Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[Somebody]

You may need to take your questions to a different topic as the question about wearing uniforms has been discussed elsewhere and has nothing to do with titles. However, I am happy to give you the gist of what was previously discussed (by those more in the know than me).

Former military who RETIRED from their military service (for example the princess royal's husband Vice-Admiral Sir Tim Laurence) keep their rank and are allowed to continue wearing their military uniform but those that voluntary RESIGNED may not. Harry did the latter, and therefore is no longer allowed to wear a uniform - just like any former soldier in the same position. Of course, anybody who received a medal as a member of the military for service to the country or a specific military action - or for attending major royal events - may continue to wear those medals (as both Harry and Andrew do).

Some of his family members - who are 'active senior royals' working for the monarch - hold honorary military positions and therefore are allowed to wear the uniforms that go with their honorary position. Both Andrew and Harry no longer have such positions and therefore cannot wear those uniforms.

 

[MissPeach77]

If you could tell me where I should post I would gladly do so, but sometimes there is no clear choice so you do the best you can to find something that makes sense. And last I checked, the general thread for Harry and Meghan was locked from any new comments so what can you do if there is nothing you see specifically regarding a question you have?

You may need to take your questions to a different topic as the question about wearing uniforms has been discussed elsewhere and has nothing to do with titles. However, I am happy to give you the gist of what was previously discussed (by those more in the know than me).

Former military who RETIRED from their military service (for example the princess royal's husband Vice-Admiral Sir Tim Laurence) keep their rank and are allowed to continue wearing their military uniform but those that voluntary RESIGNED may not. Harry did the latter, and therefore is no longer allowed to wear a uniform - just like any former soldier in the same position. Of course, anybody who received a medal as a member of the military for service to the country or a specific military action - or for attending major royal events - may continue to wear those medals (as both Harry and Andrew do).

Some of his family members - who are 'active senior royals' working for the monarch - hold honorary military positions and therefore are allowed to wear the uniforms that go with their honorary position. Both Andrew and Harry no longer have such positions and therefore cannot wear those uniforms.

 

[Durham]

I would ask the mods. But as to your original question Somebody gave a very comprehensive & accurate answer. As they always do.?

I'm also surprised, if I understood your post correctly (?) that former US service personnel are allowed to wear military uniform despite no longer serving.

EDIT -you might find this helpful in understanding the relationship between the rf & the military:

"The Royal Family also plays an important role in recognising and supporting the work of the Armed Services. Members of the Royal Family have official relationships with many units of the Forces, paying regular visits to soldiers, sailors and airmen serving at home and abroad."

From https://www.royal.uk/role-royal-fam...mbers of the Royal,service in their own right.

Members of the rf represent the monarch when they visit military units. They often do so in uniform as a mark of respect. This is understood in the military & no one thinks it at all strange. It is common practise in all monarchies.

You might be interested to learn that the late queen served in the ATS (army) in ww2. Her father George vi was at the battle of Jutland in ww1 as a midshipman & could very easily have been killed as thousands of sailors were in that battle.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If you could tell me where I should post I would gladly do so, but sometimes there is no clear choice so you do the best you can to find something that makes sense.

Here is a thread for posts regarding the British royal family for which there is otherwise no clear choice of thread.

General Questions & Random Facts about the British Royal Family

The following threads would also appear to be suitable places for this discussion of the rules of British royal military uniforms:

The Protocol Thread (British Royals forum)
Royal Military Ranks (General Royal Discussion forum)


For locating threads, the search form is a useful tool. Select the "search titles only" option in the dropdown box below "Keyword(s)", at the upper left-hand corner of the search form. Select the option "show results as threads" at the bottom left-hand corner of the search form.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/search.php

And last I checked, the general thread for Harry and Meghan was locked from any new comments so what can you do if there is nothing you see specifically regarding a question you have?

Under the current forum rules, discussion relating to the Sussex family is restricted to their subforum, and as Durham mentioned, one must contact the moderators to request a reopening of a thread there.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I'm also surprised, if I understood your post correctly (?) that former US service personnel are allowed to wear military uniform despite no longer serving.

They are. Each branch has different rules for when and where you're allowed to wear your uniform, but you can read more about it at the following link:

https://veteran.com/military-uniform-retirees-veterans/

Also, mods, please don't delete these posts. This is interesting conversation, and no one is being disrespectful or rude to one another.

 

[Toledo]

They are. Each branch has different rules for when and where you're allowed to wear your uniform, but you can read more about it at the following link:

https://veteran.com/military-uniform-retirees-veterans/

Also, mods, please don't delete these posts. This is interesting conversation, and no one is being disrespectful or rude to one another.

Thanks for the link, Sister Morphine. I didn't know the specifics on post service uniforms even when we see veterans wearing them on TV, during sport events or other parades or events related to wars like D-Day.

 

[MissPeach77]

Sorry...I didn't mean to post my comment as a reply to yours, so I am typing this to let you know, and I will post again as an original post.

 

[Durham]

Thank you for the link. An interesting read.

Clearly rules regulating the wearing of uniform by former members of the armed forces are very different in the UK & US. As an aside - it was an irritating & unnecessary distraction when the media & others tried to stir the pot at a sensitive moment just when people wanted to focus on mourning the late monarch.

 

[royal-blue]

Obviously Andrew isn't currently using his HRH, but if he was to remarry Sarah, would there be any justifiable reason why she would be denied an HRH of her own?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Are Edward and Sophie using the full title of The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Forfar?

 

[Denville]

Obviously Andrew isn't currently using his HRH, but if he was to remarry Sarah, would there be any justifiable reason why she would be denied an HRH of her own?

He's not going to remarry her. if he did, she would be HRH, since Andrew still holds his HRH

 

[Gina.]

Titles

What title change would’ve taken place if by the time of Queen Elizabeth's passing Prince Harry was still single? Can’t be Harry Wales since William is now the Prince of Wales. Can it be?

 

[Prinsara]

If he had not been granted a dukedom or another title in his own right he would be The Prince Henry as the son of the King.

 

[Mbruno]

What title change would’ve taken place if by the time of Queen Elizabeth's passing Prince Harry was still single? Can’t be Harry Wales since William is now the Prince of Wales. Can it be?

He would have been styled simply HRH The Prince Harry.

 

[duchessrachel]

I wonder if King Charles will ever confer the title of "Princess" on the Princess of Wales (Catherine). I know the British Royal Family does not make decisions based on the press, but it seems that the press has a hard time knowing what to call her. Here in the US, many people refer to her as "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate", neither of which is correct. Some publication both in the UK and the US still call her "Kate Middleton". I just think it would be so much simpler if King Charles would do that. I know that those with the title of Princess are blood princesses, but couldn't he write letters patent conferring this title on Catherine if he wanted?

 

[FigTree]

I wonder if King Charles will ever confer the title of "Princess" on the Princess of Wales (Catherine). I know the British Royal Family does not make decisions based on the press, but it seems that the press has a hard time knowing what to call her. Here in the US, many people refer to her as "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate", neither of which is correct. Some publication both in the UK and the US still call her "Kate Middleton". I just think it would be so much simpler if King Charles would do that. I know that those with the title of Princess are blood princesses, but couldn't he write letters patent conferring this title on Catherine if he wanted?

She is the Princess of Wales. What’s so hard? People always refer to married ins by their origin name though. Diana was always Lady Di or POW. I do t ever remember people calling her a Princess Diana. I seem to remember that when she died though.

 

[muriel]

I wonder if King Charles will ever confer the title of "Princess" on the Princess of Wales (Catherine). I know the British Royal Family does not make decisions based on the press, but it seems that the press has a hard time knowing what to call her. Here in the US, many people refer to her as "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate", neither of which is correct. Some publication both in the UK and the US still call her "Kate Middleton". I just think it would be so much simpler if King Charles would do that. I know that those with the title of Princess are blood princesses, but couldn't he write letters patent conferring this title on Catherine if he wanted?

Whilst Charles can, I don't quite see the point of creating Catherine as a Princess in her own right. She is the Princess of Wales, and her next upgrade will make her Queen Catherine.

I think we will all live if the American press continues to struggle with coming to terms with British titles. Perhaps they can keep calling her Duchess Kate if they want!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What title change would’ve taken place if by the time of Queen Elizabeth's passing Prince Harry was still single? Can’t be Harry Wales since William is now the Prince of Wales. Can it be?

He would be His Royal Highness The Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland. In short: HRH The Prince Harry.

We saw the same with Princess Anne, before she became The Princess Royal. Until then she was HRH The Princess Anne (or HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I wonder if King Charles will ever confer the title of "Princess" on the Princess of Wales (Catherine). I know the British Royal Family does not make decisions based on the press, but it seems that the press has a hard time knowing what to call her. Here in the US, many people refer to her as "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate", neither of which is correct. Some publication both in the UK and the US still call her "Kate Middleton". I just think it would be so much simpler if King Charles would do that. I know that those with the title of Princess are blood princesses, but couldn't he write letters patent conferring this title on Catherine if he wanted?

In theory King Charles can create Catherine a Princess in her own right. Queen Elizabeth did this:

Whitehall, February 22, 1957.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date 22nd February 1957, to give and grant unto His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, KG, KT, GBE, the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

In theory King Charles can create Catherine a Princess in her own right. Queen Elizabeth did this:

Whitehall, February 22, 1957.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date 22nd February 1957, to give and grant unto His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, KG, KT, GBE, the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Well but in that instance the late DOE was the late Queen’s consort who disclaimed his foreign titles replacing his last name with his maternal name and the difference would be that Catherine in the traditional manner will take on her husband’s titles so no need for her to be Princess in her own right. But I’m sure you know that already

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well but in that instance the late DOE was the late Queen’s consort who disclaimed his foreign titles replacing his last name with his maternal name and the difference would be that Catherine in the traditional manner will take on her husband’s titles so no need for her to be Princess in her own right. But I’m sure you know that already

Of course but then "Prince Philip" or "Princess Catherine" would be both correct. But in the end it is just sloppiness. She is no Princess Kate, Duchess Kate or Princess Kate Middleton, she is The Princess of Wales. The media seems to regard their readership as imbeciles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think it is worth repeating that the restriction of the usage The Prince / The Princess to children of the Sovereign, and the conferral of dukedoms on the wedding day, were both implemented during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

Under previous monarchs, dukedoms were always conferred before marriage, and "The" was (inconsistently) used for princes and princesses regardless of their kinship to the Sovereign.

While King Charles seems inclined to continue the habits introduced by his mother, he is not obligated to.

I wonder if King Charles will ever confer the title of "Princess" on the Princess of Wales (Catherine). I know the British Royal Family does not make decisions based on the press, but it seems that the press has a hard time knowing what to call her. Here in the US, many people refer to her as "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate", neither of which is correct. Some publication both in the UK and the US still call her "Kate Middleton". I just think it would be so much simpler if King Charles would do that. I know that those with the title of Princess are blood princesses, but couldn't he write letters patent conferring this title on Catherine if he wanted?

The fact that her correct formal reference is The Princess of Wales and not Princess Catherine/Kate does not mean that Catherine/Kate does not have the title of Princess (she does). Under British customary law, the wife of a Prince automatically becomes a Princess, just as the wife of a Baron automatically becomes a Baroness.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#After_1917

The question was raised in 1923, when the duke of York was about to marry Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. What would her styles be after her marriage? The day before the marriage, the king's private secretary, Lord Stamfordham, wrote to the Home Office to ask if she would become a Princess and a Royal Highness, and how she should sign her name after her marriage. He asked the same question for the eventual marriage of the Prince of Wales.

The Home Office's ceremonial secretary, Boyd, replied the same day, after consulting Garter, that by virtue of the custom that a wife takes the rank of her husband, she would indeed become a Royal Highness, and a Princess as well (although she would not use the title any more than her husband the duke of York), without any need for a formal document. The same answer applied, of course, to the Prince of Wales's eventual wife (HO 144/22945).

An official announcement was made in the Times of April 28, 1923:
It is officially announced that, in accordance with the settled general rule that a wife takes the status of her husband, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York, with the status of a Princess.

 

[Queen Claude]

Charles can make Catherine a princess in her own right, as Queen Elizabeth II did for the Duke of Edinburgh and also allowing the widowed Duchess of Gloucester to style herself as Princess Alice. I doubt he would do that and certainly not in response to media outlets referring to the current Princess of Wales as Princess Kate or whatever.

I don't recall how credible the source was, but I recall reading that William wanted Catherine to be a princess in her own right. If that is correct and a correct reflection of his point of view, perhaps George's future wife (if he marries) will be granted a princess title in her own name - if not upon marriage, at some other milestone.

 

[Denville]

Charles can make Catherine a princess in her own right, as Queen Elizabeth II did for the Duke of Edinburgh and also allowing the widowed Duchess of Gloucester to style herself as Princess Alice. I doubt he would do that and certainly not in response to media outlets referring to the current Princess of Wales as Princess Kate or whatever.

I don't recall how credible the source was, but I recall reading that William wanted Catherine to be a princess in her own right. If that is correct and a correct reflection of his point of view, perhaps George's future wife (if he marries) will be granted a princess title in her own name - if not upon marriage, at some other milestone.

why on earth would William want his wife to be a Princess in her own right, when it is soemthing that is not done in the BRF?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think it is also worth repeating that there is no law which rules that only princesses "in their own right" may prefix the Princess title to their own forenames. Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III refer to Princess Michael of Kent, rather than Princess Marie-Christine of Kent, for the same reason that they refer to Mrs. Michael Tindall, rather than Mrs. Zara Tindall. It is their choice.

The habit of referring to married women with their husbands' forenames has become outdated in wider British society (nobody refers to former prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May or Elizabeth "Liz" Truss by any forename other than their own) and I hope that the Royal Household will one day catch up.

There were press reports that certain members of the British royal family wanted wives to be permitted to use the title Princess prefixed to their own names (nothing about becoming princesses in their own right), but their requests were allegedly vetoed by Queen Elizabeth II.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...n-takes-her-place-in-the-Royal-hierarchy.html

Although the Prince's spokesman said he was "honoured" to become the Duke of Cambridge, he had let it be known that he would prefer to remain Prince William and for his wife to become "Princess Catherine".

[…]

In an attempt to get round the issue, the Palace let it be known that people who wanted to call Catherine "Princess" were welcome to do so.

After Friday's Royal wedding, Paddy Harverson, the Prince of Wales' communications secretary, suggested the public be encouraged to use the names Prince William and Princess Catherine if they preferred.

He said: "I think it's absolutely natural that the public might want to call them Prince William and Princess Catherine and no one is going to have any argument with that."

Fears of offending Prince Charles' second wife and demoting her in the Royal hierarchy apparently led to the decision not to make Prince William's bride a Princess.

[…]

Last week a senior courtier told the Sunday Telegraph: "The Queen was very much aware that other members of her family would not take kindly to Miss Middleton becoming 'Princess Catherine' while they must take the titles of their husbands."

It is also suggested the Countess of Wessex would also have been unhappy as she was denied the title "Princess Sophie", when she married Prince Edward in 1999.​

 

[Denville]

I dont think so - Princess First name, means that a woman is the daughter of a prince or monarch, Princess Husbands first name means that she is the wife of a prince#

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I dont think so - Princess First name, means that a woman is the daughter of a prince or monarch, Princess Husbands first name means that she is the wife of a prince#

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But just because it has been the the usage of approximately the past two hundred years (it is not an ancient tradition) does not mean it cannot or should not be changed. There are far older and more significant practices regarding marriage and the roles of women which have been adapted in British society.

 

[Denville]

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But just because it has been the the usage of approximately the past two hundred years (it is not an ancient tradition) does not mean it cannot or should not be changed. There are far older and more significant practices regarding marriage and the roles of women which have been adapted in British society.

the use of Prince/ss and HRH are part of the royal prerogative and as far as i know it has always been the rule that a daughter of a royal prince or monarch is Princess FIrst name..whereas the wife of a prince is Princess Husbands firstname, or Duchess of royal dukedom.
If Charles wants to change that he can do so but I dont think that he will. And if a wife of a princess is considered a Princess in her own right, then she would presumably keep the title Princess Catherine or whatever even if divorced, which would be Odd.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

the use of Prince/ss and HRH are part of the royal prerogative and as far as i know it has always been the rule that a daughter of a royal prince or monarch is Princess FIrst name..whereas the wife of a prince is Princess Husbands firstname, or Duchess of royal dukedom.

The "rule" that a woman using her husband's title or surname also uses his first name dates in England to approximately the turn of the 19th century. I believe the timeframe was roughly the same at the royal court. Both the daughter of James II and the daughter of Edward VII who married Danish princes were addressed at the British court by the titles of their husbands, but the one who married in the 17th century was addressed as Princess Anne of Denmark while the one who married in the 19th century was addressed as Princess Carl of Denmark (correction: Princess Charles of Denmark) at the British court.

The issue has rarely arisen for wives of British princes, as most of them have been known as Duke, not Prince, by the time they married.

 

[Denville]

The "rule" that a woman using her husband's title or surname also uses his first name dates in England to approximately the turn of the 19th century. I believe the timeframe was roughly the same at the royal court. Both the daughter of James II and the daughter of Edward VII who married Danish princes were addressed at the British court by the titles of their husbands, but the one who married in the 17th century was addressed as Princess Anne of Denmark while the one who married in the 19th century was addressed as Princess Carl of Denmark at the British court.

The issue has rarely arisen for wives of British princes, as most of them have been known as Duke, not Prince, by the time they married.

but Princess ANne later queen Anne was a Princess in her own right and an heir to the throne.