Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[AdmirerUS]

Diana was also very popular with the press and the population at large. She was a draw with many foreign dignitaries as well. This "both fish and fowl" solution suited Diana's and the BRF's needs and wants. This may sound cynical - but it was eminently practical, IMHO.
.

 

[royal-blue]

Things would be so much simpler if all these titles and styles were swept away and then only the monarch would have a title. The rest of the royal family would be able to lead normal lives then.

Having people titled princes and princesses leads to class division, as they were born into a position with responsibility which virtually places them above the rest of society.

 

[branchg]

The fact she would have to curtsey to her husband and even children shows she did not keep the same precedence she had when married.

Diana was not expected to curtsey to her former husband, her children or any other HRH in the family. She was still the mother of the future King and an important person in her own right.

Being granted precedence didn't mean she wasn't expected to continue to curtsey to The Queen, The Queen Mother and Prince Philip, as she did throughout her marriage.

 

[cepe]

Frankly, does this matter any more?

 

[Skippyboo]

It seems that the only people that the royal bows and curtesy to is the Queen, DoE and Queen Mum when alive. Imagine how much time it would take for all the royals to greet each other at big family events.

The title situation would be so much easier if a person marrying a prince just becomes princess name. How many times do we see Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge which is the style of divorced peeress. It's just hrh duchess of Cambridge. But if it was prince William and princess Catherine it would be easier and maybe the press would stop it with Kate Middleton.

 

[VictoriaB]

Or they could keep their maiden name and not take any title - as happens when men marry a Princess.
.

 

[Kotroman]

Has it occurred to anyone that, if the Queen were to live long enough to see the Duke of Cambridge's hypothetical second son get divorced, that ex-wife would remain a Royal Highness?

Only the ex-wife of a son of a sovereign, of a son of a son of a sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would cease being a Royal Highness according to the 1996 letters patent. The Queen probably did not bother to include ex-wives of the younger sons of the Prince of Wales's eldest son because until the last day of 2012, younger sons of the Prince of Wales's eldest son were not entitled to the princely title or the style Royal Highness.

The chances of seeing that happen are very remote. Even if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a son now and then conceive another son within a month, that second son would have to be at least 16 to contract a marriage. By that time (2030), the Queen would be 105. Nevertheless, it's an interesting oversight

 

[KittyAtlanta]

They profess to be a modern couple, so I see nothing wrong with calling Kate, Kate Middleton.

 

[cepe]

They profess to be a modern couple, so I see nothing wrong with calling Kate, Kate Middleton.

I don't think they have ever professed to be modern - that is media spin.

However, I think that it is" modern" to call an individual what they wish to be called and not imposed one's own view onto others.

If she wants to be called Kate Middleton, then that is fine. But the Palace have said, on behalf of them both that she be called Catherine, and her title is Duchess of Cambridge. I think people should respect that.

But the real issue is targeting hits on the web - that's what drives this.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I don't think they have ever professed to be modern - that is media spin.

But the real issue is targeting hits on the web - that's what drives this.

I agree. As anyone who has done a search on Zimbio for either of the Duchesses of Cornwall or Cambridge can attest, Kate Middleton and Camilla Parker Bowles remain very active.

 

[branchg]

Only the ex-wife of a son of a sovereign, of a son of a son of a sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would cease being a Royal Highness according to the 1996 letters patent. The Queen probably did not bother to include ex-wives of the younger sons of the Prince of Wales's eldest son because until the last day of 2012, younger sons of the Prince of Wales's eldest son were not entitled to the princely title or the style Royal Highness.

Yes, but the 1996 Letters Patent make it clear that a former wife of a Prince of the UK is not entitled to the rank of HRH upon divorce. Since the style and rank is entirely within the gift of The Sovereign, Letters Patent are not necessary in any case to withhold or confer it.

 

[Countessmeout]

Or they could keep their maiden name and not take any title - as happens when men marry a Princess.

Something we will likely see changing, with the change in gender laws. Look at Sweden, Daniel is Prince Daniel, Duke of....... Maddie's husband didn't, but because he refused to become a Swedish citizen and give up his business work, for a royal life.

In Spain it was done even earlier. Both Cristina and Elena were granted a peerage when they married, though only for life, not their husbands like would have been case in the UK. Inaki is entitled to be Duke of Mallorca, and while he did not say Borbon as a last name, their kids hold both last names. Jamie was allowed to use the courtesy title of Duke of Lugo during his marriage to Elena, but no longer since they divorced in 2010.

In Belgium we have Astrid's husband. Lorenz was already an Archduke in his own right, but he was made a Prince of Belgium in his own right, by his father in law in 1995.

It is believed that Mark was offered a title when he and Anne married, but they turned it down. Margrat's husband accepted a title when they wed. I would hope with the change in gender laws, the UK would follow Swedish and Spanish examples, and bestow the title on the royal, whether female or male, not the spouse. Like Bea and Eugenie, not their husbands.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Prince/ess Cambridge

This is badly written. However, the source seems to be the mayor of Cambridge. Kate Middleton's baby 'will be the first ever Prince or Princess of Cambridge' | Mail Online

 

[NGalitzine]

In Spain it was done even earlier. Both Cristina and Elena were granted a peerage when they married, though only for life, not their husbands like would have been case in the UK. Inaki is entitled to be Duke of Mallorca, and while he did not say Borbon as a last name, their kids hold both last names. Jamie was allowed to use the courtesy title of Duke of Lugo during his marriage to Elena, but no longer since they divorced in 2010.

Their children have both last names because that is the way surnames are for evrryone in Spain. Juan was Bourbon y Battenberg, Juan Carlos is Bourbon y Bourbon, his children are Bourbon y Grecia, etc. If Mr Sanchez marries Senorita Salcido their children will be Sanchez y Salcido.

 

[Ish]

Prince/ess Cambridge

This is badly written. However, the source seems to be the mayor of Cambridge. Kate Middleton's baby 'will be the first ever Prince or Princess of Cambridge' | Mail Online

This is horribly written, but I will say that at least the DM (if not the mayor of Cambridge) realized at some point that Baby Cambridge is not the first Prince(ss) of Cambridge. That honour went to the children of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

This is horribly written, but I will say that at least the DM (if not the mayor of Cambridge) realized at some point that Baby Cambridge is not the first Prince(ss) of Cambridge. That honour went to the children of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge.

1. Prince George of Cambridge, later the Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904).

2. Princess Augusta of Cambridge, later the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1822-1916).

3. Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, later the Duchess of Teck (1833-1897).

Interestingly, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is a descendant of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge:

Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850) - Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge (1833-1897) - Princess Mary of Teck (1867-1953) - King George VI of the United Kingdom (1895-1952) - Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (b. 1926) - Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948) - Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982).

 

[GraceKellyFan]

...Both Cristina and Elena were granted a peerage when they married, though only for life, not their husbands like would have been case in the UK. Inaki is entitled to be Duke of Mallorca...Jamie was allowed to use the courtesy title of Duke of Lugo during his marriage to Elena...

The husbands of the Spanish Infantas still did not become princes. Neither did any of the following men who married princesses:-

Mark Phillips ; Timothy Lawrence ; Sir Angus Ogilvy ; Ari Behn ; Philippe Junot ; Stefano Casiraghi ; Daniel Ducruet ; none of the husbands of Monaco's Princesse Antoinette , none of the husbands of the sisters of the kings of Sweden or Spain etc etc

IMO only the husbands of future queens became princes. ( Claus, Henrik, Daniel etc)

The "modern" women want to keep their own names but are more than willing to accept their husbands titles and poisitions

 

[vkrish]

Hey regarding this new title..Why is this so much sensationalised..I just saw a new blog on the home page about the title..
The baby will automatically be "HRH Prince X of Cambridge" or "HRH Princess Y of Cambridge", right?
So whats new about it?
Will the baby exclusively be "Prince X, Prince of Cambridge"? Just like Prince Charles, Prince of Wales? Will he/she be referred to as "HRH The Prince(ss) of Cambridge", rather than the conventional "HRH Prince(ss) X of Cambridge"?
I dont understand any special provision exists like that.. And I dont see any necessity for that..

 

[cepe]

This story started, IMO, with the MAyor of Cambridge making some statement about the baby being the first Prince/Princess of Cambridge; this was picked up by the DM and then reprinted in the Telegraph. No one seems to have checked the facts.

IT is an incorrect report and should be ignored and the information that we have all had for a long time is that the baby will be HRH Prince/Princess < Baby Name> of Cambridge.

Twitter has been full of known commentators criticising both papers for not checking facts.

http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/royalbaby/media-incorrectly-reports-royal-babys-title-11116

fairly reliable blog.

 

[Rocketmom]

I apologize for being dense, but I still don't understand why the great grand child of a monarch will be a prince or princess, but the grandchildren - Louise and James - are not. Is it because Edward is not a Duke? Do only Duke's children get to be princes or princesses? I know this has been discussed, it's just my stupidity at work here.

 

[NGalitzine]

Edward asked that his children not be known as Prince or Princess but styled as the children of an earl. It is debated as to whether they do or do not actually hold such titles and simply do not use them.
Williams children will all be HRH Prince/Princess X of Cambridge because HM issued new Letters Patent making it so. Under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V only Williams eldest son would have been HRH and Prince X of Cambridge while his other children would have been Lord or Lady X Mountbatten Windsor.

