The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5681  
Old 04-13-2021, 05:11 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
IIRC, George VI supposedly crossed out the word Prince before he signed the LP. I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
That happened on a different occasion several months later. The LP included a reference to him as prince; otherwise a different LP would have been publicized. The 'crossing out of the word prince' did happen but it was in the draft for Charles' birth certificate this amendment was made - according to this note on wikipedia:
Quote:
"Home Office, Whitehall. S.W.1. 28 February 1955. "My dear George {Coldstream, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery}, We were speaking the other day about the designation of the Duke of Edinburgh. In 1948 the General Register Office consulted us about the way in which the birth of Prince Charles was to be registered. They sent over a suggested entry, in column 4 of which (name and surname of father) they had inserted: 'His Royal Highness Prince Philip'. I consulted {Sir Alan} Lascelles Principal Private Secretary to the King on this and he laid my letter before The King, together with the draft entry, I have in my possession the entry, as amended by The King in his own hand. The King amended column 4, name and surname of father, to read: "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". Austin Strutt {Assistant Under-Secretary of State}"
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5682  
Old 04-14-2021, 04:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
that makes more sense. I can't imagine the King striking out the wrod Prince.. If it was wrong, it would have to be more official than that, and a new typed version issued.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5683  
Old 04-14-2021, 11:50 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
That happened on a different occasion several months later. The LP included a reference to him as prince; otherwise a different LP would have been publicized. The 'crossing out of the word prince' did happen but it was in de draft for Charles' birth certificate this amendment was made - according to this note on wikipedia:


[QUOTE=::
"Home Office, Whitehall. S.W.1. 28 February 1955. "My dear George {Coldstream, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery}, We were speaking the other day about the designation of the Duke of Edinburgh. In 1948 the General Register Office consulted us about the way in which the birth of Prince Charles was to be registered. They sent over a suggested entry, in column 4 of which (name and surname of father) they had inserted: 'His Royal Highness Prince Philip'. I consulted {Sir Alan} Lascelles Principal Private Secretary to the King on this and he laid my letter before The King, together with the draft entry, I have in my possession the entry, as amended by The King in his own hand. The King amended column 4, name and surname of father, to read: "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". Austin Strutt {Assistant Under-Secretary of State}":[/QUOTE][/I]




As you can see in the quote above, the King amended the column 4 name and surname of the father to read His Royal Highness Philip Duke of Edinburgh. He crossed not Prince as was suggested in the draft by the General Register Office;
He was not a Prince of Britain until 1957 when the Queen issued an LP and conferred on him the title of Prince of Britain.
These were his titles:
• 10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
• 28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten
• 19 November 1947 – 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten
• 20 November 1947 – 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
• 22 February 1957 – 9 April 2021: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Reply With Quote
  #5684  
Old 04-14-2021, 03:14 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662


Not sure what you are trying to say.

Nonetheless, I think we now all agree that the king never crossed out anything in an official version of an LP which was then published unamended. That doesn't make any sense. As Denville said; in that case a new copy would have been made before the king would sign it and the official version would reflect that change. Whether there were any draft version of the LP of 1947 or 1948 that used different titles we don't know - but it wouldn't make a difference.

What we do know is that the king let the mention of Philip as prince pass in the LP of 1948 (so, there is an official reference to 'prince Philip' in 1948!) but amended the 'suggested birth entry' of Charles a few months later to remove the title of 'prince'; not sure what changed in those few months; maybe he was just paying more attention in the later than in the earlier case?!
Reply With Quote
  #5685  
Old 04-14-2021, 08:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post


Not sure what you are trying to say.

Nonetheless, I think we now all agree that the king never crossed out anything in an official version of an LP which was then published unamended. That doesn't make any sense. As Denville said; in that case a new copy would have been made before the king would sign it and the official version would reflect that change. Whether there were any draft version of the LP of 1947 or 1948 that used different titles we don't know - but it wouldn't make a difference.

