Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Von Schlesian]

Not sure about the Princess title - can a Queen be demoted or is it once a queen always a queen as Elton John would have us believe?

Ofcourse. Regardless of the former rank, if a monarch's widow were to marry into another family, they would adopt the appropriate style and titles of their spouse.

 

[Alison20]

This actually is rather complicated. I think it is possible to maintain your original and higher title even if you marry someone lower. Well, it was in the past. Back in the Middle Ages, in the first English Civil War between Mathilda and Stephen, Mathilda (the daughter of the King) married the ?Holy Roman Emperor and became an Empress. Even when she later married the Count of Anjour, she continued being referred to as the Empress Mathilda. (Stephen was the nephew of the King and when he - the King - died many of the nobles decided to renage on their vow to support Mathilda as Queen, preferring to have a King in those male-dominated days.)

I also remember reading that, with increasing divorces, there was the possiblity of lots of, say, Countesses of Avon. There would be the actual one (the Countess of Avon), perhaps the widowed mother of the Earl (either Dowager Countess or Anne, Countess of Avon), and then all the divorced Countesses could retain the title (first name), Countess of Avon!

It used to be usual for women to 'lose' their higher rank if they married someone of lower rank and take on the lower one. This did not apply, however, if they married a person with no title. However, I do notice that this does not always happen now - certainly with European Royalty. And in the name of women's equality - why should it!!

 

[Australian]

Indeed. Wasn't there a rumour that she considered marrying King Olav V of Norway? She would have been Her Majesty The Queen again if she had. In Norway at least. Not sure about the Princess title - can a Queen be demoted or is it once a queen always a queen as Elton John would have us believe?

I think it is possible, I think HM Queen Juliana of The Netherlands demoted to HRH Princess Juliana on her abdication.

 

[Duchess]

why is the title "Honorable" used? is it indicitive of something?

 

[Avalon]

This actually is rather complicated. I think it is possible to maintain your original and higher title even if you marry someone lower. Well, it was in the past. Back in the Middle Ages, in the first English Civil War between Mathilda and Stephen, Mathilda (the daughter of the King) married the ?Holy Roman Emperor and became an Empress. Even when she later married the Count of Anjour, she continued being referred to as the Empress Mathilda. (Stephen was the nephew of the King and when he - the King - died many of the nobles decided to renage on their vow to support Mathilda as Queen, preferring to have a King in those male-dominated days.)

Matilda was never actually an Empress, only in later years of her marriage to Henry V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, she was known and reffered to as Empress Matilda. However she was never crowned by the Pope, as required, and thus never had legitimate claims to the title of Empress, and would be only Queen Consort of her husband, her proper title being Queen Matilda of Romans.
After the death of Henry V, she married Count of Anjou (nicknamed Plantagenet) and was legally Countess of Anjou, as his wife (even though she did continue to be known as Queen/Empress). As the only surviving her of her father, King Henry I of England, she was expected to become Queen one day, so the temporarily title of 'Countess' hardly meant anything for her.

 

[wbenson]

why is the title "Honorable" used? is it indicitive of something?

Younger sons of Earls are referred to as "The Honourable Firstname Surname." Angus Ogilvy was a younger son of the Earl of Airlie. Wives also take the title. As he was a knight for a large part of his life, his wife was also "Lady Surname." Therefore, Princess Alexandra became "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy."

 

[Duchess]

regarding diana' mother - she was The Hon. Frances Shand Kydd...was her second husband the son of an Earl?

 

[wbenson]

regarding diana' mother - she was The Hon. Frances Shand Kydd...was her second husband the son of an Earl?

No, but her father was a baron, which gives her the style in her own right. All sons and daughters of Barons and Viscounts, and younger sons of Earls possess the style.

 

[Elspeth]

Another non related question: If Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother had remarried (a severly doubtful situation) would she have become simply Mrs. John Smith, LG LT etc. or would letters have been issued to allow her to retain a part of her title eg. HM The Queen Mother, Mrs. John Smith Etc. which sound silly, also what would have happened if she had married a member of a foreign royal family.

Even setting aside her status as a dowager Queen Consort, at the very least she'd be Lady Elizabeth Smith because of being the daughter of an Earl. Diana's sister Jane is Lady Jane Fellowes; the Lady Jane comes from the fact that her father was Earl Spencer. If Sir Robert Fellowes had married an untitled woman, she'd have been known as Lady Fellowes, the style for the wife of a knight.

 

[Skydragon]

It used to be usual for women to 'lose' their higher rank if they married someone of lower rank and take on the lower one. This did not apply, however, if they married a person with no title. However, I do notice that this does not always happen now - certainly with European Royalty. And in the name of women's equality - why should it!!

In the UK, if you are born with it, you keep it.

 

[branchg]

Here is an odd one for you.

It was announced after the wedding of the Earl of Wessex that his children with the Countess of Wessex would not receive the title of HRH. I don't want to get into debate of whether their was or wasn't a letter patent. But a friend of mine noted that as the announcement was made in regard to the children of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex, what about when they became the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh? Will another announcement need to be made, or will Louise suddenlty get a title overnight?

They announced the children of Edward and Sophie would not be styled as a Prince/Princess of the UK with the rank of HRH, but as the children of an Earl instead. Right now, Louise is styled "The Lady Louise Windsor", which would be the same style as the daughter of a Duke.

Regardless of her style, she remains a princess of the UK with the qualification of a Royal Highness under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V as a male-line grandchild of The Sovereign. She can and could assume her legal title and style at any time without special permission of The Sovereign.

 

[branchg]

Her Ladyship is a creation of fiction, HRH Princess Louise of Wessex is simply The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

Another non related question: If Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother had remarried (a severly doubtful situation) would she have become simply Mrs. John Smith, LG LT etc. or would letters have been issued to allow her to retain a part of her title eg. HM The Queen Mother, Mrs. John Smith Etc. which sound silly, also what would have happened if she had married a member of a foreign royal family.

Louise's style as Lady Louise Windsor is also fiction. The Queen has not issued a Royal Warrant allowing her grandaughter to reliniquish her title and rank as a Princess and she remains a Royal Highness.

The Queen Mother became HM Queen Elizabeth under the statutory succession in her own right when The Duke of York became George VI. Although it certainly would have required a constitutional review, she could have remarried and retained her superior rank and title as HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother (which was held as a dowager queen), assuming there was no objection from The Sovereign and the Government.

 

[HRH Kerry]

Could Wallis Simpson upon her marriage to the Duke of Windsor been styled as HRH Princess Edward?

 

[Elspeth]

If a prince has a royal dukedom, his wife is known as HRH the Duchess of Whatever, not as HRH Princess Hisname. There was no reason other than vindictiveness on the part of certain elements of the royal family for the Duchess to be denied her HRH.

 

[HRH Kerry]

My thought was that because of cases like Princess Andrew (Prince Philip's mother) and Princess Michael.

 

[branchg]

My thought was that because of cases like Princess Andrew (Prince Philip's mother) and Princess Michael.

A woman who marries a prince of the UK automatically becomes "HRH Princess Husband's Christian Name" as the wife of a son or grandson of The Sovereign. If their husband is also a peer, they take their style as the wife of a peer, rather than their legal title as a princess. But they are both by virtue of marriage.

Wallis was entitled by marriage to be "HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor", but was specifically denied royal rank by letters patent issued by George VI. The legality of the King's actions have been doubted ever since, but it was never revisited by The Queen and The Duchess remained Her Grace only.

 

[Polly]

The duke of Edinburgh's mother was also, more commonly, known as Princess Alice of Battenburg, which she was, i.e. a princess in her own right before her marriage.

 

[branchg]

The duke of Edinburgh's mother was also, more commonly, known as Princess Alice of Battenburg, which she was, i.e. a princess in her own right before her marriage.

Yes, however, I assume the rules of the Greek Royal House required the style to reflect only your marriage and your title followed your husband's. All of the wives of King George's sons were styled as "Princess Husband's Name" regardless of their birthright titles.

This included Princess Marie Bonaparte, Princess Alice of Battenberg and Grand Duchess Helena Vladimirovna.

 

[Warren]

Wallis was entitled by marriage to be "HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor", but was specifically denied royal rank by letters patent issued by George VI. The legality of the King's actions have been doubted ever since, but it was never revisited by The Queen and The Duchess remained Her Grace only.

The interesting aspect to this is the conflict between royal writ and common law. Common law holds that the wife takes the title and style of her husband (in this case, the HRH). However, as Fount of Honour, the Sovereign specifically denied Wallis the equal style, and in effect 'demoted' her. So whereas it is generally held that common law is supreme, it can be over-ridden by letters patent issued by the Sovereign.

As branchg says, the legality of George VI's action has been questioned, but of course never tested in a court of law.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And not likely to be tested unless a Royalist lawyer with a shovel decides to he fancies getting Wallis the HRH.

 

[HRH Kerry]

A woman who marries a prince of the UK automatically becomes "HRH Princess Husband's Christian Name" as the wife of a son or grandson of The Sovereign. If their husband is also a peer, they take their style as the wife of a peer, rather than their legal title as a princess. But they are both by virtue of marriage.

Wallis was entitled by marriage to be "HRH The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor", but was specifically denied royal rank by letters patent issued by George VI. The legality of the King's actions have been doubted ever since, but it was never revisited by The Queen and The Duchess remained Her Grace only.

I do realize that this was the case but talk about cruel. The ultimate slap in the face! With hindsight and all that was said and done, I can kind of understand why Edward later said, 'those ice-viened #itches'. (Referring to Queen Elizabeth and The Queen Mum.)

 

[branchg]

It was contrary to common law and practice, but it was also made clear when the matter was researched there is no constitutional basis for the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, which was implemented by George II and his successors to conform to practices in the German duchies and kingdoms. Until raised to the peerage, the members of the royal family were always commoners in English precedent.

The styles presently enjoyed are personal, granted by the fount of honour and recognized as a gift of the Crown.

