- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,353
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
Has the court ever used that title for him? Because we are currently talking about the British royal family that previously intended using a title that some suggested could freely be used if if she didn't have any rights to that title.Do you disagree? For example, is there reason to suggest that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi's father, who has called himself Count Alessandro in British newspapers although he is legally untitled, has been forbidden from continuing to use that title?
They do indeed address foreign royalty by their original titles. While there is some analogy, this case is quite different as we are discussing a very prominent member of the British royal family within a country that still is a monarchy, who (in that scenario that isn't going to play out) would have another legal title.The British royal house already officially addresses people by what you refer to as "made-up titles". Buckingham Palace for some reason declined to use Count for Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi, but they have used other titles which are not backed by legislation, such as King for the former monarch of Greece.
So, I still think it would have been very unwise (and neither feasible nor legal to 'usurp' the title of Princess) if they would have used a title and style she would not hold - especially while the solution is rather simple: use a title you do hold or have the Sovereign create the title that for some reason you/they want (her) to hold.
Of course, we don't know what BP's plan was, probably they figured out that it wasn't as simple as they originally thought...
To that I wholeheartedly agree. Consistency is not their trademark.I am not sure the British royal family would find the "treat everybody consistently" argument compelling. They have not been models of consistency even in regards to well-established titles.
However, I am quite sure they wouldn't be pleased (and would refuse to do so) if wives of peers require to be called 'Your Royal Highness Princess X' instead of the title they do carry (for example Your Grace The Duchess of Y) because of their marriage. Nor would they do so for any other person that claimed a title they did not possess (for example if someone would request to be called 'Your Grace the Duchess of London') because they live in London. If they would ever receive an invitation from Buckingham Palace, that would not be how they would be addressed.
Let's do that or why might keep going in circlesI respect your point of view, but I think that would be too nuanced for the kind of controversy-stirring media coverage which I think you are alluding to. It is more likely in my eyes that such coverage would focus on the simpler issue of Camilla not being called queen. But as this is very speculative, we probably should agree to disagree.
Last edited: