The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5201  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:32 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I don't know if you picked the name Gladys randomly.. but if tis a reference to the names Charles and Cam had for each other it might not go down well...
Oh I was definitely thinking along the lines of Fred and Gladys.

Creating a style simply as "Gladys" is as possible as just creating "Princess Consort". They both come out of nowhere with nothing really to support them other than a "want". In fact, Camilla being known as "Gladys" is really more intimately pertaining to who she is than is "Princess Consort" when you think about it.

Along with being totally fanciful and once again relying on a brain not totally caffeinated yet, what if when the time comes, William and Catherine put their heads together and deem a good one for Catherine would be to add a few things. "Princess Consort and Vizier to the King".

Once started, there's no telling how many variants can be used when self styling takes root in tradition.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #5202  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Is "princess/prince in their own right" a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom, or is it merely an informal description applied by royal watchers? I am not aware of any legal rights or privileges that are held by Philip but not by Camilla and Catherine, or vice versa.
An important difference is that Philip wasn't a prince until he himself was created a prince; and that he is Prince Philip (not Prince Elizabeth) while Camilla is Princess Charles and Catherine is Princess William. So, being able to use your own name could be considered a 'privilege' that comes with being created a prince of the UK versus only being married to a prince or princess of the realm.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5203  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:35 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
My understanding is that any difficulties around Camilla being styled as Princess Consort have been ironed out long ago (it's been 15 years now). So if that's what happens, there won't be any problems for them or for future Queens Consort. However, I don't think it will be the style she uses because Charles (and other BRF members) will most likely persuade her to be styled as Queen (to match her status). She'll be a Queen Consort and despite the grumblers (and perhaps some of the tabloid media) there just aren't enough people so invested in objecting to 'Queen Camilla' to cause a huge problem, constitutional crisis or revolution about it.
Reply With Quote
  #5204  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:36 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes I agree. But people seem to disagree. However although Cam isn't that popular, I suspect in the end it will be simpler for her to become known as Queen...
How do you suggest it works? Could Charles also decide that any other person could be known as Duke or Duchess while they nor their spouse are Duke or Duchess; just because he likes that person or because he or she is a family member? Or could the queen now or Charles in the future just release a press release that mentions that from now on Beatrice's and Eugenie's husbands are known as princes? Without any paperwork needed?
Reply With Quote
  #5205  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:38 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Yes, I know that you have been consistent but I still don't understand how that could work If I understood I might agree with you. So far, I don't see how someone can be styled as something they are not; or in the case of women by another title than either their own title or a title that is derived from their husband's titles... However, if you have examples where people have officially been styled by something that they are not somehow entitled to, I'd love to know.
The Queen's aunt, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Not wanting to be "Dowager" after her son's accession, she simply asked her niece if she could be styled the same as her late sister-in-law Marina. Despite not actually being a princess (except technically being the late Princess Henry) the Queen apparently had no objections whatsoever.

Alice is, I think, the only case of gaining the title in the BRF without birth or marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #5206  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its also to be noted that Albert was a "prince" before Victoria was even a twinkle in his eyes. He was also Victoria's first cousin meaning they came from the same family line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes I know that. But the precedent was given that Camilla instead of being queen would be Princess Consort, just as Albert had been Prince Consort...
Was he legally 'the prince consort'? Or was he formally 'prince Albert' (as he was born a prince and was not stripped of his title, unlike Philip, who therefore needed to be reinstated as prince), who happened to be the queen's consort?
Reply With Quote
  #5207  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:40 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Is "princess/prince in their own right" a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom, or is it merely an informal description applied by royal watchers? I am not aware of any legal rights or privileges that are held by Philip but not by Camilla and Catherine, or vice versa.

I don't know if it is "a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom", but there is at least one difference that is legally meaningful: Philip is (or at least may be) referred to in official documents as HRH The Prince Philip, whereas Catherine and Camilla are never referred to as HRH Princess Catherine or HRH Princess Camilla. In other words, Philip has the legal right or privilege to use the titular dignity of Prince prefixed to his Christian name whereas Catherine and Camilla do not have the same right or privilege.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Was he legally 'the prince consort'? Or was he formally 'prince Albert' (as he was born a prince and was not stripped of his title, unlike Philip, who therefore needed to be reinstated as prince), who happened to be the queen's consort?

