Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

Wouldn't any man who married an heiress to the British throne be fast-tracked to acquire British nationality before marriage, and in theory, couldn't a foreigner be granted a dukedom?

They didn't do so for Meghan, so I see little reason to treat another foreigner who is expected to becoming a working member of the firm differently than the latest addition to the family (while I still think was a mistake to not fast-track her nationality).

If George gets married before he becomes the Prince of Wales and is given another peerage, he will be, I believe, HRH The Duke of Cornwall and xxx, just as Prince William will probably be HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge before he becomes HRH The Prince of Wales.

But there wouldn't be a reason to give him another peerage (dukedom) upon his marriage even if he would marry between becoming the duke of Cornwall and the prince of Wales (which could happen; for example, prince Friso of the Netherlands got married a month after his grandmother died) if he already has a dukedom. Charles wasn't offered a dukedom upon his marriage as he already had several dukedoms and a princedom (among other titles).

 

[SLV]

More likely he will gain a title while Prince George of Wales as I doubt that he would be allowed to marry between becoming the Duke of Cornwall and The Prince of Wales - a period that will be more likely weeks or months rather than years while the court is in mourning for the death of Grandpa Charles.

Should he gain any title of his own - such as William's Duke of Cambridge title - he would use Cornwall first from becoming Duke of Cornwall as it is the older title.

The precedent for that would be George V who from January 1901 until November 1901 was HRH The Duke of Cornwall and York. In Scotland he was simply The Duke of Rothesay of course with Earl of Inverness ignored.

Come to think of it. If George already has Cornwall and Wales, I don't think he WILL get another title upon marriage.
Did prince Charles get any more when he married?

 

[Iluvbertie]

No. Charles has had Cornwall and Rothesay since 1952 and Wales (and Chester) since 1958 so he wasn't given any more when he married.

George would only get an extra set of titles if he were to marry in the reign of his grandfather (or, and extremely unlikely) the reign of his great-grandmother ... and yes I know how old The Queen is and how old George is so know it is very unlikely he would marry in the reign of Elizabeth II.

Of course it isn't necessary to wait for a Prince to marry for them to be given a title. George V gave all of his younger sons (other than John) their dukedoms a number of years before they married. Queen Victoria also gave Dukedoms to her grandsons before they married. She also created her younger sons Duke before they married - e.g. The Duke of Edinburgh was raised to the peerage in 1866 but didn't marry until 1874. It is only Queen Elizabeth II who has made her sons and grandsons wait until their wedding days for such honours.

 

[Osipi]

It is only Queen Elizabeth II who has made her sons and grandsons wait until their wedding days for such honours.

And herein lies the big rub. The Queen has reigned for so long and as the majority of the people on this planet have never known another monarch on the throne, the way Queen Elizabeth II has done things in her reign seems to be the "written in stone" traditions of how its always been.

Longevity does that to traditions I guess.

 

[Denville]

She's been around for almost 100 years. What she has done, during her lifetime is tradtion, but that may change in the future.

 

[royal-blue]

In 1996, the Queen issued new letters patent:

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

Does this mean that if Prince Michael of Kent, or the Duke of Gloucester, for example, were to divorce, would their wife remain an HRH?

Same if Prince Andrew had a son who was an HRH, would a divorced wife retain the HRH?

And imagine Prince Philip were to remarry (for whatever reason) and subsequently divorce, would the new Duchess of Edinburgh still be HRH after divorce?

 

[muriel]

In 1996, the Queen issued new letters patent:

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

Does this mean that if Prince Michael of Kent, or the Duke of Gloucester, for example, were to divorce, would their wife remain an HRH?

Same if Prince Andrew had a son who was an HRH, would a divorced wife retain the HRH?

And imagine Prince Philip were to remarry (for whatever reason) and subsequently divorce, would the new Duchess of Edinburgh still be HRH after divorce?

As I read it, the 1996 Letters Patent do not deal with the situations you are listing. They were specifically created to deal with the divorced Diana and Sarah.

In practice, if the Dukes of Gloucester or Kent were to divorce, my guess is that their former wives would officially loose their titles and be styled quite like Diana or Sarah, i.e. Brigitta, Duchess of Gloucester. These would not be official titles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In 1996, the Queen issued new letters patent:

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

Does this mean that if Prince Michael of Kent, or the Duke of Gloucester, for example, were to divorce, would their wife remain an HRH?

Same if Prince Andrew had a son who was an HRH, would a divorced wife retain the HRH?

And imagine Prince Philip were to remarry (for whatever reason) and subsequently divorce, would the new Duchess of Edinburgh still be HRH after divorce?

The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent are all sons of a son of the Sovereign and so, should they divorce their wives would lose the HRH as stated in these LPs. Their fathers were The Prince Henry and The Prince George - 3rd and 4th sons of George V

Prince Andrew's son would also be covered under this as the son of a son of a sovereign.

Note the the LPs refer to 'a' Sovereign not 'the Sovereign.

Prince Philip's situation is not covered so new LPs would need to be issued if he were to remarry and then divorce after the death of the Queen.

These LPs also wouldn't apply to a divorced wife of Prince Louis in the present reign (yes I am aware he will be one this week and so the chances of him marrying and divorcing while the Queen is still alive is highly improbable).

 

[Frelinghighness]

Please excuse me for missing this, but I forgot that this child will not be hrh as Charles and Andrews children were.Can someone recap for me or send me to the right thread which showed how that worked and then I think I do remember that the queen issued patents that all of Williams children would be hrh. In other words a long-winded way of saying what is the rule for children to be hrh

 

[Pranter]

Please excuse me for missing this, but I forgot that this child will not be hrh as Charles and Andrews children were.Can someone recap for me or send me to the right thread which showed how that worked and then I think I do remember that the queen issued patents that all of Williams children would be hrh. In other words a long-winded way of saying what is the rule for children to be hrh

The child or children if they have more will become HRH when Charles is King. This is due to the LP's issued back when by King George (I forget what number but I think the Queen's grandfather).


LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

Please excuse me for missing this, but I forgot that this child will not be hrh as Charles and Andrews children were.Can someone recap for me or send me to the right thread which showed how that worked and then I think I do remember that the queen issued patents that all of Williams children would be hrh. In other words a long-winded way of saying what is the rule for children to be hrh

Currently, the following persons are HRHs in the UK:

1) Children of a British sovereign.

2) Children of a son of a British sovereign ( exception:: the Earl of Wessex’s children).

3) Children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales.

4) Wives of a British prince.

5). The Duke of Edinburgh as the reigning Queen’s husband.

Harry’s child will be born as a great-grandchild of a British sovereign in male line and., as such, will be styled as a child of a Duke in the peerage of the UK. If it is a boy, he will use one of his father’s subsidiary titles in the peerage, probably Earl of Dumbarton; if it is a girl, she will be styled Lady xxx Mountbatten-Windsor.

When Prince Charles becomes King, Harry’s children will be upgraded to HRHs as grandchildren of a King in male line, unless the King decides otherwise, which is possible.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Please excuse me for missing this, but I forgot that this child will not be hrh as Charles and Andrews children were.Can someone recap for me or send me to the right thread which showed how that worked and then I think I do remember that the queen issued patents that all of Williams children would be hrh. In other words a long-winded way of saying what is the rule for children to be hrh

Charles and Andrew’s children were male line grandchildren of the monarch. Harry’s child currently will only be a male line great grandchild of the monarch. George would have been HRH Prince as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales-LP 2917.
The change making all William’s children HRH Prince/Princess was because of the change from male primogeniture for the monarch.

 

[Rudolph]

It's a fact of life Harry has known from day one. The Cambridge children are different from Harry's children.

Even little Prince Louis has his birthday marked by bell ringing at Westminster Abbey. Harry doesn't get that on his birthday.

His children will be fortunate to live a relatively low key life.

 

[Somebody]

It's a fact of life Harry has known from day one. The Cambridge children are different from Harry's children.

Even little Prince Louis has his birthday marked by bell ringing at Westminster Abbey. Harry doesn't get that on his birthday.

His children will be fortunate to live a relatively low key life.

Why would that be? Because Harry and Louis are in the same position (younger son of a future king).

 

[Rudolph]

Why would that be? Because Harry and Louis are in the same position (younger son of a future king).

It's a decision made by the Queen. Westminster Abbey is a royal peculiar under HM's authority.

The Cambridges birthdays are also official flag flying days in the UK. Not a courtesy extended to the Sussex family.

That decision is made by the government.

 

[ACO]

It's a decision made by the Queen. Westminster Abbey is a royal peculiar under HM's authority.

