Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

It is unfortunate that they misspelled the surname of both Savannah and Isla Phillips. Perhaps there's only one "l" because the writer of the press release got confused with the spelling of The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

They did however spell the parents' (Autumn Phillips and Peter Phillips) surnames correctly in the release.

Hopefully they won't have to reprint all the wedding programmes between now and Friday.

Let's hope it is indeed printed correctly on the wedding programmes! As they are members of the royal family, they should know how to spell this surname since at least 1973 when the engagement between The Princess Anne and Mark Phillips was announced.

 

[JessRulz]

Posts about Sarah and the flowergirl's exchange at the wedding have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-carriage-procession-oct-12-2018-a-45619.html thread.

 

[cdm]

Are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward also Princess and Princes of Edinburgh as their father is the Duke of Edinburgh?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes and No.

Charles and Anne were 'of Edinburgh' when they were born but their position as children of the monarch trumps any titles they may have from Philip.

Andrew and Edward were never 'of Edinburgh' as their mother was already the Queen.

Charles, Andrew and Edward have substantive titles of their own and when that happened they were no long 'of Edinburgh' just as William and Harry are no longer 'of Wales' as they are 'of Cambridge' and 'of Sussex' respectively.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

... just as William and Harry are no longer 'of Wales' as they are 'of Cambridge' and 'of Sussex' respectively.

I would respectfully argue that William and Harry are not "of Cambridge" and "of Sussex" respectively but rather they ARE "Cambridge" and "Sussex" respectively.

When thinking of Prince and Princesses "of X" I think it's easier to understand if one thinks of "X" as a person rather than a place. George is of "Cambridge" because he is the son of (The Duke of) Cambridge. George is not of the geographic place Cambridge because his father is the Duke of Cambridge. He is of his father who is (The Duke of) Cambridge.

You could (and I believe this may be how it works in Japan) call George, "Prince George of William". Eugenie could have been "Princess Eugenie of Andrew" but now that she's married, she is no longer of Andrew (i.e. of York) she is HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

Also peers often (more in the past than now), would sign their names simply by the peerage (although princes (peers or not) generally just sign their first Christian name only).

So Earl Mountbatten would sign "Mountbatten" and the Duke of Westminster would sign "Westminster", not "Grosvenor".

Sorry if this is long-winded, but by thinking of the X in "of X" as a person rather than a place, it (at least to me) made more sense of how all the titles work and interact.

 

[Biri]

When thinking of Prince and Princesses "of X" I think it's easier to understand if one thinks of "X" as a person rather than a place. George is of "Cambridge" because he is the son of (The Duke of) Cambridge. George is not of the geographic place Cambridge because his father is the Duke of Cambridge. He is of his father who is (The Duke of) Cambridge.

So Harry's child should be Prince(ss) [name] of Sussex.
In Denmark Prince Joachim's children are:
Prince Nikolai of Denmark
Prince Felix of Denmark
Prince Henrik of Denmark
Princess Athena of Denmark
- although their father is not the heir of the throne and there is no threat he'll ever be (giving that the heir has four children)


The same with the children of Prince Laurent - Princess Louise of Belgium, Prince Nicholas of Belgium, Prince Aymeric of Belgium.


I completely don't understand why Prince Constantijn's children are Count and Countesses of Nassau; in the case of late Prince Friso's daughters I understand they are Countesses de Nassau and not Princesses of the Netherlands because their parents' marriage was not approved by Parliament, but what about their cousins?

You could (and I believe this may be how it works in Japan) call George, "Prince George of William". Eugenie could have been "Princess Eugenie of Andrew" but now that she's married, she is no longer of Andrew (i.e. of York) she is HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

In Russia she would be "Princess Jewgieniya Andreevna"


Also peers often (more in the past than now), would sign their names simply by the peerage (although princes (peers or not) generally just sign their first Christian name only).
[/QUOTE]

 

[Anna Catherine]

So Harry's child should be Prince(ss) [name] of Sussex.

[/QUOTE]

If I understand correctly, Harry’s children will be titled as children of a Duke while the Queen is alive since he is the second son/non-heir and the baby will be the great-grandchild of the sovereign. Once Charles becomes King they will be HRH Prince/ss of Sussex as a grandchild of the sovereign . For now, a son would be [Name], The Earl of Dumbarton and a daughter would be The Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor.


I was wondering what the baby’s style would be since they wouldn’t be entitled to HRH.

 

[Mbruno]

If I understand correctly, Harry’s children will be titled as children of a Duke while the Queen is alive since he is the second son/non-heir and the baby will be the great-grandchild of the sovereign. Once Charles becomes King they will be HRH Prince/ss of Sussex as a grandchild of the sovereign . For now, a son would be [Name], The Earl of Dumbarton and a daughter would be The Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor.


I was wondering what the baby’s style would be since they wouldn’t be entitled to HRH.

Harry's first son, if he is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



[Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton


and will be referred to simply as Earl of Dumbarton or Lord Dumbarton.



Harry's first daughter, if she is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lady [Name].



Likewise,Harry's second son if he is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled


Lord [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lord [Name].


No matter when they are born, any of Harry's children, when Charles becomes king, will be styled

HRH Prince/Princess [Name] of Sussex

unless Charles decides that, like Viscount Severn and Lady Louise, they should continue to be styled only as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

 

[Anna Catherine]

Harry's first son, if he is born while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



[Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton


and will be referred to simply as Earl of Dumbarton or Lord Dumbarton.



Harry's first daughter, if she is borm while the Queen is still alive, will be styled



Lady [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lady [Name].



Likewise,Harry's second son if he is borm while the Queen is still alive, will be styled


Lord [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

and will be referred to simply as Lord [Name].


No matter when they are born, any of the Harry's children, when Charles becomes king, will be styled

HRH Prince/Princess [Name] of Sussex

unless Charles decides that, like Viscount Severn and Lady Louise, they should continue to be styled only as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

So would they be Your Grace or Your Highness or neither?

 

[Mbruno]

So would they be Your Grace or Your Highness or neither?

They would be neither His/Her Grace nor His/Her Highness while the Queen is still alive, They would be His/Her Royal Highness when Charles becomes king unless he decides otherwise.


BTW, as I mentioned before, "His/Her Grace" applies only to (non-royal) titular dukes and their wives or widows. A titular earl is entitled to the predicate "The Right Honourable" whereas a courtesy earl (for example, the eldest son of a duke) doesn't use any predicate (he is only "Earl of xxx").

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would respectfully argue that William and Harry are no longer "of Cambridge" and "of Sussex" respectively but rather they ARE "Cambridge" and "Sussex" respectively.

When thinking of Prince and Princesses "of X" I think it's easier to understand if one thinks of "X" as a person rather than a place. George is of "Cambridge" because he is the son of (The Duke of) Cambridge. George is not of the geographic place Cambridge because his father is the Duke of Cambridge. He is of his father who is (The Duke of) Cambridge.

Cambridge/of Cambridge can also be thought of as the family name used for their daily lives by William's branch of the royal family (whereas they use Mountbatten-Windsor for any official document requiring a last name).

You could (and I believe this may be how it works in Japan) call George, "Prince George of William".

In the Japanese imperial family the name of the father's branch of the imperial family is given to his children, but they do not receive his given name. For instance, the children of the emperor's second son bear the name of their father's branch (Akishino), but not his given name (Fumihito).

???? - ???

Eugenie could have been "Princess Eugenie of Andrew" but now that she's married, she is no longer of Andrew (i.e. of York) she is HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

Princess Eugenie has remained "of York" for the time being, though it was reported that she probably will change her name in the near future.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-14.html#post2158546

https://www.royal.uk/official-photographs-released-princess-eugenie-and-jack-brooksbanks-wedding

Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack Brooksbank have released four official photographs from their Wedding day.​

I completely don't understand why Prince Constantijn's children are Count and Countesses of Nassau; in the case of late Prince Friso's daughters I understand they are Countesses de Nassau and not Princesses of the Netherlands because their parents' marriage was not approved by Parliament, but what about their cousins?

