Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

Returning to the styling of royal duchesses dowager, which has been discussed several times in this thread lately: I wonder if the styling of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent after her oldest son's marriage in 1961 (which was copied in 1974 by Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) was affected by the existing customs of the peerage.

Dowager Peeresses

According to Debrett's Correct Form:

"Officially the widow of a peer is known as the Dowager Countess (or whatever) of X, unless there is already a dowager peeress of the family still living. In the latter event, the widow of the senior peer of the family retains the title of Dowager for life, and the widow of the junior peer in that family is known by her Christian name, e.g., Mary, Countess of X, until she becomes the senior widow. . . . When the present peer is unmarried, by custom the widow of the late peer continues to call herself as she did when her husband was living, i.e., without the prefix of (a) dowager, or (b) her Christian name. Should the present peer marry, it is usual for the widowed peeress to announce the style by which she wishes to be know in future."(113) This last bit is twentieth century, and Black's agrees: most widows don't use "dowager" at all anymore, and simply use the Mary, Countess of X option, announcing in the press the style they will be using.​

"Black's" is listed as the 1932 edition of Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to Their Correct Use, published by A. & C. Black Ltd., so most duchesses dowager apparently used the style Mary, Duchess of X, by 1932.

1961 was the first time that the situation of a royal duchess dowager needing to change her style arose in the British royal family. (It potentially could have arisen earlier as the Duchess of Albany's only son inherited the dukedom of Albany and married in his mother's lifetime, but the new duke inherited Coburg and Gotha before marriage and he and his new wife were known as the Duke and Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so the duchess dowager continued to be known as The Duchess of Albany.) Therefore, there was no example in 1961 for royal duchesses dowager, but the current British custom for a non-royal duchess dowager would have been to announce in the press that she would be using the style Marina, Duchess of Kent.

In that light, the question for me is not necessarily why she didn't use The Dowager Duchess / Duchess Dowager of Kent (neither did most non-royal dowagers of her generation) but why she didn't use HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent (following the custom for non-royal duchesses dowager) or HRH The Princess George, Duchess of Kent.

 

[Prinsara]

Returning to the styling of royal duchesses dowager, which has been discussed several times in this thread lately: I wonder if the styling of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent after her oldest son's marriage in 1961 (which was copied in 1974 by Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) was affected by the existing customs of the peerage.

In that light, the question for me is not necessarily why she didn't use The Dowager Duchess / Duchess Dowager of Kent (neither did most non-royal dowagers of her generation) but why she didn't use HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent (following the custom for non-royal duchesses dowager) or HRH The Princess George, Duchess of Kent.

Possibly because Marina was justifiably-inordinately proud of her royal and imperial lineage, which would have seemed a lot more substantial than "The Princess George". I doubt she would have settled for plain "Marina", even with her HRH.

 

[Darius1]

Not really a current title, but hasn't the Queen been greeted with "Vive La Duchesse" when she's gone to Normandy?

I understand this is HM's title when in the Channel Islands as they are the only remnant of the Dukedom of Normandy.

 

[Darius1]

Are you sure you're considering the incredibly specific circumstances under which Philip got married? Marina married in in 1934; it was a completely different world by 1947.

He didn't give up his title and status to get married; he gave them up to be a naturalized British citizen, which everyone has to do. But it wasn't a requirement to marry Princess Elizabeth; he didn't have to; no one from the court ordered or even suggested it. It was basically one of his uncle's (who'd had his own experiences with British distaste for "foreigners") brilliant schemes that Philip would be as appealing a consort to the xenophobic, war-exhausted British of the time if he were as British as possible. Given how Philip had already gone to school there and served in the Navy during the war and "spoke only English", I'm sure he probably felt rather British already. If Henri de Monpezat "traded in" his questionable title to be a prince, I'm not sure why trading in a mere foreign princely title to be a British royal duke and consort is meant to be a slight.