The Cambridges birthdays are also official flag flying days in the UK. Not a courtesy extended to the Sussex family.

That decision is made by the government.

Harry will get bells when Charles is King, iirc. William's children are the direct line. I think they do with Charlotte and Louise the same as George to keep that continuity. The same reason she issued the letters to make sure not just the 1st born male was HRH.

It makes perfect sense. The Sussex children don't have that awkwardness as none of them would have been born HRH unlike with the Cambridge kids.

 

[duchessrachel]

The child or children if they have more will become HRH when Charles is King. This is due to the LP's issued back when by King George (I forget what number but I think the Queen's grandfather).


LaRae

I think it was King George V. Does anyone know why he issues these LP's?

 

[Pranter]

I think it was King George V. Does anyone know why he issues these LP's?

There are various theories out there about it. Here's a site that explores 3 possible reasons:

https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/why-did-george-v-issues-letters-patent/

 

[Mbruno]

There are various theories out there about it. Here's a site that explores 3 possible reasons:

https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/why-did-george-v-issues-letters-patent/

My understanding is that the main issue was that, previously, great-granchildren of a sovereign in male line were also normally princes too, but with the style only of HH rather than HRH. George V issued those LPs to limit the number of princes/ princesses.

 

[duchessrachel]

There are various theories out there about it. Here's a site that explores 3 possible reasons:

https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/why-did-george-v-issues-letters-patent/

Thanks. Those are very interesting theories.

 

[Gawin]

There are various theories out there about it. Here's a site that explores 3 possible reasons:

https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/why-did-george-v-issues-letters-patent/

Personal vendetta against the Connaughts? I doubt that very much.

In 1917 Britain was fighting a war against the Central Powers (including Germany), the BRF had just renounced its German styles and titles (taking Windsor as the name of the Royal house) and stripped enemy combatants (even cousins) of their British titles.

At that time it was also unclear whether distant male-line descendants of a sovereign were HRHs or merely HHs (by distant I mean great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc.). Follow the link below for a discussion: Victoria, Edward VII, George V (to 1917)

George V apparently decided it was a good time to (1) end the confusion by defining who was entitled to the HRH/HH, and (2) slim the BRF royal family down by (a) limiting the HRH to the children of the sovereign & the children of the sovereign's sons, and (b) limiting the HH to the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [oops - editing this because I was mistaken - under the LP the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales is an HRH. George V phased the HH out]

I suspect he didn't want a repeat of 1917 when he was confronted by the fact that an enemy combatant, the Duke of Brunswick, was also a Prince of the UK, as a male-line great-great-grandson of George III, despite the fact that his family hadn't lived in the UK in 80 years.

 

[Fijiro]

In 1948 George VI issued a letter of patent for Queen Elizabeth (then Princess Elizabeth)'s children to be born HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Anne, because they were female line grandchildren.

https://www.rd.com/culture/how-the-most-famous-royals-got-their-titles/

 

[Denville]

Anne is the daughter of the Monarch so she is an HRH..and Pss Alexandra was the grand daughter of a monarch George V and she is HRH

 

[Frelinghighness]

So only the grandchildren of sons are HRH, or the children of the oldest son of pow no matter what gender. That means that princess Alexandra is not an HRH? And, the Wessex children technically are but prefer not to use it?And that p Anne’s children would not be HRH?

thank you. So any grandchildren of sons of the monarch are HRH. Like Beatrice and Eugenia but not princess annes children.
Amazing to see how many males in this family when you are trying to understand this stuff!

 

[Fijiro]

Anne is the daughter of the Monarch so she is an HRH..and Pss Alexandra was the grand daughter of a monarch George V and she is HRH

Again, at the time of Anne's birth, her mother was not the Monarch, but Princess Elizabeth. The then Monarch George VI issued a letter of patent for Prince Elizabeth (now Queen)'s children to be born HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Anne. At birth Charles and Anne were female line grandchildren of George VI so letter of patent was necessary for them to be born HRH.

 

[Denville]

So only the grandchildren of sons are HRH, or the children of the oldest son of pow no matter what gender. That means that princess Alexandra is not an HRH? And, the Wessex children technically are but prefer not to use it?And that p Anne’s children would not be HRH?

Pss Alexandra is the granddaughter of the King, via a son (Prince George, Duke of Kent), so she is HRH. The Wessex children are entitled to be HRH since Edward is a son of the Monarch's but their parents chose that they would not be so titled..and would just be Viscount severn and Lady Louise.

