Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Zonk]

I think everyone has the gist of it but are getting caught up with the particulars.

The Edinburgh title does revert back to the Crown but as previously pointed out the Queen has suggested that the title will pass to Edward upon the death of the Duke and/or the Queen. It is assumed that in doing so, since it will have to bypass Charles, Andrew, William and Harry. I am sure Charles (in order to grant his mother's wish) will just issue LP's to that affect. I would assume that the Queen discussed this with everyone involved (Charles, Andrew, Harry and William).

Its that it in a nutshell?

 

[Iluvbertie]

"A further declaration was issued by the Queen regarding the family surname in 1960 stating that while she and her heirs would continue to be known as the House of Windsor, her descendants not inheriting the throne would take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. It has been made known that on the death of the Queen and her husband, Prince Edward will succeed to his father's title of Duke of Edinburgh." English Monarchs - Kings and Queens of England - Elizabeth II.

I don't know about the accuracy of the website, but I do know that I've heard many times that this is HM's wish.

It is the stated wish but there are scenarios by which it won't be possible.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Could I please provide a little background information on this?

On the Duke of Edinburgh's passing, the title will revert to the Crown. In 1999, when the Queen created Prince Edward The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn on his marriage, it was also announced that after the title has reverted back to the Crown, Edward will be given the title Duke of Edinburgh. [I know this because I saw the Press Release issued by BP]


Hope this helps,

Alex

This is exactly what has been said here many times of course.

The statement, without spelling it out, also implies that they are aware that there are scenarios by which the title won't revert and thus won't be available for Edward.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think everyone has the gist of it but are getting caught up with the particulars.

The Edinburgh title does revert back to the Crown but as previously pointed out the Queen has suggested that the title will pass to Edward upon the death of the Duke and/or the Queen. It is assumed that in doing so, since it will have to bypass Charles, Andrew, William and Harry. I am sure Charles (in order to grant his mother's wish) will just issue LP's to that affect. I would assume that the Queen discussed this with everyone involved (Charles, Andrew, Harry and William).

Its that it in a nutshell?

Not quite - it won't 'bypass' anyone.

When Philip dies Charles will inherit the title. If he is still the heir to the throne he will add it to his titles. If he is King it will merge with the Crown and be available for regrant and the agreement, already announced is that it will be regranted to Edward.

All I have added to this is that there are scenarios whereby it ends up with Harry or someone else and is thus not available for regrant at all but will be passing to others of Philip's male line descendents - and those permutations could even change again if William has a daughter and then a son and they change to gender blind succession for the monarch but not other titles.

The most likely scenario is that on Philip's death the title will pass to Charles. Next the Queen should die and Charles become King with the title then merging with the Crown and thus Charles is expected to issue new LPs, honouring his parents' stated wish, to create his younger brother Duke of Edinburgh but Charles is under no obligation to do so. He might prefer to create Harry DoE instead of Edward or ....

 

[Zonk]

But surely they can do what happened with the Duke of Saxe- Coburg Gotha title. When the old Duke died, a number of potential title holders (Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Connaught and Prince Arthur of Connaught) renounced their rights to the title. Surely the same can be done by Charles, Andrew, William and Harry? And that would settle the whole thing wouldn't it?

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Not quite - it won't 'bypass' anyone.

When Philip dies Charles will inherit the title. If he is still the heir to the throne he will add it to his titles. If he is King it will merge with the Crown and be available for regrant and the agreement, already announced is that it will be regranted to Edward.

All I have added to this is that there are scenarios whereby it ends up with Harry or someone else and is thus not available for regrant at all but will be passing to others of Philip's male line descendents - and those permutations could even change again if William has a daughter and then a son and they change to gender blind succession for the monarch but not other titles.

The most likely scenario is that on Philip's death the title will pass to Charles. Next the Queen should die and Charles become King with the title then merging with the Crown and thus Charles is expected to issue new LPs, honouring his parents' stated wish, to create his younger brother Duke of Edinburgh but Charles is under no obligation to do so. He might prefer to create Harry DoE instead of Edward or ....

Thanks, Bertie, for the clarification. I had never strung the possibilities out to conclude what you just said. Since both HM and DoE will have died, Charles will be the one to make the decision about who gets the title, even though HM had expressed her wishes. Sometimes I don't think logically for long enough.

 

[lady of hay]

NOTHRH , I seem to remember hearing this too. I think it was at the time of his marriage , there was an announcement made that Prince Edward would become the Earl of Wessex, then , upon his father's death, the Duke of Edinburgh. As far as I am aware , this was the decision of HM the Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But surely they can do what happened with the Duke of Saxe- Coburg Gotha title. When the old Duke died, a number of potential title holders (Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of Connaught and Prince Arthur of Connaught) renounced their rights to the title. Surely the same can be done by Charles, Andrew, William and Harry? And that would settle the whole thing wouldn't it?

Saxe-Coburg's laws were different to those of Britain and so that situation was also different. The Duke of Edinburgh actually didn't renounce his rights - he actually took the title from the death of his own uncle. It was, first the Prince of Wales - and as at that time Saxe-Coburg was an independent state he couldn't be the rule of two nations - despite the example of Hannover and Britain that idea had been changed with growing German nationalism. After the Duke of Edinburgh died the Duke of Connaught also renounced his claims as he was an elderly man who didn't want to uproot his life and career at that state and so it passed to the young Duke of Albany.

Under the 1963 Peerage Act a person can disclaim a peerage but the heir doesn't get it until the holder dies e.g. Charles, William, Harry and Andrew could all disclaim the Edinburgh title but that doesn't mean that Edward would get it - it would simply stop being used until all of the above died or it merged with the Crown. Prior to the 1963 Act even doing that wasn't possible.

Peerage Act 1963 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iluvbertie]

NOTHRH , I seem to remember hearing this too. I think it was at the time of his marriage , there was an announcement made that Prince Edward would become the Earl of Wessex, then , upon his father's death, the Duke of Edinburgh. As far as I am aware , this was the decision of HM the Queen.

It wasn't on his father's death. The statement was that it would be on the death of both his parents after it had merged with the Crown. This is the report from the BBC on the wedding day BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

It has also been agreed that Edward will also become Duke of Edinburgh after the death of his mother, the Queen, and his father, Prince Philip, who currently holds the dukedom.

This statement makes it clear that it is up to Charles to follow through with this as he will inherit the title from his father and when both his parents are dead then the title will merge with the Crown,

 

[lady of hay]

Ho well ten years and a lot of life gone by, so my memory is proberbly not as clear as I thought

 

[cmkrcwi]

You have been told again and again that you are wrong.

Of course Charles was The Prince Charles as the child of the monarch that is the first title he has - he doesn't use it because he has other titles but he still is, and has been since 1952 The Prince Charles.

The same with his brothers - they have been since birth The Prince Andrew and The Prince Edward. They didn't lose those titles when they became The Duke of York and The Earl of Wessex.

The same with William today - he is still Prince William - he didn't lose that title when he became The Duke of Cambridge.

No, you are wrong. Charles was never The Prince Charles because that is a title and he has never had that title.

And Andrew and Edward (and all other princes who receive royal dukedoms or other titles) cease being Prince First Name of Wherever or The Prince First Name when they receive their new titles.

Names and titles are different things. Of course The Prince of Wales is Prince Charles Philip Arthur George. That is his name and his rank. But his title is HRH The Prince of Wales. His wife takes his rank and his title. She does not take his name. Same with all the other princes.

 

[MagMil]

No, you are wrong. Charles was never The Prince Charles because that is a title and he has never had that title.

And Andrew and Edward (and all other princes who receive royal dukedoms or other titles) cease being Prince First Name of Wherever or The Prince First Name when they receive their new titles.

Names and titles are different things. Of course The Prince of Wales is Prince Charles Philip Arthur George. That is his name and his rank. But his title is HRH The Prince of Wales. His wife takes his rank and his title. She does not take his name. Same with all the other princes.

100 times you're WRONG
Read the post when people tell you that you're wrong, and stop writing your conclusion all over again
Read some royals books or sites with relevant data and maybe you gonna understand

 

[Iluvbertie]

No, you are wrong. Charles was never The Prince Charles because that is a title and he has never had that title.

And Andrew and Edward (and all other princes who receive royal dukedoms or other titles) cease being Prince First Name of Wherever or The Prince First Name when they receive their new titles.

