Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Stefan]

If they dislike the Earl of Dumbarton, thten it wasn't a good idea to give it..because normally, it would be expected that their eldest son wuodl be known by that title...
I can quite understand that they may have feared headlines like "Dumbo", but there were surely other secondary titles Harry could have been given.

Could they not have choosen to use the Baron Kilkell Title insteead if the dislikd Earl of Dumbarton.

 

[Queen Claude]

When Archie's name was announced, my conclusion, speculative of course, was that what happened with the Wessex children was not a one-off, rather it was a purposeful precedent setting of how cadet branches / descendants of the monarch's younger sons will be handled going forward. I think the Sussexes then took it a step further by eschewing having Archie known by one of his father's subsidiary titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When Archie's name was announced, my conclusion, speculative of course, was that what happened with the Wessex children was not a one-off, rather it was a purposeful precedent setting of how cadet branches / descendants of the monarch's younger sons will be handled going forward.

On the one hand, it would be odd if the Wessex children were meant to be a one-off. I cannot think of any other European royal family depriving only one couple's children of their expected titles without a formal reason, for instance the marriage of the couple not being approved.

But on the other hand, the theory that it was a purposeful precedent raises the question of why the letters patent of 1917 are unaltered and palace sources affirmed that Charles does not plan to alter them. It made some sense to not immediately act in 1999, given that the concept of slimming down the royal family was novel and they may have wished to leave themselves more flexibility to reverse the decision. But 20 years had passed since then by the time Archie was born.

 

[yukari]

On the one hand, it would be odd if the Wessex children were meant to be a one-off. I cannot think of any other European royal family depriving only one couple's children of their expected titles without a formal reason, for instance the marriage of the couple not being approved.

But on the other hand, the theory that it was a purposeful precedent raises the question of why the letters patent of 1917 are unaltered and palace sources affirmed that Charles does not plan to alter them. It made some sense to not immediately act in 1999, given that the concept of slimming down the royal family was novel and they may have wished to leave themselves more flexibility to reverse the decision. But 20 years had passed since then by the time Archie was born.

My guess, if they issue new letter patent now, say, that only heir apparent's (which will later become monarch) children are eligible for HRH or Prince title, then in current situation all HM's cousins would lose theirs (so do the York girls). Which considering the Kents (including Alexandra) and the Gloucesters' services to BRF, HM may not want it.

But if they are no more, it will be more make sense for Charles to issue it with less furore. The York girls will lose theirs but they're not working royal anyway (so justified). The Wessex kids haven't been referred as HRH or Prince(ss) to begin with (though they're eligible), so do Archie (no problem to change anything there). Which will later affect Charlotte's and Louis' future kids. So in a way Louise, James, and Archie can be the "prepared transition".

Even in the far away future if George's first born is female, with the current absolute primogeniture she'll be heir apparent so even though hers is female line, her children still eligible for the title (IF they are really serious about slimming down).

But who know, royal titles aren't a big deal as decades ago and may become less important in the future so it's possible they may go with that route.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My guess, if they issue new letter patent now, say, that only heir apparent's (which will later become monarch) children are eligible for HRH or Prince title, then in current situation all HM's cousins would lose theirs (so do the York girls). Which considering the Kents (including Alexandra) and the Gloucesters' services to BRF, HM may not want it.

But if they are no more, it will be more make sense for Charles to issue it with less furore. The York girls will lose theirs but they're not working royal anyway (so justified). The Wessex kids haven't been referred as HRH or Prince(ss) to begin with (though they're eligible), so do Archie (no problem to change anything there). Which will later affect Charlotte's and Louis' future kids. So in a way Louise, James, and Archie can be the "prepared transition".

I think it would be a simple matter to clarify in new letters patent that it does not affect anyone already carrying a title. For example, they could adapt the wording in the 1917 letters patent which prevented those who already were conferred with HRH or HH rank from losing it:

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

This could be adapted to:

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 the Letters Patent [dated November 30, 1917]

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Wessex kids haven't been referred as HRH or Prince(ss) to begin with (though they're eligible)

Actually they aren't.

Up thread there is a letter that I received from BP on this issue which confirmed that The Queen's Will was used to deprive the Wessex children of that entitlement.

 

[yukari]

Actually they aren't.

Up thread there is a letter that I received from BP on this issue which confirmed that The Queen's Will was used to deprive the Wessex children of that entitlement.

Yes, I saw your post about letter from BP. I don't know what you wrote to them so I would appreciate it if you can give some light on below matter (in case you already mentioned it in the letter you've sent to BP).