Anne's children are not the children of a prince.. so they take their rank from their father and he is not royal and does not have a title of nobility. So they re Mr and Miss Phillips.

 

[Gawin]

thank you. So any grandchildren of sons of the monarch are HRH. Like Beatrice and Eugenia but not princess annes children.
Amazing to see how many males in this family when you are trying to understand this stuff!

No, George V's Letters Patent (1917) limit the HRH to the following:
(1) The monarch's children
(2) The children of the monarch's sons
(3) The oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [I goofed in my earlier post when I said this royal would have an HH]. The other grandchildren of the monarch's sons would not be HRH. They would have the style and dignity of children of a Duke (Lords and Ladies).

Before the birth of Prince George the Queen issued new Letters Patent granting the HRH to ALL of William's children. Otherwise George would be HRH Prince George but his siblings would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis (following #3 above).

Likewise, unless new Letters Patent are issued, Harry's children will be Lord and Ladies (his oldest son will also have the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton). Once Charles becomes King they will be entitled to the HRH as children of the monarch's son (#2 above).

I hope this makes sense!

 

[Kataryn]

There are various theories out there about it. Here's a site that explores 3 possible reasons:

https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/why-did-george-v-issues-letters-patent/

I read that but while I can imagine that the first two ideas may have some truth in it, the last one sounds very implausible. King George V. and the father of Alaistair of Connaught, HRH Prince Albert of Connaught and Streathearn, were not only close friends, but Albert served his king and country till the end. Here are some of his orders (British only - source: Wikipedia)

• 1899 GCVO Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
• 1902 KG Royal Knight of the Garter
• 1906 Royal Victorian Chain
• 1913 KT Knight of the Thistle
• 1913 KP Knight of St. Patrick
• 1913 PC Privy Councillor
• 1915 BC Companion of the Bath
• 1918 GCMG Knight Grand Cross of St Michael and St George

donated to him by Victoria, Edward VII. and George V. While his son was a dreamer and not very talented as a career officer, his father was and served the king throughout his whole life, dying shortly after the coronation of George VI.



So honestly I cannot imagine the changes George V. did was to diminish Alaistair, who was just 4 years old and already the heir of both mother's and father's (future) dukedoms.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

No, George V's Letters Patent (1917) limit the HRH to the following:
(1) The monarch's children
(2) The children of the monarch's sons
(3) The oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [I goofed in my earlier post when I said this royal would have an HH]. The other grandchildren of the monarch's sons would not be HRH. They would have the style and dignity of children of a Duke (Lords and Ladies).

Before the birth of Prince George the Queen issued new Letters Patent granting the HRH to ALL of William's children. Otherwise George would be HRH Prince George but his siblings would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis (following #3 above).

Likewise, unless new Letters Patent are issued, Harry's children will be Lord and Ladies (his oldest son will also have the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton). Once Charles becomes King they will be entitled to the HRH as children of the monarch's son (#2 above).

I hope this makes sense!

But the main reason the Queen issued new letters patent when William and Kate were expecting their first child was because the rules of succession had changed. A first born girl would be the Queen but not be an HRH, while her younger brother, not the heir, would be an HRH Prince as the eldest son of the eldest son of the s Prince of Wales. That would be weird.

 

[Gawin]

But the main reason the Queen issued new letters patent when William and Kate were expecting their first child was because the rules of succession had changed. A first born girl would be the Queen but not be an HRH, while her younger brother, not the heir, would be an HRH Prince as the eldest son of the eldest son of the s Prince of Wales. That would be weird.

Yes, and she and could have covered that scenario by making the *oldest* child an HRH regardless of sex, but instead she covered all bases by making *ALL* the Cambridge children HRH.

Otherwise, had the first two children been daughters we may have ended up with:
#1 HRH Princess Charlotte (oldest child & heir, therefore HRH per the Queen's LP)
#2 Lady Victoria (second child and daughter, therefore not HRH per either LP)
#3 HRH Prince George (third child but oldest son, therefore HRH per George V's LP)
#4 Lord Louis (fourth child, therefore not HRH per either LP).

Very confusing! The Queen's LP only dealt specifically with the Cambridge children but at some point I suspect another monarch will completely replace George V's LP in accordance with the new rules of succession.