Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
King George V, despite disagreeing with his father's decision, created the Duke of Teck (son of Princess Mary of Cambridge) HH and made his cousins Helena Victoria and Marie Louise HH Princesses in 1917 when they renounced their German titles of Princess of Schleswig-Holstein.

Queen Victoria created her British female-line grandchildren HH.

The children of the future Queen Anne were referred to as HH and HRH.

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

But weren't those female line grand daughters' (of Victoria) HH's attached to foreign not British titles?

The Teck HH confuses me somewhat. It wasn't created because he was a female line descendent (in this case gt grandson) of a British monarch but as a sort of courtesy to his late (German) father who had also been made a HH by Victoria.

I'd always understood that George V left Helena Victoria & Marie Louise as princesses out of courtesy. There were princesses of nowhere I think in effect. They weren't princesses of Great Britain & Ireland.

And Anne's son William Duke of Gloucester was accepted by William iii as the de facto heir after his mother so that would explain his titles.
 
Last edited:
But weren't those female line grand daughters (of Victoria) HH's attached to foreign not British titles?

Yes, with the exception of Helena Victoria and Marie Louise after 1917.

I'd always understood that George V left Helena Victoria & Marie Louise as princesses out of courtesy. There were princesses of nowhere I think in effect. They weren't princesses of Great Britain & Ireland.

My point was that since 1917 their title of Princess was a British and not a German one.

And my understanding is that all princesses of Great Britain and Ireland are "princesses of nowhere". Princes/ses who did not use a territorial designation derived from their father's dukedom have always been known without any territorial designation. "Of Great Britain" appears to be an "explanatory" designation rather than a component of the title.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Prince_of_what

For instance, the 1917 Letters Patent simply confers "the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess", and there is no mention of a territorial designation attached to "Prince or Princess".


The Teck HH confuses me somewhat. It wasn't created because he was a female line descendent (in this case gt grandson) of a British monarch but as a sort of courtesy to his late (German) father.

Are you sure of that? Were there any cases of German princelings of no relation to the British royal family who were created HH by the British monarch?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that Marie Louise & Helena Victoria were strictly speaking British princesses from 1917. Are there LP's confirming this?

I take your point about territorial designations. It's a grey area really.

I've since updated my post to include that the first Duke of Teck was gifted the style of HH by Queen Victoria. So I presume George V felt it right to do the same for this duke's son who also of course just happened to be his brother in law.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that Marie Louise & Helena Victoria were strictly speaking British princesses from 1917. Are there LP's confirming this?

King George V published a declaration in 1917 that all descendants of Queen Victoria who were his subjects (that would include Marie Louise and Victoria Helena) relinqushed all of their "German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations". Since the Princess styles used by them after 1917 could not have been German, the only other possibility that I see is that they were British.


https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#German_titles_1917

And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.​


I've since updated my post to include that the first Duke of Teck was gifted the style of HH by Queen Victoria. So I presume George V felt it right to do the same for this duke's son who also of course just happened to be his brother in law.

I think I understand what you mean. However, I don't think that the first Duke would have been gifted his British HH if he had not married into the British royal family.
 
King George V published a declaration in 1917 that all descendants of Queen Victoria who were his subjects (that would include Marie Louise and Victoria Helena) relinqushed all of their "German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations". Since the Princess styles used by them after 1917 could not have been German, the only other possibility that I see is that they were British.


https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#German_titles_1917

And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.​




I think I understand what you mean. However, I don't think that the first Duke would have been gifted his British HH if he had not married into the British royal family.

Yes absolutely. Clearly he was given (granted, gifted, whatever the right word is) HH because he'd married a British grand daughter of George iii. I'm surmising that George V felt that his heir should have the same status.

Was the house of ML & VH's father German or Danish? I'm confused.
 
Yes absolutely. Clearly he was given (granted, gifted, whatever the right word is) HH because he'd married a British grand daughter of George iii. I'm surmising that George V felt that his heir should have the same status.

Was the house of ML & VH's father German or Danish? I'm confused.

Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise's father is Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, who was in the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg. The House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg was "was a branch of the dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg of the House of Oldenburg". From wikipedia (not exactly accurate), the house was listed Denmark for Country, but then there was a war between Germany and Denmark on Schleswig-Holstein. The Parent House is House of Oldenburg. I would say the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg is both Danish and German.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was a member of House of Glücksburg (before 1947), shortened from House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.
 
Indeed, the issue of whether the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were or ought to be Danish or German was so contentious it caused a number of constitutional crises and wars.

Since King George V took action against his Schleswig-Holstein cousins' titles I presume he considered the titles to be German, unless he was acting out of an abundance of caution.

From the Heraldica page above:

The Court Circular published to-day contains the following announcement:
The King has been pleased to direct that Royal Warrants shall be prepared declaring that Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein shall henceforth be styled Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise respectively, and whereas the Princesses of the Royal Family who bear the Title of Duchess of Saxony and who are his Subjects have, at His Majesty's desire, relinquished the said Title, he has also been pleased to direct that Royal Warrants shall be prepared declaring their present styles and making such corresponding alteration in their arms as may be necessary.

(Times, Jun 20, 1917, p. 7C.)

I have not found trace of a warrant for the princesses in the London Gazette or in the Warrant Books at the National Archives; nor are any recorded in the College of Arms, mss series I.
 
It is interesting to see how the LP of 1948 (about the style and title of children of the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip) referred to Philip as 'Prince Philip':
the children of the marriage solemnised between Our Most dearly beloved Daughter Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh

The correspondence by 'G.A. Newsom' did not mention Philip at all but limited it to "shall be granted to any sons or daughters who may be born to Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh".
 
It is interesting to see how the LP of 1948 (about the style and title of children of the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip) referred to Philip as 'Prince Philip':


The correspondence by 'G.A. Newsom' did not mention Philip at all but limited it to "shall be granted to any sons or daughters who may be born to Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh".

IIRC, George VI supposedly crossed out the word Prince before he signed the LP. I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. :flowers:
 
IIRC, George VI supposedly crossed out the word Prince before he signed the LP. I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. :flowers:

Yes, George VI crossed out the "Prince" before signing the 1947 Letter Patent. So PrincePhilip was known as His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten, Duke of E.
In 1957 when the Queen made him a British Prince in his own rights.
(edited)
 
Last edited:
IIRC, George VI supposedly crossed out the word Prince before he signed the LP. I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. :flowers:

That happened on a different occasion several months later. The LP included a reference to him as prince; otherwise a different LP would have been publicized. The 'crossing out of the word prince' did happen but it was in the draft for Charles' birth certificate this amendment was made - according to this note on wikipedia:
"Home Office, Whitehall. S.W.1. 28 February 1955. "My dear George {Coldstream, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery}, We were speaking the other day about the designation of the Duke of Edinburgh. In 1948 the General Register Office consulted us about the way in which the birth of Prince Charles was to be registered. They sent over a suggested entry, in column 4 of which (name and surname of father) they had inserted: 'His Royal Highness Prince Philip'. I consulted {Sir Alan} Lascelles Principal Private Secretary to the King on this and he laid my letter before The King, together with the draft entry, I have in my possession the entry, as amended by The King in his own hand. The King amended column 4, name and surname of father, to read: "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". Austin Strutt {Assistant Under-Secretary of State}"
 
Last edited:
that makes more sense. I can't imagine the King striking out the wrod Prince.. If it was wrong, it would have to be more official than that, and a new typed version issued.
 
That happened on a different occasion several months later. The LP included a reference to him as prince; otherwise a different LP would have been publicized. The 'crossing out of the word prince' did happen but it was in de draft for Charles' birth certificate this amendment was made - according to this note on wikipedia:

[/I]




As you can see in the quote above, the King amended the column 4 name and surname of the father to read His Royal Highness Philip Duke of Edinburgh. He crossed not Prince as was suggested in the draft by the General Register Office;
He was not a Prince of Britain until 1957 when the Queen issued an LP and conferred on him the title of Prince of Britain.
These were his titles:
• 10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
• 28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten
• 19 November 1947 – 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten
• 20 November 1947 – 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
• 22 February 1957 – 9 April 2021: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
 
Last edited:
:previous:

Not sure what you are trying to say.

Nonetheless, I think we now all agree that the king never crossed out anything in an official version of an LP which was then published unamended. That doesn't make any sense. As Denville said; in that case a new copy would have been made before the king would sign it and the official version would reflect that change. Whether there were any draft version of the LP of 1947 or 1948 that used different titles we don't know - but it wouldn't make a difference.

What we do know is that the king let the mention of Philip as prince pass in the LP of 1948 (so, there is an official reference to 'prince Philip' in 1948!) but amended the 'suggested birth entry' of Charles a few months later to remove the title of 'prince'; not sure what changed in those few months; maybe he was just paying more attention in the later than in the earlier case?!
 
Last edited:
:previous:

Not sure what you are trying to say.

Nonetheless, I think we now all agree that the king never crossed out anything in an official version of an LP which was then published unamended. That doesn't make any sense. As Denville said; in that case a new copy would have been made before the king would sign it and the official version would reflect that change. Whether there were any draft version of the LP of 1947 or 1948 that used different titles we don't know - but it wouldn't make a difference.

What we do know is that the king let the mention of Philip as prince pass in the LP of 1948 (so, there is an official reference to 'prince Philip' in 1948!) but amended the 'suggested birth entry' of Charles a few months later to remove the title of 'prince'; not sure what changed in those few months; maybe he was just paying more attention in the later than in the earlier case?!

"Debate over Prince Philip's titles and honours
Royal title
On the popular, but erroneous, assumption that if Philip had the style of His Royal Highness he was automatically a British Prince, media reports after his marriage to Princess Elizabeth referred to a Prince Philip, with or without reference to any ducal title. This may have been influenced by the fact that he had actually been a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, the use of which titles he had discontinued already. Although the princely title was omitted in the British Regency Act 1953, and in Letters Patent of November 1953 appointing Counsellors of State, it had been included in Letters Patent of 22 October 1948 conferring princely rank on children from Philip's marriage to Elizabeth. King George VI, however, is believed to have been clear and intentional in having withheld the title of Prince from his future son-in-law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh
 
"Debate over Prince Philip's titles and honours
Royal title
On the popular, but erroneous, assumption that if Philip had the style of His Royal Highness he was automatically a British Prince, media reports after his marriage to Princess Elizabeth referred to a Prince Philip, with or without reference to any ducal title. This may have been influenced by the fact that he had actually been a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, the use of which titles he had discontinued already. Although the princely title was omitted in the British Regency Act 1953, and in Letters Patent of November 1953 appointing Counsellors of State, it had been included in Letters Patent of 22 October 1948 conferring princely rank on children from Philip's marriage to Elizabeth. King George VI, however, is believed to have been clear and intentional in having withheld the title of Prince from his future son-in-law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh
What are you trying to say? I am at a loss now: why this quote? Is your answer meant as a rebuttal (nobody disputed the bolded sentence)? Are you trying to provide more clarity and if so, on which issue?

As you correctly quote, the LP of 1948 DID refer to him as Prince Philip. This was never crossed out (which was the comment this discussion started with). So, apparently, the king made a mistake in referring to him as such. As the LP wasn't about Philip's title, I don't think (and I haven't seen anyone suggest) that made him a prince again (that was something that Elizabeth did many years later) but it was at least careless that in such an official document Philip was referred to as a prince.

So, all people who might have referred to him as prince in the period he wasn't one (i.e., between him giving up his Greek title of prince until being given the UK title of prince) should be forgiven for making the same mistake as the king of the UK.
 
Will Prince Louis be the future Duke of York?

That will depend on whether Andrew has a son or not. He could still marry and father a son. Most definitely not until after the current Duke of York passes away.
 
I have a doubt. If Princes William or Harry had married a princess of another kingdom, say Victoria or Madeline, would those princesses have kept their original titles?
 
Will Prince Louis be the future Duke of York?

Since Prince Andrew has no sons, (assuming he does not have any going forward) his dukedom will revert to the crown when he passes away. If he has the longevity of his parents, that could be many decades from now.

After it reverts, the monarch (Charles or William, most likely) is then free to bestow it on Louis or another male royal.

Though the Dukedom has a history of being bestowed on brothers of future Kings, there is no rule giving Louis a right to the York Dukedom or any other. If Andrew is still alive when the Monarch wants to give Louis a Dukedom, another will be given instead. Or if Louis does not want a Dukedom, it will remain with the Crown.

(There are only two Dukedoms that are set aside permanently: Duchy of Cornwall for the heir to the throne, and the Duchy of Lancaster for the Monarch. Everything else is up to the Monarch once it has reverted back to the Crown.)
 
Since Prince Andrew has no sons, (assuming he does not have any going forward) his dukedom will revert to the crown when he passes away. If he has the longevity of his parents, that could be many decades from now.

After it reverts, the monarch (Charles or William, most likely) is then free to bestow it on Louis or another male royal.

Though the Dukedom has a history of being bestowed on brothers of future Kings, there is no rule giving Louis a right to the York Dukedom or any other. If Andrew is still alive when the Monarch wants to give Louis a Dukedom, another will be given instead. Or if Louis does not want a Dukedom, it will remain with the Crown.

(There are only two Dukedoms that are set aside permanently: Duchy of Cornwall for the heir to the throne, and the Duchy of Lancaster for the Monarch. Everything else is up to the Monarch once it has reverted back to the Crown.)

If Charles outlives Andrew, then is there a possibility that it could go to Harry?
 
If Charles outlives Andrew, then is there a possibility that it could go to Harry? Or will it be reserved for the younger brother of the future King alone?

In theory, anything is possible - you can have more than one Dukedom, as Charles now currently does, and William will when he becomes the Duke of Cornwall.

But in practicality, I would say it's extremely unlikely and vastly unnecessary. Harry has a royal Dukedom already. And the Dukedom of York has not always gone to a brother of the King, so it's not atypical for Harry to have a different Dukedom. It doesn't have any attached land or monetary value either, so it wouldn't "do" anything for Harry other than give him another title.
 
Last edited:
To add to my last post: once the Dukedom of York reverts to the Crown, it won't be legally reserved for a future spare. The Monarch can assign it to whomever they choose.

But I think it's likely, given its history since George V, that it will one day be used again for a younger brother of a future monarch (which could be a King or Queen under the modern rules!)
 
I have a doubt. If Princes William or Harry had married a princess of another kingdom, say Victoria or Madeline, would those princesses have kept their original titles?

Yes and no. (Terrible answer, I know!)

As Victoria is next in line for the throne of her country, she would not have given up any title/position from her home country of Sweden. If she had married a Prince such as Harry, he would have likely had to renounce his right to the British throne. For that reason, Victoria would not have married William or any other royal directly in line for their own throne.

If Madeleine had married Prince William she would have had to renounce her own claim to the Swedish throne. I do think she would have maintained her Princess title, as the daughter of a King, BUT, upon more thought, it's not clear, or I am completely wrong. I believe that Prince Phillip's situation was viewed differently at the time, and may have been colored by issues that wouldn't apply to Madeleine.
 
Last edited:
Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?

The media and members of the public are not obliged to use correct styles (for example, the Duke of Cambridge is commonly referred to as Prince William), and I am fine with that.

But it seems it is even more common to refer to Viscount Severn using his first name than it is for the Dukes of Gloucester or Kent, who am I using as examples because they are also less widely known members of the British Royal Family. I hardly ever see them referred to as Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or Edward, Duke of Kent.
 
In theory, anything is possible - you can have more than one Dukedom, as Charles now currently does, and William will when he becomes the Duke of Cornwall.

But in practicality, I would say it's extremely unlikely and vastly unnecessary. Harry has a royal Dukedom already. And the Dukedom of York has not always gone to a brother of the King, so it's not atypical for Harry to have a different Dukedom. It doesn't have any attached land or monetary value either, so it wouldn't "do" anything for Harry other than give him another title.

Why one earth would they give Harry another dukedom, when he has gone to live in the US and clearly sees himself as out of the RF and the world of titles...
 
Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?

The media and members of the public are not obliged to use correct styles (for example, the Duke of Cambridge is commonly referred to as Prince William), and I am fine with that.

