Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

I found that earlier...nothing about a remainder though? Since it's not stated then assume there isn't /wasn't one?

Wasn't sure that one was complete?


LaRae

Those particular LPs were not about creating Edward Duke of Windsor, but rather about granting him the right to continue using the style of HRH, while denying that style at the same time to his wife , which BTW confirms that the King can override common law when it comes to royal titles and styles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That link is to the LPs allowing Edward to keep HRH Prince and deny them to Wallis.

It isn't the link to the creation of the title Duke of Windsor - which I don't think I have ever seen anywhere.

 

[Ish]

My apologies, Pranter. I didn’t look closely enough at it before sharing. I’m blaming the lack of a morning tea.

 

[Pranter]

No worries Ish...I've only had one so far myself and may not be clear!


Thanks Bertie and Mbruno! So what are we to assume about any offspring David had (pretend he had a son)..no transfer?


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

The fact that George VI denied any children HRH specifically would suggest that he also would have limited the title, Duke of Windsor to Edward only.

I seem to remember reading that somewhere sometime - that it was for his use only - but I may be confusing the HRH with the Duke of Windsor title so don't hold me to that one.

It would be great to be able to see the LPs and see if there was a remainder or whether this was, effectively, only a life peerage.

 

[Pranter]

I wonder why the LP's (for the creation of Windsor) for this aren't available to be seen....


LaRae

 

[Gawin]

I found that earlier...nothing about a remainder though? Since it's not stated then assume there isn't /wasn't one?

Wasn't sure that one was complete?


LaRae

We also discussed this in the Duke and Duchess of Windsor forum. According to documents on the Heraldica website, Geoffrey Ellis (Counsel to the Crown in Peerage and Honours claims), who had seen the LP, wrote:

"The Crown has created him Duke of Windsor, to him and the heirs male of his body...."

See my original post #1912 for the Heraldica link:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...972-and-1895-1986-a-10245-96.html#post2086626

 

[Pranter]

Thanks Gawin!


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is a link to the correspondence and includes reference to the draft LPs but doesn't actually include the LPs themselves.

There is no reason to assume they are different but then again they may be.

 

[Gawin]

You're welcome. We also discussed the fact that no subsidiary titles were given to the Duke of Windsor. He was created Duke of Windsor and nothing else.

 

[Gawin]

That is a link to the correspondence and includes reference to the draft LPs but doesn't actually include the LPs themselves.

That's true. My point was the link includes correspondence from Geoffrey Ellis, Counsel to the Crown in Peerage and Honours claims from 1922 to 1954.

Ellis made the statement "The Crown has created him Duke of Windsor, to him and the heirs male of his body."

Because he was a Counsel to the Crown I assume Ellis wouldn't have stated that unless he knew it for a fact.

 

[wbenson]

I think there would have had to have been a remainder. I believe one of the concerns was getting him in the House of Lords, so as to make him ineligible to stand for election, and at the time, the House of Lords did not recognize recipients of non-hereditary peerages (as decided in the Wensleydale Peerage Case) unless they were judges appointed to be "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" (a category created by law, to overrule the Wensleydale case, but only for those judges).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As monarch, Queen Elizabeth II has as a rule addressed titleless married women with their husband's first name as well as last name.

For example, in the update on the bridesmaids and page boys in 2011, all of the titleless mothers were Mrs. (Husband's first name) (Husband's last name).

https://www.royal.uk/update-maid-honour-and-bridesmaids-best-man-and-page-boys

(Aged 3 daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Hugh van Cutsem)

(Aged 3 daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Lopes)

(Aged 10 son of Mr. and Mrs. Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton)

(Aged 10 son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Pettifer)

However, in the update on the bridesmaids and page boys today, all of the mothers are Mrs. (Her first name) (Husband's last name).

https://www.royal.uk/bridesmaids-and-page-boys-wedding-prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle

(Aged 3 – goddaughter of Prince Harry, daughter of Mrs. Alice van Cutsem and Major Nicholas van Cutsem)

(Aged 6 – goddaughter of Ms. Markle, daughter of Mrs. Benita Litt and Mr. Darren Litt)

(Aged 7 – goddaughter of Ms. Markle, daughter of Mrs. Benita Litt and Mr. Darren Litt)

(Aged 4 – daughter of Mrs. Jessica Mulroney and Mr. Benedict Mulroney)

(Aged 2 – goddaughter of Prince Harry, daughter of Mrs. Zoe Warren and Mr. Jake Warren)

(Aged 6 – godson of Prince Harry, son of Mrs. Amanda Dyer and Mr. Mark Dyer M.V.O.)

(Aged 7 – son of Mrs. Jessica Mulroney and Mr. Benedict Mulroney)

(Aged 7 – son of Mrs. Jessica Mulroney and Mr. Benedict Mulroney)

I wonder whether the announcement today will be the exception or a lasting change to Elizabeth II's rules regarding married women. Will she allow Princess Eugenie of York to be addressed as Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank rather than Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank after the wedding in October?