What make me wonder about that "agreement" is; is it actually same as Letters Patent (as I never find anything that refer it as one, but maybe I haven't searched deep enough) or even hold same standing as Letters Patent?

On January, BP announced that Meghan would be referred as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex only backpedal after someone point out that it's actually a title for a divorced duchess so forgive me if I have a little doubt. Because George VI specifically issued letters patent for the - then - Princess Elizabeth's children's titles (not just the King's Will) and HM also issued letters patent for William's children, why not for Wessex' children?

Hypothetically speaking, let's say if someday in the future during King Charles reign, Louise or James contests their "birth right" to be titled HRH Prince(ss) basing on Letters Patent 1917, can they do it or the previous "Queen's Will" can precede the letter patent? Not to mention that Charles was not mentioned in on the children's title part (only mentioned in the Dukedom of Edinburgh part), so technically he's not binded by the agreement.

Another point, first it mentioned that she conferred Earl title to Edward, then agreement between them and Charles that Edward would be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh later and "that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl." The word "might" (curiously also followed by "have" and "should", so many words ) is what make me wonder whether they initially intented to elate them to HRH Prince(ss) after Edward become Duke of Edinburgh which most likely happen during Charles' reign, so could it be interpreted that the agreement about title also only legally binding during the current Queen's reign?

Thank you

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, I saw your post about letter from BP. I don't know what you wrote to them so I would appreciate it if you can give some light on below matter (in case you already mentioned it in the letter you've sent to BP).

I asked them whether The Queen's Will really meant that the Wessex children were permanently deprived of the HRH Prince/Princess styles as a result of the 1999 announcemnt.

My interpretation was confirmed by BP.

What make me wonder about that "agreement" is; is it actually same as Letters Patent (as I never find anything that refer it as one, but maybe I haven't searched deep enough) or even hold same standing as Letters Patent?

No LPs were issued to deprive the Wessex children - probably because the only way to do so would also mean deprive all other male line grandchildren of the monarch, other than the heir, would also need to be deprived i.e. The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael, Princess Alexandra and the York girls. The Queen didn't want to deprive her cousins so did it this way.

On January, BP announced that Meghan would be referred as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex only backpedal after someone point out that it's actually a title for a divorced duchess so forgive me if I have a little doubt.

This was BP and not the Queen. How this was stuffed up I have no idea but it was.

Because George VI specifically issued letters patent for the - then - Princess Elizabeth's children's titles (not just the King's Will) and HM also issued letters patent for William's children, why not for Wessex' children?

Because any such LPs would affect more than just the Wessex children. It would affect 6 other HRHs who have had the title since birth.

George VI and Elizabeth II issued LPs to grant HRH to children - different situation.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say if someday in the future during King Charles reign, Louise or James contests their "birth right" to be titled HRH Prince(ss) basing on Letters Patent 1917, can they do it or the previous "Queen's Will" can precede the letter patent? Not to mention that Charles was not mentioned in on the children's title part (only mentioned in the Dukedom of Edinburgh part), so technically he's not binded by the agreement.

The Queen's Will has equal force with a Letters Patent. There is a third way as well - a Royal Warrant.

Another point, first it mentioned that she conferred Earl title to Edward, then agreement between them and Charles that Edward would be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh later and "that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl." The word "might" (curiously also followed by "have" and "should", so many words ) is what make me wonder whether they initially intented to elate them to HRH Prince(ss) after Edward become Duke of Edinburgh which most likely happen during Charles' reign, so could it be interpreted that the agreement about title also only legally binding during the current Queen's reign?

Thank you

The 'might' refers to the possibility of future children. Remember this was made on their wedding day and it wasn't a given that they would have children.

Thus they 'might' or 'might not' have any children. Nothing curious about the following words - If they had children those children would be styled as the children of an Earl.

It is legally binding until another monarch issues new rules i.e. Charles issues the LPs to strip his mother's cousins, and his nieces and Harry's children of HRH. I suspect he, or William will do so after the death of the last of the Queen's cousins.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

A Letter of Patent restricting the HRH and the title of Prince(ss) to children of a monarch and children of a heir does not necessarily deprive existing HRH's and Princes (Princesses) when the LP has no retroactive effects.

This means that the current Gloucesters, Kents and Yorks remain unaffected. It happened in the Netherlands too. When in 2002 was stated that a member whom loses the membership of the Royal House, also looses the title Prince (Princess) of the Netherlands, it did not retroactively affect Princess Irene (lost the membership in 1964) and Princess Christina (lost the membership in 1975). They kept all their royal titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No LPs were issued to deprive the Wessex children - probably because the only way to do so would also mean deprive all other male line grandchildren of the monarch, other than the heir, would also need to be deprived i.e. The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael, Princess Alexandra and the York girls. The Queen didn't want to deprive her cousins so did it this way.

Why would it be the only way? It was not the only way in 1917, when George V issued Letters Patent that prospectively limited royal rank to male-line grandchildren without depriving female-line grandchildren who already held it.

 

[Kataryn]

I think the Danish way is useful - children of the monarch and the heir are HRH, the children of a male HRH are HH and after that they have the title of Greve af Monpezat in thre male line. I just hope that they'll fix the problem with the female descendants as now so many women in Danmark keep their own name, so they could give the girls the title of Grevinde af Monpezat (countess in her own right) and not Komtesse (daughter of a count).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the Danish way is useful - children of the monarch and the heir are HRH, the children of a male HRH are HH and after that they have the title of Greve af Monpezat in thre male line. I just hope that they'll fix the problem with the female descendants as now so many women in Danmark keep their own name, so they could give the girls the title of Grevinde af Monpezat (countess in her own right) and not Komtesse (daughter of a count).

To the best of my knowledge no statement has been publicly issued regarding possible royal titles for the future children of the young Princes and Princesses to Denmark. If tradition is followed I suppose they would all be HH (other than the HRH children of Prince Christian) given that the monarch now seems to approve all marriages, but many Danish royal watchers seem to expect that steps will be taken to keep the size of the Royal House manageable.

 

[KellyAtLast]

I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."

HH was given to children of younger sons of British kings until the reign of King William V and to children of daughters if British subjects during the reigns of Queen Victoria and King Edward VII.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain

 

[Durham]

I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."

They are but interestingly they are also princes or at least styled as such. Maybe the nearest thing Britain has to a furst?

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

 

[Somebody]

I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."

King George VI was born as 'HH Prince Albert of York' - as a great-grandson of queen Victoria; he was only elevated to 'HRH Prince Albert of York' by Victoria's LP in 1898 that elevated all the children of the eldest son of the prince of Wales to 'HRH'.

His styles & titles over his lifetime:
14 December 1895 – 28 May 1898: His Highness Prince Albert of York
28 May 1898 – 22 January 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of York
22 January 1901 – 9 November 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Cornwall and York
9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Wales
6 May 1910 – 4 June 1920: His Royal Highness The Prince Albert
4 June 1920 – 11 December 1936: His Royal Highness The Duke of York
11 December 1936 – 6 February 1952: His Majesty The King
In British India, 11 December 1936 – 14 August 1947: His Imperial Majesty The King, Emperor of India

However, the 1917 LPs cancelled the idea of HH - but theoretically it could be revived.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Wales
6 May 1910 – 4 June 1920: His Royal Highness The Prince Albert

The practice of consistently styling children of monarchs as "The" Prince or Princess but omitting the "The" for other royals was only implemented under Queen Elizabeth II.

For example, you can see here that when his father the King approved his marriage, Albert was styled His Royal Highness Prince Albert (etc.), not "The" Prince Albert.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think the Brits give out the style of HH its either HRH or none. I Could be wrong.
Well you have the non royal dukes they are addressed as "your grace."

George V stopped HH in 1917.

 

[Excalibur]

This sounds like the half in half out scenario that Harry and Meghan wanted in January. Get all the privileges keep using their titles but pick and choose the responsibilities and live mostly abroad. Only in this case Archie gets the full title and style, be raised in the USA and never take on royal engagements for the crown because his parents want him to be a private person.

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. From birth through college/university, Archie would be simply Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Once he finishes his studies/career prep, he could then either choose to adopt the title & style HRH Prince Archie of Sussex (if it was determined that he was needed as a full-time working royal) or renounce the title & style permanently and remain Archie, private citizen. No privileges or royal financial support until such time as he chose to take on responsibilities of a full-time working royal living in the UK.

 

[Durham]

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. From birth through college/university, Archie would be simply Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Once he finishes his studies/career prep, he could then either choose to adopt the title & style HRH Prince Archie of Sussex (if it was determined that he was needed as a full-time working royal) or renounce the title & style permanently and remain Archie, private citizen. No privileges or royal financial support until such time as he chose to take on responsibilities of a full-time working royal living in the UK.