What we do know is that the king let the mention of Philip as prince pass in the LP of 1948 (so, there is an official reference to 'prince Philip' in 1948!) but amended the 'suggested birth entry' of Charles a few months later to remove the title of 'prince'; not sure what changed in those few months; maybe he was just paying more attention in the later than in the earlier case?!
"Debate over Prince Philip's titles and honours
Royal title
On the popular, but erroneous, assumption that if Philip had the style of His Royal Highness he was automatically a British Prince, media reports after his marriage to Princess Elizabeth referred to a Prince Philip, with or without reference to any ducal title. This may have been influenced by the fact that he had actually been a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, the use of which titles he had discontinued already. Although the princely title was omitted in the British Regency Act 1953, and in Letters Patent of November 1953 appointing Counsellors of State, it had been included in Letters Patent of 22 October 1948 conferring princely rank on children from Philip's marriage to Elizabeth. King George VI, however, is believed to have been clear and intentional in having withheld the title of Prince from his future son-in-law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_of_Edinburgh
Reply With Quote
  #5686  
Old 04-14-2021, 09:08 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
"Debate over Prince Philip's titles and honours
Royal title
On the popular, but erroneous, assumption that if Philip had the style of His Royal Highness he was automatically a British Prince, media reports after his marriage to Princess Elizabeth referred to a Prince Philip, with or without reference to any ducal title. This may have been influenced by the fact that he had actually been a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, the use of which titles he had discontinued already. Although the princely title was omitted in the British Regency Act 1953, and in Letters Patent of November 1953 appointing Counsellors of State, it had been included in Letters Patent of 22 October 1948 conferring princely rank on children from Philip's marriage to Elizabeth. King George VI, however, is believed to have been clear and intentional in having withheld the title of Prince from his future son-in-law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_of_Edinburgh
What are you trying to say? I am at a loss now: why this quote? Is your answer meant as a rebuttal (nobody disputed the bolded sentence)? Are you trying to provide more clarity and if so, on which issue?

As you correctly quote, the LP of 1948 DID refer to him as Prince Philip. This was never crossed out (which was the comment this discussion started with). So, apparently, the king made a mistake in referring to him as such. As the LP wasn't about Philip's title, I don't think (and I haven't seen anyone suggest) that made him a prince again (that was something that Elizabeth did many years later) but it was at least careless that in such an official document Philip was referred to as a prince.

So, all people who might have referred to him as prince in the period he wasn't one (i.e., between him giving up his Greek title of prince until being given the UK title of prince) should be forgiven for making the same mistake as the king of the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #5687  
Old 04-17-2021, 10:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 190
Will Prince Louis be the future Duke of York?
Reply With Quote
  #5688  
Old 04-17-2021, 10:43 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Will Prince Louis be the future Duke of York?
That will depend on whether Andrew has a son or not. He could still marry and father a son. Most definitely not until after the current Duke of York passes away.
__________________
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
  #5689  
Old 04-17-2021, 10:46 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
I have a doubt. If Princes William or Harry had married a princess of another kingdom, say Victoria or Madeline, would those princesses have kept their original titles?
Reply With Quote
  #5690  
Old 04-17-2021, 10:47 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Will Prince Louis be the future Duke of York?
Since Prince Andrew has no sons, (assuming he does not have any going forward) his dukedom will revert to the crown when he passes away. If he has the longevity of his parents, that could be many decades from now.

After it reverts, the monarch (Charles or William, most likely) is then free to bestow it on Louis or another male royal.

Though the Dukedom has a history of being bestowed on brothers of future Kings, there is no rule giving Louis a right to the York Dukedom or any other. If Andrew is still alive when the Monarch wants to give Louis a Dukedom, another will be given instead. Or if Louis does not want a Dukedom, it will remain with the Crown.

(There are only two Dukedoms that are set aside permanently: Duchy of Cornwall for the heir to the throne, and the Duchy of Lancaster for the Monarch. Everything else is up to the Monarch once it has reverted back to the Crown.)
Reply With Quote
  #5691  
Old 04-17-2021, 10:52 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
Since Prince Andrew has no sons, (assuming he does not have any going forward) his dukedom will revert to the crown when he passes away. If he has the longevity of his parents, that could be many decades from now.

