The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5161  
Old 07-29-2020, 07:35 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carin View Post
No, it was definitely Princess Margaret. She married Mr Antony Armstrong Jones. He did not get his Earldom until just before the birth of their first child.
You're right, my apologies. Princess Margaret married before Princess Alexandra.

However, as JR76 pointed out above, the decision on how a princess who remained a princess but also used her husband's name should be styled was made with Princess Alexandra, as Princess Margaret did not (her legal family name presumably changed from Windsor to Armstrong-Jones on marriage, but she did not use it).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carin View Post
Anyway if you want more information look up the relevant Princess on Wikipedia and look at titles and styles.
I am afraid that, other than perhaps for British titles, Wikipedia is not a credible source on titles and styles. From what I have observed of it, much of what is written there (and to be fair, also on other sites, forums, and social media) on the titles and styles of the other European monarchies and nobilities are lies and half-truths. A search through my previous posts will bring up examples.

Of course, when Wikipedia (or any other site) cites a credible source for what it writes, that is a different matter.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5162  
Old 07-29-2020, 07:53 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 27,434
The Princess Margaret being the most important word
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5163  
Old 07-29-2020, 09:10 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,326
so how was P Marg titled, after her marriage and before Antony was given the title Earl of Snowdon? by the way its been done in latter years, it should have been "Princess Marg, Mrs. Antony Armstrong Jones and then changed ot Pss M Countess of Snowdon, when he got his title.
Reply With Quote
  #5164  
Old 07-29-2020, 09:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
so how was P Marg titled, after her marriage and before Antony was given the title Earl of Snowdon?
See post #5160:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
While Princess Margaret was the first princess to marry a man without the title her cousin Princess Alexandra was the first, as stated by Tatiana Maria above, to use the combination of Princess & Mrs. Princess Margaret was, as evident in for instance in The London Gazette of November 1 & November 25 1960, styled as The Princess Margaret before her husband received his title.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/42183/page/1

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/42202/page/1
Reply With Quote
  #5165  
Old 08-05-2020, 06:33 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
She will only be duchess of Cornwall for a short time, Im sure Charles will create Will POW as soon as he can..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
They will automatically become Duke and Duchess of Cornwall the second Charles becomes king but will have to wait until he decides to create William Prince of Wales. That, I'm sure, won't take that long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
That will depend on when, or even if, William is created Prince of Wales. Catherine won't be created anything.

It isn't a given that Charles will create William with that title. I expect he will do so but he doesn't have to do so. The Queen made him wait over six years. Edward VII made George V wait nearly 11 months. George V only waited a month before creating Edward VIII as PoW.

I can see him waiting until just before his coronation - or over a year.
The UK is on its own in keeping this procedure. All of the other European monarchies have now passed legislation or, in the Scandinavian monarchies where royal titles do not involve legislation, developed customs providing that the title of the heir is automatic when the heir is the child of the monarch.

It is one more instance (although a very trivial one) of how the UK has fallen behind the times in adapting its royal titles and styles; for me it is peculiar because the UK was once ahead of the times, such as when it came to allowing princesses who married beneath their rank to retain their status.
Reply With Quote
  #5166  
Old 08-05-2020, 06:59 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The UK is on its own in keeping this procedure. All of the other European monarchies have now passed legislation or, in the Scandinavian monarchies where royal titles do not involve legislation, developed customs providing that the title of the heir is automatic when the heir is the child of the monarch.

It is one more instance (although a very trivial one) of how the UK has fallen behind the times in adapting its royal titles and styles; for me it is peculiar because the UK was once ahead of the times, such as when it came to allowing princesses who married beneath their rank to retain their status.
I don't know, it don't see it as behind the times. It's an oddity to be sure but not a discriminatory one. There are other instances where titles are certainly not equal between men and women and their husbands and wives but this is different.

I actually like that PoW is not necessarily automatic, and I like the fact that the Queen held off in creating Prince Charles until he was able to understand what it meant. They do get other titles automatically and the monarch can't actually stop their eldest from being the heir to the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #5167  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The UK is on its own in keeping this procedure. All of the other European monarchies have now passed legislation or, in the Scandinavian monarchies where royal titles do not involve legislation, developed customs providing that the title of the heir is automatic when the heir is the child of the monarch.