They are Countesses and Count of Orange-Nassau because the Dutch government made the decision to limit royal titles to the individuals who were closest to the throne.

 

[Kataryn]

So Harry's child should be Prince(ss) [name] of Sussex.
In Denmark Prince Joachim's children are:
Prince Nikolai of Denmark
Prince Felix of Denmark
Prince Henrik of Denmark
Princess Athena of Denmark
- although their father is not the heir of the throne and there is no threat he'll ever be (giving that the heir has four children)

[/QUOTE]

In Denmark they have two forms of the "of Denmark". Blood princes and princesses, who are in line are prince and princess "til Denmark" while the princes' wifes are "af Denmark" because they married into the Royal family and take their title from their husbands.

You can see this at kongehuset.dk - Frederick is Konprins til Denmark, Mary is Kronprinsesse af Denmark.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Iluvbertie]

So would they be Your Grace or Your Highness or neither?

Neither.

'Your Grace' is the style for a Duke, Duchess or a Bishop not anyone else.

'Your Royal Highness' is for someone who is an HRH

All other peers and their wives - such as Marquises, Marchionesses, Earls, Countesses, Viscounts and Viscountesses are - My Lord/Lady

If you watch Downton Abbey the Earl is always called 'My Lord' or 'His Lordship'.

David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl Snowdon would be referred to as 'My Lord' and both is wife and sister as 'My Lady' even though they are grandchildren of a King.

The Duke of Gloucester would be 'Your Royal Highness' or 'His Royal Highness' but his son will be 'Your Grace' or 'His Grace' as he won't be an HRH.

 

[HRHDuchessofAlbany]

I really hope they dont pass the patent and allow them to be Earl/Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. I feel like if the letters are pushed, they will recieve so much backlash. (I actually read the comments at Dailymail and other blogs, theyre horrific) i know theres a lot of people who think the Princesses of York should renounce their HRHs.

 

[Marlo]

Their children not being prince/princess will send out the wrong message. IMO

 

[Terri Terri]

But they won't be princes/princesses if QEII is still alive anyway!

 

[American Observer7]

But they won't be princes/princesses if QEII is still alive anyway!

They can and will be if the Queen steps in and I'd bet odds she will because she did it for William's kids and she'll do the same for Harry.

If she hasn't done so already.

Their children not being princes will send out the wrong message. IMO

Agreed.


The Queen will do it for Harry and she likes Meghan.

 

[Pranter]

I think it will be interesting to see...after all Harry and Meghan may not want their children to have titles.


LaRae

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

It really wouldn't make sense for the Queen's collateral great-grandchild to have a princely style and title while her collateral grandchildren have been 'stripped' of theirs and use noble titles and styles. This would totally contradict Charles proposed wish to streamline the RF and would probably lead to a lot of criticism.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Their children not being princes will send out the wrong message. IMO

I hadn’t thought of that but you are absolutely right. Under the circumstances prince and/or princess would be the right way to go.

 

[Pranter]

The grandchildren who have been 'stripped' were done so at the request of the parents.

By the time William is King the working royals will be even less than there are now...he doesn't have 3 siblings and working cousins. There may be a need for Harry's children to be there supporting William/George at least for some time.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

It really wouldn't make sense for the Queen's collateral great-grandchild to have a princely style and title while her collateral grandchildren have been 'stripped' of theirs and use noble titles and styles. This would totally contradict Charles proposed wish to streamline the RF and would probably lead to a lot of criticism.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Wessexes never intended to be full time royals when that announcement was made.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

The grandchildren who have been 'stripped' were done so at the request of the parents.

By the time William is King the working royals will be even less than there are now...he doesn't have 3 siblings and working cousins. There may be a need for Harry's children to be there supporting William/George at least for some time.