 

[Molly2101]

I think legally Louise and James are a Princess and a Prince, but Edward and Sophie just chose for them to not be styled as this as they want to lead private lives. We rarely see their children, and their choice is for them to be hidden from the public and lead private lives. They will not be that well known as they grow up. They will especially be less well known than Peter or Zara, who aren't that famous. I think Edward and Sophie did well with this choice to be honest as Louise and James can lead normal lives. They aren't know as Lord and Lady at school - simply Louise and James Mountbatten-Windsor. They are essentially like any other normal child, though I imagine most people who attend the school know who their grandmother is! Well, the children's parents will of course know.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I apologize for being dense, but I still don't understand why the great grand child of a monarch will be a prince or princess, but the grandchildren - Louise and James - are not. Is it because Edward is not a Duke? Do only Duke's children get to be princes or princesses? I know this has been discussed, it's just my stupidity at work here.

I think the only children of a duke who are styled as Princes/Princesses are the grandchildren/great-grandchildren of the monarch (eg. Eugenie, Beatrice and Baby Cambridge) as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester's children are Lords and Ladies (although I could be wrong).

 

[Iluvbertie]

The style HRH Prince/Princess is governed by the 1917 Letters Patent of George V and the 2013 LPs of QEII.

Under those LPs the following people are HRH Prince/Princess:

The children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward
The male-line grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Michael, Alexandra
The wives of any male HRHs - Camilla, Sophie, Kate, Brigitte, Katherine, Marie-Christine
The children of William - Baby C and any others (under the 1917 LPs only a son would have been HRH but The Queen gave HRH to ALL of William's children - but not Harry's who will get it on her death and the accession of Charles unless new LPs are issued when necessary).

The question of Louise and James and why they don't use HRH has nothing to do with Edward's title but to do with the fact that at the time of his marriage he requested that any children been styled as the children of an earl. There has been some debate as to whether the fact that The Queen approved this decision was enough for them to lose it forever or whether they still have it but don't use it.

The children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't HRH Prince/Princesses because they are the great-grandchildren of the monarch - which is why Harry's children, born in the present reign won't have HRH Prince/Princess but will move up when Charles becomes King - unless Harry follow's Edward's lead and leaves them without the titles.

Peter and Zara, along with Margaret's and Mary's children in the previous generations, don't have HRH for the simple reason that they are descendents through a female.

 

[Kotroman]

Yes, but the 1996 Letters Patent make it clear that a former wife of a Prince of the UK is not entitled to the rank of HRH upon divorce. Since the style and rank is entirely within the gift of The Sovereign, Letters Patent are not necessary in any case to withhold or confer it.

Can you cite the letters patent please? I see nothing clear about it in:

"The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996, to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness."
​

It does not mention any princes of the United Kingdom. It simply mentions relatives of the Sovereign in various degrees, and omits younger sons of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The males she mentions are the same ones mentioned in the 1917 LPs so she is saying that the wives who are entitled to HRH under the 1917 LPs who divorce will lose that title.

If the scenario of a second son of Prince William - the only ones covered by her LPs - were to divorce she would issue new LPs to cover that scenario but the chances of that happening are extremely remote so there is no need to do so. The chances of a second child reaching adulthood in the present reign is very slim so why cover a scenario that will probably never happen?
.

 

[Molly2101]

The children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't HRH Prince/Princesses because they are the great-grandchildren of the monarch - which is why Harry's children, born in the present reign won't have HRH Prince/Princess but will move up when Charles becomes King - unless Harry follow's Edward's lead and leaves them without the titles.

Peter and Zara, along with Margaret's and Mary's children in the previous generations, don't have HRH for the simple reason that they are descendents through a female.

I have wondered if Harry will choose to not have his children styled as HRH, in order to slim down the Monarchy. I feel that Charles, when he becomes King, will issue new LP's limiting the HRH style to only the children of the heir to the throne, be it male or female, that way Harry's children wont be entitled to the style.

Although Edward's choice to not have his children styled as HRH was said to be "his choice", I do feel that perhaps Charles had a bit of say in it as well. Maybe the Queen swayed Edward's choice to not have HRH children, in a way to reduce the number of HRH's in the future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think that the intention is to reduce the HRHs by simply not having the children of the younger sons use it to the point it becomes the expectation without issuing LPs stopping it.

 

[cepe]

Not being called HRH does not slim down the monarchy, IMO. IT is those who are paid to undertake royal duties - that is what is referred to as "slimming down.

Lady Louise isn't using HRH, is still royal and could, if required carry out royal duties in the future.

HRH Princess Beatrice of York is an HRH, is royal and does not carry out royal duties.

IT is the cash that is (excuse the pun) king in this debate about a slimmer BRF.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I do think that the intention is to reduce the HRHs by simply not having the children of the younger sons use it to the point it becomes the expectation without issuing LPs stopping it.

I agree Iluvbertie - and I also think it has much to do with the number of children the Royal siblings have. With the Queen having four children, I thought Edward's choice was wise. Had she had fewer children, her various grandchildren might have been in a different situation.

That said, for the MAIN LINE to have more children and so be able to centralize the thought that "it might be you who reigns" allows sibs to take a different tack in parenting - a much more relaxed line, maybe.

I hope Wills and Harry have or will talk about this - as it should make the next generation transition much more amiable.