Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Their titles are what they are. Even if they were to cease using them, there's no getting away from them, they ARE Princesses and it's nonsense to say that not using the title would change anything for them. Their granny is The Queen, their father is a Duke, their uncle and cousins will be King and their mum is Fergie - there's no hiding from that legacy and it's about time people accept that Beatrice and Eugenie aren't going to live like 'the rest of us' because they simply aren't like 'the rest of us' and anyone who says otherwise isn't exercising common sense.

How do you know if something will make a difference if you never try? Some people are prepared to accept the status quo without question or challenge, and others aren't. Nothing will ever change if people don't decide to do things differently. I believe that if Beatrice and Eugenie were to stop using their styles and titles, a lot would change for them and they could live more like other rich, privileged, people. I don't believe for one second that they will, though.
 
I think in this day and age of many women' choosing to keep their own maiden name after marriage, for Beatrice and Eugenie to drop their HRH Princess titles would be a step backwards. It is who they are. They are familial members of the House of Windsor with a lot to be proud of. Their grandmother is The Queen.

Last I saw, the Firm doesn't have any "working" titles although I've heard HM referred to as "The Boss" quite a bit. :D
 
I think in this day and age of many women' choosing to keep their own maiden name after marriage, for Beatrice and Eugenie to drop their HRH Princess titles would be a step backwards. It is who they are. They are familial members of the House of Windsor with a lot to be proud of. Their grandmother is The Queen.

I do not agree that it would be a retrograde step. Is HRH Princess really "who they are"? Or is it just something artificial that has been tacked onto them by others when they were babies, before they were old enough to choose for themselves? They are Beatrice and Eugenie, daughters of Andrew and Sarah, granddaughter of Elizabeth who just happens to be The Queen. Zara and Peter are grandchildren of Elizabeth, too, but they aren't HRH Princess and Prince, or even Lord or Lady, partly due to the gender inequality inherent in the system but also also because of choices made for them by others when they were babies. And their cousins Louise and James, who are apparently HRHs and Princess and Prince and also grandchildren of The Queen, but just aren't "known" as such, also because of choices made for them by others when they were babies.

They are all the individual people they are, with their own personalities and identities and rights as individuals, which includes the right to choose the identity by which they will be known so long as it is an identity which is available to them by right or law.
 
Putting aside any associated benefits (or lack thereof) of having a title, more importantly I think, is the privilege of having one.
Provided one does't go parading about telling everyone they have a title and show off about it, there is NO reason whatsoever why someone should give a up. Further, there is nothing wrong with something seeming to be archaic. There are many things in life that transcend social modernity, trends and fashions.
 
Putting aside any associated benefits (or lack thereof) of having a title, more importantly I think, is the privilege of having one.
Provided one does't go parading about telling everyone they have a title and show off about it, there is NO reason whatsoever why someone should give a up. Further, there is nothing wrong with something seeming to be archaic. There are many things in life that transcend social modernity, trends and fashions.

I'm not suggesting anyone SHOULD give it up. I'm merely saying that if someone WANTS to give up those things, they ought to be able to.

Many people are happy to go with the flow but some people have different views about whether something old is desirable and something they want to perpetuate in their lives, and I believe they ought to feel free to decide something is archaic and not for them and if that is their choice than their decision should be respected.
 
I still think if they were to give up their royal styles people and the press would still refer to them as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. They are and always will be British Princesses, granddaughters of a Queen and children of a Prince. There is no way around that. Perhaps they could do what the Norwegian's do and lose the "Royal" in HRH and just become Her Highness like Martha Louise and His Highness Sverre Magnus. The Danish do that as well I believe - Joachim's children His/Her Highness even though they are still grandchildren of the Monarch.
 
:previous: Oh, I'm sure the press still would refer to them by their Royal style and title. But if they're not going to be working Royals, most of their lives will be lived outside the Royal spotlight, and, just like Dr Claire Booth MBBS, MSc, PhD (aka Countess of Ulster), who chooses to remain known as Dr Claire Booth, they can just be who they choose to be for most of the time.
 
I'm not suggesting anyone SHOULD give it up. I'm merely saying that if someone WANTS to give up those things, they ought to be able to.

Many people are happy to go with the flow but some people have different views about whether something old is desirable and something they want to perpetuate in their lives, and I believe they ought to feel free to decide something is archaic and not for them and if that is their choice than their decision should be respected.

I couldn't agree more, Roslyn. Although I was partly referencing your posts and previous ones, I also wanted to put the view across that styles and titles etc are an ancient thing - archaic or even anachronistic as some might say - but I couldn't see why something in that category shouldn't still exist as a contemporary element to "modern" life.

Both Beatrice and Eugenie may find that as time goes on, they use or have use of their titles in day to day less and less.

Another thought is that their styles and titles could possibly mean a lot less to them than to us - I cannot imagine Beatrice waking up every morning, looking in the mirror and saying to herself in self gratification "I'm HRH Princess Beatrice of York, make sure everyone knows it".
 
In their real lives the York girls probably don't even use their titles and just go by Beatrice and Eugenie York in their jobs. William and Harry were just William and Harry Wales in the college (for W) and in the military.

Do we really think the close friends of the younger royals are calling them sir or ma'am like older generation royals where called.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
In their real lives the York girls probably don't even use their titles and just go by Beatrice and Eugenie York in their jobs. William and Harry were just William and Harry Wales in the college (for W) and in the military.

Do we really think the close friends of the younger royals are calling them sir or ma'am like older generation royals where called.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Well, we don't know, because we're not in that set. We have been told that as recently as Charles & Andrew's times, the women they eventually married had to call them "Sir" until they were engaged. And I'd prefer not to let my imagination play with that thought any further. ETA Though, of course, Charles & Andrew may be "older generation royals" to you.
 
Last edited:
In their real lives the York girls probably don't even use their titles and just go by Beatrice and Eugenie York in their jobs.
On Paddle8's employee page on their website the younger Princess is just "Eugenie York."
 
It would be weird that in an actual monarchy Beatrice and Eugenie 'should' refrain from being a Princess with the prefix HRH. There are still ladies and gentlemen in republican Germany, France, Portugal, Italy, etc. whom are known with their princely title.

At a big party on the Continent you can see a Princess Diane d'Orléans, Duchess of Cadaval (Portugal), you can see a Princess Caroline Murat (France), you can see a Prince Scipione Borghese (Italy), you can see a Princess Anastasia zu Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenborg née Princess of Prussia (Germany) but wait.... the two daughters of a royal Duke, granddaughters of a Queen, nieces to a future King, cousins to another future King should not use their titles????

Beatrice and Eugenie should simply make superb oldfashioned marriages with gentlemen like George Percy (the future Duke of Northumberland and heir to Alnwick Castle), George Spencer-Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough and heir to Blenheim Palace), Henry Beaufort (the future Duke of Somerset and heir to Badminton House), Charles Innes-Kerr (the future Duke of Roxburghe and heir to Floors Castle), etc...




:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And their cousins Louise and James, who are apparently HRHs and Princess and Prince and also grandchildren of The Queen, but just aren't "known" as such, also because of choices made for them by others when they were babies.

They are all the individual people they are, with their own personalities and identities and rights as individuals, which includes the right to choose the identity by which they will be known so long as it is an identity which is available to them by right or law.

Parents make decisions for their minor children all the time, many times about things far more important than whether they're HRH or just Lord/Lady. Since no Letters Patent were issued by the Queen denying James and Louise the princely style they already possess by virtue of being grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, when they're 18 years old and grown adults, they could go by HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex if they want, or they could remain as they are now. That would be their choice. As minors however, their parents rule the roost, and if they wanted their children styled as the children of an earl in the hope that not burdening them with a more elevated style would help them as they grew into adulthood, who are any of us to criticize that?
 
If we're looking ahead in time to when both James and Louise reach adulthood and can make their own decisions, if things go according to plan, they would opt to be known as HRH Prince James of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh with eventually James becoming HRH The Duke of Edinburgh upon Edward's death.:D
 
There is an argument about whether or not they are actually HRHs. Is the Queen's will enough to overrule the LPs? One argument, from BP itself, that I have seen is 'yes' - the Queen's will has been made known and that is all that was needed to remove that right from them.


Having grown up without the HRHs and seeing how Beatrice and Eugenie are treated in the press etc there is no way I see them taking on that burden when they turn 18 and knowing that they will become further and further from the throne. They have both dropped two places since their births and only further drops to come as Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie marry and have children. By the time Louise is 18 she could be another 4 or so places lower in the line of succession than she is now and she is already down to 11th.
 
Has Zara has substantially less coverage than the Wessex?
 
Has Zara has substantially less coverage than the Wessex?
How much of the coverage of Zara depends on her being the daughter of the Princess Royal and how much on her being a skilled equestrian? I doubt media would have been as interested in Zara if she had only been known as the daughter of the Princess Royal. Isn't it better to compare the coverage of the Wessex with that of Peter Phillips.
 
How much of the coverage of Zara depends on her being the daughter of the Princess Royal and how much on her being a skilled equestrian? I doubt media would have been as interested in Zara if she had only been known as the daughter of the Princess Royal. Isn't it better to compare the coverage of the Wessex with that of Peter Phillips.

