The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5241  
Old 08-10-2020, 09:30 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Even with the Queen offering Mark Phillips a title, Anne's kids were never going to be prince/ss of the UK. They would be Lord/Lady (Mark's title) and Peter would have inherited his father's title.

I don't think we'll see that happen ever again really. Not with Charlotte or with anyone else. But that's just my opinion.
The main argument for it to happen is that females now have equal rights to the throne, so while Anne and her children are behind her younger brothers and their children in the line of succession, that isn't the case for Charlotte and Louis; so from that perspective, it would make sense to somehow ensure somewhat equal titles for the children of both of them (the various options we discussed - most likely in this thread - not that long ago).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5242  
Old 08-10-2020, 10:09 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Him being close to his maternal family might indeed have made him more willing to consider this option when it was first proposed.
If you consider how he was simply known and addressed as "Philip" his whole life growing up and then still Philip once naturalized, and still Philip once married, the shock and transition might not have been too great. There was some continuity.

To marry the woman he loved and finally gain a degree of stability in his life, the rest might not have seemed such an outrageous bargain.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5243  
Old 08-11-2020, 01:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,385
I've just consulted the biography 'Young Philip' by Philip Eade. It is stated in this book that Prince Philip's naturalisation was discussed early in 1946 by courtiers and Govt ministers. However, members of the British govt felt worried about their current Balkan diplomacy, and therefore the question was delayed. This was as it would seem, if his application was accepted, that the British Govt were not sanguine about the Greek royal Family returning to the Throne.

When a plebiscite was held in Greece in September 1946 and King George II was returned, it was felt that the naturalisation shouldn't be hurried as it would 'be unhelpful if Philip were to renounce his Greek nationality just as the King regained his Throne.' So it was put off!

With regard to the Mountbatten name being adopted by Philip, he, no less than the RF and courtiers, was aware of Dickie Mountbatten's machinations behind the scenes. Philip by his own account wasn't 'madly in favour of taking the name Mountbatten....but in the end I was persuaded, and anyway I couldn't think of a reasonable alternative.'

The author goes on to say that 'his ambivalence persisted, not least because the surname resulted in lingering confusion about the identity of his father' . End quote

In fact on other occasions Philip would joke that people thought that Dickie Mountbatten was his father.

From the Eade biography on Prince Philip

A poll in the Sunday Pictorial of 12 Jan 1947 found that although 55% of the public were in favour of the marriage of Philip to Princess Elizabeth (provided they were really in love) 40% were against. Many would have preferred a commoner, one reader observing that 'the days of intermarriage of royalty have passed'. Others felt it was 'a political move'. Some did not want Elizabeth to marry a foreigner or a Prince. One family 'of ex servicemen' said 'Definitely no!' to such a marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #5244  
Old 08-11-2020, 04:18 AM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,603
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?
Prince Albert would have legally been The Prince Consort. The title would not have had to have been given to him. He was Victoria's husband and spouse. He already had the title of Prince from birth. He was not made King of Great Britain.
Reply With Quote
  #5245  
Old 08-11-2020, 04:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
He was a prince, he had just renounced his titles and his Greek nationality...
Reply With Quote
  #5246  
Old 08-11-2020, 06:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.
I think (Yes I know its a joke) but it would be tasteless. And while titles may seem old fashioned, they're meant to be a way of addressing someone and emphasizing their role within the RF. Princess Consort would be unusual but its not entirely wihttout Precedent.. and might solve the problem that Camilla while accepted isn't all that popular...
Reply With Quote
  #5247  
Old 08-11-2020, 07:35 AM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Prince Albert would have legally been The Prince Consort. The title would not have had to have been given to him. He was Victoria's husband and spouse. He already had the title of Prince from birth. He was not made King of Great Britain.
Albert was simply "Prince Albert" for the first 17 years of his marriage. This is well-documented (in this thread and elsewhere) and if he had not been, becoming The Prince Consort would not have been so notable. There was nothing automatic whatsoever.

Victoria wanted him to be King (Consort), eventually. "Prince Consort" was the compromise.
Reply With Quote
  #5248  
Old 08-11-2020, 07:43 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
He was a prince, he had just renounced his titles and his Greek nationality...
He was no longer a prince precisely because he renounced his titles, so between 1947 and 1957 he wasn't 'HRH prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh' but 'HRH Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh'.
Reply With Quote
  #5249  
Old 08-11-2020, 07:45 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Prince Albert would have legally been The Prince Consort. The title would not have had to have been given to him. He was Victoria's husband and spouse. He already had the title of Prince from birth. He was not made King of Great Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Albert was simply "Prince Albert" for the first 17 years of his marriage. This is well-documented (in this thread and elsewhere) and if he had not been, becoming The Prince Consort would not have been so notable. There was nothing automatic whatsoever.

Victoria wanted him to be King (Consort), eventually. "Prince Consort" was the compromise.
Yes indeed. In that same vein: Prince Philip is not 'The Prince Consort'. Although I read somewhere that it had been speculated that the queen might make him prince consort for their 60th wedding anniversary but that didn't happen.
Reply With Quote
  #5250  
Old 08-11-2020, 08:03 AM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Yes indeed. In that same vein: Prince Philip is not 'The Prince Consort'. Although I read somewhere that it had been speculated that the queen might make him queen consort for their 60th wedding anniversary but that didn't happen.
Not sure how Philip would have taken to being queen consort, honestly...
Reply With Quote
  #5251  
Old 08-11-2020, 10:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Returning to the styling of royal duchesses dowager, which has been discussed several times in this thread lately: I wonder if the styling of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent after her oldest son's marriage in 1961 (which was copied in 1974 by Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) was affected by the existing customs of the peerage.

Dowager Peeresses
According to Debrett's Correct Form:

"Officially the widow of a peer is known as the Dowager Countess (or whatever) of X, unless there is already a dowager peeress of the family still living. In the latter event, the widow of the senior peer of the family retains the title of Dowager for life, and the widow of the junior peer in that family is known by her Christian name, e.g., Mary, Countess of X, until she becomes the senior widow. . . . When the present peer is unmarried, by custom the widow of the late peer continues to call herself as she did when her husband was living, i.e., without the prefix of (a) dowager, or (b) her Christian name. Should the present peer marry, it is usual for the widowed peeress to announce the style by which she wishes to be know in future."(113) This last bit is twentieth century, and Black's agrees: most widows don't use "dowager" at all anymore, and simply use the Mary, Countess of X option, announcing in the press the style they will be using.
"Black's" is listed as the 1932 edition of Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to Their Correct Use, published by A. & C. Black Ltd., so most duchesses dowager apparently used the style Mary, Duchess of X, by 1932.

1961 was the first time that the situation of a royal duchess dowager needing to change her style arose in the British royal family. (It potentially could have arisen earlier as the Duchess of Albany's only son inherited the dukedom of Albany and married in his mother's lifetime, but the new duke inherited Coburg and Gotha before marriage and he and his new wife were known as the Duke and Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so the duchess dowager continued to be known as The Duchess of Albany.) Therefore, there was no example in 1961 for royal duchesses dowager, but the current British custom for a non-royal duchess dowager would have been to announce in the press that she would be using the style Marina, Duchess of Kent.

In that light, the question for me is not necessarily why she didn't use The Dowager Duchess / Duchess Dowager of Kent (neither did most non-royal dowagers of her generation) but why she didn't use HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent (following the custom for non-royal duchesses dowager) or HRH The Princess George, Duchess of Kent.
Reply With Quote
  #5252  
Old 08-11-2020, 10:50 AM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Returning to the styling of royal duchesses dowager, which has been discussed several times in this thread lately: I wonder if the styling of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent after her oldest son's marriage in 1961 (which was copied in 1974 by Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) was affected by the existing customs of the peerage.
Quote:
In that light, the question for me is not necessarily why she didn't use The Dowager Duchess / Duchess Dowager of Kent (neither did most non-royal dowagers of her generation) but why she didn't use HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent (following the custom for non-royal duchesses dowager) or HRH The Princess George, Duchess of Kent.
Possibly because Marina was justifiably-inordinately proud of her royal and imperial lineage, which would have seemed a lot more substantial than "The Princess George". I doubt she would have settled for plain "Marina", even with her HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #5253  
Old 08-11-2020, 12:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Not really a current title, but hasn't the Queen been greeted with "Vive La Duchesse" when she's gone to Normandy?
I understand this is HM's title when in the Channel Islands as they are the only remnant of the Dukedom of Normandy.
Reply With Quote
  #5254  
Old 08-11-2020, 12:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Are you sure you're considering the incredibly specific circumstances under which Philip got married? Marina married in in 1934; it was a completely different world by 1947.

