Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Curryong]

It has been stated here a few posts back that Harry is no longer the Duke of Sussex. That is incorrect. He is. And Meghan is the Duchess of Sussex as his wife. As I posted before, she is entitled to be called that and to take that styling.

 

[Pranter]

This reminds me of the hullabaloo over Camilla being called the PoW ...ppl have it in their minds that she is not the PoW, that the Queen didn't 'give' her that title etc etc. Similar issue with the Queen Consort that has popped up more recently....legally Camilla is the PoW since her husband is the PoW. As pointed out Lord knows how many times ..the wife takes the female version of her husband's titles (if she wants).

So much bad info out there online about the Sussexes titles (and Camilla's).



LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

If anyone wants 'evidence' that Camilla is Princess of Wales then just look at what title she uses when in Chester - Countess of Chester.

Why is that significant?

Charles is the Earl of Chester. The Letters Patent creating him as Earl of Chester are the exact same ones that created him Prince of Wales. That means that he was given two titles on that day - Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

If Camilla uses Countess of Chester in Chester then she has to also be The Princess of Wales (of course Tony Blair announced that in the week leading up to the wedding, in the parliament, while also saying that she wouldn't use it but also when he said that for her to be anything other than Queen would mean legislation would have to be passed to strip her of that title.)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think Meghan should not be able to use her title and Harry just be able to use Prince Harry. That way they can day what they want.

Under British law Harry would have to have given up using Duke of Sussex within one year of being created as such. As he didn't it is now too late for him to not be The Duke of Sussex unless the UK parliament is going to formally 'deprive him' of his titles and they aren't going to do that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hereditary peers have always been involved in politics as , until 1999, they were automatically members of the British Parliament ( via the House of Lords). Harry is not an ordinary peer though; he is a royal Duke. His title in the peerage cannot be separated from his dignity of Prince and princes are not supposed to be political.

I am not sure, but did the Duke of Kent or the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of York ( the present holders of the title , I mean) ever vote in the House of Lords when they were members ? Again, since 1999, they are no longer members of the House.

The interesting thing with this reform of the House of Lords is that is also included one additional clause - a new creation of an hereditary peerage was also entitled to keep their seat in the Lords. Kent and Gloucester didn't qualify as they inherited their titles but Philip (Edinburgh), Charles (Chester), Andrew (York) and Edward (Wessex)were all newly created for them. When the reforms happened all of them immediately disclaimed that right ... Edward had never taken his seat.

What would be interesting to find out is whether Harry ever disclaimed that right for himself (I can't find anywhere where that provision has been reformed since 1999). If he didn't then it would be interesting to see what would happen if he tried to take his seat.

The Sussex's may be trying to earn a living but they still have to avoid any political involvement as they will always be aligned with the BRF and Harry is still a very senior member of the family and could be called upon to be Regent if needed for George if he were to become King while a minor.

 

[Mbruno]

Perhaps the question is whether the US recognizes their titles. If the Sussexes plan to stay here, this would be the big question.

The United States does not recognize any foreign title of nobility. If Harry becomes a permanent resident and is issued any U.S. document, it will not include any title (I assume he will be cited as Henry Mountbatten-Windsor). Hoiwever, the private use of titles is not forbidden .



My original comment was not about whether it was appropriate for them to use titles, but rather the title and style that is being used to introduce Meghan in the US: Meghan Markle, The Duchess of Sussex.



In the UK, the following styles are used:

• HRH The Duchess of Sussex
• Rachel Meghan, HRH The Duchess of Sussex (cf. the way Catherine was cited in Prince George's birth certificate )
• Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (in case of divorce and, according to the confusing statement, later retracted (?) by the Palace, how Meghan was supposed to be referred to post-Megexit).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This reminds me of the hullabaloo over Camilla being called the PoW ...ppl have it in their minds that she is not the PoW, that the Queen didn't 'give' her that title etc etc. Similar issue with the Queen Consort that has popped up more recently....legally Camilla is the PoW since her husband is the PoW. As pointed out Lord knows how many times ..the wife takes the female version of her husband's titles (if she wants).

So much bad info out there online about the Sussexes titles (and Camilla's).



LaRae

Provided they are not claiming she has been legally deprived of the title, which would indeed be very wrong, I think that in informal conversation it is acceptable to say "she is not the Princess of Wales" given that she is not using it. After all, it is likewise technically "bad info" from the legal point of view to refer to Queen Letizia as "the Queen of Spain" or Queen Máxima as "the Queen of the Netherlands", but royal watchers do so often and it attracts no complaints.

