Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Ish]

Here's an argument regarding the title of Prince of Wales that I don't think has been considered yet.

To quote Wikipedia (the great source that it is) "Prince of Wales is a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent to the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain..." etc.

The wording of this (which of course by no means is official) implies that the title "Prince of Wales" can be similar to that of "Duke of Lancaster" or "Lord of Mann" - masculine in title regardless of the gender of the holder.

In all technicality, there has never been a female heir apparent before, but it has always been a possibility. The heir apparent is not the first born son but rather the heir whose position cannot be supplanted by the birth of another heir. As a princess, HM was not the heir apparent because her father could have always had a son (however unlikely). Similarly, Queen Victoria was not heir apparent because her uncle, William IV, could have had that unlikely child.

In the case that the monarch's eldest surviving son has only daughters, then predeceases the monarch himself, the heir apparent is female - she cannot be displaced in the line of succession - this would have happened had George IV died before his father, in which case his daughter, Princess Caroline of Wales would have been the heir apparent and could have been eligible for the title Prince of Wales. Had both Edward VIII and George VI predeceased their father (or had Edward VIII remained on the throne with the stipulation that his offspring could not inherit, and George VI still died first) then HM would have been heir apparent as well.

So yeah. My argument is that the female heir apparent, be it under the new laws or the unlikely circumstances of the old ones, is eligible for the masculine title Prince of Wales, and as such their is no need to change things.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

So yeah. My argument is that the female heir apparent, be it under the new laws or the unlikely circumstances of the old ones, is eligible for the masculine title Prince of Wales, and as such their is no need to change things.

I don't think this is the case. Didn't the politicians suggested to King George VI to create Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales?

 

[Ish]

I don't think this is the case. Didn't the politicians suggested to King George VI to create Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales?

I think it was suggested, but regardless that would have been a huge change from how the system works as Elizabeth wasn't heir apparent.

 

[Lumutqueen]

So yeah. My argument is that the female heir apparent, be it under the new laws or the unlikely circumstances of the old ones, is eligible for the masculine title Prince of Wales, and as such their is no need to change things.

Wiki's answer:

When a title was sought for the future Elizabeth II, the possibility of investing her as Princess of Wales in her own right was raised. This suggestion was rejected, because Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales. If it were used by Princess Elizabeth, it would have degraded her right as a Princess of the United Kingdom unless Letters Patent or Legislation were introduced to the contrary. Furthermore, if the then Princess Elizabeth had been given the title of Princess of Wales, there would have been the problem of what to call her future husband. Therefore, King George VI decided not to give his elder daughter the title.

 

[cepe]

So much speculation on so many threads.

Re Lumutqueens response on Princess of Wales. I thought that the daughter of George IV was Charlotte, Princess of Wales - is that not the case?

 

[Lumutqueen]

So much speculation on so many threads.

Re Lumutqueens response on Princess of Wales. I thought that the daughter of George IV was Charlotte, Princess of Wales - is that not the case?

Princess Charlotte of Wales, daughter of George when he was The Prince of Wales.

 

[cepe]

Thank you Lumutqueen. Nice to have an concise answer to the question.

 

[Artemisia]

The eldest living son of the monarch, if he exists, IS always the heir apparent...

Not exactly true, I am afraid. If, for instance, Prince Charles were to predecease the Queen, her eldest living son would be Prince Andrew. However, Prince William - and not Andrew - would be the heir apparent.

 

[Spheno]

Not exactly true, I am afraid. If, for instance, Prince Charles were to predecease the Queen, her eldest living son would be Prince Andrew. However, Prince William - and not Andrew - would be the heir apparent.

thanks
it means than the duchy law does have two criteria

 

[Lumutqueen]

thanks
it means than the duchy law does have two criteria

As explained before yes. You have to be heir apparent and eldest son to the current Monarch. Several posters said that.

 

[Spheno]

As explained before yes. You have to be heir apparent and eldest son to the current Monarch. Several posters said that.

But only Artemisia proved it

 

[Lumutqueen]

But only Artemisia proved this

Actually I did earlier in another post 1926;

For instance if Charles dies, William will not be Duke of Cornwall despite being the heir, he is not the eldest son of the reigning Monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I see a problem here:

The eldest living son of the monarch was/is the heir apparent. Always.
So, does the duchy law have the first criteria? Or, is this only have in mind?

The LPs that created the Duchy in the middle ages does have both these criteria specified.

That is why to change who could hold the title, and who would be able to have the income from the Duchy, would take an Act of Parliament.

 

[Ish]

Lumutqueen; Wiki points out that they debated making her Princess of Wales in her own right. I'm suggesting that the female heir apparent be Prince of Wales, much like the female monarch is Duke of Lancaster.

But only Artemisia proved it

Actually, no. A few of us provided examples (I specifically provided the example of George II and his grandson and heir apparent George III). You simply chose to ignore us until Artemisia proved it for you.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Roslyn: Wow - that letter is just WOW!

What an opportunity to asses one's writing style, grasp of reality and political deftness. This is a treasure....

"remove misunderstanding and heartburning hereafter" or maybe, not!

 

[Iluvbertie]

There have been 22 Princes of Wales and 23 Dukes of Cornwall. 19 have held both titles. I have the full lists in a comparison table and would be prepared to type it in here but not until the weekend when I have the time if there is sufficient interest.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Iluvbertie - yes please - we would love to see the list!

 

[Spheno]

Actually, no. A few of us provided examples (I specifically provided the example of George II and his grandson and heir apparent George III). You simply chose to ignore us until Artemisia proved it for you.

Thank you for answer also.
I asked about a son, you wrote about a grandson, Artemisia answered about a son. That's all.

 

[Ish]

Thank you for answer also.
I asked about a son, you wrote about a grandson, Artemisia answered about a son. That's all.

Except you said, and I quote, "the eldest living son of the monarch, if he exists, IS always the heir apparent..."

The example that I provided was actually essentially identical to the one Artemisia provided, with the difference that my example happened and Artemisia's was a hypothetical.

George II had 2 sons who survived into adulthood. Following the death of his elder son, his son's son became his heir. His remaining son (thenceforth his eldest living son) was not the heir apparent. Just the same as if Charles died before HM, making Andrew the eldest living son but William the heir apparent.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

But only Artemisia proved it

I also proved that your theory was wrong when I wrote this:

"If the eldest son renounce his succession rights, or marry a Catholic? He'll cease to be the heir.

The two criterias are only there to cover all the possible scenarios."

And, of course, the eldest son can die leaving a grandson (the George III and Prince William's examples), meaning that the Sovereign's eldest surviving son isn't also the heir to the Throne.

 

[branchg]

And about the Duchy of Conrwall? They'll change the law so that Duchy can be passed to eldest child and heir?

It would require an Act of Parliament and presents a tricky situation since doing so would imply equal rights of inheritance for all Peerages. I think that will not happen anytime soon.

 

[branchg]

The LPs that created the Duchy in the middle ages does have both these criteria specified.

That is why to change who could hold the title, and who would be able to have the income from the Duchy, would take an Act of Parliament.

Correct. However, as was done with The Princess Elizabeth, the income from the Duchy can be used to support an heir to the throne who is not the current Duke with consent from the Government.

The Duchy's income accrues automatically to The Sovereign if there is no current Duke.

 

[vkrish]

That will be done anyways, and the non-Duke heir(ess) can even run the estate in their own way de facto, but of course in the name of monarch..
But I feel some reform should be made in this also to complete the "progressive" picture being painted all over the monarchy..
I guess the government has not done its homework completely regarding the background, "non-sensational-headline" stuff..But if they didnt bother about it then The Queen (or her reps, whoever) could have pointed out about this, and got it done along with the main Act..

 

[wbenson]

Correct. However, as was done with The Princess Elizabeth, the income from the Duchy can be used to support an heir to the throne who is not the current Duke with consent from the Government.

The recent Sovereign Grant Act makes this automatic. (Strictly-speaking, the income from the Duchy still goes to the monarch, the Sovereign Grant is reduced by the same amount, and the Treasury pays an amount equal to the income from the Duchy to the heir.)

 

[Daphoenyx]

How do you address a Princess that marries the younger son of a Duke or Earl?

How do you address a Princess that marries the younger son of a Duke or Earl?

This is for an essay I'm doing about styles and forms of address. I'm not aware of any past real examples, but it could happen today. All the "characters" are of course fictitious and are just to exemplify the situation.

Let's imagine Her Royal Highness Princess Ilona of Hungary. She marries Lord Waltheof Dunbar, the younger son of the Duke of Northumberland. How would she be styled? HRH Princess Ilona, Lady Waltheof Dunbar? HRH Lady Dunbar? HRH Lady Ilona Dunbar?

Or let's imagine that she marries The Honourable Hector of Strathclyde, the younger son of the Earl of Clydesdale. Would she become HRH Princess Ilona, The Hon Hector of Strathclyde? HRH The Hon Ilona of Strathclyde? Help! There are so many possibilities available

There's plenty of information online about sons/daughters of peers marrying sons/daughters of commoners and/or other peers, but what about a princess?
Thanks to anybody who can shed a light on the matter!

 

[NGalitzine]

Using a British example you might want to lookup HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent who married Hon Angus Ogilvy, younger son of the Earl of Airlie. No matter who she married she remained a HRH and Princess.

HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
HRH Princess Alexandra, Hon Mrs Angus Ogilvy
HRH Princess Alexandra, Hon Lady Ogilvy

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

How do you address a Princess that marries the younger son of a Duke or Earl?

If she marries the younger son of a Duke:

She'll be Her Royal Highness Princess X, Lady Y.

If she marries the younger son of an Earl:

She'll be Her Royal Highness Princess X, the Honorable Mrs. Y.

 

[royal-blue]

Philip's Princely status

Aside from his Greek titles, Prince Philip is a Prince of the United Kingdom, as he is married to the Queen.

If the Queen had ever divorced Philip, would he have remained a Prince in his own right?

Highly unlikely, I know, but likewise, if Philip had ever re-married after either divorce or being widowed, would his new wife have become a Princess?

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Well, he's not a Prince of Greece and Denmark since 18 March 1947.

If he divorces the Queen, it would be required Letters of Patent stating what will be his titles (if any). Otherwise, he will stay as HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

If a widowed Duke of Edinburgh ever remarries, his wife will became HRH the Princess Philip, Duchess of Edinburgh, unless new Letters of Patent are passed saying otherwise.

 

[NGalitzine]

Given that his peerages (1947) and princely title (1957) were created by Letters Patent so it would have taken an Act of Parliament to remove them, so in the event of divorce and remarriage I believe he would have continued to be HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and his new wife would have become HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh although I suppose it would have been possible to remove the HRH since that is a style and not a title and the Duchess of Windsor would be a sort of precedent for not having HRH and we know the Queen removed the HRH from Diana and Sarah.