. Why take out two young members of the clan, your nieces, who can perform hundreds of duties a year between them, in favor of an older couple, first cousins once removed, who've done little for the firm.


*Assuming James and Louise don't take up their birthright. Their parents chose not to give them titles but legally they are a prince and princess.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It's unlikely that either William or Harry will pop out four or five kids, so the numbers won't inflate and Harry's kids wouldn't be able to pass it on and if Charles were to be skipped on the throne then Harry technically couldn't pass it on either since he has it via being a male line grandchild of the monarch though I think that William would issue letters patent to his kids as you never know what could happen.

Why is it unlikely that they will have four kids?

I would think the first to go might be the Queen's cousins, probably Michael of Kent as he and his wife perform no duties. Why take out two young members of the clan, your nieces, who can perform hundreds of duties a year between them, in favor of an older couple, first cousins once removed, who've done little for the firm.

Actually Michael and his wife do a lot of work for the royal family, check the current events thread.
You talking like I said take them out now? I said they will probably loose them, when they are no longer needed when William and Harry's wives come along.

*Assuming James and Louise don't take up their birthright. Their parents chose not to give them titles but legally they are a prince and princess.

I don't see them doing that, they have been brought up with out an HRH, to change when they are older IMO would be silly.

 

[sliver_bic]

Why is it unlikely that they will have four kids?



Actually Michael and his wife do a lot of work for the royal family, check the current events thread.
You talking like I said take them out now? I said they will probably loose them, when they are no longer needed when William and Harry's wives come along.

I don't see them doing that, they have been brought up with out an HRH, to change when they are older IMO would be silly.

People have less kids nowadays that's why I think it's unlikely that they would have more than a couple kids.

I didn't say anything about you claiming that they would lose them now. I'm pointing out that it makes less sense to strip them of their titles considering how much more they can do over the next few decades than anyone else.

A wife would have to be groomed for such a job and even then they wouldn't be able to take on the many things on their own faster than the York girls would.

 

[Lumutqueen]

People have less kids nowadays that's why I think it's unlikely that they would have more than a couple kids.

I didn't say anything about you claiming that they would lose them now. I'm pointing out that it makes less sense to strip them of their titles considering how much more they can do over the next few decades than anyone else.

A wife would have to be groomed for such a job and even then they wouldn't be able to take on the many things on their own faster than the York girls would.

A wife could be taught, during her engagement and IMO she could take on as many things as she wanted to when she was not pregnant. Beatrice and Eugenie are unlikely to do that much IMO.
But in a few decades, there will be other people to do the jobs for them, people like William and Harry's wives, you say that they need to be groomed for the job, well in a few decades i'm sure they will be doing just fine.

 

[Zonk]

How do you figure that Beatrice and Eugenie will do less?

According to the British Royal website, the Royal Family current has over 3000 patronages. The Queen alone has 600. The Duke of Edinburgh has798 , Prince Charles has 467, Prince Andrew has 129 and Princess Anne has 281. This of course does not include real actual engagements.


The Duke of Gloucester has 128, the Duke of Kent has 126 , the Duchess of Gloucester has 67, and Princess Alexandra has 116.

In the next 7 to 10 years the BRF faces the possiblity that the Kents and Gloucesters or God forbid the Queen and Prince Phillip will not be around to do any royal duties. If anything, I would expect them to lessen their work load (and rightfully so as teh Queen in 84, Anne is 60, Edward of Kent is75 , Alexandra of Kent is 74, Richard of Gloucester is 66).

So you are basically saying that if the royal family loses five people, Harry and William's wife can pick up all of that slack?
They can certainly pick up some but I would expect somewhat of a learning curve (hopefully the TRF has learned not to throw people in the water) and what if they have children, do we expect them to perform duties past the 6 month period or while the kids are less than a month or two?

And yes, the Royal Family certainly does not need to have all these patronages but their presence brings attention to certain causes that are as well known as others. And for those who suggest that celebrities can pick up patronages, they certainly can, but celebrity life is hot and cold. I mean, 10 years ago I could name a different hot and well known British actress that probably for a variety of reasons might not be as well known today.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I never said they would do less, I said they weren't going to be excedding anyones expectation. IMO neither of them really have a sense of drive in the form of royal work, they seem fine being who they are. That's going to change when they hit the spotlight.

I'm not saying to cut them out the minute William and Harry have wives, but they could more than likely live a comfortable out of the spotlight life and still partially participate in events.
That's one of my points, the royal is going to loose five people and only gain two, surely they have to realise they need to down size what they do.

Celebrities running patronages that was belonged to a royal, wouldn't feel right IMO.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Err, where exactly is thingumabob

I would say that "thingamabob" equals "wotsit."

 

[KittyAtlanta]

So, it was an agreement between Philip and the King of the Hellenes? Weren't there any documents at all?

There is no such thing as renunciation of peerage titles in the United Kingdom. You inherit the title, you bear the title. I'm afraid Edward will just have to wait for both of his parents to die to get the title.

Hummmm....if Philip predeceases HM The Queen, she would have every right to bestow the Edinburg on whomever she wanted on the day the current Duke is pronounced dead. Right or not?

 

[Zonk]

KittyAtlanta....the Duke of Edinburgh and what happens when the current Duke passes is being discussed http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html

 

[KittyAtlanta]

"whlist married to her former husband andrew parker- bowles, whom is a catholic, did she convert over to his faith, and if so, did she (on her divorce) covert back to the church of england ? ."

Camilla was always a Catholic. That is why the union with Prince Charles didn't take place 40 years ago. HM would not grant permission.

"Technically, the Line of the Succession is discriminative only towards the Catholics."

That needs to be --- Technically, the Line of Succession is discriminative only towards ROMAN Catholics.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Thanks Zonk...had not seen that category.

 

[Osipi]

"whlist married to her former husband andrew parker- bowles, whom is a catholic, did she convert over to his faith, and if so, did she (on her divorce) covert back to the church of england ? ."

Camilla was always a Catholic. That is why the union with Prince Charles didn't take place 40 years ago. HM would not grant permission.

"Technically, the Line of the Succession is discriminative only towards the Catholics."

That needs to be --- Technically, the Line of Succession is discriminative only towards ROMAN Catholics.

Camilla has never been Catholic. When she married Andrew Parker-Bowles, they were married in the Church of England. Andrew PB was/is a Roman Catholic and both of their children, Tom and Laura, were raised in the Catholic faith.

From Wiki: The couple had two children: Tom, born in the year after the marriage, who is a godson of Prince Charles, and Laura, born in 1978; both Parker Bowles children were raised in their father's Roman Catholic faith.

Just made me realize an interesting tidbit. If Tom Parker-Bowles was baptized in the Catholic faith and the PoW is his godfather, then that should the "need" arise, Charles had promised to continue to assure that Tom was raised Catholic.