 

[Gem7]

If Harry and Meg have a son, will he be known as The Earl of Dumbarton?

 

[Lumutqueen]

If Harry and Meg have a son, will he be known as The Earl or Dumbarton?

Very likely, yes. It would be Prince X, Earl of Dumbarton. That's unless the chose to do the George thing, and let him be known as Prince George of Cambridge.

 

[Nice Nofret]

not The Earl of.. but Earl of..
THE Earl is Harry.

 

[LauraS3514]

If Harry and Meg have a son, will he be known as The Earl or Dumbarton?

There are three scenarios:

1. The Queen declares that the children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be HRH Prince/Princess. British Royal Highnesses do not use courtesy titles otherwise George would be known as Earl of Strathearn. Their eldest son would be HRH Prince FirstName of Sussex.

2. The Queen does nothing, so Harry and Meghan's children are born with the styles of a Duke's children, i.e. Lord and Lady. In that case, their eldest son would be Earl of Dumbarton with siblings Lord/Lady FirstName Mountbatten-Windsor until Charles becomes King and the 1917 Letters Patent come into effect for Harry's children, and they are elevated to HRH Prince/Princess. Their eldest son would then stop using Dumbarton and become HRH Prince FirstName of Sussex.

3. Harry and Meghan go the Wessex route and their son is never "HRH Prince FirstName of Sussex." He would then be Earl of Dumbarton, and other siblings Lord and Lady.

 

[Gem7]

Thanks for the answers. I hated Dumbarton at first glance, but it's starting to grow on me already. It's such a ... different name. lol

 

[Ish]

Very likely, yes. It would be Prince X, Earl of Dumbarton. That's unless the chose to do the George thing, and let him be known as Prince George of Cambridge.

That's not quite right.



If born in the reign of the Queen, Harry and Meghan's eldest son will be Xxx, Earl of Dumbarton (under the current LPs). If new LPs are issued, or during the reign of Charles, then he will become Prince Xxx of Sussex. A courtesy title (in this case Earl of Dumbarton) is only used if you don't have your own title (in this case Prince Xxx of Sussex).

 

[royal_enthusiast]

What would happen if a Queen Consort divorces the King, what would her title be?

 

[Mbruno]

If Harry and Meg have a son, will he be known as The Earl of Dumbarton?

He will be known as the Earl of Dumbarton until Charles becomes king. When Charles ascends the throne, he will become HRH Prince xxx of Sussex, unless the king decides he should continue to be styled as the eldest son of a duke and not as a prince instead.

What would happen if a Queen Consort divorces the King, what would her title be?

Catherine of Aragon was refused any title by Henry VIII after the divorce, ( technically annulment ?), except Dowager Princess of Wales, which she was as the widow of his older brother.

I don’t know what would happen today.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

He will be known as the Earl of Dumbarton until Charles becomes king. When Charles ascends the throne, he will become HRH Prince xxx of Sussex, unless the king decides he should continue to be styled as the eldest son of a duke and not as a prince instead.

Except if Harry and Meghan have children before the Queen leaves us, if she does not issue Letters Patent declaring the children not be HRH and Prince/Princesses wouldn't they immediately become HRH and Prince/Princesses upon their grandfather becoming King? How could he strip away something they already are?

 

[Curryong]

What would happen if a Queen Consort divorces the King, what would her title be?

I think she would still be (unfortunately) Queen ****, as in Britain divorced wives retain their ex husband's status and styling until they themselves remarry. She quite obviously wouldn't be 'Her Majesty' any longer, and the media would undoubtedly refer to her as ex Queen ****.

Perhaps the King might arrange during the divorce proceedings for her to bear another title in her own right afterwards such as Duchess of ---- if the divorce was amicable.

 

[Kataryn]

What would happen if a Queen Consort divorces the King, what would her title be?

Honestly, I can't imagine that. But at least for the British throne, they would have to create a title for her because the king can't be a peer, so has no other titles. And she can't be (let's try it with Camilla, though not in any seriousness), Camilla, queen of the Uk instead of HM The Queen (consort). They probably would create her a duchess in her own right with the style of Her Grace, especially as she is not the mother of the heir to the throne.



I personally think it would be a good idea to change the way they handle divorces in the RF because it is so difficult for the public and the media to address eg Sarah, duchess of York in a way that she is not "the duchess" in media reports. IMHO they should have given her Andrew's secondary title, as even in case of a remarriage and a son for Andrew the boy would be prince xx of York and not Earl of Inverness. (It's Inverness for Andrew, am I right? If not, please correct me). Noone would call Sarah "duchess" in any case if her name after the divorce would have been Sarah, Countess of Inverness.



A bit similar to what happened to princess Alexandra of Denmark on her remarriage, she became Alexandra, The Countess of Fredensborg with the style of "Her Excellency" as a dame of the order of the Elephant.



IMHO these are important considerations for countries who actually have a monarchy and maybe titled aristocracy. I don't think it's fair to eg strip Tessy of Luxembourg of her married names completely and return her to Ms. Antony, because that looks to me as if the Grand-Duke believes she alone is responsible for the divorce. He should grant her a personal comital title, something to inherit for her eldest son or for both.



While here in Germany, it is crass in a way that divorced spouses of a member of the aristocracy can not only keep the name but can marry again and give it to the new spouse, when there is still so much social prestige behind it. I know that this is because of Germany's name laws but still...

 

[Kataryn]

Except if Harry and Meghan have children before the Queen leaves us, if she does not issue Letters Patent declaring the children not be HRH and Prince/Princesses wouldn't they immediately become HRH and Prince/Princesses upon their grandfather becoming King? How could he strip away something they already are?

I think he could but am sure he would only do what his son and his wife wants.

 

[Mbruno]

Except if Harry and Meghan have children before the Queen leaves us, if she does not issue Letters Patent declaring the children not be HRH and Prince/Princesses wouldn't they immediately become HRH and Prince/Princesses upon their grandfather becoming King? How could he strip away something they already are?

Before the Queen leaves us, Harry's children won't be princes. The moment Charles becomes king, it is up to him to decide their styles and he can override the 1917 LPs as he wishes, with no need to issue new LPs, as shown by the James/Louise precedent.


If it happens, probably it is going to be announced , before they are born, that, based on an agreement between the present Queen, Prince Charles, and Harry/Meghan, the Sussex children will continue to be styled as children of a duke in the British peerage when Charles ascends the throne. That way, there won't be a question as you raised that they were automatically princes the moment the Queen passed away and were later "stripped" of their title by Charles a few days or months later.

 

[alvinking]

I remember reading an analysis of royal experts saying that rewriting the 1017 letters of patent created a difficult situation. If new letters of patent were issued to redefine who are HRH Prince/Princess by restricting it to the children of the monarch, family of the heir, the moment new letters are issues the following people would lose their HRH Prince/Princess overnight

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, James Viscount Severn (rights), Lady Louise Windsor (rights), Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexander, Future children of Harry (rights).

It is thought this is the reason nothing was formally acted when the situation with Edward children arose, mainly because of the impact on the people listed above.

I truly think Charles once monarch won't do anything about it.

The Queen's cousins are old, and moving toward retirement, and their issues are not HRH
Beatrice, Eugenie, and Louise issues won't be HRH


potential HRH once Charles becomes King are not that many

HRH Princess Royal
HRH The Duke of York (assuming he does not remarry, if he does, HRH the Duchess of York)
HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs xxx
HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs xxx
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Edward after the death of Prince Philip)
HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh
HRH Prince James of Edinburgh (and potential wife)
HRH Princess Louise, Mrs xxx
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Princess of Wales
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH Princess Charlotte, Mrs xxx
HRH Prince Louis of Wales
HRH The Duke of Sussex
HRH The Duchess of Sussex
HRH potential children of The Duke of Sussex

At the end of the day I think it is Harry who will decide if his children are HRH or not, He has a great relationship with his Pa, and Charles won't do anything Harry does not want

 

[Mbruno]

I remember reading an analysis of royal experts saying that rewriting the 1017 letters of patent created a difficult situation. If new letters of patent were issued to redefine who are HRH Prince/Princess by restricting it to the children of the monarch, family of the heir, the moment new letters are issues the following people would lose their HRH Prince/Princess overnight

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, James Viscount Severn (rights), Lady Louise Windsor (rights), Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexander, Future children of Harry (rights).

It is thought this is the reason nothing was formally acted when the situation with Edward children arose, mainly because of the impact on the people listed above.

I truly think Charles once monarch won't do anything about it.

The Queen's cousins are old, and moving toward retirement, and their issues are not HRH
Beatrice, Eugenie, and Louise issues won't be HRH


potential HRH once Charles becomes King are not that many

HRH Princess Royal
HRH The Duke of York (assuming he does not remarry, if he does, HRH the Duchess of York)
HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs xxx
HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs xxx
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Edward after the death of Prince Philip)
HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh
HRH Prince James of Edinburgh (and potential wife)
HRH Princess Louise, Mrs xxx
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Princess of Wales
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH Princess Charlotte, Mrs xxx
HRH Prince Louis of Wales
HRH The Duke of Sussex
HRH The Duchess of Sussex
HRH potential children of The Duke of Sussex

At the end of the day I think it is Harry who will decide if his children are HRH or not, He has a great relationship with his Pa, and Charles won't do anything Harry does not want

I don’t know how it is done in British LPs, but , in other countries, when new rules are introduced for royal titles, there is usually a built-in “ sunset clause” under which all persons who had titles under previous rules keep them as long as they are alive.