LaRae

Well if that's really a problem then it can be easily solved. If they were thinking of the future and needed more working royals than they could easily led Beatrice onto that path and once the Wessexes became working royals it could have been made known that Louise was going to be a working royal too. The same scenario is happening if the Sussex kid/s become Firm member and Louise will always have precedence over any Sussex kids even if they are HRH anyways.

 

[Zonk]

It will be quite interesting for us royal watchers to see if how the title of Baby Sussex is handled, so far we have:

1) Queen issues NO new patents...and Baby Sussex is either an Earl or Lady. Any and all future Sussex children are titled as the son and/or daughter of a Duke.

2) Queen issues Patents, and the Baby Sussex is born an HRH, Prince/Princess of Sussex.

3) Queen issues no new patents, and Baby Sussex are titled the son and/or daughter of a Duke. Upon the accession of Charles, they become HRH's, Prince and/or Princess of Sussex.

4) Queen issues No new Patents, and Baby Sussex are titled the son and/or daughter of a Duke. Upon the accession of Charles, they become HRH's, Prince and/or Princess of Sussex but like the Wessex Children, they remain known by their lesser titles.

-----------

I can actually see #3 or 4 happening...Baby Sussex will be the grandchildren of a King, niece/nephew of a King as well as first cousins of a King. Option #3 gives them the option of becoming working royals if needed. Letting #4 happen, gives the Sussex kids the opportunity to be like a Zara or a Louise. Part of the royal family but not part of the working royal family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Neither.

'Your Grace' is the style for a Duke, Duchess or a Bishop not anyone else.

'Your Royal Highness' is for someone who is an HRH

All other peers and their wives - such as Marquises, Marchionesses, Earls, Countesses, Viscounts and Viscountesses are - My Lord/Lady

If you watch Downton Abbey the Earl is always called 'My Lord' or 'His Lordship'.

David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl Snowdon would be referred to as 'My Lord' and both is wife and sister as 'My Lady' even though they are grandchildren of a King.

The Duke of Gloucester would be 'Your Royal Highness' or 'His Royal Highness' but his son will be 'Your Grace' or 'His Grace' as he won't be an HRH.

British marquesses officially are The Most Honourable and British earls, viscounts, and barons The Right Honourable. See examples:

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/the-marquess-of-lothian/259
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/earl-peel/3161

However, those predicates do not apply to courtesy peers such as Viscount Severn.

It really wouldn't make sense for the Queen's collateral great-grandchild to have a princely style and title while her collateral grandchildren have been 'stripped' of theirs and use noble titles and styles. [...]

While her intentions may or may not have changed in the 19 years since, I cannot imagine that the Queen's intention in 1999 was to deny the Wessex children the titles used by every other male-line grandchild before and after them since the 19th century, rather than to set a precedent for the future children of younger sons of monarchs.

The grandchildren who have been 'stripped' were done so at the request of the parents.

As far as I have heard, it was never stated by the royal family that the Wessex couple requested for their children not to be HRH, despite the rumor. The announcement in 1999 read "the Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones."

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.​

 

[jacqui24]

Well if that's really a problem then it can be easily solved. If they were thinking of the future and needed more working royals than they could easily led Beatrice onto that path and once the Wessexes became working royals it could have been made known that Louise was going to be a working royal too. The same scenario is happening if the Sussex kid/s become Firm member and Louise will always have precedence over any Sussex kids even if they are HRH anyways.

By the point the older working royals start scaling back or retire entirely, Beatrice will be almost 50, I doubt that's the point they'll start her on royal duties. And no, Louise will not have precedence over Sussex kids under Charles' reign and going forward. They'll likely always consider the grand kids of a monarch over nieces and nephew of a monarch and nieces or nephews over cousins of a monarch. Keep in mind, none of us are talking about not having enough royals in the immediate future, but 20-30 years from now when the Kents and Gloucesters all have to retired and Anne will be in her late 80s or 90s while Charles only having two sons rather than 4 kids like his mother.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

By the time William is King the working royals will be even less than there are now...he doesn't have 3 siblings and working cousins. There may be a need for Harry's children to be there supporting William/George at least for some time.