I believe he was formally given the title of Prince Consort in 1857 (i.e., long after he and Victoria had married).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...2015/page/2195


Prior to the said Letters Patent mentioned in the Gazette, he was HRH Prince Albert. Note that Albert was originally only an HSH in accordance with his German titles. He was elevated to the rank of HRH in 1840 (a few days before his marriage to Queen Victoria, I think).


https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...19821/page/241
Reply With Quote
  #5208  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:43 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Was he legally 'the prince consort'? Or was he formally 'prince Albert' (as he was born a prince and was not stripped of his title, unlike Philip, who therefore needed to be reinstated as prince), who happened to be the queen's consort?
Just "Prince Albert" up to 1857. Proclaimed "The Prince Consort" 1857-1861.
Reply With Quote
  #5209  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
She can in essence say "Im Queen but I want to be known as Princess Consort..>" just like she could say "IM princess of Wales but I want to be known as Duchess of Cornwall"
That's a completely different situation. Charles is BOTH the prince of Wales and the duke of Cornwall. So, Camilla currently is both the princess of Wales AND the duchess of Cornwall (and several other things such as Duchess of Rothesay - which she uses in Scotland); and she chose to style herself as the Duchess of Cornwall.

Camilla will no longer be 'Princess Charles' (nor the princess of Wales) but only 'HM The Queen'. Not sure whether an argument could be made for her to be styled as the Duchess of Lancaster instead, as that will be Charles' only other title if I'm not mistaken... (However, the Queen is currently 'the Duke of Lancaster' - so not completely sure whether that could work)
Reply With Quote
  #5210  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:48 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
The Queen's aunt, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Not wanting to be "Dowager" after her son's accession, she simply asked her niece if she could be styled the same as her late sister-in-law Marina. Despite not actually being a princess (except technically being the late Princess Henry) the Queen apparently had no objections whatsoever.

Alice is, I think, the only case of gaining the title in the BRF without birth or marriage.
She was a princess by marriage (her husband was not only Duke of Gloucester but also a prince of the UK); but indeed her being allowed to use her first name along with princess was an exception to a different rule (that is that those who are 'married-in' can be only known by their title in combination with their husband's first name).
Reply With Quote
  #5211  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
That's a completely different situation. Charles is BOTH the prince of Wales and the duke of Cornwall. So, Camilla currently is both the princess of Wales AND the duchess of Cornwall (and several other things such as Duchess of Rothesay - which she uses in Scotland); and she chose to style herself as the Duchess of Cornwall.

Camilla will no longer be 'Princess Charles' (nor the princess of Wales) but only 'HM The Queen'. Not sure whether an argument could be made for her to be styled as the Duchess of Lancaster instead, as that will be Charles' only other title if I'm not mistaken... (However, the Queen is currently 'the Duke of Lancaster' - so not completely sure whether that could work)
Well... it would have probably bordered on the ridiculous for Philip to be styled as "The Duchess of Lancaster" as his wife was the Duke so that didn't even register anywhere as a possibility.

For Camilla to use "The Duchess of Lancaster" would be a first but yet totally in line with the British tradition of a wife taking her her titles and styles from her husband. Like having the choice between "The Princess of Wales" and "The Duchess of Cornwall", Camilla would be selecting her style from a title her husband, the King and also the Duke of Lancaster holds.

Is it really going to be *that* big of a priority though when Charles becomes king that quibbling about styling is going to fill the front pages? I don't think so. Far more important at the time will be a nation in mourning and remembering the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. At that time, it could be announced that formally, we have Charles the Green and Gladys and it'd be buried on page 10 in small print.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #5212  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:55 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't know if it is "a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom", but there is at least one difference that is legally meaningful: Philip is (or at least may be) referred to in official documents as HRH The Prince Philip, whereas Catherine and Camilla are never referred to as HRH Princess Catherine or HRH Princess Camilla. In other words, Philip has the legal right or privilege to use the titular dignity of Prince prefixed to his Christian name whereas Catherine and Camilla do not have the same right or privilege.