He didn't give up his title and status to get married; he gave them up to be a naturalized British citizen, which everyone has to do. But it wasn't a requirement to marry Princess Elizabeth; he didn't have to; no one from the court ordered or even suggested it. It was basically one of his uncle's (who'd had his own experiences with British distaste for "foreigners") brilliant schemes that Philip would be as appealing a consort to the xenophobic, war-exhausted British of the time if he were as British as possible. Given how Philip had already gone to school there and served in the Navy during the war and "spoke only English", I'm sure he probably felt rather British already. If Henri de Monpezat "traded in" his questionable title to be a prince, I'm not sure why trading in a mere foreign princely title to be a British royal duke and consort is meant to be a slight.

As it happens, they found out he didn't have to be naturalized after all, so in theory I think Philip could have reclaimed his Greek/Danish title if he had ever felt remorse or retained any attachment. It doesn't seem to have happened.

Wanting to pass some name to his children and descendants? That definitely happened. But the fight was about Mountbatten, not Greece and Denmark.
This was more to do with his naturalisation as a British Subject. When Marina married I suspect she automatically took on her husband's nationality. Had Philip not renounced his Greek and Danish titles his children would automatically have been born Princes of Greece and Denmark.
Reply With Quote
  #5255  
Old 08-11-2020, 05:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Prince Harry 'worried about day Charles would be King and burden on Archie' - Daily Star

In an explosive new book Finding Freedom authors Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie have claimed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decide to "forgo a title for their son, because they wanted him to be a private citizen."

They claim Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king.

[...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...]

The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."


This seems to contradict what a "senior source" told Robert Jobson of the London Evening Standard in 2019:

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.

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard
Reply With Quote
  #5256  
Old 08-11-2020, 05:10 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I understand this is HM's title when in the Channel Islands as they are the only remnant of the Dukedom of Normandy.
The Queen is the Duke of Normandy not the Duchess of Normandy.
Reply With Quote
  #5257  
Old 08-11-2020, 05:31 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
The Queen is the Duke of Normandy not the Duchess of Normandy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_o...dy#Title_today

To the Islanders, she's the Duke. To the Normans as a matter of spontaneous courtesy, she's the Duchess, I suppose, but they weren't yelling "Vive Le Duc".
Reply With Quote
  #5258  
Old 08-12-2020, 04:02 AM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Prince Harry 'worried about day Charles would be King and burden on Archie' - Daily Star

In an explosive new book Finding Freedom authors Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie have claimed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decide to "forgo a title for their son, because they wanted him to be a private citizen."

They claim Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king.

[...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...]

The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."


This seems to contradict what a "senior source" told Robert Jobson of the London Evening Standard in 2019:

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.

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard
This is quite confusing. At the start Prince Harry and Meghan wanted no royal or aristocratic title for Archie. Why is Archie being given a title by King Charles III?
Reply With Quote
  #5259  
Old 08-12-2020, 04:04 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
This is quite confusing. At the start Prince Harry and Meghan wanted no royal or aristocratic title for Archie. Why is Archie being given a title by King Charles III?
He will automatically become HRH Prince Archie when Charles becomes King.. Unless Charles makes it known that he wont be known as a Prince..
Reply With Quote
  #5260  
Old 08-12-2020, 04:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Possibly because Marina was justifiably-inordinately proud of her royal and imperial lineage, which would have seemed a lot more substantial than "The Princess George". I doubt she would have settled for plain "Marina", even with her HRH.
From waht I've heard of her, I think that's true. she would not wnat to be plain Marina..
__________________

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: 5 (1 members and 4 guests)
Prinsara
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 baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life gemstones george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex taiwan thai royal family united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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