Under British law Harry would have to have given up using Duke of Sussex within one year of being created as such.

British law does not obligate a peer to use his title; there are peers who have not legally disclaimed (which is what must be done within the one-year window) or been deprived of their peerages, but have nonetheless chosen not to use the title.

 

[Mbruno]

The interesting thing with this reform of the House of Lords is that is also included one additional clause - a new creation of an hereditary peerage was also entitled to keep their seat in the Lords. Kent and Gloucester didn't qualify as they inherited their titles but Philip (Edinburgh), Charles (Chester), Andrew (York) and Edward (Wessex)were all newly created for them. When the reforms happened all of them immediately disclaimed that right ... Edward had never taken his seat.

As far as I understand, the Act also excluded newly created peers. The newly created hereditary peers, including Princess Margaret's husband, were given life peerages so that they could retain their membership. Accordingly, Lord Snowdon did not seat in the House post-1999 as the Earl of Snowdon, but rather as the Baron Armstrong-Jones, see this link.

The royal dukes, including Gloucester and Kent, were also offered the possibility of retaining their seats, but declined it.


There are still 90 seats though that can be occupied by election by hereditary peers. A list of current hereditary peers who are members of the House can be seen in the following Wikipedia article , which also explains how elections are conducted.

British law does not obligate a peer to use his title; there are peers who have not legally disclaimed (which is what must be done within the one-year window) or been deprived of their peerages, but have nonetheless chosen not to use the title.

That is interesting. If I understand it correctly, peerage titles are used in personal documents like British passports. If a peer chooses not to use his title, does he have to ask for the title not to be included in his passport, or is it the other way around, i.e., those who want to include titles in documents have to ask for it?

This question has been discussed and thrashed out before in several other threads on the Forum.

However, Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and has not been forced to drop her title because of her residence there. Several other members of royal houses have lived in the US and retained their titles. There's been no evidence that Harry wishes to acquire American citizenship.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/swedens-princess-madeleine-moving-florida-1132834

Nonetheless, it is correct that, if Harry becomes a US citizen, he will have to renounce his titles. Interestingly, a natural-born citizen of the United States doesn't have to do any such thing, for example if he or she inherits a British peerage or baronetcy, but naturalized citizens are required to renounce the titles they hold at the moment of naturalization. It is very unfair.

 

[Pranter]

Provided they are not claiming she has been legally deprived of the title, which would indeed be very wrong, I think that in informal conversation it is acceptable to say "she is not the Princess of Wales" given that she is not using it. After all, it is likewise technically "bad info" from the legal point of view to refer to Queen Letizia as "the Queen of Spain" or Queen Máxima as "the Queen of the Netherlands", but royal watchers do so often and it attracts no complaints.

But that would be incorrect, she IS the Princess of Wales, regardless if she uses the title or not.



LaRae

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is interesting. If I understand it correctly, peerage titles are used in personal documents like British passports. If a peer chooses not to use his title, does he have to ask for the title not to be included in his passport, or is it the other way around, i.e., those who want to include titles in documents have to ask for it?

There are directories and media reports which mention various peers as not using their titles, but I am not sure whether that extends to legal documents such as passports. However, the discussion here was seemingly centered on whether the Sussexes were obliged to use their ducal titles for giving speeches, and as giving speeches is not a legal matter, no British law would require it.

Andrew should lose his title too. As long as they have their titles and the HRH people who don't know that much about the situation are going to assume they are speaking for the queen.

The Queen obviously doesn't share your opinion about the Dukedoms of her son and grandson. Perhaps you should take it up with her.

Why is that?

But that would be incorrect, she IS the Princess of Wales, regardless if she uses the title or not.



LaRae

In that case, would you agree that it is also incorrect to say "Queen Letizia is the Queen of Spain"?

 

[Mbruno]

In that case, would you agree that it is also incorrect to say "Queen Letizia is the Queen of Spain"?

To be fair, she is only called "Queen Letiza of Spain" or "the Queen of Spain" outside Spain properly. In Spain, she is just "the Queen" or "the Queen Doña Letizia".


