Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Gawin]

I personally think it would be a good idea to change the way they handle divorces in the RF because it is so difficult for the public and the media to address eg Sarah, duchess of York in a way that she is not "the duchess" in media reports. IMHO they should have given her Andrew's secondary title, as even in case of a remarriage and a son for Andrew the boy would be prince xx of York and not Earl of Inverness. (It's Inverness for Andrew, am I right? If not, please correct me). Noone would call Sarah "duchess" in any case if her name after the divorce would have been Sarah, Countess of Inverness.

Yes, and it would be even more confusing if Andrew remarried. We'd have THE Duchess of York and Sarah, Duchess of York.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Dowager Duchess of Lancaster?

The style of 'dowager' is applied to the widow of the holder not to a divorced person so Dowager Duchess of Lancaster would be the same a Dowager Queen and the Duke of Lancaster is the monarch.

 

[JR76]

Yes, and it would be even more confusing if Andrew remarried. We'd have THE Duchess of York and Sarah, Duchess of York.

That's nothing unusual in the British aristocracy. At the moment there is for instance one Duchess of Marlborough, one Dowager Duchess of Marlborough & the divorced wife of the 11th Duke Rosita, Duchess of Marlborough.

 

[Spheno]

That's nothing unusual in the British aristocracy. At the moment there is for instance one Duchess of Marlborough, one Dowager Duchess of Marlborough & the divorced wife of the 11th Duke Rosita, Duchess of Marlborough.

Agree. Also at the moment there are tree duchesses of Beaufort, two duchesses of Richmond, two duchesses of Grafton, etc.

 

[Gawin]

That's nothing unusual in the British aristocracy. At the moment there is for instance one Duchess of Marlborough, one Dowager Duchess of Marlborough & the divorced wife of the 11th Duke Rosita, Duchess of Marlborough.

Yes, you're right, but we're talking about royalty not aristocracy. The public and the news media aren't concerned about keeping the multiple duchesses of Marlborough straight because the same level of interest isn't there.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Is it true that if a Queen Dowager remarries they remain a Queen as once they are a Queen they are a Queen for life?

 

[JR76]

Yes, you're right, but we're talking about royalty not aristocracy. The public and the news media aren't concerned about keeping the multiple duchesses of Marlborough straight because the same level of interest isn't there.

If making things easy for the people or the media was of any concern for the Royal Family the women marrying princes wouldn't go by their husband's names. As long as QEII is alive they'll follow the traditional way and then we'll see if Charles or William changes anything.

 

[loonytick]

I don’t know how it is done in British LPs, but , in other countries, when new rules are introduced for royal titles, there is usually a built-in “ sunset clause” under which all persons who had titles under previous rules keep them as long as they are alive.

For example, in the 2002 Dutch law on membership of the Royal House, there was a clause that allowed Queen Beatrix’s sisters to keep their titles of Princesses of the Netherlands and Princess Margriet’s sons, I think, to keep their titles of Prince of Orange-Nassau.

Likewise, King Philippe’s 2015. royal decree allowed all living princes and princesses of Belgium under the previous royal decrees by King Baudouin in 1991 and King Leopold II in 1891 to keep their titles.

As I said , I don’t know how it could be done, but I am pretty sure it is possible to write the new LPs in a way that Beatrice and Eugenie, or the Kent and Gloucester princes would not lose their titles.

If you look at the 1917 Letters Patent, they essentially had to clear the same sort of hurdle. In the middle of it is buried this clause:

"excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors"

Essentially saying,"everyone who has a title already gets to keep it, but these new rules apply going forward."

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

 

[JR76]

If you look at the 1917 Letters Patent, they essentially had to clear the same sort of hurdle. In the middle of it is buried this clause:

"excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors"

Essentially saying,"everyone who has a title already gets to keep it, but these new rules apply going forward."

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

Then why did Alistair of Connaught lose his style of HH Prince of Connaught?

 

[Gawin]

Then why did Alistair of Connaught lose his style of HH Prince of Connaught?

If you look at the 1917 Letters Patent, they essentially had to clear the same sort of hurdle. In the middle of it is buried this clause:

"excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors"

Essentially saying,"everyone who has a title already gets to keep it, but these new rules apply going forward."

