Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Rudolph]

I agree it’s a fluff piece but I still think it underlines the issue facing Harry’s children.

Remember back to when Beatrice and Eugenie were born, the country was all a flutter. Two new princesses, how beautiful. But babies become teenagers, teenagers become adults and adults have to work for a living.

By the time Harry’s children are adults, they’re going to be the Kings nephews, and people will ask why do the kings nephews have royal titles.

 

[DuchessMia]

Well, I think casual observers (I.e. most of the public) are confused by someone with the title “Princess” who doesn’t do royal work. And it’s confusing that the rest of the grandchildren who live or are are slated to live more private lives are without an HRH. We who watch closely know that it’s a matter of timing, that the York sisters were the last born before the BRF started seriously thinking about paring down the working roster, and that they have held actual jobs and done (albeit more quietly than their cousins) charity work. But to people who don’t understand it, seeing Princesses who mostly show up on the public radar for big celebrations, outside of restaurants or when they vacation feeds a perception that they’re spoiled and lazy...on the public dime.

Casual observers like my mother don't give a fig about the York princesses' titles. They just don't care. They are Princesses and that's all anyone, like my mother, know. The only ones I've seen who get really intense about HRH status are royal observers or those that live in the respective countries, like Britain and Sweden.

 

[muriel]

I agree it’s a fluff piece but I still think it underlines the issue facing Harry’s children.

Remember back to when Beatrice and Eugenie were born, the country was all a flutter. Two new princesses, how beautiful. But babies become teenagers, teenagers become adults and adults have to work for a living.

By the time Harry’s children are adults, they’re going to be the Kings nephews, and people will ask why do the kings nephews have royal titles.

All fair points. H&M will do well to make sure their children are brought up with the understanding that they will have to build careers for themselves, independent of the BRF.

As to titles, I am actually quite relaxed, and it is their own choice. Personally, I don't believe titles will have any impact whatsoever on their careers. The Dutch prince's don't seem to have suffered as a result.

Casual observers like my mother don't give a fig about the York princesses' titles. They just don't care. They are Princesses and that's all anyone, like my mother, know. The only ones I've seen who get really intense about HRH status are royal observers or those that live in the respective countries, like Britain and Sweden.

With respect, the relevant audience are only the subjects of the respective monarchies, not the broader public in distant lands.

 

[Osipi]

The kid isn't even born yet and its already being projected what that child's entire life is going to entail. Perhaps buying the kid a lifetime subway pass would be a good christening present?

I don't think Omid Scobie is too far off the mark as its pretty much a given that Harry's kids most likely will have as much as a normal childhood as they can possibly give them but to assume that their children will be, more or less, "Joe and Jane Public" is really stretching it.

It used to be in days gone by that the first son was for the Crown and the second son for the Church but those days are long past. One thing I do know is that Harry and Meghan's children will be raised with parents in service to the people as role models and be encouraged to spread their wings and instill in them the belief that they can do anything they put their mind to.

Both Harry and Meghan started young on the path they were to take. Harry, as a child, was always fascinated by the military and grew up to serve himself and today, a prime focus of Harry's is those who serve in the military. Meghan grew up with acting in her blood and pursued it as a young girl and through her college years and then professionally. Its not hard to imagine that their children will be encouraged to follow their dreams as this is what both Harry and Meghan are actually doing now to empower and inspire the people they meet to do.

The Sussex children have a lot to look forward to. Their start in life will be with two parents who want the best for them. Whatever that may be. ?

 

[Denville]

Prince Harry and Pregnant Duchess Meghan’s Baby ‘Won’t Be Spoiled’

So this is Omid Scobie already talking about Harry and Meghan’s kid is going to be raised to have a job, ride the subway etc. Nothing really too revealing.

But we can already see the problem that’s going to hang over Harry’s children. They’re not going to be in the main line of succession, they’re not going to work for the Firm, so why are they going to need fancy royal titles.

Since they are entitled to "fancy royal titles' Im sure they wouldn't be too pleased If deprived of them.

 

[Lady Reem]

The timeline comparison doesn't work here, given what's happened since the baby announcement. We've had Harry and Meghan's first major tour, immediately followed by Charles and Camilla's tour and still to come, Remembrance Day events and Charles' 70th birthday. The Queen isn't going to drop an LP announcement in the midst of all that. If there is going to be announcement, I suspect it won't come until after Charles birthday celebrations. And I do expect some kind of announcement before the baby is born, not necessarily LP related but one that clarifies how the Sussex children are to be styled at birth and once Charles is king (if they are not made HRH at birth).

I remained baffled by the insistence that the Yorks are despised simply because they are non-working royals with titles. Heck, I think it's a stretch to even say that they are despised, as they aren't in the press garnering enough unsavory headlines for the majority to hate them. Whatever ill feelings there are towards them likely has more to do with who their parents are than anything else. And on that note, I would say that unless there is some major scandal involving the Sussexes, their children will be beloved by many. We are already seeing as much excitement and anticipation for this baby as there was for the Cambridge children and in my opinion that is one of several reasons why they will end up as HRH, be it at birth or when Charles ascends.

I agree with all this

For me it will be a great shame if Harry’s children who too will be grandchildren of the future King aren’t given titles that reflect their relationship to the future Monarch similar to what William’s children have been accorded. Prince Charles only has two children/sons. Harry’s children will be mixed-raced but that doesn’t mean they are inferior. Unfortunately there is a significant population of outright & subconscious racists here and from around the world that would deem them as such. I hope that is acknowledged and taken into account. They will have enough discriminatory knocks against them already by virtue of their black heritage.

The Monarch has shown she really wants to hold onto the commonwealth of nations or for it to remain intact at least. What better way to prove how truly inclusive this very old institution of British Monarchy is than for the population of these nations to see a mixed-race HRH blood Princess/Prince of the realm. The majority population of these commonwealth nations (former colonies of the British Empire, and all that entailed) are people of colour.

 

[Lady Reem]

Prince Harry and Pregnant Duchess Meghan’s Baby ‘Won’t Be Spoiled’

So this is Omid Scobie already talking about Harry and Meghan’s kid is going to be raised to have a job, ride the subway etc. Nothing really too revealing.

But we can already see the problem that’s going to hang over Harry’s children. They’re not going to be in the main line of succession, they’re not going to work for the Firm, so why are they going to need fancy royal titles.

“They’re not going to be in the main line of succession”.....neither are Charlotte or Louis, so that means the dignity of the HRH titles they’ve been given are mere “fancy royal titles” too according to you.

 

[Osipi]

I agree with all this

For me it will be a great shame if Harry’s children who too will be grandchildren of the future King aren’t given titles that reflect their relationship to the future Monarch similar to what William’s children have been accorded. Prince Charles only has two children/sons. Harry’s children will be mixed-raced but that doesn’t mean they are inferior. I hope that is acknowledged and taken into account. They will have enough discriminatory knocks against them already by virtue of their black heritage.

I sincerely believe that there will be two factors that figure into what titles and styles are given to Harry and Meghan's children. One is what the parents, themselves, wish. Two is that they will be determined by what is best for the monarchy going into the future. Nothing else will figure into this decision.

The days of anyone being thought of as "inferior" are long gone when it comes to the British monarchy.

 

[Denville]

I agree with all this

ForHarry’s children will be mixed-raced but that doesn’t mean they are inferior. Unfortunately there is a significant population of outright & subconscious racists here and from around the world that would deem them as such. I hope that is acknowledged and taken into account. They will have enough discriminatory knocks against them already by virtue of their black heritage.

colour.

what discriminatory knocks are there going to be against children who are born to a very rich and highly privileged couple????????????

 

[Ish]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

Let’s keep race out of this.

 

[RosieStroud]

The kid isn't even born yet and its already being projected what that child's entire life is going to entail. Perhaps buying the kid a lifetime subway pass would be a good christening present?

I don't think Omid Scobie is too far off the mark as its pretty much a given that Harry's kids most likely will have as much as a normal childhood as they can possibly give them but to assume that their children will be, more or less, "Joe and Jane Public" is really stretching it.

It used to be in days gone by that the first son was for the Crown and the second son for the Church but those days are long past. One thing I do know is that Harry and Meghan's children will be raised with parents in service to the people as role models and be encouraged to spread their wings and instill in them the belief that they can do anything they put their mind to.

Both Harry and Meghan started young on the path they were to take. Harry, as a child, was always fascinated by the military and grew up to serve himself and today, a prime focus of Harry's is those who serve in the military. Meghan grew up with acting in her blood and pursued it as a young girl and through her college years and then professionally. Its not hard to imagine that their children will be encouraged to follow their dreams as this is what both Harry and Meghan are actually doing now to empower and inspire the people they meet to do.

The Sussex children have a lot to look forward to. Their start in life will be with two parents who want the best for them. Whatever that may be. ?

Succinctly put and well said!

 

[Abbigail]

Well, I think casual observers (I.e. most of the public) are confused by someone with the title “Princess” who doesn’t do royal work. And it’s confusing that the rest of the grandchildren who live or are are slated to live more private lives are without an HRH. We who watch closely know that it’s a matter of timing, that the York sisters were the last born before the BRF started seriously thinking about paring down the working roster, and that they have held actual jobs and done (albeit more quietly than their cousins) charity work. But to people who don’t understand it, seeing Princesses who mostly show up on the public radar for big celebrations, outside of restaurants or when they vacation feeds a perception that they’re spoiled and lazy...on the public dime.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't any confusion. There's lots about the monarchy that casual observers undoubtedly find confusing. But spoiled and lazy aren't descriptions merely used for the likes of Beatrice or Eugenie. Harry, Meghan, Kate, William are tagged with those labels too. They go on tour and some people see it as a holiday, complain about tax payer money being wasted, how they are paying for their expensive clothes, etc. That's a perception of monarchy, in general, not one simply relegated to non-working royals.

The days of anyone being thought of as "inferior" are long gone when it comes to the British monarchy.

Yeah, I don't agree with this at all. I wish it were true but I don't think it is.

I do agree that the decision will come down to what the parents desire and what is considered best for monarchy. But even within that, I have little doubt that Charles and the Queen, will be considering multiple factors, optics included.

 

[Mbruno]

Queen Anne's daughter Mary, born in 1685, was styled "the Lady Mary".
Queen Anne's daughter Anne Sophia, born in 1686, was styled "the Lady Anne Sophia".
Why did not these daughters each have the title of Princess?

The title of princess started to be used by default only in the Hanoverian period. All Tudor princesses were "Lady", I think, and, in the Stuart period, the title of princess was used AFAIK only by, Mary Princess Royal and Princess of Orange.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Queen Anne's daughter Mary, born in 1685, was styled "the Lady Mary".
Queen Anne's daughter Anne Sophia, born in 1686, was styled "the Lady Anne Sophia".
Why did not these daughters each have the title of Princess?

Queen Anne's daughters weren't born as the children of a Queen though.

They were female line granddaughters of the King - like Princess Anne and Princess Margaret's children.

The rules were also different back then. The title of 'princess' wasn't given in the way it is today. George I's rules would be more familiar to us but even so they aren't the same as the ones used today.

George V's rules are the ones that apply in the UK today but he replaced ones initially set by Queen Victoria in 1898.

 

[Queen Shirley]

I was wondering why they say: Prince William and Kate Middleton, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle instead of Prince William and Kate or Kate Windsor, Prince Harry and Meghan or Meghan Windsor? Why keep there maiden names, no other married women do?
Yet Prince Phillip is called a Prince, why isn't he referred to as Prince Elizabeth? and why wasn't the House of Windsor changed to Mountbatten (since that is the Queens married last name?