As it happens, they found out he didn't have to be naturalized after all, so in theory I think Philip could have reclaimed his Greek/Danish title if he had ever felt remorse or retained any attachment. It doesn't seem to have happened.

Wanting to pass some name to his children and descendants? That definitely happened. But the fight was about Mountbatten, not Greece and Denmark.

This was more to do with his naturalisation as a British Subject. When Marina married I suspect she automatically took on her husband's nationality. Had Philip not renounced his Greek and Danish titles his children would automatically have been born Princes of Greece and Denmark.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Prince Harry 'worried about day Charles would be King and burden on Archie' - Daily Star

In an explosive new book Finding Freedom authors Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie have claimed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decide to "forgo a title for their son, because they wanted him to be a private citizen."

They claim Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king.

[...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...]

The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."​

This seems to contradict what a "senior source" told Robert Jobson of the London Evening Standard in 2019:

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.​

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

 

[JR76]

I understand this is HM's title when in the Channel Islands as they are the only remnant of the Dukedom of Normandy.

The Queen is the Duke of Normandy not the Duchess of Normandy.

 

[Prinsara]

The Queen is the Duke of Normandy not the Duchess of Normandy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy#Title_today

To the Islanders, she's the Duke. To the Normans as a matter of spontaneous courtesy, she's the Duchess, I suppose, but they weren't yelling "Vive Le Duc".

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Harry 'worried about day Charles would be King and burden on Archie' - Daily Star

In an explosive new book Finding Freedom authors Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie have claimed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decide to "forgo a title for their son, because they wanted him to be a private citizen."

They claim Meghan and Harry want to wait until Archie is at an age where can can decide "which path" he wants to take - making them worry about the day Prince Charles would become king.

[...]

A senior aide close to the couple, who was close to the couple at the time, told Durand and Scoobie: "To not have a senior role in the Royal family but have a title is just a burden."

[...]

The Finding Freedom authors write: "They shared their concerns with Charles, who said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent, a legal instrument in the form of a written order issued by a reigning monarch, that would change this style."​

This seems to contradict what a "senior source" told Robert Jobson of the London Evening Standard in 2019:

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.​

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

This is quite confusing. At the start Prince Harry and Meghan wanted no royal or aristocratic title for Archie. Why is Archie being given a title by King Charles III?

 

[Denville]

This is quite confusing. At the start Prince Harry and Meghan wanted no royal or aristocratic title for Archie. Why is Archie being given a title by King Charles III?

He will automatically become HRH Prince Archie when Charles becomes King.. Unless Charles makes it known that he wont be known as a Prince..

 

[Denville]

Possibly because Marina was justifiably-inordinately proud of her royal and imperial lineage, which would have seemed a lot more substantial than "The Princess George". I doubt she would have settled for plain "Marina", even with her HRH.

From waht I've heard of her, I think that's true. she would not wnat to be plain Marina..

 

[Durham]

This is quite confusing. At the start Prince Harry and Meghan wanted no royal or aristocratic title for Archie. Why is Archie being given a title by King Charles III?

I had hoped we'd have less no more of them. Seems pointless.

And I do dislike this notion that it's their (anyone in the royal family) "right" to be a HRH. It's nobody's right, it's a privilege & an honour for anyone to have this style.

It's needs to be rationed & employed by those who work for the British people.

 

[Denville]

I had hoped we'd have less no more of them. Seems pointless.

And I do dislike this notion that it's their (anyone in the royal family) "right" to be a HRH. It's nobody's right, it's a privilege & an honour for anyone to have this style.

It's needs to be rationed & employed by those who work for the British people.

It is rationed. Its confined to those who are closest to the queen.. ie the children and grandchildren of the monarch.
I dont know the Sussexes want a title for Archie, but he will be HRH and prince when his grandfather becomes King.. unless his parents and Charles agree that he is not going to be HRH.

 

[Durham]

Rationed more then. They're too many as it is.