Names and titles are different things. Of course The Prince of Wales is Prince Charles Philip Arthur George. That is his name and his rank. But his title is HRH The Prince of Wales. His wife takes his rank and his title. She does not take his name. Same with all the other princes.

Like all the children of the monarch he has the title of The Prince Charles. He has other titles as well but he also has that one - and uses it in Scotland.

You may continue to believe what you like but you are wrong.

All children of the monarch are The Prince/Princess xxx. They may then add other titles but that basic title is theirs as well. As he was born a Prince Charles has always held the title of prince. When his mother became Queen, along with adding Duke of Cornwall etc he added the word 'The' in front of the title Prince - simply to show that he was the child of the monarch.

Charles has a lot of titles that he doesn't use - that doesn't mean he doesn't have them though. No Prince loses the title of Prince when they gain a title - they add the title to the one of Prince e.g. William is still Prince William but he is also The Duke of Cambridge, Andrew is still The Prince Andrew but he is also The Duke of York - you don't lose titles.

How is that too hard to understand?

If you had read post # 938 in this thread you would even see that The Court Circular - the official listing of the activities of the royal family refers to Charles as 'HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay' when he is in Scotland. Look at the entries here for the 14th, 18th and 27th April as they all refer to The Prince Charles Duke of Rothesay - http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/Todaysevents.aspx e.g.

27th April 2011

CLARENCE HOUSE:
The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, President, the Great Steward of Scotland's Dumfries House Trust, this afternoon attended a Reception at Dumfries House, Cumnock, Ayrshire.
His Royal Highness, President, the Great Steward of Scotland's Dumfries House Trust, this evening gave a Dinner at Dumfries House

As the above comes from the official website of the British Monarchy I will assume that they know the correct titles of the members of the family and that site calls him 'The Prince Charles' so he obviously holds that title.

Wives in Britain take all the titles etc of their husband's and so on marriage the wife of a Prince becomes a Princess but as she wasn't born a Princess she isn't Princess own name but Princess husband's name e.g. Princess Michael of Kent. Because Michael has no other title his wife takes his name when using a title at all. As the other men all have titles the formal way to refer to them is by their title but their wives are still princesses but as they can't be Princess Camilla as Camilla wasn't born a Princess she would have to be Princess Charles - taking the feminine form of her husband's title of prince just as she takes the feminine form of his title of Duke of Cornwall (or any wife is formally Mrs John Smith on marriage to Mr John Smith not Mrs Jane Smith e.g. Carole Middleton at Ascot last week - her name tag had her as Mrs Michael Middleton - the feminine form of her husband name and title.)

 

[NotHRH]

No, you are wrong. Charles was never The Prince Charles because that is a title and he has never had that title.

And Andrew and Edward (and all other princes who receive royal dukedoms or other titles) cease being Prince First Name of Wherever or The Prince First Name when they receive their new titles.

Names and titles are different things. Of course The Prince of Wales is Prince Charles Philip Arthur George. That is his name and his rank. But his title is HRH The Prince of Wales. His wife takes his rank and his title. She does not take his name. Same with all the other princes.

I do not believe the information above is correct at all. The Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex are still, respectively, TRH Prince Andrew/Prince Edward of Great Britain and Ireland. Why are you under the assumption that they are not princes anymore?
If we followed your line of reasoning, why is HRH the Duke of Cambridge still referred to as Prince William of Wales? Also if PA/PE were not princes, their children would have not inherited the title of prince/ss. TRH Princess Beatrice/ Princess Eugenie of York are the children of the Duke of York. Prince Edward's children legally Prince/ss of Wessex, but he and his wife made the personal decision for their children not to be styled as such. Only a prince can pass the prince/ss title to their children. Simply, the titles of Duke/Earl/Viscount, etc., are considered 'under' the title of prince/ss.
It is quite easy to understand, isn't it?

 

[branchg]

I was also under the assumption that HRH Prince Charles was not the 'Prince of Wales' until QEII bestowed this honorary royal title, only given to the oldest son of a current UK monarch, in 1969 - the same year the prince turned 21 years old. I did not realize the prince of Wales title was hereditary.
Also, upon the divorce of the current PoW from his first wife, Diana became =>
(not HRH) Diana, Princess of Wales, only because she was the mother of a future king of the UK. She was not styled simply as a 'Princess.'
Any one know info contrary to my presented info?

Charles was created The Prince of Wales in 1958. It is not hereditary and must be granted by The Sovereign. He was invested as Prince of Wales in 1969, but this was simply a public ceremony to symbolize his coming-of-age as the heir to the throne.

Diana became "Diana, Princess of Wales" upon divorce consistent with the practice in the Peerage for former wives. While she was no longer a Royal Highness, she continued to be regarded as a Princess as a concession to her position as the mother of a future King.

 

[branchg]

No, you are wrong. Charles was never The Prince Charles because that is a title and he has never had that title.

And Andrew and Edward (and all other princes who receive royal dukedoms or other titles) cease being Prince First Name of Wherever or The Prince First Name when they receive their new titles.

Names and titles are different things. Of course The Prince of Wales is Prince Charles Philip Arthur George. That is his name and his rank. But his title is HRH The Prince of Wales. His wife takes his rank and his title. She does not take his name. Same with all the other princes.

Being "The Prince Charles" or "Prince William" is a courtesy style, not a title. You are correct that once created a Peer, they are styled by their Peerage, which is now their title.

However, they are Royal Peers as HRH, which derives from their birthright style as Princes of the UK under the 1917 Letters Patent. So, they do not lose their original princely style, they simply are styled differently by their new titles.

I believe Edward will receive the title upon his parent's deaths; I can't imagine Charles would deny him this as it was his own mother who made the decision. Well at least I hope he wouldn't.

The intent is Charles (or William if his father doesn't survive to become King) will re-create Edinburgh as a Dukedom for Prince Edward once the title merges with the Crown. As such, Edward was created The Earl of Wessex upon marriage with the idea he will receive a Dukedom of Edinburgh in the future.

Since Edinburgh inevitably will become extinct after Philip and The Queen die, assuming a normal course of events, it will be available again to be re-created as Philip's male heirs will become King, unless some terrible scenario unfolds.

But this is simply an announcement of a future intent as the decision can only be taken by the next Sovereign and they are in no way bound by it since the fount of honour is the source of all enoblement.

 

[NotHRH]

Tune in tomorrow for another episode...

 

[Osipi]

But this is simply an announcement of a future intent as the decision can only be taken by the next Sovereign and they are in no way bound by it since the fount of honour is the source of all enoblement.

I would imagine too that even before this announcement had been made public that the Royal Family sat down at their family meeting (don't they call it the Way Ahead or something similar) and HM and Philip outlined what they would like to see happen in the future with the Duke of Edinburgh title. I would imagine that at that time, they were all in agreement that this is what the parents wished and should be carried out when the time comes. I cannot honestly imagine any of the children going against the wishes of their parents in this matter. I would imagine too that quite a few things have been discussed and agreed on for when the the time does come. I just can't picture HM or Philip leaving anything unclear or undone.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have no doubt that, if possible, when the time comes Charles, or William, will create Edward Duke of Edinburgh as per the very publicly announced intention.

 

[NotHRH]

Iluvbertie, for once we both agree on something. I believe Prince Charles/William will honor Prince Charles' younger brother, HRH the Earl of Wessex, with the Duke of Edinburgh title after both of his parents have passed on.

 

[Molly2101]

Iluvbertie, for once we both agree on something. I believe Prince Charles/William will honor Prince Charles' younger brother, HRH the Earl of Wessex, with the Duke of Edinburgh title after both of his parents have passed on.

I like to think this will happen too, as Edward has done so much for the Duke of Edinburgh award for several years, taking up duties his father was unable to do.

 

[branchg]

I like to think this will happen too, as Edward has done so much for the Duke of Edinburgh award for several years, taking up duties his father was unable to do.

There's no question Charles (or William) will honour The Queen and Prince Philip's wishes. I believe the idea in re-creating Edinburgh as a dukedom for Prince Edward is he will, in fact, continue his father's work with The Duke of Edinburgh's Award after his death.

 

[Kataryn]

There are 1000s yes but the vast majority are descendents of British princesses who married into foreign royal houses and are thus exempt.

I really enjoyed your explanation, but have a question:
do you think the paragraph in the RMA about the issue of British princesses who have married into foreign Royal families was actually meant the way you interpret it? You say any descendant from such a princess is exempt but couldn't it mean that only those descendants who through their birth belong to another, a foreign Royal House are exempt? The aim behind the RMA was to give the British souverain the right to control the marriage plans of the princes and princesses of the Royal House, be they his children, grand-children or great-grand-children.