 

[Curryong]

William and Kate are the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Harry and Meghan are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. That's their proper form of address. The trouble for the tabloid reporters is their belief that many of their readers wouldn't know who they were talking about if they used those titles.

So they go back to using the maiden names of these two women in their articles, in order that they be recognised. It's sloppy journalism but even sadder that some people still think of them as Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle.

An Express article on the long saga of the Mountbatten-House of Windsor saga.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...-prince-philip-mountbatten-change-family-name

 

[alvinking]

Prince Philip was born HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Danemark, His father was HRH Prince Andrew of Greece and Danemark, and his Grandfather was HM King George I of Greece. He renounced his title in 1947 when he became British citizen and he became Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten. At the eve of his wedding, he was created Knight of the Garter and HRH, so when he walked into Westminster he was HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten. After the wedding, he walked out as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, and his wife, HRH The Princess Elizabeth, logically took the courtesy title of her husband, and became HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. It is only in 1957 that he was created Prince of the United Kingdom and he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was wondering why they say: Prince William and Kate Middleton, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle instead of Prince William and Kate or Kate Windsor, Prince Harry and Meghan or Meghan Windsor? Why keep there maiden names, no other married women do?
Yet Prince Phillip is called a Prince, why isn't he referred to as Prince Elizabeth? and why wasn't the House of Windsor changed to Mountbatten (since that is the Queens married last name?

The media are quite lazy when it comes to the titles for the royals.

They think that their readers won't know who they mean if they say HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - and so use Kate Middleton. Had they written HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, formerly Kate Middleton, for the six months or so after the wedding most people would be totally clear on who was meant but their jounalists are both sloppy and lazy and assume the general population are stupid as well.

Philip is a prince because a) he was born a prince and b) having given up that style in 1947 Her Majesty issued the Letters Patent creating him as a Prince of the UK. He had been created HRH in 1947 in the LPs creating him Duke of Edinburgh but not a Prince.

When the Queen married in 1947 she did change her name to Mountbatten as every other wife in the UK does but ... in 1952 when she became Queen Lord Mountbatten erroneously said that the 'House of Mountbatten now reigns'. It didn't as Elizabeth was born a Windsor and just like Victoria was a Hanover, Mary II and Anne were Stuarts and Mary I and Elizabeth I were Tudors the house name remained Windsor.

Queen Mary heard that the comment had been made and as her husband, George V, had changed the house name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor, she wanted it to remain.

As a result the Queen issued a statement that the House name would be Windsor and changed her her children's name back to Windsor. That lead to Philip's famous comment that he was 'only an amoeba' as he wasn't allowed to give his name to his children - as every other man in the UK was allowed to do.

Then the Queen became pregnant with Andrew and a legal advisor told her that giving her children only her name made them effectively illegitimate as only the children of single mothers took their mothers names. She was advised to do something about it so she issued a new statement that the House name would remain Windsor but all of her descendants who needed to use a surname (other than the descendants of females whose children would take their father's names) would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

We see this used with Lady Louise who uses Windsor for short but whose official name, as evidenced in the CC on occasion and William's wedding programme is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. We also saw it when William and Kate too legal action in France where titles aren't permitted and they also used Mountbatten-Windsor.

Both Anne and Charles also used Mountbatten-Windsor on their first marriage certificates.

So the situation is that the House name is Windsor but the surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Kataryn]

Queen Anne's daughters weren't born as the children of a Queen though.

They were female line granddaughters of the King - like Princess Anne and Princess Margaret's children.

The rules were also different back then. The title of 'princess' wasn't given in the way it is today. George I's rules would be more familiar to us but even so they aren't the same as the ones used today.

George V's rules are the ones that apply in the UK today but he replaced ones initially set by Queen Victoria in 1898.

But they must have been princesses of Denmark from birth? As Prince George of Denmark and Norway kept his Royal title when he married and only got the title of Duke of Cumberland in addition. So during the reign of William and Mary, Anne was HRH Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway, Duchess of Cumberland?

 

[Gawin]

.
Then the Queen became pregnant with Andrew and a legal advisor told her that giving her children only her name made them effectively illegitimate as only the children of single mothers took their mothers names.

Surely this must be an exaggeration? Was Philip effectively illegitimate as well because he used his maternal grandfather's surname? I suspect someone may have pointed out the Queen's children were similar to illegitimate children who used their mother's surname & she rightly wanted them to bear her husband's surname like any other British child born within a legally valid marriage.

 

[Pranter]

Surely this must be an exaggeration? Was Philip effectively illegitimate as well because he used his maternal grandfather's surname? I suspect someone may have pointed out the Queen's children were similar to illegitimate children who used their mother's surname & she rightly wanted them to bear her husband's surname like any other British child born within a legally valid marriage.

I don't think an exaggeration...I myself heard this in a documentary I saw recently.



LaRae

 

[Gawin]

But they must have been princesses of Denmark from birth? As Prince George of Denmark and Norway kept his Royal title when he married and only got the title of Duke of Cumberland in addition. So during the reign of William and Mary, Anne was HRH Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway, Duchess of Cumberland?

You ask an interesting question. George and Anne were referred to as the Prince and Princess of Denmark but it seems their children weren't.

Their son William Duke of Gloucester is called "Prince William" in the authoritative Complete Peerage.

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/271 [see Gloucester in Vol. 5, p. 743].

But the 1949 edition of Burke's Peerage calls Anne's other son "Lord George" and her daughters "Lady Mary" [she had two daughters by that name] and "Lady Anne Sophia."

https://archive.org/stream/burkesgenealogic1949unse#page/n265/mode/2up

All five children are buried in Westminster Abbey and the burial register calls them "Lord/Lady" except for William who is called "HRH."

https://archive.org/details/marriagebaptism02chesgoog/page/n234

See pp. 217 (Lady Mary & Lady Ann-Sophia), 226 (Lady Mary), 230 (Lord George), and 246 (HRH William).

 

[Gawin]

I don't think an exaggeration...I myself heard this in a documentary I saw recently.



LaRae

But using a mother's surname does NOT make a child illegitimate, even "effectively," which means "virtually, substantially; so far as the result is concerned" (Oxford English Dictionary). It's the legality of the parents' marriage that counts. The Queen's children may have been similar to illegitimate children but they weren't effectively illegitimate.

 

[JR76]

What was said was that the only children who used their mother's name was illegitimate children not that the Queen's children was in any way illegitimate.
This was in fact not true even at the time since for instance the chieftains and heads of the clans and families of Scotland must carry that name leading, for instance, to that the eldest daughter of the Queen's relative Alexander Ramsay of Mar carries the name Fraser since she's set to inherit the headship of the family of Fraser of Philort from her mother, The Lady Saltoun.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

....she issued a new statement that the House name would remain Windsor but all of her descendants who needed to use a surname (other than the descendants of females whose children would take their father's names) would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

We see this used with Lady Louise who uses Windsor for short but whose official name, as evidenced in the CC on occasion and William's wedding programme is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. We also saw it when William and Kate too legal action in France where titles aren't permitted and they also used Mountbatten-Windsor.

Both Anne and Charles also used Mountbatten-Windsor on their first marriage certificates.

So the situation is that the House name is Windsor but the surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

That is very interesting since the children of Princes Charles, William and Andrew used their Dukedom as surnames for their children. Prince George is known as George Cambridge at his school. Yet Lady Louise has always maintained Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, and not Louise Wessex.

 

[Mbruno]

But they must have been princesses of Denmark from birth? As Prince George of Denmark and Norway kept his Royal title when he married and only got the title of Duke of Cumberland in addition. So during the reign of William and Mary, Anne was HRH Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway, Duchess of Cumberland?

I suppose that, technically, she held that title in Denmark and Norway and was indeed referred to as HRH Princess Anne of Denmark in Acts of the English Parliament such as The Bill of Rights . However, as the British posters here like to remind us, the UK now doesn’t recognize foreign titles and members of the British Royal Family who live in the United Kingdom, at least in more recent times, normally don’t use them.

Take Queen Alexandra for example. Being a princess by birth, one would imagine she would have been entitled to be called HRH Princess Alexandra, Princess of Wales upon marriage. However, that was not the case and she was referrred to in the UK simply as HRH The Princess of Wales.

Likewise, if Princess Madeleine of Sweden had married Prince William, she probably would not have been called HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland as it would be expected . In the UK, she would still be simply HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, just like the commoner Kate Middleton. At least, that is my interpretation of current British practice.

EDIT: I guess we wouldn’t have to speculate about William and Madeleine’s children being called Prince / Princess xxx of Cambridge and Sweden since they would not have been baptized in the Church of Sweden and, therefore, as I understand it, would not have been in the line of succession to the Swedish throne.

 

[Queen Claude]

Surely this must be an exaggeration? Was Philip effectively illegitimate as well because he used his maternal grandfather's surname? I suspect someone may have pointed out the Queen's children were similar to illegitimate children who used their mother's surname & she rightly wanted them to bear her husband's surname like any other British child born within a legally valid marriage.

The person who initiated the discussion was Edward Iwi and he wrote, "When the new baby is born, as matters now stand it will bear the Badge of Bastardy namely, its mother's maiden name."

An article about the matter, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/18/monarchy .

That is very interesting since the children of Princes Charles, William and Andrew used their Dukedom as surnames for their children. Prince George is known as George Cambridge at his school. Yet Lady Louise has always maintained Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, and not Louise Wessex.

The declaration was that the Queen's non-HRH descendants carry the Mountbatten-Windsor surname, and Lady Louise is not styled HRH. A secondary reason may be that her father is expected to be the Duke of Edinburgh, so it is easier for her to have and keep the name Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George, Charlotte and Louis are probably using Cambridge but that will change as when the Queen leaves her position and Charles becomes King they will be 'of Cornwall and Cambridge'. I doubt they will add Cornwall at school but William will also probably be created Prince of Wales so then they will drop the 'of Cornwall and Cambridge' and become 'of Wales' so will they change their names every time or simply keep using 'Cambridge' until William stops being the Duke of Cambridge when he becomes King - or when they are given their own titles?

The difference with Louise is that she isn't a Princess nor a substantive title holder so it would be incorrect for her to use 'Wessex'. That is reserved for Edward himself and then James but not his daughters who use their surnames.

Lady Louise isn't 'of Wessex' now and won't be 'of Edinburgh' if that eventuates. She is simply Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

James is the same - Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn. He isn't The Viscount Severn. His father is.

 

[JR76]

So during the reign of William and Mary, Anne was HRH Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway, Duchess of Cumberland?

I suppose that, technically, she held that title in Denmark and Norway and was indeed referred to as HRH Princess Anne of Denmark in Acts of the English Parliament such as The Bill of Rights . However, as the British posters here like to remind us, the UK now doesn’t recognize foreign titles and members of the British Royal Family who live in the United Kingdom, at least in more recent times, normally don’t use them.

Given that Queen Anne was mentioned as The Princess Anne of Denmark in several sources, such as The London Gazette on 19th July 1688, we should assume that this was the title she was formally known as. Before her marriage she was known as HH The Lady Anne.
Many of the customs regarding British royal titles didn't start to come in place until the Hannoverians ascended the throne and brought their German customs with them.

 

[Gawin]

The person who initiated the discussion was Edward Iwi and he wrote, "When the new baby is born, as matters now stand it will bear the Badge of Bastardy namely, its mother's maiden name."

An article about the matter, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/18/monarchy .

Thank you. I was responding to another post which stated "Then the Queen became pregnant with Andrew and a legal advisor told her that giving her children only her name made them effectively illegitimate as only the children of single mothers took their mothers names."

No legal advisor would be stupid enough to say using a mother's surname makes a child "effectively illegitimate." The article you linked too confirms this - the Queen's children were compared to illegitimate children but no one stated they were effectively illegitimate, which is a completely different matter.