I suppose "of Spain" or "of the Netherlands" when used for Letizia and Maxima overseas should not be interpreted as part of their titles, but rather as determiners (technically adjuncts) that are used in English and many other European languages to clarify who the person you are referring to is. Most people in the US for example probably have never heard of Letizia or Maxima, so, if they were cited simply as Queen Letizia or Queen Maxima in a fashion magazine or the Daily Mail, readers wouldn't know which country they are from.


But, in any case, yes, it is technically wrong to call her "Queen of Spain". In Camilla's case, I think it is not wrong, but inappropriate to call her the Princess of Wales as a decision has been made that she would not use that title and the decision was official (as official IMHO as the decision that James and Louise would not be prince/princess).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I more or less agree with what you have written. The central point I was trying to make was that what a royal "is" legally may differ from what she "is" called. Letizia is not legally the Queen of Spain, but is sometimes referred to as such. Camilla is legally the Princess of Wales, but is not referred to as such.

A second point which I suppose I was indirectly making was that different standards of "correct information" seem to be used for British royals compared with non-British royals. For another example, those who use "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Meghan" are often subjected to condemnation from royal watchers, but Wikipedia, bloggers, and so forth use "Princess Elisabetta of Belgium", which is every bit as wrong, without any complaints whatsoever. (The Belgian court decided that "Princess Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein" was acceptable, but not "Princess Elisabetta of Belgium".)

 

[Iluvbertie]

In Camilla's case, I think it is not wrong, but inappropriate to call her the Princess of Wales as a decision has been made that she would not use that title and the decision was official (as official IMHO as the decision that James and Louise would not be prince/princess).

Except the PM announced in parliament that Camilla would be the Princess of Wales and just not use that title.

She also uses Countess of Chester - a title Charles gained at the exact same time as he gained Prince of Wales. The Chester title goes with the Wales one. She can't be Countess of Chester and not also be Princess of Wales.

They announced, at the engagement that she wouldn't use Princess of Wales - not that she wouldn't be Princess of Wales ... a different thing.

 

[Mbruno]

Except the PM announced in parliament that Camilla would be the Princess of Wales and just not use that title.

She also uses Countess of Chester - a title Charles gained at the exact same time as he gained Prince of Wales. The Chester title goes with the Wales one. She can't be Countess of Chester and not also be Princess of Wales.

They announced, at the engagement that she wouldn't use Princess of Wales - not that she wouldn't be Princess of Wales ... a different thing.

Which is why I said it was not wrong , just inappropriate.

 

[royal-blue]

Is Princess Beatrice now a countess?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is Princess Beatrice now a countess?

Not in the U.K.

 

[Heavs]

Nor technically in Italy since they abolished it in 1946. Edo doesn't use a courtesy title socially or for business, preferring to use Mr Mapelli Mozzi so she might use HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Mapelli Mozzi as her sister does.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Nor technically in Italy since they abolished it in 1946. Edo doesn't use a courtesy title socially or for business, preferring to use Mr Mapelli Mozzi

Indeed! Quite a few of the royalty experts who have been quoted saying that the title is not legally recognized in the UK appear to have forgotten that it is not legally recognized in Italy, either (and that Edo himself has never used it).

so she might use HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Mapelli Mozzi as her sister does.

Princess Eugenie herself has never used HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank (preferring to continue with "of York"), but Buckingham Palace uses it for her.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Indeed! Quite a few of the royalty experts who have been quoted saying that the title is not recognized in the UK appear to have forgotten that it is not recognized in Italy, either (and that Edo himself has never used it).

That is true but couldn't it still be applied by courtesy, in the same way that we see members of defunct royal and noble families such as the Greeks, Italians and etc. use theirs?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is true but couldn't it still be applied by courtesy, in the same way that we see members of defunct royal and noble families such as the Greeks, Italians and etc. use theirs?

Yes, it could (I've edited my post to make clearer that I was referring to legal recognition). If Edo himself used a title, in spite of it having no legal status, I expect Buckingham Palace would use it as well, as they have done for other members of defunct royal and noble families. But it would not appear in his official documents, such as his passport.

 

[muriel]

Is Princess Beatrice now a countess?

The short answer is no.

 

[Heavs]

They didn't call his father "Count" on the official engagement announcement either, just Mr. Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi.

However, he used Count in the official announcement of his daughter's engagement in The Telegraph in 2012:

The engagement is announced between Tod, son of Mr and Mrs Michael Yeomans, of Winchester, Hampshire, and Natalia, stepdaughter of the late Mr Christopher Shale and daughter of Mrs Christopher Shale, of Over Worton, Oxfordshire, and Count Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi, of La Garde Freinet, France.