But of course he needed no such right for the offspring of princesses who had married into other dynasties, these marriages were the problem and responsibility of other souverains and it would have caused massive problems if the British souverain tried to interfere with a wedding of a, say, princess of Prussia only because the princess's mother had been a British princess before she married to Prussia.

But in a case like that of the marriage of the Heir to a princess or prince who herself/himself was descended from a British princess (think Edward VII. and Alexandra of Denmark or the Queen and Prince Philip) the original idea of the RMA was threatened by such a interpretation. Because if the descendants of these marriages are exempt, then the whole Act doesn't make sense anymore because then the souverain's right to control the marriages of British princes and princesses was endangered.

So my guess is that the "princesses"-clause is not valid if the descendant of such a princess is as well a descendant of a father or mother who is a direct-line descendant of a British monarch. he fact that the Act talks about Princesses who married into foreign Royal Houses seems to support that interpretation, as the children of princesses who married into the British nobility are no exempt -because they are subjects of the British monarch which the children of the princesses who have married into other Royal Houses are not.

 

[Zonk]

Please note that posts regarding the differences of Grand Ducal titles in various countries have been moved to http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/questions-about-titles-17155-29.html .

Thanks!

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[Iluvbertie]

Your interpretation is the one currently being used but...the other also is argued. If, for instance, Harry wants to marry someone of whom the Queen disapproves and he decides to take the matter to court - on the basis that as the descendent of a number of princesses who married into foreign royal houses he is thus exempt - the ruling would determine exactly which interpretation is the way forward - either the Act is null and void thanks to Queen Alexandra and Prince Philip (both descendents of princesses who married into foreign royal houses and then married back into the BRF) or on the basis of the remarriage back into the family the exemption ceased to exist any more.Obviously the British monarch has no say over the marriages of foreign royal houses who also are descendents of George II e.g. could you imagine the uproar in Spain if Felipe had had to get QEII's consent to marry just because he is a descendent of George II of GB.The Farran Exemption hasn't been tested in court and until it is the situation will continue as is.

 

[Danish girl]

So if both P Philip and P Charles dies before the Queen, he could be Duke of Cambridge, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay and Duke of Edinburgh besides the rest of it?

If he has children before any of them dies, his oldest son will get all the names (Cambridge, Strathearn & Carrickfergus) and the younger children nothing?


I need to find some website that explains how these British titles work... lol

 

[Super Baroness]

So if both P Philip and P Charles dies before the Queen, he could be Duke of Cambridge, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay and Duke of Edinburgh besides the rest of it?

If that happened, William would be The Duke of Cambridge and The Duke of Edinburgh, but he wouldn't ever be Duke of Cornwall or Rothesay because those titles can only be held by the monarch's eldest son (who is also the heir apparent).

If he has children before any of them dies, his oldest son will get all the names (Cambridge, Strathearn & Carrickfergus) and the younger children nothing?

Currently, his eldest son would be born HRH Prince X of Cambridge (and would not use the courtesy style of Earl of Strathearn). At this point in time, the younger children would be simply Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. When Charles becomes King, they would be HRH Prince/Princess X of Cambridge. But I think The Queen will issue new Letters Patent when William has kids so the Lord/Lady stuff won't happen.

Hope that helps. Titles are fascinating!

 

[Queen Penelope]

As it stands right now, Prince Edward is to be Duke of Edinburgh upon the passing of both the Queen & The Duke. That was announced on Edward's wedding day. It was speculated here in the forums that all interested parties must have agreed to it (if that is honored or not is apparently another matter).

 

[yvr girl]

I think the previous poster was alluding to the fact that William would inherit the Edinburgh title if Philip AND Charles both died before the Queen. Once William became King, it would merge again with the Crown.

 

[Opal]

As it stands right now, Prince Edward is to be Duke of Edinburgh upon the passing of both the Queen & The Duke. That was announced on Edward's wedding day. It was speculated here in the forums that all interested parties must have agreed to it (if that is honored or not is apparently another matter).

Oh I'm sure the Queen and Duke's wishes will be honored.