That is true to a certain extent, but Zara has always received more press - even when she was a teenager. As a female, she received coverage of her clothing etc. She is also a more colourful character - starting back when she pierced her tongue.
 
That is true to a certain extent, but Zara has always received more press - even when she was a teenager. As a female, she received coverage of her clothing etc. She is also a more colourful character - starting back when she pierced her tongue.
I also think it will be the same for Louise and James. Louise will naturally receive more press than her brother simply because they can discuss her clothing. It may be slightly more as well if she even remotely resembles her granny Lilibet.
 
There is an argument about whether or not they are actually HRHs. Is the Queen's will enough to overrule the LPs? One argument, from BP itself, that I have seen is 'yes' - the Queen's will has been made known and that is all that was needed to remove that right from them.


Having grown up without the HRHs and seeing how Beatrice and Eugenie are treated in the press etc there is no way I see them taking on that burden when they turn 18 and knowing that they will become further and further from the throne. They have both dropped two places since their births and only further drops to come as Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie marry and have children. By the time Louise is 18 she could be another 4 or so places lower in the line of succession than she is now and she is already down to 11th.

The Queen can not "simply overrule", there needs to be a formal Letters Patent, which needs the consideration and political backing of the Government. Imagine that Beatrice and Eugenie disagree with their grandmother and fight a family feud (plenty of examples on many royal families). The ladies would be in very strong shoes as they simply can wave with the very formal Letters Patent of 1917, attrubuted with the King's Grand Seal et al... So there is more needed than a simple overrule by the Queen.

The proof for that is that King George VI felt the need to make sure -in a specific Letters Patent- that eventual descendants of his brother Edward, after all sons or daughters of a HRH, a Prince of the United Kingdom and a royal Duke, would never have their father's title, style or attribute of a Royal Highness.

The place in line of succession is not so important for being a HRH. Look at nr 24 (HRH Prince Richard, The Duke of Gloucester), look at nr 34 (HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent), look at nr 42 (HRH Prince Michael of Kent), look at 46 (HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy)...
 
Last edited:
There is an argument about whether or not they are actually HRHs. Is the Queen's will enough to overrule the LPs? One argument, from BP itself, that I have seen is 'yes' - the Queen's will has been made known and that is all that was needed to remove that right from them.

The Queen is not a dictator. If she wanted her will to be made known, she should have done in the proper legal way, i.e. by issuing new LPs. I suppose she didn't because it would be hard to justify stripping James and Louise of their titles when Beatrice and Eugenie are keeping theirs. In any case, the Wessex children were treated unfairly by a decision which was not their parents' to make.

Having grown up without the HRHs and seeing how Beatrice and Eugenie are treated in the press etc there is no way I see them taking on that burden when they turn 18 and knowing that they will become further and further from the throne. They have both dropped two places since their births and only further drops to come as Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie marry and have children. By the time Louise is 18 she could be another 4 or so places lower in the line of succession than she is now and she is already down to 11th.

Their place in the line of succession is irrelevant. Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra are much further down in the line (below 40 for Prince Michael and around 50 for his sister), but they are still HRHs. What matters is that James and Louise are grandchildren of a monarch in male line and should be accordingly princes of the United Kingdom.
 
That 96 LP is interesting to read in light of changes to the Succession Laws. It's written about ex wives, not ex husbands and now that a Princess of Wales is possible in the future, it's discriminatory. It was published in August 1996 - if anyone wants to look it up and read it.

Not that I am hoping for any future divorces. I like steady/stable in my royal couples.
 
I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.
 
I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.

I believe that the changes to the succession act allowing primogeniture does not apply to the peerage. Unless Andrew marries and has male issue, it looks like the Duke of York title will merge with the crown and it'll be up to Charles to decided what to do with it. Once Charles is king though, Harry will be the same spot as Andrew is now as the second son of the monarch. I do expect though that he'll receive a peerage (Sussex, Clarence?) before Andrew passes on.
 
I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.


Theres no law that regulates who can be appointed Duke of York but it's customarily given to the second oldest son of the monarch so it would in fact still apply to Harry when Charles is King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
The advice that all that is needed is that the Queen's will is made known came from BP around the time of the birth of Louise.


Note that William was called Duke of Cambridge and Kate Duchess from their wedding day - even though the LPs weren't signed until May - so the Queen's will was made known and operated on even though the documents were signed.


The Queen does NOT need the approval of parliament to issue LPs at all.