 

[Polly]

In Australia, she was never alluded to as anything other than Princess Alice within my and my parents' lifetimes. I don't know about the UK, but Australia usually follows its lead in these things.

 

[Polly]

I do realize that this was the case but talk about cruel. The ultimate slap in the face! With hindsight and all that was said and done, I can kind of understand why Edward later said, 'those ice-viened #itches'. (Referring to Queen Elizabeth and The Queen Mum.)

And he was most unfair to describe Queen Elizabeth II in this way. The decision had nothing to do with her after all. She did not alter the Duchess of Windsor's style and title when she became Queen out of deference to her mother's feelings - perfectly understandable in my opinion. Further, The Queen went out of her way to mend the breach with her uncle, so far as it was possible for her to do so. If ever The Queen was utterly blameless in anything, this would be it!

 

[branchg]

The Duke was referring to his niece's initial decision (later quietly reversed) to end the 10,000 pound sterling he was receiving from his brother as a voluntary allowance in a letter to his wife. He believed his mother and sister-in-law were responsible for convincing The Queen to end it, which was probably true.

He never raised the issue of his wife's rank with The Queen. In 1949, he discussed it in detail with The King (again) during a personal visit and received a letter from his brother making it clear it would make no sense for Wallis to become a Royal Highness when he abdicated the throne to marry her.

 

[Elspeth]

If it made sense for him to retain his HRH having abdicated the throne, and having abdicated because (among other things) it was made clear to him that morganatic marriage didn't exist in Britain, then there was no way it could have been made clear that it would make no sense for her to become a Royal Highness, because it was the decision to deny it that made no sense in the context of a lack of morganatic marriage.

 

[branchg]

I agree. If The King really wanted to deny Wallis royal rank, then he should have issued letters patent revoking his brother's right to hold it (which he certainly could have done).

 

[Polly]

Well, all of these things...'should have done...', '...could have done...' don't take into account the feelings of ordinary people at the time.

Wallis Simpson, whom I believe was indeed badly done by, was absolutely abhorred in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. In fact, in my family, she was hated with intense passion. Edward, of course, had been dearly loved, which made Wallis' 'crime' seem even worse.

When the British PM contacted the Australian PM for our view on a marriage arrangement which would allow Edward to remain King, the Australian PM said that the Australian people wouldn't stand for it. This was untrue! At the time, the Australian people knew absolutely nothing about it! It was deliberately kept out of the newspapers. In fact, one of my grandfathers returned to Australia from the UK, via the US, and brought with him American newspapers which were full of Wallis and Edward and all his newspapers were confiscated by Customs and the police.

Wallis Simpson was poorly treated in my view. My understanding is that it was expressly at the wishes of the then Queen, who despised Wallis and prevailed on her husband to thus humiliate Wallis. There was never any chance that anyone, anywhere, would defend Wallis or her rights, legal or otherwise. To be honest, I think that most sniggered at Wallis ('serves her right!') and were very happy that she was refused the title.

 

[branchg]

Well, the truth is Wallis was not an honourable woman to become Queen Consort and Edward was very selfish in abdicating the throne to marry her. Royal life is governed by duty and it was his duty to marry appropriately or not at all.

As The Sovereign, he was Supreme Governor of The Church of England and divorce was a social disgrace at the time. He knew this and still made a very conscious decision to abdicate.

I do think, however, that Wallis was unfairly blamed and punished for The Duke's own selfishness. Once he abdicated, she really had no choice but to see it through and marry him. She was marrying a prince of the UK who remained HRH and she had the right to be HRH as his lawful wife.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In Australia, she was never alluded to as anything other than Princess Alice within my and my parents' lifetimes. I don't know about the UK, but Australia usually follows its lead in these things.

I would like to differ in one respect to this statement - in my family, and part of Australia, any reference I ever heard to Prince Philip's mother was always as Princess Andrew of Greece. Princess Alice when used was in reference to Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

I distinctly remember asking my grandmother, in the 1960s, why a woman would have a name like Andrew and she then explained to this child (as I then was) that as Princess Andrew wasn't born a Princess of Greece she couldn't be Princess Alice of Greece but had to take the name of her husband when in Greece. I thought it strange at the time but understand it now.

In 1969, when she died, our local paper definitely referred to her as 'Princess Andrew of Greece'. I had that paper for many years, until a fire destroyed my parent's garage in the 1980s. There was no reference, in that article to Princess Alice at all - just Princess Andrew of Greece, mother of the Duke of Edinburgh. Maybe the fact that I grew up in a very small rural town we were still keeping some older titles whereas the big cities were becoming less so by the late 60s. Remember that we were only getting about five hours a day of TV at that time too.

I never heard the use of the name Princess Alice except with regard to Princess Alice of Athlone, who died in 1981 aged 97. She was the last surviving grandchild of Queen Victoria and I remember reading about her in the 1960s and 1970s whenever I could as a link to Victoria. My grandmother still had relatives living in England who sent her papers and letters about the royals until her death. I loved reading their views on things and of these people.