This all sounds very unsatisfactory. Far simpler just to end cadet line styles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sophie answered a question when doing an interview for The Sunday Times and she herself mentions that their children can choose to use their HRH style we 18 if they wish. I imagine her understanding of the titles is better than us and she says that they do actually have the titles, they chose to not use them but they can if they want.


“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” The Countess of Wessex

“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.”

"Can Sophie, Countess of Wessex, steady the royal ship?" by Christina Lamb, The Sunday Times, June 6, 2020.

That puts quite a different potential interpretation on the palace's "the George V convention would apply" statement, if it is possible to become HRH Prince without actually being known as HRH Prince.


Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

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.​

It is interesting that the Countess believes that given the choice, her children would not choose to use their HRH titles, since most consider a royal title to be enormously valuable. I wonder if that is because a minor member of the British royal family assuming a royal title would expose themselves to criticism.

 

[Durham]

Possibly. It's also to do with the extra scrutiny that comes with the style I think.

 

[Molly2101]

It is interesting that the Countess believes that given the choice, her children would not choose to use their HRH titles, since most consider a royal title to be enormously valuable. I wonder if that is because a minor member of the British royal family assuming a royal title would expose themselves to criticism.

I’d say it has a lot to do with the fact that they have never used them until now and have gone relatively unknown so far in their short lives. Sophie has likely seen how the press treat the York princesses and does not want that for her children whereas Peter and Zara have definitely gotten off a lot more lightly.

 

[Durham]

I’d say it has a lot to do with the fact that they have never used them until now and have gone relatively unknown so far in their short lives. Sophie has likely seen how the press treat the York princesses and does not want that for her children whereas Peter and Zara have definitely gotten off a lot more lightly.

Yes I agree. That's what I meant by the extra scrutiny. Much better of without.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Possibly. It's also to do with the extra scrutiny that comes with the style I think.

I’d say it has a lot to do with the fact that they have never used them until now and have gone relatively unknown so far in their short lives. Sophie has likely seen how the press treat the York princesses and does not want that for her children whereas Peter and Zara have definitely gotten off a lot more lightly.

That make a great deal of sense.


On a related question - Can anyone explain why, compared with other European royal families, the British royal family allows its members so much freedom to make their own decisions in relation to titles?

In recent history, I can recall only rare instances in other European monarchies where a monarch allowed members of their family to make their own decision relating to titles, rather than applying the laws or conventions of the day.

In the UK it seems to be a different story. Over Queen Elizabeth II's reign alone, Princesses Alexandra and Anne and their husbands were allowed to accept or refuse titles for their husbands and children, Prince Edward was reportedly allowed to pick Earl of Wessex over Duke of Cambridge as his peerage title, the Wessex and Sussex couples were allowed to refuse the conventional titles for their children, and the Duchess of Cornwall was allowed to use one of her lower titles. There are more examples to be found from earlier reigns, e.g. Princess Margaret's husband being allowed to make the decision about a peerage or Princess Patricia of Connaught being allowed to resign her title.

Why is the British Royal Family so idiosyncratic in this way?

 

[Gawin]

That make a great deal of sense.


On a related question - Can anyone explain why, compared with other European royal families, the British royal family allows its members so much freedom to make their own decisions in relation to titles?

In recent history, I can recall only rare instances in other European monarchies where a monarch allowed members of their family to make their own decision relating to titles, rather than applying the laws or conventions of the day.

In the UK it seems to be a different story. Over Queen Elizabeth II's reign alone, Princesses Alexandra and Anne and their husbands were allowed to accept or refuse titles for their husbands and children, Prince Edward was reportedly allowed to pick Earl of Wessex over Duke of Cambridge as his peerage title, the Wessex and Sussex couples were allowed to refuse the conventional titles for their children, and the Duchess of Cornwall was allowed to use one of her lower titles. There are more examples to be found from earlier reigns, e.g. Princess Margaret's husband being allowed to make the decision about a peerage or Princess Patricia of Connaught being allowed to resign her title.

Why is the British Royal Family so idiosyncratic in this way?

My guesses:

(1) As the "fountain of honour" the Queen can choose to respect a family member's wishes regarding titles or not. She obviously chooses the former (at least in terms of choosing not to use or accept a style or title. If Beatrice and Eugenie demanded that their children be HRHs, I believe the Queen would refuse).

(2) Peerage Titles: In the UK peerage titles confer not only a social status but also a legal status. I could be wrong but I don't believe that is true in other countries. For example, until recently British peers were entitled to a seat in the House of Lords which still wielded at least some political power.