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

The quote above leaves out a few key words which I've highlighted below:

"And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked."

save as aforesaid refers to the previous sentence: "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour."

That statement took the HRH away from Alastair of Connaught and the children of Charles Duke of Albany & Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, all great-grandchildren of a Sovereign.

 

[jacqui24]

Yes, and it would be even more confusing if Andrew remarried. We'd have THE Duchess of York and Sarah, Duchess of York.

What would be even more awkward is if Andrew passes away, and the Duke of York title is given to someone else before Sarah passes. Don't think it'd be done, but technically, the Duke of York title would be available to give to someone else as soon as the current hold passes away without a male heir.

 

[jacqui24]

At the end of the day I think it is Harry who will decide if his children are HRH or not, He has a great relationship with his Pa, and Charles won't do anything Harry does not want

I agree. I don't think this would be the issue that Charles takes on. Especially if he plans to fight for Camilla as Queen. Likely for William to decide as he has more children. Charles, as monarch, would likely respect his son's wishes in regards to if a statement similar to that for the Wessex's children would be released. I'm in the camp that this is what Harry would want for any children, but we shall see.

 

[Curryong]

Is it true that if a Queen Dowager remarries they remain a Queen as once they are a Queen they are a Queen for life?

No, she would take on their new husband's name or title (if he has one.) If they had a son or daughter who was an heir to the throne they would still be acknowledged as the mother of course, but they themselves would no longer be Queen Dowager.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If you look at the 1917 Letters Patent, they essentially had to clear the same sort of hurdle. In the middle of it is buried this clause:

"excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors"

Essentially saying,"everyone who has a title already gets to keep it, but these new rules apply going forward."

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

Then why did Alistair of Connaught lose his style of HH Prince of Connaught?

Because Alastair was never formally granted the style of HH Prince.

Alastair Arthur was born in 1914, the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught (grandson of Queen Victoria) and Princess Alexandra, duchess of Fife (granddaughter of King Edward VII). He was the first great-grandson of Queen Victoria in male line to be born in the United Kingdom. His birth registration (see a copy here) designates him as a "Prince". Several contemporary references (Kelly's Handbook, Whitaker's Peerage) style him as prince.

Sometime in late 1916, the duchess of Connaught asked the Earl Curzon to look into the style of her grandson, the infant Alastair. Curzon contacted the Lord Chancellor discreetly, avoiding Buckingham Palace (he wrote that "The King is indifferent [?] rather hostile, having always been rather jealous of the Connaughts"). The Lord Chancellor replied on Jan 11, 1917 that "it would be in accordance with usage that the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught should be styled 'Prince' and 'Highness'" but cautioned that no step should be taken without consulting the king.

Presumably such consultation took place, and on March 23, 1917, the king's private secretary indicated to the home Office that "His Majesty's wish is that he should be styled "His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught". A warrant was prepared to carry out HM's wishes, but before it could be issued the king, considering the changes he was about to make in these matters, asked that the question stand over for the present. (see files LCO 2/7299 and HO 45/18980).

By the terms of the letters patent of 1917, Alastair was not allowed the style of Prince or the style of Highness, since none had been granted to him formally. Burke's Peerage ("The Princes of Great Britain", 1963 edition, pp xxvii-xxxii) considers this to be an injustice. It is not clear that this result was initially intented: Lloyd George's instructions of Aug 29 on the drafting of the letters patent, when coming to the 3d generation from the sovereign, give as example: " Thus in the event of further children being born to Prince and Princess Arthur of Connaught, they would he Lords or Lady...Windsor" (emphasis added), suggesting that Alastair Arthur was not expected to be styled Lord Alastair Arthur Windsor. (see HO 144/22945). But the article of the Times of June 20, 1917 announcing the changes that would be implemented by the Letters Patent of 1917 states that "should he succeed his grandfather and father, he will be Duke of Connaught, but not his Highness nor his Serene Highness".

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain

The quote above leaves out a few key words which I've highlighted below:

"And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked."

save as aforesaid refers to the previous sentence: "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour."

That statement took the HRH away from Alastair of Connaught and the children of Charles Duke of Albany & Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, all great-grandchildren of a Sovereign.

Loonytick was quoting the clause following after the "save as aforesaid" statement. The clause made an exception for family members not included in the "save as aforesaid" statement provided that they held their styles, titles or attributes in pursuance of Letters Patent. Those descendants (e.g. Queen Victoria's female-line granddaughters HH Princess Helena Victoria and HH Princess Marie Louise and King Edward VII's female-line granddaughter HH Princess Maud of Fife) retained their styles.

 

[Gawin]

Tatiana Marie, thank you for the clarification. This is much more confusing than I realized.

Is the following a correct interpretation?

Queen Victoria's Letters Patent (1864) limited the HRH to children and grandchildren of the Sovereign. She later extended it to the children of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales (meaning the children of the Duke of York, later George V).

Because of that Alastair Arthur of Connaught, as the great-grandson of a Sovereign, was never entitled to the HRH.

He was sometimes referred to as Prince by custom and it was believed by some that custom also entitled him to the HH, just as the Duke of York's children seem to have been HH Prince/ss before being upgraded to HRHs.

Quote from "Who is a 'prince'?" - Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain:

"Nevertheless, a custom was clearly emerging: all male-line descendants were styled Prince/ss; children of the sovereign and the sovereign's eldest son were Royal Highnesses, all others were Highnesses. The Letters Patent of 1864, which only deal directly with the style of Royal Highness, state the custom in the preamble: "Princes and Princesses of [the] Royal Family descended from and in lineal succession to the Crown as now established by law all bear the style and title of Highness".

But George V's Letters Patent (1917) tightened things up by:

• eliminating Highness and Serene Highness completely.
• defining which members of the RF were entitled to the HRH and clarifying that only the HRHs could also be a Prince/ss.
• defining which members were entitled to the style and title of children of a Duke.

Alastair Arthur fell in the last category, not only under the terms of LP but also because he was the son of the Duchess of Fife. As such, he was entitled to a courtesy title, Earl of Macduff. Otherwise he would have been Lord Alastair Windsor.

I assume the status of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's children was equally unclear but never became an issue because they used their German titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Letters Patent of 1864 were issued in order to extend the HRH to male-line grandchildren in law (it had already been extended in practice), the furthest it had ever been extended. As noted in the Heraldica summary,

[The style of prince] was extended further and further over time as cases arose. Only in 1917 was this movement of extension reversed, and the style restricted.

[…]

The grandchildren in male line of George III (other than children of the Prince of Wales) were called princes and princesses, but only styled Highness until 1830. The change to Royal Highness seems to originate with William IV (see Garter's memorandum), and was formalized by the letters patent of 1864 (see PRO HO 45/8933/2, letter of C. B. Phipps to the Lord Chancellor, Jan 21, 1864: "The Queen is quite decided as to the propriety of extending the title of Royal Highness to all grandchildren, being the children of sons of a Sovereign."

The other parts of your interpretation I agree with.

Quote from "Who is a 'prince'?" - Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain:

[...]
The Letters Patent of 1864, which only deal directly with the style of Royal Highness, state the custom in the preamble: "Princes and Princesses of [the] Royal Family descended from and in lineal succession to the Crown as now established by law all bear the style and title of Highness".

While this was the case in 1864, at the time of Alastair's birth (1914) there were Tecks and Battenbergs who were considered part of the British Royal Family and were in lineal succession to the British Crown, but bore only their German style and title of HSH Prince/ss of Teck or Battenberg.

Alastair was the first legitimate great-grandchild of any British Sovereign who was not the grandchild of a Prince of Wales and who bore no foreign princely title at birth. Because of this, in my opinion, there was really no precedent in Britain.

That being said, the references to Alastair as a prince before King George V made his will known were in line with the continental European custom. The other royal families of Europe in the 1910s, other than Spain, extended the rank of prince/ss to all legitimate descendants of any sovereign in male line, unless excluded (due to descending from an unequal marriage for example).

I assume the status of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's children was equally unclear but never became an issue because they used their German titles.

The children of Duke Charles Edward were apparently styled HH in Germany, but on what authority I don't know. Under the house law of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the princes and princesses of the ducal house (excepting the eldest son of the Duke) were entitled to only HSH. Princes and princesses of the Kohary line received HRH and HH from foreign sovereigns, but to my knowledge, these elevations and the British Letters Patent were inapplicable to Charles Edward's children.

 

[Gawin]

The children of Duke Charles Edward were apparently styled HH in Germany, but on what authority I don't know. Under the house law of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the princes and princesses of the ducal house (excepting the eldest son of the Duke) were entitled to only HSH. Princes and princesses of the Kohary line received HRH and HH from foreign sovereigns, but to my knowledge, these elevations and the British Letters Patent were inapplicable to Charles Edward's children.

Thank you!

I suspect Charles Edward's children were HH based on his own authority. Although as Duke of Coburg Charles Edward was only an HH and his children HSHs (oldest son excepted), under his grandmother Queen Victoria's Letters Patent he was also an HRH. He probably believed his children were therefore HHs, based on custom, just as the children of the Duke of York were presumably HHs before Queen Victoria elevated them to HRH.

But of course George V's Letters Patent removed any claim to the HH his children may have had although they continued to use it.

 

[alvinking]

I agree. I don't think this would be the issue that Charles takes on. Especially if he plans to fight for Camilla as Queen. Likely for William to decide as he has more children. Charles, as monarch, would likely respect his son's wishes in regards to if a statement similar to that for the Wessex's children would be released. I'm in the camp that this is what Harry would want for any children, but we shall see.

When i said, Harry will decide, we should read between the lines and see Meghan will decide. If everything remain the same, once Charles is the monarch, I don't see Meghan depriving her children of something that is legally theirs. I am not saying she is a gold digger or a social climber, but after everything she has gone through in the press because of who she is and her background
"She is american, she is divorced, she is mixed, she is not a real princess, she will never be Princess Meghan; she is a social climber, she shouldn't be the wife of Harry blah blah blah etc etc"
I am pretty sure she will make the point to shut people up for good that her children are real Blood Princes/Princesses of the UK. This would finally complete the circle and cement her status as a royal in an unquestionable manner, regardless of what all the naysayers say.

 

[Osipi]

When i said, Harry will decide, we should read between the lines and see Meghan will decide. If everything remain the same, once Charles is the monarch, I don't see Meghan depriving her children of something that is legally theirs. I am not saying she is a gold digger or a social climber, but after everything she has gone through in the press because of who she is and her background
"She is american, she is divorced, she is mixed, she is not a real princess, she will never be Princess Meghan; she is a social climber, she shouldn't be the wife of Harry blah blah blah etc etc"
I am pretty sure she will make the point to shut people up for good that her children are real Blood Princes/Princesses of the UK. This would finally complete the circle and cement her status as a royal in an unquestionable manner, regardless of what all the naysayers say.

I think it'll be a joint decision made by both Meghan and Harry. I really don't see Meghan as the type of person that would even consider having to "shut people up". She's comfortable with who she is and has learned a long time ago to shut out the "noise" not worth listening to. She doesn't have to prove anything to anybody.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Peerage Page refers to Henry Charles Albert David Windsor as 1st Duke of Sussex. He was created 1st Duke of Sussex. How can this be when Prince Augustus Frederick was a Duke of Sussex?

 

[Gawin]

Harry is the 1st Duke of a new creation. He didn't inherit the title from Augustus.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

The Peerage Page refers to Henry Charles Albert David Windsor as 1st Duke of Sussex. He was created 1st Duke of Sussex. How can this be when Prince Augustus Frederick was a Duke of Sussex?

He is the first Duke of Sussex for this creation. Every time there is a new creation, the amount of Dukes will obviously start over because it was not continuous transfer to the next duke, and there are also new titles in play, such as Earl of Dumbarton. So in this case, Harry was given the second creation of the title Duke of Sussex, and is the first duke of the new creation.

 

[Countessmeout]

Its the same with all peerages, royal and regular peerages. Its based on the creation. Andrew is the 1st Duke of York, even though the title has been held 10 previous times (he is the 8th creation). Edward will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh, even though the title was his father's, because it will have to be re-created for him. Charles will (if he outlives his father) be 2nd Duke, until he becomes king.

 

[yvr girl]

The Peerage Page refers to Henry Charles Albert David Windsor as 1st Duke of Sussex. He was created 1st Duke of Sussex. How can this be when Prince Augustus Frederick was a Duke of Sussex?

He 1st because it was a new creation. To be the 2nd etcetera, you need to inherit the title.

 

[jacqui24]

When i said, Harry will decide, we should read between the lines and see Meghan will decide. If everything remain the same, once Charles is the monarch, I don't see Meghan depriving her children of something that is legally theirs. I am not saying she is a gold digger or a social climber, but after everything she has gone through in the press because of who she is and her background
"She is american, she is divorced, she is mixed, she is not a real princess, she will never be Princess Meghan; she is a social climber, she shouldn't be the wife of Harry blah blah blah etc etc"
I am pretty sure she will make the point to shut people up for good that her children are real Blood Princes/Princesses of the UK. This would finally complete the circle and cement her status as a royal in an unquestionable manner, regardless of what all the naysayers say.

And when I said Harry, I have no doubt his wife will have equal part in that decision. And I actually don’t see Meghan wanting that title for her children either. It’s more of a burden than anything else when they are private citizens. Doesn’t change the fact that they are members of the family, just gives them more freedom from people feeling like they have a right to them.

As for whatever some want to say about whether or not Meghan should be a member of royal family or HRH. Bottom line is that she is. Although she is not Pricess Meghan just like none of the other royal brides are princesses in their own rights unless they were born a blood princess. As for anything else, they can feel whatever they feel, it has no effect on her status and reality. So whatever to them.

 

[Osipi]

Basically, I think the best example given to understand how creations are numbered is the one that Countessmeout gave with the Duke of Edinburgh title.

Although its possible that Charles will inherit his father's title and be the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, when that title reverts to the crown and recreated again for Edward, Edward will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh with the possibility of his son, James, inheriting the title and being the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

When you see someone like Diana's brother who is now the 9th Earl Spencer, you realize how long that title has been passed down in the Spencer family unbroken.

 

[Countessmeout]

Basically, I think the best example given to understand how creations are numbered is the one that Countessmeout gave with the Duke of Edinburgh title.

Although its possible that Charles will inherit his father's title and be the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, when that title reverts to the crown and recreated again for Edward, Edward will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh with the possibility of his son, James, inheriting the title and being the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

When you see someone like Diana's brother who is now the 9th Earl Spencer, you realize how long that title has been passed down in the Spencer family unbroken.

As far as peerages go, Earl Spencer isn't even a long one. The Duke of Northumberland (on its third creation) is on its 12th Duke. They were raised to dukes from Earl of Northumberland. The 19th Duke of Somerset. 18th Marques of Winchester. 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury.

You look at say some of the Scottish titles you have things like the 24th Countess of Sutherland, 21st Lady Saltoun, 18th Earl of Huntley, 16th Duke of Hamilton.

 

[Osipi]

With listing all the peerages that have been around for far longer than the one Charles Spencer holds just makes me appreciate more just how much the hereditary peerage means to those that do hold titles that have been passed down from what almost seems like antiquity.

Perhaps to the ordinary person today (especially those that are outside the UK), titles such as Duke, Earl, Baron and such may seem anachronistic but for those that actually have that lineage and an unbroken line back to the first ancestor that was granted the title, its a very strong and remarkable heritage to have and be a part of.

Thanks Countessmeout!

 

[CyrilVladisla]

He is the first Duke of Sussex for this creation. Every time there is a new creation, the amount of Dukes will obviously start over because it was not continuous transfer to the next duke, and there are also new titles in play, such as Earl of Dumbarton. So in this case, Harry was given the second creation of the title Duke of Sussex, and is the first duke of the new creation.

All of these explanations about the new creation of a title have been very helpful!

 

[Osipi]

Now you know why TRF is my go to place to check off my "learn something new everyday" box.