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.
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.
A lot of people are pretty ambivalent about royalty. This is not to be confused with the monarchy as an institution. Most as a consequence are pretty indifferent as to what they choose to call themselves. A resulting seemingly haphazard approach to styles & titles is just a reflection of that general culture imo.
Gawin, muriel, and Durham, thank you for the insightful replies. I have some followup questions to ask (which anyone is welcome to answer).
I notice two principal considerations in the suggested explanations.
(1) Adapting titles to changes in society: This consideration is not special to Britain; the majority of the other monarchies of Europe have also adapted titles to suit changing demands. But the other monarchies have generally used a more standardized approach.
The monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg issued decrees, and the government of the Netherlands passed a law, laying out the altered rules.
The monarchs of Sweden and Norway adapted titles case-by-case (like Queen Elizabeth II), but their decisions were based on impersonal criteria. For example, whenever the HRH title was deprived or withheld from certain members of the Swedish or Norwegian royal families, announcements were issued explaining that HRH was limited to family members who would hold an official public role.
But British monarchs do not explain their "adaptations" (if that is what they are) as alterations to the general rules (as in Belgium or Spain) or as carefully considered approaches to adapting the monarchy (as in Norway or Sweden). Rather, they explain them as the personal "wish" or "choice" of the individual family member. Why?
(2) Acceptance from the queen and the public when royal family members wish to break with tradition regarding their titles: If this is the chief reason for the British royal family's haphazard treatment of titles, then why is Britain an outlier amongst the European royal families?
Are the British queen and the British public more accepting of case-by-case breaks with tradition than the rest of Western Europe? Are members of the British royal family more inclined to want to be called by a non-traditional title or no title, compared to members of the other European royal families? And why?