Because of this, it is possible that Angus Ogilvy and Mark Phillips were sensitive to the fact that in an increasingly democratic society, many people believe that a peerage should be earned, based on the recipient's merits, and not simply awarded because he has married a member of the BRF. For example, Antony Armstrong-Jones was criticized for accepting an earldom months after his marriage to Princess Margaret.

Perhaps Edward was given an earldom rather than a dukedom because it was decided to create him Duke of Edinburgh once Charles ascends the throne (assuming Philip has already died). I suspect the decision may also have been a part of a "slimming down" effort due the RF's unpopularity at that time, in the wake of the failed Wales & York marriages and Diana's death. In a somewhat similar fashion, Infanta Cristina of Spain was deprived of her ducal title as a result of her involvement in the Noos scandal.

(3) HRH style: Again, I believe the reason it was announced that Edward and Sophie's children would not use the HRH might be due to a "slimming down" effort on the part of the BRF as well as the fact that Edward and Sophie did not intend to be working royals.

(4) I suspect the BRF is currently rethinking their approach to peerage titles as well as George V's LP regulating the HRH. For example, under the present rules/customs Prince Louis will be awarded a dukedom and (assuming his father becomes King) his children will be entitled to the HRH. But his older sister Charlotte, who precedes him in the line of succession, would not become a Duchess nor would her children inherit her HRH.

But because the Queen is (1) a traditionalist and (2) very conservative, rather than simply overhauling the system (as the Luxembourg royal family has done) she prefers to deal with the issue on a willy-nilly, case-by-case basis.

 

[muriel]

That make a great deal of sense.


On a related question - Can anyone explain why, compared with other European royal families, the British royal family allows its members so much freedom to make their own decisions in relation to titles?

In recent history, I can recall only rare instances in other European monarchies where a monarch allowed members of their family to make their own decision relating to titles, rather than applying the laws or conventions of the day.

In the UK it seems to be a different story. Over Queen Elizabeth II's reign alone, Princesses Alexandra and Anne and their husbands were allowed to accept or refuse titles for their husbands and children, Prince Edward was reportedly allowed to pick Earl of Wessex over Duke of Cambridge as his peerage title, the Wessex and Sussex couples were allowed to refuse the conventional titles for their children, and the Duchess of Cornwall was allowed to use one of her lower titles. There are more examples to be found from earlier reigns, e.g. Princess Margaret's husband being allowed to make the decision about a peerage or Princess Patricia of Connaught being allowed to resign her title.

Why is the British Royal Family so idiosyncratic in this way?

The BRF is a large family and they have had to adapt the system with time. The 1917 LPs provide a framework, by but the Queen has had ato adapt the styles and titles offered to reflect the situation.

Think of it as a few distinct phases:

> Early in the Queen's reign, she had to rely on aunts, uncles and then cousins, all HRHs, to help support her in the role and carry out engagements on her behalf.

> With time, the reliance on those relatives reduced as the Queen's own children were old enough to carry out engagements.

> What followed was a mixed bag, with all the drama's in the 1990s, and some real knocks to the monarchy.

> A period of calm for the monarchy for around 20 years in the new millenium, with a decidely more egalitarian society, with a lot less deference for hereditiary priveledge. Along the way, there has been genuine preference amongst the people of these fair isles for a smaller, more cost-effective monarchy.

With the monarch as the font of all honour, the Queen has not been shy to adapt the system to make it work in the circumstances, taking into account what is probably best for The Firm and the concerned individuals.

 

[KellyAtLast]

I still think it's unfair that Sons can pass their titles to their children and their spouse can use the female version of their title but a daughter is not allowed the same thing.. They need to change that like yesterday..

 

[JR76]

I still think it's unfair that Sons can pass their titles to their children and their spouse can use the female version of their title but a daughter is not allowed the same thing.. They need to change that like yesterday..

When the King of Sweden gave titles to the children of his second daughter a third of the forums raged, one third cheered and one third remained indifferent. It's hard to please everyone.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't see them changing to extend the HRHs but rather they will go the other way and restrict it further - to only the children of the heir apparent in each generation.

The passing of titles is up to the law makers and the ones most opposed to it are the hereditary peers themselves - including those with daughters who would inherit and no sons to pass it on. 20 years ago my great-uncle was such a peer - two daughters and no son but he voted five times against allowing daughters to inherit titles preferring for his title to become extinct rather than pass to his elder daughter.

It will keep coming up but until they actually think it is worth changing it won't. It is more likely to remove the hereditary status of peers than give daughters the right to inherit.