After it reverts, the monarch (Charles or William, most likely) is then free to bestow it on Louis or another male royal.

Though the Dukedom has a history of being bestowed on brothers of future Kings, there is no rule giving Louis a right to the York Dukedom or any other. If Andrew is still alive when the Monarch wants to give Louis a Dukedom, another will be given instead. Or if Louis does not want a Dukedom, it will remain with the Crown.

(There are only two Dukedoms that are set aside permanently: Duchy of Cornwall for the heir to the throne, and the Duchy of Lancaster for the Monarch. Everything else is up to the Monarch once it has reverted back to the Crown.)
If Charles outlives Andrew, then is there a possibility that it could go to Harry?
Reply With Quote
  #5692  
Old 04-17-2021, 11:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
If Charles outlives Andrew, then is there a possibility that it could go to Harry? Or will it be reserved for the younger brother of the future King alone?
In theory, anything is possible - you can have more than one Dukedom, as Charles now currently does, and William will when he becomes the Duke of Cornwall.

But in practicality, I would say it's extremely unlikely and vastly unnecessary. Harry has a royal Dukedom already. And the Dukedom of York has not always gone to a brother of the King, so it's not atypical for Harry to have a different Dukedom. It doesn't have any attached land or monetary value either, so it wouldn't "do" anything for Harry other than give him another title.
Reply With Quote
  #5693  
Old 04-17-2021, 11:07 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 185
To add to my last post: once the Dukedom of York reverts to the Crown, it won't be legally reserved for a future spare. The Monarch can assign it to whomever they choose.

But I think it's likely, given its history since George V, that it will one day be used again for a younger brother of a future monarch (which could be a King or Queen under the modern rules!)
Reply With Quote
  #5694  
Old 04-17-2021, 11:24 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
I have a doubt. If Princes William or Harry had married a princess of another kingdom, say Victoria or Madeline, would those princesses have kept their original titles?
Yes and no. (Terrible answer, I know!)

As Victoria is next in line for the throne of her country, she would not have given up any title/position from her home country of Sweden. If she had married a Prince such as Harry, he would have likely had to renounce his right to the British throne. For that reason, Victoria would not have married William or any other royal directly in line for their own throne.

If Madeleine had married Prince William she would have had to renounce her own claim to the Swedish throne. I do think she would have maintained her Princess title, as the daughter of a King, BUT, upon more thought, it's not clear, or I am completely wrong. I believe that Prince Phillip's situation was viewed differently at the time, and may have been colored by issues that wouldn't apply to Madeleine.
Reply With Quote
  #5695  
Old 04-18-2021, 06:19 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?

The media and members of the public are not obliged to use correct styles (for example, the Duke of Cambridge is commonly referred to as Prince William), and I am fine with that.

But it seems it is even more common to refer to Viscount Severn using his first name than it is for the Dukes of Gloucester or Kent, who am I using as examples because they are also less widely known members of the British Royal Family. I hardly ever see them referred to as Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or Edward, Duke of Kent.
Reply With Quote
  #5696  
Old 04-18-2021, 06:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
In theory, anything is possible - you can have more than one Dukedom, as Charles now currently does, and William will when he becomes the Duke of Cornwall.

But in practicality, I would say it's extremely unlikely and vastly unnecessary. Harry has a royal Dukedom already. And the Dukedom of York has not always gone to a brother of the King, so it's not atypical for Harry to have a different Dukedom. It doesn't have any attached land or monetary value either, so it wouldn't "do" anything for Harry other than give him another title.
Why one earth would they give Harry another dukedom, when he has gone to live in the US and clearly sees himself as out of the RF and the world of titles...
Reply With Quote
  #5697  
Old 04-18-2021, 06:23 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?

The media and members of the public are not obliged to use correct styles (for example, the Duke of Cambridge is commonly referred to as Prince William), and I am fine with that.

But it seems it is even more common to refer to Viscount Severn using his first name than it is for the Dukes of Gloucester or Kent, who am I using as examples because they are also less widely known members of the British Royal Family. I hardly ever see them referred to as Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or Edward, Duke of Kent.
Both of them are princes and are older men who have been around for a long time.... James is only a kid and rarely appears in public, so I think it is simply to make it clear who he is.. younger royal watchers ;probalby think of him as "Edwards son James" and dont think of him as "Vct Severne"
Reply With Quote
  #5698  
Old 04-18-2021, 07:57 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
I have a doubt. If Princes William or Harry had married a princess of another kingdom, say Victoria or Madeline, would those princesses have kept their original titles?

In the past, foreign princesses who married into the British royal family did not use their foreign titles in the United Kingdom, so I would say no.


Of course I believe that, unless rescinded under domestic law, they keep their titles in their original countries as those are outside British jurisdiction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?

I think James, Viscount Severn, is also a correct style. In fact that is how peers and eldest sons of peers are referred to in the identification page of their UK passports, i.e. [Forename] + [Title (or Courtesy Title)] in the surname field.


Likewise, for a British prince, you can either use HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duke of Cambridge, or HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. It is simply a matter of using the short or the long style. The only difference between princes and peers in that respect is that, for princes, under the LPs of 1917, the forename must be preceded by the prefix "Prince" and the style of "Royal Highness".


Since peers, unlike princes, also use a family name, that can be also added to the long style, e.g. Edward Fitzalan-Howard, Duke of Norfolk, but, in British passports, that is done only in the Observations Page. In the identification page itself, the family name is omitted and replaced by the title, which is odd by international standards (I wonder how the EU felt about that !).


Note that, in announcements of appointments to the royal orders of the knighthood, the following format is used for peers: [Prefix (e.g. The Most Noble or The Right Honourable]+ [Forename(s)]+[Family Name] + [Title designation] +[Post-Nominal Letters], when the family name is not part of the title designation, or [Prefix]+ [Forename(s)] + [Title Rank]+[Title Designation including the family name] +[Post-Nominal Letters] otherwise, see some examples below extracted from the London Gazette.

Quote:
Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood
St James’s Palace, London SW1
23 April 2003


The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint the undermentioned to be Knights Companions of the Most Noble Order of the Garter:


The Most Noble Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster, OBE, TD, DL.
The Right Honourable Frederick Edward Robin, Baron Butler of Brockwell, GCB, CVO.
The Right Honourable John, Baron Morris of Aberavon, QC.
Quote:

THE MOST ANCIENT AND MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE THISTLE
Chancery of the Order,
Court of the Lord Lyon, Edinburgh
29th November 1996
The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to make the following appointments within the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle:


The Right Honourable John Campbell ARBUTHNOTT, Viscount of Arbuthnott, CBE, DSC, to be a Knight of the Order;


The Right Honourable Robert ALEXANDER Lindsay, Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, P.C., D.L., to be a Knight of the Order;

Reply With Quote
  #5699  
Old 04-18-2021, 08:25 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?

The media and members of the public are not obliged to use correct styles (for example, the Duke of Cambridge is commonly referred to as Prince William), and I am fine with that.

But it seems it is even more common to refer to Viscount Severn using his first name than it is for the Dukes of Gloucester or Kent, who am I using as examples because they are also less widely known members of the British Royal Family. I hardly ever see them referred to as Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or Edward, Duke of Kent.
I suspect that one reason for the public referring to James this way is that he is not an HRH or Prince. I don't think it would seem as strange if he was called Prince James. Richard and Edward would have been referred to as Prince Richard and Prince Edward when they were young. We are used to Harry and William being referred to as Prince Harry and Prince William despite the fact they now have peerages. I think those of us who remember members of the RF being born and growing up as children are more likely to refer to them that way and not by the peerage titles they received as adults.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #5700  
Old 04-18-2021, 08:35 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,837
Official announcements from BP usually just refer to him as Viscount Severn but the media often include his first name in the same way they use Kate, Duchess of Cambridge.

Also he's often referred to in the same sentence as Lady Louise so I think they just even up the use of first names.

Lady Louise is referred to as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor on royal.uk but usually only as "Windsor" without Mountbatten (unlike Archie who always has M-W) in the media so they don't check a lot of things.
__________________

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
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor 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 medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee 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 01:13 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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