As I said there is a 'debate' and to argue that the Queen 'can't do something' isn't a 'debate' but presented as a 'fact' when the 'debate' on this issue suggests that there is certainly senior people who believe that she can do that.
 
That 96 LP is interesting to read in light of changes to the Succession Laws. It's written about ex wives, not ex husbands and now that a Princess of Wales is possible in the future, it's discriminatory. It was published in August 1996 - if anyone wants to look it up and read it.

Not that I am hoping for any future divorces. I like steady/stable in my royal couples.


A female heir apparent was always possible, just unlikely - when Mary II died, the future Queen Anne was William III's heir apparent as the rules of succession had dictated that if any children of William's with a wife other than Mary would come in the succession after Anne.

The title of Prince/Princess of Wales is a tricky one in that the rules for the Prince of Wales state that the heir apparent is eligible to be Prince of Wales, regardless of gender, while the Princess of Wales is the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Now, if in the future there was a female heir apparent they might chose to make her Princess of Wales and amend the way the title seems to work now (now it could operate like the Duke of Lancaster or Lord of Man). However, even if they did that the wife of this hypothetical Princess would not be Prince of Wales or automatically an HRH.

Husbands do not take their wives titles. A woman might become Mrs. John Smith, but her husband doesn't become Mr. Jane Doe.

Part of this reasoning within Royal circles is that a Queen may be in her own right, or as Consort, but a King always holds power and in British history, the men who have held titles through their wives have held the power and authority that comes with it.

As such, while Charles' wives have both held his titles, neither of Anne's children have gained titles from her, and the DoE had to have LPs to create him a British Prince.

If there ever is a Princess of Wales in her own right then her husband will likely have LPs issued to make him a Prince of the United Kingdom and possibly a Duke - comparable to the DoE or Daniel of Sweden. But to have him be PoW would be incorrect.

I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.


There are no official rules about the Duke of York title, it's just unofficially that it's created for the second son of the monarch. Titles also tend not to be recreated while someone is still able to be "of" that place.

The next second son of the monarch will be Harry, however it's unlikely that he will be created Duke of York as he'll probably receive his Dukedom while Andrew is still alive, and even if he doesn't Beatrice and Eugenie will still likely be alive and be able to be "of York".

Charlotte is not the son of the monarch, second or otherwise, and will likely be created Princess Royal in time, but if they did want to give her a peerage (unlikely - whenever peerages have been created on the marriage of Royal women before, it's been for their husbands, not themselves), she likely still wouldn't get the Duke of York title as Beatrice and Eugenie may still very well be alive then, and still "of York."

The Duke of York title, while often not descending to the next generation, doesn't typically get use every generation. We forget this because it got used more in the last 100 years than previously - but that's because 2 of the last 3 Dukes of York have become King.
 
How do you know if something will make a difference if you never try? Some people are prepared to accept the status quo without question or challenge, and others aren't. Nothing will ever change if people don't decide to do things differently. I believe that if Beatrice and Eugenie were to stop using their styles and titles, a lot would change for them and they could live more like other rich, privileged, people. I don't believe for one second that they will, though.

those are big assumptions you are making :whistling:

They are Princesses by birth that is their title that they have been known by all their lives Im sure there have been times when they wished they werent titled but Im sure there have been times they have been proud of it too. Noone can say or take that title away from them.
 
those are big assumptions you are making :whistling:



They are Princesses by birth that is their title that they have been known by all their lives Im sure there have been times when they wished they werent titled but Im sure there have been times they have been proud of it too. Noone can say or take that title away from them.


That said it worked for Patricia of Connaught. Upon marrying a commoner she voluntarily relinquished her title and status of HRH and was known as Lady Patricia Ramsay for the rest of her life. Though it was different times and she kept on being seen as and being treated as a member of the royal family.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
The title of Prince/Princess of Wales is a tricky one in that the rules for the Prince of Wales state that the heir apparent is eligible to be Prince of Wales, regardless of gender, while the Princess of Wales is the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Now, if in the future there was a female heir apparent they might chose to make her Princess of Wales and amend the way the title seems to work now (now it could operate like the Duke of Lancaster or Lord of Man). However, even if they did that the wife of this hypothetical Princess would not be Prince of Wales or automatically an HRH.

I am rather taken with the notion that a female heir apparent could become Prince of Wales, so that, with respect to this particular title, Prince can become a gender neutral term. Elizabeth I often referred to herself as a prince.

Husbands do not take their wives titles. A woman might become Mrs. John Smith, but her husband doesn't become Mr. Jane Doe.

Not formally yet. :lol: Though when conversing with my husband I often refer to the (male) spouse of a woman as "Mr Jane Doe" if I don't know his name.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom