Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

Confirmation that Charles has inherited the Dukedom of Edinburgh:

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/187-hrh-the-duke-of-edinburgh

The Duke of Edinburgh was granted the style and title of Royal Highness on 19 November 1947; on the next day, 20 November, he was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, of Greenwich in the County of London. These peerages are hereditary and on the death of His Royal Highness have passed to his eldest son, HRH The Prince of Wales. In the event of the Prince of Wales or any subsequent holder of these titles succeeding to the Crown, these titles and all others held will merge with the Crown.

 

[Erin9]

Its hard to say. It might happen in hte interests of makng male and female royals more equal.. however, OTOH, the trend is for less titles, less HRHS etc.. so - mabye not. But in that case, if Charlotte does nt get a peerage when she marries, mabye Louis wont get one either. That only the heir and the heir's heir will get titles.

I’d like to see Charlotte treated the same as Louis- whatever that ends up meaning. But, we’ll see.

 

[Gawin]

If Victoria's own marriage to Sir Miles required permission (but my guess is that it did not), their marriage would have been null and void and their son Leopold would have been deemed illegitimate in the UK. Accordingly, Leopold would not have been in line to the baronetcy at birth.

You are correct. Even if Victoria's mother Caroline Mathilde had been subject to the RMA, Victoria was not, by virtue of Caroline Mathilde's marriage to Victoria's father, a foreign count.

For example, the Teck children (who were born and raised in the UK) weren't subject to the RMA because their father Francis Duke of Teck was a foreign prince.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The fact remains that no matter what Harry does or says or where he moves or even if he gets into a situation like Andrew got himself into, Parliament, by law, will not and can not remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason to Crown and Country.

Which law states that Parliament cannot remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason? I have never heard of it. Further, the law is made by Parliament; my understanding is that its sovereignty is confined only by international treaties to which the UK commits itself.

I cannot see any legal reason why Parliament could not remove the titles of every single duke in the United Kingdom, if that was its wish. (Of course, you are right that it will not do that.)

In the UK he wouldn't be introduced like this; he would be HRH The Duke of Sussex; they wouldn't combine the 'prince Harry' and 'Duke of Sussex' (without 'the'!). Given that he is not supposed to use HRH; using his highest title would mean being introduced as 'The Duke of Sussex' without a first name or prince; however, I guess both Harry and Meghan prefer to have their first name attached to it for recognition purposes.

I find it odd that according to the 2020 family agreement he is free to use Prince for any purpose but is not supposed to use HRH for any purpose, given that in countries like the United States, Prince is more recognizable as a royal title than HRH is. I wonder if, because the Palace consistently refers to him as (HRH) The Duke of Sussex, it escaped their minds that referring to himself as Prince Harry was a possibility.

 

[Osipi]

Which law states that Parliament cannot remove ducal titles for any other reason besides treason? I have never heard of it. Further, the law is made by Parliament; my understanding is that its sovereignty is confined only by international treaties to which the UK commits itself.

I cannot see any legal reason why Parliament could not remove the titles of every single duke in the United Kingdom, if that was its wish. (Of course, you are right that it will not do that.)

This is what I'm going by. The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. It's the first and *only* time it's been used to strip titles in modern times (as far as I know).

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com...s-the-case-of-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/

It wouldn't apply to Harry under this act as he's not an "enemy" of Crown and Country and the US and UK are allies and it's not unusual for a person to have dual UK/US citizenship these days.

The other factor here is that if Harry were to be stripped of his ducal titles in Parliament, that opens the door to a new precedent where people would clamor "but... but... what Andrew is accused of is much, much worse!" And there starts a domino effect by the court of popular opinion. A lot of people with significant titles have behaved badly through history and have not lost their titles. However, the title may go into a category of "infamous" such as the Duke of Windsor title did.

I'm an American and learning... don't shoot me yet.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is what I'm going by. The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. It's the first and *only* time it's been used to strip titles in modern times (as far as I know).

The entire Titles Deprivation Act can be read at this link:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/7-8/47/enacted

There is nothing in the Act to limit Parliament's sovereignty over titles. (Even if there were, there would be nothing to bar the current Parliament from repealing the Act.)

It wouldn't apply to Harry under this act as he's not an "enemy" of Crown and Country

Even if he hypothetically were, it would not apply to him since, as stated in the Act, it only concerns "the present war" (i.e. the First World War).

The other factor here is that if Harry were to be stripped of his ducal titles in Parliament, that opens the door to a new precedent where people would clamor "but... but... what Andrew is accused of is much, much worse!" And there starts a domino effect by the court of popular opinion. A lot of people with significant titles have behaved badly through history and have not lost their titles. However, the title may go into a category of "infamous" such as the Duke of Windsor title did.

I cannot imagine even the Duke of York being stripped of his ducal titles by Parliament without a criminal conviction, but as I said, I see no legal (as opposed to political) limitation on Parliament's powers.

 

[Mbruno]

The entire Titles Deprivation Act can be read at this link:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/7-8/47/enacted

There is nothing in the Act to limit Parliament's sovereignty over titles. (Even if there were, there would be nothing to bar the current Parliament from repealing the Act.)



Even if he hypothetically were, it would not apply to him since, as stated in the Act, it only concerns "the present war" (i.e. the First World War).




I cannot imagine even the Duke of York being stripped of his ducal titles by Parliament without a criminal conviction, but as I said, I see no legal (as opposed to political) limitation on Parliament's powers.

I agree. There is no limitation since the UK Parliament is sovereign.



Previously, there could be a limitation if an act of Parliament conflicted with EU law. Even in the latter case, however, Parliament's will would prevail if the said act contained an explicit provision that it would be in force notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in European law. Such provision would possibly put the UK in breach of its obligations in international law (e.g. under the European Union treaties), but could not be subject to judicial review by the UK courts. Without an explicit notwithstanding clause, UK courts could, however, suspend the application of the said act invoking the European Communities Act.

Brexit eliminated the latter possibility and restored the full sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, which was one of its goals in the first place.

 

[Osipi]

Which, to me, boils down to one thing. Parliament has other pressing issues and governmental issues to deal with than to find it a necessity to put Harry's peerage titles (or Andrew's or any peer after him) to even bring them up for discussion in Parliament.

Once you open that can of worms, those worms will never go back in the can again. If, by chance, Parliament did take on the issue of Harry's ducal title today, it would set a precedent of how to handle other peerage titles or could Harry's be a "one off" kind of act of Parliament?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think we can all agree that there is no prospect of serious discussion in Parliament of stripping any royal or non-royal peer of his titles in the foreseeable future (except perhaps in the event that a peer is convicted in court of murder; in that event I could imagine a discussion occurring in Parliament).

 

[Prinsara]

Are there really no peers who have been up on murder charges in the last century or so? (I suppose before the last fifty years or so a convicted murderer might have faced the death penalty, and that would have solved the title problem.)

Murder, I'm not so sure about. Treason or possibly even espionage, I would say yes.

 

[Heavs]

I find it odd that according to the 2020 family agreement he is free to use Prince for any purpose but is not supposed to use HRH for any purpose, given that in countries like the United States, Prince is more recognizable as a royal title than HRH is. I wonder if, because the Palace consistently refers to him as (HRH) The Duke of Sussex, it escaped their minds that referring to himself as Prince Harry was a possibility.

I think HM might have liked to stop them using Prince and DDoS as well but that was trickier because of others like Fergie using DOY commercially and they now do have that peerage forever (unless parliament etc etc). But they definitely didn't want Sussex Royal branded loo roll or something coming down the pipe.

I think it would have been in the spirit of the agreement not to mention in line with their thoughts on The Institution if they had started trying to brand themselves as Harry and Meghan Sussex ala the Yorks but as we've seen that was a non starter.

HRH was the only part she could absolutely insist on and that still got thrown back in her face with "you don't own the word royal" asinine statement. When of course HM does control who gets to call themselves "royal" to a certain extent and why it's such an exclusive club. IE I can't change my name to HRH Princess Heavs in the UK.

 

[Denville]

I think we can all agree that there is no prospect of serious discussion in Parliament of stripping any royal or non-royal peer of his titles in the foreseeable future (except perhaps in the event that a peer is convicted in court of murder; in that event I could imagine a discussion occurring in Parliament).

No its highly unlikely that parliament would do this but it does not mean that they CANT do it.

 

[Mbruno]

Are there really no peers who have been up on murder charges in the last century or so? (I suppose before the last fifty years or so a convicted murderer might have faced the death penalty, and that would have solved the title problem.)

Murder, I'm not so sure about. Treason or possibly even espionage, I would say yes.

The House of Lords can suspend or expel a member of the House who has been convicted of a criminal offense (offence in Britiish spelling), or, more recently, even by a simple breach of the code of conduct, without Parliament having to strip him/her of his/her peerage.

Of course, only a small percentage of the 800 or so hereditary peers are still members of the House of Lords , so that possibility is not applicable to most of them now.

 

[Denville]

Earl Ferrers was convicted of murder and hanged in the 18th century....dont think there have been any other murder convictions since then

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There was a lot of fuss about sexism when it was announced that Mrs Michael Tindall, rather than Mrs Zara Tindall, had given birth to her second child, but the announcement was officially correct! Even a widow would officially be Mrs John Smith.

If by officially correct you refer to being legally correct, that is not the case in the present day. Women with husbands are not legally mandated to use the surnames of their husbands under present UK law, and so it is clear they are not legally required to use the husband's forename either.

https://www.gov.uk/get-married-in-england-or-wales


While we are on the subject, I have a question concerning the apparently conflicting guidance from the British government. The above official website states:

If you want to change your name

You can use your marriage or civil partnership certificate to change your name if both:
you're listed as female in official documentation
you want to take your partner's name

In all other situations you can change your name by deed poll.​

However, another official website states:

Marriage and civil partnership

You do not need a deed poll to take your spouse’s or civil partner’s surname. Send a copy of your marriage or civil partnership certificate to record-holders, such as benefits offices. Your documents will be updated for free.​

https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll


Then is the privilege of taking a spouse's or civil partner's surname without a deed poll limited to individuals listed as female in official documentation, or is it not?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Who the heck calls The Queen “Elizabeth” ? [...]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1390299061723484161

It's an American publication and it doesn't surprise me one bit that they didn't have the courtesy and respect to refer to HM as The Queen. Once again, too, we get "insider" information which is about as credible as a three dollar bill here in the States.

Other reigning Queens and Kings are referred to quite frequently by royal watchers as Margrethe, Philippe, Abdullah, etc. Surely it is only fair to treat the British monarch as an equal of other monarchs, particularly when the publication is not British.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think ACO is referring to not waiting to deprive Archie of his title after Charles becomes king as at that point it would truly deprive him of a title as he will become a prince the instant his great-grandmother dies. While if they make the changes now, he will just never have had a royal title...it is important to do it earlier rather than later if they want to be sure that it is done while the queen is still queen.

BTW, I agree with ACO that if they plan to do so, they better get it arranged during the queen's reign instead of waiting for Charles to do it as one of his first acts as king; that will not go over well with a part of the population. Especially not if at the same time he would make it known that Camilla will be known as queen.

But how Camilla will be known as the King's wife is another title issue which is yet to be arranged. (While an announcement of their "intention" was given out in 2005, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall both subsequently suggested that the ultimate decision is yet to be made.)

From my perspective, both matters are long overdue for an announcement, but it seems that Elizabeth and Charles have deliberately decided to postpone announcements regarding titles. I am not sure whether this is because traditional protocol purportedly considers it a faux pas to make announcements regarding the next reign, or because of divisions of opinion between the Queen and the Prince of Wales, or some other reason.

 

[Somebody]

But how Camilla will be known as the King's wife is another title issue which is yet to be arranged. (While an announcement of their "intention" was given out in 2005, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall both subsequently suggested that the ultimate decision is yet to be made.)

Yes, it is. I was just depicting the worst case scenario because it seems that many of those that might be most upset by Archie not becoming a prince would be the ones that would not want Camilla to be queen.

From my perspective, both matters are long overdue for an announcement, but it seems that Elizabeth and Charles have deliberately decided to postpone announcements regarding titles. I am not sure whether this is because traditional protocol purportedly considers it a faux pas to make announcements regarding the next reign, or because of divisions of opinion between the Queen and the Prince of Wales, or some other reason.

Yes, they are. Although I could see why they would wait on the announcement about Camilla until she truly is queen; it would be helpful to 'in general' arrange the title issue of grandchildren of monarchs - based on the adaptation of the rules regarding the succession to the throne with Charlotte('s future children) being ahead of Louis(' future children).

If that 'summit' that some media wrote about is indeed upcoming, this might be one of the things to discuss as part of the discussion on the future of the royal family.

 

[Hallo girl]

But how Camilla will be known as the King's wife is another title issue which is yet to be arranged. (While an announcement of their "intention" was given out in 2005, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall both subsequently suggested that the ultimate decision is yet to be made.)

From my perspective, both matters are long overdue for an announcement, but it seems that Elizabeth and Charles have deliberately decided to postpone announcements regarding titles. I am not sure whether this is because traditional protocol purportedly considers it a faux pas to make announcements regarding the next reign, or because of divisions of opinion between the Queen and the Prince of Wales, or some other reason.

We are slowly coming out of a pandemic, businesses have been decimated , maybe the royal family want to show empathy with the people and concentrate on other matters.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

We are slowly coming out of a pandemic, businesses have been decimated , maybe the royal family want to show empathy with the people and concentrate on other matters.

That is a possibility, but there were many years prior to the pandemic in which an announcement could have been made.

Yes, they are. Although I could see why they would wait on the announcement about Camilla until she truly is queen; it would be helpful to 'in general' arrange the title issue of grandchildren of monarchs - based on the adaptation of the rules regarding the succession to the throne with Charlotte('s future children) being ahead of Louis(' future children).

Logical moments for such a reform were the announcement of the change (2011), the passage of the legislation in the UK (2013), or the taking effect of the legislation across the Commonwealth Realms (2015). Given it did not happen on any of those occasions, I suppose the Queen either did not want any adaptation or preferred to wait for some future event (most likely a pregnancy for Charlotte or Louis's wife, which would fit with how these matters have been dealt with in the past).

 

[Hallo girl]

I admire your knowledge of the subject but I am sure the queen has everything in hand.
I am happy to wait for her.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I admire your knowledge of the subject but I am sure the queen has everything in hand.
I am happy to wait for her.

I do not pretend to have any more knowledge of Queen Elizabeth's plans or intentions than does any other poster here. My expectation that she will not be issuing any announcements simply comes from the absence of an obvious reason (in my opinion) to postpone the plans if they exist, but we do not need to agree.

 

[ACO]

I think there has been no announcement because right now there is no intention to change anything. When the time comes Charles grandchildren will all become HRH and his wife will become Queen--- for now. Time of course will tell how it all plays out.

But eventually they will have to deal with it. If a slimmed down monarchy is to take place then they need to start putting it into action.

 

[RandyDrx]

I have a question, When The Queen married Prince Philip, their children's surname is "Mountbatten-Windsor" instead of just "Windsor" right? So what happens if in the future a British Queen is marrying a male member of another royal house say, the "House of Bonaparte"? Will their children's surname became "Bonaparte-Mountbatten-Windsor?

Also, I know that they didn't change the name of the Royal House from the "House of Windsor" to the "House of Mountbatten" because of anti-German sentiment back then, but is there a possibility for them to change the name of the Royal House to "House of Bonaparte" if the male spouse is insisting on it and the Queen has no problem with it? Or will they need the Parliament's approval to do that?

 

[Heavs]

I have a question, When The Queen married Prince Philip, their children's surname is "Mountbatten-Windsor" instead of just "Windsor" right? So what happens if in the future a British Queen is marrying a male member of another royal house say, the "House of Bonaparte"? Will their children's surname became "Bonaparte-Mountbatten-Windsor?

Also, I know that they didn't change the name of the Royal House from the "House of Windsor" to the "House of Mountbatten" because of anti-German sentiment back then, but is there a possibility for them to change the name of the Royal House to "House of Bonaparte" if the male spouse is insisting on it and the Queen has no problem with it? Or will they need the Parliament's approval to do that?

It wasn't just anti German sentiment that meant the dynasty didn't change to House of Mountbatten, it was that Elizabeth was the monarch and not Philip.

If a theoretical Princess Wilhelmina married a Bonaparte I can say with almost absolute certainty that we would not suddenly be getting a BRF House of Bonaparte for many, many reasons. And I do think the Queen would also have a problem with it. It's possible it would get added on to M-W for those who needed a surname, but it is a very loaded name.

 

[RandyDrx]

It wasn't just anti German sentiment that meant the dynasty didn't change to House of Mountbatten, it was that Elizabeth was the monarch and not Philip.

If a theoretical Princess Wilhelmina married a Bonaparte I can say with almost absolute certainty that we would not suddenly be getting a BRF House of Bonaparte for many, many reasons. And I do think the Queen would also have a problem with it. It's possible it would get added on to M-W for those who needed a surname, but it is a very loaded name.

May I know what those reasons are? And why do you think the Queen would also have a problem with it?

 

[Denville]

Well for one thing, Bonaparte is the name of one of Englands greatest enemies.. and another, it hasn't been a ruling house sine 1870. SO its not like a Princess of England was marrying a member of a reigning family... plus, the hier is Princess Wilhelmina, not Prince so and so Bonaparte.

 

[Somebody]

I have a question, When The Queen married Prince Philip, their children's surname is "Mountbatten-Windsor" instead of just "Windsor" right? So what happens if in the future a British Queen is marrying a male member of another royal house say, the "House of Bonaparte"? Will their children's surname became "Bonaparte-Mountbatten-Windsor?

Also, I know that they didn't change the name of the Royal House from the "House of Windsor" to the "House of Mountbatten" because of anti-German sentiment back then, but is there a possibility for them to change the name of the Royal House to "House of Bonaparte" if the male spouse is insisting on it and the Queen has no problem with it? Or will they need the Parliament's approval to do that?

The Mountbatten-part was only added in 1960 (Wikipedia explains it more elaborately).

If, George's eldest child would have a daughter whose husband would like his name to be passed on (not sure that he would; Daniel seems fine that his children aren't Westling but Bernadotte); there would be no reason to keep 'Mountbatten' as the male-line would be broken. So, Windsor would surely be kept but they could either leave Mountbatten out or replace it with that groom's surname (more likely if he is 'high society' with an historical name than if he is a random Joe).

 

[Queen Claude]

I have a question, When The Queen married Prince Philip, their children's surname is "Mountbatten-Windsor" instead of just "Windsor" right? So what happens if in the future a British Queen is marrying a male member of another royal house say, the "House of Bonaparte"? Will their children's surname became "Bonaparte-Mountbatten-Windsor?

Also, I know that they didn't change the name of the Royal House from the "House of Windsor" to the "House of Mountbatten" because of anti-German sentiment back then, but is there a possibility for them to change the name of the Royal House to "House of Bonaparte" if the male spouse is insisting on it and the Queen has no problem with it? Or will they need the Parliament's approval to do that?

My understanding is that Mountbatten-Windsor did not come into play until the 1960s. Although I don't think his birth certificate was made public, at birth Charles' names was likely His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George of Edinburgh, Anne would have been similarly styled. Edinburgh is them taking on their father's name.

I don't think that there is a hard and fast rule what surname the children of a future female monarch will take on, when a surname is even needed. Furthermore, it probably does not matter if the husband is from another royal house or a commoner, after all Mountbatten is the commoner name Philip adopted after he renounced his foreign royal titles. The decision will be made when the circumstance presents itself, and if the natural order of things take place - Charles, William and George becoming monarchs, it will likely be 100+ years after the Mountbatten-Windsor decision. If I was to place a bet, the royal house name will remain Windsor, and when a surname is called for for the children, grandchildren, etc. of the union of a future female monarch, it will be X-Windsor.

George V announced that the royal house's name would be Windsor via a royal proclamation in 1917. Elizabeth II, via royal proclamation in 1952, stated that the name of the royal house would remain Windsor, and that she, her children and their descendants, other than female descendants who marry, should be known as Windsor. So it seems like these kinds of changes are accomplished via royal proclamation / some kind of declaration before the Privy Council

The Mountbatten-Windsor declaration happened in 1960, reportedly prompted by The Queen being told that if her children did not carry their father's name they would be considered bastards. Interestingly, the change still had children not carrying their father's name, so to me, when the question of her children who were born after her accession being bastards because they did not carry their father's name arose, Elizabeth II actually did not correct that per se, but took the opportunity to incorporate Philip's Mountbatten surname into her line.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, it is. I was just depicting the worst case scenario because it seems that many of those that might be most upset by Archie not becoming a prince would be the ones that would not want Camilla to be queen.



Yes, they are. Although I could see why they would wait on the announcement about Camilla until she truly is queen; it would be helpful to 'in general' arrange the title issue of grandchildren of monarchs - based on the adaptation of the rules regarding the succession to the throne with Charlotte('s future children) being ahead of Louis(' future children).

If that 'summit' that some media wrote about is indeed upcoming, this might be one of the things to discuss as part of the discussion on the future of the royal family.

Camilla's title when she becomes the wife of the sovereign is an issue for Charles to decide when he is king. I don't see it as a matter that concerns the present Queen and it is a decision that Charles has no authority to make now.

On the other hand, if the present Queen issued LPs tomorrow to restrict princely titles to children of the heir only, as opposed to" children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", there is a question on whether that would also affect Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise, Richard (Gloucester), Edward (Kent), Michael, and Alexandra, in addition to people who, like Archie and his future sister, would become children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom only in the next reign or other future reigns.

I suppose the new LPs, following the formula that was used in 1917 for the "grandchildren of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", would create a new style for grandchildren of a sovereign in male line; most likely, they would be also styled as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom (even if their father were not a duke himself) and, in that scenario, to make the style gender neutral, the same could apply to grandchildren of a sovereign in maternal line other than children of the heir , i.e. they would all be Lord/Lady [Forename] [Surname] (similar to how, in Spain, children of Infantes/Infantas are now styled Excellency like Grandees of Spain).

Would it be necessary, however, to mention explicitly in the new LPs that the new rule would not apply to grandchildren of sons of George V and Elizabeth II, who would keep their titles and styles under the terms of the LPs of 1917?

The decision will be made when the circumstance presents itself, and if the natural order of things take place - Charles, William and George becoming monarchs, it will likely be 100+ years after the Mountbatten-Windsor decision. If I was to place a bet, the royal house name will remain Windsor, and when a surname is called for for the children, grandchildren, etc. of the union of a future female monarch, it will be X-Windsor.

Keeping the Royal House's dynastic name for the successors of a female monarch was not the tradition in England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom, where dynasties were named based on the patrilineal family name.


Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Anne didn't have surviving issue, but in both cases, the name of the dynasty changed when the next King ascended (respectively from Tudor to Stuart, and from Stuart to Hanover). Queen Victoria's situation mirrors the present Queen's and under her successor, Edward VII, the Royal House was named the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha after his father, rather than his mother.


Queen Elizabeth II decided that the Royal House would continue to be called the "House and Family of Windsor" although her descendants who do not bear the title of prince/princes and the style of Royal Highness would have the family name Mountbatten-Windsor. It remains to be seen if Charles, as the first monarch of the new dynasty (based on the patrilineal naming custom) will keep the name House of Windsor, or change it to House of Mountbatten-Windsor or, less likely, House of Mountbatten.