So either he stopped using it or BP decided "Mr" would be more appropriate, although they usually use courtesy titles. Either way, Bea is unlikely to use "Countess".

 

[JR76]

The style of Mr Mappelli-Mozzi is in accordance with UK law while the style of Count Mappelli-Mozzi isn't. It's as simple as that. It's the same as how William Parente, the owner of Wellbeck Abbey, is styled as plain Mr Parente and not as the Prince of Castel Viscardo.

They didn't call his father "Count" on the official engagement announcement either, just Mr. Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi.

However, he used Count in the official announcement of his daughter's engagement in The Telegraph in 2012:



So either he stopped using it or BP decided "Mr" would be more appropriate. Either way, Bea is unlikely to use "Countess".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The style of Mr Mappelli-Mozzi is in accordance with UK law while the style of Count Mappelli-Mozzi isn't. It's as simple as that. It's the same as how William Parente, the owner of Wellbeck Abbey, is styled as plain Mr Parente and not as the Prince of Castel Viscardo.

But as others pointed out, Buckingham Palace has used other titles which are not recognized by UK (or any other country's) law, for example for the defunct royal family of Greece, whose titles have been abolished in Greece.

 

[Heavs]

The style of Mr Mappelli-Mozzi is in accordance with UK law while the style of Count Mappelli-Mozzi isn't. It's as simple as that. It's the same as how William Parente, the owner of Wellbeck Abbey, is styled as plain Mr Parente and not as the Prince of Castel Viscardo.

My post wasn't about the legal use of titles per se but courtesy ones, which Buckingham Palace and the Queen personally have used before but didn't on Beatrice and Edoardo's announcement. However his father used his on his daughter's official engagement announcement in The Telegraph in 2012. Doesn't change anything but I thought it was interesting.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Is Princess Beatrice now a countess?

Only according to her new father-in-law Alessandro. He insisted that is in fact exactly what she is once she marries his son.

I wonder if he attended the wedding this morning?

 

[Mbruno]

Only according to her new father-in-law Alessandro. He insisted that is in fact exactly what she is once she marries his son.

I wonder if he attended the wedding this morning?

We will have to wait and see how Beatrice is referred to in the Court Circular or other official announcements from the Palace.


I understand Eugenie was initially still referred to as "Princess Eugenie of York" even after she had married, but the Palace has now adopted "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank". In Beatrice's case, since her husband appears to be known as Mr Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi in the UK, I assume she will be known as Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi too.


Incidentally, Wikipedia has already dropped "of York" from the title of Beatrice's Wikipedia entry.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

We will have to wait and see how Beatrice is referred to in the Court Circular or other official announcements from the Palace.


I understand Eugenie was initially still referred to as "Princess Eugenie of York" even after she had married, but the Palace has now adopted "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank". In Beatrice's case, since her husband appears to be known as Mr Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi in the UK, I assume she will be known as Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi too.


Incidentally, Wikipedia has already dropped "of York" from the title of Beatrice's Wikipedia entry.

I will write a post about Princess Eugenie's title later on, but what seems to have occurred is that Buckingham Palace adopted "Mrs Jack Brooksbank" while the Duke of York's household and Princess Eugenie herself used, and continue to use, "of York".

I doubt that whoever changed the Wikipedia entry knows any more than the rest of us.

 

[Fijiro]

Only according to her new father-in-law Alessandro. He insisted that is in fact exactly what she is once she marries his son.

I wonder if he attended the wedding this morning?

I though that Italian nobility does not exist anymore.

 

[JR76]

Foreign noble titles and the titles of deposed royals are two different matters in my opinion. The British law (is it a law?) concerning the approved use of foreign titles carried by British citizens aside there's a long standing tradition among the courts of Europe that members of deposed dynasties retain their titles. By now many of them have done so for two centuries. This tradition is so old that Andreas Palailogos could sell his imperial titles and his claims to the throne of the Eastern Roman Empire to King Charles VIII of France whose descendants Louis XII, Francois I, Henri II & Francois II all used imperial titles and honors.

But as others pointed out, Buckingham Palace has used other titles which are not recognized by UK (or any other country's) law, for example for the defunct royal family of Greece, whose titles have been abolished in Greece.