It is one more instance (although a very trivial one) of how the UK has fallen behind the times in adapting its royal titles and styles; for me it is peculiar because the UK was once ahead of the times, such as when it came to allowing princesses who married beneath their rank to retain their status.

The rule for British princesses is consistent with the rules that apply to daughters of peers who also retain their honorific prefix (e.g. Lady) when they marry beneath their rank.
Reply With Quote
  #5168  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The rule for British princesses is consistent with the rules that apply to daughters of peers who also retain their honorific prefix (e.g. Lady) when they marry beneath their rank.
Allegedly that was supposed to be because a title was something that the Lady brought to the marriage, sometimes the only thing she had.

And some of it has to do with order of precedence E.g. daughters of an Earl ranking higher than younger sons of an Earl (who only get The Hon.) because there is no need for seniority because they and their children are not in the line of succession for the Earldom.
Reply With Quote
  #5169  
Old 08-05-2020, 08:10 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Allegedly that was supposed to be because a title was something that the Lady brought to the marriage, sometimes the only thing she had.

And some of it has to do with order of precedence E.g. daughters of an Earl ranking higher than younger sons of an Earl (who only get The Hon.) because there is no need for seniority because they and their children are not in the line of succession for the Earldom.
I think it was just due to precedence. The title didn't mean anything.. Lady Mary Smith Marrying Mr John Brown could not elevate her husbands to Lord John Brown or pass the title onto her children...
Reply With Quote
  #5170  
Old 08-09-2020, 09:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
I suspect there might be some tension over Camilla's position. She has never sought the limelight for herself and she'll be aware of the popularity polls so I'm sure she'd be very happy to be 'Princess Consort' rather than Queen Camilla. I doubt that's what Charles has in mind though. He adores her and will want her to be his Queen in name as well as fact. I've said before that I hope they'll be brave and just do it. King Charles and Queen Camilla might have a rough time initially but if they hold their nerve through the transition (as they did with their wedding, which so many commentators said wouldn't happen) she'll be accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right" just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles.

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.

Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm
Reply With Quote
  #5171  
Old 08-10-2020, 06:41 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm
It would be a shame and a nasty precedent should Camilla not take the title of Her Majesty The Queen upon her husband's accession. The statement at their marriage was intended, understandably, to pre-empt any public disgruntlement at the time.
Things have moved on significantly since then and precedent should hold sway.
Reply With Quote
  #5172  
Old 08-10-2020, 06:46 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm
A few thoughts:

> It is difficult to tell, at this stage, whether Camilla will or will not use the title of Queen when Charles. Personally I think she will (and should!) for what it is worth.

> If it was decided that she would not use the title of Queen, she will still
legally remain Queen. I cannot see the government of the day asking Parliament to enact legislation to take that title off her.

> It may well be that whilst she remains HM Queen Camilla, she is styled as HRH Princess Consort. That will be no more than a style, and can possibly be effected at the will of the monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #5173  
Old 08-10-2020, 06:52 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
A few thoughts:

> It is difficult to tell, at this stage, whether Camilla will or will not use the title of Queen when Charles. Personally I think she will (and should!) for what it is worth.

> If it was decided that she would not use the title of Queen, she will still
legally remain Queen. I cannot see the government of the day asking Parliament to enact legislation to take that title off her.

> It may well be that whilst she remains HM Queen Camilla, she is styled as HRH Princess Consort. That will be no more than a style, and can possibly be effected at the will of the monarch.
I agree - legally she will be HM The Queen - there is no getting around that except through legislation which would be discriminatory against Camilla (no other woman in the country is legally disentitled), and would set the precedent that no future wives of Kings are Queens.

If it was made known that she wanted to be known as Princess Consort the question would be why? She will be doing the work of Queen in any case.