And realistically going forward if male line grandchildren like Archie are to continue being given this style then female line grandchildren will have to be as well. So that inevitably means the children of both Charlotte & Louis.

It's too much.

 

[Somebody]

It is rationed. Its confined to those who are closest to the queen.. ie the children and grandchildren of the monarch.
I dont know the Sussexes want a title for Archie, but he will be HRH and prince when his grandfather becomes King.. unless his parents and Charles agree that he is not going to be HRH.

His parents don't necessarily have to agree. It's up to the Sovereign...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is quite confusing. At the start Prince Harry and Meghan wanted no royal or aristocratic title for Archie. Why is Archie being given a title by King Charles III?

The second article quoted was published first.

The article asserting that "on the change of reign the George V convention would apply" and elevate Archie Mountbatten-Windsor to Prince Archie was published at the time of his birth.

The book asserting that "[Charles] said he would consider when became king issuing a new letters patent" to assure that Archie would forgo a royal title until of age to decide for himself was published only a few days ago.

Had Philip not renounced his Greek and Danish titles his children would automatically have been born Princes of Greece and Denmark.

It is true that European royal titles are traditionally passed down by fathers, but should King George VI have requested that Philip be granted leave to keep the titles Prince of Greece and Prince of Denmark on a non-hereditary footing, I think the kings of Greece and Denmark would have been accommodating.

 

[Denville]

Rationed more then. They're too many as it is.

And realistically going forward if male line grandchildren like Archie are to continue being given this style then female line grandchildren will have to be as well. So that inevitably means the children of both Charlotte & Louis.

It's too much.

I dont realy see that it matters,. It does not mean that they have to be on the royal working roster or that they get any tax payers money...

 

[Durham]

I dont realy see that it matters,. It does not mean that they have to be on the royal working roster or that they get any tax payers money...

Well, these styles & titles confer status & dignity on the individual who have them so they need to be awarded sparingly. Ideally only those who support the crown should have them.

The rest can use the courtesy titles of the younger children of dukes (since that what they are anyway) if they want one. The money issue is a red herring.

 

[Denville]

Well, these styles & titles confer status & dignity on the individual who have them so they need to be awarded sparingly. Ideally only those who support the crown should have them.

The rest can use the courtesy titles of the younger children of dukes (since that what they are anyway) if they want one. The money issue is a red herring.

I just dont see that it matters. I'd like to see Andrew lose his HRH but its not likely to happen. Other than that there are only 4 HRHs in Harry's generation.. and only 3 in the next gen.

 

[Prinsara]

I just dont see that it matters. I'd like to see Andrew lose his HRH but its not likely to happen. Other than that there are only 4 HRHs in Harry's generation.. and only 3 in the next gen.

We don't know that Louise and James won't pick theirs up. Doesn't seem likely, but we don't know for sure.

 

[Denville]

We don't know that Louise and James won't pick theirs up. Doesn't seem likely, but we don't know for sure.

I doubt it.. but IMO its not that big a deal if they do. Perhaps in Wills reign HRH will be confined to the children of the heir.. but I think we can cope with Eugenie, Bea, etc....

 

[Durham]

I just dont see that it matters. I'd like to see Andrew lose his HRH but its not likely to happen. Other than that there are only 4 HRHs in Harry's generation.. and only 3 in the next gen.

Well they'd be another three in Harry's generation if it was already all grand children (male or female line). And a further three in Charles'. And four in the queen's.

I understand that you don't see it matters. It's obviously something which attracts different points of view.

Less is more in this case to my way of thinking.

 

[Somebody]

I just dont see that it matters. I'd like to see Andrew lose his HRH but its not likely to happen. Other than that there are only 4 HRHs in Harry's generation.. and only 3 in the next gen.

It would be 4 if Archie also becomes a royal highness upon his grandfather's ascension to the throne.

 

[Denville]

It would be 4 if Archie also becomes a royal highness upon his grandfather's ascension to the throne.

I think that's unlikley since they dont even use his courtesty title as an earl...

 

[JSH]

It is entirely possible that the Sussexes don't have Archie use his courtesy title now in order to avoid confusion when Charles becomes king and Archie drops any courtesy title and takes up his HRH Prince title.

 

[Denville]

It is entirely possible that the Sussexes don't have Archie use his courtesy title now in order to avoid confusion when Charles becomes king and Archie drops any courtesy title and takes up his HRH Prince title.

I don't see why.. they can ask for him not to have the HRH.. he doesn't HAVE to have it.. and other people inherit titles and give up using courtesy titles and there's no confusion. As Archie is mainly known to the press by his first name, he'll still be Archie, even if he does become a prince. I think that they decided that he would be jsut Master Archie, partly because they were planning on leaving royal life and partly because his courtesty title was a rather unfortunate one.. I think that "Earl of Dumbarton" was bound to get jokes made abuot it.

 

[Somebody]

I don't see why.. they can ask for him not to have the HRH.. he doesn't HAVE to have it.. and other people inherit titles and give up using courtesy titles and there's no confusion. As Archie is mainly known to the press by his first name, he'll still be Archie, even if he does become a prince. I think that they decided that he would be jsut Master Archie, partly because they were planning on leaving royal life and partly because his courtesty title was a rather unfortunate one.. I think that "Earl of Dumbarton" was bound to get jokes made abuot it.

Yes, that might have played a part; although in that case the more logical thing to do (imho) was to just use the title of younger sons, so have all their children styled as Lord/Lady ... as any other children would have been as children of a duke.

 

[Prinsara]

I don't see why.. they can ask for him not to have the HRH.. he doesn't HAVE to have it.. and other people inherit titles and give up using courtesy titles and there's no confusion. As Archie is mainly known to the press by his first name, he'll still be Archie, even if he does become a prince. I think that they decided that he would be jsut Master Archie, partly because they were planning on leaving royal life and partly because his courtesty title was a rather unfortunate one.. I think that "Earl of Dumbarton" was bound to get jokes made abuot it.

I agree with the people who have already said that Harry and Meghan could have asked HM for any other earldom for Harry if that were the issue. She has been known to be accommodating.

 

[Denville]

Yes, that might have played a part; although in that case the more logical thing to do (imho) was to just use the title of younger sons, so have all their children styled as Lord/Lady ... as any other children would have been as children of a duke.

I think it was an unfortunate courtesy title.. had he been Earl of Kent (I'm just making up a title)... he could have been Archie Lord Kent.. and probably mostly called Archie in the papers and by his parents when referring to him.. but I do think that giving the title Earl of Dumbarton was not well thought out.. Even if the press only used it now and then, I suspect there would be jokes about Dumbo etc.
but i think that by the time A was born, they were on the way to a get out, and they wanted to show their modern credentials by saying "we just want him to be plain Archie MW... " and they din't want him to be Lord A or a sister to be Lady Petunia MW

 

[Denville]

I agree with the people who have already said that Harry and Meghan could have asked HM for any other earldom for Harry if that were the issue. She has been known to be accommodating.

Probably they didn't think far ahead either...

 

[Mbruno]

I think it was an unfortunate courtesy title.. had he been Earl of Kent (I'm just making up a title)... he could have been Archie Lord Kent.. and probably mostly called Archie in the papers and by his parents when referring to him.. but I do think that giving the title Earl of Dumbarton was not well thought out.. Even if the press only used it now and then, I suspect there would be jokes about Dumbo etc.
but i think that by the time A was born, they were on the way to a get out, and they wanted to show their modern credentials by saying "we just want him to be plain Archie MW... " and they din't want him to be Lord A or a sister to be Lady Petunia MW

He could use Lord Kilkeel instead as his courtesy title if he wanted to, but it is not terribly flattering either (think Archie Kilkeel or Archie Dumbarton).


Of course, if he became an HRH, he could be simply Archie Sussex in a British school and that would actually sound nice, I think.