I believe he was formally given the title of Prince Consort in 1857 (i.e., long after he and Victoria had married).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...2015/page/2195


Prior to the said Letters Patent mentioned in the Gazette, he was HRH Prince Albert. Note that Albert was originally only an HSH in accordance with his German titles. He was elevated to the rank of HRH in 1840.


https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...19821/page/241
Thanks! It's always great to read the historical documents - it almost seems to have been done in relation to the birth (or more precisely) presentation of their youngest daughter. So, in his case, Letters Patent were indeed needed to make him the Prince Consort (just as I'm arguing would be needed for Camilla - if Charles would want to give her that title). Until that moment he was 'The Prince Albert' (and apparently, it was very important that all the church books were corrected immediately so nobody would ever mistakenly refer to him as The Prince Albert ).
Reply With Quote
  #5213  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:56 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
That's a completely different situation. Charles is BOTH the prince of Wales and the duke of Cornwall. So, Camilla currently is both the princess of Wales AND the duchess of Cornwall (and several other things such as Duchess of Rothesay - which she uses in Scotland); and she chose to style herself as the Duchess of Cornwall.

Camilla will no longer be 'Princess Charles' (nor the princess of Wales) but only 'HM The Queen'. Not sure whether an argument could be made for her to be styled as the Duchess of Lancaster instead, as that will be Charles' only other title if I'm not mistaken... (However, the Queen is currently 'the Duke of Lancaster' - so not completely sure whether that could work)
The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster because she holds the title in her own right, she isn't the wife of the title holder. The Duchess of Lancaster could theoretically work I suppose, I think Camilla suits the word "Duchess" but I don't believe it's been seriously suggested.

Personally I would prefer Camilla to just be Queen. It's simpler, sounds better than "Princess Consort" IMO and there have been a lot Queens Consort both that have done worse than Camilla and still had the title. Although there are also problems with that attitude. Unlike Princess of Wales which was so very associated with her, Diana was obviously never Queen.

I don't think it will affect Charles's popularity as King all that much either way however:

Quote:
Is it really going to be *that* big of a priority though when Charles becomes king that quibbling about styling is going to fill the front pages? I don't think so. Far more important at the time will be a nation in mourning and remembering the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. At that time, it could be announced that formally, we have Charles the Green and Gladys and it'd be buried on page 10 in small print.
Oh there will be quibbling. If not when the nation is first in mourning then in the run up to the Coronation et al.
Reply With Quote
  #5214  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:57 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
She was a princess by marriage (her husband was not only Duke of Gloucester but also a prince of the UK); but indeed her being allowed to use her first name along with princess was an exception to a different rule (that is that those who are 'married-in' can be only known by their title in combination with their husband's first name).
She was a princess by marriage, but she didn't ask to be Princess Henry, which she was. :) She asked to be known as "Princess Alice", which she was not and never had been, yet became simply at the pleasure of the monarch. That's the answer to your question about someone being known as something they're "not", as far as I can determine.

Sovereign's choice, fount of honour, you are what the monarch says you are.
Reply With Quote
  #5215  
Old 08-10-2020, 01:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't know if it is "a term of art in the laws of the United Kingdom", but there is at least one difference that is legally meaningful: Philip is (or at least may be) referred to in official documents as HRH The Prince Philip, whereas Catherine and Camilla are never referred to as HRH Princess Catherine or HRH Princess Camilla. In other words, Philip has the legal right or privilege to use the titular dignity of Prince prefixed to his Christian name whereas Catherine and Camilla do not have the same right or privilege.





I believe he was formally given the title of Prince Consort in 1857 (i.e., long after he and Victoria had married).