For example, in the 2002 Dutch law on membership of the Royal House, there was a clause that allowed Queen Beatrix’s sisters to keep their titles of Princesses of the Netherlands and Princess Margriet’s sons, I think, to keep their titles of Prince of Orange-Nassau.

Likewise, King Philippe’s 2015. royal decree allowed all living princes and princesses of Belgium under the previous royal decrees by King Baudouin in 1991 and King Leopold II in 1891 to keep their titles.

As I said , I don’t know how it could be done, but I am pretty sure it is possible to write the new LPs in a way that Beatrice and Eugenie, or the Kent and Gloucester princes would not lose their titles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I remember reading an analysis of royal experts saying that rewriting the 1017 letters of patent created a difficult situation. If new letters of patent were issued to redefine who are HRH Prince/Princess by restricting it to the children of the monarch, family of the heir, the moment new letters are issues the following people would lose their HRH Prince/Princess overnight

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, James Viscount Severn (rights), Lady Louise Windsor (rights), Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexander, Future children of Harry (rights).

It is thought this is the reason nothing was formally acted when the situation with Edward children arose, mainly because of the impact on the people listed above.

I truly think Charles once monarch won't do anything about it.

The Queen's cousins are old, and moving toward retirement, and their issues are not HRH
Beatrice, Eugenie, and Louise issues won't be HRH


potential HRH once Charles becomes King are not that many

HRH Princess Royal
HRH The Duke of York (assuming he does not remarry, if he does, HRH the Duchess of York)
HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs xxx
HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs xxx
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Edward after the death of Prince Philip)
HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh
HRH Prince James of Edinburgh (and potential wife)
HRH Princess Louise, Mrs xxx
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Princess of Wales
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH Princess Charlotte, Mrs xxx
HRH Prince Louis of Wales
HRH The Duke of Sussex
HRH The Duchess of Sussex
HRH potential children of The Duke of Sussex

At the end of the day I think it is Harry who will decide if his children are HRH or not, He has a great relationship with his Pa, and Charles won't do anything Harry does not want

A note about Louise and James. I wrote to BP to confirm that they were not and never would be entitled to HRH and had my interpretation of the announcement in 1999 confirmed by BP.

A change in title can happen three ways:

1. Letters Patent
2. Royal Warrant
3. The Queen's Will being made known - via any means she likes such as a press release.

The third of these is what happened in 1999 so Louise and James are not and never will be (unless BP backtracks) on the HRHs.

I do think that the intention - going forward - is that only the children of the most direct line will be HRH, particularly now that Charlotte remains ahead of Louis in the line of succession. She can't pass on HRH so it would be silly for Louis to be able to do that when his sister, who is higher in the line of succession is able to do so. Anne was behind her brothers and so it was less obvious that she was being discriminated against.

They could easily cover the situation by setting a date (any child born on or after 1st January 2001 for instance would mean no one who currently holds HRH loses it but only William (and Charles) could pass it on.

 

[padams2359]

Honestly, I can't imagine that. But at least for the British throne, they would have to create a title for her because the king can't be a peer, so has no other titles. And she can't be (let's try it with Camilla, though not in any seriousness), Camilla, queen of the Uk instead of HM The Queen (consort). They probably would create her a duchess in her own right with the style of Her Grace, especially as she is not the mother of the heir to the throne.



I personally think it would be a good idea to change the way they handle divorces in the RF because it is so difficult for the public and the media to address eg Sarah, duchess of York in a way that she is not "the duchess" in media reports. IMHO they should have given her Andrew's secondary title, as even in case of a remarriage and a son for Andrew the boy would be prince xx of York and not Earl of Inverness. (It's Inverness for Andrew, am I right? If not, please correct me). Noone would call Sarah "duchess" in any case if her name after the divorce would have been Sarah, Countess of Inverness.



A bit similar to what happened to princess Alexandra of Denmark on her remarriage, she became Alexandra, The Countess of Fredensborg with the style of "Her Excellency" as a dame of the order of the Elephant.



IMHO these are important considerations for countries who actually have a monarchy and maybe titled aristocracy. I don't think it's fair to eg strip Tessy of Luxembourg of her married names completely and return her to Ms. Antony, because that looks to me as if the Grand-Duke believes she alone is responsible for the divorce. He should grant her a personal comital title, something to inherit for her eldest son or for both.



While here in Germany, it is crass in a way that divorced spouses of a member of the aristocracy can not only keep the name but can marry again and give it to the new spouse, when there is still so much social prestige behind it. I know that this is because of Germany's name laws but still...

Dowager Duchess of Lancaster?