But it seems it is even more common to refer to Viscount Severn using his first name than it is for the Dukes of Gloucester or Kent, who am I using as examples because they are also less widely known members of the British Royal Family. I hardly ever see them referred to as Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or Edward, Duke of Kent.

Both of them are princes and are older men who have been around for a long time.... James is only a kid and rarely appears in public, so I think it is simply to make it clear who he is.. younger royal watchers ;probalby think of him as "Edwards son James" and dont think of him as "Vct Severne"
 
I have a doubt. If Princes William or Harry had married a princess of another kingdom, say Victoria or Madeline, would those princesses have kept their original titles?


In the past, foreign princesses who married into the British royal family did not use their foreign titles in the United Kingdom, so I would say no.


Of course I believe that, unless rescinded under domestic law, they keep their titles in their original countries as those are outside British jurisdiction.


Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?


I think James, Viscount Severn, is also a correct style. In fact that is how peers and eldest sons of peers are referred to in the identification page of their UK passports, i.e. [Forename] + [Title (or Courtesy Title)] in the surname field.


Likewise, for a British prince, you can either use HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duke of Cambridge, or HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. It is simply a matter of using the short or the long style. The only difference between princes and peers in that respect is that, for princes, under the LPs of 1917, the forename must be preceded by the prefix "Prince" and the style of "Royal Highness".


Since peers, unlike princes, also use a family name, that can be also added to the long style, e.g. Edward Fitzalan-Howard, Duke of Norfolk, but, in British passports, that is done only in the Observations Page. In the identification page itself, the family name is omitted and replaced by the title, which is odd by international standards (I wonder how the EU felt about that !).


Note that, in announcements of appointments to the royal orders of the knighthood, the following format is used for peers: [Prefix (e.g. The Most Noble or The Right Honourable]+ [Forename(s)]+[Family Name] + [Title designation] +[Post-Nominal Letters], when the family name is not part of the title designation, or [Prefix]+ [Forename(s)] + [Title Rank]+[Title Designation including the family name] +[Post-Nominal Letters] otherwise, see some examples below extracted from the London Gazette.

Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood
St James’s Palace, London SW1
23 April 2003


The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint the undermentioned to be Knights Companions of the Most Noble Order of the Garter:


The Most Noble Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster, OBE, TD, DL.
The Right Honourable Frederick Edward Robin, Baron Butler of Brockwell, GCB, CVO.
The Right Honourable John, Baron Morris of Aberavon, QC.
THE MOST ANCIENT AND MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE THISTLE
Chancery of the Order,
Court of the Lord Lyon, Edinburgh
29th November 1996
The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to make the following appointments within the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle:


The Right Honourable John Campbell ARBUTHNOTT, Viscount of Arbuthnott, CBE, DSC, to be a Knight of the Order;


The Right Honourable Robert ALEXANDER Lindsay, Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, P.C., D.L., to be a Knight of the Order;

 
Last edited:
Out of interest, why is it that the Earl of Wessex's son is so commonly referred to in the press and by the public as James, Viscount Severn, instead of his correct style of Viscount Severn?

The media and members of the public are not obliged to use correct styles (for example, the Duke of Cambridge is commonly referred to as Prince William), and I am fine with that.

But it seems it is even more common to refer to Viscount Severn using his first name than it is for the Dukes of Gloucester or Kent, who am I using as examples because they are also less widely known members of the British Royal Family. I hardly ever see them referred to as Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or Edward, Duke of Kent.

I suspect that one reason for the public referring to James this way is that he is not an HRH or Prince. I don't think it would seem as strange if he was called Prince James. Richard and Edward would have been referred to as Prince Richard and Prince Edward when they were young. We are used to Harry and William being referred to as Prince Harry and Prince William despite the fact they now have peerages. I think those of us who remember members of the RF being born and growing up as children are more likely to refer to them that way and not by the peerage titles they received as adults.
 
Official announcements from BP usually just refer to him as Viscount Severn but the media often include his first name in the same way they use Kate, Duchess of Cambridge.

Also he's often referred to in the same sentence as Lady Louise so I think they just even up the use of first names.

Lady Louise is referred to as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor on royal.uk but usually only as "Windsor" without Mountbatten (unlike Archie who always has M-W) in the media so they don't check a lot of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom