Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

The article simply states that the writer's "mole in the College of Arms certainly thinks" that Archie will be named as Lord Archie on legal documents.

However, he is not named as Lord (or Earl) on his birth certificate, which to my knowledge is the only published legal document in which Archie is mentioned.

Courtesy titles of children of peers are used in British passports, see Annex B in the link below. Archie's should be too.



https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/118562/observations-passports.pdf

 

[Osipi]

Courtesy titles of children of peers are used in British passports, see Annex B in the link below. Archie's should be too.



https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/118562/observations-passports.pdf

It depends though on just what passport Archie is traveling on. If I'm not mistaken, right now Archie holds dual citizenship in both the UK and the US. From what I've found with a quick search, with Archie perhaps traveling to the US during the Sussex 6 week hiatus, he would be traveling to the US under a US passport and not a British passport. Perhaps then for a return to the UK, he would use his British passport?

"The general rule of thumb for dual nationals going to one of their countries is enter and exit on that country's passport. Dual national US citizens must use their US passport when entering and leaving the United States, which after all makes sense: You're an American leaving, or returning to, America."

https://thepointsguy.com/guide/two-passport-travel-double-trouble-or-twice-the-charm/

Do we actually know what passports Archie holds?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Courtesy titles of children of peers are used in British passports, see Annex B in the link below. Archie's should be too.



https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/118562/observations-passports.pdf

Would the passport guidance apply to an exceptional situation such to Archie's in which the child does not use the courtesy title that customary usage would entitle them to use?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount, and Archie is [legally] a Lord, despite his parents choosing to call him something else..

James's father Edward is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom. Thus why would not the general public assume that his son would not be Prince James?

 

[Osipi]

James's father Edward is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom. Thus why would not the general public assume that his son would not be Prince James?

Because the Queen issued her will and pleasure by stating that he would not be a Prince on Edward and Sophie's wedding day. Simple. ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

With the Wessex children, the Queen did make her will known as to what titles they would hold but I don't believe that with Archie there was any kind of communication from the Queen as to her will and pleasure in the matter only that the Sussexes themselves deemed that Archie will be a plain "Master Archie" until his grandfather becomes King and then would be Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl Dumbarton unless his grandfather makes *his* will be known and changes things.

Archie wouldn't use 'Earl Dumbarton' AND Prince Archie of Sussex. If he does become a Prince he would simply be Prince Archie of Sussex.

If we go back to the present Dukes of Kent and Gloucester they never used their father's second title as they were Princes. The courtesy titles are only used when the heir isn't HRH Prince so HRH Prince Edward of Kent but his son was the Earl of St Andrews from birth and HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester. He didn't add Earl of Ulster when his older brother died but remain HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester until his father died when he became HRH The Duke of Gloucester.

 

[Denville]

^ James is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness ,despite being known as a [lowly] Viscount, and Archie is [legally] a Lord, despite his parents choosing to call him something else..

no, the son of a peer isn't "legaly" a lord.. but is usualy known by the father's second title.. so usually Arche would be known as Earl of Dumbarton. But the Sussexes don't seeme to want him to be known as such.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Because the Queen issued her will and pleasure by stating that he would not be a Prince on Edward and Sophie's wedding day. Simple. ?

One has to remember that Jame's grandmother is not only Elizabeth but the Queen as well. What the Queen declares goes.

 

[Somebody]

While there has been no official statement on the matter, a number of correspondents reported being told last year, by royal sources, that King Charles would continue to apply the Letters Patent of 1917 during his reign.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.
​

At that time he fully expected Harry and Meghan to remain full-time working members of the family. It would be really inconsistent if the children of working members of the family (Edward & Sophie) aren't royal highnesses while the child(ren) of 'an independent member of the family' would become a royal highness.

I never thought it to be a good idea that Archie became a HRH as long as Louise and James aren't - but now it's even more obvious because when the decision on Louise and James was made their parents weren't expected to be full-time working members of the royal family. We'll have to wait and see whether Archie's future (non) title is also part of the 'deal' that the BRF reaches with Harry and Meghan. Imho it would be best to clear that out straight away.

 

[JSH]

While it is true that the Wessex vs Sussex case would be inconsistent, the case of the Wessex children, IMO, was a one-time special case at their parents' request. I don't think anyone involved ever wanted it to be used as a precedent setting case.

 

[Denville]

Still it has shown that it can be done formally for grandchildren of the monarch NOT ot have HRH. And Sicne Harry's parents don't want to use his courtesy title for him, that seems to suggest that they would be OK with his not having an HRH

 

[JSH]

I disagree with that as well. There have been rumors that the Sussexes DO intend for Archie to become an HRH in time. And there is some logic to not having him use a courtesy title in that case. So that there is no confusion when he changes from one title to another. If Archie used Lord Dumbarton now, he would not use it after becoming Prince Archie. So simpler to use nothing now and just start using a title then.

 

[wbenson]

I think courtesy titles for royal children may have gotten a little complicated by the relatively recent tradition of royal peers regularly using their subsidiary titles when visiting Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Harry uses all three of his titles at times, there's nothing left for Archie.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

Or does anyone think differently?

I think courtesy titles for royal children may have gotten a little complicated by the relatively recent tradition of royal peers regularly using their subsidiary titles when visiting Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Harry uses all three of his titles at times, there's nothing left for Archie.

How is it handled with the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, whose sons use their father's earldoms as courtesy titles?

 

[Denville]

I've never heard of this being a problem. The Dukes' eldest sons have the use of the courtesy secondary tiltes, Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster...

 

[Osipi]

Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.

Just looking at the years presented here tells me that at that time, a woman not taking her husband's surname was unthinkable. Same with married in females. Unthinkable that they'd use anything but the female versions of their husband's titles and styles.

I divorced in the early 90s and among other women friends that also were divorced, I was the sole one that had my maiden name restored via the divorce decree.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I think courtesy titles for royal children may have gotten a little complicated by the relatively recent tradition of royal peers regularly using their subsidiary titles when visiting Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Harry uses all three of his titles at times, there's nothing left for Archie.

it seems to me, the only ones who really use subsidiary titles are Charles and William. And their sons don’t use the subsidiary titles.

 

[JSH]

Sons of royal peers don't use subsidiary titles if they have a title of their own, namely HRH Prince xxx. This only came up with Archie because he has no title of his own (yet).

 

[wbenson]

Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

Or does anyone think differently?

Neither declaration made it a legal requirement. I don't think the monarch has that power, as people can rename themselves whatever they please under common law (so anyone can rename themselves Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor so long as it's not done fraudulently). The declarations just express no opinion on what those married women and their descendants should call themselves, since it's assumed that they would/might change their names.

How is it handled with the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, whose sons use their father's earldoms as courtesy titles?

As far as I know, they're both known as the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent everywhere. I've only seen the dukes of Cambridge, Sussex, and York use their earldoms, and the last one only started happening in the last couple of years.

 

[Mbruno]

Interestingly, although the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 make it a legal requirement for female descendants of the British Royal Family who bear the names of Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor to change their last names upon marriage, they do not appear to impose the same requirement on the wives who marry into the family.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

Or does anyone think differently?

People who hold the style of Royal Highness , including the wives of British princes, do not use a family name as seen in Prince George’s birth certificate where his mother is listed only as Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

As mandated in the proclamation of 1960, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor applies , howrever, to the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II other than those who are HRHs or female descendants who marry and their respective descendants. Women who marry a descendant of the Queen who bears the name Mountbatten-Windsor follow the same rules or naming conventions that apply to women who marry into any other family. In the UK, I suppose that the norm is still that married women take their husbands’ family name.

As WBenson said, however, the common law of England allows any person to assume and use any name, provided “its use is not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary loss. “

 

[Tatiana Maria]

People who hold the style of Royal Highness , including the wives of British princes, do not use a family name as seen in Prince George’s birth certificate where his mother is listed only as Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

They do use them on occasion, and that can be seen in, for instance, the marriage certificates of Princess Anne and her younger brothers, wherein they are listed with the family name Mountbatten-Windsor.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...eligious-conversion-43937-28.html#post2065963

As mandated in the proclamation of 1960, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor applies , howrever, to the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II other than those who are HRHs or female descendants who marry and their respective descendants. Women who marry a descendant of the Queen who bears the name Mountbatten-Windsor follow the same rules or naming conventions that apply to women who marry into any other family. In the UK, I suppose that the norm is still that married women take their husbands’ family name.

Taking the husband's name remains the norm, but (at least for commoners) it is no longer a legal requirement in the UK.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29804450

Neither declaration made it a legal requirement. I don't think the monarch has that power, as people can rename themselves whatever they please under common law (so anyone can rename themselves Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor so long as it's not done fraudulently). The declarations just express no opinion on what those married women and their descendants should call themselves, since it's assumed that they would/might change their names.

As WBenson said, however, the common law of England allows any person to assume and use any name, provided “its use is not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary loss. “

That is a good point on the common law of England. I wonder though if common law can invalidate a proclamation of the will of the monarch. If it could, then the declaration of 1960 would be powerless to stop even Prince George from changing his family name from Mountbatten-Windsor to anything he wishes, wouldn't it?

 

[Denville]

There was never a legal obligation for a woman ot take her husband's name.. but until about the 1960s and 70s, most women did. Even women who used their own names in public life, like actresses would usualy use their husband's name in private.
And I would imagine that if say WIlliam wanted to issues Letters patent that the family name of the RF was to change, he could do so and over ride the previous wish to call the family surname Mountbatten Windsor... However I dobut if it would be popular and I think the name of the Royal house would remain Windsor.. but for example Will COULD say tat he wishes for his children when they need to use a surname, to use the name.. Middleton-Mountbatten Or "middleton Winsdor."

 

[wbenson]

I wonder though if common law can invalidate a proclamation of the will of the monarch. If it could, then the declaration of 1960 would be powerless to stop even Prince George from changing his family name from Mountbatten-Windsor to anything he wishes, wouldn't it?

Yes, it's powerless as a legal document. It relies on the Queen's powers of persuasion as head of a family, not her legal authority as head of state. People's families ultimately don't have to listen to them if they don't want to. As we've seen quite recently, even the Queen's wishes for the future of her family are not always followed.

 

[Mbruno]

There was never a legal obligation for a woman ot take her husband's name.. but until about the 1960s and 70s, most women did. Even women who used their own names in public life, like actresses would usualy use their husband's name in private.
And I would imagine that if say WIlliam wanted to issues Letters patent that the family name of the RF was to change, he could do so and over ride the previous wish to call the family surname Mountbatten Windsor... However I dobut if it would be popular and I think the name of the Royal house would remain Windsor.. but for example Will COULD say tat he wishes for his children when they need to use a surname, to use the name.. Middleton-Mountbatten Or "middleton Winsdor."

The actual wording of the Declaration of 1960 is as follows:

.
Declaration of 1960

[....]
therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

Prince William and his children seem to be in a limbo as far as that declaration is concerned as they are not children of the Queen , but at same time they are “descendants of the Queen enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess.” Therefore, based solely on the wording of that declaration, they don’t bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, but are not included either in the category of persons (“ I and My children”) who are explicitly known as the “ House and Family of Windsor”.

In the absence of any new provision regarding descendants of the Queen ( other than her immediate children ) who are HRHs , does the previous declaration of 1952 apply and William’s name ( and his children’s name) should be simply Windsor instead of Mountbatten-Windsor ?


Ideally, to clarify those issues, I suppose King William V should issue a declaration when he ascends to make it known how he and his descendants are to be named.

. Declaration of 1952

My Lords,
I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor

EDIT: I am aware that, in practice, Anne, Andrew and William have used the family name Mountbatten-Windsor in the past . I just can’t see how that usage is compatible with the wording of Her Majesty’s 1952 and 1960 declarations to the Privy Council.

 

[Somebody]

Regarding the title issue in the hypothetical situation that Harry and Meghan divorce while Meghan is not a British citizen (as discussed in the 'step away-thread'). I don't think she will legally be 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex', simply because her legal name will be whatever is written down in her US documents.

If she would do what she did in/after her first marriage; she would have changed her legal surname to 'Mountbatten-Windsor' and will revert back to 'Markle' upon divorce. As she was 'Rachel Meghan Englewood' during her first marriage but prior and after her first marriage she was 'Rachel Meghan Markle' (as far as I am aware).

Whether Meghan would choose to 'go by' Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is a different matter. And I wouldn't be surprised if in this case she would decide to keep the Mountbatten-Windsor surname as well.

The Queen conferred upon her grandson the Dukedom of Sussex, with two subsidiary titles. Earl of Dumbarton would be Henry's primary courtesy title that his son could use. Upon marriage, Meghan became The Duchess of Sussex. Should they divorce, she would be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex until Henry remarried. The title is by no means linked to Meghan being a british citizen, else she shouldn't be holding it now?

This link announces the official creation of Letters Patent in regards to the title.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743

No mention of citizenship.

Of course there is no mention of citizenship. The peerage was created for a British prince. He just happened to marry an American who shares his title for all but US legal purposes as long as they are married.

 

[Kataryn]

As WBenson said, however, the common law of England allows any person to assume and use any name, provided “its use is not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary loss. “

That's so different from name usage in Germany where you have to stick to your given names officially if your parents named you Willy-Didi, you have to stick with that complete name throughout your life if you cannot convince a judge that it is ridiculous to be named thus. Since the end of 2018 it is possible to change the order of the first names, though. But when you marry a ex-noble and get divorced, you can keep the noble name, remarry an even higher noble and get divorced and you can get back to the old noble name and if you marry someone with a normal name, he can take the noble name as well. That's all legal!


See Dr. Gabriele Henne (father's name), then Dr. Gabriele Thyssen (Mother's married name), then Dr. Gabriele Prinzessin von Leiningen (marriage, then divorce), then The Begum Inaara Aga Khan, then back to being Dr. Gabriele Prinzessin von Leiningen after the divorce. All possible as long as she stays Gabriele!

 

[Kataryn]

I found this on heraldica.org:


The U.S. cannot grant titles of nobility, and foreigners who are naturalized must renounce all titles, but there is nothing that prevents a U.S. citizen from inheriting a title from abroad and using it as he pleases, unless it leads him or her to pledge alliegance to a foreign power, a case which could be grounds for loss of citizenship.



Examples of US citizens holding British titles include the 5th Earl of Wharcliffe (Richard Alan Montagu Stuart Wortley, of Cumberland ME; his eldest son is viscount Carlton), and Sir John Dunbar, Bt, who was succeeded in August 1993 by his son Sir Michael Dunbar, 14th Bt, a colonel in the US Air Force.
(End of quote)


So could it be that Archie will loose his US-citizenship when he becomes prince of the UK? Or when the courtesty title of "Earl Dumbarton" is used for him? Do he have to plead allegeiance or is that included in being a British Royal?

 

[Somebody]

I found this on heraldica.org:


The U.S. cannot grant titles of nobility, and foreigners who are naturalized must renounce all titles, but there is nothing that prevents a U.S. citizen from inheriting a title from abroad and using it as he pleases, unless it leads him or her to pledge alliegance to a foreign power, a case which could be grounds for loss of citizenship.



Examples of US citizens holding British titles include the 5th Earl of Wharcliffe (Richard Alan Montagu Stuart Wortley, of Cumberland ME; his eldest son is viscount Carlton), and Sir John Dunbar, Bt, who was succeeded in August 1993 by his son Sir Michael Dunbar, 14th Bt, a colonel in the US Air Force.
(End of quote)


So could it be that Archie will loose his US-citizenship when he becomes prince of the UK? Or when the courtesty title of "Earl Dumbarton" is used for him? Do he have to plead allegeiance or is that included in being a British Royal?

As Archie is already American, there seems to be no problem for him. However, if he was asked to publicly pledge allegiance upon his grandfather's coronation that would clearly meet the 'pledging allegiance to a foreign power' criterion.

 

[Mbruno]

I found this on heraldica.org:


The U.S. cannot grant titles of nobility, and foreigners who are naturalized must renounce all titles, but there is nothing that prevents a U.S. citizen from inheriting a title from abroad and using it as he pleases, unless it leads him or her to pledge alliegance to a foreign power, a case which could be grounds for loss of citizenship.



Examples of US citizens holding British titles include the 5th Earl of Wharcliffe (Richard Alan Montagu Stuart Wortley, of Cumberland ME; his eldest son is viscount Carlton), and Sir John Dunbar, Bt, who was succeeded in August 1993 by his son Sir Michael Dunbar, 14th Bt, a colonel in the US Air Force.
(End of quote)


So could it be that Archie will loose his US-citizenship when he becomes prince of the UK? Or when the courtesty title of "Earl Dumbarton" is used for him? Do he have to plead allegeiance or is that included in being a British Royal?

No. As Heraldica said, only naturalized citizens have to renounce their foreign titles when they take the citizenship oath. Archie is a natural born citizen of the United States and, as any natural born citizen, he can hold or inherit a foreign title, but the title won’t be legally acknowledged in the US

If Archie held, however, a public office under the United States, he would be barred by the constitution from accepting a foreign title while in office.

As for the oath of allegiance to the monarch, Archie would have to take it if he became a member of the House of Lords or the House of Commons ( both are unlikely , I think, especially if he is not raised in the UK). Archie would also have to Pledge allegiance to the monarch , and his/her and successors if he became a Canadian citizen as it is required for naturalization in Canada.

I expect Harry to participate in his father’s coronation and pledge allegiance to him , but Archie will probably be still a minor and won’t be part of the coronation. If he iives outside the UK, I don’t see Archie participating in William’s coronation either.

 

[Mbruno]

It is all very confusing and I am still trying to process it, but, given that Henry, Duke of Sussex ( I guess that is how he is being called now) is no longer using the titular dignity of Prince with the attribute or style of Royal Highness, but is still a descendant of Queen Elizabeth II, will he take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with HM’s declaration to the Privy Council in 1960 ?