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...2015/page/2195


Prior to the said Letters Patent mentioned in the Gazette, he was HRH Prince Albert. Note that Albert was originally only an HSH in accordance with his German titles. He was elevated to the rank of HRH in 1840.


https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...19821/page/241


That is because, by the QEII, Prince Philip was officially created the Prince of United Kingdom and styled His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (by letter patent in 1957)
Reply With Quote
  #5216  
Old 08-10-2020, 02:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So far, I don't see how someone can be styled as something they are not; or in the case of women by another title than either their own title or a title that is derived from their husband's titles... However, if you have examples where people have officially been styled by something that they are not somehow entitled to, I'd love to know.
Doesn't the common law of England permit anyone to call themselves whatever they like, outside of official documents, provided it is not for fraudulent purposes?

The website of the UK government seems to support that.
Overview

You do not have to follow a legal process to start using a new name. But you might need a ‘deed poll’ to apply for or to change official documents like your passport or driving licence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, in his case, Letters Patent were indeed needed to make him the Prince Consort (just as I'm arguing would be needed for Camilla - if Charles would want to give her that title).
I'm not sure their use proves that they were needed, but it does create a precedent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
How do you suggest it works? Could Charles also decide that any other person could be known as Duke or Duchess while they nor their spouse are Duke or Duchess; just because he likes that person or because he or she is a family member? Or could the queen now or Charles in the future just release a press release that mentions that from now on Beatrice's and Eugenie's husbands are known as princes? Without any paperwork needed?
I suspect the circumstances would be more important than the legal technicalities. Should King Charles announce that a thousand of his friends would become Dukes and Duchesses, there would surely be widespread objections even if Parliament passed a bill giving its stamp of approval. Should he announce that his wife will be known as Princess Consort, I suspect very few people will spare any thought on the question of whether paperwork ought to have been issued.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster because she holds the title in her own right, she isn't the wife of the title holder.
A female holder of a peerage normally uses the feminine form of the title. See for example the female members of the House of Lords, who are styled Baroness or Lady.
Reply With Quote
  #5217  
Old 08-10-2020, 02:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post


A female holder of a peerage normally uses the feminine form of the title. See for example the female members of the House of Lords, who are styled Baroness or Lady.



For some reason which I don't understand, the Life Peeresses in the House of Lords are called "Baroness" whereas the wives of Barons normally prefer to use "Lady" instead, although they are also "baronesses" strictly speaking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
I do realise that I should have said Queen Victoria thought Duchess was just for the wife of the title holder and decided to be Duke of Lancaster.




There were British duchesses in their own right in the past, e.g. the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough . I don't think there is any today, but there are a few countesses and several (hereditary) baronesses in their own right.
Reply With Quote
  #5218  
Old 08-10-2020, 02:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
A female holder of a peerage normally uses the feminine form of the title. See for example the female members of the House of Lords, who are styled Baroness or Lady.
I do realise that. I should have said Queen Victoria thought Duchess was just for the wife of the title holder and decided to be Duke of Lancaster.

Anne Boleyn was allegedly created a Marquess deliberately instead of a Marchioness but that might just have been the feminine spelling of Marquis or Marquys at the time, and has little baring on the discussion.

Quote:
For some reason which I don't understand, the Life Peeresses in the House of Lords are called "Baroness" whereas the wives of Barons normally prefer to use "Lady" instead, although they are also "baronesses" strictly speaking.
There is no actual peerage in the UK for Lord/Lady those are more informal titles for other ranks or courtesy titles for children/siblings.
Reply With Quote
  #5219  
Old 08-10-2020, 02:20 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,550
Not really a current title, but hasn't the Queen been greeted with "Vive La Duchesse" when she's gone to Normandy?
Reply With Quote
  #5220  
Old 08-10-2020, 02:29 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post

There is no actual peerage in the UK for Lord/Lady those are more informal titles for other ranks or courtesy titles for children/siblings.

I know that. I was just noting that a life baroness is normally called, e.g. "Baroness Williams", whereas a hereditary baroness or baroness in her own right is normally referred to e.g. as Lady + [Designation of the Title].


On your other point, the feminine form of Marquis is Marquise, both of which are actually French words. The equivalent in Spanish would be Marqués and Marquesa.
__________________

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 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 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




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:57 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×