Well if that's really a problem then it can be easily solved. If they were thinking of the future and needed more working royals than they could easily led Beatrice onto that path and once the Wessexes became working royals it could have been made known that Louise was going to be a working royal too. The same scenario is happening if the Sussex kid/s become Firm member and Louise will always have precedence over any Sussex kids even if they are HRH anyways.

By the point the older working royals start scaling back or retire entirely, Beatrice will be almost 50, I doubt that's the point they'll start her on royal duties.

If I understood the point RoyalHighness 2002 was making, it was that if the royal family believed more working royals would be needed after the older working royals scaled back or retired, then Princess Beatrice would naturally have been started on royal duties earlier.

 

[kathl29]

What seems to be forgotten is that everyone wanted the York girls to be princesses when they were born as well. Now as they are much further down the line of succession people think they should be stripped of their titles. If Harry and Meghan’s children are given titles they will face the same pressures in 25 years time when they are no longer cute babies and children and move down the line of succession as Williams kids start to marry and have children of their own.

Adults without a formal royal role are not looked on as favourably by tax payers as children are - at some point Harrys kids will go on holidays and to nightclubs like all young adults do and get the same negative press coverage the York girls get - the British media are notorious for making one royal out to be the good one (Elizabeth, Charles, William) and then their sibling to be the wilder one (Margaret, Andrew, Harry). Do we really want to put another set of royal kids through the same constant negative media the York girls have been through?

 

[alvinking]

Here is a scenario well actually a scenario that crossed my mind.
It is totally hypothetical.
If Harry wasn't given a Dukedom at his wedding
He would have been HRH Prince Henry of Wales
and Meghan would have been HRH Princess Henry of Wales
1-- In this case how would their children by styled as great grandchildren of the monarch assuming my LPs are issued to bestow onto them the dignity HRH
I supposed it would be Mr. [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, and Ms. [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor
Case 2 LPs makes them HRHs/Princes
The children would then be HRH Prince or Princess [First Name] but of what. Surely it could not be of Wales, since PoW would be their Grandfather and not their father.
HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor?? or HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] of Prince Henry of Wales??
Case 3 Charles ascends to the Throne, and Prince Harry becomes HRH The Prince Henry, and Meghan becomes HRH The Princess Henry. In the case how would the children be styled HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor??? or HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] of The Prince Henry???

 

[Ish]

Here is a scenario well actually a scenario that crossed my mind.
It is totally hypothetical.
If Harry wasn't given a Dukedom at his wedding
He would have been HRH Prince Henry of Wales
and Meghan would have been HRH Princess Henry of Wales
1-- In this case how would their children by styled as great grandchildren of the monarch assuming my LPs are issued to bestow onto them the dignity HRH
I supposed it would be Mr. [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, and Ms. [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor

If Harry was not made a Duke, his children would have been Lord/Lady [Name] Mountbatten Windsor. See Prince Michael’s children for example.

Case 2 LPs makes them HRHs/Princes
The children would then be HRH Prince or Princess [First Name] but of what. Surely it could not be of Wales, since PoW would be their Grandfather and not their father.
HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor?? or HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] of Prince Henry of Wales??

If Harry hadn’t been given a title, but his children were created HRHs by new LPs, they would have been HRH Prince/Princess [Name] with no territorial designation (technically the designation would be “of the United Kingdom”, but that gets dropped).

Case 3 Charles ascends to the Throne, and Prince Harry becomes HRH The Prince Henry, and Meghan becomes HRH The Princess Henry. In the case how would the children be styled HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] Mountbatten-Windsor??? or HRH Prince /Princess [First Name] of The Prince Henry???

Again, if Harry hadn’t been given a peerage but his children were made HRHs, they would be HRH Prince/Princess [Name] with no territorial designation.