Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Ish]

Could Lady Louise,Viscount Serven, Zara, and Peter get their titles back?

Zara and Peter never held titles, so there isn't anything for them to get back. It is believed that when Anne and Mark married Mark was offered but turned down a title, then when Peter was born a title was offered and refused again - but at no point was any title created.

Louise and James is a more complicated situation. Some argue that they both hold royal titles, but don't use them similar to the situation with Camilla and the Princess of Wales titles. Others believe that they don't hold them and never did, despite having been eligible for them. The reasoning here is that the Queen didn't issue LPs on the matter, nor did Parliament strip them of titles, but rather the Queen made it known that it was her will that the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex would be styled as the children of an Earl instead of as the grandchildren of a monarch.

I think there's enough of a grey-zone there that if for some reason they decided to be HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and/or HRH Prince James of Wessex they could probably do so fairly easily. But there's likely to be a public backlash if they do, and being styled as royals instead of as children of an Earl comes with an added expectation of behaviour and media scrutiny - consider the way Peter and Zara are able to live their lives in comparison to Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[vkrish]

No one has taken away anything from them so there is nothing to get back.

Peter and Zara are children of a commoner dad (who wisely turned down offer of earldom at time of wedding) and female line grandchildren, so there is no question of titles.

James and Louise are still a HRH The Prince and Princess of UK, as the male line grandchildren of monarch. But it is just that they are not called so. They are styled as children of an Earl, as per their parents very wise wishes.

For newbies, knowing the 1917 Letters Patent is a good idea..

finally the bottom line is, anne and edward decided to keep their kids toned down, for their good.
but unfortunately any such wisdom or foresight has always eluded the one who came out in between the two..

 

[Iluvbertie]

That last comment is ignoring the fact that when the York girls were born the BRF was highly popular and the idea of a smaller royal family with cousins not being used for royal engagements wasn't even being considered. Then British public loved the idea of a new princess when Beatrice was born.


The arguments about Louise and James isn't so clear cut - as there are 'experts' in royal titles who say that The Queen's will is enough for a title to be denied or issued.

 

[Skippyboo]

Mark was offered an earldom. Peter and Zara would have only been styled as children as a Earl which Peter would inherit. They were never going to be HRH Prince Peter and Princess Zara


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[padams2359]

I believe the Queen said the it was the parents that wished them titled as a child of an Earl, not her will, hence adding to the grey area.

 

[Tiggersk8]

I believe the Queen said the it was the parents that wished them titled as a child of an Earl, not her will, hence adding to the grey area.

That's what I understood as well. As for LPs being issued, why? AFAIK, the LPs HM's Grandfather George V issued back in 1918 (?) regarding who holds the title/style/whatever of HRH Prince/Princess set that out fairly clearly. Or as clearly as it gets w/this issue and the BRF.

I have always thought it was the same as Camilla. Yes, she is HRH the Princess of Wales, but chose not to use it for the obvious reason and wisely too IMO, as it showed she was sensitive to what many in the Public would think and feel if she used the POW title. Also using the DOC title also gave her a real shot at carving out her own identity. Anyway...I think they are HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, but because Edward and Sophie realized they're so far down the Line of Succession, and become even more so as the years go by, decided the wisest thing would be for them to only have the courtesy titles of an Earl's children.

Personally while I understand it, I don't like it, as IMO it feels like their Birthright was taken away from them in a way. That's me though.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Skippyboo]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

Who is a HRH Prince/ Princess is at the discretion of the monarch. Just like the Queen made Charlotte a Princess, a she or a future monarch can change George V's LP and limit the Hrh passing down to just the direct line if wanted.

It's already subjective anyways with the male bias. Peter, Zara, David and Sarah are all closer to the throne than the Gloucesters and Kents but none are HRH because their mothers were Princesses

What does James and Louise gain from having a HRH other than extra media scrutiny? Without it, they can easily adapt to regular life outside the Royal world like their Philips' cousins but still be part of the family.



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

I believe the Queen said the it was the parents that wished them titled as a child of an Earl, not her will, hence adding to the grey area.

When it was announced the official wording was "The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl."

Reading it, to me it's clear that it is her decision (and therefore will) that the children don't have royal titles. What is unclear is whether or not the Queen simply saying that someone doesn't have a title is enough, or if she does have to issue LPs.

I tend to think that the decision was made both because at the time of their marriage Edward and Sophie weren't full time royals, nor did they intend to be so as they had private jobs, and the family was still trying to recoup from the War of the Waleses. But I have no doubt that it was made intentionally vague so as to not restrict them to this decision in the future.

 

[Rudolph]

I think it was announced in such a manner as not to appear punitive. The tabloids would have run articles about the Queen 'stripping' the children of their titles. Its clear to me at least S&E don't want their children to be royal and the Queen is in agreement.