Undoubtedly there will be those that will make hay of whatever the outcome is, but to go back to why the original communication was made, we have moved on, Charles and Camilla have been rehabilitated in the public consciousness, and hopefully the ghost of Diana is at rest.
Reply With Quote
  #5174  
Old 08-10-2020, 07:20 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
If it was made known that she wanted to be known as Princess Consort the question would be why? She will be doing the work of Queen in any case.
That question will already have been asked in 2005, when Clarence House announced the "intention".
Reply With Quote
  #5175  
Old 08-10-2020, 08:00 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That question will already have been asked in 2005, when Clarence House announced the "intention".
The answer then would have been public hostility to Camilla taking what was perceived to have been Diana's titles etc etc.

The answer to that question will have changed 15 years later.
Reply With Quote
  #5176  
Old 08-10-2020, 08:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Parliament did not rebel in 2005 when the Prince of Wales issued his announcement that "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." I believe King Charles will retreat from his 2005 "intention" and his wife will use the title of Queen, but if I am wrong, I cannot imagine the Parliament rebelling against the King over such an inconsequential issue.

In addition, prince or princess titles are granted at the discretion of the monarch, not Parliament. Parliament was not involved in the grant to the future Cambridge children in 2012, to Philip in 1957, etc.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm

Correct. The only royal titles and styles that are currently regulated by law in the UK and other Commonwealth realms are the monarch's titles and styles. Decisions on the use of princely titles and the HRH style are solely at the discretion of the monarch.


Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.
Reply With Quote
  #5177  
Old 08-10-2020, 08:41 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Correct. The only royal titles and styles that are currently regulated by law in the UK and other Commonwealth realms are the monarch's titles and styles. Decisions on the use of princely titles and the HRH style are solely at the discretion of the monarch.


Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.
So, elevating her to become a princess of the UK in her own right -as the first female consort ever- would appease the masses better? I don't think they realized that is needed to be able to make her a Princess Consort.
Reply With Quote
  #5178  
Old 08-10-2020, 09:06 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.
All he announced was an intention. There was no promise that he will be reneging on. Times and circumstances change. It has been 15 years, and Camilla has not put a foot wrong in her public life. She works hard for her chosen causes, and is there to support HM an Charles when required.
Reply With Quote
  #5179  
Old 08-10-2020, 09:07 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, elevating her to become a princess of the UK in her own right -as the first female consort ever- would appease the masses better? I don't think they realized that is needed to be able to make her a Princess Consort.
I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think this will work out fine for them. If she is to hold the title of HRH Princess Consort, she will not need to be created as such, it is a style that canb be accorded to her by the monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #5180  
Old 08-10-2020, 09:16 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Correct. The only royal titles and styles that are currently regulated by law in the UK and other Commonwealth realms are the monarch's titles and styles. Decisions on the use of princely titles and the HRH style are solely at the discretion of the monarch.


Personally I don't think Charles will retreat from his intention. I don't see how he could do it after announcing it publicly. Camilla remains relatively unpopular and Charles' reign will be shakier following his mother's. Reneging on his promise would simply attract too much criticism, which Charles will want to avoid.
I don't think either Charles or Camilla are relatively unpopular. They have been solid workers since their marriage. Camilla has come across as down to earth, self-effacing and dignified and she seems to have made her husband a much more comfortable man in his own skin.

I think given their age, and potential indifferent health at the time of accession the public sense of fair play wouldn't begrudge them being King and Queen - it is the way things have always been done and, at the end of the day that's what the British like.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 784 06-07-2020 11:40 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry belgian royal family belgium chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up crown princess victoria danish royalty dna dutch royal family dutch royals emperor family tree games haakon vii henry v hill history house of bourbon house of glucksburg interesting israel italian royal family jacobite jewellery jumma kids movie king salman list of rulers mailing mary: crown princess of denmark monogram nepalese royal jewels nobel prize norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince dimitri princely family of monaco princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen mathilde queen maud rown royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royalty royal wedding saudi arabia shakespeare spain spanish royal spencer family sweden swedish royalty thailand tracts united states of america unsubscribe videos wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×