Royal styles and titles are not governed by parliament and unlike peerages, the Queen can change and alter them as she pleases. Its the sovereign's will and pleasure that matters, not the way in which she expresses her will.

King George VI immediately after the Abdication instructed his advisors that the BBC should announce the broadcast of the former King as being made “by His Royal Highness Prince Edward”

This was deemed an expression of the King's will and pleasure that his brother be a HRH and lead to the kerfuffle over Wallice's style.

IMO the press release from BP regarding James and Louise is a clear expression of the Queen's will.

For me there is no ambiguity, the Wessex children are not prince and princess. In the unlikely scenario they wish to styled as such, an announcement from BP would be required.

 

[Osipi]

Eventually, if things go as they've planned, Charles will create Edward as the Duke of Edinburgh thus making Louise and James children of a Duke. If things have changed and Louise and James or Sophie and Edward then prefer their children to be Princess and Prince of the UK, Charles could announce it as such at that time. I don't see it happening that way but eventually James will inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title from his father and grandfather and remain in the line of descent but not as a royal Duke.

 

[Spheno]

I think it was announced in such a manner as not to appear punitive. The tabloids would have run articles about the Queen 'stripping' the children of their titles. Its clear to me at least S&E don't want their children to be royal and the Queen is in agreement.

Royal styles and titles are not governed by parliament and unlike peerages, the Queen can change and alter them as she pleases. Its the sovereign's will and pleasure that matters, not the way in which she expresses her will.

King George VI immediately after the Abdication instructed his advisors that the B.B.C. should announce the broadcast of the former King as being made “by His Royal Highness Prince Edward”

This was deemed an expression of the King's will and pleasure that his brother be a HRH and lead to the kerfuffle over Wallice's style.

IMO the press release from BP regarding James and Louise is a clear expression of the Queen's will.

For me there is no ambiguity, the Wessex children are not prince and princess. In the unlikely scenario they wish to styled as such, an announcement from BP would be required.

The ambiguity exists:

On 21 August 1996 Queen Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent stating that any woman divorced from a Prince of the United Kingdom would no longer be entitled to the style "Royal Highness".

On 19 June 1999, it was announced by Buckingham Palace that The Queen, in agreement with the wish of the Earl and Countess of Wessex that their children would be styled as children of an earl

On 31 December 2012, Queen Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent stating that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness.

 

[Rudolph]

There is no ambiguity for the simple fact its only the Queen who decides such matters.

Royal styles and titles are not substantive. There use is by courtesy only. The Queen can change them as she pleases. In whatever way she pleases.

In the past the Queen has used Letters Patent, Royal Warrant, the Court Circular and a press release to alter royal styles.

The Queen's will was clearly expressed that the Wessex children were to styled as the children of a non-royal earl. No ambiguity in that.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The ambiguity exists:

On 19 June 1999, it was announced by Buckingham Palace that The Queen, in agreement with the wish of the Earl and Countess of Wessex that their children would be styled as children of an earl

On 31 December 2012, Queen Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent stating that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness.

She is giving mixed signals.

Why request that the title of Duke of Edinburgh be given to Edward if his children would only be styled as the children of an Earl?

Would their style remain the style of children of an Earl, when their father becomes Duke of Edinburgh?

Would Louise and James be styled as children of an Earl until they are adults?

As unmarried adults will they then be styled as children of a Duke?

When they marry will they be styled as Princess Louise and Prince James?

Is it possible in the 16 years since the announcement, that she has reversed her request without announcing it?

 

[Osipi]

When Edward married, it was then he became the Earl of Wessex. in 1999, the plans that were formating for the title of the Duke of Edinburgh were (and rightfully so) plans down the line in the future. As Edward was most likely going to be Earl of Wessex for some time, it makes sense that their wishes be that the children would be known as children of an Earl.

To jump the gun on the Duke of Edinburgh title would be quite foolish as there is a very active Duke of Edinburgh already. Once Charles does created Edward as Duke of Edinburgh per his parent's request, of course his children would then be children of a Duke. One case in point is that Diana did not become Lady Diana Spencer until her father inherited his title. With Edward being created the Duke of Edinburgh, Louise will still be Lady Louise but James would use one of the lesser titles of the Duke of Edinburgh as a courtesy title.

ETA: Its very possible too that Edward will be a royal duke but that title will cease to be royal when it passes on to James unless an announcement at the time is made. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[SLV]

If a woman automatically takes on the titles of her husband, was Catherine then automatically the Dutchess of C and a HRH when she said yes, or was she 'made' a HRH by the Queen. I wonder, as it seems as if Wallis Simpsons wasn't automatically a HRH, since they withheld it. So is it automatic, with the posibility to withhold or something that is purposely done the moment of marriage?

 

[Rudolph]

Under common law a person who marries a HRH becomes a HRH. The sovereign does not have to grant it.

In the case of Wallis, for a number of reasons both political and personal the King used his royal prerogative to deny the style to her and any children from the marriage on the basis she would be married to man outside the lineal line of succession and she could never be queen.

Same for divorced wives. For a number of reasons the Queen decided that they should no longer hold the style of HRH as its something gained by marriage and should be lost on divorce.

Its entirely up the sovereign to decide royal styles and titles.

 

[padams2359]

If a woman automatically takes on the titles of her husband, was Catherine then automatically the Dutchess of C and a HRH when she said yes, or was she 'made' a HRH by the Queen. I wonder, as it seems as if Wallis Simpsons wasn't automatically a HRH, since they withheld it. So is it automatic, with the posibility to withhold or something that is purposely done the moment of marriage?

She is styled HRH Princess William, not HRH Princess Catherine as she would be styled if she were a princess in her own right. Princess Anne is a princess in her own right, as is the York girls. Kinda confusing.

When Edward married, it was then he became the Earl of Wessex. in 1999, the plans that were formating for the title of the Duke of Edinburgh were (and rightfully so) plans down the line in the future. As Edward was most likely going to be Earl of Wessex for some time, it makes sense that their wishes be that the children would be known as children of an Earl.

To jump the gun on the Duke of Edinburgh title would be quite foolish as there is a very active Duke of Edinburgh already. Once Charles does created Edward as Duke of Edinburgh per his parent's request, of course his children would then be children of a Duke. One case in point is that Diana did not become Lady Diana Spencer until her father inherited his title. With Edward being created the Duke of Edinburgh, Louise will still be Lady Louise but James would use one of the lesser titles of the Duke of Edinburgh as a courtesy title.

ETA: Its very possible too that Edward will be a royal duke but that title will cease to be royal when it passes on to James unless an announcement at the time is made. We'll just have to wait and see.

If the D of E dies before QE2, PC will be the D of E for the duration of the queen's life unless specified otherwise. He would be the one to give his brother the D of E title after he is king and it merges with the crown.

 

[Ish]

If a woman automatically takes on the titles of her husband, was Catherine then automatically the Dutchess of C and a HRH when she said yes, or was she 'made' a HRH by the Queen. I wonder, as it seems as if Wallis Simpsons wasn't automatically a HRH, since they withheld it. So is it automatic, with the posibility to withhold or something that is purposely done the moment of marriage?

I've seen debate to suggest that the LPs denying Wallis the HRH weren't actually legal - the UK doesn't have morganatic marriage, therefore a woman can't be denied the title and style she would have as the wife of her husband. However, neither George VI nor Edward VIII would have necessarily realized this and given the anti-Wallis sentiment at the time it was accepted that she would not be referred to as an HRH by the British.

This is kind of in contrast to the situation with the Wessexes, where the Queen does have it in her power to issue LPs denying her youngest son's children royal titles and styles but hasn't, making it unclear of whether or not they do in fact have but don't use them.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Wallis technically was HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor, but was denied recognition as such by the Crown, while Louise and James technically are HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, but are not recognized as such owing (officially) to their parents' preference.

 

[Osipi]

If the D of E dies before QE2, PC will be the D of E for the duration of the queen's life unless specified otherwise. He would be the one to give his brother the D of E title after he is king and it merges with the crown.

Correct. It is intended that Edward will be created the Duke of Edinburgh after the passing of both of his parents and Charles has become king. Not until then will the Duke of Edinburgh title revert to the Crown to be reissued.

 

[Ish]

She is giving mixed signals.

Why request that the title of Duke of Edinburgh be given to Edward if his children would only be styled as the children of an Earl?

Would their style remain the style of children of an Earl, when their father becomes Duke of Edinburgh?

Would Louise and James be styled as children of an Earl until they are adults?

As unmarried adults will they then be styled as children of a Duke?

When they marry will they be styled as Princess Louise and Prince James?

Is it possible in the 16 years since the announcement, that she has reversed her request without announcing it?

Why would Edward's children be styled as a Duke while he isn't a Duke? It's fairly obvious that at such time as he is a Duke his children will be styled as the children of a Duke. Right now they're styled as the children of an Earl because that's what they are.

Louise and James will likely be styled as the children of an Earl until they are not children of an Earl - that is, until they're children of a Duke. Their actual age or marital status isn't in any way relevant - much like how Edward himself is styled as the child of the monarch despite being 51.

 

[Rudolph]

That Britain doesn't have morganatic marriage was certainly discussed at the time of Wallis. Some of the Kings closest advisors played devils advocate. But these same advisors pointed out its within the prerogative of the King to limited royal styles and titles to anyone.

The final justification came down to this - the style and title of Royal Highness was hitherto invariably attached to members of the Royal Family who were within the line of succession, or their wives.

By his abdication David was no longer in the line of succession and ceased to be royal.

The King made a personal grant of HRH to his brother and at the same time made it clear it would only apply to him and not a wife and children.

Wallis did become the Duchess of Windsor though as this has nothing to do with royal styles or titles.

 

[Tilia C.]

I might be mistaken, but aren't daughters of earls and dukes both styled Lady? So nothing would change for Lady Louise. It is only Viscount Severn who would be able to use another courtesy title, he'd be come Earl of Wessex, wouldn't he?

 

[SLV]

Thank you for your answers everyone!

 

[Queen Camilla]

Why would Edward's children be styled as a Duke while he isn't a Duke? It's fairly obvious that at such time as he is a Duke his children will be styled as the children of a Duke. Right now they're styled as the children of an Earl because that's what they are.

Louise and James will likely be styled as the children of an Earl until they are not children of an Earl - that is, until they're children of a Duke. Their actual age or marital status isn't in any way relevant - much like how Edward himself is styled as the child of the monarch despite being 51.

The press release did not state that until the time their father becomes Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Osipi]

The press release did not state that until the time their father becomes Duke of Edinburgh.

I don't think it was really necessary to state as its a given that children of an Earl are just that and children of a Duke are children of a Duke. Its the way things have always worked. Up until her grandfather's death, Diana was the Honorable Diana Spencer. When her father inherited his Earldom, she became Lady Diana Spencer as a child of an Earl. Just like it is a given that right now Prince William is a grandson of a monarch. Upon his father's ascension, he'll be a son of the monarch.

 

[Spheno]

The press release cann't state this. Title 'Duke of Edinburgh' is not available and thare is a scenario where prince Harry and his descendents will inherit it.

 

[Osipi]

The press release cann't state this. Title 'Duke of Edinburgh' is not available and thare is a scenario where prince Harry and his descendents will inherit it.

Exactly. It has been made known that the Queen and the DoE would like to have Charles create Edward as The Duke of Edinburgh when the time comes and all requirements fall in line so it can be done. Between now and then, anything can happen and we all know things don't always go according to the best laid plans. It is likely though that Charles will honor his parent's wishes.

Kind of ranks right up there with the statement "it is intended" that Camilla will be known as The Princess Consort. We won't know until it happens.

 

[Skippyboo]

The ambiguity exists:

On 21 August 1996 Queen Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent stating that any woman divorced from a Prince of the United Kingdom would no longer be entitled to the style "Royal Highness".

On 19 June 1999, it was announced by Buckingham Palace that The Queen, in agreement with the wish of the Earl and Countess of Wessex that their children would be styled as children of an earl

On 31 December 2012, Queen Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent stating that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness.

The LPs were issued for generic purposes. They apply for multiple people. Sarah and Diana had their HRHs removed per the LPs. If Sophie, Kate, Camilla, Harry's wife etc divorced they would lose their HRH. The LPs for the children of the eldest son of Prince of Wales isn't limited to William. It would apply to a future eldest son of the Pow's children.

But for Louise and James is one off scenario. It doesn't remove younger sons of the monarch like Harry will be from passing the HRH down to his children.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

Exactly. It has been made known that the Queen and the DoE would like to have Charles create Edward as The Duke of Edinburgh when the time comes and all requirements fall in line so it can be done. Between now and then, anything can happen and we all know things don't always go according to the best laid plans. It is likely though that Charles will honor his parent's wishes.



Kind of ranks right up there with the statement "it is intended" that Camilla will be known as The Princess Consort. We won't know until it happens.

It was actually said that the Queen, DoE, and PoW agreed to make Edward DoE when the title reverted to the Crown. While Charles could back out, it's not really a situation that will make him look good if he does.

 

[Andy T]

Another question regarding the titles of Prince Edward's children in the future.
The story so far:
Edward has been created Earl of Wessex and his son, James, as per tradition, uses one Edward's "secondary" title, "Viscount Severn" as a courtesy title.
The future:
When Edward is eventually created Duke of Edinburgh, he'll possibly have another secondary title a well. For argument's sake, let's imagine it's "Earl of Merioneth" like his father.

Edward will thus have 4 titles in total : a dukedom (Edinburgh), two earldoms (Wessex & Merioneth) and a viscountcy (Severn).

In this case, would James take both the secondary titles (Earl of Merioneth, Viscount Severn) as courtesy titles?